Jump to content
LL Medico Diapers and More Bambino Diapers - ABDL Diaper Store

Us Government Spending Broken Down...


ldatsea

Recommended Posts

I know...and thats another problem. maybe they should create a "super committee" to investigate it and come up with a solution :P

don't give them any idea's

What makes me mad is how this super committee doesn't have to do anything, and cuts will happen regardless, why even bother.

What I would like to see is the govt bring in common people to make up these committee's (set it up like Jury duty), and have the ones who will be affected by the cuts be on them, so that would preclude the rich

Link to comment

The committee will agree to something because if they don't, the cuts package that will automatically happen is cuts from pet projects of both sides of the aisle.

My prediction is that history will repeat. The Democratic members of the committee will get stonewalled by the Republican ones and basically end up signing for more cuts with no revenue increases and will do a fraction of what is necessary to improve the country's financial situation.

To make this clear, because nobody has said it yet, it is disengenuous to draw a parallel between international finances and personal finances. It is impossible for a country to budget EVERY factor beforehand and therefore impossible to 100 percent balance the budget, to a degree. That being said, having AS MUCH of a shortfall as we do is also a very bad thing, but the meme being repeated that somehow equates this with a failing in personal finances is intellectually dishonest and misleading. It is both nonparallel and orders of magnitude worse in matters of management.

Link to comment

The committee will agree to something because if they don't, the cuts package that will automatically happen is cuts from pet projects of both sides of the aisle.

My prediction is that history will repeat. The Democratic members of the committee will get stonewalled by the Republican ones and basically end up signing for more cuts with no revenue increases and will do a fraction of what is necessary to improve the country's financial situation.

To make this clear, because nobody has said it yet, it is disengenuous to draw a parallel between international finances and personal finances. It is impossible for a country to budget EVERY factor beforehand and therefore impossible to 100 percent balance the budget, to a degree. That being said, having AS MUCH of a shortfall as we do is also a very bad thing, but the meme being repeated that somehow equates this with a failing in personal finances is intellectually dishonest and misleading. It is both nonparallel and orders of magnitude worse in matters of management.

Uh don't be blaming just the Republicans on this. The Republicans do not have the Senate and White House, so the Dems are responsible for the mess as well.

And trying to blame the previous administration doesn't cut it anymore, since "recession" ended in 2009, so what we are in now would be the "Obama recession" since it started brand new under his watch, and that is from the Govt itself(I still say we are still in the recession that started in 2008), and both parties have inflated the deficit big time the past 10 years.

Want an example of waste? Look at this article from my local paper: http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/porter/valparaiso/article_6a169547-fc3e-5876-95af-6093d4a737b8.html

A bicycle locker paid for with FEDERAL STIMULUS MONEY(you know the money that was supposed to create jobs) which costs $2500 for each bicycle it holds(up to 12). Now explain to me why the Dems and Repubs, would be in favor of spending nearly $30K on a bicycle locker when local bike shops donate bike racks for free? And people wonder why the Govt is broke the way it is, its wasteful spending on stupid things like that bicycle locker as a prime example why.

Link to comment

Did you intend to respond to my post, Mike? I neither blamed republicans nor the previous administration in that post. I stated a simple fact:

1: The Republicans stonewall any attempt at revenue increase.

2: The Democrats fold when the Republicans stonewall.

This is the responsibility of both parties. Anybody solely blaming ANY party or the president is either incredibly ignorant or has an agenda.

Link to comment

Maybe this is a good time to announce my run for president in 2020.

one of my strong points is that by wearing diapers i can get that much more done as I will never need a potty break.

  • Like 4
Link to comment

Did you intend to respond to my post, Mike? I neither blamed republicans nor the previous administration in that post. I stated a simple fact:

1: The Republicans stonewall any attempt at revenue increase.

2: The Democrats fold when the Republicans stonewall.

This is the responsibility of both parties. Anybody solely blaming ANY party or the president is either incredibly ignorant or has an agenda.

