| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/28/2008 12:52:49 PM · #476 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Louis:
Anyone care to explain to a non-American what all this talk of pork and barrels means? |
Loosely. "pork barrel politics" is the practice of lending your support to a bill in return for concessions written into that bill. You need my vote to pass a particular health bill, and I give my support in exchange for a "line item" giving funds for a highway project in my home state, say. This makes my constituents happy (federal money is funneled to them) and helps me stay elected. In theory, the president's possession of a "line item veto" helps guard against this, but presidents are pretty selective in how they wield that particular power.
R. |
Ah -- thanks!
Edit: and from wiki.
Message edited by author 2008-10-28 13:46:07. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 12:54:22 PM · #477 |
Originally posted by Flash:
"[i]You should know that in the polls as recently as this month, one taken by Rasmussen, the majority of Americans think that FOX is the least biased network out there. |
So? Just because the majority thinks it doesn't make it so. The majority watches Fox news too. Go figure. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 12:58:34 PM · #478 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Anyone care to explain to a non-American what all this talk of pork and barrels means? |
We have oodles of examples of such behaviour in Canada, albeit on a much smaller scale. You might wish to take a look Here, Here, and Here.
There are countless numbers of examples where certain areas of the country where the recepients of government largesse in exchange for support.
Hope this helps a bit.
Ray |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 01:00:38 PM · #479 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Louis:
Anyone care to explain to a non-American what all this talk of pork and barrels means? |
Loosely. "pork barrel politics" is the practice of lending your support to a bill in return for concessions written into that bill. You need my vote to pass a particular health bill, and I give my support in exchange for a "line item" giving funds for a highway project in my home state, say. This makes my constituents happy (federal money is funneled to them) and helps me stay elected. In theory, the president's possession of a "line item veto" helps guard against this, but presidents are pretty selective in how they wield that particular power.
R. |
In other words we take the taxes paid by those in one state and give to those in another state. Now if we were only returning the taxes paid by each state back to the state from which it came - then imo that would be the responsible thing to do. But that is not what we do. We take from a state that has less political clout and give their money to a state with more political clout. Redistribution of the wealth. Something Obama wants to do even more of. My point on socialism is that at least call it what it is. If americans want socialism and vote it in, then so be it. Just don't keep defending it as something else or justifying it because someone else is a sinner also. Just call it what it is. Socialism. Then vote on it. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 01:07:59 PM · #480 |
Originally posted by Flash:
"[i]You should know that in the polls as recently as this month, one taken by Rasmussen, the majority of Americans think that FOX is the least biased network out there. |
Yes indeed... and not all that long ago the majority of people believed that the world was flat.
Similarly, in order to state that a specific network is the "Least Biased" it would follow that one believes that they are all biaised, but that the one you favour is inclined to share the same biaises as you do, meaning that you percieve theirs as being the truly transparent and most balanced of the views being proferred ... Yep, makes sense to me now.
Ray |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 01:09:53 PM · #481 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Just call it what it is. Socialism. Then vote on it. |
In order to do exactly that, you would need an informed audience... and sadly from what I am seeing and hearing, that is not about to happen any time soon.
Ray |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 01:10:12 PM · #482 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
In other words, they are studying fruit flies in France to help protect the olive crops in California. How is that a wasteful government expenditure? |
You can do anything you want as long as you can pay for it. But if you're broke and in debt, then perhaps you should rethink this expenditure - or relegate it to private industry. But when your choice to fund a pork project means someone else has to foot the bill, then that is akin to me requiring you to pay for me boarding my dog or some special camera gear that I want but can't yet afford. I really need the gear for a new shoot opportunity and my dog must be boarded so I'll send you the bill. Don't seem fair to me but... |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 01:15:00 PM · #483 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Flash:
Just call it what it is. Socialism. Then vote on it. |
In order to do exactly that, you would need an informed audience... and sadly from what I am seeing and hearing, that is not about to happen any time soon.
Ray |
The electorate won't be any more informed by the resistance to call it what it is. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 01:16:16 PM · #484 |
Originally posted by Flash:
If you can't afford the risk, then don't expose your assets to it. If you choose to expose yourself, then don't complain when you get caught in a risky venture. |
I assume my buying a home puts me in this class of foolish speculator. I avoided the sub zero class of mortgage risk pool, but as a rising tide raises all boats, a tsunami tends to wreck all boats. Thank goodness the attempt to "privatize" Social Security was stopped or most of America's poor elderly would have "chosen to exposed" themselves to the current market conditions.
