President Porkbarrell to the rescue!

[Nullifidian]

Take a look at the new budget. The VITAL new spending measures that warrant an additional emergency $388 billion in spending include:

Alabama fertilizer development center
Norwegian American Foundation in Seattle
"Wild American Shrimp Initiative"
an animal waste management research lab in Bowling Green, Kentucky
salmon-fortified baby food
Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland


Are they friggin serious?! These are just some of literally HUNDREDS of completely worthless vats of **** that the government is going to funnel $388 billion into. This makes me want to puke.


We need a recall election and we need to put MacCain in office. He seem like the only guy out there who thinks this type of **** has no place in government.

 

[Iron Warrior]

Are you serious, that's a friggin disgrace to our people. How about not spending on stupid **** so we can reduce the deficit, perhaps raising teacher's and cops salaries with that money would be better because they have important jobs that not many people want to do.

BTW, this reminds of how local government is just as retarted. They spend some ungodly amount of millions of dollars in San Jose Unified School District on that new age astro turf for the football fields, meanwhile the schools remain a piece of ****.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

You forgot the gay, lesbain, and transgender center. They all do this kind of crap including McCaine.

 

[Strateg0s]

If you think that it is Bush who is going out of the way to fund these things, you are mistaken. The way American politics works, it would not matter who was the President. There is no line item veto. You can also blame, in part, the media and the people (the voters) who expect their politicians to do everything, to bring huge projects their way. Another way to look at it is that those politicians who tried to do what was fiscally responsible would soon get canned by the very citizens his responsible actions would be protecting - indirectly. It is a systemic problem. A line item veto is where to begin, but attributing it all to the President is simply not accurate, and so this is not helpful if you want to have an intelligent discussion about it.

 

[Nullifidian]

I attribute it to the Republican Congress for coming up with this crap and I blaim the President because he has NEVER vetoed any budget proposal no matter how ridiculous.

Bush is the cut taxes and spend like there's no tomorrow president. I think of what he's doing like running up a big credit card bill. It WILL have to be paid eventually, maybe not on his watch, but eventually our taxes will have to get jacked up to pay off this ... thing.


Basically here's what the government is doing. If the government were a person it would be like getting approved for a big bank loan. Then instead of using the money to get health insurance or for home improvement, or whatever, you blow every cent on a few nights out on the town with your buddies.

 

[Strateg0s]

What you are saying may make sense in some respect, you truly underestimate the inertia in Washington. You are looking for someone to pin it on, but you don't have all of the facts. If you look at the amount of discretionary spending, it has not gone up as much as the deficits suggest. Huge costs are buried away and protected as "entitlements." The pork-barrelling is the tip of the iceberg. It is still made of ice, but there is a mountain under it which you are failing to see. Changes in pork-barrelling are necessary, sure, but even if they were absolutely eliminated, every problem you are afraid of will still be there. ... There is internal porkbarrelling, if you will, in every government agency, and in none so much as those granted "can do no evil" status. Healthcare and social security are the big money-sinks. Cuts need to be made there, but not only there (obviously). And contrary to the squeaky wheels, cuts in these areas would not necessarily diminish quality of life or the health of anyone in the aggregate.

 

[Iron Warrior]

You forgot the gay, lesbain, and transgender center. They all do this kind of crap including McCaine.

If they do that for those communities then they should give us a bodybuilding community center too where they can supply BB'ers w/gear, blood tests, supps. I think this would be valid since they give addicts needles LOL !!! I mean WTF, they're gonna waste money on dumb **** anyways

 

[bigswole30]

:hammer:

If you think that it is Bush who is going out of the way to fund these things, you are mistaken. The way American politics works, it would not matter who was the President. There is no line item veto. You can also blame, in part, the media and the people (the voters) who expect their politicians to do everything, to bring huge projects their way. Another way to look at it is that those politicians who tried to do what was fiscally responsible would soon get canned by the very citizens his responsible actions would be protecting - indirectly. It is a systemic problem. A line item veto is where to begin, but attributing it all to the President is simply not accurate, and so this is not helpful if you want to have an intelligent discussion about it.

You are absolutely right! This has been going on for years and years.
A Qoute from Alexander Taylor
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."
Does any of this vaquely look familiar?
BTW THIS NOT THE ORIGINAL BIGSWOLE30. He let me peak over his shoulder to read this forum and has since let me respond.

 

[CDB]

I attribute it to the Republican Congress for coming up with this crap and I blaim the President because he has NEVER vetoed any budget proposal no matter how ridiculous.

Bush is the cut taxes and spend like there's no tomorrow president. I think of what he's doing like running up a big credit card bill. It WILL have to be paid eventually, maybe not on his watch, but eventually our taxes will have to get jacked up to pay off this ... thing.


Basically here's what the government is doing. If the government were a person it would be like getting approved for a big bank loan. Then instead of using the money to get health insurance or for home improvement, or whatever, you blow every cent on a few nights out on the town with your buddies.

All true, but it's just as true of every administration in recent history no matter who was in the white house or in control of either house of congress. Bush's defecit has a lot to do with the war, and it's well to remember that when the government is talking about money "we" need and defecits, what it actually means is more money of ours that they want to spend as they see fit.

