Liberals Think We're Jerks For Wanting To Control Spending

[Wry Catcher]

Someone explain this to M14 shooter:

"I believe my post wondered if the cost to provide for the care of senior citizens may have risen 8% and the Republicans only wanted to fund up to 5%, which is effectively a cut, that is the seniors would need to pay more."

Maybe I was too rash, maybe he really is too stupid to understand simple math and simple English.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I believe my post wondered if the cost to provide for the care of senior citizens may have risen 8% and the Republicans only wanted to fund up to 5%, which is effectively a cut, that is the seniors would need to pay more.

Claiming that someone wants to cut spending because they don't want to increase spending as much as you is, at BEST, dishonest.
But then, you're an admitted bigot and don't care about things like honesty.

Fuck you.

Translation: The truth hurts,
But, that's your problem, not mine.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Am I intolerant of callous conservatives, yes I am, and that may make me a bigot.

Admission of the problem is the first step - good for you.

Cool. I skipped the next steps, being a good and honest agnostic, and took step 4 to heart; there I made a searching and fearless moral inventory of myself, and found an honest, self effacing adult who has empathy for the poor, the aged, the young and everyone whose life is negatively effected by greed, Republicans and the ideology of callous conservatives.

When you call a slight reduction in the increase in spending a "cut", you're not being honest. When you claim someone who wants to increase spending on the poor by 5%, for example, instead of 8% "callous", you're not being honest.

I believe my post wondered if the cost to provide for the care of senior citizens may have risen 8% and the Republicans only wanted to fund up to 5%, which is effectively a cut, that is the seniors would need to pay more.

I won't accuse you of not being honest, but I suspect you allow your biases to interfere with you comprehension.

In the interest of being accurate, an increase from year to year is simply not a "cut". It can be described as a shortfall, but it is not a cut. A cut is a decrease from year to year.

A distinction without a difference to the 85 year old who has a shortfall and cannot pay the rise in cost.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I believe my post wondered if the cost to provide for the care of senior citizens may have risen 8% and the Republicans only wanted to fund up to 5%, which is effectively a cut, that is the seniors would need to pay more.

Claiming that someone wants to cut spending because they don't want to increase spending as much as you is, at BEST, dishonest.
But then, you're an admitted bigot and don't care about things like honesty.

Fuck you.

Translation: The truth hurts,
But, that's your problem, not mine.

Wrong again - Fuck You is an idiomatic expression used when the receiver (you) is too dumb or too dishonest to engage rationally. Thus, Fuck You, Fuck you, simply because you are both.

 

[bripat9643]

Admission of the problem is the first step - good for you.

Cool. I skipped the next steps, being a good and honest agnostic, and took step 4 to heart; there I made a searching and fearless moral inventory of myself, and found an honest, self effacing adult who has empathy for the poor, the aged, the young and everyone whose life is negatively effected by greed, Republicans and the ideology of callous conservatives.

When you call a slight reduction in the increase in spending a "cut", you're not being honest. When you claim someone who wants to increase spending on the poor by 5%, for example, instead of 8% "callous", you're not being honest.

I believe my post wondered if the cost to provide for the care of senior citizens may have risen 8% and the Republicans only wanted to fund up to 5%, which is effectively a cut, that is the seniors would need to pay more.

I won't accuse you of not being honest, but I suspect you allow your biases to interfere with you comprehension.

In the interest of being accurate, an increase from year to year is simply not a "cut". It can be described as a shortfall, but it is not a cut. A cut is a decrease from year to year.

A distinction without a difference to the 85 year old who has a shortfall and cannot pay the rise in cost.

What makes you libturds assume that taxpayers can automatically afford to pay the cost of all these programs?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Cool. I skipped the next steps, being a good and honest agnostic, and took step 4 to heart; there I made a searching and fearless moral inventory of myself, and found an honest, self effacing adult who has empathy for the poor, the aged, the young and everyone whose life is negatively effected by greed, Republicans and the ideology of callous conservatives.

When you call a slight reduction in the increase in spending a "cut", you're not being honest. When you claim someone who wants to increase spending on the poor by 5%, for example, instead of 8% "callous", you're not being honest.

I believe my post wondered if the cost to provide for the care of senior citizens may have risen 8% and the Republicans only wanted to fund up to 5%, which is effectively a cut, that is the seniors would need to pay more.

