WC's Extreme Views

[Wild Cobra]

in absolute terms the slice is bigger, relative to the overall cost of government it's smaller. agree?
Yes. Smaller in percentage only.

[Winehole23]

thanks for clarifying where you agree with ElNono. a minute ago you were twisting his words.

[Wild Cobra]

thanks for clarifying where you agree with ElNono. a minute ago you were twisting his words.
I don't see how. I have not budged from my original assessment.

I kept saying today's spending was more in constant dollars per capita, he kept arguing it was less.

[Winehole23]

he kept insisting it was lessper capita? don't think so.

[ElNono]

Of course, the above would lead us to ask the question: Was the amount spend per child on education and services in 1960s the "proper" amount? What validates the 1960 number as correct instead of the 2005 number?

That's certainly a valid concern... but let's track back to where this started: The contention that government would save huge amounts by implementing eugenics/sterilization. Reality indicates that the amount spent on children's welfare is, as a portion of the over spending, fairly small.

To compound the silliness, he has advocated going back to the 50's as far as spending goes... yet back then the government spent at a rate twice as big on children's welfare.

[Winehole23]

I don't see how. I have not budged from my original assessment.you misrepresented his. You said El Nono thinks 20% of X is always greater than 11% of Y.

You were incorrect. He said nothing of the sort.

[Wild Cobra]

That's certainly a valid concern... but let's track back to where this started: The contention that government would save huge amounts by implementing eugenics/sterilization. Reality indicates that the amount spent on children's welfare is, as a portion of the over spending, fairly small.

To compound the silliness, he has advocated going back to the 50's as far as spending goes... yet back then the government spent at a rate twice as big on children's welfare.
Did I? where? I do advocate reducing the spending. I mentioned the 50's responsibility values. I don't recall the 50's for cost comparisons. It was you that brought up the link referring to 1960 vs. 2009, so I stuck with that, rather than change the goalpost.

Any money we can save in any program, even if you think it's small, is a step in the right direction.

[Wild Cobra]

you misrepresented his. You said El Nono thinks 20% of X is always greater than 11% of Y.

You were incorrect. He said nothing of the sort.
If that's true, then why didn't he correct me?

[ElNono]

Why can't you wrap your head around the fact the the budget is 5 times larger than then back then

The point of using percentages is so the size of the budget doesn't matter. Welfare spending at any given time is a certain percentage of the overall spending, regardless of the size of the budget. The budget is the constant = 100%.


We aren't talking about "today" vs. "today." we are talking about a half a century vs. today.

Sure. And half a century ago the US took 20% of their entire allocated spending and used it on children's welfare.

In order to be spending at the same rate today, they would need to take 20% of their entire allocated spending as use it on children's welfare. But they don't. They only use 11%.

It might be more money, but it's a fact that government today spends (proportionally) less on children's welfare that it did in 1960.

If you want to go back to 1960's levels of children's welfare, then the government would need to increase child welfare spending, not cut it.

[ElNono]

Did I? where? I do advocate reducing the spending. I mentioned the 50's responsibility values. I don't recall the 50's for cost comparisons. It was you that brought up the link referring to 1960 vs. 2009, so I stuck with that, rather than change the goalpost.

Your whole premise for this idea was to cut spending. I have to assume that your "responsibility values" from the 1950 are tied there somewhere, right?


Any money we can save in any program, even if you think it's small, is a step in the right direction.

Then we're doing good... we decreased spending on child-welfare 9% since 1960... that should be progress, right?

On the other hand, what has grown since then is adult-welfare. Not sure where eugenics/sterilization helps on that. Care to elaborate?

[ElNono]

If that's true, then why didn't he correct me?

I did.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5629200&postcount=487

[Wild Cobra]

More correctly, you refused to acknowledge we were spending more per child today than the past. Every time I said so, you argued the smaller percentage vs. the larger one. If you were playing word games, shame on you for not participating in an honest debate.

Are we or are we not, spending more money per child, in constant dollars?

If you say no. You are wrong. that's the point all along that you refuse to acknowledge.

[Wild Cobra]

The point of using percentages is so the size of the budget doesn't matter.
This is where you are wrong. If overnight, I double what I place in a budget, the pie is now twice as large. To maintain equal spending in existing line items, they all are now half the percentage they previously were.

It matters.


Sure. And half a century ago the US took 20% of their entire allocated spending and used it on children's welfare.

In order to be spending at the same rate today, they would need to take 20% of their entire allocated spending as use it on children's welfare. But they don't. They only use 11%.

That's because the pie is 3.09 times larger per capita now, in constant dollars. Your 11% is 70% more spending per capita than before in constant dollars.


It might be more money, but it's a fact that government today spends (proportionally) less on children's welfare that it did in 1960.

Proportions doesn't matter when so many more programs have been added, increasing government over these last 50 years. It's too long of a time frame to apply proportion with any integrity.


If you want to go back to 1960's levels of children's welfare, then the government would need to increase child welfare spending, not cut it.

No, it would be less.

