PDA

View Full Version : Hello!!!!!!!!!



Jim Person
11-21-2009, 08:33 AM
I don't post here very often, mainly because I despise 99% of politicians. But I found this amusing but scary at the same time. This was sent to me in an email......Jim



Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a desert. Congress said, "Someone may steal from it at night." So they created a night watchman position and hired a person for the job.

Then Congress said, "How does the watchman do his job without instruction?" So they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to write the instructions, and one person to do time studies.

Then Congress said, "How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?" So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people. One to do the studies and one to write the reports.

Then Congress said, "How are these people going to get paid?" So They created the following positions, a time keeper, and a payroll officer, then hired two people..

Then Congress said, "Who will be accountable for all of these people?"

So they created an administrative section and hired three people, an Administrative Officer, Assistant Administrative Officer, and a Legal Secretary.

Then Congress said, "We have had this command in operation for one Year and we are $18,000 over budget, we must cutback overall cost."

So they laid off the night watchman.

NOW slowly, let it sink in.

Quietly, we go like sheep to slaughter.

Does anybody remember the reason given for the establishment of the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY..... during the Carter Administration?

Anybody?

Anything?

No?

Didn't think so!

Bottom line. We've spent several hundred billion dollars in support of an agency...the reason for which not one person who reads this can remember!

Ready??

It was very simple...and at the time, everybody thought it very appropriate.

The Department of Energy was instituted on 8-04-1977, TO LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL.

Hey, pretty efficient, huh???

AND NOW IT'S 2009 -- 32 YEARS LATER -- AND THE BUDGET FOR THIS "NECESSARY" DEPARTMENT IS AT $24.2 BILLION A YEAR. THEY HAVE 16,000 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND APPROXIMATELY 100,000 CONTRACT EMPLOYEES; AND LOOK AT THE JOB THEY HAVE DONE! THIS IS WHERE YOU SLAP YOUR FOREHEAD AND SAY, "WHAT WAS I THINKING?"

32 years ago 30% of our oil consumption was foreign imports. Today 70% of our oil consumption is foreign imports.

Ah, yes -- good ole bureaucracy.

AND, NOW, WE ARE GOING TO TURN THE BANKING SYSTEM, HEALTH CARE, AND THE AUTO INDUSTRY OVER TO THE SAME GOVERNMENT?

HELLOOO! Anybody Home?

Gerry Clinchy
11-21-2009, 09:26 AM
I've seen this before, but it's always a good reminder!

The framers of the Constitution had a clear view of what happened when the govt (the King) "took care of the people". They realized that certain functions were appropriate and necessary for a central government, and others that were better left to individuals.

Even in a charitable organization, one sees that such an organization learns how to conserve costs when they start out "living on a shoestring," so to speak. Once they start getting involved with "The United Way" and govt funding, things often go downhill in the amount of funding that goes directly to the group's original purpose v. "administrative expense".

Julie R.
11-21-2009, 11:32 AM
The framers of the Constitution probably haven't stopped writhing in their graves since the addition of two lines to their masterpiece a century later authorized the collection of a federal income tax, resulting in another century of raping the citizenry with millions of pages of totally unintelligible tax laws, rules, regulations and forms.

Nor could they be resting peacefully over the creation of a Social Security system that, if run by a private entity, would have resulted in the arrest, prosecution and conviction for operating a Ponzi scheme. In the real world, taking invested funds for the purposes of Social Security, paying out to those not vested in the system and skimming the rest for other purposes is called embezzlement. When the government does it, it's called politics.

dixidawg
11-21-2009, 12:57 PM
I can't wait to see how big the gov't gets when it takes over health care.....

dnf777
11-22-2009, 07:35 AM
The framers of the Constitution probably haven't stopped writhing in their graves since the addition of two lines to their masterpiece a century later authorized the collection of a federal income tax, resulting in another century of raping the citizenry with millions of pages of totally unintelligible tax laws, rules, regulations and forms.

Nor could they be resting peacefully over the creation of a Social Security system that, if run by a private entity, would have resulted in the arrest, prosecution and conviction for operating a Ponzi scheme. In the real world, taking invested funds for the purposes of Social Security, paying out to those not vested in the system and skimming the rest for other purposes is called embezzlement. When the government does it, it's called politics.

Julie, can you give me your interpretation of "promote the general welfare", as penned by the framers of the Constitution?

