Pro-Business lobbyists: STFU and vote for it, GOP.

[General Zod]

I mean, it's politics, since when is it inherently logical?

What is your definition of pork? What would you remove from a bill because you view it to be "pork"?

I'd say get rid of the term altogether and weigh something on its own merits instead. Quite frankly labeling something as "pork" seems to be a cheap copout for people to dismiss something without actually thinking it through, in much the same way as labeling something "liberal" or "socialist".

[Darth Wong]

Did you notice the part where he says that politics is not logical, and implies that therefore his arguments and definitions don't need to be logical either? Nice dodge.

[KrauserKrauser]

I simply pointed out that the term applies on a contextual basis, that what is pork in one bill would be considered essantial and logical in another. I used a bad example and owned up to it.

I would consider Education spending in a Defense bill to be pork. It does not provide any additional benefit to the purpose of the bill. Presuming the education is not being spent on military officers. Yes, and I understand that increased general education spending will increase the overall education level of the military, etc. Maybe a better example would be Defense spending in an Education bill.

To steal some of the points from Zod's thread, I would define the following to be pork in the context of this bill:

• $2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient. (Assuming the project is indeed inefficient)
• A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film. (True, hollywood producers would love more money and our culture is our biggest export, but fuck 'em)
• $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program. (Last I checked TV is not a right)
• $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities. (It won't create that many jobs, but it's pretty cheap, negotiable)
• $75 million for "smoking cessation activities."
• $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges. (Don't we provide this at the public libraries already?)
• $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction. (It's a pittance and is addressing a serious issue, put it in a healtchcare bill and I'm all for it)
• $6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings. (Can't that money be put toward a Nuclear Power Plant or something useful? I say this with the knowledge that the current plan has no increased nuclear power expenditures)
• $1.2 billion for "youth activities," including youth summer job programs. (I would want detail on what exactly these programs will entail)
• $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint. (What the hell does that even mean? Making lead paint less toxic?)

That is just from the list that Zod provided. I don't have hard and fast rules for what is pork as it has always been a subjective and opinion based term.

[Darth Wong]

Giving one specific example is not a definition. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with this whole "definition" concept?

[General Zod]

I simply pointed out that the term applies on a contextual basis, that what is pork in one bill would be considered essantial and logical in another. I used a bad example and owned up to it.

Context is worthless without a more precise definition.

I would consider Education spending in a Defense bill to be pork. It does not provide any additional benefit to the purpose of the bill. Presuming the education is not being spent on military officers. Yes, and I understand that increased general education spending will increase the overall education level of the military, etc. Maybe a better example would be Defense spending in an Education bill.

y hallo thar GI bill!

[Illuminatus Primus]

There would need to be some allowance for context within the bill as well. I happen to agree with the cutting of the increased family planning spending from the bill.

While family planning is something I would normally consider a net positive to the economy, I do not see the justification for including such a politically racy issue in a such "critical and direly needed, get our asses out of the fire" stimulus bill.

I would define this spending as pork in the context of this stimulus bill as it is definitely long term in its effect. The stated purpose of the bill is short term stimulus to get us over the hump, this is a non-positive in the short term and would be better served attached to a long term bill. Sadly, long term bills are few and far between in the current political climate.

You guys have made government support for social good at the basic level "politically racy", so to bitch and harp on little nitpicks like the family planning is just bullshit.

[KrauserKrauser]

Ok, so when I add qualifiers, should I always expect them to be completely ignored? I added the qualifier "Presuming the education is not being spent on military officers." does that somehow not include the GI Bill?

Because I didn't use "All former and current military personnel"? Are you really that intellectually dishonest?

Do you believe an addendum to provide rifles for the Arkansas National Guard is appropriate for a bill for Middle School funding? And the reverse?

[KrauserKrauser]

You guys have made government support for social good at the basic level "politically racy", so to bitch and harp on little nitpicks like the family planning is just bullshit.

Right, which I owned up to and provided a list of things that have been proposed as cuts that did not include any family planning issues.

The substance abuse spending for Native Americans is a bit tricky as it definitely is a long term issue but I think it should be put on a more appropriate bill.

