Posts
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/09/23/2078367.aspx
Representative Cantor….can you really be serious? Explain to me, Sir, how you think the health care debate is acting as a “roadblock to Congress” when it is currently only being debated in CERTAIN committees. I would hope that you realize, especially since you are a member of the U.S. Congress, that MOST of the committees in both the House and Senate are debating issues OTHER THAN health care reform. Or are you in fact acknowledging that a middle or high school student knows more about how government functions than a 5 term Republican Congressman? Whether you are simply acting like an idiot, or are indeed one, I have to wonder how in the hell you got voted into office in the first place. If you, SIR, think the health care debate is so asinine and so dominating then why don’t you DO something about it? Go skip back to the committees and subcommittees that you are on and try and make what you are discussing meaningful. Of course in order to do this you would have to ACTUALLY PAY ATTENTION AND NOT PLAY AROUND ON YOUR BLACKBERRY! If it is such a distraction then I’m more than willing to shove it up your ass for you, and at the same time try to pull your head out of it. At the VERY least, please go read a book about how the legislative process works, or if that is too difficult might I suggest you watch the Schoolhouse Rock video of how bills become law.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Monday, September 21, 2009
Ah politicians....
http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=7895507
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=7997309
I just love when politicians contradict themselves. Even more so when they do it within the same month. First Herbert came out earlier this month stating that he doubts the impacts that humans make on climate change, and suddenly today comes out saying that we should all turn off our engines if we are idling for more than ten minutes to reduce carbon emissions. Umm….Governor I thought you doubted human impact on such things. If humans don’t drastically impact the environment then why are you suddenly promoting a “very liberal” position? Someone make a better campaign donation than your energy donors? This debate is asinine. Anyone can look outside and see that humans DO drastically impact the environment and we ARE changing our climate because of it. What I think a lot of people who argue against climate change don’t understand is that climate is the LONG TERM patterns of weather and as such changes aren’t always noticeable in the short term. Unseasonable rain for a few weeks doesn’t mean that a region’s drought has ended. Also, climate change doesn’t mean that everywhere will be affected in the same ways. A drastic rise (2 or 3 degrees) in temperature in one region can be happening at the same time another region is getting colder or wetter. Climate change is real and at this point it’s a matter of trying to not make it worse. We have the ability to clean up our act so lets do it so we don’t further change the environment for future generations. Just imagine the GLOBAL impact of the “bread-basket of America” getting a lot wetter, hotter, colder, or drier. Even subtle changes can drastically alter crop yields which in turn affects the food supply. What would happen to the world if the Mid-West’s food yield dropped by half or even a quarter. Not a pretty scenario when you consider ALL the consequences. We need to clean up our act NOW, and its time deniers such as Herbert realize this.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13388802
Why am I not surprised that the majority party would object to a proposal to make redistricting more fair. I am not picking on just the Republicans they just happen to be the majority in this state. Any party who has a majority is against nonpartisan redistricting. Now gerrymandering is technically illegal in this country already but that hasn’t stopped both parties from creating districts where they know their party will almost always win in every state of the union. Now for those who don’t know, gerrymandering is where you draw district lines so that you include voters that benefit your party and try to exclude those who don’t. A very recent example of this happened in Utah’s 2nd Congressional District. Jim Matheson (D), has repeatedly beaten Republican opponents and during the last census, the Republican controlled state legislature redrew the 2nd district to try and increase the number of Republican voters which they hoped would cause Matheson to lose his seat in the next election. Needless to say it hasn’t worked yet but it often does get results. I believe redistricting should be overseen by a nonpartisan group (at both state AND national levels) because gerrymandering has and always will hurt the voter and the legislative process. It allows for polarization in politics to run rampant and reduces the appeal and influence of moderation.
