Government Spending

[FromTheSouth]

We have a massive debt in this nation, and it is getting bigger by the minute. The government continues to spend money at an alarming rate. Both sides of the aisle give lip service to fiscal responsibility, however, both shoot for earmarks that will benefit a limited percentage of their constituency, however show little national value.

In light of our trillion dollar deficit and expanding credit ceiling, what national spending can be cut off?

First of all, the war in Iraq is over. Bringing everyone home from Iraq quickly would save us a few billion dollars. We suspended combat operations months ago, and according to Bush's (and, thusly Obama's) plan, the troops should be coming home soon. Thankfully, this savings can be realized soon.

Once we move beyond obvious and immediately planned savings, I think we could abolish NASA. I know that for generations our space program has been a source of national pride, however, how can we justify the expense when we have to borrow from the Chinese to pay our bills? NASA is nothing but excess, a failed program that never finishes on time or within budget. A quick Google search brings up millions of scholarly articles showing how the International Space Station has been a majority US expense. We haul all the equipment at our own expense for everyone else to use. Pledged money from other nations has run out, and the budget has been blown to hell. Who has paid every cent beyond the budgeted money? We have. Private industry now has the ability to get to space, and any research facility can partner with a carrier to get done what needs to be done. An entire aeronautics industry can be built around launching satellites. This is an example of government inefficiency and yet another way private industry can likely outperform government.

The National Endowment for the Arts could go away too. I understand that art and expression are important, but the US government's paying for it is absurd. We need to borrow money to pay for the salaries of government employees, but, for some reason, we are paying people to throw paint on a canvas and call it a reflection of angst? Stupid.

Finally, the United States Postal Service needs to go. UPS and FedEx both out perform the government at a much lower cost. The postal service runs over budget and I think we all have experienced lost mail and for sure, slow mail. UPS and FedEx can guarantee delivery time, but the government cannot? That is just absurd.

Do you have a gripe with my choices? Perhaps you have some of your own. Here is your chance to tell us how you would spend our tax money.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

We have a massive debt in this nation, and it is getting bigger by the minute. The government continues to spend money at an alarming rate. Both sides of the aisle give lip service to fiscal responsibility, however, both shoot for earmarks that will benefit a limited percentage of their constituency, however show little national value.

I think the main focus of the administration right now is to deal with the problems were facing that is not caused by the debt/deficit in ways that aren't going to hurt the strength of the dollar too badly. In the short run, sure, it'll probably suck for a little bit, but heath care reform is pretty much a necessity, and dealing with unemployment will provide worlds and worlds of help in the long run.

In light of our trillion dollar deficit and expanding credit ceiling, what national spending can be cut off?

We could probably shave a little bit off the military since we're not in active warfare, and we'll still have more than enough money to provide for whatever they need overseas.

First of all, the war in Iraq is over. Bringing everyone home from Iraq quickly would save us a few billion dollars. We suspended combat operations months ago, and according to Bush's (and, thusly Obama's) plan, the troops should be coming home soon. Thankfully, this savings can be realized soon.

The Iraq war shouldn't have even happened in the first place. We should have been dealing with Osama Bin Laden right off the bat. Iraq wasn't a threat and wouldn't have been a growing threat any time in the foreseeable future. It's a little sad that we've waited this long to finally focus on operations in Afghanistan, dealing with actual threats to this country.

Once we move beyond obvious and immediately planned savings, I think we could abolish NASA. I know that for generations our space program has been a source of national pride, however, how can we justify the expense when we have to borrow from the Chinese to pay our bills? NASA is nothing but excess, a failed program that never finishes on time or within budget. A quick Google search brings up millions of scholarly articles showing how the International Space Station has been a majority US expense. We haul all the equipment at our own expense for everyone else to use. Pledged money from other nations has run out, and the budget has been blown to hell. Who has paid every cent beyond the budgeted money? We have. Private industry now has the ability to get to space, and any research facility can partner with a carrier to get done what needs to be done. An entire aeronautics industry can be built around launching satellites. This is an example of government inefficiency and yet another way private industry can likely outperform government.

The problem with that is that if the government cuts off funding to space exploration, it no longer becomes profitable to build technology or invest money into space exploration. The way the budget is being allocated is all fucked up. We should have had millions more into space research, millions more into education, millions more into unemployment, all coming from funding we're putting into the military, 75% of which is classified, but I digress.

I don't think the private industry is interesting in investing into space exploration and technology if there aren't profits involved. If they were competing with the government, and came up with more efficient ways of space travel and exploration, this technology could be bought by the government, and other corporations would have an incentive to work on other, new technology.

The National Endowment for the Arts could go away too. I understand that art and expression are important, but the US government's paying for it is absurd. We need to borrow money to pay for the salaries of government employees, but, for some reason, we are paying people to throw paint on a canvas and call it a reflection of angst? Stupid.

I agree, this should be handled privately, as it already has strong social support.

