The excessive government spending thread (1 Viewer)

BuffaloSaint

Hall-of-Famer
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jul 8, 2001
Messages
4,671
Reaction score
3,975
Age
42
Location
Savannah, GA
Offline
I'm thinking this could be a place to put reports of just over the top wasteful government spending.

I'll start it off.

Orrin Hatch Defends Costly Amgen Provision In Fiscal Cliff Deal

The last paragraph should be the second paragraph of the story in my opinion.

At least 22 of Amgen's hired lobbyists previously worked in the Senate and one, Jeff Forbes, worked for Baucus. The Montana senator has been the second largest recipient of Amgen cash since 2008, pulling in $68,750. Hatch has made $61,400 over that time period. Shannon Finley, Baucus' former political director, also lobbies for Amgen.
 

J-Donk

Hall-of-Famer
VIP Subscribing Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
3,389
Reaction score
3,688
Offline
Austerity is dead. The emerging economic models involve social liberal democracies with mod tax policies, and high social safety nets.


Quite frankly you're going the wrong direction, and have no proof that what you are doing helps. We do have evidence that drastic cuts beside the military cuts already coming will hurt, hurt a lot.

The decline of the GOP happened because the (growing)majority no longer buys what the GOP is selling. It's a different world. The base needs to move the left. Why are you resisting this so hard?
 

dtc

VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 26, 2006
Messages
29,298
Reaction score
28,320
Location
Redneck Riviera
Offline
Austerity is dead. The emerging economic models involve social liberal democracies with mod tax policies, and high social safety nets.


Quite frankly you're going the wrong direction, and have no proof that what you are doing helps. We do have evidence that drastic cuts beside the military cuts already coming will hurt, hurt a lot.

The decline of the GOP happened because the (growing)majority no longer buys what the GOP is selling. It's a different world. The base needs to move the left. Why are you resisting this so hard?
If ever there were proof that supply side economics was a sham, it should have been the Bush economic crash. Big tax cuts to the rich led to nothing more than the near collapse of the whole economy and did nothing to create jobs or increase the wealth of the middle class. The deficit and debt under Bush increased due to a refusal to tax enough to pay the bills for investments in war and the reduced revenue caused by tax cuts.

The notion that the solution to the economy's problems is as simple as more tax cuts and massive spending cuts is asinine, yet there are still those who preach it.

Yes, some tax cuts will lead to growth in the economy, but those are not cuts which encourage wealth accumulation. Cuts which lead to economic growth and stimulates the creation of wealth among the middle class is key, but the will on the right to use their intentional destruction of government as proof in their argument that government and taxes are the problem stands in the face of all evidence.

Historically, the greatest economic expansion has taken place during periods of higher taxes on the highest earners and followed investment and technological advancement due at least in part and often in whole to government spending.
 

jasonl55

Subscribing Member
VIP Subscribing Member
Joined
May 9, 2002
Messages
1,928
Reaction score
207
Age
44
Offline
At some point you quit talking about growing the economy and start talking about saving the country. We are broke and at this rate we will no longer have a viable system of government in 15 years unless we take back spending controls. I may be the most conservative person I know but I am all for increases taxes on EVERYBODY. It's time this country started to realize that if you make $25,000 a year you don't have to have a big screen TV and cell phone. Live within your means and sometimes that means going without!!!!
 

tjharris

ALL-MADDEN TEAM
Joined
Mar 4, 2008
Messages
2,226
Reaction score
2,025
Location
Metry
Offline
I love how Republicans blame the Democrats and Democrats blame the Republicans. Yet anyone with half a brain can tell one is just as bad as the other, only the rhetoric changes.
 
OP
BuffaloSaint

BuffaloSaint

Hall-of-Famer
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jul 8, 2001
Messages
4,671
Reaction score
3,975
Age
42
Location
Savannah, GA
Offline
Austerity is dead. The emerging economic models involve social liberal democracies with mod tax policies, and high social safety nets.


Quite frankly you're going the wrong direction, and have no proof that what you are doing helps. We do have evidence that drastic cuts beside the military cuts already coming will hurt, hurt a lot.

