|
joether -> RE: Simple math (7/20/2012 1:25:33 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie
quote:
ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Ok.. lets duke it out over this.
Simple math tells us that when you have a shortage, you cut back on services you use, and you gain more income.
Seems pretty straight forward.
Yet, here we have people saying we need to offer tax breaks (cutting out income) while tightening up on services that really dont amount to much (like a half million in food stamps)
If we look at the US income and services amount.
We cut back on services by 0.003125% (500 million divided by 16 trillion).. and then you cut back on taxes (which is the income).
Exactly how does that work, mathematically?
WASHINGTON — The U.S. House rejected Rep. Betty McCollum's attempts to trim Department of Defense spending on sports sponsorships and military bands on Wednesday night.
The House defeated two McCollum-backed amendments meant to cut Defense spending by about $260 million. McCollum has pushed for similar spending cuts over the past year, but none have passed.
When it comes to sports sponsorships, McCollum wants to cut the $72.3 million the Pentagon uses to sponsor NASCAR teams, the Ultimate Fighting Championship, National Hot Rod Association drag racing and bass fishing tournaments. She teamed up with Georgia Republican Rep. Jack Kingston to push the cuts, but the House rejected them 202-216.
McCollum has questioned the recruiting effectiveness of Pentagon sports sponsorships (Kingston pointed to this USA Today article in which the National Guard said its Earnhardt sponsorship produced 24,800 interested potential recruits, but only 20 were qualified candidates and zero signed up), but objection to the bill, which came from a cast of southern Republicans during floor debate, centered on the ill effects of removing the Armed Services from the public eye by reducing its marketing budget.
"These sponsorships provide the ability to market and create branding opportunities and familiarity with the service branches in areas where market research shows that the target audience spends its time," Rep. Steven Palazzo (R-Miss.) said, calling NASCAR fans, "very patriotic, very pro-military fan base, and are extremely loyal to sponsors of teams and drivers. This is exactly who we want joining our U.S. military."
http://www.minnpost.com/dc-dispatches/2012/07/house-again-rejects-mccollums-pentagon-nascar-spending-cuts
This is but ONE example of the insanity of our government.
According to what I read here.. we NEED to cut millions from the hungry.. yet we NEED to keep suooprting a NASCAR team that the Pentagon doesnt even want anymore?
but the House rejected them 202-216.
I dont care who voted on this measure... its fucking insane.
So, what I want is someone to explain the insanity to me. Explain how, with all the hits to women, children and the poor, with the demands to prevent birth control and face a possible future of exploding polulation, anyone can accept the cuts to food stamps alone and back this crazy shit of supporting a racing car?
It will be interesting to see who dodges this question
I'll be as interested in seeing thoughtful (not baseless) responses.
Stupid expenses are ridiculous...and...without validity. NASCAR sponsorships (in my estimation) certainly fill that bill.
But, remember, if you're a concrete installer, every dollar that doesn't go out to a govt. employee (Nascar racer/coca cola seller, etc.) is one less dollar that (they) have to buy a new concrete deck in their backyard.
I'm a HUUUUUGE supporter of stopping waste but, every "wasted" dollar goes out to someone who spends money.
When they stop spending...it's gonna hurt....everyone. It already has.
If you sell flowers, organize weddings, etc., every dollar not spent is going to hurt....someone.
Probably you, or your neighbor, or your best friend.
I wish they would stop greasing the wheels....adding another keg to the party but....when they do....(stop)....it's gonna hurt.
It's gonna hurt more 2, 5 and 10 years from now if they don't stop today...and every day they don't (stop)...it's gonna hurt more (2, 5 and 10 years from now).
Whether you have a lot, or a little, it's gonna hurt some. If you have a lot...it's gonna hurt a little. If you have little...it's gonna hurt a lot.
Pick your poison.
As for me...I'd like it to be over with but...if you thought that those that have, were taking over the game before....just imagine how it's gonna look when they own the game....and they will (they already do).
I wouldn't want to be the Prez at this moment in history.
It's not an easy target to hit at the moment...I'd sure as hell hate to be the guy with the rifle.
There isn't a winning plan.
Just goes to show that simply math is hard to come by for some conservatives to understand tazzy.
|
|
|
|
