Shut 'em Down!

I'm not going to blame Obama for something he had no control over, or had no influence over.

Yes, mistakes were made during the Iraq War, we all know that. We just have to stop repeating the same mistakes over and over again...

three million lives


yeah the "football" players are striking and everything

This just in (somewhat on topic):

Obamacare website will be working in 5 weeks.

I highly doubt it, but at least it is on record (until the media changes it of course).

pffft. they all left here to go to france after making their fortunes...

no no no someplace way cooler... think playground of the rich. perhaps some stateless island with white sand beaches and vague extradition treaties

Fuji? New Zealand?

Oh, wait, I got it!

California!

The thing is, we're still paying for the accumulated mistakes of the past and reassigning the blame to whoever the current/last president was.

You want to cut 100 billion out of the budget, we could start by getting our butts out of Iraq and Afghanistan, those wars have cost between 160 and 300 billion a year for the last decade. We could stop giving abusive mercenary forces security contracts, and put half the money saved into infrastructure and still beat that 100 billion figured by about 50%. Our active engagement military funding is almost as high as our total discretionary budget, I say we start there.

Obama may not have been responsible for the spending from 2002-2008, but he is responsible for the spending from 2009-today. You can argue that Congress is ultimately responsible for passing a budget, but Obama still has a whole lot of influence in actually getting the budget together. He is happy with the way things are (except for the sequester). Fault still lies with him about the continued accumulated mistakes from the past.


Well, pulling fully out all at once would be horrible, and do more damage to the world than anything. Which is what we did to Iraq...

I wouldn't fully take out the military all at once, but I would make Afghanistan take over the military responsibilities a whole lot faster than what we have been doing...

Besides, there are a whole lot more wasteful spending than just the military...

The fact that the 2008+ budgets include the wars, medicare part b, and a half a dozen other things that Bush started but never paid for doesn't affect your view of Obama's spending at all?


Which is?

Most likely they mean horrible programs like the EPA, FDA, medicare, the space program, or anything that won't help corporations turn a profit. If there is spending that somebody somewhere might see as socialist, it needs to go.

The fact that he did not do a full reversal of policies and spending (like he "promised" to do when he first got elected, he ran as the anti-Bush, remember?). The fact that not only has he not reversed the policies of his predecessor, but has increased said spending, essentially "doubling down" on the same "bad" policies that got Bush hated...and he is getting away with it!


Justice Department's obvious fraudulent spending of its budget chasing down lawsuits to suit the needs of a specific agenda.
EPA's obvious fraudulent spending on its budget creating new rules and regulations beyond its mandate to do so.
Overall waste in government on all levels.
Corruption in the HHS for holding hostage state funding for a specific agenda, and the waste that creates.
Having 10 people doing the job that 1 person can do.
IRS's wasteful training of both its auditors and even data input personnel.
Overall fraudulent spending practices in regards to specific government outlays (food stamps, EIC, Housing assistance, student loans to name a few. If you are having a fraud rate of 20% or higher of all outlays, that is considered fraudulent on the government level in my opinion).

Those are just off the top of my head. I'm sure you can come up with a few more yourself. Especially in the military.

Nailed it.

Except I did not mention the FDA, Medicare, or NASA, or anything that is preventing business. Well, except for the blatantly obvious lawsuits that the Justice Department and EPA are making towards individuals and businesses to suit their agenda.

But I'm sure that suing a lawnmower business for not buying carbon credits, which ended up killing said business due to legal fees for the lawsuit, even though the case was dismissed due to no merit in the lawsuit in the first place, I'm sure that is good use of government money there.

People on both sides of the fence abhor this, and where did you get the 20%? Linkedy-link, por favor y gracias!

You forgot to list the wasteful spending harboring aliens at Area 51 and all the money spent faking the moon landing.

Oh my! Thanks, Pleebo! Overlooked this.

Kind of sounds vaguely like the little life turning point certain gubernatorial candidate that I have a feeling that KN will be voting for. Weird that he made this reference. Not exactly the same story, but...

@ Pleebo, can't give you a citation because I saw it happen personally. A lawnmower service client of mine lost his business due to an EPA lawsuit, which he won, but never got reimbursed for his legal fees and the loan that covered the fees he had to pay up front used his business as collateral. I had to prepare and file his final business return.

@ Zah, I just saw an article about government waste yesterday. Let me see if I can find the link for you.

Edit: Found it, but it is in a private news website, which you have to pay to read. I'm not sure if you heard of RIA, but if you have, you would understand.

Double Edit: The EPA situation happened in 2012, just in case you are wondering. EPA is appealing the lawsuit, so that is why he hasn't been reimbursed yet, even though it was so obvious the lawsuit shouldn't have been issued in the first place.

The case would have a name, something like EPA v The name of Lawnmower service owner.

However, since you said it was a client; you shouldn't give out that name since people who view this thread would be able to identify you by association, as well you would probably get fired for potentially violating client confidentiality. But you may have said more than enough for those who have savvy referencing skills.

Which is why I didn't give out the case, because I have already mentioned this before.

Well then surely you have other examples since substantiating your statement using a single piece of purely anecdotal (and secret!) evidence would be super silly.

What, and do research for your benefit, not mine? You can look at all the recent court cases you want, I'm sure it wouldn't take you more than an hour to find at least 3 cases of blatant disregard for the law...from the government!

It is not research for his benefit. It's called presenting a case in point situation that backs up your claim that the DoJ, EPA sue people due to having an agenda outside of enforcing their regulations.

When you say something like that but can't present an actual situation of the nature occurred, even if its a first hand experience you can't talk about outside of vague details. You might as well not say it all.

I could find many very easily. I did when I was looking for your lawnmower case. What makes these cases unlawful exactly?

I highly doubt that your "client" is innocent or that he won a case based on the actual evidence, more likely the way it was acquired or some technicality. EPA regulations, especially RCRA (the set of laws that includes "cradle to grave", waste generation, and a slew of hazmat related things) is INCREDIBLY black and white. I went through a dozen shops that were dancing all over RCRA violations and didn't even know it. The laws are not complex, small shops just assume they are exempt from most of it (which they often are) and sometimes (not nearly often enough) get hit for it.

Leaking waste oil containers, cracked slabs, vehicles leaking fluids, improper disposal of mixed fluids is a big one, throwing away rags or other chemically contaminated things in general waste, etc. A shop near me was hit by EPA because of the oil on the ground in their parking lot recently. Things that wouldn't really matter as a private citizen are a big deal when you're a business. It's very expensive to comply with RCRA for a small shop, it ate up a very large portion of my profits, but it's the law.

I don't see how the government enforcing conservation and environmental protection laws is illegal in any way. And I really don't understand how "conservatives" can be so opposed to conservation.

Because OBAMA that's why. It's not even a joke. Greg Abbott is a complete moron of a DA to bring as many cases against the EPA and lost as many times as he has. He is like 0/30.

But so long as he and others like Rick Perry appear as fighting for Texas and other red states rights then he goes on their radar has having fought for the states rights and against the encroachment of the Obama federal government... which is weird because, EPA regulation wasn't an issue with the Bush Jr, Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt, Hoover, Coolidge, Harding, Wilson, and Taft administrations... wonder what could be so different about "him" compared to all of "them".

Besides the "obvious".

Because they declared carbon dioxide a pollutant.

Because EPA's method of determining how much CO2 was produced by his lawn mowing service was blatantly skewed, and he refused to pay the carbon credits needed to not get sued. He won mainly because his lawyers produced 3 different studies from 3 different tests which all gave the same results. So, yeah, it was a technicality, if you want to put it that way.

I could site you the court case (which I can't for obvious reasons) but you would disregard that and still believe that EPA is the best thing since sliced bread.

I'm just curious why you think any government agency doesn't have their own agenda...

You could have just said you have nothing to back up your claim.

Of course they have an agenda. Unless you mean they have an agenda (dun dun DUUUUUUN), then lol.