Comments
1,481 - 1,500 of 52,215 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago
ChickenFajitas

Douglasville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1570
Dec 6, 2012
 
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
It took five minutes to find the following information:
The Government Accountability Office has issued two reports identifying $400 billion in annual duplication and overlap in funds.
The 2012 Pig Book Summary includes these as just a sample:$255 million to upgrade the M1 Abrams tank - which is opposed by the Pentagon.$5,870,000 for the EastWest Center, a pet project of Daniel Inouye.$239,000,000 for peer reviewed cancer research, but $5.1 billion has already been provided for research in the Labor/HHS Appropriations Act of 2012.$50,000,000 for National Guard Counter Drug Programs, but again $2 billion has already been allocated to the Drug Enforcement Agency for the same thing.$9,500,000 for high energy cost grants to the Rural Utilities Service, but this is a duplication of the Dept of Agriculture's Electric Loan Program.
That is just a small sampling. There is plenty of waste, duplication and just sheer pork that can be cut from the budget before ever touching entitlements.
And you won't get any arguments from almost ANYBODY that we need should aggressively look for those types of items and cut them out of our budget. Even so - those things mentioned add up to what? A Billion? Not really a drop in the bucket.

But - you know as well as I do, EVERYBODY that parrots Hannity - "We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem!" is talking about cutting entitlements for the poor. They think some bum crack dealer is getting freebies from "Santa" while they have to go to work.

They're idiots, and I think you realize that, and I realize that - but most don't. Cutting to the truth is a difficult job when they DON'T WANT to know the truth.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1571
Dec 6, 2012
 
ChickenFlorentine wrote:
Interesting subject - we're spending too much. All those poor people being lazy taking our money.
In 2010 JUST Exxon Mobil generated revenues of $383,000,000,000.00, up 35%, during the recession while most Americans were struggling. That same year they paid an effective tax rate of 17%.
In 2010 we spent about 409 Billion on oil subsidies.
In the 2010 Federal Budget we spent about 191 Billion (5.5%) on actual aid to the poor.
You seem to have a problem with Exxon - In actuality, less than 3% of Exxon's earnings are from US gasoline sales (they are a world wide company.) For every gallon of gasoline, diesel fuel or other products sold in the US, Exxon earns a little over 2 CENTS A GALLON in profit. At the same time, the US government (which does nothing to produce or sell that gas) gets 40-60 cents a gallon in taxes. That US tax rate they paid was offset by the taxes they paid in other countries (to the tune of 15 billion)- for example, in Nigeria, Exxon pays an 85% tax rate. In total worldwide, Exxon in 2010 paid 78.6 billion in taxes for an effective tax rate of 47%.

And I don't know where you got your 191 billion figure for aid to the poor in 2010. About 14%($496 billion) of the 2010 federal budget went to support programs that provide aid (not counting health insurance or social security benefits) to individuals and families facing hardships.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1572
Dec 6, 2012
 
ChickenFajitas wrote:
<quoted text>
And you won't get any arguments from almost ANYBODY that we need should aggressively look for those types of items and cut them out of our budget. Even so - those things mentioned add up to what? A Billion? Not really a drop in the bucket.
But - you know as well as I do, EVERYBODY that parrots Hannity - "We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem!" is talking about cutting entitlements for the poor. They think some bum crack dealer is getting freebies from "Santa" while they have to go to work.
They're idiots, and I think you realize that, and I realize that - but most don't. Cutting to the truth is a difficult job when they DON'T WANT to know the truth.
Please read what I wrote, I said those were a quick sample of items I found. And there is a reason so many are saying we have a spending problem - WE DO. I know first hand about government spending, I used to work for the government. There was nothing like the end of the fiscal year to suddenly have use working overtime to spend the money we were allocated. If you don't spend what you are allocated - instead of getting your budget increased, you get that much deducted from the next year's budget - there is no incentive to save. My aunt worked for a congressman in Washington - it was the same thing. At the end of the fiscal year, congressional staff travel home like crazy to spend their travel allotments so the money wouldn't be cut for the next year. And do you really believe that there are not people on the government dole who shouldn't be? For the umpteenth time, Republicans are as willing as anyone to see those who are truly in need get assistance, but there are many people for whom the government check is their way of life when they are perfectly capable of working.
ChickenFajitas

Douglasville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1573
Dec 6, 2012
 
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to have a problem with Exxon
They were just the first oil company I thought of. I didn't pick on them for any specific reason. But there IS plenty to pick on them about.
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
In total worldwide, Exxon in 2010 paid 78.6 billion in taxes for an effective tax rate of 47%.
Well, then they shouldn't mind paying a few more points here in the US, should they?:) If they actually paid 35% it would still be a bargain.
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
And I don't know where you got your 191 billion figure for aid to the poor in 2010. About 14%($496 billion) of the 2010 federal budget went to support programs that provide aid (not counting health insurance or social security benefits) to individuals and families facing hardships.


The budget sub-categories you're using to get at 14%(most of the time it's quoted at 12%), actually include the funds for 3 things that shouldn't remotely be considered "welfare". These include - 1. General retirement and disability insurance
2. Federal employee retirement and disability
3. Unemployment compensation

Remove those from the welfare entitlement numbers,(as they should be), and you're at about 5.5%.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1574
Dec 6, 2012
 
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to have a problem with Exxon - In actuality, less than 3% of Exxon's earnings are from US gasoline sales (they are a world wide company.) For every gallon of gasoline, diesel fuel or other products sold in the US, Exxon earns a little over 2 CENTS A GALLON in profit. At the same time, the US government (which does nothing to produce or sell that gas) gets 40-60 cents a gallon in taxes. That US tax rate they paid was offset by the taxes they paid in other countries (to the tune of 15 billion)- for example, in Nigeria, Exxon pays an 85% tax rate. In total worldwide, Exxon in 2010 paid 78.6 billion in taxes for an effective tax rate of 47%.
And I don't know where you got your 191 billion figure for aid to the poor in 2010. About 14%($496 billion) of the 2010 federal budget went to support programs that provide aid (not counting health insurance or social security benefits) to individuals and families facing hardships.
+1 (again)

Don't confuse anyone with the facts, it will drive them bonkers. It's rather disingenuous (and clueless) for someone to think we can continue to borrow 40% of our spending. Pure logic indicates we should live within our means...

Oh yeah, forgot about the approx.$82 trillion in unfunded liabilities, but that would be too hard to explain to some...
ChickenFajitas

Douglasville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1575
Dec 6, 2012
 
As long as we're at this particular spot - looking at 5% of the federal budget - we could extrapolate a bit further.

Using very rough numbers for the sake of simplicity:

Let's say somebody makes 50,000 a year and pays a 20% federal tax rate. He pays 10k to the government. 5% of that goes to the poor. That's about $9.00 a week he pays to help the most needy amongst us.

That's what people are griping about. The government helping those in need at a cost of $9.00.

“Shadowville All-Stars”

Since: Dec 08

Columbus, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1576
Dec 6, 2012
 
Hello my friends... long time no see.

After the election of last month I was suffering severe election burnout, there wasn't either a satisfying victory or defeat for me, since, as I'd written here and said to people so many tims, I'm no fan of either Obama or Romney... I reckon that after a month sabbatical from all these discussions I'll be ready to chime in soon.

Maybe in January, maybe sooner!

--
Music & poetry from Will Dockery & Friends:
http://www.reverbnation.com/willdockery
ChickenFajitas

Douglasville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1577
Dec 6, 2012
 
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you don't spend what you are allocated - instead of getting your budget increased, you get that much deducted from the next year's budget - there is no incentive to save.
I get that, along with your other arguments. And I agree - it's insane. Let's go after problems like that - it's the only smart thing to do. We can come up with example after example of stupid things that Federal money gets spent on. A lot of it just makes you shake your head and wonder "how?". Even if we were 100% efficient at reducing those types of things though (not counting defence), it still doesn't come close to being a problem solver.
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
And do you really believe that there are not people on the government dole who shouldn't be? For the umpteenth time, Republicans are as willing as anyone to see those who are truly in need get assistance, but there are many people for whom the government check is their way of life when they are perfectly capable of working.
Absolutely there are people like that. They're disgusting. And although they are highly publicized and easy to spot - they're a very small percentage of legitimate welfare needs. Unfortunately, they're the only ones simple-minded idiots think of when they hear the word "welfare" or "entitlement". The truth is most welfare recipients are on it for a short time and really do need some temporary help. If we truly are a great nation, we'd rather pay for a few welfare thugs that play the system than let kids grow up malnourished and uneducated in one of the wealthiest societies on earth. And if we can weed out those who play the system, the better.

The problem is that so much propaganda is being bandied about and so much BS being spread on "talk radio" that very few people look at the reality and practical side of this. They just repeat the mantra. "We're going broke feeding the takers!!!" It's not remotely true.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1578
Dec 6, 2012
 
Hey Will: Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays and stuff!

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1579
Dec 6, 2012
 
ChickenFajitas wrote:
<quoted text>
The budget sub-categories you're using to get at 14%(most of the time it's quoted at 12%), actually include the funds for 3 things that shouldn't remotely be considered "welfare". These include - 1. General retirement and disability insurance
2. Federal employee retirement and disability
3. Unemployment compensation
Remove those from the welfare entitlement numbers,(as they should be), and you're at about 5.5%.
Defense and International Security Assistance 20%
Social Security 20%
Medicare, Medicaid and CHiP 21%
Safety Net 13%
Interest on the Debt 6%
Benefits for Federal Retirees and Veterans 7%
Transportation Infrastructure 3%
Education 2%
Science and Medical Research 2%
Non-security International assistance 1%
All other 4
These figures are from the Office of Management and Budget. Medicaid and CHiP which should be included in the safety net figure, but aren't would raise that 13% even higher. And you will note that there is a separate line item for Federal Retiree and Vet benefits, so those are not in the safety net figure.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1580
Dec 6, 2012
 
LMAO, someone MAKING $50K being in a 20% tax bracket.

What if a kitten could dunk a basketball?

----
An uneducated and clueless voter is a dangerous thing. They tend to vote Liberal…

“I don’t want someone who doesn’t pay ANY federal income taxes voting to determine how much I pay.”

"I'm not going to let half the country that doesn't pay income taxes be burdened by the other half that doesn't pay their fair share."

Wizard of ID Guard:“Shouldn’t voters have to pass an intelligence test?”
Wizard:“You don’t have to be intelligent to vote.”
Guard:“What if there are more stupid people than intelligent people?”
Wizard:“Then the democrat wins.”

Wealth envy is an ugly thing. They have it. You don't.

Somebody else got all the breaks. You didn't.

They got an education. You didn't.

They worked their a$$es off, including long hours and weekends. You didn't.

They took risks, including investing their own money if necessary, to build a business. You didn't.

"Shared prosperity" = Socialism...

“If you’re not a liberal at 20, you have no heart, and if you’re not a conservative at 40, you have no head.” Winston Churchill

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” Winston Churchill

“Common sense is a flower that doesn’t grow in everyone’s garden…”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1581
Dec 6, 2012
 
Doo wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you've got me mixed up with yourself freind. Obama won the election and all your hate keeps on spewing everyday. Take a back seat where you belong because you did not win and let the winner doo his job. I have a brain which is much more than you have. Fox has ruined yours.
No, Dude. I don't have YOU mixed up with anyone. Take a back seat???? To whom? YOU? lol
I have accepted that Obama won the election and my feelings for him have not changed. Why should they? Do you think that I am supposed to gulp his koolaid because he won the election? How naive can you possibly be? He's had a chance to do his job and didn't. Maybe he's a new man now. We'll see.
Why are you libs so obsessed with Fox News? That's all you have. You go on and on about Fox News. I'm curious. Would you like for Fox News to be shut down/disappear? Be honest.
ChickenFajitas

Douglasville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1583
Dec 6, 2012
 
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
Defense and International Security Assistance 20%
Social Security 20%
Medicare, Medicaid and CHiP 21%
Safety Net 13%
Interest on the Debt 6%
Benefits for Federal Retirees and Veterans 7%
Transportation Infrastructure 3%
Education 2%
Science and Medical Research 2%
Non-security International assistance 1%
All other 4
These figures are from the Office of Management and Budget. Medicaid and CHiP which should be included in the safety net figure, but aren't would raise that 13% even higher. And you will note that there is a separate line item for Federal Retiree and Vet benefits, so those are not in the safety net figure.
The three areas I mentioned that shouldn't be included are subfunctions of "Income Security" - There's details somewhere at the government printing office that I couldn't find again - The subfunctions that should be counted are Housing assistance, Food and nutrition assistance and Other income security.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1584
Dec 6, 2012
 
ChickenFajitas wrote:
<quoted text>
The three areas I mentioned that shouldn't be included are subfunctions of "Income Security" - There's details somewhere at the government printing office that I couldn't find again - The subfunctions that should be counted are Housing assistance, Food and nutrition assistance and Other income security.
Why in the world would you not want to include those three categories, they are part of the safety net.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1585
Dec 6, 2012
 
^^^I think I misread your post - are you saying Housing assistance, food and nutrition and other income security were/should/or should not have been included in the safety net figure? Not being argumentative, I'm just unclear.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1586
Dec 6, 2012
 
ChickenFajitas wrote:
<quoted text>
I get that, along with your other arguments. And I agree - it's insane. Let's go after problems like that - it's the only smart thing to do. We can come up with example after example of stupid things that Federal money gets spent on. A lot of it just makes you shake your head and wonder "how?". Even if we were 100% efficient at reducing those types of things though (not counting defence), it still doesn't come close to being a problem solver.
<quoted text>
Absolutely there are people like that. They're disgusting. And although they are highly publicized and easy to spot - they're a very small percentage of legitimate welfare needs. Unfortunately, they're the only ones simple-minded idiots think of when they hear the word "welfare" or "entitlement". The truth is most welfare recipients are on it for a short time and really do need some temporary help. If we truly are a great nation, we'd rather pay for a few welfare thugs that play the system than let kids grow up malnourished and uneducated in one of the wealthiest societies on earth. And if we can weed out those who play the system, the better.
The problem is that so much propaganda is being bandied about and so much BS being spread on "talk radio" that very few people look at the reality and practical side of this. They just repeat the mantra. "We're going broke feeding the takers!!!" It's not remotely true.
This pretty much doesn't support your statement about people on welfare being on it for a short time. Of course, unless Obama or some left wing pundit says it, it's not true.

http://www.utexas.edu/depts/ic2/et/learner/ge...

As far as wasted tax money and your suggestion of "let's go after that", geeeeee....great idea. No one has EVER thought of THAT. Your man has a great opportunity to do that now. When he was campaigning the first time, he was going to put a stop to lobbyists/special interests. How'd THAT work out? Okay. He doesn't have to worry about getting elected again, so let's see if he'll take care of the waste. Think he will?

I've noticed that you are convinced that YOU are right and those who don't agree with you are listening to BS on Talk Radio, are simple minded, idiots, etc. I admire Aggie for continuing to even bother with you. You are such a typical name calling liberal. There aren't enough facts in this world that will convince you to even QUESTION what the democrats/Obama are doing. Those of us who have been posting for quite some time realized pretty quickly that you and those like you are a waste of time. You try to give the impression that there are several(many?) liberals on here praising democrats/Obama when in fact, there are only a couple who keep switching ID's. YOU are the worst offender, Sybil. You must have a spreadsheet with all of your various, silly ID's.
ChickenFajitas

Douglasville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1587
Dec 6, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why in the world would you not want to include those three categories, they are part of the safety net.
Are we on the same page? The three I'm saying shouldn't be included are general retirement and disability insurance, Federal employee retirement and disability, and unemployment compensation.

Using unemployment compensation as an example, it's funded through unemployment insurance, paid for by the employer in theory - but ultimately it's paid for by the employee in the form of a reduced compensation package. The point is, unemployment compensation is self-funded, much like social security.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1588
Dec 6, 2012
 
@ Chicken Fajitas
Leaving statistics behind and just talking philosophy here. As has been repeated ad nauseam, Republicans do not have a problem with helping the truly needy. But are you really prepared to say that the assistance programs are not overflowing with people who are gaming the system or who simply choose to not take responsibility for themselves. The war on poverty is a proven failure - billions have been spent and the poverty rate has not decreased an iota in this country. The illegitimacy rate alone is a huge problem - and is an indication of a complete lack of responsibility. The illegitimacy rate is now almost 50% in this country - and most of those children are receiving govt assistance in some form or fashion. A close member of my own family has two children but will not marry the mother because he would then become liable for her student loans that are in default. So those children and the mom receive govt assistance and did so with the pregnancies. It makes me furious. As a member of his family, I would be there to help if he needed help, but it burns me up that he and his baby momma expect tax payers to help them rather than take responsibility for themselves. And I think they are indicative of too many on the govt dole. So I feel very qualified to comment.
ChickenFajitas

Douglasville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1589
Dec 6, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Synergy wrote:
<quoted text>
This pretty much doesn't support your statement about people on welfare being on it for a short time. Of course, unless Obama or some left wing pundit says it, it's not true.
http://www.utexas.edu/depts/ic2/et/learner/ge...
Did you read what you posted a link to? There's a ton of great information there if you read through and think about everything that's being said. It absolutely supports what I said. It certainly doesn't feed the stereo-type of life-long welfare game players. There's a lot you could take from that study - but I won't bother - because you don't care. You just want to be anti-Obama, or anti-peoplewhosupportobama. Even if we did definitively agree on a fact, you'd ignore that you've ever heard it three days from now.
Synergy wrote:
<quoted text>

As far as wasted tax money and your suggestion of "let's go after that", geeeeee....great idea. No one has EVER thought of THAT.
That was an agreement with Aggie23 - not some proclamation of a brilliant new idea. We're agreeing to common ground. I know the idea must look foreign to you.
Synergy wrote:
<quoted text>
Your man has a great opportunity to do that now. When he was campaigning the first time, he was going to put a stop to lobbyists/special interests. How'd THAT work out? Okay. He doesn't have to worry about getting elected again, so let's see if he'll take care of the waste. Think he will?
Ah, the obligatory anti-obama stance from you!
Synergy wrote:
<quoted text>

I've noticed that you are convinced that YOU are right and those who don't agree with you are listening to BS on Talk Radio, are simple minded, idiots, etc. I admire Aggie for continuing to even bother with you. You are such a typical name calling liberal. There aren't enough facts in this world that will convince you to even QUESTION what the democrats/Obama are doing. Those of us who have been posting for quite some time realized pretty quickly that you and those like you are a waste of time.
Ah the fury-filled ad-hominem attack we've come to know and love from you. Lot's of emotion and not one whit of substance.
Synergy wrote:
<quoted text>
You try to give the impression that there are several(many?) liberals on here praising democrats/Obama when in fact, there are only a couple who keep switching ID's. YOU are the worst offender, Sybil. You must have a spreadsheet with all of your various, silly ID's.
No, I don't try to give anyone the impression that I am "multiple liberals praising democrats". I make no effort to hide that it's me posting, and my posting-style if very recognizable.

Only an idiot would not be able to piece together that DarkMeat, ChicknButt,ChickenFajita,Chick enFlorentine,ChickenDiablo,Dru mStick,SickChicken, and Wishbone are all me. Which explains why it confuses you, I guess.

No spreadsheet required - I don't care what name I posted under last week, as long as I continue to be clear it's me. By the way, I use different identities for a very good and practical reason that should be easily apparent to anyone paying attention.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1590
Dec 6, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

come on Syn, we know who this is, don't we?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Hinesville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
where's all the weed at? (Jan '14) 6 hr The Truth 9
Men Wearing Thongs (Sep '08) Aug 18 CFM 240
Hinesville, Georgia Anti- Military Town. (Sep '08) Aug 11 MySwingingDick 131
Why do some Ft. Stewart Sargeants act like t... (Aug '09) Aug 10 Reggie 72
Decent crabbing spots? Aug 7 Fletch 3
Hinesville Rotary installs new officers Aug 2 Raman 1
bryan county sheriff department (Feb '14) Jul 30 Vine 3

Search the Hinesville Forum:
•••
•••

Hinesville Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Hinesville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Hinesville News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Hinesville
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••