|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,181
Legend
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,181 |
I know that when we're dealing with billions and trillions that this seems like a drop in the lake, but who approves this crap? Are they impulse buys for Barney Frank? How about 1.44 million to study male prostitutes in Viet Nam? National Institute for Health How about 2 million to study condom use in Borat's home country: National Institute for Health Here we have 400k going to study drinking and sex habits of homosexuals in Argentina: CNSnews ....and then there's the 3.9 mill to develop an "Avatar" sex education video game for kids: National Institute for Health
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,646
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,646 |
At least the last one is doing something for Americans??? LOL!
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,027
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,027 |
kazakhstan is great country
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,989
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,989 |
Will you look at that...3 of the 4 projects were started during the Bush administration.
The HIV/Aids studies could date back for years, for all we know. HIV/Aids studies have been around for some time in case you didn't know.
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,231
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,231 |
Who cares when they were started? Can you inform us as to what bearing that has on anything?
Are you even capable of being non-partisan or is it so deeply ingrained in you to search for opportunity to assign blame that you've completely lost all objectivity?
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,346
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,346 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,989
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,989 |
Quote:
Who cares when they were started? Can you inform us as to what bearing that has on anything?
Are you even capable of being non-partisan or is it so deeply ingrained in you to search for opportunity to assign blame that you've completely lost all objectivity?
prp...you are not happy that I clicked a couple of the links and found out that the projects started back in July of 2008...
I can't help that..
Reading the threads beginning post, tell me, is this a "non-partisan" thread?
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Will you look at that...3 of the 4 projects were started during the Bush administration.
The HIV/Aids studies could date back for years, for all we know. HIV/Aids studies have been around for some time in case you didn't know.
Government waste is government waste regardless of who started it. You need to get over the notion that all of us RWers think Bush could do no wrong. I don't think he's the anti-Christ like a lot of liberals believe but he made a bunch of mistakes... and spending is a big one.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
tell me, is this a "non-partisan" thread?
yes, quite frankly, it is.
it is a government wastes too much money regardless of party thread.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,231
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,231 |
Quote:
prp...you are not happy that I clicked a couple of the links and found out that the projects started back in July of 2008...
I can't help that..
Reading the threads beginning post, tell me, is this a "non-partisan" thread?
No, I'm not upset that you clicked a couple of links and saw that they started back then.
I'm greatly annoyed that your one track mind is incapable of simply looking at an issue and speaking on the issue on its merits (or lack of). No, you need to degrade it into another pathetic (R) vs. (D) fest.
And yes, until YOUR first post, this WAS a completely non-partisan thread. Nowhere did it mention political parties, nor take anyone to task, nor attempt to assign blame.
If you REALLY, REALLY pay CLOSE attention, I think that you'll see that it is a thread about the general waste of taxpayer dollars by our government. Not waste by Dem or Rep, but by our Gov't in general. As in - ALL of Them. NOWHERE does it attempt to shift blame anywhere.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,181
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,181 |
So, you don't support the hard working Vietnamese male prostitutes? Don't tell me you're turning into an uncaring and heartless RW'er. 
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,989
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,989 |
Quote:
Are they impulse buys for Barney Frank?
prp...guess you missed that little swipe at non partisanship, huh?
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 14,092
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 14,092 |
jfanet asked a question...
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
-PrplPplEater
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,989
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,989 |
Jfan...I just looked it up...it was that toe-tapping republican, Larry Craig who submitted the pork to get funding for your Vietnamese program....
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,181
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,181 |
Lol! That's not what I asked.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,890
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,890 |
Quote:
Jfan...I just looked it up...it was that toe-tapping republican, Larry Craig who submitted the pork to get funding for your Vietnamese program....
Would you be man enough to admit that it is a waste of money?
Or do you just want to point fingers at "radical right wingers"?
Grow up. Please.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,363
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,363 |
Quote:
the projects started back in July of 2008...
And who exactly was running congress in '08? The President doesn't write the spending bills, congress does. The Democrats were the majority at that time. The President doesn't have a line item veto, so blaming him makes you look even more foolish.
