US Secret Service lost its mystique

Har har - which part of you thought that the federal government, especially BHO, has ANY care about expenses? It's easy to spend other people's money if you're not held accountable for it.

 

As a person currently employed in a government service...69% of us are disgusted by it. I hate wasting tax payers money.

 

But until someone can change the shit that is our budgeting system there is no end in sight. If we don't spend our entire budget this year, we wont get the same amount next year. And there is no way in hell we can get any money for something we really need if that happens.

 

It sucks. It's a self licking ice cream cone.

 

And the places they are making cuts (in the USAF anyway) are stupid. They just cancelled all aerial demo teams besides the F-22 and Thunderbirds. But the jet's will still go to airshows as static displays and for the heritage flight. So what moeny was saved? Maybe 10k in gas for the performance, but the maintenance will be virtually the same as well as per diem for the trip. Stupid place to start looking for cuts when the USAF has a couple worthless bands that everyone hates and tons of other wasteful spending. They take out the one way we can give back to Joe Shmoe Tax Payer (a kickass performance at an airshow to remind them we are worth their $).

 

/rant

As a person currently employed in a government service...69% of us are disgusted by it. I hate wasting tax payers money.

 

But until someone can change the shit that is our budgeting system there is no end in sight. If we don't spend our entire budget this year, we wont get the same amount next year. And there is no way in hell we can get any money for something we really need if that happens.

 

It sucks. It's a self licking ice cream cone.

 

And the places they are making cuts (in the USAF anyway) are stupid. They just cancelled all aerial demo teams besides the F-22 and Thunderbirds. But the jet's will still go to airshows as static displays and for the heritage flight. So what moeny was saved? Maybe 10k in gas for the performance, but the maintenance will be virtually the same as well as per diem for the trip. Stupid place to start looking for cuts when the USAF has a couple worthless bands that everyone hates and tons of other wasteful spending. They take out the one way we can give back to Joe Shmoe Tax Payer (a kickass performance at an airshow to remind them we are worth their $).

 

/rant

 

That stretches down to local levels even. If you don't spend it - you lose it. So towards the end of the fiscal year all the top brass at police and fire departments buy all sorts of quirky toys and BS they don't need.

 

I've said it before and I still stand by it, if you cut spending you eventually cut jobs - LOTS of them. Cut the defense budget - and the servicemen stationed in Japan or Germany are out of gigs (unless they can be moved elsewhere). Slash the EPA or FDA like some idiots want to do, and you'll see a whole bunch of lost jobs. I don't mean to say I'm against cutting spending, but we have to face reality when we say that cutting spending and cutting "waste" does mean cutting jobs.

 

It'll happen only when we're crushed by the weight of our own debt. Like any bubble. With a system that's addicted to borrowing 40 cents of every dollar it spends, there is no other "orderly" recourse. Like you, I used to be upset about this shit, but then I reached transcendence. There is zero I can do about it. We're all along for the ride, might as well enjoy it while it lasts. Sooner or later the faucet will run dry, and then it'll be interesting. That's when I load up the H1 with water/ammo/diesel and head for the hills!

 

No, there's plenty we can do about it. But the key is to turn off the TV, shut out the talking heads and pick up the phone or pen and contact your legislators. Social media is a HUGE tool (one that many in government on both sides wants to suppress) but it's there for the taking.

 

Idealogical differences aside, I think we can all agree that NO ONE in Washington or very few people are really out there fighting for all of us, even those making well over 1MM a year. The parties can change, the candidates can come and go, but they all look the same. And no wonder - look at any political compass and they all fall at damn near the same quadrant and area.

 

I'm probably more hopeful for real change. But I don't think it will happen until people stop listening to the idiots on TV and radio and instead read for a change.

No, there's plenty we can do about it.

Respectfully disagree. Do you recall the clusterfuck that was the congressional debt ceiling debate last year? Even after we elected all these fiscal-hawk Tea Partiers? Total gridlock over a miniscule reduction in the amount of borrowing. Balancing? Pipe dream. Pack up your Hummer!

That stretches down to local levels even. If you don't spend it - you lose it. So towards the end of the fiscal year all the top brass at police and fire departments buy all sorts of quirky toys and BS they don't need.

