In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Comments

  • Mr. FriendlyMr. Friendly Member Posts: 7,981
    edited November -1
    This is suprising how?
  • BaseJumperBaseJumper Member Posts: 5,570
    edited November -1
    Gives a whole new meaning to "pork" spending.
  • utbrowningmanutbrowningman Member Posts: 2,757 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    "The study began in September 2008, according to an online abstract, and has already cost taxpayers $198,776, NIH documents show."

    So my question is, why did Bush keep this in the budget?
  • robbie pennyrobbie penny Member Posts: 179 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by drstroud
    "The study began in September 2008, according to an online abstract, and has already cost taxpayers $198,776, NIH documents show."

    So my question is, why did Bush keep this in the budget?


    Well Sir, to answer your question its simple.....the 2008 budget is passed in late 2007. However, Bush threatened to veto and congress didnt pass the last 6 months of a budget under Bush. That is why Obama and congress had to pass the "suplemental" budget when he first took office.
    Therefore, Bush had no control over spending in the last 6-12 months of his presidency.
  • Mr. FriendlyMr. Friendly Member Posts: 7,981
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by robbie penny
    quote:Originally posted by drstroud
    "The study began in September 2008, according to an online abstract, and has already cost taxpayers $198,776, NIH documents show."

    So my question is, why did Bush keep this in the budget?


    Well Sir, to answer your question its simple.....the 2008 budget is passed in late 2007. However, Bush threatened to veto and congress didnt pass the last 6 months of a budget under Bush. That is why Obama and congress had to pass the "suplemental" budget when he first took office.
    Therefore, Bush had no control over spending in the last 6-12 months of his presidency.
    Perhaps, but there was pleanty of fluf during his presidency as well. One is no better than the other, nor do they deserve any defense.
  • robbie pennyrobbie penny Member Posts: 179 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Bush was terrible on spending. Obama is worse.
  • dfletcherdfletcher Member Posts: 8,173 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    From the article:
    The National Institutes of Health are paying researchers to cruise six bars in Buenos Aires to find out why gay men engage in risky sexual behavior while drunk -- and just what can be done about it.

    Solution - Don't let them drink.

    Please make that $400,000.00 check payable to me at .........

    What a group of idiots. Whether gay or straight or wheteverelse there is, someone needs a study to figure out people screw when they get drunk and nothing's going to stop that?
  • scottm21166scottm21166 Member Posts: 20,723
    edited November -1
    this is what kills me about Onama and the stupidity of his economics programs, I understand if we need to soread some money around but why spread it around on such obviously stupid programs? this is just the tip of the iceberg.
    I would rather spend money on sending illegal aliens children to college than this worthless study.
    Msybe thasts the plan, give the public some things to be upset about so we won;t notice the other other junk or it won't seem so bad in comparison.
    how do you cut 17 billion out of the defence budget then waste it in argentina on a study 9 out of ten drunken gays would tell you just for asking
  • dongizmodongizmo Member Posts: 14,477 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Did anybody ask Jimmy Buffet?
    Don
    The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools.
Sign In or Register to comment.