newsobserver.com projects - earmarks - Comments

Re: Roche questions spending

Prn13Norm — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 12:50:00 -0400

Why has the story about the fired employee from the state treasure's office making $340,000 a year plus perhaps another $50,000 in bonuses been ignored by the N&O? Her salary was doubled by Richard Moore in one year. This seems much more corrupt than Mary Easley's salary!

Re: Roche questions spending

beblunt — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 19:10:08 -0400

It is clear that Mr. Price's interest does not align with the taxpayer's he represents. He is more than willing to fund his pet projects with taxpayer money as well as fund unscrupulous programs, such as ACORN,at his constituents expense.
I know how I will vote in 2010....

Re: Roche questions spending

Rellac — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 05:51:05 -0400

And once again - another story of irresponsible oversight.

Re: Soldier program wastes federal money

PaulTerrell — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 17:54:06 -0400

IF? Come on congressman Price-D, aren't you the one that voted to continue funding of ACORN? Sir, we all know you do not run your own household this incompently. Every I look I see payoffs and sweet retirement jobs for Democratic syncophants.

Re: Roche questions spending

PaulTerrell — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 17:47:15 -0400

Congressman Price-(Democrat) voted to continue funding of ACORN. You know that group that is under many different investigations. And that includes more than a couple employees telling someone how to set up brothels and IRS tax avoidance. The old saying of finding one but know 15 more are out there should put us all on alert.

Re: N.C. earmarks total $2.2 billion

MrSenenenm — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 10:19:01 -0400

Foxx is proud to keep her district an underfunded backwater.

Burr voted FOR Bank Bailout

Gosh — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:23:19 -0400

Senator Burr represents the entire state of North Carolina - not just a meager district.

Maybe that's why Burr voted FOR the $700 billion to $4 trillion bailout of banks like Charlotte's BOA.

In fact, he's the only NC Senator contested in 2010 that did.

Wasn't that the point of your little tea party? Opposing Senators like Bank Run Bailout Burr?

Re: N.C. received $216m in earmarks in '08

CitizenOpinionated — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:05:39 -0400

Senator Burr represents the entire state of North Carolina - not just a meager district. All of representatives combined make Burr's request look small - similar to the drop in the bucket of Obama asking his Cabinet to cut ONLY $100 million from their bureaucratic budget!

Rep. David Price: 51, $56.8 million

Rep. Robin Hayes: 44, $48.6 million

Rep. Bob Etheridge: 29, $38.3 million

Rep. Mike McIntyre: 31, $37.9 million

Rep. Heath Shuler: 30, $28.8 million

Rep. Mel Watt: 28, $28.5 million

Rep. Sue Myrick: 13, $20.9 million

Rep. Walter Jones: 12, $20.3 million

Rep. Howard Coble: 15, $17.2 million

Rep. Patrick McHenry: 10, $16.8 million

Rep. G.K. Butterfield: 17, $14.4 million

Rep. Brad Miller: 14, $12.7 million

Rep. Virginia Foxx: 10, $12.4 million

Burr tops remaining earmarkers in NC

Gosh — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 15:51:03 -0400

Just a friendly reminder for teh "non-partisan" teabaggers.

Re: N.C. received $216m in earmarks in '08

dahedgehog — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 11:37:01 -0400

RTB,
You might want to explain to readers that earmarks do not add to the size of the budget. Instead, they are decisions on how the budget is divided. They don't increase the size of the pie...they just specify which slice goes where.

Judging from the comments section, few of your readers understand this concept. Please inform them.

Thanks Kay Hagan and your racist husband

CitizenOpinionated — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 11:11:58 -0400

http://greensboro.rhinotimes.com/Articles-i-2009-04-16-193985.112113_Hagan_Suing_Water_Authority.html

Re: Jones got $20m in earmarks in '08

dahedgehog — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 21:54:29 -0400

Just a reminder, earmarks don't cost money. You really should make sure your readers understand this point.

Re: Price: One percent of spending

dahedgehog — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 07:15:04 -0400

RTB,
You might also want to explain to your readers that earmarks do not add to the budget. Earmarks are not an increase in expenditures. Instead, an earmark is saying "of the amount of money we have to spend on universities, I'm going to make sure that $10 million goes to my alma mater."

Earmarks are simply a way of dividing the pie. They don't make the pie bigger.

Re: Price: One percent of spending

tangoz — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 20:34:43 -0400

1% of my money is a LOT of money too me. Man talk about the rich! There are more rivh Democrats in NC than Republicans. Please keep bashing!

Re: N.C. received $216m in earmarks in '08

Gosh — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:24:57 -0400

Apparently these federal politicians do not know that the federal government is spending ALOT more money than it is taking in. I wonder if I can do this?

Actually, you can. It's called a C-R-E-D-I-T _ C-A-R-D and our federal Government has used that concept for years to allow you to pay for all those roads you drive on, water you drink, and big buildings you drop your spoiled brats off at every morning.

But here's the REAL DEAL. You have to pay for that. Once a year like clockwork. It's called TAX DAY. You may refer to your monthly balance paying off wings at Hooters differently, but in AMERICA this once a year ritual to participate in the Greatest Nation on Earth is called April 15th.

Your basic cable channel coverage may vary.