| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/27/2008 04:27:26 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by shamrock:
Originally posted by Fetor:
i dont claim to be a political know it all, far from it, but it pisses me off when people blame a debt that high on a single person.
A small oberservation i noticed when i was in iraq was the cost of sustainment gear/supplies/food and drink to keep life going on the bases where we operated. during 1 months time the cost of just GATORADE and energy drinks that are served at the dining facilities on my base alone was over 300 thousand dollars, for 1 month. Not to mention we have over 50 bases from small to large in iraq and kuwait some housing thousands of people. And then theres the fact that there is contracting compaines such as Haliberton who rip of the government and over charge them for their services. Point being not 1 person, or party for that matter is to blame for the national debt. there are so many people responsible for why our national debt is so high, but it seems a bit ignorant to hold a the republicans as the ones who are souly responsible. |
And who was in charge when we started this war, that is costing so much?
I used to support DFAS, basically the group that pays everyone in the government. What they agreed to pay for support was blasphemous - something an office admin could have done for $30 was costing the taxpayers $250. Is that the fault of the company, or of the person who agreed to the contract? I also saw more than one case of frivolous use of funding because someone was "owed a favor". |
I could almost guarentee that when the contract was signed with (Im still using haliburton as an example) Haliburton that no where in the contract did it state that the contractors they were employing were going to be staying in 4 and 5 star hotels while stationed in kuwait, while the rest of the army, navy and marine corps were living in tents not 20 miles from them. of course you have to ask the right questions when it comes to over spending in this case. perhaps they did not have enough billeting to house the contractors on the base. what ever the reason may have been, i would bet my bottom dollar that that was not the most feasible method of accomodating those contractors.
and in some cases you are right, we did sign off on it, but from the tax payer - cnn watcher - political critic standpoint its a lot more complicated than what you hear or see. like any task its a lot easier said than done. like i previously stated, there are so many expenses that are transparent to the stateside civilian eye. i dont expect all do understand but its a huge operation and we owe it to the war fighter (military or contracting company in support of) to give them the proper funding to get the mission accomplished, reguardless how much the nation goes into debt (taking into account they use their funds wisely and not abusing it like example in paragraph above). in the big picture, its a small price to pay for freedom.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2008 04:30:06 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by Gatorguy:
Now if the Military would be satisfied with off-the-shelf hammers, the price would be more in line with what the average person thinks is reasonable. |
well said. We have a lot of machinery (not just hammers ;) ) that are unique and cant just get at some hardware shop, engineering custom parts for aircraft and military vehicle maintance isnt as cheap as one would think
|
|
|
|
03/27/2008 04:34:41 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by Fetor:
Originally posted by Gatorguy:
Now if the Military would be satisfied with off-the-shelf hammers, the price would be more in line with what the average person thinks is reasonable. |
well said. We have a lot of machinery (not just hammers ;) ) that are unique and cant just get at some hardware shop, engineering custom parts for aircraft and military vehicle maintance isnt as cheap as one would think |
However, if the companies that create/supply these things would stop thinking about making a quick buck and think about whose money it is that pays for it, it may come out to a lot more reasonable price. But I guess it's just 'government' money.
Message edited by author 2008-03-27 16:35:06. |
|
|
|
03/27/2008 04:34:41 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by drewbixcube:
I give this thread less than an hour to be moved to RANT.
I agree that there are a LOT of factors that increase the National Debt (from both side of the aisle and in most branches of Government and private sectors). We can't continue to blame one person...there is no single person that we can elect to crank down the national debt, right? But then again, I'm no finance guru, or politician!
-drew |
Take a look here.
The big takeaway from that site is this "for every dollar a Democratic president has raised the national debt in the past 59 years Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.99" |
I don't think you can put the blame or praise of national spending solely on the President at that time. Does the President play a role, sure, but last time I checked congress has to approve all spending measures, with few exceptions. So there is more to the equation than just the President. BTW, this is not sticking up for the current administration and its' cut taxes but increase spending methods. |
When the Republicans have had control of both the Congress and the White House, they have NEVER reduced spending. |
That might be so but it still doesn't prove that the national spending falls solely on the President. If you want to rail Republicans, by all means go ahead, just don't state that the President is the only one responsible for spending, because it's not true. That's why there are checks and balances, so you can blame multiple people:) |
Who signs the budget into law? Papa Smurf? |
Cute. If he were president I guess he would. But have you ever heard of congress being able to override the president if he doesn't sign the bill? Sometimes presidents sign bills b/c they know they don't have a choice, sometimes they don't sign them so there name isn't on the bill but it passes anyway, sometimes they veto it and sometimes congress overrides the veto. Congress has the ability to override the president no matter what, so if the budget is irresponsible they need to step in and change it so it isn't. You are trying to make the national spending issue way more simple than what it really entails. |
The simple fact is that when the Congress is controlled by the President's own party, he is rarely, if ever opposed on anything.
Sure the Congress goes along with him, but the president's in the driver's seat. |
That is true, very rarely will a sitting president be opposed by congress when the majority are of the same party affiliation. In those periods you could make the argument that the president is more responsible for the budget and national spending since he has the keys to the car with no one to stop him, or should I say willing to stop him. But there are plenty of periods where the President and Congress are of different party affiliation. Do you really think the President during those periods deserves all the praise or blame when the opposition has the ability to trump him if they feel need be? I don't. |
The real question is: How does the president behave when he does have carte blanche? Do they spend responsibly or do they go hog-wild and borrow even more? The answer for the Republicans is the latter. |
That's fine and a valid point but that is not position that was taken earlier. It was stated, with proof from some simplistic graph, that the president is solely responsible for spending when in fact he is not.
I also think the graph would be more interesting had they included the political makeup of congress at the time of each president. |
|
|
|
03/27/2008 04:40:15 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
However, if the companies that create/supply these things would stop thinking about making a quick buck and think about whose money it is that pays for it, it may come out to a lot more reasonable price. But I guess it's just 'government' money. |
I agree we need to replace the word "Government" with "Taxpayer" in about every conversation. "Government Subsidized Healthcare" = "Taxpayer Subsidized Healthcare", "Government Funded Research" = "Taxpayer Funded Research"...maybe folks would be a little more vocal with their representatives (not to mention get out and vote) if we change the lingo.
-drew |
|
|
|
03/27/2008 04:55:21 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
I also think the graph would be more interesting had they included the political makeup of congress at the time of each president. |
You obviously failed to read the whole article...
Message edited by author 2008-03-27 16:56:16. |
|
|
|
03/27/2008 05:08:28 PM · #57 |
| The president can't spend ANY money. He can approve spending bills proposed by congress, or veto them, and the congress can restructure the proposals, ditch them, or over-ride the veto. The president proposes a "budget". Depending on the makeup of congress he will get some of it accomplished, or none. Not sure why people want to blame bad economy/good economy on a president. He's not a king or god or dictator...just a man. Our economy, especially nowdays, is so wrapped up with the global economy. The tremendous amounts of "transfer payments", i.e. entitlements, that redistribute our income, less a certain percentage for goverment inefficiency and waste...and theft...are not the responsibility of "the president", no matter which party he belongs to, and neither are "earmarks", PORK, brought home by your dear senator and congressman. Hold onto your hat, 'cuz if we can't get hold of congress buying votes with entitlements, it's going to get worse, Obama, Hillary, or McCain won't matter a lick. |
|
|
|
03/27/2008 05:14:00 PM · #58 |
| The man in power has bankrupted every company he has been in charge of. Doesn't surprise me he does the same with a country. |
|
|
|
03/27/2008 05:28:45 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
I also think the graph would be more interesting had they included the political makeup of congress at the time of each president. |
You obviously failed to read the whole article... |
I was actually refering OP's graph and not the article you linked. After reading your link it does have the breakdown of congress since WWII along with a graph. |
|
|
|
03/27/2008 05:38:53 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
I also think the graph would be more interesting had they included the political makeup of congress at the time of each president. |
You obviously failed to read the whole article... |
I was actually refering OP's graph and not the article you linked. After reading your link it does have the breakdown of congress since WWII along with a graph. |
There is much less correlation when you look at it that way. The Dems controlled both House and Senate from 75-81. It was split from 81-87. The Dems against controlled 87-95. The Republicans then took over from 95-07. It doesn't seem like control of the congress matters nearly as much as to whether the deficit shrinks or expands.
You can look at it this way if you want: The only years the democrats controlled the presidency and both houses were 1977-1980, a relative stable time as far as the deficit goes. The only years the republicans controlled all three were 2001-2007. I guess you could call that "stable" as well, but stably huge.
Message edited by author 2008-03-27 17:41:43.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2008 05:41:42 PM · #61 |
it's too bad our government spends sooo much money getting pretty much absolutly nothing done.
maybe we should start hectoring them more...
|
|
|
|
03/27/2008 06:34:10 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by Fetor:
Originally posted by Gatorguy:
Now if the Military would be satisfied with off-the-shelf hammers, the price would be more in line with what the average person thinks is reasonable. |
well said. We have a lot of machinery (not just hammers ;) ) that are unique and cant just get at some hardware shop, engineering custom parts for aircraft and military vehicle maintance isnt as cheap as one would think |
The cases I'm talking about -- hammers, and toilet seats ($250), and coffee urns -- were well-publicized cases of overcharging for off-the-shelf (or equivalent) items, or of paying for specialty equipment which was not necessary.
My dad (a teacher) used to take me to the surplus property agency, where schools could buy surplus items from the military and throughout the government. Once a year the Navy surplus center would have a penny-a-pound sale ... I remember getting a case containing 12 small boxes; inside of those was some crinkly padding material shielding a smaller box sealed in a pouch made of a canvas-foil-plastic laminate, while inside that smaller box was a paper envelope, inside of which was a plastic pouch containing ... a capacitor. I'm sure it met all the specs of the time. :-( |
|
|
|
03/27/2008 06:53:35 PM · #63 |
| Those numbers just can't be accurate. |
|
|
|
03/27/2008 07:27:59 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by Niten:
Those numbers just can't be accurate. |
Care to elaborate?
|
|
|
|
03/27/2008 08:15:58 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by Gatorguy:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
You know why there are $500 hammers?
That's how secret projects like the stealth fighter were funded. They can't disclose them in the budget, so those umpteen billions of dollars get put into other programs and the cost of everything in that program gets ridiculous. The $500 hammer likely only cost the government $10, and the other $490 went into some black project that's literally off the books. |
There are $500 hammers because of the regulations required to produce them. Special designs, special materials, special quality requirements, special compliance testing, process auditing, tons of reporting and documentation etc., etc. That all comes at a cost. Plus, those hammers are produced in small lot quantities (comparatively speaking) which affects the unit cost.
Nothing more sinister than that, I'm afraid. I work for a large defense contractor and we have gov. officials in our books all the time. If we want to have a price increase, we have to go to great lengths to justify it.
Now if the Military would be satisfied with off-the-shelf hammers, the price would be more in line with what the average person thinks is reasonable. |
I know that for some programs, like the CIA's little air force of spyplanes (the U2 and the A-12 specifically) the funding was secret and indeed was buried in "cost overruns etc" on other government programs. It never gets to the contractor level, but it has happened that the government official in charge of the program has been put through the wringer when the ONLY cost overruns on their program were due to secret projects blowing their budget. |
|
|
|
03/27/2008 08:39:07 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by soup:
it's too bad our government spends sooo much money getting pretty much absolutly nothing done.
maybe we should start hectoring them more... |
And there it is. You're right. The government does nothing.
You live in constant fear of invasion. You have to drive your car over dirt and rocks because there are no roads. Your air and water are polluted at will by anyone, with zero restriction. People die of spoiled food constantly, and are poisoned by excess pesticides on a regular basis. Planes fly every which way, colliding on a regular basis.
Your money is worthless because every community creates its own supply, to say nothing of 400% monthly inflation. Your working conditions are full of extremely dangerous threats. Not that any women or minorities are there, of course. There are no programs that help people buy their first homes, support research into new ways to protect human health, or discover better ways to protect the environment.
At the more local level, every minor fire burns the house down because there are no fire departments, criminals rule the streets universally, there are no parks or public pools, and no one has free access to books, videos, or the Internet at libraries.
Only the extremely rich can go to college, because there are no public universities or community colleges, and back at the federal level, there are no low-interest, long-term, relatively easily obtained student loans. Of course, only the extremely rich even qualify for college, because there are no public schools.
There is no one watching the borders to prevent criminals from coming in, and there's no one checking anyone before they buy whatever weapons they want (and there are no restrictions on what they buy, from machine guns to nuclear weapons).
Yep. Those government people just take money and never do a thing for anyone.
