Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy jack
Point A. Taxpayer money doesn't go to political campaigns that's raised by the DNC/RNC and donations.
Point B. Congress can only raise their salary when a new session begins and they have to vote on it they don't do it whenever they feel like and the raises are never really that extravagant. Also Congress has never raised their salaries individually recently.
Point C. It doesn't cost much money to rent the area that is Guantanamo Bay detention camp and we've been renting it for a long time. The fiscal amount to keep that running should be the least of your concerns when it comes to where money is going. Unless you suggest downsizing the military (or at least military expenditures which President Obama is doing) which would be silly seeing as we're in two wars and they'd just be sent elsewhere (and will be seeing as it's been shut down.)
I hope your "whole list" is as thought out as the preview you provided us which only has the war on drugs and the war in Iraq going for it which are hardly new/shocking revelations of reckless spending.
|
A: Public funding of Presidential elections means that qualified Presidential candidates can receive federal government funds to pay for the valid expenses of their political campaigns in both the primary and general elections, and to pay for their national nominating conventions The Federal Election Commission administered the first public funding program in 1976. Eligible Presidential candidates used federal funds in their primary and general election campaigns, and the major parties used public funds to pay for their nominating conventions. Alternate political parties can apply for funding that is to be based on the voter turnout from the last election cycle.
B: Congress can still raise their own salaries, and regardless of the fact that the personal raises aren't that much in themselves, when you add it all up...
C: Paying rent at Gitmo isn't the point, the cost of running such a place is.(Moral issues being a whole different topic)
Not to mention that the fact that the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Terror" being old news doesn't disqualify them from being good examples of irresponsible spending.
Obama letting wife take air force one to Chicago every weekend.
100 dollars per pound steaks flown in from japan at white house parties.
Palin can go drop thousands on suits from Saks, Neiman's and Barney's.
There were six candidates in the Presidential Election of 2008. The approximate amount spent by each candidate are as follows:
1. Barak Obama, Democrat, 730 million.
2. John McCain, Republican, 343 million.
3. Ralph Nader, Independent, 4 million,
4. Bob Barr, Libertarian, 1 million.
5. Chuck Baldwin, Constitution, 208 thousand
6. Cynthia McKinny, Green, 145 thousand
These are a blip on the radar screen of examples.
Where is the money really going?
This whole argument is only furthering my original point; we can debate HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars all week, and the fact is that there are hundreds of billions to argue about. With all of the affluent spending going on around us, regardless of financial situation, why not do something good with it?