TEA Party takes ear marks

[Boatwrench]

Thanks.

hypocrites

 

[urban yan]

Cute, but not surprising.
Hypocrisy and politics go together like peanut butter and jam.... or tea and cream in this case.

 

[kastein]

for shame. What a bunch of feckless shitbags...

I'd be interested to see how many of those earmarks were put in before the tea party really came to be (and was then co-opted, which is how many of these guys claim to be tea party types) but regardless, I have little respect for this bunch.

 

[bjoehandley]

Wow Not surprised they did it, but I figured it would take atleast a few months, not weeks!

 

[Crawler]

Ok, ok... I'm happy for you guys, but you need to slow down a bit (lol)...

Though it appears to be true that hypocricy is showing in the TP regarding earmarks, the article IS a little misleading.

The money has not yet been TAKEN as the title of the article claims; it has only been REQUESTED.

The way the system works is that the requests need to be included in the following year's fiscal budget before the money can be distributed.
The current congress has not yet produced next years budget. Most republicans & newly elected TP reps have since tried to unite in an effort
to ban future earmarks (which was unsuccessful due to liberal democrat resistance, thank-you). It remains to be seen just how much in TP
requested earmarks will actually be included in the new budget, assuming those requests have not since been retracted or denied.

I can appreciate how this looks and what it suggests. Just look at Scott Brown's record since taking office; he's turned out to be somewhat of
a "progressive" disappointment. Kinda' re-enforces that over-all sense of political hopelessness, doesn't it?

But let's try keeping things in perspective, shall we? As of 4/2010, the liberal democrats of the SF bay area alone had requested $2.3 billion in
earmarks, which is almost 1/3 of the $7.5 billion in earmarks requested by all CA democrats: http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-04-24/news/20863451_1_requests-earmarks-east-bay
Remember, this was just as of April of this year! The year-end total TP earmarks requested nationwide kinda' pale by comparison, don't they?

I know... it's the opportunity to cry hypocricy that's the important issue & diversion here... (well, OP Boatwrench IS from the SF bay area)

Yep, I'm rightfully embarrased and disappointed... but the TP is still the better bet than the alternative (good luck with THAT, Boatwrench).

Let this embarrassing disclosure be a reminder to ANY and ALL incumbant, newly elected and prospective government officials:

WE ARE WATCHING YOU!

 

[Boatwrench]

I know... it's the opportunity to cry hypocricy that's the important issue & diversion here... (well, OP Boatwrench IS from the SF bay area)

Yep, I'm rightfully embarrased and disappointed... but the TP is still the better bet than the alternative (good luck with THAT, Boatwrench).

Let this embarrassing disclosure be a reminder to ANY and ALL incumbant, newly elected and prospective government officials:

WE ARE WATCHING YOU!

I just got tired of all the fawning over how the Tea Party was different, they were the true conservatives...and yet they are already bellying up to the trough. The Tea Party politicians are no better (or worse) than the alternative, they have demonstrated that they are the same.

 

[Crawler]

...The Tea Party politicians are no better (or worse) than the alternative, they have demonstrated that they are the same.

I'd be inclined to agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong (like your sig suggests). Lol, j/k dude... ;^]

Kinda' hard to flip the switch completely off when that's the way the job's been getting done for so long... just sayin'...

I think we need a little more time yet to tell if the TP conservative movement is going to fail at making a significant difference.

 

[Crawler]

*duplicate post*

 

[iwannadie]

Ok, ok... I'm happy for you guys, but you need to slow down a bit (lol)...

Though it appears to be true that hypocricy is showing in the TP regarding earmarks, the article IS a little misleading.

The money has not yet been TAKEN as the title of the article claims; it has only been REQUESTED.

I don't even know what an earmark is or even care about the teaparty but...
Isn't this sorta like a shoplifter loading their pockets then getting caught in the store. They didn't step foot out of the store so technically they haven't stolen anything yet. The intent was however still clearly there.

They put in a request for a ton of money, had no one noticed they would have that money. Now they got busted before any money was exchanged so they are still innocent but with the intent.

 

[talontsi_95]

I don't even know what an earmark is or even care about the teaparty but...
Isn't this sorta like a shoplifter loading their pockets then getting caught in the store. They didn't step foot out of the store so technically they haven't stolen anything yet. The intent was however still clearly there.