I won't accuse you of not being honest, but I suspect you allow your biases to interfere with you comprehension.

In the interest of being accurate, an increase from year to year is simply not a "cut". It can be described as a shortfall, but it is not a cut. A cut is a decrease from year to year.

A distinction without a difference to the 85 year old who has a shortfall and cannot pay the rise in cost.

What makes you libturds assume that taxpayers can automatically afford to pay the cost of all these programs?

It's all about establishing priorities.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I believe my post wondered if the cost to provide for the care of senior citizens may have risen 8% and the Republicans only wanted to fund up to 5%, which is effectively a cut, that is the seniors would need to pay more.

Claiming that someone wants to cut spending because they don't want to increase spending as much as you is, at BEST, dishonest.
But then, you're an admitted bigot and don't care about things like honesty.

Fuck you.

Translation: The truth hurts,
But, that's your problem, not mine.

Wrong again

On the contrary -- I am spot on, and you know it.
You KNOW you're dishonest when you characterize someone increasing spending less then you think they should as a cut - by responding as you did you simply want to avoid further discussion of the issue because you know to do so only further proves your dishonesty.
A good little self-admitted bigot you are.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's all about establishing priorities.

Yes...
You, and all of the others like you who support state-enforced involuntary servitude, put your bigoted, partisan political agenda above freedom and liberty.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Mention spending cuts or even controlling spending and it's like holding up a cross in front of a vampire. They react violently at times. Most of the time they claim that spending cuts will bring this country down.

On Monday, President Obama released his 2016 budget, which calls for increased spending and raising taxes, and on MSNBC’s The Cycle, so-called conservative co-host Abby Huntsman did her best to scold the GOP for opposing the tax-and-spend Obama budget. ​

Speaking to Lauren Fox of National Journal, Huntsman proclaimed that Republicans’ “big thing is we’ve got to cut spending, this is not something we’re going to approve and that’s often why they are considered the jerks here, because they aren’t talking about entitlements, they are talking about cuts.” ​

Think of it. In only a few years since Obama has become president, we've gone from clamoring for spending reform to you're a terrorist for wanting to control government spending.

Anyone with half a brain can see one of the biggest problems in government isn't that we don't have any money, it's that we spend too much. So Democrats invented a word for it to demonize the practice. Austerity. Anyone who starts talking about Austerity and recommending new investment is just pumping us for more tax increases. That's really all Democrats do. They try to think of new ways of taking our cash. Spending is now investment. Controlling spending is evil austerity. Anyone who falls for this line of bs can't be thinking. The answer to everything in Washington is always throwing more money at it, yet the problems never get solved. Obama wants to give the IRS $30 billion more to become more and more inefficient. Seems the more money he throws at a problem the worse it becomes. The IRS has massively increase their budget, hired thousands of new agents, yet if you have a question about your taxes, forget getting an answer. They warn about holding up refunds this year because they claim they need more money.

Notice how everything Obama touches turns to shit?




Remember this?

June 2013

Still mired in scandal for its mishandling of nonprofit political groups, the Internal Revenue Service is prepping for a new role: chief enforcement arm of the Affordable Care Act.

That task will require new agents — 6,700, the IRS figures — and more money — about $1 billion more than the current budget.

Confronted with the tax agency’s 9-percent increase in its 2014 budget, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., blasted Deputy IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel at a meeting of the House Committee on Ways and Means Thursday morning.

After reading off a long list of instances of waste, fraud, excess and abuse at the agency over the past several years, Ryan demanded to know how the IRS felt it had the “moral authority” to ask for more money. He actually sounded almost hurt by the request.​

Links

IRS requests thousands of new agents to enforce Obamacare Watchdog.org
Abby Huntsman GOP Considered the Jerks For Wanting Spending Cuts
D j vu Budget Obama Asks for Tax Hike on Evil Capitalists - Michael Schaus - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary - Page 1
Obama Asks For 5 100 More IRS Agents Sweetness Light
IRS Does Not Follow Federal Requirements Asks For Money The Daily Caller

I don't think anyone's a jerk for wanting to control spending. I think some people who wanna contro spending are jerks when they perpetuate the idea the national debt can be paid down if we do so. Can't pay off the national debt without reducing ALL government spending to zero for like 10 years. Reducing spending then isn't gonna make a dent is just the interest alone nevermind touch the principle.

