Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD
Or... and here's a novel concept... they could *refrain* from spending the money.
Our government is like some of my idiot friends that live paycheck to paycheck and then complain about not having any money. 50" LED TVs, going out for dinner 3x/week and driving a new car are not an essential part of living and is why those people don't have any money. Just like APCs, snow cone machines and the millions of other things the government wastes aren't essential for getting their jobs done.
|
You're not only obviously right, and why anyone would nitpick about why it might or might not be necessary shows how we have come to accept such stuff. The question now seems to be how much or what else rather than how about no, none of it. And very little wondering about why the Federal Government must do it. Here, we're wondering why some police force in a quiet town in nowhere is being armed at great expense when it doesn't seem to need it. One problem with Federal spending is that it is supposed to benefit the entire nation, not just selected locals. So if the Feds are going to arm police in State A, then they should do so in States B-Z. The money spent and the "protection" should be distributed equally. So Podunk Nowhere gets its stuff. Is anyone wondering why the Federal government is, or should it be, arming local police rather than the locality or the State doing so?