https://www.the-sun.com/news/223933...edium=browser_notifications&utm_source=pushly GOT HER BACK QAnon Rep Marjorie Taylor Greene reveals she ‘had a great call’ with Donald Trump & rips ‘socialist Dems’
Plus, reconciliation can only be used once per year. It would be a huge waste to use it to accomplish only the $2k checks. barfo
Can't they pass a reconciliation to give them more reconciliations? Kind of like when the genie gives you 3 wishes, your first wish you ask for more wishes.
I'm old enough to remember William Proxmire and his 'Golden Fleece' awards. Rand Paul is just a very poor imitation. And yes, I've read his crappy report. A lot of what Rand objects to is stuff not that Congress explicitly required in the budget, but stuff the administration decided to spend money on. These are not congressional earmarks but agency decisions. For example, most if not all scientific studies aren't mandated by Congress, the various federal agencies get a pot of money and they decide what programs to fund. And of course Rand Paul is not qualified to comment on the usefulness of ANY scientific study, unless it involves eyesight. But it makes headlines and gets taxpayers mad when he says the government is wasting money. I'm not claiming everything Rand Paul complains about is incorrect. You'd actually have to look into the details of each item to determine that, to understand what the government was trying to accomplish and what they did in fact accomplish. I haven't done that, but more importantly, Rand Paul hasn't either. He's just bullshitting, finding things that he can make sound bad and doing whatever he can to misrepresent them. No doubt there is government waste. Some of it due to corruption, some due to incompetence or indifference, some due to bad luck, bad timing, bad data, human error, etc. But this isn't a good guide to finding it. barfo
www.yahoo.com/news/democrats-plan-every-house-republican-102812621.html Democrats want the Republicans to admit.~ Stand with her or against her.
Is it an insult if what you say is blatantly true? That's an academic question and has little to do with the topic.
Two clarifications: 1. Proxmire's award pointed out examples in the Millions of dollars whereas Dirkson said "A Billion here, a Billion there, pretty soon you are talking real money; 2. Rand Paul is a Libertarian and doesn't believe in anything more than a minimal government, more minimal than even most Republicans are comfortable with. So I think comparing Rand Paul's analysis to Senator Proxmire's Golden Fleece Award is misleading.
Golden Fleece Award | Taxpayers for Common Sense. @barfo motivated me to check Proxmire's Golden Fleece Awards. We can look at Rand and Proxmires' views regarding the waste this Country generates year after year. One thing is certain. The American taxpayer was and is still left out of Political and Scientific Budget Decisions before these two informed us.
Rand Paul loves some kind of bug government. Loves restrictions on voting. Most of all loves restrictions on women's bodies.
My wife and I saw WW84 last evening (yes, at the virtually empty theater. LOL). It was a global mess/tragedy when everyone got what they wished for.
The American people are the reason behind the budget decisions. Let's say you're up for re-election, well then you're going to want to give something to a significant part of your base so they'll feel they're getting a good deal because you want their votes. Of course other reasons are you want big donations to your re-election from lobbyists representing those big donors. Yet another reason to grease the skids.
I'm reading through Paul's report now. https://www.paul.senate.gov/sites/default/files/page-attachments/2020FestivusReport.pdf First thing to catch my eye.. After the CARES Act passed, it was found the IRS sent many $1,200 checks to the wrong people. Some estimates had the IRS sending about a million checks out to dead people, costing taxpayers $1.4 billion. After I raised the issue, by writing S. 4104, the Stopping Improper Payments to Deceased People Act, which passed in the Senate, Congress decided to quit sending money to dead people... three years from now. Can’t rush something like that, I guess (sarcasm intended). But that’s not all. Not only was the IRS sending stimulus checks to dead people, but they were also sending them to foreigners, too! Once again, I took action, introducing S. 4878, the Stopping Improper Payments to Foreigners Act, which could potentially save, if implemented, on the order of millions of dollars....
Not so fast. This was a snippet in his 2020 report: https://www.paul.senate.gov/sites/default/files/page-attachments/2020FestivusReport.pdf Over the summer, the big spenders in Congress tried to strip the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) of its jurisdiction to do oversight. SIGAR is an excellent organization and the only entity specifically dedicated to ensuring the $50 billion we spend in Afghanistan each year does not go to waste. They do yeoman’s work in uncovering rampant waste, fraud, and abuse over there, which is maybe why the big spenders tried to give them the ol’ heave-ho. But I led the charge, along with a couple likeminded senators with some good sense, to stop Congress from making such a big mistake. I am happy to report SIGAR can still do its crucial oversight work.
This is funny.....if not a bit disturbing at a ground level scale... https://www.paul.senate.gov/sites/default/files/page-attachments/2020FestivusReport.pdf How appetizing does cricket powder sound? How about if it were cooked into a pumpkin spice muffin or a chocolate shake? Researchers at Colorado State University, the University of Wisconsin, and the University of Michigan 1 set out to answer those questions using federal grants totaling $1,327,781.72 to do it. 2 The grants came from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA). 3 As part of a study entitled Impact of Edible Cricket Consumption on Gut Microbiota in Healthy Adults, a Double-blind, Randomized Crossover Trial, the researchers split 20 healthy adults into two groups. The first group was asked to eat a pumpkin spice muffin and chocolate shake, both with cricket powder, for breakfast for two weeks, while the second group ate regular muffins and shakes. 4 They did not change any other aspect of their diets. 5 After two weeks of that, both groups had a two-week cooling off period, a “washout period,” and then they switched places. 6 The first group had normal muffins and shakes for breakfast, while group two had the cricket-infused muffins and shakes. 7 The goal of the research was to test the effects on gut microbiota composition while assessing safety and tolerability.” 8 But why did the researchers think this research was necessary? The researchers believed “the current pressures on global food security, including climate change … have ignited a search for more environmentally sustainable protein sources.” 9 Got to find a protein substitute when the Green New Deal environmentalists kill all the farting cows! Instead of testing Americans’ appetite for cricket powder, the NIH and NIFA should have trusted the private sector, which has filled the market need created by those who opt not to eat animal protein, and done so much better than government could hope, if this study is any indication of what NIH’s plan is. Two businesses have become staples for many trying to skip the animal while keeping the protein. One company, which produces a plant-based meat substitute, is worth about $4.5 billion. 10 Meanwhile, a competitor completed another round of funding this year, in which it raised $500 million and received a valuation of $2 billion.11 Needless to say, it seems Americans have made their choice regarding what they’ll eat for protein instead of beef, and it’s not crickets. 11 But, as it so often does, the federal government ignored private-sector developments. Once the federally backed researchers were done feeding crickets to participants, they drew their blood, received stool samples, and asked participants to perform self-assessments in order to see how 2 the cricket powder affected gastrointestinal health. 12 Researchers determined that cricket consumption is safe and that it “does not dramatically shift the global gut microbiota after a 14-day dietary intervention.” 13 But there’s more to people’s willingness to eat cricket powder than the taste. According to one study, only 4% of people currently eat insects for protein, and only 35% would even be willing to try them. 14 Moreover, educating the market would be a herculean task, given that, per the same study, 72% of people don’t understand why somebody would even want to eat insects at all. 15 The alleged question of the study, however, was not just the ability of participants to eat the crickets, but whether people would willingly do so. The only thing the participants needed to do to participate in the study, however, was “confirm willingness to eat one prepared breakfast per day (treatment or control) at home for a total of 28 days (two treatment periods of 14 days each), attend three clinic visits, and provide three blood and stool samples.” 16 Not included in this deal was the agreement to eat cricket powder. That’s right, the participants did not know when they were eating crickets. Therefore, the question of “will people knowingly eat cricket powder?” remains unanswered, despite that being a fundamental question underlying the worth of the study as a whole. If people can eat crickets, that doesn’t answer the question of whether they will choose to or not.
As an aside, I've always admired civic advocates/watchdogs. Ralph Nader is one of those. Say what you want about him, he's always fought for the little guys, just like you and me...and still does. I found this to be an enlightening article. It's worth a read, IMO. https://www.washingtonian.com/2019/11/03/ralph-nader-is-opening-up-about-his-regrets/
