patrick.net

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

When reducing one's expenses to fit a budget, the biggest wasteful spending must be addressed first.

That would be the entitlements.

That becomes a judgment on whether the military and current wars are more or less wasteful than the social programs we have. If no one talks specifics, this is just going to be abstract idealogical Dem vs Repub talking points BS.

indigenous says

That would be the entitlements.

That would be the family international vacations to participate in Paintgun wars, plus all the expensive paint gun armor, paint gun drones, etc.

You cut discretionary spending first in a household, not the food, health, and retirement.

We need a few dozen SSBNs, a handful of destroyers and maritime patrol craft for pirates, and the widespread ownership of firearms does the rest. Ain't no one gonna mess with us.

Rew says

That becomes a judgment on whether the military and current wars are more or less wasteful than the social programs we have. If no one talks specifics, this is just going to be abstract idealogical Dem vs Repub talking points BS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_federal_budget

Shows 940 billion goes to entitlements and 670 goes to war

Wars would be easier to end if we can get enough to smell the coffee.

thunderlips11 says

That would be the family international vacations to participate in Paintgun wars, plus all the expensive paint gun armor, paint gun drones, etc.

You forgot about the $300 lunches for Michelle.

indigenous says

bob2356 says

It must be so much easier to just regurgitate whatever gets poured into your brain rather than thinking for yourself.

Bullshit, I rarely lose a debate to you. You made the assertion so back it up otherwise I will ignore it.

If you don't know the definition of lose then it doesn't happen.

bob2356 says

If you don't know the definition of lose then it doesn't happen.

So that is your answer a spelling error. Bullshit...

Oh my bad you were not referring to the spelling which is correct but to your self complacent idea that you have won these debates. Typically you just fade away and quit answering. This is not winning it is you running out of arguments.

I listen to both sides as in this case when controlio indicated that the voter fraud was really just a myth. I'm not convinced though about ACORN or illegals as my understanding is that 1/3 of welfare in the whole country does go to Calif with 12% of the population there has to be some very generous welfare.

indigenous says

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_federal_budget

Shows 940 billion goes to entitlements and 670 goes to war

Wars would be easier to end if we can get enough to smell the coffee.

673 for defense plus State, Intelligence, Homeland Security, and Veteran's Affairs. That adds up to 980. All except about 80 is discretionary.

$900B of the $1.26T of the discretionary budget is related to warring and defense.

control point says

$900B of the $1.26T of the discretionary budget is related to warring and defense.

Cept 670B was spent. The fact that so much was discretionary would imply that it would be easier to cut the defense budget.

indigenous says

Cept 670B was spent.

What?

indigenous says

The fact that so much was discretionary would imply that it would be easier to cut the defense budget.

Would be easier. Just have to get some politicians willing to cut something on that side of the house..

control point says

Would be easier. Just have to get some politicians willing to cut something on that side of the house..

If we could swing more to Libertarian thinking it is possible. We need the equivalent of a modern day Thomas Payne to affect this. People need to realize that defense spending is crony capitalism and wars are provoked in order to justify the expense.

control point says

Cept 670B was spent.

What?

This was the actual number spent no conjecture about it.

sbh says

SoftShell says

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

That's what you said when my 85 year old mother took your balls home in her purse.

WTF damn you would have to come up a couple of notches to be sophomoric...

sbh says

I guess you missed the part where he was bragging about fucking my mother.

Oh ok...

This where people come to figure out the future, and you two are going on about each other's mother, you have to admit that is LOL funny?

Get the story straight.
Your mother was fucking me.

sbh says

WTF damn you would have to come up a couple of notches to be sophomoric...

I guess you missed the part where he was bragging about fucking my mother.

I know it looks bad, but I'm in the process of rehabilitating SBH...so there are some awkward moments...

indigenous says

This where people come to figure out the future, and you two are going on about each other's mother, you have to admit that is LOL funny?

indigenous says

Oh my bad you were not referring to the spelling which is correct but to your self complacent idea that you have won these debates. Typically you just fade away and quit answering. This is not winning it is you running out of arguments.

I listen to both sides as in this case when controlio indicated that the voter fraud was really just a myth. I'm not convinced though about ACORN or illegals as my understanding is that 1/3 of welfare in the whole country does go to Calif with 12% of the population there has to be some very generous welfare.

Is there a point here? I missed the part where you agreed about voter fraud being a myth. So far you haven't presented any evidence at all that illegals are voting or even why they would expose themselves to scrutiny by registering to vote or how the elections boards would approve them to vote. Much less how it is being done in numbers large enough to affect the outcome of elections in a state as large as California. Your only point of fact is that California, which is the largest state, has the most welfare spending (surprise surprise) and many illegals. So in your mind that means illegals must be voting in people who vote for more welfare for illegals. That is certainly logic on the level with Socrates and Plato. (Your understanding is wrong, it's not 33% of the welfare going to California it's 25 billion out of 167 billion or 15%, this is not hard to look up).

If this represents winning the discussion then I agree, you have certainly have won.

the 1/3 and 12% is hard not to find

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/Jul/28/welfare-capital-of-the-us/

Agreed.
But your sentence is irrelevant to my post.

sbh says

SoftShell says

Get the story straight.


Your mother was fucking me.

sbh says

WTF damn you would have to come up a couple of notches to be sophomoric...

I guess you missed the part where he was bragging about fucking my mother.

Bragging is almost always lying,

bob2356 says

Your only point of fact is that California, which is the largest state, has the most welfare spending (surprise surprise) and many illegals. So in your mind that means illegals must be voting in people who vote for more welfare for illegals. That is certainly logic on the level with Socrates and Plato. (Your understanding is wrong, it's not 33% of the welfare going to California it's 25 billion out of 167 billion or 15%, this is not hard to look up).

If this represents winning the discussion then I agree, you have certainly have won.

Yeah, this thread has become littered with people making irrelevant arguments as they get called out on their bullshit regarding the actual topic of the thread, voter ID. Starting to think that a lot of those dumbest Americans the OP refers to are participating in this thread.

Again, none of these folks have presented proof that any of this alleged voter fraud is happening in appreciable numbers, certainly absolutely none that it's being done by undocumented immigrants (which is still a ridiculous argument, given the disincentives).

The reality is that voter ID laws are purely political and aren't actually meant to address voter fraud because there is so little voter fraud. Several people who support voter ID laws have admitted this and have cited it as a reason that their favored candidate would win a particular jurisdiction -- it's pretty transparent.

If you can't refute the premise that voter fraud is almost non-existent, you don't have winning argument.

We have the same mother.
However since I look like dad and you look like ted bundy, it's natural to presume what was happening on friday nights when mom was supposedly at bingo...

sbh says

Agreed.

Well, now that you confirmed it, it's natural to presume that my mother must look a lot like your mother, hence

Don't furrow your brow so much when typing...let the blood flow to your dual neurons..
sbh says

It gets confusing

And you could tell all this while on your knees? You should get a job with the TSA...
sbh says

Your brother looks like a cross between you and your mother, as well as a cross between your father and your sister.

So you admit to being Ted's son...I'd like to tell you that's step #1 in your recovery process, but I'm afraid with that linage there's no hope at all.
sbh says

Now Ted was seen as fairly handsome, so thank you

Stop grovelling like a pussy in front of this audience. It's embarrassing to everybody.
sbh says

but stop hitting on me

You need to tell your wife that, she's telling me a different story.
sbh says

I'm straight.

corntrollio says

If you can't refute the premise that voter fraud is almost non-existent, you don't have winning argument.

The welfare argument is somewhat related. And Bob as usual will just fade away thinking he has won the argument.

His numbers do not reconcile with mine not does he or ever does link any evidence of what he is saying.

indigenous says

The welfare argument is somewhat related.

No, it's really not. You haven't made any connection between welfare and voter ID fraud (or welfare and undocumented immigrants, or undocumented immigrants and voter ID fraud), much less a weak connection. Just a bunch of hand-wavy stuff that doesn't logically flow together. And that's just how weak your case is with the distraction.

With the primary argument, you haven't done anything.

corntrollio says

No, it's really not.

Yes it really is. In Calif 1/3 of the welfare is going to 12% of the population there is something that does not reconcile. This is caused by the tyranny of the democracy in other words politicians buying votes and immigrants.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

When reducing one's expenses to fit a budget, the biggest wasteful spending must be addressed first.

That would be the entitlements.

Clearly not from the raw data available at usgovernmentspending.com. I know you want it to be because you don't give a crap about social safety nets, but its just not true.

The largest expense has been the $16 trillion bank bailout sited above. The second largest expense is warfare spending.

Finally, entitlements like Social Security are called entitlements because people spend their entire working life paying into the system, so they are entitled to get benefits when they retire. And Social Security is damn popular.

Eight in 10 Americans think Social Security has been good for the country, with 70 percent of young adults agreeing and almost nine in 10 senior citizens saying the same.

Rew says

That becomes a judgment on whether the military and current wars are more or less wasteful than the social programs we have.

America has received no benefits from the past 13 years of war. In fact, terrorism is on the rise as a result of that warfare. Meanwhile, we have lost basic human and civil rights and human dignity and completely trashed our national reputation. Finally, these wars have left America impotent in fighting back against Russia's aggression in the Ukraine and the genocide in Syria.

Even if all social programs were 100% wasted, they would still be less wasteful than our warfare spending simply because warfare spending has negative consequences.

One last thing about entitlement spending. Even if you don't care about American children being malnourished and subjugated to a lifetime of poverty they have no hope of escaping, social safety nets keep your family safe by reducing the number one cause of violent crime, abject poverty. A man who has nothing to lose will rob you at gunpoint for enough money to feed his family. And that is why you should support social safety nets even if you don't care about anyone else's family.

In contrast, warfare spending beyond 10% of what we are currently spending has no benefits for our society and, in fact, makes us less safe by promoting war profiteering and the instability that comes with that. As long as war is big business, big business will ensure that there is war.

indigenous says

Yes it really is. In Calif 1/3 of the welfare is going to 12% of the population there is something that does not reconcile. This is caused by the tyranny of the democracy in other words politicians buying votes and immigrants.

Where is the connection to voter fraud other than your saying so? Politicians buying votes (even if true) with favorable policy has nothing to do with voter fraud that voter ID laws would protect. Hand-waving doesn't work here.

And of course, if you read your own article, you'd see some other explanations that have nothing to do with non-existent voter fraud:

California by far spends more than any other state on welfare. But broken down on a per-capita basis, the story is a little different.

That overall figure amounts to $179 annually for every man, woman and child in California. That trails New York ($256) and Hawaii ($233).
...
Take Texas for example. For every 100 families below the poverty line there, only six receive assistance, she said. In California, 66 of those below the poverty line are helped.
...
CalWORKS’ Bland said historically the state has been committed to a “safety net for children of parents who either cannot or will not help themselves.”

Caroline Danielson, a policy analyst who tracks welfare issues for the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California, said the unconditional support for children is “a pretty rare policy in the country as a whole.”
...
Policy experts say California’s large rolls are the byproduct of numerous factors: sheer size, tough job market and sheer numbers of single-parent households, among them. The state has nearly 30 percent of the nation’s one-parent welfare families.

ohhhh..look at that! 3rd grade playground humor!
hear ya go...."I'm rubber your glue, words bounce off me...shit sticks to your fist"...
wait, that doesn't sound right...oh yeah. you didn't learn the 'fist' stuff until you were 13 going on 6.

sbh says

Limpy,

Single Bitch Hoe,
You are right. I do want to ask you where you came out of.
But yesterday, when I tried to look, it was like pulling apart a grilled cheese sandwich..

sbh says

If you really want to ask me out just go ahead and get it over with

corntrollio says

Where is the connection to voter fraud other than your saying so? Politicians buying votes (even if true) with favorable policy has nothing to do with voter fraud that voter ID laws would protect. Hand-waving doesn't work here.

The only thing a politician cares about is election. This is empirical and true, this is observed by observing what politicians do, not what they say.

Earlier we were talking about gerrymandering, this is a legal practice but none the less allows the politician to pick his constituents rather than the way it should be, that the constituents can pick there representatives. In my opinion this practice is fraud none the less.

Catering to the tyranny of the democracy is also fraud as they are co-opting the constituents to the process. "Free" or reduced cost healthcare is a
co-opting of the voters.

Paying public employees at the FED level twice as much as their private sector counter parts is co-opting voters. IMO is voter fraud.

Calif pays public sector workers more than any other state this is co-opting voters and IMO fraud. This was done by Jerry Brown allowing the collective bargaining for the state employees. Even FDR said he would not allow this as it was going to far.

Obama bailed out GM and their retirement plan and at the same time telling the bond holders to pack sand, who were legally at the front of the line in bankruptcy. This was nothing more than buying votes it was illegal and fraud

corntrollio says

Policy experts say California’s large rolls are the byproduct of numerous factors: sheer size, tough job market and sheer numbers of single-parent households, among them. The state has nearly 30 percent of the nation’s one-parent welfare families.

The sheer size has come about by immigration, as the Calif natives have left in droves for retirement or better employment, as business has left the state in droves, which has led to one of the highest unemployment rates.

The high percentage of one parent families is also a result of incentives to remain that way. The Mexicans have a higher percentage of this because they don't want to lose their benefits.

If you think none of this buys votes you are smoking dope.

control point says

I just renewed my passport, it cost $110. Would you change the burden of cost to the issuer if making a passport a requirement to vote?

Social security card is free, I don't see why they can't make passports free.

in your words, Weak...weak...and more weak...
get back to me when you have insults of substance.
It's still your turn.....

sbh says

SoftShell says

sbh says

Limpy,

indigenous says

the 1/3 and 12% is hard not to find

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/Jul/28/welfare-capital-of-the-us/

It's not hard to find but the ut didn't bother to say where the number came from. The 15% comes from the federal government. I'm pretty sure they know how much they spend. California spends 25 billion in welfare of the 146 billion in welfare payments. Any other convoluted number you can scare up from any random website is meaningless. Weren't you the guy who was just bragging about how he looked at the facts?

A friend of mine posted on a patriotic Facebook link that praised dogs used by the military in Iraq and Afghanistan. The link said something like "salute our war heroes." My friend made what appeared to be a factual post, saying that they were just dogs, and didn't have a grudge against the Iraqis or Taliban. They didn't know any better. The amount of vitriolic e-mails he received in response was shocking. Folks claiming that the dogs did indeed hate the bad guys, that they were true patriots. Lots of threatening posts. Unbelievable, but true. Knuckledraggers who cannot tolerate contrary viewpoints. Cannon fodder for the front lines, except these folks are all talk, and would likely run.

bob2356 says

It's not hard to find but the ut didn't bother to say where the number came from. The 15% comes from the federal government. I'm pretty sure they know how much they spend. California spends 25 billion in welfare of the 146 billion in welfare payments. Any other convoluted number you can scare up from any random website is meaningless. Weren't you the guy who was just bragging about how he looked at the facts?

Show me the link to your numbers

No comment on my last post?

Dan8267 says

Finally, entitlements like Social Security are called entitlements because people spend their entire working life paying into the system, so they are entitled to get benefits when they retire.

That's really the only entitlement that people actually earn, except for all the deadbeats on Social Security "Disability" AKA the new welfare.

indigenous says

Show me the link to your numbers

No comment on my last post?

sure.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/compare_state_welfare_spend
California 15% of federal, 19% federal and state combined. Long way from 33% and not very far off population and wealth numbers by state.

What's to comment on about your last post? You are agreeing with my earlier comment that voter fraud is virtually all at the state capital level.

I'm still waiting for some kind of reasonable explanation from anyone how and why illegals would vote in large enough numbers to affect an election. Lot's of ducking on dodging on the question from all the people screaming about it.

zzyzzx says

That's really the only entitlement that people actually earn, except for all the deadbeats on Social Security "Disability" AKA the new welfare.

You don't pay into medicare and unimployment insurance? How is that?

zzyzzx says

Dan8267 says

Finally, entitlements like Social Security are called entitlements because people spend their entire working life paying into the system, so they are entitled to get benefits when they retire.

That's really the only entitlement that people actually earn, except for all the deadbeats on Social Security "Disability" AKA the new welfare.

Total Social Security Disability spending for 2013 was less than $150 billion. See http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2009_2019USb_15s6li111mcn_02f

That's about 18% of what was spent on warfare that year. So even assuming that 100% of Social Security Disability was fraudulent, it would still be peanuts compared to the waste created by war profiteering. And compared to the bank bailout I mentioned earlier, total SS Disability spending isn't even a rounding error.

If you were truly concerned about the money rather than politics, you wouldn't even think about SS Disability while the bank bailouts haven't been clawed back and the warfare spending hasn't been cut by at least 90%.

And all of that doesn't even take into account the fact that there is no evidence that SS Disability fraud counts for more than a few percentage points of the total budget. And that many of the people on SS Disability are vets who got their disabilities in wars. The best way to decrease the need for SS Disability is to stop funding warfare.