jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (19 posts)

Proof Postiive of Pork in the Stimulous Package

  1. BDazzler profile image83
    BDazzlerposted 8 years ago

    Well I guess we have proof positive that the stimulous package is full of pork!

    "$1.8 million for swine odor and manure management research"

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= … p;refer=us

    What a load of crap! That just stinks!

    1. kerryg profile image84
      kerrygposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      That depends on whether you really want lagoons of pig s*** leaking into your groundwater and polluting your air for miles. Farm workers die every year falling into these things - of asphyxiation, not drowning, because the gases they let off are that toxic.

      Pig manure also has significant biogas possibilities.

      Of course, I would argue that a far better alternative to researching ways to deal with the problem of manure on CAFOs is to get rid of the CAFOs and raise the pigs on pasture or in hoop houses, but that depends on the American people being willing to pay more money for less bacon, so I'm not overly optimistic.

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image75
      Ralph Deedsposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I suggest you re-read the article. They kept the pork out of the stimulus package. But it's apparently going into the budget. Not all pork is rotten. Some is quite tasty.

  2. Mark Knowles profile image60
    Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago

    lol

    Pretty inventive. Manure management? Yep, that sounds like the government to me big_smile

    1. profile image51
      Rebel Ronposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Here's something we actually agree on. Wow!

  3. BDazzler profile image83
    BDazzlerposted 8 years ago

    Honestly 1.8 million is pretty small potatoes, which I love with ham!  ... I was going for laughs. big_smile

  4. kerryg profile image84
    kerrygposted 8 years ago

    Ah, sorry. I live in feedlot country, so I am all too familiar with the problems caused by bad manure management. It's beef, more than swine, over here, but I went to college in rural Iowa, where the water is essentially undrinkable, so my reaction was closer to "ONLY $1.8 million, are they nuts!?! Give them more!" smile

  5. livelonger profile image91
    livelongerposted 8 years ago

    Isn't the point of a stimulus package to spend on pork barrel projects?

    I think funding scientific research, esp one with practical outcomes, is an excellent idea. Corporate funding of upstream research has dwindled in recent years, to our own long-term detriment.

  6. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 8 years ago

    "Isn't the point of a stimulus package to spend on pork barrel projects?" Exactly stimulus is pork which is suppose to create jobs.

  7. profile image0
    pgrundyposted 8 years ago

    Around here manure management is no joke. But I know you were going for a laugh, not seriously criticizing the package. big_smile

    I'm kind of tired of critics picking out some little weird thing though and making a mountain out of it when they basically agree that 90% of the rest of it is necessary.

    I know you weren't doing that here, I'm just tired of seeing it on the news and so on.

    1. BDazzler profile image83
      BDazzlerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Well, I don't agree with the 90% ... I just don't see it working out so well for anybody.  I'm not convinced that your great grand children (I would say "our" but I have no kids of my own, nor any prospects for them in the foreseeable future) will appreciate the debt we're saddling them with.

      But, in general you are correct, since I see the whole thing as generally a bad plan, and there's not a lot I can do about it one way or the other, nit picking does seem redundant.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image75
        Ralph Deedsposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Pork will always be with us. It's the lifeblood of Congressional politics, especially in the House where they have to start campaigning immediately after being elected to two year terms. The apparently think they have to produce some visible results in their districts.

        1. profile image0
          pgrundyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Yeah. I mean you could see it as part of the legitimate reason Congresspersons are there--they want to bring home the bacon, literally. They want industry located in THEIR state, projects started there, money going there--It kind of is their job. I think people get mad about it because they sneak it in on bills that are totally unrelated so there's no real discussion. I think that's what honks people off.

          BDazzler--I just don't know. It looks to me like this is a mess that was at least 30 years in the making, and the last eight really got the ball rolling downhill. I'm just glad I'm not President. I sure don't know how to fix it. Sometimes it feels like, you know, Mrs. O'Leary's cow done kicked over the lantern, the barn caught fire, now the whole city's on fire, and the Fire Department is standing around arguing whether to buy more trucks or stop building wood-framed houses. Meanwhile there's a few immediate problems that nobody is addressing at all... yikes

          1. BDazzler profile image83
            BDazzlerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Personally, I blame Woodrow Wilson, if he would have sold stuff to the Germans rather than the Brits, we would have been on the other side of WW 1, and have would have gone to war with the Brits instead. Since we'd already beat 'em twice, once more wouldn't have been a big deal.  There would have been no Treaty of Versailes and therefore no first global depression and therefore no Hitler ... therefore no cold war ... therefore no military industrial complex ...

            ...  Now that I think about it ... it's all the Brits fault and THAT lays the blame squarely on Mark Knowles! tongue  (He gets blamed for everything anyway!)

            1. Sufidreamer profile image79
              Sufidreamerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              A bit harsh - he was only 12 years old in 1914.

              1. Misha profile image76
                Mishaposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                I never suspected Mark is THAT old lol

                1. Ralph Deeds profile image75
                  Ralph Deedsposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Speaking of "stimulus packages" I understand Mark claims that despite his advanced age all his bodily functions are in working order, (more or less).

                  1. Sufidreamer profile image79
                    Sufidreamerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    God Bless Viagra!

            2. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              Well, in the style of Bishop whatshisname, I apologize that this has offended so many people. I am truly sorry to have caused so much upset. big_smile

 
working