View Single Post
Old 02-05-2013, 08:33 PM   #106
Ring of Famer

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,126


Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Question. Do you read the **** you post?

One of the lines right there adding into your $3T total is

Then there's

Here, we're not even talking about money paid by the federal government at all. Instead they're trying to stab at a dollar value on the hardship placed on military families. News flash, most legislation of any significance has some social cost. This cost is never factored into whether a bill increases/decreases the federal deficit, because those costs aren't paid out of the federal budget.
Are you blind, deaf dumb or just that ****ing stupid?

See the line that says: SUBTOTAL FEDERAL OUTLAYS FY2001 Through FY2011, Constant $2011 -- $2,657.3?

Notice how it ****ing says through 2011, not 2012?

You know it's 2013, right? meaning at least one additional fiscal year (i.e. 2012) of spending has occurred above and beyond the figure there. The average is $240bn a year, so

2657+240 = $2897bn ~=$3T

This would be like saying Obamacare cost 10 times as much as advertised because we should count all the insurance premiums paid by citizens under the new federal mandate. The government doesn't budget that way. And you're fine with that, so long as it suits you.
Once again, you're just tilting against a strawman.

But my personal favorite is where your $3T figure (in addition to the bull**** above) factors in the lion's share of Homeland Security spending over the last decade. Apparently TSA screeners and border patrol are Iraq/Afghan theater Veterans now.
Last time I checked, the entire purpose of the huge build up in HS is the same justification for Afghan/Iraq: the "War on Terror". Of course, you also keep ignoring that the point is that the total cost of all the wars going on (no matter if you leave off HS or not) is far, far more than a single years deficit, especially if you exclude that portion of the deficit that is coming from those wars.

The old hiptard line used to be that all that war spending was taking away from much needed Homeland Security budget.

Now though, you're trying to lump it all in as if it was the same thing. How convenient.
Oh look, more random distractions from you. You have a serious issue with that, don't you?

You also say you're not factoring in interest. But when you dig into the details of your 'reference' and you see, yup, there it is. Interest costs.
I never said that I'm not factoring in interesting. Do you have serious reading problems or what?

Please, next time you post an article as proof of something, read it first. Try to understand it. Then discuss.
The only one not understanding things here is you bub...

Last edited by Fedaykin; 02-05-2013 at 08:38 PM..
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote