Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Definition of Pork aka Earmarks

Posted By: Truthseeker on 2009-02-13
In Reply to: For pork hunters...(sm) - Just the big bad

Just so we all know what pork (aka "earmarks") actually is:

http://www.earmarks.omb.gov
/earmarks_definition.html

From the Office of Management and Budget:

OMB defines earmarks as funds provided by the Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents Executive Branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to manage critical aspects of the funds allocation process.

In other words, provisions added to a bill after the president has ratified the bill that direct funds to certain districts in exchange for promises made beforehand by the representatives from those districts to vote yes on said bill. These are the earmarks (or "pork") that McCain and Obama both campaigned against. This bill contains no pork (yet) because they just passed it.

The GOP's definition of earmarks aka "pork": "Stuff we don't like."

Technically, the provisions in the bill that the GOP and others are calling pork (or earmarks) are not pork.


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Pork?
I thought the obamanator wasn't going to allow pork in his stimulus package?  That man will say anything and then turn around and do anything.  I don't trust him at all.  I was giving him a chance but I just don't see how I can anymore.  We never should have elected someone who learned politics from corrupt politicians in Illinois.  Something is horribly wrong here.
PORK
Jobs? Pleeze......there are doctors to help these folks, doctors already in place. There will be no REAL jobs created for this crap.
I am sitting here talking with a nutritionist at a local hospital, doctorate degree, and she said this will do absolutely nothing to create jobs, that it is just another bunch of crap.

She has seen all this broohaha before, wanting to help the obese and smokers and all it does is create more paperwork for those already doing the job.

These are SOCIAL programs. We do not need more social programs. Don't you realize that? More social programs = MORE GOVERNMENT. More government is the problem.

I hope to he!! they get rid of the dog and frisbee park and all the other garbage in there.

I don't want to pay for anyone's birth control and condoms either......

Guess that will produce jobs too?
Pork....(sm)

$50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts.
Mapplethorpe is pleased, remember crosses in jars of urine?


This one was in the House bill, not in the Senate bill.

$650 million for digital-TV coupons.


TV is going digital and it is necessary for people to be able to get converter boxes.  Otherwise, no news, no TV, etc. 

$34 million to renovate the Department of Commerce headquarters.


Renovation means construction = jobs.

$350 million for Agriculture Department computers.


Buy new computers = putting money in the economy = jobs for people to build computers.

$150 million for “producers of livestock, honeybees, and farm-raised fish.


This is straight up help for food production.  In particular, there is a serious problem right now with lack of honeybees.  As in, pollination is a problem right now.  I'm actually thinking about raising honeybees myself for help with my garden.



 


Believe it or not, dems want to cut the pork too! nm
.
For pork hunters...(sm)
A lot of you are saying that there is still pork in the stimulus.  How about listing those pork projects that are still in the bill.  I'm interested to see what you think is pork.
King of Pork!

And the King is...... Robert Byrd - D-WVA


60 earmarks for a total of 122 million..... 


Only $473,000? Whoever submitted that bit of pork
We just spent $6 million to install bomb detection equipment at the airport in (drumroll.....) Jackson Hole, Wyoming. I've been worried sick about Jackson Hole, haven't you?
At least they're trying to stop most of the pork
I don't know why you DON'T object to most of this stimulus package. It's a bunch of crap. Three quarters of the stuff doesn't belong in a STIMULUS PACKAGE, it belongs in the BUDGET.
One person's pork is another ocmmunity's
x
Yeah, full of pork, just like those awful republicans
nm
Yes and 60% of the earmarks

were from the dems.  Both sides suck as far as I am concerned!  If you are going to comment and bash the pubs for their 40%....at least be thorough and report the dems and their 60%.  Now we have President Obama who said that he would not sign anything with earmarks in it and that he would read every line, etc........now that he is pres.....he seems to be whistling a different tune. 


There are 8,500 earmarks in that bill costing us around 810 billion dollars.  As far as I am concerned.....both dems and pubs know where they can go because I tired of this crap!  They are all crooks.  They are all out for their own special interests.  They are hurting us more than helping us.


So it is 100% earmarks? NM
x
You know your candidate....look up his earmarks...
A million to the hospital his wife works for after they nearly doubled her salary. Yep, he is against those pesky earmarks. The bridge to nowhere was a huge one. He is Washington politics as usual. There is no change there.

