Your money down the drain

[Tom]

Fascinating site.....if you have a couple of barf bags on hand while you browse it........your tax dollars at work.

Ever wonder why you can't afford to send your kids to college, retire, put food on your table?

Thank the government.

http://www.elliscountypress.com/news/12274-dirty-spending-secrets-of-us-government.html

[sonnyp]

and we can thank pieces of sh-t similar to anthony weiner for this activity and this level of fiscal responsibility.

we put these guys in and keep them in (charlie rangel) so we get what we deserve.

[HUSKER55]

on the upside my chinese hooker doesn't get plastered anymore:D

[JustRalph]

on the upside my chinese hooker doesn't get plastered anymore:D

pwastered?

[mostpost]

Fascinating site.....if you have a couple of barf bags on hand while you browse it........your tax dollars at work.

Ever wonder why you can't afford to send your kids to college, retire, put food on your table?

Thank the government.

http://www.elliscountypress.com/news/12274-dirty-spending-secrets-of-us-government.html
Fascinating site if you want to read lies and misinformation.

Did Congress pay half a million to have a fish painted on a plane? I found several stories that said yes. Problem is one of them said it was part of the 2010 budget. A story datelined 2009 said it was done before then, Another story printed in 2005 complained about the same thing. Seem as if someone took an old story (probably not true to begin with.) and changed the date to make it current.

$2.6M to teach Chinese prostitutes how to drink responsibly on the job?
The $2.6M part is right. Most of the rest is wrong.


November 5, 2008

Xiaoming Li, Ph.D.
A $2.6 million grant will help a Wayne State University School of Medicine researcher establish and evaluate whether an alcohol and HIV intervention center can assist in reducing the spread of HIV/AIDS among sex workers in China.

Dr. Xiaoming Li, Ph.D., has secured a five-year, $2,629,634 grant from the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism of the National Institutes of Health to study the link between alcohol use and the spread of HIV/AIDS among female sex workers in a single southern province in China. The findings could have ramifications for at-risk populations throughout the world.

The grant is to study whether responsible drinking will curtail the spread of HIV/Aids. You may think the answer is obvious, but the question is more complex than you think.
Here is the link to the story.
http://prognosis.med.wayne.edu/article/grant-allows-research-to-study-link-between-alcohol-abuse-and-spread-of-hiv

While you are looking at the article be sure to note the date. Nov. 2008.

[mostpost]

Government spent $3B to add sand to beaches.

What is the National Park Service Budget?
FY 2010 Enacted - $3.16 billion
FY 2011 Request - $3.14 billion

$3.16B minus $3B equals $160 million. So the government spent 18 times as much to add sand to beaches as it did to pay all it's Park Service employees, run all its national parks, monuments, seashores, waysides and whatever.

[Tom]

The grant is to study whether responsible drinking will curtail the spread of HIV/Aids. You may think the answer is obvious, but the question is more complex than you think.

This, in your opinion, is more important them Americans staying in their homes and feeding their kids? Or filling their gas tanks so they can go to work and earn a pay check that will be half-stolen to pay for those who do not go to work?

[newtothegame]

Tom, I know you get it so this is not directed at you personally.....
But, and here goes...LIBERALS NEED TO SPEND!!!
It fits their agenda. How else can they cause more and more people to be dependent on the nanny state?
Spend more..means raise more taxes...
Raising taxes means people have less.....
People have less means more dependence on nanny state.....
More dependence on nanny state means MORE VOTES.....
It's a simple math equation!

[mostpost]

This, in your opinion, is more important them Americans staying in their homes and feeding their kids? Or filling their gas tanks so they can go to work and earn a pay check that will be half-stolen to pay for those who do not go to work?
Tom's new signature line:
with spelling comes understanding

This expains a lot.

[Tom]

As always. feel free to ignore the substance and argue the spelling.
It is, as they say, more your speed, no?

