Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Re-inventing the languageFollow

#52 Apr 13 2011 at 7:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
He said that last year too!

Erm... no? Are you just making this up as you go along? The tax cuts weren't set to expire a year prior.

Quote:
I'm also still unsure where the **** they got their numbers

Did you bother to look? They say they got them from the CBO. But... umm.... thanks for all the random numbers that don't say a single thing about the actual sources of the debt? I hope you got some typing practice out of it at least.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#53 Apr 13 2011 at 7:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Is Bjork recording another album and we just HAVE to stop that *****?


Yes! Please god, yes!
#54 Apr 13 2011 at 7:52 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Correct me If I am wrong but is Fiscal year 2009 (IE that glaring eyesore in that table) Bush's final fiscal year as far as budgets go? Hence that was really his recommended expenditures and not Obama's, and according to this table, under Obama's Fiscal Budget years spending has actually decreased.


In terms of most spending? Yes. However appropriations go on all year long and add to that number. So stuff like the stimulus bill fall in that year's spending, as well as any emergency funds allocated for things like extending unemployment benefits, etc. The exact sources of that spending get spread around though, so it's hard to read directly. Some of the biggest programmatic spending increases in 2009 were in Medicaid and "Income Assistance" (ie: care for people on welfare and unemployment). Actually, there were quite huge jumps in both of those areas. Those increases certainly were not because of Bush increases in funding for those programs in the proposed budget, but rather increases based on need as the year progressed.


Which was one of the things the right complained about during that year. Obama and the Dems seemed to be passing some new funding bill every other day. Their solution to every problem was to throw more money at it. That's why spending ballooned in that year. It was a pretty gross example of fiscal irresponsibility, but now they're trying to get the rest of us to pay for it.

Some of us predicted this was exactly what would happen, so it's doubly annoying.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#55 Apr 13 2011 at 7:53 PM Rating: Good
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Well, if I'm not mistaken, all of these "cool" posts/bases like England are from the Chair Force.
Correct, Greenland is an Air Force compound. And if there was ever a bloated pack of lost funds, it'd be the Air Force. You know that in joint bases like in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Air Force gets extra money for living in the same housing as everyone else, because of Sub-Standard Living Arrangements? They get money because the living arrangements aren't good enough for them, but good enough for everyone else. Does that sink in? Is there any real question why the economy is fucked up?

I really wouldn't pretend to care as much as it appears that I do if I wasn't quarantined due to an eye infection and having nothing to do.


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...
#56 Apr 13 2011 at 8:03 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,668 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I should stop...
Ha, my second deployment was to Iraq as Garrison MP. I was the Desk Sergeant on this particular day, and we got a call from the Flightline. Now, the Flightline is where the C1--s land and take off, shipping troops and equipment in and out. This area was, and I can't stress this enough, AIR FORCE ONLY. We, the soldiers tasked with policing the base, were not allowed on the Flightline. We had no jurisdiction on the Flightline. They have their own equivalent, who work the Flightline; Security Forces. We got generals calling us complaining that we stopped by the Flightline. I can't stress enough that we were not allowed anywhere near this mythical utopia.

Saying that, one day one of their knuckleheads drove a forklift into one of their T-Walls, managed to knock it down and destroy a generator. Now, guess who got the call to do the case on that? Security Forces called us and told us that we needed to come onto the Flightline and do the paperwork. I took the phone from the RTO, and the reason they gave us on why we needed to do their job was, and I swear to whatever and every God you can think of, "We're not equipped to do it." I went personally and got in their faces. I made the little SF E4 cry.

And that's the story of how I lost E6 for the first time. Smiley: laugh
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#57 Apr 13 2011 at 8:05 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
He said that last year too!

Erm... no? Are you just making this up as you go along? The tax cuts weren't set to expire a year prior.


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? ;)

Quote:
I'm also still unsure where the **** they got their numbers

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 ****?

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".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#58 Apr 13 2011 at 8:11 PM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
gbaji wrote:
The goal isn't about balancing the budget (although that's obviously an important consideration). The goal is to reduce the tax burden of the government on the people.
Heh, glad to hear you at least admit the mantra is a bunch of nonsense and is all about protecting the wealthy from paying taxes.

gbaji wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
I feel what it really comes down to are the goals.

-Republicans want tax cuts. Best way to do that? Cut spending on social programs to make cuts for certain portions of the population more palatable.
-Democrats want social programs. Best way to do that? Raise taxes on a certain portion of the population using rhetoric to make it more palatable.
Absolutely correct.
Ahahahaha. Man, you must be off today. First you admit that Republicans don't actually want to balance the budget, they just want to pay less in taxes. Now you're admitting that Republicans cut spending on those who need it most so that the rich can pay even less in taxes? I almost don't even need to respond, you make my own points for me.

I thought it was the Democrats that were the amoral heathens and the Republicans were the party of Jesus. Seems like "that which you do unto the least of my brothers, you do unto me" is their own recurring theme that the Republicans consistently miss.

Ahhh, throw the poor into a pile to prop yourself that much higher up. Stay classy, Republicans.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#59 Apr 13 2011 at 8:14 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
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.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#60 Apr 13 2011 at 8:19 PM Rating: Good
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I should stop...
Ha, my second deployment was to Iraq as Garrison MP. I was the Desk Sergeant on this particular day, and we got a call from the Flightline. Now, the Flightline is where the C1--s land and take off, shipping troops and equipment in and out. This area was, and I can't stress this enough, AIR FORCE ONLY. We, the soldiers tasked with policing the base, were not allowed on the Flightline. We had no jurisdiction on the Flightline. They have their own equivalent, who work the Flightline; Security Forces. We got generals calling us complaining that we stopped by the Flightline. I can't stress enough that we were not allowed anywhere near this mythical utopia.

Saying that, one day one of their knuckleheads drove a forklift into one of their T-Walls, managed to knock it down and destroy a generator. Now, guess who got the call to do the case on that? Security Forces called us and told us that we needed to come onto the Flightline and do the paperwork. I took the phone from the RTO, and the reason they gave us on why we needed to do their job was, and I swear to whatever and every God you can think of, "We're not equipped to do it." I went personally and got in their faces. I made the little SF E4 cry.

And that's the story of how I lost E6 for the first time. Smiley: laugh


Yea, I somehow hurt a Tech SGT's feeling by asking him to do his job. I got a word back from a former NCO that the Flight God Wing Commander said that I wasn't able to talk to the TSgt directly. I'm like WTF?
#61 Apr 13 2011 at 8:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
He said that last year too!
Erm... no? Are you just making this up as you go along? The tax cuts weren't set to expire a year prior.
Huh? They were set to expire at the end of last year.

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

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

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.

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.

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.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#62 Apr 13 2011 at 8:28 PM Rating: Good
******
49,668 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Flight God Wing Commander
Smiley: laugh ****, that about sums it up perfectly.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#63 Apr 13 2011 at 8:28 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
bsphil wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The goal isn't about balancing the budget (although that's obviously an important consideration). The goal is to reduce the tax burden of the government on the people.
Heh, glad to hear you at least admit the mantra is a bunch of nonsense and is all about protecting the wealthy from paying taxes.


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.

Quote:
First you admit that Republicans don't actually want to balance the budget, they just want to pay less in taxes.


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

Quote:
Now you're admitting that Republicans cut spending on those who need it most so that the rich can pay even less in taxes?


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.


Quote:
I thought it was the Democrats that were the amoral heathens and the Republicans were the party of Jesus. Seems like "that which you do unto the least of my brothers, you do unto me" is their own recurring theme that the Republicans consistently miss.


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.

Quote:
Ahhh, throw the poor into a pile to prop yourself that much higher up. Stay classy, Republicans.


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.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#64 Apr 13 2011 at 8:34 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
Jophiel wrote:
And he extended them for one year. He only extended them once. I've no idea what other point you thought you were making.


huh? You said he has promised to let the bush tax cuts on "the rich" expire. He made the same promise last year and failed to do so. I'm not sure how much more clear I can be here. Maybe you just misunderstood me or something. I was talking about the fact that he already tried to do what he's promising to do now, so I'm not sure how much import that promise really holds.


Quote:
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.


I don't know what their calculations were Joph. That's the whole point. I'm showing you my numbers, from the CBO historical budget data tables and doing my own math and just not seeing how they could possibly make the claim they are making. Now, given that I don't happen to have the NYT math calculations handy, I can only speculate as to how they arrived at their numbers. I'm guessing that it had a lot to do with wishful thinking and what they wanted their readers to believe.

But you're free to assume otherwise I suppose. Sucker!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#65 Apr 13 2011 at 8:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I don't know what their calculations were Joph. That's the whole point. I'm showing you my numbers...

...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.
Quote:
what they wanted their readers to believe.

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
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#66 Apr 13 2011 at 8:55 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,668 posts
gbaji wrote:
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.
Matthew 19:23 wrote:
Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”

26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

27 Peter answered him, “We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?”

28 Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife[a] or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. 30 But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.
James 2:14-17 wrote:
My brothers, what use is it for a man to say he has faith when he does nothing to show it? Can that faith save him? Suppose a brother or a sister is in rags with not enough food for the day, and one of you says, 'Good luck to you, keep yourselves warm, and have plenty to eat', but does nothing to supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? So with faith; if it does not lead to action, it is in itself a lifeless thing."
Luke 14:13 wrote:
But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind.
Timothy 6:17 wrote:
17 As for the rich in the present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy. 18 They are to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share.
Just the few I vaguely remembered and looked up (possibly) correct wording for. I don't remember anything about it being voluntary, but again I am a lapsed Catholic for like 15 years. Now, as I'm sure it'll get spun around, and I'll admit there could be passages that do say it needs to be voluntary. I just can't remember any of 'em. Everything I remember made it sound pretty mandatory from a bible point of view.

Edited, Apr 13th 2011 11:10pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#67 Apr 13 2011 at 9:08 PM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
I thought it was the Democrats that were the amoral heathens and the Republicans were the party of Jesus. Seems like "that which you do unto the least of my brothers, you do unto me" is their own recurring theme that the Republicans consistently miss.


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.
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
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#68 Apr 13 2011 at 9:56 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
bsphil wrote:

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.


Tell that to GE.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#69 Apr 13 2011 at 10:06 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,546 posts
Gbaji wrote:
In terms of most spending? Yes.


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
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#70 Apr 13 2011 at 10:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The TARP financial sector bailout and initial auto maker bailout was under Bush. What's commonly known as the "stimulus" was under Obama as well as the second auto bailout.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#71 Apr 13 2011 at 10:14 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,546 posts
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.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#72 Apr 13 2011 at 10:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm just correcting you now before Gbaji has a flip-out later :)
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#73 Apr 13 2011 at 11:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
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.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#74 Apr 13 2011 at 11:43 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Also, lolgaxe, how could you have missed this one?

Quote:
22 Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, or no?
23 But he perceived their craftiness, and said unto them, Why tempt ye me?
24 Show me a penny. Whose image and superscription hath it? They answered and said, Caesar's.
25 And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.
26 And they could not take hold of his words before the people: and they marveled at his answer, and held their peace.


Jesus' official answer: When the US govt. wants you to give ITS money back with ITS name on it, Jesus says you render that **** right up UNTO them.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#75 Apr 14 2011 at 3:47 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,366 posts
Kachi wrote:
I probably stand to lose more than anyone here from heavier taxation
How do you figure that?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#76 Apr 14 2011 at 3:51 AM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Gbaji,

Did you overlook my post in regards to you?

Kachi wrote:
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.


I feel you on that. I lose nearly $1,000 a month. :(
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 59 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (59)