RE: Tea party over THAT fast?

RE: Tea party over THAT fast? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Louve00 -> RE: Tea party over THAT fast? (11/12/2010 2:46:30 PM)
I thought funds that were set up for certain things were pork. Or earmarks.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Tea party over THAT fast? (11/12/2010 2:50:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Louve00 I thought funds that were set up for certain things were pork. Or earmarks. One definition: Earmark — An inclusion to a law by a member of Congress to specify funds for a particular purpose, bypassing executive branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes or otherwise limiting the ability of the executive branch to manage aspects of funds allocation. In the vernacular, it is wasteful and unmerited allocation of funds based primarily on political factors, and which would likely not be allocated based on normal merit evaluations, and which may degrade the ability to build or fund projects of higher merit, or greater need. Firm

rulemylife -> RE: Tea party over THAT fast? (11/12/2010 2:58:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Louve00 I thought funds that were set up for certain things were pork. Or earmarks. One definition: Earmark — An inclusion to a law by a member of Congress to specify funds for a particular purpose, bypassing executive branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes or otherwise limiting the ability of the executive branch to manage aspects of funds allocation. In the vernacular, it is wasteful and unmerited allocation of funds based primarily on political factors, and which would likely not be allocated based on normal merit evaluations, and which may degrade the ability to build or fund projects of higher merit, or greater need. Firm Unfortunately, the term has come to be used for any funding proposed by a Senator or Congressman for their state or district regardless of whether it is a worthwhile project or not.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Tea party over THAT fast? (11/12/2010 3:05:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Louve00 I thought funds that were set up for certain things were pork. Or earmarks. One definition: Earmark — An inclusion to a law by a member of Congress to specify funds for a particular purpose, bypassing executive branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes or otherwise limiting the ability of the executive branch to manage aspects of funds allocation. In the vernacular, it is wasteful and unmerited allocation of funds based primarily on political factors, and which would likely not be allocated based on normal merit evaluations, and which may degrade the ability to build or fund projects of higher merit, or greater need. Unfortunately, the term has come to be used for any funding proposed by a Senator or Congressman for their state or district regardless of whether it is a worthwhile project or not. True. Firm

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Tea party over THAT fast? (11/12/2010 5:53:34 PM)
The one addition to that definition to further clarify is that pork is generally added to an unrelated bill that has bi partisan support to make it difficult for the non-benefitting party to vote against it and tank the entire bill. When it is something added to a bill to buy a vote (eg healthcare's Louisiana Purchase) it is more commonly referred to as an earmark, although earmarks can also refer to totally benign non-political and appropriate allocations of funds within a bill. (eg of the $X billion transportation bill, $Y billion was earmarked for high speed rail construction). The important point being that RP was clearly not backpedaling on anything, he was talking about deliberative consideration of spending that winds up being allocated to a state (which could be called an earmark, but not pork) being appropriate.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125