Pork Spending among the Final Three

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by nbs2, Apr 2, 2008.

  1. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
  2. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #2
    Per Obama's "pork":
    That's pork?

    Earmarks do not equal pork. Not saying he doesn't have any, I'm sure he does. And I know Clinton has some, they were mentioned briefly in the early part of the campaign. McCain has also had earmarks though:

    http://www.baltimoresun2.com/talk/showthread.php?t=139214
     
  3. TheQuestion macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2007
    Location:
    Location is relative, no?
    #3
    Doesn't every legislator defend every bit of spending as absolutely essential? Is pork a matter of perspective, or least how well it can be spun?
     
  4. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #4
    Kinda hard to earmark when you're skipping work so often.

    Besides, McBush has done plenty of dipping into the trough before. It's not like he's unfamiliar with the process...
     
  5. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #5
    Out of the 3 Senators left, here are their voting records (the records start when they entered the Senate, thus the different total amounts of votes)


    Obama had votes recorded 1172 times; no vote recorded 209 times for a 17.8% No Vote Record

    McCain had votes recorded 3989 times; no vote recorded 624 times for a 15.6% No Vote Record

    Clinton had votes recorded 2480 times; no vote recorded 182 times for a 7.3% No Vote Record


    I have to say, I'm surprised that Hillary has the lowest percentage.

    Source - http://www.govtrack.us/data/us/110/repstats/novote.xml
     
  6. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #6
    Well then, to compare apples to apples, shouldn't we be examining all pork earmarked by McCain since he joined the Senate? I believe that should include the taxpayer-funded bailout of the S&Ls from the 80s.

    Alternately, if we're only going to look at pork from this year, then we should consider McCain's attendance record from this year. This year he has missed about half of all Senate votes, meaning he is collecting a paycheck for doing about half his work. This is the worst record among the three candidates.
     
  7. szark macrumors 68030

    szark

    Joined:
    May 14, 2002
    Location:
    Arid-Zone-A
    #7
    You know, I'm not sure that data indicates what you think it does. The page says a "NoVote" means that their ballot was recorded as a "NoVote", which means they were present but didn't vote yes or no.

    Looking at the stats (if I'm reading them correctly):

    Obama voted 1172 times over 40 months, for an average of 29.3 votes per month. If we only count yes/no votes, we get an average of 24.1 actual votes per month. (963/40)

    McCain voted 3989 times over 183 months, for an average of 21.8 votes per month. If we only count yes/no votes, we get an average of 18.4 actual votes per month. (3365/183)

    Clinton voted 2480 times over 88 months, for an average of 28.2 votes per month. If we only count yes/no votes, we get an average of 26.1 actual votes per month. (2298/88)

    So Clinton still seems to have the best percentage of actual votes cast, but McCain definitely has the worst percentage.

    For comparison, Senator Benjamin Cardin has apparently been serving as long as McCain. He voted 8227 times over the same 183 months, for an average of 45.0 votes per month. If we only count yes/no votes, we get an average of 44.0 actual votes per month. (8044/183)

    I would be interested in knowing how many votes have come up in the senate during the past year, and how many of those were attended by the candidates. (I'm sure the information is out there, but I don't have time to look for it right now.)
     
  8. stevegmu macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2008
    Location:
    A stone's throw from the White House.
    #8
    Odd how a thread concerning pork-barrel spending and earmarks turned into a bash McCain thread so quickly...
     
  9. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #9
    Odd that you would resurrect it just to say that.

    Maybe it's because of the original hypothesis that McCain has no pork, while the others have lots of it. That turned out to be not so true. Had they said they all had pork, or better yet, stuff they wanted to spend money on, it wouldn't have been as much of a problem. Because it would be true. And not quite as biased. Some of it was good, some of it was bad. With all 3 of them. If someone says something biased and incorrect, why wouldn't we correct it? You do.
     
  10. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #11

Share This Page