Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

No Pork? Really?

I didn't count, and I can't find a link, but I know that President Obama said there was "no pork" in the stimulas bill that was passed at least 4 times. He even said he was "proud that they passed a bill with no pork".

Why is no one but Fox News covering this? It's an out and out lie. It was full of spending that was not NEEDED, but wanted by a democratic majority that hadn't got their pet projects through the last few years. Do you think this was a lie? Or at least a gross mis statement?

Answer Question

Asked by momof030404 at 4:23 PM on Feb. 25, 2009 in Politics & Current Events

Level 23 (16,925 Credits)
Answers (16)
  • Yes I do and I really am finding it harder to be supportive of him everytime he says that.

    Answer by SheriSanchez at 4:29 PM on Feb. 25, 2009

  • It's a word game. In Obamaland, the definition of "pork" is a specific project spelled out in specific language allotting a definite sum of money to an exact project. Out here in the real world, "pork" is just allotting money to wasteful spending. His loophole is that since they estimated the costs needed and didn't let the states allocate it until after the bill was signed, it doesn't count. Instead of saying $30 million for marsh mice, they said $30 million for California environmental restoration, without mentioning that they have already decided to give the $30 million to the organization that said they could save marsh mice with $30 million.

    Answer by NotPanicking at 4:29 PM on Feb. 25, 2009

  • examples of the pork?

    Answer by girl_in_the_D at 4:30 PM on Feb. 25, 2009

  • It's an out and out lie. It was full of spending that was not NEEDED,

    Your OPINION>see here is the thing, the dems feel that this spending was needed.

    Also, he said "ear marks" not pork.

    Answer by Anonymous at 4:30 PM on Feb. 25, 2009

  • I even tried really hard to defend the stimulus bill before he made the Senators pass it by a certain time, completely unabling them to do their jobs. I think that this bill is just full pork and I think another bill will soon be laid on the table for us to consume and I think the economic crisis could've been addressed way more calculated and without all of these unnecessary projects. Obama might have won and all of these things might have helped if our country wasn't in such a mess but it is not the time to propose such ridiculus spending. We need to pull in on the drawstrings and tighten up like the Americans are, I betcha there are a whole lot more Americans trying to cutback spending and payback debt and we have a government going willy nilly like someon fresh out of a banckruptcy would.

    Answer by SheriSanchez at 4:35 PM on Feb. 25, 2009

  • i think in obamalingo he meant like pork chops.

    Answer by ivelostmyself at 4:36 PM on Feb. 25, 2009

  • pork = earmarks and the stimulus bill did not have any earmarks.
    does that mean it didn't have unecessary spending it in? no.
    it just means that it didn't contain earmarks.

    Answer by heatherama at 4:36 PM on Feb. 25, 2009

  • here's a database of earmarks that were passed(organized by state or department) for 2008 and even as far back as 2005:

    Answer by heatherama at 4:40 PM on Feb. 25, 2009

  • You know what, Americans define earmarks, pet projects and pork as unnecessary spending, that is what matters. And he allocated 800 billion dollars to be spent on whatever each politician deemed was important, so yes levitating trains, and electric vehicles and waterslides and whatever else...can be considered ear marks.

    If the President would've had the writers specifically address each issues in the economy then yes this bill would've been necessary. As it is now we are having to adress the housing crisis, which should've been addresses in this stimulus bill, IMO. And the 410 billion omnibus bill. Come on Obama, tighten up congresses belt before you geve them anymore money. And stop hiding behind definitions, we know what you mean.

    Answer by SheriSanchez at 4:50 PM on Feb. 25, 2009

  • Sometimes lawyers love to play word games and it's sickening. I just wish he'd tell the whole truth and stop all the spending on things that aren't needs.

    Answer by SylviaNCali at 4:58 PM on Feb. 25, 2009

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.