The system has been broke long before I was born, but both parties just kept it going for decades, never doing anything to fix it. What the US needs right now is a valid third party who can throw a wrench into the system and muck it up, forcing compromises to be made(like what happens in other countries with 3 parties), so that one party cannot control the entire process nor have total control of 1 house either, making it easy for them to stonewall on anything

I hate the fact that taxes need to be raised on all levels, but it sorely needs to be done, otherwise the US is going to turn into Greece really quick. The Dems trying to blame the S&P downgrade on "revenge" is bullshit, S&P were correct, the gridlock in DC is what caused the downgrade. There was zero reason why that "compromise": could not have been made back in Feb or March, and the new super committee to make cuts is a freiking joke, considering all 12 members have taken shitloads of campaign cash from the very entities that they are trying to cut finding to, plus you have one who is in charge of the parties re-election campaigns, so she isn't going to participate much, and with the lobbyists giving to them, no way in hell will they actually make the cuts and raise the taxes like they are supposed to do

What the US Govt needs right now, are 534 new members of Congress, people from the lower class and lower middle class(people who make $50K or less), but that will never happen because it is impossible for a person who earns that little in a year to run for federal office because they are easily outspent on campaigns from the get go

Link to comment

Well I guess that there needs some big time over haul to get the stupid spending and stupid decision making rid of. Really that was a bad example on how the school system and the administration is mikejackson, if that is what our officials are doing with the budget then they should be payed upon performance rather than what they can mandate. I think that would fix a few problems.

And for the original topic at hand, our government officials get payed no matter what their performance is. So maybe a good idea is to make their pay based upon the performance of the government that would make them think before making stupid decisions. I wish that none of this stupid spending existed in the first place. Well at least they are trying to cut stupid spending now. Hopefully we can band together to rebuild the broken American dream.

Hopefully we can get ourselves out of this debt, though that is going to take some serious sacrifice to do so. Just like our founding fathers and the people who fought along side them.

Link to comment

Well I guess that there needs some big time over haul to get the stupid spending and stupid decision making rid of. Really that was a bad example on how the school system and the administration is mikejackson, if that is what our officials are doing with the budget then they should be payed upon performance rather than what they can mandate. I think that would fix a few problems.

And for the original topic at hand, our government officials get payed no matter what their performance is. So maybe a good idea is to make their pay based upon the performance of the government that would make them think before making stupid decisions. I wish that none of this stupid spending existed in the first place. Well at least they are trying to cut stupid spending now. Hopefully we can band together to rebuild the broken American dream.

Hopefully we can get ourselves out of this debt, though that is going to take some serious sacrifice to do so. Just like our founding fathers and the people who fought along side them.

The way it was set up when this country was formed, was for the House members to be for the people, hence why they only serve 2 year terms, and for the Senate to vote on things the people want(hence 6 yr terms), and it was set up for elected members to do their time and then go back to private life, meaning it was not to be a position to make a living, but over time, the pay went up drastically, and the perks got better and better,and more and more people decided to become career politicians.

I was 2 yrs old when one of my state senators was elected(I am 36), and my other senator was Senator from 1990-2002, then moved to DC as a lobbyist until 2010, when he became my Senator again. My US House District representative was first elected when I started Kindergarten(1980), and he replaced his dad in that office who held the office for 26 years previously. And his oldest son has already announced he will run when his dad decided not to, and unfortunately, he will win. That is the main issue in DC right now, many have come from well to do families.

Listen to all the politicians, and remember this when they say "raise taxes on the rich". The current salary (2011) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year. Notice how they always want to make sure the "rich" is above what they earn(Obama now says $250K, when campaigning he said $150K), even though to many in the US, they consider $174K a year to be "rich". If they want to raise taxes, make the taxes go up on anyone earning over $150K, that way the elected officials themselves would have to pay more in taxes just like many others. Those very elected officials made out like bandits in the Bush tax cuts of 2003, yet they now say they need to be repealed, but they won't repeal the part where they would have to pay. and remember this, when John Kerry speaks about everyone having to pay more, he bought a $1 million boat and registered it in another state, to avoid paying the higher Massachusetts taxes on the boat. And yes Republican elected officials have done the same thing as well. Basically the ones who should be paying more, will not pay more, not while these clowns currently in DC are elected

Link to comment

Credit is probably the worsts thing that can happen to the country. It allows people immediate access to stuff no matter what the cost, and then they have to pay for it over time, plus interest. If no one used credit and bought only what they could afford when they could afford it, prices would drop drastically. The only exception might be purchasing something that is an absolute necessity, such as an emergency home repair or car repair...then make paying it off a priority.

Think about it: if companies weren't selling their products because people weren't buying things due to high prices, the cost would have to come down or the companies would go out of business. It's already happening with the housing market. People are in a panic because of falling home prices, but houses should not be a for-profit market. Housing is a necessity. When my house was built in 1930, it probably cost about $7,500. I got it in 1996 for $50,000. Is it really worth more? If so, why? It's still got the same materialis in it from the 1930s. Someone, somewhere made a hunk of cash on this house unfairly because they didn't work for it.

