We don't have a revenue problem we have a spending problem

Laugh at that if you like, but it's true.

http://tiny.iavian.net/56my

Not clicking on the link because it's probably a naked dude like nucky posted. Sick lws. Sick.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Not clicking on the link because it's probably a naked dude like nucky posted. Sick lws. Sick.

I'm a homophobe so our would more likely be a naked chick. I know you aren't into those.....

Hot! I can't believe anyone is really that flexible.

Motown Spartan wrote:Hot!  I can't believe anyone is really that flexible.  

Okay, clicked on it. 

You guys are liars.

Let me guess, republican controlled Congress gets credit for the record fed tax revenue increase and Obama the reason we spend to much.

Or is it Obama gets credit for job creation leading to more fed tax revenue increase and Republicans the blame for the congress they control spending to much.

I can never remember

kingstonlake wrote:Let me guess, republican controlled Congress gets credit for the record fed tax revenue increase and Obama the reason we spend to much.

Or is it Obama gets credit for job creation leading to more fed tax revenue increase and Republicans the blame for the congress they control spending to much.

I can never remember

At this point there is enough blame for all of them. But seriously, we really need a complete over haul on the way we do things.

LoneWolfSparty wrote:

kingstonlake wrote:Let me guess, republican controlled Congress gets credit for the record fed tax revenue increase and Obama the reason we spend to much.

Or is it Obama gets credit for job creation leading to more fed tax revenue increase and Republicans the blame for the congress they control spending to much.

I can never remember

At this point there is enough blame for all of them. But seriously, we really need a complete over haul on the way we do things.

Before it's to late.....

LoneWolfSparty wrote:

kingstonlake wrote:Let me guess, republican controlled Congress gets credit for the record fed tax revenue increase and Obama the reason we spend to much.

Or is it Obama gets credit for job creation leading to more fed tax revenue increase and Republicans the blame for the congress they control spending to much.

I can never remember

At this point there is enough blame for all of them. But seriously, we really need a complete over haul on the way we do things.

Can we start with the absolutely assinine amount of money we spend on the military?

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

LoneWolfSparty wrote:

At this point there is enough blame for all of them. But seriously, we really need a complete over haul on the way we do things.

Can we start with the absolutely assinine amount of money we spend on the military?

Travis, this is one of the primary reasons the federal government was formed. Is prefer getting rid of all federal funding of local projects/grants, and subsidies first. Simplify the tax code, eliminate most of the irs. Also gut all but the most necessary federal agencies.

No where did the founders in creating the federal government ever imagined that federal taxes would be so high so that we could issue grants to states, cities, etc for things like road and bridge projects.

LoneWolfSparty wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
Can we start with the absolutely assinine amount of money we spend on the military?

Travis, this is one of the primary reasons the federal government was formed. Is prefer getting rid of all federal funding of local projects/grants, and subsidies first. Simplify the tax code, eliminate most of the irs. Also gut  all but the most necessary federal agencies.

No where did the founders in creating the federal government ever imagined that federal taxes would be so high so that we could issue grants to states, cities, etc for things like road and bridge projects.

You should let go of the founders worship a little bit. I mean, its all well and good, but it isn't gospel. (See, amendments 10-26. Except for 18 and 21. We can change our minds sometimes too.)

Look, if we cut our ridiculously out of control military budget by even just 10% Wed save, what? Like 60 billion dollars per year? And we would still outspend the rest of the world militarily many times over so we would likely be just as safe? Sounds like a sweet starting point. Then we can talk about which individual local projects to cut to make up the rest of the 250 billion per year we can save.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

LoneWolfSparty wrote:

Travis, this is one of the primary reasons the federal government was formed. Is prefer getting rid of all federal funding of local projects/grants, and subsidies first. Simplify the tax code, eliminate most of the irs. Also gut  all but the most necessary federal agencies.

No where did the founders in creating the federal government ever imagined that federal taxes would be so high so that we could issue grants to states, cities, etc for things like road and bridge projects.

You should let go of the founders worship a little bit. I mean, its all well and good, but it isn't gospel. (See, amendments 10-26. Except for 18 and 21. We can change our minds sometimes too.)

Look, if we cut our ridiculously out of control military budget by even just 10% Wed save, what? Like 60 billion dollars per year? And we would still outspend the rest of the world militarily many times over so we would likely be just as safe? Sounds like a sweet starting point. Then we can talk about which individual local projects to cut to make up the rest of the 250 billion per year we can save.

No, I disagree. Until Islamic extremist terrorism is defeated we should not cut from the military. Not a dime.

LoneWolfSparty wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
You should let go of the founders worship a little bit. I mean, its all well and good, but it isn't gospel. (See, amendments 10-26. Except for 18 and 21. We can change our minds sometimes too.)

Look, if we cut our ridiculously out of control military budget by even just 10% Wed save, what? Like 60 billion dollars per year? And we would still outspend the rest of the world militarily many times over so we would likely be just as safe? Sounds like a sweet starting point. Then we can talk about which individual local projects to cut to make up the rest of the 250 billion per year we can save.

No, I disagree. Until Islamic extremist terrorism is defeated we should not cut from the military. Not a dime.

First it was Germans. Then it was communists. Then it was sadaam. Now it's Islamic extremism. Next it's north Korea.... Your line of thinking will never come to an end. There will always be some big baddy out there that we need to be scared of to justify why we need to build 10,000 new tanks every single year (making up a number. You know want I mean though.)

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

LoneWolfSparty wrote:

No, I disagree. Until Islamic extremist terrorism is defeated we should not cut from the military. Not a dime.

First it was Germans. Then it was communists. Then it was sadaam. Now it's Islamic extremism. Next it's north Korea.... Your line of thinking will never come to an end. There will always be some big baddy out there that we need to be scared of to justify why we need to build 10,000 new tanks every single year (making up a number. You know want I mean though.)

Again, the fed gov was formed largely to provide for the common defense. It should be the main purpose of federal tax and spending. We'll never agree on this Travis, but a strong national defense is imperative in a world full of baddies.

LoneWolfSparty wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
First it was Germans. Then it was communists. Then it was sadaam. Now it's Islamic extremism. Next it's north Korea.... Your line of thinking will never come to an end. There will always be some big baddy out there that we need to be scared of to justify why we need to build 10,000 new tanks every single year (making up a number. You know want I mean though.)

Again, the fed gov was formed largely to provide for the common defense. It should be the main purpose of federal tax and spending. We'll never agree on this Travis, but a strong national defense is imperative in a world full of baddies.

Strong is fine. I'm good with strong. $600 billion dollars, aka the rest of the world combined, when we have a $250 billion annual deficit is well beyond strong. It is Barry bonds, Mark McGuire and Drago had a love child then spent 25 years pumping them full of steroids and making them work out constantly.

That analogy makes no sense.... I'm just saying it's way way way way more than we need. keep in mind... That is $600 billion PER YEAR. What the shit are you spending 6 TRILLION dollars on in a 10 year period? Seriously. How can that possibly be necessary? (Hint. It isnt.)

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

LoneWolfSparty wrote:

Again, the fed gov was formed largely to provide for the common defense. It should be the main purpose of federal tax and spending. We'll never agree on this Travis, but a strong national defense is imperative in a world full of baddies.

Strong is fine. I'm good with strong. $600 billion dollars, aka the rest of the world combined, when we have a $250 billion annual deficit is well beyond strong. It is Barry bonds, Mark McGuire and Drago had a love child then spent 25 years pumping them full of steroids and making them work out constantly.

That analogy makes no sense.... I'm just saying it's way way way way more than we need. keep in mind... That is $600 billion PER YEAR. What the shit are you spending 6 TRILLION dollars on in a 10 year period? Seriously. How can that possibly be necessary? (Hint. It isnt.)

As I said we will never agree on this. In the same 10 year period the national debt has grown by $10.5 trillion. That includes $21.7 in tax receipts for the 10 year period.

Simple math: $21.7T - 6T (militart) = 15.7T + 10.5T (in debt) = 26.2T NON-MILITARY SPENDING in the last 10 years.

I would gladly spend $1T per year on the military and cut out all the other garbage. That would leave $1-2T per year to run the government. I think they could do that.

LoneWolfSparty wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
Strong is fine. I'm good with strong. $600 billion dollars, aka the rest of the world combined, when we have a $250 billion annual deficit is well beyond strong. It is Barry bonds, Mark McGuire and Drago had a love child then spent 25 years pumping them full of steroids and making them work out constantly.

That analogy makes no sense.... I'm just saying it's way way way way more than we need. keep in mind... That is $600 billion PER YEAR. What the shit are you spending 6 TRILLION dollars on in a 10 year period? Seriously. How can that possibly be necessary? (Hint. It isnt.)

As I said we will never agree on this. In the same 10 year period the national debt has grown by $10.5 trillion. That includes $21.7 in tax receipts for the 10 year period.

Simple math: $21.7T - 6T (militart) = 15.7T + 10.5T (in debt) = 26.2T NON-MILITARY SPENDING in the last 10 years.

I would gladly spend $1T per year on the military and cut out all the other garbage. That would leave $1-2T per year to run the government. I think they could do that.

Yes, we won't agree. I'll continue anyway because I want to use "blowy upy" in a sentence.

The thing is, we have already spent that money on the military. Why do we need to continue spending more and more and more? Are the bombs that we've already stockpiled not blowy upy enough? Why do we need to restockpile those every year? Or whatever it is that they spend an insane amount of money on.

Military spending isn't about keeping us safe anymore. It's about the people who make the bombs making sure that they continue to get paid. Period. We don't need to keep feeding those companies anymore.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

LoneWolfSparty wrote:

As I said we will never agree on this. In the same 10 year period the national debt has grown by $10.5 trillion. That includes $21.7 in tax receipts for the 10 year period.

Simple math: $21.7T - 6T (militart) = 15.7T + 10.5T (in debt) = 26.2T NON-MILITARY SPENDING in the last 10 years.

I would gladly spend $1T per year on the military and cut out all the other garbage. That would leave $1-2T per year to run the government. I think they could do that.

Yes, we won't agree. I'll continue anyway because I want to use "blowy upy" in a sentence.

The thing is, we have already spent that money on the military. Why do we need to continue spending more and more and more? Are the bombs that we've already stockpiled not blowy upy enough? Why do we need to restockpile those every year? Or whatever it is that they spend an insane amount of money on.

Military spending isn't about keeping us safe anymore. It's about the people who make the bombs making sure that they continue to get paid. Period. We don't need to keep feeding those companies anymore.

So the $26t+ non military spending in the last 10 years doesn't bother you?

If you don't get the obsolence of older military assets I don't know how to continue the military spending discussion with you. So you may have the last word, sir.

LoneWolfSparty wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
Yes, we won't agree. I'll continue anyway because I want to use "blowy upy" in a sentence.

The thing is, we have already spent that money on the military. Why do we need to continue spending more and more and more? Are the bombs that we've already stockpiled not blowy upy enough? Why do we need to restockpile those every year? Or whatever it is that they spend an insane amount of money on.

Military spending isn't about keeping us safe anymore. It's about the people who make the bombs making sure that they continue to get paid. Period. We don't need to keep feeding those companies anymore.

So the $26t+ non military spending  in the last 10 years doesn't bother you?

If you don't get the obsolence of older military assets I don't know how to continue the military spending discussion with you. So you may have the last word, sir.

I definitely understand it. Like I said, "strong is good." But I gotta think that there is plenty of waste in there with replacing things that don't need to be replaced. $6 trillion in 10 years. There is no way that is necessary. None. Period. End of story.

As I said earlier. Start with the insane military budget. Move on from there. I didn't say that the rest of whatever (quite ambiguous how you don't really reference anything specific there huh) was all fine. Just providing a nice starting point to cut out some of the blowy upy stuff.

LoneWolfSparty wrote:Laugh at that if you like, but it's true.

http://tiny.iavian.net/56my

Of course it's true.

But how would any Dem win an election? I am going to stop being an enabler and giving you free shit...vote for me?