US Government Budget

[Dallane]

First off, this is a lie and can be disproved with a simple google search. Federal Unemployment lasts 26 weeks. It went up to 73 weeks during the recession but is now back down. Nobody can "stay" on unemployment for years without taking full time job training. There are certain specific State run Unemployment programs that extend unemployment but they don't last that long either.

And you fell right into my trap. I stayed on umemployment for 2 YEARS. It finally ended because I didn't show up to my extension meeting. Almost everyone at the meetings had been drawing longer than I had.There was a old steel worker there that had been drawing for 7 years. My uncle draws it and rotates from 3 different states. I know for a fact that the system is constantly abused.

[Claeyt]

First off, this is a lie and can be disproved with a simple google search. Federal Unemployment lasts 26 weeks. It went up to 73 weeks during the recession but is now back down. Nobody can "stay" on unemployment for years without taking full time job training. There are certain specific State run Unemployment programs that extend unemployment but they don't last that long either.

And you fell right into my trap. I stayed on umemployment for 2 YEARS. It finally ended because I didn't show up to my extension meeting. Almost everyone at the meetings had been drawing longer than I had.There was a old steel worker there that had been drawing for 7 years. My uncle draws it and rotates from 3 different states. I know for a fact that the system is constantly abused.

This is a lie.

You combined Social Security and Medicare into the end 65% "Welfare" number right?

Sure, in that tiny end paragraph that was my conclusion drawn from my findings. You want to draw a different conclusion? Fine. But you've done nothing for this entire thread but talk entirely about that one little paragraph and completely ignore everything else I posted. I suppose it's because you truly don't know what to say and so must fall back on attacking my opinion instead of bringing up your own facts? Or even examining mine?

I read everything else you posted and what I've been saying is that you combined things together that you wanted together and that many people including myself wouldn't have put together. What you created is not facts it's stuff you created based on your own political beliefs.

I fundamentally disagreed with my tax dollars going to Bush's war in Iraq but you don't see me harping on it and saying that they were "taken from me to be spent elsewhere on things I may or may not approve of." How are your views on where taxes go and mine any different, except for the fact that you ***** about it as 'Welfare' going to people who don't deserve it. Get over it, that's democracy. If you don't think you should be taxed for SSI because you disagree with the majority of us then you are anti-democratic and want to overthrow the democracy based on your minority view.

Democracy does not at all mean that I must agree with the majority just because they are the majority. The majority is not always right and I DO have the right to stand up on whatever box I can get away with and harp about whatever the hell I want to harp about to anyone who will listen. You wanna start a thread about how stupid Bush's war was? Go ahead! Maybe we'll agree on something for a change.

You don't have to agree with the majority but you do have to follow the law of the majority. SSI is the law. As for your beliefs, you can yell about them all you want but the only remedy is Democracy. Also there's a big difference between disagreeing with a law and saying that it's somehow being "taken from me" like it's illegal or something.

But then what word does one use when referring to them as a whole?

You can't refer to them as a whole.

***** that. Merriam Webster backs me up here. I was willing to use whatever liberal nonsense word you could come up with but no way am I going to use several sentences every time I want to refer to welfare programs as a whole. 'Merica.

Then you will be using over-generalization when you use the term 'Welfare' to describe these things within your arguments. Isn't that one of your categories of fallacies you're always talking about?

[Dallane]

First off, this is a lie and can be disproved with a simple google search. Federal Unemployment lasts 26 weeks. It went up to 73 weeks during the recession but is now back down. Nobody can "stay" on unemployment for years without taking full time job training. There are certain specific State run Unemployment programs that extend unemployment but they don't last that long either.

And you fell right into my trap. I stayed on umemployment for 2 YEARS. It finally ended because I didn't show up to my extension meeting. Almost everyone at the meetings had been drawing longer than I had.There was a old steel worker there that had been drawing for 7 years. My uncle draws it and rotates from 3 different states. I know for a fact that the system is constantly abused.

This is a lie.

No, it's not.

[saltmummy]

First off, this is a lie and can be disproved with a simple google search. Federal Unemployment lasts 26 weeks. It went up to 73 weeks during the recession but is now back down. Nobody can "stay" on unemployment for years without taking full time job training. There are certain specific State run Unemployment programs that extend unemployment but they don't last that long either.

And you fell right into my trap. I stayed on unemployment for 2 YEARS. It finally ended because I didn't show up to my extension meeting. Almost everyone at the meetings had been drawing longer than I had.There was a old steel worker there that had been drawing for 7 years. My uncle draws it and rotates from 3 different states. I know for a fact that the system is constantly abused.

This is a lie.

Oh no! Dallane used first hand experience! IT MUST BE A LIE! Oh wait, I was on unemployment for two and a half years myself, so I see no reason to disbelieve his claim. People I worked with were/have been on it for even longer after our employer unceremoniously booted them out the door on patently made up charges.

[TotalyMeow]

I read everything else you posted and what I've been saying is that you combined things together that you wanted together and that many people including myself wouldn't have put together. What you created is not facts it's stuff you created based on your own political beliefs.

Actually, I grouped them the same way I've seen it done on sites that try to explain the budget in simple terms. The difficulty with pie charts is that too many categories confuses things. This is a big part of why I provided the numbers for each category in a chart just below the pie chart and went to the trouble to type up an explanation of each category and what was in it and cited the original documents. The budget itself is even an excel file. If you don't agree with my arrangement of categories, you have plenty of resources there to rearrange things however you want and make whatever argument you like regarding that. You won't though, because there's really nothing to argue about.

You don't have to agree with the majority but you do have to follow the law of the majority. SSI is the law. As for your beliefs, you can yell about them all you want but the only remedy is Democracy. Also there's a big difference between disagreeing with a law and saying that it's somehow being "taken from me" like it's illegal or something.

Hey, I've never cheated on my taxes in the smallest degree. And I have decided who I will vote for in the next election. That doesn't really change that taxes are mandatory and are absolutely taken, legally. Don't try to obfuscate the issue. Most of our welfare programs are being run improperly and the mindset behind them is wrongheaded and does not follow the original intent of their establishment. And the defense budget is not more than 50% of the total budget, the original point of this thread.

Then you will be using over-generalization when you use the term 'Welfare' to describe these things within your arguments. Isn't that one of your categories of fallacies you're always talking about?

No. Over-generalization is attempting to draw statistical significance from a too-small sample. Good try though, keep reading.

[saltmummy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbIZU8cQWXc

I thought this was interesting. It's mostly about space travel and the US budget for NASA.
Make of it what you will.

[TotalyMeow]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbIZU8cQWXc

I thought this was interesting. It's mostly about space travel and the US budget for NASA.
Make of it what you will.

Oh yes, the NASA budget has been cut back again and again. The probes and things they've been sending out lately have been super cheap and meant to cram in as many things as possible per mission because they can't afford anymore to build something to do one job really well. That's a big reason why we have the ridiculousness that is the space shuttle. And also why we haven't been back to the moon, let alone have a base there. It's just not considered necessary enough to the defense of the country, and not enough people can see beyond that.

[Dallane]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbIZU8cQWXc

I thought this was interesting. It's mostly about space travel and the US budget for NASA.
Make of it what you will.

Oh yes, the NASA budget has been cut back again and again. The probes and things they've been sending out lately have been super cheap and meant to cram in as many things as possible per mission because they can't afford anymore to build something to do one job really well. That's a big reason why we have the ridiculousness that is the space shuttle. And also why we haven't been back to the moon, let alone have a base there. It's just not considered necessary enough to the defense of the country, and not enough people can see beyond that.

Wish they would change NASA to not be a exploration science type thing and turn it into a resource gathering type thing. Who gives a **** about whats in places that takes us years to reach when they could be using what little money they have with things we could reach now. There is big money to be made with exploiting the heavens of their resources.

[TotalyMeow]

Wish they would change NASA to not be a exploration science type thing and turn it into a resource gathering type thing. Who gives a **** about whats in places that takes us years to reach when they could be using what little money they have with things we could reach now. There is big money to be made with exploiting the heavens of their resources.

I don't think the science should be neglected, but I do agree we need to spend more on getting in to space for the resources. We don't even have to go to Saturn to get water fuel ala The Martian Way, there are plenty of comets that get close to us. And the amounts of rare minerals and other very useful materials on nearby asteroids (again don't even have to go to very far) boggle the mind.

And the whole 'years to reach' thing is partly due to the tiny budget. Fuel economy means taking big, looping paths around several planets for gravity assists. Look at the recent Juno probe. 5 years to get to Jupiter, but 2 of them spent orbiting near Earth to get a gravity assist flyby. With the ability to use more fuel and perhaps even launch from orbit, it could have taken half the time.

[Tulgarath]

Fuel pretty much is the entire cost. Once a space object is out if fuel is dead, so they try to preserve it as much as possible.