US government is running out of money faster than expected, Mnuchin warns

[LV426]

nstead, you defend the study which serves the purpose of subsidizing wealthy entitled colleges and professors rather than researching something important.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Before, you didn't even know what the study was.

I had to link to it so you would understand what you were falsely framing, because you're too fucking lazy to do that work.

The study's conclusions you just ignored because they provided a benefit and resulted in something that would help the 29% of Americans who own cats. But because it doesn't benefit you, personally, you deem it waste. Well, I don't deem it waste. What was wasteful was spending money on your education because your parents fucked that up by not teaching you critical thinking skills and instead, feeding your unearned entitlement that led you to make bullshit arguments on the internet.

Basically, you heard something Joni Ernst said, and because you have no critical thinking skills and it confirmed your bias, picked it up from her to prove a failed point about wasteful government spending by talking about a study of which the conclusions have real-work applications for 29% of Americans and for veterinary clinics, a $49B industry

[LV426]

I once had many cats, but I didn't expect the taxpayers to subsidize studies about classical music (no doubt paid for partly by classical music interests to promote sales).

LOL!

"Classical Music Interests"

1. First of all, Flash, the study was funded by the NIH, not the "Classical Music Lobby" (Whatever the fuck that is). Who funds the NIH? Taxpayers.

2. Again, you are oversimplifying the study's conclusions because you're too fucking lazy to do the work of being informed about it. Before, you said something about puking up hairballs, and that was the extent of your knowledge of the study. Then I generously linked the study to you, which you didn't bother to read, even when I quoted its actual objectives and conclusions, because that would undermine the entitlement you think you have to determine that the study is wasteful.

3. You are imagining vast conspiracies to explain away the fact that you just don't know what the fuck you're talking about/ It's like, you can't admit you were wrong so you just invent some conspiracy to explain it away. And I gotta say, the conspiracy theory that there's a "Classical Music Lobby" that is in league with "college professors" to get the government to fund research that shows classic music ("cat-centric music" is what the study says...not classical, but whatevs, you didn't read anything handed to you) by bilking you out of 0.0003% of your income is...certainly imaginative. However, the simpler and more realistic explanation is that you got conned by propaganda from Joni Ernst that confirmed your bias and therefore, your entitlement simply won't let you admit you're not as smart as you think you are.

I mean, this is just pathetic. Like...imagining there's a "classical music lobby" that would push this study instead of, say, pushing an study to make classical music played in all places, not just vet clinics.

Flash, explain to my why the "Classical Music Lobby" would team up with "college professors" to fund research that supports music being played in clinics that soothes cats, and not a study that would support the conclusion the music should be played everywhere? Why just vet clinics?

Again, your entire argument here is absurd; it's all to cover for the fact that you got hooked by propaganda that confirmed your bias, which feeds this entitlement you have that you are the arbiter of wasteful spending, or even that your judgment is good enough to determine when something is wasteful.

You could have just said "I was trying to prove a point about wasteful spending, but used a poor example." But you are compelled to argue with me, invoking conspiracy theories about the "Classical Music Interests" (but not cat interests?), when you could have just said...yeah, this was a cheap study that cat people will probably appreciate.

[LV426]

This is always your argument and you don't even know what it means.

Here's an example of bad faith:

While discussing the failure of tax cuts to do anything, you argue the government is wasteful in its spending (how you determine that is totally entitled subjectivity), and to make that point, you haphazardly refer to a study that someone falsely framed before because you are lazy and do the bare minimum.

When it turns out that person is a lying, Conservative Aunt Lydia, you go further and oversimplify the study despite not even knowing what the study was, its cost, or its practical applications and conclusions.

When that information is handed to you, very nicely and generously I might add, it turns out that oversimplification is actually a distortion and a lie. Rather than admit that you got hosed and tricked (AGAIN), you go the other direction and instead imagine a vast conspiracy that explains away a different angle of the "waste".

Before, you thought the study was just about cats puking up hairballs, but now that you have the study in front of you (you're welcome), you find it's actually much more complicated than that, so you have to change your tactic; and that's how "waste" became an argument that the study serves no purpose other than to enrich "college professors" or help the "Classical Music Lobby" get the music they lobby on behalf of to be played in just veterinary clinic examination rooms, clearly a narrow and myopic enough conspiracy to bilk you out of 0.0003% of your "income".

