Amusing, and incredibly well done
Mar. 2nd, 2005 07:01 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kyburgCookie talk from the Ben of Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream fame - on the federal budget.
Not even talking about increasing the size of the budget - just shifting some from here to there.
Outstanding.
Not even talking about increasing the size of the budget - just shifting some from here to there.
Outstanding.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-03-03 03:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-03-03 03:58 am (UTC)And it sure as shit isn't impossible.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-03 05:26 am (UTC)Passing through...
Date: 2005-03-03 06:05 am (UTC)Here is the real deal. The reason why we don't pour money into solving the world's child hunger problems comes down to two things: delivery and distribution. Nobody wants to be play delivery man to those parts of the world where warring factions prevents such needed shipments. And despite the best of intents, the vast majority of aid never gets to the intended parties due to corruption of the governments involved, and the high overhead of getting it there in a timely manner.
It doesn't matter, IMHO, how much the other guys spend on defense. The reason why the bad guys don't attack us is because we spend as much as we do, and on the biggest and baddest hardware on the planet. Ditto with the State of Israel. By sheer numbers, the Arab world could overwhelm the Jewish nation. But the money spent on a superior military force (which includes nukes) keeps that country and its citizens safe.
Our budget problems are not as bad as people believe them to be. We could actually balance the budget (despite the GWOT) tomorrow if Congress wouldn't spend so much on pork. The GOP is currently on a mission to render the Democrats to permanent minority status, which involves a bidding war with the American Public. Wasteful, but smarter minds than moi think that the short term pandering can be reversed later.
Um, right. Name me ONE federal program that has been eliminated or reduced in size and scope. Yep, can't think of one either.
Finally, in light of what is going on in the Middle East, don't you feel a LOT more optimistic about the future of that region? I know *I* do. Things must really be turning around if more Democrat Senators decide to make the journey to Afghanistan and Iraq to bask in the glow of such historic events.
Thanks for hearing me out. Feel free to visit my LJ, if you like.
Re: Passing through...
Date: 2005-03-03 03:30 pm (UTC)Reduced in size or scope?
You looked at Medicare or Medicaid since the seventies? Where have you been? (You've never worked with those systems or depended on them for life or death medical care, first-hand...it's a shadow of its former self, and those missing dollars hurt more than the disabled and the elderly.)
That's one. I can come up with others. (Including our military, strangely enough.)
Obviously, you never had to depend on a county program that received funding from the feds. That's everything from foster care to road maintenance.
No, I don't feel more optimistic about the Middle East; every day, I hear about more deaths and how the conflicts are widening, not reducing in scope. C'mon, you remember Lebanon before it was a war zone, don't you? It used to be the Riviera of the Middle East...before it was hosed by both the Israelies and the Palestinians.
Pork? Last figures I got my hands on said Bush is going to cut $420 million to Homeland Security...and we in California are going to be told to suck up $84.6 million of that cut. Uh, hate us much? Ya think? And where would all that pork being coming from, now that the Dems are running for the hills? Gimme a break.
The elegance of this little opinion-as-shockwave-flash is that it doesn't add a single buck to the pot - just shifts a very small portion of it away from military spending. (You want pork? Check out a defense contract.)
no subject
Date: 2005-03-03 07:08 am (UTC)