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=7997309
I just love when politicians contradict themselves. Even more so when they do it within the same month. First Herbert came out earlier this month stating that he doubts the impacts that humans make on climate change, and suddenly today comes out saying that we should all turn off our engines if we are idling for more than ten minutes to reduce carbon emissions. Umm….Governor I thought you doubted human impact on such things. If humans don’t drastically impact the environment then why are you suddenly promoting a “very liberal” position? Someone make a better campaign donation than your energy donors? This debate is asinine. Anyone can look outside and see that humans DO drastically impact the environment and we ARE changing our climate because of it. What I think a lot of people who argue against climate change don’t understand is that climate is the LONG TERM patterns of weather and as such changes aren’t always noticeable in the short term. Unseasonable rain for a few weeks doesn’t mean that a region’s drought has ended. Also, climate change doesn’t mean that everywhere will be affected in the same ways. A drastic rise (2 or 3 degrees) in temperature in one region can be happening at the same time another region is getting colder or wetter. Climate change is real and at this point it’s a matter of trying to not make it worse. We have the ability to clean up our act so lets do it so we don’t further change the environment for future generations. Just imagine the GLOBAL impact of the “bread-basket of America” getting a lot wetter, hotter, colder, or drier. Even subtle changes can drastically alter crop yields which in turn affects the food supply. What would happen to the world if the Mid-West’s food yield dropped by half or even a quarter. Not a pretty scenario when you consider ALL the consequences. We need to clean up our act NOW, and its time deniers such as Herbert realize this.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13388802
Why am I not surprised that the majority party would object to a proposal to make redistricting more fair. I am not picking on just the Republicans they just happen to be the majority in this state. Any party who has a majority is against nonpartisan redistricting. Now gerrymandering is technically illegal in this country already but that hasn’t stopped both parties from creating districts where they know their party will almost always win in every state of the union. Now for those who don’t know, gerrymandering is where you draw district lines so that you include voters that benefit your party and try to exclude those who don’t. A very recent example of this happened in Utah’s 2nd Congressional District. Jim Matheson (D), has repeatedly beaten Republican opponents and during the last census, the Republican controlled state legislature redrew the 2nd district to try and increase the number of Republican voters which they hoped would cause Matheson to lose his seat in the next election. Needless to say it hasn’t worked yet but it often does get results. I believe redistricting should be overseen by a nonpartisan group (at both state AND national levels) because gerrymandering has and always will hurt the voter and the legislative process. It allows for polarization in politics to run rampant and reduces the appeal and influence of moderation.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
How nice...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090909/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_clinton_movie
For all of the corporations that will be able to influence lawmakers EVEN MORE if they over turn campaign finance rules.
This is a serious error on the part of the Supreme Court if they actually decide to overturn rulings that limit what a corporation or union can contribute to a candidates' campaign. I'm sorry but corporations, businesses, unions, etc should never be allowed to contribute to campaign funds. It is no different than lobbying in terms of the returns that these organizations receive for their "donations". Organizations that contribute large sums of money and lobbyists are BOTH guilty of the same thing, BRIBERY! Any politician that says the money they receive for their campaigns, or from lobbyists, are flat out lying when they say it doesn't influence their vote.
In my opinion the laws should be changed. Lobbying should be limited to INDIVIDUALS only, just as it states in the Constitution, and gifts, dinners, etc should be limited to $15 or less. Also, campaign contributions should be limited to INDIVIDUALS only and not to exceed $500. This is about the only way, other than an all out ban, to get big industry, corporate, lobbyist, etc money out of government. If the CEOs, employees, etc of these organizations want to contribute or lobby, then they have to do it within these rules. A corporation should not be treated as an individual and the multi-billion lobbying industry should not be able to buy politicians' votes.
It is time that this country wakes up to the blatant bribery that is going on in all aspects of our politics and band together to stop it! If this country fails, it will be because none of us stood up and demanded a stop to this and allowed corruption to grow exponentially.
For all of the corporations that will be able to influence lawmakers EVEN MORE if they over turn campaign finance rules.
This is a serious error on the part of the Supreme Court if they actually decide to overturn rulings that limit what a corporation or union can contribute to a candidates' campaign. I'm sorry but corporations, businesses, unions, etc should never be allowed to contribute to campaign funds. It is no different than lobbying in terms of the returns that these organizations receive for their "donations". Organizations that contribute large sums of money and lobbyists are BOTH guilty of the same thing, BRIBERY! Any politician that says the money they receive for their campaigns, or from lobbyists, are flat out lying when they say it doesn't influence their vote.
In my opinion the laws should be changed. Lobbying should be limited to INDIVIDUALS only, just as it states in the Constitution, and gifts, dinners, etc should be limited to $15 or less. Also, campaign contributions should be limited to INDIVIDUALS only and not to exceed $500. This is about the only way, other than an all out ban, to get big industry, corporate, lobbyist, etc money out of government. If the CEOs, employees, etc of these organizations want to contribute or lobby, then they have to do it within these rules. A corporation should not be treated as an individual and the multi-billion lobbying industry should not be able to buy politicians' votes.
It is time that this country wakes up to the blatant bribery that is going on in all aspects of our politics and band together to stop it! If this country fails, it will be because none of us stood up and demanded a stop to this and allowed corruption to grow exponentially.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
On war and Mercenaries
I have been trying to figure out how this country went from being about to win wars in 6 years or less to now taking more than 8 to get the job done.
One reason may be our modern idea of “hedging our bets”. In Korea, WWI, WWII, and earlier wars, the prevailing wisdom seemed to be to hit them with EVERYTHING in the military arsenal. Hit them hard, hit them repeatedly until one side said uncle (basically never us). As history shows, this was extremely effective and got the results we wanted. But now we seem (from Vietnam on) to have a strategy that involved hitting them fast, hope they give up in a dazed state after being “shocked and awed”, but if they don’t give up just wing it while twiddling our thumbs. It’s as if our political and military leaders would rather hope that they can beat our opponent by using a flash-bang grenade, rather than just storm in and kick the shit out of them.
What would the conditions in Afghanistan and Iraq be like now if we had gone in fully mobilized? Or even consider what Afghanistan would be like if we used an invasion force comparable to that of the Iraq invasion. I mean is it at all surprising that Afghanistan has fallen so deep into the shitter when we used an invasion force SMALLER than the one used in Iraq?
The other reason I think is our opponents themselves. In all the wars we have won, both us and our opponents were fighting for something tangible. Our opponents/enemies today, however, are far more obsessed and dangerous. They believe in their religion so blindly that they have no problems fighting to the VERY last man. You could say that the Japanese during WWII were the same but I would argue that they are not even close. In the end the Japanese had enough reason to see the writing on the wall and that surrender was the only way to preserve their country and culture. Whereas the people we fight now have NO reason in their minds. To them the only acceptable outcome is to kill the infidel, or die trying even if it takes every last man, woman, and child to do it. How do you defeat an enemy who refuses to be defeated?
In the end I fear that we will have the same result in Afghanistan as the former Soviet Union. Billions of dollars, thousands of lives, all used in an attempt to “free” and bring reason and democracy to a country who may not even want it. If we do manage to win, I hope this country is willing to accept the fact that if fundamentalists rise to power through DEMOCRATIC vote then we have to ACCEPT that vote.
On a different note:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_AFGHANISTAN_EMBASSY_INVESTIGATION?SITE=UTSAC&SECTION=POLITICS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IRAQ_BLACKWATER?SITE=UTSAC&SECTION=POLITICS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Both of these stories disappoint me, but each in a slightly different way.
