Re-inventing the languageFollow

Never got used by the programs they were allocated to. Money doesn't just sit there idle Joph. Surplus money in programs gets reallocated (see the section on intergovernmental debt I just wrote if you're unsure how this happens).

The fact that we ran a deficit last year means that that money was spent. Somewhere.



It means that the baseline funds available for reallocation to other unbudgeted projects is $38.5B lower, which means that's $38.5B dollars they don't have just sitting around to be spent without having to get approval to borrow money to pay for it. You are once again focusing on the individual programs and failing to see the larger picture. The objective here is to decrease the total amount of money we spend. This decreases that total amount (or at least the total amount budgeted ahead of time).


You get that before we borrow money and incur a deficit, we raid all those programs that have extra funds in them, right? Makes sense, doesn't it? You'd dip into the savings account to buy something before taking out a loan (or carrying debt on a credit card), right? Same thing here. And if your savings account is low you'll think harder about whether you really need that thing you're borrowing money for, wouldn't you? That's what this means. The actual amount of money the government has to spend is decreased.

If we were not already running a deficit each year, your argument would have some merit. Just as you might argue that borrowing money from one bank account and putting it into another doesn't matter as long as you don't end out spending more than you earn and having to carry a credit card balance either. But we are borrowing money each year. Thus, any amount we reduce from the amount that appears to be "free money" will (at least hopefully) reduce the amount of money we borrow.

What he means is that by making that statement you are claiming that you "probably" earn more than anyone else on this forum (since it's reasonable to assume that higher income equates to higher taxes). I certainly don't pay a ton of attention to other posters occupations, so I could be totally wrong about this, but aren't you a college student? Maybe I'm confusing you with someone else though.

In any case, I've never gotten the impression that you were some wealthy captain of industry. Certainly you come off like a youngish person still in school. Given that there are several posters here who earn sizable incomes, it just seemed like a pretty "out from left field" statement for you to make.

Edited, Apr 15th 2011 5:56pm by gbaji

And yet you felt the need to project the assumption that you "probably" earned more than anyone else on this forum onto said forum. You're the one who injected an association with money, not us. So you kinda made it "our business", didn't you?

I made two separate statements at entirely different times. I in no way associated one (education) with the other (money), but I'm not surprised that your pitiful reading comprehension invented some strange understanding of this conversation.

I guess I also shouldn't be surprised that some people apparently associate the size of their bank account with the size of their *****, or for whatever other poor reason they have for being so indignant over a statement of fact.

I believe the point about whether or not you were in school was that you most likely didn't have a demanding job if you were also attending school. Ergo, you probably are not the one who would be most affected by tax increases.



It's not a "statement of fact," though. It's an assumption that you make more money than anyone else here, and yet another arrogant comment on your part. If you can't see why making a broad statement to an entire message board that you are making more money than anyone else here is a little insulting, that's your issue. It didn't really affect me, personally, because I've grown used to your attitude and usually just roll my eyes.

Edited, Apr 20th 2011 10:13am by Belkira

Do you have some kind of vested interest in coming off as an arrogant prick? Honestly...

Assuming his PhD leads to him speaking to patients, I think his bedside manners are going to be in dire need of improvement.

...and you keep going.

No, you don't blur any lines. There's nothing subtle about your rhetoric. You're arrogant and condescending. That's it.

You do need to hear it from somebody, clearly. It's just that you're not interested in hearing it. Whether it's constructive or not comes from you. If you act like an ***, and people (rightly) call you out for acting like an ***, then you can make that criticism constructive by not acting like an *** as much.

I don't believe for a second that you're as humble as you profess to be. Perhaps you're just not as forthcoming with your ego in real life as you are on the internet. But sometimes I think that the internet shows who we are on the inside; who we are when the only impetus to be good comes from ourselves. Either way, I think you're kidding yourself. The flailing, multi-tiered set of excuses that you're giving are pretty much the polar opposite of humble, self-reflective behavior.

And if you want to subscribe to that "it's the internet, I'm free to be a douche" thing, then fine. But if you're going to do that, then own it, and accept the consequences. Don't just be a douche naturally, then get all indignant at the response and try to trot out that tired old excuse.

I thought it was clear that I don't really care what your opinion of me is one way or the other. I was actually just trying to call some attention to the fact that maybe you shouldn't be so quick to be judgmental towards someone you don't really know whilst simultaneous proclaiming the high ground. I've never claimed the high ground, myself... if anything, I've been quite blatant about my disregard for civility here, but that's because THIS IS THE ASYLUM. I'm pretty much here to argue with people, not to be well-received. I go to other fora to counsel suicidal people and provide general wellness coaching, and offer genuine insight on social, political, and philosophical subjects. I come here to be an *** (though in spite of reveling in this, I challenge you to find me actually casting judgment on anyone's character). If you want to infer from my behavior here that I'm an irredeemable, self-absorbed ****, as far as I'm concerned that's actually your shortcoming, not mine. And even if you're right, I'm harmless. Flattered you find me worth your time, though (not really).

So lemme go ahead and conclude my contribution to this thread with a big ol' "Oh well." If you find me so insufferable, I welcome you to ignore me or simply not address me. It's the surest way to ensure that I do the same to you. Or keep feeding the troll. Your call.

Why wish? Acquire a valuable skill and try it yourself.

That's a whole lot of writing just to say "I'm so full of myself that I don't think I should be criticized."

I suppose I'm supposed to disregard all that initial indignation? If you were actually just trolling, then you wouldn't be so shocked at the response. You're just doing that classic, catch-all "I was just trolling, I don't care" defense.

If you care just enough to try to defend yourself, then congratulations, you care about as much as everyone else on the forum.


Also: "But it's the Asylum!"

Super. That means that you're not going to get warned or nuked for being an arrogant prick. That doesn't mean that you're exempt from other people calling you out for it.

Keep flailing around for an excuse. We wouldn't want you to have to actually acknowledge any small error now, would we. And on the internet, where no one should ever have to admit fault, of all places! That'd be just awful!

Look, I don't doubt when you say that nobody in real life thinks you're arrogant. Not at all, actually. Most people behave differently on the internet than they do in real life. Emotions get beefed up. Expletives flow more freely. People get more sexual, or scholarly, or arrogant.

So why does the fact that you don't act arrogant in real life preclude you from being arrogant on the forum? Or why does it make it so that you shouldn't place merit on what people say here. It should be obvious that when people say the blanket statement "You're an arrogant prick." that they're referring to how they know you here, how you come off to others on the forum.

Would you, in talking to an acquaintance in real life, casually assert that you make more money than them? Probably not (and if you did, you'd probably be very careful about how you said it, and would only do so if it was very necessary to the conversation). That'd be arrogant behavior. Pretty much everyone knows and accepts that. So, we're on the internet, and you did just that. Do you not think that it's still arrogant? I feel like this is pretty clear cut.

And hey, it's emblematic of the way that you hold yourself in most conversations here. So there you go. I'm not going to to go through a bullet list of examples. But it's pretty much every other thread with you lately.

So you think that you don't need to place any merit in what people say here. Fine. But here: I know gbaji grinds your gears. Do you think that gbaji should use the same defenses that you're using? When people call him a partisan hack, do you think he should dismiss those claims offhand? Because it's the internet? Because nobody he know in real life thinks that he's a partisan hack? Are people wrong for calling him out on it here? It's a good parallel. I think you'd do well to consider it.

I'm not telling you to accept everything said without question. Take it with a grain of salt, and a large one if you'd like at that. But you don't do yourself any good by completely shielding yourself from the criticisms. Nor by lashing back out at those leveling them on you. Do it for yourself, if you're interested in improving yourself, and how you come off to others on the internet. If you don't care about that, then suit yourself. It's the Asylum. Go nuts. Just don't be surprised if people keep yelling at you for it here, that's all.

Edited, Apr 25th 2011 9:51am by Eske

You could have simply responded to the first question with something like "I made millions in the dot-com days, and bought a couple companies, which afford me a 7 figure salary and the free time to pursue my dream of obtaining a PhD in a field I love". Then some might accuse you of being arrogant and whatnot, but at least you could always just say it's the interwebs and we could all be lying about who we are. Dunno. Just think you took the wrong approach is all. :)




I don't really care about how much you make Kachi. I was just surprised that you made the statement and then backed off of it for some reason. If you're going to make a point, go all the way!

Also, I don't think you're quite getting the full opposition to the whole raising taxes thing. You're really repeating a straw man. Very few people argue that the wealthy would suffer if taxes were raised on them. What we argue is that those who benefit from the things that the wealthy do with their money (like those employed by them) would suffer. The filthy rich person is still going to be filthy rich and able to live high on the hog almost no matter how high you raise his tax rate. The argument is that the upward mobility of the working and middle classes suffers by raising taxes on "the rich".



But that's because I don't buy your "I'm smarter than you all" act. ;)