Happy Midterm Elections!

[rogue]

Yay, I just made a bunch more money in the stock market! It's still good to be a nasty Republican.

[Samurai Jack]

"The wealth of a nation is measured not by it's financial holdings, but by the quality of life of it's citizens." - Mark Twain

I work with the mentally ill in a local hospital, and boy have I ever seen a difference over the last six years. With the Bush controlled federal government cutting funds to human services on a bi-annual basis, I've seen nursing home patients become homeless people, and read thier obituaries written by thier former nurses. I've seen mentally ill people turned out of the hospital and taken off of thier medications, only to be arrested and returned to us in a month to be stabalized... then turned out again. I've seen food banks close. I've seen the needle exchange disappear, and HIV rates go up state wide. I've watched our HIV testing programs for teens and homeless disappear.

Voting matters.

[Merryprankster]

Dems/Libs: Celebrate while you can. Just remember how much of a fight it was while you had power when the republicans were in the underdog position. Democrats one by one during the 80s/90s would say, "we need a tax increase to cover cost x, y and z", one by one they would get defeated in election, and it's been downhill for the liberals ever since. Look at happened to Bush Sr. and "No new Taxes", he didn't get reelected. If republicans are smart they will start debating again on tried and true conservative issues such as, omg, government spending. Now, I know all of the dems promised to cut government spending during the elections, it's a page out of the republican handbook. They at this juncture have an opporitunity to change their track record on government management. If they do it, it'll be a shock, and it will be the thing that keeps their newly regained power, not endless investigations.

They already did change their track record - or have you forgotten the Clinton Administration years. Claim what you want about economic recovery and a Republican congress forcing him to come to terms with realistic spending. It's a giant load of crap. OMB - the president's budget requesting office - consistently came in with numbers every year he was in office that were sane. Add the tax increases, and you have what's called a POLICY of deficit reduction. It worked so well we started running surpluses. This was a plank of his 1st campaign platform, so I'm not certain how anybody can suggest "something else" was responsible.

I'm not suggesting anything but this simple fact: That the Clinton administration took a look at the math and said "the numbers don't add up." Then, they went and raised taxes a bit, and decreased the rate of spending increases to just about the inflation rate, which essentially kept spending fairly stagnant.

That's just decent business practice. It's balancing the checkbook. It's the most NON-political, wonky, administrative thing I can think of, and other people trying to make political hay out of it is blatant stupidity. He was HELPED by a strong economy. But he didn't HAVE to do it.

I'm sure now I will hear about "waste in government." My response to this is, having worked on a $65M federal acquisition project, there was no waste. I was required to account for every penny. Guess how many people were managing that project? TWO. Me as the business lead and a technical expert. Gee, now THAT's a bloated beaurocracy...in fact, that's the state of most government agencies. Resources, are, in fact, scarce. Incidentally, we landed with a soft non-negative balance, and the work I did with the boat forces manager convinced the Coast Guard that it would be cheaper to buy two new boats off the shelf than try and retrofit and maintain two non-standard boats (we auctioned those off). So, no, we didn't go over budget...And, our business plan overall forced the contractor to revamp their production line into a highly efficient one that realized as much as a 33 to 40% savings comparing the 1st boat to the last (learning curve savings and contract changes -which always cost - becoming standard).

Yeah, that's a LOT of frickin waste. 28 46 foot work boats at $65 mil (including overhead and management costs, AND contract changes), designed to tend the nation's navigation buoys and last for 20+ years. Never mind the savings generated by the fact that this is now crewed by 3 fewer people each thanks to improvements in navigation and safety equipment, the standardization of the fleet reduces maintenence costs...the NEWNESS reduces maintenance costs (other boats were over 35), and that with better range, speed and seaworthiness, the project was a 1 for 1.5 replacement. I never had to ask for a supplemental. Ever.

I'd estimate the CG recoups the project value in 2010 (project ended in 2001).

In fact, most people don't even study the budget at all and just ***** about "waste." What they really mean are "government funded programs I don't agree with." That is "waste." No, it's not. It's a government funded program you don't agree with. But since this is a republic, compromise is the name of the game. You're going to have to deal with some programs you don't like.

What about administrative overhead?! they scream. That keeps rising. Yes, it does. Because it takes a ****ing army of accountants and regulatory experts to keep up with the laws and policies that keep people from doing intentionally corrupt or unintentionally illegal things with YOUR public funds. Oh, and by the way, that "buy american and work with only american companies" thing (except under extremely rare circumstances, such as a JSF type situation, or a single-source justification, or some other pre-arranged deal) - that's really freakin expensive.

Or would you rather just eliminate all that overhead and have people hire their cousins, go with the first bid on a project, etc...

Finally, the vast majority of our government funds are spent on what is called non-discretionary items. This includes stuff like Medicare and Social Security. You can't turn the faucet off, except through congressional action because that spending is mandated by law.

Some people call non-discretionary spending a myth. This is bull****. The Administration in power HAS to come up with funds for it, by law. If congress CHANGES the law, that's a different thing, but as it stand, the Admin has no, repeat NO recourse other than to fully fund the mandated programs.

My thoughts on the mid-term elections:

1. I am cautiously optimistic that we are NOT headed for gridlock. Rumsfeld's dismissal was not wanted by the Bush admin, IMO. However, I'm guessing there were some phone calls between the legislative Dem leaders and the White House that set a pre-condition for conciliation - Rumsfeld out. Bush sending Rumsfeld packing is a serious nod to Dems that he might be willing to work with them. He resigned because that's what appointees do, rather than get fired in public. He didn't "leave before he was fired." He resigned BECAUSE he was fired as a measure to curry favor with the Dems.

2. If we do get gridlock, Republican attempts to blame the Democratic Congress for inaction will fail. This is a deeply unpopular administration, with a bad 6-year track record. Barring a major gaffe, the next 2 years won't be enough to shift blame.

3. We will "stay the course" in Iraq with some modifications and compromise, possibly including a timetable of somekind, but not a very short one. Democrats will continue to demand that the troops come home, but have only one weapon in their arsenal - Authorization and Appropriation. They can yank funding for Iraq war items. They WILL NOT USE THIS WEAPON. If they do, it's the equivalent of going nuclear, and it will backfire. Why? Because if they yank funding, they will be accused of ripping the rug out from under our forces, and placing soldiers' lives in danger (and it would be true). Dems will try to force the Admin to begin drawing up plans for withdrawal by using any OTHER political measures. But they can't force a wholesale change without using their A and A authority....and that's not going to happen.

4. Republicans will bring a moderate centrist to the fore for 2008. It will be a close race again - EVEN if Hillary gets nominated. People forget that while she has strong negatives, she has incredibly strong positives as well (I'm referring to people's perception positive or negative of her, NOT her personal abilities). She's divisive, but she's also very popular. Dems will maintain control of both houses.

[David Jamieson]

*grabs popcorn and settles in for 2 years of ineffective governance and historically unprecedented number of presidential vetos*

[Baqualin]

thats all fine and well wdl, but i dont really give 2 sh!ts about Democrats either, let alone Republican. to tell the truth they both have no idea what their doing. its just common sense not have too much power in the hand of 1 party for any period of time. you've seen the end result. im waiting for the day when a politician will stop using the liberal/conservative ideals as a godda.mn crutch and just govern with some common sense.

OMG..you do have a brain..like I said, garbage in garbage out

[rogue]

A good overview of why my guys lost.

By lost I mean "F#%^ed Up". And I mean big time.

[bodhitree]

There is a big problem in both parties of administrations packing their cabinets with 'yes men'. The problem dates back to the Vietnam era, specifically Johnson admin. When the 'hawks' started to turn on the Vietnam war Johnson replaced them as they left and since then presidents packed their cabinets with like minded. Colin Powell could have been an example of a counter balance within the admin, but he 'resigned' (or was forced out for not believing in the policy). Prior to the Vietnam war presidents valued having a diverse cabinet. Kennedy was surrounded by people who were not affraid to tell him "your wrong Mr. President" and disagree, and these were people whose opinions he valued. Things were different back then. There were more cooperation amoung factions of parties as well as the parties themselves. I hope in 2008 we see Barack Obama because I can see him actually 'reaching out' or 'cooperating'. That is what this country needs.

[FuXnDajenariht]

OMG..you do have a brain..like I said, garbage in garbage out

even though i know they're all completely imcompetent im not gonna take a self defeatist attitude about it. change doesn't happen instantaneously, the revolutionary war wasn't fought overnight bro.

the problem i see with people saying, oh its all politics, what am i supposed to do about it? and coppin a garbage in garbage out mentality is exactly the reason Bush was allowed to get away with the BS that he did for so long. its why government corruption is so prevalent. people need to keep a collective boot in the governments a$$ and demand answers from their elected officials. all we have is apathy. "oh nothing is gonna change, i still hafta go to work in the morning"

its like people thinking they pay taxes for the government to spend on whatever they please. i think thats what the government believes too. but thats your tax money being used for your own services and needs. for the publics common good. not for a bridge to nowhere.

and for those that dont think we need investigations....i wrote about this in another thread. i personally wont be satisfied with the Dems till they do cuz this sh!t is still going on right now. these are treasonous acts bankrolled by the government. its pathetic.

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/foru...&postcount=261

getting taxes raised is the least of our problems. who do you think is gonna pay for a multi-trillion dollar deficit? Britain? China? Canada? you guys gonna foot the bill for this debt hole DJ? your such sweethearts up there. we'd owe you one.

[FuXnDajenariht]

i kinda wanna see Senator Obama too but i dont think he'll win unfortunately. people wanna see experience in the white house again. Bush ruined it for young upstarts for a while. im kinda 50-50 on whether he should run at all. i think he might need a few more years in Senate, and a failed Presidential run could amount to career suicide. if he does wait for more Senatorial experience and without any major crises, i think hes almost guaranteed to win in 2012 or 2016.

[FuXnDajenariht]

A good overview of why my guys lost.

By lost I mean "F#%^ed Up". And I mean big time.

i read the article, but i think they lost cuz not one of them would speak up against the President when it mattered. thats the price you pay for towing the party line. if the party line fails you go down with the ship.

[mantis108]

And on the day after ... Bush Jr said, "Huston, we have a problem." (in the cool calm voice of Tom Hanks) But wait may be he can run to his little brother in the north (Steven Harper) for a little good old fashion right wing TLC.

Both the Congress and the Senate are now under Democrate control. What a nail biting cliff hanger.

Mantis108