The first story about mercenaries (“security contractors”) at the US Embassy in Afghanistan is just ridiculous. I’m sorry but do these dumb asses not understand that since they protect US government property, that they are REPRESENTING the US in the host country! Not to mention the security RISK such actions create! What if the embassy was attack while this idiots were partying like frat boys? Would ANY of them be able to think clearly, much less aim, under heavy fire while shit-faced? I don’t think so…
This just furthers my opinion that mercenaries have absolutely NO BUSINESS being in a war zone, much less employed by the US government. Which brings me to the second story. This contract renewal of “Presidential Airlines”, a subsidiary of Blackwater, is a mistake. This only ENCOURAGES companies like Blackwater. Why should they change how they act if the government continues to pay them? Its insane! Mercenaries are an insult to every single man and woman in the US military. By continuing to hire them, the US government is basically tell them that “you can’t do your job effectively but rather than train more troops we are going to hire civilians instead.” These mercenaries answer to no one, and have PROVEN they are far more of a liability than they are an asset. Not to mention they are FAR more expensive (they make 6 figure salaries which is far more than the average soldier) than our military personnel. These mercenaries are not much more different than the Somali Pirates!
There are only three groups I would trust with my protection in war zones. 1) The US military, 2) the FBI, and 3) the US Secret Service!
One reason may be our modern idea of “hedging our bets”. In Korea, WWI, WWII, and earlier wars, the prevailing wisdom seemed to be to hit them with EVERYTHING in the military arsenal. Hit them hard, hit them repeatedly until one side said uncle (basically never us). As history shows, this was extremely effective and got the results we wanted. But now we seem (from Vietnam on) to have a strategy that involved hitting them fast, hope they give up in a dazed state after being “shocked and awed”, but if they don’t give up just wing it while twiddling our thumbs. It’s as if our political and military leaders would rather hope that they can beat our opponent by using a flash-bang grenade, rather than just storm in and kick the shit out of them.
What would the conditions in Afghanistan and Iraq be like now if we had gone in fully mobilized? Or even consider what Afghanistan would be like if we used an invasion force comparable to that of the Iraq invasion. I mean is it at all surprising that Afghanistan has fallen so deep into the shitter when we used an invasion force SMALLER than the one used in Iraq?
The other reason I think is our opponents themselves. In all the wars we have won, both us and our opponents were fighting for something tangible. Our opponents/enemies today, however, are far more obsessed and dangerous. They believe in their religion so blindly that they have no problems fighting to the VERY last man. You could say that the Japanese during WWII were the same but I would argue that they are not even close. In the end the Japanese had enough reason to see the writing on the wall and that surrender was the only way to preserve their country and culture. Whereas the people we fight now have NO reason in their minds. To them the only acceptable outcome is to kill the infidel, or die trying even if it takes every last man, woman, and child to do it. How do you defeat an enemy who refuses to be defeated?
In the end I fear that we will have the same result in Afghanistan as the former Soviet Union. Billions of dollars, thousands of lives, all used in an attempt to “free” and bring reason and democracy to a country who may not even want it. If we do manage to win, I hope this country is willing to accept the fact that if fundamentalists rise to power through DEMOCRATIC vote then we have to ACCEPT that vote.
On a different note:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_AFGHANISTAN_EMBASSY_INVESTIGATION?SITE=UTSAC&SECTION=POLITICS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IRAQ_BLACKWATER?SITE=UTSAC&SECTION=POLITICS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Both of these stories disappoint me, but each in a slightly different way.
The first story about mercenaries (“security contractors”) at the US Embassy in Afghanistan is just ridiculous. I’m sorry but do these dumb asses not understand that since they protect US government property, that they are REPRESENTING the US in the host country! Not to mention the security RISK such actions create! What if the embassy was attack while this idiots were partying like frat boys? Would ANY of them be able to think clearly, much less aim, under heavy fire while shit-faced? I don’t think so…
This just furthers my opinion that mercenaries have absolutely NO BUSINESS being in a war zone, much less employed by the US government. Which brings me to the second story. This contract renewal of “Presidential Airlines”, a subsidiary of Blackwater, is a mistake. This only ENCOURAGES companies like Blackwater. Why should they change how they act if the government continues to pay them? Its insane! Mercenaries are an insult to every single man and woman in the US military. By continuing to hire them, the US government is basically tell them that “you can’t do your job effectively but rather than train more troops we are going to hire civilians instead.” These mercenaries answer to no one, and have PROVEN they are far more of a liability than they are an asset. Not to mention they are FAR more expensive (they make 6 figure salaries which is far more than the average soldier) than our military personnel. These mercenaries are not much more different than the Somali Pirates!
