FWIS3

Got this from The Legal Eagle out Pahoenix way...

Putting things in perspective.

March 21st 2010 to October 1 2013 is 3 years, 6 months, 10 days.
December 7, 1941 to May 8, 1945 is 3 years, 5 months, 1 day.

What this means is that in the time we were attacked at Pearl Harbor to the day Germany surrendered is not enough time for this federal government to build a working webpage.

Mobilization of millions, building tens of thousands of tanks, planes, jeeps, subs, cruisers, destroyers, torpedoes, millions upon millions of guns, bombs, ammo, etc.

Turning the tide in North Africa, Invading Italy, D-Day, Battle of the Bulge, Race to Berlin - all while we were also fighting the Japanese in the Pacific!!

And they can't build a webpage...

To be fair, there wasn't that much political opposition to winning WWII once the US got involved. But Obamacare? Well...

What gets me is that they are all worked up over the misfirings of 40 million dollar website (that connects with a bazillion vendors and a gazillion governmental agencies) but not so worried about the 24 BILLION that they just blew on a governmental shut down over a hissy fit....

I don't think that's a reasonable or valid perspective, cid. Comparing an all-out national effort to defeat the Nazis and Japan with the creation of a webpage by an underfunded (by the GOP) agency to support a contentious and unnecessarily complex healthcare law is ... well, lame.

How about if we fund the department of Heath and Human Services properly and if all 50 states commit to integrating their systems with the federal system to make this work? You know, that actually sound a little closer to the national effort we put in for WWII, if you want to continue with that analogy.

geonuc wrote:I don't think that's a reasonable or valid perspective, cid. Comparing an all-out national effort to defeat the Nazis and Japan with the creation of a webpage by an underfunded (by the GOP) agency to support a contentious and unnecessarily complex healthcare law is ... well, lame.

How about if we fund the department of Heath and Human Services properly and if all 50 states commit to integrating their systems with the federal system to make this work? You know, that actually sound a little closer to the national effort we put in for WWII, if you want to continue with that analogy.

Exactly.

The administration was hoping more states would do the individual state insurance exchanges, as most of them wanted (all that states' rights nonsense). But most of the Republican controlled states instead opted to dump it back on the Federal government, one of many deliberate efforts (IMO) to screw the Obama administration. So the Federal insurance exchange ended up being a lot bigger than planned.

The Republicans also deliberatedly cut implemenation funding.

They tried to screw it up and got what they hoped for.

cid wrote:Got this from The Legal Eagle out Pahoenix way...

Putting things in perspective.

March 21st 2010 to October 1 2013 is 3 years, 6 months, 10 days.
December 7, 1941 to May 8, 1945 is 3 years, 5 months, 1 day.

What this means is that in the time we were attacked at Pearl Harbor to the day Germany surrendered is not enough time for this federal government to build a working webpage.

Mobilization of millions, building tens of thousands of tanks, planes, jeeps, subs, cruisers, destroyers, torpedoes, millions upon millions of guns, bombs, ammo, etc.

Turning the tide in North Africa, Invading Italy, D-Day, Battle of the Bulge, Race to Berlin - all while we were also fighting the Japanese in the Pacific!!

And they can't build a webpage...

Yes, lets put this in perspective but lets due it with our heads in reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... ublic_debt
http://www.skymachines.com/US-National- ... l-Term.htm

National debt broken down by presidency.
You'll notice that Regan, the big hero of the Republican party blew out with almost 190% increase in national debt during his term as a percentage of GDP.
But lets look at it more carefully...
Every Republican bar one has increased debt as a percentage of GDP.
Every Democrat bar one has decreased debt as a percentage of GDP.

Why are we in this mess right now with national debt so high?
Well, it doesn't take a genius to figure it out.

So I'll ask this of all the republican supporters that claim that the democrats spend spent spend and the republicans are budget conscious, where the hell do you get that crazy idea from?????

The facts are quite clear, almost every time the republicans get in, they fuck up the debt as a function of GDP.
Where does the money go? I'll tell you, not to the poor so that leaves it where? I'll leave it for the reader to figure out.

Almost every time the democrats get in, the debt goes lower, where is the supporting data that its all blown on social lazy scum bags who won't work because they are beggars and want to free load and that the democrats encourage this behaviour.
Funny, when it comes to government hand outs, the republicans do it consistently and they hand money out to the rich.

I guess the rich deserve to get hand outs unlike those low life working class scum.

Someone please answer those damned questions and the total denial that comes with increasing debt from "their" party.

How does this relate to the OP, well, each term is four years.
In the time frame that the USA staged the wars in WWII, the republican party has consistently blown more and more of taxpayers money. Every term...year after year...

Now that is impressive, but not as impressive as the willful denial that is associated with that fact.

So Obama couldn't get a website up and running, well, Regan increased national debt 400% (in absolute dollars) in his term.
Yet, he's the republican that republicans look up to when it comes to fiscal management.
WTF. Seriously. WFT???

Oh yeah, since most IT guy I've met here are republican and Obama isn't actually writing the code, its the republican parties fault. Now that one I threw in for fun because that's republican logic.

Another dumb question.
Why is this in sci-tech?

FZR1KG wrote:Another dumb question.
Why is this in sci-tech?

Ummm... because???

Moved this to Poli-Tics... because this is more... Political than anything else...

brite wrote:

FZR1KG wrote:Another dumb question.
Why is this in sci-tech?

Ummm... because???

rofl