Well that was fast......

[Hangdog42]

There was NO project in the article that I read... (granted, I will admit to skimming).

To be honest, I don't care if there was a project or not. Not all earmarks are about projects. What I care about is that Kyl used the earmark process to get preferential treatment for people in his state. If that process isn't nuked completely, it will come back and earmarks will show up again.

Don't get me wrong, I've had to bill the Feds and it ain't fun, but if these tribes are legitimately owed money, they can get in line with the rest of us. Or Kyl can change the process so that everyone has an easier time getting what is owed them, not just the people in his state.

 

[byteware]

To be honest, I don't care if there was a project or not. Not all earmarks are about projects. What I care about is that Kyl used the earmark process to get preferential treatment for people in his state. If that process isn't nuked completely, it will come back and earmarks will show up again.

This I can agree with.

Don't get me wrong, I've had to bill the Feds and it ain't fun, but if these tribes are legitimately owed money, they can get in line with the rest of us. Or Kyl can change the process so that everyone has an easier time getting what is owed them, not just the people in his state.

And this I have no argument with either.

 

[Dark Jedi]

Typical, when you are confronted with facts you run off or try to blame someone else. You offer no solutions or suggestions.

I guess it's hard to put yourself aside and see the world differently. America started off with good intentions but now look at what the greed of a few has done to the many.

A smart person is one that can change their mind to adjust for the course where as a stupid person is full speed ahead, finger in the ears, blinders on, right over the Grand Canyon.

You forgot and yelling I can't hear you lol.

 

[droiduzr2]

Well, considering that this is the worst downturn since the Great Depression and that took a decade and a world war to fix, there is no surprise that this won't be fixed in four. I dont' get people who think this recession should be over by now.



No surprise there either. A lot of us were screaming that both were going to be decades long before either started. Afghanistan was probably necessary, Iraq, not so much.



If you were paying attention, you would realize that healthcare was going to bankrupt and kill us BEFORE the reforms started. The problem with the reform that happened is that it didn't go anywhere near far enough. Healthcare was, and still is, broken in the US.



Well, you're probably right about that.

I don't get it either. Our belly's are full. Most have new cars, new homes, new tv's etc... So what do they want people to do, trade in their 2 year old car and get a newer car or same care different color

It amazes me how almost everyone seem to think this should be done and fixed in 6 months BUT it took TEN YEARS to create. WTF!!!

What part don't they get, people are broke or afraid of losing their jobs so they are saving and paying down their debt before something else happens. Considering the impact that A LOT of people whose credit scores have DROPPED, uhm I think things are not going to be fixed so quickly. The Banks are NOT lending to small business's so...

I think this is a good thing, people will get back to basics and actually have a REAL ECONOMY not the shell game people played with home prices and Wall St. wrapped up and sold then bet against it.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Try keep all your posts logical and sense making like that

 

[droiduzr2]

Try keep all your posts logical and sense making like that

Sorry, I realize that my speed of thought was moving too quickly for some to keep up with. I shall SLOW DOWN for them. Thank you for taking the time to help me correct things. I guess having the ability and being able to use the ability to readjust your viewpoints accordingly based on NEW information is a FOREIGN CONCEPT for SOME.

 

[Dark Jedi]

I don't get it either. Our belly's are full. Most have new cars, new homes, new tv's etc... So what do they want people to do, trade in their 2 year old car and get a newer car or same care different color

It amazes me how almost everyone seem to think this should be done and fixed in 6 months BUT it took TEN YEARS to create. WTF!!!

What part don't they get, people are broke or afraid of losing their jobs so they are saving and paying down their debt before something else happens. Considering the impact that A LOT of people whose credit scores have DROPPED, uhm I think things are not going to be fixed so quickly. The Banks are NOT lending to small business's so...

I think this is a good thing, people will get back to basics and actually have a REAL ECONOMY not the shell game people played with home prices and Wall St. wrapped up and sold then bet against it.

You hit the nail on the head. My wife and I have both good paying jobs and we are secure somewhat now. Got our vehicles paid off. Wife wants a new mustang but like I told her she has only had her new job for 1.5 years and my new job I have been at it 1 year December 18. No one know how this economy will go. Like I told her sure we could afford it now but what about 2 or 3 years from now.