[mostpost]

Tom, I know you get it so this is not directed at you personally.....
But, and here goes...LIBERALS NEED TO SPEND!!!
It fits their agenda. How else can they cause more and more people to be dependent on the nanny state?
Spend more..means raise more taxes...
Raising taxes means people have less.....
People have less means more dependence on nanny state.....
More dependence on nanny state means MORE VOTES.....
It's a simple math equation!
And conservatives need to complain about spending even when they don't have a clue what the spending is about. So you get a link such as Tom posted which is a mixture of untruth and misrepresentation. All of which is presented with only the vaguest of references. If you presented such a paper in eighth grade civics, you would get an F.

Most of you guys see a headline that says "Government Spends $2.6M to study drinking habits of Chinese prostitutes," and you look no further. The headline reinforces your preconceived notion that government spends money foolishly. You don't bother to find out that the headline is extremely misleading; that there is a purpose to the study beyond prostitutes and drinking. You obviously don't realize that a grant such as this goes through several steps, in each of which it is reviewed by experts in the field. When that is done, it must be approved by NIH administrators and the final amount negotiated.
Do you know that Congress does not fund individual studies. Of course you don't. NIH has a research budget from which they decide which studies to fund. So liberals have nothing to do with it. Unless you think all scientists are liberals. Of course you do.

[bigmack]

Do you know that Congress does not fund individual studies. Of course you don't. NIH has a research budget from which they decide which studies to fund. So liberals have nothing to do with it. Unless you think all scientists are liberals. Of course you do.
You continually try to show the absurd by nitpicking details.

The glaring absurdity in the room is you NEVER seeing any G-spending as frivolous. Get those taxes up and rev-up that Fed credit card, mosty says.

[mostpost]

As always. feel free to ignore the substance and argue the spelling.
It is, as they say, more your speed, no?
My apologies. :( It was just too ironic to overlook.

[mostpost]

This, in your opinion, is more important them Americans staying in their homes and feeding their kids? Or filling their gas tanks so they can go to work and earn a pay check that will be half-stolen to pay for those who do not go to work?
Now to respond to the substance of your post.
Are you saying that the government should take the money it is now spending to study Chinese prostitutes, to spread sand on beaches, to paint fish on planes, to upgrade seating on flights and spend that on paying peoples mortgages and filling their gas tanks? How socialistic of you. :eek:

More likely you want them to keep the money and give large tax breaks to rich people. Because you know that doing so will increase jobs and enhance revenues. You know this even though there is little evidence for the first and none for the second.

You are also ignoring the fact that some of these programs can have benefits to large segments of the population. I don't believe for a second that we spent $3B spreading sand on beaches, but I am sure we did spend some money on this. Millions and millions of people use our beaches every year. And those people spend money which helps the local economy.

[riskman]

I think that Washington was just trying to make a difference training Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly on the job. :(
We as a nation had better wake up to what our government is doing to us or we may wind up being the
"chinese prostitutes."

[Tom]

Now to respond to the substance of your post.
Are you saying that the government should take the money it is now spending to study Chinese prostitutes, to spread sand on beaches, to paint fish on planes, to upgrade seating on flights and spend that on paying peoples mortgages and filling their gas tanks? How socialistic of you. images/UBGX/05.gif

More likely you want them to keep the money and give large tax breaks to rich people. Because you know that doing so will increase jobs and enhance revenues.


Wow. So far from reality, I can't really respond, but look at it this way, all that money being thrown down the toilet is TAX REVENUE that need not have been collected. By NOT collecting it, people keep more of the money the EARN.

You really have no idea how economics work do you?:lol:

[Robert Goren]

When it comes to tax money down the hole, it is hard to top aid to Pakistan. They have even stopped pretending to like us these days.

[mostpost]

You continually try to show the absurd by nitpicking details.

The glaring absurdity in the room is you NEVER seeing any G-spending as frivolous. Get those taxes up and rev-up that Fed credit card, mosty says.
If you want me to see G-spending as frivolous then give me legitimate examples. I'm sure there are many. Don't tell me we are spending $2.6M to teach Chinese prostitutes how to drink when the purpose of the study is to slow the spread of HIV/AIDs. If you think this is not the best way to do that, and I have some doubts myself, then tell me why based on the actual purpose of the study.