Now, you think that's good faith? How so?

[LV426]

The point was that the study could have bought a car for many workers who could have used it to get to work, school, etc. You are always telling us how these poor workers have to borrow more money and go into debts after tax cuts, so this would help them with their problem.

This is such gaslighting bullshit, I had to highlight it again.

No Flash, your original point was that the study was "wasteful" and provided no actual real-world applications. You thought that because you didn't know anything about the study, and were just repeating propaganda from Joni Ernst, who is the mouthpiece from whom you learned about this study anyway.

Then, when the study was handed to you, you changed your tactic to argue that it's a vast conspiracy between the "Classical Music Lobby", "college professors", and...I guess cats, to get Classical Music played in vet exam rooms because it chills the cats out.

Now, you're saying that the study -whose cost you still don't know- could have instead been money spent giving cars to poor people? Interested to know how that could be since a) you don't know how much the study cost, and therefore how much of your taxes actually went to it, and b) you seem to think we can only choose between NIH studies and cars for people, and c) are you now saying the government should buy cars for people using the money -that you still don't know the total- the NIH allocated for the study.

Now, you tell me that's not bad faith.

You tell me you're not being a shady piece of shit, changing tactics to make your subjectivity entitlement valid.

Better yet, explain to me how you can buy a car for the amount you pay in taxes for that study the cost of which you still don't know.

Let's start there, Flash...let's start with the actual cost of the study you say is wasteful (so this is your homework assignment), and we can determine exactly how "wasteful" it is, given it helps the $49B veterinary clinic industry, not to mention the 29% of Americans who love their kittehs with their head boops, toe beans, bleps, and furry little faces, and likely costs 1/100th of a cent in the taxes you personally pay.

[Flash]

You diverted the post when you invoked this study to prove a weak, bullshit point about wasteful government spending as you continue to defend tax cuts that you claim don't do anything economically or fiscally, but rather serve an emotional purpose that feeds your bullshit entitlement that you think you are better at spending your money than the government, that you also say is made up of reps you elect whose responsibility is to determine how the money is spent.

All you did was show everyone that you don't know shit; that you are susceptible to propaganda, and that you will act in bad faith no matter what.

Then you abdicate responsibility for what you said because you're reckless, undisciplined, and lazy as fuck.

You diverted the conversation when you began talking about how useful a study is to see the effect of classical music on cats. It doesn't matter how useful the study was or what percent of the budget was spent conducting such a study.

The point was that in a democratic republic the people have some influence over how much they pay in taxes and how the government spends their money. If taxpayers rather pay less taxes than have a study on the effect of classical music on cats, that is their choice (thus the purpose of elections).

You have no faith in the average American and think the government only makes wise decisions about how to spend our money and the taxpayer should have no influence over this. Your attitude is the reason the Democrats lost the working class vote and elected Trump.

I worked for various governmental agencies for 45 years and many of their decisions are based on how to squeeze more money out of the budget.

[Flash]

This is such gaslighting bullshit, I had to highlight it again.

No Flash, your original point was that the study was "wasteful" and provided no actual real-world applications. You thought that because you didn't know anything about the study, and were just repeating propaganda from Joni Ernst, who is the mouthpiece from whom you learned about this study anyway.

Then, when the study was handed to you, you changed your tactic to argue that it's a vast conspiracy between the "Classical Music Lobby", "college professors", and...I guess cats, to get Classical Music played in vet exam rooms because it chills the cats out.

Now, you're saying that the study -whose cost you still don't know- could have instead been money spent giving cars to poor people? Interested to know how that could be since a) you don't know how much the study cost, and therefore how much of your taxes actually went to it, and b) you seem to think we can only choose between NIH studies and cars for people, and c) are you now saying the government should buy cars for people using the money -that you still don't know the total- the NIH allocated for the study.

Now, you tell me that's not bad faith.

You tell me you're not being a shady piece of shit, changing tactics to make your subjectivity entitlement valid.

Better yet, explain to me how you can buy a car for the amount you pay in taxes for that study the cost of which you still don't know.

Let's start there, Flash...let's start with the actual cost of the study you say is wasteful (so this is your homework assignment), and we can determine exactly how "wasteful" it is, given it helps the $49B veterinary clinic industry, not to mention the 29% of Americans who love their kittehs with their head boops, toe beans, bleps, and furry little faces, and likely costs 1/100th of a cent in the taxes you personally pay.

