|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 17 2013 03:20 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 03:18 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 17 2013 03:06 Zergneedsfood wrote:
I've already said that its not big relative to the size of the federal budget. $50B is still an absolutely large sum and Congress, the government body tasked with spending the nation's treasure, should scrutinize it. This is a core function of the organization.
What's there to scrutinize? It's 50bn directed to hurricane aid. What kind of pork is that? 50 Billion dollars is a day or two of labor for every worker in the united states. I personally do not like congress dictating that I must go without pay the next couple of days, and I really don't like it when someone says its not a big deal when they do. Its as if I'm not only a slave, but a worthless one, whose productive efforts can be channeled with little consideration. How are you going a day or two without pay? Seriously? You do realize someone has to pay for this, right? Those people are called workers, and 50 billion dollars works out to about 1 to 2 days of labor for every worker in the U.S. By what mechanic is this cost carried over to workers? Explain it in detail please.
I also want to know why he thinks our economy is about 20% smaller than it actually is...
|
On January 17 2013 03:20 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 03:18 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 17 2013 03:06 Zergneedsfood wrote:
I've already said that its not big relative to the size of the federal budget. $50B is still an absolutely large sum and Congress, the government body tasked with spending the nation's treasure, should scrutinize it. This is a core function of the organization.
What's there to scrutinize? It's 50bn directed to hurricane aid. What kind of pork is that? 50 Billion dollars is a day or two of labor for every worker in the united states. I personally do not like congress dictating that I must go without pay the next couple of days, and I really don't like it when someone says its not a big deal when they do. Its as if I'm not only a slave, but a worthless one, whose productive efforts can be channeled with little consideration. How are you going a day or two without pay? Seriously? You do realize someone has to pay for this, right? Those people are called workers, and 50 billion dollars works out to about 1 to 2 days of labor for every worker in the U.S. By what mechanic is this cost carried over to workers? Explain it in detail please.
They call it taxation, and I don't care to explain it.
|
On January 17 2013 03:06 Zergneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +
I've already said that its not big relative to the size of the federal budget. $50B is still an absolutely large sum and Congress, the government body tasked with spending the nation's treasure, should scrutinize it. This is a core function of the organization.
What's there to scrutinize? It's 50bn directed to hurricane aid. What kind of pork is that?
It's not all hurricane aid. Mainly it is rebuilding or improvements - the CBO said that something like 60% won't be spent for 2+ years (i.e. no rush to pass the bill). There was also (and may still be) outright pork in the bill. One example given was $150m for fisheries in Alaska - clearly Alaskan fisheries did not suffer from hurricane Sandy.
Regardless, even if every line item was legitimate there's still room for scrutiny. Priorities could be off. Projects may need rebidding. Contracts may need to be re-written. For example, the average highway project runs 30% over budget (source). So, in the Sandy bill there may be items that aren't worth the cost because the cost is being unrealistically low balled.
So yeah, there's lots to scrutinize.
|
On January 17 2013 03:28 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 03:20 farvacola wrote:On January 17 2013 03:18 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 17 2013 03:06 Zergneedsfood wrote:
I've already said that its not big relative to the size of the federal budget. $50B is still an absolutely large sum and Congress, the government body tasked with spending the nation's treasure, should scrutinize it. This is a core function of the organization.
What's there to scrutinize? It's 50bn directed to hurricane aid. What kind of pork is that? 50 Billion dollars is a day or two of labor for every worker in the united states. I personally do not like congress dictating that I must go without pay the next couple of days, and I really don't like it when someone says its not a big deal when they do. Its as if I'm not only a slave, but a worthless one, whose productive efforts can be channeled with little consideration. How are you going a day or two without pay? Seriously? You do realize someone has to pay for this, right? Those people are called workers, and 50 billion dollars works out to about 1 to 2 days of labor for every worker in the U.S. By what mechanic is this cost carried over to workers? Explain it in detail please. They call it taxation, and I don't care to explain it.
But wait, you just said that this bill will rob me of two days work outright, I just want to know how? I can't afford this sort of financial hit about now.
|
On January 17 2013 03:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 03:06 Zergneedsfood wrote:
I've already said that its not big relative to the size of the federal budget. $50B is still an absolutely large sum and Congress, the government body tasked with spending the nation's treasure, should scrutinize it. This is a core function of the organization.
