TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- So the US government starts shutting down tomorrow...
Pages (9): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 »

I'm still a big fan of my "fat tax" idea. Put a 1% tax on all fast food. think of how much money would be raked in!

It's minimal to the average customer. You're $5 big mac meal would now cost you $5.05. no big deal. But you add up all those pennies on the dollar per millions of pounds of hamburgers from all those fast food places. man, that's a lotta dough.

I am still waiting for the White House to be on the chopping block.... I'll hopefully be able to buy it for $1.

Who is John Galt?

quote:

Originally posted by DJRYAN� hahaha I think I know a little bit about politics...

Yes, you know a little bit about politics, like most children have a comparative grasp for the existing differences between a triangle and a circle. If you stick them in a room, with a one-way glass mirror, that had a large box of cut-out shapes and blocks to stick into them, they'd be able to put all of the blocks where they belong in a relatively short amount of time.

Start making the task more complex, however, say, by making the cutout shapes consist of two or more specific blocks, and the men in white coats from behind the mirror have to terminate the experiment to scoop a little DJRYAN� off of the floor, where he is crying furiously and trying to eat the blocks that don't fit into the cutouts that multiple blocks would have fit into were some of them not lodged in his esophagus.

In short, you have political awareness, much like most retarded people are basically aware of physical forces like gravity, that a saw cuts wood, and that wood grows on trees, but when it comes to the nitty gritty, your idiocy finds you resting your dumb-ass on the piece of wood you mean to cut from the tree with little realization as to your pending calamity.

quote:

Originally posted by DJRYAN� quote: Originally posted by The17sss yeah. it's the republicans fault again. classic Obama: do nothing, offer no plan while sitting back criticizing everyone else's, and wait till the last second and swoop in pretending to be above the fray scolding both sides for "playing politics", and claim armageddon will happen if we don't all do exactly what he wants. where was he 3 months ago on this? 6 months ago? 1 year ago? WTF are you talking about? Obama spent all that money on "bailouts" and more importantly his sweepting health-care reform. To say that the Republicans caused this is bullshit. For one, its "US" Republicans that are trying to keep us from writing checks we can no longer cash. And Obama and his brilliant ideas is the one that's egging this on. Learn something!

Case and fucking point is your failure to recognize that you are taking issue with someone who you'd otherwise be in agreement with. Kevin (The17sss) has been around here for quite a while, taken heaps of abuse for his political views, and was being ironic with his post. In that regard, you've metaphorically failed in something that most three-to-four-year-olds have a grasp for in gender distinction.

The researcher, alarmed that you've taken to chewing the blocks that don't fit into the box with the cut-out composite shapes, is wearing a white coat, which is confused with the robe that your mother wears in her precarious state induced by Valium and Vodka. Mistaking the researcher's concern that your digestive tract is being shredded for your mother's capriciously whimsical notions about sending you off to Zanny (Xanax) the Nanny's (the warm, loving glow of a television) you begin shouting, "No! Mommy, NO!! I'll kill you! You NO TAKE AWAY MY TOYS!!!"

quote:

Originally posted by DJRYAN� Well I'm immensly dissapointed in our governments attempts to withdraw monies from students trying to obtain further education. The system in its current form includes encumbrences that prevent students from satisfying their educational requirements by the current and outdated "credit" and "default" system. Institutions need to look at a way for older students to obtain additional financing to either enter trade schools or regular universities. The work environment that currently exists no longer allows for moderatley educated individuals. We also need to promote additional reform in primary and secondary education systems. State and Federal monies need to be more prominent in our nations school systems. Cutting funds is not going to help the next few generations. Additionally, and as I proposed earlier, we need to stop handing out paychecks to people that are qualified to work, but who choose not to. That single "intitlement" is bankrupting our country. Its not right for someone to sit at home and watch their soaps, get high, use food stamps to go buy filet mignon and not have to do a single thing for it. So, as I suggested, we should mandatory drugtest, at the reciepents expense, in order to receive intitlements. Anyone's test results that turn up positive would be suspended from whatever programs they're participating in. Also, and probably the most important. We need to go back through our idealogy of blank check spending. Most departments operating within our state and federal governments spend enormeous amounts of money on simple things that ordinary consumers get at more reasonable cost. I think its been told before of a $1k toilet seat- really? We also need to eliminate (even at the cost of job loss) outdated or unsustainable departments. These departments or organizations that don't pay for themselves should be eliminated. Corporations cutback all the time. The government opperates in reverse, and just creates more money. With the advent of such significant technologies, these individuals, to whom are perceived as qualified, could most likely obtain jobs in the private sector, thus making comparable monies, and spurring economic growth w/ their additional taxes and work place contributions, e.g.: non subsidized healthcare versus subsidized and other contributions. When we couple these ideas into actions, most likely the result will be a slight double dip in our current recession but a more stable and sustainable long term nation. Otherwise, I really don't think we're too far off from a civil war from extreme left wingers and conservative right wingers trying to protect the viability of our nation. Right now we're screwed.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/an...e-sense-on.html

