Reasons Americastan Is Better Than Australiastan!

[Smart_Guy]

An Aborigine who can't spell well?

Smart @$$

 

[Revoltingest]

Thanx!

 

[Smart_Guy]

No wait... I'm sorry

 

[Revoltingest]

Too late! No take backsies!

 

[Smart_Guy]

No, really, I'm sorry!

Honest!

 

[Revoltingest]

And I'm pleased!

Honest!

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Eggplant, SG?

 

[Smart_Guy]

And I'm pleased!
Honest!

Cool!

No go to h... um.. to heaven

Eggplant, SG?

Yup

Do you use this word in Australia too?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Do you use this word in Australia too?

Yep. I tend to use them interchangeably, but it's possible we use them for different varieties and I'm just a little ignorant of it.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Yep. I tend to use them interchangeably, but it's possible we use them for different varieties and I'm just a little ignorant of it.

What about stubborn and obstinate?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Americanistans can outdo Australiastanian obstinency any day.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Corporations are people, but you're wrong about money given away.
Tis individuals who reap the benefits of federal largess.

Now...how does this make Americastan better than Australiastan?
Our wastrels & spendthrifts in office are all the better for scorn & mocking.

For a few things.

Social Security was not meant to ever be part of the budget. It was a separate program totally. So that shouldn't be considered part of the budget. But I include the inflated military budget as part of "corporate subsidies". We spend an inhumane amount of money on guns, oil, ect all for "defense" against many imaginary attackers. We need a strong defense and I would NEVER suggest being any less than the #1 military in the world. However we are Number #1 by miles and miles and miles. We could trim back some without worry of attackers and we could save a ton of money that way.

 

[Revoltingest]

Social Security was not meant to ever be part of the budget. It was a separate program totally. So that shouldn't be considered part of the budget.

I'll agree that it shouldn't be part of the budget, but the reality is & has always been different. Notwithstanding government's calling it a "trust fund", it never was, either legally (Fleming v Nestor) or in practice (since very little money is actually held in trust).

But I include the inflated military budget as part of "corporate subsidies". We spend an inhumane amount of money on guns, oil, ect all for "defense" against many imaginary attackers. We need a strong defense and I would NEVER suggest being any less than the #1 military in the world. However we are Number #1 by miles and miles and miles. We could trim back some without worry of attackers and we could save a ton of money that way.

I have personally witnessed military money being doled out for political reasons, but it was a which-company-gets-the-contract decision, rather than the program-exists-for-corporate-largess. The same thing drives military base opening & closure. So our problem is not the generosity of government to the undeserving (ie, corporate welfare), but rather over-spending because of our policeman-of-the-world agenda. This still drives much of weapon system design, military strategy, & spending.

 

[Brickjectivity]

So far we've made 10 pages of reasons that Americanistan is better than Australianistan. You'd think the issue would be settled by now, but Australianistanians are unreasonable.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I'll agree that it shouldn't be part of the budget, but the reality is & has always been different. Notwithstanding government's calling it a "trust fund", it never was, either legally (Fleming v Nestor) or in practice (since very little money is actually held in trust).

It was intended to be but if there is money our current gov will find a way to get their hands on it.

I have personally witnessed military money being doled out for political reasons, but it was a which-company-gets-the-contract decision, rather than the program-exists-for-corporate-largess. The same thing drives military base opening & closure. So our problem is not the generosity of government to the undeserving (ie, corporate welfare), but rather over-spending because of our policeman-of-the-world agenda. This still drives much of weapon system design, military strategy, & spending.

As have I. And "who gets the contract" has a lot to do with who they know not the rates in which they get. My dad who works in construction got a job on a government contract one time for about a year and a half and they made 50% more money. His pay was somewhere around 28 an hour at the time and during the project he got 44. (12 for the 50% increase, 2 for hazard, 2 for some reason I forget). The date set for the completion of the project was nearly double what it would actually take and again double what the private industry would have asked. This was for a military base hospital/va hospital.

 

[Revoltingest]

It was intended to be but if there is money our current gov will find a way to get their hands on it.

Intentions can be hard to divine for those of us too lazy to research it. But looking at the plan, the initial benefits paid out could not have been funded by any means other than coming out of the budget. And since then, it's not been self funding on a continuing basis. I think the belief that it was intended to be a trust fund comes from government pretense.

