Biscuit
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2007
- Messages
- 6,929
Well has it?
Well hasn't it? The question was if you think the government doesn't have to accomplish anything?
The rest of your post was fascinating but not germane.
Well has it?
I think that would be a bad idea. All those folks collecting their pension will be devastated to find out what is happening to them.
Cutting military spending when there's a war on will be very difficult indeed.
Never mind homeland security spending and so on.....
Oversimplifying the position like that doesn't help at all
Too bad the GOP has a dogmatic object to increasing revenues or letting the Bush tax cuts ever expire.
When you see a business cut every department by a fixed percentage, it's a sign that management is clueless or lazy. Instead of determining what parts of their business are critical, what is redundant, and what parts are already being run efficiently, they take take the easy way out.
The dogmatic objection seems to extend to government as a whole. Government seems to be able to do no good and only makes life worse in their eyes.
It's like they want us to fail.
There is an exception. You seldom see the GOP complain about the military being inefficient or having a bloated budget. But if you look at the current budget, you will find funding for weapons systems that the Pentagon itself doesn't want or need.
That is, they are pork-barrel for one or more congressperson(s).There is an exception. You seldom see the GOP complain about the military being inefficient or having a bloated budget. But if you look at the current budget, you will find funding for weapons systems that the Pentagon itself doesn't want or need.
Not until a Democratic president got into office. Now you're seeing more and more Republicans against military spending. It's odd to see Democrats and Republicans on the same side on that issue.
-Bri
These are only a handful of examples of hundreds of appointments that cost money. Each one by themselves has little impact on the total budget but if we were to add up all of the useless and redundant departments, eliminate the costs, we will work towards eliminating the deficit.
Do we really need these agencies and/or commissions?
... and one of the most incompetent agencies Bureau of the Public Debt

I'm guessing that they add up to a miniscule percentage of the budget.
-Bri
I even heard one say (I kid you not) that the Military was more efficient under Bush, and that all of its deficits have happened only since Obama took office.
That is, they are pork-barrel for one or more congressperson(s).
And now the bankers have weighed in- default OR downgrade will be an economic disaster. They say it will raise all consumer debt that is variable rate including mortgages and credit cards.
I know how I would run against the GOP next year; "Have your credit card payments gone up? You can thank a Republican Congressman."
We outnumber the rich when people are counted, but politicians seem to count dollars instead.
This is the agency that manages selling, paying interest and redemption of US government securities. They didn't create the debt, they are just doing the job of managing it.
Yes, there are probably government agencies we can do without. The job of deciding which requires looking at the details and understanding exactly what function they perform. It's a lot harder than just doing a shot from the hip based on the agencies title.
unfortunately there are still millions, despite ALL evidence to the contrary (and all you have to do is look at posters in this thread) who still believe in the mem of strickle down who will take up arms against you to protect those who are raping ind pillaging this country.
Shows how much you know about geographical dispersion of aircraft parts, number of parts, and required redundancy for many....your claim of pork is not supported by such facts.Yup.
The greatest example of this was the B1 Bomber. It has been reported that there was at least one contractor building parts in each of the 435 Congressional districts.