This is just another case of how congress on the right and left use bills that need to be signed to keep the government working, and slip all this crap in. It is not a Rep/ Dem problem, it is the peoples problem. They have let congress believe that they are above the common citizen. This kind of spending buys votes.
At any rate, before you get on your high horse and start pointing fingers at Bush, maybe you ought to look at the pork in the health care bill that ONLY was supported by Democrats. Your double standard is becoming a joke.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,346
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,346 |
Quote:
Lol! That's not what I asked.
...and I think mac knows that. Mac articulates himself quite well, but his discourse is handicapped by his bias (Clem has a thread on this that I just noticed).
I posted a link to a Federal budget simulator in this thread. I would urge a try at it as it puts one's partisanship to task in the name of fiscal responsibility. My first run through it actually increased the percentage of debt to GDP. 
Please take no offense to my double post towards this link. I just think if fits jfanent topic.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,231
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,231 |
Quote:
Quote:
Are they impulse buys for Barney Frank?
prp...guess you missed that little swipe at non partisanship, huh?
Yes, I consider that non-partisan.... I took it as just taking a jab at a sitting Congressman... a swipe that is topical as he is openly gay, and some of the research is HIV/AIDS and Male prostitutes.
It's also called making a joke at the guy's expense.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Quote:
Jfan...I just looked it up...it was that toe-tapping republican, Larry Craig who submitted the pork to get funding for your Vietnamese program....
Would you be man enough to admit that it is a waste of money?
Or do you just want to point fingers at "radical right wingers"?
Grow up. Please.
Now that he has determined that Bush was president and a repbulican requested it you can bet your ass he'll be man enough to admit it was waste.....
If it happened under Obama and Pelosi had requested it you can bet your ass he'd be man enough to either say it was to help the hard working middle class Americans or.... somehow find a way to blame it on Bush. 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
j/c
These studies may sound stupid to people, but I worked as a virologist for several years, and these kind of epidemiological studies are necessary. Different populations have to be studied to understand how drug resistance develops in different subtypes of HIV, and high risk populations are the populations in which resistance develops the fastest. These kinds of studies in high risk populations can also serve as "early warning" of newer, more resistant strains of HIV.
They are done in far flung countries where the laws are less enforced, and thus these risky behaviors are more common and thus easier to monitor.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,181
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,181 |
Buzzkill!
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Sorry 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,374
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,374 |
It seems our tax money is going out the freaking window, which really does not suprise me to much. 
LET'S GO BROWNS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/OldSixty-Two/new0400001.jpg) [b]WOOF WOOF[b]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
It seems our tax money is going out the freaking window, which really does not suprise me to much.
As I was driving to work, I came across folks standing on the corner holding up their iPads that read "Hungry..No Work...but thank you FloridaFan for sharing the wealth" 
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
My all-time favorite - "Hexaform rotational surface compression units".
Now it's not that they spent $6.00 each for these. What really ticks me off is that someone took the time to think up the fancy name for the sole purpose of clouding the issue and misleading the taxpayer.
It's nuts.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
Here's another $19,000 million (yes, 19 thousand-million for perspective) of your "tax dollars" (a.k.a. the national debt) going towards the financial reforms. Originally the money was slated to come from financial institutions, but Congress decided that it would be better if Joe Taxpayer footed the bill instead. Lawmakers are now considering ending the $700 billion TARP program early and using some of that money to help fund the new financial overhaul bill, CNBC has learned.
The proposal is being weighed as Democrats scramble to save the bill, whose final approval is in jeopardy because of objections to roughly $19 billion in new bank fees and taxes that was inserted at the last minute to pay for other measures in the legislation.
Sen. Christopher Dodd, one of the main architects of the bill, confirmed that such a move is being considered.
As reported earlier by CNBC, Democrats have been forced to consider changing the bank tax in order to save the legislation.
