If Bush is a liar...

I do!
MWAHAHAHAHAHAH!

If we did that we might have to keep it. Ugh! Talk about absurd government entitlements...

I usually ignore my Government Computer News subscription, but this one caught my eye. Reminded me of several people I used to work with too.

http://www.gcn.com/vol1_no1/daily-updates/24912-1.html


The last paragraph:

"The congressional scrutiny of diploma mill degrees began last summer when Washington Technology and Government Computer News reported that a high-ranking IT official at the Homeland Security Department had bought her three degrees from a diploma mill in Wyoming. The DHS official, Laura Callahan, deputy CIO, has been suspended with pay. The two publications later turned up dozens of people who listed degrees from unaccredited institutions on their resumes."

Got that? Suspended WITH PAY. And after it's all blown over she will be back at some similar job at full pay too. Or if she is really lucky she will get retired with full benefits. There is no way she will lose her job.

I was going to stay out of this thread but then I stumbled upon
this article .

Note that the proposed a $2.4 trillion federal budget for 2005 does not include additional costs such expenditures outlined in the above article.

The President's support of outsourcing jobs to India seems to me to undercut his predictions of 2.6 million new jobs in 2004.

Based on that number that would be 133333.3333333 jobs per month if divided by 12 months. Granted different months will be higher or lower but based soley on currently available available we are already behind in job creation by 21333.3333333 jobs.

Forget who lied and who didnt for a minute and look to the future. We are in a financial crisis. This level of spending is not sustainable.

I have to wonder where some people think federal money comes from. Bush is now out shouting Democrats want to raise taxes! Well, guess what? Someone is going to have to pay for all his spending. It doesnt just go away. WE all pay for it. You can't raise spending and lower taxes. It doesnt work. It'd be like you getting a pay cut and then running out and driving all your credit cards up to their max. It's illogical. It's not a responsible thing to do.

(ok.. taking a breath here)
I apologize in advance if I irked anyone. I'm sure I did. But I just don't get the logic that Bush is a great President.

Stepping down.

It's ok if you find my views frightening. Wasn't it a French guy who said something along these lines, "Nations don't have friends, they only have interests." The U.S. and every other country out there are looking out for their ASSets and nobody elses. That's why America has to do what it takes to maintain and enhance its security.

Very soon the BIG next threat (if we survive the current one) will be China. The government better start thinking of plan very soon to not let that happen. The last thing everyone wants (well mostly everyone) is a wannabe capitalist-communist superpower. If it takes some really nasty black-ops or WMD's to knock down China then a lot of us will be content. I know I sound politically incorrect but a lot of people, deep down inside know that they would endorse such moves to keep their country on top.

If we survive?! You've let yourself be made completely paranoid and afraid in a way that is beyond any shred of rational thinking Pepper. We're not under any greater threat now than we were three years ago, or ten years ago. The easiest way to get a poplulace to support your agenda and not ask too many questions is to convince them that they're in grave peril and only you can save them. It's the oldest trick in the book. It's exactly what religion does... not to mention at least half of all marketing. Don't buy into it.

Look at the language Bush and his cronies use... "axis of evil," or "shadowy terrorist networks," or "evil doers," or "madman." Don't you find it patronizing as hell? If not, you should. The war on terrorism is so blown out of proportion it's almost beyond comprehension. Of course there's a risk of you being killed by a terrorist. There's also a risk of a meteor landing on your head. Both pale in comparison to the risk you face every time you step into your bathtub. The risk is not worth sending your children off to die in the desert or surrendering your civil liberties.

A huge portion of our economy depends on defense spending... not to mention the fact that many in the Bush administration are personally making millions off of it... including George Bush Sr. Read up on the Carlysle Group. We needed a new "them." The war on terrorism is just like the war on drugs. It's not a real war. It can't ever be won. It's a for profit industry.

I didn't hear Bush run on a platform of us vs. them, or evil vs. good, I believe that it was mainly centered around a tax cut. (which btw, I did not support) He did project the evil vs. good framework to garner support for invading Iraq after he was well into his term. As far as running for office on a platform of public safety, highway safety is a problem that crosses all political party lines and affects all of us. Running with that as a platform just doesnt make sense to me. If we are going to have politicians running on non-party specific issues as their main platform, such as highway safety, why have a multi-party system? Btw, I have no problem with a candidate who wants to include public safety as a secondary issue, and in fact welcome it. As you stated we take some risks for granted, such as the possibilty of a tornado wiping out our homes and lives tomorrow. Should we dwell on those possibilities simply because they exist and turn a blind eye to the rest of the world?

You're right. I can't recall a time in my entire life when we haven't been in a "budget crisis" other than that short period of time during the late 90's when the technology bubble raised more money in taxes that the government was prepared to spend. Based on that "glitch" though, they predicted ever increasing revenues out through 2050 or so! The next thing you know government folks at all levels where planning for Christmas 365 days a year.

