If conservatives were serious about cutting government waste - Shooting Sports Forum


News and Political Forum News and Politics spoken here!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-24-2011, 15:28   #1
Full Member
 
freesw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Circus of the Americas
Posts: 34,146
If conservatives were serious about cutting government waste

Robert Reich (Why We Need to Rein In Government Contractors That Use Taxpayer Money for Political Advantage)

But we know they are not.

Today's GOP is interested only in cutting their traditional scapegoats for public spending, the social safety net on which so many workers have to rely at some time in their lives. Republicans always put increasing the power and wealth of the richest at the top of their priority list. Then they lie about how that will help Americans generally. The result is what we see today, the most stratified society in over a century, with a tiny minority, unaccountable to the rule of law, manipulating the economic and political systems of this country and the world with the open complicity of the Republican party and a sizable portion of the Democratic party as well.

The fact is we do not have a free market in this country. We have a corporatocracy. Socially, it increasingly resembles feudalism. In economic and political terms, it is an unholy trinity between big business, corrupt politicians (and judges), and their sycophants, morally reminiscent of the system against which this nation's founders rebelled. Today's Republicans are traitors to America's founding ideals, goading their supporters into ever more extremist positions as the economy grows worse, scapegoating those slightly worse or better off, or merely different. All to keep their eyes off the real con job, that of the plutocracy which, aided by a vast network of complicit media, has perfected the method of divide and rule far better than any ancient despot ever could.
freesw is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2011, 16:02   #2
Full Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,423
If conservatives were serious about cutting government waste...
... they'd cut all funding for Democratic Congressmen.
higgite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2011, 16:09   #3
Full Member
 
Dirty Harry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 7,488
Originally Posted by higgite View Post
... they'd cut all funding for Democratic Congressmen.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Anyone who says he can see through women is missing a lot.
Groucho Marx
Dirty Harry is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Old 06-25-2011, 02:27   #4
communism hater
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 3,917
Originally Posted by higgite View Post
... they'd cut all funding for Democratic Congressmen.
That would be a good start. We all know the dimocraps arent serious about cutting government waste.
__________________
United We Stand.. Divided We Fall.. Into the pits of socialism
qwman68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2011, 05:49   #5
Full Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: deep south
Posts: 206
Very astute but what solution is available

The GOP wants to take our money and give it to the rich, the DEM want to take our money and give it to the poor. Both support systems of dependance that have put our republic on life support. I guess the GOP justify there bias because the rich pay, by a huge increment, most of the taxes so they deserve consideration. It looks to me like the DEM justify there bias because they think the rest of the country wouldn't take care of those who can't or want work for a living. I want a third option (not the tea party) but don't see any hope for orderly change.
lostalabama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2011, 08:08   #6
Full Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Missouri
Posts: 8,554
Originally Posted by qwman68 View Post
That would be a good start. We all know the dimocraps arent serious about cutting government waste.
Untrue, they're willing to cut spending if it won't cost them any votes.

I love the way the left always wants to demonize the gop. Seems to me the dems have held the executive branch since 2008 and had both the house and senate from 2006 until they just lost the house this year. But yet all of our current problems are the result of the gop boogeyman and they're so powerful that even though the dems had a senate supermajority for awhile during that period they couldn't overcome them.
Momo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2011, 12:01   #7
Full Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: East Texas
Posts: 786
Originally Posted by Momo View Post
Untrue, they're willing to cut spending if it won't cost them any votes.