The bank tax—which would apply to large financial institutions and hedge funds with over $10 billion in assets under management—threw the passage of the financial overhaul bill into doubt when Senator Scott Brown (R-Mass) said he would vote against the bill if it amounted to a new tax. He said he feared the fee would be passed on to bank customers.
House-Senate conferees, who hammered out the legislation late last week, are now expected to meet later today to address Brown’s concerns.
The conferees will propose ending the Treasury Department's authority to require banks to accept additional TARP funds. While this authority would sunset over time rather than end immediately, budget rules say that this would result in a savings of something like $10 billion to $11 billion.
Additional FDIC premiums also are being considered to bring in $3.5 billion, bringing the total closer to the $19 billion the lawmakers sought to raise with the bank tax. The Republicans are expected to accept this deal.
The biggest banks would be subject to the higher FDIC fees, but not hedge funds, since they are not part of the FDIC system. On the other hand, smaller banks—exempted from the fee under the current bill—that operate under the FDIC system would likely find themselves footing the bill.
The assessment was put in place in order to comply with the Pay-As-You-Go Act, which requires that new laws include funding for their costs. The bill seeks to raise the lesser of $19 billion and one and one-third of the amount necessary to fully offset its net deficit effects over the next decade.
Sources on Capitol Hill say the situation is moving fast. If a change is agreed to, it may be announced very quickly in hopes of allowing the House and Senate to pass the bill before the July 4th holiday.
Financial Reform Funding Plan
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,044
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,044 |
the last thing would be pretty freakin sweet to have as a kid if it was fully interactive and came with different girl cartridges. that said, eh, it's research. a couple million here or there, while it does add up, is not the same thing in my mind as massive costs like healthcare or new taxes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Quote:
Will you look at that...3 of the 4 projects were started during the Bush administration.
The HIV/Aids studies could date back for years, for all we know. HIV/Aids studies have been around for some time in case you didn't know.
Government waste is government waste regardless of who started it. You need to get over the notion that all of us RWers think Bush could do no wrong. I don't think he's the anti-Christ like a lot of liberals believe but he made a bunch of mistakes... and spending is a big one.
I'm not going to comment on mac ... I stopped that awhile ago ...
But as far as the back and forth with Bush and Obama ... I really don't think that's ever going to stop, given the way our political discourse works.
Once a GOP president is elected, they're going to continue to do the same things that Bush and Obama have done ... and they're going to get away with it, because the discourse will be focused on 'well, Obama did it' and the conversation funnels from there.
It's really mind-boggling to me ... two presidents ... governing with frightening similarity ... and yet you'd think they were polar opposites based on the way folks view them and argue about them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,044
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,044 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
It's really mind-boggling to me ... two presidents ... governing with frightening similarity ... and yet you'd think they were polar opposites based on the way folks view them and argue about them.
As you see them, what are the similarities? And what do you think the underlying reasons are for why they are so similar?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
jc Quote:
National debt soars to highest level since WWII
Jun 30, 2010
The federal debt will represent 62% of the nation's economy by the end of this year, the highest percentage since just after World War II, according to a long-term budget outlook released today by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.
For more detail on the report, check out this post in USA TODAY's The Oval.
Republicans, who have been talking a lot about the debt in recent months, pounced on the report. "The driver of this debt is spending," said New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg, the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee. "Our existing debt will be worsened by the president's new health care entitlement programs…as well as an explosion in existing health care and retirement entitlement spending as the Baby Boomers retire."
At the end of 2008, the debt equaled about 40 % of the nation's annual economic output, according to the CBO.
The report comes as the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform meets today. The group, created by President Obama, is expected to issue recommendations in December to curb the debt – a point Democrats raised today.
The CBO report "reinforces the importance of the work being done right now by the president's fiscal commission," said Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., who chairs the Senate Budget Committee. "We simply cannot allow the federal debt to explode as envisioned under CBO's projections. The economic security of the country and the quality of life for our children and grandchildren are at stake."
LINK
Quote:
Report: Health care law cuts red ink, but not nearly enough
The men and women charged with figuring out how to reduce federal deficits and debt got some more bad news this morning: the numbers keep getting worse.
