PDA

View Full Version : Redistribution on Steroids!!!!



road kill
12-16-2010, 08:59 AM
Redistribution on steroids
Wednesday, December 15, 2010


Rep. Cleaver has proposed a $48 billion earmark
When absurdity gives way to hilarity, you must be talking about politics.

In the midst of a colossal global concern for the economic stability of our great nation, Emanuel Cleaver, Missouri's 5th Congressional District representative, has one small earmark on his wish list that deserves some attention.

Cleaver has listed a new earmark -- one of several -- and he promises to "fight for every one." But this is a whopping $48 billion package that must go down as the grandaddy of all earmarks.

Proposed by a gentleman named Lamar Mickens, president of the not-for-profit Quality Day Campus, the $48 billion earmark would funnel money into the inner cities to give money to the poor and thereby produce a much larger consumer class to buy the goods and services produced in this country.

Just call this redistribution on steroids.


http://www.semissourian.com/story/1687936.html
__________________________________________________ __________


RK

dnf777
12-16-2010, 10:10 AM
Redistribution on steroids
Wednesday, December 15, 2010


Rep. Cleaver has proposed a $48 billion earmark
When absurdity gives way to hilarity, you must be talking about politics.

In the midst of a colossal global concern for the economic stability of our great nation, Emanuel Cleaver, Missouri's 5th Congressional District representative, has one small earmark on his wish list that deserves some attention.

Cleaver has listed a new earmark -- one of several -- and he promises to "fight for every one." But this is a whopping $48 billion package that must go down as the grandaddy of all earmarks.

Proposed by a gentleman named Lamar Mickens, president of the not-for-profit Quality Day Campus, the $48 billion earmark would funnel money into the inner cities to give money to the poor and thereby produce a much larger consumer class to buy the goods and services produced in this country.

Just call this redistribution on steroids.


http://www.semissourian.com/story/1687936.html
__________________________________________________ __________


RK


"trickle up" economics is sillier than trickle down.

BonMallari
12-16-2010, 10:30 AM
someone just asked for maple syrup research in Vermont...Ken Bora was that you..yikes

Raymond Little
12-16-2010, 02:07 PM
"trickle up" economics is sillier than trickle down.

Actually this is called, "Trickle Up Poverty".;)
Nothing more than "Reparations" which is quite popular in the Ghetto and DemoRat party. The Trillions that have been Pizzed off on them just weren't enough to eliminate the Lazyness they still have.

Buzz
12-20-2010, 11:46 AM
Just as I suspected. More idiocy and misinformation from the right.

From the unofficial blog of the congressional black caucus.



“Local columnist sparks controversy.” It’s not that the local columnist “sparked controversy.” read this right here. No. It’s much worse than that. This case is a prime example of pratfalls in an age of internet journalism. An age where everyone is a journalist and “journalist/bloggers” check no facts. And the “facts” end up in established journalistic venues.

Kind of like the Obama trip that cost $200 million/day...



I’m guessing the The Southeast Missourian just wanted to save Michael Jensen’s feelings and maybe even his job. Jensen asserted in a column on Wednesday that Rep. Emanuel Cleaver proposed an earmark for $48 Billion dollars. He did not. Jansen was probably reading the multiple internet stories charging that the Congressman propose that your tax dollar and mine pay for a $48 Billion earmark. The Congressman did not do so. The project had simply been listed along with 127 others that had been SUBMITTED by constituents to the Congressman’s website. Some blogger picked it off the list and charged Rep. Cleaver was pushing a $48 billion earmark.


Cleaver
The Southeast Missourian then claims that the wording on Rep. Cleaver’s site “caused the confusion.” I’m not sure about that one. If someone actually checked a few facts and asked a few basic questions (such as: “Has the Congressman asked for a $48 Billion dollar earmark?) and called Cleaver’s office before writing a story there would be no confusion. It’s called a telephone. A basic tool of journalism and beyond.

An effort to be “super transparent” that went wrong, the Congressman’s office lists ALL earmarks SUBMITTED to his office. YES ALL OF THEM. Many other members do this as well. They list not only what they have submitted for funded, which is required by House rules, but they also list EVERY REQUEST. In doing so, readers and blog writers assumed Rep. Cleaver had proposed a $48 Billion project that was on the list with 126 others.

