All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Socialism Experiment
2/28/2013 7:18 PM
Yah, but if they lowered taxes so I can keep the $80 difference, I would spend the money without needing the govt intervention.
2/28/2013 7:28 PM
Posted by toddcommish on 2/28/2013 7:18:00 PM (view original):
Yah, but if they lowered taxes so I can keep the $80 difference, I would spend the money without needing the govt intervention.
Sure. But that's not really the discussion we're having. We're talking about lowering the deficit.
3/1/2013 8:39 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 2/28/2013 6:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 2/28/2013 6:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 2/28/2013 6:22:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 2/28/2013 6:13:00 PM (view original):
So yes, right now, foolish government spending is better than no spending by anyone.

So the DOD spending $83.75 for a $4.95 wrench is better for the economy than the DOD not buying a wrench at all?
Unfortunately, yes.
That's incredibly stupid.

That's swamp-level stupid.
Why?

$83.75 goes to a company that sells wrenches. It's inefficient and wasteful but it's $83.75 moving through the economy instead of sitting in a savings account somewhere.
Who says it will sit in a savings account, Czar of Everything?

I dare say a lot of people have no savings.   A LOT. 
3/1/2013 10:28 AM
Ok. But those people without savings aren't buying treasuries. Go buy a ******* clue, moron.
3/1/2013 10:47 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 2/28/2013 6:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 2/28/2013 6:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 2/28/2013 6:22:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 2/28/2013 6:13:00 PM (view original):
So yes, right now, foolish government spending is better than no spending by anyone.

So the DOD spending $83.75 for a $4.95 wrench is better for the economy than the DOD not buying a wrench at all?
Unfortunately, yes.
That's incredibly stupid.

That's swamp-level stupid.
Why?

$83.75 goes to a company that sells wrenches. It's inefficient and wasteful but it's $83.75 moving through the economy instead of sitting in a savings account somewhere.
It's incredibly stupid to suggest wasteful government spending is good for the economy.

It's super incredibly stupid to then subsequently attempt to defend an incredibly stupid comment.
3/1/2013 11:00 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 3/1/2013 10:28:00 AM (view original):
Ok. But those people without savings aren't buying treasuries. Go buy a ******* clue, moron.
Who the **** is talking about treasuries, dipshit?

We're talking about the government ******* tax money away.

Seriously, on a scale of 1-10 with 10 being the highest, how ******* stupid are you?
3/1/2013 11:04 AM (edited)
You haven't said why yet.

Sure it's wasteful. If you're giving me the option to instead buy one four dollar wrench and use the rest of the money in other ways...medicare, military salaries, infrastructure, sure, those are all better things to do than overpay for a wrench.

But if my choice is spend the money on a wrench or don't spend it at all, I'm spending it right now because it's better for the economy.
3/1/2013 11:02 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/1/2013 11:00:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 3/1/2013 10:28:00 AM (view original):
Ok. But those people without savings aren't buying treasuries. Go buy a ******* clue, moron.
Who the **** is talking about treasuries, dipshit?

We're talking about the government ******* tax money away.

Seriously, on a scale of 1-10 with 10 being the highest, how ******* stupid are you?
It's the deficit, *******. It's funded with treasuries.
3/1/2013 11:03 AM
Come back when you have a clue.
3/1/2013 11:03 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 3/1/2013 11:02:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/1/2013 11:00:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 3/1/2013 10:28:00 AM (view original):
Ok. But those people without savings aren't buying treasuries. Go buy a ******* clue, moron.
Who the **** is talking about treasuries, dipshit?

We're talking about the government ******* tax money away.

Seriously, on a scale of 1-10 with 10 being the highest, how ******* stupid are you?
It's the deficit, *******. It's funded with treasuries.
No, you goddam idiot, it's $83.75.    Who the **** are you to decide that it's funded by treasuries?

Now answer the question. 

Seriously, on a scale of 1-10 with 10 being the highest, how ******* stupid are you? 
3/1/2013 11:05 AM
You know, yesterday when I said I didn't think you were a dumbass, I retract that statement.

It's entirely possible that you are the dumbest son of a ***** on this site.   
3/1/2013 11:06 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/1/2013 11:03:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 3/1/2013 11:02:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/1/2013 11:00:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 3/1/2013 10:28:00 AM (view original):
Ok. But those people without savings aren't buying treasuries. Go buy a ******* clue, moron.
Who the **** is talking about treasuries, dipshit?

We're talking about the government ******* tax money away.

Seriously, on a scale of 1-10 with 10 being the highest, how ******* stupid are you?
It's the deficit, *******. It's funded with treasuries.
No, you goddam idiot, it's $83.75.    Who the **** are you to decide that it's funded by treasuries?

Now answer the question. 

Seriously, on a scale of 1-10 with 10 being the highest, how ******* stupid are you? 
We've been talking about the deficit for 15+ pages. I've said multiple times that I'm ok with lowering taxes. Sorry you can't follow.
3/1/2013 11:07 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 3/1/2013 11:06:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/1/2013 11:03:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 3/1/2013 11:02:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/1/2013 11:00:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 3/1/2013 10:28:00 AM (view original):
Ok. But those people without savings aren't buying treasuries. Go buy a ******* clue, moron.
Who the **** is talking about treasuries, dipshit?

We're talking about the government ******* tax money away.

Seriously, on a scale of 1-10 with 10 being the highest, how ******* stupid are you?
It's the deficit, *******. It's funded with treasuries.
No, you goddam idiot, it's $83.75.    Who the **** are you to decide that it's funded by treasuries?

Now answer the question. 

Seriously, on a scale of 1-10 with 10 being the highest, how ******* stupid are you? 
We've been talking about the deficit for 15+ pages. I've said multiple times that I'm ok with lowering taxes. Sorry you can't follow.
And the topic changed to $80 in toddcommish's pocket.

Who can't follow?

Scale of 1-10, how ******* stupid are you?
3/1/2013 11:08 AM
Posted by toddcommish on 2/28/2013 7:18:00 PM (view original):
Yah, but if they lowered taxes so I can keep the $80 difference, I would spend the money without needing the govt intervention.
See?  "if they lowered taxes"

TC didn't say he was buying treasury notes. 

Keep the **** up.
3/1/2013 11:10 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 2/28/2013 7:28:00 PM (view original):
Posted by toddcommish on 2/28/2013 7:18:00 PM (view original):
Yah, but if they lowered taxes so I can keep the $80 difference, I would spend the money without needing the govt intervention.
Sure. But that's not really the discussion we're having. We're talking about lowering the deficit.
You must have missed my response.
of 45
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Socialism Experiment

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.