Re: Food stamps cut by 5 billion dollars...

[Brian Eaton]

In article <l55t7...@news6.newsguy.com>
MarkA <som...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:
>
> The food stamp program is being cut by five BILLION dollars because, you
> know, the FOUR HUNDRED people who own more than HALF THE WEALTH of the
> USA shouldn't have to suffer just because millions of families are on the
> brink of starvation.

It's not being cut you simpleton. The funding for the increase
OBAMA used to buy his election ran out and the DEMOCRATS FAILED
to renew it.

> How is it even possible that, with a wealth gap so obscenely wide, taking
> billions of dollars from the poorest Americans hasn't sparked a national
> outrage??? How is it that so many people still believe the GOP/Fox News/
> Tea Party BULLSHIT that "welfare moochers" are what's dragging down the
> economy?

Because stupid people like you never investigate further than
the surface.

> The irony is that the people most vocal about the evils of "socialism"

The irony is that most liberals are so ignorant and helpless
that they might as well be socialists.

First, it was the Head Start program, now it's the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamps. Studies
indicate that these programs are, at best, ineffective. Yet, we
taxpayers are forced to continue to fund/support them.

That SNAP, or food stamps, has expanded under "Dear Leader"
Barack Hussein Obama is not debatable. In fact, a report
released in September 2012, by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) showed that about 45 million individuals are
now enrolled in the food stamp program, more than double the
number that were enrolled in 2003, when George Walker Bush was
president. We taxpayers spent, in FY2012, a record $80.4 billion
on SNAP, or food stamps, an increase of $2.7 billion over
FY2011. Further, according to Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), food
stamp spending has increased by 100 percent during the Obama
reign. And, food stamp recipients have increased by an average
of 11,133 per day under Obama.

So, what? We already knew that. Well, the above becomes quite
relevant in light of a new National Academy of Science (NAS)
study.

The NAS study questions the effectiveness of SNAP. The USDA
commissioned the study to help it determine the best way to
assess whether food stamps benefits are allowing families to
have a healthy diet. And guess what the study found! SNAP does
not take into account many barriers to finding affordable food
by inner-city shoppers. Specific study findings include:

� Lack of affordable supermarkets in many cities means that
urban dwellers, who represent a high proportion of those in
poverty, must pay more for healthy foods. Food stamps are
intended for cheap basic ingredients and unprocessed foods. "By
failing to account for the fact that SNAP participants, like
other households, need to purchase value-added foods that save
preparation time, the current value of the SNAP allotment
substantially limits the flexibility and purchasing power of
SNAP benefits."

� The study questioned formulas used to determine how much
benefit each family receives. USDA assumes families will spend
30 percent of their incomes on food, when in fact most can
afford to spend only 13 percent given rising costs for housing
and healthcare. The study concluded that as the families'
incomes rise, the government reduces their benefits too sharply.

� There is a 16-month lag between when the USDA assesses the
cost of food and when it adjusts benefit amounts. "Because of
the impact of inflation and other factors on food prices, this
lag in the benefit adjustment can significantly reduce the
purchasing power of SNAP allotments."

While I cannot find the original study (can AT readers help me
here?), I can find many references to the study. All references
do not mention how the USDA plans to address a critical SNAP
issue: fraud. Food stamp recipients are stealing from the
government for about $750 million yearly by illegally selling
their EBT food stamps cards for cash. Most fraud occurs when
retailers allow customers to turn in their EBT food stamps cards
for a cash value less than the worth of the EBT cards. Sellers
even advertise on eBay and/or Craigslist.

That "always objective" source, MediaMatters, lamented in April
2012, that a 2009 USDA study was all but ignored by the MSM. Al
Sharpton, the April 10 edition of MSNBC's PoliticsNation said "A
new government study shows that food stamps have lowered the
poverty rate by nearly eight percent in 2009." Sharpton was the
only MSM source to mention the study. The same article cites the
study: The study released on April 9, "Alleviating Poverty in
the United States: The Critical Role of SNAP Benefits," explored
how SNAP affected "poverty from 2000 to 2009." The study found
"an average decline of 4.4 percent in the prevalence of poverty
due to SNAP benefits, while the average decline in the depth and
severity of poverty was 10.3 and 13.2 percent, respectively."
Further, the article says, "SNAP's antipoverty effect was
strongest in 2009, when benefit increases were authorized by the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), also known as the
stimulus package."

Reducing poverty is, in and of itself, a great goal. But
throwing money at the problem, and increasing the number of
participants, is not the answer. The Democrats, through SNAP,
accomplishes both objectives.

But nowhere in the MediaMatters article can I find any reference
to this article which proposes a link between receiving food
stamps and being overweight. Jay Zagorsky, a research scientist
at Ohio State University's Center for Human Resource Research,
said:

"We can't prove that the Food Stamp Program causes weight gain,
but this study suggests a strong linkage. While food stamps may
help fight hunger, they may have the unintended consequence of
encouraging weight gain among women."

Zagorsky's study also found "that people's Body Mass Index (BMI)
increased faster when they were on food stamps than when they
were not, and increased more the longer they were in the
program." The USDA itself admits that "... nonelderly women, who
account for 28 percent of the food stamp caseload, some evidence
suggests that participation in the Food Stamp Program may
increase BMI and the probability of obesity." Don't you just
love how the USDA hides behind the phrase "some evidence
suggests"?

By the way, statistics and studies never "prove" anything. They
only suggest what is really going on in the population of
interest, in this case, ALL food stamp recipients. Zagorsky says
that his study "suggests a strong linkage" between food stamps
receipt/use and weight gain is his interpretation of the
findings of his study. But the USDA, as illustrated above, says
that "some evidence suggests." We have two interpretations of
the same study. So, we must look at WHO is providing the
interpretations and whether the parties involved have a vested
interest or not.

Zagorsky works for the Center for Human Resource Research at
Ohio State University. I can find nothing that links the Center
directly to USDA. However, the USDA looked at the same study,
yet it could not find a "strong linkage." All the USDA could
find was a "suggestion." Same study, same data, different
interpretations. Who has the vested interest here? Whose budget
continuation (or increase) depends upon a favorable (or not
negative) interpretation? It certainly isn't Zagorsky!
Zagorsky's study was conclusive in its findings about nonelderly
women.

And, yet, we taxpayers continue to spend billions of dollars
each year on a dysfunctional SNAP, while some "fixes" can be
accomplished by the USDA without increasing SNAP costs. Again, I
have to ask: If Obama is truly serious about deficit reduction
(as he contends), then WHY, other than purely for political
reasons, not start with SNAP? Or at least reorganize the program
so that it is effective and we taxpayers get some value for the
money (that we don't have, that we have to borrow) we are forced
to spend on SNAP.

But that's just my opinion.

Dr. Beatty earned a Ph.D. in quantitative management and
statistics from Florida State University. He was a (very
conservative) professor of quantitative management specializing
in using statistics to assist/support decision-making. He has
been a consultant to many small businesses and is now retired.
Dr. Beatty is a veteran who served in the U.S. Army for 22
years. He blogs at rwno.limewebs.com.

[MarkA]

On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 19:11:37 +0100, Brian Eaton wrote:

> In article <l55t7...@news6.newsguy.com> MarkA
> <som...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> The food stamp program is being cut by five BILLION dollars because, you
>> know, the FOUR HUNDRED people who own more than HALF THE WEALTH of the
>> USA shouldn't have to suffer just because millions of families are on
>> the brink of starvation.
>
> It's not being cut you simpleton. The funding for the increase OBAMA used
> to buy his election ran out and the DEMOCRATS FAILED to renew it.

What is the basis of your statement that the DEMOCRATS FAILED to renew it?
Last I checked, the House was being controlled by the Republicans, who
thought it was worth shutting down the government for a week to
demonstrate that they still haven't gotten over the fact that Obamacare
was passed into law.

>
>> How is it even possible that, with a wealth gap so obscenely wide,
>> taking billions of dollars from the poorest Americans hasn't sparked a
>> national outrage??? How is it that so many people still believe the
>> GOP/Fox News/ Tea Party BULLSHIT that "welfare moochers" are what's
>> dragging down the economy?
>
> Because stupid people like you never investigate further than the
> surface.
>
>> The irony is that the people most vocal about the evils of "socialism"
>
> The irony is that most liberals are so ignorant and helpless that they
> might as well be socialists.
>
> First, it was the Head Start program, now it's the Supplemental
> Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamps. Studies indicate
> that these programs are, at best, ineffective. Yet, we taxpayers are
> forced to continue to fund/support them.

Please define "ineffective". It seems to me that helping people put food
on their table is not only "effective", but pretty important.

>
> That SNAP, or food stamps, has expanded under "Dear Leader" Barack
> Hussein Obama is not debatable. In fact, a report released in September
> 2012, by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) showed that about 45
> million individuals are now enrolled in the food stamp program, more
> than double the number that were enrolled in 2003, when George Walker
> Bush was president. We taxpayers spent, in FY2012, a record $80.4
> billion on SNAP, or food stamps, an increase of $2.7 billion over
> FY2011. Further, according to Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), food stamp
> spending has increased by 100 percent during the Obama reign. And, food
> stamp recipients have increased by an average of 11,133 per day under
> Obama.

Yes, there is that thing about all the economic growth of the past decade
going to the top 1%, who need it the least. The GOP has insisted on
favoring the ultra-wealthy, and you complain that more people need food
stamps? As I asked before, what is wrong with you people???

>
> So, what? We already knew that. Well, the above becomes quite relevant
> in light of a new National Academy of Science (NAS) study.
>
> The NAS study questions the effectiveness of SNAP. The USDA commissioned
> the study to help it determine the best way to assess whether food
> stamps benefits are allowing families to have a healthy diet. And guess
> what the study found! SNAP does not take into account many barriers to
> finding affordable food by inner-city shoppers. Specific study findings
> include:
>
> "Lack of affordable supermarkets in many cities means that urban
> dwellers, who represent a high proportion of those in poverty, must pay
> more for healthy foods. Food stamps are intended for cheap basic
> ingredients and unprocessed foods. "By failing to account for the fact
> that SNAP participants, like other households, need to purchase
> value-added foods that save preparation time, the current value of the
> SNAP allotment substantially limits the flexibility and purchasing power
> of SNAP benefits."

There is no doubt that poverty, urban decay, etc, are complex problems
that may not have any solution, let alone an easy one. However, I don't
think that means that ignoring the plight of children without enough food
is an appropriate response, especially when the wealth gap has grown to
such obscene size.

>
> "The study questioned formulas used to determine how much benefit each
> family receives. USDA assumes families will spend 30 percent of their
> incomes on food, when in fact most can afford to spend only 13 percent
> given rising costs for housing and healthcare. The study concluded that
> as the families' incomes rise, the government reduces their benefits too
> sharply.

The response to this, then, would be to INCREASE food stamps, not cut
them.

>
> "There is a 16-month lag between when the USDA assesses the cost of
> food and when it adjusts benefit amounts. "Because of the impact of
> inflation and other factors on food prices, this lag in the benefit
> adjustment can significantly reduce the purchasing power of SNAP
> allotments."
>
> While I cannot find the original study (can AT readers help me here?), I
> can find many references to the study. All references do not mention how
> the USDA plans to address a critical SNAP issue: fraud. Food stamp
> recipients are stealing from the government for about $750 million
> yearly by illegally selling their EBT food stamps cards for cash. Most
> fraud occurs when retailers allow customers to turn in their EBT food
> stamps cards for a cash value less than the worth of the EBT cards.
> Sellers even advertise on eBay and/or Craigslist.

Any large, complex system will have cheaters; that's basic game theory.
Again, however, I don't believe that punishing the honest ones is a proper
solution. YMMV.

Poverty is clearly associated with obesity, except when people are
actually starving to death, as in places like Ethiopia. Some have
suggested that it may be a response to chronic stress. Again, however,
denying food to hungry children in a country that has plenty of wealth
is, to my way of thinking, unconscionable.

The "government agencies are overstating the magnitude of the problem to
get more funding" is a pretty lame argument in any setting.

>
> And, yet, we taxpayers continue to spend billions of dollars each year
> on a dysfunctional SNAP, while some "fixes" can be accomplished by the
> USDA without increasing SNAP costs. Again, I have to ask: If Obama is
> truly serious about deficit reduction (as he contends), then WHY, other
> than purely for political reasons, not start with SNAP? Or at least
> reorganize the program so that it is effective and we taxpayers get some
> value for the money (that we don't have, that we have to borrow) we are
> forced to spend on SNAP.
>
> But that's just my opinion.
>
> Dr. Beatty earned a Ph.D. in quantitative management and statistics from
> Florida State University. He was a (very conservative) professor of
> quantitative management specializing in using statistics to
> assist/support decision-making. He has been a consultant to many small
> businesses and is now retired. Dr. Beatty is a veteran who served in the
> U.S. Army for 22 years. He blogs at rwno.limewebs.com.

Thank you for a well reasoned, well documented response. You have clearly
given this problem some careful thought. However, what you have provided
is documentation that SNAP isn't perfect, may have detrimental/unintended
effects when viewed as one piece of a complex system, and doesn't
fix every problem. You have no disagreement from me on any of those
points. That being said, I stand by my original statement: in a country
where 0.0001% of the population holds more than 50% of the wealth, trying
to reduce the deficit by cutting programs that provide food to the
neediest segment of society is criminal. For decades, I have listened to
the GOP insist that they will not stand for any tax increases under any
circumstances. It seems to me that that is unrealistic and undesirable.

The current taxation/regulatory rules in this country have made it
possible for the wealthy to increase their wealth very easily. That
constitutes a positive feed-back loop. Such a system is inherently
unstable and unsustainable. Complex, stable systems are characterized by
negative feed-back loops: the further you move away from a "set point",
the more difficult it becomes to move even further away. In economic
terms, that would mean that our "system" should be designed so that the
richer you get, the harder it should be to continue to get richer. Also,
the poorer you are, the harder it should be to get even poorer.
That doesn't mean that the rich can't be rich, and the poor can't be
poor. Humans survived and prospered on the African savanna because they
helped each other. We now have a government that favors the interests of
the ultra-wealthy to the exclusion of everyone else. In my ever humble
opinion, that is the problem that needs to be addressed.

--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <pan.2013.11.04....@nowhere.invalid>,

MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:

> On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 19:11:37 +0100, Brian Eaton wrote:
>
> > In article <l55t7...@news6.newsguy.com> MarkA
> > <som...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> The food stamp program is being cut by five BILLION dollars because, you
> >> know, the FOUR HUNDRED people who own more than HALF THE WEALTH of the
> >> USA shouldn't have to suffer just because millions of families are on
> >> the brink of starvation.
> >
> > It's not being cut you simpleton. The funding for the increase OBAMA used
> > to buy his election ran out and the DEMOCRATS FAILED to renew it.
>
> What is the basis of your statement that the DEMOCRATS FAILED to renew it?
> Last I checked, the House was being controlled by the Republicans, who
> thought it was worth shutting down the government for a week to
> demonstrate that they still haven't gotten over the fact that Obamacare
> was passed into law.

The usual Republican bullshit: They hate SNAP and want it gone (even
though it's really the only part of the social safety net left ). But
now they're screaming that they didn't renew it and blaming the
Democrats for not being able to to extend something the Repubs want
ended.

Trying to figure out the Republican mind gives me a massive headache.

> >> How is it even possible that, with a wealth gap so obscenely wide,
> >> taking billions of dollars from the poorest Americans hasn't sparked a
> >> national outrage??? How is it that so many people still believe the
> >> GOP/Fox News/ Tea Party BULLSHIT that "welfare moochers" are what's
> >> dragging down the economy?
> >
> > Because stupid people like you never investigate further than the
> > surface.
> >
> >> The irony is that the people most vocal about the evils of "socialism"
> >
> > The irony is that most liberals are so ignorant and helpless that they
> > might as well be socialists.
> >
> > First, it was the Head Start program, now it's the Supplemental
> > Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamps. Studies indicate
> > that these programs are, at best, ineffective. Yet, we taxpayers are
> > forced to continue to fund/support them.
>
> Please define "ineffective". It seems to me that helping people put food
> on their table is not only "effective", but pretty important.

SNAP benefits society with $1.74 in economic activity for every $1
spent. Thousands of grocery store workers owe their jobs to SNAP.

> > That SNAP, or food stamps, has expanded under "Dear Leader" Barack
> > Hussein Obama is not debatable.

Of course it's not. All those millions of people who lost their jobs and
still haven't found a new one need help. As more people finally find
jobs, the SNAP rolls will drop. Without taking food out of the mouths of
children, the elderly, and the disabled.

Exactly.

> > "There is a 16-month lag between when the USDA assesses the cost of
> > food and when it adjusts benefit amounts. "Because of the impact of
> > inflation and other factors on food prices, this lag in the benefit
> > adjustment can significantly reduce the purchasing power of SNAP
> > allotments."
> >
> > While I cannot find the original study (can AT readers help me here?), I
> > can find many references to the study. All references do not mention how
> > the USDA plans to address a critical SNAP issue: fraud. Food stamp
> > recipients are stealing from the government for about $750 million
> > yearly by illegally selling their EBT food stamps cards for cash. Most
> > fraud occurs when retailers allow customers to turn in their EBT food
> > stamps cards for a cash value less than the worth of the EBT cards.
> > Sellers even advertise on eBay and/or Craigslist.
>
> Any large, complex system will have cheaters; that's basic game theory.
> Again, however, I don't believe that punishing the honest ones is a proper
> solution. YMMV.

SNAP is the most efficient program in the federal government. the fraud
and error rate is only about 1%. It's so hard to get the benefit that
very few frauds make it.

And does nothing to provide productive citizens for the future of the
US. Instead, it creates children growing up with no marketable skills
who will end up costing the taxpayers tens of thousands every year when
they end up in prison.

> > And, yet, we taxpayers continue to spend billions of dollars each year
> > on a dysfunctional SNAP

SNAP is the least dysfunctional program in the federal government.

--

JD

"If our country is going broke, let it be from
feeding the poor and caring for the elderly.
And not from pampering the rich and fighting
wars for them."--Living Blue in a Red State (seen on Facebook)

[dpb]

On 11/4/2013 9:31 AM, MarkA wrote:
...

> ... in a country where 0.0001% of the population holds more than 50%
> of the wealth, ...

?????

0.000001*330,000,000 --> 330 people have >50% of total personally-held
assets? I don't _think_ so....iow, nonsense.

> The current taxation/regulatory rules in this country have made it
> possible for the wealthy to increase their wealth very easily. That
> constitutes a positive feed-back loop. Such a system is inherently
> unstable and unsustainable. Complex, stable systems are characterized by
> negative feed-back loops: the further you move away from a "set point",
> the more difficult it becomes to move even further away. In economic
> terms, that would mean that our "system" should be designed so that the
> richer you get, the harder it should be to continue to get richer. Also,
> the poorer you are, the harder it should be to get even poorer.
> That doesn't mean that the rich can't be rich, and the poor can't be
> poor. Humans survived and prospered on the African savanna because they
> helped each other. We now have a government that favors the interests of
> the ultra-wealthy to the exclusion of everyone else. In my ever humble
> opinion, that is the problem that needs to be addressed.

Nonsense. We now have a government that favors itself over anything
else--the "ins" ensure nothing but that they continue to be "in".

The bulk of the wealthy are, in fact, quite liberal in their politics as
compared to the average of the country.

And, it's been clearly demonstrated that the way to ensure less economic
growth is to find ways to penalize the successful so they move somewhere
else or do something different. Raise the "luxury tax" on yachts and
aircraft and surprise! lots of folks who count on building those as
their gainful employment are suddenly now out of work. "Law of
unintended consequences" that seems to go over the head of the
hate/demonize-the-rich crowd every time but is totally predictable.

The SNAP exists primarily owing to keeping the inner city Democrats
placated sufficiently to allow any farm bill that provides for the
low-cost and plentiful as compared to 98% of the rest of the world ag
production to remain such. W/O it with the rearrangement from a rural
to an ever-increasing urban population there simply aren't sufficient
votes to pass _anything_ for rural America.

--

[MarkA]

Good stuff, as always, JD. Thank you.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

>> SNAP is the least dysfunctional program in the federal government.

This is how government is rated.... by the least dysfunctional.



ObamaCare would have a (LD) Least Dysfunctional rating of (1) on a scale
of 1-10 and snap gets a 10?


Yet none of it works worth a damn.

[MarkA]

Quite right, government is useless. So, how's the weather there in
Somalia?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 11/5/2013 1:11 PM, MarkA wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Nov 2013 10:05:10 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>
>>
>>>> SNAP is the least dysfunctional program in the federal government.
>>
>>
>>
>> This is how government is rated.... by the least dysfunctional.
>>
>>
>>
>> ObamaCare would have a (LD) Least Dysfunctional rating of (1) on a scale
>> of 1-10 and snap gets a 10?
>>
>>
>> Yet none of it works worth a damn.
>
> Quite right, government is useless. So, how's the weather there in
> Somalia?
>

Same as under your Socialism "it's changing" but it costs less for me to
look out a window than for you to pay NASA to do another Climate Change
study to tell me that.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <pan.2013.11.05....@nowhere.invalid>,

Welx.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <PO7eu.10850$as5....@en-nntp-14.dc1.easynews.com>,

Of course it works.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

>>>>> In article <l55t7...@news6.newsguy.com> MarkA
>>>>> <som...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The food stamp program is being cut by five BILLION dollars because,
>>>>>> you know, the FOUR HUNDRED people who own more than HALF THE WEALTH
>>>>>> of the USA shouldn't have to suffer just because millions of families
>>>>>> are on the brink of starvation.

Taxing and forcing the wealthy to feed the people that threaten them and
their families, somehow just sounds wrong, like forcing the Jews to pay
a tax to feed the NAZI army......

A better idea might be to appeal to their sense of National Pride as
Americans and hope they will help their American brothers.


Of course if you are preaching that you're going to kill them and their
family and steal their wealth and put Socialists in power to suck their
fortune dry and in no way do anything for America other than whine that
America owes you more. Then they might NOT be willing to "help" people
like that in their time of need.







--



*Rumination*
#7 - Make the Socialists proud of you, strive to be the best at
mediocrity that you can be.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 11/5/2013 5:36 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <PO7eu.10850$as5....@en-nntp-14.dc1.easynews.com>,
> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote:
>
>>>> SNAP is the least dysfunctional program in the federal government.
>>
>>
>>
>> This is how government is rated.... by the least dysfunctional.
>>
>>
>>
>> ObamaCare would have a (LD) Least Dysfunctional rating of (1) on a scale
>> of 1-10 and snap gets a 10?
>>
>>
>> Yet none of it works worth a damn.
>
> Of course it works.
>

25% of the money goes to fraud and waste.... How many private
businesses can do that and survive?

[Jeff M]

On 11/6/2013 8:16 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 11/5/2013 5:36 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>> In article <PO7eu.10850$as5....@en-nntp-14.dc1.easynews.com>,
>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> SNAP is the least dysfunctional program in the federal government.
>>>
>>> This is how government is rated.... by the least dysfunctional.
>>>
>>> ObamaCare would have a (LD) Least Dysfunctional rating of (1) on a scale
>>> of 1-10 and snap gets a 10?
>>>
>>> Yet none of it works worth a damn.
>>
>> Of course it works.
>>
> 25% of the money goes to fraud and waste

Cite, please?


--
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in
moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral
justification for selfishness.” - John Kenneth Galbraith

[Stormin Mormon]

On 11/6/2013 9:16 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>
>>> Yet none of it works worth a damn.
>>
>> Of course it works.
>>
> 25% of the money goes to fraud and waste.... How many private
> businesses can do that and survive?
>

Solyndra? Anything started by Obama?

--
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

[SteveB]

>>> The food stamp program is being cut by five BILLION dollars because, you
>>> know, the FOUR HUNDRED people who own more than HALF THE WEALTH of the
>>> USA shouldn't have to suffer just because millions of families are on
>>> the brink of starvation.

If they would cut out fraud and those who are riding the system, they
could save a hell of a lot more than that.

Steve

[Stormin Mormon]

Now, Steve. Would that be racist?

[Gunner Asch]

On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 09:14:38 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote:

>
>>>>>> In article <l55t7...@news6.newsguy.com> MarkA
>>>>>> <som...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The food stamp program is being cut by five BILLION dollars because,
>>>>>>> you know, the FOUR HUNDRED people who own more than HALF THE WEALTH
>>>>>>> of the USA shouldn't have to suffer just because millions of families
>>>>>>> are on the brink of starvation.
>
>Taxing and forcing the wealthy to feed the people that threaten them and
>their families, somehow just sounds wrong, like forcing the Jews to pay
>a tax to feed the NAZI army......
>
>A better idea might be to appeal to their sense of National Pride as
>Americans and hope they will help their American brothers.
>
>
>Of course if you are preaching that you're going to kill them and their
>family and steal their wealth and put Socialists in power to suck their
>fortune dry and in no way do anything for America other than whine that
>America owes you more. Then they might NOT be willing to "help" people
>like that in their time of need.

That explains this then....

http://www.dailysportspages.com/index.php?threads/wealthy-leaving-the-u-s-at-record-pace.3933/
(odd that many are Democrats....)

http://nypost.com/2012/06/24/us-citizens-leaving-the-country-to-avoid-stiff-tax-bills/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2BHzU_MRls

111.000.000 hits on Google



--
Liberals want everyone to think like them.
Conservatives want everyone to think.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <Waseu.15708$UA3....@en-nntp-08.dc1.easynews.com>,

The fraud rate on SNAP is 1%. ONE PERCENT.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <u9seu.15705$UA3....@en-nntp-08.dc1.easynews.com>,

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote:

> >>>>> In article <l55t7...@news6.newsguy.com> MarkA
> >>>>> <som...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The food stamp program is being cut by five BILLION dollars because,
> >>>>>> you know, the FOUR HUNDRED people who own more than HALF THE WEALTH
> >>>>>> of the USA shouldn't have to suffer just because millions of families
> >>>>>> are on the brink of starvation.
>
> Taxing and forcing the wealthy to feed the people that threaten them and
> their families, somehow just sounds wrong, like forcing the Jews to pay
> a tax to feed the NAZI army......

Are the wealthy really this stupid? That they don't understand that all
those unwashed folk beneath them are the ones that make their lifestyle
possible?

[Jeff M]

On 11/6/2013 8:34 AM, Jeff M wrote:
> On 11/6/2013 8:16 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On 11/5/2013 5:36 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>> In article <PO7eu.10850$as5....@en-nntp-14.dc1.easynews.com>,
>>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> SNAP is the least dysfunctional program in the federal government.
>>>>
>>>> This is how government is rated.... by the least dysfunctional.
>>>>
>>>> ObamaCare would have a (LD) Least Dysfunctional rating of (1) on a
>>>> scale
>>>> of 1-10 and snap gets a 10?
>>>>
>>>> Yet none of it works worth a damn.
>>>
>>> Of course it works.
>>>
>> 25% of the money goes to fraud and waste
>
> Cite, please?

<crickets.wav>

[Stormin Mormon]

Yippee! Five bill more in the general circulation,
to hire people, and stimulate the economy.

Cut it another five!

[Free Lunch]

On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 18:45:07 -0500, Stormin Mormon
<cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:

>Yippee! Five bill more in the general circulation,

Clearly you have never taken an economics class.

>to hire people, and stimulate the economy.
>
>Cut it another five!

The austerity delusion is strong in you.

[Tom McDonald]

On 11/6/2013 5:45 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
> Yippee! Five bill more in the general circulation,
> to hire people, and stimulate the economy.
>
> Cut it another five!
>

Nope. Five billion more for corporations to hide off-shore, taking the
money out of the economy.

Idiot.

[John B.]

On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 10:25:44 -0700, SteveB <Stevexx...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Given that most American cities are dirty I've always wondered why the
government didn't start a day rate job - fall out at 0400 and sweep
streets for 8 hours and we pay you cash at the end of the shift. Let
those who want to work do so and those chat chose not to can starve.

But I suppose that working is now considered cruel and unusual
punishment in the U.S.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[MarkA]

I don't blame them. Too many poor people. Take the middle class's life
savings, then leave. A fool proof formula for success.

At least ONE of the ultra-wealthy, Warren Buffett, understands that the
wealthy need a healthy Middle Class to sustain them. The American Middle
Class was a product of *government programs* put in place after WWII to
help returning GIs, and to keep factories busy, after they didn't need
to be building tanks and planes as fast as they could. Nowadays, it
appears that the Middle Class was just a calf being fattened up for
slaughter by the ultra-wealthy.

[MarkA]

Are you a global warming denialist, too?

[MarkA]

Please define "fraud and waste" precisely enough that it can be
quantified. To the GOP, *ANY* money spent on social programs is "waste".

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 11/6/2013 6:08 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <u9seu.15705$UA3....@en-nntp-08.dc1.easynews.com>,
> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> In article <l55t7...@news6.newsguy.com> MarkA
>>>>>>> <som...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The food stamp program is being cut by five BILLION dollars because,
>>>>>>>> you know, the FOUR HUNDRED people who own more than HALF THE WEALTH
>>>>>>>> of the USA shouldn't have to suffer just because millions of families
>>>>>>>> are on the brink of starvation.
>>
>> Taxing and forcing the wealthy to feed the people that threaten them and
>> their families, somehow just sounds wrong, like forcing the Jews to pay
>> a tax to feed the NAZI army......
>
> Are the wealthy really this stupid? That they don't understand that all
> those unwashed folk beneath them are the ones that make their lifestyle
> possible?

Probably NOT stupid but why help the NAZI's kill Jews if you're a Jew?

Why help these Socialists who threaten to kill the wealthy if you're the
wealthy?

See this is what I mean when I say Liberalism is self destructive. It's
such an ignorant ideology that they're willing to kill each other with
stupidity. You Liberals are so stupid that Liberals will vote to help
someone kill you.
--



*Rumination*
#64 - *He has the most who is most content with the least* -Diogenes-

[Jeff M]

On 11/7/2013 7:29 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 11/6/2013 6:08 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>> In article <u9seu.15705$UA3....@en-nntp-08.dc1.easynews.com>,
>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> In article <l55t7...@news6.newsguy.com> MarkA
>>>>>>>> <som...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The food stamp program is being cut by five BILLION
>>>>>>>>> dollars because, you know, the FOUR HUNDRED people
>>>>>>>>> who own more than HALF THE WEALTH of the USA
>>>>>>>>> shouldn't have to suffer just because millions of
>>>>>>>>> families are on the brink of starvation.
>>>
>>> Taxing and forcing the wealthy to feed the people that threaten
>>> them and their families, somehow just sounds wrong, like forcing
>>> the Jews to pay a tax to feed the NAZI army......
>>
>> Are the wealthy really this stupid? That they don't understand that
>> all those unwashed folk beneath them are the ones that make their
>> lifestyle possible?
>

The ultra-rich are blinded by their grasping avarice, distorted
perceptions and despicable values.

>
> Probably NOT stupid but why help the NAZI's kill Jews if you're a
> Jew?
>
> Why help these Socialists who threaten to kill the wealthy if you're
> the wealthy?

What an absurdly stupid thing to write. The wealthy are the ones who
are intentionally seeking to inflict harm on the poor and middle
classes, not the other way around.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 11/6/2013 6:06 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <Waseu.15708$UA3....@en-nntp-08.dc1.easynews.com>,
> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/5/2013 5:36 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>> In article <PO7eu.10850$as5....@en-nntp-14.dc1.easynews.com>,
>>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> SNAP is the least dysfunctional program in the federal government.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is how government is rated.... by the least dysfunctional.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ObamaCare would have a (LD) Least Dysfunctional rating of (1) on a scale
>>>> of 1-10 and snap gets a 10?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yet none of it works worth a damn.
>>>
>>> Of course it works.
>>>
>> 25% of the money goes to fraud and waste.... How many private
>> businesses can do that and survive?
>
> The fraud rate on SNAP is 1%. ONE PERCENT.

Waste fraud and abuse and getting the funds use as intended is a 25%
failure rate.

People sell their cards and use the cash for alcohol and cigarettes and
the system is full of other fraud and abuse.

It's NOT 1%

There are 47 million people so what is 1% of 47 million and what is the
real number of 25% of that 47 million ?

Taxpayers will go BANKRUPT trying to pay for all that fraud and abuse
and waste.


Weren't you concerned that Health Care was causing people to go Bankrupt?

--



*Rumination*
#62 - Democrats have created a Matrix to convince you life is good....
you might call it the Liberal-Socialist "MACHINE" that has created your
Democrat Matrix. Neo... swallow the bitter RED pill in the post above,
and see reality.

[Joe Cooper]

Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote in
news:Weedna2K5daFQebP...@giganews.com:

> What an absurdly stupid thing to write. The wealthy are the ones who
> are intentionally seeking to inflict harm on the poor and middle
> classes, not the other way around.


What an absurdly stupid thing to write.

--
"Work Harder, Millions of Obama Voters Depend On You" Get the T-Shirt -
http://www.cafepress.com/ObamaVotersDependOnYou

"Jon Stewart, who, believe it or not, can be on the money sometimes, said
that Obama was "out of the loop," and then added, "There appear to be very
few loops he's in." Isn't that the perfect description of the nation's
first moron president?" (William L. Gensert:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/11/obama_the_most_dangerous_of_morons.h
tml)

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Government spending money to create a fake/phony market is supposed to
do what.... trick the business owner into hiring more people? Buying
new machines? increasing production to meet the fake phony demand?
Those idiots that do that will see their depression last for years if it
doesn't just collapse their business when the Federal Reserve and Obama
pull that rug out from under them.


Businesses look out past tomorrow to months and years down the road to
make those decisions and for 4 more years I see Obama's Socialism and
economic destruction, I'd not buy any new machines or expand I would not
hire, there is NO reason to invest more money in a stagnant Socialist
economy. Better to ad some hours of over time or actually just try to
make what's there more efficient with a better slimmer work force and
allow a small shortage in the market so prices will rise.....


In fact you can sometimes hit that sweet spot in cost of production by
shutting down some of the production.

The smart industrialist would have a scalable production or service plan
so that they can limit cost by knowing what their peak profit points are
and produce at those points to keep the cost of production down and the
price of the product high for maximum efficiency and maximum profits.

Obama and Socialists look at hiring people as a social program and think
that social programs will create production.... I don't think so.


*Rumination*
#24 - Business is the art of making painful choices and getting it right
often enough to stay in business.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <6XMeu.28043$Lj7...@en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com>,

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote:

> On 11/6/2013 7:05 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
> > On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 18:45:07 -0500, Stormin Mormon
> > <cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
> >
> >> Yippee! Five bill more in the general circulation,
> >
> > Clearly you have never taken an economics class.
> >
> >> to hire people, and stimulate the economy.
> >>
> >> Cut it another five!
> >
> > The austerity delusion is strong in you.
>
> Government spending money to create a fake/phony market is supposed to
> do what.... trick the business owner into hiring more people? Buying
> new machines? increasing production to meet the fake phony demand?

How are customers "phony demand"?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <UuMeu.35765$0I1....@en-nntp-04.dc1.easynews.com>,

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote:

> On 11/6/2013 6:06 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> > In article <Waseu.15708$UA3....@en-nntp-08.dc1.easynews.com>,
> > BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 11/5/2013 5:36 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> >>> In article <PO7eu.10850$as5....@en-nntp-14.dc1.easynews.com>,
> >>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>> SNAP is the least dysfunctional program in the federal government.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> This is how government is rated.... by the least dysfunctional.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ObamaCare would have a (LD) Least Dysfunctional rating of (1) on a scale
> >>>> of 1-10 and snap gets a 10?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Yet none of it works worth a damn.
> >>>
> >>> Of course it works.
> >>>
> >> 25% of the money goes to fraud and waste.... How many private
> >> businesses can do that and survive?
> >
> > The fraud rate on SNAP is 1%. ONE PERCENT.
>
>
>
> Waste fraud and abuse and getting the funds use as intended is a 25%
> failure rate.
>
> People sell their cards and use the cash for alcohol and cigarettes and
> the system is full of other fraud and abuse.
>
> It's NOT 1%

Yes, it is. You can deny fact all you want , but you can't change the
fact.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <RAMeu.125708$4q1.1...@en-nntp-12.dc1.easynews.com>,

What the FUCK are you babbling about?

[Stormin Mormon]

On 11/7/2013 6:09 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>>> Yippee! Five bill more in the general circulation,

>>>> Cut it another five!

>>
>> Government spending money to create a fake/phony market is supposed to
>> do what.... trick the business owner into hiring more people? Buying
>> new machines? increasing production to meet the fake phony demand?
>
>
> How are customers "phony demand"?

Customers are real demand. Government spending to
create a fake/phony market is fake/phony demand.

[Free Lunch]

On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 08:53:04 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote in alt.atheism:

>On 11/6/2013 7:05 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 18:45:07 -0500, Stormin Mormon
>> <cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>>> Yippee! Five bill more in the general circulation,
>>
>> Clearly you have never taken an economics class.
>>
>>> to hire people, and stimulate the economy.
>>>
>>> Cut it another five!
>>
>> The austerity delusion is strong in you.
>
>Government spending money to create a fake/phony market is supposed to
>do what.... trick the business owner into hiring more people? Buying
>new machines? increasing production to meet the fake phony demand?
>Those idiots that do that will see their depression last for years if it
>doesn't just collapse their business when the Federal Reserve and Obama
>pull that rug out from under them.
>

Spending is spending. Government spending and government services and
goods are every bit as real as private spending and private goods and
services.

>
>Businesses look out past tomorrow to months and years down the road to
>make those decisions and for 4 more years I see Obama's Socialism and
>economic destruction, I'd not buy any new machines or expand I would not
>hire, there is NO reason to invest more money in a stagnant Socialist
>economy. Better to ad some hours of over time or actually just try to
>make what's there more efficient with a better slimmer work force and
>allow a small shortage in the market so prices will rise.....
>

You are hurting yourself with your foolish refusal to let your business
grow.

>
>In fact you can sometimes hit that sweet spot in cost of production by
>shutting down some of the production.
>
>The smart industrialist would have a scalable production or service plan
>so that they can limit cost by knowing what their peak profit points are
>and produce at those points to keep the cost of production down and the
>price of the product high for maximum efficiency and maximum profits.
>
>Obama and Socialists look at hiring people as a social program and think
>that social programs will create production.... I don't think so.
>
>
> *Rumination*
>#24 - Business is the art of making painful choices and getting it right
>often enough to stay in business.

Obama is no socialist. You need to stop listening to the right-wing
racists who seem to have misled you.

[Free Lunch]

On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 18:30:29 -0500, Stormin Mormon
<cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:

>On 11/7/2013 6:09 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>>>> Yippee! Five bill more in the general circulation,
>>>>> Cut it another five!
>>>
>>> Government spending money to create a fake/phony market is supposed to
>>> do what.... trick the business owner into hiring more people? Buying
>>> new machines? increasing production to meet the fake phony demand?
>>
>>
>> How are customers "phony demand"?
>
>Customers are real demand. Government spending to
>create a fake/phony market is fake/phony demand.

Demand is demand. You need to learn something about economics.

[Free Lunch]

On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 08:22:59 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote in alt.atheism:

>On 11/6/2013 6:06 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>> In article <Waseu.15708$UA3....@en-nntp-08.dc1.easynews.com>,
>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/5/2013 5:36 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>>> In article <PO7eu.10850$as5....@en-nntp-14.dc1.easynews.com>,
>>>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> SNAP is the least dysfunctional program in the federal government.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is how government is rated.... by the least dysfunctional.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ObamaCare would have a (LD) Least Dysfunctional rating of (1) on a scale
>>>>> of 1-10 and snap gets a 10?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet none of it works worth a damn.
>>>>
>>>> Of course it works.
>>>>
>>> 25% of the money goes to fraud and waste.... How many private
>>> businesses can do that and survive?
>>
>> The fraud rate on SNAP is 1%. ONE PERCENT.
>
>
>
>Waste fraud and abuse and getting the funds use as intended is a 25%
>failure rate.

Show me the evidence.

>People sell their cards and use the cash for alcohol and cigarettes and
>the system is full of other fraud and abuse.

Show me the evidence.

>It's NOT 1%

Show me the evidence.

>There are 47 million people so what is 1% of 47 million and what is the
>real number of 25% of that 47 million ?
>
>Taxpayers will go BANKRUPT trying to pay for all that fraud and abuse
>and waste.
>

Nonsense. You clearly have no idea how much food stamps cost.

>
>Weren't you concerned that Health Care was causing people to go Bankrupt?

Yes, you are the one who doesn't care if people go bankrupt because they
cannot get affordable health insurance.

[Free Lunch]

On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 08:29:19 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote in alt.atheism:

So you are implying that you are a multimillionaire because you don't
want the middle class to be treated fairly in this country.

[Free Lunch]

On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 15:12:08 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:

The usual right-wing kowtowing to the greedy rich.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Is the money real money or printed or borrowed or maybe even real tax
money?

Where and how was this wealth created and by whom?


If those are real customers then why does government stop people who are
counterfeiting? They're "growing" the economy because they are "REAL"
customers.

What is real is the velocity but NOT the wealth or "the money" or the
customer spending it. It's like the MATRIX and NEO, take the RED pill
and wake up dude.


You aren't living in reality.


--



*Rumination*
.....to the last I grapple with thee; from hell's heart I stab at
thee; for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee.
Moby-Dick, Chapter 135. "The Chase-Third Day"

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <poVeu.150005$0q6....@fx26.iad>,

Stormin Mormon <cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 11/7/2013 6:09 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> >>>> Yippee! Five bill more in the general circulation,
> >>>> Cut it another five!
> >>
> >> Government spending money to create a fake/phony market is supposed to
> >> do what.... trick the business owner into hiring more people? Buying
> >> new machines? increasing production to meet the fake phony demand?
> >
> >
> > How are customers "phony demand"?
>
> Customers are real demand. Government spending to
> create a fake/phony market is fake/phony demand.

How are customers "phony demand"?

[Free Lunch]

On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 18:59:07 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote in alt.atheism:

>On 11/7/2013 6:44 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 18:30:29 -0500, Stormin Mormon
>> <cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>>> On 11/7/2013 6:09 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>>>>>> Yippee! Five bill more in the general circulation,
>>>>>>> Cut it another five!
>>>>>
>>>>> Government spending money to create a fake/phony market is supposed to
>>>>> do what.... trick the business owner into hiring more people? Buying
>>>>> new machines? increasing production to meet the fake phony demand?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How are customers "phony demand"?
>>>
>>> Customers are real demand. Government spending to
>>> create a fake/phony market is fake/phony demand.
>>
>> Demand is demand. You need to learn something about economics.
>>
>Is the money real money or printed or borrowed or maybe even real tax
>money?

Money is money. You need to take a remedial economics course. Ideally it
would be one that explains why the Austrians are a joke.

>Where and how was this wealth created and by whom?

Don't confuse wealth with money. Wealth is the real capital stock of a
city or nation or the world. Money was invented to allow people to defer
purchases.

>If those are real customers then why does government stop people who are
>counterfeiting? They're "growing" the economy because they are "REAL"
>customers.

In my best John McEnroe voice "You cannot be serious."

>What is real is the velocity but NOT the wealth or "the money" or the
>customer spending it. It's like the MATRIX and NEO, take the RED pill
>and wake up dude.

Not even close.

>You aren't living in reality.

I cannot possibly respond to your delusions.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

But why would they do that? What is wrong with "YOUR" economy and what
is right with those economies they take the money too?

