or fixing social security, or some nonsense like that.

SilentStrider: or fixing social security

Social Security is not broken and can fully fund itself, if Congress would stop raping the surplus funds and leaving IOUs.

Al Gore was a tool about the "lock box" thing, but he was right.

Since the military is a valid government function and social programs aren't... submitter, you fail at sarcasm.

Capitalist1: Since the military is a valid government function and social programs aren't... submitter, you fail at sarcasm.

And you fail at basic civics.

Capitalist1: Since the military is a valid government function and social programs aren't... submitter, you fail at sarcasm.

Yes, because just as the word "defense" is in our constitution, the word "welfare" can't be found in any of our founding documents.

Dinki: Capitalist1: Since the military is a valid government function and social programs aren't... submitter, you fail at sarcasm.

And you fail at basic civics.

Obvious troll is obvious. Did you not see his username? If not a troll, he considers capitalism more important than freedom.

We spend it there, so we don't have to spend it here.

Social programs are socialist. It's right there in the name!

TheCid: Dinki: Capitalist1: Since the military is a valid government function and social programs aren't... submitter, you fail at sarcasm.

And you fail at basic civics.

Obvious troll is obvious. Did you not see his username? If not a troll, he considers capitalism more important than freedom.

RON PAUL

I read somewhere that Bush's personal net worth has actually DECREASED during his time in office.

He is so farking stupid he couldn't figure out a way to make money off the Presidency, even when they were shipping pallets of Benjamins with no controls.

Jesus H. Motherfarking Christ.

Kleptocracy.. and you farkers are all sitting around jawing about elitist candidates. You couldn't have a more docile, vapid body politic without the use of vecuronium.

You mean keeping the money on pallets in a room gaurded by one soilder can lead to fraud and back account pratices?

I am shocked and or appalled!

I should go get my money out my neighbors mailbox before he finds out.

"The Pentagon has lost nearly $15 billion in Iraq funds, but at least it wasn't wasted on social programs in the US"

That's what wars are for--to prevent the poor and middle classes from getting their hands on surplus wealth and over-turning the political and social order. At least, that's the theory of Georges Bataille. It explains the Potlatch, the Pyramids, the extravagance of Nero, the cathedrals of Northern France, the art of the Renaissance, the Moa of Easter Island, the Marshall Plan, Mardi Gras, and wars, stupid, stupid wars.

Surplus production must be destroyed. Aristocrats would rather commit suicide than not be aristocrats, so when it is no longer possible to live like a Lord, you must die like like a Romantic.

Money is like heat. It has to be vented. A stock market bubble will destroy much capital, but a war is much more enjoyable.

Georges Bataille, "La part maudite" (Les Éditions de Minuit, 1949). Translated into English in 1991 as THE ACCURSÈD SHARE.

We get the government that we deserve through our oversight and voting patterns.

/slashes wrists

NotWithoutAsswelts Quote 2008-05-24 01:02:33 AM
I read somewhere that Bush's personal net worth has actually DECREASED during his time in office.

He is so farking stupid he couldn't figure out a way to make money off the Presidency, even when they were shipping pallets of Benjamins with no controls.

Jesus H. Motherfarking Christ.


Don't sweat it, after is when presidents cash in. Bill Clinton charges roughly a million dollars an hour just to show up and hit on the interns now.

Even W couldn't blow this gig, "just show and not think to much? Hey I did that for 8 years straight! "

The Pentagon has lost nearly $15 billion in Iraq funds, but at least it wasn't wasted on social programs in the US

"Lost" means it is unaccounted for, it doesn't mean it was squandered or stolen, and you can bet there will be a massive search to find that 15 Billion. And keep in mind, $15 billion dollars is a FRACTION of a percent of the amount of money being spent in Iraq, so it's not all that alarming of an amount.

SemperLieSuckah: The Pentagon has lost nearly $15 billion in Iraq funds, but at least it wasn't wasted on social programs in the US

"Lost" means it is unaccounted for, it doesn't mean it was squandered or stolen, and you can bet there will be a massive search to find that 15 Billion. And keep in mind, $15 billion dollars is a FRACTION of a percent of the amount of money being spent in Iraq, so it's not all that alarming of an amount.

You just sit around in your own filth typing this nonsense day in and day out. Are you on disability or something?

Phil Moskowitz:
You just sit around in your own filth typing this nonsense day in and day out. Are you on disability or something?

And ONCE AGAIN it's Phil Moskowitz with NOTHING to add to the conversation. Only personal attacks. A swing and a miss, way to participate, champ.

He may have a very solid point. Consider that the current credit and financial crises are the result of the subprime loans which are the result of banks having so much money they had to invent new ways to give it away or lose it, which is the result of interest rates which were so low they were effectively zero or sub-zero--free money. These in turn were the policies of people like Greenspan, Bush, Clinton...prop up the economy--and hence the government--by priming consumer buying frenzy every time the going gets tough. Also, Chinese savers were saving way too much, so nobody else had any reason to save at all, even without the dumbasses in Washington. TOO MUCH WEALTH BREEDS COLLAPSE. Marx would be proud of Bataille. But Marx isn't even necessary if Bataille is right. Bataille did an end run around Marxian dialetics.

And all the money that used to go into the financial markets (credit), the dollar, and the real-estate bubble--it has to find new places to go. Such as Oil. And Food. And Gold. Heck, some of it is even going into wind, solar and other alternative forms of energy--that's how desperate it is. Speculation isn't the only factor driving up commodity costs but there are precious little you can buy if you can't buy financial instruments or real estate. In a mess like this, global warming is beginning to look good. Just think of it as a slaughter-house for a lot of things that need to die0--such as the economies that created it.

SemperLieSuckah: "Lost" means it is unaccounted for, it doesn't mean it was squandered or stolen, and you can bet there will be a massive search to find that 15 Billion. And keep in mind, $15 billion dollars is a FRACTION of a percent of the amount of money being spent in Iraq, so it's not all that alarming of an amount.

Every dollar spent on this war of choice is an alarming amount.

Who are they fooling, only $15 billion?

youl100: Every dollar spent on this war of choice is an alarming amount.

I knew that one was going to come from somewhere...

No shiat. Since when has someone named Dre sat on land with oil royalties worth millions? I say throw it at Abdul for the time being.

oopsie, missed the latest NYMEX sweet crude report. Make that Trillions with a double capital T.

I knew that one was going to come from somewhere...

Well, it's true. The war was and is counterproductive. One dollar or one life spent on it was too much, to say nothing of 4030+ Americas dead, tens of thousands of Americans injured, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead or injured, $3 trillion+, etc.

SemperLieSuckah: "Lost" means it is unaccounted for, it doesn't mean it was squandered or stolen, and you can bet there will be a massive search to find that 15 Billion...

Kinda like the massive search for WMDs?

/ I saw that one on TV too.

Anybody RTFA? The actual headline was a bit misleading. They know where most of the money went in a general way--various commercial payments, security contractors, support to the Iraqi "security forces", other Iraqi assets--but there's no SPECIFIC accountability. In other words, some Iraqi general got the money, but no one's sure he actually spent the cash to pay his forces instead of buying himself a Lear jet.

The money is going SOMEPLACE in Iraq, it's not just vanishing into the ether, but the Pentagon can't adequately explain who got it or what it bought--which, in a government as corrupt, weak, and full of opportunists as Iraq is just about as bad as if the Pentagon just set it on fire.

pup.socket: Kinda like the massive search for WMDs?

...there was a massive search for WMDs. They weren't found because they either did not exist or were no longer in Iraq.

Who's turn is to buy the hookers?

SemperLieSuckah: pup.socket: Kinda like the massive search for WMDs?

...there was a massive search for WMDs. They weren't found because they either did not exist or were no longer in Iraq.

But it will be different this time around, yes?

pup.socket: But it will be different this time around, yes?

...what is your premise?

Gyrfalcon: Anybody RTFA? The actual headline was a bit misleading. They know where most of the money went in a general way--various commercial payments, security contractors, support to the Iraqi "security forces", other Iraqi assets--but there's no SPECIFIC accountability.

So it's an unknown known?

SemperLieSuckah: The Pentagon has lost nearly $15 billion in Iraq funds, but at least it wasn't wasted on social programs in the US

"Lost" means it is unaccounted for, it doesn't mean it was squandered or stolen, and you can bet there will be a massive search to find that 15 Billion. And keep in mind, $15 billion dollars is a FRACTION of a percent of the amount of money being spent in Iraq, so it's not all that alarming of an amount.

You're certainly right about it being a small percent of the total spent, but considering the war is already 1,000 per cent OVER budget (original price: $50 Billion) with no end in sight, saying that it's a relatively small amount just embarrasses BushCo more.

Or it would embarrass him, if he had any sense of shame at all. I seriously doubt there will be any attempt to find it unless a Democrat wins, just as there was no attempt to keep track of it in the first place.

mr_zero
That's pretty funny. Did you come up with it?

There once was a war in Iraq,
Which Hillary really did back,
Barack said "hey, honey,
You know war's not funny,"
Now let me get back to my crack.

This is probably why the white house emails got 'lost.' They probably had to tell Bush not to answer the Nigerian prince ones.

There's a better article @vanity fair on the missing billions, from back when it was 12 bil.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/10/iraq_billions200710

SemperLieSuckah: "Lost" means it is unaccounted for, it doesn't mean it was squandered or stolen, and you can bet there will be a massive search to find that 15 Billion.

Sure.

BTW, who's leading the search? OJ?

And keep in mind, $15 billion dollars is a FRACTION of a percent of the amount of money being spent in Iraq, so it's not all that alarming of an amount.

That's supposed to make us feel better?

The amount is not alarming, the incompetence is.

Lost or misplaced, it doesn't matter. The IRS wants you to replace it, since they can't ask those off shore companies like Halliburton/KBR.

SemperLieSuckah: A swing and a miss, way to participate, champ.

But he's right. Isn't he?

SemperLieSuckah:

"Lost" means it is unaccounted for, it doesn't mean it was squandered or stolen, and you can bet there will be a massive search to find that 15 Billion. And keep in mind, $15 billion dollars is a FRACTION of a percent of the amount of money being spent in Iraq, so it's not all that alarming of an amount.

Even though it's unintentional, this is the single funniest thing I've read all day. Thanks, I needed that.

Is that all?

Didn't they lose $2.3 trillion in 1999-2000?

/That's some great money watching there Lou.

Now there is something Waxman could bite into.
Before the 2006 election he promised the first thing he was going to investigate was Halliburton and the no bid war spending spree.
Just that pressure of oversight would likely slow the bleeding of funds down.
Instead he investigated a dumb Assed Attorney General and Steroid popping baseball players and lord knows what else before actually threatening to investigate something important like oversight over the billions spent in Iraq after a year and some months.

SemperLieSuckah: pup.socket: But it will be different this time around, yes?

...what is your premise?

i have no premises, i am just amused that there are stupid people who still believe in "searching" for things that aren't there.

considering the (very large) number of people with military connections i know who have setup offshore companies in Dubai and elsewhere in the past 5 years, you don't need a crystal ball to say that money will be harder to find than the proverbial WMDs.

Because there isn't any waste fraud or abuse in our social/welfare/education systems.

At this point in the game, anyone who believes this money was "lost" is a naive moron or just willfully ignorant...

Howie Spankowitz: Capitalist1: Since the military is a valid government function and social programs aren't... submitter, you fail at sarcasm.

Yes, because just as the word "defense" is in our constitution, the word "welfare" can't be found in any of our founding documents.

But the words "skimoff," "kickback," and "war profiteering" are in there, clear as day.

Dinki: Capitalist1: Since the military is a valid government function and social programs aren't... submitter, you fail at sarcasm.

And you fail at basic civics.

Howie Spankowitz: Capitalist1: Since the military is a valid government function and social programs aren't... submitter, you fail at sarcasm.

Yes, because just as the word "defense" is in our constitution, the word "welfare" can't be found in any of our founding documents.

And you both fail at basic civics.


You both subscribe to an overly broad interpretation of the Welfare Commerce, Necessary clauses which is a ready excuse for the government to seize more power rather than having to go through that troublesome Amendment process and actually get the consent of the governed for it to have that power. After all who could object? It is all for our own. Welfare, MEIDCARE, the Patriot Act can all be justified by the broad iterpretation/living document crowd to get their agenda through.

The enumerated powers under Article 1 section 8 specify raising a military but say nothing about Social Security, food stamps or healthcare. These are all state/local resposibilities if they are to exist at a government level.

The framers of the Constitution did not intend for such a broad intepretation to be used:

"Don't be idiots mouthing absurdities. It is obvious that this general statement is qualified and limited by the Constitution itself in what follows. No right reasoning person would ever conclude that that the enumeration of the particulars wouldn't set definitive parameters on the meaning of 'general Welfare, ' nor would reasonably intelligent people ever conclude that the specifying of the particulars was only intended to confuse and mislead as to what is meant by the 'general Welfare' phrase."
James Madison

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."
~~James Madison, Federalist No. 45

"The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security."
James Madison, Federalist No. 45, January 26, 1788

"I hope our courts will never countenance the sweeping pretensions which have been set up under the words 'general defence and public welfare.' These words only express the motives which induced the Convention to give to the ordinary legislature certain specified powers which they enumerate, and which they thought might be trusted to the ordinary legislature, and not to give them the unspecified also; or why any specifications? They could not be so awkward in language as to mean, as we say, 'all and some.' And should this construction prevail, all limits to the federal government are done away."Thomas Jefferson

The "necessary and proper" clause of Article I, Section 8, enumerated power of Congress #18 - which mandates that the aforementioned 17 enumerated powers are further defined and expanded upon through implications though limited on the whole by a "necessary and proper" relationship. McCulloch v. Maryland defined this as to Congress may enact legislation within the powers (1) specifically enumerated by Article I, Section 8 and (2) that which reasonably "necessary and proper" in "carrying into execution" these powers and those elsewhere listed to Congress in the constitution (ie. certain amendments). In other words, Congress is strictly defined to very specifically enumerated powers and that which draws a reasonable relationship to these specific powers as a "means" of carrying into play their execution.

"This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83

"If Congress can apply money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may undertake the regulation of all roads, other than post roads. In short, everything from the highest object of State legislation, down to the most minute object of policy, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare."
James Madison, speech to the First US Congress.


"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were to those specifically enumerated" Thomas Jefferson

"[A] wise and frugal government...shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."
--Thomas Jefferson