What's there to scrutinize? It's 50bn directed to hurricane aid. What kind of pork is that? It's not all hurricane aid. Mainly it is rebuilding or improvements - the CBO said that something like 60% won't be spent for 2+ years (i.e. no rush to pass the bill). There was also (and may still be) outright pork in the bill. One example given was $150m for fisheries in Alaska - clearly Alaskan fisheries did not suffer from hurricane Sandy. Regardless, even if every line item was legitimate there's still room for scrutiny. Priorities could be off. Projects may need rebidding. Contracts may need to be re-written. For example, the average highway project runs 30% over budget ( source). So, in the Sandy bill there may be items that aren't worth the cost because the cost is being unrealistically low balled. So yeah, there's lots to scrutinize.
1. Pork will and always will be part of a bill. Congressman/Senate people need to give money for their constituents and sometimes they just tag it along. Maybe you don't like it, but there's not going to be a single bill without pork. Get used to it. Also again, 150m is nothing.
2. Rebuilding/improvements are not hurricane aid? So you think the hurricane came in and didn't wreak a bunch of homes?
|
On January 17 2013 03:19 Zergneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 03:18 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 17 2013 03:06 Zergneedsfood wrote:
I've already said that its not big relative to the size of the federal budget. $50B is still an absolutely large sum and Congress, the government body tasked with spending the nation's treasure, should scrutinize it. This is a core function of the organization.
What's there to scrutinize? It's 50bn directed to hurricane aid. What kind of pork is that? 50 Billion dollars is a day or two of labor for every worker in the united states. I personally do not like congress dictating that I must go without pay the next couple of days, and I really don't like it when someone says its not a big deal when they do. Its as if I'm not only a slave, but a worthless one, whose productive efforts can be channeled with little consideration. How are you going a day or two without pay? Seriously? You do realize someone has to pay for this, right? Those people are called workers, and 50 billion dollars works out to about 1 to 2 days of labor for every worker in the U.S. Exactly, how are you going without pay? You're not giving up 100% of your paycheck for this. Stop making it seem all dire.
What are you even talking about? 1 to 2 days worth of labor are being designated towards this endeavor, what is inaccurate about this? Stop making it seem as if its nothing, and that such money can be bandied about.
|
On January 17 2013 03:33 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 03:19 Zergneedsfood wrote:On January 17 2013 03:18 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 17 2013 03:06 Zergneedsfood wrote:
I've already said that its not big relative to the size of the federal budget. $50B is still an absolutely large sum and Congress, the government body tasked with spending the nation's treasure, should scrutinize it. This is a core function of the organization.
What's there to scrutinize? It's 50bn directed to hurricane aid. What kind of pork is that? 50 Billion dollars is a day or two of labor for every worker in the united states. I personally do not like congress dictating that I must go without pay the next couple of days, and I really don't like it when someone says its not a big deal when they do. Its as if I'm not only a slave, but a worthless one, whose productive efforts can be channeled with little consideration. How are you going a day or two without pay? Seriously? You do realize someone has to pay for this, right? Those people are called workers, and 50 billion dollars works out to about 1 to 2 days of labor for every worker in the U.S. Exactly, how are you going without pay? You're not giving up 100% of your paycheck for this. Stop making it seem all dire. What are you even talking about? 1 to 2 days worth of labor are being designated towards this endeavor, what is inaccurate about this? Stop making it seem as if its nothing, and that such money can be bandied about.
You still never explained why you're giving up 1-2 days worth of labor for nothing. You're still getting paid. Your taxes are still the same. The only difference is that your tax money will be given to people in need rather than something else.
|
On January 17 2013 03:31 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 03:28 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 17 2013 03:20 farvacola wrote:On January 17 2013 03:18 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 17 2013 03:06 Zergneedsfood wrote:
I've already said that its not big relative to the size of the federal budget. $50B is still an absolutely large sum and Congress, the government body tasked with spending the nation's treasure, should scrutinize it. This is a core function of the organization.
What's there to scrutinize? It's 50bn directed to hurricane aid. What kind of pork is that? 50 Billion dollars is a day or two of labor for every worker in the united states. I personally do not like congress dictating that I must go without pay the next couple of days, and I really don't like it when someone says its not a big deal when they do. Its as if I'm not only a slave, but a worthless one, whose productive efforts can be channeled with little consideration. How are you going a day or two without pay? Seriously? You do realize someone has to pay for this, right? Those people are called workers, and 50 billion dollars works out to about 1 to 2 days of labor for every worker in the U.S. By what mechanic is this cost carried over to workers? Explain it in detail please. They call it taxation, and I don't care to explain it. But wait, you just said that this bill will rob me of two days work outright, I just want to know how? I can't afford this sort of financial hit about now.
