Transparency By Democratic Congress Shows Up GOP Hypocracy

• Footwedge

  The Democtratic controlled Congress passed into law that any pork spending be assigned the name of the pig receiving the loot available for public viewing.
  
  This should put a muzzle on those that somehow think the porkulous is an Obama ploy.
  
  It isn't.
  
  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/33096.html
• I Wear Pants

  While pork spending is stupid and shouldn't be allowed, I wish we could get past this idea that pork spending is what's causing the deficit (not saying you think that but many seem to).
  
  I do think this is funny though considering that democrats are apparently addicted to pork if you listen to the republican media.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  Can we get a warning when the link being posted has nothing to do with post, notwithstanding bad spelling?
• LJ

  

  Upon further review the article does talk about the law passage, but that was in 2006.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  FYI, as part of my point, Footwedge did you read this:
  
  "Young, the ranking member on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, helped secure 63 earmarks worth $128 million.....In the House, Young was followed by Reps. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.) with $121 million, Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) with $116 million and Jim Moran (D-Va.) with $107 million"
  
  Giving credence to the independent source (and by the way, their [edit, by their I mean the independent source] website sucks), still according to their research of the approximate $475M of earmarks that came from the top 4 "earmarkers" in the House, approximately 75% came from DEMs.
  
  What on earth, is journalism dead, or just corrupt?
• Footwedge

  Manhattan Buckeye wrote: FYI, as part of my point, Footwedge did you read this:
  
  "Young, the ranking member on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, helped secure 63 earmarks worth $128 million.....In the House, Young was followed by Reps. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.) with $121 million, Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) with $116 million and Jim Moran (D-Va.) with $107 million"
  
  Giving credence to the independent source (and by the way, their [edit, by their I mean the independent source] website sucks), still according to their research of the approximate $475M of earmarks that came from the top 4 "earmarkers" in the House, approximately 75% came from DEMs.
  
  What on earth, is journalism dead, or just corrupt?

  Yes, I read it. What's your point exactly? Do you have a problem with the Democrat controlled Congress putting up the porker names?
• Footwedge

  I Wear Pants wrote: While pork spending is stupid and shouldn't be allowed, I wish we could get past this idea that pork spending is what's causing the deficit (not saying you think that but many seem to).
  
  I do think this is funny though considering that democrats are apparently addicted to pork if you listen to the republican media.

  Pork spending contributes to the annual deficits. I did not claim that they are the main culprit.
• I Wear Pants

  Footwedge wrote:

  I Wear Pants wrote: While pork spending is stupid and shouldn't be allowed, I wish we could get past this idea that pork spending is what's causing the deficit (not saying you think that but many seem to).
  
  I do think this is funny though considering that democrats are apparently addicted to pork if you listen to the republican media.

  Pork spending contributes to the annual deficits. I did not claim that they are the main culprit.

• queencitybuckeye

  Footwedge wrote:
  Yes, I read it. What's your point exactly? Do you have a problem with the Democrat controlled Congress putting up the porker names?

  I would guess that the point is the premise of the article contains a major, baldfaced lie. With your record for veracity, no one is particularly surprised that you either didn't notice it, or you did and posted it anyway.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Manhattan Buckeye wrote: FYI, as part of my point, Footwedge did you read this:
  
  "Young, the ranking member on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, helped secure 63 earmarks worth $128 million.....In the House, Young was followed by Reps. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.) with $121 million, Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) with $116 million and Jim Moran (D-Va.) with $107 million"
  
  Giving credence to the independent source (and by the way, their [edit, by their I mean the independent source] website sucks), still according to their research of the approximate $475M of earmarks that came from the top 4 "earmarkers" in the House, approximately 75% came from DEMs.
  
  What on earth, is journalism dead, or just corrupt?

  As someone who pays closer attention to this than most -- the answer is YES to both.
• cbus4life

  I still read plenty of wonderful and respected journalists covering a number of different areas who would beg to differ.
  
  In this regard, in terms of politics, i would agree that they aren't doing their job as the 4th estate.
  
  But don't exaggerate so much to imply that "journalism," which covers all types of journalism, is dead.
  
  You just sound crazy and irrational when you do.
  
  They aren't doing their job in regards to politics and the like here.
  
  But they are still doing a wonderful job in certain other areas, that is for sure. What i've been reading lately from a number of folks is evidence of that.
  
  Journalism still exists as it should in many areas, and is being done up to the level of the journalism is old.
  
