Federal CIO Kundra Takes Leave of Absence After Woes 193
CWmike writes "The fallout from Thursday's arrests of a District of Columbia IT security official and contractor quickly raised questions about the fate of Vivek Kundra, the new federal CIO who until recently ran the office now mired in bribery allegations. Appointed by President Barack Obama as CIO less than two weeks ago, Kundra was CTO for the District of Columbia. But yesterday, Kundra's former office in a downtown government building was a crime scene. A White House official, speaking on background, confirmed today that Kundra took a leave of absence from his new CIO job shortly after federal investigators arrested two men in the DC government office on bribery charges. The official would not elaborate on the reasons for the leave; there were no indications yesterday that Kundra was involved in any wrongdoing. Kundra's decision could slow his plan to create a 'revolution' in the federal government's use of technology."
Change you can believe in (Score:5, Funny)
Is this Change or Hope ?
Re:Change you can believe in (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, its change. No tax issues here.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it's change, cuz this level of corruption in such a young administration is unprecedented.
Believe it!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This isn't corruption in Obama's administration (yet). It is corruption (an employee scam) in the D.C. government administration that was there before Obama came into office and which Obama's man was CTO of before becoming CIO.
The President's administration != local D.C. government.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh really?
Yes, the corruption Kundra was potentially involved in was when he worked for DC.
But how else can you describe what's going on with all of Obama's political nominees, and the games he's been playing with special interest groups and organizations, other than "corruption"? Cronyism? That's corruption too, buddy - the only reason it doesn't necessarily apply is because Obama wasn't buddy-buddy with these people before the election. It's partisan demagoguery.
Re: (Score:2)
Gees, get real, it will take the new administration, just the ones at the very top at least a year to replace the previous administrations crony placements, not that the next lot are guaranteed to be better but there are a whole bunch of Alaskan styled cow lovers buried through out every government department and it will take law enforcement agencies years to clear them all out excluding of course the ones that try to bail before the get busted for their past wanton criminal activity. Who can forget a for
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where the FUCK was your high-minded outrage when the CIA under the Bush administration was sending Canadian, Italian, and Swedish citizens to Syria and other nations to be tortured for months?
What's that? You're a partisan hack? Oh, nevermind then.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because he points out that all of Obama's friends worthy of a government position under him is either tax cheat or corrupt in some way does not mean he didn't appose another wrong under another administration.
In fact, it appears that you may be suggesting that it's OK for Obama to be surrounded by criminals because someone else did something wrong. Is this the modern version of Clinton did it?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm suggesting that these people are partisan hacks who will ignore horrible things when it's "their team", but suddenly find their voice when something significantly less dodgy comes about.
I don't give a fuck about your corrupt politicians. I DO give a fuck that you might grab me without a court order and throw me on a plane to Syria if I visit your country, with the full support of the president.
Re: (Score:2)
It's perfectly valid to compare the previous administration to the current one. Why wouldn't it be? Why has historical context suddenly become verboten?
Actually, don't answer that. I expect the same sort of stupid convoluted reasoning I heard in 2003 when I was telling Slashdotters that running up perpetual debt will cause massive problems with the economy.
The last administration was turning the United States into a terrifying totalitarian regime where foreign nationals are "disappeared" by the CIA and sent
Re: (Score:2)
This is the "Change" phase of the Obama Presidency. Expect it to last until things can't get any worse.
The "Hope" stage comes in about 3 years when primary candidates for the next election start to show their heads, or when things get so bad that hope is all we'll have left - whichever comes first.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
...remember who are responsible for putting him in power.
Sarah Palin?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not that you're going to make overblown predictions or anything. Remember how incorrect all the liberals' predictions that Bush would be a stunning and painful failure were? Oh, wait...
Re: (Score:2)
Losers always blame the media. Oh no, black people don't cause more crime, it's the media! Oh no, Republicans didn't increase spending more than any administration before them, it was the media! Oh no, No Child Left Behind wasn't a status-quo maker, where the best schools got the most money and the worst schools got the least, it was the media!
You know what? Get a platform that you'll actually follow, get a platform that might actually work, get a platform that's internally consistent, and we can talk. Unti
Picked the Wrong Name for the Job (Score:2)
They should have gone with someone with a cooler name. Like Padmasree Warrior [businessweek.com] her name kick's Wolf Blitzer's name any day of the week and she's better looking too.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They should have gone with someone with a cooler name. Like Padmasree Warrior [businessweek.com] her name kick's Wolf Blitzer's name any day of the week and she's better looking too.
