Senators "Gloat" Of Pork Spending

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: Pabster
I guess wasting taxpayer money is of no concern to you Captn. It's just a childhood game of bullies. :roll:

www.costofwar.com
?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Which orifice did you pull that 1/9 number out of, anyway, Jaskalas

1 trillion out of 9 trillion.

I would hope you're capable of elementary math.

I'm not sure where the 1 trillion figure you're coming up with comes from. The military budget for the 2008 year is 460 billion + "up to" 195 billion for the Iraq/Afgan/WOT stuff for a total of 655 billion. Bush and crew have added nearly 4 trillion (or more) to the national debt since taking office, with much of it in the name of "security".

If I'm not understanding your numbers or am out of context to what you're saying, my apologies.

I'm referring to Iraq AND Afghanistan. I invite everyone to read for themselves the cost of the Iraq war.

Seems you?re right on ?655 billion? for Iraq AND Afghanistan. So the ?waste? is not even 2/3rd of a trillion dollars yet. Not even 1/9th of our deficit. It is less than I was arguing and yet people have the audacity to suggest it?s far more important.

Yet as I?ve been saying, no one even mentions the other 8 trillion ? because it?s for stuff they are politically motivated behind and supportive of. So I refer you back to my original post on this topic.

Crickets......

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Which orifice did you pull that 1/9 number out of, anyway, Jaskalas

1 trillion out of 9 trillion.

I would hope you're capable of elementary math.

I'm not sure where the 1 trillion figure you're coming up with comes from. The military budget for the 2008 year is 460 billion + "up to" 195 billion for the Iraq/Afgan/WOT stuff for a total of 655 billion. Bush and crew have added nearly 4 trillion (or more) to the national debt since taking office, with much of it in the name of "security".

If I'm not understanding your numbers or am out of context to what you're saying, my apologies.

I'm referring to Iraq AND Afghanistan. I invite everyone to read for themselves the cost of the Iraq war.

Seems you?re right on ?655 billion? for Iraq AND Afghanistan. So the ?waste? is not even 2/3rd of a trillion dollars yet. Not even 1/9th of our deficit. It is less than I was arguing and yet people have the audacity to suggest it?s far more important.

Yet as I?ve been saying, no one even mentions the other 8 trillion ? because it?s for stuff they are politically motivated behind and supportive of. So I refer you back to my original post on this topic.

Crickets......

"Only" 2/3 of a trillion... and this is of no concern? We should be more concerned with small nothings like this first?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Which orifice did you pull that 1/9 number out of, anyway, Jaskalas

1 trillion out of 9 trillion.

I would hope you're capable of elementary math.

I'm not sure where the 1 trillion figure you're coming up with comes from. The military budget for the 2008 year is 460 billion + "up to" 195 billion for the Iraq/Afgan/WOT stuff for a total of 655 billion. Bush and crew have added nearly 4 trillion (or more) to the national debt since taking office, with much of it in the name of "security".

If I'm not understanding your numbers or am out of context to what you're saying, my apologies.

I'm referring to Iraq AND Afghanistan. I invite everyone to read for themselves the cost of the Iraq war.

Seems you?re right on ?655 billion? for Iraq AND Afghanistan. So the ?waste? is not even 2/3rd of a trillion dollars yet. Not even 1/9th of our deficit. It is less than I was arguing and yet people have the audacity to suggest it?s far more important.

Yet as I?ve been saying, no one even mentions the other 8 trillion ? because it?s for stuff they are politically motivated behind and supportive of. So I refer you back to my original post on this topic.

Crickets......

"Only" 2/3 of a trillion... and this is of no concern? We should be more concerned with small nothings like this first?

Or maybe the other 8 trillion.......

 

[dahunan]

HUH.. the DEBT being 8 trillion is due to INTEREST ..

Our wars are current expenditures that will show the interest real soon since we don't even have the money we are spending for it.. just keep printing it and sooner or later the Euro and the CAD and everything else will be worth more.. or is that already happening?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: dahunan
HUH.. the DEBT being 8 trillion is due to INTEREST ..

Our wars are current expenditures that will show the interest real soon since we don't even have the money we are spending for it.. just keep printing it and sooner or later the Euro and the CAD and everything else will be worth more.. or is that already happening?

Wow, so we've racked up 8 trillion dollars in interest from 655 billion dollars.....what are we getting our money from a loan shark?

I'm not endorsing the amount of money that we have spent on the war btw....

 

[StageLeft]

Pabster, you are so partisan it's a miracle you can even do this day after day without feeling disgusted with yourself. I wonder what happened to you in life that you found it intellectually acceptable to distil everything in the world down to Democrats=evil and everyone else=better.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Narmer
The assholes here complaining about money going to reconstruction efforts in devastated Louisana as being wasted yet can't see the nearly trillion dollars being wasted in Iraq are the epitome of hypocrites. It's like Bush complaining about a 7 year, $35 billion program for child healthcare when he's giving hundreds of billions of dollars to his friends in the defense and energy industry. These must be the same morons who defend trade with china while their children suffocate and die because of chinese products.

Well good morning to you too :laugh:

It's a shame that you seek to dismiss wasteful earmarks under the guise of "but look here!" and pointing the finger at GWB. A classic case of BDS.

I have been vocal about the need to bring China in check for quite some time. You won't find me defending the large trade imbalance or the terrible quality of their products.

You have to start at the top.. if you care about spending, you look FIRST to the most wasteful, and work your way down. You know this as well as I, but you rather attack your political opposites.

No, actually that is incorrect. Sure, you look to resolve the most wasteful but many times that is the most politically contentious(the reason it's porked up in the first place) so "fixing" it means different things to different people. The place to start is with earmarks and other pork as they are easily fixed - plus it'd send the message that change in spending habbits is serious. But hey, if they can't show they can do it on the small and easy stuff, you'd be a fool to suggest they could do it from the top down.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Pabster, you are so partisan it's a miracle you can even do this day after day without feeling disgusted with yourself. I wonder what happened to you in life that you found it intellectually acceptable to distil everything in the world down to Democrats=evil and everyone else=better.

At least I admit to being partisan, unlike the vast majority here who try to pretend they're something they are not.

And your simplistic view is rather laughable. If you can show me where I've ever claimed such nonsense, I'd like to see it.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Pork is the absolute best way for a candidate to continue their incumbency. The voters in a particular state may want pork to end on a national scale... until they're on the receiving end of the gravy train. People act surprised that Don Young keeps getting elected amidst all his pork bills. That's precisely why he keeps getting elected. He's bringing hundreds of millions of dollars in jobs and improvements to his constituents. You think your average voter is considering how pork skews the national economy when pork spending means he gets to stay employed? Absolutely not. That's why Landrieu is bragging. She's saying "Look, I just made 12 billion dollars for you. Vote for me." It works.

 

[theeedude]

Keeping water running and controlling flooding is even better way for a candidate to continue their incumbency than pork.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Which orifice did you pull that 1/9 number out of, anyway, Jaskalas

1 trillion out of 9 trillion.

I would hope you're capable of elementary math.

I'm not sure where the 1 trillion figure you're coming up with comes from. The military budget for the 2008 year is 460 billion + "up to" 195 billion for the Iraq/Afgan/WOT stuff for a total of 655 billion. Bush and crew have added nearly 4 trillion (or more) to the national debt since taking office, with much of it in the name of "security".

If I'm not understanding your numbers or am out of context to what you're saying, my apologies.

I'm referring to Iraq AND Afghanistan. I invite everyone to read for themselves the cost of the Iraq war.

Seems you?re right on ?655 billion? for Iraq AND Afghanistan. So the ?waste? is not even 2/3rd of a trillion dollars yet. Not even 1/9th of our deficit. It is less than I was arguing and yet people have the audacity to suggest it?s far more important.

Yet as I?ve been saying, no one even mentions the other 8 trillion ? because it?s for stuff they are politically motivated behind and supportive of. So I refer you back to my original post on this topic.

Crickets......

"Only" 2/3 of a trillion... and this is of no concern? We should be more concerned with small nothings like this first?

Or maybe the other 8 trillion.......

The other 8 trillion has been over time and not due to one thing... In order to stop wasteful spending.. you look first to the Iraq war... It makes more sense to you to keep spending and just tackle the debt at the same time?

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Narmer
The assholes here complaining about money going to reconstruction efforts in devastated Louisana as being wasted yet can't see the nearly trillion dollars being wasted in Iraq are the epitome of hypocrites. It's like Bush complaining about a 7 year, $35 billion program for child healthcare when he's giving hundreds of billions of dollars to his friends in the defense and energy industry. These must be the same morons who defend trade with china while their children suffocate and die because of chinese products.

Well good morning to you too :laugh:

It's a shame that you seek to dismiss wasteful earmarks under the guise of "but look here!" and pointing the finger at GWB. A classic case of BDS.

I have been vocal about the need to bring China in check for quite some time. You won't find me defending the large trade imbalance or the terrible quality of their products.

You have to start at the top.. if you care about spending, you look FIRST to the most wasteful, and work your way down. You know this as well as I, but you rather attack your political opposites.

No, actually that is incorrect. Sure, you look to resolve the most wasteful but many times that is the most politically contentious(the reason it's porked up in the first place) so "fixing" it means different things to different people. The place to start is with earmarks and other pork as they are easily fixed - plus it'd send the message that change in spending habbits is serious. But hey, if they can't show they can do it on the small and easy stuff, you'd be a fool to suggest they could do it from the top down.

That is backwards logic to justify your political goals. Stop the most wasteful first, then work down..

Youcannot get angry at small pittances when you SUPPORT the most wasteful spending there is right now.. and that is exactly what the OP did.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Pabster, you are so partisan it's a miracle you can even do this day after day without feeling disgusted with yourself. I wonder what happened to you in life that you found it intellectually acceptable to distil everything in the world down to Democrats=evil and everyone else=better.

At least I admit to being partisan, unlike the vast majority here who try to pretend they're something they are not.

And your simplistic view is rather laughable. If you can show me where I've ever claimed such nonsense, I'd like to see it.

You just claimed you weren't a republican...

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
You just claimed you weren't a republican...

Your sarcasm meter must have been broken. :laugh:

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: senseamp
:thumbsup:
Exactly. Republicans like to talk small government, but never seem to be able to implement it when they have the power.

So the obvious alternative to big government is more big government.

You talk as if government is a problem requiring a solution. I don't see that as an obvious argument, which was my point. Reagan conservatives LOVE to talk about "solving" big government, but when it comes right down to it, they realize that's a better bumper sticker philosophy than a practical one. Government does things, it's not a problem requiring fixing.

 

[jhbball]

HEY LOOK, I'M PABSTER, AND I CAN'T STOP USING THIS EMOTICON IN EVERY POST.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: senseamp
:thumbsup:
Exactly. Republicans like to talk small government, but never seem to be able to implement it when they have the power.

So the obvious alternative to big government is more big government.

You talk as if government is a problem requiring a solution. I don't see that as an obvious argument, which was my point. Reagan conservatives LOVE to talk about "solving" big government, but when it comes right down to it, they realize that's a better bumper sticker philosophy than a practical one. Government does things, it's not a problem requiring fixing.

Exactly. That's why the party that likes to talk about small government wants nothing to do with it when it is actually given the power to implement it. The only time they like to talk about small government is when they have no power to actually achieve it.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Which orifice did you pull that 1/9 number out of, anyway, Jaskalas

1 trillion out of 9 trillion.

I would hope you're capable of elementary math.

I'm not sure where the 1 trillion figure you're coming up with comes from. The military budget for the 2008 year is 460 billion + "up to" 195 billion for the Iraq/Afgan/WOT stuff for a total of 655 billion. Bush and crew have added nearly 4 trillion (or more) to the national debt since taking office, with much of it in the name of "security".

If I'm not understanding your numbers or am out of context to what you're saying, my apologies.

I'm referring to Iraq AND Afghanistan. I invite everyone to read for themselves the cost of the Iraq war.

Seems you?re right on ?655 billion? for Iraq AND Afghanistan. So the ?waste? is not even 2/3rd of a trillion dollars yet. Not even 1/9th of our deficit. It is less than I was arguing and yet people have the audacity to suggest it?s far more important.

Yet as I?ve been saying, no one even mentions the other 8 trillion ? because it?s for stuff they are politically motivated behind and supportive of. So I refer you back to my original post on this topic.

I mentioned that BushCo and the GOP have (fiscally conservative my ass) helped add nearly 4 trillion to the overall debt in just 7 years. And if you think that only 2/3 of a trillion of debt is peanuts....well....that speaks volumes by itself.

Oh, and the 2/3'rd's of a trillion that I spoke of above is not the Iraq/Afghan. totals....that's the DOD budget (including Iraq/Afghan. wars) for next year....2008 by itself.

Adding nearly 60% to the budget debt in 7 years is pretty shitty, but people, for the most part, don't give a damn because it's something that they can't feel (or so they don't realize).


I'll tell you I don't support the BS Iraq war, the BS Medicare prescription pork bill ($700 Billion +), bridges to nowhere, big BS military contracts and fraud ($955,000 to ship two washers to Iraq from a recent defense contractor) not to mention many others.

And one other thing, I'm a tax paying citizen and I can damn well complain about any part of the money that's spent (and borrowed) that I choose (as can you).

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: JD50
Crickets......

Some of us actually work for a living and have other things in life to do and don't spend the entire day reading the forums to respond. Shove the crickets up your butt!

Since some of YOU don't seem to mind the debt, then don't bitch about the taxes that are required to pay it.

Let's see how many of you start bitching about socialized healthcare and it's cost when/if it's brought up?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Engineer
I mentioned that BushCo and the GOP have (fiscally conservative my ass) helped add nearly 4 trillion to the overall debt in just 7 years. And if you think that only 2/3 of a trillion of debt is peanuts....well....that speaks volumes by itself.

Oh, and the 2/3'rd's of a trillion that I spoke of above is not the Iraq/Afghan. totals....that's the DOD budget (including Iraq/Afghan. wars) for next year....2008 by itself.

Adding nearly 60% to the budget debt in 7 years is pretty shitty, but people, for the most part, don't give a damn because it's something that they can't feel (or so they don't realize).


I'll tell you I don't support the BS Iraq war, the BS Medicare prescription pork bill ($700 Billion +), bridges to nowhere, big BS military contracts and fraud ($955,000 to ship two washers to Iraq from a recent defense contractor) not to mention many others.

And one other thing, I'm a tax paying citizen and I can damn well complain about any part of the money that's spent (and borrowed) that I choose (as can you).

I give a damn, but what's your solution, gut the ENTIRE DOD, raise taxes?

I would say vote Republican, but my complaint of them is betraying their conservative base. Vote Democrat and they?d gut our military, while proposing gigantic expansive increases to the REST of the government.

So this problem isn?t solved by voting for either modern party, we need a third party.

Originally posted by: Rainsford
You talk as if government is a problem requiring a solution. I don't see that as an obvious argument, which was my point. Reagan conservatives LOVE to talk about "solving" big government, but when it comes right down to it, they realize that's a better bumper sticker philosophy than a practical one. Government does things, it's not a problem requiring fixing.

Do you love the Patriot Act? Maybe I missed the part where indefinite government growth in size/power WASN?T a problem and wasn?t an ever increasing abuse of human rights.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Engineer
I mentioned that BushCo and the GOP have (fiscally conservative my ass) helped add nearly 4 trillion to the overall debt in just 7 years. And if you think that only 2/3 of a trillion of debt is peanuts....well....that speaks volumes by itself.

Oh, and the 2/3'rd's of a trillion that I spoke of above is not the Iraq/Afghan. totals....that's the DOD budget (including Iraq/Afghan. wars) for next year....2008 by itself.

Adding nearly 60% to the budget debt in 7 years is pretty shitty, but people, for the most part, don't give a damn because it's something that they can't feel (or so they don't realize).


I'll tell you I don't support the BS Iraq war, the BS Medicare prescription pork bill ($700 Billion +), bridges to nowhere, big BS military contracts and fraud ($955,000 to ship two washers to Iraq from a recent defense contractor) not to mention many others.

And one other thing, I'm a tax paying citizen and I can damn well complain about any part of the money that's spent (and borrowed) that I choose (as can you).

I give a damn, but what's your solution, gut the ENTIRE DOD, raise taxes?

I would say vote Republican, but my complaint of them is betraying their conservative base. Vote Democrat and they?d gut our military, while proposing gigantic expansive increases to the REST of the government.

So this problem isn?t solved by voting for either modern party, we need a third party.

Well, we can continue to borrow and spend (and run the printing presses 24/7). There's a hidden inflation in there (watch the dollar fall) that will more than cover any tax increase or other cuts.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: jhbball
HEY LOOK, I'M PABSTER, AND I CAN'T STOP USING THIS EMOTICON IN EVERY POST.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Hi there troll. I don't believe we've been acquainted... :laugh:

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

I would say vote Republican, but my complaint of them is betraying their conservative base.
Vote Democrat and they?d gut our military, while proposing gigantic expansive increases to the REST of the government.

So this problem isn?t solved by voting for either modern party, we need a third party.

That doesn't hold water - the only 'military' project of major importance that has been cut by Democrats
was when Carter cancelled the B-1, since it had become obsolete under delayed funding by Congress.

When Carter made the decision to not deploy it, it had become a sitting duck to Soviet Technology.

We 'Archieved the Documentation - for Retrevial Under a Friendly Administration', and restarted it as soon as
Regan became President - and it has historically proved that Carter was right.
It was a public works program for the employment of Military Contractors.
Cost a ton of dough, and is about as usefull as a snow shovel.


Now when you look at where the 'gutting of the Military' actually occured, you have to look at the <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/BG1042.cfm">Base Closings that
were implemented by Reagan,</a> enacted by Congress, <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_Realignment_and_Closure">continued under Bush - Type I, and overwhelming supported
by the Republican Congress once they gained power.</a>

It is a Myth - a 'Urban Legend' when you start assigning the 'depletion of the Military Forces' on the Democrats,
since in Reality, and Fact, all that 'gutting' was the GOP Policy, and they used the spin as a lever.

You know what they call people like that? - Lying Bastards.

 

[Jhhnn]

Interesting how Pabster and Jaskalas just wants to talk about the cost of the Iraqi occupation, rather than the explosive expenditures undertaken on the military in general under the Bush Admin- total expenditures immediately doubled, while honest threat levels haven't budged. The military saw 9/11 as a golden opportunity, and congress saw it the same way, allocating even more pork onto the already bloated pentagon wish list...

I suppose that miltary spending for the rightwing is kinda like comfort food- it doesn't really change anything for the better, but it feels good doing it...