50 examples of government waste

[quote name='The Crotch']Hmm. I did my usual thing and look what I found...[/QUOTE]

Hmm. Weird. I googled the quote, and there were a LOT of sources that claimed it to be him. This site seems the most reliable though. However, the quote at the bottom of the page kind of says the same thing as the quote I posted (minus the liberalism). I would copy it here, but I can't copy/paste right now. :/
 
[quote name='Upton Sinclair']The American People will take Socialism, but they won't take the label. I certainly proved it in the case of EPIC. Running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to 'End Poverty in California' I got 879,000. I think we simply have to recognize the fact that our enemies have succeeded in spreading the Big Lie. There is no use attacking it by a front attack, it is much better to out-flank them.[/quote]

There-ya-go.
 
ahh Sad to see the private school myth rearing its head again.

When you take into account variables like race, gender and parents’ education and income. Private schools are no better than public (when if comes to testing results)

I am for private schools because I don't want kids who parent think the earth is 6,000 years old wasting my kids time in school with intelligent design.
 
I want to point out that there is a difference between socialism and populism.

I don't think America will ever embrace socialism. It's not in the political DNA. However I could buy that Americans are susceptible to populism. As Sinclair Lewis once said,

[quote name='"Sinclair Lewis"']
When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.
[/QUOTE]
 
I am really sick of that quote. It's just anti-religious banter.

Fascism is arguably already here and it certainly wasn't wrapped in anything but fear or carrying anything but complacency.
 
I am really sick of that quote. It's just anti-religious banter.

Fascism is arguably already here and it certainly wasn't wrapped in anything but fear or carrying anything but complacency.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I am really sick of that quote. It's just anti-religious banter.

Fascism is arguably already here and it certainly wasn't wrapped in anything but fear or carrying anything but complacency.[/QUOTE]

You hit all the buzzwords, your only problem is that you don't go far enough.

If you had denounced it as unpatriotic anti-Christian banter, you could have had your own show on Fox (or at the very least an interview with Glen Beck)
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I am really sick of that quote. It's just anti-religious banter.

Fascism is arguably already here and it certainly wasn't wrapped in anything but fear or carrying anything but complacency.[/QUOTE]

I shifting between quoting you and camoor.

Didn't Bush knock out most of the Bill of Rights because of those Islamofascists and then cover up some of the continuing failure in Iraq by proposing the Marriage Amendment?
 
Of course he did, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. But I don't quite get how the marriage amendment has anything to do with covering anything up.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Your kids will get plenty of time wasted in public school's without intelligent design.[/QUOTE]

maybe but moreso with Private
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Of course he did, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. But I don't quite get how the marriage amendment has anything to do with covering anything up.[/QUOTE]

More like distraction then cover up.

Now you see the Iraq war - look over there, gay marriage! - tadaaaa mission accomplished!
 
[quote name='JolietJake']That doesn't prove we've become more socialist, just that government spending has grown.[/QUOTE]

No, it's not a graph of government spending, but government spending as a % of GDP. It's the percentage of our economy controlled by the government. Bigger government = more socialist. We can argue whether it's a good or a bad or a mixed thing, but it's just a fact that we are a far more socialist country than we were in the early 20th century.
 
If you want to look at it that way, just remember that plenty of things can increase government spending. See that little spike between 1940-1950?
 
[quote name='JolietJake']If you want to look at it that way, just remember that plenty of things can increase government spending. See that little spike between 1940-1950?[/QUOTE]

Obviously that's true, but remember that I was not referring to World War II's increased spending, but just increased government spending in relation to GDP overall throughout many years, including peacetime. When government takes 35-40% of GDP as compared to 5-10% 100 years ago, certainly government is a much larger part of our economy, and thus our lives.

