HAHAHA the republicans ending pork??? That has to be the funniest joke I've heard all day.

Dinki: HAHAHA the republicans ending pork???

No, no, no, not ending pork, talking about ending pork. Big difference.

Oh, is this like when the Republicans threw a temper tantrum and stormed out of session because they didn't like Democrats talking about investigating the Attorney General firings?

Dinki: HAHAHA the republicans ending pork??? That has to be the funniest joke I've heard all day.

this.

/thread

Dinki: HAHAHA the republicans ending pork??? That has to be the funniest joke I've heard all day.

HAHAHA the democrats ending any chance or shedding any light on ending pork??? That has to be the funniest...wait..it's not a joke.

I have to ask why didn't the Republicans start doing this when they were the majority?

Also, they're just changing the site URL. The site still be there.

If they wanted to end pork maybe they could've done so in say the last 14 years!!

Arent' there more important problems to solve in Washington than the name of URLs?

Go take a look at who the top individuals are for earmarks Hillary and Murtha, both democrats.... coincidence? Go and add the totals up Democrats vs. Republicans and you will see why the Democrats don't want this to change. I hope the next President takes this whole shady process down.

EatHam: Dinki: HAHAHA the republicans ending pork???

No, no, no, not ending pork, talking about ending pork. Big difference.

That must be a relief to you. :)

Regardless of which party is in power, we now have the best government that money can buy.

How about instead of a website, they stop adding pork earmarks? Oh, because that would be doing something instead of saying something.

Why do you think those clowns in Congress are approaching single digit approval ratings?

Just because its an earmark doesn't mean its pork. I don't understand why anyone thinks this.

Chuck Wagon: Just because its an earmark doesn't mean its pork. I don't understand why anyone thinks this.

Who let "Mr. Sensible" in here??

Chuck Wagon: Just because its an earmark doesn't mean its pork. I don't understand why anyone thinks this.

It's an earmark when your party does it. It's Pork when the other party does it.

Just because its an earmark doesn't mean its pork. I don't understand why anyone thinks this.

Is it discussed and voted on in a transparent manner where the individual assigning the earmark can be held accountable? Yeah I don't understand why anyone would consider that pork.

lrosu79: Is it discussed and voted on in a transparent manner

Just as much of any of the rest of the budget.

mmm... pancake: If they wanted to end pork maybe they could've done so in say the last 14 years!!

Someone promised if elected to end earmarks, I can't remember her name......

Chuck Wagon: Just as much of any of the rest of the budget.

Add ons are generally accountable and requested. They are generally relevant to the bill being passed through Congress. They must be approved before being added on.

Earmarks are covertly added by members of congress and are intentionally untraceable. They are often irrelevant to the law, (ex: when the BMD was passed, a Senator from Alaska asked for car parking garages to be built in his electoral district - utterly irrelevant to BMD). There is no approval needed and accountability for earmarks.

A bit of a difference no?

By "pork" do they mean money in these earmarks that goes towards useful projects like museums and such?

By "pork" do they mean money in these earmarks that goes towards useful projects like museums and such?

When I think of useful I think of museums.

It's pork when it's not YOUR representative.

If the money's heading for your home district, well then your rep is just doing his job, right?

lrosu79: By "pork" do they mean money in these earmarks that goes towards useful projects like museums and such?

When I think of useful I think of museums.

You're smart.

QU!RK1019: By "pork" do they mean money in these earmarks that goes towards useful projects like museums and such?

Not sure what your operating definition of pork is. My definition has nothing to do with "useful."

The Stealth Hippopotamus: mmm... pancake: If they wanted to end pork maybe they could've done so in say the last 14 years!!

Someone promised if elected to end earmarks, I can't remember her name......

Ummm You mean the person who took all that Lobby Money?

Polly Ester: QU!RK1019: By "pork" do they mean money in these earmarks that goes towards useful projects like museums and such?

Not sure what your operating definition of pork is. My definition has nothing to do with "useful."

Exactly. There was an article on here about a month ago all about the hideous "pork" that Democrats had passed, and it included things like museums, parks, and youth centers.

So, my question is - do all these things really qualify as "pork"?

Polly Ester: QU!RK1019: By "pork" do they mean money in these earmarks that goes towards useful projects like museums and such?

Not sure what your operating definition of pork is. My definition has nothing to do with "useful."

Like Iraq?

QU!RK1019
Exactly. There was an article on here about a month ago all about the hideous "pork" that Democrats had passed, and it included things like museums, parks, and youth centers.

So, my question is - do all these things really qualify as "pork"?

Yes.


Next question.

Politicians are thieves.

/duh

Did anyone RTFA? Did the author of the article even RTFA?

They want to change the URL because it is against the rules.

They don't want to shut it down.

no person who has ever lived on planet earth at any time has ever associated the terms "republican" with "ending pork-barreling", unless "pork-barreling" has ever been slang for an enjoyable sexual act.

Hmmmmn, so after seven years of dominating both houses and the Executive Branch they now want to talk about ending ear marks and pork spending?

Little late isn't it?

Well, thank goodness they didn't walk out and have a press conference.

PowerSlacker: QU!RK1019
Exactly. There was an article on here about a month ago all about the hideous "pork" that Democrats had passed, and it included things like museums, parks, and youth centers.

So, my question is - do all these things really qualify as "pork"?

Yes.

Next question.

Ok. I guess I'm not all that excited to end it, then.

AlgertMan: Polly Ester: QU!RK1019: By "pork" do they mean money in these earmarks that goes towards useful projects like museums and such?

Not sure what your operating definition of pork is. My definition has nothing to do with "useful."

Like Iraq?

I could be wrong, but I think every piece of legislation for defense spending is proposed in its very own bill. If financing for the Iraq War was cobbled together by cramming defense earmarks into unrelated bills, then yes, it was pork.

Did I mention that I'm rather unhappy with my representatives in DC?

I am.

Looks like they stole one of the techniques of Bush's Playbook.
Anyone else remember that Article about shutting down the government website that list results of our countries economic information?

Dancin_in_Anson That's unsophisticated in more than one way.

LOL the bipartisan retoric in here is thick enough to choke Paris Hilton. This isn't a GOP vs DEMs arguement. This is a problem that is shared by both parties.

QU!RK1019 2008-02-22 05:26:29 PM

Exactly. There was an article on here about a month ago all about the hideous "pork" that Democrats had passed, and it included things like museums, parks, and youth centers.

So, my question is - do all these things really qualify as "pork"?

Definition:
Pork - excessive spending for members' pet projects, which usually grease the skids for special interest and hometown support.

Now that the definition is out of the way lets get something straight. Pork is not ALWAYS a bad thing. Often it is useful and necessary for certain districts that have specific needs that no one else does.

That being said PORK is something that is increadibly abused. It is inserted into bills for the specific purpose of killing a bill, even when the pork has absolutly nothing to do with the bill itself. It also creates an HUGE amount of wasteful spending by retarded members of congress looking for any excuse at all to inject $$$ into thier district so they can be re-elected. See examples below:

Absurd Examples (new window)

one example: $144,000 to see if pigeons follow human economic laws.

bin_smokin
LOL the bipartisan retoric in here is thick enough to choke Paris Hilton. This isn't a GOP vs DEMs arguement. This is a problem that is shared by both parties.

Definition:
Pork - excessive spending for members' pet projects, which usually grease the skids for special interest and hometown support.

Now that the definition is out of the way lets get something straight. Pork is not ALWAYS a bad thing. Often it is useful and necessary for certain districts that have specific needs that no one else does.

That being said PORK is something that is increadibly abused. It is inserted into bills for the specific purpose of killing a bill, even when the pork has absolutly nothing to do with the bill itself. It also creates an HUGE amount of wasteful spending by retarded members of congress looking for any excuse at all to inject $$$ into thier district so they can be re-elected. See examples below:

Absurd Examples (new window)

one example: $144,000 to see if pigeons follow human economic laws.


Win.

