Republican Pork

Remove all ads!

I thought the corpse of Ronald already spent a few years as the president of the United States of America?

 

Aren't necrophilia and Christianity meant to be mutually exclusive? Because judging by the GOP...

 

Perhaps the GOP should take lessons from the Catholic Church on having a uniform sainting procedure. I think it usually takes a while and you need all matter of miracles being performed. Reagan has a decent chance, though - he made an entire nation believe that lower taxes means higher tax revenues

 

In response to the last six posts (which added nothing to this thread) I have the need to say.

Obama has huge freakin' ears.

 

In an effort to bring this thread BACK onto the original topic, I am going to pose a question. It is my understanding that some US bills look like this little hypothetical I just made up:

Senator Wally Weaver (R -- Rhode Island) tables a bill that will increase by 8% the number of whitefish that commercial fishermen from Rhode Island can harvest in a given season. He's tabling this motion in an effort to boost the fishing industry in his state.

Then Senator Paulie Puka (R -- Nevada) proposes an amendment to the bill that will provide $200,000 in Federal funding for deaf children's education in Nevada. The amendment is accepted and becomes part of the bill.

With all due respect to the needs of Nevada's deaf community, WTF does that have to do with whitefish harvesting limits? Is this how the system works, or have I been mislead? I've been lead to believe that 'earmarks' (read that: pork) of any nature can be tagged onto any bill of any nature, even if they are totally unrelated.

I also want it known that I began this thread before BTA's reminder to get back on topic -- he just types faster than I do.

 

Why is such a blatantly corrupt system tolerated, then? I know that sleazy politicians can do their dirty work no matter what the situation, but such a brazen system wherein the pork is so obvious seems to me to need a major overhaul.

 

I agree, but usually individual pork projects are such a small part of the overall package that it often goes unnoticed. Most congressfolk aren't going to raise a big stink about someone else's pork because they would likely open themselves up to the same criticism. Only the particularly outrageous individual projects (like the Bridge to Nowhere), or a large number of accumulated projects rammed through at once, ever warrant anyone's disapproving eye, and they usually are added at the last minute so the public never really has time for outcry until its too late. The people most aware of a pork project are usually either those who stand to benefit from it (and are therefore far less likely to kick up any fuss) or the authors and sponsors of the legislation, who are often willing to make such a concession to get their larger bill passed. I would think modern politicians have to use the old "wanna make an omelet, you gotta break some eggs" compromise philosophy to varying degrees every day, otherwise they would never accomplish anything.

I barely know what's going on in my own state's budget (and I consider myself fairly well informed), let alone what's going on in the next state, or across the country for that matter. So I'm not surprised it's not on many people's radars. That's the evil genius of pork, I suppose.

 

That's true, but also because it usually cuts both ways to get support for the bill from both parties. (In the sense that I'll vote for this bill with your pork on it, if you let me attach my piece of pork to it as well...)

 

As far as I understood it, the most useful aspect of pork is as a way to get a few more votes on important bills by offering something to districts (and senators) that do not have an important interest in the bill otherwise. It's typical politicking, especially if the pork is in no ways whatsoever related to the main impact of the bill, but I don't have a big problem as long as the money does go for projects that are actually useful.

 

Salon ran an interesting article on Republican spending. And I was unware that Cheney had commented that "deficts don't matter." I was a bit astounded that a major Republican would make such a comment. I disagree with Mr. Cheney, since I believe that it undermines the financial integrity of the US government, weakening the dollar and sucking the financial oxygen out of the economy (in the long run).

Yesterday, the Republicans "released their budget," which was a complete joke, since there were no numbers included in what was essentially a piece of Republican propaganda:

Some of the major themes of their "budget" are: Big tax cuts for the wealthiest people, to limit your right to a civil trial and more off-shore drilling. I guess that's what the "future" of the Republican Party looks like. There's little doubt the Democrats will be around a long time.

But here's the crux of the argument for deficit spending:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2009/03/27/deficits/index.html?source=rss&aim=/opinion/conason

 

I agree Chandos. The house GOP really stepped on their pud with this one. I can't figure out why they would be so sloppy and disorganized with that rollout. There are certainly sound conservative counter arguments to be made and presented, but the current house GOP crop doesn't seem to have one guy among their number capable forming one. For the leaders of their party, they are remarkably incompetent. I say this purely as a reflection of their ability to do their jobs and represent their party, not as a criticism of their ideology.

I guess when you value partisanship over policy for so long, guys like Mike Pence inevitably fail upward.

