House of Corruption...

[Superfreak]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...orruption.html

Now, can we please end all the crap about it just being one party or the other that is corrupt? 1300 friggin earmarks.... no bid contracts awarded to bribe the representatives constituents to keep voting for their respective rep.

Keep up this type of leadership in the House and it will be closer in 2008 than you want. Both parties are guilty, but the backlash is going to come harder against those that JUST ran on "cleaning up the House" and being "more ethical".

[Cypress]

1,300 earmarks?

Good job Democrats! That's like a 90% reduction in earmarks from 2005, when there were 13,000 (ten times more) earmarks according to the White House.

President Bush: "In 2005 alone, the number of earmarks grew to over 13,000 and totaled nearly $18 billion."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070123-2.html

[Superfreak]

Keep up that attitude tool.... and 2008 is going to bite you.

[Superfreak]

keep in mind... this is just ONE bill... with 1300 earmarks... the article did not say how much in terms of dollars.

[Cypress]

Keep up that attitude tool.... and 2008 is going to bite you.

If the numbers you posted are correct, and assuming Bush wasn't lying on the white house website (a big assumption), earmarks have dropped ten fold from 2005.

I'd run on that record.

[Superfreak]

If the numbers you posted are correct, and assuming Bush wasn't lying on the white house website (a big assumption), earmarks have dropped ten fold from 2005.

I'd run on that record.

It was ONE bill.... not the total for the year.

[Damocles]

If the numbers you posted are correct, and assuming Bush wasn't lying on the white house website (a big assumption), earmarks have dropped ten fold from 2005.

I'd run on that record.

Nope, that was all of 2005, this was one bill. You are being disingenuous.

[Superfreak]

Also Cypress... I thought you libs were against no bid contracts being awarded??? Or is it just when a Rep does it?

[Damocles]

Unless you think they'll only pass 9 bills, they are seriously on their way to far more earmarks than ever before.

[Cypress]

Also Cypress... I thought you libs were against no bid contracts being awarded??? Or is it just when a Rep does it?

In principle, I'm against no bid contracts.

The Democrats never campaigned on a promise to END earmarks. They said they would enact reforms to make congressmen/women publically identify the earmarks they request.

[Damocles]

In principle, I'm against no bid contracts.

The Democrats never campaigned on a promise to END earmarks. They said they would enact reforms to make congressmen/women publically identify the earmarks they request.

And, on priciple, which ones, in this bill alone, have been publicly identified?

[Cypress]

damo, I don't have time to read a whole legislative bill.

And realclearpolitics is not exactly a non-partisan source.

[Damocles]

damo, I don't have time to read a whole legislative bill.

And realclearpolitics is not exactly a non-partisan source.

realclearpolitics is a very non-partisan source. They link to editorials, this one is not "non-partisan" but then no editorial is. Go to a blogspot that lists all the publicized earmarks for the bill, please. Tell me all about them. Out of 1300 you should be able to easily identify a few.

[Cancel7]

And, on priciple, which ones, in this bill alone, have been publicly identified?

There was a big piece in the Times yesterday about democratic earmarks, and they were for hospitals. Hospitals in low income areas. The Republicans were bitching up a storm, and I thought, this just goes to show you, it's not about the money spent, the money will always be spent. The differences are, where.

And I, like most dems, liberals, and even moderates, are not going to have a problem with money going to low income hospitals, in an attempt to expand health care for low income children.

[Damocles]

There was a big piece in the Times yesterday about democratic earmarks, and they were for hospitals. Hospitals in low income areas. The Republicans were bitching up a storm, and I thought, this just goes to show you, it's not about the money spent, the money will always be spent. The differences are, where.

And I, like most dems, liberals, and even moderates, are not going to have a problem with money going to low income hospitals, in an attempt to expand health care for low income children.

So, the other side bitching about it is the only "publicity" the earmarks are getting, even after the D promise to ensure publicity of earmarks?