Pros: Obama has made it easier to get more student loan money.

Cons: With a GPA lower than 2.5, there's no way in fucking hell you'll ever be "intitled" (SIC) for anything other than an on-line, for-profit college.

The fact is that he's done this by eliminating unnecessary middle-men from the student loan process and freed up more money for students to be able to go to school with. Of course, you're fucking retarded and you complain about student loans without knowing what's already been done on your behalf so that you stand a remedial chance of correcting the fundamental ignorance manifesting your beliefs about the pending class warfare where right-wingers will protect you from having to learn how to fucking spell, you stupid fucking hay-seed.

quote:

Originally posted by DJRYAN� I'm sorry... Additional regulation is not what's needed. In fact, that's what's hurting small businesses. They can no longer be competitive in a global market because of all the regulation. If the government were to lessen regulation than small businesses could hire more people. Its government oversight that has shifted business to lower levels. Allow me to share with you that the governement now oversees, telecommunications, transportation, utilities, food and drugs, housing, health care, small and big business. That's not what our founding fathers wanted. But what's happened is that when there's been trouble in certain industries there was nowhere else to turn so the government intervened. We're supposed to be a governement by the people for the people. That's not what's happening. Viva Le Revolution!!

It has been six long hours of waiting for your mother to answer her phone, consisting of one blood transfusion and fifteen grams of morphine but she finally answered. Her reply to the repeated queries eventually aimed an penetrating her narcotic haze was, "What? ... Blocks? ... Swallowed Cocks? ...fine... pick up some more Grey Goose on your way home." Fortunately, that satisfied the hospital's requirement to authorize the thoracotomy required to remove the splinters embedded in your esophageal tract.

The doctors come into your room to explain the procedure. They are surprised to find you a deceptively well-spoken young man, completely unaware you'd be misspelling most of the words you'd utter at effort to escape going under the knife. "Keep big government out of my medicine cabinet." You protest with a vehemence mistaken for irony. "An intervention in my body's function is counter-productive and will result in my amygdala being over-regulated." Now the doctors are concerned. Is there an infection that has spread to your brain? Afterall, everyone needs a well-regulated amygdala in order to function properly. When you blurt out, "It's my right under the second appendix!" they ask for a psychiatric consult which verifies what the researchers have already disclosed: You're a mentally ill, quasi-functional idiot.

And when I say you're painfully unaware of history, your claim about industries being over-regulated being utter bullshit is exactly what I'm talking about. I worked for AT&T in their public relations department during the zenith of the push for deregulation that has occurred, already. The very deregulation I was furiously clipping news articles regarding is now responsible for AT&T having been able to acquire Verizon, which rendered my girlfriend's Droid functionally useless not three months after she purchased it.

You maintain that the market is still over-regulated while you remain unaware that the very reason we're even having this discussion is because of deregulation in its current form. Had it not been for deregulation, the Obama stimulus package would not have been called for, in the first place. There'd be no catch phrases like "Too Big to Fail" or "Underwater Homes". This would be a moot fucking point.

quote:

Originally posted by DJRYAN� Greenspan was/is a genius

I'll stop short of saying he was an idiot, in large part because I think he's actually very smart. So smart, in fact, he convinced himself of the certitude of his convictions based almost entirely on poorly written prose. But even he had to admit, when everything was done and the system he'd deregulated, like a sea-slug (one of the world's dumbest animals), had devoured itself beginning with its own tail, he was quite wrong.

As for you, as much as you espouse his cause and world view; that which is largely based on a fantasy land concocted in the mind of a deluded, narcissistic author who lead a largely psychologically parasitic existence cultivating sycophantic acolytes such as Alan Greenspan and Ron Paul, I'm hard pressed to believe you actually know who John Galt really is.

eddiezilker has just pwned this entire thread

Re: Who is John Galt?

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker Yes, you know a little bit about politics, like most children have a comparative grasp for the existing differences between a triangle and a circle. If you stick them in a room, with a one-way glass mirror, that had a large box of cut-out shapes and blocks to stick into them, they'd be able to put all of the blocks where they belong in a relatively short amount of time. Start making the task more complex, however, say, by making the cutout shapes consist of two or more specific blocks, and the men in white coats from behind the mirror have to terminate the experiment to scoop a little DJRYAN� off of the floor, where he is crying furiously and trying to eat the blocks that don't fit into the cutouts that multiple blocks would have fit into were some of them not lodged in his esophagus.

And your retort, Ryan?

quote:

Originally posted by Spam Only if Palin is vice.

Palin is so 2008, Bachman FTW

I think I've been away too long. I can't believe we haven't figured this out yet!

My retort..

I just don't care to retort..

I'm gonna go smoke a blunt instead..

Nice writing though Eddie..

quote:

Originally posted by Lews Fuck yeah, I feel wanted. Unfortunately, I don't. My mom has never trusted me to enough to let me touch her beautiful garden

Fine $5 (that's like $10,000US with the conversion to $AU) and I get to call you Pepe to reflect the US's new status as the "Mexico" of Canada.

Figured this article would be relevant to this thread...


https://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/07/12

quote:

Why is the Most Wasteful Government Agency Not Part of the Deficit Discussion? Republicans ignore incompetence, bloat and corruption at the Pentagon by David Morris In all the talk about the federal deficit, why is the single largest culprit left out of the conversation? Why is the one part of government that best epitomizes everything conservatives say they hate about government�- waste, incompetence, and corruption�all but exempt from conservative criticism? Of course, I�m talking about the Pentagon. Any serious battle plan to reduce the deficit must take on the Pentagon. In 2011 military spending accounted for more than 58 percent of all federal discretionary spending and even more if the interest on the federal debt that is related to military spending were added. In the last ten years we have spent more than $7.6 trillion on military and homeland security according to the National Priorities Project. In the last decade military spending has soared from $300 billion to $700 billion. When debt ceilings and deficits seem to be the only two items on Washington�s agenda, it is both revealing and tragic that both parties give a free pass to military spending. Representative Paul Ryan�s much discussed Tea Party budget accepted Obama�s proposal for a pathetic $78 billion reduction in military spending over 5 years, a recommendation that would only modestly slow the rate of growth of military spending. Indeed, the Republican government battering ram appears to have stopped at the Pentagon door. This was evident early on. As soon as they took over the House of Representatives, Republicans changed the rules so that military spending does not have to be offset by reduced spending somewhere else, unlike any other kind of government spending. It is the only activity of government they believe does not have to be paid for. Which brings to mind a bit of wisdom from one of their heroes, Adam Smith. �Were the expense of war to be defrayed always by revenue raised within the year � wars would in general be more speedily concluded, and less wantonly undertaken.� The Tea Party revolution has only strengthened the Republican Party�s resolve that the Pentagon�s budget is untouchable. An analysis by the Heritage Foundation of Republican votes on defense spending found that Tea Party freshmen were even more likely than their Republican elders to vote against cutting any part of the military budget. What makes the hypocrisy even more revealing is that the Pentagon turns out to be the poster child for government waste and incompetence. In 2009 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found �staggering� cost overruns of almost $300 billion in nearly 70 percent of the Pentagon�s 96 major weapons. What�s more, the programs were running, on average, 21 months behind schedule. And when they were completed, they provided less than they promised. The Defense Logistics Agency had no use for parts worth more than half of the $13.7 billion in equipment stacked up in DOD warehouses in 2006 to 2008. And these are only the tips of the military�s misspending iceberg. We really don�t know how much the Pentagon wastes because, believe it or not, there hasn�t been a complete audit of the Pentagon in more than 15 years. In 1994, the Government Management Reform Act required the Inspector General of each federal agency to audit and publish the financial statements of their agency. The Department of Defense was the only agency that has been unable to comply. In fiscal 1998 the Department of Defense used $1.7 trillion of undocumentable adjustments to balance the books. In 2002 the situation was even worse. CBS News reported that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld admitted, �we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions.� Imagine that a school district were to reveal that it didn�t know where it spent its money. Now imagine the Republican response. Perhaps, �Off with their desktops!� How did Congress� respond to DOD�s delinquency? It gave it absolution and allowed it to opt out of its legal requirement. But as a sop to outraged public opinion Congress required DOD to set a date when it would have its book sufficiently in order to be audited. Which the Pentagon dutiful did, and missed every one of the target dates. The latest is 2017 and DOD has already announced it will be unable to meet that deadline. Adding insult to injury, last September, the GAO found that the new computer systems intended to improve the Pentagon�s financial oversight are themselves nearly 100 percent or $7 billion over budget and as much as 12 years behind schedule! The Pentagon is not just incompetent. It is corrupt. In November 2009 the Pentagon�s Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), the federal watchdog responsible for auditing oversight of military contractors, raised the question of criminal wrongdoing when it found that the audits that did occur were riddled with serious breaches of auditor independence. One Pentagon auditor admitted he did not perform detailed tests because, �The contractor would not appreciate it.� Why would the Pentagon allow its contractors to get away with fraud? To answer that question we need to understand the incestuous relationship between the Pentagon and its contractors that has been going on for years, and is getting worse. From 2004 to 2008, 80 percent of retiring three and four star officers went to work as consultants or defense industry executives. Thirty-four out of 39 three- and four-star generals and admirals who retired in 2007 are now working in defense industry roles � nearly 90 percent. Generals are recruited for private sector jobs well before they retire. Once employed by the military contractor the general maintains a Pentagon advisory role. �In almost any other realm it would seem a clear conflict of interest. But this is the Pentagon where�such apparent conflicts are a routine fact of life�, an in-depth investigation by the Boston Globe concluded. U.S. military spending now exceeds the spending of all other countries combined. Knowledge military experts argue that we can cut at least $1 trillion from the Pentagon budget without changing its currently expressed mission. But a growing number believe that the mission itself is suspect. Economic competitors like India and China certainly approve of our willingness to undermine our economic competitiveness by diverting trillions of dollars into war and weapons production. Some argue that all this spending has made us more secure but all the evidence points in the opposite direction. Certainly our $2 trillion and counting military adventures in the Middle East and Afghanistan and Pakistan have won us few friends and multiplied our enemies. Defense experts Gordon Adams and Matthew Leatherman, writing in the Washington Post offer another argument against unrestrained military spending. �Countries feel threatened when rivals ramp up their defenses; this was true in the Cold War, and now it may happen with China. It�s how arms races are born. We spend more, inspiring competitors to do the same � thus inflating defense budgets without making anyone safer. For example, Gates observed in May that no other country has a single ship comparable to our 11 aircraft carriers. Based on the perceived threat that this fleet poses, the Chinese are pursuing an anti-ship ballistic missile program. U.S. military officials have decried this �carrier-killer�� effort, and in response we are diversifying our capabilities to strike China, including a new long-range bomber program, and modernizing our carrier fleet at a cost of about $10 billion per ship.� For tens of millions of Americans real security comes not from fighting wars on foreign soil but from not having to worry losing their house or their job or their medical care. As Joshua Holland, columnist for Alternet points out 46 states faced combined budget shortfalls this year of $130 billion, leading them to fire tens of thousands of workers and cut off assistance to millions of families. Just the supplemental requests for fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan this year were $170 billion. What is perhaps most astonishing of all is that cutting the military budget is wildly popular. Even back in 1995, when military spending was only a fraction of its present size, a poll by the Program on International Policy Attitudes reported that 42 percent of the US public feeling that defense spending is too high and a majority of Americans were convinced that defense spending �has weakened the US economy and given some allies an economic edge.� This March Reuters released a new poll that found the majority of Americans support reducing defense spending. The next time you hear Republicans insist they want to ferret out government waste and reduce spending and stamp out incompetence ask them why the one part of government that exemplifies everything they say is wrong with government is the one part of government they embrace most heartily.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Fine $5 (that's like $10,000US with the conversion to $AU) and I get to call you Pepe to reflect the US's new status as the "Mexico" of Canada.