Everyone is gun shy right now. Maybe our government should take our lead and cut back spending on fat we don't need.

Oh yeah I am taking donations for get my wife a mustang drive. Lol

 

[ElasticNinja]

I don't get it either. Our belly's are full. Most have new cars, new homes, new tv's etc... So what do they want people to do, trade in their 2 year old car and get a newer car or same care different color

Exactly

Economy grew so fast because people were buying things on BORROWED MONEY.
Now we have to pay all that back
+ interest

To where?
China, ME Oil States and ofc investors


People like my family who borrowed very little and were patient to buy things are the only part of the lower middle classes spending right now

The "debt forgiveness" rethoric from my country's Left drives me mad due to this (I do support equity taking for part state repayment tho)
When you borrow you take a risk that if you cant repay the collateral is seized

 

[droiduzr2]

You hit the nail on the head. My wife and I have both good paying jobs and we are secure somewhat now. Got our vehicles paid off. Wife wants a new mustang but like I told her she has only had her new job for 1.5 years and my new job I have been at it 1 year December 18. No one know how this economy will go. Like I told her sure we could afford it now but what about 2 or 3 years from now.

Everyone is gun shy right now. Maybe our government should take our lead and cut back spending on fat we don't need.

Oh yeah I am taking donations for get my wife a mustang drive. Lol

OOOH, look a "Progressive or is that Liberal" applying "conservative" principals...amazing how I can alter my course to adjust for the circumstances.

Hey Jedi,
Might I suggest this to you:
1. does she NEED a new car now?
2. buy the car used, get the demo model or look on kijiji or craigs (you can search all of Craigs from 1 site, same as kijiji)
3. We have a company here called leasebusters.com or.ca....do you guys have something like it.

I guess what I am saying based on what I learn from the auto side (I sold motorcycles for a year) SAVE your money. Buy a nice good used unit with a good extended warranty if you feel like it and put the REST or the DIFFERENCE into paying down your mortgage and credit cards.

Also, check into using solar energy to reduce or remove you need to be on the grid. I am looking into this and holy crap, you can spend about $1500-$2k and whamo, you are off the grid for the most part. If you can cut your electric and heating bills in half then you are putting money in your pockets or should I say KEEPING your money.

have a look
Some or just DIY guys but it gives you the confidence to do it since they did it. Spend a bit of time on Youtube (Greenenergy

Do It Yourself Solar Energy Projects: DIY Solar with rchegler

this is cool
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCbg9XCoR_8&feature=related

and this guy has lots of basic cool stuff you can do
heat your pool for free or get hot water for free with spending about $100 or less.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqxQFWaKN2Y


lookup this guy on youtube....greepowerscience he makes a pile of cool basic stuff, he lives in Florida.

You guys have access to buy this stuff for cheap.
Even if you setup a small system to cut your bills by 1/3rd that's money you keep forever.

 

[hakr100]

Only took 3 days for the Republican leadership to obliterate their promises on earmarks.


So much for fiscal responsibility.

There's only one item on the Republican agenda, and it isn't working to better conditions for ordinary Americans.

 

[byteware]

There's only one item on the Republican agenda, and it isn't working to better conditions for ordinary Americans.

I was going to be sarcastic and ask you for a source

Honestly though, all you seem to be able to do is repeat the talking points you've heard from Democrats.

You might find that neither side is evil, and neither side is perfect. They simply believe two fundamentally different philosophies.

Democrats believe it is the governments responsibility to take care of the needy. They believe that it should do so by taking from the "rich".

Republicans believe it is each and every person's responsibility to take care of the needy. They believe it should be done by each person giving of their time and money to the needy.

This is played out in politics, but this is also played out in charitable contributions.

Republican states give more per person to charity, even though they make less per person than Democrat states.

TaxProf Blog: "Generosity Index" Mirrors Red State-Blue State Divide

That should really tell you something. Republicans believe something different than you, and stand by it. The fact that they believe it is THEIR responsibility to tend to the poor and needy doesn't make them evil, or heartless... it just means that they believe something different than you do.