There are only three groups I would trust with my protection in war zones. 1) The US military, 2) the FBI, and 3) the US Secret Service!
Monday, August 31, 2009
Is NASA really full of the best and brightest?
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/366590main_Ares_I_FS.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/365663main_Ares_V_FS5.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V
So I am being to wonder if we really have the smartest people at NASA. For the ones who don’t know, the Space Shuttle will be decommissioned next year and “replaced” with the Ares Rockets. The Ares I will be used for crew launches and small payloads, and the Ares V will be for large payloads.
My question is why are they creating two whole new and separate rockets? During the 1960s and 1970s, the Saturn V Rocket did BOTH crew and payload launches. Why is NASA continuing with the Ares program when, with a few technological and other upgrades, they could use the Saturn V? Or why not scrape the Ares 1 and convert the Ares V to carry both crew and cargo? I have a hard time believing that using two separate rockets is more cost effective than the Space Shuttle.
I guess only time will tell with this but I hope that NASA has made the right choice for their sake because if they don’t find a way to be more cost effective I fear they will be the victim of a very big budget cutting axe.
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/365663main_Ares_V_FS5.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V
So I am being to wonder if we really have the smartest people at NASA. For the ones who don’t know, the Space Shuttle will be decommissioned next year and “replaced” with the Ares Rockets. The Ares I will be used for crew launches and small payloads, and the Ares V will be for large payloads.
My question is why are they creating two whole new and separate rockets? During the 1960s and 1970s, the Saturn V Rocket did BOTH crew and payload launches. Why is NASA continuing with the Ares program when, with a few technological and other upgrades, they could use the Saturn V? Or why not scrape the Ares 1 and convert the Ares V to carry both crew and cargo? I have a hard time believing that using two separate rockets is more cost effective than the Space Shuttle.
I guess only time will tell with this but I hope that NASA has made the right choice for their sake because if they don’t find a way to be more cost effective I fear they will be the victim of a very big budget cutting axe.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Senator Edward Kennedy
With the passing of Senator Kennedy, politics and the Senate of the United States will never be the same.
Senator Kennedy was a staple of the Senate for four decades. For my entire life he has represented the state of Massachusetts and now that incredible career is over. He impacted the lives of so many and saved countless others with his push for health care reform.
The country has lost a great man and a great leader. Whoever is chosen to fill his Senate seat will have enormous shoes to fill, and I wish him/her luck.
Rest in peace Senator. You will be missed and your impact will never be forgotten.
Senator Kennedy was a staple of the Senate for four decades. For my entire life he has represented the state of Massachusetts and now that incredible career is over. He impacted the lives of so many and saved countless others with his push for health care reform.
The country has lost a great man and a great leader. Whoever is chosen to fill his Senate seat will have enormous shoes to fill, and I wish him/her luck.
Rest in peace Senator. You will be missed and your impact will never be forgotten.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Torture and the Deficit
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/08/cheney_rejoins.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/04/23/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4963412.shtml
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/24/cia-probe-is-terrible-politics-for-obama-dem-strategist-says/
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/us/politics/25rendition.html?bl&ex=1251259200&en=f907eb5f98d9a753&ei=5087%0A
Ok, DICK, enough is enough. This idea, that has somehow cemented itself into your tiny brain, that torture (or as he calls it “enhanced interrogation”) has made this country safer is absolute lunacy! The recent reports that have come out that you claim have “proved these techniques increase our security” have only made YOUR position more asinine. The “techniques” that were described (the ones not redacted) as being used on prisoners are in a word: disgusting! How in the hell do you justify such bull shit!? What you and your “friends” are too dense and pea-brained to understand is that torture DOES NOT make us safer! It in fact gives everyone out there who hates us, a perfect recruiting tool. Torture doesn’t make us safer you dumb ass, it makes us more of a target! You do realize don’t you, that if we are attacked again the line “it was the previous administration’s fault” slams itself squarely onto YOUR shoulders, and for once it won’t be a baseless statement! Oh but wait, that thought would be WAY too logical to make it even a nanometer into that thick skull of yours, much less make an impact on a pint sized brain. I think instead of fly-fishing for fish, you need to fly-fish your own head out of your ass. But surprisingly you aren’t the only one who has disgusted me this day.
