Jump to content

U.S. Government spends half million dollars painting a fish on an airplane.


Guest $iLk
 Share

Recommended Posts

quote:

Originally posted by Prez:

Good plan there buddy.

I think those who have given up on everything are those who vote for the 2 party system because they feel they 'have to' as if they really win either way it goes.

It's all a matter of perspective.

You keep voting for corporate politics and I'll keep stockpiling food and ammo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Actually, 30 countries have offered help under form of financial, material or personnel ressources for a temporary total amount of $ 350 million. The US help amounts to 50 $ million.

True enough my friend. But who do you think is going to end up having donated the lion's share of the aid money and resources? By the same token, who will continue to be berated by Kofi Annan and his terrorist cronies as selfish and not generous enough? Much like the Tsunami aid, the 50 million will most certainly only be a first installment on a much larger payout.

It's funny how no one complains about the U.S. acting unilaterally when it comes to spending money!

I surely didn't meant to imply that your fine country or others do not care - apologies if what I wrote gave that impression. It's just comparatively the U.S. gives the most and is thanked the least. I'm kind of tired of it. Where are the pictures of this mulilateral UN force doling out aid, anyway? I haven't seen them, and no, I don't just watch Foxnews.

Hey, maybe your fine nation of Spain can step up and be the next Superpower! We've had enough of it in the U.S., I think.

quote:

What I almost never see are people from the US...

Hey I was there in '96. Weren't you paying attention? Iwas the guy in the sailor uniform, looking lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aperson.

First: The way taxes inherently are, has ZERO meaning. The way taxes ARE RIGHT NOW, is everything. I don't care how you are supposed to be taxed. I care how I AM TAXED right now. And like I said, working 12 hours instead of 8, you are supposed to be taking 8 hours pay plus overtime, meaning at least 150% MORE than just 8 hours of work would make you. The way it is set up now, you take LESS than that, because the overtime incurs a higher rate. Why should I work TIMES AND A HALF more than someone else, yet take home LESS than times and half? Not penalizing? I don't think so. I am not even starting on how much you get taxed on your other incomes, investments, and if you make over 100,000.

Second: Whats wrong with a person getting a head start? Like I said, if he is rich, he SPENDS his money, or owns bussinesses, invests, ect... THAT CREATES WEALTH, IN RETURN CREATING JOBS. Which leads me to a third point.

Third: The "jobs" that government creates, waste wealth. Those "jobs" CAN NOT sustain themselfs, and rely on influx of our taxes to support them. Government DOES NOT create wealth, it squanders it. Therefore, it DOES NOT create sustainable jobs. Bussinesses DO. They operate for profit. Hire people, that EARN their paychecks, and in return the company expands, grows and hires more people. Do you understand the difference? A perfect example is a communist Russia. Their bussinesses, production, inventions, all went down hill when all became nationalized, and people LOST their jobs, became poorer, and living conditions WORSENED. That's the kind of "jobs" the government creates. So you taxing the bussinesses and claiming that money will go towards job creation is a ludicrous concept. Give that money back to bussinesses and they will create 5 times the ammount of jobs the government would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

Aperson.

First: The way taxes inherently are, has ZERO meaning. The way taxes ARE RIGHT NOW, is everything. I don't care how you are supposed to be taxed. I care how I AM TAXED right now. And like I said, working 12 hours instead of 8, you are supposed to be taking 8 hours pay plus overtime, meaning at least 150% MORE than just 8 hours of work would make you. The way it is set up now, you take LESS than that, because the overtime incurs a higher rate. Why should I work TIMES AND A HALF more than someone else, yet take home LESS than times and half? Not penalizing? I don't think so. I am not even starting on how much you get taxed on your other incomes, investments, and if you make over 100,000.

As I said, a flat income tax (among other things) would probably be better .

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

Second: Whats wrong with a person getting a head start? Like I said, if he is rich, he SPENDS his money, or owns bussinesses, invests, ect... THAT CREATES WEALTH, IN RETURN CREATING JOBS. Which leads me to a third point.

Nothing, just pointing out what Wolfheart might have meant (which I probably shouldn't be doing).

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

Third: The "jobs" that government creates, waste wealth. Those "jobs" CAN NOT sustain themselfs, and rely on influx of our taxes to support them. Government DOES NOT create wealth, it squanders it. Therefore, it DOES NOT create sustainable jobs. Bussinesses DO. They operate for profit. Hire people, that EARN their paychecks, and in return the company expands, grows and hires more people. Do you understand the difference? A perfect example is a communist Russia. Their bussinesses, production, inventions, all went down hill when all became nationalized, and people LOST their jobs, became poorer, and living conditions WORSENED. That's the kind of "jobs" the government creates. So you taxing the bussinesses and claiming that money will go towards job creation is a ludicrous concept. Give that money back to bussinesses and they will create 5 times the ammount of jobs the government would.

Those jobs are still needed, unless you want to have a "no-goverment" goverment system.

And I think everyone can agree that the USSR design plan failed (although it certainly helped the space race!).

On a slightly unrelated note, I find it amusing how people say a figure as if it was a proven fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me explain to you the FIGURE.

Government jobs can't create other jobs. Their jobs don't create profits, therefore their jobs can only suck up wealth and resources like a vacuum.

Bussines jobs create WEALTH, which allows for creation of other jobs when the company grows. Which allows creation of other jobs when investors get a return from the company and either re-invest that return or spend it (that re-investment or spending is what creates more jobs, be it at the same company or any other place the investor spends it).

Going back to government. When it taxes bussinesses to "create a job". Lets say it takes 100,000,000 in taxes, minus the beurocratic fees, minus the pork barreling, minus the leeching off, it will create jobs totalling maybe 30% of that million (300,000). Let the company keep that million. A company will end up EXPANDING and hiring people that will PRODUCE further profits (unlike the government that would just pay out 300,000 and that's it, no further profits) which would allow FURTHER hiring and MORE jobs. Let a "rich" individual keep that million, and he will invest it, or spend it, both of those outcomes will provide jobs, be it on the investing side (production, bussiness, services), or spending side (services, items, ect...)

You catching on where that figure comes from? Have a finite budget of 1 million that gets truncated to 300,000 because of waste, and only provide enough jobs till those 300,000 run out. Or have a finite budget of 1 million, that gets invested and GROWS, producing jobs that keep on producing. Who then will create more jobs with that same ammount. Government or bussiness? That's why I said bussiness will outdo by at least 5. How old are you by the way? I am just curious, so that I know if you are in high school and are taking math and economics, in which case I am happy that you can actually learn something outside of school, or have you graduated already, in which case I am still happy, because maybe this will show you something that high school indoctrination (not education, but that's a whole other subject) didn't teach you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Prez:

quote:

Tsk tsk Prez... That statement is patently false.

With all due respect Grizzle, it is you who are deliberately spreading untruths with your "taxcuts for the rich" garbage. There has NEVER been any such thing whatsoever as a tax that benefits ONLY rich people. You are merely playing the politics of envy, and it is quite sad, really.

NEWSFLASH!!!! The people who pay the most taxes will by default see the most benefit from any taxcut. The top 1% of wage earners pay one third of all taxes in America. Why wouldn't they see a bigger benefit than a guy making $30,000 a year? It is a matter of mathmatics, not of politics.


I never claimed that tax cuts benefit only the rich, you're putting words in my mouth. I stated that the tax rate paid by the rich will decrease by a larger percentage than other taxpayers.

There are many ways to slice the pie to make it appear that they don't actually benefit more. Or how since they have a higher income, they pay a larger share... um yeah. But since our tax system is based upon percentage the only true way to measure it is not with actual dollars paid or their share (in percentage) of overall taxes paid, but to measure it by the change in the rate of individual percentage they pay.

Over the course of the Bush tax cuts the effective individual tax rate for the top earners will decrease by a maximum of 6.9% whereas the middle class tax rate will decrease by a maximum of 1.9%. That being said, the decrease does fluctuate for all tax brackets, but the rich consistently receive the largest decrease until the tax cuts expire.

So yes everyone benefits, but the rich benefit more... which is why your statement is false. It is you who have been bamboozled.

As for envy, not me, I really couldn't care less. I was just trying to set the record straight when you claimed that the statement "tax cuts for the rich" was a liberal fallacy. However, I will concede that the wording is a bit loaded and should be reframed as "tax cuts that benefit everyone but favor the rich."

I'm not even going to entertain the notion of whether or not it's justified, because that's not the point and as I already stated I really don't care. More power to 'em.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Federal Tax brackets:

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

So if you make 170,000 a year, you are taxed at 35% federally, PLUS 15% (max state tax CA), PLUS social security, PLUS CA disability, PLUS medicare. That's OVER 50%, it will come out to about 59%

So if you make $170,000 you come home with $70,000 YEAH, THATS ONLY SEVENTY THOUSAND. Wake up Grizzle.

If you make $91,000, you bring home around $55,000 do your math. 28% federal, 8% CA, social, disability, medicare = 43%

So how does it figure that a guy that makes TWICE as much, brings home only 28% more than a guy who makes half what he does. You call that fair? That's just about as fair as me working 12 hours and instead of bringing in 150% +overtime of what the guy working 8 hours makes, instead I end up bringing in 130% and that's INCLUDING overtime because of higher tax rate on overtime.

Yeah Grizzle, ITS NOT TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH. It's called bringing down the taxes after the liberals have raised them on the rich to such levels that's it's almost unbearable. But, even that's besides the point. Because like I was saying. YOU, The guy making 70 grand a year, is who ends up paying the increased taxes on the rich, for every dollar more they are taxed, you end up paying almost 3 in increased prices of goods and services. How many different ways can I say that. It's simple math. THINK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

I was just trying to set the record straight when you claimed that the statement "tax cuts for the rich" was a liberal fallacy.

Sorry friend... the record was already set straight. "Taxcuts for the rich" is a lie because it is deliberately and purposely meant to mislead and misinform - the only way the liberals in this country can maintain any semblance of power, I might add.

Why not call it "Tax cuts for the white"? Or is that a little too divisive even for liberals? Frankly, I wouldn't put ANYTHING past them, as they continue to stoop to new levels of shame.

Why else call it tax cuts for the rich, except to deceive? It's a lie through omission; it's a lie because it deliberately avoids the truth. It is a taxcut for everyone, with some people benefitting more than others. So what? We all don't pay the same taxes, therefore we all won't receive the same benefit. As long as you keep spreading falsehoods, I'll continue to keep pointing out the half-truths and deceptions of liberalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soback, it's called a progressive tax system and no it's not the most fair, but it's the way it is. Would a flat tax be more fair? I don't think so because then it would place a greater burden on those that earn less. 20% flat tax on someone earning 16,000 hurts a hell of a lot more than 20% on someone earning 160,000.

There isn't another tax scheme that would result in complete equality across the board, so we are left with the progressive tax which places the burden on those that can afford it. Besides, even if the rich have a higher tax burden they also have more means at their disposal to place their earnings in tax shelters offsetting the amount they actually pay out regardless of their tax bracket. Don't you recall the tax statistics released about John and Teresa Kerry only paying 14% on their multi-million dollar income?

I don't envy the rich, and I certainly don't pity them either.

Prez, if your point is that the terminology is used by the dems/liberals to enrage then I would tend to agree, but it's not without basis in actual data. How much more harmful is it then the "Terror Alert" or "Bird flu" tactics used by the current administration to keep people in a perpetual state of fear? Our strings can only be pulled if we allow them to be. Meh.

I really don't care to engage in a pissing match either. I think I've been pretty clear in the past that I inherently distrust politicians in toto.

As far as taxes go, I happen to be in the highest percentage bracket but earn much less than the richest who pay the same rate and I'm not complaining one bit. I do however take some issue with how it is spent as I think we all do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grizzle - I also don't wish to get involved in pissing matches. But it's a very important distinction in my view; one that lies at the very heart of the difference between conservativism and liberalism.

Apologies if it looked like I was clubbing you repeatedly over the head with this - you have earned my respect for your even-keel attitude and your ability to separate politics from an issue and analyze it objectively, thus I find it worth my time discussing and debating things with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Prez:

Another Ted Kazinsky in the making. Why not just start killing off the unwashed masses now?

The unibomber, although pretty crazy had a coherent plan of action for acting against 'the system.'

I don't agree with his philosophy though. I do believe that nothing is ever going to be solved in this country by a vote cast for a Democrat or a Republican.

You can take that to the bank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Grizzle:

Soback, it's called a progressive tax system and no it's not the most fair, but it's the way it is. Would a flat tax be more fair? I don't think so because then it would place a greater burden on those that earn less. 20% flat tax on someone earning 16,000 hurts a hell of a lot more than 20% on someone earning 160,000.

There isn't another tax scheme that would result in complete equality across the board, so we are left with the progressive tax which places the burden on those that can afford it. Besides, even if the rich have a higher tax burden they also have more means at their disposal to place their earnings in tax shelters offsetting the amount they actually pay out regardless of their tax bracket. Don't you recall the tax statistics released about John and Teresa Kerry only paying 14% on their multi-million dollar income?

I don't envy the rich, and I certainly don't pity them either.

Prez, if your point is that the terminology is used by the dems/liberals to enrage then I would tend to agree, but it's not without basis in actual data. How much more harmful is it then the "Terror Alert" or "Bird flu" tactics used by the current administration to keep people in a perpetual state of fear? Our strings can only be pulled if we allow them to be. Meh.

I really don't care to engage in a pissing match either. I think I've been pretty clear in the past that I inherently distrust politicians in toto.

As far as taxes go, I happen to be in the highest percentage bracket but earn much less than the richest who pay the same rate and I'm not complaining one bit. I do however take some issue with how it is spent as I think we all do.

Aaaaahh. Progressive. I see. So me working twice as much, and instead of taking in twice as much, end up taking in only 3/4 of the normal is called progressive.

So if you are making 170 thousand, and another guy making 80 thousand, and you tax the guy that makes 170 to bring in his home take just slightly above the 80 thousand guy is called progressive.

Hmmmm... Interesting.

In THAT case. I don't EVER want to hear from the liberals how it's unfair that the rich get a higher tax brake. IT'S CALLED PROGRESSIVE TAXES, and THEREFORE PROGRESSIVE TAX BREAKS. Since their taxes 60%, and the poorest is 20%, since they get taxed 3 TIMES more, then they should ALSO get 3 TIMES the break. PROGRESSIVE Grizzle, see.

You can't have a progressive tax, but then a reversed progressive or a flat tax break. I know that that's the way liberals want, that's the reason for their slogan, "the tax breaks for the rich". ROFL, always, all they want to do is throw a party with the hobos, the looters and the leaches at someone elses expense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soback's: Second to last post:

Yes and those jobs are still needed even if they don't help the economy. Although, it would be interesting on how well the goverment funded advertisments work(or don't as the case may be).

And I'm still in highschool, but I probably won't take econmics (it isn't a required credit unless they snuck it in under a different name) as there are other classes that I want to take.

On Grizzel's Comments:

Basicly the more wealthy among as are getting a larger tax break (6% of 50% is > 6% of 40% for example). But yeah, the "Tax Breaks for the Rich" is rather misleading (but don't pretend the Democrats are the only party that uses similar tactics).

On The Fish:

Since I should at least say something pertaining to the original topic: At least its pretty!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prez, No apologies necessary, the respect is mutual.

Soback, what can I say? You're more of a contrarian than I am, and that's saying something!

I've never met a liberal, democrat, conservative or republican who wishes to harm this country. They (and we) all just want what's best for her. We just disagree on exactly what that is. It's the one and only true difference as far as I'm concerned, so it's not about who does what to whom and how.

Anyhow, I've once again come to the end of my part in this discussion. And even if we'll never agree on anything, I do find your tenacity entertaining, so thanks for that.

Oh, and about the fish, it will probably help to generate revenue through advertising. So really now, is it all that bad? I'm sure there are far more wasteful pork projects to rant about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Silk, if your worried about a lousy half million dollars for a frickin' fish, then I guess your apoplectic about the government spending 8 to 10 million dollars of taxpayer money making an army simulator for recruitable young men to play.

http://www.americasarmy.com/

Is $.5 million, or even 10 million, worth getting your knickers in a twist over? Jeez, man. Ever hear the term "pick your battles"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah Prez but that's old news... I think I recall rolling my eyes at the announcement of AA back in what? 2002?

I get pissy over every bit of wasted spending... I should just point to CAGW's "Congressional Pig Book" which you can find at cagw.org.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...