Quick quiz... who were the first people on site after Hurricane Katrina to help the victims? Evangelical organizations. They were there mere hours after the storm ended. The government was there days later.

they believe it, and they do it. Those heartless people.

 

[batgeek]

You might find that neither side is evil, and neither side is perfect. They simply believe two fundamentally different philosophies.

ding ding ding!!!! we have a winner.

 

[Hangdog42]

Democrats believe it is the governments responsibility to take care of the needy. They believe that it should do so by taking from the "rich".

Republicans believe it is each and every person's responsibility to take care of the needy. They believe it should be done by each person giving of their time and money to the needy.

And the problems arise when both side believe in one or the other exclusively. On their own, neither one of these approaches is entirely correct. Is it good that we have charitable organizations helping the needy? Yup. Do they have the resources to actually solve any of the problems they address? Almost never. I've worked with charitable organizations aimed at housing the poor. They do good work and should continue it since they generally have better ideas than government. But it never amounts to more than a band-aid because even though they bring in good money for a charity, they don't bring in anywhere near enough to actually make more than a dent in the problem. Generally, government is the only way to generate the kinds of resources a lot of these problems actually require.

Which of course brings up why doesn't the government give the resources to the charities and let them sort it out? Well, because most charities, while very good at making due with what they have, don't have the level of management and review to handle truly large sums of money. And if you disperse the money across too many organizations, you lose economies of scale.

Both sides have a role, and as soon as both sides stop pointing to the other solutions and screaming "evil bastards" we'll all be a lot better off.

 

[byteware]

And the problems arise when both side believe in one or the other exclusively. On their own, neither one of these approaches is entirely correct. Is it good that we have charitable organizations helping the needy? Yup. Do they have the resources to actually solve any of the problems they address? Almost never. I've worked with charitable organizations aimed at housing the poor. They do good work and should continue it since they generally have better ideas than government. But it never amounts to more than a band-aid because even though they bring in good money for a charity, they don't bring in anywhere near enough to actually make more than a dent in the problem. Generally, government is the only way to generate the kinds of resources a lot of these problems actually require.

Which of course brings up why doesn't the government give the resources to the charities and let them sort it out? Well, because most charities, while very good at making due with what they have, don't have the level of management and review to handle truly large sums of money. And if you disperse the money across too many organizations, you lose economies of scale.

Both sides have a role, and as soon as both sides stop pointing to the other solutions and screaming "evil bastards" we'll all be a lot better off.

So, what you are saying is that... we should implement better management, and oversight of charitable organizations, and then let them have the money they need to actually fix the problems.

 

[cjr72]

[Charities] don't have the level of management and review to handle truly large sums of money.

From first hand observation, neither do governments (US gov. anyway).

 

[Hangdog42]

So, what you are saying is that... we should implement better management, and oversight of charitable organizations, and then let them have the money they need to actually fix the problems.

No, I'm not saying that at all. If you look at the charitable landscape, big charities like the United Way tend to suffer from greed and corruption and direct government funding would only make that much, much worse. Huge amounts of the money they collect go into overhead and salaries, so overall a dollar contributed to these sorts of charities doesn't go anywhere near as far as a dollar contributed to a smaller organization. Toss on top of that, what you're proposing is essentially government contracting, and the amount of waste associated with that is just staggering because now there are lobbying costs, and general bribery of politicians, not to mention cronyism and nepotism. Essentially by having the government fund charities, you get all of the downside of a free market without any of the corrective actions that keep that downside in check when you have an actual free market. Not to mention that as organizations get larger, they tend to lose contact and focus on the people they serve.

What I am saying is that neither of the two extremes is right. You can't have a landscape populated by purely charitable organizations any more than you can have a landscape populated only by government programs.

From first hand observation, neither do governments (US gov. anyway).

From my first had observation, I'd argue they generally do a better job than government contractors. And when the greed and corruption hit a government agency, it tends to be easier to spot than when it happens withing government contractors. You can go through the budget of any government department and see how much they are spending on what. Try doing that with a contractor.