  Don't go nuts. We all agree that they aren't doing their job in this area. But journalism as a whole isn't "dead," or "corrupt," or at least not to the level that you seem to think it is.
• jhay78

  

  They're certainly not doing their jobs- we wouldn't need FoxNews or talk radio if they were.
• cbus4life

  SOME journalists aren't doing their jobs. Journalists reporting on these areas.
  
  That doesn't mean that Journalism as a whole, or ALL journalists, aren't doing their job.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  The ideal of objective journalism is gone.
  
  Sorry, that's not hyperbole or Chicken Little-esque. It's simply the truth.
  
  Investigative journalism, for the most part, is also dead. Newspapers simply don't have the financial resources to do it, anymore.
  
  Journalism in smaller communities -- where it is vitally important to keep track of local politics, and keep them honest -- is on death's door.
  
  For example, the McClatchey chain that serves most of north central Ohio simply doesn't have a newsroom to speak of, anymore, to serve smaller communities like Bucyrus, Marion, Galion or even Mansfield so much.
  
  They can barely staff enough to take care of incoming press releases, let alone cover the courts, city councils, school boards and other areas that should be exposed to the light of journalism every day.
  
  I know for a fact, that if things don't improve (not likely), these chains will simply pull completely out of the smaller communities altogether. There just won't be a daily newspaper; probably not even a weekly (which also don't have the staff to cover local government as is needed).
  
  The Internet (new) media can't fill this void. It simply can't. Mostly because your average person isn't familiar enough with the inner workings of government to know where to look or how to cover it, let alone keep it honest.
  
  And it's not just the smaller communities that are suffering.
  
  Here in Columbus, you simply don't see the investigative journalism necessary to keep the community's government honest. It's not there -- and it's not likely to be returning anytime soon.
  
  TV stations and radio stations, which have kept at least a good portion of ad revenues, simply don't have the staff or know-how to pick up the slack.
  
  That means journalism as it SHOULD BE as its role of the Fourth Estate -- is gone. And it's getting worse every day from smaller communities up to larger ones.
  
  Not hyperbole -- fact.
• cbus4life

  Good post, Writer, and i agree with everything you said, i said in my previous post that i believe that journalism, in its role as the 4th estate, is dead at the moment.
  
  But, that is not to say that investigative journalism and other types, not concerned with politics and government and the like, is dead at all. It is alive and well, even.
  
  I see it every day in what i read and explore.
• Footwedge

  queencitybuckeye wrote:

  Footwedge wrote:
  Yes, I read it. What's your point exactly? Do you have a problem with the Democrat controlled Congress putting up the porker names?

  I would guess that the point is the premise of the article contains a major, baldfaced lie. With your record for veracity, no one is particularly surprised that you either didn't notice it, or you did and posted it anyway.

  No, the premise of the article was not a bold faced lie. I read the entire article and comprehended exactly what was said. Apparently, you did not do the same. But I ask you....do you have a problem with the democratic controlled Cogress allowing the public to see who gets what in the form of pork? Answer the question....Yes or No is what I'm looking for.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  This would be the very same Democratic Congress (and President) who rushed through a stimulus package stuffed with pork projects for Democrats and their districts before anyone had time to read or dissect what was in the bill.
• Footwedge

  For MB, cuz, WB and other cuz QCB...From the first 2 paragraphs...
  
  The top earmarkers in both the House and Senate are Republicans, even after the GOP has spent much of the past year making fiscal restraint and runaway government spending the centerpiece of its political message.
  
  Rep. Bill Young (R-Fla.) and Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) — both atop defense spending panels — led their respective bodies in securing earmarks, according to an analysis by the nonprofit Taxpayers for Common Sense.
  
  Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/33096.html#ixzz0g1SO3Z7a
  
  Now, if you disagree with the findings as presented, then post a credible source for doing so. If not, then cut it with the personal attacks on what I post. Thanks.
• Footwedge

  Writerbuckeye wrote: This would be the very same Democratic Congress (and President) who rushed through a stimulus package stuffed with pork projects for Democrats and their districts before anyone had time to read or dissect what was in the bill.

  So what you're saying is that this was a horrible idea...because the Democrats signed it into law?
  
  How about the wretched Judith Miller of the New York Times, a fellow neocon, who helped saber rattle the US into war?
  
  I suppose that was "good journalism", eh?
• Writerbuckeye

  

  I'm saying it's ridiculously hypocritical to have passed that monstrosity of a bill and then trumpet doing this.
  
  Clear enough for you?