• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Senators "Gloat" Of Pork Spending

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Which orifice did you pull that 1/9 number out of, anyway, Jaskalas?

Spending on the military and security is an annual sum greater than the increase in indebtedness every year since 2002...

Where's the threat? Terrarists? They wouldn't make a pimple on the ass of the former might of the Soviet bloc, and their methods are specifically designed to thwart the whole big military machine, anyway...

The US buying more miltary hardware is like an alky having a drink to calm his nerves- the cure is the disease...
 
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From the ever-dense Pabster-

Staying on-topic is tough for you liberals, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Yeh, when the topic is kinda like fussing over the loose change on the floor in the lobby, even as the vault is being emptied out the back door...

Look! There's a quarter! And a dime, over there!

How lame.

The sad truth is that the scaremongering and chest-thumping in the wake of 9/11 have led us down a road of ruinous spending on the military and so-called "security", and of endless and pointless occupation of other nations. Total pork in those endeavors dwarf all the rest in aggregate.
Click to expand...

WTF do your comments have to do with the OP? Tough staying on topic isnt it 😉
 
Aww, I hit a nerve...

Get over it, blackangst1- most of military spending is pork, too, very dangerous pork, at that. Having a huge military standing around means that sooner or later some bunch of damned fools will think they need to use it, waste even more lives and money in the process.

Don't let it worry you, though- keep raving about those nickels and dimes... gotta keep things in perspective, right?
 
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Aww, I hit a nerve...

Get over it, blackangst1- most of military spending is pork, too, very dangerous pork, at that. Having a huge military standing around means that sooner or later some bunch of damned fools will think they need to use it, waste even more lives and money in the process.

Don't let it worry you, though- keep raving about those nickels and dimes... gotta keep things in perspective, right?
Click to expand...

Uh no. Pork spending by definition is add on's. Get a clue man.
 
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Aww, I hit a nerve...

Get over it, blackangst1- most of military spending is pork, too, very dangerous pork, at that. Having a huge military standing around means that sooner or later some bunch of damned fools will think they need to use it, waste even more lives and money in the process.

Don't let it worry you, though- keep raving about those nickels and dimes... gotta keep things in perspective, right?
Click to expand...

Uh no. Pork spending by definition is add on's. Get a clue man.
Click to expand...

LOL. Pork spending is ANY spending that is wasteful, regardless if it's an add on or a primary bill. Just because a bill is mainstream and not just a rider doesn't mean that it's not pork. Not to mention that one man's pork is another man's project.
 
Originally posted by: Sinsear
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Iraq is wasting 1 trillion of taxpayer money.. nothing else could come close to that, so it shouldn't bother most people.
Click to expand...

Staying on-topic is tough for you liberals, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Their Democrat heroes have FAILED them at every turn since the election, so the only place they have to turn is "but Bush". :thumbsdown::|:thumbsdown:
Click to expand...

i am no democrat...
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
The thread title drives me crazy, figuratively speaking of course, because "gloat of" grates on my nerves.

"Senators "Gloat" Of Pork Spending"

You gloat over something, no, not gloat of it.

It's like scratching you fingers on a black board, geez.
 
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Which orifice did you pull that 1/9 number out of, anyway, Jaskalas
Click to expand...

1 trillion out of 9 trillion.

I would hope you're capable of elementary math.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Heh. Somehow, Jaskalas, I doubt I'm the one lacking in basic math skills- see Engineer's post, above...

Explosive increases in debt are linked inevitably to increases in military spending and tax cuts for america's wealthiest- witness the RR-GHWB years, and now the GWB years... Much of american industry is hooked on defense pork, not to mention whole cities like our neighbor to the south, Colorado Springs...

Don't let the actual numbers interfere with your opinion, however...
 
I still am wondering why Pabster seems to think that you should start at the bottom instead of the top spending wasters if you care so much about pork? How is this approach against Bush? It is only logical to start with the worst offenders...
 
Let's see, small government or running water and flood control. Decisions decisions.
I guess Republicans think there is a private sector solution to levee and aqueduct construction too. Consumers are just going to build individual dams for their own houses and their own aqueducts.
I think I'll stick with the federal water projects, thanks.
 
Originally posted by: senseamp
Let's see, small government or running water and flood control. Decisions decisions.
I guess Republicans think there is a private sector solution to levee and aqueduct construction too. Consumers are just going to build individual dams for their own houses and their own aqueducts.
I think I'll stick with the federal water projects, thanks.
Click to expand...

That's the problem with the "small government" philosophy. It's a great bumper sticker philosophy, which explains its appeal to that overly folksy actor who for some reason is the hero of the Republican party, but writing a master's thesis on the topic becomes quite a bit more difficult. To use the ever popular car analogy, "small government" as it is frequently implemented comes off a lot like designers trying to lighten a sports car by taking off all the wheels. Yeah, you've met the strict technical definition of what you're trying to do, but you've made the end product absolutely useless. The problem isn't in accomplishing the goal, it's in poorly defining the goal in the first place.

And in any case, even that basic philosophy is bullshit, because a sure fire way to pick out who's going to expand government the most is to look at who's shouting "small government" the loudest. Reagan was the champion of that idea, and under his "leadership" the government got more bloated than ever. Bush is a conservative in exactly the same mold, and so are most modern conservatives. Their definition of "small government" seems to be the same "big government" they claim to dislike, except they feel that the magic of their clever marketing strategy exempts them from needing to PAY for it.
 
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
Click to expand...

1 trillion out of 9 trillion.

I would hope you're capable of elementary math.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: senseamp
Let's see, small government or running water and flood control. Decisions decisions.
I guess Republicans think there is a private sector solution to levee and aqueduct construction too. Consumers are just going to build individual dams for their own houses and their own aqueducts.
I think I'll stick with the federal water projects, thanks.
Click to expand...

That's the problem with the "small government" philosophy. It's a great bumper sticker philosophy, which explains its appeal to that overly folksy actor who for some reason is the hero of the Republican party, but writing a master's thesis on the topic becomes quite a bit more difficult. To use the ever popular car analogy, "small government" as it is frequently implemented comes off a lot like designers trying to lighten a sports car by taking off all the wheels. Yeah, you've met the strict technical definition of what you're trying to do, but you've made the end product absolutely useless. The problem isn't in accomplishing the goal, it's in poorly defining the goal in the first place.

And in any case, even that basic philosophy is bullshit, because a sure fire way to pick out who's going to expand government the most is to look at who's shouting "small government" the loudest. Reagan was the champion of that idea, and under his "leadership" the government got more bloated than ever. Bush is a conservative in exactly the same mold, and so are most modern conservatives. Their definition of "small government" seems to be the same "big government" they claim to dislike, except they feel that the magic of their clever marketing strategy exempts them from needing to PAY for it.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
Exactly. Republicans like to talk small government, but never seem to be able to implement it when they have the power.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Because Republicans are no longer conservatives. They're big government, pro-war fools. The only conservative Republican is Ron Paul, and he's hated and mocked for it.
 
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.
Click to expand...

So the obvious alternative to big government is more big government.
 
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: senseamp
Let's see, small government or running water and flood control. Decisions decisions.
I guess Republicans think there is a private sector solution to levee and aqueduct construction too. Consumers are just going to build individual dams for their own houses and their own aqueducts.
I think I'll stick with the federal water projects, thanks.
Click to expand...

That's the problem with the "small government" philosophy. It's a great bumper sticker philosophy, which explains its appeal to that overly folksy actor who for some reason is the hero of the Republican party, but writing a master's thesis on the topic becomes quite a bit more difficult. To use the ever popular car analogy, "small government" as it is frequently implemented comes off a lot like designers trying to lighten a sports car by taking off all the wheels. Yeah, you've met the strict technical definition of what you're trying to do, but you've made the end product absolutely useless. The problem isn't in accomplishing the goal, it's in poorly defining the goal in the first place.

And in any case, even that basic philosophy is bullshit, because a sure fire way to pick out who's going to expand government the most is to look at who's shouting "small government" the loudest. Reagan was the champion of that idea, and under his "leadership" the government got more bloated than ever. Bush is a conservative in exactly the same mold, and so are most modern conservatives. Their definition of "small government" seems to be the same "big government" they claim to dislike, except they feel that the magic of their clever marketing strategy exempts them from needing to PAY for it.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
Exactly. Republicans like to talk small government, but never seem to be able to implement it when they have the power.
Click to expand...


So you propose more spending?

The CBO has already said 75% of the budget by 2030 will be SS+Medicare.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top