The decline of the GOP happened because the (growing)majority no longer buys what the GOP is selling. It's a different world. The base needs to move the left. Why are you resisting this so hard?
Well I'm pretty liberal but that does not mean the government doesn't spend money that it doesn't have to. In my opinion this is 500 million that doesn't need to be spent. It's corporate welfare sponsored by Senators that are bought and paid for. One on each side of the aisle.
 

Mr. Sparkle

Disrespectful to dirt
Joined
Mar 5, 2002
Messages
12,198
Reaction score
10,793
Offline
Olmsted Lock and Dam on the Ohio River.

It's a critical piece of infrastructure and was authorized to be replaced in 1988, with an expected cost of $775 million and 7 year construction period.

15 years later, it's now expected to cost over $3 billion and take another 10 years to complete, mostly because the Corps decided to try a new "in the wet" construction method and refuses to acknowledge that it doesnt work.

Meanwhile, Panama is set to complete their new set of canal locks (about 6 times the size of Olmsted) on budget and ahead of schedule.

WCI Laments $800M Cost Overrun at Olmsted Lock &

http://www.courier-journal.com/arti...am-project-considered-essential-river-traffic
 

J-Donk

Hall-of-Famer
VIP Subscribing Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
3,389
Reaction score
3,688
Offline
If ever there were proof that supply side economics was a sham, it should have been the Bush economic crash. Big tax cuts to the rich led to nothing more than the near collapse of the whole economy and did nothing to create jobs or increase the wealth of the middle class. The deficit and debt under Bush increased due to a refusal to tax enough to pay the bills for investments in war and the reduced revenue caused by tax cuts.

The notion that the solution to the economy's problems is as simple as more tax cuts and massive spending cuts is asinine, yet there are still those who preach it.

Yes, some tax cuts will lead to growth in the economy, but those are not cuts which encourage wealth accumulation. Cuts which lead to economic growth and stimulates the creation of wealth among the middle class is key, but the will on the right to use their intentional destruction of government as proof in their argument that government and taxes are the problem stands in the face of all evidence.

Historically, the greatest economic expansion has taken place during periods of higher taxes on the highest earners and followed investment and technological advancement due at least in part and often in whole to government spending.
I am ok with some cuts, but that is not a populist position is my main point. There is no proof that austerity works beyond balancing your budget. So the question becomes why cut anything that isn't wasteful? The majority of Americans think taxes should STILL go up on the rich. Clearly there hasn't been enough blood let out of the rock yet to the American public.. That point can't be said enough. The MAJORITY still want taxes to go UP NOT CUTS. It's clear people like a social safety net.

P.S. Also there is no crisis. SS is fine. You can simply raise the age, or bump our new tax bracket up to 50% tax rate. Very simple things can be done. There is no reason to panic, or have any fear about the situation. That's a conservative thing fear mongering tactic.
 

Ken-Bob

Super Forum Fanatic
Joined
May 10, 1997
Messages
7,833
Reaction score
1,878
Age
61
Offline
I'm going to throw a monkey wrench into this argument. I agree that there is wasteful spending and the OP is an excellent example of such. But the real downside of wasteful spending, IMO, is that there are a great many items that don't get funded and that can (and does) lead to serious failures in infrastructure that hurt the economy as much or more than almost anything else. Perfect examples are the failure of the federal government to spend money on upgrading infrastructure for the New Orleans levees and pumping systems prior to Katrina and the failure to upgrade the infrastructure of the bridge that failed in Minneapolis a few years back. But just as bad are the failures to fund new initiatives that could give our country a greater competitive edge in the global economy (research, education, transportation, energy, etc.).

So, what I'm saying is that we don't necessarily need cuts in overall spending - we need an adjustment of where we spend the money we do spend.
 

dtc

VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 26, 2006
Messages
29,298
Reaction score
28,320
Location
Redneck Riviera
Offline
I am ok with some cuts, but that is not a populist position is my main point. There is no proof that austerity works beyond balancing your budget. So the question becomes why cut anything that isn't wasteful? The majority of Americans think taxes should STILL go up on the rich. Clearly there hasn't been enough blood let out of the rock yet to the American public.. That point can't be said enough. The MAJORITY still want taxes to go UP NOT CUTS. It's clear people like a social safety net.

