Senate votes down ban on earmarks, 39-56

Discussion in 'The Refreshment Lounge' started by Blake Bowden, Nov 30, 2010.

  1. Blake Bowden

    Blake Bowden Administrator Staff Member

    5,682
    1,014
    113
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2010
  2. JTM

    JTM "Just in case" Premium Member

    2,353
    25
    38
    good. all money should be earmarked. that means less discretionary spending.

    it's the rules surrounding earmarks that need to be changed.
     
  3. Frater Cliff Porter

    Frater Cliff Porter Premium Member

    391
    30
    0
    Absolutes are rarely good. I am in Louisiana teaching law enforcement classes on earmark money. If the classes are canceled we will still have spent 100 million dollars to train Iraqi and Afgani police...but would have no money spend on American police and fire.

    I elect my politicians in hopes that they will use their brain. Stop BS spending, but spend on worthwhile causes regardless of the tagline we call the money...use your brain, stop waste. I find the idea of banning money spent on Americans as an "earmark" and spilling more money into the middle east and their cops and fire a little sad.
     

Share My Freemasonry