US continues to go backward...

[JTOSU]

$1000 bucks for you to show me where I said spending wasn't a problem.
$500 bucks to me if I can show you where I said it was.

2:1 odds. You got to take that one, right????

Kudos, for you following my idea with challenge to take up with a bet. I appreciate that.

But I did that challenge twice to you previously and you ignored me both times. I even offered OSU NIL $$$. Still hurts - maybe we could have kept Justin Kirkland.

 

[Rob B.]

Kudos, for you following my idea with challenge to take up with a bet. I appreciate that.

But I did that challenge twice to you previously and you ignored me both times. I even offered OSU NIL $$$. Still hurts - maybe we could have kept Justin Kirkland.

Daaannng, I was giving him credit for an awesome reply.

 

[steross]

Kudos, for you following my idea with challenge to take up with a bet. I appreciate that.

But I did that challenge twice to you previously and you ignored me both times. I even offered OSU NIL $$$. Still hurts - maybe we could have kept Justin Kirkland.

Meh, I think Kirkland was kinda average.

I did not ignore you. I told you exactly what you were told today. You are a disingenuous poster, so I knew you would just weasel out of the bet. Heck, you weasel out of the simply saying "yea, I see your point, and I wasn't correct" all the time with NO money on the line. Not once have I seen that from you on this board.

@Rob B. may not always agree with me, but he is a stand-up dude. He ain't dumb enough to take that bet. But if he was drunk and did, he wouldn't weasel out like you would.

And, I've been on this, or the other board, since 2004. LOL, at the arrogance of you think betting is your "idea" around here. In fact, I paid up a bet to charity on the old board. That was with a poster who was trustworthy, and I was wrong.

 

[Stillwaterman]

Meh, I think Kirkland was kinda average.

Thats what I've been saying this whole time.

 

[JTOSU]

Meh, I think Kirkland was kinda average.

I did not ignore you. I told you exactly what you were told today. You are a disingenuous poster, so I knew you would just weasel out of the bet. Heck, you weasel out of the simply saying "yea, I see your point, and I wasn't correct" all the time with NO money on the line. Not once have I seen that from you on this board.

@Rob B. may not always agree with me, but he is a stand-up dude. He ain't dumb enough to take that bet. But if he was drunk and did, he wouldn't weasel out like you would.

And, I've been on this, or the other board, since 2004. LOL, at the arrogance of you think betting is your "idea" around here. In fact, I paid up a bet to charity on the old board. That was with a poster who was trustworthy, and I was wrong.

View attachment 11296

Kudos for paying your bet, I guess? I would hope you would pay a fun wager.
But let’s be real, you know both of my previous bets/challlenges were because you claimed I posted something I didn’t. Now that sounds disingenuous.

Although I do agree with you about Kirkland. He was, however, an All-American with the Gundy slow jog off/on the field after an opponent substitute.

 

[steross]

Kudos for paying your bet, I guess? I would hope you would pay a fun wager.
But let’s be real, you know both of my previous bets/challlenges were because you claimed I posted something I didn’t. Now that sounds disingenuous.

100% false. But, you will be you.

You vocally supported a large tax cut that did not have concomitant spending decreases, so increased the deficit.

Your claim is that you don't support tax cuts without spending decreases because you would have supported a spending decrease if it had happened. My statement is that by supporting what happened, you are supporting tax cuts without spending decreases.

Everyone knew that was what you did. And, everyone knows you would weasel out of the bet. You built your rep around here, not me.

 

[JTOSU]

100% false. But, you will be you.

You vocally supported a large tax cut that did not have concomitant spending decreases, so increased the deficit.

Your claim is that you don't support tax cuts without spending decreases because you would have supported a spending decrease if it had happened. My statement is that by supporting what happened, you are supporting tax cuts without spending decreases.

Everyone knew that was what you did. And, everyone knows you would weasel out of the bet. You built your rep around here, not me.

At least you are consistent. Defending government spending.
* You jumped in here with your reply to defend government-spending $1B to something multiple news articles could not show much benefit and articles did not show any evidence that the claim the dollars were being misused was wrong.
* You jumped in earlier in the Trump thread defending a 1.5K page spending bill with little knowledge of bill’s contents.
* In same discussion, I posted that I supported a balanced budget amendment. You replied in the discussion, but did not mention that.

I understand we have differences in opinions and priority of political issues. I readily admit mine are a more limited government, national debt, taxes, public education, and SS solvency. I get yours are elsewhere — that is fine.

 

[Rob B.]

 

[steross]

At least you are consistent. Defending government spending.
* You jumped in here with your reply to defend government-spending $1B to something multiple news articles could not show much benefit and articles did not show any evidence that the claim the dollars were being misused was wrong.
* You jumped in earlier in the Trump thread defending a 1.5K page spending bill with little knowledge of bill’s contents.
* In same discussion, I posted that I supported a balanced budget amendment. You replied in the discussion, but did not mention that.

