This is what we call trade in government. Is it always pleasant, no. I understand some of the argument against it, IE why doesn't the government work to the interests of everyone without grabbing cash for their district.
But, in some ways this can allow for projects to be funded that might not get it normally. And it also means that those in congress are at least attempting to get jobs and aid for those they apparently represent. I would rather that a bit of pork be used to allow for necessary legislation instead of having nothing accomplished.
"Have you noticed that the spending in your district seems sensible while the waste is always outside your district." -POTUS
Both parties do the pork thing for two reasons: if they get money for their district, they are more likely to be able to win reelection with the list of projects that were good for the area regardless of its impact on anyone outside the district, and if they manage to stuff enough bills they can blame the other party to score political points.
And when it's recognized, a neocon typically calls himself a libertarian without any concept of the philosophy just to declare himself above these politics, but will continue to vote along party lines.
Exanonymous' post perfectly captures the essence of Tinsleythink: let the other guy make the hard choices (or do the hard work, take the big risk, or serve their country), then reap the rewards and try to take the credit, all the while sneering and throwing rocks.
And pretending he's the only one not getting a free ride.
Side note: April 15th approaches. Will Teabaggin' Tinsley put (or keep) his money where his flapping mouth is? Or is he all talk? "You say you want a revolution..."
Pork is anything spent by the government that helps people who couldn't afford to help themselves. If it goes to the already wealthy, it's an 'investment.'
Open appropriations for things is merely governing.
If Congress appropriates money for a bridge openly, then we can mock it for being waste or praise it for being wise, but either way, it's our elected representatives doing as we will. The problem with the "bridge to nowhere" was that it was stupid, and deservedly mocked.
The alternative is for Congress to let the low-level officials in the Executive Branch decide which bridges get built. Do we really trust unelected officials so much?
Tinsley needs to take his mind all the way back to the mid-90's and he will remember a speaker-of-the-house by the name of Newt Gingrich. Gingrich is the guy that revolutionalized the buying of votes with pork. Gingrich sent out a memo with the idea of bringing as many pet-projects home as possible in order to keep the sheeple happy and voting Republican. Oh yeah, Bruce probably can't remember buying that last bottle of MD 20/20, much less the mid-freaking-90's.
9 comments:
This is what we call trade in government. Is it always pleasant, no. I understand some of the argument against it, IE why doesn't the government work to the interests of everyone without grabbing cash for their district.
But, in some ways this can allow for projects to be funded that might not get it normally. And it also means that those in congress are at least attempting to get jobs and aid for those they apparently represent. I would rather that a bit of pork be used to allow for necessary legislation instead of having nothing accomplished.
"Have you noticed that the spending in your district seems sensible while the waste is always outside your district."
-POTUS
Both parties do the pork thing for two reasons: if they get money for their district, they are more likely to be able to win reelection with the list of projects that were good for the area regardless of its impact on anyone outside the district, and if they manage to stuff enough bills they can blame the other party to score political points.
And when it's recognized, a neocon typically calls himself a libertarian without any concept of the philosophy just to declare himself above these politics, but will continue to vote along party lines.
Exanonymous' post perfectly captures the essence of Tinsleythink: let the other guy make the hard choices (or do the hard work, take the big risk, or serve their country), then reap the rewards and try to take the credit, all the while sneering and throwing rocks.
And pretending he's the only one not getting a free ride.
Side note: April 15th approaches. Will Teabaggin' Tinsley put (or keep) his money where his flapping mouth is? Or is he all talk? "You say you want a revolution..."
I don't get this.
Since the congressman in question is shown wearing a suit and is neither cross-eyed nor pony-tailed, Bruce is illustrating a Republican.
But no Republican switched his vote for EITHER the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act.
So, is this guy supposed to be Blanche Lincoln?
(BTW: I am NickE and not last night's troll "Nick," who has now besmirched the name for generations to come)
Pork is anything spent by the government that helps people who couldn't afford to help themselves. If it goes to the already wealthy, it's an 'investment.'
You know what's even tastier than pork? Duck. Ah, delicious duck breast, with the skin all caramelized and the fat properly rendered ...
Secret pork, hidden pork - that is a problem.
Open appropriations for things is merely governing.
If Congress appropriates money for a bridge openly, then we can mock it for being waste or praise it for being wise, but either way, it's our elected representatives doing as we will. The problem with the "bridge to nowhere" was that it was stupid, and deservedly mocked.
The alternative is for Congress to let the low-level officials in the Executive Branch decide which bridges get built. Do we really trust unelected officials so much?
Tinsley needs to take his mind all the way back to the mid-90's and he will remember a speaker-of-the-house by the name of Newt Gingrich. Gingrich is the guy that revolutionalized the buying of votes with pork. Gingrich sent out a memo with the idea of bringing as many pet-projects home as possible in order to keep the sheeple happy and voting Republican.
Oh yeah, Bruce probably can't remember buying that last bottle of MD 20/20, much less the mid-freaking-90's.
We'll be more then happy to take back all the money that went to your state, Ducks.
Post a Comment