Basic law of economics: stuff is worth whatever people will pay for it. If people would stop paying for things that are overpriced AND STOP USING CREDIT, then prices would come down.

Link to comment

Credit is probably the worsts thing that can happen to the country. It allows people immediate access to stuff no matter what the cost, and then they have to pay for it over time, plus interest. If no one used credit and bought only what they could afford when they could afford it, prices would drop drastically. The only exception might be purchasing something that is an absolute necessity, such as an emergency home repair or car repair...then make paying it off a priority.

Think about it: if companies weren't selling their products because people weren't buying things due to high prices, the cost would have to come down or the companies would go out of business. It's already happening with the housing market. People are in a panic because of falling home prices, but houses should not be a for-profit market. Housing is a necessity. When my house was built in 1930, it probably cost about $7,500. I got it in 1996 for $50,000. Is it really worth more? If so, why? It's still got the same materialis in it from the 1930s. Someone, somewhere made a hunk of cash on this house unfairly because they didn't work for it.

Basic law of economics: stuff is worth whatever people will pay for it. If people would stop paying for things that are overpriced AND STOP USING CREDIT, then prices would come down.

The price of the house is based on the land it sits on. The more development that occurs around the house, the more the price goes up on the surrounding land, plus the land on the house,. My 4 bedroom 2 bath house came with 5 acres of land, and over the past 7 years, I have added 3 houses and 100 acres to my property, plus added 6 more bedrooms, an inground pool, a greenhouse, solar heat, a grey water system, a sprinkler system, and converted the old attached garage into a family room and added another attached garage, and a pole barn in that time, plus I have kept most of the land by the river as it has always been, nothing but woods(55 acres of my property is nothing but woods)

As far as credit goes, not everyone that has credit is the problem. It was the people who earned $30K buying $180K houses when they could not afford them, because they were stupid to get an ARM mortgage instead of a fixed rate loan, there wouldn't be issues with mortgages, then you have people who get those credit cards with high APR's as well, and immediately charge to the max. I have 1 credit card that I got in 1999 when I was 24 and it has no credit limit anymore, yet I do not go out and use it either. I use it sparingly(like once a month for groceries) and when the bill comes, I pay it in full.

Link to comment

Credit is probably the worsts thing that can happen to the country. It allows people immediate access to stuff no matter what the cost, and then they have to pay for it over time, plus interest. If no one used credit and bought only what they could afford when they could afford it, prices would drop drastically. The only exception might be purchasing something that is an absolute necessity, such as an emergency home repair or car repair...then make paying it off a priority.

Think about it: if companies weren't selling their products because people weren't buying things due to high prices, the cost would have to come down or the companies would go out of business. It's already happening with the housing market. People are in a panic because of falling home prices, but houses should not be a for-profit market. Housing is a necessity. When my house was built in 1930, it probably cost about $7,500. I got it in 1996 for $50,000. Is it really worth more? If so, why? It's still got the same materialis in it from the 1930s. Someone, somewhere made a hunk of cash on this house unfairly because they didn't work for it.

Basic law of economics: stuff is worth whatever people will pay for it. If people would stop paying for things that are overpriced AND STOP USING CREDIT, then prices would come down.

The basic laws of economics (aka microeconomics) are basic for a reason. There are more factors involved, which leads us to macroeconomics. The price of your house is dependent on more than just the building materials or its location. Also, I would not say credit cards are a bad thing. I would say defaulting on credit cards is a bad thing. If everyone did not use credit cards, I think everything will raise in price, not lower, and I can attribute that to a significant cut in consumer spending. Credit cards exist for a reason, but too much of anything is a bad thing.

Link to comment

Here is something you guys may find interesting. We know the cut is government spending is a joke, but another reason why S&P downgraded our credit rating was because there were talks in Washington D.C. of letting the government default. I think everyone here knows who these people are. There are politicians I hate, then there are politicians I hate even more.

I disagree with some solutions aforementioned in this thread. Getting rid of discretionary spending is not only a bad thing for everyone, but it would not even make a dent in the spending. Also, you can't expect to micromanage everything by creating laws that require spending. If getting rid of earmarks was such a good idea, then why is that nothing can be passed in congress? If you want real cuts in government spending, they will have to come from defense (more like offense) spending, medicare/medicaid, and/or Social Security. That is about 75% of the government's spending right there. Another thing, unions are hardly the problem and if you think they are, then you are selfish. Should teachers be paid more, fuck ya dudes. The garbage man gets paid more then them. Should crappy teachers be fired, of course. Should they have smaller class sizes, yes. The only problem is I have seen zero improvement in education.

