ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

More Government Spending...

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46331

Report this Sep. 20 2011, 4:16 pm

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/20/taxpayers-foot-bill-justice-department-16-muffins/


$16 / muffin


$76 / lunch


$1 / ounce for coffee


32-per-person snack break consisting of Cracker Jacks, popcorn and candy bars


$7.32 Beef Wellington hors d’oeuvres


$10 cookies


$5 Swedish meatballs


 


Oh... and there's more..... (the above was just the small stuff...)  And people don't think that spending is an issue in the government?


Invader_Wishfire

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 27518

Report this Sep. 20 2011, 5:08 pm

Just goes to show that a Republican government is just as wasteful as a Democrat government.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46331

Report this Sep. 20 2011, 5:11 pm

Quote: Invader_Wishfire @ Sep. 20 2011, 5:08 pm

>

>Just goes to show that a Republican government is just as wasteful as a Democrat government.

>
Absolutely agree.


caltrek2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2654

Report this Sep. 20 2011, 6:37 pm

WHile overspending in the Justice Department is certainly not desirable, you are really missing the big enchilada: defense spending:


"the average cost overrun on defense acquisition contracts is 40 percent [12:4]. Cost data on defense contracts are regularly reported on cost management reports prepared by defense contractors. These reports


include the Cost Performance Report (CPR) and the Cost/Schedule Status Report. Department of Defense Instruction 5000.2 requires a CPR on all contracts judged significant enough for Cost/Schedule Control Systems


Criteria (C/SCSC). Significant contracts are research, evaluation, test, and development contracts with estimated costs of $60 million or more, or procurement contracts with estimated costs of $250 million or more [11, p. 11B2].



Thus, a 40 percent cost overrun on a procurement contract that barely qualifies as significant is at least $100 million dollars."


 


 http://www.suu.edu/faculty/christensend/evms/An%20Analysis%20of%20Cost%20Overruns%20On%20Defense%20Contracts.pdf


 

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46331

Report this Sep. 20 2011, 6:46 pm

Ah... yes, the "big enchilada" - defense spending....  Progressives always have to complain about that, even though defense is a Constitutionally mandated responsibility to the Federal government.  You didn't disappoint me that it made the first page....  (Although I doubt it, it does make it sound like you hate the military's role in defending the USA.)


So I'll counter with the real "big enchilada" - at 60% of all Federal spending..... unConstitutional ENTITLEMENTS.  100% is waste!


 


Now, should the government spend money like they were poor and had to actually be accountable for it?  Absolutely!  What's really cool is that DoD is moving many of their contracts to Firm Fixed Price (FFP), which puts the onus on the contractor so that they can't just bill time & materials as long as they want.


Dralek

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 224

Report this Sep. 21 2011, 8:13 am

Someone who wastes $32 on a snack has little in common with, and in my opinion cannot realistically represent someone whose budget for a day or a week is $32. 


Our "representative" government is broken.  535 representatives (the House and Senate) for almost 300 million people.  That breaks down to one vote cast for a little over every 500,000 people.  The electoral college is a dinosaur that needs to be destroyed.  It made sense in the days of the Pony Express, but if I can video-chat with Thailand I don't need someone in Washington voting for me in presidential elections. 

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46331

Report this Sep. 21 2011, 10:51 am

Quote: Dralek @ Sep. 21 2011, 8:13 am

>

>Someone who wastes $32 on a snack has little in common with, and in my opinion cannot realistically represent someone whose budget for a day or a week is $32. 

>Our "representative" government is broken.  535 representatives (the House and Senate) for almost 300 million people.  That breaks down to one vote cast for a little over every 500,000 people.  The electoral college is a dinosaur that needs to be destroyed.  It made sense in the days of the Pony Express, but if I can video-chat with Thailand I don't need someone in Washington voting for me in presidential elections. 