[quote name='Webster']Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1837

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods[/quote]

To me, given this definition and the fact that the government has become much more involved with "ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution," we have become more socialist, without question. The question to be debated, therefore, is not whether we have become more socialist; rather, whether that's a good thing or not, or some good some bad, or mostly good but a little bad, or mostly bad but a little good, or whatever.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Obviously that's true, but remember that I was not referring to World War II's increased spending, but just increased government spending in relation to GDP overall throughout many years, including peacetime. When government takes 35-40% of GDP as compared to 5-10% 100 years ago, certainly government is a much larger part of our economy, and thus our lives.
[/QUOTE]

True. But you still have to control for it being a more global society--thus needing more federal government officials and agencies etc. Defense costs rising as we move to fighter planes, nuclear bombs, and all these other super expensive weapons.

You really need to look at what categories accounted for the spending to see if it's stuff that's making them a larger part of our lives.

Some would be with stuff like social security, medicare/medicaid etc. Other stuff like foreign relations costs increasing, defense costs increasing doesn't really have any more direct impact on our lives.
 
Yeah, we now have departments of the government which we did not have near the start of the 20th century. Plus the increase from about 2001 to current has to take into account the two wars which we are fighting.
 
We spend way more money on war then peace.

When you take a larger picture view, it's amazing that there can be such an outcry against programs designed to heal people, when all it takes to pass campaigns designed to kill people are a few lapel pins, jingoistic speeches, and strategically repositioned "free speech zones"

Culture of life my ass
 
[quote name='camoor']We spend way more money on war then peace.[/QUOTE]

Are you sure about that? I'm pretty sure Obama is set to spend more in welfare in one year than Bush did for the entire Iraq war during his term.

Mind you, I disagree with the Iraqi war and strongly question the Afghan war.
 
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/sr0067.cfm
Since the beginning of the War on Poverty, government has spent $15.9 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dol$lars) on means-tested welfare. In comparison, the cost of all other wars in U.S. history was $6.4 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars).
Click to expand...

http://www.raymondvillechroniclenews.com/news/2009/0923/news/039.html
Total welfare spending tends to fly under the radar screen because it's spread across so many bureaucracies. There are at least 13 government departments and agencies, 17 budget functions and 71 separate programs involved in the federal welfare state. But the whole thing is huge. Add up all the federal, state and local government spending and you'll find aid to poor and lowincome persons is the third most expensive government activity.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='camoor']We spend way more money on war then peace.

When you take a larger picture view, it's amazing that there can be such an outcry against programs designed to heal people, when all it takes to pass campaigns designed to kill people are a few lapel pins, jingoistic speeches, and strategically repositioned "free speech zones"

Culture of life my ass[/QUOTE]

You're right; anyone that wants to start a therapy group that meets once a week should be eligible for large quantities of taxpayer money, as long as they "help people".
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Since the beginning of the War on Poverty, government has spent $15.9 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dol$lars) on means-tested welfare. In comparison, the cost of all other wars in U.S. history was $6.4 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars).[/quote]
That's interesting phrasing. I wonder what would happen if you change the phrase "other wars" to "defense".
Total welfare spending tends to fly under the radar screen because it's spread across so many bureaucracies. There are at least 13 government departments and agencies, 17 budget functions and 71 separate programs involved in the federal welfare state. But the whole thing is huge. Add up all the federal, state and local government spending and you'll find aid to poor and lowincome persons is the third most expensive government activity.
Click to expand...
Also interesting. For an apples to apples comparison, we'd have to then also include the 50 state agencies tasked with maintaining a military force. Plus the DoD, including all military research, purchases, salaries, costs of maintaining bases here and overseas, etc. Plus the VA, with their medical care, loan guarantees, college tuition reimbursement, etc. Plus every state program for service members. Plus the state programs for veterans (yes, vets and "active" fall under different bureaucracies). We'd probably have to throw in the city specific support areas as well. I know the city of Houston has a department for Veterans Affairs just at the city level. I guess it would probably be in bad taste to include lost production from dead and wounded soldiers.
 
Would be interested in knowing.

What it comes down to, however, and I think we can all agree on this...

Our government spends too much money.
 
