The W
Views: 101476902
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
20.12.14 1247
The W - Current Events & Politics - Holy jeeeeebus
This thread has 5 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1(2027 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (19 total)
godking
Chourico








Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 3963 days
Last activity: 3909 days
#1 Posted on
Senate requests $984 billion extension of the federal debt cap

This raises the federal borrowing limit from $6.4 trillion to $7.38 trillion. The reason for this is because the government, in order to remain solvent for the next year, has to be able to borrow money by May 28th. ("The Treasury Department says it has run out of room for freeing up cash by shifting funds from various federal accounts...")

Note that the Senate extended the borrowing limit by half a trillion dollars just last year - it's already gone.

I mean, I'm trying not to be partisan here (the Democrats are doing that for me by suggesting that extending the borrowing limit is prepwork for another round of tax cuts), but - it's a trillion dollars! A TRILLION FUCKING DOLLARS! Holy FUCKING CRAP, it's a TRILLION DOLLARS!
Promote this thread!
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1374 days
Last activity: 140 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#2 Posted on
Eh- a trillion dollars sounds big, but the federal government has had over 3 trillion as a budget for a long time.

If you think the feds BORROWING that much is big, look at it this way...

The Federal government TAXES the American people over 3 TRILLION dollars per year. 3 trillion of our money. The 7 trillion figure is over time... 3 trillion per YEAR far outshines that in time...

Our government is way too big, and way too encumbered. Shame we will never get anyone in there who is "untainted" enough to gut that buerocratic money-trap. A Shame indeed...

(edited by Pool-Boy on 22.5.03 1041)




Still on the Shelf #9
godking
Chourico








Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 3963 days
Last activity: 3909 days
#3 Posted on
The Federal government TAXES the American people over 3 TRILLION dollars per year.

Actually, according to the Annual Report on the United States Government, as of 2002 it was 2.2 trillion in tax revenue (versus spending of $2.4 trillion). On a GDP of slightly more than 10.5 trillion (the CIA factbook), that means a tax rate of just under twenty-one percent, which is lower than just about every other first world country, as well as less than the required tithes of most major religions.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1374 days
Last activity: 140 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#4 Posted on
Well, since most of the First World countries in question are SOCIALIST in some way (most of Europe is socialist), this is not surprising.

The tithe for most of the major religions is 10%. In fact, the word tithe itself means 10%. 21% is much higher than 10% last time I checked.

My point is not that we are being overtaxed (we are, but still)... it is that the government spends way too much money on garbage. I firmly believe that the federal government could accomplish all that it does (or should do) on a great deal less money. We also spend a lot of money on total crap that we have no buisness spending money on. A survey to determine why the United States is not popular around the world? Please? Someone explain to me why it was necessary to take our money to do that....





Still on the Shelf #9
Mr. Heat Miser
Blutwurst








Since: 27.1.02

Since last post: 2603 days
Last activity: 705 days
#5 Posted on

    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    A survey to determine why the United States is not popular around the world? Please? Someone explain to me why it was necessary to take our money to do that....


Maybe because finding a way to offend fewer of the world's inhabitants would reduce the number of folks either actively trying to harm America and Americans, or reduce the number of folks willing to stand by and let it happen. Which would mean you could spend less on defense and security. And save money.

A possibility.



-MHM, winner of the 2000 Throwdown in Christmastown.
calvinh0560
Boudin rouge








Since: 3.1.02
From: People's Republic of Massachusetts

Since last post: 618 days
Last activity: 1 day
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
Or we can close the boarders to stop the flow of illegal immigrants into this country. Or we could design a welfare program that really helps people get off welfare.

There are plenty of possibilities out there.
messenoir
Summer sausage








Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 604 days
Last activity: 470 days
AIM:  
#7 Posted on
Or we could reduce our military size. 20% of your taxes goes to paying off past military expenses. 27% pays current military expenses.