P.S. Also there is no crisis. SS is fine. You can simply raise the age, or bump our new tax bracket up to 50% tax rate. Very simple things can be done. There is no reason to panic, or have any fear about the situation. That's a conservative thing fear mongering tactic.
Well, there is a need to panic, but it's nothing that killing PBS or Planned Parenthood is going to address.

There is an upcoming problem with medicare and medicaid and there is a point where the burden of federal debt is too much. And, that point is coming faster rather than slower so it needs to be addressed.

The problem with the cut taxes = stimulate the economy argument is that the taxes they seek to cut are for the rich and have been proven to be less effective than other measures.
 

dtc

VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 26, 2006
Messages
29,298
Reaction score
28,320
Location
Redneck Riviera
Offline
I'm going to throw a monkey wrench into this argument. I agree that there is wasteful spending and the OP is an excellent example of such. But the real downside of wasteful spending, IMO, is that there are a great many items that don't get funded and that can (and does) lead to serious failures in infrastructure that hurt the economy as much or more than almost anything else. Perfect examples are the failure of the federal government to spend money on upgrading infrastructure for the New Orleans levees and pumping systems prior to Katrina and the failure to upgrade the infrastructure of the bridge that failed in Minneapolis a few years back. But just as bad are the failures to fund new initiatives that could give our country a greater competitive edge in the global economy (research, education, transportation, energy, etc.).

So, what I'm saying is that we don't necessarily need cuts in overall spending - we need an adjustment of where we spend the money we do spend.
Well, I see your point, but I disagree. We do need to cut spending. We need to cut the amount we spend on defense drastically. We need to cut what you'd call tax expenditures drastically and though the net affect of nominal tax rates coupled to reforming the code as suggested by Romney, etal, is not a solution or cure for anything, it is a good idea and if revenue positive could be useful. Even an end to corporate taxes is fine as long as the shortfalls don't fall on the poor and middle classes and cause a retardation of economic growth which is, despite all the Republican claims to the contrary, founded upon a healthy and growing middle class.
 

superchuck500

guarding the potatoes
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Diamond VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
56,744
Reaction score
85,199
Location
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Offline
The GAO concluded last year that the US Government can save billions annually by simply eliminating the duplication of services. In other words, eliminate duplication where agencies are doing the same thing.

Yet, I haven't heard anyone in government or on the campaign trail mention this. It's far more political to talk about which programs are bad depending your point of view. In the private sector, the first thing a business looks for is ways to streamline - avoid unnecessary spending and duplication of efforts.

I wish someone would make a real effort in this area. It could be big savings without, theoretically, eliminating anything the Government does.
 
OP
BuffaloSaint

BuffaloSaint

Hall-of-Famer
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jul 8, 2001
Messages
4,671
Reaction score
3,975
Age
42
Location
Savannah, GA
Offline
The GAO concluded last year that the US Government can save billions annually by simply eliminating the duplication of services. In other words, eliminate duplication where agencies are doing the same thing.

Yet, I haven't heard anyone in government or on the campaign trail mention this. It's far more political to talk about which programs are bad depending your point of view. In the private sector, the first thing a business looks for is ways to streamline - avoid unnecessary spending and duplication of efforts.

I wish someone would make a real effort in this area. It could be big savings without, theoretically, eliminating anything the Government does.
Obama seeks more power to merge agencies, streamline government - The Washington Post
 

Geldo

Dome Patrol disciple
VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 23, 2007
Messages
3,769
Reaction score
3,264
Location
Trapped inside Salma Hayek's she-harem
Offline
I love how Republicans blame the Democrats and Democrats blame the Republicans. Yet anyone with half a brain can tell one is just as bad as the other, only the rhetoric changes.
Well one serves the oil companies, the other the bankers so you do have a bit of choice. Vote Oil or Vote Finance.

Of course neither party cares a damn about the humble voter because you don't own a newspaper, you don't make 500,000 dollar donations for kickbacks, and you don't belong to the billionaire boys club.

I guess it would be churlish to point out that the very rare times governments actually do something to improve the lives of their common people is when they fear a Communist revolution and a complete loss of power. That's why FDR brought in the New Deal, why Churchill didn't overturn the NHS reforms etc

Long live meaningless two-party cartel democracy - because whoever wins you lose and the elite laughs at you for caring who won - they won!
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)



Headlines

Top Bottom