100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: 10 Senators who snagged the most Pork! | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
to become a law...the bill has to pass through the house and the senate, then to the president. the president can either veto it or sign it And if he vetos it it goes back to the house it originated in. If its passed by two thirds it never goes back to the President it just becomes law! so....drum roll....as I was hinting at before...blame congress and the president  Here Rose. This is so you can see who is responsible for them, and so Davey can see the difference between the two! You have been wound pretty tight for some time now Glenn. How about I send you some cash for a hooker?  Not sure what they charge but whatever it is it would be worth it for you since years of self inflicted celibacy have done little for your palms and less for your attitude. Oh, and Rose, you are too kind. Most women would have ripped into him and reminded him why his celibacy will continue after typing down to you as he has been doing. Perhaps he got Rose and Rosey confused?  Glenn, Rose is a woman. No disrespctee, no talkee down to, no boingy boingy. Rosey is your palm and the one you talk down to.  I hope that helps.No! Don't thank me! After all, what are friends for? LOL You best buy your self a hooker Steve! It may go over the heads of many here, but I see you are still so desperate that you attempt to rustle dates from thousands of miles away. Hey, I dont blame you. When you have already alienated every female within 100 miles of you. When they already sees the the light of desperation that such an attraction would portray upon their self to anyone who respects them. What choice do you have left! Uh, did you read my profile? I have been in a great relationship for a long time. We spent the afternoon yesterday at the park on a blanket looking at the tree branches swaying above us, rode our bikes to Dairy Queen for a treat, then went to her house for the evening. I will leave what happened next to your imagination..... which seems to be your date.I don't get on here much any more for other than to check up on old friends, one of which used to be you until you lost your freakin' mind and went psycho on everyone. Not sure who you are trying to impress with your diatribe and total lack of a sense of humor. You aren't far from your fifteen minutes of fame, running around with a rifle like a raving lunatic and when tha happens I will be able to tell all of my friends that I knew you as they drag you by your feet from the next Republican convention. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earmark is less loaded. Loosely, it's a provision that's added to a tax or spending bill by one or a few lawmakers. A provision snuck into the bill without a committee hearing or other public discussion. pork is about content and debated on! These were in the bill and debated on by congressional leaders. As for controlling earmarks and pork in legislation: This is the lookout of committee chairs, subcommittee chairs and congressional leaders. BAM! This might interest you as well, For most of our history, the provisions were opaquely written -- applying to any corporation which filed its incorporation papers in New York City on Dec. 2, 1906, to make up one example. Then journalists and reformers started digging out the earmarks put in by the "Cardinals," the chairmen of the Appropriations committee and its subcommittees. Numbers skyrocketed in the late 1990s, when Republican leaders in the House began using earmarks much more liberally (yes), bartering with all GOP members for votes on legislation. Democrats point out that they have cut the number of earmarks significantly, and that's true, as far as it goes. Very nice and I do appreciate the definitions. Not really anything I didn't know, but I like having a well spelled out definition. However it does not even remotely address the issue I brought up. Let me try to define this a little better... Yes you have shown that republicans have inserted the greatest about of earmarks and I won't and have not argued that. However you stated they have the most pork, but haven't shown any kind of analysis as what percentage of those earmarks were pork. For all I know in what I've been allowed to see from your links they could have only a very small percentage of the pork. If nearly all the earmarks by dems is pork and very little of the earmarks by reps are pork well then the dems could still be far worse. Granted I see that as unlikely, but you haven't shown me anything that proves otherwise. Earmarks are inserted after the bill has been voted on and passed. Kinda like when Phil Gramm inserted the earmarks that deregulated the mortgage industry. It's a shame you cant deduct that from the info I had previously provided, but you are bright and Im sure you will eventually get it! If you don't intend to answer the question asked why do you bother to respond? Because this is his soap box. Facts don't matter. Just another fog horn making noise. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
just in case people don't know how they work....
OMB defines earmarks as funds provided by the Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents the merit-based or competitive allocation process, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Administration to control critical aspects of the funds allocation process. Earmarks vs. Unrequested Funding. At the broadest level, unrequested funding is any additional funding provided by the Congress -- in either bill or report language -- for activities/projects/programs not requested by the Administration. Earmarks are a subset of unrequested funding. The distinction between earmarks and unrequested funding is programmatic control or lack thereof of in the allocation process. Earmarks and Programmatic "Control." If the congressional direction accompanying a project/program/funding in an appropriations bill or report or other communication purports to affect the ability of the Administration to control critical aspects of the awards process for the project/program/funding, this IS an earmark. Note: The definition of "control critical aspects" includes specification of the location or recipient or otherwise circumventing the merit-based or competitive allocation process and may be program specific. However, if the Congress adds funding and the Administration retains control over the awards process for the project/program/funding, it is NOT an earmark; it is unrequested funding. Earmarks Include: Add-ons. If the Administration asks for $100 million for formula grants, for example, and Congress provides $110 million and places restrictions (such as site-specific locations) on the additional $10 million, the additional $10 million is counted as an earmark. Carve-outs. If the Administration asks for $100 million and Congress provides $100 million but places restrictions on some portion of the funding, the restricted portion is counted as an earmark. Funding provisions that do not name grantee, but are so specific that only one grantee can qualify for funding. OMB has used this definition to gather data on earmarks internally. This definition is similar to the definition that the Congress recently developed for disclosing earmarks in spending legislation (H. Res. 6 and the Senate-passed version of S. 1). http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/earmarks/preview-public-site/definitions.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because this is his soap box. Facts don't matter. Just another fog horn making noise. Ok I'm going to give him one small piece of credit... there have been quite a few facts posted. It's just that he keeps trying to tell people that you can figure out what x + y = 100 without ever giving any values to x or y and just expecting us to take his word for it. I wouldn't take his word for it if he told me it was Tuesday at this point (and this is being written on Tuesday). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/earmarks/preview-public-site/definitions.html Ah!!! thank you for a proper quote from an authoritative source instead of some biased website that asserts things without giving proper evidence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
