Jimmie Kimmel Show gone !

#1,426
#1,426
hndog609 said:
The boldened was the point. If 4.5 is "less" then that's something. Not great, but something. The number needs to keep getting smaller of course for it to matter.

Take another thing with you...a huge swath of whatever is cut will be met with accusations of facism/tyranny/etc by the economically addicted.
Click to expand...
and 6 is less than 100 trillion, congrats we should just accept it.

I have been having a hard time finding what the 4.5 actually covers. it can't be the yearly outlay, we don't even have a budget, that is hovering around 7 trillion. everything I am finding is that it only covers half a year in this CR because Congress refuses to actually set a real budget.

given that the current "budget" is 7, and it looks like the Rs want to spend 4.5 in half a year, that is still an INCREASE of 2 trillion dollars over the whole year. so again, in real math land, we are not saving money. even the republicans want to spend a trillion dollars MORE than we are already spending. so no, its not a good thing, or "something".

it is the republicans accelerating us to the cliff.
 
#1,427
#1,427
LouderVol said:
and 6 is less than 100 trillion, congrats we should just accept it.

I have been having a hard time finding what the 4.5 actually covers. it can't be the yearly outlay, we don't even have a budget, that is hovering around 7 trillion. everything I am finding is that it only covers half a year in this CR because Congress refuses to actually set a real budget.

given that the current "budget" is 7, and it looks like the Rs want to spend 4.5 in half a year, that is still an INCREASE of 2 trillion dollars over the whole year. so again, in real math land, we are not saving money. even the republicans want to spend a trillion dollars MORE than we are already spending. so no, its not a good thing, or "something".

it is the republicans accelerating us to the cliff.
Click to expand...
I'm not interested in a partisanship argument, especially if it's couched in some kind of "congrats we should just accept" stance. If X is less than Y then X is better. If (IF) that's what ends up occurring we don't necessarily have to swoon over the improvement to recognize it's a good (or at least better) thing. If that isn't how it works out then by all means let's all denounce it, whoever is in charge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77 and Orange_Crush
#1,429
#1,429
LouderVol said:
it collapses, at least the parts that don't get paid.

you realize if we keep going as we are we will get the total collapse you are bringing up here. under my proposal we have a controlled deacceleration. instead of the WHOLE system coming down because there is no faith in the money any more, the money actually goes ONLY where its needed, and only parts see issues. done in a controlled manner we will limit harm.

we continue down the path or arguing that 4.5 extra trillion dollars of debt is a good thing, we lose any possibility of controlling that fall.
Click to expand...
Even under your scenario, which I mostly agree with the mechanics of how to address it, it’s going to be an enormous disruption across all sectors of the economy. The average person, by and large, is whistling past the graveyard and has no idea that 1) hard decisions will have to be made at a great cost to most and 2) if not, the cost will be substantially more punitive, potentially life changing wrt our form of govt and what we once knew. Unfortunately, It could likely be seen as a political opportunity for a wholesale change in our form of govt, not an opportunity to get us back on the right track.
 
#1,430
#1,430
InVOLuntary said:
Lol


I figured you'd deflect. Pitch a fit over Trump's perceived censorship when your lord and savior is still preaching his hate and garbage and minimize your real left wing fascism. The demoncrat party is the most corrupt, organized crime ring we've seen since the '20s era mob.
Click to expand...

Answered your question directly, Juicebox.

As for the Democratic Party corruption, I says mmkay as a registered Independent.
 
#1,436
#1,436
hndog609 said:
I'm not interested in a partisanship argument, especially if it's couched in some kind of "congrats we should just accept" stance. If X is less than Y then X is better. If (IF) that's what ends up occurring we don't necessarily have to swoon over the improvement to recognize it's a good (or at least better) thing. If that isn't how it works out then by all means let's all denounce it, whoever is in charge.
Click to expand...
it is not "better". its not even "less bad", its "more bad than we currently have, but not the actual worst it could be".
 
