Saturday, February 11, 2012
What ....early polls show Ron Paul beating Mitt Romney in Maine
What... early polls show Ron Paul beating Mitt Romney in Maine.... stay tuned.....
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
What early exit polls show Newt Gingrich beating Mitt Romney in Colorado !!!
What early exit polls show Newt Gingrich beating Mitt Romney in Colorado !!!
Is the establishment GOP going to play games out west to put liberal flip flopper Mitt Romney in charge ???
Is the establishment GOP going to play games out west to put liberal flip flopper Mitt Romney in charge ???
BIG GOVERNMENT WAR MONGER conservative Rick Santorum leads Minnesota early polls
BIG GOVERNMENT WAR MONGER conservative Rick Santorum leads in Minnesota polls may beat weather vane Mitt. Stay tuned .....
AMERICAN OUT OF HAND SPENDING & GOVERNMENT GONE WACKY
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/finance/2012/February/Ridiculous-Govt-Spending-List-Grows-Longer-/
WASHINGTON -- The list of wasteful spending by the federal government in Washington, D.C., grows ever longer.
A recent report released by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., gives a hundred examples from just last year.
Like the $120 million for federal retirement benefits to retirees who are already dead. Patrick Knudsen, The Heritage Foundation's senior federal budget expert, pointed showed CBN News a recent example.
"After a retiree had died, his son continued cashing his checks for 37 years. And it didn't stop until 2008 when the son himself died," he said.
Other examples of wasteful spending:
More federal funding in the amount of $593,000 went to a primate research center to study where in chimpanzees' brains they get the idea to throw their feces. A Virginia university received $55,000 to study Jordanian students' water pipe smoking habits. A new grant of $176,000 joined $350,000 already spent to study how cocaine hurts or helps the sex drive of Japanese quail. While some people complain about government cuts, Leslie Paige, media director for Citizens Against Government Waste, said hardly any government program is rarely downsized.
"We never cut anything. There's hardly ever anything cut. In fact, the budget goes up by five percent and we're still spending money on junk like this," she said.
More examples:
A museum of magic received $147,000 to study the audiences of magic shows. More than $550,000 of U.S. taxes went to the production of a documentary on how rock bands contributed to the fall of the Soviet empire. "Now I might actually be interested in that. I'd like to know which groups did the most to bring down the evil empire. I just don't think the federal government needs to be spending money on this," Knudsen said.
Paige said such profligate spending, magnified by many billions, could cause America's downfall.
"We're $15.3 trillion in debt, and we're giving money to people to study the collapse of the Soviet Union. I mean I think it's so ironic," she pointed out.
A television production of a Pakistani version of PBS' "Sesame Street" has already cost tax payers $10 million and $20 million more has already been budgeted.
"For all we know, this is the CIA sending coded messages to its operatives through Bert and Ernie," Knudsen said.
IPad 2s were purchased for $96,000 for students in Maine, where 96 percent of their parents said the cost wasn't worth it.
Nevada's Western Folklife Center received $50,000 for cowboys and cowgirls to gather once a year to recite cowboy poetry.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., a native of the Silver State, expressed his anger when the House of Representatives tried to cut it.
"I thought Sen. Reid might not live in Nevada. I thought he might live on Mars at that point," Paige said.
"Because I could not believe we were living in the same reality, that this is so important to him that he's willing to spend that kind of federal dollars on the poetry festival when we're facing a $15.5 trillion debt."
"There's just is a culture of spending in Congress," Knudson explained.
"They don't want to have to say, 'no.' Their vocabulary is all about 'yes,'" Paige pointed out.
"And they think there's all this free money around and if they don't grab it, somebody else will," Knudson said.
And every day, the federal government continues to add $2.5 billion more to the national debt.
WASHINGTON -- The list of wasteful spending by the federal government in Washington, D.C., grows ever longer.
A recent report released by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., gives a hundred examples from just last year.
Like the $120 million for federal retirement benefits to retirees who are already dead. Patrick Knudsen, The Heritage Foundation's senior federal budget expert, pointed showed CBN News a recent example.
"After a retiree had died, his son continued cashing his checks for 37 years. And it didn't stop until 2008 when the son himself died," he said.
Other examples of wasteful spending:
More federal funding in the amount of $593,000 went to a primate research center to study where in chimpanzees' brains they get the idea to throw their feces. A Virginia university received $55,000 to study Jordanian students' water pipe smoking habits. A new grant of $176,000 joined $350,000 already spent to study how cocaine hurts or helps the sex drive of Japanese quail. While some people complain about government cuts, Leslie Paige, media director for Citizens Against Government Waste, said hardly any government program is rarely downsized.
"We never cut anything. There's hardly ever anything cut. In fact, the budget goes up by five percent and we're still spending money on junk like this," she said.
More examples:
A museum of magic received $147,000 to study the audiences of magic shows. More than $550,000 of U.S. taxes went to the production of a documentary on how rock bands contributed to the fall of the Soviet empire. "Now I might actually be interested in that. I'd like to know which groups did the most to bring down the evil empire. I just don't think the federal government needs to be spending money on this," Knudsen said.
Paige said such profligate spending, magnified by many billions, could cause America's downfall.
"We're $15.3 trillion in debt, and we're giving money to people to study the collapse of the Soviet Union. I mean I think it's so ironic," she pointed out.
A television production of a Pakistani version of PBS' "Sesame Street" has already cost tax payers $10 million and $20 million more has already been budgeted.
"For all we know, this is the CIA sending coded messages to its operatives through Bert and Ernie," Knudsen said.
IPad 2s were purchased for $96,000 for students in Maine, where 96 percent of their parents said the cost wasn't worth it.
Nevada's Western Folklife Center received $50,000 for cowboys and cowgirls to gather once a year to recite cowboy poetry.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., a native of the Silver State, expressed his anger when the House of Representatives tried to cut it.
"I thought Sen. Reid might not live in Nevada. I thought he might live on Mars at that point," Paige said.
"Because I could not believe we were living in the same reality, that this is so important to him that he's willing to spend that kind of federal dollars on the poetry festival when we're facing a $15.5 trillion debt."
"There's just is a culture of spending in Congress," Knudson explained.
"They don't want to have to say, 'no.' Their vocabulary is all about 'yes,'" Paige pointed out.
"And they think there's all this free money around and if they don't grab it, somebody else will," Knudson said.
And every day, the federal government continues to add $2.5 billion more to the national debt.
Friday, February 3, 2012
DONALD TRUMP ENDORSES MITT LIBERAL ROMNEY ...WHO CARES
Snake oil salesman endorses serial flip flopper. A new season of the apprentice must be around the corner. So what nobody cares Donny boy.
Ron Paul: Reactionary or Visionary by Patrick J. Buchanan
Ron Paul: Reactionary or Visionary by Patrick J. Buchanan
After his fourth-place showing in Florida, Ron Paul, by then in Nevada, told supporters he had been advised by friends that he would do better if only he dumped his foreign policy views, which have been derided as isolationism.
Not going to do it, said Dr. Paul to cheers. And why should he?
Observing developments in U.S. foreign and defense policy, Paul's views seem as far out in front of where America is heading as John McCain's seem to belong to yesterday's Bush-era bellicosity.
Consider. In December, the last U.S. troops left Iraq. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta now says that all U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan will end in 18 months.
The strategic outposts of empire are being abandoned.
The defense budget for 2013 is $525 billion, down $6 billion from 2012. The Army is to be cut by 75,000 troops; the Marine Corps by 20,000. Where Ronald Reagan sought a 600-ship Navy, the Navy will fall from 285 ships today to 250. U.S. combat aircraft are to be reduced by six fighter squadrons and 130 transport aircraft.
Republicans say this will reduce our ability to fight and win two land wars at once – say, in Iran and Korea. Undeniably true.
Why, then, is Ron Paul winning the argument?
The hawkishness of the GOP candidates aside, the United States, facing its fourth consecutive trillion-dollar deficit, can no longer afford to sustain all its alliance commitments, some of which we made 50 years ago during a Cold War that ended two decades ago, in a world that no longer exists.
As our situation is new, said Abraham Lincoln, we must think and act anew.
As Paul argues, why close bases in the U.S. when we have 700 to 1,000 bases abroad? Why not bring the troops home and let them spend their paychecks here?
Begin with South Korea. At last report, the United States had 28,000 troops on the peninsula. But why, when South Korea has twice the population of the North, an economy 40 times as large, and access to U.S. weapons, the most effective in the world, should any U.S. troops be on the DMZ? Or in South Korea?
U.S. forces there are too few to mount an invasion of the North, as Gen. MacArthur did in the 1950s. And any such invasion might be the one thing to convince Pyongyang to fire its nuclear weapons to save the hermit kingdom.
But if not needed to defend the South, and a U.S. invasion could risk nuclear reprisal, what are U.S. troops still doing there?
Answer: They are on the DMZ as a tripwire to bring us, from the first day of fighting, into a new land war in Asia that many American strategists believe we should never again fight.
Consider Central Asia. By pushing to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, and building air bases in nations that were republics of the Soviet Union two decades ago, the United States generated strategic blowback.
China and Russia, though natural rivals and antagonists, joined with four Central Asian nations in a Shanghai Cooperation Organization to expel U.S. military power from a region that is their backyard, but is half a world away from the United States.
Solution: The United States should inform the SCO that when the Afghan war is over we will close all U.S. military bases in Central Asia. No U.S. interest there justifies a conflict with Russia or China.
Indeed, a Russia-China clash over influence and resources in the Far East and Central Asia seems inevitable. Let us get out of the way.