Like any other service you receive, if the receive poor quality service, that is reflective upon the manager. So no matter how much money that school district gets, if the superintendent sucks or is corrupted, nothing good will happen. We need a change in leaders on many levels of government, not just congress. Be careful though. Do not vote for the snakes in the grass or let some so-called grassroots movement steal the government.

Link to comment

Here is something you guys may find interesting. We know the cut is government spending is a joke, but another reason why S&P downgraded our credit rating was because there were talks in Washington D.C. of letting the government default. I think everyone here knows who these people are. There are politicians I hate, then there are politicians I hate even more.

I disagree with some solutions aforementioned in this thread. Getting rid of discretionary spending is not only a bad thing for everyone, but it would not even make a dent in the spending. Also, you can't expect to micromanage everything by creating laws that require spending. If getting rid of earmarks was such a good idea, then why is that nothing can be passed in congress? If you want real cuts in government spending, they will have to come from defense (more like offense) spending, medicare/medicaid, and/or Social Security. That is about 75% of the government's spending right there. Another thing, unions are hardly the problem and if you think they are, then you are selfish. Should teachers be paid more, fuck ya dudes. The garbage man gets paid more then them. Should crappy teachers be fired, of course. Should they have smaller class sizes, yes. The only problem is I have seen zero improvement in education.

Like any other service you receive, if the receive poor quality service, that is reflective upon the manager. So no matter how much money that school district gets, if the superintendent sucks or is corrupted, nothing good will happen. We need a change in leaders on many levels of government, not just congress. Be careful though. Do not vote for the snakes in the grass or let some so-called grassroots movement steal the government.

while you may not like the "grass roots" movement there was no discussion or any movement for change until they stood up and said something this was evident by the budget that was proposed that ignored the debt commission and added to the debt... however people stood up and caused every one to take notice so while you may not agree with how they think it should be changed you may be thank full they made the issue front page news.

Link to comment

1. Here is something you guys may find interesting. We know the cut is government spending is a joke, but another reason why S&P downgraded our credit rating was because there were talks in Washington D.C. of letting the government default. I think everyone here knows who these people are. There are politicians I hate, then there are politicians I hate even more.

2. I disagree with some solutions aforementioned in this thread. Getting rid of discretionary spending is not only a bad thing for everyone, but it would not even make a dent in the spending. Also, you can't expect to micromanage everything by creating laws that require spending. If getting rid of earmarks was such a good idea, then why is that nothing can be passed in congress? If you want real cuts in government spending, they will have to come from defense (more like offense) spending, medicare/medicaid, and/or Social Security. That is about 75% of the government's spending right there. Another thing, unions are hardly the problem and if you think they are, then you are selfish. Should teachers be paid more, fuck ya dudes. The garbage man gets paid more then them. Should crappy teachers be fired, of course. Should they have smaller class sizes, yes. The only problem is I have seen zero improvement in education.

3. Like any other service you receive, if the receive poor quality service, that is reflective upon the manager. So no matter how much money that school district gets, if the superintendent sucks or is corrupted, nothing good will happen. We need a change in leaders on many levels of government, not just congress. Be careful though. Do not vote for the snakes in the grass or let some so-called grassroots movement steal the government.

(added the numbers to make my response easier to understand)

1. The debt downgrade could have been avoided if both parties had actually worked together starting back in March for it, but instead, they both chose to ignore it until the last possible minute, which led to the issues that it created. Hell the funny part is, the bill that was passed, was proposed by both parties months prior, and the other refused to go along with it. This deal was stupid, and by the time they finally did cut $1.2 trillion, it wasn't enough to stave off the downgrade(which the other 2 stated they may downgrade as well still). Whats sad is that a majority of both parties are mostly on the far left and far right of the aisles, and are towing the party lines, while the moderates in both parties get the shaft. There are some great moderate Dems and Repubs who have zero issues with working with the other party, but they have zero chance because the leadership of both parties refuses to even budge on anything

2. There was a 2 year ban on earmarks, that was voted on, but of course both parties had to wrangle things out of each other. Earmarks cause bill prices to rise, thats why most want them to be banned forever. there is no reason why a House member or a Senator should sneak in a pet project for his district/state in a bill for service members payraises, yet those bills every single year are the most bloated with earmarks because no one wants to be the one who voted against a payraise for the military members. Another bill that always gets a huge earmarks added to it is the transportation bill. Again, there is no reason why a rain forest in Iowa(yes that was an actual earmark) should be built with money from a transportation bill(you know, that money that repairs roads and bridges). If these projects are so vital to the United States, then they should be voted on their own merits, not snuck into bills that rarely ever get voted down. But those projects are the things that get people re-elected, so of course no one wants to really do away with them.