Don't tell me Congress paid $.5M to have a picture of a salmon painted on an airplane, then give me three different dates for when this happened.

Don't tell me that Congressmen have spend money on items such as calendars or cell phone pouches when I know that the office budgets of each congressman are set by law and any such items come out of that budget. Don't tell me that a congressman has purchased a Lexus hybrid without telling me if he was due a new car and how much a hybrid saves in fuel costs.

Don't tell me that we spent $3B moving send without telling me where you got the figure. How many years does that cover? All of them? Does that include the salaries of employees would be working anyway and getting paid?

[bigmack]

If you want me to see G-spending as frivolous then give me legitimate examples. I'm sure there are many. Don't tell me we are spending $2.6M to teach Chinese prostitutes how to drink when the purpose of the study is to slow the spread of HIV/AIDs. If you think this is not the best way to do that, and I have some doubts myself, then tell me why based on the actual purpose of the study.
If you spent half the time you do scrutinizing nonsense evaluating the faulty data of GW and most of your .org sites that you frequent, you would be closer to seeing actual truths that don't manipulate data for a wanted result.

[Tom]

If you think it is the responsibility of the US government, using our tax dollars, to slow the spread of aids among Chinese hookers, you are thoroughly off your blommin' rocker. If the damn hookers were bleeding tin the streets, I would not kick in for band aids.

What part of not our problem do you miss here?

[HUSKER55]

If government workers are getting a Lexus out of the car pool then we have a problem. They are not entitled to a lexus. They are not Gods. They represent the people and car does not matter. Ford Fiesta is cheaper and cost less to run.

Upon reflection, why are we buying foreign cars when ours are going broke?

[mostpost]

If you think it is the responsibility of the US government, using our tax dollars, to slow the spread of aids among Chinese hookers, you are thoroughly off your blommin' rocker. If the damn hookers were bleeding tin the streets, I would not kick in for band aids.

What part of not our problem do you miss here?
If you could see past the end of your nose, you would see that the purpose of the study is to help those in this country. But the point of my response, which you of course missed, was that the study was deliberately misrepresented to put government in a bad light.

[senortout]

on the upside my chinese hooker doesn't get plastered anymore:D

but she was thinking, "don't get plastered any ress, either."
please I can't help myself, forgive the racist part, I'm not really thataway just to raise a laugh or two

[JustRalph]

And conservatives need to complain about spending even when they don't have a clue what the spending is about. So you get a link such as Tom posted which is a mixture of untruth and misrepresentation. All of which is presented with only the vaguest of references. If you presented such a paper in eighth grade civics, you would get an F.

Most of you guys see a headline that says "Government Spends $2.6M to study drinking habits of Chinese prostitutes," and you look no further. The headline reinforces your preconceived notion that government spends money foolishly. You don't bother to find out that the headline is extremely misleading; that there is a purpose to the study beyond prostitutes and drinking. You obviously don't realize that a grant such as this goes through several steps, in each of which it is reviewed by experts in the field. When that is done, it must be approved by NIH administrators and the final amount negotiated.
Do you know that Congress does not fund individual studies. Of course you don't. NIH has a research budget from which they decide which studies to fund. So liberals have nothing to do with it. Unless you think all scientists are liberals. Of course you do.

You are so diluted. Do away with NIH, the Education Dept and at least 10 others and that would be a good start.

[mostpost]

You are so diluted. Do away with NIH, the Education Dept and at least 10 others and that would be a good start.
I'm diluted? What did you mix me with to dilute me? I think I am still full strength.
Perhaps you mean I am deluded. If you think we could function as a society without NIH and the Department pf Education, then you are the deluded one. Check your calendar. It's the twenty first century, not the eighteenth.

[JustRalph]

I'm diluted? What did you mix me with to dilute me? I think I am still full strength.
Perhaps you mean I am deluded. If you think we could function as a society without NIH and the Department pf Education, then you are the deluded one. Check your calendar. It's the twenty first century, not the eighteenth.

It's a pun.........read the first line of your own reply and maybe you will get it.......

[Tom]

I got it.

O fer continues........