From a story today on Obama wanting the Federal Government to use more renewable power to "lead by example."

When I read this sentence, I was offended:
"The federal government occupies nearly 500,000 buildings, operates 600,000 vehicles and purchases more than $500 billion per year in goods and services."

How 'bout reducing the use of fossil fuels and leading by example by the Federal Government cutting the number of buildings it occupies in HALF to "only" 250,000 and reducing the number of vehicles it operates in HALF to "only" 300,000, and not by outsourcing them but by ELIMINATING THEM COMPLETELY. This will have the side-effect of reducing the Federal Debt and Deficit--two things that will go a long way towards reducing global warming by reducing the amount of hot air and red tape Americans face.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory...y-21103560


I mean, what a waste of a government with that many facilities and vehicles. Don't rationalize it--this is WAY too many, too much money spent that we don't have. Let's stop printing money for all this and just get the heck out of debt.

Good Lord.

I can't say that I am surprised.

The thing is you have almost a whole class of people that rely on all of this and on top of that you have an economy built around them. It's like wrapping a turd in bacon.

It's damn near impossible to draw down the number of Federal employees and expenditure without doing damage to the grander economy. It sucks but it's the truth.

If we want to fix it we have to be willing to take a lot of pain that goes along with it. I favour the band-aid approach myself.

(12-05-2013 11:31 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It's damn near impossible to draw down the number of Federal employees and expenditure without doing damage to the grander economy. It sucks but it's the truth.

If we want to fix it we have to be willing to take a lot of pain that goes along with it. I favour the band-aid approach myself.

It's not impossible. Tell the Americans who won WWII that it was impossible. Tell the Americans who went to the moon it was impossible. We have lost the WILL to do the hard things as a society. Coming to the "new world" and starting this country was impossible: death by starvation, native attack, disease...Americans once faced far worse than the belt-tightening that is required today.

Our political "leaders" on BOTH parties are pansies--that is the problem. They take the Santa Claus approach to life. Everyone knows that Santa Claus doesn't really exist. WAKE UP AMERICA and STOP the lunacy of government spending NOW!

(steps down off soapbox.)

Anyone find it interesting that the Fed has almost as many buildings as cars. I guess each building car-pools that 1 car they have...........

"There's no more cuts to make."

That's what Nancy Pelosi said so it must be true.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-l...73214.html

(12-05-2013 11:31 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Good Lord.

I can't say that I am surprised.

The thing is you have almost a whole class of people that rely on all of this and on top of that you have an economy built around them. It's like wrapping a turd in bacon.

It's damn near impossible to draw down the number of Federal employees and expenditure without doing damage to the grander economy. It sucks but it's the truth.

If we want to fix it we have to be willing to take a lot of pain that goes along with it. I favour the band-aid approach myself.

Example - all of the Fed jobs dry up, and the Liberals move back to Jersey or whatever craphole they crawled out of.

That DOES NOT hurt VA or any other red state. Red State people have real jobs and will not be effected. Conservatives who believe the farce Dixie posted need to reevaluate their sources.

(12-05-2013 12:02 PM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  

(12-05-2013 11:31 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Good Lord.

I can't say that I am surprised.

The thing is you have almost a whole class of people that rely on all of this and on top of that you have an economy built around them. It's like wrapping a turd in bacon.

It's damn near impossible to draw down the number of Federal employees and expenditure without doing damage to the grander economy. It sucks but it's the truth.

If we want to fix it we have to be willing to take a lot of pain that goes along with it. I favour the band-aid approach myself.

Example - all of the Fed jobs dry up, and the Liberals move back to Jersey or whatever craphole they crawled out of.

That DOES NOT hurt VA or any other red state. Red State people have real jobs and will not be effected. Conservatives who believe the farce Dixie posted need to reevaluate their sources.

Huntsville Alabama. Recheck your facts.

Some law makes it extremely difficult for the Feds to get rid of those buildings. Can't remember the law right now though.

If global warming is actually being caused by human activity...then Government accounts for the largest portion of the problem.

just cap the hiring. When some dead beat dead weight takes the dirt nap, don't replace them.

