Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
i see.....appeal to a logical fallacy to make your point
and i haven't seen your definition, if i had, i would not ask for it
keep trying
Reid defends earmarks
- Thread starter Cancel 2018. 3
- Start date
i see.....appeal to a logical fallacy to make your point
and i haven't seen your definition, if i had, i would not ask for it
keep trying
Like when you called me a moron & an idiot & a liar for saying exactly what you just said about earmarks?
Okay.
Bfgrn
New member
Roy Blunt for United States Senate
http://westernfrontamerica.com/2010/08/13/roy-blunt-united-states-senate/
Eliminating Earmarks is a Phony Issue
November 12, 2010 7:00 A.M.
By James M. Inhofe
A congressional earmark moratorium won’t save a single taxpayer dime.
Earmarks have been part of the congressional process since the founding of our country. As James Madison, the father of the Constitution viewed it, appropriating funds is the job of the legislature. Writing in the Federalist, he noted that Congress holds the power of the purse for the very reason that it is closer to the people. The words of Madison and Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution say that authorization and appropriations are exclusively the responsibility of the legislative branch. Congress should not cede this authority to the executive branch.
Demagoguing earmarks provides cover for some of the biggest spenders in Congress. Congressional earmarks, for all their infamous notoriety, are not the cause of trillion-dollar federal deficits (of all the discretionary spending that took place in Washington last year, earmarks made up only 1.5 percent).
Sen. James M. Inhofe (R. Okla.) is rated the most conservative senator in 2009 by National Journal and most outstanding senator by Human Events.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/253159/eliminating-earmarks-phony-issue-james-m-inhofe
Ron Paul on Earmarks
Channel: C-SPAN
Date: 3/10/2009
Transcript:
Ron Paul: Thank you, Madame Speaker. I would like to address the subject of earmarks today. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding here among the members about exactly what it means to vote against an earmark. It’s very popular today to condemn earmarks and even hold up legislation because of this.
The truth is that if you removed all the earmarks from the budget you would remove 1% of the budget. So there’s not a lot of savings. But, even if you voted against all the earmarks, actually, you don’t even save the 1% because you don’t save any money. What is done is those earmarks are removed and some of them are very wasteful and unnecessary, but that money then goes to the executive branch.
http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-03-11/ron-paul-on-earmarks/
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
?????.....logical fallacy?......what else would earmarks be......
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
where did you go? is it because i didn't take your insulting bait and instead actually debated?
zappasguitar
Well-known member
I believe most earmarks have a valid purpose, and if a Senator or Congressman wants to introduce his "earmarks" out in the open and let the voters know what he/she is asking for, then I ahve no problem.
When the "earmark" gets buried deep inside legislation because the congressman is worried that voters might be upset if they found out, then it's probably safe to call that "earmark" "pork".
zappasguitar
Well-known member
where did you go? is it because i didn't take your insulting bait and instead actually debated?
I'm going to let that one go since I noticed you being polite earlier...no, just having a particularly busy day at the office and can't get to the computer as often as I'd like.