3. I agree with you on #3 100%. But unfortunately, all politicians are snakes in the grass these days. I have yet to meet an honest politician. to paraphrase judge judy's famous question about kids lying, "how do you know a politician is lying? His/her lips are moving" comes to mind.

Link to comment

while you may not like the "grass roots" movement there was no discussion or any movement for change until they stood up and said something this was evident by the budget that was proposed that ignored the debt commission and added to the debt... however people stood up and caused every one to take notice so while you may not agree with how they think it should be changed you may be thank full they made the issue front page news.

The Tea Party never changed anything in DC. Not one thing has changed. Why is the tea party so against raising taxes on the upper class of folks, where even one of the worlds richest people stated he only paid $6 million in taxes last year(17% of his income), while people in his office paid a higher percentage of the taxes(between 23-36%)? Know what that says to me? The Tea Party is against taxation for the rich, just like every other politician in Washington DC. And yes that includes the Democrats, because they had the US House, US Senate(with 60 people even), and the Presidency from 2009-2011, and at no time did they ever consider raising the tax rates on the rich, when they could have easily done just that. Also remember this, the Tea Party is funded by millionaires and billionaires, which I find very odd, consdiering they are supposedly fighting for the middle class, yet their funding primarily comes from the upper class

Link to comment

As a Tea Part member, I have not see any funding comming from wealthy people. The Tea Party survives from people putting cash in a fish bowl. Liberals have such a big problem with the Tea Party because it can't be bought off.

Taxing the rich @ 50 percent of their income would only bring in 240 billion. When you add some state and local income tax, these so called "rich people" loose 60 percent or more of thier income.

Obama's stimulus is a total failure. It is a proven fact that wealth confiscation does not work.

America's money is better in the hands of the people who earned it.

The Tea Party was right. The big threat, facing America, was a credit downgrage. So look at what happened. We rasied the debt ceiling and the downgrade happened. Michelle Bachmann was absolutely right. They should have not raised the debt ceiling. America does not have a revenue problem. America has a spending problem.

The Tea Party never changed anything in DC. Not one thing has changed. Why is the tea party so against raising taxes on the upper class of folks, where even one of the worlds richest people stated he only paid $6 million in taxes last year(17% of his income), while people in his office paid a higher percentage of the taxes(between 23-36%)? Know what that says to me? The Tea Party is against taxation for the rich, just like every other politician in Washington DC. And yes that includes the Democrats, because they had the US House, US Senate(with 60 people even), and the Presidency from 2009-2011, and at no time did they ever consider raising the tax rates on the rich, when they could have easily done just that. Also remember this, the Tea Party is funded by millionaires and billionaires, which I find very odd, consdiering they are supposedly fighting for the middle class, yet their funding primarily comes from the upper class

Link to comment

As a Tea Part member, I have not see any funding comming from wealthy people. The Tea Party survives from people putting cash in a fish bowl. Liberals have such a big problem with the Tea Party because it can't be bought off.

Taxing the rich @ 50 percent of their income would only bring in 240 billion. When you add some state and local income tax, these so called "rich people" loose 60 percent or more of thier income.

Obama's stimulus is a total failure. It is a proven fact that wealth confiscation does not work.

America's money is better in the hands of the people who earned it.

The Tea Party was right. The big threat, facing America, was a credit downgrage. So look at what happened. We rasied the debt ceiling and the downgrade happened. Michelle Bachmann was absolutely right. They should have not raised the debt ceiling. America does not have a revenue problem. America has a spending problem.

Ok, I will give credit to the Tea Party Republicans for making the whole country debt ceiling aware, but that is no excuse for holding the whole debate hostage just because there were revenue increases considered. Maybe you guys should consider that maybe we have both revenue and spending problems. I will say this though. Michele Bachmann is dumber than Sarah Palin. Seriously, these people are jokes. Do not give them traction. Do not pay attention to them. So, basically everything you said in your post, I disagree with.

Oh, and the government cannot create jobs. Also BS. Just because you have lost all faith in the government doesn't mean you should take it away from everyone else. You would not have been able to type your message here without the big bad government spending. Yes, that is right, through government funding the internet was created. I will agree that some of government spending is a waste but who are you to say it is all a waste. Do not fall for the one-sided approach politicians create to garner attention for themselves.

Link to comment

Just because you have lost all faith in the government doesn't mean you should take it away from everyone else. .

Then why is the current Govt at record lows for approval ratings? Seems the majority of the US has lost faith in DC big time.

Also remember, there is way more waste in Govt then they like to admit. Heck the Govt refuses to even put out legitimate unemployment numbers, instead they put out a heavily edited version which refuses to take into account the people who have fallen off the rolls and no longer can file. They love to claim a 9.1% unemployment rate, but the actual number is around 13-14%, but if that number ever got released, the govt's approval ratings would plummet even farther

as far as funding for the Tea Party

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html

http://firedoglake.com/2009/04/13/corporate-lobyists-raising-money-for-tea-parties/

Amazing isn't it, where the funding is coming from. Of course its the same as for the Republicans and Democrats as well. All them politicians get their funding from the wealthy and corporations.

And honestly, right now, the tea party faithful like Bachmann and Palin are hurting their cause, ecause those two scare the hell out of me. The worst thing the Republicans could do is to nominate someone like them to run against Obama.

Right now there is not one republican that I actually like, nor is their a democrat I like either. Face it, DC is broke

Link to comment

Then why is the current Govt at record lows for approval ratings? Seems the majority of the US has lost faith in DC big time.

What I meant is the government still does good things. I am just saying it is not all bad, but people like to categorize. Yes, congress is terrible, but federal grants for research is not. Unfortunately, when you guys mention cutting things beside defense, medicare/medicaid, and Social Security, the cuts show up in areas such as these grants for research. Everyone has a different view of what wasteful government spending is.

As far as what the Democrats campaign slogan should be, it is "we are better than the other guys." lol.

Link to comment

The Tea Party heald no-one hostage. The Democrats, in the Congress, could have overidden the Tea Party's objection. There were plenty of Democrats that voted to not increase the debt ceiling.

I was close to your age in 1976. Jimmy Carter promised "hope and change"! I drank the kool-aid and voted for Carter. I learned from my lesson. In 1980 I couldn't wait to get to the polling place to vote for Ronald Reagan. I voted for Reagan in 1984 as well.

As for government creating anything, the government only takes. Socialism only works until the government runs out of other people's money. How much money should the government be able to confiscate from anyone?

As for the internet, it began with private industry. The government really wants to regulate it but so far it hasn't. I rember the first modems. If I remember is was a guy named Hayes who first turned them out. The early computers were created by Eckert Machuly Corp. The later computers, that I worked with in the 70's were IBM, NCR, Burroughs, Control Data and HP. Many of them were in pieces in a school electronics lab.

As for Palin, she is more qualified to be President than Obama. For people who think Palin is dumb, Palin knows that America consist of 50 (not 57) states. If the media would have done its job, and vetted Obama, he would have never been elected. Instead the media was in Wasilla Alaska trying to dig up dirt on Palin. If you visit Alaska, you would understand Palin. It is a different world.

If you are young and are not a liberal, you have no heart. If you are old and a liberal, you have no brain! Sir Winston Churchill

Ok, I will give credit to the Tea Party Republicans for making the whole country debt ceiling aware, but that is no excuse for holding the whole debate hostage just because there were revenue increases considered. Maybe you guys should consider that maybe we have both revenue and spending problems. I will say this though. Michele Bachmann is dumber than Sarah Palin. Seriously, these people are jokes. Do not give them traction. Do not pay attention to them. So, basically everything you said in your post, I disagree with.

Oh, and the government cannot create jobs. Also BS. Just because you have lost all faith in the government doesn't mean you should take it away from everyone else. You would not have been able to type your message here without the big bad government spending. Yes, that is right, through government funding the internet was created. I will agree that some of government spending is a waste but who are you to say it is all a waste. Do not fall for the one-sided approach politicians create to garner attention for themselves.

Link to comment

Why does everyone have a unique perspective on history. It is so annoying. The internet did not begin with private industry, it was a military invention paid for by government spending. That was DARPA by the way. The SRI played a significant role in making the internet what we know as today. They are private, but they receive many grants from the government for their research. If you want to talk about computers, who paid for the development of Eckert and Mauchly computer while they were working at the University of Pennsylvania.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...