Originally posted by Flash:
Greedy speculators, evil tycoons, those filthy rich unpatriotic persons that don't want to pay for my screw ups. Those are the real culprits. Lets tax them more - wel'll show them bastards to be careful and sensible with their investments. Lets take all their capital and give it to those who didn't work for it. |
I realize you are being facetious , but the underlying premise here, that an increased marginal tax rate will sap the desire of business to work is a flawed assumption. From the Ford administration to today the Maximum marginal income tax rate has been slashed, but our adjusted GPD has fallen. Do you think Manny Ramirez will change his play style if he brings home 21 million or 19 million dollars next year? Do you think that Saab gets worse advice from its executives than Ford does? After all the CEO of Saab is paying three times the tax rate that the CEO of Ford is paying, he ought to be working one third as hard, right?
You may hate paying taxes, and feel that every cent you pay is going to some welfare queen, but when I pay my taxes I look at the crumbling road ways and bridges, the pathetic public schools that are proud to graduate 75% of high school students here in California, reading at an 8th grade level. I think we may not have our priorities right. If we follow this path, cutting taxes faster than we cut our spending, borrowing from our future instead of investing in it, we are going to get our heads handed to us in the international market place. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 01:17:10 PM · #485 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by milo655321:
In other words, they are studying fruit flies in France to help protect the olive crops in California. How is that a wasteful government expenditure? |
You can do anything you want as long as you can pay for it. But if you're broke and in debt, then perhaps you should rethink this expenditure - or relegate it to private industry. But when your choice to fund a pork project means someone else has to foot the bill, then that is akin to me requiring you to pay for me boarding my dog or some special camera gear that I want but can't yet afford. I really need the gear for a new shoot opportunity and my dog must be boarded so I'll send you the bill. Don't seem fair to me but... |
Judging by your comment in this instance, I get the very distinct impression you haven't read the submission or conversely you have read it but didn't understand the benefits associated with the fruitfly study.
What is being advocated here is a win/win situation for the USA. The costs associated with the study are less in that they are being shared with another country and secondly and perhaps most importantly, the USA does not have worry about the fruit fly wreaking havoc on crops within its borders.
There are I am certain several instances where you and fellow citizens have benefited from government sponsored studies.
Ray
|
|
|
|
10/28/2008 01:20:36 PM · #486 |
Originally posted by Flash:
From this mornings exchange between Megyn Kelly and Bill Burton (Obama spokesperson)
"You should know that in the polls as recently as this month, one taken by Rasmussen, the majority of Americans think that FOX is the least biased network out there.
NBC was first, CNN was second, FOX was last in terms of bias. Your guy is believed to be getting helped by 70 percent of the press corps according to the latest Pew Poll, but you complain when FOX has the nerve to confront your candidate with his own words?" |
Strange, the only Rasmussen poll I could find that dealt with media bias was from July 2007. From that, it doesn't look like Fox was last in bias as:
Originally posted by Rasmussen:
Thirty-one percent (31%) of Americans say it has a bias that favors conservatives |
while NPR only came in at 27% beleiving it was biased.
Again, as was stated by others, this is simply a poll of people's opinions anyway. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 01:20:57 PM · #487 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Just call it what it is. Socialism. |
Ooooh... scary word! Social security is socialism. Income tax brackets are socialism. Unions are socialism. Public schools, federal highways, libraries, medicare, school loans, farm and auto subsidies, the post office, national defense, paid vacations, rural electrification, a tax-free internet... all socialist. Unless you can afford to be a feudal lord and buy your own personal farmers, army, teachers, sewers, energy sources, etc., YOU are benefitting from the wealth of others. <-- read that over and over until it sinks in, then call it what it is: civilization. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 01:23:35 PM · #488 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Flash:
Just call it what it is. Socialism. Then vote on it. |
In order to do exactly that, you would need an informed audience... and sadly from what I am seeing and hearing, that is not about to happen any time soon.
Ray |
The electorate won't be any more informed by the resistance to call it what it is. |
Again you fail to understand the message. You can call it whatever you want, but that will not resonate until your audience knows exactly what it is you are talking about.
At this juncture I am inclined to believe that many would be very hard pressed to tell you the diffence between socialism, communism, marxism and libertarianism.
Provide a clear definition of what exactly you envision "Socialism" to be and you might be very well surprised as to the ensuing results of your search.
Ray
Message edited by author 2008-10-28 13:26:18. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 01:27:48 PM · #489 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by milo655321:
In other words, they are studying fruit flies in France to help protect the olive crops in California. How is that a wasteful government expenditure? |
You can do anything you want as long as you can pay for it. But if you're broke and in debt, then perhaps you should rethink this expenditure - or relegate it to private industry. But when your choice to fund a pork project means someone else has to foot the bill, then that is akin to me requiring you to pay for me boarding my dog or some special camera gear that I want but can't yet afford. I really need the gear for a new shoot opportunity and my dog must be boarded so I'll send you the bill. Don't seem fair to me but... |
Judging by your comment in this instance, I get the very distinct impression you haven't read the submission or conversely you have read it but didn't understand the benefits associated with the fruitfly study.
