government waste

Cancel 2016.2

Cancel 2016.2

The Almighty
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_hassett&sid=aRvCYI4iGAA8

Something we should all know that both parties are doing. This article is biased against Dems, but it subtly highlights the fact that Reps do it to.

"If an idiotic appropriation is made just for this year, the CBO assumes that the appropriation will be made forever, and even kindly adjusts for inflation so that we stay real, not just nominal, idiots. It does this even if Congress explicitly appropriates the money on a one-time basis.

If we spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a project this year, then we will, as the Alaska delegation did in 2005, have to take some heat to get it passed. But next year, and the year after, that money will be in the baseline. We can waste it again and again, and do it without any notice.
Notice how sharply the treatment of spending differs from the treatment of tax cuts. President George W. Bush's tax cuts are set to expire, and any attempt to renew them looks like it will cost hundreds of billions of dollars relative to the baseline. Because of that appearance, Democrats regularly wail about the horrible deficit effects of extending the cuts.

Mandatory Spending

But according to the CBO, there is approximately $1.3 trillion worth of mandatory spending that is also set to expire. If you add the discretionary spending that is also built into the CBO baseline, then there are spending extensions that cost about as much as the tax-cut extensions. But since the spending is in the baseline, Democrats get to pretend that its extension costs nothing extra.

Here's how bad it is: Even the Bridge to Nowhere is now in the baseline. At the close of that sorry episode, Congress decided to give Alaska the same amount of money, but didn't specify that it be spent on the bridge. Subsequently, the state of Alaska decided to spend the money elsewhere. "



Anyone else happy to see such waste?
 
People who thrive on pork and try to defend it are retarded. One of our senators is the chair of the appropriations committee, so naturally we get a ton of pork into our state. One retard wrote a letter to the editor thaking him for "caring about Mississippi more than Zimbabwe" (we provide humanitarian aid to Zimbabwe to keep people there from starving, but pet projects with Thad's name on them are far more important and charitable).

If a state wants something done, it should pay for it itself. There's no excuse for the federal government to be doling out this kind of money. It absurd that our legislative rules allow for this. Most nations did away with these kind of abuses a century or so ago.
 
Watermark said:
People who thrive on pork and try to defend it are retarded. One of our senators is the chair of the appropriations committee, so naturally we get a ton of pork into our state. One retard wrote a letter to the editor thaking him for "caring about Mississippi more than Zimbabwe" (we provide humanitarian aid to Zimbabwe to keep people there from starving, but pet projects with Thad's name on them are far more important and charitable).

If a state wants something done, it should pay for it itself. There's no excuse for the federal government to be doling out this kind of money. It absurd that our legislative rules allow for this. Most nations did away with these kind of abuses a century or so ago.
Click to expand...

I agree for the most part. There are very few state projects that should be funded with federal tax dollars.

what is most absurd, is that these one time projects get funded and then every year thereafter the same amount of money is worked into the budget as if these projects are eternal. No wonder it has been so long since we paid down our nations debt.
 
Not happy at all.

Not surprised either. Look at the Farm Bill. Look at the garbage added to the funding bill for the war in Iraq.

Its easy to waste money if it isn't yours.
 
Superfreak said:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_hassett&sid=aRvCYI4iGAA8

Something we should all know that both parties are doing. This article is biased against Dems, but it subtly highlights the fact that Reps do it to.

"If an idiotic appropriation is made just for this year, the CBO assumes that the appropriation will be made forever, and even kindly adjusts for inflation so that we stay real, not just nominal, idiots. It does this even if Congress explicitly appropriates the money on a one-time basis.

If we spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a project this year, then we will, as the Alaska delegation did in 2005, have to take some heat to get it passed. But next year, and the year after, that money will be in the baseline. We can waste it again and again, and do it without any notice.
Notice how sharply the treatment of spending differs from the treatment of tax cuts. President George W. Bush's tax cuts are set to expire, and any attempt to renew them looks like it will cost hundreds of billions of dollars relative to the baseline. Because of that appearance, Democrats regularly wail about the horrible deficit effects of extending the cuts.

Mandatory Spending

But according to the CBO, there is approximately $1.3 trillion worth of mandatory spending that is also set to expire. If you add the discretionary spending that is also built into the CBO baseline, then there are spending extensions that cost about as much as the tax-cut extensions. But since the spending is in the baseline, Democrats get to pretend that its extension costs nothing extra.

Here's how bad it is: Even the Bridge to Nowhere is now in the baseline. At the close of that sorry episode, Congress decided to give Alaska the same amount of money, but didn't specify that it be spent on the bridge. Subsequently, the state of Alaska decided to spend the money elsewhere. "



Anyone else happy to see such waste?
Click to expand...

As citizen said the Democrats don't claim to be fiscally conservative so it's not a surprise that they like to spend all this money. With Republicans who claim to be fiscally conservative its very disturbing. Both parties have seem to embraced the idea that the more pork we give to our constituents the better our chance at re-election.
 
cawacko said:
As citizen said the Democrats don't claim to be fiscally conservative so it's not a surprise that they like to spend all this money. With Republicans who claim to be fiscally conservative its very disturbing. Both parties have seem to embraced the idea that the more pork we give to our constituents the better our chance at re-election.
Click to expand...

But they did promise to use paygo. Again, not saying Dems are bad and Reps are good. They both are using this method to ream us out of billions each year.
 
Superfreak said:
But they did promise to use paygo. Again, not saying Dems are bad and Reps are good. They both are using this method to ream us out of billions each year.
Click to expand...

More rhetoric that sounds great on the campaign trail but doesn't really get applied when it comes down to it.
 
cawacko said:
More rhetoric that sounds great on the campaign trail but doesn't really get applied when it comes down to it.
Click to expand...

which was the point of the article. I was not aware that those one time apporpriations got included in every subsequent budget like that.
 
uscitizen said:
A waste is a terrible thing to mind.
Click to expand...

LOL.

Babycha.gif
 
If we eliminated just 1/2 of all the waste in the USA our economy would crash harder than an elephant jumping off the empire state building.
I am talikng on personal, corporate and governmental levels.
 
Last edited:
cawacko said:
-- Democrats don't claim to be fiscally conservative so it's not a surprise that they like to spend all this money. With Republicans who claim to be fiscally conservative its very disturbing. --
Click to expand...

Just found this gem. What's scary is that you think this makes some kind of sense. :rolleyes:
 
Dilloduck said:
Just found this gem. What's scary is that you think this makes some kind of sense. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Gem? You cut out what I wrote. Citizen said Democrats don't claim to be fiscally conservative so therefore you can't blame them for not being it. Is that difficult to understand what he's saying? Republicans claim to carry the mantle of fiscal conservatism. Do you disagree? Therefore I expect Republicans to do more in that space. I find it hard to believe that surprises you.
 
cawacko said:
Gem? You cut out what I wrote. Citizen said Democrats don't claim to be fiscally conservative so therefore you can't blame them for not being it. Is that difficult to understand what he's saying? Republicans claim to carry the mantle of fiscal conservatism. Do you disagree? Therefore I expect Republicans to do more in that space. I find it hard to believe that surprises you.
Click to expand...

A lot of things surprise dildoduck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top