But yet all of our current problems are the result of the gop boogeyman and they're so powerful that even though the dems had a senate supermajority for awhile during that period they couldn't overcome them.
Will this ever, ever. and I mean ever be an issue with them. I do believe they so believe they are so right nothing phases them. They actually believe all the garbage they spew. I back that up with some of the mess that is posted here by the democratic liberal backers on here.
maydelleeagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2011, 12:37   #8
Full Member
 
freesw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Circus of the Americas
Posts: 34,146
Originally Posted by maydelleeagle View Post
Will this ever, ever. and I mean ever be an issue with them. I do believe they so believe they are so right nothing phases them. They actually believe all the garbage they spew. I back that up with some of the mess that is posted here by the democratic liberal backers on here.
You do have short memories. The Democrats did not have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.
freesw is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2011, 13:36   #9
Full Member
 
bmcgilvray's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by freesw View Post
You do have short memories. The Democrats did not have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.
And for that we are thankful. An ironclad Democratic majority would have been even more disastrous than the amount of damage that has been done by the sorry lot.
bmcgilvray is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2011, 14:33   #10
Full Member
 
freesw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Circus of the Americas
Posts: 34,146
March 2, 2010 - 1:10pm

If you need any more proof that Senate Republicans' sole mission at the moment is to prevent anything from happening in their chamber of Congress, look no further than the fact that today the Senate had to seek cloture on the nomination Barbara Milano Keenan to fill a vacancy on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, resulting in a vote of 99-0.

That's right - not one Republican senator spoke against her qualifications, record, or views or voted to prevent her nomination from receiving an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor ... and yet still they filibustered, forcing Democrats to seek a cloture vote in order to move ahead, simply because they are committed to obstructing the governing process in every way possible.

Earlier today, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy took to the Senate floor to blast the Republicans' refusal to allow the Senate to move on even noncontroversial judicial nominations:

Last year’s total was the fewest judicial nominees confirmed in the first year of a Presidency in more than 50 years. Those 12 Federal circuit and district court confirmations were even below the 17 the Senate Republican majority allowed to be confirmed in the 1996 session. After that presidential election year, Chief Justice Rehnquist began criticizing the pace of judicial confirmations and the partisan Republican tactics.

Among the frustrations is that Senate Republicans have delayed and obstructed nominees chosen after consultation with Republican home state Senators. Despite President Obama’s efforts, Senate Republicans have treated his nominees much, much worse.

I noted when the Senate considered the nominations of Judge Christina Reiss of Vermont and Mr. Abdul Kallon of Alabama relatively promptly that they should serve as the model for Senate action. Sadly, they are the exception rather than the model. They show what the Senate could do, but does not. Time and again, noncontroversial nominees are delayed. When the Senate does finally consider them, they are confirmed overwhelmingly. Of the 15 Federal circuit and district court judges confirmed, twelve have been confirmed unanimously.

That is right. Republicans have only voted against three of President Obama's nominees to the Federal circuit and district courts. One of those, Judge Gerry Lynch of the Second Circuit, garnered only three negative votes and 94 votes in favor. Judge Andre Davis of Maryland was stalled for months and then confirmed with 72 votes in favor and only 16 against. Judge David Hamilton was filibustered in a failed effort to prevent an up-or-down vote.

The obstruction and delay is part of a partisan pattern. Even when they cannot say “no,” Republicans nonetheless demand that the Senate go slow. The practice is continuing. This is the 17th filibuster of President Obama's nominees. That does not count the many other nominees who were delayed or are being denied up-or-down votes by Senate Republicans refusing to agree to time agreements to consider even noncontroversial nominees.
Update: Keenan was confirmed by the same margin: 99-0. So why was the cloture vote even necessary when not one Republican voted against it or her confirmation?
Obstruction for Obstruction's Sake


That's the point. Today's Republicans obstruct even obviously good ideas. Which was the point of this thread before the obfuscationists tried to derail it. Well here it is, back on track:
Lockheed Martin, the nation’s largest contractor, has already got more than $19 billion in federal contracts so far this year. But we know very little about Lockheed Martin’s political spending other than its Political Action Committee contributions. We don’t know how much money it gives to the Aerospace Industries Association to lobby for a bigger defense budget.

We don’t even know how much Lockheed is giving the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to lobby against Obama’s proposed executive order requiring disclosure of its political activities.

Don’t we have a right to know? After all, you and I and other taxpayers are Lockheed’s biggest customer. As such, we’re financing some of its lobbying and political activities.

Lockheed’s lobbying and political activities are built into its cost structure. So when Lockheed contracts with the federal government for a piece of military equipment, you and I end up paying for a portion of its political costs.

