Reid defends earmarks

C

Cancel 2018. 3

<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
reid has defended earmarks and called them an obligation to the people...

if he is talking about earmarks like rand paul, that is an open committee process, i have no problem with that and agree with reid that not allowing congress to have that power would give the president and federal agencies too much power...

now, if he is talking about slipping in pork in the middle of the night so to speak, i'm against that....

i really don't understand the pubs wanting an all out ban or is it we simply do not have a standard definition of what an earmark is, because i've seen a few and have debated a few on this board
 
Yurt said:
i was actually looking forward to discussing this, i've been discussing off teh board as well
Click to expand...

You were?

Really?

Or were you instead looking forward to belittling anyone who dared post an opposing viewpoint as per your usual style?
 
ZappasGuitar said:
You were?

Really?

Or were you instead looking forward to belittling anyone who dared post an opposing viewpoint as per your usual style?
Click to expand...

what is your definition of earmarks? or is there is a set standard definition. i've seen different definitions, some say its anything a congressman asks for, others its only the pork included in the "middle of the night" with no open committee process....
 
Maybe this is why no one but Republicans wastes so much time on the subject. The party of know nothing and zero solutions laser focuses on all the nothings.

This is just their latest 'trick'

earmarks.gif
 
Bfgrn said:
Maybe this is why no one but Republicans wastes so much time on the subject. The party of know nothing and zero solutions laser focuses on all the nothings.

This is just their latest 'trick'

earmarks.gif
Click to expand...

in case you failed to read the op, the OP is about reid and him saying earmarks are an obligation congressmen have

do you have source for your chart?
 
Yurt said:
reid has defended earmarks and called them an obligation to the people...

if he is talking about earmarks like rand paul,
Click to expand...

Shall I bump the other thread where you said about 2 dozen times that Rand Paul was NOT talking about earmarks, and called me stupid for saying he was?

:)
 
Onceler said:
Shall I bump the other thread where you said about 2 dozen times that Rand Paul was NOT talking about earmarks, and called me stupid for saying he was?

:)
Click to expand...

what is your problem

go ahead and bump that thread, the whole issue in this thread is what are earmarks....

let me repeat this for you so you don't derail another thread:

there are varying interpretations and definitions of earmarks. some believe it is all earmarks, some like rand paul believe earmarks are only things passed in the middle of the night with no committee process, however, i understand that many believe earmarks are any monies, so....what i mean by rand paul quote/unquote earmarks, are those items passed in the middle of the night

seriously, don't do your usual routine here
 
Yurt said:
what is your problem

go ahead and bump that thread, the whole issue in this thread is what are earmarks....

let me repeat this for you so you don't derail another thread:

there are varying interpretations and definitions of earmarks. some believe it is all earmarks, some like rand paul believe earmarks are only things passed in the middle of the night with no committee process, however, i understand that many believe earmarks are any monies, so....what i mean by rand paul quote/unquote earmarks, are those items passed in the middle of the night

seriously, don't do your usual routine here
Click to expand...


There really aren't too many definitions of earmarks and, to my knowledge, there is no commonly understood definition of "earmark" that is contingent upon the hour of the day that the particular item is "passed." The only people that use that definition are those that say they are against all earmarks, but really aren't.

And under House and Senate rules for the 110th Congress, members requesting earmarks are required to disclose them.
 
NigelTufnel said:
There really aren't too many definitions of earmarks and, to my knowledge, there is no commonly understood definition of "earmark" that is contingent upon the hour of the day that the particular item is "passed." The only people that use that definition are those that say they are against all earmarks, but really aren't.

And under House and Senate rules for the 110th Congress, members requesting earmarks are required to disclose them.
Click to expand...

thats why i put "midnight" in quotes....it is an idiom nigel

i've seen numerous discussions and talked with people about earmarks and most think they are monies requested that do not go through the committee request

maybe rand paul doesn't know what he is talking about, but he sure believes that earmarks are monies requested without an open process in the committee

i've read blogs from some left wingers that give paul credit because he won't ask for money without going through the committee process, in that person's mind, those are not earmarks....i read a wiki article that had pros and cons and it seemed the consensus was that earmarks are those monies that did not go through an open process....the peeps i've talked with range from all money to non open process

hence my thread....especially with reid coming out and saying earmarks are an obligation, and if earmarks are all monies requested, then reid is right
 
Here's how the Senate in the 110th Congress defined an earmark:

Congressionally directed spending item- a provision or report language
included primarily at the request of a Senator providing, authorizing or
recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit
authority, or other spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee,
grant, loan authority, or other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted
to a specific State, locality or congressional district, other than through
a statutory or administrative formula driven or competitive award
process.
Click to expand...