What is interesting... decades ago the US called Canada, Mexico of the North because of its shitty economy. Guess who is laughing now

quote:

Originally posted by jester What is interesting... decades ago the US called Canada, Mexico of the North because of its shitty economy. Guess who is laughing now

We're not really laughing up here.

quote:

Originally posted by infinity HiGH Figured this article would be relevant to this thread... https://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/07/12

Or he could start at the EPA, which had its budget grow a massive 125% under Obama. Education spending up 21%, which we all know is merely padding the ridiculous pensions of the teachers union, which in turn funds Democrat campaigns.

Or maybe... maybe, some of this could get cut? Unemployment benefit spending is up 240%!!!!




This might also explain some problems:




And I always like to remind people of this graph for perspective on what and who is the problem when it comes to debt, deficits, and spending us off a fucking cliff:

As a percentage of GDP we are still less than 100% in terms of deficit per year. The problem is we do not collect nearly enough of our GDP in taxes to really make anything work.

We also foot most of the bill for two wars of our making and most of the shit in Libya (as much as the US likes to say it is not involved, they are involved deeply enough that with out us the operations would not likely be taking place).

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss

Even with such increases, the final numbers are way lower than the military spending. I totally agree with the article presented above your post.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Blame Obama! Look at this graph again! Who cares that the world economy went to the shitter during those years? It's Obama's fault!

so you disagree that the Pentagon is handed way too much money?

Not only is the Pentagon handed a shitload of money; a lot of it goes unaccounted for. If any other agency was this careless with such large amounts of money most right wingers would be screaming for their heads.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Or maybe... maybe, some of this could get cut? Unemployment benefit spending is up 240%!!!!

Gee, I wonder why that is? I mean ffs kev, you�re such a dishonest cunt when politics is discussed. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, the worst recession in 80 years might engender an increase in unemployment payments?

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss And I always like to remind people of this graph for perspective on what and who is the problem when it comes to debt, deficits, and spending us off a fucking cliff:

And we always like to remind you that bush�s 2 wars, his tax cuts, and the financial crisis are the major culprits of worsening deficits. And you just stick your fingers in your ears and type more horseshit. And this graph isn�t even taking into account bush�s prescription drugs act, set to add trillions in unfunded liabilities.

quote:

Some critics continue to assert that President George W. Bush�s policies bear little responsibility for the deficits the nation faces over the coming decade � that, instead, the new policies of President Barack Obama and the 111th Congress are to blame. Most recently, a Heritage Foundation paper downplayed the role of Bush-era policies (for more on that paper, see p. 4). Nevertheless, the fact remains: Together with the economic downturn, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years (see Figure 1).

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3036

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Gee, I wonder why that is? I mean ffs kev, you�re such a dishonest cunt when politics is discussed. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, the worst recession in 80 years might engender an increase in unemployment payments?

Sorry, I don�t follow the smilies.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Gee, I wonder why that is? I mean ffs kev, you�re such a dishonest cunt when politics is discussed. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, the worst recession in 80 years might engender an increase in unemployment payments?

He isn't dishonest, he is stupid. He, in his heart, thinks that these people should not get unemployment at all.

I don�t think kev is stupid. I think he is one-eyed. I think he decides what the republican/conservative viewpoint is, and then seeks to defend it, rather than determining whether that viewpoint is worth defending.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Sorry, I don�t follow the smilies.

It was sarcasm. What you said is so fucking obvious to anybody that can connect 2 dots together. Clearly though, some people can't. It's amusing.

Also, to comment on the second part of your post (Bush-era policies and how they affect today's situation); people don't seem to get that it takes a few years for policies to develop before we see whether they have a positive or negative impact. Anyone judging Obama's policies right now is an idiot. It won't be until AT LEAST late 2012 before we get a clear picture of how his policies affected the economic landscape.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Gee, I wonder why that is? I mean ffs kev, you�re such a dishonest cunt when politics is discussed. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, the worst recession in 80 years might engender an increase in unemployment payments? And we always like to remind you that bush�s 2 wars, his tax cuts, and the financial crisis are the major culprits of worsening deficits. And you just stick your fingers in your ears and type more horseshit. And this graph isn�t even taking into account bush�s prescription drugs act, set to add trillions in unfunded liabilities. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3036

THIS

You know maybe if your Republican pals and Bankster friends actually took the time to create SOME FUCKING JOBS here in America, you might you see the spending in UI go down a bit. And now you want to blame the unemployed as the problem for our deficit? Unbelievable.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.