Here's a place to cut spending — The Watering Hole

16 posts

Hookbender #1 · Oct 15, 2010 02:21 UTC

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101014/ts_nm/us_un_usa

"Last December, the U.N. General Assembly approved a U.N. budget of $5.16 billion for 2010 and 2011. That did not include peacekeeping, currently running at some $8 billion a year and approved in separate negotiations, or the costs of several major U.N. agencies that have separate budgets."

We need to go over the major agencies budgets, and all the so-called agencies that have...."seperate budgets".

Tripper #2 · Oct 15, 2010 05:13 UTC

You mean like when they hid the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars from us from 2003-2009 by keeping them out of the federal budget? :D ::)

Tripper

Hookbender #3 · Oct 15, 2010 05:52 UTC

Exactly. You are correct.

Tripper #4 · Oct 15, 2010 14:30 UTC

It definitely tricked people into maintaining the fiction that the GOP didn't spend like Democrats...

Of course, if John Kerry (mister "pay-as-you-go" fiscally responsible wonk) had won in 2004, we might have reined in/reversed some of the idiotic economic policies of the Bush years and avoided plunging into the economic toilet.

But there were a lot of powerful people concerned with making sure that didn't happen - so concerned that they spread lies about him and his war record that uninformed idiots believe to this day. "Not Fonda Kerry" - remember?

120,000 votes in Ohio (on the outside - probably less if they had actually counted all of them instead of making them disappear on pickup trucks) and we might not be in this shit.

But then again, we might. You never know with these people.
Tripper

charger #5 · Oct 15, 2010 17:37 UTC

Hookbender — Oct 15, 2010http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101014/ts_nm/us_un_usa

"Last December, the U.N. General Assembly approved a U.N. budget of $5.16 billion for 2010 and 2011. That did not include peacekeeping, currently running at some $8 billion a year and approved in separate negotiations, or the costs of several major U.N. agencies that have separate budgets."

We need to go over the major agencies budgets, and all the so-called agencies that have...."seperate budgets".

That's the UN budget, not the US budget.

You crack me up. 5 billion here, 7 billion there. You've found something like $12 billion to cut from the budget. How about getting rid of those stupid fucking Bush tax cuts that cost us $3 TRILLION?

No, let's not talk about the most obvious fucking thing ever. Let's find a road somewhere that costs a billion dollars and cut that.

While we're at it, maybe if everyone in the country gave the government their pennies, we'd get a couple of hundred thousand dollars. That oughta pay for about 7 seconds of the deficit.

Hookbender #6 · Oct 16, 2010 23:21 UTC

Oh wait.....so we are trillions in debt, but we shouldn't cut spending because it's only a couple billion? As if a billion dollars isn't shit. I think that's a shit load of money. It's money we'll have to pay back even if it doesn't amount to a few, trillion.

Did you ever think that if we don't cut the easy things, we'll never cut big things? And if we cut nothing it will eventually be 4 or 5 plus trillion. Then you'll start bitching because I'd like to see a trillion in spending be cut.

Quit bitching, because our debt gets higher everyday. And we're still spending like crazy. Be happy people now see a problem with debt, or they don't like it anyway. We are in a war, and still will be when the election gets started. And the main concern, or one of the main concerns has nothing to do with the war. It's about government spending and passing bills so many don't approve of. Imagine that. We don't want to talk about the war, what about all this spending and debt? :o What about the "CHANGE" we're suppose to see from all this spending you've done?

BINGEWOOD #7 · Oct 17, 2010 03:09 UTC

The dopey "change" slogan came before the economic meltdown unveiling.

Change itself isn't real specific. If you think change is doing what was laid out before the election, then you might think change has taken place.

What did it mean to you?

Hookbender #8 · Oct 17, 2010 03:39 UTC

Getting things done for the working people.
A little open door policy debate as promised
Results from spending all this money
Quick response to the oil spill since he beat the shit out of Bush for slow response to Katrina
Not purchasing businesses
A review of the budget line by line
A cut in spending
Less TV and vacation time
The Bush tax cuts, settled.
The assassination of Obamas dog
And, a blow job on the governments dime, or should I say credit?

Hookbender #9 · Oct 17, 2010 03:46 UTC

BINGEWOOD — Oct 17, 2010The dopey "change" slogan came before the economic meltdown unveiling.

Change itself isn't real specific. If you think change is doing what was laid out before the election, then you might think change has taken place.

What did it mean to you?

What change in Washington can you see? Other than the fighting and race to be the one who gets credit for shit as our country sinks farther into the shitter? The only change I see is a President hanging on to the blame Bush theme for way to long as his policies and approval rating fail. At some point, he has to be President. He owns this mess. He and democrats bought it. He's the boss. He gets credit for fixing it, or credit for failing to fix it.

BINGEWOOD #10 · Oct 17, 2010 03:46 UTC

Last one sounds good.

BINGEWOOD #11 · Oct 17, 2010 03:47 UTC

Hookbender — Oct 17, 2010What change in Washington can you see? Other than the fighting and race to be the one who gets credit for shit as our country sinks farther into the shitter? The only change I see is a President hanging on to the blame Bush theme for way to long as his policies and approval rating fail. At some point, he has to be President. He owns this mess. He and democrats bought it. He's the boss. He gets credit for fixing it, or credit for failing to fix it.

I didn't expect change in Washington.

charger #12 · Oct 17, 2010 04:11 UTC

I think it's ludicrous to even talk about this with you. You're a guy who, in one breath, bitches and moans about the healthcare bill, and in the next, says "where's the change?"

If that isn't change, why are the Republicans doing backflips over it? If that isn't change, what the fuck is change?

Is "change" thinking that Obama is going to get into office and suddenly, the people who hate him, think he's a socialist, hate black people, hate social programs, would suddenly "change" their minds?