What is being advocated here is a win/win situation for the USA. The costs associated with the study are less in that they are being shared with another country and secondly and perhaps most importantly, the USA does not have worry about the fruit fly wreaking havoc on crops within its borders.
There are I am certain several instances where you and fellow citizens have benefited from government sponsored studies.
Ray |
Science is such a terrible waste of money |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 01:29:21 PM · #490 |
Originally posted by Flash:
From this mornings exchange between Megyn Kelly and Bill Burton (Obama spokesperson) "[i]You should know that in the polls as recently as this month, one taken by Rasmussen, the majority of Americans think that FOX is the least biased network out there. .... |
Thanks, I just watched that exchange. That was said by Megyn Kelly of Fox News, trying to deny Burton's statement that FOX trumps up stories that help McCain and further their agenda. What a horrible woman. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 01:31:35 PM · #491 |
Originally posted by Flash:
We take from a state that has less political clout and give their money to a state with more political clout. Redistribution of the wealth. Something Obama wants to do even more of. My point on socialism is that at least call it what it is. |
Another flawed assumption driven by, I assume, getting your information from a "Fair and Balanced " source
States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:
1. D.C. ($6.17) 2. North Dakota ($2.03) 3. New Mexico ($1.89) 4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82) 6. West Virginia ($1.74) 7. Montana ($1.64) 8. Alabama ($1.61) 9. South Dakota ($1.59) 10. Arkansas ($1.53)
States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:
1. New Jersey ($0.62) 2. Connecticut ($0.64) 3. New Hampshire ($0.68) 4. Nevada ($0.73) 5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77) 7. Colorado ($0.79) 8. Massachusetts ($0.79) 9. California ($0.81) 10. New York ($0.81)
I'm not saying that the more a state complains about their undue tax burden, the more federal slop they get, but it sure is funny to look at an overlay of red and blue states, and see the money coming out of the "Tax and spend" states and poured into the " Get the government off our back" states
Message edited by author 2008-10-28 13:36:10. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 01:33:51 PM · #492 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
You may hate paying taxes, and feel that every cent you pay is going to some welfare queen, but when I pay my taxes I look at the crumbling road ways and bridges, the pathetic public schools that are proud to graduate 75% of high school students here in California, reading at an 8th grade level. |
In Detroit the graduation rate is 25%. This from publicly funded schools supported by unions who insure the lowest common denominator is the norm for teachers, and where the idea of vouchers to insure parents can choose successful schools for their children is ridiculed. Detroit has a long established history of being operated by officials who are Democrats, as are most major cities. If that system of government is so successful, then where are those examples? Certainly not Detroit.
My taxes can't keep up with the road ways as Michigan has some of the worst in the country. Perhaps because we are funding somebody elses pork project instead of spending our money on our highways or funding failed schools or paying incompetent teachers who are kept active through their bargaining representation.
Obama is from the Chicago political machine. That is really all I needed to know about him.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2008 01:36:16 PM · #493 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
In theory, the president's possession of a "line item veto" helps guard against this, but presidents are pretty selective in how they wield that particular power.
R. |
I think it's "selective" because AFAIK, the President doesn't have a line-item veto, though the SCOTUS may change their mind and give one soon. I believe some governors do have such an ability to veto individual items, but I believe the President has to sign or veto a bill in toto, though this one obviously just doesn't obey any he doesn't like, whether he signs it into law or not (c.f. "signing statements").
BTW: Here's the scoop on what John McCain derides as an "overhead projector" ... not exacly that classroom thing you use for transparencies. Planetariums play a key role in inspiring kids to go into science-related fields of study -- we know that America's world dominance was achieved through the result of our (then-) superior educational system, and that we are falling behind in science, math, and engineering achievement. Why Federal funding? Because an audit of the attendance at the plantarium found that 60% of the visitors came from outside the state. This item was a $3 million contribution towards a $10 million project, the remainder being raised by a combination of private and local government funding.
Chicago Tribune article (with photos)
Now, is that "pork-barrel waste" or an investment in America's future strength?
