Most Outrageous Ways Government Wasted Tax Dollars In 2010

[DiamondDave]

that may be your narrow sighted belief. but people much smarter than you and I sit on the court and interpret laws. if you want to change things, maybe you should go to law school and make a difference.

It is not that these 'people' are much smarter... they take advantage just as others in the business world do... grab power, make deals to work their way to the top, etc...

The narrow sighted belief is the one that the government is adding all this stuff benevolently

There are more ways of helping to change things than directly being on the inside

 

[DiamondDave]

the constitution does state "promote the general welfare" which has been interpreted to mean that government can provide those things.

Promote the general welfare is in the preamble.. and promote does not equate to provide... it equates to ensuring the freedoms for one to provide for themselves

As for the part that does mention provide... what most people forget is the rest of the phrase, which fully states "of the United States"... not the individual citizens within the states... it is to provide for the needs of the union as a whole, not the individual needs of every last person within the union.... we were NEVER intended to have a nanny state government

No.

Promoting the General Welfare falls under the powers of Congress. It's in the first clause.

And "Defense" means exactly that. Defense. Not Empire.

Try actually reading, swallower... you may actually learn something The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

And try actually understanding that defense does not only mean sitting back and waiting with a gun for an attack...

 

[Common Sense]

Promote the general welfare is in the preamble.. and promote does not equate to provide... it equates to ensuring the freedoms for one to provide for themselves

As for the part that does mention provide... what most people forget is the rest of the phrase, which fully states "of the United States"... not the individual citizens within the states... it is to provide for the needs of the union as a whole, not the individual needs of every last person within the union.... we were NEVER intended to have a nanny state government

No.

Promoting the General Welfare falls under the powers of Congress. It's in the first clause.

And "Defense" means exactly that. Defense. Not Empire.

Try actually reading, swallower... you may actually learn something The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

And try actually understanding that defense does not only mean sitting back and waiting with a gun for an attack...

thats your personal interpretation, not the actual legal one. you are interpreting things to suit your argument. i could do the same thing with the 2nd amendment. it reads the right to bear arms. well i wanna have nukes and jdams and bunker busters, and automatic weapons and claymores at my house for my own personal protection. doesnt the fall under the right to bear arms? or does it also mean i have the right to walk around without any sleeves on my shirt? thats bare arms, maybe it was a typo.

 

[DiamondDave]

No.

Promoting the General Welfare falls under the powers of Congress. It's in the first clause.

And "Defense" means exactly that. Defense. Not Empire.

Try actually reading, swallower... you may actually learn something The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

And try actually understanding that defense does not only mean sitting back and waiting with a gun for an attack...

thats your personal interpretation, not the actual legal one. you are interpreting things to suit your argument. i could do the same thing with the 2nd amendment. it reads the right to bear arms. well i wanna have nukes and jdams and bunker busters, and automatic weapons and claymores at my house for my own personal protection. doesnt the fall under the right to bear arms? or does it also mean i have the right to walk around without any sleeves on my shirt? thats bare arms, maybe it was a typo.

I would suggest you actually try reading and understanding that words have meaning as well.. not taking parts of sentences and phrases... it is not a hard document to understand... and unfortunately, we have had precedents in 'law' in the past that have thwarted the intention and setup of the document that has made it easier and easier to thwart the document with each subsequent power grab... we have a government of power mongers that have bastardized what this government and nation was meant to be

Many things are done legally thru the system, which is full of power grabbing and corruption, with persons and entities trading off for power gains

 

[NYcarbineer]

Are Iraq and Afghanistan on that list anywhere?

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

still until a repub talks about tackling SS, medicare, medicaid and defense, its all just talking points.

GWB was gonna make SS private, woulda saved alotta $, reduced debt/deficit, but I bet you fiercely opposed that....didn't ya........

 

[Common Sense]

still until a repub talks about tackling SS, medicare, medicaid and defense, its all just talking points.

GWB was gonna make SS private, woulda saved alotta $, reduced debt/deficit, but I bet you fiercely opposed that....didn't ya........

his idea of making SS private is the same as you individually investing in a mutual fund, stock, bond, 401(k) or other similar type investment vehicle. by privatizing SS as well you would have opened up the monies in the SS fund to private investor who would have then been able to charge fees and profit off of what was previously tax dollars. it would have no longer been a government program. it would have been in the control of wall street.

so tell me, what is the difference between the privatization of SS and investing on your own in stock, bonds and mutual funds?

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

Common Sense wrote:

his idea of making SS private is the same as you individually investing in a mutual fund, stock, bond, 401(k) or other similar type investment vehicle. by privatizing SS as well you would have opened up the monies in the SS fund to private investor who would have then been able to charge fees and profit off of what was previously tax dollars. it would have no longer been a government program. it would have been in the control of wall street.

EXACTLY, hence saving the government alotta $ and reducing the debt/deficit.

Maybe you think the government can manage YOUR OWN $ better than you, maybe you're kinda reckless like that, BUT I AINT. I can indeed spend and save better than some bureaucrat in D.C. can, and I woulda loved that opportunity to spend/invest it in WHATEVER I wanted, cuz THAT'S CAPITALISM/LIBERTY dude.

I reiterate my point....

 

[Common Sense]

Common Sense wrote:

his idea of making SS private is the same as you individually investing in a mutual fund, stock, bond, 401(k) or other similar type investment vehicle. by privatizing SS as well you would have opened up the monies in the SS fund to private investor who would have then been able to charge fees and profit off of what was previously tax dollars. it would have no longer been a government program. it would have been in the control of wall street.

EXACTLY, hence saving the government alotta $ and reducing the debt/deficit.

Maybe you think the government can manage YOUR OWN $ better than you, maybe you're kinda reckless like that, BUT I AINT. I can indeed spend and save better than some bureaucrat in D.C. can, and I woulda loved that opportunity to spend/invest it in WHATEVER I wanted, cuz THAT'S CAPITALISM/LIBERTY dude.

I reiterate my point....

really? did you not see that wall street almost collapsed recently? and the if it wasnt for TARP that many of the major financial institutions would have?

so then who decides which firms get to make the billions from the US tax dollars? Goldman, NY Mellon, B of A? hedge fund managers?

and you have the opportunity to spend and invest in whatever you want. its called WALL STREET. so give them your money, let them take none of the risk, but reap billions in profits off of you. Read "Dont Count on It" by John Bogle before you start championing wall street with all its glory.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

Common Sense wrote:

his idea of making SS private is the same as you individually investing in a mutual fund, stock, bond, 401(k) or other similar type investment vehicle. by privatizing SS as well you would have opened up the monies in the SS fund to private investor who would have then been able to charge fees and profit off of what was previously tax dollars. it would have no longer been a government program. it would have been in the control of wall street.


EXACTLY, hence saving the government alotta $ and reducing the debt/deficit.

Maybe you think the government can manage YOUR OWN $ better than you, maybe you're kinda reckless like that, BUT I AINT. I can indeed spend and save better than some bureaucrat in D.C. can, and I woulda loved that opportunity to spend/invest it in WHATEVER I wanted, cuz THAT'S CAPITALISM/LIBERTY dude.

I reiterate my point....

In another thread you didn't even know what the term "revenue" referred to...sorry I don't think you know a lot about even the very basics of the economy. You lose a lot of credibility.

 

[boedicca]

still until a repub talks about tackling SS, medicare, medicaid and defense, its all just talking points.

GWB was gonna make SS private, woulda saved alotta $, reduced debt/deficit, but I bet you fiercely opposed that....didn't ya........

his idea of making SS private is the same as you individually investing in a mutual fund, stock, bond, 401(k) or other similar type investment vehicle. by privatizing SS as well you would have opened up the monies in the SS fund to private investor who would have then been able to charge fees and profit off of what was previously tax dollars. it would have no longer been a government program. it would have been in the control of wall street.

so tell me, what is the difference between the privatization of SS and investing on your own in stock, bonds and mutual funds?

Privatization of SS would still require people to set aside some of their income for retirement savings, and would presumably have some sort of tax exempt treatment. The latter is just after tax investing.


The Chilean model of privatization has worked quite well. I wish we could trade presidents.

 

[NYcarbineer]

still until a repub talks about tackling SS, medicare, medicaid and defense, its all just talking points.

GWB was gonna make SS private, woulda saved alotta $, reduced debt/deficit, but I bet you fiercely opposed that....didn't ya........

Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit.

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

Common Sense wrote:

really? did you not see that wall street almost collapsed recently? and the if it wasnt for TARP that many of the major financial institutions would have?

And? Still doesn't discount my argument and central premise that IT'S MY $, I pay into that damn system, I should be able to pull it out when the time comes, and spend it on whatever I want, as IT'S MY $.

so then who decides which firms get to make the billions from the US tax dollars? Goldman, NY Mellon, B of A? hedge fund managers?

I don't give a damn, as long as they allow to invest and make $ with em.

and you have the opportunity to spend and invest in whatever you want. its called WALL STREET. so give them your money, let them take none of the risk, but reap billions in profits off of you. Read "Dont Count on It" by John Bogle before you start championing wall street with all its glory.

Annnnd we're back to your problem with personal, fiscal responsibility.... Why? Why do you have such a problem with this? IT SHOULD @ LEAST BE AN OPTION, again, some faceless bureaucrat in D.C. has NO REAL RIGHT TO MY $, I can spend it save it better than he/she can.

Risks of Wall St? I'll take those, and whether I win or loose, it'll be MY RESPONSIBILITY.

 

[Common Sense]

because you are trying to dictate how tax dollars are spent. if you wanted to be able to do that, run for congress.

if each individual tax payer gets to decided how to spends his or her tax dollars, whats next, no funding for roads, national parks, nasa, national monuments, medicare, medicaid, the military and every other government agency you dont agree with.

you dont seems to care that if you give the money to wall street, the rich will get just keep getting richer by controlling more of the wealth in the country? you really are an economic moron then.

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

Common Sense wrote:

if each individual tax payer gets to decided how to spends his or her tax dollars, whats next, no funding for roads, national parks, nasa, national monuments, medicare, medicaid, the military and every other government agency you dont agree with.

We aint talking bout those, THOSE are separate issues. Please show me where in the Constitution it mandates that, AGAIN, a faceless bureaucrat in D.C. has ANY right to my SS tax $, or even where it mentions SS. Taking one of your examples tho: we are indeed mandated to have a national military, of course my/our tax $ should go to that. I could take on your other examples, but I've made my case, save them for later.

you dont seems to care that if you give the money to wall street, the rich will get just keep getting richer by controlling more of the wealth in the country? you really are an economic moron then.

I aint concerned with the rich, or obsessed with persecuting them or the successful American Dream they exemplify, like you. I'M CONCERNED WITH ME, MY $. They can make all the $ they want, I simply want the opportunity to make it with them, IE Capitalism, IE a FREE market, IE PERSONAL, FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY.

Face it, you got nothing but that remixed, socialistic, class warfare BS. My $ is mine, and should be mine to spend or save however I please. I'm right, on the side of liberty here, you're lookin more and more authoritarian.

 

[Common Sense]

not everything the govt does is spelled out in the constitution.
but we pass laws every years.

Do i really need to post these everytime you go on your constitution crusade?

Things not in the constitution:

The Air Force
Congressional Districts
The Electoral College
Executive Order
Executive Privilege
Freedom of Expression
(Absolute) Freedom of Speech and Press
"From each according to his ability..."
God
Immigration
Impeachment means removal from office
Innocent until proven guilty
It's a free country
Judicial Review
Jury of Peers
"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"
Marriage
Martial Law
No taxation without representation
Number of Justices in the Supreme Court
"Of the people, by the people, for the people"
Paper Money
Political Parties
Primary Elections
Qualifications for Judges
The right to privacy
The right to travel
The right to vote
The separation of church and state
The Separation of Powers Clause
Slavery
"We hold these truths to be self-evident"

lets cut every one of these as well.

so try again troll.

 

[Common Sense]

it also says for national defense, not national offense. so why isnt invading illegal? thats not defense, that offense.

and social security was passed in 1965 under the Social Security Act.

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

Common Sense wrote:
but we pass laws every years.

Do i really need to post these everytime you go on your constitution crusade?

My 1st time.

Things not in the constitution:

The Air Force
Congressional Districts
The Electoral College
Executive Order
Executive Privilege
Freedom of Expression
(Absolute) Freedom of Speech and Press
"From each according to his ability..."
God
Immigration
Impeachment means removal from office
Innocent until proven guilty
It's a free country
Judicial Review
Jury of Peers
"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"
Marriage
Martial Law
No taxation without representation
Number of Justices in the Supreme Court
"Of the people, by the people, for the people"
Paper Money
Political Parties
Primary Elections
Qualifications for Judges
The right to privacy
The right to travel
The right to vote
The separation of church and state
The Separation of Powers Clause
Slavery
"We hold these truths to be self-evident"

lets cut every one of these as well.

Annnd that invalidates my argument HOW? You fail in dragging up that list TO PROVE WHY/HOW A FACELESS BUREAUCRAT IN D.C. HAS ANY RIGHT TO MY HARD EARNED $ THAT I PAY INTO THAT SYSTEM. As I said, WE'RE TALKING BOUT SS AND PRIVATIZATION. Not those separate issues. Stop tryna deflect and run.

You obviously can't refute the point

so try again troll.

Thanks for playing sore loser. Better luck next time?

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

Phew! I wasn't enjoying lil CommonSense here being one up on me, but looks like that worry is over!

I always redeem myself, never gon make the same silly mistake twice.

 

[Common Sense]

if you want to take an acutal literal translation of the constitution go ahead. you be part of the 0.0001% of americans that do. but important laws get passed every year that we use tax payer dollars to support.

you want to justify only funding those things which are in the constitutions. hence, you have to be for cutting all the programs and laws i listed:

The Airforce
Marriage Protection
Social Security
Medicare
Medicaid
Homeland Security
All federal departments
The right to vote
voting primaries
all federal benefits and pensions
trial by jury of your peers
executive privilege and executive orders
reinstate slavery
the right to privacy
the electoral college
the federal highway system
national parks
national monuments
Air Force One
Marine One
The White House
The secret service
The FBI
The CIA

need i go on......

you want to set a precedent for allowing the privatization of a government program. with that precedent, why do we need a government at all? why not just keep everything private? then we dont even have to vote.