Obama Appoints A "Urban Affairs Czar"

ib1yysguy said:
I'm not condoning wasteful spending. I'm saying you guys look silly getting huffy and puffy about welfare and a few hundred million for whatever here or there, then when they've got you looking the other direction (FAGS MARRYING!) they go and spend a few trillion on something useless (Iraq).
Click to expand...

Yeah, that was totally how they sold the Iraq War to the public! Gay marriage didn't even become an issue until the SC of Mass. made its ruling, later on in 2003.

If you will recall, Iraq was long purported to constitute a threat to US and our allies. Many even supported the Resolution on the grounds that it would force Saddam to back down without us even having to seriously do anything like invading.

Since no one can make wild accusations about welfare spending such as "without it, some random nation is going to build WMDs and use them on us OMG!!!!" its never quite as dramatic. Vietnam will always be more spectacular than debates over the Great Society, and the same for Korea over Fair Deal debates, WWII over New Deal debates, and WWI over New Freedom debates.
 
How utterly and totally silly.

Did anyone miss the part about "80% of Americans live in urban areas."

Undoubtedly there are problems in the urban areas, so a function of the government was created to address the problems .. and the right starts whining.

Incredible.

And lets not forget the tried and true mantra of why am I paying for someone else's problems .. when only 20% of Americans aren't affected by those problems .. a 20% that factors in the lowest incomes, thus the other 80% are probably paying for the 20%.

We lost, oooppss, misplaced, and somehow can't find more than nine billion dollars in Iraq .. more money than is going to be dedicated to this program .. but I didn't hear a peep coming from the right or rural America about the missing money or the money we threw away at companies like KBR, Haliburton, and Blackwater.

.. but now .. outrage.

How dare they attempt to do something that addresses the problems of EIGHTY PERCENT OF AMERICANS.

... wow
 
blackascoal said:
How utterly and totally silly.

Did anyone miss the part about "80% of Americans live in urban areas."

Undoubtedly there are problems in the urban areas, so a function of the government was created to address the problems .. and the right starts whining.

Incredible.

And lets not forget the tried and true mantra of why am I paying for someone else's problems .. when only 20% of Americans aren't affected by those problems .. a 20% that factors in the lowest incomes, thus the other 80% are probably paying for the 20%.

We lost, oooppss, misplaced, and somehow can't find more than nine billion dollars in Iraq .. more money than is going to be dedicated to this program .. but I didn't hear a peep coming from the right or rural America about the missing money or the money we threw away at companies like KBR, Haliburton, and Blackwater.

.. but now .. outrage.

How dare they attempt to do something that addresses the problems of EIGHTY PERCENT OF AMERICANS.

... wow
Click to expand...

as the one who brought up the potential for waste (or worse), I will answer. I raised hell about the 9 billion dollars. I raised hell at the fact we invaded Iraq at all, and have continually raised hell about what we have spent there.

Screw party lines, if money is wasted we should all be screaming.

If the money is used to improve conditions in urban areas (whether its for 80%, 50% or 20%) then I am ok with it. If it improves the potential for growth, education or self-sufficiency of the poor, then I am wholeheartedly behind it.

But what I pointed out was an obvious gap that could be exploited (by either party) for waste and corruption. Put good oversight on it. I am not saying stop the money, just trying to point out potential problems before millions of dollars are "missing".
 
Solitary said:
as the one who brought up the potential for waste (or worse), I will answer. I raised hell about the 9 billion dollars. I raised hell at the fact we invaded Iraq at all, and have continually raised hell about what we have spent there.

Screw party lines, if money is wasted we should all be screaming.

If the money is used to improve conditions in urban areas (whether its for 80%, 50% or 20%) then I am ok with it. If it improves the potential for growth, education or self-sufficiency of the poor, then I am wholeheartedly behind it.

But what I pointed out was an obvious gap that could be exploited (by either party) for waste and corruption. Put good oversight on it. I am not saying stop the money, just trying to point out potential problems before millions of dollars are "missing".
Click to expand...

It would seem to me that good oversight for the program should be the argument. There is no question there is a need to look at the specific problems of urban areas, particularly as it deals with issues of diminishing resources, like water.

But this thread, like most of them, is awash in partisan bullshit, even though republicans were no better stewards of taxpayer dollars .. which is what I pointed out.
 
blackascoal said:
It would seem to me that good oversight for the program should be the argument. There is no question there is a need to look at the specific problems of urban areas, particularly as it deals with issues of diminishing resources, like water.

But this thread, like most of them, is awash in partisan bullshit, even though republicans were no better stewards of taxpayer dollars .. which is what I pointed out.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on that.

Its long past time to hold our elected officials accountable for what they do with our money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top