|
Post by SpringSummers on May 22, 2008 9:10:57 GMT -5
Onjie: Here is what I found on this: Earmarks for 2008 are projected to be just one half of one percent of the budget – hardly a significant item overall. Of course, the last half of the sentence is editorializing, but I tend to agree. Source is this article: DMI on the 2008 State of the Union: Budget Thanks for the link and the info. It spurred me to look more deeply into this issue to remove my visceral reaction. I did a little additional research on it and you are right that the percentage of any given budget is deceptively small. ;D However, it's not budget percentage, per se, about which I'm incensed. It's the spending on nonsense, to the tune of more than $17 billion dollars this year and $29 billion in 2006, to which I'm objecting. Just to put it in perspective, 1 billion seconds equals just under 32 years. So, 1 billion seconds ago the year was 1976, roughly. 17 billion dollars/seconds ago the year was roughly 1467. That's a lot of money. And, a billion here, a billion there adds up over time. So, while the absolute percentage of the overall budge for a given year may seem insignificant, the aggregate amount of money spent on earmarks over even a decade is very large. I find that this site has a pretty comprehensive summary of what earmarks are used for and while the percentage of a given overall budget may not be significant, it's still wasteful and unnecessary, increasing deficits by that much more. That is what I object to. Rubber stamping bills with earmarks disregards the system of checks and balances the Constitution was supposed to guarantee. I find that irritating. Oh, I agree it is irritating and it "shouldn't be that way" . . . I'm not sure, though, that . . . how to put it . . . it's reasonable to expect it to work any other way, or that any possible solutions wouldn't be MORE expensive, or cause more problems - in the sense of paralyzing the process. The earmark system is something that has arisen through long experience on "how to keep the process moving," and I have some respect for that, if you know what I mean. You definitely don't want to toss it aside without some very serious thinking about negative consequences you might expect, and how you will deal with those consequences. For example, what WILL you do when Senators so-and-so refuse to even consider the bill without their pork? Not saying I have an answer, not saying the earmarks aren't irritating for the very reason you say. Saying I'm not sure there is a better answer, human nature being what it is.
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on May 22, 2008 9:19:58 GMT -5
Thanks for the link and the info. It spurred me to look more deeply into this issue to remove my visceral reaction. I did a little additional research on it and you are right that the percentage of any given budget is deceptively small. ;D However, it's not budget percentage, per se, about which I'm incensed. It's the spending on nonsense, to the tune of more than $17 billion dollars this year and $29 billion in 2006, to which I'm objecting. Just to put it in perspective, 1 billion seconds equals just under 32 years. So, 1 billion seconds ago the year was 1976, roughly. 17 billion dollars/seconds ago the year was roughly 1467. That's a lot of money. And, a billion here, a billion there adds up over time. So, while the absolute percentage of the overall budge for a given year may seem insignificant, the aggregate amount of money spent on earmarks over even a decade is very large. I find that this site has a pretty comprehensive summary of what earmarks are used for and while the percentage of a given overall budget may not be significant, it's still wasteful and unnecessary, increasing deficits by that much more. That is what I object to. Rubber stamping bills with earmarks disregards the system of checks and balances the Constitution was supposed to guarantee. I find that irritating. Oh, I agree it is irritating and it "shouldn't be that way" . . . I'm not sure, though, that . . . how to put it . . . it's reasonable to expect it to work any other way, or that any possible solutions wouldn't be MORE expensive, or cause more problems - in the sense of paralyzing the process. The earmark system is something that has arisen through long experience on "how to keep the process moving," and I have some respect for that, if you know what I mean. You definitely don't want to toss it aside without some very serious thinking about negative consequences you might expect, and how you will deal with those consequences. For example, what WILL you do when Senators so-and-so refuse to even consider the bill without their pork? Not saying I have an answer, not saying the earmarks aren't irritating for the very reason you say. Saying I'm not sure there is a better answer, human nature being what it is. Oh, I get that. Really. It's what appalls me the most, point in fact. ;D I guess I expected that being a member of Congress should mean enough and being a servant of "The People" should be enough, to enable the human beings serving to rise above their own egos and desire to "be re-elected at any cost" and do what is right for the Country as a whole and not just their own corner of it. It's how it should be. Many porky items are things that should be addressed locally. The Federal Government cannot and should not pay for every single thing. Otherwise, you undermine the power of the States and invest it all in a central government. IMO, that way lies danger.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on May 22, 2008 14:17:39 GMT -5
