|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Signs Of Intelligent Life In Congress?
turn primarily onto the advantages/disadvantages of bus seat belts!
Hmm. OK then. In all fairness to the appropriations committee, seatbelts have (IIRC) standard on US schoolbuses for a while now. Since Iraq drives on the right, it wouldn't be hard to use US-make schoolbuses, and lots of schools probably have buses they don't use. John First, while seatbelts may or may not be standard on schoolbuses now in some areas, they are not standard all over the country, nor have all older schoolbuses been retrofitted. Some areas have requested money to retrofit older buses but have been turned down. Secondly, the point was that the buses being proposed for sending to Iraq are new buses with all safety features. Now don't get me wrong about this. I don't see anything wrong with sending such buses to Iraq. However, in my own personal opinion, if our federal government can afford to do this for Iraqi children, it should be willing to do the same for its own children. Again though, why focus on this one small point? |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Signs Of Intelligent Life In Congress?
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
... "The Ruzicka Family" wrote: Quite possibly true, but beside the intended point. The purpose of my comment was not if they are useful or not. The purpose was to say that it is a bit screwed up to NOT fund bus seat belts for American kids (such a request was turned down by the Bush Administration) Why should the Federal goverment pay for things that are rightly the province of the several States? Because I believe the that if there is ANY question regarding safety for our children, the first priority of the US government should be with US kids, not Iraqi kids. If the US government wants to spend money to supply good, safe buses for Iraqi kids, it should be willing to do the same here. But where is it written that this should be solely the province of the States? If the States can afford it, that's fine. If the States can not afford it, then I don't see any harm in the federal government helping if it can. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Signs Of Intelligent Life In Congress?
"The Ruzicka Family" wrote:
This is really getting rather boring. If you have factual data from a reputable source to present that supports your side, then by all means present it and prove your point. Were you interested in knowing the truth, you'd do the research, the information is actually pretty easy to find, but you stopped after finding the evidence that supports your prejudice. http://policy.house.gov/annreport/2002/revenues.html Nothing on that chart is news to folks that have actually followed the issues, and know the difference between the Federal budget (which is discretionary spending) and the massive amount of spending that Congress has moved off of the budget into the non-discretionary (mandatory) category. http://www.house.gov/mica/issuesbudget.htm Note carefully the definitions of 'mandatory' and 'off-budget' spending. http://www.gao.gov/cghome/npc917/img1.html Note where *Social Security alone is a greater slice of the pie than defense!* http://www.gao.gov/cghome/npc917/img2.html http://www.gao.gov/cghome/npc917/img4.html Note the amount that goes to Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid *alone*, independent of the rest of social spending. On the other hand, if you can NOT supply such data, then you can NOT support your side. It's really pretty simple. That's the way reasonable debates work. Again, as the saying goes, put up or shut up. This from the individual who claims defense spending is 'obviously' the cause of the National Debt, without producing evidence of the same? http://policy.house.gov/annreport/2002/charts.html D. -- The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found at the following URLs: Text-Only Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html Enhanced HTML Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html Corrections, comments, and additions should be e-mailed to , as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Signs Of Intelligent Life In Congress?
THANK YOU for finally supplying some actual data. I will take a look at it,
as time allows, and see if I stand corrected or if my position still stands. From what I can so far see though, my position is still correct: social spending is NOT a "magnitude" greater than defense spending. In math terms, being a magnitude greater means by a factor off 10. I still do not see that in any of the links you provided, but I'll continue delving into it. Thanks again! |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Signs Of Intelligent Life In Congress?
Ok, here's what I got out of this info:
Were you interested in knowing the truth, you'd do the research, the information is actually pretty easy to find, but you stopped after finding the evidence that supports your prejudice. http://policy.house.gov/annreport/2002/revenues.html This shows that social spending for 2002 was 57% (but includes such things as "agricultural programs"), defense 13%, interest 14%. Even here, social spending would need to be about 2.4X bigger to be a "magnitude" more than defense. Nothing on that chart is news to folks that have actually followed the issues, and know the difference between the Federal budget (which is discretionary spending) and the massive amount of spending that Congress has moved off of the budget into the non-discretionary (mandatory) category. http://www.house.gov/mica/issuesbudget.htm Note carefully the definitions of 'mandatory' and 'off-budget' spending. Seeing as this appears to be information from a right-wing conservative Republican, I would hardly call it unbiased. I have no doubt that if I tried to present information from a ultra-liberal Democrat, that you would just as easily discount it. http://www.gao.gov/cghome/npc917/img1.html Note where *Social Security alone is a greater slice of the pie than defense!* This gives an estimate for 2003, with combined social spending coming in at 41%, defense 19%, and interest 7%. A few things of note here. If the prior data for 2002 and this 2003 data are true, then social spending and interest have gone down quite a bit, while defense has gone up quite a bit. This would seem to validate those who say that the new spending deficits are primarily due to increased defense spending. However, I still have to view this data with a jaundiced eye, due to the decrease in National Debt Interest spending. One would think that, with the deficit and debt increasing, that interest spending would also increase, not decrease. Again, though, whether or not social spending was a "greater slice of the pie than defense," has never been in contention. I believe that the data I presented showed that as well. What this data does show again, however, is that you're original comment about social spending being a magnitude more than defense spending was incorrect. http://www.gao.gov/cghome/npc917/img2.html http://www.gao.gov/cghome/npc917/img4.html Note the amount that goes to Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid *alone*, independent of the rest of social spending. This data shows that Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are indeed a significant portion of the budget. I do not believe I ever presented anything to the contrary. This portion will probably skyrocket even more in coming years, as more and more of the baby-boomer generation enters retirement. On the other hand, if you can NOT supply such data, then you can NOT support your side. It's really pretty simple. That's the way reasonable debates work. Again, as the saying goes, put up or shut up. This from the individual who claims defense spending is 'obviously' the cause of the National Debt, without producing evidence of the same? I think you may have been confused earlier as to my meaning (or it could also be due to my not wording it correctly). I never said that defense spending was "obviously" the cause of the "National Debt"? What I believe I said was that part of the INTEREST paid on the Debt can be directly attributed to defense spending, which it of course true. The data you presented for 2003 seems to support this fact. I did not say that th entire Debt was due to defense spending, nor did I say that ALL of the interest was due to defense spending. http://policy.house.gov/annreport/2002/charts.html This data is again for 2002, so does not really do anything to add to the debate, other than somewhat agree with your first set of data. All in all, I would like to thank you for taking the time to do some research of your own for this debate. Overall though, I'd have to say that the data you provided again disproves your original assertion that the amount of social spending is a "magnitude" more than that spent on defense. Also, it would seem to add credibility to the idea that a primary source of the increased deficit, at least from 2002 to 2003, is indeed increased defense spending; but this is certainly understandable with all of the added spending we've had to do for the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Signs Of Intelligent Life In Congress?
"The Ruzicka Family" wrote:
http://www.house.gov/mica/issuesbudget.htm Note carefully the definitions of 'mandatory' and 'off-budget' spending. Seeing as this appears to be information from a right-wing conservative Republican, I would hardly call it unbiased. The truth is always unbiased. Note also that the 'biased' information is consistent with the presentations from the various (in theory) 'unbiased' sources. I have no doubt that if I tried to present information from a ultra-liberal Democrat, that you would just as easily discount it. It's one of the few I could find that told the truth. In general, *neither* side of the aisle wants JQP to know how they have rigged the game. D. -- The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found at the following URLs: Text-Only Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html Enhanced HTML Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html Corrections, comments, and additions should be e-mailed to , as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Signs Of Intelligent Life In Congress?
Seeing as this appears to be information from a right-wing conservative
Republican, I would hardly call it unbiased. The truth is always unbiased. Note also that the 'biased' information is consistent with the presentations from the various (in theory) 'unbiased' sources. Ah, I see. Since this is data you agree with, it must therefore be "the truth." Interesting. I suppose it must follow, therefore, that any data that goes contrary to what you believe is obviously not true. Follow that train of thought, you must never be wrong! How is it possible then, that you were wrong about social spending being a "magnitude" greater than defense spending? Even your own data failed to validate your opinion. Seriously now, I'm certainly not trying to start a flame war here, but trying to say that a ultra right-wing conservative is "unbiased," simply because you agree with him, is total bull****. I have no doubt that if I tried to present information from a ultra-liberal Democrat, that you would just as easily discount it. It's one of the few I could find that told the truth. In general, *neither* side of the aisle wants JQP to know how they have rigged the game. I'll certainly agree with you that both sides want to slant the story in their own direction. But again, just because you find someone who agrees with you, that does not prove any "truth." All it proves is that he is just as biased as you in a certain direction, just as I freely admit that I am biased in the other direction. I have not been on any odyssey here to prove any ultimate "truths." All I have been doing is showing that your original statement was false. I have done that, thanks in part to your own research. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Signs Of Intelligent Life In Congress?
"Derek Lyons" wrote ...
"The Ruzicka Family" wrote: http://www.house.gov/mica/issuesbudget.htm Note carefully the definitions of 'mandatory' and 'off-budget' spending. Seeing as this appears to be information from a right-wing conservative Republican, I would hardly call it unbiased. The truth is always unbiased. Note also that the 'biased' information is consistent with the presentations from the various (in theory) 'unbiased' sources. Wait. If the "(in theory) 'unbiased' sources" agree with information that you state is the truth and you state that the truth is always unbiased then what's with the "(in theory)" and the 's around the "unbiased" ? Now, as I feel guilty about keeping this rapidly-going-OT thread alive follow-ups set to sci.space.policy |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Signs Of Intelligent Life In Congress?
"The Ruzicka Family" wrote:
Seeing as this appears to be information from a right-wing conservative Republican, I would hardly call it unbiased. The truth is always unbiased. Note also that the 'biased' information is consistent with the presentations from the various (in theory) 'unbiased' sources. Ah, I see. Since this is data you agree with, it must therefore be "the truth." Interesting. Nice try, but you miss the point, intentionally I suspect. (Evidence in support of belief, failure to edit your message after reading my entire message.) How is it possible then, that you were wrong about social spending being a "magnitude" greater than defense spending? Even your own data failed to validate your opinion. http://policy.house.gov/annreport/2002/revenues.html Seriously now, I'm certainly not trying to start a flame war here, but trying to say that a ultra right-wing conservative is "unbiased," simply because you agree with him, is total bull****. Seriously now, you are openly and with deliberate intention attempting to start a flame war by typing nothing but personal nonsense and attempting to do everything *but* adress the facts. I have no doubt that if I tried to present information from a ultra-liberal Democrat, that you would just as easily discount it. It's one of the few I could find that told the truth. In general, *neither* side of the aisle wants JQP to know how they have rigged the game. I'll certainly agree with you that both sides want to slant the story in their own direction. Except, the website I provided wasn't slanted, it just told a story that few bother to educate themselves on. There is a *big* difference. But again, just because you find someone who agrees with you, that does not prove any "truth." All it proves is that he is just as biased as you in a certain direction, just as I freely admit that I am biased in the other direction. The problem is, you keep assuming that what you 'know' about the budget represents truth. You are incorrect. I've provided multiple websites attempting to lead you to water, and you refuse to drink. I have not been on any odyssey here to prove any ultimate "truths." All I have been doing is showing that your original statement was false. I have done that, thanks in part to your own research. Wave the white flag and cry victory, I'm ok with that. I know the facts. D. -- The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found at the following URLs: Text-Only Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html Enhanced HTML Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html Corrections, comments, and additions should be e-mailed to , as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Signs Of Intelligent Life In Congress?
Nice try, but you miss the point, intentionally I suspect. (Evidence in support of belief, failure to edit your message after reading my entire message.) How is it possible then, that you were wrong about social spending being a "magnitude" greater than defense spending? Even your own data failed to validate your opinion. http://policy.house.gov/annreport/2002/revenues.html Hmmm....I'm beginning to suspect that the problem lies in the fact that you're probably not in a math oriented field. As I mentioned before, when a number is a "magnitude" greater than another number, it is at least 10 times bigger. The data you again presented shows social spending at $1,398,221,000,000 for 2002, with military spending at $309,527,000,000. If you simply divide the social spending number by the military spending number, you will find, in this case at least, that the social spending number is about 4.5 times greater, not 10 times greater. This is how the math works out. It could not be simpler. If you want to argue with basic math, by all means feel free to do so. However, the plain fact is that simple math like this doesn't lie. In this particular instance, the social spending number was NOT a magnitude greater than the military spending. Your original claim therefore still is found to be invalid. Seriously now, I'm certainly not trying to start a flame war here, but trying to say that a ultra right-wing conservative is "unbiased," simply because you agree with him, is total bull****. Seriously now, you are openly and with deliberate intention attempting to start a flame war by typing nothing but personal nonsense and attempting to do everything *but* adress the facts. What the hell are you babbling about? This may be news to you, but it really is true that, just because YOU agree with something does not, in itself, make it a fact. Here's an example: if someone stated that the world is flat, and you agreed with that person, that does not mean that it is a fact that the earth is flat. This is not any kind of "personal nonsense." I have, without any doubt, addressed the facts about this entire debate. You originally claimed that social spending by the federal government was a magnitude more (10X) than defense spending. Whether or not my original data or your data best reflects the facts (which is somewhat hard to prove as they are for different fiscal years), is moot. All the data, both yours and mine, using simple math, show the same thing. Your claim was wrong. End of debate. I have no doubt that if I tried to present information from a ultra-liberal Democrat, that you would just as easily discount it. It's one of the few I could find that told the truth. In general, *neither* side of the aisle wants JQP to know how they have rigged the game. I'll certainly agree with you that both sides want to slant the story in their own direction. Except, the website I provided wasn't slanted, it just told a story that few bother to educate themselves on. There is a *big* difference. Geez, but you are either totally dense, or an arrogant fool. If you do not think that a conservative right-wing Republican looks at things, and presents data, through his own conservative viewpoint, just as a liberal Democrat would see things through a liberal viewpoint, then there's no hope for you. You obviously do not live in the real world. But again, just because you find someone who agrees with you, that does not prove any "truth." All it proves is that he is just as biased as you in a certain direction, just as I freely admit that I am biased in the other direction. The problem is, you keep assuming that what you 'know' about the budget represents truth. You are incorrect. I've provided multiple websites attempting to lead you to water, and you refuse to drink. I have not been on any odyssey here to prove any ultimate "truths." All I have been doing is showing that your original statement was false. I have done that, thanks in part to your own research. Wave the white flag and cry victory, I'm ok with that. I know the facts. ROTFL! What is obvious here is that, while you may know some facts (which in itself may not be an actual fact), you have absolutlely no clue as to what to do with the facts, or how to interpret or analyze them. All you do is see what you want to see, and disregard anything that might prove you wrong. I feel sorry for anyone who is so out of touch that they refuse to even accept what simple math can tell them. I fully realize that you're still going to understand only what fits into your narrow vision, and that no further debating will change that. I even doubt that if Jesus himself appeared before you and showed you how the math proves you wrong, you still wouldn't believe it. Too bad for you. I've wasted enough time on this. I've got to get back to helping my little kids with their math homework. Funny thing is, they seem to understand basic math better than you do! Ciao! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|