What is Digg?51 Comments
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -7/+35But..but..but..how could that be? Nancy said she was going to fix that!
- reflex768, on 10/11/2007, -2/+21As did Reid. My feeling is if they don't want to claim the money, they could always give it back to us, no? Just a thought.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15The senate is hiding money.
Bush has Iraq.
They both have the amnesty thing.
Is this some kind of race to see which one can get into the negative numbers first? - johndi, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12Because they don't want anyone to know. It is a secret conspiracy of the highest order. Well, it's either that or they thought it was obvious.
- postaldave, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11out with old and in with the old.
everyone is always tore up about who is president, it is those asshats in congress that are REALLY screwing the people. - fpcyber, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11Can I use tax money too?
- Authustian, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8In short; http://digg.com/how
/smart ass :) - stealthbomber, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6I wonder what happened to the Earmark Reform McCain pushed for? I guess nothing because, 283 million dollars went to the Milk Income Loss Contract! It is no coincidence that this contract was awarded to the Chairman of the appropriations committee
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8I want term limits on all of congress.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7This makes democrats look bad. Don't be surprised if the story is disappeared.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4so thats where i left my 7.5 billion can i have it back now plz kthkz
meet me by the bus stop at 2 AM - Briankb68, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4It makes both parties look bad.
- c0y0t3, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5I'll take my $25 in cash, please.
- moonshn, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Does it matter? We are all in this together; people are so busy trying to point fingers at the other side that we do nothing to fix the problems.
We need to stop worrying about which team is to blame and put people into power that will not tolerate this blatant abuse of OUR money. (Ron Paul 2008!!)
An interesting way to look at this is that if you are like most people you go in and do a 9-5 every day to make a living. The government then takes ~30%... not of your money per se, but hours of your life that you could have spent enjoying, and wastes them without remorse. - Gerz1219, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Oh, they should. They can deduct it from the $205 billion we owe this year.
- cquinnd, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6No, you can not has tax munny.
- goobershuckle, on 10/11/2007, -8/+11I'm not concerned with Earmarks as with the Socialist Wealth Redistribution Programs which dwarfs everything else. Socialism constitutes 70% of the Federal Budget.
- jjmckay, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Note to US taxpayers: S U C K E R S ! ! ! Roll over and take it in the ass like you always do! Mod me down because the truth hurts.
- LastVisibleDog, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Nice to see the Democrats are here to clean things up. This Democrat Congress may make history for going down the tubes that fastest. People it is time to wake up - hate Bush all you want but remember the Democrats are every bit is bad as the Republicans. We need change and the Democrat are far from change. A year ago nobody would have believe the brand-new Democrat congress would have a lower approval rating than the president.
- wishninja, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3money for nothing chicks for free
- Briankb68, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4It's not the amount; it's the attitude and culture of the politicians. If we aren't even allowed to know who added pork to a bill then how can we hold them responsible for it at election time.
- rcook18, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3money for nothing boys for free
- swanny89, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I'd say the military has welfare programs beat... http://www.thebudgetgraph.com/poster/
(not that I agree with the welfare state. Just wanted to point out that your a very wrong) - rcook18, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"Clearly popular with both parties still, lawmakers say earmarks are a key way to ensure that the money is being spent exactly how Congress sees fit."
What does this line from the article mean? - thcobbs, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2But then you eliminated the really GOOD congressmen from service after a few years.
I can't remember what pre-dark age republic did this, but it sounded like a good idea at the time.
Senators are chose for a term by random lot from eligible people(in this case... voter rolls). You serve for a set number of years and then your term is up. At the end of each term, the senate casts ballots of who was the worst senator and the "winner" was banned from service for 10 years.
Sounds like a good plan to me. - jason469, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Your tax money being well spent?
- maestroh, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Story 1 - "An Embarrassment of Earmarks: $7.5 Billion Unclaimed"
Story 2 - "Elderly Couple Could Lose Home Over $1.63 Tax Bill!"
Yeah, this is certainly the america our founding fathers envisioned - monknj80, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Nope, Try again. Try harder this time. (Hint: Military industrial complex)
- WilliamDavis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2It means Bend Over and Like It.
- fakkedap, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Nancy Pelosi is a ***** liar.
- JebBlack, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2It's great to see politicians handling our money so well.lmao
- InfidelAl, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I dugg your comment Moonshn, but is the Ron Paul addition really necessary?
- thcobbs, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Even more reason for the story to be suicided.
- joebob, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Better idea, lets improve the electoral process (thinks like reliable, reusable voting systems with optional electronic balloting) to keep up with the times. Switch all federal representative (maybe state?) positions to yearly elections. (I wouldn't mind serious changes to campaign finance rules as well, but that can remain optional)
Kill two Bushes... er I mean birds with one stone. - WilliamDavis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"On the first day of the new Congress, the House passed new rules to identify all members who sponsored earmarks in authorization, appropriations and tax bills, requiring each member to submit a justification of the request and a statement certifying neither they nor their spouses would benefit financially."
Shouldn't that go without saying? No wonder this legislation stalled in the senate. These people really are crooks. - joebob, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"although yearly elections might be tough and create a much stronger bureaucracy" How so?
Considering the technological state of the country when it was first formed, I don't see anything that would be difficult on it's face. Bureaucracy will always be a factor where standards across a diverse area are required, streamlining the voting system itself could potentially take care of this. (think of say implementing a voting subsystem in every ATM in the country, activated once a year)
I would far prefer additional elections in that it promotes the idea that citizens should be accustomed to staying involved in being politically aware instead of the hoopla created every few years as current. Also it reinforces the concept that the power is granted from the people on a continuing permissive basis. Should the people desire different leadership it would be the normal course of business to have them replaced on a more regular basis. - thcobbs, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Look at Clinton.... even the chicks aren't free any more.
- Lrn2Fish, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0There needs to be like a Content Management System for our government. These people, these politicians....When they go into office they become cogs in the machine constructed to form our own little matrix to live in. Unlike the movie, our machine was put in place to Serve the People. Now as these cogs are human and not machine, they sometimes serve their own needs. Once we begin to treat the government system as a machine, their ability to do this will disappear.
A complex machine has many diagnostic tools available to give you quantitative results of what the machine is doing. full disclosure of all Senate earmarks languishes would be a great diagnostic. It must also be mandatory. The machine uses our tax money, we need to know where that tax money is being directed and why. We deserve to know. It serves us.
Any unclaimed projects should be canceled. No punishment, just canceled. They are throwing up flags with the earmark diagnostics and should be terminated.
Transparency. transparency, transparency. At least its starting. - Lrn2Fish, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0There needs to be like a Content Management System for our government. These people, these politicians....When they go into office they become cogs in the machine constructed to form our own little matrix to live in. Unlike the movie, our machine was put in place to Serve the People. Now as these cogs are human and not machine, they sometimes serve their own needs. Once we begin to treat the government system as a machine, their ability to do this will disappear.
A complex machine has many diagnostic tools available to give you quantitative results of what the machine is doing. full disclosure of all Senate earmarks languishes would be a great diagnostic. It must also be mandatory. The machine uses our tax money, we need to know where that tax money is being directed and why. We deserve to know. It serves us.
Any unclaimed projects should be canceled. No punishment, just canceled. They are throwing up flags with the earmark diagnostics and should be terminated.
Transparency. transparency, transparency. At least its starting. - Masefield, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Sorry, I should have explained myself. I wasn't writing about the technological aspect. People already show an indifference to candidates because of perpetual campaigns. My fear is that a yearly election would increase this. In regard to bureaucracy, look at the number of career staff. They've been there so long that the elected officials, for the most part, value and defer to their institutional knowledge because "that's the way it's done." And it's damn tough for a reformer to remove them because of the civil service system's protections. Some legislators are fighting this battle in our state right now.
- shawnolds, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Nancy Pelosi is in the House not the Senate. It's not Reid's fault either. It's the Appropriations Committee in the Senate that your anger should be directed at.
- goobershuckle, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3Yeah you Digg Pinko Commies............70% of Federal Spending is 'Direct Payments to Individuals'. ***** You and ***** Socialism!
- thefaithful, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Even beyond who has approved or asked for these appropriations is the question of who is getting the money and why do they feel entitled to it?
We all know politicians aren't out for the greater good of the nation. They are in the pocket of their constituents and campaign contributors.
You have legislatures pressuring their state's congressional representatives to send money back home. You have corporations lobbying for federal money. And you have many, many individuals with a sense of entitlement that the federal government is their personal atm.
If citizens, businesses and states would stop looking to the federal government for handouts things would end up being a lot better.
States' rights and powers went out the door the minute they started depending on federal money. - Masefield, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Agreed, although yearly elections might be tough and create a much stronger bureaucracy. I would suggest an enhanced recall system coupled with some mechanism to clean out the bureaucrats. In regard to campaign finance, I would eliminate all contributions (individual, self, and PAC) and have straight publicly funded campaigns.
- siszam, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1They could join the rest of the western nations and give us fully tax funded, universal healthcare........but that would be too decent and logical of them.
- mcelreb, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1How much of that is Republican pork and how much is Democrat? The Republicans must be going through withdrawal with all the hundreds of billions they've been bilking the American taxpayer for the last six years. I can't believe they've given it up cold turkey. And why won't the Republicans give the Dems a vote Bush can't veto? When they say the American voter is mad at the Senate it's not just at the Democrats. The Republicans are going to pay a heavy price for only letting the Democrats rearrange the chairs on the Titanic.
- Gerz1219, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm
- flowaus, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rhetorical
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -8/+2Why doesn't this article state what country it refers to?
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -9/+3I didn't mention Reid because I don't speak ill of the dead.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is