[Wild Cobra]

Then we're doing good... we decreased spending on child-welfare 9% since 1960... that should be progress, right?
Except that 9.5% of 1960 to ~3.5% of 2009 isn't less. Only in percentage. As I showed earlier, that 3.5% is about 14% larger in constant dollars per capita because the budget is so much more bloated.

As for total Health and Human Services programs, does this help:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Politics/CBOtable04z1complete50pct.jpg

Note how it is 8 times more in percentage value than in 2010 than in 1962. Now considering the spending has grown by 3 times per capita in constant dollars, this department now spend 24 times as much than back then, in constant dollars, per capita.

On the other hand, what has grown since then is adult-welfare. Not sure where eugenics/sterilization helps on that. Care to elaborate?
Explained so many times already. It appears you are incapable of understanding other people's views. Why should I beat a dead horse?

[ElNono]

This is where you are wrong. If overnight, I double what I place in a budget, the pie is now twice as large. To maintain equal spending in existing line items, they all are now half the percentage they previously were.

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

They're a percentage of the whole. They are effectively the exact same percentage.

Let me know when you wrap your head around that basic concept. There's no point in going further until you understand the difference between percentages and amounts.

[ElNono]

More correctly, you refused to acknowledge we were spending more per child today than the past.

Government dedicate less of it's spending to children now than in the past.

Fact.

[ElNono]

Let me throw a graph here too for good measure:

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/6/29/128907987002735079.png

[ElNono]

Explained so many times already. It appears you are incapable of understanding other people's views. Why should I beat a dead horse?

How does preventing children from being born attacks spending on adult-welfare?

Let's start by looking at the savings. How much?

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

They're a percentage of the whole. They are effectively the exact same percentage.

Let me know when you wrap your head around that basic concept. There's no point in going further until you understand the difference between percentages and amounts.
Do you seriously not understand what I'm saying? Unfuckingbeliveable.

You should know I mean if I add more things to spend on, as I have been saying that about added government programs. If I stick to the same percentage, I cannot add more programs. If I double the number of programs that will consume as much money as the other existing programs, I have to double the spending.

I'll try this again....

To maintain equal spending on previous programs, their percentage will be half of what they were before... with a total budget double the size.

[ElNono]

Do you seriously not understand what I'm saying? Unfuckingbeliveable.

Do you understand the difference between proportional and non-proportional yet? Let me know when you do.


You should know I mean if I add more things to spend on, as I have been saying that about added government programs. If I stick to the same percentage, I cannot add more programs.

Who said government can't or won't change the percentages?

Stop moving the goalposts.

Government dedicate less of it's spending to children now than in the past. That's a fact.

[Wild Cobra]

Do you understand the difference between proportional and non-proportional yet? Let me know when you do.
I completely understand the difference. I'm saying you can't compare by percentage, yet that's where you keep your focus.

Government dedicate less of it's spending to children now than in the past. That's a fact.
Bullshit. Maybe less in percentage, but still more money in constant dollars per capita.

Let me know when you understand.

[ElNono]

I completely understand the difference. I'm saying you can't compare by percentage, yet that's where you keep your focus.

Sure you can. Why not?


Bullshit.

Fact.

[LnGrrrR]

To sum up, WC should just admit that, proportionally, we are spending less as a percentage of the budget than we used to. That is progress, because it means we now have 89% of our budget to spend on other items, rather than 81%.

WC, you've noted that we are spending on more per child than we used to, but have you asked whether or not the amount we spent per child in 1960 was a good figure or not? Or are you just assuming it's good because it's less?

(We could go into the "How much will your projected program save?" hypothetical, but I'm kicking that can down the road for now. Especially since your program would seemingly require quite a few extra actors to ensure it was carried out effectively.)

[Wild Cobra]

To sum up, WC should just admit that, proportionally, we are spending less as a percentage of the budget than we used to.
I have.

That is progress, because it means we now have 89% of our budget to spend on other items, rather than 81%.

The budget is already 3 times per capita what it used to be in constant dollars.


WC, you've noted that we are spending on more per child than we used to, but have you asked whether or not the amount we spent per child in 1960 was a good figure or not? Or are you just assuming it's good because it's less?

I'm going by ElDodo's figures.


(We could go into the "How much will your projected program save?" hypothetical, but I'm kicking that can down the road for now. Especially since your program would seemingly require quite a few extra actors to ensure it was carried out effectively.)
I'm not going to try to quantify a number. Just that when people are typically having two or more children requiring government aide for 18 years each and possibly their lifetime too, this is reduced from two or more, to one. I see no way possible how it wouldn't save money in the long run.

[LnGrrrR]

I'm not going to try to quantify a number. Just that when people are typically having two or more children requiring government aide for 18 years each and possibly their lifetime too, this is reduced from two or more, to one. I see no way possible how it wouldn't save money in the long run.

You've been complaining that the amount of money spent per child has gone up, have you not? One would think that if you were against the amount per child going up, you could at least back up why you think the lower number is correct and why children don't need more money spent on them nowadays.

(And yes, I understand it's a tangent, but one you readily argued.)