That was the news from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, which for the first time took into consideration the new health care law, heralded by President Obama and Democrats for reducing deficits in the long run.
The report doesn't contradict that. It simply points out that any long-term savings from the health care law, such as from Medicare savings, aren't enough to turn deficits around.
Moreover, the report casts doubt on whether Congress will stick to the tougher aspects of the law. If it doesn't -- for instance, if it doesn't cut Medicare payments to doctors -- the fiscal picture will be far worse.
First, the numbers: Debt held by the public will rise from 62% of the economy to 79% over the next 25 years. If assumptions are made about what Congress is likely to do -- for instance, maintain some tax cuts and avoid Medicare cuts to doctors -- that percentage will increase to 185% of the economy in 2035.
CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf told President Obama's fiscal commission that heatlh care costs remain the primary problem. The health care law passed this year, he said, "made a dent in the problem but did not substantially diminish that challenge."
The 18-member bipartisan fiscal commission is charged with proposing changes that would reduce the federal budget deficit -- $1.5 trillion -- and the cumulative national debt -- $13.1 trillion. Congress is supposed to vote on any recommendations it makes, but it takes 14 of 18 members to make any.
Therein lies the rub. If the first few meetings of the commission offer any clues, Democrats appointed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid may offer the biggest roadblock to action. Several of them have persistently defended continued stimulus spending to create jobs over any action to reduce spending or raise taxes.
The third public commission meeting this morning got a bit heated when Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., accused Elmendorf of being "irresponsible" by presuming in the report what a future Congress might do -- even though the presumptions are based on the actions of past Congresses. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., questioned CBO's actions, if not its motives.
What has become clear in the commission's early going is that Democrats don't want to give up on the stimulus, at least until unemployment rates hovering near 10% come down.
"We have deficits, but to me, the biggest deficit we have is the jobs deficit," said Rep. Xavier Becerra, D-Calif.
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., was so pessimistic he even questioned the commission's chances of reaching substantive agreements after Election Day.
"I don't know if it's politically possible, when I look around the table," he said.
LINK
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,231
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,231 |
Quote:
If it doesn't -- for instance, if it doesn't cut Medicare payments to doctors -- the fiscal picture will be far worse.
For the record, this is the very same payment that gets renewed regularly by Congress, and was even a pork add-in to the "unemployment bill" that just got shot down.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979 |
For 2 and a half days in the last presidential election, Hillary Clinton got more face time on any news cast than any other candidate. Why? It wasn't that she was leading in primaries, primary voters, possible electoral votes or the polls, it was money, Money, She had raised more money in that previoius weekend. The politicians raise money and that money probably comes from various interests including corporate interest, CORPORATIONS WHO HAVE MONEY THAT THEY CHARGE ME WHEN I BUY STUFF! Why do I have to pay 6.5 % sales tax when some billion million dollar development for some corporation or developer gets 100% property tax abatement for 15 years, and the surrounding infrastructure was redone ( didn't need it yet) with stimulous money ? ! ? ! Who decided they could get 100% tax abatement, probably some politician or committee of politicians who are only elected because they get face time because they raise more money from the big developers/corporations who jack the cost of products and services I want to use up AND which I have to pay 6.5% sales tax on.  I have a new campaign pledge, Somehow change the laws in the state of OHio, to prevent " any goverment agency from offering more than 40% property tax abatement on any development or face criminal prosecution" So you could not expect that you could eliminate this process altogether, but reducing the tax abatements for new developments to make them pay 60% of the taxes they should, THEN YOU COULD MAKE $$ ROOM TO LOWER THE SALES TAX TO A REASONABLE 4.5% OR EVEN 4% WHERE IT RIGHTFULLY BELONGS! Then you could get other states to follow and we could put more $$ back to the people where it belongs. THE PEOPLE WHO EARN IT WITH THE SWEAT OF THEIR BROW! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,231
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,231 |
Unfortunately, all that would accomplish is to force the larger companies to move out of state to somewhere where they can get a better deal.... so, in your bid to get more tax money from a company, you'd be gaining unemployed and losing tax dollars on all of that income.... which then gets the state even more money from sales and other taxes.
So, the state takes a hit on the one hand, but as long as that company is employing enough people, it can still come out ahead by making that type of deal.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,762
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,762 |
California sales tax is 8.25 bpercent, typically with a 0.5 to 1 percent local surcharge.
I wish for a 6.5 percent state tax.
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!…. That did not age well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,181
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,181 |
Quote:
California sales tax is 8.25 bpercent, typically with a 0.5 to 1 percent local surcharge.
I wish for a 6.5 percent state tax.
So with that higher tax rate, the economy must be thriving out there, eh?
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Gotta ask you a question.
My wife and I watch HGTV alot for House Hunters and Property Virgins and shows like that.
In California, it seems no one bats an eye at a 900sqft 500k+ house, and these are often young 20 something couples. So that tells me they must make more than many areas of the country. I mean, I make a good living, but I couldn't afford a 500k house.
So my question is, is everything marked way up out in California. Like I paid 200k for my 2200 sqft house in Florida, and my Mustang cost me 28k. So a 2200sqft house in California should cost close to a million by my estimation, so then does a Mustang cost nearly 50k?
What I'm getting at is, is everything crazy expensive, or are the day to day items still in line with most of the country, and the crazy prices just in real estate?
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
when I lived in CA everything was marked up. movies were $11 a person (and this was 10 years ago), gas is crazy expensive, groceries (except fruits/veggies which are grown locally), etc.
Charger can probably extrapolate more since he's still there and likely lived there much, much longer than me (I did bat an eye at those real estate prices and left)
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Quote:
It's really mind-boggling to me ... two presidents ... governing with frightening similarity ... and yet you'd think they were polar opposites based on the way folks view them and argue about them.
As you see them, what are the similarities? And what do you think the underlying reasons are for why they are so similar?
They're beholden to similar interests -- the people in power who who their elections/re-elections. People like to talk about Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative ... but in these cases those words are nonsense. Bush wasn't a liberal or a conservative; Obama isn't a liberal or conservative ... they're more or less the CEO's of the giant subsidy fund that is the American taxpayer.
Both presented bloated health care bills that amounted to nothing but giant subsidies for the insurance and pharm institutions.
Both presented bloated 'stimulus/recovery/bailout' bills that were also nothing but giant subsidies to various banks and economic institutions.
Both have kept us mired in unwinnable wars that in essence are nothing but subsidies and no-bid contracts to gov't darlings such as G.E. and other resource companies the U.S. gov't is closely tied to. We would NOT be in these two wars if it wasn't profitable business.
Both have poured out eye-popping amounts of money for various regional, national and international aid programs without any sort of planning in regards to payment.
Spend now, pay for it later seems to be the motto of both administrations.
The only difference I see is in their rhetoric, which is a result of their 'base'. Both have served their executive role in strikingly similar terms ... the only difference is in how they talk about it, and how the population reacts to it.
DC has talked in several threads now about how mac likes to say 'Bush did it, too' as a diversionary tactic .... but .... well ... Bush DID do it, too.
Remember when Obama bowed to the Saudi king? The right blw a gasket, and ranted abut weakness, etc ... and of course, the counter was the photos of Bush kissing him, and holding hands with him in the Rose Garden .... and then the other side came back with some lunacy like 'kissing and hand holding is respect, bowing is subservience' .... people will go to utterly ridiculous lengths to justify this great divide in their heads.
These guys are very, very similar presidents. On paper, the decisions and the numbers back me up on that statement pretty well. But when I say that, it drives people nuts ... which is exactly what the folks on the hill want.
Both presidents have done whatever they need to do in order to a) appease the moneyed interests that got them elected and b) appease the moneyed interests that the American taxpayer has subsidized for decades.
Neither is any better or worse than the other in that regard.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Where are your tax dollars going?
|
|
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/Maddog/PDVD_000Z.jpg)