The more you write, the more you distort, make-up, and outright lie. Here was my original statement:

"If a worker needs a new car that might be a better way to spend his money than government deciding to give a grant for some study to find out how classical music affects cats (recent NIH study). They throw up fewer hairballs."

I didn't say anything about "wasteful spending," or "real world applications" (completely made up by you). I didn't get anything from
Joni Ernst (I heard it on Stephen Colbert) and just used it as an example of trivial government spending--I don't care about the study. The "classical music lobby" was just a joke (you have no sense of humor) because it would (possibly) result in cat owners buying more classical music. I said nothing about any conspiracy although those academic studies exist partly for college professors to get publishing credit for promotion and tenure. Many professors are even required to raise $X dollars in grant money because the universities get some for overhead.

Then, you make the gigantic assumption that the study is somehow helping the $49 billion vet industry for which you have no evidence. The classical music industry actually increased by 10% in 2018--no doubt due to cat owners (that is a joke).

Most of your posts are insults, filthy language, diversions, stuff you make up or assume the poster said or thinks. The more you write the more hostile you get. You went from a simple point I was making to an analysis of the cost and benefits of a cat study.

[LV426]

You diverted the conversation when you began talking about how useful a study is to see the effect of classical music on cats.

I only did that because you didn't know what the study was even about.

So you were making a point about "wasteful spending" and holding up something you cribbed from Joni fuckin' Ernst to make your point, even though you don't know what the cost of that study was, nor did you know the practical applications that came from the conclusions of the study.

You didn't know any of that, yet you were using it to make a point about waste.

The only waste was in what you did; a waste of time. You wasted my time because I did the research you should have already done to discover what this "wasteful" study actually was.

Then you tried to gaslight the whole thing by pretending the discussion is about the usefulness of the study, as opposed to how useful it wasn't for the argument of "wasteful spending" you were trying to make.

So you tossed that out there, without knowing the facts behind it, and then you tried to gaslight it, first by imagining a vast conspiracy once you learned the conclusions and practical applications of it, and then you tried to gaslight again by pretending I'm the one taking us off course, when you are the one who made an argument about wasteful government spending by using an example you knew nothing, and still know nothing about.

BAD FAITH.

[LV426]

It doesn't matter how useful the study was or what percent of the budget was spent conducting such a study.

OMFG.

Those were the two things you chose to screech about as you made your argument about "wasteful spending".

Literally, those two things were the two points you were trying to make; first, by calling the study "wasteful" because you were too fucking lazy to read the conclusions and applications of the work; and second by not even knowing the cost, but pretending it would be enough to provide cars (?) for poor people.

Your argument was that this study was wasteful and that we should have used the money the NIH allocated for it, to provide cars to people.

That was your argument.

How would not doing the study result in poor people getting cars when you don't even know what the study cost, and consequently, how much of the taxes you paid actually went to it?

What a fucking joke. You say this study is an example of wasteful government spending, but then admit that its conclusions have practical applications for a $49B industry (so it's not "wasteful" in the regard of its usefulness), and also admit you don't even know how much it cost (so it's not "wasteful" in regard to its cost...since you don't even know the cost).

So you were trying to say it was wasteful, but then you admitted it wasn't, then you admitted you can't really say it's wasteful because you don't even know the cost, yet somehow it proves your point (?).

[LV426]

The point was that in a democratic republic the people have some influence over how much they pay in taxes and how the government spends their money. If taxpayers rather pay less taxes than have a study on the effect of classical music on cats, that is their choice (thus the purpose of elections).

That is not your point, nor was it ever your point.

Your whole point was that to defend tax cuts, you chose to highlight wasteful government spending; only the example you used wasn't wasteful once we dove into the details and read beyond a quote from Joni fuckin' Ernst that made its way into your brain simply because it confirmed your bias.

Once I graciously provided you with the actual Objective and Conclusions of the study (doing your fuckin' homework for you, lazy entitled brat), that's when your argument shifted to a vast conspiracy between "Classical Music Lobby", "college professors", and I guess...cats.

Shameful.

[LV426]

You have no faith in the average American and think the government only makes wise decisions about how to spend our money and the taxpayer should have no influence over this. Your attitude is the reason the Democrats lost the working class vote and elected Trump..

You just said the government is chosen by the same people who decide how they want their money spent, and how to best spend it.

Seriously, are you brain damaged?

What I said was that the government is better at spending money than the individual, and that is laid bare by the fact that every time taxes have been cut the last 40 years in order to "let people keep more of what they earn", those same people lose their savings and go into debt.

EVERY.

SINGLE.

TIME.

The data is irrefutable.

So your emotional argument is a load of horseshit that you end up undermining yourself by conceding that taxpayers, ostensibly the people who are best at spending their money, choose representatives who then decide how that money is spent for them.

Furthermore, you also tried to make a laughably stupid argument that we had a stark choice; either allocate an unknown amount of money for this study that benefits 29% of Americans and their kittehs, or cars for poor people (?). Now, I'm pretty sure that study didn't cost enough to end up providing cars to poor people. In fact, I am not sure that study even cost enough to provide cars to 3 poor people. I don't know because I don't know how much the study cost, and neither do you. What I do know is that it was funded by the NIH, and the NIH gets its allocations for research and studies from Congress. And this particular study had real world applications for a $49B industry. And, it helps make our furry little kittehs more comfortable as they get examined.

[LV426]

You have no faith in the average American

1. You are not the average American.

2. I don't have faith in you because you've given me no reason to.

3. Stop trying to make this about me; this is about how you falsely framed a stupid position by relying on the half-brained ramblings of Joni Ernst, a lying Conservative shitbag whose strategy is to manufacture deficits and debt, and then use those as an excuse to cut the spending she -and you- subjectively judge as wasteful mostly because you know nothing about that spending, as you demonstrated on this thread.

[LV426]

I worked for various governmental agencies for 45 years and many of their decisions are based on how to squeeze more money out of the budget.

Good for you...no one cares and it's not relevant to the shitbag lies you're spreading.

Just admit it; you talked without knowing what you were talking about.

[Flash]

That is not your point, nor was it ever your point.

Your whole point was that to defend tax cuts, you chose to highlight wasteful government spending; only the example you used wasn't wasteful once we dove into the details and read beyond a quote from Joni fuckin' Ernst that made its way into your brain simply because it confirmed your bias.

Once I graciously provided you with the actual Objective and Conclusions of the study (doing your fuckin' homework for you, lazy entitled brat), that's when your argument shifted to a vast conspiracy between "Classical Music Lobby", "college professors", and I guess...cats.

Shameful.

I didn't care about the study--it is a trivial example; but, you certainly did not prove it was not wasteful by diving into the details. You have yet to address the issue of whether the voters are the ones to decide whether they would rather pay less taxes or fund a study such as this. As usual, you change the subject about how useful the study was and your tirade of insults.

If the people could vote on whether the government should fund this study (even though it would no affect their taxes), what do you think would be the results? And, should they have any influence over that decision or is it something the government should decide with no public input?

[Flash]

1. You are not the average American.

2. I don't have faith in you because you've given me no reason to.

3. Stop trying to make this about me; this is about how you falsely framed a stupid position by relying on the half-brained ramblings of Joni Ernst, a lying Conservative shitbag whose strategy is to manufacture deficits and debt, and then use those as an excuse to cut the spending she -and you- subjectively judge as wasteful mostly because you know nothing about that spending, as you demonstrated on this thread.

You are a phony and liar. I know nothing about what Joni Ernst wrote and learned about the study on Stephen Colbert.

I am certainly more of an average American than you are. Only an elitist snob would think they have the right to assault or kill a Nazi who is taking no action toward you or want the state to kill protestors in Oregon. Nothing average about justifying killing others.

I favor showing respect to everyone because they are a human being. I am not "entitled" enough to determine who should live or die or is worth respect.

[LV426]

"If a worker needs a new car that might be a better way to spend his money than government deciding to give a grant for some study to find out how classical music affects cats (recent NIH study). They throw up fewer hairballs."

1. That wasn't what the study was about.

2. I gave you the fucking link to the study itself so you could see what it was and what its conclusions and applications were.

3. What was the actual cost of the study, Flash?

Let's start with #3.

Once we find the cost, we can determine how much of the budget it is, and consequently, how much of the federal taxes you pay actually went to it.

Then we can determine if that is wasteful.