Senator John McCain….how the hell can YOU of all people criticize the decision by the Justice Department and the President to investigate the CIA over these “tactics”? How can you possibly say that you strongly disagreed with the torture approved by the Bush Administration on one hand, and then turn around and call any investigation into it as a “witch hunt”? Are you telling me, Sir, that you would let torturers walk away scot-free? To think that I probably would have voted for you in 2000 if I had been old enough. I like to think that, John McCain would never have put politics ABOVE doing what is right. It would appear that I was grossly mistaken in that thought Senator. Moving on…
I also take issue with these people, such as James Carville, who feel that it is “terrible politics” for the President and Justice Department to investigate these allegations. Who gives a flying fuck if it is “good politics” or “bad politics”? Its not like the President made it a point to have his people dig around for dirt to legitimize an investigation into these torture allegations! The President said himself that he prefers to look forward and not back, but even he can’t deny that this needs to be investigated fully! This report was written in 2004, it wasn’t even written by the current administration! The President may not be thrilled about having to accept the need for the investigation but he seems to realize that, on this subject at least, it is the RIGHT thing to do. The very fact there was torture has already destroyed the prosecution of ANY of these “terror suspects” because anything gained by torture or coercion is INADMISSABLE in ANY court of law. Now I feel I must criticize the President, after praising him.
President Obama, I thought you were smarter than this. To continue the practice of rendition (which I concede was started under former President Clinton) is a gross misstep on your part. The investigation into torture is a step in the right direction, this however is a step back. The very idea of rendition is disturbing. Despite what these countries have said, we have no way to ensure that they won’t torture in these interrogations. Once we send these prisoners into the hands of other countries, we only have as much power there as they give us. Nothing stops them from saying “ok guys we’ll take it from here, now please wait outside.” We are in THEIR territory and if we want to stay there then we have to play by THEIR rules if we want them to continue interrogating our prisoners. Also, why was rendition created in the first place? If we have enough evidence to hold them for questioning, then surely we should have no reason to question them outside of U.S. jurisdiction. Why is it so much better to interrogate someone in a prison in Egypt than it is, on a U.S. military base near where the people we captured? This policy is wrong and has been so from the start and I am truly disappoint that the President has decided to continue it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125119686015756517.html?mod=rss_com_mostcommentart
Today the CBO and White House, said that the deficit will be far higher than they had predicted. Now I can already guess that everyone is going to have a fit but not offer any solutions to the problem. Therefore, I have some options to offer,
1) Raise taxes. Everyone hates this option and says you can’t do it in this economy. Well, when no one wants to cut government programs because they are popular for one group or another, then what other option is there?
2) Eliminate most, if not all, tax breaks and deductions. This is not technically a tax raise, but it would increase the amount of tax revenue the government receives.
3) Cut services. Cut the budgets of the top 10 government agencies/departments by 30% and cut the remaining 13 by 20% (I just picked those percentages as an example, it could be more or less). This seems just as unlikely as raising taxes. People love their government programs (even the ones who protest our “socialist government”) and all elected officials know that to cut programs that their constituents like is political suicide.
