GOP Failure Watch Part III

The only argument I am making is to look at which projects are getting appropriated and see if it can be better spent. Byrd's position on the Ways and Means committee enabled him to waste money that should have been used to replace the bridge that collapsed in Minneapolis, or the Brett Spence bridge in Cincinnati, or hundreds of other vital infrastructure projects across the country. Instead, we wasted a huge amount of money on a stretch of highway that isn't even being used.

 

Sorry, byrd was on the Appropriation Committee.

I'm sure American D*ckhead will have a field day with that mistake.

 

You're willfully ignoring my point. In an ideal world, yes, every dollar would be spent at the place it is most needed. We don't live in that world.

 

I'm not ignoring it. I understand the way it works but that doesn't mean I have to like it. I'm not even asking for every dollar to be scrutinized but there are some things that are so unbelievably stupid it's hard to not point them out.

 

From your previous posts (such as the discussion about Obamacare), I suspect you'd like it just fine if it was in your favor. Which is, of course, the problem with earmarks - they're only liked if they're providing a benefit for your district.

 

I'm not going to change your opinion but the availability of lifelong care for my kids is a little different. I am very selfish on the healthcare issue with reason.

 

Well, with the military spending, (mentioned in my post), it's pretty obvious I'd say but I'm making the wider point, (or a related point you could say), of the value society places on things and how the government reflects those choices.

Is it not better, if public spending is worthwhile, to increase taxes on people, particularly the well off and, effectively, force them to spend money on things that society benefits from such as public buildings,housing, schools, roads, hospitals, etc. rather than money constantly being fed into 'investments' in property, shares, etc. etc.

If you look at the choices made in a few European countries and most Scandinavian ones, they have economies not based on massive government debt and borrowing.

I'm just saying that it's a wider issue of what government spending is going on. The amount of spending and taxes is also a choice and that should be considered as well.

Over here I keep hearing about 'tough choices' that have to be made and that always means what spending is going to be cut... the 'touch choices' rarely seem to be a question of what taxes have to go up, unless they're regressive taxes like VAT(sales tax) which hit the poor disproportionately.

 

The bar on the left should be much much smaller?

 

True story from a former Congressional candidate. This was an election to replace Rahm when he vacated his seat. Twenty preliminary candidates.

What do you think about earmarks? Hate 'em. Pledge to eliminate them. The devil's work. Etc.

What do you think about cutting federal funding for the Children's Hospital (just around the corner from where the debate was held). I'm not for that. That's different. You can't hurt the children.

He claimed he was the only candidate who attempted to defend earmarks, as a general thing, and who said he would consider cutting Children's Hospital funding. Of course he got killed in the election.

 

Yes, there's always a reason when there's something you don't want to change, isn't there? If there wasn't a reason, you wouldn't care.

By the way, how has Obamacare impacted you so far?

 

If you're standing for election to 'represent the people in your district', isn't it your responsibility to fight for their interests? I mean, isn't that kind of the whole POINT of it?

In a system like the UK there's an obvious tension between looking after the interests of the nation as a whole and those of the people who voted for you, but in a federal system, like the USA, any candidate who says he doesn't give a rats arse about the people voting for him DESERVES to get a pasting.

There's still a question of balancing the books as a nation but you can't come down too heavily on the side of nation outside your area without risking your position.

 

One would think.

 

Still unknown, they couldn't get the website up in time and I had to go with the company plan for another year.

I would like to think I would be against a billion dollar waste in my state but it hasn't happened that I am aware of. I'll let you know if it happens.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2010/12/senate_bill_aims_to_slip_in_th.html

 

Oh, that is different, that is not waste or pork, that is necessary investments for the people in Ohio.

 

It's amazing how many "questions" on this website can get addressed on the first page of a Google search.

 

Cleveland didn't need a coast guard station and yes I consider that waste.

Don't make me hit ignored content. I figured Brummie found some waste and thought it was relevant because I hadn't mentioned it.

That is exactly the type of waste I would be against, but at least a coast guard station would serve a purpose as opposed to some highway no one uses.

 

Well I think all federal money spent outside the state of Illinois is wasted money and should all stop, obviously federal money for Illinois is needed and high priority, so that should be increased.

 

Good for you. Want a cookie?

 

Only if it is an Obamacookie.

 

Regarding the highways that don't join up with other states... isn't it likely that politicians in other states would probably go our of their WAY not to make a connection so as to make a cheap political point that money was being wasted?

It's the same as Christie blocking traffic on the bridge recently. It scores a political point and, it's not HIM that pays the price, is it.

 

Please read the numerous links I posted. Clearly you didn't do that already.

 

I hadn't but I have now... and they pretty much confirm what I thought.

It raises an interesting question... could a scene like this ever be repeated in America?