Quit playing dumb, it will get neither of us anywhere.
|
On January 17 2013 03:36 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 03:31 farvacola wrote:On January 17 2013 03:28 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 17 2013 03:20 farvacola wrote:On January 17 2013 03:18 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 17 2013 03:06 Zergneedsfood wrote:
I've already said that its not big relative to the size of the federal budget. $50B is still an absolutely large sum and Congress, the government body tasked with spending the nation's treasure, should scrutinize it. This is a core function of the organization.
What's there to scrutinize? It's 50bn directed to hurricane aid. What kind of pork is that? 50 Billion dollars is a day or two of labor for every worker in the united states. I personally do not like congress dictating that I must go without pay the next couple of days, and I really don't like it when someone says its not a big deal when they do. Its as if I'm not only a slave, but a worthless one, whose productive efforts can be channeled with little consideration. How are you going a day or two without pay? Seriously? You do realize someone has to pay for this, right? Those people are called workers, and 50 billion dollars works out to about 1 to 2 days of labor for every worker in the U.S. By what mechanic is this cost carried over to workers? Explain it in detail please. They call it taxation, and I don't care to explain it. But wait, you just said that this bill will rob me of two days work outright, I just want to know how? I can't afford this sort of financial hit about now. Quit playing dumb, it will get neither of us anywhere.
You are the one suggesting that the average working man will lose out on two days worth of wages if a 50 billion dollar bill passes, and I am simply asking that you clarify the process by which this cost will be applied. You chalked it up to "taxes", but our system of taxation does not change every time a new bill is passed, and the tax cuts for the working class are still in effect. So again, how does this affect the average worker?
|
On January 17 2013 03:34 Zergneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 03:33 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 17 2013 03:19 Zergneedsfood wrote:On January 17 2013 03:18 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 17 2013 03:06 Zergneedsfood wrote:
I've already said that its not big relative to the size of the federal budget. $50B is still an absolutely large sum and Congress, the government body tasked with spending the nation's treasure, should scrutinize it. This is a core function of the organization.
What's there to scrutinize? It's 50bn directed to hurricane aid. What kind of pork is that? 50 Billion dollars is a day or two of labor for every worker in the united states. I personally do not like congress dictating that I must go without pay the next couple of days, and I really don't like it when someone says its not a big deal when they do. Its as if I'm not only a slave, but a worthless one, whose productive efforts can be channeled with little consideration. How are you going a day or two without pay? Seriously? You do realize someone has to pay for this, right? Those people are called workers, and 50 billion dollars works out to about 1 to 2 days of labor for every worker in the U.S. Exactly, how are you going without pay? You're not giving up 100% of your paycheck for this. Stop making it seem all dire. What are you even talking about? 1 to 2 days worth of labor are being designated towards this endeavor, what is inaccurate about this? Stop making it seem as if its nothing, and that such money can be bandied about. You still never explained why you're giving up 1-2 days worth of labor for nothing. You're still getting paid. Your taxes are still the same. The only difference is that your tax money will be given to people in need rather than something else.
What is so difficult to understand? My point is if you take a moment to see money for what it is, labor, then maybe you won't be so frivolous with it and say its nothing. This will be paid for with 1 to 2 days of labor from every worker in America. That's what 50 billion dollars is. That's why such money can't be bandied about and spent without careful consideration.
|
On January 17 2013 03:40 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 03:36 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 17 2013 03:31 farvacola wrote:On January 17 2013 03:28 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 17 2013 03:20 farvacola wrote:On January 17 2013 03:18 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 17 2013 03:06 Zergneedsfood wrote:
I've already said that its not big relative to the size of the federal budget. $50B is still an absolutely large sum and Congress, the government body tasked with spending the nation's treasure, should scrutinize it. This is a core function of the organization.