People are just f'in stupid, especially at arithmetic.

 

[bripat9643]

When you call a slight reduction in the increase in spending a "cut", you're not being honest. When you claim someone who wants to increase spending on the poor by 5%, for example, instead of 8% "callous", you're not being honest.

I believe my post wondered if the cost to provide for the care of senior citizens may have risen 8% and the Republicans only wanted to fund up to 5%, which is effectively a cut, that is the seniors would need to pay more.

I won't accuse you of not being honest, but I suspect you allow your biases to interfere with you comprehension.

In the interest of being accurate, an increase from year to year is simply not a "cut". It can be described as a shortfall, but it is not a cut. A cut is a decrease from year to year.

A distinction without a difference to the 85 year old who has a shortfall and cannot pay the rise in cost.

What makes you libturds assume that taxpayers can automatically afford to pay the cost of all these programs?

It's all about establishing priorities.

Why should the welfare of some tick on the ass of society take priority over my family's welfare?

 

[bripat9643]

Mention spending cuts or even controlling spending and it's like holding up a cross in front of a vampire. They react violently at times. Most of the time they claim that spending cuts will bring this country down.

On Monday, President Obama released his 2016 budget, which calls for increased spending and raising taxes, and on MSNBC’s The Cycle, so-called conservative co-host Abby Huntsman did her best to scold the GOP for opposing the tax-and-spend Obama budget. ​

Speaking to Lauren Fox of National Journal, Huntsman proclaimed that Republicans’ “big thing is we’ve got to cut spending, this is not something we’re going to approve and that’s often why they are considered the jerks here, because they aren’t talking about entitlements, they are talking about cuts.” ​

Think of it. In only a few years since Obama has become president, we've gone from clamoring for spending reform to you're a terrorist for wanting to control government spending.

Anyone with half a brain can see one of the biggest problems in government isn't that we don't have any money, it's that we spend too much. So Democrats invented a word for it to demonize the practice. Austerity. Anyone who starts talking about Austerity and recommending new investment is just pumping us for more tax increases. That's really all Democrats do. They try to think of new ways of taking our cash. Spending is now investment. Controlling spending is evil austerity. Anyone who falls for this line of bs can't be thinking. The answer to everything in Washington is always throwing more money at it, yet the problems never get solved. Obama wants to give the IRS $30 billion more to become more and more inefficient. Seems the more money he throws at a problem the worse it becomes. The IRS has massively increase their budget, hired thousands of new agents, yet if you have a question about your taxes, forget getting an answer. They warn about holding up refunds this year because they claim they need more money.

Notice how everything Obama touches turns to shit?




Remember this?

June 2013

Still mired in scandal for its mishandling of nonprofit political groups, the Internal Revenue Service is prepping for a new role: chief enforcement arm of the Affordable Care Act.

That task will require new agents — 6,700, the IRS figures — and more money — about $1 billion more than the current budget.

Confronted with the tax agency’s 9-percent increase in its 2014 budget, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., blasted Deputy IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel at a meeting of the House Committee on Ways and Means Thursday morning.

After reading off a long list of instances of waste, fraud, excess and abuse at the agency over the past several years, Ryan demanded to know how the IRS felt it had the “moral authority” to ask for more money. He actually sounded almost hurt by the request.​

Links

IRS requests thousands of new agents to enforce Obamacare Watchdog.org
Abby Huntsman GOP Considered the Jerks For Wanting Spending Cuts
D j vu Budget Obama Asks for Tax Hike on Evil Capitalists - Michael Schaus - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary - Page 1
Obama Asks For 5 100 More IRS Agents Sweetness Light
IRS Does Not Follow Federal Requirements Asks For Money The Daily Caller

I don't think anyone's a jerk for wanting to control spending. I think some people who wanna contro spending are jerks when they perpetuate the idea the national debt can be paid down if we do so. Can't pay off the national debt without reducing ALL government spending to zero for like 10 years. Reducing spending then isn't gonna make a dent is just the interest alone nevermind touch the principle.

People are just f'in stupid, especially at arithmetic.

Actually, they they just held the increase in government spending to the inflation rate, the debt would be paid off in something like 15 years.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Mention spending cuts or even controlling spending and it's like holding up a cross in front of a vampire. They react violently at times. Most of the time they claim that spending cuts will bring this country down.

On Monday, President Obama released his 2016 budget, which calls for increased spending and raising taxes, and on MSNBC’s The Cycle, so-called conservative co-host Abby Huntsman did her best to scold the GOP for opposing the tax-and-spend Obama budget. ​

Speaking to Lauren Fox of National Journal, Huntsman proclaimed that Republicans’ “big thing is we’ve got to cut spending, this is not something we’re going to approve and that’s often why they are considered the jerks here, because they aren’t talking about entitlements, they are talking about cuts.” ​

Think of it. In only a few years since Obama has become president, we've gone from clamoring for spending reform to you're a terrorist for wanting to control government spending.

Anyone with half a brain can see one of the biggest problems in government isn't that we don't have any money, it's that we spend too much. So Democrats invented a word for it to demonize the practice. Austerity. Anyone who starts talking about Austerity and recommending new investment is just pumping us for more tax increases. That's really all Democrats do. They try to think of new ways of taking our cash. Spending is now investment. Controlling spending is evil austerity. Anyone who falls for this line of bs can't be thinking. The answer to everything in Washington is always throwing more money at it, yet the problems never get solved. Obama wants to give the IRS $30 billion more to become more and more inefficient. Seems the more money he throws at a problem the worse it becomes. The IRS has massively increase their budget, hired thousands of new agents, yet if you have a question about your taxes, forget getting an answer. They warn about holding up refunds this year because they claim they need more money.

Notice how everything Obama touches turns to shit?




Remember this?

June 2013

Still mired in scandal for its mishandling of nonprofit political groups, the Internal Revenue Service is prepping for a new role: chief enforcement arm of the Affordable Care Act.

That task will require new agents — 6,700, the IRS figures — and more money — about $1 billion more than the current budget.

Confronted with the tax agency’s 9-percent increase in its 2014 budget, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., blasted Deputy IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel at a meeting of the House Committee on Ways and Means Thursday morning.

After reading off a long list of instances of waste, fraud, excess and abuse at the agency over the past several years, Ryan demanded to know how the IRS felt it had the “moral authority” to ask for more money. He actually sounded almost hurt by the request.​

Links

IRS requests thousands of new agents to enforce Obamacare Watchdog.org
Abby Huntsman GOP Considered the Jerks For Wanting Spending Cuts
D j vu Budget Obama Asks for Tax Hike on Evil Capitalists - Michael Schaus - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary - Page 1
Obama Asks For 5 100 More IRS Agents Sweetness Light
IRS Does Not Follow Federal Requirements Asks For Money The Daily Caller

I don't think anyone's a jerk for wanting to control spending. I think some people who wanna contro spending are jerks when they perpetuate the idea the national debt can be paid down if we do so. Can't pay off the national debt without reducing ALL government spending to zero for like 10 years. Reducing spending then isn't gonna make a dent is just the interest alone nevermind touch the principle.

People are just f'in stupid, especially at arithmetic.

Actually, they they just held the increase in government spending to the inflation rate, the debt would be paid off in something like 15 years.

Debt's 18 trillion. How much comes in via taxes each year? If not at least a couple trillion no way in 15 years. And that's with very simplified math. Annual budgets are about 2 trillion a year, so if not bringing in that 2 trillion plus some more to pay off the debt you're not paying off the debt. And paying it down doesn't mean you're paying it off, interest continues to accrue. You're convincing dumb people you're paying it off, but not anyone with a calculator or you know, an 80IQ or above.

 

[bripat9643]

Mention spending cuts or even controlling spending and it's like holding up a cross in front of a vampire. They react violently at times. Most of the time they claim that spending cuts will bring this country down.

On Monday, President Obama released his 2016 budget, which calls for increased spending and raising taxes, and on MSNBC’s The Cycle, so-called conservative co-host Abby Huntsman did her best to scold the GOP for opposing the tax-and-spend Obama budget. ​

Speaking to Lauren Fox of National Journal, Huntsman proclaimed that Republicans’ “big thing is we’ve got to cut spending, this is not something we’re going to approve and that’s often why they are considered the jerks here, because they aren’t talking about entitlements, they are talking about cuts.” ​

Think of it. In only a few years since Obama has become president, we've gone from clamoring for spending reform to you're a terrorist for wanting to control government spending.

