[quote=“AWDrifter,post:20,topic:38687"”]
How about Springville Mfg. Co., Inc.?
Yeah, I guess we would have been better off without making parts for the military.
Yeah, I like military contracts because they are the only ones that I don’t have to compete with China for.
Ask my employees if they would rather have been laid-off.
[/quote]
awesome. i am so happy that this war has brought you business as well…
[quote=“Joe,post:19,topic:38687"”]
Yet, completely seperate from the shit for war, bush signed a $470 billion dollar bill for defense into law. How much of that do you think was “pork”? Congress, as a whole, has low approval ratings because they are in a tough spot. They have enough votes to pass what they want, but only with presidential approval. Most of the shit they try to pass, a lot of which would actually do good things for this country, has no chance in hell of getting by cowboy george. Overriding a veto, for either side, is always difficult. And george has a lot of balls mocking spending habits when, in his first term, he took our country from its biggest surplus in history to its biggest deficit, and is only making it worse now.
[/quote]
Yeah, defense spending is bad, Clinton proved the best way to make us safer is to cut defense spending.
You make it sound like Bush didn’t want to spend any of that money in the domestic spending bill. Maybe if you got your news from somewhere other than the New York Times and their affiliates you’d see this:
— a 20 percent increase over Bush’s request for job training programs.
— $1.4 billion more than Bush’s request for health research at the National Institutes of Health, a 5 percent increase.
— $2.4 billion for heating subsidies for the poor, $480 million more than Bush requested.
— $665 million for grants to community action agencies; Bush sought to kill the program outright.
— $63.6 billion for the Education Department, a 5 percent increase over 2007 spending and 8 percent more than Bush sought.
— a $225 million increase for community health centers.
That was from Fox by the way. Wow, they presented both sides, but they’re the “unbalanced” one. :rolljerk:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311219,00.html
Bush’s budget had much of the spending already included for these programs you think will help the country, but your democrats have to tack on extra dollars like tax and spend democrats always do.
Defense spending is out of control. We’re certainly LESS safe now than we were before 9/11.
Could 9/11 really have been prevented with more defense spending? I really doubt it. Bureaucracy in the CIA/FBI/etc… is the reason 9/11 was able to be carried out, not lack of missile systems.
The war in Iraq has been a massive waste of time, money and American lives. It’s money that certainly would have been better NOT spent. It’s money we don’t have. For EVERY other war EVER there was a tax increase to pay for it. For this war, there was a tax cut and a future’s worth of cash borrowed. The only Americans who have had to sacrifice for this war have been military families, and that’s just not right.
When it comes to “pork” spending, sorry but welcome to politics. Congress is elected to deliver for their constituents. Just like Higgins is getting WNY money for the waterfront, it’s the name of the game. Domestic spending wouldn’t even be an issue if we haven’t already bankrupted America.
But I agree with Bush here, he should veto this bill. It’ll be a stand against debt spending. In fact I don’t think a single spending bill should be authorized for ANY PURPOSE unless it can be paid for in cash. So I guess we’re not spending any money for the next couple decades. Excess spending and willingness to create massive debts for future generations should cripple America immediately.
It’s time the disaster this administration and everyone else in Washington has caused catches up with the people who elected them. It’s time to increase the federal income tax rate by 20% until we’re out of debt. Get back to zero, then we can talk about tax cuts and defense spending and war and health care and interest rates.
People talk about responsible government, maybe we need to talk about responsible citizens. If you’re not willing to pay for something TODAY, don’t elect someone who wants to spend tomorrows money.
The selfishness of Americans today is absolutely appalling. As long as you have an extra $1,500 a year from a tax cut you don’t care how much debt the government who gave it to you is in.
Am I the only one that thinks that funding education is one of the best ways the government could spend its money? If more young people can afford to go to college we might stand a fighting chance of maintaining our current quality of life for another generation. Especially the sciences, so that we can develop new things that we can sell to the world.
