|
|
#1
10-21-2005, 04:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
More left-wing pandering
Apparently Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, and George W. Bush are pandering like crazy to the left-wing in this country.
Check out these stats, courtesy of the conservative Club for Growth blog: 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 - 2,100 1997 - 1,596 1996 - 958 1995 - 1,439 Makes a pretty good case for the Gingrich-Clinton era as opposed to the GWB-Frist-DeLay era, right? 
|
|
#3
10-21-2005, 09:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: More left-wing pandering
If you expand the sample, I believe that the numbers get extremely low the further you go back in years. In the 80's, Reagan vetoed or threatened to veto a bill because he was disgusted that it had I think "8" items of pork in it. The numbers that the Republicans are putting up now are all records.
|
|
#4
10-21-2005, 09:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: More left-wing pandering
[ QUOTE ]
Apparently Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, and George W. Bush are pandering like crazy to the left-wing in this country. [/ QUOTE ] From CAGW.ORG House of Representatives 2003 2004 Democrats 17% 11% Republicans 72% 63% All 46% 39% Senate 2003 2004 Democrats 19% 16% Republicans 70% 63% All 45% 40% (100% = least wasteful, 0% = most wasteful) You are correct. Apparently they are appealing to the left, because they sure aren't pandering to the right!
|
|
#5
10-21-2005, 09:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: More left-wing pandering
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Apparently Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, and George W. Bush are pandering like crazy to the left-wing in this country. [/ QUOTE ] From CAGW.ORG House of Representatives 2003 2004 Democrats 17% 11% Republicans 72% 63% All 46% 39% Senate 2003 2004 Democrats 19% 16% Republicans 70% 63% All 45% 40% (100% = least wasteful, 0% = most wasteful) You are correct. Apparently they are appealing to the left, because they sure aren't pandering to the right! [/ QUOTE ] Such an elegant proof! Can I frame it?
|
|
#6
10-21-2005, 09:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: More left-wing pandering
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Apparently Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, and George W. Bush are pandering like crazy to the left-wing in this country. [/ QUOTE ] From CAGW.ORG House of Representatives 2003 2004 Democrats 17% 11% Republicans 72% 63% All 46% 39% Senate 2003 2004 Democrats 19% 16% Republicans 70% 63% All 45% 40% (100% = least wasteful, 0% = most wasteful) You are correct. Apparently they are appealing to the left, because they sure aren't pandering to the right! [/ QUOTE ] Such an elegant proof! Can I frame it? [/ QUOTE ] By all means.
|
|
#7
10-22-2005, 06:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: More left-wing pandering
Interesting site. Still trying to figure out their rating system, though. Seems like a lot of these bills have nothing to do with pork (the congressional scorecard). They show a yes or no vote on general bills as evidence that individual congresspersons are getting pork. Am I wrong here, or whats the deal? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]
Chcek the list of names. At the numbers at the tops of each column #1 through #16 are the actual bills they voted on. For instance, #9: By a vote of 65-30, the Senate adopted the bill that provides $388.4 billion in discretionary spending in fiscal 2005 for nine previously separate appropriations bills. THE TAXPAYERS LOST. How does voting for this bill automatically give someone a bad score. This has nothing to do with the individual congressman getting pork spending.
|
|
#8
10-22-2005, 07:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: More left-wing pandering
[ QUOTE ]
Seems like a lot of these bills have nothing to do with pork (the congressional scorecard). They show a yes or no vote on general bills as evidence that individual congresspersons are getting pork. Am I wrong here, or whats the deal? [/ QUOTE ] I think they're also rating whether the congressperson votes for or against wasteful spending. So just because they didn't reap the benefits of the pork, they still get a bad rating for ok'ing the bill. [ QUOTE ] For instance, #9: By a vote of 65-30, the Senate adopted the bill that provides $388.4 billion in discretionary spending in fiscal 2005 for nine previously separate appropriations bills. THE TAXPAYERS LOST. How does voting for this bill automatically give someone a bad score. This has nothing to do with the individual congressman getting pork spending. [/ QUOTE ] See above.
|
|
#9
10-22-2005, 09:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: More left-wing pandering
[ QUOTE ]
From CAGW.ORG [/ QUOTE ] Some on the left seem to think CAGW is just a corporate-front group. Since I don't know much about them, I'm probably not fit to judge - yet I can't imagine a good reason for opposing open-source software (well, I can if you're Microsoft) - and what in the world that has to do with government waste. From the NYT (I know, I know, a liberal rag): "Microsoft's paid spokesmen are so numerous and prolific that quite often they wind up quoting each other's work to support their arguments. For example, Barbour, whose lobbying concern earned $600,000 from Microsoft last year, wrote an opinion article for The Chronicle of Augusta, Ga., last December that offered the opinion that the American public opposed the government's suit. To support that, he cited the findings of a national survey published by two other Microsoft-financed groups: Citizens Against Government Waste and the Technology Access Action Coalition."
|
|
#10
10-22-2005, 07:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: More left-wing pandering
[ QUOTE ]
Some on the left seem to think CAGW is just a corporate-front group. [/ QUOTE ] Kinda weak, DVautl1. I guess it's easier to descredit the source than to argue against it. You're better than that.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
