satchelmcqueen
03-10-2009, 09:07 PM
So it just hit me.
for the last 2 years weve been told and had it played on the news networks that if someone ear marks something, then thats bad. the average person picks up on this and believes that all ear marks are bad, without ever understanding just what one really is.
ear marks are very good IMO, if they set aside money for needful things and not wasteful things. either way the money is gonna be spent, so getting portions of that money designated for the good is the way it should work...and hopefully not allowing anything left over to be squandered with no track record.
now fox news just attacked paul over the ear mark issue and called him a porker after months of praising him.
could it be that over the last 2 years, that washington WANTED the average person to think any and all earmarks are bad so that when they finally announced all of these big spending bills, they could just spend the money anyway they wanted without any oversight? Because after all, if money isnt ear marked (set aside) from the way i understand, then you really have no way of tracking where and how it was used.
hope that makes sense.
EDIT:
check paul explaining it for a better understanding of what im getting at.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fq_5H1XKVww
for the last 2 years weve been told and had it played on the news networks that if someone ear marks something, then thats bad. the average person picks up on this and believes that all ear marks are bad, without ever understanding just what one really is.
ear marks are very good IMO, if they set aside money for needful things and not wasteful things. either way the money is gonna be spent, so getting portions of that money designated for the good is the way it should work...and hopefully not allowing anything left over to be squandered with no track record.
now fox news just attacked paul over the ear mark issue and called him a porker after months of praising him.
could it be that over the last 2 years, that washington WANTED the average person to think any and all earmarks are bad so that when they finally announced all of these big spending bills, they could just spend the money anyway they wanted without any oversight? Because after all, if money isnt ear marked (set aside) from the way i understand, then you really have no way of tracking where and how it was used.
hope that makes sense.
EDIT:
check paul explaining it for a better understanding of what im getting at.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fq_5H1XKVww