Higher property taxes (much higher where I am), reversal of earlier tax cuts (the car tax in Virginia for example), and serious talk about taxing the Internet, VOIP, and more are all the fallout of that short window of time when the government had access to increased revenue. They know how to add money to their budgets, but taking money away is a lost art. Like Mr. Creosote in The Meaning of Life, they just can't say "no".

I hear it said regularly now by politicians that we have "waste, fraud, and abuse" under control in the federal government and now it's just a matter of controlling "discretionary spending". I call BS on both notions. Finding waste in government is like finding a grain of sand on the beach. It's everywhere, and nowhere. And anyone who talks about it in politics gets little cooperation from the lifers. In fact the funny thing about the article I posted the link to earlier is that the congressman is asking the Department of Education for help in tracking down these diploma mills. I have little doubt that they will find this totally beyond their capacity. I also suspect the practice of basing promotions on these fraudulent certifications is more widespread at DE than it is at DHS, but truth be known, it's all over the place at the Fed. The game here in town is you do everything you can to get promoted to the highest levels before you retire at 50 or so (they have cracked down on this a bit I think) after which you will have a comfortable monthly income to do nothing, or even get a final job in the private sector.

Is there more waste in military spending than in civilian? I don't think so, but I'm sure there is plenty of waste there just the same. Both military and civilian departments flunk financial audits on a regular basis becuase the simply can't account for how _billions_ of dollars have been spent. Every year they promise to improve, and every year they find that little has changed. This is not a Bush problem or even a Democrat vs Republican problem, it's an American problem. I wish we had more Americans aware of it and talking about it.

Are you going to be the one to give Mr. Creosote his after dinner mint?

Nolan, I only brought up traffic safety as an example of a risk we take for granted. I'm prefectly comfortable with my level of risk in the world. I'm not hoping someone will run on a traffic safety platform. I was simply contrasting two risks to life and the absurdly different ways we react to them.

As for Bush not touting the us versus them angle when he ran, it would have been a tough case for him to make at the time. But there's plenty of evidence that shows that the top players in the administration all had toppling Hussein on their "to do" lists before they got in office (Paul Neil's comments, Project For a New American Century, etc.)... and in the case of PNAC, they'd like to topple the entire middle east. The unfortunate events of 9/11 handed them the perfect opportunity to try and justify a new perpetual war and push forward their agenda. The fact that they worked so hard to try and make people link Iraq and 9/11 even though there wasn't a single shred of evidence to support it should be a giant red flag that you were being marketed to rather than being told an honest assessment of risks or facts. Even Wolfowitz has said in an interview that the only reason they hyped the WMD angle was because they thought it would work.

This statement is indeed correct. What I think many people do not realize is while Republicans call Democrats "Tax & Spend" and say they (Republicans) are for smaller government the numbers show that its actually the Democrats who are more fiscally conservative.

Has anyone seen this clip?
(note I am not selling the service and I know very little about it so ignore that part) It is an interesting and oversimplified bit on the economy using oreo cookies. Worth a watch to get an idea of what kind of money we are talking here.

Note also the deficit we are heading to is a record number. Bush spent and is spending daily more than anyone ever in history. The GOP is even talking about taking the axe to Bush's spending plan.

We may be spending more dollars, but the money spent during WW2 was a MUCH greater percentage of our GNP. The last time taxes were cut like this during a recessionary period, the economy recovered, lots of jobs were created and more taxes than ever were collected as a result. I'm not certain that enough jobs could possibly be created this time out. I called the goddamn cable company the other day and found myself speaking with a man in Bombay. This kind of shit is just wrong. Not only is it greedy to the point of meanness on the part of corporations to shut out the already poorly paid people who have been doing this kind of specialized phone work, it makes no sense from a practical point, since most of us can't tell wtf someone from Massachusetts or some other freakish hole right here in the USA is saying on the phone, let alone a foreigner. The largest growth sector of our economy is in low paying retail and service sectors, and people who work at McDonald's usually cost more to employ than they pay in taxes.

We used to make and grow stuff. Then we became a nation who's "industry" was "service". Now we are outsourcing service jobs.

Gee, that leaves us a little vulnerable doesnt it? Lets see.. if someone wants to topple America the great all they have to do is cut us off.

Ah, someone told me about the Oreo clip the other day and promised to send a link. I guess they forgot.

It was very good. I agree with the gist of it, although I hate the oversimplifications they do to put these things together. Absent any other information, someone who sees that would ask "Why take 5 cookies from the military, looks like we could take most of them and just LEAVE 5 and be fine." I'm fairly sure that was my friends reaction too.

They compared the military budget with that of just 6 other rather small domestic programs (not entire departments). I'm not sure that was fair, but I'm sure it had the intended effect.

