Sold out by IFR

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

I guess they need to distinguish what we care about from what we want!
Pork
spending is getting out of hand but I don't see any mechanism to
contain
it.
Even the defense budget is about 25% pork according to one study I
read
(I
think it was by the CBO or GAO).


In 1981-82 the Grace Commission found that 40% or more of government
spending was pork/waste.

But hey, this is a DEMOCRACY. The spending might not be what YOU want
(you
probably have your own little pet project -- we all do), but it's what
your
NEIGHBOR wants.

"What we must remember is that, in a democracy, the whores are us." -
P.J.
O'Rourke, _Parliament of Whores_.




I agree completely. Everybody wants lots of things if they don't have to
pay for them. The federal government should stick to national issues,
defense, foriegn relations, interstate commerce, national parks, some
research ect.

See, even that last couple are outside the vail of the Constitution.
EVERYBODY and I mean EVERYBODY has some pet project the want the feds to
perform outside their assigned duties.

You want Parks and R&D. Someone else wants health care. Another wants cheap
gas.

That's where it goes haywire.


The state governments should stick to state issues, state
highways, law enforcement and so on. Local projects should be funded
locally. If Anaheim needs a railway to Disneyland which is only going to
benefit Anaheim hotels, I don't see why someone in New York should pay for
it.

Why should TAXPAYERS in ANY locale pay for a private companies
infrastructure?


All pork spending is a result of people wanting things they don't have
to pay for.

I don't have any pet projects that I expect someone else to pay for.


You mentioned two above.

I would argue that national parks and medical R&D are National issues and as
such should be funded at the National level. An artifical rain forest in
Iowa is clearly not a National issue

Mike
MU-2


"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
news

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

I guess they need to distinguish what we care about from what we
want!
Pork
spending is getting out of hand but I don't see any mechanism to
contain
it.
Even the defense budget is about 25% pork according to one study I
read
(I
think it was by the CBO or GAO).


In 1981-82 the Grace Commission found that 40% or more of government
spending was pork/waste.

But hey, this is a DEMOCRACY. The spending might not be what YOU want
(you
probably have your own little pet project -- we all do), but it's what
your
NEIGHBOR wants.

"What we must remember is that, in a democracy, the whores are us." -
P.J.
O'Rourke, _Parliament of Whores_.




I agree completely. Everybody wants lots of things if they don't have
to
pay for them. The federal government should stick to national issues,
defense, foriegn relations, interstate commerce, national parks, some
research ect.

See, even that last couple are outside the vail of the Constitution.
EVERYBODY and I mean EVERYBODY has some pet project the want the feds to
perform outside their assigned duties.

You want Parks and R&D. Someone else wants health care. Another wants
cheap
gas.

That's where it goes haywire.


The state governments should stick to state issues, state
highways, law enforcement and so on. Local projects should be funded
locally. If Anaheim needs a railway to Disneyland which is only going
to
benefit Anaheim hotels, I don't see why someone in New York should pay
for
it.

Why should TAXPAYERS in ANY locale pay for a private companies
infrastructure?


All pork spending is a result of people wanting things they don't have
to pay for.

I don't have any pet projects that I expect someone else to pay for.


You mentioned two above.

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
I would argue that national parks and medical R&D are National issues and
as
such should be funded at the National level. An artifical rain forest in
Iowa is clearly not a National issue

Here is another national issue that needs some funding: Our sick dependance
on foreign oil that funds the very terrorists that seek to destroy us. And
I'm not talking about some wacky unworkable idea for hydrogen fuel in 20 or
30 years.

Where is the backbone of real leadership? No. Our so-called leaders wish to
spend us into oblivion instead.

"Haywood Jablome" wrote in message
news:zYhTb.75843$U%5.411352@attbi_s03...
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
I would argue that national parks and medical R&D are National issues
and
as
such should be funded at the National level. An artifical rain forest
in
Iowa is clearly not a National issue

Here is another national issue that needs some funding: Our sick
dependance
on foreign oil that funds the very terrorists that seek to destroy us. And
I'm not talking about some wacky unworkable idea for hydrogen fuel in 20
or
30 years.

Where is the backbone of real leadership? No. Our so-called leaders wish
to
spend us into oblivion instead.


Probably the idiot that gave us the Department of Energy.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
news
Where is the backbone of real leadership? No. Our so-called leaders wish
to
spend us into oblivion instead.

Probably the idiot that gave us the Department of Energy.

The Department of Energy is about as useful as a Department of Peace.

Actually ending our dependence on foriegn oil would be pretty easy but
people don't want to do it. In round figures:

We import about a third of our Petroleum
Two thirds of petroleum is used for transportation

It is possible to cut transportation use in half through a combination of
fuel efficiency and more efficient trip planning.

Mike
MU-2



"Haywood Jablome" wrote in message
news:zYhTb.75843$U%5.411352@attbi_s03...
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
I would argue that national parks and medical R&D are National issues
and
as
such should be funded at the National level. An artifical rain forest
in
Iowa is clearly not a National issue

Here is another national issue that needs some funding: Our sick
dependance
on foreign oil that funds the very terrorists that seek to destroy us. And
I'm not talking about some wacky unworkable idea for hydrogen fuel in 20
or
30 years.

Where is the backbone of real leadership? No. Our so-called leaders wish
to
spend us into oblivion instead.

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
Actually ending our dependence on foriegn oil would be pretty easy but
people don't want to do it. In round figures:

We import about a third of our Petroleum
Two thirds of petroleum is used for transportation

It is possible to cut transportation use in half through a combination of
fuel efficiency and more efficient trip planning.

The reason we don't is that the costs are horrendous. As for trip planning
and fuel efficiency, I'd like to see how Soccer Mom's® driving SUV's and
mini-vans are going to improve their trip planning.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
Actually ending our dependence on foriegn oil would be pretty easy but
people don't want to do it. In round figures:

We import about a third of our Petroleum
Two thirds of petroleum is used for transportation

It is possible to cut transportation use in half through a combination
of
fuel efficiency and more efficient trip planning.

The reason we don't is that the costs are horrendous. As for trip planning
and fuel efficiency, I'd like to see how Soccer Mom's® driving SUV's and
mini-vans are going to improve their trip planning.


Ha....... I have no doubt that the mileage driven by Soccer Moms could be
reduced by 35% or more with a little planning. This is an argument that is
had often around the old homestead and whenever it comes up I ask why it
took 2 hours for what was clearly a 1 hour bunch of stops I can show my wife
how it could have easily be done in a more efficient manner.

Gig Giacona

"Gig Giacona" wrote in message
...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
Actually ending our dependence on foriegn oil would be pretty easy but
people don't want to do it. In round figures:

We import about a third of our Petroleum
Two thirds of petroleum is used for transportation

It is possible to cut transportation use in half through a combination
of
fuel efficiency and more efficient trip planning.

The reason we don't is that the costs are horrendous. As for trip
planning
and fuel efficiency, I'd like to see how Soccer Mom's® driving SUV's and
mini-vans are going to improve their trip planning.


Ha....... I have no doubt that the mileage driven by Soccer Moms could be
reduced by 35% or more with a little planning. This is an argument that is
had often around the old homestead and whenever it comes up I ask why it
took 2 hours for what was clearly a 1 hour bunch of stops I can show my
wife
how it could have easily be done in a more efficient manner.

And she said, "so what"?

"Gig Giacona" wrote in message
...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
Actually ending our dependence on foriegn oil would be pretty easy but
people don't want to do it. In round figures:

We import about a third of our Petroleum
Two thirds of petroleum is used for transportation

It is possible to cut transportation use in half through a combination
of
fuel efficiency and more efficient trip planning.

The reason we don't is that the costs are horrendous. As for trip
planning
and fuel efficiency, I'd like to see how Soccer Mom's® driving SUV's and
mini-vans are going to improve their trip planning.


Ha....... I have no doubt that the mileage driven by Soccer Moms could be
reduced by 35% or more with a little planning. This is an argument that is
had often around the old homestead and whenever it comes up I ask why it
took 2 hours for what was clearly a 1 hour bunch of stops I can show my
wife
how it could have easily be done in a more efficient manner.


Well, we can FORCE them, ya know.