Yes, he is careful with his votes. Voted against the Infants Born Alive act twice. Managed, with the 130 presents, to show up for what was important to him..denying medical care for an infant who managed to survive an abortion. yeah, there's something to be real proud of.
Look into Obama's earmarks...
particularly the one for Michelle's employer after they doubled her salary. No one in Illinois benefitted from that one other than the Obama family and her employer.
Earmarks explained. sm
The ones who vote for the spending bills are the bad guys. Ron Paul votes against all huge spending bills. The bill passes anyway and since it passes, he makes sure all his constituents requests are in there and by earmarking he is tagging the money and keeping track of where it goes. If it is not earmarked, it goes back to the executive like a blank check. By earmarking, he is maintaining a certain degree of transparency and accountability plus giving money the government looted from his constituents back to them.
Just like O saying "no earmarks," right? nm
xxx
Interesting comment on earmarks...

*** Edited by Moderator***


 


Please post URLs, not copyrighted materials or content from any other site.


 


wanna talk about earmarks?
Sarah Palin just this year sent 31 earmarks totaling $197 million (more per person than any other state submitted)... she requested even more than that in 2007. And she is one that is running on a ticket talking about NO PORK BARREL!

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008154532_webpalin02m.html
You need to understand the difference in earmarks and...
pork barrel, first. Every state asks for earmarks. Pork barrel are earmarks that don't come through the normal channels...that congresspeople try to slap in the middle of a bill that will pass in order to get their "pork" through. Congress are the ones who do pork earmarks, and last time I looked, Sarah Palin has never been in Congress. Obama has, and Joe Biden has, and boy howdy...let's talk about earmarks. By the way, John McCain has asked for zip, zilch, nada.

Obama asked for a big one and his wife's employer and her salary got doubled. Coincidence? LOL. I think not.
But he just signed a bill filled with earmarks???
x
8600 earmarks = 6 BILLION DOLLARS!
to that line by line lie Obama told when he wanted to be elected?  He hasn't looked at one page, let one line by line...... thanks to all who put such a thug and liar in office! 
Ron Paul on EARMARKS.....please don't miss his point
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fq_5H1XKVww&eurl=http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/
No, the issue of transparency with earmarks did not escape me

but his reasoning was, at times, questionable. It appears as though he is going to take the money and run unlike some of his compatriots who are "attempting" to refuse stimulus money.


Earmarks Include:



  1. Add-ons. If the Administration asks for $100 million for formula grants, for example, and Congress provides $110 million and places restrictions (such as site-specific locations) on the additional $10 million, the additional $10 million is counted as an earmark.
  2. Carve-outs. If the Administration asks for $100 million and Congress provides $100 million but places restrictions on some portion of the funding, the restricted portion is counted as an earmark.
  3. Funding provisions that do not name a recipient, but are so specific that only one recipient can qualify for funding.

Stop the spending on stupid earmarks,
give the middle class some real tax cuts, and have some patience. Things aren't going to change overnight and they're not going to change by continuing to throw money at it every day.
Obama has no room to talk about earmarks....and neither he nor Biden...
have much room to talk about flip flopping. Ahem.
Obama lied to the country. "No earmarks"
nm
What is your definition of..

winning the war, Iraq and Viet Nam. What exactly does that mean, that there will democracy, an industrialized, technologically adept population? that we will overthrow the **terrorists**  (where will they go??) and peace will be restored to the kingdom?  I don't get what you think is going to be achieved by staying in Iraq. There has never been peace in the region and there never will be, NEVER unless Himself comes down here and changes things. And another question Islamofascists, who on God's green earth came up with that moniker? It is really quite bizarre, and a mouthful.


Where did you copy the chickenhawk piece from, just curious.


Thanks for the definition!
That is me..liberal to the core and so proud of it.  Watching the debate last night I was shaking my head watching those old men with old ideas, so out of touch.  Made me so happy that Im a liberal democrat.
Okay but by your definition
His BROTHER is in need! And if not him, definitely his aunt who is living in public housing, illegally at that (unless it's been refuted and I missed that part)

All I'm saying is you have to start at home. Family should come first. I would believe him a lot more about taking care of others if I saw him doing that, instead of just trying to tax us to take care of others.

On a side note, why in the heck does someone who makes almost 1M in 2006 get to claim a child care credit? Like they need that.


By definition it is...
a servile (submissive) self-seeking flatterer
Definition of NWO from wikipedia

The term new world order has been used to refer to a new period of history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power. The first usages of the term surrounded Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points and call for a League of Nations following the devastation of World War I. The phrase was used sparingly at the end of the Second World War when describing the plans for the United Nations and Bretton Woods system, in part because of the negative association the phrase would bring to the failed League of Nations. In retrospect however, many commentators have applied the term retroactively to the order put in place by the WWII victors as a new world order. The most recent, and most widely discussed, application of the phrase came at the end of the Cold War. Presidents Mikhail Gorbachev and George H.W. Bush used the term to try and define the nature of the post Cold War era, and the spirit of great power cooperation that they hoped might materialize. Gorbachev's initial formulation was wide ranging and idealistic, but his ability to press for it was severely limited by the internal crisis of the Soviet system. Bush's vision was, in comparison, much more circumscribed and pragmatic, perhaps even instrumental at times, and closely linked to the First Gulf War. Perhaps not surprisingly, the perception of what the new world order entailed in the press and in the public imagination far outstripped what either Gorbachev or Bush had outlined, and was characterized by nearly comprehensive optimism.


If your definition is accurate
which I highly dobut then I guess I'm a liberal because I don't pledge blind loyalty to Bush. On the other hand I don't think every word he says is a lie either. I think he is a human capable of human mistakes, but I don't think every problem in the world at this moment is Bush's fault like many on this board do. I think many people are obsessed with the fact there's a conservative in office. It wouldn't matter what their name was Bush or Smith, the obsession would be the same. There are many wacko theories out there on all sorts of issues, but some I have read here take the cake. You don't talk about any other issues other than Bush is fault of everything wrong in this world. To me, liberal or conservative, is a little off the deep end no matter what political ideology you come from.
Do we have a different definition for the word lie?nm
z
If you want a definition of racism...
read the creed for Obama's church...and read some of his pastor mentor's sermons...and some of the speeches and quotes of their friend Louis Farrakhan. That, my friend, is the very definition of racism. When you read the creed of the church, substitute the word "white" everywhere the word "black" is used and tell me it is not racist. We do NOT need a racist in the White House.
Liberal: A definition.
1. A person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties. 2. A person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets.
What is the definition of "wind bag"?
Once again, I just skimmed your post. You are much too fond of your own words.

I am pretty succint in my posts. There is no flip flop. I am stating history in black and white. It doesn't come from Common Dreams. I am explicit in sending the links for those to read them if they wish. I don't quote it. I think you got the market cornered on that maneuver.

Not much of value has come out of the coservative sector, from my point of view. All the sustainable social movements have been on a liberal front. It just so happens that we are a small faction and can get very little leverage, but when we do, it is for the benefit of all not just a few. Can the conservative sector say that? I don't think so.

This is not childish. It's political fact. If you makes you feel better to place the blame everywhere, well that's your right.

If you don't like my liberal thoughts or progressive ideas, don't read my posts. Continue to be a sheep.
Thanks, but I did not want a dictionary definition....
I wanted a *liberal* to define what that means to them...what are their views...what is the *platform* so to speak...what makes a *liberal* different from a *leftist?* Why is Obama not a liberal? That is the information I am seeking...not a dictionary definition. In a liberal's own words, so to speak.
I think that might be a stretch in the definition of
socialism.
Definition of choice

Choice consists of the mental process of thinking involved with the process of judging the merits of multiple options and selecting one of them for action. Some simple examples include deciding whether to get up in the morning or go back to sleep, or selecting a given route for a journey. More complex examples (often decisions that affect what a person thinks or their core beliefs) include choosing a lifestyle, religious affiliation, or political position.


You choose your path, I'll choose mine.


In the United States, the Bill of Rights is the name by which the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution are known.[1] They were introduced by James Madison to the First United States Congress in 1789 as a series of constitutional amendments, and came into effect on December 15, 1791, when they had been ratified by three-fourths of the States. The Bill of Rights limits the powers of the federal government of the United States, protecting the rights of all citizens, residents and visitors on United States territory.


The Bill of Rights protects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, the freedom of assembly, and the freedom to petition. It also prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, and compelled self-incrimination. The Bill of Rights also prohibits Congress from making any law respecting establishment of religion and prohibits the federal government from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. In federal criminal cases, it requires indictment by grand jury for any capital or "infamous crime", guarantees a speedy public trial with an impartial jury composed of members of the state or judicial district in which the crime occurred, and prohibits double jeopardy. In addition, the Bill of Rights states that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,"[2] and reserves all powers not granted to the federal government to the citizenry or States. Most of these restrictions were later applied to the states by a series of decisions applying the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868, after the American Civil War.


 


FYI...Here is the definition of stalking.
Fundamentally, stalking is a series of actions that puts a person in fear for their safety. The stalker may follow you, harass you, call you on the telephone, watch your house, send you mail you don't want, or act in some other way that frightens you.

The exact legal definition varies from state to state, but all states now have some kind of law against stalking. Virtually any unwanted contact between a stalker and their victim which directly or indirectly communicates a threat or places the victim in fear can generally be referred to as stalking, whether or not it meets a state's exact legal definition.

Stalkers use a wide variety of methods to harass their targets. The inventiveness, persistence, and obsessive nature of stalkers is almost unimaginable, until you have experienced being the target.

Stalking is a serious, potentially life-threatening crime. Even in its less severe forms, it permanently changes the lives of the people who are victimized by this crime, as well as affecting their friends, families, and co-workers. Law enforcement is only beginning to understand how to deal with this relatively new crime.
What's the definition of pubic?
.
Quick definition..sm


Marxist-Socialist

A philosophy-turned-governmental-ideology, usually mistaken for Stalinist/Leninist-Communist. This philosophy, although greatly misunderstood, is nothing more that the belief that the strong, the capable, and the powerful should support those too weak to support themselves. This philosophy, created by Karl Marx, was meant to be the fundamental building block for a utopian society, but was later taken up by a man named Lenin, who twisted and warped the pure isea of Socialism and turned it into Leninist-Communism. Later adopted by Joseph Stalin, who made the idea of Socialism a cruel cycle of death, hatred, and intolerence.
I know what the definition of socialism is
xx
the definition of Christian
would be one that "follows" Christ -- by his example, his commands, etc. these creeps are NOT Christians by any way of measure.
Definition of cult
All you have to do is read the Faith board to see the similarities.

1.
a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
b. The followers of such a religion or sect.

2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.

3. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.

4. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.

5.
a. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
b. The object of such devotion.

6. An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.
Definition of a TOOL, taken from the
TOOL (tewl):

(n.) Someone who is used for the benefit of others. A person who lacks any real quality of life, because they reduce themselves to arbitrary and meaningless activity which wastes their existence and entirely eliminates who they are as an individual.
____________________________

Face it. If we're MT's, then we're ALL pathetic 'tools'.
What is YOUR definition of a terrorist? nm
x
Definition of terrorism.
Perhaps I can speak to this as someone who is both trained and educated in the subject.

The FBI, State Department, DHS, United Nations and numerous other agencies and experts have defined terrorism in somewhat different ways, but most definitions agree on some common elements with respect to terrorism:

1. Instilling fear...
2. ...in a civilian population...
3. ...by violence or threat of violence...
4. ...to advance social, political or religious objectives...
5. ...outside the context of lawful means of change or the conduct of war.

Although it is frequently said (usually in the popular press) that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", implying that the term is entirely subjective, this is only true when one of the "men" in question is intellectually dishonest. Terrorism has been defined with sufficient clarity that we can say with a high degree of specificity what is, and what is not, terrorism and who are, and who are not, terrorists.

When people seek to strike a moral equivalency between actions that are fundamentally terrorist and those that merely share certain common elements (for instance, both terrorists and nations at war use bombs), they are confusing superficial similarity with equivalency. This inevitably leads them into errors in thinking and the consequences of such errors - bad judgments, bad decisions, and wrong actions.

You might find a mouse in your cookie jar, but that doesn't make it a cookie.
You have an odd definition of insult.
Michelle Obama was roundly hooted when she suggested that racism is anything that a person perceives to be racist, and here you are offering the same sort of definition. "Insult is anything someone considers to be insulting."

If you can't figure out the problems with definitions like these, I'll be happy to tell you - but I wouldn't want to insult your intelligence.
Now that we have your definition of "insult"...
...there's nothing more to say. You're going to be insulted whenever your sensibilities are offended and I certainly can't stop you, nor will I try.

Follow the logical flow of the conversation (rather than posting non sequiturs or responding to things I don't say), and stay on topic (rather than wandering off into personalities), and I won't have to repeat the request.


Which candidate meets this definition? sm
IMO neither, but I am curious to see who thinks they do. We have some Republicans calling themselves conservative, but they more closely resemble Fabian socialists.