John McCain is a “hero” to U.S. taxpayers for his lifetime record of resisting earmarks, while Barack Obama and Joe Biden are “hostile” and “unfriendly,“ a government spending watchdog group has concluded.

In its new report, the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste gave the Republican presidential nominee a 100 percent rating for his votes in the Senate last year, and a lifetime score of 88 percent.

Lifetime Congressional Ratings

McCain         88

Obama         10

Biden           22

By comparison, the nonpartisan, nonprofit group, which is the lobbying arm of Citizens Against Government Waste, gave the Democratic presidential nominee a 10 percent score last year and a lifetime score of 18 percent. Biden, Obama’s running mate, scored 0 percent last year and an overall score of 22 percent.

Here is a report from the Citizens Against Government waste dated December, 2007.

Even then Obama did not have a great record.  Neither did Biden. 

http://tinyurl.com/3qgc3p

The lobbying group that you use as your information source is a real jewel, a real stand up group.
Do you work for CAGW or CCAGW??

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) is 501(c)(3) non-profit organization in the United States. It functions as a think-tank, ‘government watchdog’, and advocacy group for fiscally conservative causes. The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) is the lobbying arm of CAGW, organized as a section 501(c)(4) organization, and therefore permitted to engage in direct lobbying activities. CAGW has been criticized for its links to the tobacco industry and to lobbyists including Jack Abramoff.“

“CAGW and CCAGW seek to influence public policy through public education, lobbying, and mobilization for email- and letter-writing campaigns.“

“CAGW and CCAGW seek to influence public policy through public education, lobbying, and mobilization for email- and letter-writing campaigns.“

“Throughout its history, CAGW has been accused of fronting lobbying efforts of corporations to give them the appearance of “grassroots” support.“

“A Senate Finance Committee investigating ties between CAGW and other non-profits and Jack Abramoff in 2006 stated in a report that the non-profits: ‘probably violated their tax-exempt status “by laundering payments and then disbursing funds at Mr. Abramoff’s direction; taking payments in exchange for writing newspaper columns or press releases that put Mr. Abramoff’s clients in a favorable light; introducing Mr. Abramoff’s clients to government officials in exchange for payment; and agreeing to act as a front organization for congressional trips paid for by Mr. Abramoff’s clients.“

I also found this on AC
“The lobbying group CCAGW sent a memo to Congressional Republicans today stating that its members do not want to see a rumored bill about earmarking “reform” become law.“
DO NOT WANT EARMARK REFORM TO BECOME LAW, whats that all about????  Cuts into CCAGWs ability to lobby congress???  Cuts into pork they try to get for companys the represent???

Wiki is not a great source.  Try using it for a college paper.  The records stand. Those you cannot refute, no matter how hard you try.

Wiki is not a good source BUT a lobbying organization is, good spin.
Has Wiki ever been investigated by the senate???your source has!!!

All you have to do is read the voting records. There is no spin there.

There have been several universities investigate the usefulness and reliability of Wiki and amazingly enough the findings show that Wiki is more reliable then say a printed encyclopedia because of the constant peer review system and the warnings of unsubstantiated claims that don’t have sources.

My daughter who is attending college laughs at that statement.  Most profs in these universities do not allow any references from “Wiki.“  She had a paper returned with the notation…“Try something a little more reliable.“

actually, that is a matter of preference. If nothing else just look at the references posted at the bottom of each reliable wiki source. It is great that your daughter is attending college, but I doubt that I specifically referenced her university as the source of this statement. Furthermore, do not assume things about people that post to this forum since I just finished college and had this same discussion with my professors.

Wikipedia Founder Discourages Academic Use of His Creation:

Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia compiled by a distributed network of volunteers, has often come under attack by academics as being shoddy and full of inaccuracies. Even Wikipedia’s founder, Jimmy Wales, says he wants to get the message out to college students that they shouldn’t use it for class projects or serious research.

http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/article/1328/wikipedia-founder-discourages-academic-use-of-his-creation

I hope your profs read this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm
http://www.america.gov/st/educ-english/2008/October/20081017144131saikceinawz0.4026605.html?CP.rss=true

Interesting to see conflicting stories from the media about the accuracy and acceptability of Wikipedia. Furthermore, I would hope that people do not blindly believe everything they hear or read, and they are able to differentiate between sensational and faulty information and factual information with proper research. Such as checking the sources cited on a Wikipedia page as well as realizing if the article is flagged for unreferenced information.

Yes, I hope that people will take into account the opinion of the person who started this website in the first place.