Julie R.
11-22-2009, 07:51 AM
I could, Dave, but you wouldn't like it so why bother? I'm sure it's different from yours. I do not subscribe to the opinion that government knows what's best for every aspect of our lives, and I doubt the founding fathers did, either.

subroc
11-22-2009, 09:00 AM
Dave

I doubt the framers meant “welfare for all” when they penned the phrase “promote the general welfare.”

Bob Gutermuth
11-22-2009, 11:30 AM
In the days our constitution was written, welfare did not mean a relief check, food stamps, cheap govt run housing or medicade.

subroc
11-22-2009, 11:52 AM
I think the word welfare has the left confused...

dnf777
11-22-2009, 04:43 PM
I could, Dave, but you wouldn't like it so why bother? I'm sure it's different from yours. I do not subscribe to the opinion that government knows what's best for every aspect of our lives, and I doubt the founding fathers did, either.

okay, so far I agree 100% with you. lets hear your interpretation. There are MANY things I doubt the FFs would agree with that are in place today.

But just like the national republican party, I hear lots of "no"s, "they didn't mean this.." , but no answers or solutions.

Just like general welfare doesn't mean foodstamps for all, I doubt 'provide for the common defense' means waging pre-emptive wars with countries that posed NO threat to our nation.

dnf777
11-22-2009, 04:50 PM
In the days our constitution was written, welfare did not mean a relief check, food stamps, cheap govt run housing or medicade.

Please don't tell me what it does NOT mean. Tell us what it MEANS. I'm curious.

T. Mac
11-22-2009, 06:12 PM
First thought: Promote does not equal provide.

Goose
11-22-2009, 07:56 PM
Please don't tell me what it does NOT mean. Tell us what it MEANS. I'm curious.

Why don't you give us the leftist interpretation of 'promote the general welfare'. Be specific please. I'm curious.

huntinman
11-22-2009, 08:00 PM
Please don't tell me what it does NOT mean. Tell us what it MEANS. I'm curious.

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for life.

dnf777
11-22-2009, 08:16 PM
Why don't you give us the leftist interpretation of 'promote the general welfare'. Be specific please. I'm curious.

Sorry, I can give you my independent view, but I don't follow either side's talking points. But I asked first. ;-)

subroc
11-22-2009, 08:59 PM
Dave

Do you reeally believe you are an independent as it relates to political view point or are you just informing those that post on this BB that you are a registered independent? There really is a difference.

dnf777
11-22-2009, 09:14 PM
Dave

Do you reeally believe you are an independent as it relates to political view point or are you just informing those that post on this BB that you are a registered independent? There really is a difference.

I know I'm independent, and don't need any confirmation or acceptance from extremists from either end of the spectrum. I see complete idiocy in BOTH political parties, and wouldn't want to belong to either. Nor do I believe the extreme ideologies put forth by either side.

If I was climbing out of my pick-up truck and my VFW, NRA, and DU cards fell on the ground, a passer-by would think I was a brother-conservative. People tend to attack labels (often incorrectly) based on very simplistic stereotypes. Here, because I dare disagree with prevailing opinions, I'm labelled (incorrectly) a leftist. If I were to post my hunting or gun-rights beliefs on a forum that was as liberal as this one is conservative, I would probably be name-called and labelled a "righty"! I kinda like right where I am!

off-label regards,
dave

code3retrievers
11-23-2009, 09:47 AM
Please don't tell me what it does NOT mean. Tell us what it MEANS. I'm curious.

Promote the general welfare is in the preamble the rest of the constitution is essentially about the limits placed on government. (The things government should not be doing)

Our founders did not want a strong / big federal government. The exact opposite of have you and your friends want. Powers not granted in the constitution were reserved for the states.

So if you are such a big fan of government run health care, I would suggest voting for it on a state level while leaving the rest of us alone. The reason that it is not done at a state level is because every state that has tried it has had to discontinue it or has a program that is so screwed up they would like to.

This country needs to have a states rights revolution. Iif government run health care is such a great thing it would be a selling point for states want to grow but we all know that it would be a high tax state that will just spend itself into the ground.

dnf777
11-23-2009, 11:03 AM
Promote the general welfare is in the preamble the rest of the constitution is essentially about the limits placed on government. (The things government should not be doing)

Our founders did not want a strong / big federal government. The exact opposite of have you and your friends want. Powers not granted in the constitution were reserved for the states.

So if you are such a big fan of government run health care, I would suggest voting for it on a state level while leaving the rest of us alone. The reason that it is not done at a state level is because every state that has tried it has had to discontinue it or has a program that is so screwed up they would like to.