I prefer to think of it as spending too much on unnecessary things. It's kind of like being broke because you spent all your money on groceries, vs spending it all on a TV or something.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']I prefer to think of it as spending too much on unnecessary things. It's kind of like being broke because you spent all your money on groceries, vs spending it all on a TV or something.[/QUOTE]

I agree, to an extent. Except that you're also broke because you simply spent more than you make.

I'd love to see that Constitutional Amendment that requires a balanced budget every year.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I'd love to see that Constitutional Amendment that requires a balanced budget every year.[/QUOTE]

Don't wish for bad things.

Let's pretend there was a balanced budget amendment and the government decided to spend all of their money on a war in the first six months.

Would you be cool with no repairs to roads for the last six months of a year?

Would you be cool with paying a year end tax to make up for shortfalls?

I would rather let the retards run their deficits and default year(s) from now instead having to pay more for their indulgences directly every calendar year.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Don't wish for bad things.

Let's pretend there was a balanced budget amendment and the government decided to spend all of their money on a war in the first six months.

Would you be cool with no repairs to roads for the last six months of a year?

Would you be cool with paying a year end tax to make up for shortfalls?

I would rather let the retards run their deficits and default year(s) from now instead having to pay more for their indulgences directly every calendar year.[/QUOTE]

We could run a balanced budget. It would require that the government actually listen to REAL economics and not goldman sachs 'steal from the tax payer' economics.
 
You'd really have to look at annual spending. Looking at total sums doesn't work as social programming is in place every day every year, wars have not been.

I'll support most types of social spending as long as it's stuff I truly think helps people. Wars, I support them as a last resort to keep our borders safe. Anything else is a waste of lives and money.
 
If have nothing important to say, but the ones that bother me are the obvious ones. Spending 3 million to move furniture. Chinese prostitutes, we are spending money on that? Shady ass Congress and Gov people buying tv's, popcorn machines, and flying first class? What do you even say to that? I wish I could punch a politician sometimes.
 
[quote name='AdultLink']We could run a balanced budget. It would require that the government actually listen to REAL economics and not goldman sachs 'steal from the tax payer' economics.[/QUOTE]

Our semi-elected officials could do the right thing, but it doesn't pay as well.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Don't wish for bad things.

Let's pretend there was a balanced budget amendment and the government decided to spend all of their money on a war in the first six months.

Would you be cool with no repairs to roads for the last six months of a year?

Would you be cool with paying a year end tax to make up for shortfalls?

I would rather let the retards run their deficits and default year(s) from now instead having to pay more for their indulgences directly every calendar year.[/QUOTE]

If the war was unexpected, then it wouldn't be in the budget.

If the war was something ongoing, then yes, it should be budgeted for.

Perhaps if there were no road repairs done or the citizenry was forced to pay a balloon tax at the end of the year, we'd be slightly more picky on who we vote for and what kind of spending we support.

And, no, I don't agree with the idea of spending the money now in exchange for turning our children or grand children into Chinese slaves.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Our semi-elected officials could do the right thing, but it doesn't pay as well.[/QUOTE]

Which brings us to the subject of career politicians and the two-party system, but then I have to start with the foul language and all.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']If the war was unexpected, then it wouldn't be in the budget.

If the war was something ongoing, then yes, it should be budgeted for.

Perhaps if there were no road repairs done or the citizenry was forced to pay a balloon tax at the end of the year, we'd be slightly more picky on who we vote for and what kind of spending we support.

And, no, I don't agree with the idea of spending the money now in exchange for turning our children or grand children into Chinese slaves.[/QUOTE]

A Balanced Budget Amendment wouldn't induce any fiscal responsibility in our government.

A BB would become another tool to swipe more of everybody's money out of their pockets.

As far as electing better people, we can either vote for the son of the person who held that office 10-40 years ago or his second cousin or his roommate in college. Isn't that enough choice?

As far as China, that debt is a good hedge against war with them as long as they think we're going to pay them back. Once they think we'll default, not as much.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']I'm not seeing the problem.[/QUOTE]

All righty then: fuckitty fuck fucknuts fucky clusterfuckwitz fuckton fucking fuck

That actually felt pretty good (it just came to me when thinking about my congressman and senators).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top