Government is essentially the battling ground between haves and have-nots, and that's not a rich against poor situation. It's merely a matter of you or someone else having something that some elected representative's constituants want, and through him those people vote it out of your hands and into theirs. Blaming it all on Bush is wrong though, and short sited. If Kerry, MacCain or anyone else were in office you can bet the same exact thing would be going on. You did finally hit on one important aspect of government though, Null. Someone does have to pay for it, no matter what it is. Every rule and regulation, every law and initiative, every politician's pet program, every entitlement, everything the government does imposes some kind of cost on society which has to be paid by someone, and because of the nature of economics it always ends up being paid by the smallest economic unit, the individual. Even the arguably good things the government does end up imposing a cost of some kind on someone. You get higher taxes, devalued money, fewer choices on the market (products and jobs), higher priced goods, etc. But this is a problem that was there before Bush and will be there long after he's gone and no matter who is in power.

 

[mtruther]

Um, taxes aren't ever going to be used to pay off a deficit (as in raising taxes). That's just bad fiscal policy and something that would ultimately tank the economy. Ideally you'd get spending under control and let economic growth take care of matters. Clinton's tax hikes aren't what led to surpluses during his presidency (they probably just made the imminent recession a little deeper). No, the massive growth from the ever-growing bubble in Silicon Valley was putting the money into the coffers, and everyone was cashing in.

If growth continues at around 4% for the next few quarters, this deficit is going to start to dwindle away. Bush isn't a tax and spend president, and neither is this Congress. Republicans might like Bush to be a little more tight-fisted, but what he is proposing is nothing compared to the tab several Dems wanted to set up.

 

[kwyckemynd00]

If you think that it is Bush who is going out of the way to fund these things, you are mistaken. The way American politics works, it would not matter who was the President. There is no line item veto. You can also blame, in part, the media and the people (the voters) who expect their politicians to do everything, to bring huge projects their way. Another way to look at it is that those politicians who tried to do what was fiscally responsible would soon get canned by the very citizens his responsible actions would be protecting - indirectly. It is a systemic problem. A line item veto is where to begin, but attributing it all to the President is simply not accurate, and so this is not helpful if you want to have an intelligent discussion about it.

Good post

Although this is all true it's still absolutely baffling to me that we can spend thousands of dollars on something like the rock and roll hall of fame...I don't know whether to laugh or cry!!! I heard all of this on the radio a while ago, and I remember that these initiaties that were listed by nullifidian accounted for a veeeeeery small portion of those billions, however that does not excuse the fact that federa tax dollars are being spent so we can treat animal **** and create a rock and roll hall of fame....

So, I totally disagree with Nullifidians position and what he's trying "prove", but his post does outline a very important issue in American politics...namely, waste! This, my friends, is another great example as to why the government SHOULD NOT be stealing our money.

BTW Strateg0s, aren't you Canadian??? I was "almost" suprised you know so much about our political system and were so objective when judging the "inactions" of such a highly disliked American president. Just a well educated and objective guy aren't ya?

 

[CDB]

So, I totally disagree with Nullifidians position and what he's trying "prove", but his post does outline a very important issue in American politics...namely, waste! This, my friends, is another great example as to why the government SHOULD NOT be stealing our money.

Problem is it's the nature of the system we have. And most people are like Null, and when they see something they disagree with, some spending initiative or law that was passed, they blame "the other side," be it Republicans or Democrats, never realizing that no matter who is in charge the same crap will be going on. If Kerry had gotten into office and done the exact same things as Bush up until now with regard to domestic and foreign policy, Democrats would be cheering him on as if he were a God. And if Bob Dole had won and done what Clinton did while in office, Republicans would have loved every minute of it, even the perjury. Not enough people have come to the necessary conclusion that all the critters in D.C. are full of ****.

 

[-2z-]

If you think that it is Bush who is going out of the way to fund these things, you are mistaken. The way American politics works, it would not matter who was the President. There is no line item veto. You can also blame, in part, the media and the people (the voters) who expect their politicians to do everything, to bring huge projects their way. Another way to look at it is that those politicians who tried to do what was fiscally responsible would soon get canned by the very citizens his responsible actions would be protecting - indirectly. It is a systemic problem. ....

Exactly.

 

[Strateg0s]

BTW Strateg0s, aren't you Canadian??? I was "almost" suprised you know so much about our political system and were so objective when judging the "inactions" of such a highly disliked American president. Just a well educated and objective guy aren't ya?

Yeah. Most Canadians are politically inept, like Europeans minus the impressive tradition. I guess I am just a well-educated and objective guy :thumbsup:

 

[kwyckemynd00]

Yeah. Most Canadians are politically inept, like Europeans minus the impressive tradition. I guess I am just a well-educated and objective guy :thumbsup:

Well, most of us American's aren't doing too well either...lol. If most Americans were more educated and could make logical decisions on their own and not base their decisions off of the evening news or the morning paper, the Libertarian party would be huge and we wouldn't have threads like this one

EDIT: But, educated and objective.....for sure
Now, I only get a taste of Canadian media...I"m curious...is it "that bad" in regards to the misinformation? Like is it USA bad or *gulp* France bad???

