It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

You make $400k but can't spend $500... wtf?

page: 4
70
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2018 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Iconic

Please I wish everyone would stop calling it the democratic party, it is the democrat party, they are democrats, they are not democratics and it is not the democratic party.

Jaden


Are you being serious? Look it up, wiki, Webster, Britannica and even Democrat.org tends to disagree with you. It's all pending in it's usage. Just saying.


Democratic Party
noun
(in the US) the older and more liberal of the two major political parties, so named since 1840 Compare Republican Party
(in South Africa) a multiracial political party of the centre-left, now the main opposition to the African National Congress Abbreviation: DP



Democratic party
One of the two major political parties in the United States; the Democrats. The origins of the Democrats are in the Democratic-Republican party, organized by Thomas Jefferson in the late eighteenth century; the first president elected simply as a Democrat was Andrew Jackson. Always strong in the South, the party was severely damaged by secession, the Civil War, and Reconstruction, and did not produce a winning presidential candidate between 1861 and 1885, when Grover Cleveland was elected. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, in contrast to the Republicans, the Democrats tended to be the party of the South and West, opposed to the interests of business and the Northeast. Woodrow Wilson, the next Democratic president, was part of the Progressive movement. In the period of the New Deal, in the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Democratic party reached enormous strength among labor union members, minority groups, and middle-income people. The Democratic presidents since Roosevelt have been Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, James Earl Carter, and William Jefferson Clinton.




posted on Dec, 29 2018 @ 06:51 PM
link   
didn't say who I was replying to
edit on 29-12-2018 by eNaR because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2018 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: dasman888



I did not check the math either, on the OP's example


the 'math'



posted on Dec, 29 2018 @ 08:32 PM
link   
How is giving any money for a wall forcing Mexico to pay for it? Guess that campaign process was a joke. As everyone knew it would be.

And more importantly, 5 billion? LOL - that's funny stuff. It's going to cost a LOT more than 5 billion to build that wall. That might get the ball rolling, but estimates of 70 billion floated around sound a lot more accurate, and it will be more than that, likely. Even now, Homeland Security asks for around 1.5 billion to repair existing structure and shore up security. It's going to be quite a bit to even maintain and repair - so expect a yearly recurring cost for the thing. That Mexico also won't pay.

People are acting like 5 billion will fully build that wall of Trump's - that's not a reality.



posted on Dec, 29 2018 @ 09:49 PM
link   
My thought's, it's not about the money per se, to some perhaps, also I think the cost was estimated at 28 billion..substantially more than 5.
There is politics involved, but many just do not like the concept of a wall(think East Germany) wall keep people out, they also keep people in. There are issues of imminent domain. To think it's just money is oversimplifying the thing.



posted on Dec, 29 2018 @ 10:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated
I just figured I'd share this little tidbit for some people to think about when it comes to the government shut down and wall.

One of the reasons I think people don't get more upset with politicians and spending is that the numbers often being thrown around are too big for the average person to comprehend. As a result, they have no context or ability to relate.

The 2018 federal budget is $4 trillion dollars. Basically, $4,000,000,000,000. Donald Trump is asking for $5 billion dollars to fund the wall. Now $5 billion dollars is a lot of money for an individual. That is Lannister sh*tting gold rich for GOT fans. However, in the context of the US government spending $4 trillion, it really isn't a lot of money for a major capital project like securing the border.

Let me put it in terms that the average middle American can understand. A household budget.

Let's knock off a few zeros. If we divide by $4 trillion by $10 million, that leaves us with a household budget of $400,000. This is still a lot of money for an individual or a household. In fact, that is basically 1% income money in the US. If you carry that divisor of $10 million over to the $5 billion for the wall it becomes...... $500.

In other words, if the US government was a household that made $400,000, the husband and wife are bickering over whether the husband can spend $500 on a home security system. Hubbie is sleeping on the couch and not getting any loving because the wife is mad he wants to spend $500 on a SimpliSafe.

Let that sink in. So the federal government is essentially shut down over what amounts to a $500 expenditure for someone who makes $400,000 a year... Since some of you can't relate to making $400k/yr if you remove one zero, it is like someone who makes $40,000 a year not being able to spend $50.

If Republicans put this out in these terms so everyone could understand, I don't see how the Democrats can stand with a straight face justifying not giving DJT his wall funding.


