Re-inventing the languageFollow

Yes! Please god, yes!

Funny, we were talking about that today at work. This Lt was talking about how his NCO had a real mission (sand table and all) on how to steal water from the Air Force down range.

In Korea, it was the same way. If they lived on any non-Airbase, they got extra money for substandard housing.. The worst part about is, they actually attempt to justify it as if it isn't a complete waste of money.

At one time, I worked on a Korean Air Base and when the Marines came over for an exercise, they put up tents.... The Chair Force, they all got hotel rooms outside of the base and complained that they had to put away their own trays in the DEFAC...... I should stop...

Huh? They were set to expire at the end of last year. And guess what? During that year (which would be "last year") he argued strongly for letting those taxes expire for everyone making over $250k/year.

Do you need a map and both hands to figure this out? Perhaps crayons and finger puppet? ;)


Did you bother to look? They say they got them from the CBO.[/quote]

I'm sure they got their starting numbers from the CBO (my numbers are from the CBO too!). I'm curious where they got their end numbers. You know, the ones *they* calculated. I'm showing you my calculations based on the historical budget numbers from those years. So how did the NYT arrive at their numbers? Pulled them out of a rabbit's butt?

I just find it hard to accept that the deficit can more than double between 2008 and 2009 (almost exactly 2.5X as much in fact), and yet we're supposed to swallow the argument that Obama is only responsible for 10% of the entire deficit? Remember, I'm looking at historical data, so this is how much we actually spent in that year, not how much was projected in a budget. You just can't possibly explain the massive discrepancy between those numbers with anything other than "The Democrats went on a spending spree the moment they took control of the government in 2009".

Just to be absolutely clear about something, because I run into this confusion when presenting budget numbers sometimes:

The numbers I'm listing are historical budget numbers. These are generated after the year is over and all the spending and revenue receipts are calculated. That's why the tables only go to 2010.

These are not the numbers from budget bills passed the prior year.
These are not budget projections over the course of the year.
These are the actual amounts the government spent and took in revenue.


I use these numbers because they cut through the typical BS that happens when people rely on projections and proposed budgets for their numbers. Those are wonderful if we want to know what people think will happen. But I'm more interested in seeing what actually did happen. Learn from the past to make better decisions in the future. Shocking concept, I know.

And he extended them for one year. He only extended them once. I've no idea what other point you thought you were making.


It would be a refreshing change from giant text blocks of made up Gbaji-babble that says nothing so, sure... bring on the finger puppets and crayons.


Well, let us all know when you find out because your giant block of rambling completely failed to address the actual sources of any of the numbers. Which was sort of the whole point.

The wealthy aren't the only people who pay taxes. We are *all* affected by the tax burden. The sooner you learn that, the sooner you'll make more rational decisions about government tax policy.



We want everyone to pay less in taxes. Why is that bad?



Again: We all pay taxes in one way or another. My belief is that higher taxes reduce economic prosperity, which means fewer jobs and more people in need in the first place. Are you employed? How much does your boss pay in taxes? Now engage your brain and think about how his tax rate might affect your (or the next guy looking for a jobs) fortunes.


I also happen to believe that government not only shouldn't be in the charity business (with our money no less!), but is very bad at it to boot. And, if only we didn't have to tax so much so we could spend so much on helping the hungry and the poor, there would be more money in the hands of private citizens to help out those who are truly in need and not just those scamming the system.


And that's before even getting to the more philosophical argument that taxation is a seizure of the fruits of one's labor and is thus an infringement of some of our most basic rights and thus should be done as sparingly as possible.




Jesus encouraged his followers to steal money from others? I thought he encouraged charity? You do understand that charity isn't charity unless the person with wealth chooses to help others with it, right? So if we take this analogy to its logical conclusion, we could argue that by taking the wealth from people, you are taking away their ability to help the poor and thus turning them into bad people.

It's the act of giving of your own property that counts.



No one ever becomes "not poor" under the alternative though. So the only ultimate result is an entire society of people who can't support themselves without government help. How does that make the world a better place? It might be brave and new, but absolutely not better.

...with no context about the genesis of those debts/deficits but, hey!, why would that matter?

Oh wait... where they came from was sort of the entire point.

When you don't have a real argument, you can always cry about the media instead. You'll always have that.

Edited, Apr 13th 2011 9:44pm by Jophiel

If you think taxes = stealing, move to the United Arab Emirates. They pay 0%.

If you want to live in the US (or just about every other country in the world), then you agree that taxes are a necessity, the point of debate is the level.

Edited, Apr 13th 2011 10:09pm by bsphil

So what is your point then? Bush is responsible for 1.4 trillion dollars of appropriated funds, (see Iraq and Afghanistan Wars). That are still being paid for by the American People. Regardless if Obama is President, or not those are Bush Presidency appropriations. Of curse if Obama shut up shop in both Iraq and Afghanistan tomorrow to stop spending money there, you would call him out on that as well. Further more the Stimulus (the original) was a Bush policy, the secondary stimulus plan was an Obama policy, which primarily bailed out the automotive sector. Instead of just throwing money at wall street with no strings, the Obama stimulus has strings, specifically regarding GM, in which the American Public own 60% of GM Stock,to which they sold down to 26% for 13 billion.

GM has paid the loan portion off (as of last year) and the American public still own stock valued at 45B, (CDN public with 8.1B)

Where is the Wall street money bush gave out? Where did that money go?

Edited, Apr 14th 2011 12:10am by rdmcandie

Meh terminology aside, the Obama automotive bailout and stimulus have strings, you can follow, the Wall street bailout did not. Those are still funds that you are paying for, and Obama is not the only one on the hook for it. Gbajis hero Bush, is as much a culprit (if not more since his money seems to have vanished).

Gbaji argued about spending, in 2010 (obama's first fiscal budget) spending has decreased.

It always tickles me when people who aren't wealthy fixate on their pretty insignificant tax payments which are also a part of their civic duty.

I probably stand to lose more than anyone here from heavier taxation and you won't soon see me complaining about it, ESPECIALLY when it's the wealthy who are being taxed more for higher spending on social programs. Short-sighted money who can't grasp how a wider income gap actually harms them and then **** on the peons' stimulating social programs are supremely irritating. It reminds me of MMO noobs who overemphasize hitting big numbers without regard for their damage per second.

How do you figure that?