Anyone with half a brain can see one of the biggest problems in government isn't that we don't have any money, it's that we spend too much. So Democrats invented a word for it to demonize the practice. Austerity. Anyone who starts talking about Austerity and recommending new investment is just pumping us for more tax increases. That's really all Democrats do. They try to think of new ways of taking our cash. Spending is now investment. Controlling spending is evil austerity. Anyone who falls for this line of bs can't be thinking. The answer to everything in Washington is always throwing more money at it, yet the problems never get solved. Obama wants to give the IRS $30 billion more to become more and more inefficient. Seems the more money he throws at a problem the worse it becomes. The IRS has massively increase their budget, hired thousands of new agents, yet if you have a question about your taxes, forget getting an answer. They warn about holding up refunds this year because they claim they need more money.

Notice how everything Obama touches turns to shit?




Remember this?

June 2013

Still mired in scandal for its mishandling of nonprofit political groups, the Internal Revenue Service is prepping for a new role: chief enforcement arm of the Affordable Care Act.

That task will require new agents — 6,700, the IRS figures — and more money — about $1 billion more than the current budget.

Confronted with the tax agency’s 9-percent increase in its 2014 budget, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., blasted Deputy IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel at a meeting of the House Committee on Ways and Means Thursday morning.

After reading off a long list of instances of waste, fraud, excess and abuse at the agency over the past several years, Ryan demanded to know how the IRS felt it had the “moral authority” to ask for more money. He actually sounded almost hurt by the request.​

Links

IRS requests thousands of new agents to enforce Obamacare Watchdog.org
Abby Huntsman GOP Considered the Jerks For Wanting Spending Cuts
D j vu Budget Obama Asks for Tax Hike on Evil Capitalists - Michael Schaus - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary - Page 1
Obama Asks For 5 100 More IRS Agents Sweetness Light
IRS Does Not Follow Federal Requirements Asks For Money The Daily Caller

I don't think anyone's a jerk for wanting to control spending. I think some people who wanna contro spending are jerks when they perpetuate the idea the national debt can be paid down if we do so. Can't pay off the national debt without reducing ALL government spending to zero for like 10 years. Reducing spending then isn't gonna make a dent is just the interest alone nevermind touch the principle.

People are just f'in stupid, especially at arithmetic.

Actually, they they just held the increase in government spending to the inflation rate, the debt would be paid off in something like 15 years.

Debt's 18 trillion. How much comes in via taxes each year? If not at least a couple trillion no way in 15 years. And that's with very simplified math. Annual budgets are about 2 trillion a year, so if not bringing in that 2 trillion plus some more to pay off the debt you're not paying off the debt. And paying it down doesn't mean you're paying it off, interest continues to accrue. You're convincing dumb people you're paying it off, but not anyone with a calculator or you know, an 80IQ or above.

Your numbers are all bullshit. Budgets are far higher than $2 trillion.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Debt's 18 trillion. How much comes in via taxes each year? If not at least a couple trillion no way in 15 years. And that's with very simplified math. Annual budgets are about 2 trillion a year, so if not bringing in that 2 trillion plus some more to pay off the debt you're not paying off the debt. And paying it down doesn't mean you're paying it off, interest continues to accrue. You're convincing dumb people you're paying it off, but not anyone with a calculator or you know, an 80IQ or above.

FY2013 revenue: $2774B
FY2013 spending:: $3454B
FY2013 entitlement spending: $2338B - 84% of revenue.
FY2000 entitlement spending: 50.1% of revenue
Since FY2000, revenue increased 136%
Since FY200, entitlement spending increased 226%
There's the problem and there's why there will never be a solution.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45010-breakout-AppendixH.pdf

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Debt's 18 trillion. How much comes in via taxes each year? If not at least a couple trillion no way in 15 years. And that's with very simplified math. Annual budgets are about 2 trillion a year, so if not bringing in that 2 trillion plus some more to pay off the debt you're not paying off the debt. And paying it down doesn't mean you're paying it off, interest continues to accrue. You're convincing dumb people you're paying it off, but not anyone with a calculator or you know, an 80IQ or above.