 

[Nullifidian]

If most Americans were more educated and could make logical decisions on their own and not base their decisions off of the evening news or the morning paper, the Libertarian party would be huge and we wouldn't have threads like this one

A-FUCKING-MEN BRUTHA!!

Btw, did you notice how many Libertarians ran for Congress this year? I didn't count, but I think it was something like 80% of the states had a Libertarian candidate. This may be a huge change coming. We might just turn into a 3-party system in the next 20 years.

 

[Nullifidian]

Well, I did my part on the state level; I voted for a Libertarian for Representative. He got I think only 1% of the vote, but I didn't care, I voted on principal there. I wish more people would vote on principal.

Actually I shouldn't have voted for Kerry. I never liked him, I just wanted Bush out, and Kerry's policy's fit more with my opinions than Bush's do. I didn't like Badarik though; he's a friggin raving loony. I should have written in my choice for a candidate.

 

[Strateg0s]

Now, I only get a taste of Canadian media...I"m curious...is it "that bad" in regards to the misinformation? Like is it USA bad or *gulp* France bad???

Left of NPR. One of the stations here has the slogan, "as far left as your dial can go." Some people think that is objective, so they love Cdn media.

 

[CROWLER]

You ever notice how the democrates keep arguing about the election and the southern necks keep flying the dixie flag.

It is for the SAME reason





They BOTH LOST!

 

[Matthew D]

Nope on that one.. and please don't generalize about southerners... thank you

 

[kwyckemynd00]

A-FUCKING-MEN BRUTHA!!

Btw, did you notice how many Libertarians ran for Congress this year? I didn't count, but I think it was something like 80% of the states had a Libertarian candidate. This may be a huge change coming. We might just turn into a 3-party system in the next 20 years.

I voted libertarian @ state level, too

However, I'm skeptical that IF they had the same power as demipubs and republicrats that they would actually be the libertarian party anymore...I'm also worried that we're going to see here what we do in multi party governments when the libertarians and the green part (as well as others) actually come to some prominence. I'm worried they will just start working with each other and basically be a two party system, still. The Europeans think they've got a great parliamentary government when most art actually run by two major parties still b/c of the cooperation between parties that have similar ideology.

I hope I'm wrong.

NPR

Interesting...as far left as your dial will go, eh? LOL...I couldn't handle it!

 

[CDB]

I challenge all you Republicans who hold a belief in Fiscal Restraint, limited Government and Personal Responsibility to seriously consider whether continued support for your party is in your best interests. I would say definetly not, your party has and will continue to fail you. We are in very serious trouble politically in the US, and unless a third party like the Libertarian becomes viable, we're F***ed. That and/or a personal tax revolt by enough people who can't stomach this lack of representation anymore is all that will save us now.

The Libertarian Party has been trying to get Republicans who are dissatisfied with their party to vote Libertarian for two decades or more, and it hasn't worked. Most people seem to vote as they do out of habit. I know people who completely disagree with everything the guy they vote for says, but they still vote for him for some reason and it's actually not because they hate the other guy more. They're just uninformed and generally vacanton the subject. They don't care.

The Libertarians have two options. Do as the Republicans did and get a wedge issue to run on and hammer away at, and win that way. Problem is their major galvanizing wedge issue would likely be an end to the war on drugs, and most people who would leave both parties and vote for them on that issue would be disgusted by the other planks in the Libertarian platform. Democrats would hate the lack of social programs, Republicans would hate the lack of legislated morality and/or the noninterventionist foreign policy. Or, the Libertarians could try to get people who usually don't vote but who generally agree with the party's principles to vote for them. Both options are extremely hard and not likely to go anywhere.

Personally I think thinking people just have to deal with the fact that governments will get bigger and more bloated until it pisses off enough people to the point that they revolt, or until the government collapses on its own and gets replaced in a more peaceful way. It seems to be the pattern that history follows.

 

[gobig1]

It is sad in this United States of America, as great as it is.......our political system is a complete joke. It has gotten completely away from the original, simple intent.... "OF THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE". It is unfortunate that our populace is so big and diversified, it is no longer of the people or for the people, the ONLY "winners" in today's political agenda are the politicians, certainly not "the people".

I know of no politician that has "MY" interests in mind when introducing new legislation.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

The Libertarian Party has been trying to get Republicans who are dissatisfied with their party to vote Libertarian for two decades or more, and it hasn't worked. Most people seem to vote as they do out of habit. I know people who completely disagree with everything the guy they vote for says, but they still vote for him for some reason and it's actually not because they hate the other guy more. They're just uninformed and generally vacanton the subject. They don't care.

I would support the libertarian party but they want to have an open boarder.

 

[Iron Warrior]

I would support the libertarian party but they want to have an open boarder.

Yup, we just can't invite Al-Quaeda with open arms

 

[kwyckemynd00]

I would support the libertarian party but they want to have an open boarder.

That + their isolationist views make me uneasy. However, I agree with more of their policies than any other party and even within the libertarian party open boarders and isolationism / non-interventionism are hot, debatable topics.