GovernmentExecutive.com

Rooster | Monday, September 08, 2008 | 01:14 PM said:
"Clinton by the way sold our nations oil reserve to an oil company why he was president. Which by the way he and Al Gore both are top stock holders in that company. They are ALL the same, Dems and Reps. Nothing is gonna change when it come to the wealthy and well connected. Use your head."

Your phrasing seems deliberately opaque.

Are you trying to say that Clinton and Gore sold off our entire Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), or that -- as occurs when a president so determines -- sanctioned a release of SOME of the oil supplies to U.S. oil companieS? (BTW, it is never one company.)

And what is the name of this apocryphal oil company that Clinton and Gore favored to the exclusion of the others (that according to your story so generously and corruptly rewarded them with gifts of stock)?

I can confidently assert that "Rooster" isn't equipped with the facts.

Clive A.  | Tuesday, September 09, 2008 |  08:27 AM

---

The military wasn't "weakened" under Clinton. The cold war was over - we won. There was no point in continuing to spend money on weapons systems designed to fight the Soviets in space and on land when there was no more Soviet Union. Turns out he was right, and fiscally conservative. The kind of weapons, tactics and fighting units we need now to fight the global terror threat are very different. Everyone forgets that when Clinton left office we were the only superpower on the planet left, the economy was in good shape and we had a budget surplus. Eight years later, the economy is a mess, the government is bailing out and taking over mortgage corporations, we are in an intractable land war in Asia, and people's confidence in government is at an all time low. They are all the same? You do the math.

JT  | Tuesday, September 09, 2008 |  07:42 AM

---

I give McCain a lot of credit. He's right! We need to continue to place emphasis on a strong defense and National Security. Because of the lack of personal responsibility and inherent laziness that typifies many of our citizenry, government will continue to play a larger role than it ought to.

Ojama  | Tuesday, September 09, 2008 |  07:07 AM

---

Rooster, I've no quarrel with your claim that America's major political parties are slopping at the taxpayer's trough. However, I observe that both Republicans and Democrats seem unable to establish a coherent argument. Partisans introduce the failings of members of their opposite party, as though it will influence the debate. This "I know I am but what are you?" reckoning is unreasonable.

Please cite sources for your claim that Clinton and Gore are top stock holders in an oil company to which Clinton sold our nation's oil reserve. This is good stuff, and I'd be happy if it could be proven true.

I disagree with your "The only thing that is gonna change is how much you are gonna be taxed and is our Military gonna be weakened again like it was..." You're going pretty far afield from my reality if you believe America's military has been stretched any thinner during the past sixty years than it is now.

Lib R. Tarian  | Monday, September 08, 2008 |  11:55 PM

---

What a hoot TimB. You think the wealthy and well connected only made out during this administration? They been doing it under EVERY president including the beloved Clinton.

Clinton by the way sold our nations oil reserve to an oil company why he was president. Which by the way he and Al Gore both are top stock holders in that company. They are ALL the same, Dems and Reps. Nothing is gonna change when it come to the wealthy and well connected. Use your head.

The only thing that is gonna change is how much you are gonna be taxed and is our Military gonna be weakened again like it was under Clinton. That's the choice you have.

Rooster  | Monday, September 08, 2008 |  01:14 PM

---

Why is it baffling, W. D. Jackson, when everything they are told explains that you CAN have your cake and eat it too? Schools tell everyone that they can do anything they want with an education (not true, even for the bright). Corporate advertisements tell them they can live rich on a poor person's salary (not true as the current and still emerging credit crisis) is demonstrating.

So why wouldn't they think that they could have smaller government and better protection? This is true of Democrats and well as Republicans. Neither can win if they state the bald truth: there is no free lunch and we're all overdrawn on our accounts. China, the Defense Dept., Social Security, and Medicare have all been given money we can't afford to spend.

It's amazing to me when some politician DOESN'T promise more than they can deliver and who DOESN'T spend more than we can afford when elected.

Hidden budgets (from "supplemental" military appropriations to stealing from Social Security and the Medicare Trust Fund) are the smoke and mirrors. Who's going to pay? And what will the generation who has this house of cards land on us think about us?

It's really bleak.

Dave  | Monday, September 08, 2008 |  09:11 AM

---

WD Jackson:

More people need to see things from your perspective.

The current failure of a "president" and administration increased the size and spending of Govt, but look how well that has worked. The wealthy and well-connected corporations made out like bandits while all the humane services with which a Govt should be helping its people have been practically obliterated.

McCain will be more of the same "priorities".

TimB  | Monday, September 08, 2008 |  08:38 AM

---

This is Reagan rhetoric all over again - Gov't is too big and civil servants are losers, deadbeats and crooks that can't get a real job, and we need volunteers to run things. What a crock. Anyone who buys this nonsense has the depth of a rain puddle. WD is right - pay now or pay later. The country needs professional public servants as much as it needs anything else.

JT  | Monday, September 08, 2008 |  07:48 AM

---

The personnel system is just trying to get the right people in the right seat on the bus. If you don't like processes that are as long, painful, and arbitrary as possible, you won't be happy in the DOD. If you can't deal with with the selection process, wait till you hit NSPS...

NSPS Fan  | Saturday, September 06, 2008 |  04:44 PM

---

The fact Fed Servants don't understand this is the problem. The public isn't demanding more services just that CS do what they are paid to do. Just look at all the ecoila problems non of those were founf out FDA and it took 6 months to find the source.
The puiblic is demanding less travel, less union activity and CS demanding pay for perfoemance and personal accountability. Something that doesn't happen today

maxketter  | Friday, September 05, 2008 |  03:00 PM

---

If one looks at federal tax receipts and compares them to tax benefits, it is clear that those states that scream the most about taxes, are the same states that receive the most benefits. I say cut the benefits to those states. Alaska receives more benefits per capita than any state in the union. I think someone should do a "Ross Perot" type presentation on that.

Bob Shaw  | Friday, September 05, 2008 |  02:56 PM

---

What always baffles me is the folks that demand smaller government are the same folks that do not or cannot understand that this means cuts in the services that protect them like, Food and Meat, inspectors, people that inspect imported items for lead paint and toxic liquids etc., etc., fewer Border Patrolman and you could go on and on and on. And, then when lead paint get's through on our children toys or we find out that toxins leach out of the bottles we put our childs milk or formula in, thay are the first to get indignate and demand better protections. You can't have it both ways folks. Pay now or pay later

W D Jackson  | Friday, September 05, 2008 |  11:56 AM

---

Good luck to anyone, especially young people, trying to land a Federal job as long as the OPM works to make the process as long, painful, and arbitrary as possible.

Jimmy  | Friday, September 05, 2008 |  11:18 AM

---