And to think that left continues to demand MORE government

[deanrd]

Unimaginable and inexcusable ineptitude by our federal government.

An audit conducted by Ernst & Young found that the agency’s accounting procedures are so flawed that there is no reliable way to track how it uses its $40 billion annual budget.

If a private organization was this inept, the left would take to the streets with violence. They would demand all kinds of “regulatory” reforms and legislation. And yet when it happens with tax payer dollars, all they do is shrug and insist that we need more government.

Major Pentagon agency can’t account for $800 million — but still may get a budget increase

Republicans don't understand that an authoritarian type government by a Mafia Don IS more government.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Unimaginable and inexcusable ineptitude by our federal government.

An audit conducted by Ernst & Young found that the agency’s accounting procedures are so flawed that there is no reliable way to track how it uses its $40 billion annual budget.

If a private organization was this inept, the left would take to the streets with violence. They would demand all kinds of “regulatory” reforms and legislation. And yet when it happens with tax payer dollars, all they do is shrug and insist that we need more government.

Major Pentagon agency can’t account for $800 million — but still may get a budget increase

Dear P@triot
After seeing the frustration with FEMA after Harvey,
where only people who called in the first week got help right away
and anyone after that was stuck in line waiting for weeks or months,
I thought surely this is proof that federal govt cannot handle
health care for the entire nation. The feds could not even manage
the demand from residents and businesses in key cities across 3-4 states.
How would you expect one centralized agency to handle the
entire populations of all 50 states.

Wake up! We all know that the relief process should have been localized.
And that's the key to health care as well.

The key to getting people on the same page, is
for people to pay for their own party platforms,
funded and run by their parties of choice directly.

For any social programs not expressly authorized in the Constituion,
these should be optional for taxpayers to choose to fund by checking
boxes on tax forms. So if you want to pay for military and veteran care,
checkone box. if you want to pay for health care for inmates, immigrants
and welfare recipients and believe in same sex benefits, check another box.

that way you get the govt you ask for.
and are required to pay for it!

The Old guys selling their oxy on the street has dropped and Heroin sales are up. Seems the old guys found out that Heroin is cheaper than Oxy. So the Doctors at the DEA have shut off the Meds to the Old guys who are selling. Pain levels are increasing.

 

[P@triot]

Nobody is saying have the government do everything. But helping the people is not socialism

 

[P@triot]

Nobody is saying have the government do everything. But helping the people is not socialism

Helping the people is also not constitutional.

If you want that to be the responsibility of the federal government, then amend the U.S. Constitution to reflect that as their responsibility. If you can’t get the votes you need to make that happen, then respect the fact that We the People have spoken.

 

[P@triot]

You guys don’t flinch at helping capitalists.

Another progressive post, another outrageous lie.

• It was Barack Insane Obama and the Dumbocrats who threw $500 billion at Solyndra despite knowing they would still go out of business.

• It was Barack Insane Obama and the Dumbocrats who “bailed out” Wall Street.

• It was Barack Insane Obama and the Dumbocrats who “bailed out” GM.

• It was Barack Insane Obama and the Dumbocrats who “bailed out” Chrysler.

• It is the Dumbocrats who throw trillions of tax payer dollars at “green energy” capitalists.

And the entire time, you applauded and cheered while every constitutional conservative vehemently opposed it.

Why do you feel the need to lie every time you speak? I’m just curious.

 

[easyt65]

'And to think that left continues to demand MORE government'

More government CONTROL....with THEM in control.

The last time that happened, Obama illegally spied on US citizens, reporters, the media, US Senators, and even USSC Justices, his Cabinet was a crime syndicate, and he violated both Constitution and Rule of Law....

 

[regent]

I think every nation has a right to establish that form of government under which it conceives it shall live most happy ,,, George Washington

And we did when they wrote the US Constitution that outlines what kind of government we were to have.

The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government. George Washington

So I guess Washington was pro-life. Caring and providing are two different things.

To the framers and founders government had a purpose other than governing, the purpose had to do with the general welfare of the people. The founders used the term of happiness as a purpose of government, as did Jefferson in the Declaration.

As Madison put it, the general welfare is limited to what the Constitution outlines.

Mind you this doesn't apply to state. A state can make any kind of social programs they deem necessary. Promoting and providing the general welfare is much different than funding the general welfare which is where we are at today. Our founders realized even back then that the federal government funding welfare would create dependency.

Some would argue that the reason our founders never funded the general welfare is because times were different. Well.......they could have provided us with government log cabins instead of HUD. They could have paid farmers to give people food who didn't have any. They could have made programs like Cash for Carriages.

Today however, the federal government provides food for people, housing for people, medical care for people, utilities for people, and even cell phones for people. Do you think this is what our founders had in mind?

Subsequent legislation and court decisions ruled otherwise

I didn't ask if liberal judged though it was right, I'm asking if you think the founders would have thought it proper.

The founders believed that the states should provide the food and housing for the poor and homeless. Would they have approved the federal government assuming those tasks if the state governments had no money, It seems they did. America is still changing and we move closer to the Great Enlightenment which was part of our birth.

 

[Thinker101]

And we did when they wrote the US Constitution that outlines what kind of government we were to have.

So I guess Washington was pro-life. Caring and providing are two different things.

To the framers and founders government had a purpose other than governing, the purpose had to do with the general welfare of the people. The founders used the term of happiness as a purpose of government, as did Jefferson in the Declaration.

As Madison put it, the general welfare is limited to what the Constitution outlines.

Mind you this doesn't apply to state. A state can make any kind of social programs they deem necessary. Promoting and providing the general welfare is much different than funding the general welfare which is where we are at today. Our founders realized even back then that the federal government funding welfare would create dependency.

Some would argue that the reason our founders never funded the general welfare is because times were different. Well.......they could have provided us with government log cabins instead of HUD. They could have paid farmers to give people food who didn't have any. They could have made programs like Cash for Carriages.

Today however, the federal government provides food for people, housing for people, medical care for people, utilities for people, and even cell phones for people. Do you think this is what our founders had in mind?

Subsequent legislation and court decisions ruled otherwise

I didn't ask if liberal judged though it was right, I'm asking if you think the founders would have thought it proper.

The founders believed that the states should provide the food and housing for the poor and homeless. Would they have approved the federal government assuming those tasks if the state governments had no money, It seems they did. America is still changing and we move closer to the Great Enlightenment which was part of our birth.

The founders did what? I'm sure you have a link.

 

[regent]

To the framers and founders government had a purpose other than governing, the purpose had to do with the general welfare of the people. The founders used the term of happiness as a purpose of government, as did Jefferson in the Declaration.

As Madison put it, the general welfare is limited to what the Constitution outlines.

Mind you this doesn't apply to state. A state can make any kind of social programs they deem necessary. Promoting and providing the general welfare is much different than funding the general welfare which is where we are at today. Our founders realized even back then that the federal government funding welfare would create dependency.

Some would argue that the reason our founders never funded the general welfare is because times were different. Well.......they could have provided us with government log cabins instead of HUD. They could have paid farmers to give people food who didn't have any. They could have made programs like Cash for Carriages.

Today however, the federal government provides food for people, housing for people, medical care for people, utilities for people, and even cell phones for people. Do you think this is what our founders had in mind?

Subsequent legislation and court decisions ruled otherwise

I didn't ask if liberal judged though it was right, I'm asking if you think the founders would have thought it proper.

The founders believed that the states should provide the food and housing for the poor and homeless. Would they have approved the federal government assuming those tasks if the state governments had no money, It seems they did. America is still changing and we move closer to the Great Enlightenment which was part of our birth.

The founders did what? I'm sure you have a link.

Sure, get a history book on the Great Depression.

 

[Thinker101]

As Madison put it, the general welfare is limited to what the Constitution outlines.

Mind you this doesn't apply to state. A state can make any kind of social programs they deem necessary. Promoting and providing the general welfare is much different than funding the general welfare which is where we are at today. Our founders realized even back then that the federal government funding welfare would create dependency.

Some would argue that the reason our founders never funded the general welfare is because times were different. Well.......they could have provided us with government log cabins instead of HUD. They could have paid farmers to give people food who didn't have any. They could have made programs like Cash for Carriages.

Today however, the federal government provides food for people, housing for people, medical care for people, utilities for people, and even cell phones for people. Do you think this is what our founders had in mind?