 

I've said it before and I still stand by it, if you cut spending you eventually cut jobs - LOTS of them. Cut the defense budget - and the servicemen stationed in Japan or Germany are out of gigs (unless they can be moved elsewhere). Slash the EPA or FDA like some idiots want to do, and you'll see a whole bunch of lost jobs. I don't mean to say I'm against cutting spending, but we have to face reality when we say that cutting spending and cutting "waste" does mean cutting jobs.

 

 

So we then need to decide if people should be employed b the government or by society.

So we then need to decide if people should be employed b the government or by society.

 

DING DING DING...

 

Government jobs arent supposed to be WELLFARE. They are SUPPOSED to be providing NECESSARY SERVICES. If the service ISNT necessary, then the fact that firing them adds to unemployment really isn't the issue because they're not doing much EXCEPT COLLECTING A TAXPAYER PROVIDED SALARY, ANYWAY...

 

 

God, think if this were the issue in the private sector.... "Im sorry Greg.... We really dont need anybody to fix typewriters anymore... We got rid of all of them ten years ago.... But we dont really want to fire you either, because that would add to unemployment, and that would look bad for the President... I guess we'll just keep paying you... We just dont know what else to do...."

 

 

BTW... Security clearances yanked for Military personnel involved.

As a person currently employed in a government service...69% of us are disgusted by it. I hate wasting tax payers money.

 

Pretty exact number there!

 

But until someone can change the shit that is our budgeting system there is no end in sight. If we don't spend our entire budget this year, we wont get the same amount next year. And there is no way in hell we can get any money for something we really need if that happens.

 

This is the classic problem with a government agency and government program. The people running it not only oftentimes have no incentive to run things efficiently, but they are incentivized to spend ALL of the money they have, so that when the next budget comes, they can demand more money. This is what wins the heads of the government agencies prestige. Fail to spend all of your money and you up getting a smaller budget next time around. It is the opposite of a private-sector business, where the incentive is to do everything using as little money as possible.

 

The big problem right now is that the major things breaking the budget are Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security, and defense. The first three are part of the social safety nets and can't be cut. Defense can't be cut either, and even significant cuts to it wouldn't make a dent in the deficit. It's an over $1 trillion deficit, so even slashing defense by hundreds of billions wouldn't do much. What is amazing to me is how we have this huge debt crisis looming in front of us, yet this administration refuses to even seriously address it. Mitch Daniels, in his response for the Republican party for the last State of the Union, spent more time addressing the debt issue then President Obama did in his entire State of the Union speech! I think a big part of this is that Obama is afraid he will alienate the far-Left portion of his base if he tries to address the issue seriously.

I've said it before and I still stand by it, if you cut spending you eventually cut jobs - LOTS of them. Cut the defense budget - and the servicemen stationed in Japan or Germany are out of gigs (unless they can be moved elsewhere). Slash the EPA or FDA like some idiots want to do, and you'll see a whole bunch of lost jobs. I don't mean to say I'm against cutting spending, but we have to face reality when we say that cutting spending and cutting "waste" does mean cutting jobs.

 

Any jobs funded or created by government aren't real jobs, as they're being funded by taking wealth out of the private sector and using it to pay for said jobs. Now yes, if you just suddenly fired say 30,000 government workers, you'd create some shocks in the economy, but in the grand scheme of things, there is no net loss for the economy, because those 30,000 government workers, from the get-go, were the equivalent of shorting the private economy of a number of jobs.

 

I'm probably more hopeful for real change. But I don't think it will happen until people stop listening to the idiots on TV and radio and instead read for a change.

 

Most people don't really care at all, they only become concerned with the issues if they feel there's a real major problem brewing. And even for those that do care, many of them are very burdened with things like work and raising children and all that entails.

Accidental repost

Any jobs funded or created by government aren't real jobs, as they're being funded by taking wealth out of the private sector and using it to pay for said jobs. Now yes, if you just suddenly fired say 30,000 government workers, you'd create some shocks in the economy, but in the grand scheme of things, there is no net loss for the economy, because those 30,000 government workers, from the get-go, were the equivalent of shorting the private economy of a number of jobs.

