Except in the process you don't tack on earmarks here. As far as I can remember, appropriations can be done in committee, on the floor or in conference report. Most appropriations would be done in the conference committee reports.
Earmarks are usually done during conference committee and in appropriation bills. Like the Defense Approp, or Housing, Labor etc. Most earmarks are found in the Appropriation bills appropriate funds for the Federal Government.
I could be dead wrong but you will not find appropriations in the bill write-up. And I'm less sure but I still think earmarks wouldn't be seen until the House and Senate version of this bill are passed and a conference committee is set-up to work out the differences, should there be any.
[url=http://sensiblecoasters.wordpress.com/][b]Sensible Coasters - A critique of sports games, reviews, gaming sites and news. Questionably Proofread![/b][/url]
"Princeton economists review recent events on Wall Street and assess the implications for the economy and public policy.
Panelists: Hyun Shin, Professor of Economics and associate chair of the Department of Economics; Markus Brunnermeier, Professor of Economics;
Harrison Hong, Professor in Finance;
Paul Krugman, professor of economics and international affairs; Alan Blinder, Professor of Economics and Public Affairs and co‐director of the Center for Economic Policy Studies."
wco81 wrote:Saw that one of the provisions of the Senate bailout bill, which they will vote on tomorrow night, is to increase the FDIC limit from $100k to $250k.
Not a boon for that many individuals but it's suppose to help small businesses.
There is NOTHING in this bailout that will help everyday, middle class individuals. Nothing that will lower gas prices, help us with healthcare or
help us pay our mortgages. The only people this bailout will only help is the rich, corporate banks and the shareholder of elite corporate America that created this mess. They are creating this panic situation to rush this bill through and we will be paying for it for years afterwards. Why should we believe an administration that has lied to us for 8 years now? Paulson can't even validate how he came up with the $700 Billion amount he asked for.
wco81 wrote:It may not be so much about helping this or that class so much as not harming any class.
It's about keeping the status quo of corporate America controlling Washington, which last time I looked didn't benefit the middle class.
Sorry to sound so negative, but I just don't trust the govt anytime they insist on rushing something through. We've been lied to before, why should we believe them now? They are using this tactic of creating fear and confusion again and everyone is just going along with it without questioning. Why isn't the media questioning things more? Didn't they learn their lesson with the Iraq War leadup?
Well we could let all these institutions fail. Then we won't have the corporations controlling America. But you could look at the Princeton panel discussion linked above and see how much Wall Street owned American assets.
You can punish these firms, let them fail (that is the argument of the House Republicans, with their market fundamentalism). But they will take down a lot with them.
They're too big to fail and now with bank failures and forced buyouts under distress, they're going to be even bigger.
As for corporate control, they're always going to have influence. This is the result of developments which took several decades.
They will always have better access to power. Clinton took money from big businesses and so has Obama. Just like the Republicans.
Maybe not as much but still substantial sums.
Yet, if you can't see there was a qualitative difference between how corporatist the Bush admin. has been compared to Clinton, then you might as well be a Naderite and vote for an independent and hand the election to the Republicans again.
bdunn13 wrote:Not that they care, but I just informed both of my Senators that they lost my vote. I look forward to the day both of them leave office.
I'll have to look and make sure, but my two senators declared that they would vote against this bill. If they did, then good for them. They'll be back in the senate after the next round of elections...if I have anything to do with it.