Conservatives, Republicans, and even the evil Donald Rumsfeld think the military spends too much though. Also like the other departments, they have lost track of where it all goes. Rumy isn't all that popular with the generals there because he continues to demand explanations from them about where all the money is going. If all the other department heads would make an equal nuisance of themselves we might see some progress.

While I was typing this I heard an excerpt from Greenspan's latest congressional testimony. I wish HE would run for president. He has been saying the same thing for 15 or so years now:

"We should continue to seek a balanced budget by cutting back spending rather than the easier approach of raising taxes."

Of course, no president and few members of congress can actually hear him say this. Their reality distortion fields are perfectly intact.

Wow Mac, we agree on something! I'd vote for Greenspan in a heartbeat.

Greenspan for President. I'd pick him too.

Many of the parts of our new fighter planes are being cast and milled in Russian factories, there not being enough skilled craftsmen here to do it. The thing that has to be done is that our government is going to have to say that we will not buy from companies who are not paying their lowest paid workers the local equivalent of the prevailing US Federal Minimum Wage ($5.15 I believe) This is fair and can be played as a human rights issue, thus keeping it out of the WTO.It would also create many new jobs here while vastly improving the lives of people in the 3rd world.

Yes Chip if we survive. If we go back to the way America protected itself in 2000 we would have more attacks on the mainland--smaller and possibly bigger ones. Even if we stay at our current level of defense there's still a big possibility of something big happening. Then what are the people going to say? "What in the world happened?! Another intelligence failure! The government isn't protecting the people! They're a bunch of inept hogs! Whatever happened to 'We Shall Not Forget!'". . .and on. The terrorists are betting on the U.S. cowering like it has cowered in the past (e.g. Lebanon and Somalia).

I understand that there's a greater possibility of me dying on my drive home after I finish writing this than some terrorist killing me. However, people everywhere panic (I wish they wouldn't) and then a whole lot of bad stuff happens: People don't fly, people don't buy, people get sick, people don't work, people get depressed, people withdraw their money from the stockmarket and so on. All of this impacts the whole country negatively and our way of life. And the main purpose of government is to protect the citizens and improve their way of life.

I do agree that something more has to be done with the current economy (perhaps raising taxes?) but hopefully not at the expense of defense.

I had a feeling we might once we got down to the details.

I'd say that spending trillions of dollars waging unnecessary wars instead of spending it on our own infrastructure, has a far more negative and long lasting effect on our country. The fact that people panic is exactly what I'm getting at. You can't run a country on panic. You can't impart a healthy rational worldview through propoganda. Creating the red scare part two isn't constructive. Look at NYC today if you want to know how resilient we are as a people and how quickly we can bounce back from random tragedies... which will continue to happen no matter what we do. Where did we get this notion that if we throw enough money into homeland defense it will buy us psychic powers? Maybe 9/11 was preventable, but most likely it wasn't. I'm not willing to trade my civil liberties for the sake of unrealistic hindsight. It saddens me that so many people are willing to make that trade. It's a Faustian deal.

Hey Chip and many of you out there, you and I might never agree on most of these issues and that's just fine. In the end, I believe that the American people will continue to prosper and help other countries around the world to prosper. . . until the coming worldwide energy crisis fully develops. . .problems and dilemas just never seem to end. . ...... . ........... . .. ......what a world! Thank goodness for SL. . ... ...I think.. . .

We might never agree Pepper, but I always enjoy hearing other people's points of view and trying to understand why they feel the way they do. Thanks for sparring

There is definately waste in the military. And Congress is responsible for much if it. The pentagon has often tried to close down unneeded bases, and been forced to keep them open. And congress has FORCED the Pentagon to purchase weapons systems and things like aircraft carriers that it didn't need or want. Often because individual senators or reps work to protect their own districts then the nation as a whole.

Any money put into the military IS a waste. America got itself into its current mess precisely because it has always been so militaristic.

bah! just imagine what we *wouldn't* have if we didnt spend money in the military. don't forget.. alot of the technology created by/for the millitary ends up with us down the road.

its not money thats the issue.. its the monkey... err.. sorry, i mean the leader in the white house that is.

OMG what have I done, this thread got so long I can't even read it anymore! Time to go back (soon) to my old rule of only posting in "light" discussion threads.

I have some real problems with alot of what Bush is doing/planning, but I guarantee that none of the "Democrats" out there will fix things. We're pretty much screwed for the next four years in alot of ways, whatever happens. It's just a matter of what areas we are more concerned about being farked over with.

Not that this is a new concept. Gore/Bush 2000 was pretty much a choice like this: Want your death to be by electric chair, or firing squad?

That might surprise some who think I'm a big Bush supporter, but I'm really just sick of the double standards out there, and the Dems seem to love that stuff.