They put in a request for a ton of money, had no one noticed they would have that money. Now they got busted before any money was exchanged so they are still innocent but with the intent.

Not really the same. Earmarks are simply other expenditures that are "tacked on" to bills. An example would be something like this. You have a bill that outlines funding increases for all branches of the military. Lets say it is called the Fairness for our Brothers bill. Inside of that bill there are TONS!!!! of other expenditures attached to it. For example, 150 million dollars to film baby seals while they are having sex. 34 million to up and coming gay artists that have never had a fair chance to jump start their talent in the industry. All of these little additions to a bill are earmarks. They are perfectly legal (in Washingtons eyes atleast) and are ususally requested by congressmen/woman in order to bring money back to their states so they can get re elected. And they usually vote for the said bill if they get their earmarks added to it.

Personally I think it is a crooked scummy way to govern this country. A bill pertaining to the military and its funding should be just that, a bill pertaining to the XXXXing military!!!! Not lobbyist, union special interests groups.

 

[iwannadie]

Not really the same. Earmarks are simply other expenditures that are "tacked on" to bills. An example would be something like this. You have a bill that outlines funding increases for all branches of the military. Lets say it is called the Fairness for our Brothers bill. Inside of that bill there are TONS!!!! of other expenditures attached to it. For example, 150 million dollars to film baby seals while they are having sex. 34 million to up and coming gay artists that have never had a fair chance to jump start their talent in the industry. All of these little additions to a bill are earmarks. They are perfectly legal (in Washingtons eyes atleast) and are ususally requested by congressmen/woman in order to bring money back to their states so they can get re elected. And they usually vote for the said bill if they get their earmarks added to it.

Personally I think it is a crooked scummy way to govern this country. A bill pertaining to the military and its funding should be just that, a bill pertaining to the XXXXing military!!!! Not lobbyist, union special interests groups.

Ok, that makes sense. Just to be clear though my shop lifting example wasn't meant to imply anything illegal was going on. Just that they got caught before they accomplished what they wanted but they had the intent, if that makes sense...

 

[Tom R.]

Some think if a bill cannot survive on its own merit, then it shouldn't be put into other bills. So they learned to "negotiate" by assuring their "Yeah" votes in larger bills if they could insert earmarks for their pet projects. The earmarks could be a good thing for his or her homestate. They could be also be a special deal with some rich company that will earn the Congressman/woman extra "benefits" some day.

 

[Corprin]

IMHO, the TP is a ploy by the GOP to reign in the sheep they have lost over the past 8-10 years. Same people, same attitudes, same special interest, different name. Sadly, the average American is too lazy or ignorant to question the motivations of those telling them what to think.

 

[kastein]

That is what it is today.

It started out extremely financially based - balance the budget, stop pork, stop bailing companies out, etc.

Then the bible thumpers, social conservatives, and wackjob right (who I do agree with on some fronts, specifically the second amendment) joined in such large numbers that it suddenly became basically the GOP, swung a bit more to the right, with a bunch of fakers and crazies added. That's how it ended up with so many "tea party" types showing up in the news as complete idiots, loonies, and hypocrites.

screw the tea party, I will join Joe Peters in voting "militia".

 

[Corprin]

That is what it is today.

It started out extremely financially based - balance the budget, stop pork, stop bailing companies out, etc.

Then the bible thumpers, social conservatives, and wackjob right (who I do agree with on some fronts, specifically the second amendment) joined in such large numbers that it suddenly became basically the GOP, swung a bit more to the right, with a bunch of fakers and crazies added. That's how it ended up with so many "tea party" types showing up in the news as complete idiots, loonies, and hypocrites.

screw the tea party, I will join Joe Peters in voting "militia".

Don't say Militia too loudly, you don't want to ignite the wackjobs! As for the 2nd amendment, well, if we all were members of a well regulated Militia then there would be no argument right? What would the NRA would have to cry about? They would start to fall apart, and all that money they take in for their paychecks, and lobbyists to toss around, will fizzle. This would reduce the influx of money coming into the GOP. The GOP also stands to loose one of their two connections to the middle and lower class voters; the other being conservative christian beliefs. So, why on earth would people with their hand in the GOP's pocket talk about the good side of these things?