Finally, the United States Postal Service needs to go. UPS and FedEx both out perform the government at a much lower cost. The postal service runs over budget and I think we all have experienced lost mail and for sure, slow mail. UPS and FedEx can guarantee delivery time, but the government cannot? That is just absurd.

UPS is publicly run, and competes with FedEx just fine. UPS and USPS run hand-in-hand.

Also, if you're looking to speed mail delivery, here's a link for you:

[YOUTUBE]jPhXVrp0_oI[/YOUTUBE]

(Yes, this video is awesome.)

 

[FromTheSouth]

I think the main focus of the administration right now is to deal with the problems were facing that is not caused by the debt/deficit in ways that aren't going to hurt the strength of the dollar too badly. In the short run, sure, it'll probably suck for a little bit, but heath care reform is pretty much a necessity, and dealing with unemployment will provide worlds and worlds of help in the long run.

National Healthcare is the least important item in Obama's agenda. Loosening the restrictions on private industry to allow co-ops and allow people to shop across state lines would increase competition and lower the price. Limiting settlements would allow doctor's to stop ordering unnecessary tests and would drop malpractice premiums, which would lower the price of care. Add a small government subsidy for those who still can't afford care, and we're set. Private industry has always run more efficiently in the government. The Obama plan would cost about $25,000 per person insured. That's stupid, considering I have a premium plan from United for less that $1,000 a year.

We could probably shave a little bit off the military since we're not in active warfare, and we'll still have more than enough money to provide for whatever they need overseas.

Yes, we could. We could also put 500,000 soldiers and Marines in Afghanistan have that place rooted out in a month, but I, too, digress.

The Iraq war shouldn't have even happened in the first place. We should have been dealing with Osama Bin Laden right off the bat. Iraq wasn't a threat and wouldn't have been a growing threat any time in the foreseeable future. It's a little sad that we've waited this long to finally focus on operations in Afghanistan, dealing with actual threats to this country.

Probably, but isn't the world a better place with despots like Sadaam Hussein dead? His sons? And, it's hard for me to believe that our being over there hasn't disrupted efforts to hurt Americans on American soil.

The problem with that is that if the government cuts off funding to space exploration, it no longer becomes profitable to build technology or invest money into space exploration.

I think it becomes more profitable to do so. Tourism and industry in space could be huge. Smaller private companies could compete by selling parts to larger manufacturers. Maybe I should have been more clear though. We should stop sending people into space. What are they doing up there? It costs billions per mission to send someone into space when we have telescopes and labs here on Earth that can peer far deeper into the universe than any astronaut.

The way the budget is being allocated is all fucked up. We should have had millions more into space research,

I disagree. Astronauts now don't do research. They serve as mechanics for a faulty space station that we allow others to use without paying.

millions more into education,

We need to end teacher tenure. Every teacher should have to re-earn their job every year.

millions more into unemployment,

But instead we get months of national healthcare and the destruction of capitalism. This administration is not interested in cutting unemployment. If they were, they would have scrapped national healthcare and done something the people wanted instead of shoving vendetta legislation down our throats against our will. National healthcare is tax rape.

all coming from funding we're putting into the military, 75% of which is classified, but I digress.

Military spending is always an exorbitant expense until you need it. 75% of military spending is insuring that we don't need to use it.

I don't think the private industry is interesting in investing into space exploration and technology if there aren't profits involved.

Tourism and asteroid mining are just two very profitable industries. Furthermore, every time AT&T wants to launch a new satellite, they could take bids from companies, who in competition would need lighter materials and more efficient engines to be built. Now, they have to go with the government and take what they can get. Private industry could provide jobs for mechanics and astrophysicists alike, whereas the government does not. The competition would lower the launch price, which provides savings that are passed on to the consumer, or at the very least, increase profits, which could be passed onto the investor. Either way, there would be more money for more jobs. Private industry can create jobs. The government stimulus has basically created about eleven jobs at $300,000 apiece.

If they were competing with the government, and came up with more efficient ways of space travel and exploration, this technology could be bought by the government, and other corporations would have an incentive to work on other, new technology.

Why would the government want more efficient materials? Then, they might have to lower taxes, and no one would want that.

I agree, this should be handled privately, as it already has strong social support.

Cool.

UPS is publicly run,

UPS is a private business. The guys in the sexy brown shorts do not get paid in tax dollars.

and competes with FedEx just fine. UPS and USPS run hand-in-hand.

That's not true in any way, shape or form. USPS feels the need to raise stamp prices and stop deliveries on Saturday. Both are enormous failures.

 

[Razor]

Poster's Disclaimer: FTS, don't nut yourself when you realize I'm agreeing with you on a lot of these stances. It doesn't become you when you try to type with a mess on your keyboard. Be it whiskey or otherwise.

We have a massive debt in this nation, and it is getting bigger by the minute. The government continues to spend money at an alarming rate. Both sides of the aisle give lip service to fiscal responsibility, however, both shoot for earmarks that will benefit a limited percentage of their constituency, however show little national value.

Don't forget private business/cause alliances. Republicans love to give their friends in Wal-Mart (an Arkansas original. What what?) millions, if not billions, in tax cuts while preaching something about how we need more money. Democrats love to spend on shit like building millions of rabbit huts in the middle of the American Midwest while lamenting that there isn't enough money to feed our poor.

A regression to a fundamental "Do what's best for America while not completely fucking the rest of the world" will work wonders for the American system. Cutting back our troop commitments to only what is completely necessary (War in Afghanistan can stay, as well as Peace Keeping forces anywhere that totally needs them. Troops are still in Japan? Seriously? Take those troops home and let them reform their constitution to allow for a standing army. Please.), and refusing outrageous amounts billions in foreign aid will help matters. I'm not saying cut off the troops that are absolutely needed or taking away foreign aid that keeps people from starving. But we can cut back. I know we can.

Then, when Republicans claim that they're the party of God, they can back up their claims by actually feeding the hungry and working to pass legislation that makes healthcare affordable for the poor. Right now there's just no way.

In light of our trillion dollar deficit and expanding credit ceiling, what national spending can be cut off?

I've been saying it for months. NASA. My god, NASA.

First of all, the war in Iraq is over. Bringing everyone home from Iraq quickly would save us a few billion dollars. We suspended combat operations months ago, and according to Bush's (and, thusly Obama's) plan, the troops should be coming home soon. Thankfully, this savings can be realized soon.

1) I'll admit. Bush gets props for the plan.

2) Those troops are getting funneled into Afghanistan, and you know it. Iran if the war drums keep getting beat and sabers keep get rattled.

Once we move beyond obvious and immediately planned savings, I think we could abolish NASA. I know that for generations our space program has been a source of national pride, however, how can we justify the expense when we have to borrow from the Chinese to pay our bills? NASA is nothing but excess, a failed program that never finishes on time or within budget. A quick Google search brings up millions of scholarly articles showing how the International Space Station has been a majority US expense. We haul all the equipment at our own expense for everyone else to use. Pledged money from other nations has run out, and the budget has been blown to hell. Who has paid every cent beyond the budgeted money? We have. Private industry now has the ability to get to space, and any research facility can partner with a carrier to get done what needs to be done. An entire aeronautics industry can be built around launching satellites. This is an example of government inefficiency and yet another way private industry can likely outperform government.

Good job taking my point right out from under me. *Tag*

NASA served it purpose under JFK. We got a man to the moon, and proved to the Soviets that we know how to play ball. After that, our prowess was to be proven on the ground. We necessarily moved our trillions in spending to the military. There's a reason why it's called an "Arms Race."

However, someone along the way forgot to say "Oh yeah. Let's stop funding NASA like we have Communists breathing down our back."

Why did we go billions over budget to get to the moon? So what if we lost the designs to the shuttles that took us to the moon in the first place? Our technology is leaps and bounds ahead of that from the 1960s. The calculator I used for my math classes, a TI-89, has more calculating power than the entirety of the Apollo shuttle that was used to take men to the moon. A calculator I can fit into my jacket pocket can out calculate the shuttle that took men millions of miles into space, onto the moon, and back again. And you're telling me we can't get men back to the moon in less than a decade of planning and a few billion dollars? Seriously?

There is no excuse for that. NASA should be cut down to just enough to keep the ISS floating where it's at, and to keep our government satellites in orbit. I understand that some of those CIA and FBI satellites see sensitive information. Okay, that's why I'm keeping NASA to keep those under government control. Beyond that though, the private industry is going to be in charge of keeping their satellites up and out of our way. Or else get fined the cost to put another satellite up to replace that one they broke.

Who gives a shit if Iran gets a satellite into orbit before we get another set of men into space? We got them there 45 years ago. We got the atomic bomb 65 years ago. We have nothing left to prove to the world. Or do we think that getting men to the moon will keep the terrorists from attacking? I promise you it won't.

The National Endowment for the Arts could go away too. I understand that art and expression are important, but the US government's paying for it is absurd. We need to borrow money to pay for the salaries of government employees, but, for some reason, we are paying people to throw paint on a canvas and call it a reflection of angst? Stupid.

Take that money and spend it on government jobs to create murals and shit on buildings. Arts don't have to go away, just where we put them. Need a fancy painting in your FBI office? Use government money to hire an artist to make paintings as his official job. He only gets paid on commission, and has to push paper in between his requests for paintings. That way we have a secretary and a handy dandy painting whenever we need it.

Finally, the United States Postal Service needs to go. UPS and FedEx both out perform the government at a much lower cost. The postal service runs over budget and I think we all have experienced lost mail and for sure, slow mail. UPS and FedEx can guarantee delivery time, but the government cannot? That is just absurd.

I'm reluctant to let the USPS go, unless we can move those government jobs into another sector.

...Unless the new demand on FedEx and UPS will necessitate the former USPS workers getting hired. Then I'm a-okay.

Do you have a gripe with my choices? Perhaps you have some of your own. Here is your chance to tell us how you would spend our tax money.

Yeah I have a gripe. You stole my NASA choice.

At first I'm reluctant to cut so many government slots (and therefore jobs), but the reality is that the businesses will then need to fill the higher demand with more bodies. Those bodies will come from the government agencies that just got cut.

I hold that government agencies such as the CIA, FBI, and Homeland Security should be consolidated into one agency that is headed by the Vice-President. Keeping their head out of the government (and therefore theoretically clear of partisan ties) has obviously failed. They only bicker and fight amongst themselves, leaving 9/11 to happen because Navy Intelligence didn't wanna tell the FBI what they knew. Merge the agencies. Those who get fired can go into private work (aka spying on other companies for secret insider information), and those who remain are now responsible to the Vice-President. I know that leaves the door wide open for corruption of the office, but what else do you have us do?

Marriages should be stricken from the government and consolidated straight to the churches. The government recognizes every "marriage" as a civil union, no matter if it's between man and woman or man and man. Beyond that and the tax benefits/rights involved, the government should expend no more effort on the matter. Records of marriages will be kept by the state, divorces will be managed by the state, and estate taxes in the event of death (which I disagree with) will be handled by the state. In the eyes of the government, civil unions only matter in the event of taxes when you decide to file a joint tax return.

The IRS should stay, because that's how we're sure we get our money. The Department of Education should stay only as a board that watches over the quality of our schools. That is terribly needed, for our educational system has reached the 7th level of Hell lately.

I know that the Department of Transportation needs to stay, for that is our way of regulating interstate commerce. But I'm sure there are more ******ly redundant agencies. Kick them to the curb.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

National Healthcare is the least important item in Obama's agenda. Loosening the restrictions on private industry to allow co-ops and allow people to shop across state lines would increase competition and lower the price. Limiting settlements would allow doctor's to stop ordering unnecessary tests and would drop malpractice premiums, which would lower the price of care. Add a small government subsidy for those who still can't afford care, and we're set. Private industry has always run more efficiently in the government. The Obama plan would cost about $25,000 per person insured. That's stupid, considering I have a premium plan from United for less that $1,000 a year.

But instead we get months of national healthcare and the destruction of capitalism. This administration is not interested in cutting unemployment. If they were, they would have scrapped national healthcare and done something the people wanted instead of shoving vendetta legislation down our throats against our will. National healthcare is tax rape.

The health care bill is shit and nobody wants it because Obama pandered to the Republicans when he already had a super-majority in the Senate. He eliminated essential points of the bill that made it a strong reform bill in the first place, and the people I know would have been happy to pay a bit more in taxes a year for the public option. The only reason the people don't want this bill now is because it forces you to spend more money privately to the companies who have already dropped you from their insurance for one reason or another.

With the current incarnation of the bill, you have two options:

A. Put your money into an untrustworthy private company to handle your insurance, or
B. Suffer a fine where you hand money to the government until you can find an untrustworthy insurance company to hand your money to.

I have no doubt many senators were paid off to vote for this incarnation of the bill, but that's all just speculation and matters of opinion.

Yes, we could. We could also put 500,000 soldiers and Marines in Afghanistan have that place rooted out in a month, but I, too, digress.

My thoughts exactly.

Probably, but isn't the world a better place with despots like Sadaam Hussein dead? His sons? And, it's hard for me to believe that our being over there hasn't disrupted efforts to hurt Americans on American soil.

Sure, but it doesn't take away from the fact that it was an illegal war. We used terrorism and false claims of WMDs as some sort of an excuse to go over there and forcefully revolutionize that country. If this were 60 years ago, GWB would have been impeached and facing a war crimes trial, along with anyone who voted in congress to allow him to send troops to Iraq. The only legal thing we did was our initial troop dispatch to Afghanistan, where we had legitimate intelligence of Osama Bin Laden's whereabouts.

I think it becomes more profitable to do so. Tourism and industry in space could be huge. Smaller private companies could compete by selling parts to larger manufacturers. Maybe I should have been more clear though. We should stop sending people into space. What are they doing up there? It costs billions per mission to send someone into space when we have telescopes and labs here on Earth that can peer far deeper into the universe than any astronaut.

Tourism and asteroid mining are just two very profitable industries.

Space tourism and mining could be huge once the technology actually becomes available. The only reason companies aren't privately working on this technology is because the simply don't have the funds to send people into space to test out their technology, and if they did, they would have to spend double the amount bringing it back or sending more if the technology ran into any problems. There aren't really any private companies out there that could afford that kind of financial risk, especially in this economy.

We need to end teacher tenure. Every teacher should have to re-earn their job every year.

They should also be paid much more than they are for the shit they have to put up with, especially in poverty-stricken areas.

That's not even mentioning the shit they have to do for the state. For instance, Florida is basically on educational lockdown because whoever is in charge of Florida's board of education decided it would be best to shove way too much standardized testing down the students' throats, and the students end up not learning anything useful because of it. God forbid a student fails the test because they haven't learned anything, they have to waste time taking standardized testing classes, rather than be in class for useless shit.

I personally know people who were unable to graduate because they failed the first tier of testing, and were flooded with so much shit that they couldn't get their credits done in time. Digressing again...

Teachers don't get paid as much as they should, nor are public schools getting nearly the funding they should. The good teachers suffer, and they leave for private schools, widening the gap between public and private schools.

UPS is a private business. The guys in the sexy brown shorts do not get paid in tax dollars.

Shit, sorry. I totally misread the information I had. My bad.

 

[FromTheSouth]

The health care bill is shit and nobody wants it because Obama pandered to the Republicans when he already had a super-majority in the Senate.

Not true. He couldn't get his own party on board in the House. Furthermore, the bill didn't pass because the people of America were very vocally against it.

The bill is shit, and national healthcare as a whole is a shit. Look at all the Canadians who come over here for care. Guess what the fastest growing industry in Canada is....private medicine.

He eliminated essential points of the bill that made it a strong reform bill in the first place, and the people I know would have been happy to pay a bit more in taxes a year for the public option. The only reason the people don't want this bill now is because it forces you to spend more money privately to the companies who have already dropped you from their insurance for one reason or another.

Well, you sure enjoy speaking in incorrect generalizations. My insurance company has never dropped me for any reason. They also haven't raised my premium, copay, or prescription charges. They are not evil in any way. It's just easier to pass legislation if you label them thus.

With the current incarnation of the bill, you have two options:

A. Put your money into an untrustworthy private company to handle your insurance, or

I trust my insurance company just fine. So do 99% of people. But, how can you pass unneeded legislation unless you use red herring arguments to scare the population. See: Act, Patriot.

B. Suffer a fine where you hand money to the government until you can find an untrustworthy insurance company to hand your money to.

Just another example of this administration's hatred of freedom.

I have no doubt many senators were paid off to vote for this incarnation of the bill, but that's all just speculation and matters of opinion.

It's not speculation. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mary Landrieu of Lousiana took hundreds of billion of dollars in ear marks to vote for the bill. These are facts. It's funny how we have half a trillion dollars to bribe two Senators, yet need to borrow that much to create ten or eleven jobs.

Sure, but it doesn't take away from the fact that it was an illegal war.

It can't take away from a fact that isn't a fact, but whatever.

We used terrorism and false claims of WMDs

Or...bad intelligence. But Bush said it, so it was obviously a lie. You know that superhonest President before him, the one named Clinton, who would never lie about anything, he bombed them too. He just did it from a boat.

as some sort of an excuse to go over there and forcefully revolutionize that country. If this were 60 years ago, GWB would have been impeached and facing a war crimes trial,

If this were sixty years ago, he would have been a overreaching liberal who dropped nuclear weapons on defenseless people. And, he never would have faced a war crimes trial because there was no way any American would subvert any of their sovereignty to a kangaroo court run by the most worthless organization in the world, the UN. Speaking of which, kicking the dumbass UN off of our land would save us a couple of billion a year too.

along with anyone who voted in congress to allow him to send troops to Iraq. The only legal thing we did was our initial troop dispatch to Afghanistan, where we had legitimate intelligence of Osama Bin Laden's whereabouts.

Well, since international law is a myth, I would say we broke zero laws and you are giving us red herring arguments to use this thread about Obama's fiscal incompetence to attack Bush.

Space tourism and mining could be huge once the technology actually becomes available. The only reason companies aren't privately working on this technology is because the simply don't have the funds to send people into space to test out their technology, and if they did, they would have to spend double the amount bringing it back or sending more if the technology ran into any problems. There aren't really any private companies out there that could afford that kind of financial risk, especially in this economy.

Please name one worthwhile thing NASA has completed on time and on budget in the last twenty years. There are more dead astronauts than there are worthwhile ventures. That is a true sign of incompetence.

They should also be paid much more than they are for the shit they have to put up with, especially in poverty-stricken areas.

I agree.

That's not even mentioning the shit they have to do for the state. For instance, Florida is basically on educational lockdown because whoever is in charge of Florida's board of education decided it would be best to shove way too much standardized testing down the students' throats, and the students end up not learning anything useful because of it. God forbid a student fails the test because they haven't learned anything, they have to waste time taking standardized testing classes, rather than be in class for useless shit.

Standardized tests aren't the problem. Teachers are never trained in their specific area and parents just don't care about their childrens' school work. Kids are taught to argue with teachers instead of listen, and no one in a school is allowed to enforce any kind of discipline. Another way to save money in this nation would be to cut the court system in half and instead, hire arbiters who determine if a claim is even worthwhile before it goes to court.

I personally know people who were unable to graduate because they failed the first tier of testing, and were flooded with so much shit that they couldn't get their credits done in time. Digressing again...

As sad as that is, if they couldn't pass a simple standardized test, they are likely unhireable and should spend some extra time in school. Graduating is a privilege, not a right.

Teachers don't get paid as much as they should, nor are public schools getting nearly the funding they should. The good teachers suffer, and they leave for private schools, widening the gap between public and private schools.

I don't think leaving for the financial and job security of a private school is a punishment. I also agree that our schools need more money. Instead of funding a worthless healthcare bill, let's borrow a trillion dollars more of China's money and give it to the schools.

Shit, sorry. I totally misread the information I had. My bad.

Shit happens.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

Alright, allow me to cross a few things off the list so this doesn't become a gigantic post.

Just another example of this administration's hatred of freedom.

It's not speculation. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mary Landrieu of Lousiana took hundreds of billion of dollars in ear marks to vote for the bill. These are facts. It's funny how we have half a trillion dollars to bribe two Senators, yet need to borrow that much to create ten or eleven jobs.

Please name one worthwhile thing NASA has completed on time and on budget in the last twenty years. There are more dead astronauts than there are worthwhile ventures. That is a true sign of incompetence.

I agree with these statements.

Not true. He couldn't get his own party on board in the House. Furthermore, the bill didn't pass because the people of America were very vocally against it.

The bill is shit, and national healthcare as a whole is a shit. Look at all the Canadians who come over here for care. Guess what the fastest growing industry in Canada is....private medicine.

1/25? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that after the bill was rid of the public option, when more people who were against the private insurance companies were vocally against the new version of the bill?

Well, you sure enjoy speaking in incorrect generalizations. My insurance company has never dropped me for any reason. They also haven't raised my premium, copay, or prescription charges. They are not evil in any way. It's just easier to pass legislation if you label them thus.

I haven't generalized anything. This is an informal conversation, so I gave you a personal anecdote. I'm just saying I personally know of people who have been dropped from their health care and/or had their premiums raised. I don't know the national statistic of people who have been having problems as of late, including myself (though no major problems, just bullshit with arbitrarily raised premiums). I also never said they were evil, I'm only saying that the health care problems in this country desperately need to be taken care of, in the form of reform. I'm not sure whether or not we agree on that matter, because you've been so aggressive in your posts, I'm not sure what point you're making.

If you're saying there's nothing wrong with the system, and it's ideal in its current state, then I have to say you're deluded.

I trust my insurance company just fine. So do 99% of people. But, how can you pass unneeded legislation unless you use red herring arguments to scare the population. See: Act, Patriot.

There's nothing fallacious with my argument. Mentioning the Patriot Act was in itself a red herring argument, not talking about health insurance in a meta-discussion about heath insurance.

It can't take away from a fact that isn't a fact, but whatever.

Well, since international law is a myth, I would say we broke zero laws and you are giving us red herring arguments to use this thread about Obama's fiscal incompetence to attack Bush.

Oh, okay.

International humanitarian law is a set of rules which seek, for humanitarian reasons, to limit the effects of armed conflict. It protects persons who are not or are no longer participating in the hostilities and restricts the means and methods of warfare. International humanitarian law is also known as the law of war or the law of armed conflict.

http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/humanitarian-law-factsheet"]Source

Also, Geneva conventions, 1949.

Or...bad intelligence. But Bush said it, so it was obviously a lie. You know that superhonest President before him, the one named Clinton, who would never lie about anything, he bombed them too. He just did it from a boat.

I don't believe that for a split second. But again, speculation, opinion, etc.

If this were sixty years ago, he would have been a overreaching liberal who dropped nuclear weapons on defenseless people. And, he never would have faced a war crimes trial because there was no way any American would subvert any of their sovereignty to a kangaroo court run by the most worthless organization in the world, the UN. Speaking of which, kicking the dumbass UN off of our land would save us a couple of billion a year too.

Right, being kicked out of the UN and NATO would totally be in the USA's best interests, both politically and economically. You know, being cut off from the rest of the world could completely obliterate our economy. Funnily enough, the USA doesn't have unlimited resources without the help of other countries.

Standardized tests aren't the problem. Teachers are never trained in their specific area and parents just don't care about their childrens' school work. Kids are taught to argue with teachers instead of listen, and no one in a school is allowed to enforce any kind of discipline.

I agree, I just brought up a separate point about standardized testing. I agree with everything you've said here.

As sad as that is, if they couldn't pass a simple standardized test, they are likely unhireable and should spend some extra time in school. Graduating is a privilege, not a right.

You're absolutely missing the point. Not getting the required amount of credits because you've been bombarded with classes that aren't worth any credits, and is a complete waste of time is a problem. There is no reason why a student should be forced to take a class that doesn't help them in the slightest, and waste valuable time with it.

 

[FromTheSouth]

1/25? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that after the bill was rid of the public option, when more people who were against the private insurance companies were vocally against the new version of the bill?

OK, so then we need more recent data.

Here is today's aggregate polling data from RCP.

Still the same idea. The people don't want it. How do you justify spending all this money against the will of the people?

I haven't generalized anything. This is an informal conversation, so I gave you a personal anecdote. I'm just saying I personally know of people who have been dropped from their health care and/or had their premiums raised. I don't know the national statistic of people who have been having problems as of late, including myself (though no major problems, just bullshit with arbitrarily raised premiums). I also never said they were evil, I'm only saying that the health care problems in this country desperately need to be taken care of, in the form of reform. I'm not sure whether or not we agree on that matter, because you've been so aggressive in your posts, I'm not sure what point you're making.

I haven't been aggressive at all. I just think it's idiocy to change the system as drastically as is being proposed. A few small tweaks is all that it needs. This is a thread about government spending, and I am asking how we can justify spending trillions of dollars that we don't have when there are solutions that we can afford that don't require a massive overhaul and subjugation of all citizens to a socialist plan modeled after a failing Canadian system.

If you're saying there's nothing wrong with the system, and it's ideal in its current state, then I have to say you're deluded.

I didn't say that. I have given a much easier way to fix national healthcare by increasing national competition, tort reform, and opening up co-ops. Allowing more competition in the open market can lower prices, and then anyone who is still left out could get a subsidy to find their own provate carrier. It costs less than $1,000 a year to be insured, but the government wants to spend 3-30 times that.

There's nothing fallacious with my argument. Mentioning the Patriot Act was in itself a red herring argument, not talking about health insurance in a meta-discussion about heath insurance.

Umm, no it's not. My argument was that healthcare is being shoved down out throat by a government that is using fear as a tactic to herd the people, much like what was done with The Patriot Act. You see, since you didn't get it, what I am doing is placing the blame for out of control spending and lying on both sides of the aisle.

Oh, okay.

International humanitarian law is a set of rules which seek, for humanitarian reasons, to limit the effects of armed conflict. It protects persons who are not or are no longer participating in the hostilities and restricts the means and methods of warfare. International humanitarian law is also known as the law of war or the law of armed conflict.

http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/humanitarian-law-factsheet"]Source

Also, Geneva conventions, 1949.

1. There is no enforcement mechanism, so this law you speak of is nothing more than some nice guidelines to live by.

2. The UN is an impotent body, incapable of making any single one of these guidelines stick.

3. International law is nothing more than a philosophical argument about how the world should run.

4. If we subscribe to the Geneva Conventions as law, the US is completely justified in removing Hussein from office in Iraq in that he used chemical weapons against his own people and has twice launched incursions into foreign lands with no provocation.

I don't believe that for a split second. But again, speculation, opinion, etc.

You don't believe that Clinton launched missiles into Iraq?

Here it is in his own words.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

Right, being kicked out of the UN and NATO would totally be in the USA's best interests, both politically and economically. You know, being cut off from the rest of the world could completely obliterate our economy. Funnily enough, the USA doesn't have unlimited resources without the help of other countries.

Well, NATO and the UN are separate. Secondly, all I said was that they should be asked to leave our nation. It costs billions of dollars to house the worthless group of faux-diplomats.

I agree, I just brought up a separate point about standardized testing. I agree with everything you've said here.

Cool. You know, I really like you.

You're absolutely missing the point. Not getting the required amount of credits because you've been bombarded with classes that aren't worth any credits, and is a complete waste of time is a problem. There is no reason why a student should be forced to take a class that doesn't help them in the slightest, and waste valuable time with it.

If they can't form a sentence or do the simple math required in a standardized test, then the class would help them. Those classes teach you how to read for meaning and use context clues. These are skills necessary to work the most menial of jobs, much less lead people.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

OK, so then we need more recent data.

Here is today's aggregate polling data from RCP.

Still the same idea. The people don't want it. How do you justify spending all this money against the will of the people?

No, we need data from when the public option was actually IN the bill. Of course you're going to find low approval ratings on this bill. Nobody supports it.

I haven't been aggressive at all. I just think it's idiocy to change the system as drastically as is being proposed. A few small tweaks is all that it needs. This is a thread about government spending, and I am asking how we can justify spending trillions of dollars that we don't have when there are solutions that we can afford that don't require a massive overhaul and subjugation of all citizens to a socialist plan modeled after a failing Canadian system.

I somewhat agree, but we can't just stop spending just because we're in a defecit. Or main concern from the beginning, before ANYTHING, should have been improving the economy and unemployment. We should have unemployment at around 5-6, maybe 7%. He shouldn't have been worried about what the Republicans wanted when he had a super-majority in the Senate, and we wasted a lot of valuable time worrying about something that didn't need our immediate attention.

He went about this in a way I would have supported, but I only found out later that the public option was merely a negotiation point, which only existed as something to eliminate if the bill was challenged. I don't think the president expected such a strong support for the public option among the middle class.

Also, the bill wasn't so much socialist as it was mere competition. This could have even created jobs if current companies cut their employment health plans and used that excess money to hire some new people, assuming (heavily optimistically, of course) that they wouldn't pocket the money. If only we lived in an ideal world. People could have used the public option or chosen to pay for a more quality-assured health insurance system, or done what a lot of people would have done, and gone hybrid. I would have used the public option for check-ups, minor injuries, things like that. If some serious shit went down, and I needed emergency medical attention, I whip out the private-insurance card. Wham-bam

Umm, no it's not. My argument was that healthcare is being shoved down out throat by a government that is using fear as a tactic to herd the people, much like what was done with The Patriot Act. You see, since you didn't get it, what I am doing is placing the blame for out of control spending and lying on both sides of the aisle.

Perhaps I just don't know too many people, but I never associated this bill with scare tactics, because like I said, I personally know people who have been fucked over by Aetna and Blue Cross Blue Shield. Who knows, maybe they're in a very small minority, but it doesn't take away the fact that they would have been much better off with a public system, and I know many other people who would - low to middle class people who can't afford ANY kind of health insurance, people on welfare who aren't getting any kind of good deal from their insurance/public health care services, etc.

1. There is no enforcement mechanism, so this law you speak of is nothing more than some nice guidelines to live by.

2. The UN is an impotent body, incapable of making any single one of these guidelines stick.

3. International law is nothing more than a philosophical argument about how the world should run.

4. If we subscribe to the Geneva Conventions as law, the US is completely justified in removing Hussein from office in Iraq in that he used chemical weapons against his own people and has twice launched incursions into foreign lands with no provocation.

You're completely missing the fact that the UN is primarily a peacekeeping organization, and upholds very high standards for their humanitarian efforts. While the US doesn't need the UN to operate within UN jurisdiction, just because our power far outnumbers theirs, it's still a pretty big deal to be thrown out of the UN. We hold veto power on nations who cooperate under the UN, and can make a big difference in what other nations can do. There is not a single country who would dare call out war against the countries under the UN with the US in the security council.

Also, on 4, I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong, but this still doesn't take away from the fact that this country supported the liberation of that country for the wrong reasons while our attention should have been on something else. That entire operation begot so much ignorance of the goings-on of that region, it's almost sickening.

You don't believe that Clinton launched missiles into Iraq?

Here it is in his own words.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

My point was, Clinton had a legitimate reason for bombing these areas. They were announced by Sadaam himself that they were bio-nuclear weapons depos, and that he would no longer comply with UN guidelines. Guess who served as UN police?

The difference is, when we sent UN officials into Iraq during the Bush administration, guess who didn't find any weapons?

Well, NATO and the UN are separate. Secondly, all I said was that they should be asked to leave our nation. It costs billions of dollars to house the worthless group of faux-diplomats.

I know this. There are other members of the UN who are members of NATO, and if the United States is kicked out of the UN, and we operate outside of UN guidelines, there may be a conflict, you know what I mean?

If they can't form a sentence or do the simple math required in a standardized test, then the class would help them. Those classes teach you how to read for meaning and use context clues. These are skills necessary to work the most menial of jobs, much less lead people.

No, the class won't help, when it's placed during regular school hours, and not worth a grade or give the student any weight. If a class needs to be taken, then fine, have after-school or night classes. But it doesn't make sense to hold a student, who is already struggling with this test, back when there is no need for it.

You could make the argument that if these students were failing the test were probably struggling in other areas, but there are a good number of students who were fucked by that system. Students who had the credits to graduate, after 5 1/2 years due to these weight-less classes, and still wasn't able to receive a diploma until 6 months later due to the testing schedule. It's a fucked up system.

Florida's testing
Pre-FCAT in 3rd, 5th, and 9th grade
FCAT writing in 6th, 9th, and 10th grade
FCAT Reading and math, 3rd, 5th, 6th, and 10th grade
FCAT Science in 3rd and 11th grade

If you fail even one of these tests, you take an in-school class in place of a class worth a credit. 12 exams throughout the school year. Not counting the shit the teachers have to teach in place of shit they WANT to teach.

 

[Mufasa]

If reducing debt were really a concern, then I don't see why America couldn't cut the military by half. Even if we cut it by half we would still be leading the world in military spending.

I don't think we have any real intention of paying the debt off though. That might be why we have such a large military in the first place. Our foreign creditors will never be able to forcibly demand payment on our debts for as long as we can out-gun them. If we were not a military superpower, I think somebody would have tried to collect on all the money we owe by now.

If we ever go to war with one of our creditors, we could later demand that our debts be cleared. Sometimes I wonder if that's generally the strategy, because our debt is obscene and our military is massive.