Sold out by IFR

wrote in message
...


Mike Rapoport wrote:

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

I guess they need to distinguish what we care about from what we
want!
Pork
spending is getting out of hand but I don't see any mechanism to
contain
it.
Even the defense budget is about 25% pork according to one study I
read
(I
think it was by the CBO or GAO).


In 1981-82 the Grace Commission found that 40% or more of government
spending was pork/waste.

But hey, this is a DEMOCRACY. The spending might not be what YOU want
(you
probably have your own little pet project -- we all do), but it's what
your
NEIGHBOR wants.

"What we must remember is that, in a democracy, the whores are us." -
P.J.
O'Rourke, _Parliament of Whores_.



I agree completely. Everybody wants lots of things if they don't have
to
pay for them. The federal government should stick to national issues,
defense, foriegn relations, interstate commerce, national parks, some
research ect. The state governments should stick to state issues, state
highways, law enforcement and so on. Local projects should be funded
locally. If Anaheim needs a railway to Disneyland which is only going
to
benefit Anaheim hotels, I don't see why someone in New York should pay
for
it. All pork spending is a result of people wanting things they don't
have
to pay for.

I don't have any pet projects that I expect someone else to pay for.

Mike
MU-2

These are noble, but simplistic, agruments. California primarily, and
other
border states are incurring tremendous costs because the federal
government
refuses to enforce our borders. Thus, Aunt Millie in Iowa is as
responsible foe
the failure of her federal government to protect the borders as is Uncle
Joe in
California.


Bull****. California is attracting the illegals with free social services
and by Californians offering them jobs. If this stopped, so would most of
the illegal immigration.

Mike
MU-2

Bull****. California is attracting the illegals with free social services
and by Californians offering them jobs. If this stopped, so would most of
the illegal immigration.

Where I live, Americans simply will NOT do the kinds of labor intensive work
(restaurant kitchen, landscape and gardening, garbage collection and
processing, domestic cleaning, etc) that are demanded by us. We need that
labor done, and NO Americans (even hungry ones) will do it.

If you do find a rare one that does you the favor of "taking the job", he won't
show up every day, he won't be on time, he will take unfair advantage of "sick
time", and will utilize the courts to challenge every decision made by his
employer.

We've brought this on ourselves.


www.Rosspilot.com

"Rosspilot" wrote in message
...

Bull****. California is attracting the illegals with free social
services
and by Californians offering them jobs. If this stopped, so would most
of
the illegal immigration.

Where I live, Americans simply will NOT do the kinds of labor intensive
work
(restaurant kitchen, landscape and gardening, garbage collection and
processing, domestic cleaning, etc) that are demanded by us. We need that
labor done, and NO Americans (even hungry ones) will do it.

Of course they won't. Get rid of the idiotic welfare program and they will
be lined up 100 deep to take those jobs.

Mike Rapoport wrote:

wrote in message
...


Mike Rapoport wrote:

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

I guess they need to distinguish what we care about from what we
want!
Pork
spending is getting out of hand but I don't see any mechanism to
contain
it.
Even the defense budget is about 25% pork according to one study I
read
(I
think it was by the CBO or GAO).


In 1981-82 the Grace Commission found that 40% or more of government
spending was pork/waste.

But hey, this is a DEMOCRACY. The spending might not be what YOU want
(you
probably have your own little pet project -- we all do), but it's what
your
NEIGHBOR wants.

"What we must remember is that, in a democracy, the whores are us." -
P.J.
O'Rourke, _Parliament of Whores_.



I agree completely. Everybody wants lots of things if they don't have
to
pay for them. The federal government should stick to national issues,
defense, foriegn relations, interstate commerce, national parks, some
research ect. The state governments should stick to state issues, state
highways, law enforcement and so on. Local projects should be funded
locally. If Anaheim needs a railway to Disneyland which is only going
to
benefit Anaheim hotels, I don't see why someone in New York should pay
for
it. All pork spending is a result of people wanting things they don't
have
to pay for.

I don't have any pet projects that I expect someone else to pay for.

Mike
MU-2

These are noble, but simplistic, agruments. California primarily, and
other
border states are incurring tremendous costs because the federal
government
refuses to enforce our borders. Thus, Aunt Millie in Iowa is as
responsible foe
the failure of her federal government to protect the borders as is Uncle
Joe in
California.


Bull****. California is attracting the illegals with free social services
and by Californians offering them jobs. If this stopped, so would most of
the illegal immigration.

Mike
MU-2

Bull**** back pal. If the feds had done their job in the first place, we
wouldn't be agruing about what California has, or has not, done.

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
link.net...


Bull****. California is attracting the illegals with free social services
and by Californians offering them jobs. If this stopped, so would most of
the illegal immigration.

But social services are a part of _your_ "General Welfare" clause, and
providing them to all are part of the "Equal Protection" clause. (See the
implications?)