1 stealth bomber (at $2.1 billion) costs the same as the salaries of 38,000 elementary school teachers. We could have prevented any education cuts in FY2003 if 1 day of the war in Iraq hadn't been fought ($1.1 billion). Instead of money going to 1 year of our nuclear weapons program, we could provide healthcare to 7 million children ($16 billion).

(all statistics come from http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm)
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1374 days
Last activity: 140 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#8 Posted on
    Originally posted by messenoir
    Or we could reduce our military size. 20% of your taxes goes to paying off past military expenses. 27% pays current military expenses.

    1 stealth bomber (at $2.1 billion) costs the same as the salaries of 38,000 elementary school teachers. We could have prevented any education cuts in FY2003 if 1 day of the war in Iraq hadn't been fought ($1.1 billion). Instead of money going to 1 year of our nuclear weapons program, we could provide healthcare to 7 million children ($16 billion).

    (all statistics come from http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm)



No- that is not at all what I was talking about. We are spending a lower percentage of our GDP on defense than we ever have. And, the first and foremost responsibility, constitutionaly, of the federal government is to "Provide for the common defense." Military spending is one of the very few things that is spelled out in the constitution as the DUTY of the Federal Government. It is not the Federal Government's duty to provide Healthcare to children. If we were to cut military spending, and save 16 billion dollars, that money belongs BACK in the pockets of the taxpayer, to pay for their own children's healthcare. It is not the federal government's responsibility to wipe our asses. It is their job to watch our asses though....

I am not even talking about Social Security, or the highway system, or anything else that serves an obvious, and important purpose (though I think many of those departments could use a little streamlining). I am talking about the hoards of FAT, the ridiculous surveys and worthless government jobs- the meaningless crap we waste money on time and time again, but will never go away because it is one politician or another's pet project. You know- the multi-thousand dollar positions that were initially set up as a favor to this friend or that friend, and never went away?

And hell no, we do not need a survey to tell us the best way to go around kissing the collective asses of the rest of the world to make them like us. I can tell you right here why we are hated- because we are rich and powerful as a nation. Being the top dog on the block always causes hatred. Muslim extremists hate us because we are infidels, yet we are not starving. The French hate us because we are at the center of attention, and not them. And so on.

You know what? I could care less what they think. And I certainly dont think we need to spend money to figure out how to coddle these people into liking us.


(edited by Pool-Boy on 22.5.03 1422)



Still on the Shelf #9
godking
Chourico








Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 3963 days
Last activity: 3909 days
#9 Posted on
Well, since most of the First World countries in question are SOCIALIST in some way (most of Europe is socialist), this is not surprising.

It's all a matter of comparison, though. Complaining for lower taxes when you already pay less than just about anybody? (And frankly, I find your implicit suggestion that socialism = bad to be remarkably simplistic.)

We are spending a lower percentage of our GDP on defense than we ever have.

Wow, that's not even close to being true, particularly with the defense spending increases of the past three years.

I can tell you right here why we are hated- because we are rich and powerful as a nation. Being the top dog on the block always causes hatred.

Oh, Christ, not this hoary old trope again. Lots of countries are rich and powerful, and they're not hated virulently like the United States is. The United States is hated largely as a consequence of a foreign policy that historically can best be described as "retarded". Furthermore, "hated" isn't even the best word for it, because most people in the world don't. Some do, sure. But most don't.

And if being rich and powerful was why you were hated, you would've been hated for much longer than the past ten years, which is how long it's taken for fundamentalist anti-Americanism to truly get intense. It's worth noting that American military initiatives enjoyed majority support from the European populace up until the second Gulf War. You were far richer as a segment of the world in the 1940s and 1950s than you are now.

I offer up an excellent article on the "they hate us because we're rich and powerful" argument and its lack of substance right here.

The French hate us because we are at the center of attention, and not them.