Flame away...


You missed the part where they're 2,100,000 in debt and on a budget and half the people in the household want that money spent on something else.



posted on Dec, 29 2018 @ 10:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Best breakdown of this I have seen to date.


Now, add in, if we stop sending that money to countries that are invading over the southern border, we can pay for the wall with that!



posted on Dec, 29 2018 @ 11:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: continuousThunder
not the uhhhhhh sharpest cookies in the pile around here, hey?
quite aside from it being a moral issue, you guys know what a budget IS, right?
it's this thing where you divide up and allot all the money that you're going to have.
so when hubby from the earlier analogy is going "wah wah i want $500 to put barbed wire on our fence for whatever reason" it REALLY DOESN'T MATTER how much or how little of the overall amount that 500 is - the money has been allotted and there isn't any extra.
Unless you want to take the money that would be buying school supplies for the children and use that instead.

Except that America has already been doing exactly that for so long that you're woefully unbelievably in debt and still it's considered normal to pump trillions and trillions into the military each year while your health and education systems fester in neglect.


I buy my kids' school supplies, and all their books, and all the other materials they use. Literally, all of it. We are far from rich. We don't need tax dollars to pay for school supplies. We do need them to secure the borders of the nation, and protect us from invasion.



posted on Dec, 29 2018 @ 11:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: JAGStorm

"We are always losing."

Especially at election times.


I am starting to believe it is an illusion of a Democratic Republic. Each side probably cooks the books in states they can. In a strong R state, the opposition can't cook it enough for a D but someone can nudge along the R that has been chosen by the elite. In a D state they can't cheat an R in but they can cook it up for the chosen one. A uniparty for them but not for us.

The chosen ones are probably being hand picked with hand shake agreements on who is going to win before the first vote is cast. Making primaries and General Elections fluff for us pawns if true.


That's why they are all so stunned that Trump won. Their rigged system failed them that time.



posted on Dec, 29 2018 @ 11:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Starhooker
We should ask the people who live on the border and are the most affected by illegal immigration. I think most are all for it.


I know someone who's lived her whole life in Texas, and who will no longer visit the border, because it's so unsafe these days. She'd love a wall to make things safer again!



posted on Dec, 29 2018 @ 11:49 PM
link   
With the money I make and the percentage touted, I would definitely be wary about spending that kind of money. For someone that makes 40k a year, a 50$ expenditure could be horrible, especially with the effort of paying off existing debt.

Our government is in horrible debt.

Throwing money at a problem doesn't fix it.

Fix the root of the problem and the problem will disappear.



posted on Dec, 30 2018 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Whodathunkdatcheese
Fire some facts not snide comments.



posted on Dec, 30 2018 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Byrd
You can keep ignoring the slow death but it comes eventually if not treated for the assault that is causing it.



posted on Dec, 30 2018 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Edumakated
I just figured I'd share this little tidbit for some people to think about when it comes to the government shut down and wall.

One of the reasons I think people don't get more upset with politicians and spending is that the numbers often being thrown around are too big for the average person to comprehend. As a result, they have no context or ability to relate.

The 2018 federal budget is $4 trillion dollars. Basically, $4,000,000,000,000. Donald Trump is asking for $5 billion dollars to fund the wall. Now $5 billion dollars is a lot of money for an individual. That is Lannister sh*tting gold rich for GOT fans. However, in the context of the US government spending $4 trillion, it really isn't a lot of money for a major capital project like securing the border.

Let me put it in terms that the average middle American can understand. A household budget.

Let's knock off a few zeros. If we divide by $4 trillion by $10 million, that leaves us with a household budget of $400,000. This is still a lot of money for an individual or a household. In fact, that is basically 1% income money in the US. If you carry that divisor of $10 million over to the $5 billion for the wall it becomes...... $500.

In other words, if the US government was a household that made $400,000, the husband and wife are bickering over whether the husband can spend $500 on a home security system. Hubbie is sleeping on the couch and not getting any loving because the wife is mad he wants to spend $500 on a SimpliSafe.

Let that sink in. So the federal government is essentially shut down over what amounts to a $500 expenditure for someone who makes $400,000 a year... Since some of you can't relate to making $400k/yr if you remove one zero, it is like someone who makes $40,000 a year not being able to spend $50.

If Republicans put this out in these terms so everyone could understand, I don't see how the Democrats can stand with a straight face justifying not giving DJT his wall funding.


Flame away...


You missed the part where they're 2,100,000 in debt and on a budget and half the people in the household want that money spent on something else.





And yet. . . you have no problem with the US spending 135 billion a year on illegals.

www.washingtonexaminer.com...



posted on Dec, 30 2018 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Nice analogy, efficient, but doesn't really work well for this scenario.

In the first place we are not talking about 500.00. This is 5,000,000,000. See the zero's folks? Big difference, yes?
As the OP said, 500.00 is easy for us to grasp. $5,000,000,000 -- not so much.

Secondly, the guy in the scenario wants to spend his own money. With that income he probably lives in a gated community, but hey! who cares right? It's his money. More power to ya, buddy.

Which brings me to my second point. This isn't Trump's money to spend anyway he wants, which is why we have a congress. Checks and balances? Anybody?

He couldn't get this expenditure approved before Democrats took the House, remember? But easy to blame the group who has become the "OTHER", now, right?

We don't live in a kingdom. There must be ample approval for such a case, and the evidence to justify this wall
is simply absent. Mostly what you have is the adversity trump seems to like creating. Is this really a "do or die" cause?

Open your eyes and smell the hysteria.



posted on Dec, 30 2018 @ 09:26 AM
link   
I remember when conservatives were actually kinda conservative. Screw that stupid vanity wall it will never work. They will just go around it, over it and under it. a reply to: Edumakated



posted on Dec, 30 2018 @ 09:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: soundguy
I remember when conservatives were actually kinda conservative. Screw that stupid vanity wall it will never work. They will just go around it, over it and under it. a reply to: Edumakated



"Vanity Wall".

Exactly.



posted on Dec, 30 2018 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Edumakated
I just figured I'd share this little tidbit for some people to think about when it comes to the government shut down and wall.

One of the reasons I think people don't get more upset with politicians and spending is that the numbers often being thrown around are too big for the average person to comprehend. As a result, they have no context or ability to relate.

The 2018 federal budget is $4 trillion dollars. Basically, $4,000,000,000,000. Donald Trump is asking for $5 billion dollars to fund the wall. Now $5 billion dollars is a lot of money for an individual. That is Lannister sh*tting gold rich for GOT fans. However, in the context of the US government spending $4 trillion, it really isn't a lot of money for a major capital project like securing the border.

Let me put it in terms that the average middle American can understand. A household budget.

Let's knock off a few zeros. If we divide by $4 trillion by $10 million, that leaves us with a household budget of $400,000. This is still a lot of money for an individual or a household. In fact, that is basically 1% income money in the US. If you carry that divisor of $10 million over to the $5 billion for the wall it becomes...... $500.

In other words, if the US government was a household that made $400,000, the husband and wife are bickering over whether the husband can spend $500 on a home security system. Hubbie is sleeping on the couch and not getting any loving because the wife is mad he wants to spend $500 on a SimpliSafe.

Let that sink in. So the federal government is essentially shut down over what amounts to a $500 expenditure for someone who makes $400,000 a year... Since some of you can't relate to making $400k/yr if you remove one zero, it is like someone who makes $40,000 a year not being able to spend $50.

If Republicans put this out in these terms so everyone could understand, I don't see how the Democrats can stand with a straight face justifying not giving DJT his wall funding.


Flame away...


You missed the part where they're 2,100,000 in debt and on a budget and half the people in the household want that money spent on something else.



And yet. . . you have no problem with the US spending 135 billion a year on illegals.

www.washingtonexaminer.com...


It's not enough, we need to do more to lift up our "undocumented citizens" because American citizens are too privileged, especially white Americans.




posted on Dec, 30 2018 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: ausername

It's why the leftists out themselves as obnoxious hypocrites.

They piss themselves over 5 billion but gleefully spend 135 billion.


It's beyond stupid. Is there even a term for deliberate stupidity?



posted on Dec, 30 2018 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I'd rather see that money spent on our infrastructure. Apparently we have water pipes made with lead, and bridges that could fail any time.

What's up with that chain saw? Planning on destroying something?


: P







 
70
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join