[ElNono]

I wonder what's the name of this imaginary government program that grants children welfare until they reach adulthood...

[Nbadan]

WC is an ass-hat.....but proportionally, poorer districts do have larger needs than richerer districts...

I propose that the parents of kids who are sent to alternative schools or referred for discipline a set number of times have their federal tax exemption for the kids taken away as well as their eligibility for welfare based on the kid be temporarily suspended, and that the money be used to hire qualified social workers who will be responsible for disciplining the kids..

[FuzzyLumpkins]

i think the better question is using wilddumbass' method, what is the rate of defense, corporate and farm subsidy spending now versus 1960.

[ElNono]

Cue OMG!!!!

[Wild Cobra]

You've been complaining that the amount of money spent per child has gone up, have you not? One would think that if you were against the amount per child going up, you could at least back up why you think the lower number is correct and why children don't need more money spent on them nowadays.

(And yes, I understand it's a tangent, but one you readily argued.)
Are you saying it isn't any more expensive to help support 2 or more children than it is none or one?

This type of program would be a deterrent, helping to stop some people from having children unless they can afford them, and stopping others from having multiple children being paid for by us.

How could that not save money?

[Wild Cobra]

I wonder what's the name of this imaginary government program that grants children welfare until they reach adulthood...
Are you saying that parents raising their children under these programs don't get assistance for them until they are adults?

[ElNono]

Are you saying that parents raising their children under these programs don't get assistance for them until they are adults?

I'm saying the "18 years of assistance program(s)" is a canard.

There's programs (WIC) that start when the mother is pregnant and until the children are 5 years old. There's other programs (SNAP) that are based on income and household size, and have nothing to do with the age of participants.

AFAIK, there's no specific child welfare program that starts at child conception and ends when the child reaches 18 years old.

What is the name of this imaginary program?

[Wild Cobra]

I'm saying the "18 years of assistance program(s)" is a canard.

There's programs (WIC) that start when the mother is pregnant and until the children are 5 years old. There's other programs (SNAP) that are based on income and household size, and have nothing to do with the age of participants.

AFAIK, there's no specific child welfare program that starts at child conception and ends when the child reaches 18 years old.

What is the name of this imaginary program?

You've been changing the goalpost over and over from the start. I'm concerned more about the total spending for welfare type services. not just one. And I have already proven the two different sets of examples you provided was more spending per capita, adjusted to a normalized value, not less.

It's funny. You lost on the money part of it, and you don't even realize it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You've been changing the goalpost over and over from the start. I'm concerned more about the total spending for welfare type services. not just one. And I have already proven the two different sets of examples you provided was more spending per capita, adjusted to a normalized value, not less.

It's funny. You lost on the money part of it, and you don't even realize it.

Shut up douchebag. You started this nonsense as a tangent in your justifications for wanting to sterilize the poor. Him talking about specifics within your asshattery is not moving the goalposts. Quit just parroting the fallacies other's point out in you.

Its like when you looked stupid saying there was no high farad caps and after I explained to you how to increase the rating you started babbling about caps in series trying to deflect.

You cannot even come to discuss variables verus rational functions and the substitutions of both so you just left that alone but hes wrong and doesn't even know? Fuck off, dumbass.

No one buys it.

[LnGrrrR]

Are you saying it isn't any more expensive to help support 2 or more children than it is none or one?

That's a completely different topic. You were arguing about how the rate spent per child has raised since 1960, didn't you? So what makes that figure correct?

[ElNono]

You've been changing the goalpost

I'm taking you at your word. What is the name of this imaginary program?

[ElNono]

If I would make the claim "Everything Wild Cobra says is a bunch of shit", I'm sure you would want the specifics on how I reached that conclusion.

Conversely, when you claim "having two or more children requiring government aide for 18 years each and possibly their lifetime too" as some sort of fact, I want to know the specifics that made you reach that conclusion.

[Wild Cobra]

That's a completely different topic. You were arguing about how the rate spent per child has raised since 1960, didn't you? So what makes that figure correct?
We are simply spending so much more money in normalized dollars, per capita in recent years, than before. Why is that so difficult? I showed in ElNono's first example, where he presented the article saying we spend <10% in 1960, and it dropped by 6 percentage points in 2009, that this wan more money. I believe my numbers were 14% more for that lone example. Every example you can find, we are spending more money, per capita, in constant (normalized) dollar, on social services than in the past.

To properly address this, I just tried to find data on 1960 to today, the percentage of children in this country, or some other number. I didn't find it right away, so I gave up. I will hope that you agree with the premise that as a percentage, children are either about the same, or a smaller percentage of the population today, as people are surviving to older ages. The comparisons I made were by total population rather than by the number of children. I'll bet if we find numbers to factor in children that my numbers will show even a greater spending not only because people live longer, but family sizes are now smaller on the average.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm taking you at your word. What is the name of this imaginary program?
WTF...

I was using your examples and the official OMB data.

[LnGrrrR]

We are simply spending so much more money in normalized dollars, per capita in recent years, than before. Why is that so difficult?

