Xoutpost.com - Who here likes Government pork? Minus the lipstick of course.

Xoutpost.com (https://xoutpost.com/forums.php)

- Politics Forum (https://xoutpost.com/off-topic/politics-forum/)

- - Who here likes Government pork? Minus the lipstick of course. (https://xoutpost.com/off-topic/politics-forum/51715-who-here-likes-government-pork-minus-lipstick-course.html)

MrLabGuy

09-10-2008 11:14 PM

Who here likes Government pork? Minus the lipstick of course.

Here is the score published by the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste calculated on a scale of 0-100 with 0 = always voted for pork spending bills and 100 = always voting against pork spending bills.

Arizona McCain (R) 2007 - 100% Lifetime record - 88%

Illinois Obama (D) 2007 - 10% Lifetime record - 18%

Delaware Biden (D) 2007 - 0% Lifetime record - 22%

Just for fun

New York Clinton (D) 2007 - 0% Lifetime record - 9%

http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/DocS...pdf?docID=3242

http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/Page...CCAGW_homepage

x5GuyInLA

09-11-2008 12:37 AM

wow...according to that website, there was only ONE Democrat Senator that was over 30%. So does that mean if Obama is elected into office, we'll have more pork if it passes the House and Senate? That can't be good.

StumpyPete

09-11-2008 04:54 AM

Politicians should stay away from pork analogies. In the UK talking porkies means telling lies...... (rhyming slang porkie pies = lies)

AzX5	09-11-2008 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StumpyPete

Politicians should stay away from pork analogies. In the UK talking porkies means telling lies...... (rhyming slang porkie pies = lies)

Sneaking pork into a bill because it doesn't have merit on its own is equivalent to telling lies in my book. ;)

CGSTL

09-11-2008 08:16 AM

:iagree:

Quote:

Originally Posted by AzX5

Sneaking pork into a bill because it doesn't have merit on its own is equivalent to telling lies in my book. ;)

vinuneuro

09-11-2008 08:42 AM

I hope this is accurate, because it's pretty damn important.

(undecided independent)

Wagner

09-11-2008 08:49 AM

Quote:

"While the Republican energy policy is focused more on increased supply and nuclear power generation, the Democrats are more focused on energy conservation, improving the environment and taxing big oils "

For example:

In Maryland (the highest median income state in the union) we apparently have a spending problem, so we just raise taxes. (Go DEMS!).

A bill in our state legislature currently is to allow slot machines, for revenue of course. However, tied in the bill is an amendment to the state constitution. SLICK for sure.

AzX5	09-11-2008 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wagner

There is nothing wrong with the occasional subsidy or other local pet projects, but they should stand on their OWN merit, not snuck in under the radar where congress doesn't vote or even know about most of them.

MrLabGuy

09-11-2008 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AzX5

Sneaking pork into a bill because it doesn't have merit on its own is equivalent to telling lies in my book. ;)

Well Said...We must be sheeple to keep allowing that to happen.

MrLabGuy

09-11-2008 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wagner

Well for what its worth, money will always be spent on home town projects. That is why people elect representatives for their area. Now it shouldn't be the over-ridding focus like it seems to have become, but it will be there and should IMO.

Farming states will want farm subsidies, energy states will want energy subsidies, etc.. So it can be expected. However, Dems can put some SLICK stuff into bills.

Side note:
Currently, the energy bill...http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/10/news...ion=2008091015

For example:

In Maryland (the highest median income state in the union) we apparently have a spending problem, so we just raise taxes. (Go DEMS!).

A bill in our state legislature currently is to allow slot machines, for revenue of course. However, tied in the bill is an amendment to the state constitution. SLICK for sure.

Sure, which is why a score of 70-75% or above is pretty good. That shows me the Representative looked at the bill and voted on merit. ANY score under 10-15 shows lack of responsibility for taxpayer money. ANY 0 (ZERO) score as with Biden and Clinton means they LOVED all the pork or did not bother to read the bill.

MrLabGuy

09-11-2008 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vinuneuro

I hope this is accurate, because it's pretty damn important.

(undecided independent)

Very accurate watchdog group.

Here is how they started.

Founded in 1984 by the late industrialist J. Peter Grace and syndicated columnist Jack Anderson, CAGW is the legacy of the President's Private Sector Survey on Cost Control, also known as the Grace Commission.

In 1982, President Reagan directed the Grace Commission to "work like tireless bloodhounds to root out government inefficiency and waste of tax dollars." For two years, 161 corporate executives and community leaders led an army of 2,000 volunteers on a waste hunt through the federal government. The search was funded entirely by voluntary contributions of $76 million from the private sector; it cost taxpayers nothing. The Grace Commission made 2,478 recommendations which, if implemented, would save $424.4 billion over three years, an average of $141.5 billion a year all without eliminating essential services.

The 47 volumes and 21,000 pages of the Grace Commission Report constituted a vision of an efficient, well-managed government that is accountable to the taxpayers. CAGW has worked to make that vision a reality and, in a little over two decades, has helped save taxpayers $944 billion through the implementation of Grace Commission findings and other recommendations.

X5Flyboy

09-11-2008 04:35 PM

Anyone for the line item veto??? It would allow the president to cross out spending and "tack-on" amendments. Mind you, much of this "pork" is bribery to get votes. But wouldn't it be nice to deny Congress the ability to buy votes with taxpayer money

"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money" - Alexis de Tocqueville

AzX5	09-25-2008 04:11 PM

Obama grant being probed
$100,000 DEAL | State to charity: What happened to garden money, other cash?
http://www.suntimes.com/news/watchdo...hdog25.article

I'm all for the line item veto, but pork should be eliminated permanently. McCain has promised to give any Senator attaching pork to a bill some unwanted fame, while putting the veto stamp on it. Now that will be a welcome CHANGE. ;)

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:20 PM.