Oh, I agree it is irritating and it "shouldn't be that way" . . . I'm not sure, though, that . . . how to put it . . . it's reasonable to expect it to work any other way, or that any possible solutions wouldn't be MORE expensive, or cause more problems - in the sense of paralyzing the process. The earmark system is something that has arisen through long experience on "how to keep the process moving," and I have some respect for that, if you know what I mean. You definitely don't want to toss it aside without some very serious thinking about negative consequences you might expect, and how you will deal with those consequences. For example, what WILL you do when Senators so-and-so refuse to even consider the bill without their pork? Not saying I have an answer, not saying the earmarks aren't irritating for the very reason you say. Saying I'm not sure there is a better answer, human nature being what it is. Oh, I get that. Really. It's what appalls me the most, point in fact. ;D I guess I expected that being a member of Congress should mean enough and being a servant of "The People" should be enough, to enable the human beings serving to rise above their own egos and desire to "be re-elected at any cost" and do what is right for the Country as a whole and not just their own corner of it. It's how it should be. Many porky items are things that should be addressed locally. The Federal Government cannot and should not pay for every single thing. Otherwise, you undermine the power of the States and invest it all in a central government. IMO, that way lies danger. Yes, all good points, and I agree with all of them. I think we basically have the same opinion on this . . . that is, we have the same opinion on "how it should be," and agree that perhaps, "how it should be" does not equate to "how it best CAN be." IMO, it's not so much about what's inherent in human nature, but it's about what's almost certain to be inherent in the nature of SOME of those who are attracted to politics, and who manage to get elected. And the process has to take that into account. Earmarks may be a fairly cheap and simple and practical way to deal with a fact that is not going to go away. I use a lot of "mays" and "mights" because I've done no study, or reading on this. I'm just going by my experience dealing with University politics - and I know that the comparison probably has it's flaws. I deal with trying to make projects happen, trying to make change happen, with faculty and administration breathing down my neck. They are different animals, but both with certain "difficult types" that are going to be present, always. So as much as you hate to do it, you have to make concessions to . . . how to put it . . . the darker angels of their nature, if you want to get ANYTHING to move. The best you can do is seek ways to minimize the unappetizing concessions you must make. Earmarks? Might already be minimal. And may I add: You are good and fun to converse with.
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on May 22, 2008 20:49:51 GMT -5
Oh, I get that. Really. It's what appalls me the most, point in fact. ;D I guess I expected that being a member of Congress should mean enough and being a servant of "The People" should be enough, to enable the human beings serving to rise above their own egos and desire to "be re-elected at any cost" and do what is right for the Country as a whole and not just their own corner of it. It's how it should be. Many porky items are things that should be addressed locally. The Federal Government cannot and should not pay for every single thing. Otherwise, you undermine the power of the States and invest it all in a central government. IMO, that way lies danger. Yes, all good points, and I agree with all of them. I think we basically have the same opinion on this . . . that is, we have the same opinion on "how it should be," and agree that perhaps, "how it should be" does not equate to "how it best CAN be." IMO, it's not so much about what's inherent in human nature, but it's about what's almost certain to be inherent in the nature of SOME of those who are attracted to politics, and who manage to get elected. And the process has to take that into account.Earmarks may be a fairly cheap and simple and practical way to deal with a fact that is not going to go away. I use a lot of "mays" and "mights" because I've done no study, or reading on this. I'm just going by my experience dealing with University politics - and I know that the comparison probably has it's flaws.I deal with trying to make projects happen, trying to make change happen, with faculty and administration breathing down my neck. They are different animals, but both with certain "difficult types" that are going to be present, always. So as much as you hate to do it, you have to make concessions to . . . how to put it . . . the darker angels of their nature, if you want to get ANYTHING to move. The best you can do is seek ways to minimize the unappetizing concessions you must make. Earmarks? Might already be minimal. And may I add: You are good and fun to converse with. We do. I'm just too stubborn to give up my hope that it can change and still work. Oh, absolutely agree with this! I just don't want it to take us too far from the Constitution. Tol' ya I'm stubborn. I've done reading and some study, but haven't had the real life experience with a parallel situation like you have. We're a good match. Maybe we should run the country! ;DThank you! So are you.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on May 23, 2008 7:06:20 GMT -5
Yes, all good points, and I agree with all of them. I think we basically have the same opinion on this . . . that is, we have the same opinion on "how it should be," and agree that perhaps, "how it should be" does not equate to "how it best CAN be." IMO, it's not so much about what's inherent in human nature, but it's about what's almost certain to be inherent in the nature of SOME of those who are attracted to politics, and who manage to get elected. And the process has to take that into account.Earmarks may be a fairly cheap and simple and practical way to deal with a fact that is not going to go away. I use a lot of "mays" and "mights" because I've done no study, or reading on this. I'm just going by my experience dealing with University politics - and I know that the comparison probably has it's flaws.I deal with trying to make projects happen, trying to make change happen, with faculty and administration breathing down my neck. They are different animals, but both with certain "difficult types" that are going to be present, always. So as much as you hate to do it, you have to make concessions to . . . how to put it . . . the darker angels of their nature, if you want to get ANYTHING to move. The best you can do is seek ways to minimize the unappetizing concessions you must make. Earmarks? Might already be minimal. And may I add: You are good and fun to converse with. We do. I'm just too stubborn to give up my hope that it can change and still work. Oh, absolutely agree with this! I just don't want it to take us too far from the Constitution. Tol' ya I'm stubborn. I've done reading and some study, but haven't had the real life experience with a parallel situation like you have. We're a good match. Maybe we should run the country! ;DThank you! So are you. Yes, we are an excellent combo of "practical, yet hopeful!" Do you want to be first on the ticket, or second?
