Reid to Obama: "Back off!!" on earmarks...

[Schadenfreude]

Can you say triagulation?

do you mean triangulation?

and if so why

 

[wiseones2cents]

I believe earmarks take up a MUCH larger piece of the pie.

I back Obama about banning earmarks that are designed to only help a few when so many Americans are in need of funding.

Fix the health care, fix education, redirect the money to more positive things.

Though the problem is that these elected politicians have an obligation to pay back those you donated to their campaigns.....

American politics is corrupt, every which way you look at it.

 

[Good Luck]

And once again we see proof in action of the saying, "There are lies, big lies, and statistics." Note that the graph presented includes ALL federal spending, and shows earmarks as a percentage of everything.

What we are discussing is earmarks. Earmarks are a part of DISCRETIONARY spending. ie: the part of spending Congress actually has direct control over without reneging on non-discretionary federal obligations like Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, federal employee pensions, etc.

 

[evince]

do you mean triangulation?

and if so why

If the house adds no earmarks to anything as they have promised then when a bill gets to the senate and Reid can play the angry guy who wants to deal by using earmarks but cant Because the president will veto it the deals will have to be "I will vote for your bill if you vote for my bill".

They can not get their earmarks to get re elected AND blame the dems for them at the same time.

With Obama on their public side of the stance and Reid on the other side of their public stance it ruins their ability to just say to their supporters "we tried to keep the earmarks off but the Dems just kept putting them on there".

They will be stuck voting for or against things that will out their true beliefs.


Their REAL plan of drowning our government in the bathtub will be on display for all to see.