Here's how the House in the 110th Congress defined an earmark:

Congressional earmark- a provision or report language included
primarily at the request of a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner,
or Senator providing, authorizing or recommending a specific amount of
discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other spending
authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or
other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State,
locality or congressional district, other than through a statutory or
administrative formula driven or competitive award process.
Click to expand...

And I previously provided you Jim DeMint's definition of earmark. They are all fairly similar and concern the substance of the spending provision rather than the process by which it was adopted.

If Rand Paul requests money for a bridge in Kentucky and his request gets debated by the transportation committee and is ultimately granted, it's an earmark.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Here's how the Senate in the 110th Congress defined an earmark:



Here's how the House in the 110th Congress defined an earmark:



And I previously provided you Jim DeMint's definition of earmark. They are all fairly similar and concern the substance of the spending provision rather than the process by which it was adopted.

If Rand Paul requests money for a bridge in Kentucky and his request gets debated by the transportation committee and is ultimately granted, it's an earmark.
Click to expand...

lets see the link nigel....

so you are saying rand paul has no idea what an earmark is....according to your squibs above, that appears correct....i want the link though
 
Yurt said:
lets see the link nigel....

so you are saying rand paul has no idea what an earmark is....according to your squibs above, that appears correct....i want the link though
Click to expand...


Senate:

http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/18729.pdf

House:

http://8vsb.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/earmark-disclosure-rules-in-the-house.pdf

And I think I linked the DeMint language previously, but here it is again:

the term ``earmark'' means a provision or report language included primarily at the request of a Senator or Member of the House of Representatives providing, authorizing, or recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality or Congressional district, other than through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or competitive award process
Click to expand...

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/~r111ys4add:e380336:
 
NigelTufnel said:
Senate:

http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/18729.pdf

House:

http://8vsb.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/earmark-disclosure-rules-in-the-house.pdf

And I think I linked the DeMint language previously, but here it is again:



http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/~r111ys4add:e380336:
Click to expand...

thanks

the title informs much, apparently, some pubs and paul don't understand the congressional definition:

Earmark Disclosure Rules in the Senate:
Member and Committee Requirements
Click to expand...

it is about disclosure rules....i'm left to assume rand paul is unaware of these rules and used the term earmarks incorrectly....other pubs calling for an outright ban on all earmarks are marching to a drum beat that doesn't make sense

footnote 1:

1 In Senate rules, the term “congressionally directed spending item” is used in place of earmark.
For the purposes of this report, the terms will be used interchangeably. From this point forward,
the term “earmark” refers to any congressionally directed spending item, limited tax benefit, or
limited tariff benefit.
Click to expand...

the call for a two year or a one year moratorium on earmarks is stupid, using the congressional definition of earmark.....

and if others squabble about the definition of earmark....i would posit that the crs report, the link nigel gave, holds the most authority as it comes from their branch
 
Yurt said:
thanks

the title informs much, apparently, some pubs and paul don't understand the congressional definition:



it is about disclosure rules....i'm left to assume rand paul is unaware of these rules and used the term earmarks incorrectly....other pubs calling for an outright ban on all earmarks are marching to a drum beat that doesn't make sense

footnote 1:



the call for a two year or a one year moratorium on earmarks is stupid, using the congressional definition of earmark.....

and if others squabble about the definition of earmark....i would posit that the crs report, the link nigel gave, holds the most authority as it comes from their branch
Click to expand...

You & Good Luck squabbled about it endlessly on the other thread.
 
Yurt said:
?

what is your definition of earmarks....apparently it is different than the congressional definition

and, there is no question as to reid you dumbass....
Click to expand...

odd.....I seem to see a lot of Dems who are unclear about Reid's position on earmarks.....

and I believe I have posted my definition of earmarks on this board several times.....bribes offered to Congressmen to get them to vote for things they otherwise would not vote for......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top