Republican budget hawk fights for $438 MILLION in PORK.

United States
April 30, 2013 12:19pm CST
Jim Jordan is a notorious budget hawk, voting against hurricane Sandy aide, and supported the sequester saying that the national defense cuts are tough, but we need to save money. Well, now that the Army has come out with cuts that it will need to make so it can pay the bills Jim is not happy. Jim should have realized that cuts in defense could hurt his constituents seeing how his district is the home to the ONLY tank plant in the US (but he went along like the sheeple he normal is). Now the deficit hawk is calling for $436 MILLION in spending that the military doesn't want, and doesn't need. This $436 MILLION would save about 700 jobs for an unknown amount of time. Of course, we all know how much republicans loved to bash Obama for spending money to save jobs. So why aren't republicans attacking Jordan for his subsidizing jobs? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/28/abrams-tank-congress-army_n_3173717.html
2 responses
@AidaLily (1450)
• United States
30 Apr 13
Because they all believe we need to spend money on what the army experts or just the men in uniform say we don't need? Because as long as the "muslim, marxist, communist, socialist, dictator" Obama doesn't do it then they don't care? (I think I got all of the names in there. I still say that if some corporations are still showing record profits besides the ones that got exposed for their treatment of employees, etc. like Walmart then Obama is the worst socialist dictator ever. Everyone else should have a lot more money by now if he was better at it. Not saying it would be a good thing just pointing that out.) Campaign donations? The want to keep their jobs? Our Congress is full of s--t? Feel free to take any of those answers. The article I read about it said it was a bipartisan effort at least in Ohio. I am pretty sure the people with the money who run this country and buy ALL our politicians would more than happily pay them extra to vote to paying for what the military doesn't want. Maybe these people should be more focused on making their donors give people jobs so this issue wouldn't come up.
2 people like this
• United States
30 Apr 13
What part of this ISN'T money laundering or bribery? If I fight to secure funding for your tank plant, and you take that money and give me a portion of that in campaign donations isn't that money laundering? I wish someone could explain how this isn't money laundering.
• United States
30 Apr 13
..that's why BiG government is a BaD thing.. ya think?
• United States
1 May 13
Flower, the size of government is dictated by the people in government. Government became larger when GWB was in office, and he claimed to be a small government guy. The problem is the spending on elections, and the never ending need for more money. If you take the money out of elections you will see less of these "questionable" moves by representatives like Jordan.
@Fatcat44 (1142)
• United States
30 Apr 13
aaaaaaaah, you did you not read the bipartisan support part. Bash the republicans but there are democrats involved in this too. Also, he is voted in to represent his district...and he is doing it. So what is your problem. And why is the pentagon thinking about getting rid of the Abram tank ... because of OBama's sequester. I wonder what their real opinion is about the Abram tanks....would they look at getting rid of it if Obama' sequester was not in place. Is this another political game by the left just like the traffic controllers? If I was from that area of Ohio, I would tell him to get the money or you will not be re-elected. So which job does he have to do, for his state a district, or for the country? He is between a rock and a hard-spot. Good try at the smear - you are a good democrat...go drink some more koolaid...Obama is proud of you.
• United States
1 May 13
I did read the entire post, and note that I didn't bring up either Portman, or Brown. The reason is that neither are deficit hawks (Portman COULD be considered one, but he is not in the same league with Jordan, who has fought against most spending, and was quoted as saying that the sequester would hurt, but it was needed). Jim Jordon has fought against the same kind of pork in other areas of the country, but when it comes to pork from his district he is OK with that. My problem with him is that he calls himself a deficit hawk, but when it comes to homegrown pork he is 100% for it. This is the problem with all of the pork spending: It goes to someones district (or campaign coffers). Don't you remember when Rumsfeld wanted to scale down the size of the military vehicles so they could be deployed faster, and cost less money? Look at the orders from overseas, everyone knows that it is much cheaper to buy a nuclear bomb, than a tank, and they scare people a lot more. The traffic controllers wasn't a political game, that is what happens when you cut budgets. Do you need to learn economics 101? I am from this area, and I think that the people who are voting for this guy should look at his own hypocrisy, even if it does support his own district. This is the same logic that got us in our fiscal mess, and if you are OK with this continuing, then I guess we all know that you are a hypocrite as well. Isn't it sad when you point out facts about someone's actions and it is called smear? Prove ONE fact that I presented here as WRONG. I won't hold my breathe!!!
@Fatcat44 (1142)
• United States
1 May 13
You need to learn politics 101. They are obligated to represent the people and districts that vote them in, or they will not get re-elected. It is in every politics agenda to care for those that voted them in, which appears they did. This is one of the problems with our political system. And you need too look at some other news sources for traffic controllers. A 2% cut on the 3% raise the department was to get, and they have to cut back that drastic on air controllers. You are smarter than to believe Obama that traffic controllers will be fallowed. 2% cut on in the increase...it is definitely a political game. That means that in the 2000 hours a year flight controllers work, that they would be cut 40 hours out of the year...less than 1 hour per week. But it would seem to anyone with any sense, that a good manager could fine other places in the departments to save, since really it is not a cut but a reduction in the increase. Where I work, we have a budget every month. If something breaks down and cost more money that what we had budgeted in that area, we have to find someplace else to cut. The FAA can do the same. If not the managers need fired. So don't even start to tell me it isn't a political game to try to make the republicans look bad...but it has backfired, since Obama was the one who can up with the sequester.
• United States
2 May 13
@Fatcat44 I understand why Jordan did this, I just don't understand why people like you are defending his actions. Being a deficit hawk like he is, he should either practice what he preaches, or step away from the podium. For him to fight for PORK for his district, but then attack others for fight for PORK for their district makes him a HYPOCRITE!!!! Prove it was political. How much of the FAA budget was already spent? If you have a problem at your company, and you don't have any money to fix it what do you do? Many government departments spend their money to secure supplies that they need to run their departments early in the year. That means that when they have to cut their budgets, the easiest, and in some cases the ONLY cut can be in wages. Why do you think then when republicans threaten to shut down the government the first thing that is cut are employees. Is that political games?