Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Wastefulness? In my Congress? It's more likely than you think

Wastefulness? In my Congress? It's more likely than you think
Thread Tools
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2008, 08:15 PM
 
You guys remember how people keep blaming Bush for the economy, and I keep being like, "No, guys, it's Congress that makes the rules and sets the budget"? Well, now Congress has decided to line farmers' pockets even more than they already are, with Bush opposing the massive waste of cash.

Like I've been trying to say, blame the people who are actually screwing us over, not the easy target who's messed up a bunch of other stuff.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2008, 09:56 PM
 
It's a good thing we elected fiscally responsible Dems into office. They've just been doing a bang-up job all around.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2008, 10:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
It's a good thing we elected fiscally responsible Dems into office. They've just been doing a bang-up job all around.
I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but the Republicans are just as guilty. I also hate to break the news that pork barrel spending is a small fraction of the federal government's spending, but it makes for great headlines and faux outrage.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2008, 10:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but the Republicans are just as guilty.
I hate to break it to YOU…but I know that already. I just remember ALL those posts about how much better these guys were gonna be than those "evil" republicans.

I also hate to break the news that pork barrel spending is a small fraction of the federal government's spending, but it makes for great headlines and faux outrage.
Yeah, it's not exactly a huge amount but that doesn't make it ok. It is one of many, many little things that they do to throw other people's money away. You know, things that add up. It's also one of those many little things that this fabulous congress doesn't have the balls to do the right thing about. Come to think of it, what HAVE they done right? Oh, NOTHING.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2008, 10:34 PM
 
Anyone find it a co-inky-dink that congress (Feinstein and Craig) also snuck an amnesty rider onto a war supplemental bill that would have granted amnesty to 1.5 million illegal farm workers, and provided a free pass for illegals who fake social security documents.

All of this is a payoff. Just follow the money.

Line farmers' pockets with subsidies, then grant them millions of workers they can exploit for slave wages... oh yes, then whine about how "poor" laborers are in the US are after you've invited in millions more for the sole purpose of exploiting them for profit.
     
Chuckit  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2008, 10:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but the Republicans are just as guilty. I also hate to break the news that pork barrel spending is a small fraction of the federal government's spending, but it makes for great headlines and faux outrage.
People are constantly harping on how the cost of the Iraq war has hurt the country, and the amount they're handing out here is fully half of what we've currently spent on the war.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Atomic Rooster
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2008, 11:11 PM
 
Thanks for proving my point in this thread about my comments in the Iceland thread about corruption and rot and the other stuffs. Now put your head back into the sand.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2008, 11:46 PM
 
How important is the president to Congress? How much stuff does Congress not bother trying to pass with the expectations that the president will veto this? How much stuff doesn't get the votes it needs due to partisan deadlock?

It would seem to me that these problems (regardless of who the president is) are more of a bottleneck than who specifically we have in Congress?
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2008, 11:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
…the amount they're handing out here is fully half of what we've currently spent on the war.
Aaaand again I am educated, I hadn't even caught that. Good point.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2008, 07:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
Aaaand again I am educated, I hadn't even caught that. Good point.
I'm also guessing this is using the hyped-up $3 trillion figure for the cost of the war as if this is simply money lost. Simpleton economics at its finest as if these expenses don't include money spent on defense that goes back into the U.S. economy via salaries paid to over 5 million Americans employed directly and indirectly by the Defense Department including money to the defense industry itself, and the long list of those third parties providing the materials for this action.

For those concerned of cost; Iraq constitutes a far smaller percentage of GDP than other major conflicts. World War II up to 37.5%. Korea up to 14.2%. Vietnam up to 9.4%. Iraq and Afghanistan combined come in below 5% of GDP. In fact, National Defense Spending as a Percentage of GDP dropped from an average 9.3% in 1965 to approximately 4% in 2007 while during that same span, discretional spending has increased 152%. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid (don't forget SCHIP coverage for adults, but named after kids) has increased 759%. While we argue about whether or not Iraq is successful, we seem to be forgetting to gauge our successes on Medicare and Medicaid when we refer to the healthcare "crisis" and the raided Social security "lock-boxes".

There's my rant. Carry on.
ebuddy
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2008, 11:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
You guys remember how people keep blaming Bush for the economy, and I keep being like, "No, guys, it's Congress that makes the rules and sets the budget"? Well, now Congress has decided to line farmers' pockets even more than they already are, with Bush opposing the massive waste of cash.

Like I've been trying to say, blame the people who are actually screwing us over, not the easy target who's messed up a bunch of other stuff.
I'm annoyed that both Democrats supported the farm bill. McCain and Bush are right to oppose it.

But Congress and Bush have had their way with the budget until 2006, including previous farm bills. To say it's Congress and not Bush is creating a dichotomy that didn't exist until the 2006 elections. This is new-found religion for Bush, I think you'd agree.

And the economy is not the same as the budget.
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2008, 02:35 PM
 
Bush loved the farm bill---the bigger the better---until the Democrats took control of Congress. Now he can pretend that he hates it, and is safe because he knows that the Republicans and Democrats will join together to override his veto.

Like I've been trying to say, blame the people who are actually screwing us over, not the easy target who's messed up a bunch of other stuff.
I agree, but this has to include Bush. Putting up a token opposition to this farm bill hardly counts as fiscal restraint. Bush supported the other enormous farm bill. Now he is pretending he doesn't support this one, while winking at Congressional Republicans to say go ahead and vote for it.

Originally Posted by ebuddy
I'm also guessing this is using the hyped-up $3 trillion figure for the cost of the war as if this is simply money lost.
No, it isn't. This farm bill has an estimated cost of ~$300 billion over five years (the last farm bill was estimated to cost ~$200 billion over five years)---all figures in 2007 dollars from Wikipedia. The Pentagon estimates the cost of the Iraq war over the last five years to be $600 billion, so half that would give you the $300 billion. (You are right, though, to note that the actual cost of the war is far higher than the Pentagon's estimates. Bush and the Pentagon also estimated that the whole war would cost $90 billion and we've seen how accurate that was.)
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
Chuckit  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2008, 03:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by tie View Post
Bush loved the farm bill---the bigger the better---until the Democrats took control of Congress. Now he can pretend that he hates it, and is safe because he knows that the Republicans and Democrats will join together to override his veto.
Maybe my memory is faulty, but I'm pretty sure the last time this came up was before Bush's re-election and in better economic times. Now he's months away from political retirement, so I'm kind of inclined to believe he was actually being serious here.

Originally Posted by tie View Post
I agree, but this has to include Bush.
As perhaps a minor contributor. My point is that people are so eager to blame a figurehead that we're giving a free pass to the real people under whose buttocks we need to light a candle.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2008, 04:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Maybe my memory is faulty, but I'm pretty sure the last time this came up was before Bush's re-election and in better economic times. Now he's months away from political retirement, so I'm kind of inclined to believe he was actually being serious here.

As perhaps a minor contributor. My point is that people are so eager to blame a figurehead that we're giving a free pass to the real people under whose buttocks we need to light a candle.
Your memory is faulty. The last farm bill was in 2002. (That was also around the time of a recession, so I don't know if it was better economic times or not. Farm bills make more sense in worse economic times anyway.)

Why does a president being months away from retirement, choosing positions opposite to those he advocated throughout the rest of his presidency, that are only symbolic since they won't affect anything, make you think that he is being more serious now?

I agree with you that we need to force the Democrats in Congress to wisen up. Also the Republicans, but it is more important to get to the Democrats since they will more likely have the presidency next. However, I give Bush zero credit for token efforts to oppose the bill. Even though he is a lame duck, if he were serious about it, he could have done more to stop it.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2008, 04:54 PM
 
Farmers need to be reduced back to peasantry. Seriously.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2008, 05:26 PM
 
There's always a lot of hue and cry over OTHER people's congresscritters, but not about one's own. If they are rascals, BOOT 'EM OUT. That's what elections are all about. I'm more concerned that a new brand of overly smug "I'm right no matter what" Democrat will take over both houses than I am about who gets elected president in November. It's kind of scary what sort of charlatan and P.T. Barnum-wannabe might get elected and set up shop lining his/her own pockets while giving it to US. Without even pretending to kiss us first.

Bush's opposition to this bill is NOT token, any more than his opposition to the upcoming defense spending bill. But if enough people in Congress like what it will do for their pockets their constituents, they'll pass it over his veto, just like it looks like they'll pass the defense bill over a veto.