This country needs to have a states rights revolution. Iif government run health care is such a great thing it would be a selling point for states want to grow but we all know that it would be a high tax state that will just spend itself into the ground.

Again, I chuckle at being labelled with everything liberal just because I'm not in lock-step with the tea-bagger talking points! MY bread is buttered with health care payments, so I'm not interested in fixed wages either, my friend. I wish folks would regard me as highly as their plumber...that is, expect to pay for services at the time they are rendered, and not complain about a $10 co-pay!! I know that cuts into cigarette money, heaven forbid!

But back to healthcare....what is your answer? Status quo? Its very easy to be a nay-sayer.

ducknwork
11-23-2009, 11:49 AM
First thought: Promote does not equal provide.

Very, very good point.

ducknwork
11-23-2009, 11:57 AM
But back to healthcare....what is your answer? Status quo? Its very easy to be a nay-sayer.

Save the money the govt believes they can now, then when it is proven, begin to look at lowering prices to make it more affordable for all and maybe then expand care to those who still legitimately cannot afford it. I hope I don't get called a lefty for that last part...


The govt needs Dave Ramsey regards,

dnf777
11-23-2009, 12:59 PM
Save the money the govt believes they can now, then when it is proven, begin to look at lowering prices to make it more affordable for all and maybe then expand care to those who still legitimately cannot afford it. I hope I don't get called a lefty for that last part...


The govt needs Dave Ramsey regards,

Save the money??? Are you kidding??? Clinton was the last president to save a dime. Since then, we've upped the world record for borrowing! You can't save when you continue to borrow at break-neck speed! Sounds like a good plan, but will probably work as well as peanut-butter in a canteen. The old republican strategy of "borrow and spend" will work no better than "tax and spend".

ducknwork
11-23-2009, 02:14 PM
Save the money??? Are you kidding??? Clinton was the last president to save a dime. Since then, we've upped the world record for borrowing! You can't save when you continue to borrow at break-neck speed! Sounds like a good plan, but will probably work as well as peanut-butter in a canteen. The old republican strategy of "borrow and spend" will work no better than "tax and spend".

What would I be kidding about? Do you object to the idea of save now, spend later?Why do you sound defensive? I didn't attack anyone. I made a suggestion as a response to your request to quit being a bunch of nay sayers and come up with another idea. I don't care who did what in the past or who does something now as long as someone would just do something that would actually benefit this country. I don't understand how so many people in Washington can believe that spending the amount of money that we are spending can actually help us. I am not speaking of just one side of the aisle...At what point in the rise to political success do you throw your common sense aside and start doing stupid s**t that makes no sense?

dnf777
11-23-2009, 03:06 PM
I like the idea of saving money....spending less than we earn. That's how I run our household, and it seems to work! I was pointing out that your idea of the gov't actually saving money, whether it's Bush or Obama is a pipe-dream! Ain't gonna happen.

ducknwork
11-23-2009, 04:05 PM
Gotcha...

We're not so different, you and I...:p

Uncle Bill
11-26-2009, 03:19 PM
! I kinda like right where I am!

off-label regards,
dave




Sorry Dave, but "where you are is NOWHERE"!!!

What part of the statement "If you stand for nothing, you'll fall for anything" don't you understand?

As you continue through life, and become better involved, you will start to realize the left has abandoned you...their policies are not designed for a Constitutional American.

Do you honestly believe the current healthcare bill in ANY form is what this nation needs. Don't you understand that ANY of these 'healthcare' proposals has nothing to do with the left wanting the nation to have better healthcare...it has only to do with their control over more of the nation's people. How is that so damned hard to understand.

Are you so willing to have more of your freedoms legislated away, that you will blindly follow Pelosi, Reed, Obama et al into this incredulous arraignment?

If so, you are no more independant than Roger, Henry, Hugh, Yardley et al.

You have the audacity to bring up your grandfather's lifestyle, which you sublimely refer to as being a Democrat. My father exhibited that same form of rugged individualism most Americans of that era understood was the way the Constitution was written for them. Those Americans from that time in history KNEW they were ONLY given the "right" for the "pursuit of happiness" ... not as the present liberals/socialists claim.

Probably like your grandfather, my father was a Democrat too. I took him all the way through the Carter years to finally realize that party had left him. And it wasn't just the various splinter groups that were given position in that party, from the closet crowd to the environmental whackos and activists of every special interest...it was the way the Congess was almost daily removing freedoms he believed were essential to the American life, and raising taxes to pay for these stupid regulations...increasing the takeover of the basic responsibilities of the people, so the 'nanny state' would make more sheeple dependant on big government.

He didn't change his conservative views, the Democrats he was once a proud member of did. He said they had become far too "communistic" for him. Apparently he had suffered through their liberal stages, hoping they'd return to the party of the hard-working American.

I can understand your displeasure with the Republican party and the majority of their congressional representatives. With few exceptions, I'd be in favor of a clean sweep, but that's what you should expect from a firm term-limits-advocate.

But if you think what the present leadership is pushing through in the name of global warming, healthcare, and this preposterous card check bill, you will indeed love where they are heading with H.R. 45...Obama's gun control package. If you believe like many of the left on this BB, they can pick-and-choose which bills they support, and which gores their ox, and they want to defeat...sorry! You have been sipping the koolaid too long to start spitting it out now.

Good luck with your "independant" way of life. Regardless of what you 'want' to believe, the majority will determine what you will have to adhere to, so you'd better choose sides and start fighting for what you really believe in. Otherwise, you have as much chance of survival as anyone wandering down the middle of the road.

UB

dnf777
11-27-2009, 12:01 PM
Again, lots of labelling and presuming to know what other people think and desire. Most of your assumptions of me are dead wrong, I will note. Your posts seem to indicate that the only "regular Americans" are Christian republican conservatives. (if my presumption is wrong, please give some mention to the millions of democrats who work, pay taxes, serve their country, etc...) I merely gave one example of someone very close to me, who shares the same family values and work ethic as YOU do, who happens to be a life-long democrat. I would NEVER try to persuade your political leanings, but maybe just open your eyes a bit to allow some disagreement, without demonization of all who differ from your views....that's all.

Uncle Bill
11-27-2009, 04:10 PM
I merely gave one example of someone very close to me, who shares the same family values and work ethic as YOU do, who happens to be a life-long democrat.





And I imagine he is elated with that party and their variety of factions...same sex marriage...lesbians and queers marching down the street in the St.Patrick day parade...killing babies just prior to being born...taking the money from hard working Americans, and giving it to illegals for their schooling and welfare...watching our court system falling apart primarily due to the efforts of Democrat operatives like the ACLU...liberal legislators that continue to pile on legislation that the lawyers lap up, and would never think of reforming that corrupt profession that has more to do with the cost of healthcare than any one area...gun control at every turn they can muster...an education system run by union thugs, very little different than the Jimmy Hoffa crowd...promoting immorality any chance it gets...let atheists rule...burn the flag...be more concerned about profiling than allowing more victims to be killed...

And you wonder why there are grassroots T.E.A. parties which you degrade by calling them teabaggers. How dare you!

I could go on, but if your father has the cajones and intelligence my dad had, he would readily admit to the 'party' no longer having the values he bought into when he became old enough to vote and participate in and take responsibility for being part of "We The People".

As to this bit of insincerity..."I would NEVER try to persuade your political leanings, but maybe just open your eyes a bit to allow some disagreement, without demonization of all who differ from your views....that's all"...do you really expect me to by that pap?

UB

dnf777
11-27-2009, 06:47 PM
I won't get into a pi$$ing match with "who's dad is smarter and better". That's rather juvenile, don't you agree?

And besides, all this talk "cajones" coming from a tea-bagger is making me a little nervous. That's just not my "cup of tea".

Have a nice one UB, this is heading into the typical thread degeneration,

dave

Red retrievers
11-27-2009, 09:41 PM
I am not speaking of just one side of the aisle...At what point in the rise to political success do you throw your common sense aside and start doing stupid s**t that makes no sense?

At the point the politicians no longer have values and just want to stay in office/power. IMHO nothing else matters to most of the politicians than keeping the majority happy no matter how the majorities wants differ from the politicians values.:( Term limits would help.

Uncle Bill
11-28-2009, 11:47 AM
I won't get into a pi$$ing match with "who's dad is smarter and better". That's rather juvenile, don't you agree?

And besides, all this talk "cajones" coming from a tea-bagger is making me a little nervous. That's just not my "cup of tea".

Have a nice one UB, this is heading into the typical thread degeneration,

dave


Typical MOR activist. DON'T GET RUN OVER, DAVE!

UB

dnf777
11-28-2009, 01:27 PM
I'm pretty sure that I'm glad I don't know what you're talking about!