I guess to me and anyone else who reads the quote too that understands that earmarks are used by all government to assign money.

Its cool, no problem here.

you'd be surprised

Obama on earmarks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV0Grra3QHs

see the whole thing is bush and him are two sides of the exact same coin. in the end he is just another dirty globalist (Joe Biden especially) in the end i think biden and a few others behind the scenes are giving him a script and telling him to spew this garbel so we can have the backing of the morons out there to call the people that dont agree crazy while truly they have been brain washed.

same game....different players i guess. But I least I'm honest enough to say I see it

I don't anything about them writing that stipulation in the bail-out.

Even if the bonuses were in the contracts when they were hired, allowances can be made if there's a chance that a company is going under. At my mom's company, there was going to be a lay off due to budget problems. Two different times in 5 years, the employees volunteered to work a day free so nobody would be laid off.

I see that AIG could have handled this differently. They gave employees bonuses with taxpayers money.

so I'm confused...

is the sky falling or not?

I'm keeping my umbrella on me just in case.

I don't know whether the sky is falling or not, but I do know many seem fearful right now. My mom called me last night crying and scared. I didn't know what to tell her, except mom, calm down, I love you don't worry.

Why is she scared?

where do you think AIG got the tax payers money? it was passed without checking the stipulations. The bonuses were not stopped before the bail out was given

the bonuses were specifically approved before the bailout

Sen. Chris Dodd has admmitted (after days of denying it) that he put the loophole in the bailout bill authorizing the bonuses

all these bonuses amounts to less than 1% of the bailout bill. Its been a huge distraction from the more important elements of the bailout (maybe on purpose)

you may very well be right...but the ones complaining about it now...did nothing to stop the money for bonuses.

I am sure there are other definitions and explanations but I found this first:


‘No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law' - Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution.

The simplified, short answer: An earmark is government money that is given to a specific recipient or a specific named project without the recipient having to compete, bid, or qualify for the money, as would normally be required to receive government funding.

Earmarks Explained in Detail
In order for the US Government to spend money, Congress is required to write a bill (usually an appropriation bill) appropriating the money. The President must then sign the bill into law. Meaning that Congress decides how much money should be spent, the President signs off, and then the suitable federal departments and agencies spend the money as they see fit.

Earmarking takes this appropriation process to an extreme by micromanaging the spending and writing into the law precisely where the money should go and precisely how it should be spent. This earmarking bypasses any normal merit based system the federal departments and agencies would otherwise have used it spending the money.



Take a real life example; in 2005-2006 Congress created an omnibus appropriation bill part of which designated the spending of $398 million on road and bridge construction. Normally the President would sign the bill into law and the Department of Transportation would decide how and where to spend that money. However, in this bill the law was written specifically so that the $398 was legally required ‘earmarked' to be spent on a specific bridge building project in Alaska to connect Ketchikan, Alaska to Gravina Island and the Ketchikan International Airport. The high cost of the bridge and the fact that Gravina Island has only 50 residents attracted media attention and this earmark became widely known the infamous "Bridge to nowhere".

Why Do we Have Earmarks?
Both Republicans and Democrates in Congress have embraced earmarks. Earmarks occur because congressmen like to fund projects in their districts that they feel are valuable. Congressmen often feel they know how to spend money in their own district more wisely than some Washington-based federal agency. Often Congressmen are reelected on the basis of how much money they bring home to their districts. Certainly lobbyists and political action committees are keenly aware of how much money a congressman can bring back to his district.

Is Earmarking Unethical?
There is fierce debate about this issue. In the last election both McCain and Obama promised to end earmarks. However, there is by no means unity on the issue. Senate Majority leader Harry Reid recently defended earmarks by saying "Since we've been a country, we have had the obligation, as a Congress, to help direct spending. We cannot let spending be done by a bunch of nameless, faceless bureaucrats buried in this town someplace, to take care the needs of the state of Nevada, Washington and New York."

The lack of oversight makes unscrupulous deals difficult to prevent and earmarks have earned bad reputation. When earmarks are frivolous, created to appease certain lobbyists, or created to enrich the Congressman's friends or family the earmarking is often called ‘pork barrel' spending. Many recent earmark-related scandals have highlighted the problem and some members of Congress have even gone to prison. The problem has become so widespread that ‘earmarks' and ‘pork barrel spending' are becoming synonymous in the media.

Article found here: http://www.neighborhoodlink.com/article/Community/What_Are_Earmarks

the ones complaining about it now are the ones who put the bonuses in the bailout bill. although now they are denying it

Dodd says it was the Obama and his administration who pressured him to put the bonuses in the bill. But Obama denys it

Thats because the "complaining" for the most part is nothing more than window dressing, a sort of political comedy, to distract while the Globalists continue to pop the Republic.

She fears a second civil war.

never confuse activity with results...as for his vision ?...it's whatever his telepromter / David Axelrod writes...

no need to panic because the sky isn't falling, but the sun isn't shining bright either

It's raining here.