Let's Count The Pork

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
From the very conservative Club For Growth (http://www.clubforgrowth.org/blog/archives/026385.php):

Number of Pork Projects in Federal Spending Bills

2005 - 13,997
2004 - 10,656
2003 - 9,362
2002 - 8,341
2001 - 6,333
2000 - 4,326
1999 - 2,838
1998 - 2100
1997 - 1,596
1996 - 958
1995 - 1439

Let's talk more about fiscal responsibility.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0

In 2004, we had $895 billion in discretionary spending, including $454 billion in defense spending. That means that we had $441 billion in non-defense discretionary spending.

Our budget deficit in 2004 was $412 billion. So without raising revenues, our nation would literally have to eliminate the entire defense department (which ain't gonna happen) or its entire non-defense discretionary spending to simply balance the budget. That's not including the $4.3 TRILLION in debt we current hold and should really be trying to pay off.

[/ QUOTE ]
Mostly quoted from a front-page dkos diary.

Question: What do you personally plan to do to get pork spending cut, and what do you personally plan to do to address the deficit?

[bobman0330]

I have no personal plans to effect a political change in spending policy, but I do have a plan to mock the quoted author's use of "literally." Doesn't anyone know what this word means anymore?

[lehighguy]

Vote Libraterian.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
Vote Libraterian.

[/ QUOTE ]How will that accomplish anything?

[Jedster]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Vote Libraterian.

[/ QUOTE ]How will that accomplish anything?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, won't building all those libraries cost money?

[BadBoyBenny]

Tom Coburn for president!!!

[lehighguy]

Hopefully, others will do so too.

It's all them damned Ree-publicans fault! Right, Grey?

No Dimma-crat ever wasted a single damned dollar! Right, Grey?

And it all goes right to those sneaky Bushies! Whole damned famblie is a buncha crooks! Well, maybe them Kinna-dees had a few fingers in the pie, too.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
It's all them damned Ree-publicans fault! Right, Grey?

[/ QUOTE ]Yes exactly. I'm glad you see my point. As shown by the Club for Growth numbers, when a Democrat was President and had veto power, pork projects remained at a steady zero. Then once Bush took power they jumped up. I'm glad someone around here can read.

Would you mind answering the question posed in my original post? I think your insight would be valuable.

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
Vote Libraterian.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Cuz, like, Saggitarians are totally not my type ..."

/images/graemlins/wink.gif


q/q

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
What do you personally plan to do to get pork spending cut

[/ QUOTE ]
Not vote Democrat. They are more likely to waste my money and it's not even close. (http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_Ratings_AtaGlance)

[ QUOTE ]
and what do you personally plan to do to address the deficit?

[/ QUOTE ]
Continue to vote for people that work to reduce it.

[ QUOTE ]
Mostly quoted from a front-page dkos diary.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm always puzzled when the left crows about Republican's spending. It's kinda like watching a serial killer giving a shoplifter a lecture about obeying the law...

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's all them damned Ree-publicans fault! Right, Grey?

[/ QUOTE ]Yes exactly. I'm glad you see my point. As shown by the Club for Growth numbers, when a Democrat was President and had veto power, pork projects remained at a steady zero. Then once Bush took power they jumped up. I'm glad someone around here can read.

Would you mind answering the question posed in my original post? I think your insight would be valuable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Grey, for some inexplicable reason you chose to omit the following, that I also posted...

[ QUOTE ]


No Dimma-crat ever wasted a single damned dollar! Right, Grey?



[/ QUOTE ]

When (and I'm not holding my breath) you get honest and point to the waste and "slop taken from the federal trough" by your purest-of-the-pure Democrats, I'll try and engage in a sensible discussion with you.

The Democrats are no different than Republicans when it comes to being little piggies. And they all do it for the same reason - votes.

Get off that cloud you flit around on, take off your blinders, quit screaming like some elementary schoolyard child and I'll debate any subject you want. Calmly, civily, sanely and to the best of my ability. If you've got facts, not BS, rumors or speculation, I'll look at them. If you're right about something, I'll admit it. I've been wrong before and I'll probably be wrong again sometime.

sign me,
An Ex Yellow-Dog Republican turned Independent

[Matty]

I omitted it because it was more of the same line of thought and quoting huge portions of posts makes for an unreadable and cluttered thread.

I never said anything about Republicans and Democrats. You did. I have no statements to back up on the subject. My post in response to you was pure sarcasm.

You can't make an honest argument that either the Democrats or Republicans waste more money. The only difference between the two is they like to spend on slightly different causes.

The primary way of reducing federal spending is to make sure the congress and the executive (or the two branches of congress) are clearly in the hands of different parties. Once they're in the same hands, we get things like the pork spending numbers, and these:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/blogphotos/Blog_Nondefense_Discretionary_Spending.jpg

http://www.allhatnocattle.net/bush_deficit_graphic.gif

[zipo]

>>The primary way of reducing federal spending is to make sure the congress and the executive (or the two branches of congress) are clearly in the hands of different parties.<<

This is exactly right, IMO.