#1,437
#1,437
Vol737 said:
Even under your scenario, which I mostly agree with the mechanics of how to address it, it’s going to be an enormous disruption across all sectors of the economy. The average person, by and large, is whistling past the graveyard and has no idea that 1) hard decisions will have to be made at a great cost to most and 2) if not, the cost will be substantially more punitive, potentially life changing wrt our form of govt and what we once knew. Unfortunately, It could likely be seen as a political opportunity for a wholesale change in our form of govt, not an opportunity to get us back on the right track.
Click to expand...
I would prefer if we would elect officials who would actually work thru these things before hand. get people to brace for impact, protect the most important system. our current system's only solution to the impending wreck is to accelerate at it faster, and not tell people anything.
 
#1,438
#1,438
LouderVol said:
I would prefer if we would elect officials who would actually work thru these things before hand. get people to brace for impact, protect the most important system. our current system's only solution to the impending wreck is to accelerate at it faster, and not tell people anything.
Click to expand...
Same here, but not hopeful.
 
#1,439
#1,439
LouderVol said:
it is not "better". its not even "less bad", its "more bad than we currently have, but not the actual worst it could be".
Click to expand...
That's such nonsense I'm having to question if I'm getting trolled.

1. EVERYTHING is predicated on if the actual number works out to be less. If it doesn't nothing I've posited is even applicable so that's pretty much that.
2. If the number is less then it is literally and inarguably "less bad".

Are you just projecting what the "bad" is before we get there? Look, I'm getting a little tired of the circle so let's do this...if after the fiscal year we end up with more debt accumulated over that period than the prior year you can @ me and I'll happily yell at a cloud with you, deal?
 
#1,440
#1,440
hndog609 said:
That's such nonsense I'm having to question if I'm getting trolled.

1. EVERYTHING is predicated on if the actual number works out to be less. If it doesn't nothing I've posited is even applicable so that's pretty much that.
2. If the number is less then it is literally and inarguably "less bad".

Are you just projecting what the "bad" is before we get there? Look, I'm getting a little tired of the circle so let's do this...if after the fiscal year we end up with more debt accumulated over that period than the prior year you can @ me and I'll happily yell at a cloud with you, deal?
Click to expand...
lol, freaking easiest "money" I have ever made.
 
#1,441
#1,441
LouderVol said:
lol, freaking easiest "money" I have ever made.
Click to expand...
No need for flippancy. This is on balance a Right leaning board fiscally so it shouldn't just be me willing to throw stones. The only thing that's really been in play is you doubling (tripling? quadrupling?) down on seeming to fight the idea that (assuming it occurs of course) "better" isn't actually better. Anyway no really, @ me and everyone else when the shoe actually drops. Most people that are of a genuine conservative bent will all be irked along with you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Crush
#1,442
#1,442
hndog609 said:
No need for flippancy. This is on balance a Right leaning board fiscally so it shouldn't just be me willing to throw stones. The only thing that's really been in play is you doubling (tripling? quadrupling?) down on seeming to fight the idea that (assuming it occurs of course) "better" isn't actually better. Anyway no really, @ me and everyone else when the shoe actually drops. Most people that are of a genuine conservative bent will all be irked along with you.
Click to expand...
If wasteful spending == bad, and there is less wasteful spending, then that is literally less bad.

There is no bug in that code.


x == bad
y == x-1.5

Is y less than x (which == bad)?
 
#1,450
#1,450
swampfoxfan said:
Real presidential. Weird thing is, magas accept this behavior as normal.
Click to expand...

I think the problem is two fold.

1. He says so much crazy stuff most of us ignore 90% of it

2. Between the media treatment of republicans and the softer/friendly republicans that had been running (Romney and Bush for example), the right felt they needed someone who would fight back as hard as the left does. So they voted in a guy who’s constantly punching at everyone and everything
 
  • Like
Reactions: MontyPython, Vol since 77, volbeast33 and 1 other person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top