myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Government Incompetence
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 13, 14, 15  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
MalibuGuru



Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 8585

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 2:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here Here JP. Now that shy bladder syndrom has been added to ADA, shy bung hole syndrom should be added. I too am looking forward to private bathrooms with warm bidet service, paid for by some poor slob who started a coffee shop.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 19272

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 2:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevenbard wrote:
No tax....Can't they just keep printing money? It seems to be working fine. Rolling Eyes


Not according to the financial news media, which say the market is up simply because the dollar is devalued, not because of anything resembling an economic recovery.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MalibuGuru



Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 8585

PostPosted: Sat May 12, 2012 11:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Under the Obama administration during the worst recession in 75 years he doubled the number of govt limousines from 200 to 400+, at a cost of $1.9 Billion or $4.6 million each. Just more evidence of the incompetence and arrogance of his administration. But he wants to tax the "millionaires"?

Thank you Bill Clinton for calling him incompetent!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pueno



Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2807

PostPosted: Sat May 12, 2012 12:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevenbard wrote:
Under the Obama administration . . . he doubled the number of govt limousines from 200 to 400+ . . . .

Just think of how many skilled Americans were employed building those custom, hand-made limos, each one lovingly crafted to Obama's personal specifications.

Willard would have made a business decision, closed the American plant, laid off the union workers, cancelled contracts with American suppliers, and outsourced the job to China. Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MalibuGuru



Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 8585

PostPosted: Sat May 12, 2012 2:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Surprise.... a liberal who doesn't see the criminality of doubling the number of govt limousines during an employment depression. As the number of people in the work force continues to fall. That's a great way to get the unemployment % down.

Just as in any good dictatorship, the number of Limos and frivolous trips to Vegas by the ruling class must increase. Tax the job creators, and give it to the rulers while the middle class suffers. SO EUROPEAN. Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 3407

PostPosted: Sat May 12, 2012 5:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevenbard wrote:
Under the Obama administration during the worst recession in 75 years he doubled the number of govt limousines from 200 to 400+, at a cost of $1.9 Billion or $4.6 million each. Just more evidence of the incompetence and arrogance of his administration. But he wants to tax the "millionaires"?

Thank you Bill Clinton for calling him incompetent!


We've discussed this before

From Fact Check

Quote:
Now, what about those limos?

Bachmann blames Obama for a 73 percent rise in the federal government's limousine fleet and, indeed, there is an investigative article by the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity that makes that claim.

But, as with federal pay, there is more to the issue than meets the eye. Bachmann ignored some serious caveats mentioned in the article that cast doubt on the 73 percent figure. The article also says:
■The 73 percent increase represents an increase of 174 vehicles since fiscal year 2008, which ended Oct. 1, 2008. Obama took office Jan. 20, so the time period spans two administrations.
■Some of the vehicles could have been requested by the Bush administration through the 2008 appropriations process, which started in 2007 before Obama took office.
■The story is based on statistics from the General Services Administration. But the agency says its figures are unreliable because it loosely defines the word "limousine" and such vehicles "can range from protective duty vehicles to sedans." The article quotes a GSA official saying the agency “cannot say that its report accurately reflects the number of limousines.”
■One department — the State Department — saw an increase of 194 vehicles, meaning the rest of the federal government combined saw an overall decline. And, the story says, "Appropriations documents indicate the State Department was engaged in a longer-term effort to increase the number of armored vehicles that would have stretched back to at least 2007."

So, many of the vehicles are not really limousines, and some of them could have been purchased or requested under the Bush administration. And the one agency that saw the biggest increase had a "longer-term effort" dating to the Bush administration to increase its fleet of armored vehicles.

This is not to say there was no increase under Obama. But there is not enough evidence to support her claim that Obama is responsible for a 73 percent increase in government-owned limousines.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pueno



Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2807

PostPosted: Sat May 12, 2012 8:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevenbard wrote:
Surprise.... a liberal who doesn't see the criminality of doubling the number of govt limousines...

I'm confused.

Criminality? What crime? Where is that law about the number of limousines written?

Oh, wait. I get it.

You make up shit as you go along, just like the other GOP clowns.

Do you work for Fox? Razz


stevenbard wrote:
...number of Limos and frivolous trips to Vegas...

Speaking of frivolous, what did you think of the story about that uber Republican Chris Christie taking the State Police helicopter to his son's baseball game and having a cruiser shuttle him a few hundred yards from the helicopter to the field? Shocked

"Even a conservative talk show host from Fox News, Greta Van Susteren, added to the stream of criticism. She took to her blog to question why the governor had used the helicopter."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 3470

PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2012 12:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

coboardhead posted:
Quote:
We've discussed this before

From Fact Check

Quote:
Now, what about those limos?

Bachmann blames Obama for a 73 percent rise in the federal government's limousine fleet and, indeed, there is an investigative article by the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity that makes that claim.

But, as with federal pay, there is more to the issue than meets the eye. Bachmann ignored some serious caveats mentioned in the article that cast doubt on the 73 percent figure. The article also says:
■The 73 percent increase represents an increase of 174 vehicles since fiscal year 2008, which ended Oct. 1, 2008. Obama took office Jan. 20, so the time period spans two administrations.
■Some of the vehicles could have been requested by the Bush administration through the 2008 appropriations process, which started in 2007 before Obama took office.
■The story is based on statistics from the General Services Administration. But the agency says its figures are unreliable because it loosely defines the word "limousine" and such vehicles "can range from protective duty vehicles to sedans." The article quotes a GSA official saying the agency “cannot say that its report accurately reflects the number of limousines.”
■One department — the State Department — saw an increase of 194 vehicles, meaning the rest of the federal government combined saw an overall decline. And, the story says, "Appropriations documents indicate the State Department was engaged in a longer-term effort to increase the number of armored vehicles that would have stretched back to at least 2007."

So, many of the vehicles are not really limousines, and some of them could have been purchased or requested under the Bush administration. And the one agency that saw the biggest increase had a "longer-term effort" dating to the Bush administration to increase its fleet of armored vehicles.

This is not to say there was no increase under Obama. But there is not enough evidence to support her claim that Obama is responsible for a 73 percent increase in government-owned limousines.


While I am not overly concerned about this issue, basically because there are apparently few if any "facts" that the government knows or is willing to provide about the concerns. The government will always need to replace vehicles and whatever is produced will be there for other presidents as well. However, it would be comforting to us taxpayers to know exactly what is being produced, why and for how much, as long as it doesn't compromise security.

If 2 billion of our money is being spent on limos, cars or SUV's, I guess it's just a pipe dream that those footing the bill would be able to get a straight answer from the government on the issue. This cuts two way, it's the same for both parties. I fear that this is just another typical example of government that is too big to know what it is doing or why.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 3407

PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2012 12:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Techno

I agree. My reason for posting the rebuttal to SB was meant really to show how these sort of claims are politicized. These distortions do nothing but confuse the issue.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MalibuGuru



Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 8585

PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 12:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Getting a straight answer, with accurate statistics is something we can all agree on. Why does it seem that there are always 2 opposing sets of stats?

I think the answer is clear. We have an arrogant out of control government, that no longer answers to the people. We don't know much of anything about the GSA or the EPA. We don't have a news media that is the 3rd rail of govt. It seems our only saving grace is youtube that has become the 4th rail. But youtube is small potatoes compared to CNN, and the networks.

Why do they all march in lock step with Obama? I can't figure that out...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 13, 14, 15  Next
Page 4 of 15

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group