OT: 2008 Elections/Politics thread, Part 2

[JRod]

The scumbag governer spent a three million dollars on flowers for the state borders after he was elected while raising the taxes because the state was about to shut down.

So that was state government not really the feds huh.

[XXXIV]

The scumbag governer spent a three million dollars on flowers for the state borders after he was elected while raising the taxes because the state was about to shut down.

So that was state government not really the feds huh.

...So you were kidding when you typed this?

Hell I would even settle if you could find government waste if your own state. That would be a promising beginning.

Must have been someone else who typed this then...So many JRODs on this board I get you all confused.

Sad...

[RobVarak]

JRod,

I'm not sure that I follow your challenge. Are you saying that government spending isn't ubiquitous, obvious and well known?

Local, regional and national mainstream media are all over this stuff. NBC and ABC have both had long running regular features on the topic. Beyond that there are organizations like Citizens Against Government Waste and Porkbusters which are growing like crazy online.

You can argue in favor of a larger more extensive government presence, but I don't see anyone making a credible argument that specific examples of waste aren't well known.

[JRod]

Nope. I pay for great insurance for my family. I get free goverment health care. I don't believe my whole family should suffer the same fate.

There are public private partnerships around the world that aren't like England and have government ran health care. The VA is similar to Canada's system however.

Switzerland was one of the last countries to offer these new hybrid universal health care systems. The lie that many would have you believe is that universal health care means government health care. Government does have to set out guidelines and regulations but it can come in a very different shape form the UK model.

And actually for all the problems the VA has, it's still one of the best programs for health care in the world. Studies have shown that. Problem is that percent that aren't served properly, have cases that are really severe.

[pk500]

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pag ... 8_database

11,610 Congressional pork barrel projects documented already this year. But remember: Wasteful government spending is a myth.

Take care,
PK

[wco81]

Do you think as McCain has said, that the budget deficits can be closed only by attacking pork barrel projects?

[pk500]

Do you think as McCain has said, that the budget deficits can be closed only by attacking pork barrel projects?

That's part of the solution, not the only solution. There's fat in nearly every government program. It's the nature of the beast.

Take care,
PK

[Feanor]

Nope. I pay for great insurance for my family. I get free goverment health care. I don't believe my whole family should suffer the same fate.

I'm sure you have a job for life where you will never be laid off and be unable to pay for your family's health care. A lot of people in this country aren't so lucky, and would be better off dead than getting really sick or badly injured while they are unemployed. Serves them right, right?

[Feanor]

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pag ... 8_database

11,610 Congressional pork barrel projects documented already this year. But remember: Wasteful government spending is a myth.

Take care,
PK

I searched "war" and Cheney's invasion of Iraq didn't show up, but I found this one:

"Delaware Office of Highway Safety, Dover, to purchase equipment and implement sobriety check points (State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance - Byrne Discretionary Grant)"

I guess preventing drunk drivers from killing innocent people is pork.

[Teal]

Nope. I pay for great insurance for my family. I get free goverment health care. I don't believe my whole family should suffer the same fate.

I'm sure you have a job for life where you will never be laid off and be unable to pay for your family's health care. A lot of people in this country aren't so lucky, and would be better off dead than getting really sick or badly injured while they are unemployed. Serves them right, right?

If you want to set up a trust fund and finance those people's health care out of your own wallet, then do it. I'm SURE you can find lots of other people who are calling for this sort of thing to jump on board with you...

...just don't hold your breath while you wait...

I mean really, for all of this calling for universal health care and all that, you'd think that, since it hasn't happened, that AAAALLLL these people would've gotten tired of waiting for government to do it, and start it themselves (because they care SOOOO much)...right? Hell, why not? No one would stop you if you wanted to start such a fund-it'd be applauded by many, including me. Heck, I might even contribute once in awhile. But no...that'll never happen, because most people who talk this marxist junk are talking out of both sides of their face.