>
There's been a lot of discussion about getting rid of the electoral college lately.  The problem with going with a popular vote is that all smaller populated areas can be completely ignored and the focus is basically the coastal areas.  Who cares about WY, SD, ND, MT, CO, ID, UT, etc. when CA alone outnumbers them all.


One of the ideas that I've seen recently is having each state's electoral votes would done based on the vote in each voting district of the state.  So if votiing district #1's popular vote gives the nod to Candidate X and voting district #2's popular vote gives the nod to Candidate Y, then the electoral college cast a vote for Candidate X and a vote for Candidate Y.  Of course, there would be two more votes per state, so those would be determined by the overall popular vote of the state.  The goal is to bring the Electoral College closer to the people.  (I haven't had time to study the pros/cons of this idea, so I don't have an opinion yet, but it is interesting and I think merits discussion.)


caltrek2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2654

Report this Sep. 22 2011, 4:49 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Sep. 20 2011, 6:46 pm

>

>Ah... yes, the "big enchilada" - defense spending....  Progressives always have to complain about that, even though defense is a Constitutionally mandated responsibility to the Federal government.  You didn't disappoint me that it made the first page....  (Although I doubt it, it does make it sound like you hate the military's role in defending the USA.)

>So I'll counter with the real "big enchilada" - at 60% of all Federal spending..... unConstitutional ENTITLEMENTS.  100% is waste!

>Now, should the government spend money like they were poor and had to actually be accountable for it?  Absolutely!  What's really cool is that DoD is moving many of their contracts to Firm Fixed Price (FFP), which puts the onus on the contractor so that they can't just bill time & materials as long as they want.

>


 


I do wish you would make up your mind about entitlements. Have most of them been earned by the payment of payroll taxes or haven't they?


I doubt that most seniors would consider social security to be 100% waste.


Hopefully, the feds will find ways to stop the big ripoffs within the Defense Department. Unlike your attitude about entitlements, I don't consider defense spending to be "100%...waste".  Much of what we spend on defense for homeland security is legitimate. We do need some capability of striking back at terrorists that are based in what use to be called Third World countries. I just suspect that we can provide all of that at a much lower cost than the price we now pay. 


As Americans, we sometimes suffer from too much pluribus and not enough unum. - Arthur Schelsinger, Jr.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46331

Report this Sep. 22 2011, 1:02 pm

Quote: caltrek2 @ Sep. 22 2011, 4:49 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Sep. 20 2011, 6:46 pm

>

>

>Ah... yes, the "big enchilada" - defense spending....  Progressives always have to complain about that, even though defense is a Constitutionally mandated responsibility to the Federal government.  You didn't disappoint me that it made the first page....  (Although I doubt it, it does make it sound like you hate the military's role in defending the USA.)

>So I'll counter with the real "big enchilada" - at 60% of all Federal spending..... unConstitutional ENTITLEMENTS.  100% is waste!

>Now, should the government spend money like they were poor and had to actually be accountable for it?  Absolutely!  What's really cool is that DoD is moving many of their contracts to Firm Fixed Price (FFP), which puts the onus on the contractor so that they can't just bill time & materials as long as they want.

>

 

I do wish you would make up your mind about entitlements. Have most of them been earned by the payment of payroll taxes or haven't they?

I doubt that most seniors would consider social security to be 100% waste.

Hopefully, the feds will find ways to stop the big ripoffs within the Defense Department. Unlike your attitude about entitlements, I don't consider defense spending to be "100%...waste".  Much of what we spend on defense for homeland security is legitimate. We do need some capability of striking back at terrorists that are based in what use to be called Third World countries. I just suspect that we can provide all of that at a much lower cost than the price we now pay. 

Make up my mind about entitlements?  When have I not been clear that they are unConstititutional and illogical???