[Stormin Mormon]

On 11/7/2013 6:44 PM, Free Lunch wrote:

> Spending is spending. Government spending and government services and
> goods are every bit as real as private spending and private goods and
> services.
>

I guess you missed it. Government spending is when they use the force of
arms to tax money away from people who didn't want to spend the money on
this or that. If the public wanted this or that, they'd have bought it
already without being forced to by armed goons from government.

[Stormin Mormon]

On 11/7/2013 6:44 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>

> Obama is no socialist. You need to stop listening to the right-wing
> racists who seem to have misled you.
>

http://nypost.com/2013/05/19/obama-admits-hes-a-socialist/
Really?

You'd be more credible if you'd not call people names
like "racist".

[Stormin Mormon]

On 11/7/2013 6:44 PM, Free Lunch wrote:

> On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 18:30:29 -0500, Stormin Mormon
>>

>> Customers are real demand. Government spending to
>> create a fake/phony market is fake/phony demand.
>
> Demand is demand. You need to learn something about economics.
>

If the government taxes your money from you, and
armed IRS agents collect it. They buy a pork barrel
project, with a lot of waste. That is, in your mind,
the same as if you buy yourself lunch, some clothes,
and household appliances?

[Stormin Mormon]

On 11/7/2013 6:59 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 11/7/2013 6:44 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>> Demand is demand. You need to learn something about economics.
>>
>

> You aren't living in reality.
>

I think that free lunch is living in the Obama
reality. Not sure which pill he took, but it's
really affecting his world view.

[MarkA]

He seems to think that the rich have no reason to want a robust economy,
with a healthy Middle Class to consume the products we produce. Paying
attention to those things might slow the rate at which they are getting
richer. For now.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 11/7/2013 7:05 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <poVeu.150005$0q6....@fx26.iad>,
> Stormin Mormon <cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/7/2013 6:09 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>>>>> Yippee! Five bill more in the general circulation,
>>>>>> Cut it another five!
>>>>
>>>> Government spending money to create a fake/phony market is supposed to
>>>> do what.... trick the business owner into hiring more people? Buying
>>>> new machines? increasing production to meet the fake phony demand?
>>>
>>>
>>> How are customers "phony demand"?
>>
>> Customers are real demand. Government spending to
>> create a fake/phony market is fake/phony demand.
>
> How are customers "phony demand"?
>

How does the Government prosecute people for fraud and phony fake
activity? By your standard it's all real. Bernie Maddoff was onto a
real profitable investment business those were real profits say you....

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 11/7/2013 7:27 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 18:59:07 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>> On 11/7/2013 6:44 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>> On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 18:30:29 -0500, Stormin Mormon
>>> <cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>
>>>> On 11/7/2013 6:09 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>>>>>>> Yippee! Five bill more in the general circulation,
>>>>>>>> Cut it another five!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Government spending money to create a fake/phony market is supposed to
>>>>>> do what.... trick the business owner into hiring more people? Buying
>>>>>> new machines? increasing production to meet the fake phony demand?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How are customers "phony demand"?
>>>>
>>>> Customers are real demand. Government spending to
>>>> create a fake/phony market is fake/phony demand.
>>>
>>> Demand is demand. You need to learn something about economics.
>>>
>> Is the money real money or printed or borrowed or maybe even real tax
>> money?
>
> Money is money. You need to take a remedial economics course. Ideally it
> would be one that explains why the Austrians are a joke.
>

Bernie Maddoff money is money? Some people that lost out would tend to
disagree.

And an investor wasn't really and investor and the customer was NOT a
customer but they were suckers like you're a sucker. The only
difference is who's running the fake/phony scams..... you say it's OK
if Government scams the business owner but NOT OK when the Bernie
Maddoff business owner scams the customer?


That looks like a double standard.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 11/8/2013 8:13 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
> On 11/7/2013 6:59 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On 11/7/2013 6:44 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>> Demand is demand. You need to learn something about economics.
>>>
>>
>> You aren't living in reality.
>>
>
> I think that free lunch is living in the Obama
> reality. Not sure which pill he took, but it's
> really affecting his world view.

He's living in Bernie Maddoff's reality, where a customer isn't customer
but a mark.

[jim]

Stormin Mormon wrote:
>
> On 11/7/2013 6:44 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
> > Spending is spending. Government spending and government services and
> > goods are every bit as real as private spending and private goods and
> > services.
> >
>
> I guess you missed it. Government spending is when they use the force of
> arms to tax money away from people who didn't want to spend the money on
> this or that.

I guess you missed it. Taxing is not the same as spending.
In the last 4 years federal tax receipts as a portion of GDP
have have been the lowest in 60 years. You have to go all the
way back to when Truman was in office to find a time when the
federal tax burden on the economy was this low.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=h5k

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 11/8/2013 9:46 AM, jim wrote:
>
>
> Stormin Mormon wrote:
>>
>> On 11/7/2013 6:44 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>> Spending is spending. Government spending and government services and
>>> goods are every bit as real as private spending and private goods and
>>> services.
>>>
>>
>> I guess you missed it. Government spending is when they use the force of
>> arms to tax money away from people who didn't want to spend the money on
>> this or that.
>

> Taxing is not the same as spending.

*SURE IT IS*

Every dollar spent, is paid for by taxes... so all spending is a tax,
all borrowed and printed money that is spent is a tax and is paid for by
WE THE PEOPLE.

[Stormin Mormon]

Scotty! There's no intelligent liberals down here.

[jim]

BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>
> On 11/8/2013 9:46 AM, jim wrote:
> >
> >
> > Stormin Mormon wrote:
> >>
> >> On 11/7/2013 6:44 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
> >>> Spending is spending. Government spending and government services and
> >>> goods are every bit as real as private spending and private goods and
> >>> services.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I guess you missed it. Government spending is when they use the force of
> >> arms to tax money away from people who didn't want to spend the money on
> >> this or that.
> >
> > Taxing is not the same as spending.
>
> *SURE IT IS*
>
> Every dollar spent, is paid for by taxes...

No it isn't. Everybody knows the govt can produce dollars
and spend them without taxing. As Cheney said 'Reagan
proved that'

The only purpose taxes serve is as a brake
on the economy. When you have high unemployment and
low productivity, there is no good reason to be
applying the brakes.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Then have government print each of us a million dollars and we can end
poverty and end all Social Safety Net Programs.

[Jeff M]

On 11/8/2013 7:09 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:

[excessive NGs trimmed]

> On 11/7/2013 6:44 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>
>> Obama is no socialist. You need to stop listening to the right-wing
>> racists who seem to have misled you.
>>
> http://nypost.com/2013/05/19/obama-admits-hes-a-socialist/
> Really?
>
> You'd be more credible if you'd not call people names
> like "racist".

Certainly, not all right-wingers are racist, but almost all (white)
racists are right-wingers, and the fact that President Obama is
identified as black really brings that racism to the fore.


--
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in
moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification
for selfishness.” - John Kenneth Galbraith

[Stormin Mormon]

We did that. Last year, don't you remember?

I got to McDonalds. Order up a quarter
pounder combo meal. The bill came to
three million dollars.

[jim]

That would be the stupid way.
Having taxes the lowest in 60 years is
the not so stupid way.

[Jeff M]

On 11/8/2013 7:12 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
> On 11/7/2013 6:44 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 18:30:29 -0500, Stormin Mormon
>>>
>>> Customers are real demand. Government spending to
>>> create a fake/phony market is fake/phony demand.
>>
>> Demand is demand. You need to learn something about economics.
>>
>
> If the government taxes your money from you, and
> armed IRS agents collect it.

Have you ever even seen an "armed IRS agent," or any IRS agent or
official of any kind, in paying your taxes? Are you really all that
opposed to the concept of voluntarily paying your tax obligations
itself, setting aside how much that tax may be, or how it gets spent?

The fact is that most people voluntarily comply with the law by paying
their taxes and filing their returns, and those who don't file or don't
pay are, in the vast majority of cases, dealt with by mail. It is
widely recognized that the government lacks the means to actually compel
and large percentage of the people to file their returns and pay their
taxes.

> They buy a pork barrel
> project, with a lot of waste. That is, in your mind,
> the same as if you buy yourself lunch, some clothes,
> and household appliances?
>


--

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 11/8/2013 11:33 AM, jim wrote:
>
>
> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>
>> On 11/8/2013 10:33 AM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 11/8/2013 9:46 AM, jim wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Stormin Mormon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/7/2013 6:44 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>>>>> Spending is spending. Government spending and government services and
>>>>>>> goods are every bit as real as private spending and private goods and
>>>>>>> services.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess you missed it. Government spending is when they use the force of
>>>>>> arms to tax money away from people who didn't want to spend the money on
>>>>>> this or that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Taxing is not the same as spending.
>>>>
>>>> *SURE IT IS*
>>>>
>>>> Every dollar spent, is paid for by taxes...
>>>
>>> No it isn't. Everybody knows the govt can produce dollars
>>> and spend them without taxing. As Cheney said 'Reagan
>>> proved that'

That causes inflation and inflation means that taxes go up so you paid a
tax to cover the money printed....


I don't know what you heard, but the truth is still the truth.

[jim]

Taxes have gone down. Inflation has gone down.
Obviously your analysis is not working.

[Joe Cooper]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote in
news:nKbfu.13998$as5....@en-nntp-14.dc1.easynews.com:

> That causes inflation and inflation means that taxes go up so you paid a
> tax to cover the money printed....
>
> I don't know what you heard, but the truth is still the truth.

Ayup. Inflation is taxation without representation. If the government wants
to borrow more money, but does not want to call your attention to it, let
alone get your permission, it simply directs the Fed to provide another
billion or two - which devalues the dollar and picks your pocket while the
sheep bemoan the "rising cost of living."

--
"Work Harder, Millions of Obama Voters Depend On You" Get the T-Shirt -
http://www.cafepress.com/ObamaVotersDependOnYou

"I am sorry that they are finding themselves drowning in this situation
based on assurances they got from me that concrete blocks were great
floatation devices, period. We've got to work hard to make sure that they
know we hear them and that we're going to do everything we can to deal with
folks who find themselves drowned as a consequence of this." (Barack Obama,
lying jackass)

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <co5fu.269807$Oj5.1...@fx02.iad>,

Stormin Mormon <cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 11/7/2013 6:44 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
> >
> > Obama is no socialist. You need to stop listening to the right-wing
> > racists who seem to have misled you.
> >
>
> http://nypost.com/2013/05/19/obama-admits-hes-a-socialist/
> Really?

You are DEEP into Murdoch fantasy land ther.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <1m5fu.269806$Oj5.2...@fx02.iad>,

Stormin Mormon <cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 11/7/2013 6:44 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
> > Spending is spending. Government spending and government services and
> > goods are every bit as real as private spending and private goods and
> > services.
> >
>
> I guess you missed it. Government spending is when they use the force of
> arms to tax money away from people who didn't want to spend the money on
> this or that. If the public wanted this or that, they'd have bought it
> already without being forced to by armed goons from government.

You betcha! I know I don't want my heard-earned tax dollars going to
fund hundreds of BILLIONS of corporate welfare to Walmart and fast food
corporations and oil companies and military contractors.

[jim]

Joe Cooper wrote:
>
> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote in
> news:nKbfu.13998$as5....@en-nntp-14.dc1.easynews.com:
>
> > That causes inflation and inflation means that taxes go up so you paid a
> > tax to cover the money printed....
> >
> > I don't know what you heard, but the truth is still the truth.
>
> Ayup. Inflation is taxation without representation. If the government wants
> to borrow more money, but does not want to call your attention to it, let
> alone get your permission, it simply directs the Fed to provide another
> billion or two - which devalues the dollar and picks your pocket while the
> sheep bemoan the "rising cost of living."

That's a lovely story.
So how come inflation has been 1.5% in the last year.
If your story was true wouldn't you expect it
to be higher than usual?

[Winston_Smith]

On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 16:32:52 -0600, jim wrote:
>Joe Cooper wrote:

>> Ayup. Inflation is taxation without representation. If the government wants
>> to borrow more money, but does not want to call your attention to it, let
>> alone get your permission, it simply directs the Fed to provide another
>> billion or two - which devalues the dollar and picks your pocket while the
>> sheep bemoan the "rising cost of living."
>
>That's a lovely story.
>So how come inflation has been 1.5% in the last year.
>If your story was true wouldn't you expect it to be higher than usual?

As calculated by __________?

[Winston_Smith]

On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 14:44:21 -0600, jim wrote:

>Taxes have gone down.

The rate or the amount ???
All taxes or just a selected sample ???
How about fees and taxes under other such names ???

[jim]

Geez when did I become everyone's librarian.
Can't any of you people look up any of this shit for
yourself?

Total federal taxes are a smaller portion of GDP.

You have to go all the way back to when Truman was

in office to find the last time taxes were down
to 15% of GDP. In comparison they were between 17%
and 18% of GDP when Reagan was in office. Federal
taxes were between 19% and 20% when Clinton was
in office.

[Free Lunch]

On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 09:24:36 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty

<ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote in alt.atheism:

>On 11/7/2013 7:27 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 18:59:07 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
>> <ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>>> On 11/7/2013 6:44 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 18:30:29 -0500, Stormin Mormon
>>>> <cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/7/2013 6:09 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Yippee! Five bill more in the general circulation,
>>>>>>>>> Cut it another five!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Government spending money to create a fake/phony market is supposed to
>>>>>>> do what.... trick the business owner into hiring more people? Buying
>>>>>>> new machines? increasing production to meet the fake phony demand?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How are customers "phony demand"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Customers are real demand. Government spending to
>>>>> create a fake/phony market is fake/phony demand.
>>>>
>>>> Demand is demand. You need to learn something about economics.
>>>>
>>> Is the money real money or printed or borrowed or maybe even real tax
>>> money?
>>
>> Money is money. You need to take a remedial economics course. Ideally it
>> would be one that explains why the Austrians are a joke.
>>
> Bernie Maddoff money is money? Some people that lost out would tend to
>disagree.

The money Bernie had was money, the money he lied about having was not.

>And an investor wasn't really and investor and the customer was NOT a
>customer but they were suckers like you're a sucker. The only
>difference is who's running the fake/phony scams..... you say it's OK
>if Government scams the business owner but NOT OK when the Bernie
>Maddoff business owner scams the customer?
>

No, I am not saying anything like that.

>
>That looks like a double standard.

Only when you misrepresent reality.

[Free Lunch]

On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 08:12:14 -0500, Stormin Mormon
<cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:

>On 11/7/2013 6:44 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 18:30:29 -0500, Stormin Mormon
>>>
>>> Customers are real demand. Government spending to
>>> create a fake/phony market is fake/phony demand.
>>
>> Demand is demand. You need to learn something about economics.
>>
>
>If the government taxes your money from you, and
>armed IRS agents

You appear to be feeling paranoid. Have you been engaged in criminal tax
evasion?

>collect it. They buy a pork barrel
>project, with a lot of waste. That is, in your mind,
>the same as if you buy yourself lunch, some clothes,
>and household appliances?

The long-term benefits are not necessarily the same, but paying people
to do something silly is better than keeping them unemployed.

The government can engage in needed capital improvement. Not all of our
money needs to be wasted in a Defense budget that is far larger than we
need, just to keep defense contractors fat and happy.

[Free Lunch]

On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 08:07:10 -0500, Stormin Mormon

<cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:

>On 11/7/2013 6:44 PM, Free Lunch wrote:

>> Spending is spending. Government spending and government services and
>> goods are every bit as real as private spending and private goods and
>> services.
>>
>
>I guess you missed it. Government spending is when they use the force of
>arms to tax money away from people who didn't want to spend the money on
>this or that. If the public wanted this or that, they'd have bought it
>already without being forced to by armed goons from government.

How do I buy a road?

[Free Lunch]

On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 08:09:29 -0500, Stormin Mormon

<cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:

>On 11/7/2013 6:44 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>

>> Obama is no socialist. You need to stop listening to the right-wing
>> racists who seem to have misled you.
>>
>
> http://nypost.com/2013/05/19/obama-admits-hes-a-socialist/

Is Kyle Smith capable of thinking clearly? It's a piece of nonsense.
Obama is every bit as middle-of-the-road as Clinton was. Calling him
Socialist is a substitute for actually thinking about the problems this
country has.

>Really?
>
>You'd be more credible if you'd not call people names
>like "racist".

Why does it bother you?

Rush Limbaugh makes his millions pandering to racists.

If you don't want to be associated with racists, condemn the racists
that the Republican party decided to welcome into the party with the
Southern Strategy. The Democrats had to put up with them, but finally
had the balls to say that they were no longer going to be cowed by the
racists. Why don't Republicans have the guts to stand up against
racists?

[Winston_Smith]

On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 17:24:49 -0600, jim wrote:
>Winston_Smith wrote:
>> On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 14:44:21 -0600, jim wrote:
>>
>> >Taxes have gone down.
>>
>> The rate or the amount ???
>> All taxes or just a selected sample ???
>> How about fees and taxes under other such names ???
>
>Geez when did I become everyone's librarian.
>Can't any of you people look up any of this shit for
>yourself?

Sorry. If you want to make simplistic, universal statements, it's
incumbent on you to support them.

I can't "look them up" because it's far from clear what you are
saying. And if I tired, you would just dismiss whatever source I find.
YOU have to support YOUR statements.

>Total federal taxes

Then you are not counting the programs that have been shifted from the
feds to the states, the states to the towns and school districts then?
Is that correct. You do not include taxes below federal level - is
that correct?

>are a smaller portion of GDP.

You are saying "down" as a percent of GDP, then? Not dollars paid. Do
I understand you correctly?

>You have to go all the way back to when Truman was
>in office to find the last time taxes were down
>to 15% of GDP. In comparison they were between 17%
>and 18% of GDP when Reagan was in office. Federal
>taxes were between 19% and 20% when Clinton was
>in office.

OK, Is GDP defined the same way over all that time? Truman to Obama,
same rules and computational models, right?

You are sticking with GDP all the way, not the GNP shifted to GDP in
popular reporting over the decades. Is that right?

Then again, how do you account for inflation, or don't you?



I'll suggest your statement "Taxes have gone down." is too simplistic
to have any meaning outside of party loyalist rhetoric.

[jim]

Winston_Smith wrote:
>
> On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 17:24:49 -0600, jim wrote:
> >Winston_Smith wrote:
> >> On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 14:44:21 -0600, jim wrote:
> >>
> >> >Taxes have gone down.
> >>
> >> The rate or the amount ???
> >> All taxes or just a selected sample ???
> >> How about fees and taxes under other such names ???
> >
> >Geez when did I become everyone's librarian.
> >Can't any of you people look up any of this shit for
> >yourself?
>
> Sorry. If you want to make simplistic, universal statements, it's
> incumbent on you to support them.

No it isn't. It wasn't my claim. I
was refuting someone else's claim that
taxes went up when in fact they didn't.

>
> I can't "look them up" because it's far from clear what you are
> saying. And if I tired, you would just dismiss whatever source I find.
> YOU have to support YOUR statements.

No I don't.

>
> >Total federal taxes
>
> Then you are not counting the programs that have been shifted from the
> feds to the states, the states to the towns and school districts then?
> Is that correct. You do not include taxes below federal level - is
> that correct?

What does that have to do with the claim
that the government producing money would
cause greater inflation and that inflation causes
increased taxes?

But if you think that makes a difference , why
don't you look it up and tell us what difference it makes.

>
> >are a smaller portion of GDP.
>
> You are saying "down" as a percent of GDP, then? Not dollars paid. Do
> I understand you correctly?

Yes productivity and incomes have increased
more than federal taxes.

>
> >You have to go all the way back to when Truman was
> >in office to find the last time taxes were down
> >to 15% of GDP. In comparison they were between 17%
> >and 18% of GDP when Reagan was in office. Federal
> >taxes were between 19% and 20% when Clinton was
> >in office.
>
> OK, Is GDP defined the same way over all that time? Truman to Obama,
> same rules and computational models, right?

Yes

>
> You are sticking with GDP all the way, not the GNP shifted to GDP in
> popular reporting over the decades. Is that right?

If GDP is recalculated, it is recalculated for
every year. It still works out to the lowest ratio
of taxes to national income.

>
> Then again, how do you account for inflation, or don't you?

You can account for inflation if you want to, but
since you are dividing taxes by GDP when you divide
the inflation adjustment in both the denominator and
numerator will cancel out.

>
> I'll suggest your statement "Taxes have gone down." is too simplistic
> to have any meaning outside of party loyalist rhetoric.

Would you refer to be paying 20% more as when Reagan was
president. or 30% more like when Clinton was president.

[Jim Wilkins]

"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:e9tq79lvhebe4uv81...@4ax.com...

You buy the bonds issued to finance the road.

Municipal Bonds are loans you make to the local govt to build schools
and hospitals, expand water and sewer, whatever large projects they
can't appropriate enough to fully fund in the current year, all
secured by the power to tax, except for self-supporting 'Revenue'
bonds. You receive periodic interest payments for the life of the
bond, then they return to you the bond's original price, something
like a bank CD.

The interest may be partly or fully tax-free and is likely much more
than you'll get from a bank account, though less than good stocks.

Haven't all you macroeconomic experts learned the simple stuff?

jsw

[BeamMeUpScotty]

That's why chickens in the grocery are $9.00-$14.00


Because there's NO inflation.


You Democrats are dumb as a bag of hammers.


I'll bet you think Health insurance went down too?


All of you Democrats are LIARS just like your DEAR LEADER....

