Honestly would you really care how much taxes you had to pay??Prev Topic Next Topic

New Topic New Poll

sully16

25

Ringleader

Michigan
United States
Member #81,738
October 28, 2009
128,265 Posts
Online

Dec 5, 2012, 6:50 am

Stop with the Daddy Bush Vendetta, the found Saddam weapons couple months ago, wow, guess where, Syria.

I remember the first gulf war well, it started on my B-day, saddam invaded kuwait and we removed him, his elite fighters were surrendering to camera men.
mcginnin56

United States
Member #111,437
May 25, 2011
6,323 Posts
Offline

Dec 5, 2012, 8:25 am
billionaire2bee

United States
Member #130,809
July 25, 2012
1,636 Posts
Offline

Dec 5, 2012, 8:31 am

Quote: Originally posted by mcginnin56 on Dec 5, 2012

Found you rdgrnr...you brownnoser you.........
billionaire2bee

United States
Member #130,809
July 25, 2012
1,636 Posts
Offline

Dec 5, 2012, 8:54 am

LoL..............I think we got off topic...just a bit...with the name calling and such...myself included...maybe in the future we need to stick to "LOTTERY TOPICS" that are posted and not the rhetoric that we fell into here.....If you feel you need to comment further on this with the name calling or the political points...do it in a private message, or maybe craigslist rant and rave is a better forum forthat...I don't know other than that where you could air your grievances.....maybe the Jerry Springer show???.......Is that even still on???
Epistrophy

San Diego, CA
United States
Member #112,364
June 17, 2011
187 Posts
Offline

Dec 5, 2012, 1:42 pm

Quote: Originally posted by mediabrat on Dec 4, 2012
You want to "stop the insane spending"? Let's start with breaking the habit of sending our young men and women overseas to die for oil, sucker. We spend more on the military than we do on safety net programs, and it's not needed. We already spend billions more than even the #2 nation on the list.

I'm all for cutting waste, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

"We spend more on the military than we do on safety net programs" is completely untrue.

I think it's important for people to realize that not only is this statement not true, but also that it couldn't be further from the truth.

From the OMB (Office of Management and Budget) here are the percentages of government spending in some main categories:

Defense - 19%

Social Security - 20%

Medicare & Medicaid - 24%

Unemployment & Welfare - 16%

The combined 60% (20 + 24 + 16) for entitlement programs is a larger number than 19%, and it's not even close. And the defense percentage is up from around 10% because, after all, we are still at war after having our civilian citizens attacked on 9/11.

Sometimes people throw "we spend more on the military than anything else" out there and it is so untrue that it is likely one of two things:

1) A statement made out of utter ignorance (please note that I said ignorance and not stupidity - an important distinction) of the facts.

2) An outright lie - if the person that said it is actually not ignorant of the facts.

The FACT is that we spend far more on entitlement programs (and always have) than we do on defense.
ashabug725

Indiana
United States
Member #122,862
February 9, 2012
322 Posts
Offline

Dec 5, 2012, 2:28 pm

Quote: Originally posted by Epistrophy on Dec 5, 2012
"We spend more on the military than we do on safety net programs" is completely untrue.

I think it's important for people to realize that not only is this statement not true, but also that it couldn't be further from the truth.

From the OMB (Office of Management and Budget) here are the percentages of government spending in some main categories:

Defense - 19%

Social Security - 20%

Medicare & Medicaid - 24%

Unemployment & Welfare - 16%

The combined 60% (20 + 24 + 16) for entitlement programs is a larger number than 19%, and it's not even close. And the defense percentage is up from around 10% because, after all, we are still at war after having our civilian citizens attacked on 9/11.

Sometimes people throw "we spend more on the military than anything else" out there and it is so untrue that it is likely one of two things:

1) A statement made out of utter ignorance (please note that I said ignorance and not stupidity - an important distinction) of the facts.

2) An outright lie - if the person that said it is actually not ignorant of the facts.

The FACT is that we spend far more on entitlement programs (and always have) than we do on defense.

Thank u!!!!!!

I wish I may, I wish I might...
Win the Powerball jackpot THIS big night!!!
Epistrophy

San Diego, CA
United States
Member #112,364
June 17, 2011
187 Posts
Offline

Dec 5, 2012, 2:35 pm

Quote: Originally posted by mediabrat on Dec 4, 2012
You want to "stop the insane spending"? Let's start with breaking the habit of sending our young men and women overseas to die for oil, sucker. We spend more on the military than we do on safety net programs, and it's not needed. We already spend billions more than even the #2 nation on the list.

I'm all for cutting waste, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I guess that I would be remiss if I didn't also address the other inconsistent statement "die for oil" because even just thinking about it objectively it doesn't make much sense:

- Afghanistan does not have oil. It does have the Taliban and Al-Queda, but it's hard to turn them into oil, though it's worth a shot (pun intended) to do so.

- Iraq does have oil but we didn't go there and siphon it here. It remains (as it alway has) just a part of the worlwide output, and the increased usage by both China and India has sopped up a larger share each year.

- Gas prices in the US before 9/11 were below $1 as recently as 1999 and just slightly above $1 in 2001. Hard to believe, I know, but it's true.

- Gas prices now are over $4 in CA and around $3.75 nationally.

If the "die for oil" statement had any merit at all, one would expect those numbers to be reversed, whereby we took gas prices from $4 to $1 but since that's not the case, the statement really looks weak.

Reasonable people can reasonably debate whether we should have gone into Iraq, but the simplistic "die for oil" argument should not be part of a reasoned debate. As far as the original War on Terror, you'd have to be completely unhinged to suggest that we should have just done nothing to Al-Queda and the Taliban after 9/11.

Essentially, where the heck is the oil that you're talking about? It's certainly not in our gas pumps.
Epistrophy

San Diego, CA
United States
Member #112,364
June 17, 2011
187 Posts
Offline

Dec 5, 2012, 2:37 pm

Quote: Originally posted by ashabug725 on Dec 5, 2012
Thank u!!!!!!

You're very welcome.

That's one of those statements that gets said so much that a lot of people actually believe it even though it's obviously false.
Coin Toss

Zeta Reticuli Star System
United States
Member #30,469
January 17, 2006
11,788 Posts
Offline

Dec 5, 2012, 6:04 pm

Thanks for the detailed info., Epistrophy.

Good to see you posting.

Those who run the lotteries love it when players look for consistency in something that's designed not to have any. So many systems, so many theories, so few jackpot winners.

There is one and only one 'proven' system, and that is to book the action. No matter the game, let the players pick their own losers.
maringoman

Massachusetts
United States
Member #37,432
April 14, 2006
2,747 Posts
Offline

Dec 5, 2012, 6:12 pm

Quote: Originally posted by NightStalker on Dec 4, 2012
I suspect b2b is a teenager because I'd bet that was meant to be read as U.S. soldiers, not us soldiers.

Some threads should just be shut down like they do in other forums.

Threads that produce more smoke than heat, so to speak, help nobody and polarize members.
billionaire2bee

United States
Member #130,809
July 25, 2012
1,636 Posts
Offline

Dec 5, 2012, 7:14 pm

Quote: Originally posted by maringoman on Dec 5, 2012
Some threads should just be shut down like they do in other forums.

Threads that produce more smoke than heat, so to speak, help nobody and polarize members.

Hmmm like "censorship" seriously keep all responses relevant to original post.....
haymaker

Egg Harbor twp.south Jersey shore
United States
Member #112,963
June 29, 2011
4,160 Posts
Offline

Dec 5, 2012, 7:24 pm

Quote: Originally posted by Coin Toss on Dec 5, 2012
Thanks for the detailed info., Epistrophy.

Good to see you posting.

Ditto,

Ephistrophy, where ya been ?

Extraordinary Popular Delusions & the Madness of Crowds -- Charles Mackay LL.D.
mediabrat

upstate NY
United States
Member #108,786
March 31, 2011
549 Posts
Offline

Dec 5, 2012, 7:26 pm

Quote: Originally posted by Epistrophy on Dec 5, 2012
"We spend more on the military than we do on safety net programs" is completely untrue.

I think it's important for people to realize that not only is this statement not true, but also that it couldn't be further from the truth.

From the OMB (Office of Management and Budget) here are the percentages of government spending in some main categories:

Defense - 19%

Social Security - 20%

Medicare & Medicaid - 24%

Unemployment & Welfare - 16%

The combined 60% (20 + 24 + 16) for entitlement programs is a larger number than 19%, and it's not even close. And the defense percentage is up from around 10% because, after all, we are still at war after having our civilian citizens attacked on 9/11.

Sometimes people throw "we spend more on the military than anything else" out there and it is so untrue that it is likely one of two things:

1) A statement made out of utter ignorance (please note that I said ignorance and not stupidity - an important distinction) of the facts.

2) An outright lie - if the person that said it is actually not ignorant of the facts.

The FACT is that we spend far more on entitlement programs (and always have) than we do on defense.

I had a feeling someone would go for the combined numbers approach. It's a very convenient tactic, but Ridge was specifically referring to "welfare and food stamps" (his words), which is the 16% number. Social Security is mostly NOT welfare, it's retirement and some disabled/death benefits. Medicare/Medicaid is not all welfare, a large chunk of that is used by the aforementioned Social Security recipients and by people who don't qualify for employer-sponsored insurance. Unless you think the elderly and the underemployed should just curl up and die?

None of that changes the fact that we spend far too much on the military. And you know what the saddest part of that is? The waste. So much money is spent on ultra-expensive fighter jets and the like and yet they still can't afford to pay our rank-and-file soldiers a decent wage.
onlymoney

United States
Member #128,784
June 2, 2012
5,427 Posts
Offline

Dec 5, 2012, 7:50 pm

Wow, 12 pages of arguing over taxes? Are you kidding me? If I won 580 million, I would gladly fork over 70% if I had to, and still be richer than all of you put together.

That's a no brainer!
JAP69

South Carolina
United States
Member #6
November 4, 2001
8,967 Posts
Offline

Dec 5, 2012, 7:54 pm

I do not mind paying the taxes on a jackpot win.

Stuff like this is what irritates me. "middle-class shadow welfare projects"

http://www.williamthomasthompson.com/journals/2012/November%2019,%202012.htm
excerpt:
The major defense contractors spend at least ten times, and probably closer to twenty times what is actually needed on every project and contract. This is done with the full knowledge and at the command of the federal government. The massive overspending is on man-hours. Major defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumann, General Dynamics and Raytheon, in addition to supplying and developing technology for the military, are also massive middle-class shadow welfare projects.

Numbers are where you find them.