What's there to scrutinize? It's 50bn directed to hurricane aid. What kind of pork is that? 50 Billion dollars is a day or two of labor for every worker in the united states. I personally do not like congress dictating that I must go without pay the next couple of days, and I really don't like it when someone says its not a big deal when they do. Its as if I'm not only a slave, but a worthless one, whose productive efforts can be channeled with little consideration. How are you going a day or two without pay? Seriously? You do realize someone has to pay for this, right? Those people are called workers, and 50 billion dollars works out to about 1 to 2 days of labor for every worker in the U.S. By what mechanic is this cost carried over to workers? Explain it in detail please. They call it taxation, and I don't care to explain it. But wait, you just said that this bill will rob me of two days work outright, I just want to know how? I can't afford this sort of financial hit about now. Quit playing dumb, it will get neither of us anywhere. You are the one suggesting that the average working man will lose out on two days worth of wages if a 50 billion dollar bill passes, and I am simply asking that you clarify the process by which this cost will be applied. You chalked it up to "taxes", but our system of taxation does not change every time a new bill is passed, and the tax cuts for the working class are still in effect. So again, how does this affect the average worker?
Does the money fall from the sky?
|
On January 17 2013 03:45 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 03:34 Zergneedsfood wrote:On January 17 2013 03:33 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 17 2013 03:19 Zergneedsfood wrote:On January 17 2013 03:18 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 17 2013 03:06 Zergneedsfood wrote:
I've already said that its not big relative to the size of the federal budget. $50B is still an absolutely large sum and Congress, the government body tasked with spending the nation's treasure, should scrutinize it. This is a core function of the organization.
What's there to scrutinize? It's 50bn directed to hurricane aid. What kind of pork is that? 50 Billion dollars is a day or two of labor for every worker in the united states. I personally do not like congress dictating that I must go without pay the next couple of days, and I really don't like it when someone says its not a big deal when they do. Its as if I'm not only a slave, but a worthless one, whose productive efforts can be channeled with little consideration. How are you going a day or two without pay? Seriously? You do realize someone has to pay for this, right? Those people are called workers, and 50 billion dollars works out to about 1 to 2 days of labor for every worker in the U.S. Exactly, how are you going without pay? You're not giving up 100% of your paycheck for this. Stop making it seem all dire. What are you even talking about? 1 to 2 days worth of labor are being designated towards this endeavor, what is inaccurate about this? Stop making it seem as if its nothing, and that such money can be bandied about. You still never explained why you're giving up 1-2 days worth of labor for nothing. You're still getting paid. Your taxes are still the same. The only difference is that your tax money will be given to people in need rather than something else. What is so difficult to understand? My point is if you take a moment to see money for what it is, labor, then maybe you won't be so frivolous with it and say its nothing. This will be paid for with 1 to 2 days of labor from every worker in America. That's what 50 billion dollars is. That's why such money can't be bandied about and spent without careful consideration.
Okay so let me carefully consider all the people in NY and NJ that were hard hit by Hurricane Sandy. Some of them have left out on the streets and a lot of them don't have the money to afford flood insurance. Others might be in their homes with no utilities, no power, and no water.
HMMMM, okay I'm done carefully considering, how do I help them?
Seriously, you're just saying that it takes 1-2 days labor, but it's not like you'll be feeling the effects at all. You're just paying your taxes as usual, or maybe government gets money by the revenue it gets from selling bonds on the market. Either way, you're not affected, unless you care that your taxes go to helping people than say.....firing drones at mountains in Pakistan?
|
On January 17 2013 03:32 Zergneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 03:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 17 2013 03:06 Zergneedsfood wrote:
I've already said that its not big relative to the size of the federal budget. $50B is still an absolutely large sum and Congress, the government body tasked with spending the nation's treasure, should scrutinize it. This is a core function of the organization.
What's there to scrutinize? It's 50bn directed to hurricane aid. What kind of pork is that? It's not all hurricane aid. Mainly it is rebuilding or improvements - the CBO said that something like 60% won't be spent for 2+ years (i.e. no rush to pass the bill). There was also (and may still be) outright pork in the bill. One example given was $150m for fisheries in Alaska - clearly Alaskan fisheries did not suffer from hurricane Sandy. Regardless, even if every line item was legitimate there's still room for scrutiny. Priorities could be off. Projects may need rebidding. Contracts may need to be re-written. For example, the average highway project runs 30% over budget ( source). So, in the Sandy bill there may be items that aren't worth the cost because the cost is being unrealistically low balled. So yeah, there's lots to scrutinize. 1. Pork will and always will be part of a bill. Congressman/Senate people need to give money for their constituents and sometimes they just tag it along. Maybe you don't like it, but there's not going to be a single bill without pork. Get used to it. Also again, 150m is nothing. 2. Rebuilding/improvements are not hurricane aid? So you think the hurricane came in and didn't wreak a bunch of homes?
