RE: Tea party over THAT fast?

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Tea party over THAT fast?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Tea party over THAT fast?

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

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Tea party over THAT fast? - 11/12/2010 2:46:30 PM

Louve00

Posts: 1674
Joined: 2/1/2009
Status: offline

I thought funds that were set up for certain things were pork. Or earmarks.

_____________________________

For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearance, as though they were realities and are often more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are. - Niccolo Machiavelli

(in reply to FirmhandKY)

Profile

Post #: 61

RE: Tea party over THAT fast? - 11/12/2010 2:50:56 PM

FirmhandKY

Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to Louve00)

Profile

Post #: 62

RE: Tea party over THAT fast? - 11/12/2010 2:58:55 PM

rulemylife

Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to FirmhandKY)

Profile

Post #: 63

RE: Tea party over THAT fast? - 11/12/2010 3:05:27 PM

FirmhandKY

Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to rulemylife)

Profile

Post #: 64

RE: Tea party over THAT fast? - 11/12/2010 5:53:34 PM

willbeurdaddy

Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline

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.

< Message edited by willbeurdaddy -- 11/12/2010 5:56:08 PM >

_____________________________

Hear the lark
and harken
to the barking of the dogfox,
gone to ground.

(in reply to FirmhandKY)

Profile

Post #: 65