Gut Rumbles
 

September 12, 2005

just spend money

The older I get, the less respect I have for politicians. Those self-absorbed bastards and bitches care a lot more about clinging to office (or advancing THEMSELVES) than they do about running the country.

George Bush has been a big disappointment to me. I'm not talking about Iraq, either, because I believe that our military should be there. But George spends money like a Democrat. He doesn't exercise his veto pen. He signs pork-laden shit such as the Farm Bill and the Highway Bill with a smirk on his face.

Those are MY goddam tax dollars being poured down those federal rat-holes. I DID NOT vote twice for Bush to watch him try to act like Lyndon Johnson. This country is still paying for Johnson's fuck-ups and we will be for a long time to come.

Just go read this. WTF? I don't care how delusional the federal government may be, but the fact is that money doesn't grow on trees and it doesn't fall like rain from the sky.

Every dollar the government spends it must TAKE from somebody else first.

If I handled my personal finances the way the federal government does business, I'd be broke on my ass in less than a year and in debt for the rest of my life. I don't intend to end up broke, because I can do something the federal government doesn't seem to be able to do--- I can tell the difference between "I want it" and "I NEED it."

Neither the White House nor Congress appears to be in any mood, for example, to revisit the highway bill's 6,373 "earmarks," or individual projects for members, worth $24.2 billion. Alaska's Rep. Don Young, chairman of the House Transportation Committee, has bragged that the bill is "stuffed like a turkey" with goodies for his state. It includes $721 million for Alaska, including a $2.2 million "bridge to nowhere" connecting the town of Ketchikan (population 8,900) to an airport on Gravina Island (population 50). Another bridge, in Anchorage, has a $200 million price tag and is considered such a marginal project that even the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce opposes it.

I donated $100 to the Salvation Army for Katrina relief. I wish now that I hadn't done that. I think I put my money into a worthy cause, but it's still going to be a waste. I should have kept that money to apply to my taxes next year.

Bejus knows the government can find a scheme to piss it away.

Comments

At least you're getting tangible (if useless) goods out of it.

Up here in Canada, our tax dollars go straight to the politicos and friends' pockets, and we get nothing to show for it.

We'd stop them, but they took all our guns, so...

Posted by: V-Man on September 12, 2005 01:49 PM

I donated to the Starvation Army also because I knew that they would make good use of the money to feed people who needed food and to give shelter to thosw who need shelter. The gotdam govment is giving away 2000 bucks per to a lot of people. I have no doubt a large percentage of these people will use the money wisely but I also have no doubt that there will also be a lot of the money spent on luxery items that will soon be traded for a dime on the dollar for cash for drugs. The government can make a sows ear out of a silk purse!

Posted by: GUYK on September 12, 2005 01:53 PM

Let's give the president the power that many governors have. The line-item veto.

Posted by: Sarge on September 12, 2005 02:08 PM

I have given over 5,000 dollars to the Salvation Army in the last 3 years in clothes , household items and cash. The overhead is very low compared to the Red Cross. Thursday I donated 50 bucks through work to the Red Cross(the company will match every dollar given by employees) the next day Kanye dipshit made his stupid comment about Bush not caring about black people during the Red Cross benefit. I was so pissed off that I will never, ever give another cent to Red Cross ever again. Those Red Cross administrators are going to have to pay for their mistresses out of their own pockets from now on, not mine.

Posted by: dancusa on September 12, 2005 04:55 PM

I didn't give money to the Red Cross because of some things Recondo 32 and other veterans told me about that organization.

All of 'em told me the Salvation Army is good folks.

Posted by: Acidman on September 12, 2005 08:26 PM

My church collected clothing, food, and other needs for the Katrina victims. Every Salvation Army I went to gave me the same response when I tried to donate the non-money items:

"We don't need clothing, food and diapers, we just need money."

I drove out a half a tank of gas trying to find somewhere to take all of the donations the church had gathered. All anyone wanted was cash. I wonder why.

As for the clothes, they went to a Goodwill drop-off box. What a shame. I will never give another dime to the Salvation Army OR the Red Cross again.

Posted by: Lilly on September 12, 2005 10:27 PM

Voters simply need to find a way to tell their representatives that they will not be bribed by their own money. It makes the blood boil just read of such things, these people really live like there's nothing beyond the next election. You've got this one nailed right on the spot.

Posted by: William on September 12, 2005 10:39 PM

As I posted before, I had my check book out to write a donation check and out popped the racist Jack$on and $harpton, so my check book went back in my pocket. I've managed to spend the money on junk i don't need, but I know where it went. Not in the pocket of some con.

Posted by: scrapiron on September 12, 2005 10:55 PM


"George Bush has been a big disappointment to me. I'm not talking about Iraq, either, because I believe that our military should be there. But George spends money like a Democrat. He doesn't exercise his veto pen. He signs pork-laden shit such as the Farm Bill and the Highway Bill with a smirk on his face."

Please describe why you believe our military should be in Iraq now? How is it making us safer here in America? How is it worth the cost in American soldiers lives and the costs to U.S. taxpayers only to create more Islamic fundamentalists that hates the West for our actions and ultimately results in more terrorists that pose a threat to us here? And how does George W. Bush spend money like a Democrat? What Democratic administration has created non-military spending records like this administration? G.W. Bush as not vetoed ONE spending bill. Bill Clinton vetoed 19 spending bills and left office with a federal budget surplus. What is conservative about this supposedly republican administration?


Posted by: Eyeswideopen on September 13, 2005 03:16 AM

Most people locally have been bypassing the aid organizations and going directly to the church campgrounds where "our" evacuees are staying, with food, clothes, general stuff, money and rides to look for jobs and go shopping.

This is driving the local Red Cross rep crazy, but the church informed her that this is how we do things around here . . .

Posted by: Anne on September 13, 2005 05:17 AM

"I don't care how delusional the federal government may be, but the fact is that money doesn't grow on trees and it doesn't fall like rain from the sky."

Oh, but it does. There's nothing easier for a politician to get his hands on than tax dollars. I heard one politician once utter "Its only tax dollars". They all assume there's an infinite supply of them. And it will be that way so long as we let them.

Posted by: Vulgorilla on September 13, 2005 06:48 AM

Wanted to do something but basically not to the Red Cross (family had problems with them dropping the ball on a military notification). Thought about the Salvation Army. So disgusted with MSM coverage on everything, was ready to give to the Humane Society..then found a person who needed help, so it went directly to them. No adminstrative fees, salaries etc.

Posted by: Sharon on September 13, 2005 11:16 AM

Let's give the president the power that many governors have. The line-item veto.

Did that. 1995. Part of the Contract With America.

SCOTUS struck it down.

A constitutional amendment would overrule SCOTUS, but that means getting Congress and the legislatures of 38 states to go along.

Posted by: McGehee on September 13, 2005 12:25 PM

I think the line-item veto might just be worth the effort. Give the president the ability to force congressmen to stand by their disgusting "amendments".

Posted by: William on September 13, 2005 08:59 PM

Not arguing about pork (and I would *love* to give the president a line-item-veto that would require a supermajority vote to override), but I've been to Ketchikan - Gravina Island is the main (only?) airport, I believe. Currently, folks get across by boat.

So it *might* be marginally justifiable, though let's see - 2.2 million dollars divided by ~8900 people - $250 per person. How much are THEY putting up apiece? If they're paying the majority of the price (and 2.2 million won't build much of a bridge at Alaska prices!), I'd still think it's pork, but it won't bug me as much as if the Fed's footing the whole bill.

My current hometown has a population of 1 million, and I don't see the feds funding highway construction here to the tune of $250 million per year - even in matching funds.

Posted by: Javahead on September 14, 2005 06:29 PM

Gravina Island is a small island across from revillagigado island where ketchikan is located. I fly out of there all the time. The reason for the bridge is to get access to flat building land near the kitchikan city center because ketchikan is built into the side of a steep hillside riseing right out of the ocean.

However they cant justify giveing millions in order to give the local businesses a place to relocate to so they claim the reason is to get access to the airport. I have never heard anyone in Ketchikan complain about the 5 min ferry ride to the airport and the time it takes is a fraction of the time it would take to go to almost any airport in any large city I have been to.

The road near anchorage is a different story. much larger and more expensive. but it would cut 40 miles of driveing for commuters driveing into anchorage from the wassila area going to and from work. where Ketchikan has about 9,000 people. Anchorage and the matanuska/Sustina river area has about 400,000 people
saul harvey

Posted by: saul harvey on September 15, 2005 07:47 PM
Post a comment














*Note: If you are commenting on an older entry, your
comment will not appear until it has been approved.
Do not resubmit it.