Are there bad examples of government spending? Absolutely. Is there corruption, lax enforcement, and political interference? Of course. I could point to them in every case mentioned above without even thinking hard. But is the government doing a gazillion things right every day, day in and day out, at every level, regardless of who's in the White House or in Congress? Yep.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2008 10:16:53 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Niten:
Those numbers just can't be accurate. |
Care to elaborate? |
If those numbers are accurate why would anyone vote republican? |
|
|
|
03/27/2008 10:27:37 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by Niten:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Niten:
Those numbers just can't be accurate. |
Care to elaborate? |
If those numbers are accurate why would anyone vote republican? |
Well, because the Republicans are like the demented grandpa that buys you things without paying for them. You get all sorts of sparkly presents like tax cuts and rebate checks. Why wouldn't the masses vote for them? The graph cites "Bureau of the Public Debt". You can find that government page here. |
|
|
|
03/27/2008 10:31:16 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Niten:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Niten:
Those numbers just can't be accurate. |
Care to elaborate? |
If those numbers are accurate why would anyone vote republican? |
Well, because the Republicans are like the demented grandpa that buys you things without paying for them. You get all sorts of sparkly presents like tax cuts and rebate checks. Why wouldn't the masses vote for them? The graph cites "Bureau of the Public Debt". You can find that government page here. |
I think you're being nice comparing them to a demented grandpa. |
|
|
|
03/27/2008 10:32:48 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Niten:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Niten:
Those numbers just can't be accurate. |
Care to elaborate? |
If those numbers are accurate why would anyone vote republican? |
Well, because the Republicans are like the demented grandpa that buys you things without paying for them. You get all sorts of sparkly presents like tax cuts and rebate checks. Why wouldn't the masses vote for them? The graph cites "Bureau of the Public Debt". You can find that government page here. |
I think you're being nice comparing them to a demented grandpa. |
The graph is pretty stark in the correlation it shows. I don't need to resort to names to have the message hit home. |
|
|
|
03/27/2008 10:38:12 PM · #71 |
Well i am not very happy with either party. I am sick of the war, I am sick of the recession and I sick of politics in general.
But if the Democrats want people like me to vote for them they better have better candidates then Hillary and Obama. Hillary makes me ill, and I just don't trust Obama.
So I would suggest the Democratic party to get some more viable candidates. And no, I am not a fan of McCain.
I guess I really don't like any of them, and that's a shame. |
|
|
|
03/28/2008 08:03:29 AM · #72 |
i was sort of joking - don't take it so seriously.
BTW did you get your $42mil letter from the IRS yet? i got my first one, but am still waiting on the second...
Originally posted by levyj413:
Originally posted by soup:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it's too bad our government spends sooo much money getting pretty much absolutly nothing done.
maybe we should start hectoring them more...
And there it is. You're right. The government does nothing.
You live in constant fear of invasion. You have to drive your car over dirt and rocks because there are no roads. Your air and water are polluted at will by anyone, with zero restriction. People die of spoiled food constantly, and are poisoned by excess pesticides on a regular basis. Planes fly every which way, colliding on a regular basis.
Your money is worthless because every community creates its own supply, to say nothing of 400% monthly inflation. Your working conditions are full of extremely dangerous threats. Not that any women or minorities are there, of course. There are no programs that help people buy their first homes, support research into new ways to protect human health, or discover better ways to protect the environment.
At the more local level, every minor fire burns the house down because there are no fire departments, criminals rule the streets universally, there are no parks or public pools, and no one has free access to books, videos, or the Internet at libraries.
Only the extremely rich can go to college, because there are no public universities or community colleges, and back at the federal level, there are no low-interest, long-term, relatively easily obtained student loans. Of course, only the extremely rich even qualify for college, because there are no public schools.
There is no one watching the borders to prevent criminals from coming in, and there's no one checking anyone before they buy whatever weapons they want (and there are no restrictions on what they buy, from machine guns to nuclear weapons).
Yep. Those government people just take money and never do a thing for anyone.
Are there bad examples of government spending? Absolutely. Is there corruption, lax enforcement, and political interference? Of course. I could point to them in every case mentioned above without even thinking hard. But is the government doing a gazillion things right every day, day in and day out, at every level, regardless of who's in the White House or in Congress? Yep. |
Message edited by author 2008-03-28 08:03:42.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2008 09:23:33 AM · #73 |
Not to stray too far from the topic, but I feel compelled to share
this bit of neocon- thumping humor.
PS: I love Tom Tomorrow.
Message edited by author 2008-03-28 09:24:42. |
|
|
|
03/28/2008 09:42:16 AM · #74 |
I think over the years its evident which ideas WORK better (democratic).
The real question is can the middle class become UNITED enough to say "enough is enough" to the rich!
The last 2 elections prove that being rich can afford a decent amount of corruption. Thats scary. I do sincerely believe 1, if not, 2 elections were won dirty, and not even close to democracy. I think everybody knows that.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2008 10:28:24 AM · #75 |
Originally posted by soup:
i was sort of joking - don't take it so seriously.
BTW did you get your $42mil letter from the IRS yet? i got my first one, but am still waiting on the second...
|
Maybe you were, but others aren't, and I get tired of that kind of hyperbole.
I didn't know we're getting two letters from the IRS. Or is the second one the actual check?
|
|