I understand we have differences in opinions and priority of political issues. I readily admit mine are a more limited government, national debt, taxes, public education, and SS solvency. I get yours are elsewhere — that is fine.

I am for government that helps people and spends taxpayer money responsibly.

You are also consistent. You are pure selfish. You want government that helps you and spends on the wealthy, and don't care if programs that help others are cut as long as you maintain or are rewarded. Your posts and your claims are never congruent.

Now, how long do you want to keep going with the idiotic behavior of you writing what I "think" and I write what you "think?"
This is what you do, as shown by the multi-quote earlier.

Nobody needs you to write a post to tell them what I think. They can read my own words and form their opinions about me. The board has certainly formed an opinion about you.

When people point out your behavior on the board, you simply double down on the worst sides of it.
Again, you have created your reputation, yet you want to point fingers at me. Very Trump-like, never wrong, never in doubt, and blaming others for your faults.

 

[JTOSU]

I am for government that helps people and spends taxpayer money responsibly.

You are also consistent. You are pure selfish. You want government that helps you and spends on the wealthy, and don't care if programs that help others are cut as long as you maintain or are rewarded. Your posts and your claims are never congruent.

Now, how long do you want to keep going with the idiotic behavior of you writing what I "think" and I write what you "think?"
This is what you do, as shown by the multi-quote earlier.

Nobody needs you to write a post to tell them what I think. They can read my own words and form their opinions about me. The board has certainly formed an opinion about you.

When people point out your behavior on the board, you simply double down on the worst sides of it.
Again, you have created your reputation, yet you want to point fingers at me. Very Trump-like, never wrong, never in doubt, and blaming others for your faults.

The multi-quote included a reply from a post from someone else that posted “national debt is not on the top of my list of concerns”. But you never let context change your thoughts - so well done.

“Everyone knows” from your last post and now “the board has certainly formed an opinion”. Thanks Mr All-Knowing. And you taking the time to post a receipt from a donation and keeping it for many years….well done again.

BTW, It is not “spending” on the wealthy to want hard-working citizens to keep the money they earn. That is not selfish. I am just not generous as you with others peoples money. But Bernie, Warren, AOC, and others appreciate your thinking.

Glad you want the government to spend taxpayer money responsibly. We can agree there. I hope you will agree then with the topic that started this that looking at the $1B spend is a worthwhile investigation.

 

[steross]

And you taking the time to post a receipt from a donation and keeping it for many years….well done again.

Oh yes, the extreme amount of time it took to go to Mac "spotlight search" type Water4, and post.

What a waste of 34 seconds of my weekend. I now won't have time for anything else.

 

[JTOSU]

Oh yes, the extreme amount of time it took to go to Mac "spotlight search" type Water4, and post.

What a waste of 34 seconds of my weekend. I now won't have time for anything else.

Fair enough. And 34 seconds is about the time it takes Kirkland to run on/off field.

 

[cowboyinexile]

Fair enough. And 34 seconds is about the time it takes Kirkland to run on/off field.

He walked away from the team. Technically he ran away but it looked alot like walking

 

[P4L]

4) No, you can absolutely cut taxes and cut spending and still balance the budget. If we could have maintained spending levels of pre-covid (2019) we would have not only have a balanced budget last year, but a budget surplus.

In 2024, the US had a $1.8 trillion deficit. What specifically would you cut spending on to balance the budget? And then, what additional spending would you cut to offset your proposed lower taxes?

 

[JTOSU]

In 2024, the US had a $1.8 trillion deficit. What specifically would you cut spending on to balance the budget? And then, what additional spending would you cut to offset your proposed lower taxes?

Very difficult to balance the budget from one year to the next. Could be done, but would result in a recession. We are so far under water balancing the budget would best, IMO, be taken over a several year period.

Government spending has vastly outpaced the US economy and inflation.
Mandatory spending: Another poster made a true point about mandatory spending growth exploding due to inflation. In ‘22 and ‘23 were the largest two years of SS COLA increases in 40 years. Ignoring inflation and passing bills that did nothing to fix the issue is having lasting negative effects to solving the deficit issue. Plans need to be made to solve SS and Medicare issues like raising eligibility age and reforming spending.

Discretionary spending: We still can move on discretionary spending. Unfortunately, discretionary spending has outpaced inflation by over 94% over the last 7 years. If discretionary spending was more tied to inflation would it solve $1.8T delta…no, but could make a significant dent.
Things we should not have done:
* student loan debt removal
* the BEAD program over last three years
* PPP loan forgiveness
*BBBA was proposed to spend as much as $10T by some Dems, but lowered to $3.5T. Luckily, cooler heads prevailed and spending was still large but $1.75T.

 

[PF5]

Police investigate after white mother used racist slur at Minnesota park

Video recorded in Rochester shows the apparent aftermath, with the woman, who has not been identified by police, saying the child's actions justified the slur.

www.nbcnews.com

Mom raises $500K after appearing to hurl racist slur at child in viral video