Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:I missed the bit in the OP that said "Non-US citizens' opinions are not welcome". You are a nation like any others, why shouldn't you compare yourself to other nations?

***Other the part where you’re either ignorant or intentionally lying about basic information? While I think Sebster is just this side of Marx (groucho that is) he argues with somewhat reliable figures. Don't you have a mountain lion's neck to break with your bare hands somewhere?

What was wrong with the figures I posted? As far as I know it's all publically available information, and you've flat out ignored it. In fact I don't even know what you're arguing. You think America is spending too much on the poor? Or too much on other stuff?

Melissia wrote:

Joey wrote:It amuses me to see Americans knock the EU when our economy is already larger than America's and will outpace it more and more during the 21st century.

At the rate the EU is going, they'll be lucky if half their member states don't default.

Oh and yes, a group of nations with a population of 500 million has a slightly bigger economy than one which has 300 million in it. The shocker is that you're just barely competing with the US in terms of total GDP (less than a five percent difference, and the US is actually ahead of Europe in terms of GDP per capita, with the EU having 25% less nominal GDP per capita) despite having twice the population. Good job EU.

The EU includes Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia..all of which are projected to grow massively in the coming decades, obviously growth in Western Europe will not be as extreme. It's true that even the wealthy parts of Europe have GDP/capita that is lower than the USA's but when you take into account the USA's huge healthcare costs it approaches parity.
Anyway this is not an EU vs USA thread. This is a thread about someone whinging because he has to pay taxes, a fraction of which (1/20th) goes into helping the poor, which he disagrees with.
I've yet to see anyone justify why helping the poor is not a good thing to do. In fact I've never seen ANY right-winger ever justify not helping the poor other than through greed.

But no. You're bothered that 5% of what you are taxed is spent on helping the less well off. The best figures I could find say the average American worker pays $4030.36 in tax, 5% of that is 201, or $3.80 a week. $3.80 a week to ensure that your fellow citizens don't starve to death. I honestly don't see how any human being with a conscience could object to that.

If I want to help those who actually need help (this is a much smaller group than so-called "Experts" would lead you to believe) I'll DONATE to my CHURCH. It's not up to the GOVERNMENT to take it GIVE IT AWAY to anyone too LAZY or STUPID to get a job.

reds8n wrote: The Haggis beasts "wombles" it does not walk.

I don't even know what "wombles" means but I'm still scared.

Yea though I walk through the valley of the Shadow of Haggis I shall fear no evil.
For I have the baddest wiener dogs in the valley.

Frazzled wrote:Are we including the UK in the EU here? Because, thats just wrong. Haggis walks alone.

Well, removing the UK from it lowers the nominal GDP per capita even further yes (the UK's gdp per capita is higher than the EU's average), and would lower the EU so that the US would have more GDP tahn the EU by PPP measurements.

Joey wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I missed the bit in the OP that said "Non-US citizens' opinions are not welcome". You are a nation like any others, why shouldn't you compare yourself to other nations?

***Other the part where you’re either ignorant or intentionally lying about basic information? While I think Sebster is just this side of Marx (groucho that is) he argues with somewhat reliable figures. Don't you have a mountain lion's neck to break with your bare hands somewhere?

What was wrong with the figures I posted? As far as I know it's all publically available information, and you've flat out ignored it. In fact I don't even know what you're arguing. You think America is spending too much on the poor? Or too much on other stuff?

Melissia wrote:

Joey wrote:It amuses me to see Americans knock the EU when our economy is already larger than America's and will outpace it more and more during the 21st century.

At the rate the EU is going, they'll be lucky if half their member states don't default.

Oh and yes, a group of nations with a population of 500 million has a slightly bigger economy than one which has 300 million in it. The shocker is that you're just barely competing with the US in terms of total GDP (less than a five percent difference, and the US is actually ahead of Europe in terms of GDP per capita, with the EU having 25% less nominal GDP per capita) despite having twice the population. Good job EU.

The EU includes Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia..all of which are projected to grow massively in the coming decades, obviously growth in Western Europe will not be as extreme. It's true that even the wealthy parts of Europe have GDP/capita that is lower than the USA's but when you take into account the USA's huge healthcare costs it approaches parity.
Anyway this is not an EU vs USA thread. This is a thread about someone whinging because he has to pay taxes, a fraction of which (1/20th) goes into helping the poor, which he disagrees with.
I've yet to see anyone justify why helping the poor is not a good thing to do. In fact I've never seen ANY right-winger ever justify not helping the poor other than through greed.

You said 5%. Its wrong. Not only is it wrong, its both esily verifiable and stupidly outlandishly wrong.

Also, noting all the other coutnries supports Melissia's argument. You're basically stating it takes a continent to equal the US. This is not helping to keep us modest...,
AMERIKA HURR!

Chongara wrote:If I want to help those who actually need help (this is a much smaller group than so-called "Experts" would lead you to believe) I'll DONATE to my CHURCH. It's not up to the GOVERNMENT to take it GIVE IT AWAY to anyone too LAZY or STUPID to get a job.

Are you taking writing tips from gakky comic book writers or something?

At any rate, donating money to your church doesn't actually indicate that the money will go to people who actually need help.

Joey wrote:Anyway this is not an EU vs USA thread.

Then stop trying to turn it in to one.

Chongara wrote:

But no. You're bothered that 5% of what you are taxed is spent on helping the less well off. The best figures I could find say the average American worker pays $4030.36 in tax, 5% of that is 201, or $3.80 a week. $3.80 a week to ensure that your fellow citizens don't starve to death. I honestly don't see how any human being with a conscience could object to that.

If I want to help those who actually need help (this is a much smaller group than so-called "Experts" would lead you to believe) I'll DONATE to my CHURCH. It's not up to the GOVERNMENT to take it GIVE IT AWAY to anyone too LAZY or STUPID to get a job.

When the number of people looking for work exceeds the number of jobs available, unemployment ensues. This is a concequence of a free market.
If you don't want to help them then you can't be surprised when the rest of the world regards you as uncivilized.

Chongara wrote:

Joey wrote:http://www.ourdime.us/102/budgetinfo/how-much-do-we-spend-on-welfare/
USA spends 5.5% of its budget on helping the poor. That, frankly, is pitiful.
The USA's tax burden as a whole is simply too low. There's no way Mitt Romney should be paying so little of his income in tax.
You need more taxation so you can repair those roads.

Frankly, you're about it being pitiful but absolutely horribly awfully wrong about all the reasons. 5.5% is too high, not even 5.5% too high 10 or 15% too high! There is no way that those getting the MOST out of government to being with (not even assistance just things like schools and public transport) should get EVEN MORE and pay EVEN LESS. This is THEFT of the most basic kind.

Imagine this. You're a kid and you get GOOD GRADES with your own hard work and your EFFORT is REWARDED when your grandma sends you a check for $100 because you're a GOOD KID who WORKS HARD and EARNS THINGS. Then your insane Uncle Sam (who frankly your parents only let stay at the house, because he's the only one in the family who owns enough to guns to keep your even more bat-gak insane neighbors from coming in trashing your house) KICKS YOU IN THE NUTS and takes FIFTEEN of your YOUR HARD EARNED DOLLARS gives them to your fething lazy older cousin who does nothing but sit around SMOKE POT and JERK IT all day long and was already EXPELLED from school for having sex with another dude in class. Then he tells your cousin "needs" it because he spends whatever money he gets (when he is only being 99% lazy) on drugs and lube.

Why are you using up DakkaDakka's daily allotment of capital letters? Do we need to redistribute them?

Joey wrote:Anyway this is not an EU vs USA thread.

Then stop trying to turn it in to one.

Agreed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:

Chongara wrote:

Joey wrote:http://www.ourdime.us/102/budgetinfo/how-much-do-we-spend-on-welfare/
USA spends 5.5% of its budget on helping the poor. That, frankly, is pitiful.
The USA's tax burden as a whole is simply too low. There's no way Mitt Romney should be paying so little of his income in tax.
You need more taxation so you can repair those roads.

Frankly, you're about it being pitiful but absolutely horribly awfully wrong about all the reasons. 5.5% is too high, not even 5.5% too high 10 or 15% too high! There is no way that those getting the MOST out of government to being with (not even assistance just things like schools and public transport) should get EVEN MORE and pay EVEN LESS. This is THEFT of the most basic kind.

Imagine this. You're a kid and you get GOOD GRADES with your own hard work and your EFFORT is REWARDED when your grandma sends you a check for $100 because you're a GOOD KID who WORKS HARD and EARNS THINGS. Then your insane Uncle Sam (who frankly your parents only let stay at the house, because he's the only one in the family who owns enough to guns to keep your even more bat-gak insane neighbors from coming in trashing your house) KICKS YOU IN THE NUTS and takes FIFTEEN of your YOUR HARD EARNED DOLLARS gives them to your fething lazy older cousin who does nothing but sit around SMOKE POT and JERK IT all day long and was already EXPELLED from school for having sex with another dude in class. Then he tells your cousin "needs" it because he spends whatever money he gets (when he is only being 99% lazy) on drugs and lube.

Why are you using up DakkaDakka's daily allotment of capital letters? Do we need to redistribute them?

is it just me or is it that Chongara used to post lefty posts, but now posts righty trolling posts. I think he's just trolling in general. I could be wrong, but if I am wrong who wants to be right?

Melissia wrote:Then stop trying to turn it in to one.

You spontaniously decided to declare, for no reason whatsoever, that

Melissia wrote:No no no, the EU is about 25% competent, and we're doing better than them.

I didn't mention the EU or any other country but the USA until that point.

Chongara wrote:

But no. You're bothered that 5% of what you are taxed is spent on helping the less well off. The best figures I could find say the average American worker pays $4030.36 in tax, 5% of that is 201, or $3.80 a week. $3.80 a week to ensure that your fellow citizens don't starve to death. I honestly don't see how any human being with a conscience could object to that.

If I want to help those who actually need help (this is a much smaller group than so-called "Experts" would lead you to believe) I'll DONATE to my CHURCH. It's not up to the GOVERNMENT to take it GIVE IT AWAY to anyone too LAZY or STUPID to get a job.

You can't be a real person.

Frazzled wrote:
is it just me or is it that Chongara used to post lefty posts, but now posts righty trolling posts. I think he's just trolling in general. I could be wrong, but if I am wrong who wants to be right?

Melissa also wants to be your neighbor now, so who knows what's going on today.

d-usa wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
is it just me or is it that Chongara used to post lefty posts, but now posts righty trolling posts. I think he's just trolling in general. I could be wrong, but if I am wrong who wants to be right?

Melissa also wants to be your neighbor now, so who knows what's going on today.

Well maybe she heard about the Frazzled annual July 4th block party where I rent a giant slip and slide, snow cone machines, margarita machines, pull some barbeque grills around and serve about 200 burgers and dogs for the neighborhood. Even more importantly, its the only time people can come onto my lawn. Alternatively is may be becuase on rare occasions you can see Genghis Connie and Rodney the wonder wiener dog flying through the air on a trampoline. Yes in Texas we have flying wiener dogs. Top that Australia!


Mmmm burgers.

Just the BBQ grill honestly.

Texas BBQ is one of the reasons I stay in Texas.

Frazzled wrote:is it just me or is it that Chongara used to post lefty posts, but now posts righty trolling posts. I think he's just trolling in general. I could be wrong, but if I am wrong who wants to be right?

Well, Point Frazzled. I wouldn't really say trolling per se. That would imply my intent (at least originally), was actually to get a rise out of people and it really isn't the case.

A while back I posted an obviously sarcastic hyper-right wing post as a way of making fun of something I didn't agree with. You know just making a bit of caricature out of the opposition. Not exactly high brow, but I expected people to take it as the silliness it was. Buuuuuut.... people were responding to it as if it was a serious post, I was a little bit surprised. Sure a few people said "He's probably being sarcastic" but they were easily outweighed by those who (seemed) to take such insanity serious. So I figured "What the hell, roll with it.".

I think it's kind of sad it actually took this level of insanity before it became unbelievable. Just goes to show what people are used to actually hearing real people say. That the OP could even say my little character was the "Only one who sort of gets his ideas" just says volumes about the quality those ideas. I mean I was posting with all the subtlety and cleverness of a Jeff Dunham puppet for goodness sake. He's not even a good comedian!

I do love these patriotic gifs though, I might just keep posting those.

(seriously what kind of crackpot makes these?)

(seriously what kind of crackpot makes these?)

The best kind.

Chongara wrote:

Chongara, you insult America by adding sparkles to the flag. We are not the United States of Twilight Vampires!

Melissia wrote:

Chongara wrote:

Chongara, you insult America by adding sparkles to the flag. We are not the United States of Twilight Vampires!

Indeed, we don't cotton to no fangbangers round these parts. The Church of the Sun is rising and will stop this plague upon America and its fine upstanding values.

Frazzled wrote:
Plus you're almost stupidly wrong. Welfare and healthcare alone are 28%. That doesn't include social security.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/united_states_total_spending_pie_chart

Unless that chart, called "United States Total Spending" has hidden an "except social security" somewhere, yes it does.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Plus you're almost stupidly wrong. Welfare and healthcare alone are 28%. That doesn't include social security.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/united_states_total_spending_pie_chart

Unless that chart, called "United States Total Spending" has hidden an "except social security" somewhere, yes it does.

Pensions D.

Frazzled wrote:
Plus you're almost stupidly wrong. Welfare and healthcare alone are 28%. That doesn't include social security.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/united_states_total_spending_pie_chart

Did you read the words to what I put or did you just look at the pretty pictures?

3 out of the 6 income security subfunctions go to pensions and unemployment – things that must be earned by working and paying into...As you can see the vast majority of the money spent in the “Income Security” function of the government is spent on programs not directed at the poor or programs where the income must be earned

Also, no one mentioned healthcare.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Plus you're almost stupidly wrong. Welfare and healthcare alone are 28%. That doesn't include social security.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/united_states_total_spending_pie_chart

Unless that chart, called "United States Total Spending" has hidden an "except social security" somewhere, yes it does.

Pensions D.

So, you don't think state employees should have pensions?
What?

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Plus you're almost stupidly wrong. Welfare and healthcare alone are 28%. That doesn't include social security.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/united_states_total_spending_pie_chart

Unless that chart, called "United States Total Spending" has hidden an "except social security" somewhere, yes it does.

Pensions D.

The pensions category is entirely made up of "old age".

pensions include ss

Regardless 28% is higher than the 5% rate you blew out of your ass. Now go fight a mountain lion. I hear University of Houston has one.

Just don't tell it you're from Dallas. That just makes it mad.

Frazzled wrote:
Regardless 28% is higher than the 5% rate you blew out of your ass.

The feth?
I said the government spends 5% of its income on the poor, as broken down by spending (remember half of the social security payouts were contributed by members), you've decided to include healthcare and pensions along with it.

Frazzled wrote:pensions include ss

Right, never mind, I see what you were saying now.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:pensions include ss

Right, never mind, I see what you were saying now.

Gotcha. In your defense I am assuming thats "pensions."

Joey wrote:
I said the government spends 5% of its income on the poor, as broken down by spending (remember half of the social security payouts were contributed by members)....

And are therefore contributions to the state, also known as government income.

dogma wrote:

Joey wrote:
I said the government spends 5% of its income on the poor, as broken down by spending (remember half of the social security payouts were contributed by members)....

And are therefore contributions to the state, also known as government income.

Right. Except this is about people complaining about their money being spent on other peoples' welfare, despite the fact that only 5% of government revenue is spent in this way.

The feth?
I said the government spends 5% of its income on the poor, as broken down by spending (remember half of the social security payouts were contributed by members), you've decided to include healthcare and pensions along with it.

No I didn’t . You really need to read things more carefully. The 28% is welfare and healthcare.
Welfare is for the poor. (Corporate tax breaks are welfare for the rich and that’s another category altogether). Health care is for the poor (I’m assuming this does not include the VA).

So to use the words of a younger Genghis Connie “You’re wrong wrong really wrong you’re so wrong you’re went around the world and almost came out right but your still wrong.” (the “wrong dance” begins here, occasionally followed by “wag my butt at you” dance). Mmmm….miss those days.

Joey wrote:
Right. Except this is about people complaining about their money being spent on other peoples' welfare, despite the fact that only 5% of government revenue is spent in this way.

5% of "other" people's money?

I don't see how you arrive at that number, only unemployment works that way.