|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> How do we rate? /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1609670754 Message started by justin_o_guy2 on 01/03/21 at 02:45:54 |
|
Title: How do we rate? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/03/21 at 02:45:54 https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-mEZ_e5QlsUw/X_ETWyrcQwI/AAAAAAACGkc/AWoi4wv-Y_gizULWiiO0HZpaRzTOUafCgCLcBGAsYHQ/s935/133771109_10158563703783153_2447011069395988973_n.jpg |
|
Title: Re: How do we rate? Post by oldNslow on 01/03/21 at 05:46:37 If it makes you feel any better, the ordinary folks in those countries will be lucky if they see any of that money. Even a pitiful $600. A significant portion of it is going to come right back to the USA and go into the bank accounts of our elected "representatives". This "Covid relief" legislation, like almost all "foreign aid", is nothing more than legalized money laundering. The picture you posted right after this one - Kerry,Biden,Pelosi,Romney, illustrates that perfectly. So, just be a good little ' merican , take your 600 bucks- which is just phony, made-up fiat currency anyhow - remember to vote for the people who gave it to you, and just STFU. ;) |
|
Title: Re: How do we rate? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/03/21 at 06:51:16 Excellent summary. Speaking of money laundering Clintons travelling, speaking. Hunter using a straw, blowing paint, creating art, that somehow is only worth millions to Chinese people. |
|
Title: Re: How do we rate? Post by oldNslow on 01/03/21 at 08:47:55 "Hunter using a straw, blowing paint, creating art, that somehow is only worth millions to Chinese people." Hunter's pretty good with a straw. I think sucking stuff up with one is what got his a*s booted out of the Navy. I don't know much about art so I wont try to judge the value of his paintings. Try this. Next time you go out for a ride stop at a McDonalds to grab a cup of coffee or to take a leak, ask the little girl behind the counter about Hunter's paintings. She's probably got an art degree, $75,000 in student loans and can't find a job in her field of expertise. She'll know. |
|
Title: Re: How do we rate? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/03/21 at 08:53:56 Sharp knife today. Clean, reinsert |
|
Title: Re: How do we rate? Post by Eegore on 01/03/21 at 14:47:07 This is not detailed. Is it trying to say that "Covid Relief" money was sent at these amounts to these countries? Is it saying that is how much "aid" was sent over a period of time? How are these numbers calculated? To make my point more clear I will randomly make up countries and money amounts and just say thats how much "Congress gave them". Brazil- 22,990 Mexico - 98,002 Italy - 43,223 Canada 34,888 You mad still? The issue to me is that it appears this is trying to compare a direct $600 payment to international aid packages which we all know is nonsense because US citizens clearly have more than $600 in government funding for "aid" each year. |
|
Title: Re: How do we rate? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/03/21 at 16:08:33 Yeah, still pissed. Sending money for gender studies? You seem to hide from the obvious in order to not be pissed. American people don't need to be sending money around the world. |
|
Title: Re: How do we rate? Post by Eegore on 01/03/21 at 16:46:46 "Sending money for gender studies? You seem to hide from the obvious in order to not be pissed. American people don't need to be sending money around the world." I agree that indiscriminate aid sent abroad is an issue. I do not agree that the US citizen only gets $600 compared to these other numbers presented in some undisclosed timeframe. The US tax system spends money inside the US on Gender Studies, for US citizens. I am not saying this is a good or bad way to spend money, I am just saying that the money is spent here and as such has now exceeded the $600 mark. The image presents a poor logic. The US gives money abroad in an undisclosed timeframe and the comparative amount is corralled into the $600 relief funds that we actually received twice. It's like me comparing one single paycheck to someone else's annual pay. I only got $600 and he got $50,000 see how bad I am treated by my company!!! The company could still be trash, but nobody is going to believe I got $600 a year or that my coworker gets $50,000 every 2 weeks. It's a poor way to make my point. |
|
Title: Re: How do we rate? Post by oldNslow on 01/03/21 at 17:54:01 Quote:
Which is precisely the point of the graphic that JOG posted. The bill in question was supposed to help American citizens who were suffering economicly from the pandemic and the government's response to it. The entire bill could have been a few of sentences long. "This is who gets the money ..." "This is how much money they get..." "This is who is responsible for getting the aforementioned done ..." The end Instead it was 1500 pages of grift that had nothing whatsoever to due with helping the folks that elected these worthless a*s holes and sent them to Washington. And the worthless a*sholes will now thump their chests and demand that they be congratulated for their empathy and munificence. " 'The US tax system spends money inside the US , for US citizens... I am just saying that the money is spent here and as such has now exceeded the $600 mark. Which has absolutely nothing to do with this utterly corrupt, cynical and ridiculous piece of legislation. |
|
Title: Re: How do we rate? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/03/21 at 17:56:17 I'm done typing so thanks for pointing out the obvious. |
|
