 | |
|  |
killer6600
Marine
April 18th, 2012 @ 8:56PM
Registered:
2007-06-16
Location:
canada
Posts: 1160
| what does the irs do exactly? seems like every week you're hearing about people not paying taxes
how do 98 000 federal employees get away with not paying taxes? |
justinr
Marine
April 19th, 2012 @ 6:45AM
Registered:
2003-04-13
Location:
Houston, TX
Posts: 119
| @Cell phone bills
I dropped my phone all together and I just use google voice that rings my work phone. I figure people don't REALLY need to get a hold of me that bad. If someone really wants to talk to me, they can just leave a message or plan ahead of time better. I haven't looked back since I dropped my phone. Basically just a clean cut from "the works" to nothing. |
Disastrous Fate
General
April 19th, 2012 @ 9:13AM
Registered:
2004-02-09
Location:
Posts: 1012
| "what does the irs do exactly? seems like every week you're hearing about people not paying taxes
how do 98 000 federal employees get away with not paying taxes?"
It's because Drudge Report posts every little thing possible in order to "prove" that the government is incapable. In truth, 98,000 sounds like a lot, but there are 2.65 million federal employees (which, by the by, is actually a lower figure than Nixon had in 1970, and is easily the lowest per capita in the last 50 years, but I digress). That's less than .4% of the federal workforce. So, when it comes to federal employees, the IRS is "just" 99.63% effective. OH NOES
"Heroes who have ruined themselves: Mel Gibson, Charlie Sheen, Arnold Schwarzenegger "
They were heroes? I'm pretty sure they were just actors. |
killer6600
Marine
April 19th, 2012 @ 11:49AM
Registered:
2007-06-16
Location:
canada
Posts: 1160
|
"In my day you had to look at magazines!"
and you only looked at them for the articles! |
Apricoth
Kali Compton Girl
April 21st, 2012 @ 5:10AM
Registered:
2003-06-14
Location:
MN
Posts: 1792
| hah Killer6600. What? I looked at them just for the jokes!
At the "Biggest Bitch in the whole world" clip - I am not a fan of baseball but by Jove, I would have kicked her sorry ass up and over that railing if I saw her yank a baseball from my little girl like that. |
outwhataburgered
Peon
April 21st, 2012 @ 1:27PM
Registered:
2012-04-21
Location:
Posts: 1
| Mathfail on Disastrous Fate
98000/2.65 million ~ 0.04
That`s 4 percent. |
radvan
Special Ops
April 22nd, 2012 @ 11:57AM
Registered:
2003-03-26
Location:
Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 335
| holy shit! @ tire fire |
Charkoth
Right Wing Extremist
April 23rd, 2012 @ 2:40PM
Registered:
2003-05-08
Location:
OHIO
Posts: 2207
| Yeah boohoo, 1 in ~25 Federal employees owing an average of $10,000.00 in back taxes. Big deal right? What was Drudge thinking?
Also the Federal Workforce has skyrocketed under Obama...even with the size of the postal service shrinking over 200,000 people.
|
killer6600
Marine
April 24th, 2012 @ 6:52PM
Registered:
2007-06-16
Location:
canada
Posts: 1160
| yeah, wanting to put a black box in a car that constantly records only the last 15 seconds before an accident to see if someone was wearing a seat belt or how fast they were going or if/when they hit the breaks totally infringes on your rights.....rights to what? get away with speeding if you caused an accident? |
Disastrous Fate
General
April 25th, 2012 @ 11:27AM
Registered:
2004-02-09
Location:
Posts: 1012
| @outwhataburgered
Yeah, I'll admit, I must have screwed up the 0's or something. In any case, 96.3% effectiveness is still not exactly a deeply disturbing statistic. I'd still be curious to see the comparison between this and the public at large.
@Charkoth
"Also the Federal Workforce has skyrocketed under Obama...even with the size of the postal service shrinking over 200,000 people."
Here is the data I'm using:
http://www.opm.gov/feddata/HistoricalTables/TotalGovernmentSince1962.asp - Probably the best source, as it is the most expansive.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/09/how_many_federal_workers_are_t.html - Another decent one, although this is just picking up the executive branch. Bonus points for controlling for total population.
There is also this discussion, which, while not agreeing exactly, captures the same idea:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/how-the-wall-street-journ_b_1206349.html
If there has been any increase in the Obama years, it was from a low point in the late 90's. Now, keep in mind, these are pure numbers. As a % of the total population, the Obama years are not -nearly- as expansive as, say, the Reagan years or Bush Sr.
Of course, the federal work force is only one chunk of federal spending. Increasingly, federal spending goes pretty much directly to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. As Baby Boomers age and as healthcare costs continue to escalate (at a much higher rate than, say, in Canada or Britain or France or Germany), that's going to become increasingly true. |
Disastrous Fate
General
April 25th, 2012 @ 5:02PM
Registered:
2004-02-09
Location:
Posts: 1012
| http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/25/american-austerity/ - Just posted today. It shows the change in the federal workforce for each of last three presidential administrations. |
Charkoth
Right Wing Extremist
April 26th, 2012 @ 7:20PM
Registered:
2003-05-08
Location:
OHIO
Posts: 2207
| DF they may have the conscience of a Liberal but they also have a Liberals way of twisting the facts to suit their arguments.
Reagan for one was dealing with Coldwar-Era military...same with your earlier Nixon comment.
You also need to look at the Federal workforce MINUS the Post office. Even though they are currently operating at a loss, they still have a non-tax-based revenue stream that covers the majority of their expenses...and as I said they are the only part of the "Federal" government that is shrinking (because they have to by law).
The only thing worth looking at is the OPM.gov statistics although you linked the least specific of the tables. As head of the Executive Branch , that is all Obama is in charge of and all he should be responsible for.
Any way you look at THAT data, Obama has grown the Federal workforce almost 10% in one of the worst economic periods we've had since the great depression.
|
Surelog
Kali Compton
April 28th, 2012 @ 10:08AM
Registered:
2003-03-26
Location:
Kentucky
Posts: 244
| That's genius what BK is doing. They can't really beat McD using the same tactics so they're switching up into a new path. I love it. I use to be a skeptic about the whole organic and cage free thing, but one day I bought organic chicken on accident. The Chicken tasted way better and was much more tender, it blew my mind. So I'm eager to try this from BK. |
Trickshot
Peon
April 28th, 2012 @ 11:30AM
Registered:
2006-10-22
Location:
Lansing, Michigan
Posts: 357
| Burger King doing that is the first good news I think I`ve read in months. |
Disastrous Fate
General
April 28th, 2012 @ 12:56PM
Registered:
2004-02-09
Location:
Posts: 1012
| @Charkoth: I was trying to be as inclusive as possible, assuming that using more specific evidence would get me attacked for ignoring something. I actually originally include an executive branch link as well, but I figured it was redundant with the WaPo article and the more general info.
Even looking at the one you're talking about (which seems an awful lot like cherry picking, but whatever), where's the explosive growth? The government grew by 200,000 under Bush, but I don't remember the concern then. It was at a higher number (and a much much higher per capita rate) under Reagan than it is under Obama, and it still grew 100,000 under Reagan. The only cutter here seems to be Clinton, who I don't think of as a GOP hero. He dropped it 400,000.
Now, you could say that "Obama has raised it by 200,000 -already-," but you'd be missing the whole point. Whether or not you agree with it, Obama didn't increase employment -in spite- of the crisis, it was a -response- to the crisis. From the admittedly little data I've seen lately, I gather that executive employment peaked in 2010.
In any case, this whole "Obama shouldn't spend during a crisis" is not only insane in terms of the economics, but it's completely bullshit historically.
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2012/03/per-capita-government-spending-by-president.html - Growth in real capita government spending, comparison of Nixon-Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama. Notice something? Like how Obama actually increased spending -far- less quickly than -any- of the Republicans?
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/real-government-spending-in-two-recoveries/ - This comparison is only between Reagan and Obama, but it compares them quarter by quarter. Remember, this is all happening during Reagan's own recession (which was basically brought on by monetary policy, but whatever). The same shit we complain about with Obama (growth in spending during a recession), Reagan gets away with.. despite doing FAR more of it. Obama = Socialist Communist. Reagan = All American Hero.
It's nonsense. |
killer6600
Marine
April 28th, 2012 @ 1:58PM
Registered:
2007-06-16
Location:
canada
Posts: 1160
| reagan would never be elected now, not in a trillion years as a republican.
i do enjoy charkoth saying "i don't want to look at all federal government, just this one thing"
also giving reagan and nixon a pass because of the cold war....obama only has 2 'hot' wars going on |
Charkoth
Right Wing Extremist
April 28th, 2012 @ 5:37PM
Registered:
2003-05-08
Location:
OHIO
Posts: 2207
| Once again the President doesn't control the entire Federal workforce.
Regardless I was only countering the single point DF made in reference to it being the lowest in years etc....not trying to bash Obama or praise Bush.
We all know all political conversations tend to start and end with Bush. |
killer6600
Marine
April 28th, 2012 @ 9:17PM
Registered:
2007-06-16
Location:
canada
Posts: 1160
| you were bashing obama in both of your posts
"...skyrocketed under obama"
"....grew by 10% in the worst econimic times..."
it's one thing to bash the guy, just don't lie about it |
Disastrous Fate
General
April 29th, 2012 @ 9:20AM
Registered:
2004-02-09
Location:
Posts: 1012
| My main point is that Obama's presidency has been anything but radical. When it comes to dealing with the crisis, he's employing the same strategy employed by virtually every president of both parties since FDR. The difference is the scale of the crisis Obama is facing, which has no analogue excepting the Depression itself. When you look at it from that perspective, Obama's administration is defined more by the lack of activity than by a radical new approach.... |
Charkoth
Right Wing Extremist
April 29th, 2012 @ 7:25PM
Registered:
2003-05-08
Location:
OHIO
Posts: 2207
| Killer you're hopeless. For one those weren't lies, and two they were in direct counterpoint to DFs assertion.
I'll give you that Obama is not much different that most previous presidents when it comes to the big things and business as usual DF. My only point was the postal service doesn't count. Obama has nothing to do with it's failure and its rapidly diminishing workforce. Lumping the postal service in with his numbers doesn't make any point. |
killer6600
Marine
April 29th, 2012 @ 8:12PM
Registered:
2007-06-16
Location:
canada
Posts: 1160
| i wasn't saying what your quotes were lies, i said you not bashing him was a lie, you could have easily said that the federal employment force increased in both cases, but you did more than that. you lied when you said you weren't bashing him thats all. |
killer6600
Marine
April 29th, 2012 @ 8:13PM
Registered:
2007-06-16
Location:
canada
Posts: 1160
| also i'm all for anything making bikers more responsible for their actions, too often they're just not paying attention to anything because they're on a bike and everyone should watch out for them |
Charkoth
Right Wing Extremist
April 30th, 2012 @ 5:22PM
Registered:
2003-05-08
Location:
OHIO
Posts: 2207
| I think you're arguing semantics and missing the point. Just because I don't frame Obama in the rosiest picture imaginable doesn't mean I'm bashing him. I'm blunt and to the point about everything.
Saying something unsubstantiated like :reagan would never be elected now, not in a trillion years as a republican. would be Bashing....but once again...semantics.
|
