Categorized | Affiliate Marketing 101

Should Congress Be More Careful About Getting Something For The Money It Spends?

Since Nancy Pelosi became Speaker $5 Trillion has been added to the national Debt. The interest alone on this money will mean that taxpayers in USA for the next 20 generations will be heavily burdened if the debt is not Repudiated. If the debt is repudiated, the US government would cease to exist as a solvent going concern. With no ability to borrow from anybody (even China) and with a FICO score of 200, Uncle Sam would be sleeping at a shelter, and eating at the church kitchen.
But that’s not the problem!
If the US government had gotten $5 Trillion worth of goods, services, or benefits to show for the money it has spent, the country would be a pretty decent shape.
Instead the government appears to have gotten Zero dollars worth of ANYTHING for the $5 Trillion it has spent. Nada, Zilch, Nothing to show for that money.
Karzai at least has got his bags of cash from Iran. He may be playing both sides, like a total crook, but like Bonnie and Clyde at least he’s got bags of money to show for it.
Pelosi has nothing to show for the $5 Trillion.
Here’s why.
When agencies go to the Congress for funding, there is about 30 seconds worth of discussion about what they plan to do with the money, how they will spend it, what benefits will be obtained and by whom. The Official from the Agency then says “We are going to work on that”.
Congress says “Oh, OK fine.”
Then the Congress people start making speeches for the record about how great they are.
This goes on for 3 or 4 days.
Then the stupid agency gets their money.
That’s not how venture capital firms work. If they did work that way, they would be out of business real fast.
Venture capitalists have actually had jobs. They have met payrolls. They have sold products. They have made deals.
They want to know everything about how the money will be used and most particularly they want to know what outcomes will be attained.
If a prospective borrower said “I plan to work on that, let me get back to you on that” he would be shown the door in a New York minute.
No actual plans to obtain any actual benefit it required for Congress to appropriet money.
Why?
Because nobody in USA is authorized to tell Congress how to do its work.
Congress can be as crazy as it wants to be.
It can spend $5 Trillion, get nothing and say “Crazy as I wanna be hahahahaha”
The public is always misled.
The problem is not the spending level. It’s the total and complete lack of getting anything in exchange for that spending. It’s the gettting level, which is zero, that’s a big problem. The country isn’t getting anything except a Chinese Fire drill in Iraq, and another one in Afghanistan, and a VA medical care system that does not work, and the Obamacare Chinese Fire Drill that will cost everybody a bundle and deliver not one single thing to anybody ever.
Making America Succeed is a matter of good venture capitalist skills. If there can be a GAO, why can’t there be a GMO (General Management Office) to make sure Congress gets somehting for the money it spends. We need to go beyond “Accounting” and all the way to Fair Market Value Purchases, what used to be called Contracting Oversight.
Congress has no Contracting Oversight so it spends the People’s money very foolishly, and spends its time taking bribes, arranging future bribes, making tedious speeches about how great the members are, praising each other, reading phony material into the record, and passing earmarks for its buddies and campaign contributors (and we can’t tell because they are secret thanks to Citizen United (Scalia the thug at work)).
Teapot Dome was a squared away and morally straight organization compared to today’s Congress, which is like a house of easy women on old Bourbon street.
And it’s all on your credit card. Is that right? Do you approve of that?

No Responses to “Should Congress Be More Careful About Getting Something For The Money It Spends?”

  1. Home-Sch says:

    To start at the beginning – Congress should be more careful about “TAKING” something for the money it spends. In order for Congress to give something (As you put it: “give something” can often be taken for a euphemism for bribing someone) it has to drain real wealth from the economy. Fiduciary responsibility is only a term furtively whispered in the deep, dark corners of congressional back rooms.
    Keynesian Economic principles have failed again. Ronald Reagan said – “The nine scariest words in the English language are “I’m from the Government and I’m here to help” So “Now” you ask about 5 trillion dollars of help, and ask what happened to all that “help?”
    Looking at Bastiat’s “Broken Window Fallacy” we can only wonder how many windows the government had to break to come up with 5 billion worth of help.
    Obama and the crooks on the Hill keep talking about job creation. The actual term “job” is completely inadequate. “Job” has taken on much to great a scope in meaning. I believe the term “job” should be used only in terms of wealth creation in Austrian terms of Tangible asset creation. Those who have “jobs” create wealth for both their employer, and themselves.
    On the other hand the term “work” should apply to those who do a task which generates no wealth production. Wealth has to be taken from those who have “jobs” in order for it to end up in the pockets, of those who work. I believe the “jobless” numbers” should include government employees.
    Your statement “If the US government had gotten $5 Trillion worth of goods, services, or benefits to show for the money it has spent, the country would be a pretty decent shape.” makes sense only if you stop right after getting 5 trillion worth of goods and services. However, since the money spent was not tangible assets it was fiat currency prestidigitated out of the void, by the FED; it has to be repaid with interest from actual wealth creation, or in terms of an inflated currency. I fail to see how even getting tangible value for 5 trillion would be worth spending it?
    H. L. Mencken’s immortal line applies to answer your question. – “All elections are advance auctions on stolen goods”
    Finally, I certainly do not approve of the government spending from credit cards I don’t even have.

  2. Wizard09 says:

    Yes you are finally understanding Bush’s wars cost a lot of money.

  3. Big Peter says:

    what the hell do you think hyperinflation is for??

  4. Snake Eater says:

    govt is full of idiots

  5. hrwwtp says:

    I agree, but the answer is very complex. Go to Youtube and search for Ron Paul, as well as Alex Jones here you will begin your quest for the answers.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Archives

Powered by Yahoo! Answers