Title: Re: How do we rate? Post by Eegore on 01/03/21 at 18:33:49 "The entire bill could have been a few of sentences long." Obviously you have never written any legislation before. "Which has absolutely nothing to do with this utterly corrupt, cynical and ridiculous piece of legislation." Incorrect. You are pretending this legislation is only for Covid when we all know it isnt. It sounds like you are trying to say the FY 2021 Omnibus Appropriations Bill is also the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF). Nice try. That's what JoG's image portrays. In principle brevity is a good thing but the "relief bill" was not just for Covid, it was the securing of Federal operations funding through September. The Covid relief was actually a different bill. People conveniently leave that part out and toss in all the additional stuff and pretend its part of the "Covid relief" when its actually the normal process. This is intentionally misleading and you know that. But lets ignore that. So now we can say we only got $600 and everyone else got so much more, by leaving out the important details, like the comparison of our one payment to the next 9 months of international spending. What does this sound like? It sounds like me comparing one paycheck to everyone else's 9 months of pay and trying to convince someone I get paid too little by that logic. Nobody would be sympathetic because the argument is flawed. The image presented is a poor argument. It is comparing 9 months of monetary allocation to one check and pretending there was one bill. Not everyone will be fooled by this. If you want to say there is too much money going to other countries don't lie to me to get me on board. That is what JoG's reference image is doing. |
|
Title: Re: How do we rate? Post by oldNslow on 01/03/21 at 19:05:06 Quote:
I am not misleading anyone. The fact that this stuff was all ONE piece of legislation, and voted on and passed as such is what was deliberately misleading and was intended to be. I am perfectly well aware that this is "the normal process". It's the "normal process because that's how all this garbage gets passed into law. There is no way to separate the good from the bad, no way to excise the pork while leaving anything worthwhile. Just because it's the "normal" way of doing business doesn't make it any less odious. Nor does it make your defending it any more comprehensible. |
|
Title: Re: How do we rate? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/03/21 at 19:19:10 That is Standard Operating Procedure Stupid is stupid, even IF it is what the idiots running things want. |
|
Title: Re: How do we rate? Post by Eegore on 01/03/21 at 19:51:53 "The fact that this stuff was all ONE piece of legislation, and voted on and passed as such is what was deliberately misleading and was intended to be." I don't think two separate sessions would have changed anything other than taking longer to get the same thing done. If it was intending to be misleading why does everyone know there were two bills? "Nor does it make your defending it any more comprehensible." I'm not defending the process, I am saying JoG's image does a terrible job of convincing someone that government funding is managed poorly. Government money is managed poorly, but this image is still lying. It compares 9 months of spending with one check. Very few people are fooled by this. It is the equivalent of me trying to convince you that I don't get paid enough by inferring that my paycheck is equivalent to someone else's 9 months of pay, but leaving out the 9 months part. I only get $600 dollars on my check and he got $50,000! This infers he got $50,000 on one check which is intentionally misleading. That's what the image presented is doing and I have no idea why any of you are defending that type of poorly composed trickery. So instead of assuming I am defending government spending, lets just stick to the words I am using: I am saying that JoG's image does a sh!t job at what its trying to portray because it is intentionally misleading and poorly at that. |
|
Title: Re: How do we rate? Post by Eegore on 01/03/21 at 19:55:02 "Stupid is stupid, even IF it is what the idiots running things want." I agree. What I do not agree with is your presented image. It is misleading and does a poor job at it. An honest image comparing the funding appropriately would go much further. So the government process is still stupid, and the image is still misleading. |
|
Title: Re: How do we rate? Post by MnSpring on 01/04/21 at 07:58:45 527270786572170 wrote:
As designed and implemented by the, ‘government’, In their successful process of, ‘DUMB-ING-DOWN’, the Citizens of this Nation. AND, misleading info in almost all facets of life, by the goverment and 80+% of the media, (as clearly shown in recent events) Is working as expected. ... An honest image comparing the funding appropriately would go much further … Will simply not work today. Anybody with a brain, who can understand what is happening, (as in above), is ‘labeled’, as a ‘phobic/racist/etc, person. And, “OH NO MR Bill” no one want to be labeled a, ‘phobic/racist/tinfoil hat', person. So to, communicate to the DFI, UL, FDS Socialists, one HAS to, “Simplify”, things ! |
|
Title: Re: How do we rate? Post by Eegore on 01/04/21 at 10:14:24 "As designed and implemented by the, ‘government’, In their successful process of, ‘DUMB-ING-DOWN’, the Citizens of this Nation." The image is not designed or implemented by the Government. If I am not fooled it can be safe to assume others aren't either. "AND, misleading info in almost all facets of life, by the goverment and 80+% of the media, (as clearly shown in recent events) Is working as expected." So that means JoG should just use misleading information himself to try to make his point? My company lied to me about my pay so I will lie to others about my pay to prove my point? Lets just add more steam to that lie train I guess. "So to, communicate to the DFI, UL, FDS Socialists, one HAS to, “Simplify”, things !" I disagree. I know a lot of idiots that understand the Covid relief bill is not the US Omnibus plan that happens every year. Even more know they got $600 twice and not once. This also assumes one can not present a simple message without lies. I disagree, my example is below: The $600 relief amount is part of the US Covid relief bill. Millions of dollars go overseas from different US funding programs. Overseas spending could go to relief bills here in the US. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |