PDA

View Full Version : So McCain doesn't do earmarks huh..



MDFINFAN
09-22-2008, 09:23 PM
he bill would direct $2 million annually over five years to establish a center at a specified law school to honor a renowned jurist from the state. While the goal may be laudable, some critics say, the measure is a classic case of lawmakers' trying to funnel money directly to a home-state institution for a project that should find financing elsewhere.

But it is doubtful that Mr. McCain will weigh in against the idea this time: the legislation to support the project is being sponsored by him and Senator Jon Kyl, Arizona Republicans who are among those aggressively promoting new rules for handling Congressional spending requests.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/18/politics/18earmark.html


WASHINGTON — Sen. John McCain secured millions in federal funds for a land acquisition program that provided a windfall for an Arizona developer whose executives were major campaign donors, public records show.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-15-mccainland_N.htm

Blackocrates
09-22-2008, 09:41 PM
He was against them before he was for them, or is it the other way around?

MDFINFAN
09-22-2008, 10:03 PM
He was against them before he was for them, or is it the other way around?

And there's many more, it the way he does them in congress that allow him to say he doesn't ask for earmarks...very smart in how he does it..

phinfan3411
09-22-2008, 11:43 PM
I wonder if he asked for more than 112 different last year worth like 330 million like Obama did.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/15/obama.earmarks/index.html

This is honestly tiring, oh my guy doesn't do this, but your girl does that....., 9954 is right, we are going to lose no matter what.

The_Dark_Knight
09-23-2008, 08:11 AM
Excuse me...for those who don't know...if it's a bill introduced to be voted on on the senate floor, it's not an earmark.

If it's a rider attached to a proposed bill, then it's an earmark.

This is not an earmark. Learn the difference.

poornate
09-23-2008, 09:55 AM
I wouldn't have been so snarky about it, but DK is right.... It is the job of a state rep. in congress to try and get money for THEIR state.... Either way is just someone trying to do their job... I don't care what way they go about it as long as they are honest about what they did or are doing...

Blackocrates
09-23-2008, 10:41 AM
Excuse me...for those who don't know...if it's a bill introduced to be voted on on the senate floor, it's not an earmark.

If it's a rider attached to a proposed bill, then it's an earmark.

This is not an earmark. Learn the difference.

Excuse me but did you check the second link? It states that he attached money for special interest to a defense bill.

Blackocrates
09-23-2008, 10:44 AM
I wouldn't have been so snarky about it, but DK is right.... It is the job of a state rep. in congress to try and get money for THEIR state.... Either way is just someone trying to do their job... I don't care what way they go about it as long as they are honest about what they did or are doing...

I have no problem with a representative looking out for their constituents. I do have a problem when somebody says they don't do that, but in reality they do.

The_Dark_Knight
09-23-2008, 11:31 AM
Excuse me but did you check the second link? It states that he attached money for special interest to a defense bill.
Actually, I did read it...and I also did some follow up reading as should have everyone else.
The U.S. Senate on Tuesday began discussion on one of two bills that would make available $14.3 million for land acquisition near Luke Air Force Base.
<snip>
Getting the $14.3 million into the defense bills is a major victory for members of the state congressional delegation, who have been criticized for not doing enough to protect Luke.

Arizona U.S. Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl, along with Arizona Rep. Trent Franks, were instrumental in getting the money into the bills.

Two key Senate committees, on armed services and military construction appropriations, added a McCain provision that included the $14.3 million to the Defense Authorization Act and the Military Construction Appropriations Act. Neither the House authorization nor the appropriations committees included the funding for the land acquisition.

"I am pleased that the House agreed to the Senate position and decided to include the Senate addition of $14.3 million for Luke Air Force Base," McCain said in a statement. "Over the last two years, we have ensured that the defense authorization and appropriation bills included a total of $27.3 million to increase a safety zone in the southern departure corridor and reduce the ever-increasing encroachment pressures in that area."

http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special40/articles/1112wvluke12.html
As you can see, this provision was added as part of the Defense Authorization Act while in still in debate in Committee before it was ever brought to a vote on the floor...which doesn't make it an earmark.

There was no circumvention of the Executive Branch in allocating funds that are irrelevent to the proposed bill and attached for funding of social or other domestic programs irrelevent to the Defense Authorization Act...such as the billions that were added to the last war funding bill that had nothing to do with the proposed legislation and circumvented the Executive Branch.

FinFatale
09-23-2008, 11:35 AM
Actually, I did read it...and I also did some follow up reading as should have everyone else.
As you can see, this provision was added as part of the Defense Authorization Act while in still in debate in Committee before it was ever brought to a vote on the floor...which doesn't make it an earmark.