1. Yes pork will exist to an extent. But it should be minimized, and efforts to minimize it should be encouraged. Also, my one example doesn't constitute an exhaustive list.
2. Yes, rebuilding is certainly aid (again though, why is scrutiny a bad thing?). Improvements aren't aid. They could be worthwhile but that depends on the cost / benefit.
Obviously the hurricane caused damage. Insurance should cover most of that (federal or private).
A little back of the envelope scrutiny:
Total economic losses from Sandy, which also includes losses that aren’t covered by private insurers, are expected to be about $50 billion, Munich Re officials said. Source
The same source cites that private insurance will pay for an estimated $18B, and the Sandy bill pays for $60B. That's $78B (plus charity and private savings) to pay for $50B - we're a bit beyond what most people would consider "aid" here...
|
On January 17 2013 03:46 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 03:40 farvacola wrote:On January 17 2013 03:36 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 17 2013 03:31 farvacola wrote:On January 17 2013 03:28 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 17 2013 03:20 farvacola wrote:On January 17 2013 03:18 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 17 2013 03:06 Zergneedsfood wrote:
I've already said that its not big relative to the size of the federal budget. $50B is still an absolutely large sum and Congress, the government body tasked with spending the nation's treasure, should scrutinize it. This is a core function of the organization.
What's there to scrutinize? It's 50bn directed to hurricane aid. What kind of pork is that? 50 Billion dollars is a day or two of labor for every worker in the united states. I personally do not like congress dictating that I must go without pay the next couple of days, and I really don't like it when someone says its not a big deal when they do. Its as if I'm not only a slave, but a worthless one, whose productive efforts can be channeled with little consideration. How are you going a day or two without pay? Seriously? You do realize someone has to pay for this, right? Those people are called workers, and 50 billion dollars works out to about 1 to 2 days of labor for every worker in the U.S. By what mechanic is this cost carried over to workers? Explain it in detail please. They call it taxation, and I don't care to explain it. But wait, you just said that this bill will rob me of two days work outright, I just want to know how? I can't afford this sort of financial hit about now. Quit playing dumb, it will get neither of us anywhere. You are the one suggesting that the average working man will lose out on two days worth of wages if a 50 billion dollar bill passes, and I am simply asking that you clarify the process by which this cost will be applied. You chalked it up to "taxes", but our system of taxation does not change every time a new bill is passed, and the tax cuts for the working class are still in effect. So again, how does this affect the average worker? Does the money fall from the sky?
Now who's playing dumb? If you want to make a point about government debt, go ahead and make it. But don't lie about the dispensation of federal costs to the average taxpayer in the process.
|
1. Yes pork will exist to an extent. But it should be minimized, and efforts to minimize it should be encouraged. Also, my one example doesn't constitute an exhaustive list.
So you're saying in an ideal world, no congressman should ever plea for federal aid for their constituents? Ever? All the time?
2. Yes, rebuilding is certainly aid (again though, why is scrutiny a bad thing?). Improvements aren't aid. They could be worthwhile but that depends on the cost / benefit.
Pretty sure we added improvements in Katrina too, and we did the same after the famous earthquake in San Francisco. At the very least, it's an investment to hedge against future losses.
The same source cites that private insurance will pay for an estimated $18B, and the Sandy bill pays for $60B. That's $78B (plus charity and private savings) to pay for $50B - we're a bit beyond what most people would consider "aid" here...
Um....the source you just cited said that the amount that isn't covered by private insurers are going to be $50bn, which means after private insurance, it's still $50bn. You also don't want to match dollar for dollar in estimates because what if you're wrong? What if you have homes that are in dire need of repair?
We're talking about places in NYC, a city with some of the highest property values in the world, in dire need of repair and help. I think overestimating some of the costs is worth it in this case, especially when you might need some money for food/shelter/emergency health services. I don't know. Important stuff.
|
On January 17 2013 03:47 Zergneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 03:45 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 17 2013 03:34 Zergneedsfood wrote:On January 17 2013 03:33 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 17 2013 03:19 Zergneedsfood wrote:On January 17 2013 03:18 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 17 2013 03:06 Zergneedsfood wrote:
I've already said that its not big relative to the size of the federal budget. $50B is still an absolutely large sum and Congress, the government body tasked with spending the nation's treasure, should scrutinize it. This is a core function of the organization.
