? Quad Motor Cybertruck and Crab Walk (Independent Front & Rear Wheel Steering) Confirmed!!

[Crissa]

You must be intentionally missing the point because I never...

...Said the government should tighten its belt? No, that's totally what you said.

This is the classic argument about government spending! How many times did I ask for specifics before you finally pulled out some? I've continued to point out that it's not easy to find places to cut.

I never said you wanted to cut social security, either.

-Crissa

 

[tkal]

...Said the government should tighten its belt? No, that's totally what you said.

This is the classic argument about government spending! How many times did I ask for specifics before you finally pulled out some? I've continued to point out that it's not easy to find places to cut.

I never said you wanted to cut social security, either.

-Crissa

You are not my damn editor, DO NOT try to make me say things by chopping up my quotes. You are making false quotes and putting words in my mouth. Specifics don't matter, its like being in a large park and someone says to watch out for the poop and it seems that your reply is to demand to be shown the exact weight and consistency of the poop or it does not exist. Specifics don't matter, shit is shit, fraud is fraud, waste is waste. From local to the very top, not in every case.

I have pointed out, at your request, examples and all you do is find reasons to dismiss rather than take the problem head on. What does it matter if it took one hour or one week? A point not to the point of the debate. Dismissing is not pointing out shit.

No, but you did bring SS up in such a light as to make it appear as though I am suggesting we take away from those 47% and 13%. A deceptive tactic that only works on the lower half of the bell curve.

 

[Crissa]

I'm sorry, at no point did I say you wanted to cut social security.

Specifics do matter. Because those with the least power are those who need every dollar they get.

I have been the analyst eating from the free buffet by marketing as they try to get or spend their budget. I have been the latchkey kid surviving on social security and foodstamps. I was also the kid of a social worker handing out those food stamps and I spent time in the same house as the foster kids while my mom worked crazy hours so we"d have a home to go to. My father was shot and killed by police, and my step father organized the workers of (and got fired from) the city and later went into politics (and failed, before getting a higher degree and working in different politics: self-governance.) I was the college student who wasn't able to get enough work and ended up on food stamps for a cold, cold winter eating peanut butter and temp call center jobs. And my spouse worked for a NASA contractor, which was awesome. I have seen the world from lots of angles.

And 'the government can just tighten its belt' is flippant and not at all easy in practice. Which is what I have been pointing out the entire time. That's why I haven't nailed down anything you said, because I don't think you've really thought about it deeply. And it would be rude of me to make your naivetee seem as malice.

-Crissa

 

[tkal]

I'm sorry, at no point did I say you wanted to cut social security.

Specifics do matter. Because those with the least power are those who need every dollar they get.

I have been the analyst eating from the free buffet by marketing as they try to get or spend their budget. I have been the latchkey kid surviving on social security and foodstamps. I was also the kid of a social worker handing out those food stamps and I spent time in the same house as the foster kids while my mom worked crazy hours so we"d have a home to go to. My father was shot and killed by police, and my step father organized the workers of (and got fired from) the city and later went into politics (and failed, before getting a higher degree and working in different politics: self-governance.) I was the college student who wasn't able to get enough work and ended up on food stamps for a cold, cold winter eating peanut butter and temp call center jobs. And my spouse worked for a NASA contractor, which was awesome. I have seen the world from lots of angles.

And 'the government can just tighten its belt' is flippant and not at all easy in practice. Which is what I have been pointing out the entire time. That's why I haven't nailed down anything you said, because I don't think you've really thought about it deeply. And it would be rude of me to make your naivetee seem as malice.

-Crissa

What was the point of bringing up the 47% and 13% numbers right after I point out millions in fraud then? You crop dusted(getting really close without).

Your nebulous sense of people needing every dollar is universal to all people. If we can both agree that the fewer dollars you have the more important each one is, why can we not agree that it is a good thing if government leaves that dollar in your pocket?

Why tell me you life story? Does it change any facts, no. I think you are using it to try and gain moral high ground.

Would it change your opinion if I told you that my father beat my mother, putting her into the hospital when he kidnapped me and then fled across state lines? The rest of my family had to go and kidnap me back because OSP and WSP would not help. My mother then worked during the day, school at night to become LPN while on welfare. I have only known that my real father is a huge piece of shit. After finding another father figure and getting married my mother was forced to undergo a hysterectomy turning my stepdad into another abusive piece of shit. Getting kicked out the house by the POS onto the street my friends parents were cool enough to take me in. I start taking community college classes and start getting somewhere only to realize just how much fucking money school costs and that I would not be able to complete school without both working full time and taking on massive debt. Does any of this matter? No. Did any of this change your opinion? I doubt it. If it did then your moral base is liquid and if it didn't be honest with yourself and realize that I don't care about your life story either.

Is your position that every dollar spent by government is well spent or what?(please answer directly) Because saying that the problem is too hard or that I lack comprehension or respect is not an argument to my point: .015%. Your reply is to scoff and demand to know where which is immature when you continue to do that after I have presented evidence, do you have any counter evidence? But you don't need to reply because I know that you will basically return to calling me dumb whilst calling yourself smart because reasons.

Allow me to recap, and uh...trigger warning (links to posts with my own made up titles)

Spoiler

People are having a hard time making ends meet under "full employment"

It would be nice if taxes were lower so people had more money to make ends meet, darn politicians .

Nuh-uh

It would only take a very small percentage

Nuh-uh

WTF do you mean nuh-uh

A.O.C. is smart

Proof of waste

See I was right

But missing money

Character attacks, scape goat, partisanship

I see you and more waste

13% of people on SS live in poverty

Ok, that matters how

Choppy Choppy

How dare you. I am not as think as you dumb i am

See quoted text

If you got this far know that in doing this recap I realize this has gone on way too long. I will not be publicly replying to Crissa in this thread on this topic any longer.

 

[Crissa]

What was the point of bringing up the 47% and 13% numbers right after I point out millions in fraud then? You crop dusted(getting really close without).

The point was to reveal that the spending is not sufficient for all means. Hence, trying to reduce it is difficult. Four thousand cases of fraud out of nearly seventy million is a very low rate. And in fact, they found them, or we wouldn't be talking about it. Which just goes to prove there are lots of people looking at this spending.

It's very difficult to manage these budgets, and being flippant about the numbers as merely being large is not an argument they should be small.

Please, look at the per capita spending of the US government over the last ninety years.

I'm avoiding being political about this, sticking to letting the facts stand... which may be what is seeming to frustrate you about this conversation. ?‍

-Crissa

 

[JBee]

Let's start with some definitions to set the boundary conditions of the arguement:

Fraud:
"a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities."

Fiat currency (most currency including USD):
"Fiat money does not have intrinsic value and does not have use value."

This simply means that all transactions that use fiat currency are fraud, because fiat currency is NOT payment for something else, because it has no value in itself.

Rather all currency is a debt note, that puts a burden on society to repay it.

Example 1: If I offered you $0.50c and told you to jump in the air, you'd tell me to "go away". If I offered to pay you $500 you'd ask me "how high?".

The "pressure" of that $500 "bill" makes you do things, and if you have that bill you can force others to do things too.

Example 2: If you were wandering the desert with a suitcase of cash but dying of thirst wouldn't you offer me that cash for a bottle of water?

Further if all commodities and mosy international trade was by default with the currency of a single country that can print as much as they want, is this not fraud?

If the government can enter into a debt agreement, without our consent but on our behalf, and spend it as they please. Is this not fraud? Etc etc.

Have you had a look at the US debt clock lately and pondered who is going to pay for it?

As above, in general, the arguement is disingenuous because by definition everything is subject to fraud if it touches currency in any way. The question simply becomes from where do you want to start measuring from.

 

[Crissa]

If the government can enter into a debt agreement, without our consent but on our behalf, and spend it as they please. Is this not fraud? Etc etc.

No. First three words of the Constitution of the United States. So no, it is not without our consent.

-Crissa

 

[JBee]

No. First three words of the Constitution of the United States. So no, it is not without our consent.

-Crissa

So are you saying that you consent to everything the US government does on your behalf?

 

[Throwcomputer]

A very easy way to help people "make ends meet" would be to lower taxes, all of them. The gov can tighten it's belt for all of America and do this without racking up debt, but politicians and bureaucracy...

CEOs, board members and share holders could also tighten those belts and open their purses a bit to pay people what they are worth instead of what they were worth decades ago as if it's some reward for workers to sacrifice their lives for a big fat executive pay package.

Lot of blame on politicians.. Somehow the machinery that drives the economy is always given a pass for their own poor behavior.

Just sayin...

 

[Throwcomputer]

Par for the course on this forum.. 100pg threads with maybe 5% of the thread on topic and the rest just bs randomness.

People need to police themselves with their contributions.

Saying this as I currently failed at taking my own advice.

Peace out!

I disagree.

The topic of the thread is “Quad Motor Cybertruck and Crab Walk (Independent Front & Rear Wheel Steering) Confirmed!!”.

People clicking on that would reasonably expect to find comments related to that topic.

If the comments are no longer relating to that topic, it would be most polite to the reader to close the thread. People can open a new one about whatever politics they want to bang on about and people who want to bang heads with them can do so in the appropriate thread.

 

[Bill906]

Let's start with some definitions

You give "examples' but not sure what point they are trying to make. They don't help your tired argument of fiat currency. (Suitcase full of cash or full of gold would be worth the same to the person dying of thirst).

So are you saying that you consent to everything the US government does on your behalf?

Of course she's not saying that. "She" doesn't have to consent, "WE" have to consent. The first word in the constitution.

@Crissa - I assumed you prefer "She, her, herself" please correct me if my assumption was wrong.

 

[tkal]

CEOs, board members and share holders could also tighten those belts and open their purses a bit to pay people what they are worth....

I agree 100% and should of included the fat cats in my complaint. My focus on gov results from wanting to help everyone at the same time rather than battling thousands of different companies.

Since several of you believe so strongly that I don't know wtf I am talking about can you layout what you would do, or what the process of examining spending would be, to cut spending while maintaining or improving service?

 

[Crissa]

A couple trillion of spending last year was one-time things. So it won't affect this year's budget.

I would also argue that we should stop thinking of things like Social Security, Healthcare, as part of the federal budget any more than we do the Post Office. They're self-funded for the most part. We should take the income caps off the taxes for these because it makes no sense that we aren't charging a proper sliding scale for them. We should take the veterans' budget out of the military - and possibly the payscale for most public employees, so that we stop having this 'but the enlisted man on food stamps' is and excuse to buy another tank that'll go sit unused because we have more of them than we have crews.

(And we should stop squeezing the Post Office, as well.)

But see, that's political, and we don't want to get into that stuff, ehh?

-Crissa

 

[JBee]

You give "examples' but not sure what point they are trying to make. They don't help your tired argument of fiat currency. (Suitcase full of cash or full of gold would be worth the same to the person dying of thirst).

Of course she's not saying that. "She" doesn't have to consent, "WE" have to consent.

The reason for giving the examples was to demonstrate that currency is NOT payment, you only get paid when you get something that directly adds tangible value to you, for example if you receive a good or service. That is why currency is a "debt note" that compels others to pay it back, and hence the examples. Also feel free to read and understand what is written on every dollar in your wallet, in particular that legally "tender" is only an offer for payment. So by the definition of fraud all currency is fraud and is only worth something if you believe in it, but not because it has any value.

For example I said:

"This simply means that all transactions that use fiat currency are fraud, because fiat currency is NOT payment for something else, because it has no value in itself."

By definition fraud is everywhere there is currency, so nitpicking how much or by what party or government body is a red herring argument, because it is everywhere currency is used for trade.

Imagine I could print my own money to pay you for whatever you have, your life even, and force you by military might to accept my currency as payment.

With MMT the government only needs taxes to throttle inflation, and doesn't need it to pay for anything. It also openly "borrows" nearly twice as much as it spends, so who exactly from? From your future! Every baby born in the US currently comes with $500,000 of liability it has to pay back. I'd somehow think that was important to understand. Good luck with that btw!

As for the "We the people" arguement; that is NOT consent either, simply because you don't get to vote until you are an adult, and you are mostly limited to vote for persons not policy. Originally only land owners got to vote in the US under the constitution and no women either. You only had say if you had peice of the pie and were "strong" enough to defend it.

If it were true that you automatically agree in the constitution because you were born in the US then why vote on it at all? Shall I pull out the dictionary again and define "consent" for you? A document can't protect you from ill will, nor cash, nor democracy nor government, regardless of what nanny state you would like to live in.

As for being tired about fiat currency, that's fine, but at least try not to dismiss all the other points because you don't want to know what it is and how things actually work.

Discourse is information exchange, and theres just so much we all don't fully comprehend. So feel free to prove me wrong so I might gain new understanding.

 

[Crissa]

You know what's tangible value? (Since value isn't actually tangible?)

When I get fiat dollars I get free checking. I also get access to credit.

Weird I don't need physical stuff to secure the physical stuff I need to live, eh?

-Crissa