Courtesy Houston Chronical
|
Enough $100 bills to fill 22 Astrodomes
News accounts on the latest federal budget deal gave the numbers in a vacuum, e.g., “The deal cuts $38 billion from last year’s budget. It’s being called the largest domestic spending cut in U.S. history” (source). How can an individual voter make sense of quantities that are ordinarily written in scientific notation? I think the easiest way is to divide everything by 100,000,000 (10^8).
Let’s start with federal spending. The FY 2011 federal budget is approximately $3.82 trillion (3.82×10^12). Of that, approximately $2.17 trillion will be paid for by taxes collected and the remaining $1.65 trillion will be borrowed from our grandchildren. If we divide everything by 100 million, the numbers begin to make more sense.
We have a family that is spending $38,200 per year. The family’s income is $21,700 per year. The family adds $16,500 in credit card debt every year in order to pay its bills. After a long and difficult debate among family members, keeping in mind that it was not going to be possible to borrow $16,500 every year forever, the parents and children agreed that a $380/year premium cable subscription could be terminated. So now the family will have to borrow only $16,120 per year.
G2, Give it up. You’ll never convince those who believe they are owed a living by the Nanny State.
#59 so the assumption is, the LLs’ $55K is put to better use by the government to build roads, schools, etc, than by LL to get his kitchen remodeled?
By that logic, we should all pay 100% of our income to the government. We are clearly too stupid to know what to spend it on properly and only our betters can make those decisions for us.
#7 Oy!Phone: The sucky phone for people that suck!
According to a couple of congress critters, creatures not noted for telling the truth I admit, for 600,000,000 we could control the border with Mexico. A location that means more to my than Libya.
How much have we spent there? Er, 600,000,000 and growing.
I have a plan for cutting military spending. Don’t start any more wars! Get out of Iraq! Get out of Afghanistan! Tell the Pakistanis to do what ever they want in their country. We aren’t going to give them any more money!
#58–G2==thank you. first poster in a week to take a stab at the question, and its a “fair” counter.
tcc3 got the main response and your counter to that is fair as well? And I must say that the gov giving the money to the Banksters is almost a win? BUT how did the Banksters come so close to World Financial Meltdown that could have cost LL his job? Thats right, failure of the Fed’s to adequately monitor and regulate the Market Place. Without this “unseen and unfelt” proper role of government, everyone’s hard work will go to nefarious purposes and evil ends. Its shortsighted and ignorant to think our lives just occur because of our own efforts and luck. Our lives are very much directed by the efforts, good and bad, of government. Government sets the stage, we are but actors upon that stage……..
So “the answer” is a little deeper than the first 3-4 layers of the onion. What does it take for a society to function? Does that question even get addressed by ONLY looking at one’s own immediate needs and desires? No.
But tcc3 hit that nail on the head too: “Suck it up and pay your share of the society that enabled that wealth.” /// Yea, verily.
Like a monkey with his hand in the cookie jar: only able to understand what his hand is on and not what is required for success.
Silly Hoomans.
#65->I didn’t understand a single thing you said. OH, I understood the words, but you didn’t offer anything other than rehashed statements by others. Maybe I missed something but I am willing to read another post by you if you want to attempt your response again.
For instance, your response was inconsistent. On one hand, you stated that my response to tcc3 was fair but then flipped and gave a resounding confirmation to his suggestion to paying his fair share.
So, which is it? Is it better to give the money to the Banksters (his “share” then going to them) or hire local help which means keeping the money in the economy?
#66
Is it better to give the money to the Banksters (his “share” then going to them) or hire local help which means keeping the money in the economy?
Since SOME of the federal tax money went to big banks you don’t want ANY tax money to go to the Federal Government. Instead, you want it to go to local contractors who are too often: illegal immigrants, hire illegal immigrants, do shoddy work, are unqualified, are con-men in disguise, use substandard materials, leave work unfinished and vanish, …
Gee, let’s paint every dollar with the same brush. Not EVERY tax dollar goes to any one target. While few people are happy with TARP, most of that money has been repaid with interest. Yet to suggest YOU shouldn’t have to contribute to the running of this country or it’s betterment is simple hubris.
Remodeling your kitchen is NOT a better way of using your tax dollars. All that does is move the burden to other people. I know, Liebertarians prefer to live the bohemian lifestyle where they use none of society’s utilities. Only, they do. That kitchen remodeling used many utilities society has devised to make our lives better and more economical. The roads that transported the trees to the mill – tax payer money. The border defense that prevented Canadians from coming in and stealing all the trees – tax supported. The railroad that carried the lumber to LL’s house – grant money and concessions. The protection of law enforcement to reduce theft – more tax money. The nearby fire department in case of fire – tax money. And when LL’s kitchen is done, the sewer and water hookup will be to, you guessed it – tax funded systems. His garbage produced in his new kitchen will be removed by trucks using – yup those tax supported roads, possibly even by a tax supported garbage truck.
Society is for all of us. Liebertarians are only for themselves.
#56, Alphie,
Until progressives have some skin in the game, actually pay taxes, I think they should shut up and thank us taxpayers for supporting them.
We are waiting to hear you thank us for carrying your fat ass all these years. In the past you admitted you drove an unlicensed taxi. That means no permit and no declared income yet a user of society’s utilities. A true scofflaw that wants to lecture others.
holy crap you liberal morons just don’t get it do you?
Your govt is spending 1.5 trillion more than they make EVERY YEAR!!
All you can say is tax the rich but please don’t cut spending on baby killing, those babies really need to be killed!
You could tax the rich and corporations 100%, take all their money, think of the hard on that would give dallass and bobbo! and you still couldn’t pay the debt from just this year!!!
#66 Maybe you didn’t understand because English is a second language for #65
Raise taxes back to the levels of CLinton’s administration and most of this problem goes away.
But then again, since the teachers, firefighter, and police unions caused the financial meltdown it is only right we balance the budget on their backs while giving the top of the income heap gifts.
#67->Most of what you described is handled out of local taxes, not federal taxes. See #60.
But I still haven’t seen a rational argument, just some racist accusation on the nationality of the contractors, as to why the local economy shouldn’t benefit from the windfall instead of sending it to DC.
Would you be just as happy if only half of that went to DC and the rest was local?
What is the local government to do when they can’t afford to pay for the roads or the police or the firemen or any of the other local services because those contractors don’t have the money to pay the local taxes?
This is job creation at the most basic level and you think it is a bad thing?
Or do you think that only the government knows how to create jobs?
How do you know he isn’t living in a 60 year old house and needs to upgrade it?
Is he supposed to hire federal government workers to come in and do it for him?
Or apply for a grant from the federal government to pay to get it done?
How is he supposed to get it done?
#72, Or do you think that only the government knows how to create jobs?
Bingo. People aren’t allowed to think for themselves. That would be bad. Now just go do your job. They’ll take care of everything else.
And for the record, it is a 33 year old house.
#66–G2==another “fair” response. Let me continue to coax you along via the wonderfully direct parse:
#65->I didn’t understand a single thing you said. /// I believe you. Spend a week in a teepee on hallucinogens and read it again.
OH, I understood the words, /// I assumed that, such is the level of your fairness
but you didn’t offer anything other than rehashed statements by others. /// Well, thats demonstrably wrong. Just LOOK, Maw, Just look. Or are you that blind only able to read the words you agree with?
Maybe I missed something /// yea verily. Read the words before and after what you say is merely regurgitated
but I am willing to read another post by you if you want to attempt your response again. /// Forward, always forward. Into the Valley of Death rode the 500.
For instance, your response was inconsistent. On one hand, you stated that my response to tcc3 was fair but then flipped and gave a resounding confirmation to his suggestion to paying his fair share. /// I characterize your response as “fair” because it was not Alfie stupid. If you had said: “All taxation is direct tyranny because the government takes the money by threat of or actual force.” Then I probably would have just called you an idiot and moved on. But you are one step removed from being an idiot and that makes responding to you a fair exercise. And by “you” I mean every other half baked self centered short sighted liebertard who might happen upon this thread looking for me to get squashed by your command of the subject.
So, which is it? Is it better to give the money to the Banksters (his “share” then going to them) or hire local help which means keeping the money in the economy? //// Whenever given a choice, I always say both. Define better? Money is fungible. Your alternative is what? Expert opinion is about evenly divided that the stimulus should have been more especially given so much of it was tax cuts and pork. Many branches to follow.
To follow your initial shaping: re read Mr Fusion as well. A most excellent reality based instruction.
#74 Yes, I believe #65 was on hallucinogenics when he wrote that post. That or expired meds.
House passed a budget that reforms entitlements and cuts spending to levels of 2006, back when the country was so different, and babies were being tossed into the street along with grandma out of her wheelchair and the homeless.
Not just Obama that punted on the budget problems in hid speech yesterday. Democrats all voted present on the Republican budget, hoping to keep Paul Ryan’s budget from being voted on by getting an alternative budget passed.
#74->”Define better?”
Oh, for crying out loud. What do you think I meant? Don’t play me for the fool.
Should the local government benefit from having someone pump money into their economy or should the federal government get it?
This is not a hypothetical question on some alternate universe. This is today’s federal government, your local town.
Where do you think the money would best be spent?
#78–G2==really? Haw, Haw. I take it you accept the preceding corrections?
I am not playing you for the fool……….
But you do appear to have a reading disability. Can you read a word/sentence in context==even if not linguistically at least in geography: what comes before and after your confusion? Let me provide it for emphasis:
“So, which is it? Is it better to give the money to the Banksters (his “share” then going to them) or hire local help which means keeping the money in the economy? //// Whenever given a choice, I always say both. Define better? Money is fungible. Your alternative is what? Expert opinion is about evenly divided that the stimulus should have been more especially given so much of it was tax cuts and pork. Many branches to follow.
Take a stab at the other questions and how they are answered by what you consider to be better than some other relevant issues may make the question valid to you? …. Yea, probably not.
How about:
1. Better for whom?
2. Better for what end goal?
3. Better in the short term or the long term?
Yes, so many branches to follow. Or do you mean as you imply “better for every issue and every circumsance as in Universally Better for all analyses.” Is that what you mean?
Ha, ha. Well that would be playing you for the fool, which is why I asked.
#79->If you can’t answer a direct answer without wishy-washying around, there is no need to continue. This is the problem with the government today. “It’s not that simple!” Actually, friend, it is. But you have to know your own mind.
Good Luck in the future.