Cleaver told the Miami Herald/McLatchy: “Some ideas are absolutely crazy,” he said. “But we don’t say to them, ‘You’re stupid and this is a crazy idea.’ So we put all of these requests up. People don’t like to be dismissed.”

road kill
12-20-2010, 11:50 AM
Just as I suspected. More idiocy and misinformation from the right.

From the unofficial blog of the congressional black caucus.




Kind of like the Obama trip that cost $200 million/day...


No agenda there......

Yeah, funny how things can get all changed around when you get CAUGHT!!!

RK

Roger Perry
12-20-2010, 11:55 AM
Redistribution on steroids
Wednesday, December 15, 2010


Rep. Cleaver has proposed a $48 billion earmark
When absurdity gives way to hilarity, you must be talking about politics.

In the midst of a colossal global concern for the economic stability of our great nation, Emanuel Cleaver, Missouri's 5th Congressional District representative, has one small earmark on his wish list that deserves some attention.

Cleaver has listed a new earmark -- one of several -- and he promises to "fight for every one." But this is a whopping $48 billion package that must go down as the grandaddy of all earmarks.

Proposed by a gentleman named Lamar Mickens, president of the not-for-profit Quality Day Campus, the $48 billion earmark would funnel money into the inner cities to give money to the poor and thereby produce a much larger consumer class to buy the goods and services produced in this country.

Just call this redistribution on steroids.


http://www.semissourian.com/story/1687936.html
__________________________________________________ __________


RK
You righties will jump on any rumor just because it comes out of a right wing wacko source. Just like the trip to India was costing tax payers 4200 million a day.


But after a state newspaper columnist described the earmark as something Mr. Cleaver had “proposed,” a Cleaver spokeswoman said today that he hadn’t done so. “We did not propose it, we do not promote it, and we did not submit it to the House Appropriations Committee,” said Mary Petrovic.
All this is not to say that Congress doesn’t have an addiction to earmarks. The omnibus proposal currently up for consideration includes thousands of earmarks worth billions of dollars of taxpayer money. But rest assured, the reported $48 billion earmark from Cleaver’s office is not one of them.


And Republicans do not ask for earmarks for their state???????
Senator Cochran’s earmark savvy benefits Mississippi biodefense center

Published 16 December 2009
Republican Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi is famous for his support of federal earmarks and regularly ranks near the top among senators for the number and size of his annual earmark haul; on Sunday the Senate passed a $1.1 trillion omnibus federal spending bill for the 2010 fiscal year, and Cochran managed to insert $150 million worth of earmarks for Mississippi; among the beneficiaries is Jackson State University's National Center for Biodefense Communications, which conducts research and compiles data on bioterrorism threats to agriculture, and which is slated to receive $750,000 through the bill
Mississippi’s earmarks include $14.3 million for a new National Guard center in Monticello, $16.3 million for a Joint Forces Training Center at Camp Shelby, and $9.8 million for a maintenance facility at the Columbus Air Force Base.
http://homelandsecuritynewswire.com/senator-cochran%E2%80%99s-earmark-savvy-benefits-mississippi-biodefense-center

road kill
12-20-2010, 11:58 AM
And Republicans do not ask for earmarks for their state???????
Senator Cochran’s earmark savvy benefits Mississippi biodefense center

Published 16 December 2009
Republican Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi is famous for his support of federal earmarks and regularly ranks near the top among senators for the number and size of his annual earmark haul; on Sunday the Senate passed a $1.1 trillion omnibus federal spending bill for the 2010 fiscal year, and Cochran managed to insert $150 million worth of earmarks for Mississippi; among the beneficiaries is Jackson State University's National Center for Biodefense Communications, which conducts research and compiles data on bioterrorism threats to agriculture, and which is slated to receive $750,000 through the bill
Mississippi’s earmarks include $14.3 million for a new National Guard center in Monticello, $16.3 million for a Joint Forces Training Center at Camp Shelby, and $9.8 million for a maintenance facility at the Columbus Air Force Base.
http://homelandsecuritynewswire.com/senator-cochran%E2%80%99s-earmark-savvy-benefits-mississippi-biodefense-center
Yeah, Rog, I guess since the Republicans do it....it's OK.:rolleyes:


RK

Buzz
12-20-2010, 12:00 PM
No agenda there......

Yeah, funny how things can get all changed around when you get CAUGHT!!!

RK


Get caught doing what?


No doubt that you did not read a single sentence of what was posted.

Big surprise...

road kill
12-20-2010, 12:04 PM
Get caught doing what?


No doubt that you did not read a single sentence of what was posted.

Big surprise...

You know all, don't you.
You think the Unofficial Black Caucus is going to admit what this guy did when he is getting spanked for it??

Of course you do....no surprise!!:D

RK

Roger Perry
12-20-2010, 12:36 PM
Yeah, Rog, I guess since the Republicans do it....it's OK.:rolleyes:


RK

The guy did not submit a $48 billion earmark. It is just a figment of the right wing media's imagination and you bought it.:lol: Just like the $200 million a day for the trip to go to Asia the rumor Michele Bachmann spread and the wacko's here fell for it hook line and sinker.

$200 million a day?
Nov 6th 2010, 18:17 by N.B. | WASHINGTON, DC


SOME people just can't estimate travel costs. President Barack Obama is visiting Asia this week. Conservative bloggers and talk-radio hosts (Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and so on) and tea party darling Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) claim that his trip is costing taxpayers a staggering $200 million a day. (Some also claim that the Navy is dispatching 34 ships and an aircraft carrier to support the mission. More on that later.) The White House says that's not true. Who's right? Google powers, activate! Here are some excerpts from a PolitiFact (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/nov/04/michele-bachmann/rep-michele-bachmann-claims-obamas-trip-india-will/) article debunking the claim:

We think Bachmann and others have a responsibility to back up statistics they cite. And in this case, the backing appears to be one news story, relying on an anonymous state government official in India. People familiar with presidential travel say that estimate is way off, and they question how a government official in India would know anyway. And a report by the independent [Government Accountability Office] backs that up: A trip to India by Clinton, regarded at the time as perhaps the most expensive in history, was estimated to cost $50 million, or $10 million per day. That alone should cause someone to question the $200 million a day figure. In short, we don't see any evidence to back up this statistic. And we rate Bachmann's claim False.FactCheck.org weighs in, too (http://factcheck.org/2010/11/ask-factcheck-trip-to-mumbai/):
This story has spread rapidly among the president’s critics, but there is simply no evidence to support it. And common sense should lead anyone to doubt it. For example, the entire U.S. war effort in Afghanistan currently costs less than that — about $5.7 billion per month, according to the Congressional Research Service, or roughly $190 million per day. How could a peaceful state visit cost more than a war?

And here's Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/11/pentagon-dismisses-reports-of-34-warships-for-obama-trip-security.html) on the "34 ships and an aircraft carrier" claim:
Morrell told reporters he was making an exception to the practice of not discussing Presidential security details to shoot down the reports. "I will take the liberty this time of dismissing as absolutely absurd this notion that somehow we were deploying 10 percent of the Navy—some 34 ships and an aircraft carrier—in support of the president's trip to Asia," said Morrell at today's Pentagon briefing. "That's just comical. Nothing close to that is being done."
It's sad that someone even has to debunk these ridiculous claims. Any reasonable person who heard the $200 million a day number should realise that it's off by at least an order of magnitude. Even Bill O'Reilly (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201011050051) "knows the figure is nuts." But as New York magazine's perfect headline (http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/11/republican_ire_over_cost_of_ob.html) explains, "Republican Anger Over Cost of Obama’s Trip to India Will Not Be Stopped by Facts." Indeed.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2010/11/obamas_india_trip

road kill
12-20-2010, 12:43 PM
The guy did not submit a $48 billion earmark. It is just a figment of the right wing media's imagination and you bought it.:lol: Just like the $200 million a day for the trip to go to Asia the rumor Michele Bachmann spread and the wacko's here fell for it hook line and sinker.

$200 million a day?
Nov 6th 2010, 18:17 by N.B. | WASHINGTON, DC


SOME people just can't estimate travel costs. President Barack Obama is visiting Asia this week. Conservative bloggers and talk-radio hosts (Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and so on) and tea party darling Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) claim that his trip is costing taxpayers a staggering $200 million a day. (Some also claim that the Navy is dispatching 34 ships and an aircraft carrier to support the mission. More on that later.) The White House says that's not true. Who's right? Google powers, activate! Here are some excerpts from a PolitiFact (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/nov/04/michele-bachmann/rep-michele-bachmann-claims-obamas-trip-india-will/) article debunking the claim:

We think Bachmann and others have a responsibility to back up statistics they cite. And in this case, the backing appears to be one news story, relying on an anonymous state government official in India. People familiar with presidential travel say that estimate is way off, and they question how a government official in India would know anyway. And a report by the independent [Government Accountability Office] backs that up: A trip to India by Clinton, regarded at the time as perhaps the most expensive in history, was estimated to cost $50 million, or $10 million per day. That alone should cause someone to question the $200 million a day figure. In short, we don't see any evidence to back up this statistic. And we rate Bachmann's claim False.FactCheck.org weighs in, too (http://factcheck.org/2010/11/ask-factcheck-trip-to-mumbai/):
This story has spread rapidly among the president’s critics, but there is simply no evidence to support it. And common sense should lead anyone to doubt it. For example, the entire U.S. war effort in Afghanistan currently costs less than that — about $5.7 billion per month, according to the Congressional Research Service, or roughly $190 million per day. How could a peaceful state visit cost more than a war?

And here's Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/11/pentagon-dismisses-reports-of-34-warships-for-obama-trip-security.html) on the "34 ships and an aircraft carrier" claim:
Morrell told reporters he was making an exception to the practice of not discussing Presidential security details to shoot down the reports. "I will take the liberty this time of dismissing as absolutely absurd this notion that somehow we were deploying 10 percent of the Navy—some 34 ships and an aircraft carrier—in support of the president's trip to Asia," said Morrell at today's Pentagon briefing. "That's just comical. Nothing close to that is being done."
It's sad that someone even has to debunk these ridiculous claims. Any reasonable person who heard the $200 million a day number should realise that it's off by at least an order of magnitude. Even Bill O'Reilly (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201011050051) "knows the figure is nuts." But as New York magazine's perfect headline (http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/11/republican_ire_over_cost_of_ob.html) explains, "Republican Anger Over Cost of Obama’s Trip to India Will Not Be Stopped by Facts." Indeed.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2010/11/obamas_india_trip


He threw it out there.
It got a negative response and he pulled it back, laughingly saying it was all a misunderstanding, he was just being polite.

You buy it, because your judgemnent is clouded with hatred and ideology (though you don't know what yours is).

And you call people stupid?

RK

Roger Perry
12-20-2010, 12:50 PM
He threw it out there.
It got a negative response and he pulled it back, laughingly saying it was all a misunderstanding, he was just being polite.

You buy it, because your judgemnent is clouded with hatred and ideology (though you don't know what yours is).

And you call people stupid?

RK

Well, here is more for you. Maybe you can comment on this:

So to avoid their wrath, congressional Republicans have made some really big shows of swearing off earmarks for the next two years. House Republicans did it first, and then a bit more reluctantly, Senate Republicans followed suit, even though their leader, Mitch McConnell, has brought a lot of federal bacon back to his home state of Kentucky over the years.
BLOCK: So David, help us understand, though. How is it that Republicans who are railing against these earmarks at the same time are loading the spending bill with earmarks for their home states?
WELNA: Well, yeah, right. Republicans have requested about 5,600 earmarks this year, and they got a lot of them approved. GOP leader McConnell, for example, has $86 million worth of earmarks in this big omnibus package. South Dakota Republican Senator John Thune got more than $38 million worth approved.
And when I asked him why he hasn't requested that they be removed from the omnibus, he said he's voting against the whole package. But of course, that omnibus might pass, and since there are some Republicans who will vote for it, that way McConnell and Thune and 31 other Republican senators who all requested earmarks this year could get them despite their public stance of being against them.

http://www.npr.org/2010/12/16/132115556/Spending-Bill-Loaded-With-GOP-Earmarks?ft=1&f=1014

So R Senator John Thune submitted earmarks but said he would vote against it, unbelievable

road kill
12-20-2010, 12:55 PM
Breakdown by Party

Value Number
Democrats* $2,602,298,868----- 4,025
Republicans $1,884,456,428----- 2,510
Independents $6,352,725--------- 17
Mixed/Blank $3,181,199,206---- 2,261
Unknown $1,900,000 1

*This includes earmarks sponsored jointly by Democrats and Independents


RK

Roger Perry
12-20-2010, 01:01 PM
Breakdown by Party

Value Number
Democrats* $2,602,298,868----- 4,025
Republicans $1,884,456,428----- 2,510
Independents $6,352,725--------- 17
Mixed/Blank $3,181,199,206---- 2,261
Unknown $1,900,000 1

*This includes earmarks sponsored jointly by Democrats and Independents


RK


There are currently no Independents serving in the U.S. House (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_independents_are_there_in_the_house_of_re presentatives#) of Representatives.
There are two Independents currently serving in the U.S. Senate (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_independents_are_there_in_the_house_of_re presentatives#). Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and Joesph Lieberman of Connecticut. Both Senator Sanders and Senator Lieberman caucus as Democrats. Ryan P. Christiano.


Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_independents_are_there_in_the_house_of_re presentatives#ixzz18gDD7eYZ

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!! These two Senators sure must have compiled whopping big earmarks;)

Of the top ten Senators requesting the highest amount of $ in solo earmarks 6 are Republicans.
They are:
#2 Shelby – 64 individual earmarks total $114,484,250
#3 Bond – 54 individual earmarks total $95,691,491
#5 Cochran – 65 individual earmarks total $75,908,475
#6 Murkowski – 71 individual earmarks total $74,000,750
#8 Inhofe – 34 individual earmarks total $53,133,500
#9 McConnell – 36 individual earmarks total $51,133,500
Of the top ten Senators requesting highest # of solo earmarks 5 of them are Republicans, four of whom top the list:
#1 Specter – 134 individual earmarks = $25,320,000
#2 Murkowski – 71 individual earmarks = $74,000,750
#3 Chochran – 65 individual earmarks = $75,908,475
#4 Shelby – 64 individual earmarks = $114,484,250
#8 Bond – 54 individual earmarks = $85,691,491
ONLY Republican Senators Coburn, DeMint & McCain are free of earmarks with Feingold & McCaskill on Democrat side joining them.

http://roaringrepublican.com/blog/2009/03/04/republican-earmarks-in-the-2009-senate-omnibus-spending-bill/

Rk--- Did you see where Feingold was free of earmarks????????????? Bet you didn't even vote for him did you???????????????

Buzz
12-20-2010, 02:35 PM
The guy did not submit a $48 billion earmark. It is just a figment of the right wing media's imagination and you bought it.:lol: Just like the $200 million a day for the trip to go to Asia the rumor Michele Bachmann spread and the wacko's here fell for it hook line and sinker.


Roger, I've concluded that it's a complete waste of time to argue with someone who posts up complete BS from people like that arse hat and arse hats like Breitbart, stuff that is either made up or poorly sourced, and when you call them on it they insult you and call you a know it all.

This BS isn't funny anymore. The country's future is at stake and we have people people like these arse hats spreading untruths and half truths to support an agenda, and people who base their opinions on complete BS and fiction that these scum bags put out there because it supports or confirms their twisted view of the world.

As a country, we are truly screwed.

Roger Perry
12-20-2010, 02:40 PM
Roger, I've concluded that it's a complete waste of time to argue with someone who posts up complete BS from people like that arse hat and arse hats like Breitbart, stuff that is either made up or poorly sourced, and when you call them on it they insult you and call you a know it all.

This BS isn't funny anymore. The country's future is at stake and we have people people like these arse hats spreading untruths and half truths to support an agenda, and people who base their opinions on complete BS and fiction that these scum bags put out there because it supports or confirms their twisted view of the world.

As a country, we are truly screwed.

Yeah, you call them on it and they resort to name calling. The righties here are pulling for Obama to fail. What I keep reminding them of is if he fails he will be a one term President and the whole mess will fall back in the Republicans lap where it belonged in the first place.

depittydawg
12-20-2010, 07:37 PM
"trickle up" economics is sillier than trickle down.

Actually tickle up economics does have a stronger theoretical argument than trickle down. Poor people always spend their money. Rich folks don't. Give money to the poor and they buy groceries, gasoline, cigarettes, booze, crack, OR whatever. Give money to a rich man, and he puts it into his bank account or blows it on the stock market. Either way, it stimulates nothing. Not saying I think we need to be giving to anybody. Can't we all just agree to stop "trickling" period?

depittydawg
12-20-2010, 07:38 PM
Yeah, you call them on it and they resort to name calling. The righties here are pulling for Obama to fail. What I keep reminding them of is if he fails he will be a one term President and the whole mess will fall back in the Republicans lap where it belonged in the first place.

Obama has failed. And the Republicans do deserve to have a shot at fixing the mess they were so instrumental in creating. Both good arguments for NOT voting for Obama again.