Cutting Funding (not just for Iraq)

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Roopull, Jan 31, 2007.

  1. Roopull
    Offline

    Roopull Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2007
    Messages:
    99
    Thanks Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    Near Atlanta
    Ratings:
    +18
    Alrighty... I threw out a few lighthearted posts to wet my feet here at your lovely forum. I hope you enjoyed the impales scrotum story, the eagle & the deer head, the "stupid speed limits" story & others. But, now it's time to throw something out there that's a little heavier & see if it sticks.


    Note the embedded link

    Link to Article


    [​IMG]

    Let's ignore the whole Iraq war debate for just a few moments. There is some delicious irony in this story... did you catch it?

    One of my representatives in the great halls of Washington is Johnny Isakson. He's a republican. He's also a co-author of the FairTax bill. That would make the casual observer believe that Johnny must be a conservative... a fiscal conservative. You know... the type of guy who is for limited government spending. He even says as much.

    However, he's been in office since the much heralded do nothing republican revolution of the Gingrich era. In that time, he's voted for just about every single appropriations bill that's crossed his desk. (I exclude FY 2006 from this summary because he came under fire for being a budget pimp.)

    For those of you who don't know, an appropriations bill is basically a bill asking for more money to be spent than was originally in the bloated budget in the first place. It's where much of the loved & hated pork comes from.


    Anyhoo, Johnny has rarely ever voted against these pork barrels. A quick glance makes it clear that just about the only ones (about 10 out of about 200) that he's voted against had something to do with funding abortions... so, now we know what Johnny is actually all about.


    But, I don't mean to pick on Johnny. He's but one slut in Washington... one among hundreds... literally. What... 640 or so?

    For fiscal year 2006, there were only 11 appropriations bills. Doesn't sound bad, does it... well, not until you realize that stuffed into those 11 appropriations bills, there were 9,963 pork projects totalling $29 billion!!! Remember that next time ANY politician mentions the deficit.

    Alaska's share (the real whore in FY 2006) came to $489 per person... consider that when you're paying your taxes. That's not the cost of government... that's the amount of money that went to Alaska citizens in the form of pork alone...


    Now, back to the Iraq war stuff... are you still with me on this?

    I could fill your screen with dozens of links to Democrats & Republicans alike lamenting the state of the budget. It's virtually nonstop...


    Why oh WHY does it take a battle over funding troops for anyone in Wasshington to decide to cut funding for something?
    And there is the delicious Irony I mentioned.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    What drives me crazy is that the Constution of the United States, the supreme law of the land, states that the President has SOLE discretion over the use of our troops, and that the only thing Congress could do would be to cut the funding, which would invite political disaster. However, the Democrats keep claiming that they should also have control over the troops. This doesn't surprise me, as big government idiots have been sidestepping the Constitution for almost a century now.
     
  3. Darwins Friend
    Offline

    Darwins Friend Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2007
    Messages:
    181
    Thanks Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +17
    Just like NASA: No Bucks - No Buck Rogers.:cool:
     

Share This Page