Compare that with derivatives trading -- side bets about what actual investors in stocks will do. What brought down the financial system was the re-legalization of gambling on (not investing in) the stock market ... a line slipped into a banking bill (around 1996, sad to say) by which the Feds pre-empted the States' right to enforce their own anti-gambling laws. That for sure was a "favor" to a special interest, even though it did not involve a direct allocation of funds. Which of those "special exceptions" is more harmful? |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 01:36:18 PM · #494 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Flash:
We take from a state that has less political clout and give their money to a state with more political clout. Redistribution of the wealth. Something Obama wants to do even more of. My point on socialism is that at least call it what it is. |
Another flawed assumption driven by, I assume, getting your information from a "Fair and Balanced " source
States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:
1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)
States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:
1. New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)
I'm not saying that the more a state complains about their undue tax burden, the more federal slop they get, but it sure is funny to look at an overlay of red and blue states, and see the money coming out of the "Tax and spend" states and poured into the " Get the government off our back" states |
On the surface it may look like that however have you looked at it from the richer states funding poorer states POV? This is what should happen in an ideal setup. Not who whines the most but who needs it the most. D.C. must be an anomaly.
Message edited by author 2008-10-28 13:36:57.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2008 01:38:02 PM · #495 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by milo655321:
In other words, they are studying fruit flies in France to help protect the olive crops in California. How is that a wasteful government expenditure? |
You can do anything you want as long as you can pay for it. But if you're broke and in debt, then perhaps you should rethink this expenditure - or relegate it to private industry. But when your choice to fund a pork project means someone else has to foot the bill, then that is akin to me requiring you to pay for me boarding my dog or some special camera gear that I want but can't yet afford. I really need the gear for a new shoot opportunity and my dog must be boarded so I'll send you the bill. Don't seem fair to me but... |
Cutting out earmarks but eagerly paying for a war in Iraq is akin to denying yourself a gumball while splurging on a new Lexus. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 01:39:38 PM · #496 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
Just call it what it is. Socialism. |
Ooooh... scary word! Social security is socialism. Income tax brackets are socialism. Unions are socialism. Public schools, federal highways, libraries, medicare, school loans, farm and auto subsidies, the post office, national defense, paid vacations, rural electrification, a tax-free internet... all socialist. Unless you can afford to be a feudal lord and buy your own personal farmers, army, teachers, sewers, energy sources, etc., YOU are benefitting from the wealth of others. <-- read that over and over until it sinks in, then call it what it is: civilization. |
You left out the NFL TV contract, where every team gets an equal cut regardless of team quality or TV market share ... of course, most NFL owners do think they are feudal lords ... |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 01:40:44 PM · #497 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
Just call it what it is. Socialism. |
Ooooh... scary word! Social security is socialism. Income tax brackets are socialism. Unions are socialism. Public schools, federal highways, libraries, medicare, school loans, farm and auto subsidies, the post office, national defense, paid vacations, rural electrification, a tax-free internet... all socialist. Unless you can afford to be a feudal lord and buy your own personal farmers, army, teachers, sewers, energy sources, etc., YOU are benefitting from the wealth of others. <-- read that over and over until it sinks in, then call it what it is: civilization. |
Heh. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 01:41:21 PM · #498 |
Originally posted by Flash:
In Detroit the graduation rate is 25%. This from publicly funded schools supported by unions who insure the lowest common denominator is the norm for teachers, and where the idea of vouchers to insure parents can choose successful schools for their children is ridiculed. |
If you're going to decry the state of your education system, you might want to familiarize yourself with the difference between "insure" and "ensure." :-/ |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 01:42:56 PM · #499 |
Originally posted by Flash:
My taxes can't keep up with the road ways as Michigan has some of the worst in the country. Perhaps because we are funding somebody elses pork project instead of spending our money on our highways or funding failed schools or paying incompetent teachers who are kept active through their bargaining representation. |
Pork makes up a tiny amount of the US budget, so don't feel that way. The numbers I could find the quickest was for 2005. Earmarks were 48 billion dollars in a 2.4 trillion dollar budget. That makes up 2%. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 01:43:14 PM · #500 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by milo655321:
In other words, they are studying fruit flies in France to help protect the olive crops in California. How is that a wasteful government expenditure? |
You can do anything you want as long as you can pay for it. But if you're broke and in debt, then perhaps you should rethink this expenditure - or relegate it to private industry. But when your choice to fund a pork project means someone else has to foot the bill, then that is akin to me requiring you to pay for me boarding my dog or some special camera gear that I want but can't yet afford. I really need the gear for a new shoot opportunity and my dog must be boarded so I'll send you the bill. Don't seem fair to me but... |
Cutting out earmarks but eagerly paying for a war in Iraq is akin to denying yourself a gumball while splurging on a new Lexus. |
That's another thing I'm not familiar with, "earmarks".
Edit: Never mind.
Message edited by author 2008-10-28 13:44:51. |
|