4) Reduce or eliminate the high numbers of contractors hired by the government. I don’t understand why contractors are so popular, they are far more expensive than having civil service employees and I would say are a big reason why costs of government have gone up so much.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/2008Performance.pdf
30% CUT
1 Department of Health and Human Services FY 2008 totaled $700 billion
2 Social Security Administration FY 2008 $694.6 billion - graph
3 Department of Defense FY 2008 funding (outlays) totaled $594.5 billion
4 Department of the Treasury FY 2008 totaled $519.1 billion
5 Department of Education FY 2008 $193.9 billion
6 Department of Agriculture FY 2008 $172.7 billion
7 Office of Personnel Management FY 2008 totaled $103.5 billion
8 Department of Veterans Affairs FY 2008 $97.0 billion
9 Department of Transportation FY 2008 $67.0 billion
10 Department of Homeland Security FY 2008 totaled $61.3 billion
20% CUT
11 Department of Labor FY 2008 totaled $59.2 billion
12 Department of Housing and Urban Development FY 2008 $52.3 billion
13 Department of Energy FY 2008 totaled $33.213 billion
14 Department of Justice FY 2008 totals $24.2 billion
15 National Aeronautics and Space Administration FY 2008 totaled $21.3 billion
16 General Services Administration FY 2008 $20.2 billion
17 Department of State FY 2008 $19 billion
18 Department of the Interior FY 2008 totaled $18.571 billion
19 United States Agency for International Development FY 2008 $13.9 billion
20 Department of Commerce FY 2008 is approximately $8.2 billion
21 Environmental Protection Agency FY 2008 totaled $7.472 billion
22 National Science Foundation FY 2008 $6.1 billion
23 Nuclear Regulatory Commission FY 2008 was $926.1 million
24 Small Business Administration FY 2008 totaled $528 million
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/04/23/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4963412.shtml
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/24/cia-probe-is-terrible-politics-for-obama-dem-strategist-says/
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/us/politics/25rendition.html?bl&ex=1251259200&en=f907eb5f98d9a753&ei=5087%0A
Ok, DICK, enough is enough. This idea, that has somehow cemented itself into your tiny brain, that torture (or as he calls it “enhanced interrogation”) has made this country safer is absolute lunacy! The recent reports that have come out that you claim have “proved these techniques increase our security” have only made YOUR position more asinine. The “techniques” that were described (the ones not redacted) as being used on prisoners are in a word: disgusting! How in the hell do you justify such bull shit!? What you and your “friends” are too dense and pea-brained to understand is that torture DOES NOT make us safer! It in fact gives everyone out there who hates us, a perfect recruiting tool. Torture doesn’t make us safer you dumb ass, it makes us more of a target! You do realize don’t you, that if we are attacked again the line “it was the previous administration’s fault” slams itself squarely onto YOUR shoulders, and for once it won’t be a baseless statement! Oh but wait, that thought would be WAY too logical to make it even a nanometer into that thick skull of yours, much less make an impact on a pint sized brain. I think instead of fly-fishing for fish, you need to fly-fish your own head out of your ass. But surprisingly you aren’t the only one who has disgusted me this day.
Senator John McCain….how the hell can YOU of all people criticize the decision by the Justice Department and the President to investigate the CIA over these “tactics”? How can you possibly say that you strongly disagreed with the torture approved by the Bush Administration on one hand, and then turn around and call any investigation into it as a “witch hunt”? Are you telling me, Sir, that you would let torturers walk away scot-free? To think that I probably would have voted for you in 2000 if I had been old enough. I like to think that, John McCain would never have put politics ABOVE doing what is right. It would appear that I was grossly mistaken in that thought Senator. Moving on…
I also take issue with these people, such as James Carville, who feel that it is “terrible politics” for the President and Justice Department to investigate these allegations. Who gives a flying fuck if it is “good politics” or “bad politics”? Its not like the President made it a point to have his people dig around for dirt to legitimize an investigation into these torture allegations! The President said himself that he prefers to look forward and not back, but even he can’t deny that this needs to be investigated fully! This report was written in 2004, it wasn’t even written by the current administration! The President may not be thrilled about having to accept the need for the investigation but he seems to realize that, on this subject at least, it is the RIGHT thing to do. The very fact there was torture has already destroyed the prosecution of ANY of these “terror suspects” because anything gained by torture or coercion is INADMISSABLE in ANY court of law. Now I feel I must criticize the President, after praising him.
