Pork Barrel And Earmarks Politics

[laughing dog]

First, I wasn't addressing whether it was right or not, but rather your response.
Is there a point?

Second, it being a campaign promise is not a rebuttal to it's being pork. Politicians often brag about the pork they brought home in their campaigns.

That does not address anything in my response. Campaign promises do not equal pork. Moreover, the notion that a policy or a campaign promise is pork unless it benefits a sufficiently large and diverse population makes the notion of "pork barrel" absolutely pointless.

You're still not rebutting anything.

It being a campaign promise has nothing to do with whether it is pork.

I am not interested in dealing with your straw men or lack of reasoning. Making a campaign promise, in and of itself, does not make the promise an example of pork barrel politics. Moreover, one person considers "pork", another person may not.

The OP definition of "pork barrel" describes almost any gov't policy, making the definition effectively pointless. Finally, as a general observation, a policy that provide benefits to a small group of people at the cost to many more people can still provide an overall net positive benefit to the country. It is an empirical question whether the debt forgiveness program reaches an overall net benefit or not. Calling it "pork barrel" is a kneejerk attempt to disparage the policy.

You still aren't rebutting anything.

You are wrong.

Pork is stuff that is enacted to help the politician (either through votes or doing things that will get campaign contributions) instead of the population at large. You have done nothing to rebut the notion that this is pork.

According to your definition, just about any promise or policy made by a politician is a pork because very few promises or policies affect the population at large. Which makes the label "pork" pretty much useless.

No. Presidents can promise things of value to the nation as a whole.

Of course they can. But as pointed out those are few and far between.

Pork is specifically about things that aren't worthwhile overall. A lot of military stuff. The SLS.

"Pork barrel" is usually in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Jarhyn]

First, I wasn't addressing whether it was right or not, but rather your response.
Is there a point?

Second, it being a campaign promise is not a rebuttal to it's being pork. Politicians often brag about the pork they brought home in their campaigns.

That does not address anything in my response. Campaign promises do not equal pork. Moreover, the notion that a policy or a campaign promise is pork unless it benefits a sufficiently large and diverse population makes the notion of "pork barrel" absolutely pointless.

You're still not rebutting anything.

It being a campaign promise has nothing to do with whether it is pork.

I am not interested in dealing with your straw men or lack of reasoning. Making a campaign promise, in and of itself, does not make the promise an example of pork barrel politics. Moreover, one person considers "pork", another person may not.

The OP definition of "pork barrel" describes almost any gov't policy, making the definition effectively pointless. Finally, as a general observation, a policy that provide benefits to a small group of people at the cost to many more people can still provide an overall net positive benefit to the country. It is an empirical question whether the debt forgiveness program reaches an overall net benefit or not. Calling it "pork barrel" is a kneejerk attempt to disparage the policy.

You still aren't rebutting anything.

You are wrong.

Pork is stuff that is enacted to help the politician (either through votes or doing things that will get campaign contributions) instead of the population at large. You have done nothing to rebut the notion that this is pork.

According to your definition, just about any promise or policy made by a politician is a pork because very few promises or policies affect the population at large. Which makes the label "pork" pretty much useless.

No. Presidents can promise things of value to the nation as a whole.

Of course they can. But as pointed out those are few and far between.

Pork is specifically about things that aren't worthwhile overall. A lot of military stuff. The SLS.

"Pork barrel" is usually in the eye of the beholder.

Hey man, we can debate about what pork is but education spending certainly isn't that.

Allowing more slow burn value accretion rather than demanding immediate RoI is of value to the nation as a whole.

Demanding immediate RoI on education limits the overall utility of that education because rather than seeking more educative career options at the start they seek more lucrative ones, which while they make money, choke the ability to innovate.

Someone drowning in student loans can't join a startup no matter how brilliant they are, because they need more stability and income.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Don't we need legislation to pass in order to pork barrel? These days everything is tossed in Omnibus bills.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Hey man, we can debate about what pork is but education spending certainly isn't that.

Allowing more slow burn value accretion rather than demanding immediate RoI is of value to the nation as a whole.

Demanding immediate RoI on education limits the overall utility of that education because rather than seeking more educative career options at the start they seek more lucrative ones, which while they make money, choke the ability to innovate.

Someone drowning in student loans can't join a startup no matter how brilliant they are, because they need more stability and income.

Education spending clearly isn't. However, reducing prior debt isn't going to generate one bit of education.

 

[bilby]

Don't we need legislation to pass in order to pork barrel? These days everything is tossed in Omnibus bills.

I know, it's disgusting. I feel sorry fir our cleaning staff sometimes, the things people toss...

Oh, wait.

Sorry, I read that as "These days everything is tossed in Bill's Omnibus".

Carry on.

 

[Jarhyn]

Hey man, we can debate about what pork is but education spending certainly isn't that.

Allowing more slow burn value accretion rather than demanding immediate RoI is of value to the nation as a whole.

Demanding immediate RoI on education limits the overall utility of that education because rather than seeking more educative career options at the start they seek more lucrative ones, which while they make money, choke the ability to innovate.

Someone drowning in student loans can't join a startup no matter how brilliant they are, because they need more stability and income.

Education spending clearly isn't. However, reducing prior debt isn't going to generate one bit of education.

You have a very one-sided view of education. I haven't pursued further education because of past educational debt.

Chains are chains, and when they are released, those who were bound can go further.