It's like all these super rich hollywood types who do all these PSA's. I want to see their contribution PERCENTAGES, not the amounts. They are impassioned about all this claptrap for two reasons pertaining to their heads and two pertaining to their hearts.

HEAD:
1. It's in the clouds.
2. It's up their own ass.

HEART:
1. It's on their sleeves.
2. It bleeds profusely.(albeit very selectively)

[pk500]

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pag ... 8_database

11,610 Congressional pork barrel projects documented already this year. But remember: Wasteful government spending is a myth.

Take care,
PK

I searched "war" and Cheney's invasion of Iraq didn't show up, but I found this one:

"Delaware Office of Highway Safety, Dover, to purchase equipment and implement sobriety check points (State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance - Byrne Discretionary Grant)"

I guess preventing drunk drivers from killing innocent people is pork.

That's wonderful. One example of positive pork makes the other 11,000 projects relevant and smart spending.

You can find a diamond in a pile of sh*t if you look hard enough.

Take care,
PK

[wco81]

If you want to set up a trust fund and finance those people's health care out of your own wallet, then do it.

You could do the same to fund all the military adventures overseas.

[pk500]

Facts about the U.S. healthcare system:

1. The Federal government directly covers medical costs for approximately 25 percent of the U.S. population.
Source: http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf

2. Federal law ensures public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay.
Source: http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title42/title42.html

3. Government spending accounted for 45 percent of total health care spending in the U.S. in 2005.
Source: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/2/38980580.pdf

4. One study shows that 25 percent of the uninsured people in the U.S. are eligible for government health care assistance but are unenrolled.
Source: http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/7613.pdf

Finally, any universal health care plan that mandates the purchase of Federal health insurance may be unconstitutional since there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that gives the Federal government this right and reserves all non-mentioned rights to the states or individuals.

Take care,
PK

[pk500]

If you want to set up a trust fund and finance those people's health care out of your own wallet, then do it.

You could do the same to fund all the military adventures overseas.

Not necessary. The U.S. Constitution -- the most forgotten and sh*t-upon document in American government these days -- says a well-regulated militia as "being necessary to the security of a free State."

In other words: Government is going to pick up the tab for those who are willing to die while wearing the uniform of this nation, whether you agree with the conflict or not.

The size and the scope of the military is subject to debate. But basic funding of the military by government is not, that is unless you think the Constitution should be used as cat litter box liner.

Take care,
PK

[wco81]

In 1789, how often had American militias been sent overseas to insure the "security of a free state?"

Or do "strict constructionists" only read the words outside their historical context?

Constitution also says Congress should commit us to wars. Throughout history, American presidents have pushed the envelope on that, often moving forces into position where hostilities ensued and war was a fait accompli by the time Congress deliberated.

Edit: Nobody is questioning that the federal govt. funds the military. But the level of expenditures and the nature of some of the expenditures, are open to debate, since appropriations come from a representative body.

[JRod]

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pag ... 8_database

11,610 Congressional pork barrel projects documented already this year. But remember: Wasteful government spending is a myth.

Take care,
PK

Your logic is flawed. You are assuming all appropriations are bad. If that is the case, which it isn't, then you are right.

Just showing the number of of appropriation spending and that number of projects does not say what percentage of that spending is bad or good.

By good I mean, projects that couldn't pass in budget bills for reasons other than they are bad projects. For example a junior Senator or freshman congressman trying to fund certain "good" projects through the approps process because he/she has no real power due to status.

I'm not advocating for larger more wasteful spending, rather, I'm saying if you are going to make a claim that the US government is wasteful, you better back that up with where. It's easy to say the governments waste money, and they do. But then you make the case that one side, Dems or Reps are the reason because they are the one's in power is a really poor way to argue/debate.

[JRod]

JRod,

I'm not sure that I follow your challenge. Are you saying that government spending isn't ubiquitous, obvious and well known?