President Obama, I thought you were smarter than this. To continue the practice of rendition (which I concede was started under former President Clinton) is a gross misstep on your part. The investigation into torture is a step in the right direction, this however is a step back. The very idea of rendition is disturbing. Despite what these countries have said, we have no way to ensure that they won’t torture in these interrogations. Once we send these prisoners into the hands of other countries, we only have as much power there as they give us. Nothing stops them from saying “ok guys we’ll take it from here, now please wait outside.” We are in THEIR territory and if we want to stay there then we have to play by THEIR rules if we want them to continue interrogating our prisoners. Also, why was rendition created in the first place? If we have enough evidence to hold them for questioning, then surely we should have no reason to question them outside of U.S. jurisdiction. Why is it so much better to interrogate someone in a prison in Egypt than it is, on a U.S. military base near where the people we captured? This policy is wrong and has been so from the start and I am truly disappoint that the President has decided to continue it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125119686015756517.html?mod=rss_com_mostcommentart
Today the CBO and White House, said that the deficit will be far higher than they had predicted. Now I can already guess that everyone is going to have a fit but not offer any solutions to the problem. Therefore, I have some options to offer,
1) Raise taxes. Everyone hates this option and says you can’t do it in this economy. Well, when no one wants to cut government programs because they are popular for one group or another, then what other option is there?
2) Eliminate most, if not all, tax breaks and deductions. This is not technically a tax raise, but it would increase the amount of tax revenue the government receives.
3) Cut services. Cut the budgets of the top 10 government agencies/departments by 30% and cut the remaining 13 by 20% (I just picked those percentages as an example, it could be more or less). This seems just as unlikely as raising taxes. People love their government programs (even the ones who protest our “socialist government”) and all elected officials know that to cut programs that their constituents like is political suicide.
4) Reduce or eliminate the high numbers of contractors hired by the government. I don’t understand why contractors are so popular, they are far more expensive than having civil service employees and I would say are a big reason why costs of government have gone up so much.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/2008Performance.pdf
30% CUT
1 Department of Health and Human Services FY 2008 totaled $700 billion
2 Social Security Administration FY 2008 $694.6 billion - graph
3 Department of Defense FY 2008 funding (outlays) totaled $594.5 billion
4 Department of the Treasury FY 2008 totaled $519.1 billion
5 Department of Education FY 2008 $193.9 billion
6 Department of Agriculture FY 2008 $172.7 billion
7 Office of Personnel Management FY 2008 totaled $103.5 billion
8 Department of Veterans Affairs FY 2008 $97.0 billion
9 Department of Transportation FY 2008 $67.0 billion
10 Department of Homeland Security FY 2008 totaled $61.3 billion
20% CUT
11 Department of Labor FY 2008 totaled $59.2 billion
12 Department of Housing and Urban Development FY 2008 $52.3 billion
13 Department of Energy FY 2008 totaled $33.213 billion
14 Department of Justice FY 2008 totals $24.2 billion
15 National Aeronautics and Space Administration FY 2008 totaled $21.3 billion
16 General Services Administration FY 2008 $20.2 billion
17 Department of State FY 2008 $19 billion
18 Department of the Interior FY 2008 totaled $18.571 billion
19 United States Agency for International Development FY 2008 $13.9 billion
20 Department of Commerce FY 2008 is approximately $8.2 billion
21 Environmental Protection Agency FY 2008 totaled $7.472 billion
22 National Science Foundation FY 2008 $6.1 billion
23 Nuclear Regulatory Commission FY 2008 was $926.1 million
24 Small Business Administration FY 2008 totaled $528 million
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
