What's another $410 Billion between friends

trrenter_IHB

trrenter_IHB

New member
<strong><blockquote>After persuading lawmakers to keep earmarks off the stimulus bill, Obama made no such attempt on the first non-emergency spending measure of his presidency. The result was that lawmakers claimed billions in federal funds for pet projects ? a total of 8,570 earmarks at a cost of $7.7 billion, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense. Majority Democrats declined to provide a number of earmarks, but said the cost was far smaller, $3.8 billion, 5 percent less than a year ago.</blockquote></strong>



<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090225/ap_on_go_co/congress_spending">410 Billion Dollars</a>



So much for Change........ 7.7 billion Dollars in earmarks.
 
[quote author="trrenter" date=1235722344]<strong><blockquote>After persuading lawmakers to keep earmarks off the stimulus bill, Obama made no such attempt on the first non-emergency spending measure of his presidency. The result was that lawmakers claimed billions in federal funds for pet projects ? a total of 8,570 earmarks at a cost of $7.7 billion, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense. Majority Democrats declined to provide a number of earmarks, but said the cost was far smaller, $3.8 billion, 5 percent less than a year ago.</blockquote></strong>



<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090225/ap_on_go_co/congress_spending">410 Billion Dollars</a>



So much for Change........ 7.7 billion Dollars in earmarks.</blockquote>


Are you trying to imply that <a href="http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/chat/id/1175/">tattoo removal</a> isn't a legitimate federal expenditure?
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1235730835][quote author="trrenter" date=1235722344]<strong><blockquote>After persuading lawmakers to keep earmarks off the stimulus bill, Obama made no such attempt on the first non-emergency spending measure of his presidency. The result was that lawmakers claimed billions in federal funds for pet projects ? a total of 8,570 earmarks at a cost of $7.7 billion, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense. Majority Democrats declined to provide a number of earmarks, but said the cost was far smaller, $3.8 billion, 5 percent less than a year ago.</blockquote></strong>



<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090225/ap_on_go_co/congress_spending">410 Billion Dollars</a>



So much for Change........ 7.7 billion Dollars in earmarks.</blockquote>


Are you trying to imply that <a href="http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/chat/id/1175/">tattoo removal</a> isn't a legitimate federal expenditure?</blockquote>


"Among the earmarks was one sponsored by Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., who secured $200,000 for a "tattoo removal violence outreach program" in Los Angeles. Aides said the money would pay for a tattoo removal machine that could help gang members or others shed visible signs of their past, and anyone benefiting would be required to perform community service."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top