In Sanskrit-derived hindi, Vivek means "wisdom". Obviously you're proposing we discard brains for brawn.
Re: (Score:2)
In Sanskrit-derived hindi, Vivek means "wisdom". Obviously you're proposing we discard brains for brawn.
Seems his name was given in jest given his current predicament, eh?
The meaning of her name in hindi, on other hand, is at least plausible.
Re: (Score:2)
IN SOVIET RUSSIA, meme eludes YOU!
. . . evidence lacks YOU!
Amateurs!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Although Dems still aren't held to the same standard as Republicans are. Don't think so? Grow a pair and research how Nancy Pelosi uses Air Force jets as her private taxi service and ask yourself why that's not all over the news.
The following should not be interpreted as a defense of Pelosi. It's just a fact:
Pelosi travels on an Air Force jet for security reasons: she is second in the line of succession for the Presidency.
The choice of plane (a 757) seems excessive, but it's reportedly the only one readily available that can fly non-stop from DC to her home in California.
I think that Pelosi should acknowledge the political implications and cut back on the number of trips that she makes. Maybe she had done so.
But, I bel
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, bother.
Pelosi travels on an Air Force jet for security reasons: she is second in the line of succession for the Presidency.
And? How does that make her any different than previous Speakers, or for that matter, #4 in line?
Or how about #15 in line (if there were such a thing)? Air Force transit for the President and Vice President is justified because they (the President, really) is the leader of our armed forces. The House Speaker is not, and is simply the most senior member of the House (as decided by a
Re: (Score:2)
This plan was put in place by Bush and Rove post 9/11. They decided that the Speaker of the House was important enough to have fly in his/her own plane in case of another coordinated attack.
Re: (Score:2)
And? How does that make her any different than previous Speakers, or for that matter, #4 in line?
This plan was put in place by Bush and Rove post 9/11. They decided that the Speaker of the House was important enough to have fly in his/her own plane in case of another coordinated attack.
You're right on this; my attempt was to try to emphasize how "above and beyond" Pelosi has gone. There's record of her making a big stink about the refueling stop(s), and wanting her plane to be nicely accommodated. I can
Re: (Score:2)
This I agree with. The plane she currently flies is in fact a military owned plane. The problem is that she has to stop part way to refuel and she doesn't like doing it. She needs to suck it up, but instead rails against CEOs all day while doing the same stuff herself.
I've heard conflicting info on this: the non-stop requirement is either because Pelosi threw a tantrum about making refueling stops, or it's due to security issues at the refueling locations.
BTW, most congress people commute back to their districts every weekend. They work 4 days/week, fly home on Fri. and we pay them ~130k/year + all the extras + extras they get when they leave office. And, they have the nerve to criticize business people? ROFL.
I made this point in my original posting, but it got snipped in the quoting. Pelosi is in no position to complain about business people flying around the country in when she does the same thing. At the very least, she should cut back her trips to once a month.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bah. You Americans and your weak names. We Germans got "Oberst Sturmhart Eisenkeil" (Colonel Stormhard Ironwedge). Now THAT is a name!
I lost the source, but here is the quote I saved:
During my service in the German army I came across an Oberst Sturmhard Eisenkeil - which literally means as much as "Colonel Stormhard Ironwedge". What's so special about him is his first name... it's not just your average "Max", but it's as if his parents were trying to make up a name that sounds as militaristic as possible. I know that if should I ever write a WWII story the main protagonists will be called Oberst Sturmhard Eisenkeil and Staff Sergeant Max Fightmaster... I also know an Oberfeldwebel Killermannn in person, who would make a good henchman for the evil Oberst.
Re: (Score:2)
Like Padmasree Warrior her name kick's Wolf Blitzer's name any day of the week and she's better looking too.
Hah, those names are nothing compared to a Dikshit. Nobody will face up to one of them...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheila_Dikshit [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandeep_Dikshit [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anurag_Dikshit [wikipedia.org]
Re:Picked the Wrong Name for the Job (Score:4, Funny)
Catching all the crooks (Score:5, Funny)
Looks like Obama's plan for catching all the crooks is by appointing them to political office and let the approval process catch them.
Re: (Score:2)
Obama: I have this great idea. I'm going to have a Cabinet that's free and clear of corruption!
Aide: Ummm... Mr. President? About that. We might have a problem coming up with a list of Candidates...
Confused (Score:5, Funny)
I'm confused. I thought the government under Obama was going to be made of rainbows and kittens glued together with hope. Are you telling me Obama's administration is as corrupt as any other but also has a one-party supermajority Congress and a cheerleading media backing it? Sweet...what a change!
Re:Confused (Score:5, Funny)
Are you telling me Obama's administration is as corrupt as any other...
Not quite?
If it were, we wouldn't be finding out about this corruption until two years into their term, just like any other democrat. (Republicans don't get exposed until after they leave office, or piss off too many constituents.)
So yes, this IS a very big change from the way things used to be.
Re:Confused (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you telling me Obama's administration is as corrupt as any other...
Not quite?
If it were, we wouldn't be finding out about this corruption until two years into their term, just like any other democrat. (Republicans don't get exposed until after they leave office, or piss off too many constituents.)
So yes, this IS a very big change from the way things used to be.
The only completely inexplicable "change" here is that people don't really seem to care about the obvious amount of corruption and just plain incompetence going around. How many of his cabinet picks inexplicably can't fill out their taxes properly? I don't know about you, but it doesn't give me any confidence when the treasury secretary can't even do his taxes right. This is the guy we're trusting to fix the banking mess?
While it's nice to see this stuff doesn't come out years after it happens (Oh wait, most of the tax problems were years old, and only corrected a short time before confirmations. Hell, Daschle knew about his tax problems early last year but didn't come clean until he was tapped for the cabinet.), but that doesn't give them the pass on screwing up that they're getting.
No matter the race, creed, or political party, they're dirty. The only change we're getting is how this crap is presented.
Re:Confused (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know about you, but it doesn't give me any confidence when the treasury secretary can't even do his taxes right.
I hate to sound like a shill for Obama, but the focus of this whole ordeal did bother me somewhat for the simple reason that it actually did sound somewhat plausible that he was confused by the tax code.
Have you ever tried to do your own taxes....unassisted? The American tax code is an absolute nightmare at the present.
I'm not sure that a flat tax or the FairTax proposal are good options. However, this is a debate we need to be having at the forefront. Our financial system is being dramatically reshaped, and it's about time that we addressed our massively bloated tax code. Make it simple, and it'll be far easier to audit and enforce.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
And the rules are always changing, supposedly to "balance" the classes, but it just makes the game harder for everyone. And then every 4-8 years there's an expansion pack that inevitably nerfs one of the class
Re: (Score:2)
I used to do my taxes myself every year, then along came websites that can do it for me (I'm lazy).
This is what I see:
We have a treasury secretary who found the tax code confusing and, instead of seeking assistance (like a paid professional) he dumped the whole thing in a dark corner somewhere and refused to face it.
Between the tactical error of dumping into the dark corner and the inability to either request assistance or improve his knowledge I don't think I'd even want to hire him to manage a local fast
Re: (Score:2)
Check out the APT Tax [apttax.com]. Not sure how feasible it is, but it's an intriguing idea.
Re: (Score:2)
I used to handwrite my tax forms. It's really not that hard if you track stuff properly during the year and have a reference for the current code.
Here's the thing though. Geitner is supposed to be the best of the best, the smartest financial guy out there and he can't do his taxes? No, he was clearly avoiding paying his taxes. I wonder how many people are sitting jail for doing what he d
Re: (Score:2)
but it doesn't give me any confidence when the treasury secretary can't even do his taxes right. This is the guy we're trusting to fix the banking mess?
Uh, you missed the boat on that one. The reason you should have no confidence is that he heads the IRS, because the IRS is an agency within the Treasury.
Re: (Score:2)
How many executives or busy professionals do you know?
Ok.
Now, how many of those people do their own taxes?
My bet is "none", given my experience with those types of people (I manage their finances).
None of these people knew about what was wrong with their taxes until they got reamed. I'm sure their CPA is looking for work now.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about you, but it doesn't give me any confidence when the treasury secretary can't even do his taxes right.
It would give me confidence. Someone who has experience with the fact that lax law is massively overcomplicated, in a position to do something about it. Most potential candidates will simply pay an accountant to sort out their taxes and so won't be aware of how complex the process is (it isn't, if you've got enough money to make the problem go away).
Re:Confused (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, I think you're wrong. He's appointing people *SO* corrupt they can't even hide it until two years into their term. And that's with a majority in congress and a "cheerleading media". I cringe to think of what's actually getting through while everyone focus on these blatant cases.
Re: (Score:2)
You are probably right in this case, because I don't think he has made any real changes with regard to transparency in this particular process. But I guess one thing to keep in mind going forward is that if you shine a light on the floor, you're going to see some roaches. But that doesn't mean the roaches weren't always there.
Re: (Score:2)
He's appointing people *SO* corrupt they can't even hide it until two years into their term
Yeah right. All these governors, etc that he's appointing are *so* corrupt, and nobody finds out about it until they're appointed to the Obama cabinet. These people don't come out of nowhere into the Obama cabinet.
If you really want to see a cheerleading media, look back at the past 8 years. Now the media is actually doing their job, investigating, and asking tough questions of people who do get appointed.
Re: (Score:2)
If the party in power was doing investigations to rat-out corruption, it's called being vigilant and good. If the minority power was conducting investigations, it's called a witch hunt.
-
Context sure makes it funny.
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason we're finding out about the corruption in Obama's administration right now (and I'd personally not call it 'corruption' so much as "a complete lack of sound judgment, character assessment or common sense") is because the they've been so damn incompetent in keeping it hidden, not because it's less corrupt.
Re: (Score:2)
The chief difference here appears to be that this President isn't handwaving away all concerns and going, despite all the evidence to the contrary, "No you can't go. You're my right hand."
Re: (Score:2)
This President is too busy being "overwhelmed," according to his people.
He's a politician from Chicago. (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought the government under Obama was going to be made of rainbows and kittens glued together with hope. Are you telling me Obama's administration is as corrupt as any other but also has a one-party supermajority Congress and a cheerleading media backing it?
He's a successful politician from the Chicago machine, which makes Boss Tweed's Tammany Hall look like minor pranks on a boy scout campout. What did you expect?
*I* expect ongoing machine corruption scaled up to the national level, culminating in something to dwarf the Teapot Dome scandal and any corruption in any other administration since than (including the Clinton and both Bush administrations).
But then I've dealt with Chicago politics a little bit... (Thank Murphy I've never had to live there.)
Re: (Score:2)
... culminating in something to dwarf the Teapot Dome scandal ...
(And yes I do know that Harding was a Republican and Teapot Dome was related to cronyism with, and bribery from, buddies in the oil industry and would thus have been a more resonant example if I were decrying possible corruption in a Bush administration. But I'm more concerned with magnitude than particulars here.)
Re: (Score:2)
starting to sound more like Ninjas and Pirates...
I honestly don't see how anyone can take his "change" seriously with so many past Clinton officials on his staff and in key positions. His whole administration has been screaming "beltway" and "politics as usual" way too often. I was willing to give the guy a chance; didn't vote for him or McCain; but damn he just has a stink about him of Washington.
He's not accused of anything (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:He's not accused of anything (Score:5, Insightful)
As a contractor/associate of other contractors in the past with DC govt, I can assure you he is an a-hole, corrupt, and lacks the intelligence and qualifications necessary for the position. In his defense, you can say this about pretty much anyone in DC govt.
I can only hope this helps bring him down. His own employees seem to loathe him. Ultimately, as the CIO he is supposed to take responsibility for his underlings. He may not have been guilty, but he is ultimately responsible for the office and everything that happens, particular at a high level like contracting.
What my directs do (Score:2)
isn't exactly a petty detail. Granted I don't hold a lofty title like CIO but I damn well know what all my directs are doing. If I didn't I would not hold down the job I do. I even have to keep tabs on what the other guys outside of my direct control are up to. Plus some of what his directs are accused of isn't exactly something that just goes by without some questions arising somewhere down the line.
You also don't take leaves of absence. Just what in the hell is wrong with Obama's vetting process?
Re:He's not accused of anything (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to disagree. If he's such a poor manager that he missed something like his direct report having "ghost employees" and taking kick backs then I don't think he's competent enough to be the federal CIO. Five years is a long time to not notice something was up.
If he's not corrupt then he's incompetent. Either way, he's not qualified.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry for forgetting my cynicism tag in my prior post Jlarocco. I'll be more careful next time.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. If something like this was happening 5 layers below him I could see some leeway. However, if a DIRECT REPORT is runnign this kind of a scam than he clearly isn't doing his job. An invalid expense report or two per year might certainly be easy to sneak by a boss, but nobody should be able to run a massive scam under their supervisor's nose...
I agree (Score:2, Insightful)
To be fair, he was only CIO of DC for 3 of the 5 years that the misfeasance was going on. Despite this I have to go with the "buck stops" rule. He's responsible by inheritance. If it were not so, delegation of responsibility would no longer work.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The person who alerted the authorities was a DC electrical engineer that these two tried to include in their scam, and who went to the FBI fairly shortly after their proposal (more info from the washington post's article [washingtonpost.com]). Kundra was not the one who alerted the FBI.
Richardson (Score:2)
Re:Richardson (Score:5, Interesting)
Democrats and Republicans ARE BOTH TERRIBLE.
Not based on ideology, really. You may find more to agree with in one party platform or another. But rest assured, the politician does NOT adhere to the party platform because of any actual conviction. When it is politically more profitable to betray it, they will. I'm 90% conservative, but would prefer an honest Democrat over a corrupt Republican. It's a moot point, though, because they're both rotten to the core.
There may be some exceptions. It would have been interesting to see if Ron Paul would have stuck to his guns. Those exceptions are few and far between, though, and tend to get weeded out long before they run for president.
Re: (Score:2)
I am STILL hopeful that Obama is an honest pol. BUT as I look at all the ppl that he has put around himself, they appear to be as corrupt as any neo-con. The question is, are they more competent. That remai
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I voted for Ron the first time around.
He's a good protest vote. Some of his ideas are, frankly, very poorly informed, but he's at least earnest if not super informed or educated on many subjects.
BUT, we could not afford to have another W get in.
This is why we need electoral reform.
I had some issues with McCain, but somewhat considered him. That was gone once he picked the ultimate neo-con as running mate.
Yeah, that was some really lousy strategy. He had a shot, but he needed to appeal to moderates in the center. It's not like the far right wasn't going to vote for him anyway simply to stop Obama who they perceive as a threat. Palin did exactly the opposite. It did not get him any real new votes and drove away all the
Re: (Score:2)
This is why we need electoral reform.
You'd do well to look at the French system for inspiration. The winner has to get more than 50% to win. If no one does in the first round, then candidates are eliminated and another election is held the following weekend. This lets means that you can vote for outliers in the first round because doing so is a vote against the other candidates.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd do well to look at the French system for inspiration.
Yes. Condorcet seems like the most fair and useful, even more so than instant runoff.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I would take you up on that bet, and win; because you're guessing at my beliefs, and I'm (obviously) not. I've been saying the Republicans suck for a long time, even though I agree with their stated but rarely adhered to platform much more closely than the Democrats.
Re: (Score:2)
Step two: Stop caring about party affiliation. Both yours, and your candidates'. Vote purely on their record and your judgment of them as individuals, not because of the side they are on.
That second step is the hard one. You can look at how insanely popular sports teams are, to gain an idea how ingrained the idea is in human nature t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do you think the "neo-cons" were trying to "destroy America"?
If anything it would seem the problem was that they were so gung-ho about protecting America that they just started making shit up.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a pretty good point. Neo-cons are out to keep America on top economically and militarily at whatever the cost. There's nothing that keeps other countries in check like a nuclear weapon owning country who will attack other countries for no valid reason. Iraq was a big "Don't mess with us cuz we crrrazy!" message.
Of course, it didn't work. But the intentions were noble. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with Reagan and Bush is that they didn't really practice what they preached. There are two sides to "Lower taxes and smaller government" and they only did one of them.
Second, fixing the economy isn't really the government's job. They just shouldn't be screwing with it. In fact, it's probably only as bad as it is because the government was interfering with it so much in the first place.
The truth is that the economy will go back up despite the damage Bush and Obama have done with their stu
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, both of them never kept a single promise. BOTH grew gov like there was no tomorrow. And as to lower taxes combined with no deficit, well, that is well known. Taxes actually ended up higher in total under reagan, just shifted off his buddies. Though W did lower taxes a bit ( more on his buddies), but made reagan's #1 def
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
History still says Obama has a much greater chance of being fiscally prudent than a similar Republican president.
The number 1 and number 2 biggest spenders and debtmongers since the end of WWII were George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. Had he continued to an 8 year term, the Republicans would have a hattrick.
So where does your faith in the Republicans come from? They haven't been fiscally conservative as long as most of us have been alive. They've been consistently worse than the Democrats for half a century.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You must have faith in the Republicans, just as you don't walk into a bear cage without having faith in the bear.
Empirical data tells me that so-called "liberals" are the best bet for a balance budget. Data from two countries over over 25 years shows that they will balance the budget, while so-called "conservatives" will break said budget.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Shit, I re-read your comment. What was I replying to?
Re: (Score:2)
ROFL, you mean that would be an anti-politician amendment. Here's the thing. Politicians want power. The quickest way to gain that power is to forcibly take your constituents money and give it to someone else. Growing the government is a power grab and balanced budgets and shrinking government do not fit in that scenario.
The cleares
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
you're a bit behind on that (Score:2)
That was the Democrats circa LBJ's "Great Society" in the 60s. By the 1990s, the pro-business faction was solidly in charge, culminating in 1992 when the head of the Democratic Leadership Council (the pro-business / anti-lefty caucus) won the Democratic nomination. Sort of analogous to New Labour displacing Old Labour in the UK.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, I must have missed something. Bush's 2001 tax cut cost 1.2 trillion dollars. How does a 800 billion dollar stimulus package eclipse that?
And for that matter, if the Republicans spend 40 years spending like they found their parents credit card, when do you hold them accountable? When is it finally their fault for their absurd spending? When do you give up on pretending they're fiscally conservative and just admit that they're flat-out lying, and have been since Nixon pulled us out of the last vest
Re: (Score:2)
Just a refresher: 800 bilion dollars isn't spending.
Now, figure out how much Bush increased the federal budget by during his tenure. (Hint: The increases in 2004, 2005, and 2006 increased federal spending more than the stimulus package will)
Go do your homework. While you're at it, figure out who was running Congress while Bush was in power, racking up 200 billion dollar budget increases year after year.
I'm sick of you socialists pretending to be fiscal conservatives.
Re: (Score:2)
More math, because I like math.
The actual spending increases in the stimulus package amounts to 575 billion, or a budget increase of 287 billion in one budget year. That's not really all that impressive, to be honest. In 2003 the Bush administration increased the federal budget by 237 billion, the year before that 153 billion, the year after by 190 billion(adjusting for inflation).
Clinton's budgets, by contrast, increased the federal budget by a measly 16 billion per year, adjusting for inflation. Even if O
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. You're an idiot.
6 of 8 years is "the first few years"?
Unlike you, oh partisan hack, I have the numbers in front of me, because I was interested. The FIRST, SECOND, and THIRD largest increases in debt occurred under a Republican Congress. The FIRST, SECOND, and THIRD largest increases in spending occurred under a Republican Congress.
I'm sick and tired of you loser armchair pundits who think you can make numbers up as you go along.
My homework. Where's yours? [file-pasta.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you read up on neo conservative principals you will find that one of their avowed goals is to bankrupt the federal government so that large corporations will take over the fundamental social services of our lives. We're seeing the after-effects of this right now.
Basically, they believe a small group of people is more intelligent than the masses, and those people should be running everything in order to save people from themselves. To do this, they have to concentrate as much power in the hands of the jud
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to be more like they were willing to destroy America in order to save it. Things like destroying civil liberties to root out terrorists, using torture to gather intelligence, premptively attacking those that could threaten the US in the future, stuff like that. On the surface, it seemed that they meant well but were misguided in both their actions and the targets of their actions. Beneath that, it seemed they were just grabbing and abusing power for their own ends, using national security as a c
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Tin Foil Hattery (Score:2)
Here's a fact: ALL politicians are corrupt.
Now, here's a theory of mine: Some are more corrupt that others, and there's never been an effective way to weed them out. Everyone was corrupt, that much was understood, but how badly was never clear. And it was too dangerous to try and figure it out. Just ask Paul Wellstone. [wikipedia.org] about how much luck he had with that.
Even worse, some of those more-corrupt bastards are in your OWN party. Nominating them to any position puts you in jeopardy, and once again, your pl
Slashdot, manipulated. (Score:2)
Two things are very common for slashdot last two months - too much "ohhh how good Windows 7 will be" articles (clearly a organized propaganda using clueless Slashdot editors, but hey, it brings ads money in) and clearly too much "look, look, another *suspicious* persona appointed by eeeeeeeeevil Obama. He is eeeeevil. He is just like rest of politicians. They all are evil manipulative bastards".
Yes, Obama is not Jesus or not perfect president either. Gosh. But he is best what we can have now. So far I have
Re:Oh well (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oh well (Score:5, Funny)
I don't know whether you're overly fond of imperative constructs, you've been parsing the "will's" and "shalt's" of too many RFCs lately, reading Scripture has taken its toll, or you're just a Star Wars fan, but whatever the reason, hopefully, stop it you will.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Au contraire, my friend. I think we should add a Yoda day. Like the "talk like a pirate day". But better. :D
And let it be this day, where the idea was born, and where from now on, we shall talk like Yoda.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More like Optimal Distribution of Ass to all the bull queers in a...