As have I. And "who gets the contract" has a lot to do with who they know not the rates in which they get. My dad who works in construction got a job on a government contract one time for about a year and a half and they made 50% more money. His pay was somewhere around 28 an hour at the time and during the project he got 44. (12 for the 50% increase, 2 for hazard, 2 for some reason I forget). The date set for the completion of the project was nearly double what it would actually take and again double what the private industry would have asked. This was for a military base hospital/va hospital.

Tis vexing to see such waste & incompetence, eh?

And why do these issues make Americastan better than Australiastan?
We have so much money to waste!

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Intentions can be hard to divine for those of us too lazy to research it. But looking at the plan, the initial benefits paid out could not have been funded by any means other than coming out of the budget. And since then, it's not been self funding on a continuing basis. I think the belief that it was intended to be a trust fund comes from government pretense.

Actually the program is still separate however since the Johnson administration in 1968 we have now incorporated a "unified budget" instead of a stratified budget that was used prior. Now every penny the federal government uses in every single case is included and viewed as one budget. Prior to this we had several budgets where specific taxes on things went to pay for specific things. We still have this but the budget is now far more complex as we have to fit in the whole of the federal government spending and taxation in one document. For example the tax on gasoline goes to paying for roads and bridges. At least this is the concept. Any money taken in or out of the federal government is a concept rather than an actual amount since it is the one that creates the money itself. In some cases it even gets to dictate the value of each dollar but currently that is not the case.

Can you link me to something that can tell me about how we have added to the social security fund other than social security income taxes? I haven't been able to locate it and I'm not a lazy butt when it comes to research.

Tis vexing to see such waste & incompetence, eh?

And why do these issues make Americastan better than Australiastan?
We have so much money to waste!

Its strange. We have some government programs that eliminates wasteful spending and work far more efficiently than the private sector but we also have programs that are horridly inefficient. Probably the most inefficient is the military spending while one of the most efficient is medicare. However we have a lot of people saying we need to pour more money in to the least efficient and take away funding to the most efficient. Strange indeed.

And how does this make Americastan better than Australiastan? Bacon. Thats how.

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually the program is still separate however since the Johnson administration in 1968 we have now incorporated a "unified budget" instead of a stratified budget that was used prior. Now every penny the federal government uses in every single case is included and viewed as one budget. Prior to this we had several budgets where specific taxes on things went to pay for specific things. We still have this but the budget is now far more complex as we have to fit in the whole of the federal government spending and taxation in one document. For example the tax on gasoline goes to paying for roads and bridges. At least this is the concept. Any money taken in or out of the federal government is a concept rather than an actual amount since it is the one that creates the money itself. In some cases it even gets to dictate the value of each dollar but currently that is not the case.

Can you link me to something that can tell me about how we have added to the social security fund other than social security income taxes? I haven't been able to locate it and I'm not a lazy butt when it comes to research.

I found this....
Social Security Deficits Are Permanent and Set to Quadruple in Less Than 20 Years

Its strange. We have some government programs that eliminates wasteful spending and work far more efficiently than the private sector but we also have programs that are horridly inefficient. Probably the most inefficient is the military spending while one of the most efficient is medicare. However we have a lot of people saying we need to pour more money in to the least efficient and take away funding to the most efficient. Strange indeed.

Government gives the appearance of being more efficient at times, but if one factors in hidden 'costs', the picture is less rosy. Government properties pay no property taxes, they're exempt from zoning ordinances, they legislate much of their liability away, they legislate away competition, & they defer costs to future generations.

And how does this make Americastan better than Australiastan? Bacon. Thats how.

Indeed!

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I found this....
Social Security Deficits Are Permanent and Set to Quadruple in Less Than 20 Years

I'm researching this claim a bit. I remember this being blown out of the water not too long ago but I think that was about the deficit in general being affected. Though I trust fox news sources over the heritage foundation sources.

Government gives the appearance of being more efficient at times, but if one factors in hidden 'costs', the picture is less rosy. Government properties pay no property taxes, they're exempt from zoning ordinances, they legislate much of their liability away, they legislate away competition, & they defer costs to future generations.

Medicare for example has some of the cheapest options available without reduced quality of care. Not to mention universal healthcare systems in other countries running several times more effectively than our mess of a system now. Trust me I spent plenty of years in insurance, registration and billing. The whole thing was a hairball caught in gum and lit on fire.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Leave it to Australianistan to turn a perfectly good joke into a discussion about Herbs and Koawalla tea health care.