Your arguement is falling flat. When money spent creates and sustains jobs, it's usually money well spent when one considers most of the government money is not so well spent. If we had no parks, some our mos treasured areas would be developed, mined, forested and who knows what else. As for hiring tens of thousands of volunteers, that an idiotic statement at best. You know as well as anyone that a national parks system can't possibly be run effectively on non paid positions. No offense, but methinks you're simply not willing to admit you were wrong as it's the weakest thoughts you have ever posted.
Thank you for your opinion of my argument. That money has to come from somewhere. By your reasoning, if we wished to end the recession, we should hire every single unemployed person and split them into two groups. The first would dig holes, the second would fill them. That is Obamanomics in a nutshell. The idea that you can spend your way out of a recession is a fallacy and it's been proven statistically. The part you miss is you don't ask or seem to care from where the money comes. It doesn't get paid by us; it's paid by future generations if paid for at all. Weighing future generations with debt is the best way to ensure we become a second rate country. Therefore, tough choices have to be made. Where did I say no parks? I think parks are great, but they were great long before Columbus sailed the ocean blue. You don't need to have them filled with Government-employed Forest Service employees; volunteers of people who use the park will work fine if they need to be populated at all. Make them protected nature areas where assistance won't be provided if you get yourself in trouble. And if these parks require funding, rather than have us support those parks with taxpayer funding, have them supported with user fees. If you want to use Yellowstone, pay money. Like I said, tough choices have to be made. We can't afford the government we have right now. Therefore, we have to prioritize. You can't tell me populating natural areas with government employees is one of our very top priorities.
Over half a million dollars for windows for something that isn't being used and it seems isn't likely to be used in the near future? Really? People defend that? How much would it cost to have a contractor put plywood over the windows until we actually need to use the damn thing? What are the windows made of? Kryptonite? Jamming for dollars? Almost 800 thousand dollars huh? Give me a frigging break. As for the loonies talking about how unemployment benefits will stimulate the economy so much, why don't they just give us all free unemployment money. Give me an extra 400 a week and I will spend every penny of it just for fun. IF some unemployment checks stimulate the economy, why not give out more? Hell, take all the so called social security trust fund money and start giving it out now to poor senior citizens to buy American cars with. That will really stimulate the economy, plus I will have more work with all the old people causing crashes. IT IS A FUCKING WIN WIN BITCHES.
Hate to interrupt the right wing circle jerk here, but sometimes it's important to remember tax dollars aren't always wasted every time.
How is it a straw man? I'm just pointing out that while conservatives like to bitch that practically everything the government does is a waste of money, it's clearly not true. What do you want me to say? That all these badly designed programs you are citing aren't bad? Well, they are. But people get so caught up on focusing on failure that that's all they ever see. It's important to remember all the progress humanity has made over the past 100 years, and that the US Government has been at the forefront of quite a bit of it.
You really need it explained to you? Seriously? It's a straw man because no one here is advocating anarchy. Even the posters who are the most extreme advocates of limited government in here are only saying government can be reduced and more judicious with the funds we give it. But if you want me to say government does some good stuff, fine. Government does some good stuff. Congratulations on your victory.
Nobody (almost nobody) argues that a government can't do ANY good, and always is a waste. THAT is why your argument is a strawman (as if you didn't already know that).
Hey, I read the title of the thread and these were the images that first came to my mind. You can call it a straw man because it's off the topic of "look how we've wasted money", but I think it's dead on for the topic of "your tax dollars at work." It gets right to the core idea that taxes are now somehow a "burden" when in fact they've often been a pretty good "investment." (The term "tax burden" didn't really even exist in popular parlance until the 1980's.) I know it's not terribly fashionable to be proud of the US government we all pay taxes for, but I often am. Not always, but often. If somebody started a thread about what a crummy player Greg Oden is for photographing his dong and getting injured all the time, it's not a straw man argument to point out he's got a great PER and is hugely effective when he's in the game. Similarly, if there's a thread mostly about government waste entitled "Your tax dollars at work," it's not a straw man argument to point out that the government also does lots of things pretty well.
It is a strawman. You seem to be making the argument that tax dollars CAN be used for good things. NOBODY was arguing that. This discussion was about how the government is inefficient in using its resources. You're pictures basically say that given an incredibly huge amount of money, the government can produce some good stuff. Well, duh. Unless you are trying to prove that they can do those things very efficiently with the resources they are given, then you are building a strawman.
Some things to think about mook. Your graph of spending to poverty line would be identical if you graphed GDP to poverty. What makes you think it's not entirely related to GDP that fewer people are poor? Or better yet. How about graphing so-called global warming temperatures vs. poverty. We need more global warming! NASA's budget is well under $20B. How about we just spend the $20B and not tax everyone for all the shit that doesn't work?
Social Security in the red this year US Postal Service loses $3.5 bln in third quarter Fannie Mae Seeks $1.5 Billion From U.S. Treasury After 12th Straight Loss
I think Mook listed things that most of us would agree that either were good investments or things that one could at least argue are logical things to spend money on. However, if I used one of Mooks pictures and came up with a new idea of how to spend our tax money the way they are doing it now it might go like this............ The government gives Bodyman5001 689,788 dollars to study whether it is possible for an average auto collision tech to build a rocket out of recycled car parts and collision supplies such as two part epoxies and bondo. Part of this money will be to go to Planet Hollywood on the strip as his first other worldly venture and investigate if the large breasted women on this planet are easy.