Yeah, they hate you so much that they helped capture crucial Al-Qaeda agents and raised the American flag on 9/11. Want some cheese with your whine?
ScreamingHeadGuy
Frankfurter








Since: 1.2.02
From: Appleton, WI

Since last post: 807 days
Last activity: 807 days
#10 Posted on
I believe, as already stated, that past Congresses have passed such increases to borrowing limits before. In the past it was just regarded as a routine thing and no big deal was ever made of it.

I also believe, as one who formerly worked with goverment officials, that government employees are NOT efficient. The vast amount of paperwork that goes into their jobs is the cause of that.



Fashion Reporter Extraordinare

Wisdom is learning from one's mistakes.
Greater wisdom is learning from the mistakes of others.

Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1327 days
Last activity: 1124 days
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by messenoir
    We could have prevented any education cuts in FY2003 if 1 day of the war in Iraq hadn't been fought ($1.1 billion).

Please direct me to the place in the Constitution where it is the Federal Government's responsibility to pay for education?

    Originally posted by messenoir
    Instead of money going to 1 year of our nuclear weapons program, we could provide healthcare to 7 million children ($16 billion).

Or welfare?


    Originally posted by messenoir via his war resistors source
    Refuse to pay all or part of your income tax. Though illegal, thousands of Americans are openly participating in this form of protest. You can take control of your paycheck and avoid contributing to the military. Contact us for information or referral to a war tax resistance counselor near you.

It's that "hard to take seriously" argument again...

Incidentally, a cluster bomb is money better spent that 2 kids in HeadStart. That's a waste of money right there...



These Democrats up in Texas they may not be patriots, but they did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.-Rep. Tom DeLay on the "fugitive" Texas Democrats
messenoir
Summer sausage








Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 604 days
Last activity: 470 days
AIM:  
#12 Posted on
So killing 2 kids is better then educating 2 kids? We see our problem right there.

And Pool Boy, this envy of the US bullshit gets quite annoying. Go live in Canada, France or England for a while. Do they have problems? Sure. Do they have more problems then the US? Not a chance. A strong military does not help me live better, and a strong military is the only way the US is better then the above mentioned countries.

The US, Canada, England and France are all equally good places to live. France generally ranks on the very top as a place to visit for the world (including Americans). That seems to say there's something worthwhile about that country, no matter what you may say. Capitalism has not made the US a better place to live, no matter how much rah rah crap goes along with it. Socialism has not made France a better place to live, no matter how much rah rah crap goes along with that. Trying to get all patriotic about your pocketbook just never comes out well in the wash. When you die, you can't take your money with you, and when I die, I want to be judged by how many people I've helped, not how many cheap, plastic toys I've collected.

So yea, I shall repeat a phrase already used "you want some cheese with your wine?"
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1374 days
Last activity: 140 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#13 Posted on
SOOOOOO, let me get this straight. Conducting a survey to determine "Oh! Why doesn't the rest of the world LIKE US?WAAA???" Is not whining, but if I suggest that such a survey is idiotic, and make a few patriotic statements- that is whining? Damn, someone needs to pick up a dictionary.

You know what? You say that this "envy of the US shit" gets annoying, but so does the rest of the world's irrational obsession with what we do. How else do you explain it? Armed conflicts go on everyday throughout the world, but when we even THINK about going to war, the rest of the world blasts us for being evil and imperialistic. Treaties are drafted with the specific intent of harming the United States (Kyoto?). Nations like France declare they will veto ANY action the United States wants to take against Iraq, regardless of any proof that may be presented.

Let me talk about our friends the French for a second. I don't give a sh#t about a token flag-raising on 9/11. France is supposed to be one of our closest allies, and they shat all over that relationship. They did not just object, they did not attempt to remain neutral, they activly and vehemently opposed us, for no other reason than to cover their asses. You don't think so? Then explain to me why they openly declared they would use that veto, no matter how much proof was presented about WMDs, or Al Quaida? We could have proven that Iraq was financing, and that the nation was teaming with Al Quaida operatives (who declared war on us, remember), and our Ally France would still try and block us.