Yes, I already agreed with you. Do you have a reason why it's "wrong" that we're spending more per child now than we did before? Or are you just looking at the lower 1960 number and saying, "We should be back at that number!" without looking at some of the reason why spending per child might be up?

Have you looked at that same argument used in other areas? For instance, our Defense Department is significantly smaller than it used to be personnel-wise. Are we spending more "per soldier" than we used to?

[ElNono]

WTF...

I was using your examples and the official OMB data.

Where in my examples or the official OMB data is such a program listed?

What is the name of this imaginary program?

Are you going to answer the question or we have to take you at your word again? :lmao

[FuzzyLumpkins]

WTF...

I was using your examples and the official OMB data.

He gave no examples of 18 year long federal childrens welfare programs. You claimed they exsited.

Try again.

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, I already agreed with you. Do you have a reason why it's "wrong" that we're spending more per child now than we did before? Or are you just looking at the lower 1960 number and saying, "We should be back at that number!" without looking at some of the reason why spending per child might be up?
LOL.... The reason... More people were responsible about having children back than, than now. Government programs have made it easier to have children when you can[t afford them. Except for responsibility, little else has change. we have family crises, deaths of a breadwinner, and many factors that can cause needs for safety nets. I remember the 60's. Do you? If the total amount spent of the total government charity via "other people's money" wasn't so blatantly has compared to past levels, i wouldn't care. However, it's about 25 times for total welfare programs than 1960. The data I calculated the 24 times went back to 1962. It is tables 4.1 and 4.2 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist04z2.xls) from the OMB historical data.

Notes on Section 4 (Federal Government
Outlays by Agency)
Section 4 displays Federal Government outlays
(on- and off-budget) by agency. Table 4.1
shows the dollar amounts of such outlays, and
Table 4.2 shows the percentage distribution.
The outlays by agency are based on the agency
structure currently in effect. For example, the
Department of Homeland Security
was established
by legislation enacted in 2002. However,
these data show spending by the Department
of Homeland Security in previous years that
consists of spending attributable to predecessor
agencies in earlier years, but now attributable
to the Department of Homeland Security.

Have you looked at that same argument used in other areas? For instance, our Defense Department is significantly smaller than it used to be personnel-wise. Are we spending more "per soldier" than we used to?

I graphed that out last night at work. I would have to do it again at home as I cannot move data storage in and out of work without risk of losing my job. The line designated "Department of Defense--Military Programs" in table 4.2 maintained a long term level spending when adjusted for fixed 2005 dollars. It was higher during Viet Nam and the Gulf War, and spiked even higher in recent years after 9/11. This is before being adjusted for population, which I didn't take the time for. Besides, our military doesn't need to grow as population does.

I think I linked the graph already, the one that only goes back to 1962... That's as far back as table 4.2 goes. It shows a decline of military spending over the years, but again, when set to constant 2005 dollars, overall average, it is flat. I made that graph June of last year.

edit add:

The military spending also increased during the Reagan years, and dropped when we won the Cold war. Forgot that one when I wrote the above.

[Wild Cobra]

Where in my examples or the official OMB data is such a program listed?

What is the name of this imaginary program?

Are you going to answer the question or we have to take you at your word again? :lmao
I used your linked material you were using to argue with.

Did you read it? Now if you are talking about something other than the numbers you supplied, please tell me specifically what you want. We have discussed a few different examples.

[LnGrrrR]

WC, I'll respond to the rest later, just a quick note on this one:



This is before being adjusted for population, which I didn't take the time for. Besides, our military doesn't need to grow as population does.



I remember reading just recently that the Air Force, manpower wise, is smaller than it's been in decades. So there's a good chance that our "per soldier" cost is more than it was in the 60's.

[Wild Cobra]

I remember reading just recently that the Air Force, manpower wise, is smaller than it's been in decades. So there's a good chance that our "per soldier" cost is more than it was in the 60's.
Agreed, considering the toys are more expensive, computerized, etc.

I'm probably not going to calculate a "per soldier cost." If you think that's relevant, then you can use the same data I am, and use historic soldier numbers.

The data I started to compile goes from 1962 to 2016, but 2011 on are estimated. I couldn't locate my original excel data, it;s lost in a directory somewhere, but don't know what the file date is or what I named it. I'm going to make it flexible to adjust with or without population and 2005 dollars. If you can find me clear data breaking down military and civilian DOD, or other figures, I may include them. However, the way agencies overlap, unless it is under the same federal lines as indicated in tables 4.1 and 4.2, it may not be accurate.

[clambake]

wc trying to put the slam dunk on poor children.

you better run your ass back over to that atheist thread.

[LnGrrrR]

Agreed, considering the toys are more expensive, computerized, etc.

And by the same token, it might be that social services for children cost more because of the same reasons.


I'm probably not going to calculate a "per soldier cost." If you think that's relevant, then you can use the same data I am, and use historic soldier numbers.

If I work out some time, I'll try to do some for the Air Force for the past 30 or so years.

[Borat Sagyidev]

We're suppossed to spend more on kids nowadays. China is going to surpass us a the largest economy in the world this decade. That to go along with a incredibly amount of scientist and engineers being pushed to succeed by their govt.

You think our govt is wasteful and corrupt?? Just wait until the Chinese communist party starts exerting their will.

Old pieces of shit like WC are just content with giving children more debt instead.

yeah teachers unions suck
yeah we could spend the money better.

Most social warriors like this fool don't have the answers because they are fools themselves.

This thread is pointless

[ElNono]

I used your linked material you were using to argue with.

Did you read it? Now if you are talking about something other than the numbers you supplied, please tell me specifically what you want. We have discussed a few different examples.


Where in my examples or the official OMB data is such a program listed?

What is the name of this imaginary program?

Are you going to answer the question or we have to take you at your word again? :lmao

[Wild Cobra]

ElNono.

I have been going by your examples. If I misstated something, I'm sorry. I have deviated with the chart showing Human Services, but I wasn't applying that to your numbers.

I have not attempted to try to specify programs. I see the whole social welfare system in free-fall chaos. All aspects of it need to be looked into and dealt with however possible to reduce spending.

Again, I took your example of under 10% for 1960 and 2009 being 6points less. Found a referense stating the under 10% was 9.5% and ran those numbers. You were claiming we were spending less today than in 1960 because the under 10% went down in percentage. I showed you it was greater because 9.5% of x is smaller than 3.5% of x(3.09). Then you found some other numbers, and again, I showed you you were wrong. You say I am claiming a program... Which post of mine.

Show me where... If I did, I don't remember.

[Wild Cobra]

And by the same token, it might be that social services for children cost more because of the same reasons.

LOL....

So we can buy the kids more expensive toys?

Really now. We had simple jets, weapon, armor, etc. in the 60's. Our military is so far technologically advanced compared to then, requiring less soldiers to do the same job better. We don't need to spend money on technology to properly raise kids or support families.

[ElNono]

Just that when people are typically having two or more children requiring government aide for 18 years each and possibly their lifetime too


What is the name of this imaginary program?

[Wild Cobra]

There are numerous programs out there. A child under their parents control become a reason for more spending on food stamps and other subsidies. There are numerous ones. I can't believe you want specifics of something so blatantly obvious.

Fucking nit picker...

Food stamps, free school meals, Earned Income credit up to $5,751. I'm not going to bother to look, but I know I can find more if I did.

Over $5,700 dollars annually in constant dollars... From other tax payers money...

[ElNono]

There are numerous programs out there. A child under their parents control become a reason for more spending on food stamps and other subsidies. There are numerous ones. I can't believe you want specifics of something so blatantly obvious.

Fucking nit picker...

Food stamps, free school meals, Earned Income credit up to $5,751. I'm not going to bother to look, but I know I can find more if I did.

Over $5,700 dollars annually in constant dollars... From other tax payers money...


I'm saying the "18 years of assistance program(s)" is a canard.

There's programs (WIC) that start when the mother is pregnant and until the children are 5 years old. There's other programs (SNAP) that are based on income and household size, and have nothing to do with the age of participants.

AFAIK, there's no specific child welfare program that starts at child conception and ends when the child reaches 18 years old.

What is the name of this imaginary program?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL....

So we can buy the kids more expensive toys?

Really now. We had simple jets, weapon, armor, etc. in the 60's. Our military is so far technologically advanced compared to then, requiring less soldiers to do the same job better. We don't need to spend money on technology to properly raise kids or support families.

Stupidity raises its head once again. There is a significant movement in armed services circles to move away from the mindless tech and more towards investing in soldiers as they are what is needed to handle the peacekeeping missions which we almost always are involved in right now.

They point to our two wars right now where we've been playing cop in the middle east for a decade. New avionics for F-15's that have been better than any Soviet Mig for over a decade are not going to help those guys do their jobs any better.

The F-15 and F-16 were developed in the 60s and 70s respectively. Our main infantry weapon was developed in the 1950s. This notion that its all new tech is absurd.

You do not know shit about our military tech either. Make shit up about it and children's services to fit your world view. And you are too much of a coward to answer Elnono.

Why are kids so expensive nowadays? Health care. Its not hard to figure out.

[LnGrrrR]

Why are kids so expensive nowadays? Health care. Its not hard to figure out.


I think that's a pretty safe assumption to make.

As far as tech, you're not adding in the amount of money we've spent on tech like networking. That's going to add a significant cost.

[Wild Cobra]

I think that's a pretty safe assumption to make.

As far as tech, you're not adding in the amount of money we've spent on tech like networking. That's going to add a significant cost.
It shouldn't to social spending of government resources to families. schools... OK. families, no.

[Wild Cobra]

LnGrrrR...

Here is a graph of DoD and Health and human services spending. Table 4.2 starts at 1962, so I didn't go back to 1960. I did adjust the numbers to constant 2005 dollars. The graph isn't adjusted per capita.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Politics/FedDODandHealthOutlaysin2005dollars.jpg

[Winehole23]

the growth of the warfare/welfare state has been impressive in the last twenty years

[Wild Cobra]

the growth of the warfare/welfare state has been impressive in the last twenty years
Yes... Hasn't it... With no end in sight. It will bankrupt our nation if it hasn't already. We need to get a handle on it. I see a future where it breaks down completely, and none of the poor get help.

Now these two graphs aren't 100% comparable in my opinion since DoD doesn't need to grow as the population does, but Human Services does. The growth from 1962 to 2010 in population is about 70%.

[Agloco]

Narcissistic thread is still rolling along I see.

[Wild Cobra]

Narcissistic thread is still rolling along I see.

I never considered you part of the peanut gallery. Am I wrong about you?

[Wild Cobra]

Here is the same data adjusted to cost per person:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Politics/FedDODandHealthOutlaysin2005dollarsperperson.jpg

[ElNono]

Long but good read on the topic...

Even Critics of Safety Net Increasingly Depend on It (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us/even-critics-of-safety-net-increasingly-depend-on-it.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&hp)

Interesting excerpt:
The government safety net was created to keep Americans from abject poverty, but the poorest households no longer receive a majority of government benefits. A secondary mission has gradually become primary: maintaining the middle class from childhood through retirement. The share of benefits flowing to the least affluent households, the bottom fifth, has declined from 54 percent in 1979 to 36 percent in 2007, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis published last year.

[LnGrrrR]

Thanks WC. Gen Schwartz just put something out that said even though military manning is low on average, our costs are still high due to healthcare.

[Winehole23]

Long but good read on the topic...

Even Critics of Safety Net Increasingly Depend on It (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us/even-critics-of-safety-net-increasingly-depend-on-it.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&hp)

Interesting excerpt:
The government safety net was created to keep Americans from abject poverty, but the poorest households no longer receive a majority of government benefits. A secondary mission has gradually become primary: maintaining the middle class from childhood through retirement. The share of benefits flowing to the least affluent households, the bottom fifth, has declined from 54 percent in 1979 to 36 percent in 2007, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis published last year.Good article.

The italicized is a minor theme of Marcus Bryant's. Middle class unawareness of the public largesse buoying it up belies its resentment of the unmeritorious poor and its intolerance of curmudgeons like MB who have the gall to point it out.

[Agloco]

I never considered you part of the peanut gallery. Am I wrong about you?

Spare us the righteous indignation. Your thread is what is it is regardless of your insistence to the contrary.

To the peanut gallery I go.

[CuckingFunt]

Spare us the righteous indignation. Your thread is what is it is regardless of your insistence to the contrary.

To the peanut gallery I go.

To be technical, WC seemed more interested in bitching about you calling attention to his narcissism than in actually denying it.

[Agloco]

To be technical, WC seemed more interested in bitching about you calling attention to his narcissism than in actually denying it.

:tu

Ya. Should have read: Thanks in advance for sparing us......

I'm guilty of peering into the crystal ball as it concerns WC. We know it's coming though. To borrow a quote: That Ms. Funt is the sound of......inevitability.

[Wild Cobra]

Thanks WC. Gen Schwartz just put something out that said even though military manning is low on average, our costs are still high due to healthcare.
Plus, the percentage shifted to more civilian contractors as a percentage of manpower in the 90's.

[Wild Cobra]

To be technical, WC seemed more interested in bitching about you calling attention to his narcissism than in actually denying it.
We all have a little of it.

[Wild Cobra]

Long but good read on the topic...

Even Critics of Safety Net Increasingly Depend on It (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us/even-critics-of-safety-net-increasingly-depend-on-it.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&hp)

Interesting excerpt:
The government safety net was created to keep Americans from abject poverty, but the poorest households no longer receive a majority of government benefits. A secondary mission has gradually become primary: maintaining the middle class from childhood through retirement. The share of benefits flowing to the least affluent households, the bottom fifth, has declined from 54 percent in 1979 to 36 percent in 2007, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis published last year.
The guy making $39k and getting "several thousand in earned income credit" is a stretch. I don't consider $2k ($2117) as "several." Now I think it's ridiculous that so many Americans qualify for these programs. He didn't need it, but why not take it if eligible. The congress is constantly trying to buy our vote to keep us reliant on them. You can still make over $20/hr and get $1k in earned income credit! It's fucking ridiculous.

[Wild Cobra]

Spare us the righteous indignation. Your thread is what is it is regardless of your insistence to the contrary.

To the peanut gallery I go.
Maybe you're just jealous?

[CuckingFunt]

We all have a little of it.

Maybe so.

But we don't all keep bumping the threads we started with the explicit purpose of placing ourselves and our posting habits at the center of discussion.

[Wild Cobra]

Maybe so.

But we don't all keep bumping the threads we started with the explicit purpose of placing ourselves and our posting habits at the center of discussion.

That's not my purpose.

[CuckingFunt]

That's not my purpose.

Your purpose wasn't to start a thread that placed you and your posting habits at the center of discussion?

Even though you did start the thread?

And it's titled "WC's Extreme Views"?

And you have bumped it every time the responses have slowed?

And this was the opening post?
OK people. You say I am extreme. Why. Have at it, but no ankle biters please. Just honest criticism.

---Edit add---

OK, I obviously misworded my intent here. Sorry for that.

What I would like is actual examples of my extreme views. Criticize the actual view.

You're seriously going with the "I didn't mean to spend several pages taking about myself" excuse?

'K. Your prerogative, of course. But it seems silly to get bent out of shape when people don't buy it, given the tremendous amount of evidence to the contrary.

[Wild Cobra]

My purpose was to discuss get a better felling of the bigotry and contempt that you and others hold towards me. This turns into a good discussion, and when I come back a few days later with an added answer to LnGrrrR... you guys guys call it bumping for my own narcissistic nature... Don't you realize a title is for grabbing attention? Besides, if you can see outside that small box you live in, you can see my answers make sense for these things I am being called extreme on.

You two need to get a room.

[CuckingFunt]

My purpose was to discuss get a better felling of the bigotry and contempt that you and others hold towards me.

Potayto, potahto.


This turns into a good discussion, and when I come back a few days later with an added answer to LnGrrrR... you guys guys call it bumping for my own narcissistic nature...

That's because we're not idiots. Or blind. If all you wanted was an understanding of people's attitudes toward you, that would have been better accomplished by paying attention the first fucking time these arguments were hashed out than by starting a new thread and once more dismissing every dissenting opinion as contempt, bigotry, or ankle biting.


Don't you realize a title is for grabbing attention? Besides, if you can see outside that small box you live in, you can see my answers make sense for these things I am being called extreme on.

Of course they make sense to you. They've always made sense to you. That's why they're your views. I would be surprised if much of anyone thought their own views were extreme. We, as a species, are pretty hard wired to have faith in our own rationality. The majority of the people in this forum disagree with your assessment, however. And have been pretty damn thorough in explaining why. We still think you're extreme. And you don't. Neither of those things are likely to change, and that's okay.

Ultimately, the narcissist label is a compliment. It's giving you the benefit of the doubt, and suggesting that you're smart enough to know all of this. That, in starting this thread, you knew you weren't really interested in our opinions about your views or the reasons we saw them as extreme and/or short sighted. And you knew there wasn't really any chance of somehow making us see the light and agree that forcing sterilization upon welfare recipients was a rational, or in any way feasible, course of action. If you did know that, and you started this thread anyway, then you're a narcissist and wanted a bit of extra time as the center of attention. Which is hardly unique in message board culture.

If you didn't know any of the above, however, you're just a fucking idiot.

[Wild Cobra]

Potayto, potahto.



That's because we're not idiots. Or blind. If all you wanted was an understanding of people's attitudes toward you, that would have been better accomplished by paying attention the first fucking time these arguments were hashed out than by starting a new thread and once more dismissing every dissenting opinion as contempt, bigotry, or ankle biting.



Of course they make sense to you. They've always made sense to you. That's why they're your views. I would be surprised if much of anyone thought their own views were extreme. We, as a species, are pretty hard wired to have faith in our own rationality. The majority of the people in this forum disagree with your assessment, however. And have been pretty damn thorough in explaining why. We still think you're extreme. And you don't. Neither of those things are likely to change, and that's okay.

Ultimately, the narcissist label is a compliment. It's giving you the benefit of the doubt, and suggesting that you're smart enough to know all of this. That, in starting this thread, you knew you weren't really interested in our opinions about your views or the reasons we saw them as extreme and/or short sighted. And you knew there wasn't really any chance of somehow making us see the light and agree that forcing sterilization upon welfare recipients was a rational, or in any way feasible, course of action. If you did know that, and you started this thread anyway, then you're a narcissist and wanted a bit of extra time as the center of attention. Which is hardly unique in message board culture.

If you didn't know any of the above, however, you're just a fucking idiot.
OK, you had your word. Are you going to be part of the peanut gallery, or part of a meaningful discussion?

[CuckingFunt]

OK, you had your word. Are you going to be part of the peanut gallery, or part of a meaningful discussion?

My contribution to the discussion is every bit as meaningful as this thread has ever been.

[Wild Cobra]

My contribution to the discussion is every bit as meaningful as this thread has ever been.
Believe as you wish. I doubt many agree with you. It isn't discussing what you think I am extreme on or the current topic of federal spending.

[CuckingFunt]

Believe as you wish. I doubt many agree with you.

Maybe I should start a thread to ask.

[TeyshaBlue]

lol...if you disagree with WC you're in the peanut/ankle biter gallery. :facepalm.

[ElNono]

lol...if you disagree with WC you're in the peanut/ankle biter gallery. :facepalm.

He apparently has a really hard time with that. This was already explained quite clearly on page 3...


I understand your position on these things. I don't have to agree with you to understand your position. I can understand your position and still believe it to be an extreme position. Understanding and agreement are not synonymous.

[Wild Cobra]

No, it has to do with making comments that don't matter, and just sidetrack us.

[CuckingFunt]

I'm dying to know what fascinating conversations my comments in this thread have prevented.

[Blake]

I'm guessing that you mean the sterilization part?