And most seniors, if they would have been allowed to save their own money (instead of having it taken from them,) they'd have a lot more for their retirement than what the government is handing out now.


caltrek2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2654

Report this Sep. 22 2011, 5:41 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Sep. 22 2011, 1:02 pm

Quote: caltrek2 @ Sep. 22 2011, 4:49 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Sep. 20 2011, 6:46 pm

>

>

>

>Ah... yes, the "big enchilada" - defense spending....  Progressives always have to complain about that, even though defense is a Constitutionally mandated responsibility to the Federal government.  You didn't disappoint me that it made the first page....  (Although I doubt it, it does make it sound like you hate the military's role in defending the USA.)

>So I'll counter with the real "big enchilada" - at 60% of all Federal spending..... unConstitutional ENTITLEMENTS.  100% is waste!

>Now, should the government spend money like they were poor and had to actually be accountable for it?  Absolutely!  What's really cool is that DoD is moving many of their contracts to Firm Fixed Price (FFP), which puts the onus on the contractor so that they can't just bill time & materials as long as they want.

>

 

I do wish you would make up your mind about entitlements. Have most of them been earned by the payment of payroll taxes or haven't they?

I doubt that most seniors would consider social security to be 100% waste.

Hopefully, the feds will find ways to stop the big ripoffs within the Defense Department. Unlike your attitude about entitlements, I don't consider defense spending to be "100%...waste".  Much of what we spend on defense for homeland security is legitimate. We do need some capability of striking back at terrorists that are based in what use to be called Third World countries. I just suspect that we can provide all of that at a much lower cost than the price we now pay. 

Make up my mind about entitlements?  When have I not been clear that they are unConstititutional and illogical???

And most seniors, if they would have been allowed to save their own money (instead of having it taken from them,) they'd have a lot more for their retirement than what the government is handing out now.


A lot more?


Like 0% versus 100%?


Your standard, not mine.


 


As Americans, we sometimes suffer from too much pluribus and not enough unum. - Arthur Schelsinger, Jr.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46331

Report this Sep. 22 2011, 7:09 pm

Quote: caltrek2 @ Sep. 22 2011, 5:41 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Sep. 22 2011, 1:02 pm

Quote: caltrek2 @ Sep. 22 2011, 4:49 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Sep. 20 2011, 6:46 pm

>

>

>

>

>Ah... yes, the "big enchilada" - defense spending....  Progressives always have to complain about that, even though defense is a Constitutionally mandated responsibility to the Federal government.  You didn't disappoint me that it made the first page....  (Although I doubt it, it does make it sound like you hate the military's role in defending the USA.)

>So I'll counter with the real "big enchilada" - at 60% of all Federal spending..... unConstitutional ENTITLEMENTS.  100% is waste!

>Now, should the government spend money like they were poor and had to actually be accountable for it?  Absolutely!  What's really cool is that DoD is moving many of their contracts to Firm Fixed Price (FFP), which puts the onus on the contractor so that they can't just bill time & materials as long as they want.

>

 

I do wish you would make up your mind about entitlements. Have most of them been earned by the payment of payroll taxes or haven't they?

I doubt that most seniors would consider social security to be 100% waste.

Hopefully, the feds will find ways to stop the big ripoffs within the Defense Department. Unlike your attitude about entitlements, I don't consider defense spending to be "100%...waste".  Much of what we spend on defense for homeland security is legitimate. We do need some capability of striking back at terrorists that are based in what use to be called Third World countries. I just suspect that we can provide all of that at a much lower cost than the price we now pay. 

Make up my mind about entitlements?  When have I not been clear that they are unConstititutional and illogical???

And most seniors, if they would have been allowed to save their own money (instead of having it taken from them,) they'd have a lot more for their retirement than what the government is handing out now.

A lot more?

Like 0% versus 100%?

Your standard, not mine.

