Opinion of "Pork-Barrel" spending?

[Del Tachi]

Freedom spending.

Congressionally-directed earmarks or "pork-barrel" spending projects allow for economic development and job creation, and is one of the most direct ways for a Congresscritter to work for the better of his constituents. 

[H. Ross Peron]

The money should be apportioned by nonpartisan commissions much as electoral boundaries should be drawn by such commissions.

[RedSLC]

Freedom spending if it is used to fund something that will help many of the legislator's constituents.

Horrible spending if it is used to fund something that the constituency clearly doesn't need (which is usually what happens).

[Goldwater]

in general, horrible spending.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

I don't object to using federal monies for local projects, but the way the money is attained (usually through favoritism, lobbying, logrolling, etc.) is deplorable.  I think they should be among the first expenditures that are cut during budget negotiations, rather than social programs, and should be heavily restricted or banned until a better system is put in place.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I don't object to using federal monies for local projects, but the way the money is attained (usually through favoritism, lobbying, logrolling, etc.) is deplorable.  I think they should be among the first expenditures that are cut during budget negotiations, rather than social programs, and should be heavily restricted or banned until a better system is put in place.

^^^^

[traininthedistance]

If we had a sensible system of government, that is to say a parliament elected via PR, then pork-barrel spending would be obviously horrible, as it substitutes narrow, parochial self-interest for the considered judgment of professionals who can better determine what infrastructure spending and economic development would be truly beneficial and efficient.

Considering the sclerotic Constitution that we do have, I recognize it as a necessary evil to grease the wheels of legislative compromise.  It is no coincidence that the decline of earmarks in the past half-decade (motivated by sincere intentions on both sides of the aisle) has gone hand-in-hand with an increase in "crisis governance", exemplified by the recent horror-show debt limit showdowns.  But, no, the Pubs are increasingly true believers in short-sighted minarchism, and the Dems are likewise committed to abstract ideals of good government, so both sides can agree to cutting pork.  And nothing else.

[barfbag]

It's about as good for the country as everyone having aids.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It's an excellent system so long as you aren't the porker being barreled.

[AkSaber]

When politicians use the terms "economic development" and "job creation" in reference to earmarks, they're typically code words for bribes and graft.

So true.

[tik 🪀✨]

It's about as good for the country as everyone having aids.

I agree. If everyone had AIDS, the stigma surrounding the disease would vanish. Sexual promiscuity would increase due to fears of catching the disease decreasing, making everyone that much more open to trying anal. A cure would be much more likely, as suddenly the fabulously rich elites would have enormous incentive to fund research (at least, when they aren't busy stuffing each other's stockings like it's Christmas Eve). Opposition to welfare would decrease as people could empathise better with each other. A need for universal healthcare would also become obvious to naysayers. Happiness would increase, as the change in perspective that imminent death brings encourages people to stop procrastinating and do the things that they always wanted.

Well, I don't see how that ties into pork barrel spending exactly anymore.. but it still sounds like a good idea. Thank you for giving us all that enlightening scenario, nonetheless.

[barfbag]

It's about as good for the country as everyone having aids.

I agree. If everyone had AIDS, the stigma surrounding the disease would vanish. Sexual promiscuity would increase due to fears of catching the disease decreasing, making everyone that much more open to trying anal. A cure would be much more likely, as suddenly the fabulously rich elites would have enormous incentive to fund research (at least, when they aren't busy stuffing each other's stockings like it's Christmas Eve). Opposition to welfare would decrease as people could empathise better with each other. A need for universal healthcare would also become obvious to naysayers. Happiness would increase, as the change in perspective that imminent death brings encourages people to stop procrastinating and do the things that they always wanted.

Well, I don't see how that ties into pork barrel spending exactly anymore.. but it still sounds like a good idea. Thank you for giving us all that enlightening scenario, nonetheless.

There isn't a cure for every illness despite what the uninformed may want to think. Another thing the uninformed want to think is that if rich people's money is redistributed, then we'll never have another problem and can sing in harmony. If you used every dollar in our economy towards curing aids, the cure may still not exist. Basically, we would all end up dead. Maybe you should run for president with the platform of infecting everyone with aids so that the disease no longer exists.

[cheesepizza]

Horrible...