Local, regional and national mainstream media are all over this stuff. NBC and ABC have both had long running regular features on the topic. Beyond that there are organizations like Citizens Against Government Waste and Porkbusters which are growing like crazy online.

You can argue in favor of a larger more extensive government presence, but I don't see anyone making a credible argument that specific examples of waste aren't well known.

There's a distinction and one that a few here are making.

1) Spending on wasteful projects (i.e. Bridge to Know Where)
2) Spending on projects you don't agree with but voted and passed by Congress/Executive.
3) Spending money through procedural means (i.e. earmarks).

All I'm saying is when you (others in this case) make the claim that government is spending money wastefully, what is it?

[Jared]

Looking at that pork database, a lot of that stuff are worthwhile projects that are of minimal cost. I just did a search to look at Florida grants, and found the following pulled out from the first few pages:

Citrus canker research (citrus canker is a big citrus killer; can destroy tons of crops if not effectively managed)

Displacing imported petroleum with renewables

Climate Forecasting

Mosquito Trapping Research/West Nile Vims

Vector-borne Diseases

City of Miami Beach Gang and Drug Prevention Program

Youth Crime Watch, Miami

High Performance Computing (HPC) for defense modeling and simulation research

These are all important, and I wouldn't consider them to be wasteful projects (unless there's evidence that this money is going nowhere).

There is waste in government, and the government should be taking many steps to curb this waste. But I think that most of what people call pork are important programs.

As for health care, if welfare isn't unconstitutional, then I doubt universal health care would be. The big problem with U.S. health care is that we spend a lot more than other countries (about 15% of GDP), and a LOT of those costs (about 20-25%) are administrative. Going to a single-payer universal health care system would save a lot of money, slashing administrative costs (e.g. Medicare adminstrative costs account for only 2%), increasing preventative medicine which also results in lower costs in the future, and resulting in coverage for all.

[RobVarak]

There is waste in government, and the government should be taking many steps to curb this waste. But I think that most of what people call pork are important programs.

Well "important" is ambiguous enough that you may be right by your definition and wrong by another's. But regardless of that, there may be programs which are useful on their face and in the abstract, but which may be better left to other sources of funding.

PK, given the way that the commerce clause has been interpreted it's unlikely that a federal health care scheme would be deemed unconstitutional...at least on the grounds that you have raised. It would be interesting to see what other potential challenges might be raised though, particularly if they are brought before the Court as currently constituted.

[JRod]

These are all important, and I wouldn't consider them to be wasteful projects (unless there's evidence that this money is going nowhere).

I think you misunderstood. I meant you say, that people here lump those three categories together as waste.


In Colorado Bark Beetle is destroying some of our forests here west of the continental divide. It expects to migrate across the divide in the next few years.

The Colorado delegation is making a strong push through appropriation funding to solve this crisis. It sounds just like an insect but the ramifications are that the bark beetles destroy the trees leaving forests of dead trees. On top of that the 100 year No Burn policy of the Forest Service and other agencies have left Colorado's forest full of fuel. With the right conditions (heat, human error, drought) the potential exists for thousands of acres to be destroyed.

Now the Colorado delegation have used earmarks (the appropriation process) to fund some studies and mitigation treatments.

Certainly this isn't a horrible use of earmarks. However if you said the appropriation process leaves too much room for lobbyists and special interests to get pork into the budget by circumventing the congressional process I would agree with you. Earmarks do not go through the normal congressional process (committee --> full house/senate >> other body's committee >> other body, house/senate >> conference committees >> executive.

Earmarks are attached at the conference committee level. The house and senate committees (some sub cmmt. in the house) do allocate the dollar amount that congressmen and senators get to allocate. But they really don't have a say if a Senator wants to spend his allocation on some really bad projects.

I don't agree with the process of earmarks and believe that it leaves too much opportunity for congress to abuse the system in return for political support.

