So proud of my home state

#333
#333
luthervol said:
You're a man of many....many words.
Nothing?

You asked, and I provided a classic example.........from none other thathe HORRIBLE Jimmy Carter.
Your silence actually speaks volumes.
Click to expand...
How many government employees were laid off? Good for him to do a good thing and give a preview of coming deregulation under the Great One; Ron the First. But this is still just nibbling at the edges. Did spending go down due to this action? Was a Government department shuttered? The Beast grows and grows. Good for Carter withholding a small morsel of food while the rest of the bureaucracy continued to expand and balloon like a mosquito that just lanced into an artery on a person taking blood thinners.
And even Reagan, for all his valiant efforts, was really unable to slow the juggernaut.
 
#334
#334
luthervol said:
Yea.
Who is it you see dying on the rainbow colored hill?
It's a simple question.
Click to expand...
I was using a figure of speech with a side of hyperbole. Again I wasn’t actually starving earlier.

How many of your tranny friends will suffer from not being able to perform in front of minors?
 
#336
#336
Jxn Vol said:
I was using a figure of speech with a side of hyperbole. Again I wasn’t actually starving earlier.

How many of your tranny friends will suffer from not being able to perform in front of minors?
Click to expand...
I think we have established that everyone knew it was a figure of speech.
The question remains. Who is it that you think is figuratively dying on that rainbow colored hill?
 
#337
#337
newokie03 said:
They want to be reelected, no different from the congress critters.
Click to expand...
Interesting commentary. Should elected officials do what the majority of their voters want or follow a defined set of principles?

Edit: to add some more, in some districts should they do what it takes to win the primary rather than what most constituents would prefer or follow a defined set of principles?
 
#338
#338
SamRebel35 said:
Link to Bill Lee mimicking felatio on a Disney character in front of 8 year old kids?
Click to expand...
SamRebel35 said:
That's what drag shows are. Lemme know when you find Bill Lee doing something comparable to what is seen in "family friendly" drag shows.
Click to expand...
Sam, am I to assume you've been attending these "family friendly" drag shows? If you know what's happening at them.....

Seriously, is the real problem drag shows, or is the real problem that parents expose their children to all kinds of content that someone, somewhere is going to get offended by? I watched R-rated movies when I was a kid. Maybe my parents should have been tarred and feathered for letting that happen.
 
#339
#339
luthervol said:
I think we have established that everyone knew it was a figure of speech.
The question remains. Who is it that you think is figuratively dying on that rainbow colored hill?
Click to expand...

I know 19 representatives voted against it. I would assume they have constituents that agree with them. Then there are the folks moaning in other states since the story made national media.

I’m guessing the tranny performers union is pissed. Maybe NAMBLA folks because this is getting into their wheelhouse.

All figuratively of course.

How many of your tranny acquaintances are affected by not being able to perform for minors?
 
#340
#340
Weezer said:
Sam, am I to assume you've been attending these "family friendly" drag shows? If you know what's happening at them.....

Seriously, is the real problem drag shows, or is the real problem that parents expose their children to all kinds of content that someone, somewhere is going to get offended by? I watched R-rated movies when I was a kid. Maybe my parents should have been tarred and feathered for letting that happen.
Click to expand...
I think if Sam were intellectually honest, he would want to prosecute parents who allowed children to watch movies with age inappropriate ratings.
 
#341
#341
clarksvol00 said:
Interesting commentary. Should elected officials do what the majority of their voters want or follow a defined set of principles?

Edit: to add some more, in some districts should they do what it takes to win the primary rather than what most constituents would prefer or follow a defined set of principles?
Click to expand...

The first paragraph is an oxymoron, elected officials and principles don't belong in the same sentence. As for the edit, they are only going to tell their constituents what they want to hear to get elected/re-elected.
 
#342
#342
newokie03 said:
The first paragraph is an oxymoron, elected officials and principles don't belong in the same sentence. As for the edit, they are only going to tell their constituents what they want to hear to get elected/re-elected.
Click to expand...
Way to avoid the question. Didn't ask what they do. Asked what they should do.
 
#343
#343
clarksvol00 said:
Way to avoid the question. Didn't ask what they do. Asked what they should do.
Click to expand...
In a perfect world they would have morals and a system of principles other than getting elected that would lead them to do the right thing. Been on this earth for a long time and I'm still waiting, lol.

Edit: not trying to dodge, just don't have a lot of faith anymore and I hate the my side is better than yours.
 
  • Like
Reactions: clarksvol00
#344
#344
newokie03 said:
In a perfect world they would have morals and a system of principles other than getting elected that would lead them to do the right thing. Been on this earth for a long time and I'm still waiting, lol.

Edit: not trying to dodge, just don't have a lot of faith anymore and I hate the my side is better than yours.
Click to expand...
Legitimate response.
 
  • Like
Reactions: newokie03
#345
#345
volfanhill said:
In FY 2022, the federal government spent $6.27 trillion and collected $4.90 trillion in revenue.
Click to expand...
With reducing 3% per year, assuming static spending and revenues, it would take 8 years to balance the annual deficit. Over that time another 4.3T would be added to debt.
Continued 3% reduction would produce a 500B surplus in another 4 years. The 500B surplus applied to total debt plus the amount added over 8 years of reductions, would be paid off in 72 years, Plus 12, for a total time of 84 yrs.

ETA: tax revenue increases about 1T every decade...or about 100B per year. 100B per increase, each of those years for a decade produces 5.5T.
1. 5.0 - 4.9 = 100B
2. 5.1 - 4.9 = 200B
3. 5.2 - 4 9 = 300B
4. 5.3 - 4.9 = 400
5...................500
6....600
7...700
8..800
9...900
10...1T
5.5T tax rev surplus over 10 yrs.


Combine that with the 5T paid down on debt, the debt would reduce by 10.5T in 1st decade after 12 year start.
11. 1.1T
12. 1.2T
13. 1.3T
14. 1.4T
15. 1.5T

Another 9.0T reduction at 15 yrs (~15.5T debt remains)
16. 1.6
17 1.7
18. 1.8
19. 1.9
20. 2.0

Another 11.5T paid off at 20th year (4T debt remains).

Paid off in 22 yrs + 12...34 yrs.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: hog88 and volfanhill
#346
#346
OrangeTsar said:
Sigh….when life expectancy was barely 35 years, they didn’t have the luxury of waiting till their mid twenties. If you can’t see the difference between historical teen marriage and taking a 12 year old to a drag show, it is really a waste of time to discuss
Click to expand...

You starting this dumb ****ing thread was a discussive waste.

You tried to justify marrying off children to old men while celebrating the oppression of a small class of people that make you uncomfortable. Suck a turd and read a book.
 
#347
#347
McDad said:
With reducing 3% per year, assuming static spending and revenues, it would take 8 years to balance the annual deficit. Over that time another 4.3T would be added to debt.
Continued 3% reduction would produce a 500B surplus in another 4 years. The 500B surplus applied to total debt plus the amount added over 8 years of reductions, would be paid off in 72 years, Plus 12, for a total time of 84 yrs.
Click to expand...
Correct. Which is why it's not enough. I will says it would be a great start to us pulling our head out of our ass.
 
#348
#348
DinkinFlicka said:
You starting this dumb ****ing thread was a discussive waste.

You tried to justify marrying off children to old men while celebrating the oppression of a small class of people that make you uncomfortable. Suck a turd and read a book.
Click to expand...
If you think this thread is a waste, why do you spend your time lurking here? I mean, you could be listening to Beethoven’s Ninth with added drums and rap lyrics 😉
 
#349
#349
volfanhill said:
Correct. Which is why it's not enough. I will says it would be a great start to us pulling our head out of our ass.
Click to expand...
See edit AFTER factoring in Ave tax rev growth per year.

It's a viable solution but would never work because of politicians.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top