It's true that I am appalled and disgusted at the amount of damage the Republican dominated congress and executive has done to the country in 5 short years.

But the key issue is balance of power. That was the beauty of our system - and that is precisely what is being undermined now.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]

The Democrats are no different than Republicans when it comes to being little piggies. And they all do it for the same reason - votes.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a wonderful sign o' the times. Just a few years ago, no Democrat hater would put Republicans on an equal level with Democrats in terms of over-spending; that was strictly Dem's territory.

If nothing else, one must credit GWB with educating the masses on this subject.

-ptmusic

I wasn’t avoiding your post. I’ve been in the other forums. I honestly have to take an occasional break from this one.
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________


[ QUOTE ]

I omitted it because it was more of the same line of thought and quoting huge portions of posts makes for an unreadable and cluttered thread.


[/ QUOTE ]

If your motive was pure, fine. I agree with the idea. Too many posters are either too busy running around posting and take the lazy choice of “quoting” everything or are too dumb to know how to edit. The threads do get overloaded.

But, if your reason was that of a typical “point maker,” and you wanted to simply avoid something you didn’t like, then you need your nuts kicked. Not that I’m accusing you of that. I don’t know your intention. Only you do. I’ll just accept what you’ve said as truth.

And the reason I’m making a big deal out of this is because I want you to know something about me. If I think you’re f***ing with me or trying to f**k over me, I’ll call you on it.

[ QUOTE ]

I never said anything about Republicans and Democrats. You did.


[/ QUOTE ]

Every post of yours that I’ve read (and can remember) has given me the impression you are a loyal Democrat. I’ve only seen you attacking Republicans. If you’ve gone at Dems with the ferocity you’ve shown towards Repubs, point me in that direction and I’ll change my mind.

[ QUOTE ]

I have no statements to back up on the subject.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea whatsoever what that means.

[ QUOTE ]

My post in response to you was pure sarcasm.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am Mr. Sarcasm. Sardonic ‘r my middle name. I rarely fail to recognize true sarcasm.

[ QUOTE ]

You can't make an honest argument that either the Democrats or Republicans waste more money.


[/ QUOTE ]

You will not find one single post of mine in which I tried to argue in favor of one or the other’s spending habits. Piggies is Piggies. Politicians is tha biggest Piggies at tha trough.

[ QUOTE ]

The only difference between the two is they like to spend on slightly different causes.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think their causes differ greatly, but I won’t argue the point.

[ QUOTE ]

The primary way of reducing federal spending is to make sure the congress and the executive (or the two branches of congress) are clearly in the hands of different parties. Once they're in the same hands, we get things like the pork spending numbers, and these: …


[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that one party or the other controls both the Executive and the Legislative branches does not stop the pork problem. Can you point me in the direction of finding Dems who were denied their little Piggie Packages? They got, if not all, damned near every dollar they wanted for “their constituents. The folks back home.” They are no better or worse than the guys on the other side of the aisle.

Your graphs prove nothing. I’ve looked at graphs from both parties. They all put up their little charts “proving” their point.

I learned a long time ago, “Figures don’t lie, but liars sure do figure.”

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
Your graphs prove nothing. I’ve looked at graphs from both parties. They all put up their little charts “proving” their point.

[/ QUOTE ]The pork numbers are from the friggin Club for Growth. Look at their webpage- they worship Reagan.

I don't know what the point of the rest of your post was but it sure was long and it sure was cluttered.

[Matty]

Damn I just realized I made a duplicate thread.

[ QUOTE ]

The pork numbers are from the friggin Club for Growth. Look at their webpage- they worship Reagan.


[/ QUOTE ]

OK, so they point out pork. Have I ever said either party wasn't addicted to pork? Jeeze, Louise. And I don't give a flip if they worship Reagan or not. I certainly didn't.

[ QUOTE ]

I don't know what the point of the rest of your post was but it sure was long and it sure was cluttered.


[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have a comprehension problem? I couldn't have been any plainer. I answered everything you posted, didn't I? If you object to the format, i.e., taking your post apart and attempting to insure there were no misunderstandings, well that's YP not MP. After all, the "clutter" was your own words.

Grey, you truly disappoint me. But you don't surprise me.

[ QUOTE ]
Damn I just realized I made a duplicate thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you'd read the instructions you'd know how to delete a post.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, so they point out pork. Have I ever said either party wasn't addicted to pork? Jeeze, Louise. And I don't give a flip if they worship Reagan or not. I certainly didn't.

[/ QUOTE ]No, and again you're a mile away from the point. You said partisanship was biasing the numbers I was using. That is what I'm refuting.

The CFG is biased for Republicans, and the Congressional Budget Office is not biased. The cute little quote you use sounds like just a quaint way of dismissing information you don't particularly enjoy, or maybe it's just a quaint way of excusing being to lazy to look into the numbers you come across or are shown.[ QUOTE ]
Do you have a comprehension problem? I couldn't have been any plainer. I answered everything you posted, didn't I?

[/ QUOTE ]I didn't ask you anything in my post. You told me something about how you don't take [censored] from people, you called me a Democrat, you told me you were a sarcastic person, you told me you never accused one party of spending more than the other, you quoted part of my post and said you wouldn't argue with it (can't you do that by, I don't know, just not saying anything?), and then you accused the numbers I used of being biased.

I don't care about you Nuts, and I didn't ask or imply anything about you. That's why I don't understand your post. Why all this information that no one asked for and isn't relevant to the discussion?

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
If you'd read the instructions you'd know how to delete a post.

[/ QUOTE ]Uh, no. You can't delete a thread 24 hours after you make it. Arrogance and ignorance don't mix well.

[w_alloy]

I can't believe anyonw with an 1/8th of a brain could accept those ratings as fact. I am not reading any further in this thread.

This is not a partisan issue. This is a common sense issue. I do not need to prove myself, but for starters, their methodology is completely f'd up, they have a gignatic bias toward rating liberals lower, and they are funded by conservative groups. Every non-partisan watchdog group rates more conservatives lower in government waste ratings. It is a well known fact that Sen. Stevens (from my home stat) should be at or near the bottom of any list. He is ranked above average on that site.

[ QUOTE ]


Question: What do you personally plan to do to get pork spending cut, and what do you personally plan to do to address the deficit?

[/ QUOTE ]

I plan on not paying taxes, and not having anything to do with this scam.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe anyonw with an 1/8th of a brain could accept those ratings as fact. I am not reading any further in this thread.

This is not a partisan issue. This is a common sense issue. I do not need to prove myself, but for starters, their methodology is completely f'd up, they have a gignatic bias toward rating liberals lower, and they are funded by conservative groups. Every non-partisan watchdog group rates more conservatives lower in government waste ratings. It is a well known fact that Sen. Stevens (from my home stat) should be at or near the bottom of any list. He is ranked above average on that site.

[/ QUOTE ]

BCPVP keeps citing that same website over and over again. I pointed out months ago that the "About Us" page has Republicans but no Democrats. Now others in this thread are pointing out that the funding comes from big corporations.

I think you are correct. Ignoring that website is the non-partisan, common sense thing to do. Despite the rants BCPVP has made, and will continue to make I'm sure, about that website.

-ptmusic

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe anyonw with an 1/8th of a brain could accept those ratings as fact. I am not reading any further in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]
I recognize the rating as a subjective measure created by people who do not like big government. Anyone who accepts something subjective as fact is pretty dumb.

[ QUOTE ]
they have a gignatic bias toward rating liberals lower

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess it's not possible that liberals are more wasteful of money than conservatives...

[ QUOTE ]
and they are funded by conservative groups

[/ QUOTE ]
who are usually interested in cutting wasteful spending...

[ QUOTE ]
Every non-partisan watchdog group rates more conservatives lower in government waste ratings.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what this means. Do you mean that every non-partisan watchdog group rates conservatives lower than liberals or lower than they are at CAGW? If It's the latter, that's good. One should always look for other sources to see a bigger picture. I would be shocked if every gov't waste watchdog had exactly the same ratings for every member of Congress.

[ QUOTE ]
It is a well known fact that Sen. Stevens (from my home stat) should be at or near the bottom of any list.

[/ QUOTE ]
You think CAGW coddles Sen. Stevens? They seem to take pleasure in flaunting his wastefulness:
Senator Ted Stevens, (R- Alaska)
"I am guilty of asking the Senate for pork and proud of the Senate for giving it to me." -- March 15, 2001 Remarks from a National Public Radio appearance

"I want to put the Senate on notice that this year I am going to seek funds so that every village in Alaska has runway lights." -- March 15, 2001-- Comments during a Senate floor debate.

"All they are is a bunch of psychopaths." -- December 26, 1999 Associated Press

How did Alaska make out in the $317 billion defense bill? "Like a bandit," Stevens said with a half-suppressed smile. "Wait until you read it." - January 2, 2002 Anchorage Daily News

Sen. Stevens is Porker of the Month for July 2003 (http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_porkerofthemonth_July03)

But I already explained that the ratings are not on how much pork each Congressman takes back to their state. The ratings are on whether or not the Congressman votes the way CAGW wants them to on certain bills.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I pointed out months ago that the "About Us" page has Republicans but no Democrats.

[/ QUOTE ]
Which doesn't mean a whole lot since they regularly take Republicans to task for being wasteful. Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.) is the Porker of the Month for October and in September it was shared between Reps. Don Young (Alaska) and Tom DeLay (R-Texas).

But tell me, ptmusic, is there a similar "liberal" organization dedicated to pointing out wasteful spending in Congress? By all means share it with us if such an org exists.

[ QUOTE ]
Ignoring that website is the non-partisan, common sense thing to do.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly what wasteful politicians would want us to do. Move along folks, nothing to see here...