But it is in Europe that America may find the greatest savings.
During the Cold War, 300,000 U.S. troops faced hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops from northern Norway to Central Germany to Turkey. But not only are there no Russian troops on the Elbe today, or surrounding West Berlin, they are gone from Germany, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. Between Russia and Poland lie Belarus and Ukraine. Moscow no longer even has a border with Turkey.
Why, when NATO Europe has two nuclear powers and more than twice the population of a Russia whose own population has shrunk by 8 million in 20 years and is scheduled to shrink by 25 million more by 2050, does Europe still need U.S. troops to defend it?
She does not. The Europeans are freeloading, as they have been for years, preserving their welfare states, skimping on defense and letting Uncle Sam carry the hod.
In the Panetta budgets, America will still invest more in defense than the next 10 nations combined and retain sufficient power to secure, with a surplus to spare, all her vital interests.
But we cannot forever be first responder for scores of nations that have nothing to do with our vital interests. As Frederick the Great observed, "He who defends everything defends nothing."
After his fourth-place showing in Florida, Ron Paul, by then in Nevada, told supporters he had been advised by friends that he would do better if only he dumped his foreign policy views, which have been derided as isolationism.
Not going to do it, said Dr. Paul to cheers. And why should he?
Observing developments in U.S. foreign and defense policy, Paul's views seem as far out in front of where America is heading as John McCain's seem to belong to yesterday's Bush-era bellicosity.
Consider. In December, the last U.S. troops left Iraq. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta now says that all U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan will end in 18 months.
The strategic outposts of empire are being abandoned.
The defense budget for 2013 is $525 billion, down $6 billion from 2012. The Army is to be cut by 75,000 troops; the Marine Corps by 20,000. Where Ronald Reagan sought a 600-ship Navy, the Navy will fall from 285 ships today to 250. U.S. combat aircraft are to be reduced by six fighter squadrons and 130 transport aircraft.
Republicans say this will reduce our ability to fight and win two land wars at once – say, in Iran and Korea. Undeniably true.
Why, then, is Ron Paul winning the argument?
The hawkishness of the GOP candidates aside, the United States, facing its fourth consecutive trillion-dollar deficit, can no longer afford to sustain all its alliance commitments, some of which we made 50 years ago during a Cold War that ended two decades ago, in a world that no longer exists.
As our situation is new, said Abraham Lincoln, we must think and act anew.
As Paul argues, why close bases in the U.S. when we have 700 to 1,000 bases abroad? Why not bring the troops home and let them spend their paychecks here?
Begin with South Korea. At last report, the United States had 28,000 troops on the peninsula. But why, when South Korea has twice the population of the North, an economy 40 times as large, and access to U.S. weapons, the most effective in the world, should any U.S. troops be on the DMZ? Or in South Korea?
U.S. forces there are too few to mount an invasion of the North, as Gen. MacArthur did in the 1950s. And any such invasion might be the one thing to convince Pyongyang to fire its nuclear weapons to save the hermit kingdom.
But if not needed to defend the South, and a U.S. invasion could risk nuclear reprisal, what are U.S. troops still doing there?
Answer: They are on the DMZ as a tripwire to bring us, from the first day of fighting, into a new land war in Asia that many American strategists believe we should never again fight.
Consider Central Asia. By pushing to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, and building air bases in nations that were republics of the Soviet Union two decades ago, the United States generated strategic blowback.
China and Russia, though natural rivals and antagonists, joined with four Central Asian nations in a Shanghai Cooperation Organization to expel U.S. military power from a region that is their backyard, but is half a world away from the United States.
Solution: The United States should inform the SCO that when the Afghan war is over we will close all U.S. military bases in Central Asia. No U.S. interest there justifies a conflict with Russia or China.
Indeed, a Russia-China clash over influence and resources in the Far East and Central Asia seems inevitable. Let us get out of the way.
But it is in Europe that America may find the greatest savings.
During the Cold War, 300,000 U.S. troops faced hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops from northern Norway to Central Germany to Turkey. But not only are there no Russian troops on the Elbe today, or surrounding West Berlin, they are gone from Germany, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. Between Russia and Poland lie Belarus and Ukraine. Moscow no longer even has a border with Turkey.
Why, when NATO Europe has two nuclear powers and more than twice the population of a Russia whose own population has shrunk by 8 million in 20 years and is scheduled to shrink by 25 million more by 2050, does Europe still need U.S. troops to defend it?
She does not. The Europeans are freeloading, as they have been for years, preserving their welfare states, skimping on defense and letting Uncle Sam carry the hod.
In the Panetta budgets, America will still invest more in defense than the next 10 nations combined and retain sufficient power to secure, with a surplus to spare, all her vital interests.
But we cannot forever be first responder for scores of nations that have nothing to do with our vital interests. As Frederick the Great observed, "He who defends everything defends nothing."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