All because they had some underhanded, embargo breaking deal with Iraq that they wanted to keep quiet. And the rest of the UN was on their side, because the Food For Oil program was nothing but a cash cow for them.

You can be tired of all of that "US envy BS" all you want. I don't really care anymore. When our so-called friends start acting like our friends (like the UK and Australia), maybe my attitute towards the rest of the world will change. You should not have to kiss your so-called "friends'" asses to make them like you.

And I definitly think we should not spend money on it.

I don't think Grimis could have said it any clearer. Military spending is not about Killing 2 kids, vs educating 2 kids. Military and defense spending is the Constitutional pervue of the Federal Government. Education is not, nor do I want it to be. The education spending is the responsibility of state and local governments.

I, for the life of me, can't figure out why suggesting that education spending is not the responsibility of the federal government equals wanting to blow up kids. Why in God's name must it be necessary for the federal government to pay for everything? What is so wrong with the STATES paying for it?

(edited by Pool-Boy on 23.5.03 1059)




Still on the Shelf #9
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1327 days
Last activity: 1124 days
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by messenoir
    So killing 2 kids is better then educating 2 kids? We see our problem right there.

As Pool-Boy pointed out, and you neglected to address, please point to the place where the Federal government is responsible for education? Guess what? It aint there. Besides, would you rather have education locally controlled so that it can fit the needs of students in your state/community or would you rather let the muckity-mucks here in DC fuck it up at three times the cost?



These Democrats up in Texas they may not be patriots, but they did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.-Rep. Tom DeLay on the "fugitive" Texas Democrats
Scott Summets
Sujuk








Since: 27.6.02

Since last post: 3963 days
Last activity: 3932 days
#15 Posted on

    Originally posted by messenoir
    So killing 2 kids is better then educating 2 kids? We see our problem right there.

    And Pool Boy, this envy of the US bullshit gets quite annoying. Go live in Canada, France or England for a while. Do they have problems? Sure. Do they have more problems then the US? Not a chance. A strong military does not help me live better, and a strong military is the only way the US is better then the above mentioned countries.

    The US, Canada, England and France are all equally good places to live. France generally ranks on the very top as a place to visit for the world (including Americans). That seems to say there's something worthwhile about that country, no matter what you may say. Capitalism has not made the US a better place to live, no matter how much rah rah crap goes along with it. Socialism has not made France a better place to live, no matter how much rah rah crap goes along with that. Trying to get all patriotic about your pocketbook just never comes out well in the wash. When you die, you can't take your money with you, and when I die, I want to be judged by how many people I've helped, not how many cheap, plastic toys I've collected.

    So yea, I shall repeat a phrase already used "you want some cheese with your wine?"



Just wondering, if Capitalism and Socialism both don't make countries better..... what does?



Rorschach: "None of you understand. I'm not locked up in here with you. You're locked up in here with me."
messenoir
Summer sausage








Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 604 days
Last activity: 470 days
AIM:  
#16 Posted on
    Originally posted by Grimis
      Originally posted by messenoir via his war resistors source
      Refuse to pay all or part of your income tax. Though illegal, thousands of Americans are openly participating in this form of protest. You can take control of your paycheck and avoid contributing to the military. Contact us for information or referral to a war tax resistance counselor near you.

    It's that "hard to take seriously" argument again



If you'll notice, btw, I purposely only took the statistics off at that site. Do you know why this is? Because I form my own opinions. I believe in paying taxes, and changing things the legal way. So you're trying to discredit me there is one of your "hard to take seriously" arguments.


    Originally posted by Grimis

    Please direct me to the place in the Constitution where it is the Federal Government's responsibility to pay for education?.



It doesn't matter to me whether funding of education is in the Constitution. It should still be the responsability of the federal government to pay for our education, because educating our kids is one of the most important things any nation can do.

Education creates many benefits, including reducing pregnancy and sexual diseases, increasing overall health, increasing productivity, income and economic growth (source).

Keeping kids in school also keeps them off the streets and out of trouble (especially in lower income areas). It exposes kids to people of all cultures, and to social situations they wouldn't get otherwise. These are all neccessary for the growth and well-being of a nation.


    Originally posted by Grimis

    Besides, would you rather have education locally controlled so that it can fit the needs of students in your state/community or would you rather let the muckity-mucks here in DC fuck it up at three times the cost?



I'd rather have both. The simple fact is, if left totally up to the states, California would spend a large amount more then, say, Alabama on the educational system. This is unfair to the children who live in Alabama, who can't just get up and move to California. Certain states are just poorer then others, and poorer states should not have to be disadvantaged when it comes to schools. Less education leades to more poverty, so reducing educational opportunities because of lack of money becomes a viscious cycle.

So basically, the federal government should provide money, so that children in all states have an equal opportunity to go to school. But states should have some freedom and how to use that money in their schools.



    Originally posted by Pool Boy

    Treaties are drafted with the specific intent of harming the United States (Kyoto?).



Er, wow. Kyoto was never drafted with the US specifically mentioned. It was drafted to reduce global warming. The reasons the US is mentioned in connection with Kyoto are twofold: The US is the largest source of CO2 and greenhouse gases, whether by capita or just gross amount, and because we are refusing to sign the treaty. Your opinions on global warming aside, it seems to me you're trying to be a martyr in a situation that doesn't call for it.

European nations pollute a lot, but they are trying to move to wind power and other alternate sources of energy, thus they aren't criticized as much. See how that works?


    Originally posted by Pool Boy

    Nations like France declare they will veto ANY action the United States wants to take against Iraq, regardless of any proof that may be presented.



Um, again, no. Germany is the nation which said they would not attack Iraq, regardless. France did say they were willing to consider it, but they needed more proof, and wanted more time for the inspectors. Considering how long it's taking our weapons inspectors to find anything, seems they had a valid concern, huh? And it's funny how we criticized them for calling for more time, yet now our very own government is calling for more time.


    Originally posted by Pool Boy

    Let me talk about our friends the French for a second. I don't give a sh#t about a token flag-raising on 9/11.



What about articles saying the whole world were Americans, crying on the streets, the French pledging to help in the war on terrorism, and doing so. So none of this matters? You're just shitting on everything the French have done, because of some war that did nothing to anyone responsable for 9/11? I guess I see where your priorties are.


    Originally posted by Pool Boy

    France is supposed to be one of our closest allies, and they shat all over that relationship. They did not just object, they did not attempt to remain neutral, they activly and vehemently opposed us, for no other reason than to cover their asses. You don't think so? Then explain to me why they openly declared they would use that veto, no matter how much proof was presented about WMDs, or Al Quaida? We could have proven that Iraq was financing, and that the nation was teaming with Al Quaida operatives (who declared war on us, remember), and our Ally France would still try and block us.



Again, you're thinking of Germany, France said they would veto without further proof. There was no proof of Al Qaeda cooperation, and Bush did try to make that assertion, so your whole point is silly. The exact problem France had is Bush was making all these assertions about Iraq with no backing proof.

Even if we find 1 or 2 labs, Bush and Powell were talking as if Iraq had mass amounts of WMDs just stashed away, ready to attack us if they had the chance. So what happened, several slightly longer then legal missiles launched at our troops? Sound the trumpets, Hussein is GUILTY. Actually, it sounds like France had some valid concerns.



    Originally posted by Pool Boy

    All because they had some underhanded, embargo breaking deal with Iraq that they wanted to keep quiet. And the rest of the UN was on their side, because the Food For Oil program was nothing but a cash cow for them.



Uh oh, countries taking stands for their own economic benefit, good thing the US never does that. Yes, France was wrong for dealing with Hussein. I myself can admit France does many things I disagree with.