FY2013 revenue: $2774B
FY2013 spending:: $3454B
FY2013 entitlement spending: $2338B - 84% of revenue.
FY2000 entitlement spending: 50.1% of revenue
Since FY2000, revenue increased 136%
Since FY200, entitlement spending increased 226%
There's the problem and there's why there will never be a solution.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45010-breakout-AppendixH.pdf

Yup. So long as we spend more every year than we bring in the fact we could never pay off the debt looms large in many minds. And pretending we can pay it off if we cut back a few million here, a few million there is something only stupid people try who don't get the difference between millions and billions and trillions. Cutting NASA's budget from 50 billion to 10 so we can pay down our debt isn't gonna pay down the debt. 40 billion comapred to the debt doesn't pay off any of the principle, just some of the interest.

Using the above figures, if we could, and reduced government spending to zero it'd still take a generation to pay off the debt (and then some.) That's the kinda numbers we're talking about. Cutting back doesn't get it done. It's simply, literally, and irrefutably impossible to pay off the debt. Not that you'd want to of course, some debt is healthy, just not this much. Nor making the claim you're paying off the debt so cutting your kids' music class in their school is what you're doing.

If we can find 1.5 trillion for the F-35, we can send every undergrad to school for 4 years at 50k/year 3 times over for the cost of that plane.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I believe my post wondered if the cost to provide for the care of senior citizens may have risen 8% and the Republicans only wanted to fund up to 5%, which is effectively a cut, that is the seniors would need to pay more.

Claiming that someone wants to cut spending because they don't want to increase spending as much as you is, at BEST, dishonest.
But then, you're an admitted bigot and don't care about things like honesty.

Fuck you.

Translation: The truth hurts,
But, that's your problem, not mine.

Wrong again

On the contrary -- I am spot on, and you know it.
You KNOW you're dishonest when you characterize someone increasing spending less then you think they should as a cut - by responding as you did you simply want to avoid further discussion of the issue because you know to do so only further proves your dishonesty.
A good little self-admitted bigot you are.

Fuck you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Claiming that someone wants to cut spending because they don't want to increase spending as much as you is, at BEST, dishonest.
But then, you're an admitted bigot and don't care about things like honesty.

Fuck you.

Translation: The truth hurts,
But, that's your problem, not mine.

Wrong again

On the contrary -- I am spot on, and you know it.
You KNOW you're dishonest when you characterize someone increasing spending less then you think they should as a cut - by responding as you did you simply want to avoid further discussion of the issue because you know to do so only further proves your dishonesty.
A good little self-admitted bigot you are.

Fuck you.

I cheerfully accept your concession of the point.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I believe my post wondered if the cost to provide for the care of senior citizens may have risen 8% and the Republicans only wanted to fund up to 5%, which is effectively a cut, that is the seniors would need to pay more.

I won't accuse you of not being honest, but I suspect you allow your biases to interfere with you comprehension.

In the interest of being accurate, an increase from year to year is simply not a "cut". It can be described as a shortfall, but it is not a cut. A cut is a decrease from year to year.

A distinction without a difference to the 85 year old who has a shortfall and cannot pay the rise in cost.

What makes you libturds assume that taxpayers can automatically afford to pay the cost of all these programs?

It's all about establishing priorities.

Why should the welfare of some tick on the ass of society take priority over my family's welfare?

Are you suggesting the 85 year old man in the example above is a "tick on the ass of society"?

 

[bripat9643]

In the interest of being accurate, an increase from year to year is simply not a "cut". It can be described as a shortfall, but it is not a cut. A cut is a decrease from year to year.

A distinction without a difference to the 85 year old who has a shortfall and cannot pay the rise in cost.

What makes you libturds assume that taxpayers can automatically afford to pay the cost of all these programs?

It's all about establishing priorities.

Why should the welfare of some tick on the ass of society take priority over my family's welfare?

Are you suggesting the 85 year old man in the example above is a "tick on the ass of society"?

Strictly speaking, yes he is. He produces nothing and the taxpayers pay his bills.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In the interest of being accurate, an increase from year to year is simply not a "cut". It can be described as a shortfall, but it is not a cut. A cut is a decrease from year to year.

A distinction without a difference to the 85 year old who has a shortfall and cannot pay the rise in cost.

What makes you libturds assume that taxpayers can automatically afford to pay the cost of all these programs?

It's all about establishing priorities.

Why should the welfare of some tick on the ass of society take priority over my family's welfare?

Are you suggesting the 85 year old man in the example above is a "tick on the ass of society"?

You didn't answer his question.
No one is surprised.