And they aren't even trying to look like they're genuine about this defense bill. They are PANDERING to the public's ideas about how veterans are treated. The point of departure for this spending bill is that both houses want to spend a LOT of money on veterans. The VA needs a lot more money (especially now), and it needs someone to pay attention to keeping the system funded so that facilities don't fall apart. But it needed that before. It's ALWAYS needed that. In particular, the VA needs to be funded during peacetime so that the guys that got messed up during the preceding conflict are treated properly when the shooting is over.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2008, 05:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Farmers need to be reduced back to peasantry. Seriously.
The family farm and the family farmer are not going to be beneficiaries of the proposed largess in this bill. Big, corporate farm entities are. Big as in enormously wealthy. If the family farm were the target of this, it would be headline news everywhere. Notice the dearth of discussion, the lack of press conferences? The reason is that the suits in the Halls of Congress know they're getting away with something...like sticking it to farmers yet again.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2008, 06:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
I'm more concerned that a new brand of overly smug "I'm right no matter what" Democrat will take over both houses than I am about who gets elected president in November.
It doesn't make sense to consider Congress without thinking about who gets elected president. The current farm bill is the product of both Democrats and Republicans. It absolutely matters who gets elected president in November. If you punish the Democrats and not the Republicans, then we'll have an irresponsible Republican Congress with a Republican president, which is a recipe for disaster. Ditto with the Democrats.

Bush's opposition to this bill is NOT token, any more than his opposition to the upcoming defense spending bill.
Yes it is. Why didn't he oppose the last farm bill? He could have stopped it.

The family farm and the family farmer are not going to be beneficiaries of the proposed largess in this bill. Big, corporate farm entities are. Big as in enormously wealthy. If the family farm were the target of this, it would be headline news everywhere. Notice the dearth of discussion, the lack of press conferences? The reason is that the suits in the Halls of Congress know they're getting away with something...like sticking it to farmers yet again.
No, farm bills are always like this. They are trumpeted in farm states, and played down everywhere else. (Even still, it is headline news everywhere as far as I can see---what newspaper are you reading?) Family farmers are huge beneficiaries of this. "Sticking it to farmers yet again"? I can't see any way in which this comment makes any sense. Farmers are benefiting from record high food prices and everyone else is still giving them welfare money.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2008, 08:33 PM
 
Congress decides spending, NOT the president. Congress decides where every dollar, every PENNY of Federal funding goes, no matter what the president asks for. A while back Congress told DoD that they could no longer move unneeded funds from accounts like "office furniture" into "operations and maintenance" (in other words, if the Army had a tank that needed parts, they could not use funds earmarked for fancy desks for commanding generals to buy those parts). And of course if you don't use all of your alloted budget in the fiscal year, you won't get that much next year (Congress DOES look at this too), so they exercise extremely microscopic levels of management on EVERY DOLLAR that DoD and all other Federal agencies spend. The president doesn't have any say in that, except to go along with or veto the various spending bills. Fat lot of good that does him some times.

The last farm bill didn't go above George's target for spending; this one does, and so he opposes it on those grounds. I never implied that he was in favor of cutting farm-corporate welfare, just that he actually opposed this bill.

I live in Texas. If there is another state that is more agricultural, I don't know where it is. There is NOTHING in the press here about this bill. When the drought kills cotton crops in the valley, or cuts down cattle feeding in pastures, I hear about it in my local paper. Why not this? 'Cause it's sneaky, that's why.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2008, 08:42 PM
 
ghporter, when Republicans controlled congress, the Bush administration wrote the laws, even if that's not how the constitution says it's supposed to be.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2008, 09:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Congress decides spending, NOT the president. Congress decides where every dollar, every PENNY of Federal funding goes, no matter what the president asks for.
tie caught me not paying attention, but the above is what I was trying to say. Overall spending, its growth, and the comparison of this spending to spending on Iraq.

I live in Texas. If there is another state that is more agricultural, I don't know where it is. There is NOTHING in the press here about this bill. When the drought kills cotton crops in the valley, or cuts down cattle feeding in pastures, I hear about it in my local paper. Why not this? 'Cause it's sneaky, that's why.
Farm state here and very little fanfare also.
ebuddy
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:23 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,