You're right. You don't get it.

"It is that no one who's running our government (from either party) seems to care whether we can pay for the bills they create or not."

That is simply not true.

This….

"King would have made the same statements if a Republican president and congress were screwing American citizens like this. It's an attack on irresponsible policy. The fact that Obama and his crew are Democrats is merely coincidental."

"irresponsible behavior", as Obama pointed out, would be doing nothing while 700,000 jobs are being lost every month and virtually all corporate and industrial indicators are pegged on depression.

"screwing" the population, you know, kind of like Katrina, would be if elected officials did nothing in the nation's time of need.

When government actually spends money, the economy is stimulated. Just the way it is.

And once more, who would like to answer my question? The one about why it is that a less-than-1%-of-the-budget earmarks issue has become such an emotionally charged topic. I mean, honest to goodness cross my heart, I don't get it.

Good question. We haven't reached the limits of our stupidity yet, and the country is on a direct path to bankruptcy. Sometimes I think it will take an economic nuclear blast to wake this country up. Based on Obama's actions so far, it appears he will provide one.

My list of pork projects barely scratched the surface of all the pork attached to this bill. I chose a few at random. I could have listed 500 more. You missed the point.

But I'm sure it was vitally important to spend $41 million for those presidential libraries. This is the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, you know. And those libraries create a few jobs.

So, you're saying that, since the Republican president didn't want to approve of this kind of spending, the Democrats waited until they had a president who would sign this kind of budget, a Democratic president? You sound like you're rooting for the Republicans.

I think that you're missing the point of this blog entry. It is that no one who's running our government (from either party) seems to care whether we can pay for the bills they create or not. Those that do from either party are clearly in the minority. I think that Da King would have made the same statements if a Republican president and congress were screwing American citizens like this. It's an attack on irresponsible policy. The fact that Obama and his crew are Democrats is merely coincidental.

And Reverend, how can you call my post "fact-free" when it consisted almost entirely of the actual FACTS ? Never mind. Look who I'm talking to.

One….If you research this spending bill, I believe you will find that it's left over from the last administration, who didn't want to pass it because….well…they had already doubled the debt in 8 years and handed out $700 billion to rich bankers.

Two….it seems like no matter the basic insignificance of earmarks to the larger picture….fiscal scolds, like King, still raise their voices to a fever pitch.
The fact is that the earmarks in this funding bill equal less than 1% of the total bill.

I mean, honestly, why get sidetracked by such trivial things? Representatives go to D.C. to help their constituencies, and as long as the less-than-1% earmarks are transparent….what difference does any of this make?

It seems to me that obstructionist, basically fact-free conservative scolds, want to make earmarks appear crooked, dirty, criminal…..when that's not the case at all.

Excellent post; thanks for finally mentioning the republican hypocrisy on this issue. I will say, I like blueberries…………..