There was no circumvention of the Executive Branch in allocating funds that are irrelevent to the proposed bill and attached for funding of social or other domestic programs irrelevent to the Defense Authorization Act...such as the billions that were added to the last war funding bill that had nothing to do with the proposed legislation and circumvented the Executive Branch.


Thanks for doing to research on this. It frees me up to SHOP today lol

The_Dark_Knight
09-23-2008, 11:50 AM
Thanks for doing to research on this. It frees me up to SHOP today lol
Now you can go by some LIPSTICK!!! :sidelol:

FinFatale
09-23-2008, 11:53 AM
Now you can go by some LIPSTICK!!! :sidelol:


:clap:

poornate
09-23-2008, 01:37 PM
Did you just call her a pig? :lol:

:nate:

MoFinz
09-23-2008, 01:43 PM
Did you just call her a pig? :lol:

:nate:

No...he called her....::::::::::::::::gasp::::::::::::::::::... A HOCKEY MOM :boohoo:


or maybe a healthcare bill....or some kind of policy....damn, now I'M confused....

WSE
09-23-2008, 04:56 PM
I wouldn't have been so snarky about it, but DK is right.... It is the job of a state rep. in congress to try and get money for THEIR state.... Either way is just someone trying to do their job... I don't care what way they go about it as long as they are honest about what they did or are doing...

agreed....

earmarks are in politics because its reps doing their jobs for their states- getting the most they could.

there is no safeguard against it, so its people just working within the system.

Dolphan7
09-23-2008, 05:22 PM
I little earful of what an earmark is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earmark_(politics)

In the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) legislative appropriations process, Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress) is required, by the limits specified under Article I, Section 9 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_9:_Limits_on_Congress) of the United States Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution), to pass legislation directing all appropriations of money drawn from the U.S. Treasury. This provides Congress with the power to earmark funds it appropriates to be spent on specific named projects. The earmarking process has become a regular part of the process of allocating funds within the Federal government.
Earmarking differs from the broader appropriations process, defined in the Constitution, in which Congress grants a yearly lump sum of money to a Federal agency. These monies are allocated by the agency according to its legal authority and internal budgeting process. With an earmark, Congress has given itself the ability to direct a specified amount of money from an agency's budget to be spent on a particular project, without the Members of the Congress having to identify themselves or the project.

BlueFin
09-23-2008, 09:30 PM
Excuse me but did you check the second link? It states that he attached money for special interest to a defense bill.

The second link was the government buying land around a military installation, why shouldn't that be in a defense bill? If the government is getting "real estate" for its money, its not exactly the same thing as government earmark giveaways now is it?

The first link, is a stand alone proposal and is as Dark Knight stated, not an earmark.

Dolphan7
09-23-2008, 09:42 PM
Earmarking isn't and shouldn't be considered a give away. It is always tied to a general appropriations bill. All an earmark does is designate a certain amount of that money already appropriated, for a specific program, project, organization etc....

All it does is takes away the decision of "how do we spend this money" from the agency or department it was appropriated for.

Blackocrates
09-23-2008, 09:50 PM
The second link was the government buying land around a military installation, why shouldn't that be in a defense bill? If the government is getting "real estate" for its money, its not exactly the same thing as government earmark giveaways now is it?

The first link, is a stand alone proposal and is as Dark Knight stated, not an earmark.

McCain claims he doesn't pander to special interests, and that link shows that he does.

The_Dark_Knight
09-23-2008, 10:40 PM
McCain claims he doesn't pander to special interests, and that link shows that he does.
You OBVIOUSLY skipped over my response and link to the second link all together

Blackocrates
09-23-2008, 11:49 PM
You OBVIOUSLY skipped over my response and link to the second link all together

No, it's just your article didn't have anything to add. Your article didn't follow the money. McCain is looking out for those that contribute to his campaign, he claims he doesn't do that.

I don't care about the term 'earmark'. Conservatives want to angle the argument to argue over semantics so they can avoid the issue. Bottom line is McCain has always claimed he doesn't pander to special interest, that's a lie. If you follow the money trail it shows that he does.

The_Dark_Knight
09-24-2008, 03:10 AM
No, it's just your article didn't have anything to add. Your article didn't follow the money. McCain is looking out for those that contribute to his campaign, he claims he doesn't do that.

I don't care about the term 'earmark'. Conservatives want to angle the argument to argue over semantics so they can avoid the issue. Bottom line is McCain has always claimed he doesn't pander to special interest, that's a lie. If you follow the money trail it shows that he does.
Since when is securing a US Air Force Base considered a special interest???

