***Official Political Discussion Thread***

-How about you read the USA Today article first off, because your entire argument just seems to be red herrings. Your entire argument is bomb sniffing elephants sounds ridiculous, so let us take that at face value without an ounce of research.Bomb sniffing mice sound ridiculous too, by yeah they work, and by all accounts have worked well. But let's get outraged over a headline. Yeah ok :rolleyes

-Then you take 50K (don't prove it is wasteful just assume it) and multiply it by "all these wasteful government" government programs (which you have no way of quantifying) and think that is proof of your point. When really it isn't even good evidence.

Let us say we do that? Let us say there are 100,000 "wasteful" programs just like this. You know how much cost in tax dollars?What, 5 billion. Yet you excuse Trump's 915 million like it was nothing and downplayed 17 billion when it came to the IRS being underfunded. Money only seems to matter when it fits your argument.

The you throw out another priorities red herring. Like anyone is arguing that research grants should be prioritized over social welfare programs. If you can predict my actions so much, you really think I would argue that is a good idea. But that's find, it since you want to take me on this low key bonus guilt trip, i feel ok shooting your messenger. (which I will do in about 20 seconds)

I'm not denying there is wasteful government spending, NOT AT ALL, I just pointed out your post was silly. Which it was, for many reasons. And you just listing more **** like that is silly. Because government there is so many things, wasteful and necessary that are spent out of a government grant.

And the fact of the matter, tons of researchers rely on government grants to fund things the private sector won't. Because they don't see a money making opportunity

------But using Jon McCain is interesting especially when speaking to me about priorities, about feeding the poor. Isn't Jon McCain the same dude that supports cut after cut to things like TANF and food stamps every chance he gets?. Yet will want the United States to engage in any and every foreign conflict they can. He wants us to go to Iraq, stay there after it becomes a cluster****, we have to go fight ISIS overseas, Iran is a constant threat, and we should have went to Ukraine to check Putin. Waging war is probably the most wasteful things the government does, and McCain is always for it.

And this is the man that is going to lecture people on wasteful spending!? And this is the man that wants America to get its priorities straight because it uses some of its budget for research.

I mean god forbid the Federal government gives money to researches, research that might lead to products that help the nation in the future. Not like that has ever worked out for the public's benefit. Not like something like those programs could lead to something as important as the modern internet getting inve............oh yeah, yeah, it did.

Funny how some of these smaller research grants work sometimes.

Yeah small research grants like my boy whom just got a 5k Federal Grant to produce music solely cause of his Native American ancestry. He bought all this DJ equipment and got reimbursed... guess where he's using this tax funded equipment at? At the Strip Club where he has a gig at... :lol

What is this even suppose to prove?
 
So anecdotal evidence regarding an even smaller amount of money was suppose to prove my argument was baloney?

Oh ok.

Oh I can provide tons more fraudulent Federal grant horror stories.

The US Govt even has a website dedicated to report Fraud...

http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/learn-grants/grant-fraud.html

If that isn't proof how broken and incompetent our system is I don't know what to tell you.

I admitted there is wasteful spending already.

If you're so upset about your boy, report him.

And proving there is fraud, is not the same as proving the system is "broken and incompetent". If you can't see the difference, I don't know what to tell you.

-Just as a counter example. Remember when you spoke of "priorities" and poor people eating cold cat food. Yet........

http://www.fns.usda.gov/fraud/how-can-i-report-snap-fraud

There are finessers everywhere famb.
 
Last edited:
Rusty- "Show me all these credible economist saying Trumps plans would be great.

Especially the ones backing up Trump's claim that it won't drive up the deficit."


u said 1.

maybe u need to ask better questions. [emoji]128133[/emoji]

Hmmm looks like somebody can't read or his comprehension is terrible. "All these" implies more than one. "S" at the end of one means multiples, this is kindergarten stuff.
 
Last edited:
https://www.google.com/amp/www.cnbc...s-differ-on-clinton-trump-economic-plans.html

plenty of approval in this article as well as contrast between both plans...

So one guy that works for Trump is your proof. I mean literally, that want this link/article is.

Wow

u said 1.

maybe u need to ask better questions. [emoji]128133[/emoji]
Ninja, your posted article is using quotes from someone who works FOR Trump. If you can't see the issue with that... :{
 
https://www.google.com/amp/www.cnbc...s-differ-on-clinton-trump-economic-plans.html

plenty of approval in this article as well as contrast between both plans...

So one guy that works for Trump is your proof. I mean literally, that want this link/article is.

Wow

u said 1.

maybe u need to ask better questions. [emoji]128133[/emoji]

Nah, you realized I made a typo and took advantage :lol

Well played

But the fact remains. You know half of the economists that have weighed in the candidates plans, don't support Trump's. Which was the original thing we disputed

And you can't prove otherwise
 
Last edited:
Wharton School of Economics, Oxford Economics, Moody's Analytics, Wall St Journal, as well as other top economists have all agreed chubby aka male sarah palin's economic plan is a disaster & yet homey sites someone from his campaign... One of the idiotic posts I think I've ever seen on NT... :rolleyes
 
Last edited:
Wharton School of Economics, Oxford Economic, Moody's Analytics, Wall St Journal, as well as other top economists have all agreed chubby aka male sarah palin's economic plan is a disaster & yet homey sites someone from his campaign... One of the idiotic posts I think I've ever seen on NT... :rolleyes

Trump is paying one guy to say the opposite doe. So it is even :lol
 
https://www.google.com/amp/www.cnbc...s-differ-on-clinton-trump-economic-plans.html

plenty of approval in this article as well as contrast between both plans...

So one guy that works for Trump is your proof. I mean literally, that want this link/article is.

Wow

u said 1.

maybe u need to ask better questions. [emoji]128133[/emoji]
Ninja, your posted article is using quotes from someone who works FOR Trump. If you can't see the issue with that... :{

i could just go to da wall street journal staff and check off a couple, but rusty just said one, so i gave him his wish.
Rusty- "Show me all these credible economist saying Trumps plans would be great.

Especially the ones backing up Trump's claim that it won't drive up the deficit."


u said 1.

maybe u need to ask better questions. [emoji]128133[/emoji]

Hmmm looks like somebody can't read or his comprehension is terrible. "All these" implies more than one. "S" at the end of one means multiples, this is kindergarten stuff.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
 
So anecdotal evidence regarding an even smaller amount of money was suppose to prove my argument was baloney?

Oh ok.

Oh I can provide tons more fraudulent Federal grant horror stories.

The US Govt even has a website dedicated to report Fraud...

http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/learn-grants/grant-fraud.html

If that isn't proof how broken and incompetent our system is I don't know what to tell you.
No one would argue that fraud doesn't exist.

I mean the Republican candidate for President in 2016 is the definition of fraud.

So yes, this country has a fraud problem. The fact that there is even a .gov website listing fraud is a positive sign.
 
https://www.google.com/amp/www.cnbc...s-differ-on-clinton-trump-economic-plans.html

plenty of approval in this article as well as contrast between both plans...

So one guy that works for Trump is your proof. I mean literally, that want this link/article is.

Wow

u said 1.

maybe u need to ask better questions. [emoji]128133[/emoji]
Ninja, your posted article is using quotes from someone who works FOR Trump. If you can't see the issue with that... :{

i could just go to da wall street journal staff and check off a couple, but rusty just said one, so i gave him his wish.
Rusty- "Show me all these credible economist saying Trumps plans would be great.

Especially the ones backing up Trump's claim that it won't drive up the deficit."


u said 1.

maybe u need to ask better questions. [emoji]128133[/emoji]

Hmmm looks like somebody can't read or his comprehension is terrible. "All these" implies more than one. "S" at the end of one means multiples, this is kindergarten stuff.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

-I did not say explicitly say quote one economist. I did not pluralize the word "economist", what was my mistake.

Even if, you one example was clearly biased. Trump is paying the man to agree with him.

It is fact.

Show me all these credible economist saying Trumps plans would be great.

Especially the ones backing up Trump's claim that it won't drive up the deficit.

I'll wait

-And being on the Wall Street Journals editorial staff does not make you a credible macro economist
 
https://www.google.com/amp/www.cnbc...s-differ-on-clinton-trump-economic-plans.html

plenty of approval in this article as well as contrast between both plans...

So one guy that works for Trump is your proof. I mean literally, that want this link/article is.

Wow

u said 1.

maybe u need to ask better questions. [emoji]128133[/emoji]
Ninja, your posted article is using quotes from someone who works FOR Trump. If you can't see the issue with that... :{

i could just go to da wall street journal staff and check off a couple, but rusty just said one, so i gave him his wish.
Rusty- "Show me all these credible economist saying Trumps plans would be great.

Especially the ones backing up Trump's claim that it won't drive up the deficit."


u said 1.

maybe u need to ask better questions. [emoji]128133[/emoji]

Hmmm looks like somebody can't read or his comprehension is terrible. "All these" implies more than one. "S" at the end of one means multiples, this is kindergarten stuff.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
How about you go with someone unbiased next time. Save yourself the embarrassment.
 
No one would argue that fraud doesn't exist.

I mean the Republican candidate for President in 2016 is the definition of fraud.

So yes, this country has a fraud problem. The fact that there is even a .gov website listing fraud is a positive sign.

And all this fraud and financial mismanagement is contributing to how much of the deficit?

The crux of the argument was we can't be outraged at Govt Federal programs like the 500,000,000 (YES 500 MILLION DOLLARS) to produce B Rated Jihadist videos in order to get them evil Muslims... My whole point is TAXPAYERS have every right to be outrage regardless because we see homelessness, poorly funded education system, crumbling infrastructure and especially when you read reports like the following ...

http://www.gao.gov/press/financial_report_2010dec21.html

WASHINGTON (December 21, 2010) - The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) cannot render an opinion on the 2010 consolidated financial statements of the federal government, because of widespread material internal control weaknesses, significant uncertainties, and other limitations.

The main obstacles to a GAO opinion were: (1) serious financial management problems at the Department of Defense (DOD) that made its financial statements unauditable, (2) the federal government’s inability to adequately account for and reconcile intragovernmental activity and balances between federal agencies, and (3) the federal government’s ineffective process for preparing the consolidated financial statements.

In addition GAO was unable to render an opinion on the 2010 Statement of Social Insurance because of significant uncertainties, primarily related to the achievement of projected reductions in Medicare cost growth. The consolidated financial statements discuss these uncertainties, which relate to reductions in physician payment rates and to productivity improvements, and provide an illustrative alternative projection to illustrate the uncertainties.

Dodaro also cited material weaknesses involving an estimated $125.4 billion in improper payments, information security across government, and tax collection activities. He noted that three major agencies—DOD, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Labor—did not get clean opinions. Nineteen of 24 major agencies did get clean opinions on all their statements.
 
Last edited:
The government did not pay 500 million for those videos. We don't know how much they cost, they were part of a larger government contract, and that was during the Iraq War. Stop it famb. And Stop it with the strawmen. No one told you you can't be upset about waste. I pointed out a silly example of it

And now you're moving the goalpost from federal grants to improper payments.
 
Last edited:

Everyone watch the video. The title doesn't match his words. he is not calling the law the craziest thing, he is calling insurance companies response to it the craziest thing.

He is not really criticizing the law itself, he is saying we need to a good public option to it.

Basically, make the ACA more like its original proposal.

Which I agree with. Bill spitting that realness :smokin
 
I'm dying at the thought of Trump using "yourefired" as his password
roll.gif
what an *** clown
 
If anything that makes me more inclined to believe [email protected] is actually him 
laugh.gif


Hm, perhaps some journalists would like to hear this information about da Donald's sloppy cyber security
 
Back
Top Bottom