[Illuminatus Primus]

• $2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient. (Assuming the project is indeed inefficient)

Who knows what the Bush Department of Energy considered inefficient. Furthermore, your Republitards were trying to pressure Pennsylvanians on the 11th hour to not vote Obama because of him being anti-coal, and now you want to oppose this?

• $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program. (Last I checked TV is not a right)

Are Republitards capable of arguing anything without resort to retard right-based ethics combined with bald assertions? Hey idiot, maybe we'd like to make sure everyone can get public broadcasting so that social services isn't as widely stretched in the event of hurricanes and the like. Especially since government modernization in this case has led to the obsolescence of existing TV hardware, requiring people buy new ones. But yeah, they're all lazy, none of them are sick or have dependents, so fuck 'em.

• $75 million for "smoking cessation activities."

Smoking is a drain on the economy which leads to unproductivity and huge health costs.

• $6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings. (Can't that money be put toward a Nuclear Power Plant or something useful? I say this with the knowledge that the current plan has no increased nuclear power expenditures)

Actually, weatherizing and making-efficient buildings is a very useful purpose. It reduces consumption while putting construction workers to work TOMORROW making necessary renovations. And there was an energy loan program including nuclear loans, but your GOP Senate cut it.

• $1.2 billion for "youth activities," including youth summer job programs. (I would want detail on what exactly these programs will entail)

Clearly we should just leave our already extremely poor inner-city social system to rot, and more of these kids to go into gangs and fill up prisons instead of working.

[General Zod]

Ok, so when I add qualifiers, should I always expect them to be completely ignored? I added the qualifier "Presuming the education is not being spent on military officers." does that somehow not include the GI Bill?

Officers and their dependents. Not just officers. This is why labeling something as "pork" or "not pork" is stupid. It's a gross oversimplification so people don't actually have to think.

Because I didn't use "All former and current military personnel"? Are you really that intellectually dishonest?

I like how you don't seem to grasp the irony of calling me intellectually dishonest in the same sentence that you shove words in my mouth.

Do you believe an addendum to provide rifles for the Arkansas National Guard is appropriate for a bill for Middle School funding? And the reverse?

Get back to me when you're ready to address the point that labeling something as "pork" or "not pork" is a gross oversimplification and intellectually lazy.

[KrauserKrauser]

Officers and their dependents. Not just officers. This is why labeling something as "pork" or "not pork" is stupid. It's a gross oversimplification so people don't actually have to think.

It may be a gross oversimplification, but it does serve a purpose. In your provided example of the GI Bill spending it can be considered both Military and Education spending. Would it be ok in a Healthcare bill?

Get back to me when you're ready to address the point that labeling something as "pork" or "not pork" is a gross oversimplification and intellectually lazy.

Gross oversimplification? Sure. Intellectually lazy? In some cases, definitely.

My definition would be unrelated spending attached to a bill. I got ahead of myself and did put words in your mouth, accusing you of saying something you did not. I did however add the qualifier to show that a distinction does exist and can be recognized.

The most recognizable term would be "pork" but as that has been successively used for broader and broader implications from "spending I don't agree with" to "spending too much for something we both agree on" that it does end up losing it's specific meaning.

[General Zod]

It may be a gross oversimplification, but it does serve a purpose. In your provided example of the GI Bill spending it can be considered both Military and Education spending. Would it be ok in a Healthcare bill?

Now you're just playing "gotcha" since you can't actually articulate whatever point you're trying to get at. I've already addressed this, it depends on the individual item and why it's included.

My definition would be unrelated spending attached to a bill. I got ahead of myself and did put words in your mouth, accusing you of saying something you did not. I did however add the qualifier to show that a distinction does exist and can be recognized.

The most recognizable term would be "pork" but as that has been successively used for broader and broader implications from "spending I don't agree with" to "spending too much for something we both agree on" that it does end up losing it's specific meaning.

In other words, it's an utterly useless term.

[KrauserKrauser]

Who knows what the Bush Department of Energy considered inefficient. Furthermore, your Republitards were trying to pressure Pennsylvanians on the 11th hour to not vote Obama because of him being anti-coal, and now you want to oppose this?

I agree, I assume that neither of us have details as to the efficiency of this program. I am opposing this because it was deemed inefficient. If it is in fact inefficient as deemed by the current DoE, then yes, I do oppose this as there would be presumably a more efficient expenditure that is coal or non-coal related that will achieve the same purpose of power generation. If you have evidence that the program is in fact efficent and the DoE was incorrect, please provide it.

Are Republitards capable of arguing anything without resort to retard right-based ethics combined with bald assertions? Hey idiot, maybe we'd like to make sure everyone can get public broadcasting so that social services isn't as widely stretched in the event of hurricanes and the like. Especially since government modernization in this case has led to the obsolescence of existing TV hardware, requiring people buy new ones. But yeah, they're all lazy, none of them are sick or have dependents, so fuck 'em.

Give them all radios, that's tons cheaper. Cheaper alternatives exist if the public proadcasting system is the main concern. There is no additional strain on social services if they get free radios and I assume you can get cheaper radios than the analog to digital converters. Justify the expense if the social services can be covered with a lower amount of money.

Smoking is a drain on the economy which leads to unproductivity and huge health costs.

True enough, include it in a health spending bill and I'm all for it.

Actually, weatherizing and making-efficient buildings is a very useful purpose. It reduces consumption while putting construction workers to work TOMORROW making necessary renovations. And there was an energy loan program including nuclear loans, but your GOP Senate cut it.

Yeah, I agree, it's why I want to replace my hater water heater with a tankless one and one of the ways I justified the new washer and dryer I just bought. I understand that newer tech for government buildings and facilities will lead to savings in the long run and that Nuclear bit turned out to be a bit of a red herring in this case.

I hadn't heard of the energy loan program as the list Zod provided was the only thing I had to work off of. Got a link to back up the claim?

Clearly we should just leave our already extremely poor inner-city social system to rot, and more of these kids to go into gangs and fill up prisons instead of working.

Because that is exactly what I said and you are in no way putting words in my mouth. I understand that the programs can in fact be very beneficial, however I would like a detailed plan for such a large sum of money being sunk into it. While the bill itself is Large beyond comprehension, you can do a fuckload with $1.2 BILLION and I would want to make sure it is spent in a useful way.

How you make this jump to accusing me of wanting street gangs and filling up prisons is due to your personal bias against me. So, go fuck yourself.

[Samuel]

I thought pork only refered to projects that, although useful, gave such a small benefit and were so expensive they would not have been done except for political considerations.

[KrauserKrauser]

Now you're just playing "gotcha" since you can't actually articulate whatever point you're trying to get at. I've already addressed this, it depends on the individual item and why it's included.

Which is what I was trying to say in the first place. That the term in it's current state is contextual and applies on a case by case basis.

In other words, it's an utterly useless term.

Depending on what you are trying to accomplish, yes. If you are trying to say "This is unrelated spending that while useful should be relegated to a different, seperate bill" it is the closest one word sound bite that you can use to encompass that idea.

[General Zod]

Which is what I was trying to say in the first place. That the term in it's current state is contextual and applies on a case by case basis.

I'm not referring to whether or not something should be labeled as pork. I'm referring to whether or not something should be included in a bill and deemed as useful. Trying to identify something as pork is for the most part worthless.

Depending on what you are trying to accomplish, yes. If you are trying to say "This is unrelated spending that while useful should be relegated to a different, seperate bill" it is the closest one word sound bite that you can use to encompass that idea.

If it's truly unrelated, then it should be removed. For something as broad as a "stimulus" package there is no easy measure of whether it's related or not, and precisely why "pork" is a worthless term in this case.

[KrauserKrauser]

If it's truly unrelated, then it should be removed. For something as broad as a "stimulus" package there is no easy measure of whether it's related or not, and precisely why "pork" is a worthless term in this case.

I can see the merit of that arguement and would not disagree.

Getting back to the OT, I believe that there exists in this current stimulus bill additional spending that is either not directly related to stimulating the economy or is wasteful in and of itself. Given that the bill is 750 FUCKING pages long, I'm sure that outrageous shit will be found in this bill after its passage that would have been removed with proper scrutiny and analysis.