Welfare is full of the uneducated that either never made a living for themselves or that planned on working in a factory that got sent overseas. If more people get educated and can trade their skills for a living rather than demand that the government hand them a living there would be less of a burden on the rest of us producers.
I guess I’m making the assumption that spending government money on education will result in a more educated population.
[quote=“JayS,post:22,topic:38687"”]
tax and spend democrats always do.
[/quote]
tax and spend > not tax and spend
[quote=“JoesTypeS,post:25,topic:38687"”]
tax and spend > not tax and spend
[/quote]
True. I’d rather see us cut spending considerably.
[quote=“Fry,post:24,topic:38687"”]
Am I the only one that thinks that funding education is one of the best ways the government could spend its money? If more young people can afford to go to college we might stand a fighting chance of maintaining our current quality of life for another generation. Especially the sciences, so that we can develop new things that we can sell to the world.
Welfare is full of the uneducated that either never made a living for themselves or that planned on working in a factory that got sent overseas. If more people get educated and can trade their skills for a living rather than demand that the government hand them a living there would be less of a burden on the rest of us producers.
I guess I’m making the assumption that spending government money on education will result in a more educated population.
[/quote]
Welfare is caused by jobs going over seas/south of the border.
It is immpossible to have a society (as large as The USA) of all highly educated people succeed.
It is unrealistic to think that if Eminiem had a better education he could be a scientific researcher.
The Hoover Dam project created tons of jobs for people, maybe we need another project like that.
But why would anyone work on the new project when they can just get welfare for doing nothing?
(These are just ramdom thoughts)
[quote=“AWDrifter,post:27,topic:38687"”]
Welfare is caused by jobs going over seas/south of the border.
It is immpossible to have a society (as large as The USA) of all highly educated people succeed.
It is unrealistic to think that if Eminiem had a better education he could be a scientific researcher.
The Hoover Dam project created tons of jobs for people, maybe we need another project like that.
But why would anyone work on the new project when they can just get welfare for doing nothing?
(These are just ramdom thoughts)
[/quote]
Yes because welfare pays good money :bloated:
[quote=“Fry,post:24,topic:38687"”]
Am I the only one that thinks that funding education is one of the best ways the government could spend its money? If more young people can afford to go to college we might stand a fighting chance of maintaining our current quality of life for another generation. Especially the sciences, so that we can develop new things that we can sell to the world.
Welfare is full of the uneducated that either never made a living for themselves or that planned on working in a factory that got sent overseas. If more people get educated and can trade their skills for a living rather than demand that the government hand them a living there would be less of a burden on the rest of us producers.
I guess I’m making the assumption that spending government money on education will result in a more educated population.
[/quote]
I agree totally with you, my view might be biased because i’m majoring in tech education, but still, why would u NOT want to spend money on improving the lives and intelligence of the younger generations? The fact that war overweighs education in our country seems to show how wrong we’ve set our priorities…while we spend the trillions on this war, other countries such as india and china are improving education and knocking us out of the social and economic picture when it comes to higher education.
/my 2 cents.
It just seems like spending money on education is an investment, something that could give future value back.
And yeah AWDrifter I agree that higher education won’t create a nation full of upper class, but it’s the only fighting chance we have to maintain a middle class. A BS is the new minimum to be able to offer enough value in this country to make a middle class wage.
My grandparents had 8th grade educations and were middle class farmers. My parents have associates degrees and are middle class. I have a BS and will have an MBA and I have absolutely no guarantee to be anything but middle class. Granted upper class is possible, but engineers with MBA’s are getting to be a dime a dozen.
Tax money pays for K-12 now. But a high school diploma and a dollar won’t even get you a cup of coffee anymore. Granted the dollars probably aren’t there, but maybe in some form it would be prudent for the government to make higher education more accessible so that we have a shot at having less of the current/next generation on welfare. All the jobs that could be done by trained monkeys are overseas being done by people who will work for less.
If the next generation wants a piece of the first world pie, they need a good education.