Vault 7 - Happening

[The Conservative]

So how do you measure the size of government TC? You're saying that in your reducing the government by almost 20% plan that 20% of the government workers are laid off. Then putting the funding for that 20% into other government entities? You reduced the number of government employees but not the size of the government if you're just taking that pool of money and dumping into another section of the government. GCF is correct.

Taking 1 Trillion (a year) out of one project and splitting it between existing means that Trillion can be used to more effect properly. Think of it this way, 20 Billion for the idea I have, give the rest of the money to the education, and infrastructure to produce programs to actually create real jobs... heaven forbid.

Infrastructure jobs could fund a new "New Deal" in where the money is used to pay people to work on beefing up our infrastructure, instead of paying a few corporations to force people to get health insurance. Infrastructure jobs across the country, fixing roads, repairing lines, improving everything could pay for decades of workers...

You'd allow people to live, you'd also allow those people to save money and spend money as they deem fit. Want to make shovel ready jobs, you don't do it by giving it to corporations that don't produce anything... you give it to entities that produce things...

Hell, if it's true there are more jobs than qualified people... if the people in the government are qualified to do their jobs, then they should be able to find a job fast and easy enough.

Lets be honest, if you removed Homeland Security, and ObamaCare, the US would not implode, if anything it would probably run better.

TC, how do you measure the size of a publicly traded company? By the number of employees or it's market cap size? Just in case you don't know the correct answer is market cap size. So with that in mind you need to think of the expenditures of government in terms of percentage of GDP. By moving money from one bucket to another bucket does not effect the expenditure percentage of GDP the government represents. Therefore.....no the government has NOT shrunk.

Yes, and if you remove Homeland Security, and the ObamaCare initiative... you'll remove more than a trillion from the budget. So where does my math and your math differ?

ObamaCare 1.4 Trillion.
Homeland Security 1.5 Trillion...

Take a Trillion, save 1.9 Trillion... the math seems solid to me.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Taking 1 Trillion (a year) out of one project and splitting it between existing means that Trillion can be used to more effect properly. Think of it this way, 20 Billion for the idea I have, give the rest of the money to the education, and infrastructure to produce programs to actually create real jobs... heaven forbid.

Infrastructure jobs could fund a new "New Deal" in where the money is used to pay people to work on beefing up our infrastructure, instead of paying a few corporations to force people to get health insurance. Infrastructure jobs across the country, fixing roads, repairing lines, improving everything could pay for decades of workers...

You'd allow people to live, you'd also allow those people to save money and spend money as they deem fit. Want to make shovel ready jobs, you don't do it by giving it to corporations that don't produce anything... you give it to entities that produce things...

Hell, if it's true there are more jobs than qualified people... if the people in the government are qualified to do their jobs, then they should be able to find a job fast and easy enough.

Lets be honest, if you removed Homeland Security, and ObamaCare, the US would not implode, if anything it would probably run better.

TC, how do you measure the size of a publicly traded company? By the number of employees or it's market cap size? Just in case you don't know the correct answer is market cap size. So with that in mind you need to think of the expenditures of government in terms of percentage of GDP. By moving money from one bucket to another bucket does not effect the expenditure percentage of GDP the government represents. Therefore.....no the government has NOT shrunk.

Yes, and if you remove Homeland Security, and the ObamaCare initiative... you'll remove more than a trillion from the budget. So where does my math and your math differ?

ObamaCare 1.4 Trillion.
Homeland Security 1.5 Trillion...

Take a Trillion, save 1.9 Trillion... the math seems solid to me.

Dude.

Think of it this way, 20 Billion for the idea I have, give the rest of the money to the education, and infrastructure to produce programs to actually create real jobs... heaven forbid.

You either give it to another area of the government - education and infrastructure in this case - or you stop collecting it. One of those actually shrinks the government, the other maintains it while shuffling the chips.

I think your ideal is a more efficient government - not necessarily a smaller one. I suspect that this is the case for many Conservatives.

[SilverEagle]

TC, how do you measure the size of a publicly traded company? By the number of employees or it's market cap size? Just in case you don't know the correct answer is market cap size. So with that in mind you need to think of the expenditures of government in terms of percentage of GDP. By moving money from one bucket to another bucket does not effect the expenditure percentage of GDP the government represents. Therefore.....no the government has NOT shrunk.

Yes, and if you remove Homeland Security, and the ObamaCare initiative... you'll remove more than a trillion from the budget. So where does my math and your math differ?

ObamaCare 1.4 Trillion.
Homeland Security 1.5 Trillion...

Take a Trillion, save 1.9 Trillion... the math seems solid to me.

Dude.

Think of it this way, 20 Billion for the idea I have, give the rest of the money to the education, and infrastructure to produce programs to actually create real jobs... heaven forbid.

You either give it to another area of the government - education and infrastructure in this case - or you stop collecting it. One of those actually shrinks the government, the other maintains it while shuffling the chips.

I think your ideal is a more efficient government - not necessarily a smaller one. I suspect that this is the case for many Conservatives.

Bingo! I'm not sure that TC can grasp what we're getting at. Seems like a really easy concept but I guess not.

[The Conservative]

TC, how do you measure the size of a publicly traded company? By the number of employees or it's market cap size? Just in case you don't know the correct answer is market cap size. So with that in mind you need to think of the expenditures of government in terms of percentage of GDP. By moving money from one bucket to another bucket does not effect the expenditure percentage of GDP the government represents. Therefore.....no the government has NOT shrunk.

Yes, and if you remove Homeland Security, and the ObamaCare initiative... you'll remove more than a trillion from the budget. So where does my math and your math differ?

ObamaCare 1.4 Trillion.
Homeland Security 1.5 Trillion...

Take a Trillion, save 1.9 Trillion... the math seems solid to me.

Dude.

Think of it this way, 20 Billion for the idea I have, give the rest of the money to the education, and infrastructure to produce programs to actually create real jobs... heaven forbid.

You either give it to another area of the government - education and infrastructure in this case - or you stop collecting it. One of those actually shrinks the government, the other maintains it while shuffling the chips.

I think your ideal is a more efficient government - not necessarily a smaller one. I suspect that this is the case for many Conservatives.

Taking 1 Trillion, using 20 Billion, you have 980 Billion left... Where did I say spend 2.9 Trillion? Because I did say later to remove to entities from the government. Keep up slow pokes.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Yes, and if you remove Homeland Security, and the ObamaCare initiative... you'll remove more than a trillion from the budget. So where does my math and your math differ?

ObamaCare 1.4 Trillion.
Homeland Security 1.5 Trillion...

Take a Trillion, save 1.9 Trillion... the math seems solid to me.

Dude.

Think of it this way, 20 Billion for the idea I have, give the rest of the money to the education, and infrastructure to produce programs to actually create real jobs... heaven forbid.

You either give it to another area of the government - education and infrastructure in this case - or you stop collecting it. One of those actually shrinks the government, the other maintains it while shuffling the chips.

I think your ideal is a more efficient government - not necessarily a smaller one. I suspect that this is the case for many Conservatives.

Taking 1 Trillion, using 20 Billion, you have 980 Billion left... Where did I say spend 2.9 Trillion? Because I did say later to remove to entities from the government. Keep up slow pokes.

Either way, regardless, I like the idea of dropping a lot of useless spending too. I just don't see it happening in my lifetime.

[The Conservative]

Dude.



You either give it to another area of the government - education and infrastructure in this case - or you stop collecting it. One of those actually shrinks the government, the other maintains it while shuffling the chips.

I think your ideal is a more efficient government - not necessarily a smaller one. I suspect that this is the case for many Conservatives.

Taking 1 Trillion, using 20 Billion, you have 980 Billion left... Where did I say spend 2.9 Trillion? Because I did say later to remove to entities from the government. Keep up slow pokes.

Either way, regardless, I like the idea of dropping a lot of useless spending too. I just don't see it happening in my lifetime.