 

Not sure where you're going with this. I've argued this against the libertarians of the world enough to see the rhetoric building here. Certain jobs should NOT be privatized and should be kept in the hands of taxpayer funding and government oversight. FAA, FDA, EPA, Military, Fire, Police. I know many will disagree with me here - and I don't think anyone wants to hear me rant for pages about why these groups should be kept from becoming privatized, but believe me I strongly feel they shouldn't.

 

Sticking with what I said before, what if we cut out most of the military bases throughout the world and told the troops to pound sand? What if we cut our defense budget in half (like we should) and tell contractors to get lost - those soldiers who were protecting other nations and holding our hegemony throughout the world are going to serve the food and wash clothes - not you at your expensive rates? Or guard our bases?

 

Could either political party deal with the repercussions politically of cutting half the defense budget? It needs to happen, but no one wants to be the one holding the knife.

Not sure where you're going with this. I've argued this against the libertarians of the world enough to see the rhetoric building here. Certain jobs should NOT be privatized and should be kept in the hands of taxpayer funding and government oversight. FAA, FDA, EPA, Military, Fire, Police. I know many will disagree with me here - and I don't think anyone wants to hear me rant for pages about why these groups should be kept from becoming privatized, but believe me I strongly feel they shouldn't.

 

You are misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying any of those jobs should be privatized. I'm saying that if you cut them, you are not really cutting jobs from the economy, because they are not real jobs, economically, to begin with. They are funded by taking wealth out of the private sector to pay for those jobs. This is because government doesn't create wealth, so it has to tax it. The private-sector is what creates wholly new wealth and wholly new jobs.

 

Sticking with what I said before, what if we cut out most of the military bases throughout the world and told the troops to pound sand? What if we cut our defense budget in half (like we should) and tell contractors to get lost - those soldiers who were protecting other nations and holding our hegemony throughout the world are going to serve the food and wash clothes - not you at your expensive rates? Or guard our bases?

 

Could either political party deal with the repercussions politically of cutting half the defense budget? It needs to happen, but no one wants to be the one holding the knife.

 

IMO, the defense budget actually needs to be increased, not halved, but the budget isn't there.

You are misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying any of those jobs should be privatized. I'm saying that if you cut them, you are not really cutting jobs from the economy, because they are not real jobs, economically, to begin with. They are funded by taking wealth out of the private sector to pay for those jobs. This is because government doesn't create wealth, so it has to tax it. The private-sector is what creates wholly new wealth and wholly new jobs.

 

 

 

IMO, the defense budget actually needs to be increased, not halved, but the budget isn't there.

 

Gotcha. But the job of policing isn't exactly a job - it's a service. Just like a fighter pilot isn't taking away from the private sector, he's flying around the Atlantic right now serving. So to say that it's not making money is of course true - a governmental service isn't supposed to make money, I don't know anyone who has ever said it's supposed to.

 

And could you possibly explain (in 300 words or less :icon_mrgreen:LOL ) why the defense budget needs to be increased? (This is of course in line with Mr. Romney's idea).

Gotcha. But the job of policing isn't exactly a job - it's a service. Just like a fighter pilot isn't taking away from the private sector, he's flying around the Atlantic right now serving. So to say that it's not making money is of course true - a governmental service isn't supposed to make money, I don't know anyone who has ever said it's supposed to.

 

And could you possibly explain (in 300 words or less :icon_mrgreen:LOL ) why the defense budget needs to be increased? (This is of course in line with Mr. Romney's idea).

 

A job isnt a job if its providing a service? Huh? Will someone tell that to the IRS, because I provide a service, and they still tax my ass like I have a job.

 

A fighter pilot isnt taking away from the private sector when hes flying around the atlantic, burning fuel, paid for by taxes, that are taken from.... THE PRIVATE SECTOR, which if the private sector still had them, could be used to expand private sector business and employ the mouth breathing bureaucrats who need to be off my dime?

 

A government service isn't supposed to make money? WHY NOT? Would it be WRONG for the government to TRY TO MAKE MONEY. or at the very least break even off things like National Parks and mail service? There are PRIVATE PARKS you know... Disneyland and Six Flags come to mind... And many are VERY profitable. And for some reason, FedEx and UPS can compete with the government monopolized, TAXPAYER SUBSIDIZED MAIL, and DESTROY IT.... Fedex reported earnings of $521 Million for the fourth quarter of 2011.... During the Same time the Postal service got closer to inevitable bankruptcy... Have you been in EITHER lately? The post office is the third circle of hell.... Lines out the door... Counters staffed with the SLOWEST, MOST INDIFFERENT, CLEARLY UNFIREABLE A-HOLES in the entire world. And you want to guess why one is profitable and the other isnt?

 

 

I dont know if the defense budget needs to be INCREASED.... But there is a LOT of DEAD WOOD that needs to be trimmed from the federal budget before we get to ACTUAL THINGS THE GOVERNMENT IS SUPPOSED TO DO!

 

 

 

And wheels... You dont need to respond, because this is getting way off topic..

EDIT: Just saw Roman's post on not responding, okay.

A job isnt a job if its providing a service? Huh? Will someone tell that to the IRS, because I provide a service, and they still tax my ass like I have a job.

 

A fighter pilot isnt taking away from the private sector when hes flying around the atlantic, burning fuel, paid for by taxes, that are taken from.... THE PRIVATE SECTOR, which if the private sector still had them, could be used to expand private sector business and employ the mouth breathing bureaucrats who need to be off my dime?

 

A government service isn't supposed to make money? WHY NOT? Would it be WRONG for the government to TRY TO MAKE MONEY. or at the very least break even off things like National Parks and mail service? There are PRIVATE PARKS you know... Disneyland and Six Flags come to mind... And many are VERY profitable. And for some reason, FedEx and UPS can compete with the government monopolized, TAXPAYER SUBSIDIZED MAIL, and DESTROY IT.... Fedex reported earnings of $521 Million for the fourth quarter of 2011.... During the Same time the Postal service got closer to inevitable bankruptcy... Have you been in EITHER lately? The post office is the third circle of hell.... Lines out the door... Counters staffed with the SLOWEST, MOST INDIFFERENT, CLEARLY UNFIREABLE A-HOLES in the entire world. And you want to guess why one is profitable and the other isnt?

 

 

I dont know if the defense budget needs to be INCREASED.... But there is a LOT of DEAD WOOD that needs to be trimmed from the federal budget before we get to ACTUAL THINGS THE GOVERNMENT IS SUPPOSED TO DO!

 

 

 

And wheels... You dont need to respond, because this is getting way off topic..

I'll get it back on subject, really old joke alert.

Question: How do you make a Hormone?

Answer: Don't pay her.

I'll get it back on subject, really old joke alert.

Question: How do you make a Hormone?

Answer: Don't pay her.

 

 

An old one but a good one...

Sorry for getting off-topic RD. I'm always down for a good debate. I'm all for the gov't making money, or at least breaking even.

But until someone can change the shit that is our budgeting system there is no end in sight. If we don't spend our entire budget this year, we wont get the same amount next year. And there is no way in hell we can get any money for something we really need if that happens.

 

Sure sounds like there is a better way out there, and a few bright minds in a room could figure it out..

 

I would love to see a chart of "trip costs for negotiations" vs Skype unlimited to all countries ($240 a month)

 

Hey RD, may be they'll read this thread

Did they really have to make this a new rule? Jesus, it should have been this way from day one!

 

Heavy drinking and bringing foreign nationals back to hotel rooms on trips abroad is now banned by the U.S. Secret Service in the wake of a growing scandal over allegations that agents consorted with prostitutes in Colombia this month.

 

The new rules of conduct issued on Friday also ban visits to "non-reputable establishments," presumably including strip clubs, and say staff must obey U.S. laws even while abroad. A copy was provided to Reuters by the Secret Service, and a spokesman said they were effective immediately.

Makes one wonder about when Bush's presidential limousine broke down or when that one presidential limousine got high-centered on a ramp in Dublin back in 2011, if that is all part of a systemic problem? (one would think they would have scouted the entire road path out before driving any place).

Makes one wonder about when Bush's presidential limousine broke down or when that one presidential limousine got high-centered on a ramp in Dublin back in 2011, if that is all part of a systemic problem? (one would think they would have scouted the entire road path out before driving any place).

Irish hookers were getting "high centered" on secret service cock the night before.

NSFW

 

http://egotastic.com/photos/dania-londono-...-soho-magazine/