Not a single one of these tea party fuckholes organized a march against the Bush tax cuts. The amount of money that Obama added to the deficit is miniscule compared to the Bush tax cuts. You didn't give a shit. Your neighbor with the tea party sign didn't give a shit. Nobody gave a shit.

So to me, the idea that Obama came along and fucked it all up and caused all this outrage is completely disingenious. A bunch of people who didn't like him now still don't like him. And the economy was almost literally destroyed by the fucking idiotic policies and greed of Wall St., and still hasn't recovered (surprise surprise), and so a bunch of other people have turned on him. Just like they would have turned on McCain or anyone else in this position.

There is no easy path to recovery. But the idea that this hasn't been a shitload of change is ludicrous.

BINGEWOOD #13 · Oct 17, 2010 04:37 UTC

Hookbender — Oct 17, 2010Getting things done for the working people.

Some feel he has with regulations on the insurance companies, "wall street", credit corps, banks. Tax cuts for the middle. Saving jobs in areas we need daily. etc Some think he didn't go far enough, some think he went too far in these areas.

A little open door policy debate as promised

Watch CSPAN...it's ugly...also corny.

Results from spending all this money

You can lead a bidnessman to bailout, but you can't make him hire. heh heh What results were you looking for? The nation being "fixed" in two years? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Quick response to the oil spill since he beat the shit out of Bush for slow response to Katrina

I still don't really see this one. The Coastguard takes care of this shit and they were there immediately. There should have been a plan for this provided by the corps who are responsible. We pay them and defer payments from them so they will drill, they need to have a way to deal with this kind of thing. The gov should force this and work in concert with the responsible parties. Do you think they'll get one together now?

Katrina was nothing like this....it was a complete breakdown of law for a bit there. They had time to prepare. It was like a wakeup call or shock test, who knows. The string that hold society together is pretty thin.

Not purchasing businesses

He said he was down for "saving" the auto companies.

A review of the budget line by line
A cut in spending

These are kinda the same. He said he'd use a "scalpel" on the budget. He also said he was in favor of spending so I'm not sure how you didn't vote for McCain.

Less TV and vacation time

Compared to who? Bush?

The Bush tax cuts, settled.

They are set to expire. What's really to settle? Whether giving them to the wealthy will add jobs? How would continuing them represent change?

The assassination of Obamas dog
And, a blow job on the governments dime, or should I say credit?

Kissinger'll blow that dog.

Hookbender #14 · Oct 17, 2010 04:49 UTC

Charger......But your still talking about it with me. Problem is, your focused on what Bush did instead of what Obama isn't doing. Your to busy defending Obama and blaming Bush for shit you can't have a decent discussion. Obama is President. He owns this mess. You understand that? He is assigned the job of fixing our problems, no matter who caused them.

If one of your employees stole $500 bucks from your company and you fired him, would you excuse the next guy because he only stole $250? If your manager spent $3000 grand more than he should have on supplies and you fired him, would you excuse the next manager for spending $5000 grand more on supplies? After all, you were already $3000 and $5000 grand in debt because of these 2 guys right? Is that not a problem? Should this just be considered part of doing business even if it's on Chargers dime? I doubt it. Case closed dude.

charger #15 · Oct 17, 2010 05:29 UTC

Hookbender — Oct 17, 2010Charger......But your still talking about it with me. Problem is, your focused on what Bush did instead of what Obama isn't doing. Your to busy defending Obama and blaming Bush for shit you can't have a decent discussion. Obama is President. He owns this mess. You understand that? He is assigned the job of fixing our problems, no matter who caused them.

If one of your employees stole $500 bucks from your company and you fired him, would you excuse the next guy because he only stole $250? If your manager spent $3000 grand more than he should have on supplies and you fired him, would you excuse the next manager for spending $5000 grand more on supplies? After all, you were already $3000 and $5000 grand in debt because of these 2 guys right? Is that not a problem? Should this just be considered part of doing business even if it's on Chargers dime? I doubt it. Case closed dude.

I have no clue what you are talking about. You voted for Bush twice. What the fuck do you know about anything? Jack and shit.

You're arguing just to hear yourself. You're convinced that Obama did something horrible. I can't figure out what that is. You have nothing concrete except you think that spending should stop. It's not going to stop. It can't stop. Obama's biggest coup so far was a healthcare bill that gets more people on insurance, gets rid of BS like pre-existing conditions, lifetime maximums, and insurance companies dropping you for being sick, AND it costs less, and you aren't happy. So, bottom line, if his greatest achievement isn't going to make you happy, you're not going to be happy. End of story.

As for the rest of it, you seem to be convinced that somehow Obama should stop Bush's bleeding instantly. How? How is anyone supposed to pick up this shitstorm and reverse it? Magic? Yeah, Obama, he should have been magic, but he wasn't. Sorry. Next time write in your vote for Santa Claus.

charger #16 · Oct 17, 2010 05:37 UTC

You know what the tea partiers believe? That business needs more freedom. That business needs less taxes.

Hmm... have we ever tried that? Recently? What a novel idea. Let's let business run wild, and while we're at it, let's reduce their taxes. It seems like that works really well. It's seems like that really worked in, oh, 2004-2007. Brilliantly.

Somehow, the result of the complete financial disaster perpetrated by Wall St. has been the complete rallying of the people (or maybe just a small but loud subset) telling us what we need is to let them do it again. Do it more. That maybe if we just let them run free again, the result will be different.

This tells me:
a) that people probably did really shitty in History in school, and
b) that the Supreme Court did us absolutely no favors by allowing corporations to spend money without any restraint in political campaigns.

The end result of us getting fucked by the business world, is us feeling sorry for the business world. I'd call it ironic, but it's worse than ironic. It's masochistic.