 

The Democrats may be in for a rude awakening if they keep trying to blame the Republicans for everything. The voters may be sheep, but they aren't stupid. The party in power takes all of the blame and gets all of the credit for whatever happens. I believe the voters are tired of "bailouts" and are becoming wary of the massive amounts of spending that is being proposed by the Democrats.

It is time for Obama and the Democrats to "lead" and let the chips fall where they may, instead of trying to cover their asses by playing the blame game.

 

I disagree Snook. Voters are sheep and, in masses, are stupid. I'm always amazed at how otherwise intelligent people can be just led along in a mass of blinding propaganda. But then I live in Illinois and am somewhat biased based on the politics here (the re-election of Blagojevich was a clear case of the democrat masses in Chicago just voting their party without thinking -- along with a majority of independants -- but then the republican running against him ran an idiotic campaign).

The democrats will be in for a rude awakening if the stimulus package doesn't show quick results (i.e., 2010 elections). IMO people, in general, vote based on their short-term memory and a 'what have you done for me lately' mentality.

 

It's already starting to show signs that it's working (I invite you to do the research on loan applications for new mortgages because of the new tax deductions on mortgages, and the direct aid to states that have already saved a few of their programs, which were out of funds). Sorry, the Repulicans might be the ones to be disappointed by the time this over.

Those who claim that the public is so "stupid" should consider that most politics are local, meaning that most people care about what's going on in their hometowns rather than Washington D.C. Not everyone is a political junkie, as we are on a board like this, in the sense that all the fine points of policy are not a big concern to them. They care about their communities, about crime, about education for their kids, about their jobs, about food prices at the corner grocery store; all those mundane items that political junkies never really discuss except in its broadest terms.

They don't care about the Teacher's Union, they don't care about national test results - they care about their children and "education that works" for them. They don't give a crap about communism, or socialism or even what's the definition of capitalism or what the "French think" or the "Euro-Zone;" they want what works for them and their families. The "philosophy" of politics they leave to politicos like us to argue about. It may make them a bit unengaged from the national, and the broader international debate, but it does not make them "stupid."

 

Do you not listen to the rhetoric coming from your own party? They are already calling this the "Obama recession" and he's barely two months in. Instead of legitimate criticisms or alternatives to the agenda the Democrats are moving forward with, we hear claims of Marxism and calls for a 'revolution' and 'we can officially declare the Obama presidency a failure' not from nutball bloggers, but from popular elected GOP officials. If 'blame game' politics bothers you so much, you need to check your own side a little.

 

Oh, I listen very well. What I'm trying to tell you and the Democrats is to stop listening. When Bush and the Republicans controlled everything, did they care what the press or the Democrats said? Did they feel the need to attack members of the media who criticized them? No, they didn't. They did things their way and will let history be the judge.

The current administration and its supporters seem to be more interested in what their critics are saying then doing anything. They should do what they feel is best and let history be the judge later, not worry about history today. The Dems are criticizing a Republican proposal as not having any specifics. Well, why on Earth would the Republicans spend any time working out a detailed budget proposal that has a ZERO percent change of passing.

What I'm trying to say is you (and others) should be spending more of your time explaining to "the loyal opposition" why your ideas are the correct way to go. When you are the majority, you don't build minority support by attacking the minority, and everyone knows that the minority builds support by attacking the majority. This isn't rocket science, it is common sense. Stop spending so much time worrying about the nutball bloggers as you so eloquently put it.

 

TGS summed it up so well with that last post that i can't think of anything to add to it.

 

When you stop posting those links from those "nutball bloggers" all over SP, then maybe we can get to a real debate. There have been numerous threads on this board where members have tried to debate the issues. Instead, the "loyal opposition" only responds with the talking points from the "Repubican Echo Chamber:" "No! No! No!" And links about how many times Obama says, "um." Wow, that's some deep and meaningful criticism there....

Why yes, YES, they did. I remember some on this board (hint, hint, wink, wink) who spent all their time crying about the "Liberal Media." Gee I wonder who THAT would be?

But wait, it gets better. Oh yes, those of us who complained about Bush were "unAmerican," "terrorist sympathizers," "Bush Bashers," traitors, "Defeatocarts," according to the Repbulican Echo Chamber. Sound familiar? It should.

Who can forget the disgraceful comments made by Republican back-benchers in Congress? "Critics of the administration are only aiding our enemies," or "cowards, who want to cut-and-run."

Yeah, they didn't care.