Umm, no... not either way. You called me out for saying something, and ignoring the other part of the equation. Choose your poison, down the throat or up the ass, because either way you are going to accept I was right, or you are going to twist yourself into a knot attempting to keep me from being right.

Also, the Constitution states, "We the people", we can change things if we want to... the problem is the majority of Americans are too comfortable being dumb to do anything about it.

[SilverEagle]

Yes, and if you remove Homeland Security, and the ObamaCare initiative... you'll remove more than a trillion from the budget. So where does my math and your math differ?

ObamaCare 1.4 Trillion.
Homeland Security 1.5 Trillion...

Take a Trillion, save 1.9 Trillion... the math seems solid to me.

Dude.

Think of it this way, 20 Billion for the idea I have, give the rest of the money to the education, and infrastructure to produce programs to actually create real jobs... heaven forbid.

You either give it to another area of the government - education and infrastructure in this case - or you stop collecting it. One of those actually shrinks the government, the other maintains it while shuffling the chips.

I think your ideal is a more efficient government - not necessarily a smaller one. I suspect that this is the case for many Conservatives.

Taking 1 Trillion, using 20 Billion, you have 980 Billion left... Where did I say spend 2.9 Trillion? Because I did say later to remove to entities from the government. Keep up slow pokes.

And I quote

Actually, you remove just the part I suggest, you reduce the government by almost 20%.

You give the money to entities that already exist, it's a win-win. You make sure they spend it on the actual issue, and not overheard. (Beaurocrats)

Only a person that thinks government is the answer to everything g would expand it after shuffling money to other entities.

It's not really that difficult.

TC.

You did not give figures. You simple implied that you would move money from one bucket to another. Seems like you realized that you were wrong and now you're trying to cover your tracks.

[The Conservative]

Dude.



You either give it to another area of the government - education and infrastructure in this case - or you stop collecting it. One of those actually shrinks the government, the other maintains it while shuffling the chips.

I think your ideal is a more efficient government - not necessarily a smaller one. I suspect that this is the case for many Conservatives.

Taking 1 Trillion, using 20 Billion, you have 980 Billion left... Where did I say spend 2.9 Trillion? Because I did say later to remove to entities from the government. Keep up slow pokes.

And I quote

Actually, you remove just the part I suggest, you reduce the government by almost 20%.

You give the money to entities that already exist, it's a win-win. You make sure they spend it on the actual issue, and not overheard. (Beaurocrats)

Only a person that thinks government is the answer to everything g would expand it after shuffling money to other entities.

It's not really that difficult.

TC.

You did not give figures. You simple implied that you would move money from one bucket to another. Seems like you realized that you were wrong and now you're trying to cover your tracks.

Keep reading slowpoke.

[SilverEagle]

Taking 1 Trillion, using 20 Billion, you have 980 Billion left... Where did I say spend 2.9 Trillion? Because I did say later to remove to entities from the government. Keep up slow pokes.

And I quote

Actually, you remove just the part I suggest, you reduce the government by almost 20%.

You give the money to entities that already exist, it's a win-win. You make sure they spend it on the actual issue, and not overheard. (Beaurocrats)

Only a person that thinks government is the answer to everything g would expand it after shuffling money to other entities.

It's not really that difficult.

TC.

You did not give figures. You simple implied that you would move money from one bucket to another. Seems like you realized that you were wrong and now you're trying to cover your tracks.

Keep reading slowpoke.

Keep reading what mooseknuckle? Oh you mean where you realized that you were wrong so you rapidly changed your position? You're too fucking much man.

[The Conservative]

And I quote TC.

You did not give figures. You simple implied that you would move money from one bucket to another. Seems like you realized that you were wrong and now you're trying to cover your tracks.

Keep reading slowpoke.

Keep reading what mooseknuckle? Oh you mean where you realized that you were wrong so you rapidly changed your position? You're too fucking much man.

I didn't change my position, I have the same position, reduce government, reduce spending, transfer any funds worth doing so to entities that require them to make America stronger.

I remove 2.9 Trillion, spend 1 Trillion, a saving of 1.9 Trillion... how is my math wrong here?