What's wrong with an exchange of sorts. You agree to having your tubes ties if a woman or vasectomy is a man, so you cannot produce any more children at the governments expense, if you put yourself in that position to require the assistance. Now if you recall, I have pointed out that this doesn't apply to all misfortunes. Just the ones where a couple didn't have the means to raise a child when they conceived. This would only apply to those asking for government assistance to raise the child, and those receiving government assistance already when they conceive.

If you can't afford a child, you shouldn't have one. Right?

Is it right for tax payers to be on the hook for other people's carelessness? Shouldn't there be come action against those who needlessly drain our social welfare system?

I can go on about the cycle of dependance, how those growing up in families receiving government assistance more often than others, become dependent on such things when they mature. It's the life they see and know. It shouldn't be accepted as a normal lifestyle.

Yes, there will be some sob stories over such a law, but over time, don't you believe it would become a deterrent?

Extreme is in the eye of the beholder. I can understand some seeing this as extreme. After all, most younger people see food stamps, earned income credit, and other handouts as a right. It shouldn't be, and I don't see this as extreme. Such programs are designed as a safety net. Not a lifestyle.

Wouldn't it be advantageous to the general welfare of our society if we had less tolerance to irresponsibility that cost our society?

I have a feeling I might want to use this soon so I'm bumping for my own reference.

Carry on.

[Blake]

Why do you have a problem with that? If people engage in protected sex, and the protection fails, why shouldn't they be responsible for their actions? Why should society subsidize their needs over their gambling? It is irresponsible and often abusive to bring a child into the world that you cannot take care of. Why shouldn't society take the measures necessary to help the innocent, and keep such an immoral act from occurring again?

What is for a rush, I play Russian Roulette with a revolver that somehow had 100 chambers. Only one had a bullet. Now in the 1 in 100 chance, I kill someone. Should I be coddled for my irresponsibility of thinking a 1:100 chance would never occur, or should I be tried for murder?

The consequences is the deterrent to help bring about responsibility that is sorely lacing in our society today.

[DeadlyDynasty]

I love Wild Cobra. Don't get me wrong, i'm happy he lives 3000 miles away from me, but I love him.

[scott]

To WC's defense, I find his views far less extreme than I do fucktarded.

[Wild Cobra]

To WC's defense, I find his views far less extreme than I do fucktarded.

???

Whatever.

Another thread you all can have fun with I see. What do you want me to do? Repeat the same things I already said?

[DeadlyDynasty]

???

Whatever.

Another thread you all can have fun with I see. What do you want me to do? Repeat the same things I already said?
No, just be yourself. Never change.

[clambake]

don't worry, you still got snakeboy and cowboy......cuz of your vote......which explains more about them than you.

[Wild Cobra]

WC is curious what others think of him. Posters replied. How is that failure?
No shit, and the thread was resurrected...

[Agloco]

???

Whatever.

Another thread you all can have fun with I see. What do you want me to do? Repeat the same things I already said?

Since you're here, what's a flaglot?

[Wild Cobra]

Since you're here, what's a flaglot?
You don't know?

It's a property behind another. The driveway goes past of the first property for access to the rear one. The resulting property has the shape of a flag with its pole.

here (http://www.portlandonline.com/bds/index.cfm?a=72524&c=45482)

[Agloco]

You don't know?

It's a property behind another. The driveway goes past of the first property for access to the rear one. The resulting property has the shape of a flag with its pole.

here (http://www.portlandonline.com/bds/index.cfm?a=72524&c=45482)

I feel inclined to Google today....... do you live on a flaglot WC?

[Wild Cobra]

I feel inclined to Google today....... do you live on a flaglot WC?
No, but you want a pic?

This one is six years old, after the first time I cut the new lawn I planted. The photo date is 9/5/06.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Misc/Lawnafterfirstcutting.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

Lol...

i would love to take credit for posting as a legend known as wild cobra but the truth is the man is an enigma the more i think i know him the more i find out how far off base i was. He is a combination of whottt and chump dumper with a pinch of blake.

If you research the original 9/11 topics you will see no one person could argue with themselves as well as wc and myself has in those topics.


As far as extreme goes, wc is the p90x of the politics forum.

[Winehole23]

if there was any ambiguity to begin with, it should now be dispelled:

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2019/05/20/tennessee-inmate-sterilization-program/3748232002/

[boutons_deux]

if there was any ambiguity to begin with, it should now be dispelled:

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2019/05/20/tennessee-inmate-sterilization-program/3748232002/

I'd like to know the racial stats on who got sterilized / implanted.

Uncle "Mr Eugenics" Thomas would be pleased that Sheriff Oddie was sterilizing blacks to stop them from breeding?

[Winehole23]

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQyw4oxcecpyBhNkPzIS9qGqFeHsWIOB iNBBNgaKQ7J_XI016L7kw (https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fartrock2006.blogspot.com%2F2018%2 F05%2Fthe-man-who-painted-aqualung.html&psig=AOvVaw39CsKHUDYfZhmHSMD3Ko-q&ust=1559320232858249)