Your Tax Money At Work

[joemomma]

How they vote in the United Nations:

Below are the actual voting records of various Arabic/Islamic States which are recorded in both the US State Department and United Nations records:

Kuwait votes against the United States 67% of the time

Qatar votes against the United States 67% of the time

Morocco votes against the United States 70% of the time

United Arab Emirates votes against the U. S. 70% of the time.

Jordan votes against the United States 71% of the time.

Tunisia votes against the United States 71% of the time.

Saudi Arabia votes against the United States 73% of the time.

Yemen votes against the United States 74% of the time.

Algeria votes against the United States 74% of the time.

Oman votes against the United States 74% of the time.!

Sudan votes against the United States 75% of the time.

Pakistan votes against the United States 75% of the time.

Libya votes against the United States 76% of the time.

Egypt votes against the United States 79% of the time.

Lebanon votes against the United States 80% of the time.

India votes against the United States 81% of the time.

Syria votes against the United States 84% of the time.

Mauritania votes against the United States 87% of the time.

U S Foreign Aid to those that hate us:

Egypt, for example, after voting 79% of the time against the United States, still receives $2 billion annually in US Foreign Aid.

Jordan votes 71% against the United States

And receives $192,814,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.

Pakistan votes 75% against the United States

Receives $6,721,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.

India votes 81% against the United States

Receives $143,699,000 annually.

Draw your own conclusions, but to me, it doesn't make much sense to supply your would be executioner with the hangman's rope.

[derf]

Nice! I can't wait to pay more taxes

[Marekdlux]

I heard something on the radio yesterday (bubba the love spong of all people). In the New York times they stated that we have spent more then 1.2 trillion (yes I said TRILLION) dollars on the war in Iraq. If we did not spend that money on the war....well, read this article:

What $1.2 Trillion Can Buy

Medical research, tackling poverty and education, and reconstruction of New Orleans would all be ways to spend $1.2 trillion. Here’s another: The war in Iraq.

The human mind isn’t very well equipped to make sense of a figure like $1.2 trillion. We don’t deal with a trillion of anything in our daily lives, and so when we come across such a big number, it is hard to distinguish it from any other big number. Millions, billions, a trillion — they all start to sound the same.

The way to come to grips with $1.2 trillion is to forget about the number itself and think instead about what you could buy with the money. When you do that, a trillion stops sounding anything like millions or billions.

For starters, $1.2 trillion would pay for an unprecedented public health campaign — a doubling of cancer research funding, treatment for every American whose diabetes or heart disease is now going unmanaged and a global immunization campaign to save millions of children’s lives.

Combined, the cost of running those programs for a decade wouldn’t use up even half our money pot. So we could then turn to poverty and education, starting with universal preschool for every 3- and 4-year-old child across the country. The city of New Orleans could also receive a huge increase in reconstruction funds.

The final big chunk of the money could go to national security. The recommendations of the 9/11 Commission that have not been put in place — better baggage and cargo screening, stronger measures against nuclear proliferation — could be enacted. Financing for the war in Afghanistan could be increased to beat back the Taliban’s recent gains, and a peacekeeping force could put a stop to the genocide in Darfur.

All that would be one way to spend $1.2 trillion. Here would be another:

The war in Iraq.

[joemomma]

Here would be another. Give it back to those from whom it was "legally" stolen.

[Jo Anne Yost]

God that's depressing...I hate that little shrub...sorry was that too political? come on 2008....

[joemomma]

God that's depressing...I hate that little shrub...sorry was that too political? come on 2008....

It was political, but the OP was basically political, so no reason to be sorry. But, I don't think you can blame the hedges for this one. This country's leaders have been buying other countries' "loyalty" for ages.

[B.O.P.]

It was political, but the OP was basically political, so no reason to be sorry. But, I don't think you can blame the hedges for this one. This country's leaders have been buying other countries' "loyalty" for ages.

May I make a correction? They *think* they are buying loyalty. But as we have seen countless times, when push comes to shove they usually tell us to go to hell when we want something in return for the tax payers hard earned money!

[SignSource1]

May I make a correction? They *think* they are buying loyalty. But as we have seen countless times, when push comes to shove they usually tell us to go to hell when we want something in return for the tax payers hard earned money!

The money is hard earned by the taxpayer, but congress and the senate have to only look pretty on TV or a coroplast sign to spend our money. Lets stop sending career poloticians to washington or even to our state governments.

Article 1 Section 2 US Constitution

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

Article 1 Section 3 US Constitution

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

I have a bit of a problem with the term system. Originally, as noted above, the terms for each elected official were set forth in the constitution, but as we all know polititians have modified the constitution to make themselves eligable for career politics. In the original text i believe the founding fathers new that the citizens of the US had jobs and other day to day activities and needed to return home to tend to their business. I believe they also new the risks of career polititians and how they can make themselves wealthy off the american taxpayer or lobbying groups.

Think if we went back to the original text and every 2 years we had fresh representatives who had to return and live amongst their constituents after a 2 or 6 year term. I think they would be a bit more responsible with our money.

In what other job can the employees as a whole or even a simple majority vote themselves a pay raise or vote to spend our money for what they see is a worthy cause.

I think they should implement a litmus test:

1. Does it benefit the American public as a whole

2. Does it focus on just one segement of society

3. Does it burden the taxpayer

4. Would private industry ever invest in the idea

5. Does it affect me directly

6. Do we really need it

7. Does it create another layer of government

8. Did someone tell me to vote this way

I am sure there are other "good business" question that should be asked

I know that we have a wonderful system of government, but lets put the power back into the hands of the people. Lets send statesmen to Washington, not politicians.

Sorry for the rant, Just my opinion

[joemomma]

Article 1 Section 3 US Constitution

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

The 17th Amendment changed the word "Legislature" to "people". The founding fathers, in what I think was there wisdom, decided to have 2 different types of houses in the Congress, a populist house (Representatives) elected by the people, and an upper chamber (Senate), elected by each individual State Legislature and not beholding to the whims of the electorate. To me, this added another obstacle to the will of the mob (some call it the majority), preserved individual rights, and controlled spending. Thanks to the 17th, we now have a populist president, populist House, and populist Senate, all of whose main objective is to get re-elected by giving the house away.

I agree that an amendment needs to be passed for term limitations. As I've said before (paraphrasing an old bumper sticker I used to have), I think all politicians who serve should serve 2 terms - one in office and one in jail.