If the democrats believe that the timetable bill is the will of the nation, why did so much pork have to be attached?
2007-05-01 10:57:15 · 10 answers · asked by Jon B 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I seriously doubt that you'll get one liberal to honestly answer this question.
It's pretty obvious-- even the Dems weren't going to support this bill unless some pork was thrown their way.
It's so sick to see that the lives of our servicemen are placed in jeopardy over politics like this.
sick.
sick
sick
sick
2007-05-01 11:02:22 · answer #1 · answered by charbatch 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
They decided that the other items were also priorities that couldn't wait for another bill. VA benefits, military medical care, disaster relief for Katrina that should have been over and done with over a year ago, fire suppression funding for the upcoming wildfire season in the west, - maybe you call that pork, but it's legitimate spending. Granted, not up there with a bridge to nowhere, but legitimate, nonetheless.
Now, what I want to know is when did the righties get this sudden allergy to pork?
Previous "emergency" (aka - not really an emergency, but a way to keep the real costs off the books during budget time) spending requests had additional non-military spending inserted in them AT THE REQUEST of the Bush administration. They also took much longer to clear Congress.
Be outraged if you want, but don't be ignorant and hypocritical. If you want to take the Dems to task on this one, you have to do so even more for the Republicans for setting the more aggregious precedent.
2007-05-01 11:21:27 · answer #2 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
because it takes only one politician to say yea or ney, and politicians forget easily that they were elected to represent someone other than themselves.
the ones that do forget need to be reminded with a chance to buy votes for their support of the bill.
maybe you would like to post a source that explains and describes all the earmarks and pork attached to this bill?
2007-05-01 11:04:36 · answer #3 · answered by jj 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would admit that you had a point if I really thought you gave a **** about pork barrel spending, but you don't do you, if the republicans were the ones doing this stuff again, would you be complaining?
2007-05-01 11:04:36 · answer #4 · answered by Nick F 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
26. Prostitutes constantly look like Julia Roberts or Jamie Lee Curtis. they have high priced clothing and superb apartments yet no pimps. they are friendly with the shopkeepers of their neighbourhood who don`t ideas in any respect what the female does for a residing.
2017-01-09 06:50:09 · answer #5 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I wish they would attach more pork and send it to the insurgents with a ribbon attached to it. They would love it.
2007-05-01 12:57:37 · answer #6 · answered by Kevin A 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
why did Republicans just start noticing pork on a bill now?
is this the first bill ever that's had it, or are you just looking for an excuse to complain?
so, if they cut the pork, would it have made a difference? clearly not...
2007-05-01 11:01:39 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
They don't want to be accused of not supporting the troops so they included more spending than Bush even asked for. So it is a cynical pre-emptive response to Bush's expected rationale for his veto.
2007-05-01 11:01:04 · answer #8 · answered by rollo_tomassi423 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
They don't Explain.
Democrats don't have to explain anything.
Democrats are the Elite Ruling Class.
We are the commoners.
We are the peasants.
2007-05-01 11:01:42 · answer #9 · answered by wolf 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
they cant of course...but then,Dems are supercitizens that are not accountable to the general public
2007-05-01 11:00:48 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