The article states FACT.

The funds were added to the bill while still in debate in committee.

The funds were relevent to the Defense Authorization Act

The funds were not some some museum, education or some other irrelevent issue not related to the bill.

There was no attempt to circumvent the authority of the executive branch is allocating funds.

Senator McCain was not the sole advocate for adding this funding for Luke Air Force Base.

I find it hilarious that pundits find this ONE advocation by McCain and want to run and paint the town red with it, calling him a hypocrite when Obama in 2 years in the US senate has secured 330 million dollars in 112 separate earmarks, one of which resulted in his WIFE receiving a HUGE promotion.

Talk about a conflict of interest. Are people so blinded with PARTISANSHIP they can't see the trees for the forest? THAT is hypocritical.

He who lives in glass houses should not throw stones.

Blackocrates
09-24-2008, 11:14 AM
Since when is securing a US Air Force Base considered a special interest???

The article states FACT.

The funds were added to the bill while still in debate in committee.

The funds were relevent to the Defense Authorization Act

The funds were not some some museum, education or some other irrelevent issue not related to the bill.

There was no attempt to circumvent the authority of the executive branch is allocating funds.

Senator McCain was not the sole advocate for adding this funding for Luke Air Force Base.

I find it hilarious that pundits find this ONE advocation by McCain and want to run and paint the town red with it, calling him a hypocrite when Obama in 2 years in the US senate has secured 330 million dollars in 112 separate earmarks, one of which resulted in his WIFE receiving a HUGE promotion.

Talk about a conflict of interest. Are people so blinded with PARTISANSHIP they can't see the trees for the forest? THAT is hypocritical.

He who lives in glass houses should not throw stones.

You're ignoring who recieved the money, and how they're tied with McCain.

The_Dark_Knight
09-24-2008, 12:36 PM
You're ignoring who recieved the money, and how they're tied with McCain.
You know what, I'll play Devil's Advocate. Let's say that this was an earmark...

ONE earmark in 26 years for 14.3 million dollars which secured an air force base and kept it from closing...

VERSUS

113 earmarks totaling $330 million dollars....in TWO YEARS in the senate...and one of those earmarks to a hospital in Chicago results in Michelle Obama receiving a promotion that doubled her salary.

Now, do you REALLY want to debate the fiscal ethics between Obama and McCain? Do you REALLY want to go there???

Dolphan7
09-24-2008, 12:50 PM
This is getting interesting. :jt0323:

Blackocrates
09-24-2008, 02:36 PM
You know what, I'll play Devil's Advocate. Let's say that this was an earmark...

ONE earmark in 26 years for 14.3 million dollars which secured an air force base and kept it from closing...

VERSUS

113 earmarks totaling $330 million dollars....in TWO YEARS in the senate...and one of those earmarks to a hospital in Chicago results in Michelle Obama receiving a promotion that doubled her salary.

Now, do you REALLY want to debate the fiscal ethics between Obama and McCain? Do you REALLY want to go there???

A LIE is a LIE.

MoFinz
09-24-2008, 02:38 PM
You're ignoring who recieved the money, and how they're tied with McCain.


Care to compare that to this? Event for event?


http://www.bizzyblog.com/2008/07/14/the-100000-barack-obama-botanical-garden-gazebo/

Blackocrates
09-24-2008, 02:54 PM
Care to compare that to this? Event for event?


http://www.bizzyblog.com/2008/07/14/the-100000-barack-obama-botanical-garden-gazebo/

I didn't read much of it, just another blog. But did Obama deny he did it or something? If so then that's a lie, just like McCain's lie. TDK is trying to bait me into arguing the issue he wants argue, but my only complaint with this issue is the lie. I don't care about earmarks. I don't care what money McCain has sent where. I only care if he lies about if he's helping special interest or not.

The_Dark_Knight
09-24-2008, 03:14 PM
A LIE is a LIE.
You're absolutely right. A lie is a lie however, seeing that this was NOT an earmark, McCain hasn't lied about earmarks. But if your problem is lying politicians, then you need to accept the fact that ALL politicians, to include Barack Obama lie to some degree.

How much partisanship you have dictates whether you believe this to be true, or rationalize to fit your personal beliefs.

Blackocrates
09-24-2008, 03:21 PM
You're absolutely right. A lie is a lie however, seeing that this was NOT an earmark, McCain hasn't lied about earmarks. But if your problem is lying politicians, then you need to accept the fact that ALL politicians, to include Barack Obama lie to some degree.

How much partisanship you have dictates whether you believe this to be true, or rationalize to fit your personal beliefs.