On the other side, if there wasn't the earmark process, senators or congressman from smaller states and those sitting on non-powerful committees would find it awfully hard to get good projects funded. Good member of congress use earmarks in a beneficial way. The bad ones use it for political gain.

[Jackdog]

Nope. I pay for great insurance for my family. I get free goverment health care. I don't believe my whole family should suffer the same fate.

I'm sure you have a job for life where you will never be laid off and be unable to pay for your family's health care. A lot of people in this country aren't so lucky, and would be better off dead than getting really sick or badly injured while they are unemployed. Serves them right, right?

No I don't. I served this county for 22 years. I lost a leg while doing so and get a pension and disability check every month. The money I made with Blackwater went to my sons college fund and the Wounded Warrior Project.
People that live in this country are very lucky. This is the only country in the world were we have fat poor people. Anyone can walk into an emergency room and be treated including llegals. I pay for them in my preminims every month. I am cool with that. It is what it is.

As far as the "serves them right" question. I did serve them right. So f*** you.

[Jackdog]

Not necessary. The U.S. Constitution -- the most forgotten and sh*t-upon document in American government these days -- says a well-regulated militia as "being necessary to the security of a free State."

In other words: Government is going to pick up the tab for those who are willing to die while wearing the uniform of this nation, whether you agree with the conflict or not.

The size and the scope of the military is subject to debate. But basic funding of the military by government is not, that is unless you think the Constitution should be used as cat litter box liner.

Take care,
PK

We have a Constitution?

[Feanor]

2. Federal law ensures public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay.
Source: http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title42/title42.html

A lot of people just don't go to the ER because they don't want to get stuck with a $10,000 bill following them for the rest of their lives.

[Feanor]

People that live in this country are very lucky. This is the only country in the world were we have fat poor people. Anyone can walk into an emergency room and be treated including llegals. I pay for them in my preminims every month. I am cool with that. It is what it is.

As far as the "serves them right" question. I did serve them right. So f*** you.

Wrong. There are plenty of fat poor people in New Zealand and in many of other countries. Pull your head out of your ass, wipe the s*** off your face, and open your eyes to the rest of the world.

Yeah, anyone can go go to the ER, and then get stuck with a bill they will never be able to afford to pay because hospitals charge astronomical sums for even basic treatment as they are based on what insurance companies pay.

Your personal decision to join/remain with the military has nothing to do with whether it's fair for the millions in this country wihout health insurance to be one unlucky accident away from having their life ruined.

[pk500]

Your personal decision to join/remain with the military has nothing to do with whether it's fair for the millions in this country wihout health insurance to be one unlucky accident away from having their life ruined.

Enough is enough. I'm sick of reading this horsesh*t that there is absolutely no safety net for the uninsured in this country.

I can only speak for New York, because it's my state, but here are the levels of spending and available programs for those without health insurance in this state:

*In 2004, there were 4.5 million Medicaid enrollees in New York.
*There were 400,000 enrollees in the Child Health Plus program, a health insurance plan for kids.
*There were 510,000 enrollees in the Family Health Plus program, a public health insurance program for adults age 19-64.
*There were 107,000 enrollees in the Healthy NY program, a program that assists small businesses in providing health care to their employees.
*In 2005, N.Y. state hospitals reported $1.6 billion in uncompensated care.
*In 2005, N.Y. state provided $847 million in HCRA funding to compensate hospitals for uninsured care.

Source: http://www.nyhealthcarecommission.org/d ... w_york.pdf

Another study showed $2.8 billion of uncompensated care was provided to the uninsured in New York in 2006. The same study showed in 2005 that $3.5 billion of government funding was provided to providers of uninsured care in New York, as government was performing its safety net duties.

Source: http://www.urban.org/publications/311372.html

This concept that America leaves its sick on the curb to die sounds great over a bullhorn at a MoveOn.org rally, but it's detached from reality.

Take care,
PK