It’s one of the most insidious conflicts of interest in American politics.

Now, in the wake of the grotesque Supreme Court decision, Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission, there’s no limit on what Lockheed can spend on politics.

That’s why the President should go the next step and ban Lockheed and all other government contractors that get more than half their revenues from government from engaging in any political activities at all.

Otherwise, you and I and other taxpayers indirectly pay for Lockheed and Northrop Grumman to lobby for a larger military budget and support politicians who will vote for it.

We indirectly pay for Blackwater to lobby for – and support politicians who will demand – more use of contract workers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We indirectly pay for Raytheon and General Dynamics to lobby for, and support politicians who will push for, more high-tech weapons systems.

And so on.
...
Taxpayers fund corporate lobbying for more taxpayer expenditure. Again and again, Republicans prove they are just fine with these kind of conflict of interest and government waste.
freesw is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2011, 15:48   #11
Full Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: East Texas
Posts: 786
Check back and see how the democrats used the filibuster on all the Bush judicial appointments. this is pot calling the kettle black. both sides do it.
maydelleeagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2011, 16:17   #12
Full Member
 
freesw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Circus of the Americas
Posts: 34,146
Originally Posted by maydelleeagle View Post
Check back and see how the democrats used the filibuster on all the Bush judicial appointments.
B.S.

From 2005:
Q: How many of President Bush's nominees have been kept waiting? How many have been confirmed?

The president's nominees to the district court level of the federal system have not been blocked. The conflict has come at the next level, the appeals court level, which is the intermediary step between trial courts and the U.S. Supreme Court. President Bush has had 57 nominees for the U.S. Court of Appeals. Five never received hearings. Of the 52 who did, 42 have been confirmed, but 10 were blocked by Democrats' use of the filibuster to prevent a floor vote. Three of these nominees subsequently withdrew from consideration, but seven others have returned for renomination in the current Congress.
Primer: Judicial Nominees and the Senate Filibuster : NPR

Your post is a perfect example of the harm done to the political process by right wing media, who just don't care about the facts. I'm sure you believe what you posted, but you were wrong, and I have to believe it's because your sources for information intentionally deceive you.

More facts: Enough Democrats and Republicans agreed this had gone too far by 2005 that they were able to put an end to it. Until Obama became president, and Republicans (with a few honorable exceptions such as Lindsey Graham) reverted to form.

Republicans have been much, much worse than Democrats in this regard.
Judicial Filibusters: Who Started It? And Why Does It Matter? The Reality-Based Community
freesw is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2011, 16:20   #13
Full Member
 
bmcgilvray's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,342
"...your sources for information intentionally deceive you."

This is rich, coming from you. As if your sources don't deceive.
bmcgilvray is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2011, 16:53   #14
Full Member
 
freesw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Circus of the Americas
Posts: 34,146
Originally Posted by bmcgilvray View Post
"...your sources for information intentionally deceive you."

This is rich, coming from you. As if your sources don't deceive.
The BIG difference? I'm specific. I provide sources to back my claims, and when challenged on them, can provide sound reasons why it's a reliable source or, often as not, provide corroborating sources from legitimate news outlets or informational or government sources. This is not to say conservatives here don't sometimes do the same. But I do note that just now you made an unsubstantiated sweeping claim that's untrue. There is a difference. A BIG difference. False claims of equivalence are very obvious when there's this much difference.

Another BIG difference -- I'm not so quick to rely on my memory before stating a claim. I DON"T WANT to pass on misinformation, so if I have any doubt about what I'm about to post, I look it up first to be sure what I'm about to post is accurate. For example, though I was 99% sure the claim about Democrats using the filibuster on all the Bush judicial appointments was not just wrong but very wrong, I wanted to make sure before disputing it. Once I began reading about it, from several sources, I was reminded of what I'd earlier known, the bipartisan agreement that held during the second Bush administration.
freesw is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2011, 17:31   #15
Full Member
 
freesw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Circus of the Americas
Posts: 34,146
Talk about screwed up priorities:
Friday, June 17, 2011

Congress has been talking a great game about restoring fiscal sanity to the federal budget but actually doing so is proving truly difficult, especially if the budgetary changes affect favored interests — the farm lobby, for example.

In the House, Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., who really is serious about wasteful spending, often to the annoyance of his party, attempted to cut $167 million in payments that go to farmers earning as much as $750,000 annually regardless of crop prices or yield.

The cuts were approved on a bipartisan basis by the House Appropriations Committee but farm state lawmakers persuaded the GOP leadership to adopt a rule allowing a single lawmaker to block the cuts.

Left standing was a plan to cut $685 million, about 10 percent, in food aid to low-income mothers and their children
.
...

Rep. Flake also was thwarted in his plan to use the savings from the direct farm payments to fund a $147 million annual payment that the World Trade Organization ordered the U.S. to pay to Brazil because of the heavy subsidies we extend to our own cotton farmers.

Meanwhile, the cause of fiscal sanity was faring only slightly better in the Senate where Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., failed to get the 60 votes he needed to override a filibuster of his bill to kill almost $6 billion in wasteful and economically disruptive ethanol subsidies.

On the bright side, he did persuade 34 of 47 Republican senators to defy Grover Norquist, an anti-tax advocate much feared within the GOP, voting to bring Sen. Coburn's bill to a vote. Mr. Norquist insists that closing any loopholes in the tax code, no matter how undeserved, and ending any subsidy, no matter how wasteful, is effectively a tax increase.

Spending cuts will get us only so far in cutting the deficit. Sometime Congress will have to address the revenue side of the equation, whether through a loophole-closing, exemption-ending overhaul of the tax code or raising taxes on those who can afford it, maybe both.
Editorial: Failed attack on farm subsidies Ventura County Star
freesw is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2011, 17:49   #16
Full Member
 
bmcgilvray's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,342
You have to compulsively "prove" everything about the claims you make in your posts to the point that you appear unsure of yourself.

Of course I would be too considering your choice of sources. I don't care a whit what you post or link. I understand morality and the concept of right and wrong. It's your leftest ideology that is faulty.

You seem to feel that if you can offer enough of what you consider as "proofs" that you will be "right" and will have won. Don't know what you win because you aren't winning the hearts and minds of thoughtful folks.
bmcgilvray is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2011, 17:57   #17
Full Member
 
freesw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Circus of the Americas
Posts: 34,146
Originally Posted by bmcgilvray View Post
You have to compulsively "prove" everything about the claims you make in your posts to the point that you appear unsure of yourself.
Hardly, and you're just flip-flopping. Do truth and accuracy matter to you or not?

Originally Posted by bmcgilvray View Post
I understand morality and the concept of right and wrong.
Then prove it by not being an apologist for dishonest propaganda and bad policies.

Originally Posted by bmcgilvray View Post
It's your leftest ideology that is faulty.
I have no such "ideology."

Originally Posted by bmcgilvray View Post
Don't know what you win because you aren't winning the hearts and minds of thoughtful folks.
I'll leave determining who is thoughtful here up to others. By now, your opinion in that regard doesn't matter.


Some of you right wingers sure are intent on trying to distract from the issue at hand, that congressional Republicans and Republicans generally aren't the least bit interested in cutting some of the most expensive and wasteful government spending of all.
freesw is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2011, 18:20   #18
Full Member
 
bmcgilvray's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,342
There is one thing about you Freesw, you always have a snappy come-back.
bmcgilvray is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2011, 18:23   #19
Full Member
 
Dirty Harry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 7,488
Putting a stop to any further tax increases in and of it'self is a form of controlling government waste, which is what the republicans are trying to do now. They are also trying to keep the democraps from raising the debt ceiling so they can recklessly blow another 2 trillion, this is yet an additional measure to control government waste.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Anyone who says he can see through women is missing a lot.
Groucho Marx
Dirty Harry is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 15:48.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
All information is copyright by Perfectunion.com unless already under copyright.