The best part of the zerO Gov't shutdown was the continued referral to "non-essential employees". That and a lot of people came to realize that this bloated behemoth in DeeCee is quite non-essential to their daily lives.

(12-05-2013 11:29 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  "The federal government occupies nearly 500,000 buildings...

That's almost 1 building for every 600 people in the country. How do we afford crap like this?

(12-05-2013 09:18 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(12-05-2013 11:29 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  "The federal government occupies nearly 500,000 buildings...

That's almost 1 building for every 600 people in the country. How do we afford crap like this?

Our taxes, of course,

However, there are reasons that it's so difficult for the govt to sell a building. According to law:

1. Buildings must first be offered to other federal, state and local agencies.

2. Officials also have to ascertain if the building has a community use — say, for a homeless shelter.

Obviously, the law needs to be changed.

(12-05-2013 09:18 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(12-05-2013 11:29 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  "The federal government occupies nearly 500,000 buildings...

That's almost 1 building for every 600 people in the country. How do we afford crap like this?

lol. uhhhh, we don't? And can't?

There oughta be some kind of proviso out there that if the building hasn't been occupied for say 2 years and has no one moving in for the next 2 years (making up numbers here) off it goes to auction or for sale. Privatize all this sh!t and get the Federal Gov't out of the landlord/slumlord business.

(12-05-2013 12:17 PM)VA49er Wrote:  Some law makes it extremely difficult for the Feds to get rid of those buildings. Can't remember the law right now though.

This is true.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...00120.html

Consider just a few of the hoops an agency must jump through in order to sell a "surplus" building. First the agency is required to determine whether any other office within that department can use the space. If not, the agency must offer the building to other government departments. If there are no takers, the next step is to offer the building up to the homeless.

Facepalm.

(12-06-2013 12:24 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(12-05-2013 12:17 PM)VA49er Wrote:  Some law makes it extremely difficult for the Feds to get rid of those buildings. Can't remember the law right now though.

This is true.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...00120.html

Consider just a few of the hoops an agency must jump through in order to sell a "surplus" building. First the agency is required to determine whether any other office within that department can use the space. If not, the agency must offer the building to other government departments. If there are no takers, the next step is to offer the building up to the homeless.

Facepalm.

Yep, at least the govt has stated it plans to create a commission to go about changing the law. Of course that was in 2011 and I don't know if anything has come of it. Typical.

(12-06-2013 12:24 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  This is true.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...00120.html

Consider just a few of the hoops an agency must jump through in order to sell a "surplus" building. First the agency is required to determine whether any other office within that department can use the space. If not, the agency must offer the building to other government departments. If there are no takers, the next step is to offer the building up to the homeless.

Facepalm.

Isn't that what the USSR did just before collapse? Move homeless into the vacant and dilapidated Government buildings?

(12-06-2013 12:18 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  There oughta be some kind of proviso out there that if the building hasn't been occupied for say 2 years and has no one moving in for the next 2 years (making up numbers here) off it goes to auction or for sale. Privatize all this sh!t and get the Federal Gov't out of the landlord/slumlord business.

This reminds me about 20 years or so ago in Atlanta the mafia used to run a chain of rib joints called Jilly's Ribs that were the best ribs anyone evr tasted in the south. The place was doing gangbusters business, the food was so good. And the mafia knew how to take care of its customers, just like Vegas used to be before the big corps came in and ruined it.

Anyway, of course the only small problem was the mafia was using the restaurants as a front, so of course the FEDS came in and took it over under the then new RICO Act. The Feds ended up running the chain for a few years, as everybody here loved the food, but they ended up just shutting the businesses down instead of finding a buyer to sell it off to. Total loss in many ways.

Now, THAT was one thing I wish they had kept doing instead of getting rid of. Funny they can get rid of a great private business that people loved and patronized with no problem, but they can't reduce the slumlord situation with all the government buildings. Man, I still miss Jilly's Ribs. No place I've eaten anywhere has ever been as good.

(12-07-2013 07:19 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

The GOP should use that clip over and over while showing every wasteful thing the government does. The sad thing is that she really believes what she said. She is just that stupid.