[Jim Wilkins]

"Winston_Smith" <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote in message
news:ltuq795kbpiv41fui...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 17:24:49 -0600, jim wrote:
>>Winston_Smith wrote:
>>> On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 14:44:21 -0600, jim wrote:
>>>
>>> >Taxes have gone down.
>>>
>>> The rate or the amount ???
>>> All taxes or just a selected sample ???
>>> How about fees and taxes under other such names ???
>>
>>Geez when did I become everyone's librarian.
>>Can't any of you people look up any of this shit for
>>yourself?
>
> Sorry. If you want to make simplistic, universal statements, it's
> incumbent on you to support them.
>
> I can't "look them up" because it's far from clear what you are
> saying. And if I tired, you would just dismiss whatever source I
> find.
> YOU have to support YOUR statements.
>

He's "entitled" to have us do his work for him.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

it only needs to be higher than the GDP

Wealth is relative..... You are losing wealth if GDP is 1.2 and the
inflation is 1.5 to 2.0


You never were the sharpest tool in the shed were you?


But of course you already know all this, right?

*Rumination*
#40 - The truth is always the truth, it doesn't matter if it's
discovered by accident or by genius, it's always the truth.

[Winston_Smith]

On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 19:05:29 -0600, jim wrote:
>Winston_Smith wrote:
>> On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 17:24:49 -0600, jim wrote:
>> >Winston_Smith wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 14:44:21 -0600, jim wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Taxes have gone down.
>> >>
>> >> The rate or the amount ???
>> >> All taxes or just a selected sample ???
>> >> How about fees and taxes under other such names ???
>> >
>> >Geez when did I become everyone's librarian.
>> >Can't any of you people look up any of this shit for
>> >yourself?
>>
>> Sorry. If you want to make simplistic, universal statements, it's
>> incumbent on you to support them.
>
>No it isn't. It wasn't my claim. I
>was refuting someone else's claim that
>taxes went up when in fact they didn't.

Sorry. "Taxes have gone down." is YOUR statement. That others hold
other views is expected and irrelevant. You are free to hold them
responsible for what they write. I challenged YOUR statement.

>> I can't "look them up" because it's far from clear what you are
>> saying. And if I tired, you would just dismiss whatever source I find.
>> YOU have to support YOUR statements.
>
>No I don't.

Do your sort take ANY responsibility? If you can't or won't support
them, you are dismissed out of hand as a partisan shill.

>> >Total federal taxes
>>
>> Then you are not counting the programs that have been shifted from the
>> feds to the states, the states to the towns and school districts then?
>> Is that correct. You do not include taxes below federal level - is
>> that correct?
>
>What does that have to do with the claim
>that the government producing money would
>cause greater inflation and that inflation causes
>increased taxes?

I didn't address them. It has a lot to do with YOUR claim, "Taxes have
gone down".

>But if you think that makes a difference , why
>don't you look it up and tell us what difference it makes.

I'm not interested working to support your statements. I want to find
out what your statement, "Taxes have gone down" is based/biased on.

>> >are a smaller portion of GDP.
>>
>> You are saying "down" as a percent of GDP, then? Not dollars paid. Do
>> I understand you correctly?
>
>Yes productivity and incomes have increased
>more than federal taxes.

If personal income is up (assuming you have a job) and taxes have gone
up less, then income tax rates must have gone down. Do you claim it
has?

>> >You have to go all the way back to when Truman was
>> >in office to find the last time taxes were down
>> >to 15% of GDP. In comparison they were between 17%
>> >and 18% of GDP when Reagan was in office. Federal
>> >taxes were between 19% and 20% when Clinton was
>> >in office.
>>
>> OK, Is GDP defined the same way over all that time? Truman to Obama,
>> same rules and computational models, right?
>
>Yes

Sorry, I don't believe that.

>> You are sticking with GDP all the way, not the GNP shifted to GDP in
>> popular reporting over the decades. Is that right?
>
>If GDP is recalculated, it is recalculated for
>every year. It still works out to the lowest ratio
>of taxes to national income.

Why do they need re-computing unless some fudging is in progress?

>> Then again, how do you account for inflation, or don't you?
>
>You can account for inflation if you want to, but
>since you are dividing taxes by GDP when you divide
>the inflation adjustment in both the denominator and
>numerator will cancel out.

For GDP, we are told inflation is good. Bernanke says that's just what
he wants. When politicians calculate for the consumer/voter, it's good
if inflation is low. There is no level playing field. Reagan changed
the rules, Clinton changed the rules, Bush changed the rules, Obama
changed the rules.

>> I'll suggest your statement "Taxes have gone down." is too simplistic
>> to have any meaning outside of party loyalist rhetoric.
>
>Would you refer to be paying 20% more as when Reagan was
>president. or 30% more like when Clinton was president.

We are back to the beginning. Percent of WHAT? You are doing great
rhetoric. Solid sounding statements that have no demonstrable meaning.

[PrecisionmachinisT]

"Jim Wilkins" <murat...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:l5k3gs$o4k$2...@dont-email.me...

>
> "Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
> news:e9tq79lvhebe4uv81...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 08:07:10 -0500, Stormin Mormon
>> <cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>>>On 11/7/2013 6:44 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>> Spending is spending. Government spending and government services and
>>>> goods are every bit as real as private spending and private goods and
>>>> services.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I guess you missed it. Government spending is when they use the force of
>>>arms to tax money away from people who didn't want to spend the money on
>>>this or that. If the public wanted this or that, they'd have bought it
>>>already without being forced to by armed goons from government.
>>
>> How do I buy a road?
>
> You buy the bonds issued to finance the road.
>

Bonds still force everyone to pay, it's just that bondholders get to stuff
other people's money into their wallets as part of the process.

[PrecisionmachinisT]

"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message

news:8m9o799bvlqdb8uov...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 15:12:08 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>>In article <RAMeu.125708$4q1.1...@en-nntp-12.dc1.easynews.com>,
>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/6/2013 6:08 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>> > In article <u9seu.15705$UA3....@en-nntp-08.dc1.easynews.com>,
>>> > BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>>>>>> In article <l55t7...@news6.newsguy.com> MarkA
>>> >>>>>>> <som...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> The food stamp program is being cut by five BILLION dollars
>>> >>>>>>>> because,
>>> >>>>>>>> you know, the FOUR HUNDRED people who own more than HALF THE
>>> >>>>>>>> WEALTH
>>> >>>>>>>> of the USA shouldn't have to suffer just because millions of
>>> >>>>>>>> families
>>> >>>>>>>> are on the brink of starvation.
>>> >>
>>> >> Taxing and forcing the wealthy to feed the people that threaten them
>>> >> and
>>> >> their families, somehow just sounds wrong, like forcing the Jews to
>>> >> pay
>>> >> a tax to feed the NAZI army......
>>> >
>>> > Are the wealthy really this stupid? That they don't understand that
>>> > all
>>> > those unwashed folk beneath them are the ones that make their
>>> > lifestyle
>>> > possible?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Probably NOT stupid but why help the NAZI's kill Jews if you're a Jew?
>>>
>>> Why help these Socialists who threaten to kill the wealthy if you're the
>>> wealthy?
>>>
>>> See this is what I mean when I say Liberalism is self destructive. It's
>>> such an ignorant ideology that they're willing to kill each other with
>>> stupidity. You Liberals are so stupid that Liberals will vote to help
>>> someone kill you.
>>
>>What the FUCK are you babbling about?
>
> The usual right-wing kowtowing to the greedy rich.

Scotty thinks the reason he's poor is because of people who are even poorer
than he is.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <K86dnRcQ2OyzPeDP...@scnresearch.com>,

Yep. Typical evidence of brain damage.

[Jim Wilkins]

"PrecisionmachinisT" <precisionm...@notmail.com> wrote in
message news:K86dnRQQ2OywPeDP...@scnresearch.com...

>
> "Jim Wilkins" <murat...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:l5k3gs$o4k$2...@dont-email.me...
>>

>> You buy the bonds issued to finance the road.
>>
>
> Bonds still force everyone to pay, it's just that bondholders get to
> stuff other people's money into their wallets as part of the
> process.

That is the nature of investments, including your house and insurance
policies. Someone else takes a risk you aren't willing to, to buy you
what you can't. The alternative is paying for everything as you go,
which Jim claims will impoverish us.

Gotta go, another hundred people just got offa the bus.

[jim]

BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>
> On 11/8/2013 5:32 PM, jim wrote:
> >
> >
> > Joe Cooper wrote:
> >>
> >> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote in
> >> news:nKbfu.13998$as5....@en-nntp-14.dc1.easynews.com:
> >>
> >>> That causes inflation and inflation means that taxes go up so you paid a
> >>> tax to cover the money printed....
> >>>
> >>> I don't know what you heard, but the truth is still the truth.
> >>
> >> Ayup. Inflation is taxation without representation. If the government wants
> >> to borrow more money, but does not want to call your attention to it, let
> >> alone get your permission, it simply directs the Fed to provide another
> >> billion or two - which devalues the dollar and picks your pocket while the
> >> sheep bemoan the "rising cost of living."
> >
> > That's a lovely story.
> > So how come inflation has been 1.5% in the last year.
> > If your story was true wouldn't you expect it
> > to be higher than usual?
> >
> it only needs to be higher than the GDP

US GDP is around $16 trillion and inflation rate is
around 1.5%. Which one is higher?

[jim]

Winston_Smith wrote:
>
> On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 19:05:29 -0600, jim wrote:
> >Winston_Smith wrote:
> >> On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 17:24:49 -0600, jim wrote:
> >> >Winston_Smith wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 14:44:21 -0600, jim wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Taxes have gone down.
> >> >>
> >> >> The rate or the amount ???
> >> >> All taxes or just a selected sample ???
> >> >> How about fees and taxes under other such names ???
> >> >
> >> >Geez when did I become everyone's librarian.
> >> >Can't any of you people look up any of this shit for
> >> >yourself?
> >>
> >> Sorry. If you want to make simplistic, universal statements, it's
> >> incumbent on you to support them.
> >
> >No it isn't. It wasn't my claim. I
> >was refuting someone else's claim that
> >taxes went up when in fact they didn't.
>
> Sorry. "Taxes have gone down." is YOUR statement. That others hold
> other views is expected and irrelevant. You are free to hold them
> responsible for what they write. I challenged YOUR statement.

The claim was taxes have gone up. If that is true how
come the nation is spending a smaller percentage of
its income on taxes than it has at any other time in
the last 60 years.

>
> >> I can't "look them up" because it's far from clear what you are
> >> saying. And if I tired, you would just dismiss whatever source I find.
> >> YOU have to support YOUR statements.
> >
> >No I don't.
>
> Do your sort take ANY responsibility? If you can't or won't support
> them, you are dismissed out of hand as a partisan shill.

You are the one being irresponsible.

>
> >> >Total federal taxes
> >>
> >> Then you are not counting the programs that have been shifted from the
> >> feds to the states, the states to the towns and school districts then?
> >> Is that correct. You do not include taxes below federal level - is
> >> that correct?
> >
> >What does that have to do with the claim
> >that the government producing money would
> >cause greater inflation and that inflation causes
> >increased taxes?
>
> I didn't address them. It has a lot to do with YOUR claim, "Taxes have
> gone down".

My claim was that taxes are small compared to
the size of the economy.

>
> >But if you think that makes a difference , why
> >don't you look it up and tell us what difference it makes.
>
> I'm not interested working to support your statements. I want to find
> out what your statement, "Taxes have gone down" is based/biased on.

I'm asking you to support your claim
that taxes have shifted to the states.
What's the matter Mr. Responsible can't you support
the claims you make?

>
> >> >are a smaller portion of GDP.
> >>
> >> You are saying "down" as a percent of GDP, then? Not dollars paid. Do
> >> I understand you correctly?
> >
> >Yes productivity and incomes have increased
> >more than federal taxes.
>
> If personal income is up (assuming you have a job) and taxes have gone
> up less, then income tax rates must have gone down. Do you claim it
> has?

Income tax isn't the entire tax, but yes some of
it is due to less tax on income. Some of it is a shift
in where income comes from since not
all income is taxed the same.

>
> >> >You have to go all the way back to when Truman was
> >> >in office to find the last time taxes were down
> >> >to 15% of GDP. In comparison they were between 17%
> >> >and 18% of GDP when Reagan was in office. Federal
> >> >taxes were between 19% and 20% when Clinton was
> >> >in office.
> >>
> >> OK, Is GDP defined the same way over all that time? Truman to Obama,
> >> same rules and computational models, right?
> >
> >Yes
>
> Sorry, I don't believe that.
>
> >> You are sticking with GDP all the way, not the GNP shifted to GDP in
> >> popular reporting over the decades. Is that right?
> >
> >If GDP is recalculated, it is recalculated for
> >every year. It still works out to the lowest ratio
> >of taxes to national income.
>
> Why do they need re-computing unless some fudging is in progress?

The perception of what is final product changes over time.
For instance the way income from intellectual property (authors
for instance) has changed over time. Nevertheless, minor
changes in the way GDP is calculated has no noticeable effect
on the ratio of GDP to taxes. It still works out the same
using the old methodology or the current. The ratio of
taxes to GDP is either way lower now than any other time in
the last 60 years.

>
> >> Then again, how do you account for inflation, or don't you?
> >
> >You can account for inflation if you want to, but
> >since you are dividing taxes by GDP when you divide
> >the inflation adjustment in both the denominator and
> >numerator will cancel out.
>
> For GDP, we are told inflation is good. Bernanke says that's just what
> he wants. When politicians calculate for the consumer/voter, it's good
> if inflation is low. There is no level playing field. Reagan changed
> the rules, Clinton changed the rules, Bush changed the rules, Obama
> changed the rules.

You're babbling paranoid nonsense. A minimum level of inflation
is believed to promote faster economic growth. Deflation always
has historically accompanied economic decline and high unemployment.
The best way to avoid deflation is maintain a small level of
inflation.

The fact remains there is no sign of high taxes and
high inflation that the doomsday predictors have been saying
for years will emerge any day now. That is a pretty good
indication there is something lacking in their analysis.

>
> >> I'll suggest your statement "Taxes have gone down." is too simplistic
> >> to have any meaning outside of party loyalist rhetoric.
> >
> >Would you refer to be paying 20% more as when Reagan was
> >president. or 30% more like when Clinton was president.
>
> We are back to the beginning. Percent of WHAT? You are doing great
> rhetoric. Solid sounding statements that have no demonstrable meaning.

Percent of income. GDP is a measure of the nation's income.
What else would you compare taxes to besides income?

When comparing total federal taxes to total national income,
the data shows taxes are the lowest they have been in
60 years.

[PrecisionmachinisT]

"SteveB" <Stevexx...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:l5du2l$acv$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

>
>>>> The food stamp program is being cut by five BILLION dollars because,
>>>> you
>>>> know, the FOUR HUNDRED people who own more than HALF THE WEALTH of the
>>>> USA shouldn't have to suffer just because millions of families are on
>>>> the brink of starvation.
>

> If they would cut out fraud and those who are riding the system, they
> could save a hell of a lot more than that.
>

Cutting food stamps because a few people have abused them is like
restricting gun rights because a few people have abused them.

[Gunner Asch]

On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 10:24:28 -0500, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:

>On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 11:10:27 -0800, Gunner Asch wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 09:14:38 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty

>> <ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> In article <l55t7...@news6.newsguy.com> MarkA
>>>>>>>> <som...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> The food stamp program is being cut by five BILLION dollars
>>>>>>>>> because, you know, the FOUR HUNDRED people who own more than HALF
>>>>>>>>> THE WEALTH of the USA shouldn't have to suffer just because
>>>>>>>>> millions of families are on the brink of starvation.
>>>

>>>Taxing and forcing the wealthy to feed the people that threaten them and
>>>their families, somehow just sounds wrong, like forcing the Jews to pay a
>>>tax to feed the NAZI army......
>>>

>>>A better idea might be to appeal to their sense of National Pride as
>>>Americans and hope they will help their American brothers.
>>>
>>>
>>>Of course if you are preaching that you're going to kill them and their
>>>family and steal their wealth and put Socialists in power to suck their
>>>fortune dry and in no way do anything for America other than whine that
>>>America owes you more. Then they might NOT be willing to "help" people
>>>like that in their time of need.
>>
>> That explains this then....
>>
>> http://www.dailysportspages.com/index.php?threads/wealthy-leaving-the-u-s-at-record-pace.3933/
>> (odd that many are Democrats....)
>>
>> http://nypost.com/2012/06/24/us-citizens-leaving-the-country-to-avoid-stiff-tax-bills/
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2BHzU_MRls
>>
>> 111.000.000 hits on Google
>
>I don't blame them. Too many poor people. Take the middle class's life
>savings, then leave. A fool proof formula for success.
>
>At least ONE of the ultra-wealthy, Warren Buffett, understands that the
>wealthy need a healthy Middle Class to sustain them. The American Middle
>Class was a product of *government programs* put in place after WWII to
>help returning GIs, and to keep factories busy, after they didn't need
>to be building tanks and planes as fast as they could. Nowadays, it
>appears that the Middle Class was just a calf being fattened up for
>slaughter by the ultra-wealthy.

Or being slaughtered by the Leftwing tax raisers.

You didnt mention that fact. Why not?


--
Liberals want everyone to think like them.
Conservatives want everyone to think.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[Stormin Mormon]

On 11/8/2013 6:34 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>
>> If the government taxes your money from you, and
>> armed IRS agents
>
> You appear to be feeling paranoid. Have you been engaged in criminal tax
> evasion?
>

I'm an old man, and I remember earlier times.
The USA sure has changed, and not for the better.

--
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

[Stormin Mormon]

You'd be better off to first ask how to ask
questions which aren't absurd. But, since you
asked, same as buying politicians.

[Stormin Mormon]

On 11/8/2013 6:40 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>> You'd be more credible if you'd not call people names
>> like "racist".
>
> Why does it bother you?
>
> Rush Limbaugh makes his millions pandering to racists.
>
> If you don't want to be associated with racists, condemn the racists
> that the Republican party decided to welcome into the party with the
> Southern Strategy. The Democrats had to put up with them, but finally
> had the balls to say that they were no longer going to be cowed by the
> racists. Why don't Republicans have the guts to stand up against
> racists?
>

You do realize the KKK was founded by Democrats?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

>>> On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 17:24:49 -0600, jim wrote:

>>>> You have to go all the way back to when Truman was
>>>> in office to find the last time taxes were down
>>>> to 15% of GDP. In comparison they were between 17%
>>>> and 18% of GDP when Reagan was in office. Federal
>>>> taxes were between 19% and 20% when Clinton was
>>>> in office.

You're confused or lying again....


Taxes and "Revenue" are very different things, it's a typical Liberal
way to confuse an issue and claim that they are smarter than everyone else.

*FEDERAL INCOME* Taxes may be at 18% but Revenue as part of the GDP is
NOT going to be at 18% necessarily.... It's also the Tax that hurts the
economy by creating patterns in how people react to the tax, they may
quit earning income at $100,000, to try to change the actual Revenue
that the government receives from it's tax. They may shift money to tax
exempt municipal bonds or send the money over seas where it will be
taxed less and they can retain more income.

Taxes as a whole may be 52% but the revenue taken into the various
government entities by those taxes may NOT add up to 52% of the GDP or
even 52% of your own personal income.

*Rumination*
#13.0.1 - Governments are parasites that will grow until they kill their
host.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

I would never blame anyone but myself and those that impose their laws
on me to steal my RIGHTS, for my lot in life. The fact you know how to
manipulate the system or game the government and other people for free
things says a lot about you but nothing about me.


*Rumination*
#76 - I'm NOT confident that I'm always right, I'm just confident that
Liberals are always wrong.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

But while the original idea was for law and Justice to be dispensed,
like ObamaCare all those good intentions have become evil hatred and a
quest for more power.....

The pattern is set and Democrats are doing the same thing over and over
and over.... it's the way their brains work that have them doing the
same thing and renaming it, and then they HOPE the results will CHANGE.

They are dumber than a bag of Dog shit.

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 09 Nov 2013 08:01:29 -0500, Stormin Mormon
<cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:

>On 11/8/2013 6:34 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>
>>> If the government taxes your money from you, and
>>> armed IRS agents
>>
>> You appear to be feeling paranoid. Have you been engaged in criminal tax
>> evasion?
>>
>
>I'm an old man, and I remember earlier times.

Federal tax collections in 2010 were at the lowest in 60 years as a
percent of GDP and are still well below our post-war average. The
anti-tax activists are ignorant about how much is being collected.

>The USA sure has changed, and not for the better.

Aside from the fact that the rich are getting almost all of the growth
in the economy, that they are not sharing it as they did before Ronald
Reagan attacked working people, the USA has changed for the better. Your
rose-colored memories are betraying you.

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 09 Nov 2013 08:02:24 -0500, Stormin Mormon

<cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:

>On 11/8/2013 6:35 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 08:07:10 -0500, Stormin Mormon
>> <cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>>> On 11/7/2013 6:44 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>> Spending is spending. Government spending and government services and
>>>> goods are every bit as real as private spending and private goods and
>>>> services.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I guess you missed it. Government spending is when they use the force of
>>> arms to tax money away from people who didn't want to spend the money on
>>> this or that. If the public wanted this or that, they'd have bought it
>>> already without being forced to by armed goons from government.
>>
>> How do I buy a road?
>>
>You'd be better off to first ask how to ask
>questions which aren't absurd. But, since you
>asked, same as buying politicians.

So you would rather pay tolls on a private road in addition to paying
gasoline tax? Why?

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 09 Nov 2013 08:03:18 -0500, Stormin Mormon
<cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:

So what?

Democrats no longer welcome racists. Republicans, once the party of
abolition and reform, have welcomed the racists and are afraid to do
anything that might offend racists. The House decided that they cannot
be bothered to do anything about immigration because they are afraid of
the racists and other nativists in their party.

Republicans have turned their backs on Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt.
Democrats have turned their backs on racists like Wilson.

Who do you think is going the right way?

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 09 Nov 2013 02:06:26 -0800, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote in alt.atheism:

The fact that federal tax revenue is well below its postwar average.
That must be the fact that you want people to know. Our taxes are too
low to do what everyone wants the government to do. Even Republicans are
whining about how cutting spending is hurting their projects.

Did you want to shut down Social Security? Medicare?