evmori Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 I agree Gern. Earmarks, pork, put it in or I won't vote for it, etc. it's all the same. What's the pork in this one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GernBlansten Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Pork is spending, targeted to a specific district of a congressman, and attached to a bill that has nothing to do with the spending. Like attaching the bridge to nowhere to a defense appropriations bill. But, the stimulus bill, is all about spending. That is its purpose. Whether the spending is on a bridge or a trail, or research, its meant to stimulate the economy. By definition, there cannot be any pork in this bill. And if your congressman didn't get spending to occur in your district, then he/she didn't do their job for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrentAllen Posted February 27, 2009 Author Share Posted February 27, 2009 $800 million for carbon capture projects $3 million for new uniforms for the Transportation Security Administration. $200,000 for a "tattoo removal violence prevention outreach program" $2.8 billion to global warming advocacy programs $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts $400 million promotes anti-smoking programs and programs to fight sexually transmitted diseases I want Obama to fail in reenacting the Assault Weapons Ban that expired in 2004. I want my country to remain free. I value freedom much more than I do financial security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GernBlansten Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Freedom will not have the same meaning as you think it does if we don't have financial security. Unless you equate freedom with anarchy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagledad Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 >>Whether the spending is on a bridge or a trail, or research, its meant to stimulate the economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GernBlansten Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 What is the researcher spending the money on? Is he just shredding the money and burning it in a beaker? The researcher is likely spending the money on rent, staff, equipment, supplies. Just like the construction company. Trickle down right? Where stimulus money doesn't help, is when you give it directly to people who just put it in savings or pay off debt. That isn't stoking the economic boilers. And if the people just spend it on flat screen TVs made in China, who does that help? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGreyEagle Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Maybe Clinton didnt think the evidence on Saddam was strong enough for a war, he also didn't want any part of grabbing Bin Laden when he was offered to us by a foreign goverment. Maybe that makes him one for two, I don't know. I do know if we keep trading maybe my side sucks but your sides sucks more we will never move forward The whole about wanting Obama to succeed or fail has many levels. Do I want his presidency to fail? TO lead the country to socialism to the degree is takes decades to recover? I do not want that. When people talk about Obama failing, I can only tell you my view. If Obama wants to do the Each to his ability, each to his need thing where personal responsibility is abicated and the state controls what is good, then heck yes I want him to fail. If he wants to strengthen personal responsibility, he wants personal accountability, then heck yeah, I want his to succeed. As a sports fan many times at the end of a season I have wanted to see my team lose to improve their draft selection spot. In some cases thats fan heresy, but I figure since the short term is lost, why not strive for future improvement. If Obama's policies are going to fail, then let them fail quickly, if they work and individual right s are preserved, well then, kewl What about what our Secretary of State said when she said she was sick and tired of being called unpatriot if she disagrees with the administration, that as Americans it was our right to debate anything we wanted. I may have jumbled the words, but the message then was that disent is patriotic, at least it was when #43 was president, why wouldn't it be now with #44?(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagledad Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 >>What is the researcher spending the money on? Is he just shredding the money and burning it in a beaker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoutingagain Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 The stimlus bill isn't perfect and to say there are no "earmarks" or pork in it is a bit disengenuous to say the least. I think it was a mistake for Obama to flat out say the bill had no earmarks. But I think he was faced with getting something out the door that was 90% right quickly versus qwibbling about a small percentage of the spending that really didn't meet even his criteria for what should be included and delaying passage of some kind of stimulus bill that on the whole most main stream economists said was needed. He made a judgement call based on the info he had. That's what leaders do. We'll see if it was right or not down the road. Based on the whining I'm reading from both the left and the right, seems to me, Obama trying as best he can to plow a pragmatic middle ground, based on what he thinks is right for the country. I support that effort even though I don't agree with everything he's doing. Anyone who believes anyone who voted for Obama in the last election is going to change their vote next time around based on an Assualt Weapons ban is living in a dream world. The Republicans, if they are going to get back into the game, are going to have to come up with something other than gun control, gay marriage, etc. while people are worried about loosing the livelyhood, home and retirement. They could talk about fiscal restraint and responsiblity but based on their performance the last 8 years they have no credabilty on economic or fiscal policy either. I hope Obama succeeds. I can't afford to lose my job, just to be able to say, see he failed. SA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GernBlansten Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 I guess the real definition of pork is if you like what they're spending the money on its a stimulus, and if you don't, its pork. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGreyEagle Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 C'mon GB, Pork is always what goes on elsewhere, everybody knows that. Pork is a bridge two states over, the bridge being built in your town however is an example of goverment doing its best. The legislator who got that bridge done two states over is just a pork barrel king, your legislator who got the bridge approved in your town knows how to best serve the constituents of your home town Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoutingagain Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 "personal responsibility, .... personal accountability" OK so who's responsible and who's accountable. Seems like so many have made major mistakes, (Banks, Auto companies, Unions, Consumers, Insurers, Government, Voters, etc.) if we let them all take the hit they deserve we all go down with them. So we have no choice but to help out as best and intelligently as we can. But that's where the debate begins. What to do, for who, and who to leave out. Tough job, glad it's not mine. SA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagledad Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 >>But that's where the debate begins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evmori Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 To me pork is something that has nothing to do with the bill whatsoever! How in the heck do your think WVA got such darn good roads! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrentAllen Posted February 27, 2009 Author Share Posted February 27, 2009 I have defended George Bush many a time, but one thing he was definitely wrong on was the bailout bill. He admitted he ignored the free market principals when he pushed that bill. Now that we have started saving businesses and industries that are "too big to fail" we have apparently headed down a one-way path. No business is too big to fail. Those companies should have been allowed to fail and reorganize. Maybe then some people would learn their lessons. Not now. The federal government has ended up like a parent dealing with a trouble teenager. The more you enable them with their bad habits and destructive behaviour, the more you end up hurting them in the long run. Why should any big business worry about getting over-extended, or taking risky chances? Good ol' federal government will come bail you out. scoutingagain, I refer you to the 1994 Republican Revolution. The AWB was a major reason for the revolt. Clinton admitted it himself. You may not be aware of the importance of the issue, based on your state of residence. I would prefer going through a period of anarchy to end up living in freedom over this painful slide into socialism. Our founding fathers were willing to risk everything they had, including their lives, for freedom. Now we are willing to hand it over to save our 401k's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now