Subsequent legislation and court decisions ruled otherwise

I didn't ask if liberal judged though it was right, I'm asking if you think the founders would have thought it proper.

The founders believed that the states should provide the food and housing for the poor and homeless. Would they have approved the federal government assuming those tasks if the state governments had no money, It seems they did. America is still changing and we move closer to the Great Enlightenment which was part of our birth.

The founders did what? I'm sure you have a link.

Sure, get a history book on the Great Depression.

No kidding, our founders were still around during the Great Depression? Sounds like you may need the history book.

 

[regent]

Subsequent legislation and court decisions ruled otherwise

I didn't ask if liberal judged though it was right, I'm asking if you think the founders would have thought it proper.

The founders believed that the states should provide the food and housing for the poor and homeless. Would they have approved the federal government assuming those tasks if the state governments had no money, It seems they did. America is still changing and we move closer to the Great Enlightenment which was part of our birth.

The founders did what? I'm sure you have a link.

Sure, get a history book on the Great Depression.

No kidding, our founders were still around during the Great Depression? Sounds like you may need the history book.

Well the founders are on this thread. So if for some reason you can't read history what do you not understand?

 

[Thinker101]

I didn't ask if liberal judged though it was right, I'm asking if you think the founders would have thought it proper.

The founders believed that the states should provide the food and housing for the poor and homeless. Would they have approved the federal government assuming those tasks if the state governments had no money, It seems they did. America is still changing and we move closer to the Great Enlightenment which was part of our birth.

The founders did what? I'm sure you have a link.

Sure, get a history book on the Great Depression.

No kidding, our founders were still around during the Great Depression? Sounds like you may need the history book.

Well the founders are on this thread. So if for some reason you can't read history what do you not understand?

Certainly don't understand loony's such as yourself.

 

[g5000]

Unimaginable and inexcusable ineptitude by our federal government.

An audit conducted by Ernst & Young found that the agency’s accounting procedures are so flawed that there is no reliable way to track how it uses its $40 billion annual budget.

If a private organization was this inept, the left would take to the streets with violence. They would demand all kinds of “regulatory” reforms and legislation. And yet when it happens with tax payer dollars, all they do is shrug and insist that we need more government.

Major Pentagon agency can’t account for $800 million — but still may get a budget increase

And to think Trump wants to add more to our debt by spending MORE on our military.

 

[rightwinger]

I think every nation has a right to establish that form of government under which it conceives it shall live most happy ,,, George Washington

And we did when they wrote the US Constitution that outlines what kind of government we were to have.

The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government. George Washington

So I guess Washington was pro-life. Caring and providing are two different things.

To the framers and founders government had a purpose other than governing, the purpose had to do with the general welfare of the people. The founders used the term of happiness as a purpose of government, as did Jefferson in the Declaration.

As Madison put it, the general welfare is limited to what the Constitution outlines.

Mind you this doesn't apply to state. A state can make any kind of social programs they deem necessary. Promoting and providing the general welfare is much different than funding the general welfare which is where we are at today. Our founders realized even back then that the federal government funding welfare would create dependency.

Some would argue that the reason our founders never funded the general welfare is because times were different. Well.......they could have provided us with government log cabins instead of HUD. They could have paid farmers to give people food who didn't have any. They could have made programs like Cash for Carriages.

Today however, the federal government provides food for people, housing for people, medical care for people, utilities for people, and even cell phones for people. Do you think this is what our founders had in mind?

Subsequent legislation and court decisions ruled otherwise

I didn't ask if liberal judged though it was right, I'm asking if you think the founders would have thought it proper.

Are you now claiming that every judge for the last 200 years has been a liberal?

The Supreme Court has been conservative for the last 40 years

 

[regent]

The states ran out of money during the Great Depression and FDR asked the Congress for money to feed the hungry. Since that time various attempts have been made to share or make more a more equitable process.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And we did when they wrote the US Constitution that outlines what kind of government we were to have.

So I guess Washington was pro-life. Caring and providing are two different things.

To the framers and founders government had a purpose other than governing, the purpose had to do with the general welfare of the people. The founders used the term of happiness as a purpose of government, as did Jefferson in the Declaration.

As Madison put it, the general welfare is limited to what the Constitution outlines.

Mind you this doesn't apply to state. A state can make any kind of social programs they deem necessary. Promoting and providing the general welfare is much different than funding the general welfare which is where we are at today. Our founders realized even back then that the federal government funding welfare would create dependency.

Some would argue that the reason our founders never funded the general welfare is because times were different. Well.......they could have provided us with government log cabins instead of HUD. They could have paid farmers to give people food who didn't have any. They could have made programs like Cash for Carriages.

Today however, the federal government provides food for people, housing for people, medical care for people, utilities for people, and even cell phones for people. Do you think this is what our founders had in mind?

Subsequent legislation and court decisions ruled otherwise

I didn't ask if liberal judged though it was right, I'm asking if you think the founders would have thought it proper.

Are you now claiming that every judge for the last 200 years has been a liberal?

The Supreme Court has been conservative for the last 40 years

It has? Is that why we have forced gay marriage and Commie Care still?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And we did when they wrote the US Constitution that outlines what kind of government we were to have.

So I guess Washington was pro-life. Caring and providing are two different things.

To the framers and founders government had a purpose other than governing, the purpose had to do with the general welfare of the people. The founders used the term of happiness as a purpose of government, as did Jefferson in the Declaration.

As Madison put it, the general welfare is limited to what the Constitution outlines.

Mind you this doesn't apply to state. A state can make any kind of social programs they deem necessary. Promoting and providing the general welfare is much different than funding the general welfare which is where we are at today. Our founders realized even back then that the federal government funding welfare would create dependency.

Some would argue that the reason our founders never funded the general welfare is because times were different. Well.......they could have provided us with government log cabins instead of HUD. They could have paid farmers to give people food who didn't have any. They could have made programs like Cash for Carriages.

Today however, the federal government provides food for people, housing for people, medical care for people, utilities for people, and even cell phones for people. Do you think this is what our founders had in mind?

Subsequent legislation and court decisions ruled otherwise

I didn't ask if liberal judged though it was right, I'm asking if you think the founders would have thought it proper.

The founders believed that the states should provide the food and housing for the poor and homeless. Would they have approved the federal government assuming those tasks if the state governments had no money, It seems they did. America is still changing and we move closer to the Great Enlightenment which was part of our birth.

No, the left is trying to move us closer to Socialism.

If food, shelter and medical care were part of our federal governments responsibilities, it would be written in the Constitution. Of course a state can do anything they want provided it's not unconstitutional.

What our founders knew was that dependency creates power, so they wrote the Constitution to limit that power.

For instance when you were younger living at home with your parents, they had the power. They told you when you had to be home, where you had to park, what time you were allowed to play your music until and so forth. If you want to be in charge over those decisions, you move out of your parents house into your own.

If you work for somebody, they tell you what time you have to come in, how much time away from work you are allowed to have, what time you can leave to go home because you depend on that job to live on. If you want to make those decisions for yourself, you have to open up your own business or otherwise find a way to be self-supportive.

So our founders did not want the federal government to be able to control the people. It was counterproductive to why we started a country in the first place.

 

[regent]

To the framers and founders government had a purpose other than governing, the purpose had to do with the general welfare of the people. The founders used the term of happiness as a purpose of government, as did Jefferson in the Declaration.

As Madison put it, the general welfare is limited to what the Constitution outlines.

Mind you this doesn't apply to state. A state can make any kind of social programs they deem necessary. Promoting and providing the general welfare is much different than funding the general welfare which is where we are at today. Our founders realized even back then that the federal government funding welfare would create dependency.

Some would argue that the reason our founders never funded the general welfare is because times were different. Well.......they could have provided us with government log cabins instead of HUD. They could have paid farmers to give people food who didn't have any. They could have made programs like Cash for Carriages.

Today however, the federal government provides food for people, housing for people, medical care for people, utilities for people, and even cell phones for people. Do you think this is what our founders had in mind?

Subsequent legislation and court decisions ruled otherwise

So if the American people wanted socialized medicine could they have it?
I didn't ask if liberal judged though it was right, I'm asking if you think the founders would have thought it proper.

The founders believed that the states should provide the food and housing for the poor and homeless. Would they have approved the federal government assuming those tasks if the state governments had no money, It seems they did. America is still changing and we move closer to the Great Enlightenment which was part of our birth.

No, the left is trying to move us closer to Socialism.

If food, shelter and medical care were part of our federal governments responsibilities, it would be written in the Constitution. Of course a state can do anything they want provided it's not unconstitutional.

What our founders knew was that dependency creates power, so they wrote the Constitution to limit that power.

For instance when you were younger living at home with your parents, they had the power. They told you when you had to be home, where you had to park, what time you were allowed to play your music until and so forth. If you want to be in charge over those decisions, you move out of your parents house into your own.

If you work for somebody, they tell you what time you have to come in, how much time away from work you are allowed to have, what time you can leave to go home because you depend on that job to live on. If you want to make those decisions for yourself, you have to open up your own business or otherwise find a way to be self-supportive.

So our founders did not want the federal government to be able to control the people. It was counterproductive to why we started a country in the first place.

 

[rightwinger]

To the framers and founders government had a purpose other than governing, the purpose had to do with the general welfare of the people. The founders used the term of happiness as a purpose of government, as did Jefferson in the Declaration.

As Madison put it, the general welfare is limited to what the Constitution outlines.

Mind you this doesn't apply to state. A state can make any kind of social programs they deem necessary. Promoting and providing the general welfare is much different than funding the general welfare which is where we are at today. Our founders realized even back then that the federal government funding welfare would create dependency.

Some would argue that the reason our founders never funded the general welfare is because times were different. Well.......they could have provided us with government log cabins instead of HUD. They could have paid farmers to give people food who didn't have any. They could have made programs like Cash for Carriages.

Today however, the federal government provides food for people, housing for people, medical care for people, utilities for people, and even cell phones for people. Do you think this is what our founders had in mind?

Subsequent legislation and court decisions ruled otherwise

I didn't ask if liberal judged though it was right, I'm asking if you think the founders would have thought it proper.

Are you now claiming that every judge for the last 200 years has been a liberal?

The Supreme Court has been conservative for the last 40 years

It has? Is that why we have forced gay marriage and Commie Care still?

Nobody has ever been forced into a gay marriage. It is a consensual agreement between adults.

That’s why the courts said the states had no grounds to deny it

 

[rightwinger]

To the framers and founders government had a purpose other than governing, the purpose had to do with the general welfare of the people. The founders used the term of happiness as a purpose of government, as did Jefferson in the Declaration.

As Madison put it, the general welfare is limited to what the Constitution outlines.

Mind you this doesn't apply to state. A state can make any kind of social programs they deem necessary. Promoting and providing the general welfare is much different than funding the general welfare which is where we are at today. Our founders realized even back then that the federal government funding welfare would create dependency.

Some would argue that the reason our founders never funded the general welfare is because times were different. Well.......they could have provided us with government log cabins instead of HUD. They could have paid farmers to give people food who didn't have any. They could have made programs like Cash for Carriages.

Today however, the federal government provides food for people, housing for people, medical care for people, utilities for people, and even cell phones for people. Do you think this is what our founders had in mind?

Subsequent legislation and court decisions ruled otherwise

I didn't ask if liberal judged though it was right, I'm asking if you think the founders would have thought it proper.

The founders believed that the states should provide the food and housing for the poor and homeless. Would they have approved the federal government assuming those tasks if the state governments had no money, It seems they did. America is still changing and we move closer to the Great Enlightenment which was part of our birth.

No, the left is trying to move us closer to Socialism.

If food, shelter and medical care were part of our federal governments responsibilities, it would be written in the Constitution. Of course a state can do anything they want provided it's not unconstitutional.

What our founders knew was that dependency creates power, so they wrote the Constitution to limit that power.

For instance when you were younger living at home with your parents, they had the power. They told you when you had to be home, where you had to park, what time you were allowed to play your music until and so forth. If you want to be in charge over those decisions, you move out of your parents house into your own.

If you work for somebody, they tell you what time you have to come in, how much time away from work you are allowed to have, what time you can leave to go home because you depend on that job to live on. If you want to make those decisions for yourself, you have to open up your own business or otherwise find a way to be self-supportive.

So our founders did not want the federal government to be able to control the people. It was counterproductive to why we started a country in the first place.

You have no concept of what Socialism is......not the purpose of government