 

If a person was allowed to keep all that money that the government took for entitlements and invested it themselves, they'd have a lot more to show for it.  The math shows that I'm already making a negative rate of return (if the entitlement system even exists by the time I'm old enough.)  And I think that I've talked about here that I assisted in a study of this person's estate (he had just died and had, for whatever reason, kept all of his financial papers - we showed that if he had been allowed to keep all of the money taken for entitlements and invested it with the rest of his investments, at retirement, his nestegg would be many times the entitlements he did receive throughout his retirement years.


But for some reason, the term "personal responsibility" is equated to "hate" in the minds of ProRegressives.


But the government stealing my money to fund unConstitutional entitlement programs is "your standard, not mine"...


caltrek2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2654

Report this Sep. 23 2011, 4:31 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Sep. 22 2011, 7:09 pm

Quote: caltrek2 @ Sep. 22 2011, 5:41 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Sep. 22 2011, 1:02 pm

Quote: caltrek2 @ Sep. 22 2011, 4:49 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Sep. 20 2011, 6:46 pm

>

>

>

>

>

>Ah... yes, the "big enchilada" - defense spending....  Progressives always have to complain about that, even though defense is a Constitutionally mandated responsibility to the Federal government.  You didn't disappoint me that it made the first page....  (Although I doubt it, it does make it sound like you hate the military's role in defending the USA.)

>So I'll counter with the real "big enchilada" - at 60% of all Federal spending..... unConstitutional ENTITLEMENTS.  100% is waste!

>Now, should the government spend money like they were poor and had to actually be accountable for it?  Absolutely!  What's really cool is that DoD is moving many of their contracts to Firm Fixed Price (FFP), which puts the onus on the contractor so that they can't just bill time & materials as long as they want.

>

 

I do wish you would make up your mind about entitlements. Have most of them been earned by the payment of payroll taxes or haven't they?

I doubt that most seniors would consider social security to be 100% waste.

Hopefully, the feds will find ways to stop the big ripoffs within the Defense Department. Unlike your attitude about entitlements, I don't consider defense spending to be "100%...waste".  Much of what we spend on defense for homeland security is legitimate. We do need some capability of striking back at terrorists that are based in what use to be called Third World countries. I just suspect that we can provide all of that at a much lower cost than the price we now pay. 

Make up my mind about entitlements?  When have I not been clear that they are unConstititutional and illogical???

And most seniors, if they would have been allowed to save their own money (instead of having it taken from them,) they'd have a lot more for their retirement than what the government is handing out now.

A lot more?

Like 0% versus 100%?

Your standard, not mine.

 

If a person was allowed to keep all that money that the government took for entitlements and invested it themselves, they'd have a lot more to show for it.  The math shows that I'm already making a negative rate of return (if the entitlement system even exists by the time I'm old enough.)  And I think that I've talked about here that I assisted in a study of this person's estate (he had just died and had, for whatever reason, kept all of his financial papers - we showed that if he had been allowed to keep all of the money taken for entitlements and invested it with the rest of his investments, at retirement, his nestegg would be many times the entitlements he did receive throughout his retirement years.

But for some reason, the term "personal responsibility" is equated to "hate" in the minds of ProRegressives.

But the government stealing my money to fund unConstitutional entitlement programs is "your standard, not mine"...


Oh for gosh sakes, of course there are going to be some individual cases where you can make that case.


Let us see, if I had invested in IBM or Microsoft....


What if I had entrusted my money to Bernie Madoff?


Astonishing. The banks crash the economy because they don't know how to safely invest the money entrusted to them, get bailed out by the federal government, and now folks want to trust these same institutions with a privatised social security system.


Speaking of not being able to learn from history.


As Americans, we sometimes suffer from too much pluribus and not enough unum. - Arthur Schelsinger, Jr.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46331

Report this Sep. 23 2011, 9:07 am

Quote: caltrek2 @ Sep. 23 2011, 4:31 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Sep. 22 2011, 7:09 pm

Quote: caltrek2 @ Sep. 22 2011, 5:41 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Sep. 22 2011, 1:02 pm

Quote: caltrek2 @ Sep. 22 2011, 4:49 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Sep. 20 2011, 6:46 pm

>

>

>

>

>

>

>Ah... yes, the "big enchilada" - defense spending....  Progressives always have to complain about that, even though defense is a Constitutionally mandated responsibility to the Federal government.  You didn't disappoint me that it made the first page....  (Although I doubt it, it does make it sound like you hate the military's role in defending the USA.)

>So I'll counter with the real "big enchilada" - at 60% of all Federal spending..... unConstitutional ENTITLEMENTS.  100% is waste!

>Now, should the government spend money like they were poor and had to actually be accountable for it?  Absolutely!  What's really cool is that DoD is moving many of their contracts to Firm Fixed Price (FFP), which puts the onus on the contractor so that they can't just bill time & materials as long as they want.

>

 

I do wish you would make up your mind about entitlements. Have most of them been earned by the payment of payroll taxes or haven't they?

I doubt that most seniors would consider social security to be 100% waste.

Hopefully, the feds will find ways to stop the big ripoffs within the Defense Department. Unlike your attitude about entitlements, I don't consider defense spending to be "100%...waste".  Much of what we spend on defense for homeland security is legitimate. We do need some capability of striking back at terrorists that are based in what use to be called Third World countries. I just suspect that we can provide all of that at a much lower cost than the price we now pay. 

Make up my mind about entitlements?  When have I not been clear that they are unConstititutional and illogical???

And most seniors, if they would have been allowed to save their own money (instead of having it taken from them,) they'd have a lot more for their retirement than what the government is handing out now.

A lot more?

Like 0% versus 100%?

Your standard, not mine.

 

If a person was allowed to keep all that money that the government took for entitlements and invested it themselves, they'd have a lot more to show for it.  The math shows that I'm already making a negative rate of return (if the entitlement system even exists by the time I'm old enough.)  And I think that I've talked about here that I assisted in a study of this person's estate (he had just died and had, for whatever reason, kept all of his financial papers - we showed that if he had been allowed to keep all of the money taken for entitlements and invested it with the rest of his investments, at retirement, his nestegg would be many times the entitlements he did receive throughout his retirement years.

But for some reason, the term "personal responsibility" is equated to "hate" in the minds of ProRegressives.

But the government stealing my money to fund unConstitutional entitlement programs is "your standard, not mine"...

Oh for gosh sakes, of course there are going to be some individual cases where you can make that case.

Let us see, if I had invested in IBM or Microsoft....

What if I had entrusted my money to Bernie Madoff?

Astonishing. The banks crash the economy because they don't know how to safely invest the money entrusted to them, get bailed out by the federal government, and now folks want to trust these same institutions with a privatised social security system.

Speaking of not being able to learn from history.

This guy invested almost exclusively in reputable mutual funds as he didn't understand the stock market.  But even if he was one of these people that chose his stocks well, that would be his choice.  If he chose well, he should be rewarded well.  Investing is risk - and different types of investing has different types of risk.  If someone chooses not to save for retirement, they should live with the consequences.


It's funny that you bring up Bernie Madoff - he went to jail for doing the exact same thing that the government is doing.


But since you want to talk about history and refuse to blame the correct group....   If people would think about it - for decades, investing in real estate was one of the SAFEST investments out there.  This is why banks had no problems for decades... it was almost automatic money.  That is until Barney Frank & Chris Dodd forced mortgage companies to give out loans to people who couldn't afford them.  And then combine it with the Federal Reserve keeping interest rates lower than the inflation rate.


FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46331

Report this Sep. 23 2011, 9:29 am


caltrek2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2654

Report this Sep. 24 2011, 3:03 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Sep. 23 2011, 9:07 am

Quote: caltrek2 @ Sep. 23 2011, 4:31 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Sep. 22 2011, 7:09 pm

Quote: caltrek2 @ Sep. 22 2011, 5:41 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Sep. 22 2011, 1:02 pm

Quote: caltrek2 @ Sep. 22 2011, 4:49 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Sep. 20 2011, 6:46 pm

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>Ah... yes, the "big enchilada" - defense spending....  Progressives always have to complain about that, even though defense is a Constitutionally mandated responsibility to the Federal government.  You didn't disappoint me that it made the first page....  (Although I doubt it, it does make it sound like you hate the military's role in defending the USA.)

>So I'll counter with the real "big enchilada" - at 60% of all Federal spending..... unConstitutional ENTITLEMENTS.  100% is waste!

>Now, should the government spend money like they were poor and had to actually be accountable for it?  Absolutely!  What's really cool is that DoD is moving many of their contracts to Firm Fixed Price (FFP), which puts the onus on the contractor so that they can't just bill time & materials as long as they want.

>

 

I do wish you would make up your mind about entitlements. Have most of them been earned by the payment of payroll taxes or haven't they?

I doubt that most seniors would consider social security to be 100% waste.

Hopefully, the feds will find ways to stop the big ripoffs within the Defense Department. Unlike your attitude about entitlements, I don't consider defense spending to be "100%...waste".  Much of what we spend on defense for homeland security is legitimate. We do need some capability of striking back at terrorists that are based in what use to be called Third World countries. I just suspect that we can provide all of that at a much lower cost than the price we now pay. 

Make up my mind about entitlements?  When have I not been clear that they are unConstititutional and illogical???

And most seniors, if they would have been allowed to save their own money (instead of having it taken from them,) they'd have a lot more for their retirement than what the government is handing out now.

A lot more?

Like 0% versus 100%?

Your standard, not mine.

 

If a person was allowed to keep all that money that the government took for entitlements and invested it themselves, they'd have a lot more to show for it.  The math shows that I'm already making a negative rate of return (if the entitlement system even exists by the time I'm old enough.)  And I think that I've talked about here that I assisted in a study of this person's estate (he had just died and had, for whatever reason, kept all of his financial papers - we showed that if he had been allowed to keep all of the money taken for entitlements and invested it with the rest of his investments, at retirement, his nestegg would be many times the entitlements he did receive throughout his retirement years.

But for some reason, the term "personal responsibility" is equated to "hate" in the minds of ProRegressives.

But the government stealing my money to fund unConstitutional entitlement programs is "your standard, not mine"...

Oh for gosh sakes, of course there are going to be some individual cases where you can make that case.

Let us see, if I had invested in IBM or Microsoft....

What if I had entrusted my money to Bernie Madoff?

Astonishing. The banks crash the economy because they don't know how to safely invest the money entrusted to them, get bailed out by the federal government, and now folks want to trust these same institutions with a privatised social security system.

Speaking of not being able to learn from history.

This guy invested almost exclusively in reputable mutual funds as he didn't understand the stock market.  But even if he was one of these people that chose his stocks well, that would be his choice.  If he chose well, he should be rewarded well.  Investing is risk - and different types of investing has different types of risk.  If someone chooses not to save for retirement, they should live with the consequences.

It's funny that you bring up Bernie Madoff - he went to jail for doing the exact same thing that the government is doing.

But since you want to talk about history and refuse to blame the correct group....   If people would think about it - for decades, investing in real estate was one of the SAFEST investments out there.  This is why banks had no problems for decades... it was almost automatic money.  That is until Barney Frank & Chris Dodd forced mortgage companies to give out loans to people who couldn't afford them.  And then combine it with the Federal Reserve keeping interest rates lower than the inflation rate.


Are you sure yu don't mean die as a consequence?


Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd forced mortgage companies to give loans to people who couldn't afford them?


Oh please stop, stop, my sides are aching from the laughter.


The Feds and the interest rates?


Go lecture the followers of Milton Friedman about that one.


As Americans, we sometimes suffer from too much pluribus and not enough unum. - Arthur Schelsinger, Jr.

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: DS9TREK

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum