Alaska Darin

There are few people here who know how !@#$ing funny that really is...

Oh look. My little whipped puppy is back, begging for another treat.

You have no clue what you're talking about.

Really? From "Table 8.1 — Outlays by Budget Enforcement Act Category: 1962–2013" 1992: 1,381.6 1993: 1,409.5 1994: 1,461.9 1995: 1,515.9 1996: 1,560.6 1997: 1,601.3 1998: 1,652.7 1999: 1,702.0 Looks to me like overall spending increased each and every year. So then I looked at Discretionary Spending: 1992: 533.8 1993: 539.4 1994: 541.4 1995: 544.9 1996: 532.7 1997: 547.2 1998: 552.1 1999: 572.0 Increased 7 out of 8 years. Facts suck. On "net number of government employees:" Moving jobs from GS/GM/SES and DoD to contractor positions via the "Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994" made services the largest percentage of government procurement. They cut the obvious workforce so GAO and OMB could report smaller government, all the while increasing the number of people actually paid with taxpayer money. The Brookings Institution estimated that "off the books" employment by the Fed was over 5.6 million in 1999, a number roughly equivalent to the number of people "on the books". But you keep repeating the folly. Your comedic acumen is as acute as your political. Deep. This is why we get "soundbytes" instead of news - because people like you are unable to think for themselves and instead gleen only what they want. Try concentrating on: "The government rarely sets forth any policy that helps - most of the time they are a severe hindrance." That is the most salient point of the quoted text. It's also the reason we should all be worrying about the government spending more money it doesn't have. A continuing theme that will eventually end America.

How the !@#$ did you get that out of his post? Or even infer it?

Yeah, about a decade (and usually more) down the road. And generally because they discover something totally outside of what they were actually researching.

Maybe you are. That's probably because you have no clue what you're taking about. Well, since the number of government employees grew and spending increased...As it always does. I don't have a problem with cutting the military. There's still plenty of bloat. The problem with the cuts under the Clinton Administration is they cut operational capacity and kept needless bureaucracy. A continuing government theme. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that, as you've apparently bought the Koolaid and drank the entire lot. Obviously you don't know much about the economy and I seriously doubt you could bring forth a single "policy" that led to the unprecedented growth of the 90s. Don't worry, you wouldn't be alone in it. Most "economists" can't face the fact that the entire thing was a fraud, nor are they facing the reality that today we are paying the piper for that fraud. This is because people don't like to admit they are wrong. They don't like to face the fact that stealing money from Social Security to pay for needless programs have a negative effect. Instead they believed that flat global energy prices would last forever, cheap money was good, the new Information Age would last for a century, and the birth of a new investor class would cover the fundamental flaw of government spending significantly more money than they take in. It likely would have happened regardless of who was President or who controlled Congress. The economic stars lined up and everyone stayed greedy. The economy ebbs and flows. Always has. The government rarely sets forth any policy that helps - most of the time they are a severe hindrance. I've never stated that the 80s or 90s were due to any politician and I resent the implication that I'd be silly enough to believe something as complicated as the world economy would be due to any single factor. We are facing the end of the Republic. The "Change We Need" looks exactly like the "sh-- We've Been Electing". If they pass this "Stimulus", it could very well be the final nail. I couldn't be happier.

If you call cutting the military and NASA while increasing the contractor workforce "shrinking", you'd probably be somewhat correct. Of course, non-DoD government positions went up in the neighborhood of 300K during the Clinton Administration and even more when the so called small government "conservatives" took over. You're not connecting the dots. The issues we're seeing today are the direct result of the falsehood of the "Clinton Economy". The only confusion is why the terms exist at all. Both parties are pretty much the same. The only real difference is the idiots they pander to.

Just like saying Mrs. Obama should be President in 8 years, right?

Which simply means you have no idea what you're talking about.

Way to show how far above the fray you are.

I'd just like to know why it takes the current administration to do the IRS' job.

You're so right. Calling the GOP "Gang of Pedophiles" was very classy and certainly within the lines you're alluding to, right? Actually, it was more of your typical behavior. Keep telling everyone what a lady you are. If you repeat it enough, someone will believe you. You wouldn't know a cogent argument if it bit you in your surely ample posterior. I'll let you know the second I give a flying crap about your opinion on anything, much less whether my views are "stupid, narrow-minded, or ill-informed." I'm sure you have elitist friends everywhere. I thought you liberals were the champions of losers who can't make it in America? Or is it just the people who are willing to allow you to say/do whatever you want without consequences, no matter how ludicrous? [/rhetorical] Now tell everyone how fortunate you are and how great your life is.

Amen.

I love the fact that you've never been able to take what you dish out. Just furthering your hypocrisy. And I'm quite glad that you have that opinion of Alaska because it keeps down the likelihood that I'll ever have to deal with just another Lower 48 wool covered retard.

Changing the President isn't going to change the fundamental that large bodies like the Federal government are going to be largely incompetent. No matter how much money they spend or who they put in charge, FEMA is going to pretty much suck at "first response". The U.S. Military is a great example. Fortunately, they tend to fight entities that are poorly equipped and even less competent, so the "shark attack" mantra ends up looking pretty good in the end.

Eat a bag of dick, Deborah.

The media has propped up all American soldiers to a point that's it's almost a sickness. There are still plenty of dirtbags wearing the uniform and combat makes some people do really terrible things for reasons that are unexplainable. I don't know why people can't look at an individual event for what it is. If you don't think taking a moral stand against hardened combat soldiers doing unspeakable things to innocents is courageous, then you probably don't know what the word means.

Mostly because the tax code is far too complex - but that's not going to change because it's now a cottage industry.

Parcells wasn't the Giants coach in 1991. Ray Handley was. Had Parcells stayed, it's highly unlikely that Simms wouldn't have been the starter.

Simms probably does belong in the Hall. He was hamstrung by the Giants offense and a severe lack of top notch receiver talent but he was a great friggin' QB. His stats will never tell the story. Francesa's not wrong on Simms but he's a typical NYC dick about Kelly.

So what if you pay a higher percentage? Let's say you make $100K. Depending on what proposal you're talking about you're not going to pay anything on the first $30-45K. After that, you'd pay 15%. Assuming the bottom is going to be $30K, your income tax rate would really be 10.5%. Add the 6.5% up to 106000 and you're going to pay about 16.5%. Let's say you make a million a year. You're forgiven $30k. That means you pay about $145500 in taxes. Your tax rate is 14.55%. Add the $6890 to social security. That means you'd pay $152930 in taxes. That's 15.2% I'd venture to guess that the vast majority of people making a million per aren't paying anywhere near 15.2% effective. Probably closer to half that. The flat tax will ONLY work if they get rid of all the other taxes/tariffs that most people don't know they're paying.

BJ is a totally different fighter at 155. He was giving up probably 17 pounds in this fight and it was obvious. GSP cuts 15+ to get to 170. I'd bet BJ's natural weight is right at 170. I'll be pretty surprised if BJ doesn't kick Florian's ass, more because of this fight.