What's there to scrutinize? It's 50bn directed to hurricane aid. What kind of pork is that? 50 Billion dollars is a day or two of labor for every worker in the united states. I personally do not like congress dictating that I must go without pay the next couple of days, and I really don't like it when someone says its not a big deal when they do. Its as if I'm not only a slave, but a worthless one, whose productive efforts can be channeled with little consideration. How are you going a day or two without pay? Seriously? You do realize someone has to pay for this, right? Those people are called workers, and 50 billion dollars works out to about 1 to 2 days of labor for every worker in the U.S. Exactly, how are you going without pay? You're not giving up 100% of your paycheck for this. Stop making it seem all dire. What are you even talking about? 1 to 2 days worth of labor are being designated towards this endeavor, what is inaccurate about this? Stop making it seem as if its nothing, and that such money can be bandied about. You still never explained why you're giving up 1-2 days worth of labor for nothing. You're still getting paid. Your taxes are still the same. The only difference is that your tax money will be given to people in need rather than something else. What is so difficult to understand? My point is if you take a moment to see money for what it is, labor, then maybe you won't be so frivolous with it and say its nothing. This will be paid for with 1 to 2 days of labor from every worker in America. That's what 50 billion dollars is. That's why such money can't be bandied about and spent without careful consideration. Okay so let me carefully consider all the people in NY and NJ that were hard hit by Hurricane Sandy. Some of them have left out on the streets and a lot of them don't have the money to afford flood insurance. Others might be in their homes with no utilities, no power, and no water. HMMMM, okay I'm done carefully considering, how do I help them? Seriously, you're just saying that it takes 1-2 days labor, but it's not like you'll be feeling the effects at all. You're just paying your taxes as usual, or maybe government gets money by the revenue it gets from selling bonds on the market. Either way, you're not affected, unless you care that your taxes go to helping people than say.....firing drones at mountains in Pakistan?
Are they going to stop firing drones into Pakistan to pay for this? If its financed by debt it affects me via inflation. It gets paid for, through labor, that is economic fact. It doesn't matter if its spread out over time and people, labor pays for it, wealth doesn't fall from the sky. So again, don't act like such money can be thrown around willy nilly. That assertion you made was my sole concern and cause for insult.
|
On January 17 2013 03:56 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 03:47 Zergneedsfood wrote:On January 17 2013 03:45 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 17 2013 03:34 Zergneedsfood wrote:On January 17 2013 03:33 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 17 2013 03:19 Zergneedsfood wrote:On January 17 2013 03:18 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 17 2013 03:06 Zergneedsfood wrote:
I've already said that its not big relative to the size of the federal budget. $50B is still an absolutely large sum and Congress, the government body tasked with spending the nation's treasure, should scrutinize it. This is a core function of the organization.
What's there to scrutinize? It's 50bn directed to hurricane aid. What kind of pork is that? 50 Billion dollars is a day or two of labor for every worker in the united states. I personally do not like congress dictating that I must go without pay the next couple of days, and I really don't like it when someone says its not a big deal when they do. Its as if I'm not only a slave, but a worthless one, whose productive efforts can be channeled with little consideration. How are you going a day or two without pay? Seriously? You do realize someone has to pay for this, right? Those people are called workers, and 50 billion dollars works out to about 1 to 2 days of labor for every worker in the U.S. Exactly, how are you going without pay? You're not giving up 100% of your paycheck for this. Stop making it seem all dire. What are you even talking about? 1 to 2 days worth of labor are being designated towards this endeavor, what is inaccurate about this? Stop making it seem as if its nothing, and that such money can be bandied about. You still never explained why you're giving up 1-2 days worth of labor for nothing. You're still getting paid. Your taxes are still the same. The only difference is that your tax money will be given to people in need rather than something else. What is so difficult to understand? My point is if you take a moment to see money for what it is, labor, then maybe you won't be so frivolous with it and say its nothing. This will be paid for with 1 to 2 days of labor from every worker in America. That's what 50 billion dollars is. That's why such money can't be bandied about and spent without careful consideration. Okay so let me carefully consider all the people in NY and NJ that were hard hit by Hurricane Sandy. Some of them have left out on the streets and a lot of them don't have the money to afford flood insurance. Others might be in their homes with no utilities, no power, and no water. HMMMM, okay I'm done carefully considering, how do I help them? Seriously, you're just saying that it takes 1-2 days labor, but it's not like you'll be feeling the effects at all. You're just paying your taxes as usual, or maybe government gets money by the revenue it gets from selling bonds on the market. Either way, you're not affected, unless you care that your taxes go to helping people than say.....firing drones at mountains in Pakistan? Are they going to stop firing drones into Pakistan to pay for this? If its financed by debt it affects me via inflation. It gets paid for, through labor, that is economic fact. It doesn't matter if its spread out over time and people, labor pays for it, wealth doesn't fall from the sky. So again, don't act like such money can be thrown around willy nilly. That assertion you made was my sole concern and cause for insult.
You sure seem to get mad over $50bn sent over to hurricane relief. Did I say we throw around this money aimlessly? No. I don't understand why you're so angry when I'm just stating that relatively speaking, $50bn is not a lot of money to the government. It's just not, and if you're going to get angry about this, at least get angry by all the other waste that goes to useless purposes rather than coming in here and spewing random stuff about how $50bn thrown around for people who need it is the definition of willy nilly.
Cite anywhere where I said that we're spending $50bn carelessly and I'll concede, but I haven't. You're getting mad for no reason and I'm assuming it's just because you don't like your tax dollars spent on people who got in trouble at Sandy. I'm not judging you for this, but don't try to cover it up if that's what you really wanted to say.
|
On January 17 2013 04:01 Zergneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 03:56 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 17 2013 03:47 Zergneedsfood wrote:On January 17 2013 03:45 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 17 2013 03:34 Zergneedsfood wrote:On January 17 2013 03:33 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 17 2013 03:19 Zergneedsfood wrote:On January 17 2013 03:18 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 17 2013 03:06 Zergneedsfood wrote:
I've already said that its not big relative to the size of the federal budget. $50B is still an absolutely large sum and Congress, the government body tasked with spending the nation's treasure, should scrutinize it. This is a core function of the organization.
What's there to scrutinize? It's 50bn directed to hurricane aid. What kind of pork is that? 50 Billion dollars is a day or two of labor for every worker in the united states. I personally do not like congress dictating that I must go without pay the next couple of days, and I really don't like it when someone says its not a big deal when they do. Its as if I'm not only a slave, but a worthless one, whose productive efforts can be channeled with little consideration. How are you going a day or two without pay? Seriously? You do realize someone has to pay for this, right? Those people are called workers, and 50 billion dollars works out to about 1 to 2 days of labor for every worker in the U.S. Exactly, how are you going without pay? You're not giving up 100% of your paycheck for this. Stop making it seem all dire. What are you even talking about? 1 to 2 days worth of labor are being designated towards this endeavor, what is inaccurate about this? Stop making it seem as if its nothing, and that such money can be bandied about. You still never explained why you're giving up 1-2 days worth of labor for nothing. You're still getting paid. Your taxes are still the same. The only difference is that your tax money will be given to people in need rather than something else. What is so difficult to understand? My point is if you take a moment to see money for what it is, labor, then maybe you won't be so frivolous with it and say its nothing. This will be paid for with 1 to 2 days of labor from every worker in America. That's what 50 billion dollars is. That's why such money can't be bandied about and spent without careful consideration. Okay so let me carefully consider all the people in NY and NJ that were hard hit by Hurricane Sandy. Some of them have left out on the streets and a lot of them don't have the money to afford flood insurance. Others might be in their homes with no utilities, no power, and no water. HMMMM, okay I'm done carefully considering, how do I help them? Seriously, you're just saying that it takes 1-2 days labor, but it's not like you'll be feeling the effects at all. You're just paying your taxes as usual, or maybe government gets money by the revenue it gets from selling bonds on the market. Either way, you're not affected, unless you care that your taxes go to helping people than say.....firing drones at mountains in Pakistan? Are they going to stop firing drones into Pakistan to pay for this? If its financed by debt it affects me via inflation. It gets paid for, through labor, that is economic fact. It doesn't matter if its spread out over time and people, labor pays for it, wealth doesn't fall from the sky. So again, don't act like such money can be thrown around willy nilly. That assertion you made was my sole concern and cause for insult. You sure seem to get mad over $50bn sent over to hurricane relief. Did I say we throw around this money aimlessly? No. I don't understand why you're so angry when I'm just stating that relatively speaking, $50bn is not a lot of money to the government. It's just not, and if you're going to get angry about this, at least get angry by all the other waste that goes to useless purposes rather than coming in here and spewing random stuff about how $50bn thrown around for people who need it is the definition of willy nilly. Cite anywhere where I said that we're spending $50bn carelessly and I'll concede, but I haven't. You're getting mad for no reason and I'm assuming it's just because you don't like your tax dollars spent on people who got in trouble at Sandy. I'm not judging you for this, but don't try to cover it up if that's what you really wanted to say.
