still looking for fraud

[red viking]

2 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Ya.  Giving stupid irrelevant lucrative contracts to your buddies is just.    We’ll just Normal.   We as tax payers should just look the other way.   Guys like you who pay nearly nothing in taxes don’t care that those of us that pay have to support this nonsense.  

I hate pork too but DOGE never has and never will do anything about it. Nobody in congress is stopping it either. So why are we even discussing it? 

[Caveira]

1 minute ago, red viking said:

I hate pork too but DOGE never has and never will do anything about it. Nobody in congress is stopping it either. So why are we even discussing it? 

Good lord you are some kind of thing.  

[red viking]

7 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Good lord you are some kind of thing.  

Can't answer, huh? Btw, I pay plenty in taxes. 

[Caveira]

2 minutes ago, red viking said:

Can't answer, huh? Btw, I pay plenty in taxes. 

I’m sure you do.  Went from leeching off that girlfriend to a first hand huge payer in taxes.   I’m sure.  

[red viking]

4 minutes ago, Caveira said:

I’m sure you do.  Went from leeching off that girlfriend to a first hand huge payer in taxes.   I’m sure.  

Wife is a judge and former attorney. Doesn't mean she's a sugar mama. I support myself and my own kids. 

Edited June 8 by red viking

[Caveira]

Just now, red viking said:

Wife is a judge. Doesn't mean she's a sugar mama. I support myself and my own kids. 

I’m sure you do.  Although you said you let her support you a few months ago so now welcome to changing your story 

[red viking]

7 minutes ago, Caveira said:

I’m sure you do.  Although you said you let her support you a few months ago so now welcome to changing your story 

That's another winger lie. I never said that. Just said my wife/ fiance made good money. 

I'm actually the one that insisted on a prenup. I don't need or want her money. 

Edited June 8 by red viking

[Scouts Honor]

2 hours ago, red viking said:

Pork is waste, in most peoples opinion, but it clearly isn't fraud. If you don't understand the difference, then you're mentally challenged to point where you're beyond help 

Btw, the wingers love pork just as much as the democrats. Hypocrites. 

oh i dont disagree about both sides

but it's fraud. 

if i am enriching my friends who kickback to me..or someone else... with the 'pork' 

that's fraud.

and you know it.

 

[whaletail]

12 hours ago, Scouts Honor said:

abbatoir 5

?

BTW, I apologize for claiming your pork/fraud conflation is either dumb or disingenuous. It may be one of those two, but since some extreme examples of pork spending surely are basic fraud, the distinction can sometimes may seem semantic.

But pork spending is a direct consequence of our quid pro quo legislative process, and only the most austere of fiscal conservatives would consider such spending to be universally wasteful (let alone fraud).

We'd probably all agree that "hiding" so much spending in otherwise unrelated legislation is unfortunate (and probably inefficient as well), but until our legislative process is fundamentally revised, very few bills will get through the House and Senate without the inclusion of pork incentives.

 

[red viking]

8 hours ago, Scouts Honor said:

oh i dont disagree about both sides

but it's fraud. 

if i am enriching my friends who kickback to me..or someone else... with the 'pork' 

that's fraud.

and you know it.

 

As whitetail said, there are multiple differences. One I'd that pork is an inherent part of our flawed system that our slave owning founding fathers created. It's in the bill itself. Fraud is not part of the bill and happens in complete secrecy, illegally. 

Btw, why are you even talking about pork?

[Scouts Honor]

yes i agree

built in fraud

[red viking]

1 minute ago, Scouts Honor said:

yes i agree

built in fraud

Thank your founding fathers. 1776!!!

[Scouts Honor]

3 hours ago, whaletail said:

?

BTW, I apologize for claiming your pork/fraud conflation is either dumb or disingenuous. It may be one of those two, but since some extreme examples of pork spending surely are basic fraud, the distinction can sometimes may seem semantic.

But pork spending is a direct consequence of our quid pro quo legislative process, and only the most austere of fiscal conservatives would consider such spending to be universally wasteful (let alone fraud).

We'd probably all agree that "hiding" so much spending in otherwise unrelated legislation is unfortunate (and probably inefficient as well), but until our legislative process is fundamentally revised, very few bills will get through the House and Senate without the inclusion of pork incentives.

 

quid pro quo

another word for fraud

 

and it's your word... don't you know what it means?
think kurt vonnegut

[Scouts Honor]

3 minutes ago, red viking said:

Thank your founding fathers. 1776!!!

but there is no fraud

[Scouts Honor]

1 hour ago, red viking said:

 

Btw, why are you even talking about pork?

what do you think has gotten us to this point of debt?

and dont come back with military... b/c yes i know.. there is pork there too.

[Scouts Honor]

btw 

I am an austere conservative

[1032004]

 

 

[Scouts Honor]

lol

[whaletail]

8 hours ago, Scouts Honor said:

btw 

I am an austere conservative

Why?

And what role do you think government should serve in society?

Finally, as such a fiscal conservative, how can you possibly stand Trump? Not only will his Big Beautiful Bill balloon the national debt, it'll likely include more pork barrel spending than any previous bill in history.

Moreover, he's probably been associated with as much fraud as any other elected official in modern history. From his real estate days, to his association with Trump University, and on to his various, current pay-for-access schemes, Trump's not just an ethics dumpster fire, he's a monumentally expensive dumpster fire.

If you want the receipts with respect to the above allegations, and much, much more, read Lucky Loser. The authors spent two years forensically analyzing Trump's tax returns for the NYT (IIRC, obtained from Mary Trump, who received them as part of the discovery phase in Trump's lawsuit against her), and despite suing anyone and everyone for defamation, he won't sue these authors.

 

 

Edited June 8 by whaletail
readability

[Scouts Honor]

i agree. BBB is probably garbage. but it has some components to end some waste and i think to close the border even more.

I am not a Trump fan. As I have stated many times. im fully aware of his bull. btw, it took him becoming a republican for democrats to hate him. they loved him for YEARS. I knew he was an idiot since 1986.  

I was hoping he would be different than the spenders of the last 60 years.

100 days brought promise... alas he is still a democrat at heart

I have said many times on here what we should be spending money on.

my question.. why aren't you an austere conservative? 

do you see yourself being able to retire with any miles left on your body? 

if so, what fraud are you engaged in? 

the GOVT cannot continue to spend into oblivion

and the people the dems have allowed to take our country further into the cultural abyss are well..

abysmal 

[whaletail]

I'm neither fiscally, nor socially conservative because:

1. I think the world is fundamentally unfair, and some groups obviously suffer disproportionally, and in myriad ways, as a result.

Although I have enough trouble worrying about myself and those I love, government can certainly alleviate at least some of that suffering.

Therefore, I think government should function to improve the lives of its entire citizenry, but especially those with the greatest need.

2. Therefore I think governments, especially those of the wealthiest nations, should spend money toward that end, providing services like universal health care (both mental and physical), universal access to shelter, clean water, food and other utilities, and try to alleviate as much poverty as possible. I also think it should patronize the arts and science as it did prior to Trump.

As this is off the top of my head, I suspect I'm missing a number of other important areas where I think government spending is appropriate.

3. Although I'm not against government spending at all, I think it needs to recoup what it spends (and not pass debt down to later generations).

Thankfully, we can easily pay for such services through increased taxes on large corporations and our wealthiest citizens. They've benefited tremendously from this country, both tangibly and intangibly, and can absorb such taxes without the suffering.

4. I also believe in an immutable separation of church and state, as well as a fundamental right to privacy and free thought. Although I view our Constitution as an incredible innovation, it must be a "living, evolving document". Our founding fathers were as human as anyone else, and the notion that 250 year old mandates must be followed as if sacrosanct is utterly absurd.

Thus, I don't think government should legislate morality, save where safety and/or security are necessarily implicated. So, abortion would be universally legal prior to the approximate time when a fetus can survive outside the womb (~23 weeks IIRC), while assault and murder, etc. would remain illegal.

That's my general ideology, its justification, and practical application via government. 

 

[Scouts Honor]

4 hours ago, whaletail said:

 

3. Although I'm not against government spending at all, I think it needs to recoup what it spends (and not pass debt down to later generations).

Thankfully, we can easily pay for such services through increased taxes on large corporations and our wealthiest citizens. They've benefited tremendously from this country, both tangibly and intangibly, and can absorb such taxes without the suffering.

 

 

i agre completely with this

 

[Scouts Honor]

4 hours ago, whaletail said:

I'm neither fiscally, nor socially conservative because:

1. I think the world is fundamentally unfair, and some groups obviously suffer disproportionally, and in myriad ways, as a result.

Although I have enough trouble worrying about myself and those I love, government can certainly alleviate at least some of that suffering.

Therefore, I think government should function to improve the lives of its entire citizenry, but especially those with the greatest need.

2. Therefore I think governments, especially those of the wealthiest nations, should spend money toward that end, providing services like universal health care (both mental and physical), universal access to shelter, clean water, food and other utilities, and try to alleviate as much poverty as possible. I also think it should patronize the arts and science as it did prior to Trump.

As this is off the top of my head, I suspect I'm missing a number of other important areas where I think government spending is appropriate.

 

 

ok, so the great society has existed since the 60s

we have been doing all this

how is that working out for us?

speaking of fraud

[Scouts Honor]

4 hours ago, whaletail said:

separation of church and state, as well as a fundamental right to privacy and free thought. Although I view our Constitution as an incredible innovation, it must be a "living, evolving document". Our founding fathers were as human as anyone else, and the notion that 250 year old mandates must be followed as if sacrosanct is utterly absurd.

Thus, I don't think government should legislate morality, save where safety and/or security are necessarily implicated. So, abortion would be universally legal prior to the approximate time when a fetus can survive outside the womb (~23 weeks IIRC), while assault and murder, etc. would remain illegal.

That's my general ideology, its justification, and practical application via government. 

 

i agree with this.

[whaletail]

3 hours ago, Scouts Honor said:

ok, so the great society has existed since the 60s

we have been doing all this

how is that working out for us?

speaking of fraud

Although I'm not an expert, I'd certainly imagine that our social welfare programs have added plenty of fraud. I suspect a lot less than many conservatives believe, but still a substantial amount.

To me, however, the existence of fraud doesn't diminish the needs of the powerless and those suffering, or the value associated with programs that combat such suffering.

In my opinion, it's a cost of doing business, much like a certain percentage of gross retail revenue is consistently offset by shoplifting. Retailers hire security etc. to minimize shoplifting losses, and raise prices to compensate for the unpreventable losses. Completely eliminating shoplifting, much like govt fraud, is either impossible or so expensive it might as well be.