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on May 23, 2008 14:57:34 GMT -5
Yes, we are an excellent combo of "practical, yet hopeful!" Do you want to be first on the ticket, or second? It's not a matter of want, exactly. But, as the hopeful, maybe I should be the front "guy" and you can be the practical get things done person that doesn't let the public know how misguided I really am. ;D We can do that coextensively, right?
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on May 23, 2008 15:11:28 GMT -5
Yes, we are an excellent combo of "practical, yet hopeful!" Do you want to be first on the ticket, or second? It's not a matter of want, exactly. But, as the hopeful, maybe I should be the front "guy" and you can be the practical get things done person that doesn't let the public know how misguided I really am. ;D We can do that coextensively, right? So - you're saying . . . I get to be the Dick Cheney?
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on May 23, 2008 16:18:35 GMT -5
It's not a matter of want, exactly. But, as the hopeful, maybe I should be the front "guy" and you can be the practical get things done person that doesn't let the public know how misguided I really am. ;D We can do that coextensively, right? So - you're saying . . . I get to be the Dick Cheney?
|
|
|
Post by Sue on May 23, 2008 16:47:50 GMT -5
It's not a matter of want, exactly. But, as the hopeful, maybe I should be the front "guy" and you can be the practical get things done person that doesn't let the public know how misguided I really am. ;D We can do that coextensively, right? So - you're saying . . . I get to be the Dick Cheney? It's not so much a question of "get to be" as it's been predestined for all time.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Jun 3, 2008 9:22:57 GMT -5
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080603/ap_on_re_eu/un_food_crisisSo, when is the focus going to turn from (or in addition to) climate change to overpopulation. Overpopulation. The root of many, many, many other social, political, economic problems. And fraught with numerous social and political pitfalls. But, really, if we don't address it now........... Where is the outcry?
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Jun 3, 2008 11:09:01 GMT -5
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080603/ap_on_re_eu/un_food_crisisSo, when is the focus going to turn from (or in addition to) climate change to overpopulation. Overpopulation. The root of many, many, many other social, political, economic problems. And fraught with numerous social and political pitfalls. But, really, if we don't address it now........... Where is the outcry? I think there's been a lot of discussion about the overpopulation problem. Unlike climate change, however, nearly everyone agrees that it's happening and that it will negatively affect us, so there's no ongoing controversy that the media can sensationalize. Also, whereas the US and other industrialized countries are the contributers to the problem of climate change, most of the population increase is happening in developing countries. The US's population growth is pretty small and most of it is due to immigration, not birth rate; there are even countries in Europe that have a negative population rate. So while there is a lot we can do in the West to try to mitigate climate change, there's not much we can directly do to address the problem. Addressing the problem, as you point out, if fraught with social and political problems. Legislation like China's One Child Policy, disrupts demographics in troubling ways and can be evaded. Culture has to change for the population truly to level off in a stable ways, which is what happened in the West during the Industrial Revolution and will in Developing Countries given time. The other problem is that because of population momentum, the population will continue to grow for a while even when the birth rate reaches replacement rate. So most discussion of the problem centers on projecting when the population will stabilize and what the ultimate population will be, and whether that exceeds the carrying capacity of the Earth is. There are also indirect ways to try to mitigate the problem like helping improve the education of women (which is one of the single most effective ways of lowering birthrate) worldwide. Because otherwise, you start getting into issues of controlling women's reproduction and the sanctity of life as well as rascist undertones of the West issuing policy to the Developing World.
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Jun 5, 2008 17:35:36 GMT -5
So, I was curious as to Hillary's reaction to last night's declaration of Barack Obama as the presumptive nominee, and read the letter she posted re her upcoming announcement of throwing her support behind Obama.
And then I read the comments section. Bad idea. Several posts in all caps, several people accusing Obama of arrogance, of being a "secret Muslim," hating Hillary, and doing everything in his power to destroy her. Several then proclaimed their support for McCain (arguing he'd be a "one-termer" and therefore Hillary could run again in 2012).
As someone who has been an Obama supporter from the start, as well as not being in the States (and TV-less), can I ask where all this vitriol is coming from? I'm really confused. I mean, the candidate I initially back almost never gets the nomination, and I don't declare: "Well, Howard Dean is out and Kerry has the nomination! Screw him! I'm voting for Bush!"
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Jun 5, 2008 18:12:30 GMT -5
So, I was curious as to Hillary's reaction to last night's declaration of Barack Obama as the presumptive nominee, and read the letter she posted re her upcoming announcement of throwing her support behind Obama. And then I read the comments section. Bad idea. Several posts in all caps, several people accusing Obama of arrogance, of being a "secret Muslim," hating Hillary, and doing everything in his power to destroy her. Several then proclaimed their support for McCain (arguing he'd be a "one-termer" and therefore Hillary could run again in 2012). As someone who has been an Obama supporter from the start, as well as not being in the States (and TV-less), can I ask where all this vitriol is coming from? I'm really confused. I mean, the candidate I initially back almost never gets the nomination, and I don't declare: "Well, Howard Dean is out and Kerry has the nomination! Screw him! I'm voting for Bush!" I honestly have NO idea. I do know that the folks who post in comments sections on blogs are the most vitriolic people I think I've ever seen, so it's not really a representative sample. There is a vocal minority of Hilary supporters planning to vote McCain, which flummoxes me, since there's a gulf bigger than the Grand Canyon between McCain and Clinton. I don't know what's wrong with those people, but for now, I'm putting it down to sour grapes. I suspect most of them will come around.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Jun 6, 2008 7:01:48 GMT -5
So, I was curious as to Hillary's reaction to last night's declaration of Barack Obama as the presumptive nominee, and read the letter she posted re her upcoming announcement of throwing her support behind Obama. And then I read the comments section. Bad idea. Several posts in all caps, several people accusing Obama of arrogance, of being a "secret Muslim," hating Hillary, and doing everything in his power to destroy her. Several then proclaimed their support for McCain (arguing he'd be a "one-termer" and therefore Hillary could run again in 2012). As someone who has been an Obama supporter from the start, as well as not being in the States (and TV-less), can I ask where all this vitriol is coming from? I'm really confused. I mean, the candidate I initially back almost never gets the nomination, and I don't declare: "Well, Howard Dean is out and Kerry has the nomination! Screw him! I'm voting for Bush!" I honestly have NO idea. I do know that the folks who post in comments sections on blogs are the most vitriolic people I think I've ever seen, so it's not really a representative sample. There is a vocal minority of Hilary supporters planning to vote McCain, which flummoxes me, since there's a gulf bigger than the Grand Canyon between McCain and Clinton. I don't know what's wrong with those people, but for now, I'm putting it down to sour grapes. I suspect most of them will come around. I can see why some people who supported Clinton might decide to vote for McCain; it depends on what qualities one is looking for in a candidate. But it sounds like this vocal minority is doing it more out of spite than anything.
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Jun 6, 2008 12:23:14 GMT -5
So, I was curious as to Hillary's reaction to last night's declaration of Barack Obama as the presumptive nominee, and read the letter she posted re her upcoming announcement of throwing her support behind Obama. And then I read the comments section. Bad idea. Several posts in all caps, several people accusing Obama of arrogance, of being a "secret Muslim," hating Hillary, and doing everything in his power to destroy her. Several then proclaimed their support for McCain (arguing he'd be a "one-termer" and therefore Hillary could run again in 2012). As someone who has been an Obama supporter from the start, as well as not being in the States (and TV-less), can I ask where all this vitriol is coming from? I'm really confused. I mean, the candidate I initially back almost never gets the nomination, and I don't declare: "Well, Howard Dean is out and Kerry has the nomination! Screw him! I'm voting for Bush!" I honestly have NO idea. I do know that the folks who post in comments sections on blogs are the most vitriolic people I think I've ever seen, so it's not really a representative sample. There is a vocal minority of Hilary supporters planning to vote McCain, which flummoxes me, since there's a gulf bigger than the Grand Canyon between McCain and Clinton. I don't know what's wrong with those people, but for now, I'm putting it down to sour grapes. I suspect most of them will come around. I put much of it down to the reason all sane folks have a "don't ever read the comments" philosophy virtually everywhere. Trolls! The world is full of so very very very many trolls . . . I mean, never look at the comments on YouTube, for example. Never!! You'll be watching some amuzing otter swimming about or perhaps groovin' to some rockin' ska tune and then you foolishly let your eyes drift downward and it's all "usuxx" and "thisRsoGay" and "gosee mi vid is beetter try hotgirlz3433 iz rulz" and you end up wanting to stab the entire internet with a giant spork to let the stupid run out the bottom.
|
|