23 Nov 09
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/11/the-100-million-health-care-vote.html
Should Americans continue to put up with this nonesense? Is the corruption going to far? I mean did you really need to write up three pages just to say Louisiana gets extra money. This kind of nonsense should be criminal to say the least.
Enough with the earmarks and favoratism for vote.
23 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThey can put whatever definition on it they wish, it is corruption. It may not be illegal but it is corrupt. As well it shows they have no regard for blowing taxpayer monies for whatever serves thier personal wants even at a time when we are in economical crisis as a nation.
How is it corruption? It's perfectly legal within the framework in which Congressmen work.
It shows, rather, that the electoral system is dysfunctional, not that Landrieu is corrupt.
So does this add to the Bills cost and how much more will it cost taxpayers to get it passed?
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 28919
23 Nov 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWhy is it always corruption when ordinary citizens benefit but when Halliburton or Citibank benefit it is called capitalism? The OP needs to figure out which side he is on.
How is it corruption? It's perfectly legal within the framework in which Congressmen work.
It shows, rather, that the electoral system is dysfunctional, not that Landrieu is corrupt.
23 Nov 09
Originally posted by torch71If Congressmen were elected based on the national popular vote, then their constituency would be the country, and they would serve the country (hopefully) rather than serve a small part of it at the expense of the rest.
They can put whatever definition on it they wish, it is corruption. It may not be illegal but it is corrupt. As well it shows they have no regard for blowing taxpayer monies for whatever serves thier personal wants even at a time when we are in economical crisis as a nation.
So does this add to the Bills cost and how much more will it cost taxpayers to get it passed?
23 Nov 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraAlthough that will never happen, I am glad you see the point one senater held her vote until the Author of the Bill Senate Magority Leader gave her 100 million for her consitiuency to vote in his favor. That doesn't seem corrupt to you?
If Congressmen were elected based on the national popular vote, then their constituency would be the country, and they would serve the country (hopefully) rather than serve a small part of it at the expense of the rest.
23 Nov 09
1 edit
No matter what system of democracy you have, there will always be close votes on some legislation. When the vote is close, there will always be a certain number of fence-sitters whose final decision will determine the vote.
Those fence-sitters will essentially be in the position of telling each side to "gimme somethin'" - and whichever side promises the most stuff will get the vote.
I don't think there's any way to avoid this. It's the reason why the legislative process is commonly compared with sausage-making. No one really wants to know the details of how it's made.
23 Nov 09
Originally posted by MelanerpesAnd this kind of pork, and earmark spending is one of the things that is driving this county to its knees. You should demand more of our Public officials. They are all fat with greed.
No matter what system of democracy you have, there will always be close votes on some legislation. When the vote is close, there will always be a certain number of fence-sitters whose final decision will determine the vote.
Those fence-sitters will essentially be in the position of telling each side to "gimme somethin'" - and whichever side promises th ...[text shortened]... y compared with sausage-making. No one really wants to know the details of how it's made.
There is no doubt this earmark(revision) she will use to try and get re-elected.
23 Nov 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThat kind of takes away from the whole "representation" thing.
If Congressmen were elected based on the national popular vote, then their constituency would be the country, and they would serve the country (hopefully) rather than serve a small part of it at the expense of the rest.
23 Nov 09
Originally posted by torch71If you eliminated all of the pork and all of the earmarks, the budget wouldn't be that much smaller. At best, you might cut the total spending by 2-3% - but even if you did, almost all of these programs would still get funded through the more usual appropriations process, so the net result would be no change.
And this kind of pork, and earmark spending is one of the things that is driving this county to its knees. You should demand more of our Public officials. They are all fat with greed.
There is no doubt this earmark(revision) she will use to try and get re-elected.
The great majority of Fed spending is Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, National Defense, and Interest on the Debt -- the remaining 10-15% or so goes to Food Stamps, Welfare, Education, Transportation, and such. But rarely, if ever, does anyone ever propose cutting any of these programs by any significant amount. Because lots of people benefit from these programs and like them.
So it's much easier to tilt at pork-flavored windmills precisely because each one doesn't affect very many people. You can make a whole long list of arcane-sounding programs costing a few pennies apiece and make it sound like you're a bigwig reformer.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 28919
23 Nov 09
Originally posted by MelanerpesI don't see how this IS pork - it is NOT! People need it and only the government can provide it. We never needed a war in Iraq - that IS pork. Bremer handed out 8 Billion dollars (yes kiddies that's with a "B"😉 of unaccounted for money and I barely read a word about then or since and now this poster gets his panties in a twist for a few bucks that might actually benefit real Americans. That is stupid. It is plainly stupid to be crying about your neighbor wanting to borrow your lawnmower when the walls of your house are being carted off by thieves. This is just political grandstanding and has nothing to do with real issues.
If you eliminated all of the pork and all of the earmarks, the budget wouldn't be that much smaller. At best, you might cut the total spending by 2-3% - but even if you did, almost all of these programs would still get funded through the more usual appropriations process, so the net result would be no change.
The great majority of Fed spending is Medic ...[text shortened]... nding programs costing a few pennies apiece and make it sound like you're a bigwig reformer.
23 Nov 09
Originally posted by TerrierJackLook you can say what you wish, you have that right. There were more states hit with natural disasters tha just Louisiana.
I don't see how this IS pork - it is NOT! People need it and only the government can provide it. We never needed a war in Iraq - that IS pork. Bremer handed out 8 Billion dollars (yes kiddies that's with a "B"😉 of unaccounted for money and I barely read a word about then or since and now this poster gets his panties in a twist for a few bucks that might ...[text shortened]... off by thieves. This is just political grandstanding and has nothing to do with real issues.
Congress has drilled Bremer on the 12 billion yes with a "B".
Congress together voted on the Iraq war.
Reid alone popped off 100 million which could be 300 million for just one lousy vote. and it has everything to do with the real world, in fact it could be the vote that bumps 1 trillion more dollars. Yes kiddie that is with a "T".
By the way I wear boxers.
23 Nov 09
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperDoes the fact that your state, rather than your county is represented at the national level, take away the "representation thing"?
That kind of takes away from the whole "representation" thing.
Does the fact that your state, rather than your neighbourhood is represented at the national level, take away the "representation thing"?
23 Nov 09
Originally posted by torch71No, since this is allowed within the system. In fact, isn't that the whole point of using the constituency type of representation?
Although that will never happen, I am glad you see the point one senater held her vote until the Author of the Bill Senate Magority Leader gave her 100 million for her consitiuency to vote in his favor. That doesn't seem corrupt to you?
23 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYou're thinking of things from a small country perspective. It's all well and good for all reps in The Netherlands to represent the country, because the country is tiny.
Does the fact that your state, rather than your county is represented at the national level, take away the "representation thing"?
Does the fact that your state, rather than your neighbourhood is represented at the national level, take away the "representation thing"?
In the US, you can't expect one person to know what's best for Nashua, NH, Provo, UT and Las Vegas, NV. You need local governments and local representation in the national government.
Would you want an EU government where no one represents the individual member countries that has power over all the day to day rules of each country's people?