The Stimulus billed just signed had earmarks from the GOP (40%) - complete hypocrites! Agree?

all pork is wrong. Barry is the worst hypocrite since he said he was cutting earmarks and still signed this sh*t, blaming Bush in the process. All of congress are crooks and should be kicked out of office.

Excuse me but that's 60% crap from dems - don't for get about those weasels. They are worse!

I came here trying to find out just which Republicans had earmarks, and was especially interested in my Senators' actions. Still haven't found out about that. Nevertheless..as to Bush being the big spender, it seems that he may have mended his ways a tiny little bit on this bill...Dems didn't want to send it up when Bush was president because they knew he would veto it.

So, while Republicans are either hypocrites, or wrong, to have supported so many earmarks (6 Repubs in the top 10 and 7 in the top 20); Dems have no right to gloat here because they not only had 60% of them, they also didn't send it up until they knew they had someone who would sign it.

As the minority party, Republicans are granted 40% of the earmarks. This is the agreement that they've worked by for years, might want to research that little fact out before you rant like a child. The fact that the earmarks are in there at all is reprehensible, and no one has said that Dems do all the spending. The accusation is that Dems do the *irresponsible* spending. There's a huge difference.

I do bring debate with the "fact" that this bill is "absolutely necessary". Nothing that's been passed so far is "absolutely necessary", and republicans have almost unanimously stood up for that fact.

Earmarks are a fact of life. What we have a problem with is money being spent recklessly during a recession - like researching why pig poo stinks? I mean, seriously? - and the fact that the Chosen One was completely lying when he said he'd bring his veto pen against them. It wasn't that long ago...you wouldn't think he'd have forgotten, the rest of America hasn't.

I guess he'd have to actually read what he signs in order to do that. Huh.

edit - Dawson, apparently you weren't listening very well last fall; visions of "hope" and "change" dancing in your head? Conservatives (and many independents) all over the country were pissed beyond belief at the bailout and the offices of Congress were being bombarded by communications. Unfortunately, fear and the hype of the election took control and the stupid thing passed.

There was little in the bill that actually would have stimulated jobs, and more about wasteful spending by the government. So on that note, congratulations to the senate in limiting the amount of waste in the bill and actually producing a way for the average person to keep more of their hard earned money. Some of the examples you state would have given only a handful jobs as there are only so many who are able to even apply for those higher skilled jobs. What the country needs are jobs that the average person can do, and not jobs that have too often been filled by illegals. You need to focus on what will get the people spending not the government,

Yes, you are completely wrong in your thinking.

First of all, your statement that this bill is absolutely necessary is completely false. If the Obama-messiah actually had cajones, he would have vetoed the bill. What would have happened then? Either the bill would have been re-written OR Congress could have passed a continuing resolution to fund the government through this fiscal year.

Second, your contention that because idiot republican politicians wish to steal from the people, it excuses the idiot democratic politicians who do the same thing is completely wrong. Earmark spending on good projects when we have a budget surplus is ok, earmark spending on good or bad projects when we are in a huge budget deficit is not ok,

whale

volleyballchick-

The questioner states IN HIS QUESTION that republicans have 40% of the earmarks in the Omnibus bill, YET, somehow, you believe that Republicans have more earmarks then Democrats. Exactly what part of 60%/40% do you not understand? 40% is less than half, not to mention less than 60%. Please engage the brain before opening the mouth, PLEASE!

Suppose you and your spouse were in a tight financial situation. For the next year, you knew that you would either have no additional money to spend and would probably have to go into debt to maintain your lifestyle. You both know this and understand the situation.

Then, your spouse comes back in with a plan to spend 2% more over the next 6 months to pay for getting the kitchen painted, re-seeding the lawn, and putting new floors in the bathroom. All those things would be great for your house, but is it really the best time to do those things?

So, I hope that we can continue to put the pressure on all elected leaders to understand the power that has been granted to them and not abuse those powers.

As long as we judge our representatives primarily based on what they do for our districts and states alone instead of how well they are actually governing the nation, we will continute to have the pressure to include earmarks for rewards.

if you think bush spent his *** off and you think Obama's spending is absoutley necessary then you are deluded. it isn't logical to carp about Bush's spending while agreeing with Obama's.

2007, Bush vetoed a major spending measure saying it contained too many special projects, he wanted to pork cut and the dem's thru a hissy fit. most of the defiecit came from these special projects that they are now getting since they are not going to waste a crisis per Rohn Emmanuel. Peolsi just informed us that we would need another stimulus soon to complete their socialist agenda.

conservatives are not happy with the Repubiicans who requested their 'fair share' since they knew it would pass without them so they joined them...i wish they had not and not all did. i will name names but the lion's share goes to the liberals so accept your blame too.

According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group:

Congressman Ron Paul leads the pack among House Republicans and has 20 earmarks (just short of $74 million) in the bill.

Congressman Don Young from Alaska has 27 earmarks (over $71 million) in the bill.

On the Senate side,

Thad Cochran has 204 earmarks, for a grand total of $470 million, in the bill.

Roger Wicker comes in at $390 million, David Vitter comes in at $249 million and Kit Bond comes in at over 248 million.

a very small minority of Republicans in the House and only three Republican Senators (John McCain, Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn) have NO earmarks whatsoever in the bill.

call your congressmen that represent YOU and tell them this is unacceptable and to get back to basics!

http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/stopthepork1.html

this is what i asked earlier today

Why are some Republicans are feeding at the trough too?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Asldh...

the biggest hypocrite of all. nothing he said was the truth.

Obama #1: This bill does not have a single earmark in it, which is unprecedented for its size

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kqiy5xFWym8

Pelosi: "Keep the Door Open" to Another Stimulus.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s08LVED_TII

I think that Republicans should not have put in earmarks since they need to distinguish themselves from the Democrats who are engaged in an intergenerational appropriations feeding frenzy.

However, technically, not all Republicans promised to end the practice of earmarks so it is not hypocritical -- just stupid.

Only someone who promised to end the practice of earmarks and then turned around and voted for or signed an earmarks-loaded Bill would technically be a hypocrite. Someone like, I don't know, I am afraid to say it for fear someone will start talking about Bush again -- OK, Obama. I said it. Obama would be the hypocrite in this case since he said one thing and did another. What have I done...........

With a little deeper thinking and an average Dictionary it is possible we could be a better nation.

I've spent hours researching this, reading many articles regarding this budget bill. I did not save all the links as there were just to many, which simply comes from how this is being reported by each media outlet. Each article I read had a different cast to it, more or less information provided.

One article stated that of this bill was written in 2008 with only some changes made presently. It is a Govt budget bill to run the Govt through the fiscal year ending in September of this year. Of the entire bill, only 1% was earmarks, that number ranged anywhere from $5 billion to $7.5 depending on which article was being read.

All Senators but five (4 Republicans, 1 Democrat) had earmarks within the legislation. Senator McConnell had $73 million in earmarks alone.

Within this legislation were also some good policy changes. One was the reversal regarding trucks from Mexico coming across the boarder and transporting goods throughout the country instead of changing over to US trucking companies. I think that is a good thing!

There were some raising in costs as well. Help for those in need with heating assistance, another for single mothers but I can't recall exactly what that entailed, and a rise in cost for helping Amtrack Rail.

Also, a provision that Congress will Not be allowed to get a pay adjustment increase in regards to inflation which they would have been entitled to in January 2010.

Another provision was that any earmark for a for-profit company had to be put out for competitive bidding. There were many provisions regarding earmarks. Some in the Senate on both sides thought those provisions were to stringent but it passed anyhow.

Another article stated that Presidents once were able to do line by line veto's in this form of legislation but the Supreme Court ruled that unconstitutional in 1998 I believe. So a President can only veto or sign, and can no longer do line by line veto's.

I can understand all the upset about no earmarks and that this went against what was spoken to. I went back and researched that, and there was never anything said about zero earmarks.

What I find unsettling is that the Republican's are complaining when only a handful of Republican Senators had no earmarks. McCain, DeMint, McCaskill and a gentleman from Oklahoma.

This seems to demonstrate an unwillingness in Washington to work with the new Administration and there's a contradiction taking place. It's been one thing after another since January 20th, and given the contents of this one piece of legislation, I do find it unsettling what strongly appears to be an effort to not work together as a whole in Washington. I also think that both sides would have had serious issues if the bill had been veto'd.

I can also understand, given that this bill was written last year, with only a few things added (the rise in cost items) there was a choice to be made. If the bill did not get passed, many cabinets/departments of the Govt would have shut down, and major battles going on in Congress over it.

There are to many things to work on right now, than to have Congress going haywire in Washington over 1% of a bill, which would only serve to take focus off the economy, foreign relations, and generally doing whatever it takes to move things forward. Some of the earmarks were for good purposes, not strange off the wall things.

If anything, I am even more impressed with President Obama for making this decision to sign the bill, especially knowing the flack he would get for doing so.

In my opinion there's what I call some 'street game' going on in Washington and those hoping that the administration can get messed up or stopped in its tracks if they catch the President up regarding words spoken during the campaign. I think the President weighed the pro's and con's seriously. Veto and put all those other things on hold, or sign, which requires Congress to focus and work on moving forward with the very important issues that face all of the nation at this time.

I understand the need to seriously weigh the consequences and choose a battle wisely. The fact that the President did this, knowing he will be scrutinized to the hilt over it, demonstrates to me that he is looking forward and was not going to get caught up in the 'street game' that I see taking place.

The plates are full and those in Washington need to focus and find a way to work together. All constituents are hurting in this country, no one party affiliation is immune to job losses, home loss, health care concerns, rising prices, etc. It really is time that those in Washington get a grip and make attempts to work for all of the people and stop the petty in-fighting of who's right or wrong. It doesn't speak to maturity, but more to middle school. I don't think the majority of the people take the serious struggles facing them as a fun day out on the playground. All in Washington truly need to start working together as a whole, for the whole.

Yes, you are WRONG on sooooo many levels!!!

FIRST, large numbers of conservatives are FURIOUS with the GOP "appropriators" who abandoned their principles for a few lousy bucks for their districts. How do you define whore?

SECOND, this bill was NOT necessary.

The government could have continued to operate at the SAME level through September - only SIX months - without spending an additional 8% above last year's spending.

That is TWICE the rate of inflation. INEXCUSABLE.

THIRD, This budget establishes a new BASELINE for next year's budget. That means that the next budget will either stay at THIS level or INCREASE. Budgets NEVER go down. We are SCREWED.

Last, (for now) , if an "earmark" is worthwhile, it can be presented to a Senate and/or House Committee and be debated.

Why not?

If they are "good for the country" as you say, they'll pass.

Then politician wound NOT have to SNEAK them in.

Yes, we are all furious with the "earmarkers" on both sides.

But MOST of all with OBAMA.

He broke his PROMISE.

He said REPEATEDLY that there would be NO earmarks.

He LIED - AGAIN.

He should have VETOED it.

Obama LIES like a RUG.

Maybe these GOPers thought that this is the only way they will get ANY money out of the government, considering that the DEMs control everything these days. And remember, 60% of the earmarks were submitted by DEMs.

I don't think this bill was absolutely necessary. They could have frozen spending to 2008 levels and the world would not have come to an end.

Also, Obama said he doesn't want ANY earmarks. That was during his campaign, though. Guess things have changed since he WON, as he likes to remind everyone. Obama lied. The economy died.

So, yeah, you are wrong in your thinking.