Re: Ron Paul on Subprime
 

Please stop intentionally mischaracterizing what I'm saying. Thanks.

Re: Ron Paul on Subprime
 

[ QUOTE ]
Please stop intentionally mischaracterizing what I'm saying. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then please address this point:

Boro: You just have to look at the alternatives as well, which is to take the responsibility for spending taxpayer dollars out of the hands of elected officials and put it into the hands of unelected officials. [THIS is a mischaracterization.]

Kaj: As I said in my second PM, every dollar spent by the federal govt is traceable to a line item in the budget -- and this is public info and in Congressional law just as clearly as earmarks. The only difference is that those line items are competed openly and awarded to the best proposal, whereas earmarks are funneled to a particular company through under-the-table communication and violation of fair competition laws.

Re: Ron Paul on Subprime
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please stop intentionally mischaracterizing what I'm saying. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then please address this point:

Boro: You just have to look at the alternatives as well, which is to take the responsibility for spending taxpayer dollars out of the hands of elected officials and put it into the hands of unelected officials. [THIS is a mischaracterization.]

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it isn't. This is as much of a mischaracterization as "The sky is blue" or "water is wet" or "The pope is catholic." Earmarked funds are allocated explicitly by politicians, and unearmakred funds are allocated by bureaucrats. I don't see how this is even in dispute. Again, I'm not saying that earmarks are good. I'm not even saying the earmarked funds are better allocated. All I'm saying is that explicitly tying expenditures to a particular politician who is *supposed* to be accountable to the electorate is not an inherently dumb idea.

[ QUOTE ]
Kaj: As I said in my second PM, every dollar spent by the federal govt is traceable to a line item in the budget -- and this is public info and in Congressional law just as clearly as earmarks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well duh. Nobody is denying that. But it dodges the point entirely, which is that earmarked spending ties a specific expenditure to a specific politician. Handing over spending decisions to bureaucrats that cannot be touched by the electorate insulates elected politicians. Funding "scientific research" is not the same thing as funding individual research projects, for example. When the electorate gets pissed about what individual projects are actuallly being funded, the politicians can just spread their hands and shrug; it wasn't their decision, after all, and they can't just stop funding scientific research because a few dollars got wasted, right?

[ QUOTE ]
The only difference is that those line items are competed openly and awarded to the best proposal, whereas earmarks are funneled to a particular company through under-the-table communication and violation of fair competition laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

The best proposal according to unelected bureaucrats, and we all know of course that they have no self interested motivations at all, right?

Re: Ron Paul on Subprime
 

[ QUOTE ]
The best proposal according to unelected bureaucrats, and we all know of course that they have no self interested motivations at all, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

These unelected bureaucrats are still BY LAW supposed to select the best proposal based on objective and open criteria, even for contracts using earmarked funds. Because they are whispered over the telephone to choose company X over company Y by some Congressional staffer doesn't all of a sudden endow the process with more legitimacy and transparency, it makes it LESS legitimate and LESS transparent.

Re: Ron Paul on Subprime
 

[ QUOTE ]
As I said in my second PM, every dollar spent by the federal govt is traceable to a line item in the budget -- and this is public info and in Congressional law just as clearly as earmarks.

[/ QUOTE ]

in theory, except for "black budget" stuff. also notable is that the pentagon is "missing" or unable to account for -- get this -- 2 trillion dollars.

seems to me in practice it's just a huge black hole.

Re: Ron Paul on Subprime
 

[ QUOTE ]
also notable is that the pentagon is "missing" or unable to account for -- get this -- 2 trillion dollars.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the entire military budget for the last 5+ years... can you provide a source for this claim?

Re: Ron Paul on Subprime
 

[ QUOTE ]
That's the entire military budget for the last 5+ years... can you provide a source for this claim?


[/ QUOTE ]

google/youtube rep. cynthia mckinney asking rumsfeld in open hearings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RvLL--vSsA

I don't think it's disputed, btw. from memory rumsfeld has an aide come up and answer that the pentagon computers can't talk to each other so no one knows where the money went. soemthing like that.

http://www.infowars.com/video/clips/...feld_wm_bb.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...nneygrills.htm

Re: Ron Paul on Subprime
 

Cynthia McKinney lol.

Also, she never asks and its never confirmed how much is "missing". She provides the reason of computers not talking to each other, and only asks who has the contracts.

Re: Ron Paul on Subprime
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's the entire military budget for the last 5+ years... can you provide a source for this claim?


[/ QUOTE ]

google/youtube rep. cynthia mckinney asking rumsfeld in open hearings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RvLL--vSsA

I don't think it's disputed, btw. from memory rumsfeld has an aide come up and answer that the pentagon computers can't talk to each other so no one knows where the money went. soemthing like that.

http://www.infowars.com/video/clips/...feld_wm_bb.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...nneygrills.htm

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand her questioning. She claimed that there was $2.3 trillion missing in FY99. The entire defense budget for FY99 was $270 billion. What does she mean that there was $2.3 trillion missing that year? The entire equipment inventory of the whole Department of Defense was estimated as $300 billion for FY06 (that's every plane, tank, ship, truck, etc.). How does the Pentagon in a single year lose 10x its budget and 10x the value of its entire equipment inventory? I'd like to see more detail as to what the heck she is talking about.

Re: Ron Paul on Subprime
 

It was supposedly both DoD and HUD money lost over a period of years in the late 90s.