I wasn't talking about earmarks. McCain has constantly stated that he doesn't pander to special interests. He's the champion of fighting special interests. Yet here he is helping out somebody that gave his campaign some money. Truth be told it's not going to sway me one way or the other, I was never going to vote for McCain. I just don't like how he holds himself out there as a 'straight shooter', 'straight talk express' and all the while he's bending the truth left and right. He's the one that has put himself out there as the honest candidate in this race.

MoFinz
09-24-2008, 03:29 PM
I didn't read much of it, just another blog. But did Obama deny he did it or something? If so then that's a lie, just like McCain's lie. TDK is trying to bait me into arguing the issue he wants argue, but my only complaint with this issue is the lie. I don't care about earmarks. I don't care what money McCain has sent where. I only care if he lies about if he's helping special interest or not.


I don't quite know what you're fishing for. It's been demonstrated that McCain did not lie, the example given was not earmarked or pork barrel, yet Obama gives someone 100 grand as an earmark, and it disappears, and nobody is accusing him.

In general, i'm not a McCain fan, i feel he is too lax on immigration reform. But i do think he is an honorable man that genuinely wants to serve his country. Obama on the other hand, the more that comes out about him, the more i find to dislike about his stances and policies.

But the bottom line is neither man will change much for this or the next generation....too many Chiefs, not enough Indians:unsure:

Blackocrates
09-24-2008, 04:54 PM
I don't quite know what you're fishing for. It's been demonstrated that McCain did not lie, the example given was not earmarked or pork barrel, yet Obama gives someone 100 grand as an earmark, and it disappears, and nobody is accusing him.



I've said this many times, I don't care about earmarks. McCain has always fought against special interest pandering, and he lied about something he's always fought against. The money wasn't sent through an earmark, but the money did get into the hands of some people that contributed to his campaign. This is something he's always criticized.

MoFinz
09-24-2008, 05:20 PM
So, you're upset because he followed the rules? I dunno man....seems like you're just looking for a reason to hate on the man.

Blackocrates
09-24-2008, 05:28 PM
So, you're upset because he followed the rules? I dunno man....seems like you're just looking for a reason to hate on the man.

Why in the world will you not address what I'm saying? I don't care that what he did was legal. I don't like it that he LIED. That's my problem. This dead horse has been kicked to death. Let's give it a rest. Argue with me in some other threads because this has become boring. :lol:

MDFINFAN
09-24-2008, 05:37 PM
Hey guys, I only put 2 links in this thread, there's plenty more to show a lot more, again it's the he doesn't get pork that he's been going around saying that I'm pointing to..now that he gets them, I could care less, that's part of a reps job..just don't lie about it, that's my beef.. and so many ppl beleive him and there's so many repeating that lie..That's what this post is about. So I just don't want ppl saying he doesn't get money for his state, he does, he just goes around the traditional method of asking for earmarks..again in my opinion very smart, at least for campaign slogans', just not true in reality in terms of him not getting money for his state, he does..

MDFINFAN
09-24-2008, 05:40 PM
Why in the world will you not address what I'm saying? I don't care that what he did was legal. I don't like it that he LIED. That's my problem. This dead horse has been kicked to death. Let's give it a rest. Argue with me in some other threads because this has become boring. :lol:

It's easier to ignore your point than to admit that Mccain's lying that's why...technically everyone can say he doesn't get earmarks..but the truth is he gets money for his state, he just does it though bills.. Again, great tactic..

MoFinz
09-24-2008, 05:54 PM
It's easier to ignore your point than to admit that Mccain's lying that's why...technically everyone can say he doesn't get earmarks..but the truth is he gets money for his state, he just does it though bills.. Again, great tactic..

Again, using the criteria you both are using to judge the man, he's done nothing wrong. Youre arguing semantics. You're calling the man a liar, because you need to believe he did lie......and i still have yet to see anyone decry Obama for obtaining a 100 grand that miraculously disappeared, and then someone else was in charge of things. Thats way more dishonest or disingenious than the smear job your attempting to do to McCain.

Bash the man for his tax plan or on immigration. Those are valid bones to pick on....but calling him a liar and wishing he were are totally different than McCain actually lying and deceiving people.


If wishing were fishing, this thread would smell like a ho' house on navy payday.

Blackocrates
09-24-2008, 05:56 PM
It's easier to ignore your point than to admit that Mccain's lying that's why...technically everyone can say he doesn't get earmarks..but the truth is he gets money for his state, he just does it though bills.. Again, great tactic..

Oh thank God you showed up, I was beginning to feel like I was in the twilight zone. :lol: