>>But the more you think about, the more you realize that Clinton was, is and will always be an embarrassment to us all as a country that it's going to take us decades to live down.

Are you kidding?? Please, try stepping across the border just once. Its very difficult to avoid the bush-is-dumb jokes. As far as the rest of the world is concerned, Bush far overshadows Clinton in comedy worthiness.

If you need convincing not to vote for Hillary (and you shouldn't), just consider that if Hillary is President, Bill Clinton will be the first First Gentleman of the United States of America. *shudder*

MR. BLACKITT: That's what being a Protestant's all about. That's why it's the church for me. That's why it's the church for anyone who respects the individual ... thanks to him, my dear, I can wear whatever I want on my John Thomas,... [sniff] ...and, Protestantism doesn't stop at the simple condom! Oh, no! I can wear Clintons if I want.

MRS. BLACKITT: You what?

MR. BLACKITT: Clintons, Lewinskys. Black Mambos. Crocodile Ribs. Sheaths that are designed not only to protect, but also to enhance the stimulation of sexual congress.

BTW this is maybe the 3rd time ive seen this, same exact words.

Where do I sign up for daily brainwashing memo?

UY: Do you believe yourself? Better than five years after his presidency ended, the thing Clinton is world reknowned for is having his member pleasured in the Oval Office. That and several cases of sexual harassment. That's not an utter embarrassment to you?

Steve - How long do you think it will take for presidents to live down Bush's poor speaking skills?

Mattk, which would you prefer to be?

A - poorly articulate.

B - Dishonest lecherous womanizing sexual deviant

Well?

Thats not the choice.

World opinion would definitely lean toward B, despite whatever embarrassment you feel about the presidents personal mistakes.

"World opinion would definitely lean toward B"

I agree with you, and that's why I give a rat's ass about world opinion. I think anyone with integrity would see that point of view.

China is afterall, planning to sell condoms to people using the favorable recognition of Clinton's name. It's not the 'approval' I'm after but a particular image...whether they like the image or not doesn't concern me in so much as they get a correct image.

Regardless of what China thinks, I think WE should be embarrased by his behavior, and not want such behavior to represent us.

I would rather be poorly articulate. At least then I'd have integrity, even if I couldn't talk about it for hours on end.

I agree with you on the integrity part.

Which is why I'd chose Clinton.

Integrity and politicians don't mix. Maybe you don't knwo the defenition of the word.

"I think WE should be embarrased by his behavior, and not want such behavior to represent us."

Presidents are people too. Clinton is not the first president to cheat on his wife at the white house and he won't be the last.

The difference here is that republicans were so eager to nail him for something that they took a private matter and illuminated its most minute details for the world to see.

Sarge is right, integrity and politicians don't always go hand in hand. If you have to be a saint to be president, there will never be another president. Let he without sin cast the first vote.

so mattk, you actually, really and truly believe that CLINTON has integrity?!? Wow! By the way, I agree that it is not a choice between "poorly articulate" and "dishonest, lecherous,etc." I don't think that the President IS that poorly articulate. He is just a regular guy in that regard, but extraordinary in backbone and guts.

lisa - yes, i understand the credit the right give bush for his "resolve" in seeing poor decisions to the end.

Steve there was also the peace and prosperity.

Let me run that by you again peace prosperity and blowjobs, 3 very nice things.

W will be remembered as the Anti-Midas the fuckup who screws up everything he touches.

>>MJ:Well?

The funny thing is that you think W is honest.

Tell me why you deserve anything other than being laughed at?

Loon.

>>you actually, really and truly believe that CLINTON has integrity?

As far as polticians go, he has far more than W ever will.

At least he apologized for his lie.

Tom, actually the difference is that Clinton lied under oath and to a grand jury. He lied to the people. I'm not going to deny that Clinton did some good things while in office but the good will always be overshadowed by the bad. Even crooked cops do more good on any given day than most other Americans do... but crooked is crooked and that's all the public will ever see. Why is that? Because cops have a inherent responsibility, not only to enforce the law, but to exemplify it. Likewise, the President has an obligation to exemplify America..., and while it's true that Presidents are human and make mistakes like everyone else..., purjuring oneself before a grand jury is not a mistake... it's a crime. He knowingly and willfully committed a crime. What kind of example was he setting that day? That it's ok to break the law if it's in your own personal interest? That doesn't fly with me!

And like someone else said, world opinion of the United States matters nothing to me... the United States was the butt of jokes long before Bush took office and will be long after. That comes with the territory. We're the most powerful nation in the world and that's going to incite a little resentment outside our borders. I've been to 17 countries abroad and I've seen this firsthand... and that was while Clinton was President. Bush is just a personification of that resentment. Bush cares more about protecting America than he does stepping on the toes of other nations... as well he should. He was elected to lead the United States... to protect and defend her. He was not elected to give a rat's ass about any other nation or how they feel toward the United States.

JNE - very well said. As I have said, Clinton's sex life SHOULD have REMAINED private, I don't support what the republican congress did.

But, once it's public you can't take it back.

Clinton was not a fit president...NOT for what he actually DID, but for what he exemplified by getting caught doing it.

As MJ said Clinton's sex life should have remained private. But it didn't. People might have raised an eyebrow but most (in the west at least) won't have been too shocked, but probably sniggered a bit but that's it.

Bush has a different image as I'm sure you'll appreciate. To generalise massively he's seen as a stupid warmonger. The stupid factor has precedent with both Quayle and Reagan. One of the jokes going round when Bush was first elected was that the reason the US elected him was so that everyone in the country could know they were more intelligent that the President. I'm not saying he is stupid, but that is the perception.

OK you may not care what people think of around the world - but it does affect your foreign policy whether you like it or not. From a foreign policy view it's better to have someone seen as unable to keep their dick in their pants, than someone who has the look and mental capacity of a chimp (again a common joke, at least in the UK).

Still it could be worse - I'm not sure if Bush will have anything named after him and I really hope they don't start making Clinton cigars - but I definitely prefer to wear a Clinton than experience a Bobbit - another name that has been sent around the world from the US.

The funny thing about Steve's post is that Clinton is MUCH more respected around the globe than Bush is.

Peace (bringing THAT lie up again?)? What fucking world did YOU live in during the 90's? Already in Absurdistan then? Oh yeah...you were just a kid then and didn't pay attention to the 5 unanswered terrorist attacks on the U.S. They didn't matter much to a little dribbling kid. THat's OK...it was mostly military personnel doing the dying.

When are you people gonna get it correct about Clinton? Gonna keep on with the "it was all about sex" lie over and over again? It was all about rape (Juanita), sexual harassment (take your pick of the group), purjury (Monica), and obstruction of justice (Monica). But if you wanna keep lying to yourself that is was all about the sex in the face of the truth, well guess you like to lie to yourself.

>>What fucking world did YOU live in during the 90's?

One where the budget was balanced. One where FEWER troops were dying.

>>It was all about rape (Juanita), sexual harassment (take your pick of the group)

So many accusations, so little substantiation.

Clinton:

The Groom at every Wedding, the man missed his calling he should have been a pimp.

The Chinese have a very subtle sense of humor, this would never have moved past the Gov censors if someone wasn't making a statement.

Bill

mattk:

The man does like to lie, lost his law liciense, $800,000 fine for purgery, the most ethical administration in history, my ass.

Now tell me that Hitlery doesn't munch rugs.

Bill

>>The man does like to lie, lost his law liciense, $800,000 fine for purgery, the most ethical administration in history, my ass.

Yes, and all over a blowjob.

Plenty of people do far, far worse and suffer much lighter penalties.

>>He lied to the people.

Compared to what? Lying to Pandas?

>>but the good will always be overshadowed by the bad

No matter how much you wish that to be true it simply isnt.

>>(bringing THAT lie up again?)?

Relative peace, the Pax Romana didnt have total peace either, there is no such thing apparently.

JNE since you have this bizarre idea that W is honest I really do not care what you think about polticians.

Like Ive said before you have the bullshit detector of a 5 year old, bet you believed in the tooth fairy until you were 23.

>>Clinton was not a fit president

Clinton was and is 1000 times more competent than W will ever be.

>>When are you people gonna get it correct about Clinton?

And then Sarge brings a bundle of politically motivated bullshit pulled out his ass.

Neat trick.

Hi Sarge,

Let me be blunt.

rape (Juanita) - not proved (or anywhere near)

sexual harassment (take your pick of the group) - not proved (and not really close)

perjury (Monica), and obstruction of justice (Monica) - I don't agree with anyone being asked questions about their faithfulness. If you want to make answering questions to your partner is a prosecutable offence - prosecute him. He cheated and he lied. Marriage counts more than the law for me. If it's not illegal to lie to your wife then putting him in front of a group where he would have to lie and break the law was so cheap.

Make the case where it is illegal to lie to your wife or abandon the high moral ground. Clinton lied to his wife and was forced to follow through because he was pushed into the stand. So very cheap. Blame him for what his guilty of - he cheated and lied about it. His opponents exploited it for all it was worth.

From where I'm sitting Clinton got off with everything because his opponents wallowed in the mire to take a cheap shot. Shot the high flyers down from the shit if you will but don't ask us to applaud.

Brit:

Lets be blunt, old BJ went before a Grand Jury and said the he, " Did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinski. I remember the nose in the back ground as Hitlery and Web Hubbles daughter got on Marine One.

The 800k was about not telling the truth, I can see a similar situation with your PM, except Her Lordship, "Blow Jobs, Ickey, I am Catholic, except in the case of murdering children."

The Toon Lied and obstucted Justice. She looks like a dork in Court Wig.

Bill

And?

Im not saying he was right it was however years agi and even his wife forgave him. For you guys to be so devoted to his wang is just .... disturbing.

Um Yeah, nor do I care what you think because, quite frankly, you have the most fragged sense of reasoning imaginable. You constantly argue using double standards. And, to make matters worse, you're not even civil.

And you have about as much proof that Bush lied as Sarge does that Clinton committed rape... that is to say, none! Prove it. Prove that Bush has lied. You're an idiot. An utter idiot! The first time I realized how big an idiot you are is when you tried to argue that the social security trust fund is backed by real hard cash. Your name is Mike Sutcliffe right? Mike "The Idiot" Sutcliffe.

whoohoo! Way to give it to Um JNE! Tom, WHY do you think that Cinton is more respected around the globe? It isn't because he is a better man, it's because he sucked up to them, he is ONE of them. That is NOT a measure of a mans' worth, how much a certain kind of people like him. It is FAR more a measure for a man to not care about being "popular", and just go and do what needs to be done.

Hi Brit! You state that the "stupid" factor has precedent with Quayle and Reagan. True. Now look at what party the Europeans call "stupid". See a pattern? Different men, same political party. Proves it is all about being CONSERVATIVE, not who the individual is.

Um you say that "even" his wife forgave him. Forgave him? She doesn't give a rats ass what he does with women as long as it doesn't hurt their political careers. That is why she stayed with him. Great for a sympathy vote, wouldn't you agree?

mattk, yeah, I agree. A blowjob is hardly the worse thing that Clinton did while in office. I have a much bigger problem with his handling of the terrorist attacks to our country, and his bungling of Somalia.

Brit...let me be "blunt". It's quite reasonable for federal officials to look into the POTUS actually having raped a person, whether he did it or not. It's quite reasonable for federal officials to look into multiple cases of alleged sexual harassment, whether he did them or not. It's quite reasonable to look into the sexual harrassment of an intern working for you. Whether or not you agree with the investigation is irrelevant, it was reasonable. Questioning him on Monica wasn't about his lack of faithfullness to his wife, it was about sexual harassment. It was about the sexual harassment of someone working under him. Can't talk about "consent" when that person works under you....they taught me THAT one in my mandatory sexual harassment classes needed to be in a managerial position. You hold their job in your dick and they have no ability to "consent".

Now, once again, this was not about "the sex"...it was about PERJURY to a grand fucking jury. It wasn't about "the sex"...it was about OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.....tampering with a witness in a federal case is a felony. I don't give a fuck if that case involved what kind of toothpaste the UYs tooth fairy recommends. If you lie to a grand jury and tamper with a witness to that grand jury...you have committed 2 felonies.

UY..."relative peadce" needs an understanding of perspective. Coming from someone in the military at the time, there WAS no relative peace....ANYWHERE. Coming from a drooling short-bus riding 10 year old not in-tune with reality....well, you had a different perspective. However, only an asshole like yoiu discounts 5 terrorists attacks to his country while trying to make a non-point. You are that asshole.

And then Sarge brings a bundle of politically motivated bullshit pulled out his ass.

...and then Sarge pulls the TRUTH out of his ass and UY can't refute it, so he goes for the head-on ad hominem attack.

Not a very neat trick when it's the typical tactic of the pathetic child.

>>you're not even civil.

Boo fucking Hoo.

>>you tried to argue that the social security trust fund is backed by real hard cash.

As of right now it collects money, the fact that the government spends it when its supposed to be saved is not a flaw of SS.

I am simply astonished you choose this to try and call me out.

This WAS a while ago but if anyone is going to apologize it should be you.

After all W was passing it off as a way to fix SS and it turned out be nothing of the sort. And you supported him killing it in the guise of a "fix".

And since it was such a stupid unpopular idea notice how much he talks about it anymore?

You pig fucking retard, you fell for it hook line and sinker.

As for lies, ill stick with SS for this one.

Bush: "By the year 2042, the entire [social security] system would be exhausted and bankrupt."

As Shields mentioned on the PBS wrap-up, and as Brooks concurred, if adjustments are not made, by 2042, as they have been made before, 3/4 of the funds promised would still be available. The entire system would neither be exhausted nor bankrupt.

So either he was lying or being stupid, take your pick.

>>Forgave him?

Yes.

>>this was not about "the sex"

Quite frankly it was. Look at what JNE and all the others harp on.

And Sarge how many soldiers died in combat at places that Clinton sent them to?

So either he was lying or being stupid, take your pick.

Once again we hit your limits of knowledge on SS and the system and what really happens in that system. Try learning before you speak. You DO know that the real problem starts in the nest 7 years don't you? No? Try learning before speaking of that which you do not know.

Since you have no knowledge of the military, talkking about the military is not rreally relevant to you. Since your knowledge of anything relating to peace is also not relevant since you have no knoledge of it...keep yoiur incorrect opinions to yourself. Since you don't really care about military deaths that occurred in any or the 4 terrorist events that happened under Clinton that concerned the military.....why even open your mouth....or why don't you just say you don't care and move along to your next non-point? That's right, the military is just there to accept terrorist attacks and die...that's their mission in a world of "peace". Obviusly, you know nothing of world affairs if you think there's been "peace"...yes, even under your buddy Bill.

Yet another example of you being an asshole that doesn't give a shit about the military. Good job asshole.

Sarge you want to play that game... since you have no knowledge of spelling everything than talking about everything is anathema to you.

Um, Hillary didn't forgive Bill. There was nothing to forgive. She didn't freakin care, except as to how it would impact negatively on them politically. You seriously believe that they have a "marriage"? Please. I wouldn't be so quick to critique Sarge on spelling. What in the world were you trying to say with that last sentence?

>>Hillary didn't forgive Bill.

Yes she did.

>>There was nothing to forgive

Well I wouldnt go that far in saying he did nothing wrong, but hey your call.

>>What in the world were you trying to say with that last sentence?

Oh sorry, 4th usage.

Anathema \uh-NATH-uh-muh\, noun: 1. A ban or curse pronounced with religious solemnity by ecclesiastical authority and accompanied by excommunication. Hence: the denunciation of anything as accursed. 2. An imprecation; a curse; a malediction. 3. Any person or thing cursed by ecclesiastical authority. 4. Any person or thing that is intensely disliked.

Um Yeah, regarding social security, by adjustments I assume you're referring to increasing taxes and/or reducing benefits. Nice plan. By 2042 (or so) there will be no more funny money left in the social security trust fund... which is kind of irrelevent because there's no money in there anyway... but that is what is meant by social security being bankrupt. Sarge's point is that in seven years or so the government is going to have to start cashing in those US bonds... and of course, by "cashing in" I mean increasing taxpayer contributions. If I were only making enough money to pay 75% of my bills and I had NO money left in my bank account... then I think I'd have good justification to declare bankruptcy. At the very least, I'd have to change my way of living to account for my financial shortfall. That would be the responsible thing, right? As much as I like PBS and NPR, I've had to rethink my position some and I'm beginning to agree with Sarge. These things are luxuries... not necessities. The National Endowment for the Arts hasn't had a very good record and while the new regime change has made some strides in the right direction... I have to wonder, is the NEA really a necessity or a luxury? Why is art any different than any other industry? If there's not a consumer demand for a particular artform, then I don't see why my government and my taxmoney needs to be subsidizing it. When my budget is tight at home, I stop going to the movie theater. I stop going to Olive Garden. I cut out the luxuries and focus on the essentials. Is it wrong to expect the government to do likewise. Art is an important part of our culture and it will continue whether it is government subsidized or not. If I want to spend money on a particular artform, I will. I don't need the government to help me with it. And for the record, I was in Time for Kids, the Christian Science Monitor and about 7 national publications this last year for my own artistic expression. I was even interviewed by the Travel Channel. If you would like to see some of my artwork, you can go to my blog at:

http://retrospectiveyankee.blogspot.com/

Yet I don't rely on the government to subsidize my unusual artform. I have found a niche market for my art and people pay pretty well for what I do. More often than not though, I display my art publically for everyone's enjoyment and I don't charge a dime. But that's me.

Back to my point, this government wastes a lot of money on luxury spending and not essential spending. We need to focus on the essentials. And now that I've completely and utterly lost my train of thought, I'm going home. Have a good weekend!

Hi Lisa,

Yes I realised they were all Republicans, but I don't think this is why they got their reputations. Bush Snr didn't have this rep and people think there are clever "folk" behind W. Nobody doubted Thatcher’s right wing credentials or her intelligence. Despite the fact that she got on so well with Reagan she was apparently shocked at his lack of mastery of a brief when they met for discussions. My problem with the American political system is the candidates reliance on money. All your Presidents now have to go cap in hand to big business before they get anywhere near the campaign. This isn't party political - Kerry was the most successful Democrat fund raiser ever and if he had won he'd be paying off the telecoms companies who backed him.

Hi Bill,

Bit difficult to understand everything you said. On Bill Clinton I didn't think he should be answering those questions on oath in that way. On Hillary - personally I hope it's a Rice Clinton election in 2008 - I think you could do a lot worse than either of them.

Hi Sarge,

You make some good points, but to me bottom line was he should have been forced to answer question on consensual unfaithfulness in front of a Grand Jury. More people find their partners in the work place than anywhere else, some of those would have been between people in charge of others. I agree this is a tricky area but that alone shouldn't have put him under questioning. If Lewinsky had made the sexual harassment claim the questions about her would have been relevant, she didn't, so the questions should not have been asked. Given that I'm not too bothered that he lied in this instance. I don't condone his actions, but I wouldn't agree that he should lose his job because of them.

Hi UY,

“Pig fucking retard” should of course have been in quotes. I believe it’s a direct quote from Oscar Wilde’s “Lady Windermere’s Fan”. Although of course the image was first conjured by Jane Austin in Pride and Prejudice

Mr Darcy took Elizabeth’s hand and said “Miss Bennett will you walk with me in the garden, I would talk with you and from the cedar grove you can hear the retards fucking their pigs” Mrs Bennett volunteered “Oh yes the squeals from the pig sheds are the talk of the county Elizabeth” Miss Bennett left the table before her mother could say anymore as Mr Darcy escorted her to the garden.

Beautiful language English.

>>by adjustments I assume you're referring to increasing taxes and/or reducing benefits. Nice plan.

Or rolling back taxcuts. Nice plan compared to what?

Fairy dust and magic that your sides failed plan seems to consist of?

>>By 2042 (or so) there will be no more funny money left in the social security trust fund

So if absolutely nothing is done in a few decades it will be running at 75%. What do you mean "no money left"?

>>there's no money in there anyway

Yes there is. New money pours in all the time.

>>If I were only making enough money to pay 75% of my bills and I had NO money left in my bank account... then I think I'd have good justification to declare bankruptcy.

Say you had 4 or so decades to forsee it, and refuse to do anything whatsoever to rectify the situation...

Or better yet be in cahoots with someone who promises a solution. The so called solution being he will beat you over the head with a bat and then sodomize your prone body I fail to see the analogy.

Brit:

I am sorry it was a shot at Tony and his old lady, who beats whom?

If it wasn't for you limeys and the Ozites I would support the Nuking of the Middle East. From bad beguinings a new world comes forth.

Bill

PS: We are paying for some bad choises by you.

Hi Sarge,

The first line of my comment contained a typo it should of course read-

but to me bottom line was he shouldn't have been forced to answer question on consensual unfaithfulness in front of a Grand Jury.

Hi Bill,

Yeah I thought you might be talking about Cherie. I hold no brief for her but I think the partners of politicians have a pretty rough time if they want to have their own careers.

In her legal career she always looked like out performing Tony, but this has been on hold for some years now. She's in the public eye but has a limited ability to defend herself. She probably cleverer than her husband, but his career has dramatically affected hers.

Women involved in politics (at least here) seem to get a really hard time from the media and sometimes public opinion. That why I think it would be good if two strong women were up against each other in 2008. Whoever got if would have to endure more vitriol than their male equivalent.

On Cherie being Catholic - well in some ways I'm surprised you know this about her. Then again people on this site tend to know more detail than the average I guess. The Blair’s have to keep their religious beliefs to themselves - religion and politics really don't mix well over here and he'd lose votes if he brought this to the fore.

On Catholics and abortion. Well there was a Catholic posting on this site some months ago who was pro choice and she made an interesting point. Nowhere in the Bible does it talk about abortion. Jesus certainly didn't talk about it. It's a position adopted by the church who are made up of people. For me an egg that has been fertilised, divided into two cells is not a human yet. If it's not a human it's not taking life. For me there wouldn't be a contradiction between not killing (or murdering) and early abortion because conception isn't the moment of genesis. This is drifting some way from the topic and there are plenty of places on this site to discuss abortion so I won't go on other than to say I can see that she can be consistent within her beliefs as a pro choice Catholic.

On nuking the Middle East, you'd kill babies 1 day old. Definitely humans and definitely breaking that commandment I can't see the consistence within your position given the implications of your earlier statement.

On the Limeys and Ozites. Good glad were here for something. Britain didn't do bad for a small cold wet island.

I don't know what bad choices you're referring to in the PS.

Good UY...ignore the argument and say nothing by falling back on the "you can't spell" ad hominem, while knowing full well that I can spell just fine and it's my atrocious typing, you can fully understand what I say, and that you have shitty grammar so you have nothing to say about it. Move along, nothing for the child to add but.....nothing.

JNE and more importantly UY, what y'all do NOT keep in mind is this:

All extra SS funds go into the general fund for general spending.

In 4-7 years, depending on the economy and SS revenue, the amount of that "EXTRA" SS cash going into the general fund will peak, and start getting smaller and smaller every year from THAT year until that "extra" cash is zero.....some time around 2018 plus or minus due to the economy.

Those current "extra" SS funds go into the general fund and pay for programs that may or may not be "needed" yet, when that "extra" SS cash starts dwindling.....those programs will still be fully funded because nobody in DC can actually cut a program.

Where's THAT money taking the place of the "extra" SS funds that are no longer flowing in as much as they used to coming from? Surely, it will come from the middle-class through tax-hikes.

AND, I'm not even talking about when SS starts throwing more down the crapper than they take in and SS needs to rely on the IOUs in the lock-box, furthering the drain on the middle-class. AND I'm not even talking about when SS can no longer pay for the benefits. Yeah UY, your tired old answer relating to 75% is useless because your "always looking for a handout" ass would NEVER support cutting SS benefits by 25% so your argument is a dead-end and everybody knows it but YOU.

Yeah, yeah...tax the rich even though they pass their taxes on to the middle-class. Tax businesses so they can shut down or move more of their production overseas.....but don't ever, under ANY circumstance, see a program that is going to fail and try to do something about it.

>>while knowing full well that I can spell just fine and it's my atrocious typing,

Thats what you say, cant say I believe you anyway.

I can understand putting say a d instead of an s since they are right next to each other. But sometimes you will have letters across the keyboard in place.

>>Tax businesses so they can shut down or move more of their production overseas

Theyve been doing that anyway.

>>but don't ever, under ANY circumstance, see a program that is going to fail and try to do something about it.

Hey asshole, Bush's plan and any plan thrown around by you mongoloids will not fix jackshit or do a damn thing.

And you know it. STFU or get a brain.

Hi Brit, Good post. I was referring to Conservatives though, not simply Republicans. The more moderate or liberal ones are received better. As far as Maggie, well, I was not really talking about leaders other than American ones.

Roll back tax cuts? Isn't that just an underhanded way of saying increase taxes?

Examples of Government Waste

September 14, 2005

The federal government cannot account for $24.5 billion spent in 2003. A White House review of just a sample of the federal budget identified $90 billion spent on programs deemed that were either ineffective, marginally adequate, or operating under a flawed purpose or design. The Congressional Budget Office published a “Budget Options” book identifying $140 billion in potential spending cuts. The federal government spends $23 billion annually on special interest pork projects such as grants to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, or funds to combat teenage “goth” culture in Blue Springs, Missouri. Washington spends tens of billions of dollars on failed and outdated programs such as the Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Geological Survey and Economic Development Association. The federal government made $20 billion in overpayments in 2001. The Department of Housing and Urban Development’s $3.3 billion in overpayments in 2001 accounted for over 10 percent of the department’s total budget. Over one recent 18-month period, Air Force and Navy personnel used government-funded credit cards to charge at least $102,400 for admission to entertainment events, $48,250 for gambling, $69,300 for cruises, and $73,950 for exotic dance clubs and prostitutes. Examples of wasteful duplication include: 342 economic development programs; 130 programs serving the disabled; 130 programs serving at-risk youth; 90 early childhood development programs; 75 programs funding international education, cultural, and training exchange activities; and 72 federal programs dedicated to assuring safe water. The Advanced Technology Program spends $150 million annually subsidizing private businesses, and 40% of this goes to Fortune 500 companies. The Defense Department wasted $100 million on unused flight tickets, and never bothered to collect refunds even though the tickets were reimbursable. The Conservation Reserve program pays farmers $2 billion annually to not farm their land. Washington spends $60 billion annually on corporate welfare, versus $43 billion on homeland security. The Department of Agriculture spends $12 billion to $30 billion annually on farm subsidies, the vast majority of which go to agribusinesses and farmers averaging $135,000 in annual income. Massive farm subsidies also go to several members of Congress, and celebrity “hobby farmers” such as David Rockefeller, Ted Turner, Scottie Pippen, and former Enron CEO Ken Lay. The Medicare program pays as much as eight times the cost that other federal agencies pay for the same drugs and medical supplies. Congressional investigators were able to receive $55,000 in federal student loan funding for a fictional college they created to test the Department of Education. The Army Corps of Engineers has been accused of illegally manipulating data to justify expensive but unnecessary public works projects. Food stamp overpayments cost $600 million annually. School lunch program abuse costs $120 million annually. Veterans’ program overpayments cost $800 million annually. Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) overpayments cost $9 billion annually. Better tracking of student loan recipients would save $1 billion annually. Preventing states from using accounting tricks to secure additional Medicaid funds would save several billion dollars annually. Medicare contractors owe the federal government $7 billion.

Sources: see Brian M. Riedl, “How to Get Federal Spending Under Control,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1733, March 10, 2004

And that's just bad spending. Combine that with eliminating programs that are luxury and non-essential in nature we'll be doing good. Do you honestly believe our government spends money well? Screw rolling back taxcuts! The above details $436 billion in government waste. Read that $436,000,000,000. How much does NPR cost this nation? How much does PBS cost this nation? Again, I watch PBS a lot, but honestly... it is luxury spending. How much does the National Endowment for the Arts cost this nation and how much return do we get from it? Here's an example of where grant money for the National Endowment for the Arts has gone:

...photographs of crucifixes floating in urine, and performance artists prancing about naked, smeared with chocolate, and skirling about the evils of patriarchy.

Free expression right? Certainly, but not at the expense of the taxpayer. If you want to express yourself in such a manner, then find a market for it or do so at your own expense. NEA is now trying to bring Shakespeare into every school in America. Great! Absolutely fantastic. But why is there a seperate organization trying to do that? Why isn't the Department of Education doing it? They probably are and what we're seeing is government redundancy... not exactly a suprise actually.

"A White House review of just a sample of the federal budget identified $90 billion spent on programs deemed that were either ineffective, marginally adequate, or operating under a flawed purpose or design."

So, this could pretty much be anything the white house doesn't want to spend money on. Yes, I'm sure there is some room for spending cuts, but how much are we spending on Goth culture in the midwest? I can't image all that much.

A lot of what is proposed here are not cuts, per se, but better accounting of what is spent.

"Examples of wasteful duplication include: 342 economic development programs; 130 programs serving the disabled; 130 programs serving at-risk youth; 90 early childhood development programs; 75 programs funding international education, cultural, and training exchange activities; and 72 federal programs dedicated to assuring safe water."

Why are these wasteful? Because there are more than one? Maybe we should have 90 early childhood development programs and 72 federal programs dedicating to assureing safe water (it would also help to hold power companies to a higher standard of emissions).

I have heard of talk of rolling back tax cuts (thought that doesn't mean there isn't any), but I am hearing talk of not extending Bush's tax cuts.

"How much does NPR cost this nation? How much does PBS cost this nation? Again, I watch PBS a lot, but honestly... it is luxury spending. How much does the National Endowment for the Arts cost this nation and how much return do we get from it? Here's an example of where grant money for the National Endowment for the Arts has gone"

So, JNE, you're going to judge the entire National Endowment for the Arts program on two pieces of work? I'm not exactly prepared to get into an detailed oriented argument about the importance of art to a society, but the benefit is great. Talk about a program that has undeniable benefit to this country. It ain't going to be cut.

Tom, as I said, they're examples of what the National Endowment for the Arts has funded in the past. Dana Gioia is now the chairman for the Endowment and he pretty much put a stop to all the crap the Endowment has been funding. Good for him. He has instituted a program for putting Shakespeare in every school in America. Fantastic. I love it. But...! Why does it take a seperate organization to bring Shakespeare to public schools? Why isn't the Department of Education doing that? And if they are, then why the redundancy? I applaud Mr. Gioia. He has made drastic changes, realizing that people don't want their tax money funding social pathology disguised as art. Furthermore, why should the government fund art that cannot survive by it's own expression? Art is no different than any other business. If it appeals to people, then it survives. If it doesn't then it dies. Art that persists and permeates society is a reflection of culture... as it should be. Society will reject art that doesn't fit our culture. It's simple. The government should have no involvement in funding art that cannot survive on it's own. And that coming from someone who considers himself an artist of sorts. There is a demand for my work, but I could not support my family solely on my art... which is why it's my passion, not my profession. One form is seasonal, pumpkin carving... which is the form that gets the most attention. The other two artforms are more mainstream... pyrography and scroll saw art. The scroll saw art is simply a reproduction of my pumpkin art, cut into birch wood and backlit with fluorescent lighting. The effect is quite nice. Ever wonder where the term "starving artist" came from? Ever wonder why some of the greatest artists died poor? Would their art have had the same effect had those artists died wealthy? Probably not because their art is a reflection of their lives... their souls. Art should be a manifestation of life experience... not a means of achieving wealth. For me..., I absolutely love Blues and Jazz and the history embodied in the music. I have met and interacted with a number of today's greatest blues and jazz musicians. John Hammond. Toni Lynn Washington. Luther "Guitar Jr" Johnson. Li'l Ed. My hobby is focused on perpetuating their legacy through my own expression. I say this to reinforce my point that art should be about a passion for life and experience. Art should not be a commodity. Art should not need to be subsidized. Another interesting point, and I realize many people will disagree with me because of the destructive nature of some of the artists... but I have a strong admiration for grafitti artists. Grafitti artists reflect our culture... usually underprivileged cultures... and by necessity, they choose to remain completely anonymous. They sign their art with aliases. They often work in very dangerous environments. They get almost no personal recognition or compensation for their art... and some of it is very, very good. They do it because they love it. They do it because it is an expression of their life experience. The mere fact that their artform is, for all intents and purposes, illegal is also a representation of the fact that, for many of these people, their life experience is in direct conflict with the established "system." It is everything I believe art should be, even if it is illegal. Again, I'm rambling so I'll stop now.

And Tom, perhaps not cut... but definitely more focused... something that Mr. Gioia already seems to be doing. Is there some redundancy? Is the National Endowment for the Arts able to influence the Department of Education sufficiently or should they play a direct role in establishing art and literature curricula within the Department of Education? Does the Endowment receive scrutinization for effectiveness and/or purpose? All legitimate questions I think.

JNE, as far as the starving artist line, I can rattle off just as many artists who came from wealth and were allowed to develop their art because they didn't have to worry about working for a living.

On the flip-side, you get the starving artist who shuns marterial gain in order to pursue his or her art. It all comes down to having time to devout to furthering your artistic talents. National Endowment for the Arts is one one to encourage this growth.

One does not have to be poor to be an artist. One just must have the time to devout to honing their skills.

And just because someone gets a grant, doesn't mean they're rich by any means. It usually gives them a year or two to work on whatever they like. I have zero problem with that.

If art is like any other business, then you shouldn't have a problem with the goverment handing out art grants:

http://government-grants.org/

Also, often times the greatest of art is shunned by contempory mass audiences. Great art challenges and sees the world from a different view than the rest of the society. It will often strike a chord with a few, who will then keep alive it's legacy for others to discover. It's like the line about the Velvet Underground... very few people listened to them when they were around, but everyone of them started a band.

Also, JNE, art must to a certain degree exist outside of "business," especially for emerging artists.

Business is all about filling a demand. If an artist is trying to make it, he or she often times has to comprimise what he or she wants to do in order to "make it." now, i'm not saying this is always bad, and I'm not one who thinks that something that has broad appeal is bad, but I do think that great art with broad appeal was never made with an audience in mind.

I think the endowment of the arts is very helpful allowing artists the freedom to work.

Also, to your point that art should not be subsidized... do you know how many great symphanies were funded by governments or wealthy patronages? A lot.

Wow UY...glad to see you still offer up for discussion a bunch of fact-filled logical arguments. Nice...you have zero evidence of my inability to spell correctly in the face of my atrocious typing skills that're the real reason for my TYPOS.....in the face of your inability to string 2 sentences together in the form of a logical argument. You still using that "you can't spell" as an arguement? That all you got?

Great. Businesses shut down and move production overseas as a business decision and that's a fact.....another fact is that you would raise taxes on those same businesses to pay for something which EVERYONE knows will FORCE them to look overseas more readily. Good job asshole, you just gave away a few hundred thousand jobs with one statement. But I'm sure you care...

Hey asshole, I only showed that SS was in trouble. YOU are the asshole that cannot accept that simple fact and cannot refute a single bit of that irrefutable fact I just gave....instead, going after the straw-man that included Bush, when we're simply talking about SS and how it's gonna fail in a few years. Good job asshole. AND, you have no basis to claim others as brainless, being among the top 2 stupidest people here.

Tom...I think you know where I stand on government spending. BUT I have to say that I am all for a CITY or STATE subsidizing their own symphonies. I go to the BSO a few times a year and know THEY get all sorts of subsidization/endowments...and so long as it doesn't come from the fedgov, I don't care. Local gubmints wanna do this...fine. It will generally come bacl to them in taxes from the big-spenders coming into the city to spend their big money. The Constitution has something to say about where the fedgov should stand concerning the "arts":

Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

That's all...nothing more, in MY book. The fedgov sets up patents and copyrights and everything needed to enforce those things so that the People can come up with their "art" on their own.......just like every other thing the gubmint touches that it shouldn't.

Oh dear....Phfft.

Ginsburg will see "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", determine that all art is usefull because art provides spiritual growth through expression for all of society, and find that the constitution says the federal government must increase arts endowment by 300 billion dollars for fiscal year 2007.

Sarge the plan that W and Cons were bandying about was a big pile shit you dumbfuck.

Few years? We are talking decades.

You lying fucking pile of shit.

Sarge the plan that W and Cons were bandying about was a big pile shit you dumbfuck.

Once again, Mr. "I can't read plain fucking english"....I have not and will not tend to any plans, alleged plans, future plans, plans under WJC....NONE of 'em. Take that hunk of strawman grissle you're chewing on and swallow it with the rest of the Billy-juice you're guzzling. Good job in once again not refuting the facts as I have presented them. Hope you're not relying on SS for your retirement.

Few years? We are talking decades.

Good, good....ignore the truth. Stick your head in the sand because in 4-7 years (depending on how the economy does) the problem begins. If you don't want to see the problem as it comes, so be it. Remain the blind-by-choice ignorant college student you are.

It'd be much easier if you just said "I don't get it" and move along, instead of not getting it, strawmanning the argument to something unrelated, and then passing off a lie because you don't get it.

In 4-7 years, depending on the economy and SS revenue, the amount of that "EXTRA" SS cash going into the general fund will peak, and start getting smaller and smaller every year from THAT year until that "extra" cash is zero.....some time around 2018 plus or minus due to the economy.

Those current "extra" SS funds go into the general fund and pay for programs that may or may not be "needed" yet, when that "extra" SS cash starts dwindling.....those programs will still be fully funded because nobody in DC can actually cut a program.

Where's THAT money taking the place of the "extra" SS funds that are no longer flowing in as much as they used to coming from? Surely, it will come from the middle-class through tax-hikes.

You mean GWB?

>>the problem begins.

The problem is when SS starts paying out much more than it takes in.

Decades from now.

OK...so you're gonna ignore the truth then. Nice knowin' ya. Lemme know when you actually wanna pay attention and learn something about that SS surplus...actually, you can just choose to ignore the truth I reposted for your education again. Until then, you can continue your circle-jerk with yourself and ignore the truth.

Since you missed it and are gonna lie about what the "problem" is I'll restate it in the bumpersticker form you love.

The problem is when the SURPLUS starts getting smaller.....in the nex 4-7 years.

Care to refute that or are you gonna just ignore that truth?

>>The problem is when the SURPLUS starts getting smaller.....in the nex 4-7 years.

No, the problem is when it cant make payments.

Because face it even having any surplus whatsoever being within of 100 miles of W is testament to its resilience.

No, the problem is when it cant make payments.

No, the problem is in 4-7 years when the surplus starts getting smaller and us taxpayers have to cough up MORE in income taxes to take up the shortfall in the programs the currect surplus is paying for. I know, it's too difficult for such an edumacated person like you to understand.

DO ignore that again, you're just showing that you can't identify the truth even when it's provided for you.

Anything you bring having anything to do with W or any other politician is IRRELEVANT to the truth about the SS system and the problem us tax-payers are gonna face in 4-7 years. Of course, maybe you actually have to pay taxes in order to understand.

Got nothing Sarge?

Just like always.

Were you aware one of the reasons why Clinton wanted to build a surplus was to HELP SS?

And one of the reasons why W was hellbent on building a deficit was to kill SS?

But yeah thats irrelevant to you, because as everyone knows your famous words "The truth is irrelevant".

Got plenty, youi are just illiterate, blind, ignorant, or a lying sack of shit. Take your pick.

There was no surplus asshole (lie), there was a PROJECTED surplus (truth). Don't let facts get in the way of your ignorance and lies. That's right...Bush is hellbent on killing SS (lie). He made the Clinton recession (lie), he ordered 9-11 (lie).

Care to put context on that "the truth is irrelevant" quote you love so much or is being a lying asshole all you can do?

Ignore the truth that the SS problem, as clearly outlined by me, starts in 4-7 years (truth). Do nothing to refute it (truth). Blame Bush for everything. Dance pussy dance....

Hey UY....keep bringing up that surplus that wasn't.

...this is all a projected surplus, it has not come in yet.-------Bill Clinton 8/23/2000

Good job being incorrect as usual. That's OK, you'll claim there was a surplus again in the future and I'll be there to shove that lie right back up your ass again.

>>i are just illiterate, blind, ignorant, or a lying sack of shit

Yep, you are.