But are you saying that is the only reason they opposed the war? So does that make you any better then someone saying the only reason Bush attacked Iraq was for oil or to boost his ratings? Aren't you both just making accusations no one can substantiate to further the muckraking that goes on. If France opposed the war simply for economic benefit, they are completly wrong in doing so. If Bush attacked Iraq, simply for oil, he is wrong in doing so. We know neither one, and therefore it seems you're just trying to stir anti-French hatred the same as the people who hold "Bush is a terrorist" signs.


    Originally posted by Pool Boy

    You should not have to kiss your so-called "friends'" asses to make them like you.



"the US, love it or leave it."
"We saved your asses in WWII, France, you better be on our side."
"The French are opposing is because they're jealous. If it wasn't for us, you'd all be speaking German."

You're right, the French shouldn't have to kiss the US's ass just to make us like them.


    Originally posted by Scott Summets

    Just wondering, if Capitalism and Socialism both don't make countries better..... what does?



The people and leadership make a nation better or worse. If the people and leadership aren't good, the economic system can do nothing. France is as good a place as the US to live, and Russia failed miserably with capitalism.

But if you want to know what economic system I favor, it's a blend of socialism and capitilism. Mostly private business, with salary caps for the top wage earners and a living wage system for the bottom wage earners, government run healthcare and mass transit, with higher government subsidies for education, the arts and clean energy.



(edited by messenoir on 24.5.03 0736)
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 4 days
AIM:  
#17 Posted on

    Originally posted by messenoir
    Originally posted by Pool Boy

    Let me talk about our friends the French for a second. I don't give a sh#t about a token flag-raising on 9/11.



What about articles saying the whole world were Americans, crying on the streets, the French pledging to help in the war on terrorism, and doing so. So none of this matters? You're just shitting on everything the French have done, because of some war that did nothing to anyone responsable for 9/11? I guess I see where your priorties are.



Hey, to hell with that, what about the French soldiers who are fighting - putting their lives on the fucking line - right alongside us in Afghanistan right now while you sit on your computer and whine about socialism, the liberal media and imagined plots to keep the white man down.



godking
Chourico








Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 3963 days
Last activity: 3909 days
#18 Posted on
Just wondering, if Capitalism and Socialism both don't make countries better..... what does?

The basic thing everybody agrees on, more or less, is quality of life. That's why so many Iraqis are pissed off at the United States right now even though Saddam is gone - Saddam might have been a monster, but at least they had running water with him around. "Freedom" is a wonderful concept and it sounds good, but I think most people will pick security over it as a general rule if you make the two concepts a one-two pick.
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1327 days
Last activity: 1124 days
#19 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by messenoir
    Education creates many benefits, including reducing pregnancy and sexual diseases, increasing overall health, increasing productivity, income and economic growth (source).

    Keeping kids in school also keeps them off the streets and out of trouble (especially in lower income areas). It exposes kids to people of all cultures, and to social situations they wouldn't get otherwise. These are all neccessary for the growth and well-being of a nation.


I won't argue that there are benfits to education. It's just not the responsibility of the federal government to ensure kids or educated, nor that education in one satte is better than the other. Federal involvement only brings everybody down.

Incidentally, schools sure as hell don't reduce education, etc.




These Democrats up in Texas they may not be patriots, but they did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.-Rep. Tom DeLay on the "fugitive" Texas Democrats
Pages: 1Thread ahead: For those of you holding hope that Bush is beatable.....
Next thread: Joe Lieberman, saving America's daughters from Tommy Vercetti
Previous thread: Wonder where those barrels are?
(2027 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The thread title is intentional hyperbole, but after all the bitching in this thread, I'm surprised no one's taken note. Speaking at George Washinton University today, Teddy said: Laughably, Ted also said (or the USA Today/AP summarized):
The W - Current Events & Politics - Holy jeeeeebusRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.162 seconds.