This has nothing to do with the sandy bill, or other government spending, it has to do with YOU. What YOU said.
|
On January 17 2013 04:07 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 04:01 Zergneedsfood wrote:On January 17 2013 03:56 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 17 2013 03:47 Zergneedsfood wrote:On January 17 2013 03:45 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 17 2013 03:34 Zergneedsfood wrote:On January 17 2013 03:33 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 17 2013 03:19 Zergneedsfood wrote:On January 17 2013 03:18 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 17 2013 03:06 Zergneedsfood wrote:
[quote]
What's there to scrutinize? It's 50bn directed to hurricane aid. What kind of pork is that?
[quote]
How are you going a day or two without pay? Seriously? You do realize someone has to pay for this, right? Those people are called workers, and 50 billion dollars works out to about 1 to 2 days of labor for every worker in the U.S. Exactly, how are you going without pay? You're not giving up 100% of your paycheck for this. Stop making it seem all dire. What are you even talking about? 1 to 2 days worth of labor are being designated towards this endeavor, what is inaccurate about this? Stop making it seem as if its nothing, and that such money can be bandied about. You still never explained why you're giving up 1-2 days worth of labor for nothing. You're still getting paid. Your taxes are still the same. The only difference is that your tax money will be given to people in need rather than something else. What is so difficult to understand? My point is if you take a moment to see money for what it is, labor, then maybe you won't be so frivolous with it and say its nothing. This will be paid for with 1 to 2 days of labor from every worker in America. That's what 50 billion dollars is. That's why such money can't be bandied about and spent without careful consideration. Okay so let me carefully consider all the people in NY and NJ that were hard hit by Hurricane Sandy. Some of them have left out on the streets and a lot of them don't have the money to afford flood insurance. Others might be in their homes with no utilities, no power, and no water. HMMMM, okay I'm done carefully considering, how do I help them? Seriously, you're just saying that it takes 1-2 days labor, but it's not like you'll be feeling the effects at all. You're just paying your taxes as usual, or maybe government gets money by the revenue it gets from selling bonds on the market. Either way, you're not affected, unless you care that your taxes go to helping people than say.....firing drones at mountains in Pakistan? Are they going to stop firing drones into Pakistan to pay for this? If its financed by debt it affects me via inflation. It gets paid for, through labor, that is economic fact. It doesn't matter if its spread out over time and people, labor pays for it, wealth doesn't fall from the sky. So again, don't act like such money can be thrown around willy nilly. That assertion you made was my sole concern and cause for insult. You sure seem to get mad over $50bn sent over to hurricane relief. Did I say we throw around this money aimlessly? No. I don't understand why you're so angry when I'm just stating that relatively speaking, $50bn is not a lot of money to the government. It's just not, and if you're going to get angry about this, at least get angry by all the other waste that goes to useless purposes rather than coming in here and spewing random stuff about how $50bn thrown around for people who need it is the definition of willy nilly. Cite anywhere where I said that we're spending $50bn carelessly and I'll concede, but I haven't. You're getting mad for no reason and I'm assuming it's just because you don't like your tax dollars spent on people who got in trouble at Sandy. I'm not judging you for this, but don't try to cover it up if that's what you really wanted to say. This has nothing to do with the sandy bill, or other government spending, it has to do with YOU. What YOU said.
What? That I said $50bn is nothing to the government?
It's not. Maybe it's a lot to you, but to the government? They treat it as if it's nothing. It's not how I see it. If I had $50bn, I'd be a happy dude, but don't confuse my position with how the government sees $50bn. It's a trillion dollar economy not a billion dollar one and you're getting furious over a comment about how $50bn is not a lot of money?
Come on. This government doles out hundreds of billions to save failing banks, start wars, pet energy projects, disaster relief. It spends over a trillion a year on health care (....I think), and you're talking about a comment that I think that government treats $50bn like it's nothing? Clearly someone doesn't understand the size and scope of this economy. It's just not that big compared to what other priorities government has.
|
god bless obama.
dragging us stubborn americans into the future whether the conservatives like it or not
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