The most important thing to know about pork is this:

It is a method used by ALL POLITICIANS IN BOTH PARTIES to circumvent the standard funding approval process and by taking money from previously allocated budgets.

example: federal healthcare spending bill gets a pork project thrown in it for the rehabilitation of an old covered bridge in mississippi. Congress approves the money for healthcare and therefor the rehabilitation of the bridge. This money for the bridge now comes from the federal coffers and is money that was previously budgeted for healthcare as opposed to it coming from the state budget for infrastructure and being properly vetted and reviewed.

lrosu79: Go take a look at who the top individuals are for earmarks Hillary and Murtha, both democrats.... coincidence? Go and add the totals up Democrats vs. Republicans and you will see why the Democrats don't want this to change. I hope the next President takes this whole shady process down.

John Murtha from Pennsylvania and Hillary from New York? Two states which constantly pay more into the tax base then they get back from the feds?

Excuse me while I don't feel bad for them trying to get money for their states.

Earmarks are significantly less then 1 percent of the budget. They're not the problem. Massive, wasteful spending in bloated sectors like the military. That's where it needs to be culled. I don't mind spending a few hundred thousand on a Potato Museum in Idaho. I don't care about a few million for harbor care in the Port of New York. I care that billions are spent on defense programs we don't need or want unrelated to the health or wellbeing of our soldiers.

bin_smokin: Pork is not ALWAYS a bad thing. Often it is useful and necessary for certain districts that have specific needs that no one else does.

That being said PORK is something that is increadibly abused. It is inserted into bills for the specific purpose of killing a bill, even when the pork has absolutly nothing to do with the bill itself. It also creates an HUGE amount of wasteful spending by retarded members of congress looking for any excuse at all to inject $$$ into thier district so they can be re-elected.

This

bin_smokin: It is a method used by ALL POLITICIANS IN BOTH PARTIES to circumvent the standard funding approval process and by taking money from previously allocated budgets

and That.

I was kindof being a smartass about it, but that's the point I was getting at.

saintstryfe

John Murtha from Pennsylvania and Hillary from New York? Two states which constantly pay more into the tax base then they get back from the feds?

Excuse me while I don't feel bad for them trying to get money for their states.

Earmarks are significantly less then 1 percent of the budget. They're not the problem. Massive, wasteful spending in bloated sectors like the military. That's where it needs to be culled. I don't mind spending a few hundred thousand on a Potato Museum in Idaho. I don't care about a few million for harbor care in the Port of New York. I care that billions are spent on defense programs we don't need or want unrelated to the health or wellbeing of our soldiers.

Both of those states are Blue states. They love paying taxes.

lrosu79: Go take a look at who the top individuals are for earmarks Hillary and Murtha, both democrats.... coincidence? Go and add the totals up Democrats vs. Republicans and you will see why the Democrats don't want this to change. I hope the next President takes this whole shady process down.

Actually, there was a fark article on this a while back. It turns out that despite the republican minority they have managed to get the most individual earmarks as well as the greater outlay of earmarks. You may be right that the top two are Dems, but that ignores a couple things- 1, New York has a huge population. I expect more earmarks from a New York senator or California senator or Texas senator than any other state, regardless of party.
2- The two highest people are BY DEFINITION not representative of the party.

Um, submitter, the website is still active. Click on the link in the article, and you go to what appears to be a heavily partisan Republican site, attacking Democrats and Pelosi, yet with a .gov address. I can see why the Dems would have a problem with it.

GaryPDX: Dinki: HAHAHA the republicans ending pork??? That has to be the funniest joke I've heard all day.

HAHAHA the democrats ending any chance or shedding any light on ending pork??? That has to be the funniest...wait..it's not a joke.

Apparently only republicans are the only ones who do wrong in their little sheep brains.

Chuck Wagon: Just because its an earmark doesn't mean its pork. I don't understand why anyone thinks this.

I think it's safe to say most earmarks are pork.

That is, say there is $100 billion dollars to spend on roads. But the guy who heads the transportation committee wants a freeway to be built directly from his house to his office. He sticks a $5 billion earmark to build his personal freeway. Now, instead of a committee having $100 billion dollars to pick which roads are most needed, there's only $95 billion to spend on needed roads, and $5 billion to build a stupid one. (Or, possibly, the total spent on roads goes up to $105 billion; still bad.) In a perfect world, earmarks would never be needed for projects that are justifable and a priority, although this isn't a perfect world, so I'm sure there are cases where an earmark is a good project. But more often they just take money from higher priority projects, or increase the total amount spent overall.