PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Term Limits may be the only answer. I hate it but....


HonestChieffan
02-06-2012, 12:12 PM
Ridiculous Gov't. Spending List Grows Longer

By Paul Strand
CBN News Washington Sr. Correspondent
Monday, February 06, 2012
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/finance/2012/February/Ridiculous-Govt-Spending-List-Grows-Longer-/

Ad Feedback
WASHINGTON -- The list of wasteful spending by the federal government in Washington, D.C., grows ever longer.

A recent report released by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., gives a hundred examples from just last year.

Like the $120 million for federal retirement benefits to retirees who are already dead. Patrick Knudsen, The Heritage Foundation's senior federal budget expert, pointed showed CBN News a recent example.

"After a retiree had died, his son continued cashing his checks for 37 years. And it didn't stop until 2008 when the son himself died," he said.

Other examples of wasteful spending:

More federal funding in the amount of $593,000 went to a primate research center to study where in chimpanzees' brains they get the idea to throw their feces.
A Virginia university received $55,000 to study Jordanian students' water pipe smoking habits.
A new grant of $176,000 joined $350,000 already spent to study how cocaine hurts or helps the sex drive of Japanese quail.
While some people complain about government cuts, Leslie Paige, media director for Citizens Against Government Waste, said hardly any government program is rarely downsized.

"We never cut anything. There's hardly ever anything cut. In fact, the budget goes up by five percent and we're still spending money on junk like this," she said.

More examples:

A museum of magic received $147,000 to study the audiences of magic shows.
More than $550,000 of U.S. taxes went to the production of a documentary on how rock bands contributed to the fall of the Soviet empire.
"Now I might actually be interested in that. I'd like to know which groups did the most to bring down the evil empire. I just don't think the federal government needs to be spending money on this," Knudsen said.

Paige said such profligate spending, magnified by many billions, could cause America's downfall.

"We're $15.3 trillion in debt, and we're giving money to people to study the collapse of the Soviet Union. I mean I think it's so ironic," she pointed out.

A television production of a Pakistani version of PBS' "Sesame Street" has already cost tax payers $10 million and $20 million more has already been budgeted.

"For all we know, this is the CIA sending coded messages to its operatives through Bert and Ernie," Knudsen said.

IPad 2s were purchased for $96,000 for students in Maine, where 96 percent of their parents said the cost wasn't worth it.

Nevada's Western Folklife Center received $50,000 for cowboys and cowgirls to gather once a year to recite cowboy poetry.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., a native of the Silver State, expressed his anger when the House of Representatives tried to cut it.

"I thought Sen. Reid might not live in Nevada. I thought he might live on Mars at that point," Paige said.

"Because I could not believe we were living in the same reality, that this is so important to him that he's willing to spend that kind of federal dollars on the poetry festival when we're facing a $15.5 trillion debt."

"There's just is a culture of spending in Congress," Knudson explained.

"They don't want to have to say, 'no.' Their vocabulary is all about 'yes,'" Paige pointed out.

"And they think there's all this free money around and if they don't grab it, somebody else will," Knudson said.

And every day, the federal government continues to add $2.5 billion more to the national debt.

BucEyedPea
02-06-2012, 01:02 PM
Term limits won't handle the problem. The problem is ideas and how people are educated. So one moron will just replace another moron.

Taco John
02-06-2012, 01:36 PM
Milton Friedman once said that people have a great misconception in believing that the way you solve problems is by electing the right people. The way you solve things is by making it politically profitable for the wrong people in office to do the right things.

mnchiefsguy
02-06-2012, 01:44 PM
Milton Friedman once said that people have a great misconception in believing that the way you solve problems is by electing the right people. The way you solve things is by making it politically profitable for the wrong people in office to do the right things.

You know, that makes a lot sense. Question is, how do you do it?

Taco John
02-06-2012, 01:53 PM
You know, that makes a lot sense. Question is, how do you do it?

We have some great examples in front of us of the wrong way and the right way to accomplish long term political change.

First, look at the Tea Party. They threatened BOTH the Republican establishment and the Democrat establishment and affected real change in our politics. They were willing to challenge their own party and even go to the wire to LOSE elections in order to shake the party up and get political change made. Sharon Angle and Christine Odonnell ultimately lost, but they demonstrated to the establishment that the Tea Party was willing to push all in to defeat them if they needed to. They've further done the same with the debt ceiling. They've turned a rubber stamp issue into a major political shredder for any Republicans who go against them. The challenge, of course, it continuing the momentum - but that's what representative government is all about.

As a second example, look at the Ron Paul movement. Whatever you think of Paul, he's energized a young base of voters and is growing youth movement that will have an impact on Republican politics for a generation. Right now Republican strategists are wracking their brains on how they can placate and harness this energy. And what they'll find is that it will really depend on how and what issues they push.

As a bad example of what not to do, look at the Occupy Movement in contrast with the tea party. Where the Tea Party created political power by threatening their ideological establishment, the Occupy Movement threatened no one. They built no political power. Has it moved Obama in any direction? No. The movement was never a threat to him, thus there was never a reason for him to change any positions. You don't see a lot of politicians angling to garner the support of the Occupy movement except as platitudes now.

The bottom line is that it's not easy to affect change, but the only way to really do it is to be a threat to the establishment - and be willing to let the other side see temporary wins if you have to in order to make good on your threats.

alnorth
02-06-2012, 05:51 PM
The Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnell examples were just examples of a group acting like pack of clueless morons. Those two lost seats will be felt for a very long time, and the Tea Party is quickly fading to a memory.

The Republican alternative would have been better than a Democrat.

Taco John
02-06-2012, 06:41 PM
The Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnell examples were just examples of a group acting like pack of clueless morons. Those two lost seats will be felt for a very long time, and the Tea Party is quickly fading to a memory.

The Republican alternative would have been better than a Democrat.

Personally, I wouldn't have voted for either of them. But I wouldn't have voted for the Republicans that they supplanted either, so it would have been no loss for me.

Chocolate Hog
02-06-2012, 06:52 PM
The Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnell examples were just examples of a group acting like pack of clueless morons. Those two lost seats will be felt for a very long time, and the Tea Party is quickly fading to a memory.

The Republican alternative would have been better than a Democrat.

Yeah we need less conservatives and more Mitt Romneys.

|Zach|
02-06-2012, 06:54 PM
Yeah we need less conservatives and more Mitt Romneys.

You can't just throw up props with an ideology. They have to be intelligent people.

|Zach|
02-06-2012, 06:55 PM
I think the path to being in a position to get an office at that level does more to impact you than having it and keeping it.

mlyonsd
02-06-2012, 07:01 PM
I think the path to being in a position to get an office at that level does more to impact you than having it and keeping it.What does that mean?

whoman69
02-06-2012, 07:25 PM
We have some great examples in front of us of the wrong way and the right way to accomplish long term political change.

First, look at the Tea Party. They threatened BOTH the Republican establishment and the Democrat establishment and affected real change in our politics. They were willing to challenge their own party and even go to the wire to LOSE elections in order to shake the party up and get political change made. Sharon Angle and Christine Odonnell ultimately lost, but they demonstrated to the establishment that the Tea Party was willing to push all in to defeat them if they needed to. They've further done the same with the debt ceiling. They've turned a rubber stamp issue into a major political shredder for any Republicans who go against them. The challenge, of course, it continuing the momentum - but that's what representative government is all about.

As a second example, look at the Ron Paul movement. Whatever you think of Paul, he's energized a young base of voters and is growing youth movement that will have an impact on Republican politics for a generation. Right now Republican strategists are wracking their brains on how they can placate and harness this energy. And what they'll find is that it will really depend on how and what issues they push.

As a bad example of what not to do, look at the Occupy Movement in contrast with the tea party. Where the Tea Party created political power by threatening their ideological establishment, the Occupy Movement threatened no one. They built no political power. Has it moved Obama in any direction? No. The movement was never a threat to him, thus there was never a reason for him to change any positions. You don't see a lot of politicians angling to garner the support of the Occupy movement except as platitudes now.

The bottom line is that it's not easy to affect change, but the only way to really do it is to be a threat to the establishment - and be willing to let the other side see temporary wins if you have to in order to make good on your threats.

You really want to use for your example a bunch of loons who are unbending to the point of throwing the country to the wolves to prove their point that they are crazy?

alnorth
02-06-2012, 08:01 PM
I give the tea party zero credit for the 2010 wave. None, whatsoever, that was going to happen with or without them. The only thing the tea party did was primary a few guys in safe seats, so no net gain there at all, and throw away the chance to win a couple blue seats.

The tea party's only meaningful contribution was that they not only rescued Harry Reid from a near-certain retirement, they gave him a slim chance to retain the majority in this election despite the huge number of seats that the Dems have to defend.

mlyonsd
02-06-2012, 08:05 PM
I give the tea party zero credit for the 2010 wave. None, whatsoever, that was going to happen with or without them. The only thing the tea party did was primary a few guys in safe seats, so no net gain there at all, and throw away the chance to win a couple blue seats.

The tea party's only meaningful contribution was that they not only rescued Harry Reid from a near-certain retirement, they gave him a slim chance to retain the majority in this election despite the huge number of seats that the Dems have to defend.I guess you missed the 2010 elections. The Tea Party message was responsible for throwing the dems out of the House. It wasn't going to happen without them.

alnorth
02-06-2012, 08:42 PM
I guess you missed the 2010 elections. The Tea Party message was responsible for throwing the dems out of the House. It wasn't going to happen without them.

bullcrap. The tea party was made up of republicans who were going to vote republican with or without the yelling and the rallies.

The moderate and independent voters did not identify with the tea party, this was just a classic mid-term wave where the moderate voters, the only people who actually mean anything in elections, voted against the party in power because they were unhappy with the economy.

Taco John
02-07-2012, 12:11 AM
bullcrap. The tea party was made up of republicans who were going to vote republican with or without the yelling and the rallies.



You're not accounting for energy and turnout whatsoever. You're usually sound when it comes to politics, but you're completely off the mark here. Florida GOP turnout in 2010 was up 50% higer than 2006 in the primaries. The Tea Party dominated the primaries across the states in 2010. These things dont "just happen."

alnorth
02-07-2012, 08:21 AM
You're not accounting for energy and turnout whatsoever. You're usually sound when it comes to politics, but you're completely off the mark here. Florida GOP turnout in 2010 was up 50% higer than 2006 in the primaries. The Tea Party dominated the primaries across the states in 2010. These things dont "just happen."

I'm not forgetting that. Energy, enthusiasm, and turnout would not have differed either, with or without the tea party.

They had JUST passed Obamacare, and the right-wing talkers had been whipping up the masses that the legislation would be more evil than Satan for months, that they had to act to stop it. The tea party did not win the GOP any more seats than they otherwise would have. The right was up, eager, and ready to go regardless, they didn't sleepily wake up and go "wha? protests? I wasn't gonna vote, I thought the Dems were good enough to not bother, but hell, lets go!"