Emmanuel "Earmark" Cleaver

Cleaver voted No the first time on the economic Stimulus bill. I called his office and was told that he was voting no because it wasn't good for his constituents. When I called back to ask him to vote no again on the second one they took my name and number and gave me no answer.

I found out later her voted yes.

So why did he think it was bad for us with less earmarks and tax credits? But better for us after? I think he knew if he held out he'd get more.

The stimulus package was a bad idea and not good for America.

Until the laws that govern who qualifies for a loan are changed-we will find ourselves right back in this position in a year from now. You cannot continue to give loans to people who should not qualify and are high risk and expect them to pay so unless you change the laws the problems will continue.

But Cleaver would never admit that or vote for it because Kansas City is a hub for low-income families.

If he really supports Barrack Obama's theory that we must give up some things for the greater good, then why not change the laws back to before the "Community Reinvestment Act" and why would he approve a bill that had earmarks and tax credits added to it?

His title is Reverend Emmanuel Cleaver, but he supports abortion. i also find that ironic because one of every two aborted babies is black. If he really cared about the black community and his convictions as a pastor-why would he be for killing innocent black babies?

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Emmanuel
• Cleaver
• earmark
• stimulus
• package

[GenevaPilgrim]

Thanks. I agree for the most part. I am definitely for term limits! There would be a lot less lobbyist power and less earmarks.

[char4him99]

well done. Let's fire them all