Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 17:02:

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 15:03:

Beamer wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 13:07:
But I think the only places we likely very much disagree are in that:
1) Abortion is a choice we should not make for people
2) Gays are people, too, and deserve equal rights because why the hell not?
3) Our tax policy has destroyed the middle class and needs to be reversed
4) Women that enjoy sex are not sluts

1.agreed
2. agreed just don't throw your life choice in my face every 5 mins

Why not? Others feel free to throw their religion or other beliefs in our face constantly, everywhere. Why the double standard for gay folks?

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 15:03:
3. along with excessive spending

If you're gonna spend, you gotta tax, but the middle has seen their incomes stagnant for so long you have to admit that that's the wrong place to further tax. The incomes at the top have skyrocketed, but for some reason we cap the amount we tax for them. Maybe they should face the same rate as the rest of us, and maybe we should have actually paid for those wars if we thought they were so damn important.

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 15:03:
4. They can enjoy sex all they want, on their own dime, if they're being insured through a religious entity that doesn't condone paying for it, tough luck.

As long as they're going to keep subsidizing Viagra and other non-essential stuff for guys, then they sure as hell better do it for women too.

Beamer wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 13:07:
But I think the only places we likely very much disagree are in that:
1) Abortion is a choice we should not make for people
2) Gays are people, too, and deserve equal rights because why the hell not?
3) Our tax policy has destroyed the middle class and needs to be reversed
4) Women that enjoy sex are not sluts

Beamer wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 11:15:

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 10:09:

Dades wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 21:40:

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 16:32:
What arguments are those? I've consistantly said the same thing in nearly every post when it comes to politics. Stop spending so much money.

Which subsections of the proposed budget did you take issue with?
Obamacare is not an acceptable answer, its a news soundbite that is used on the uninformed and easily influenced. Sections, lines and numbers of the budget you are criticizing. You are so concerned with how government money is spent, I'm assuming you did some research into it instead of just getting vague talking points from the news to regurgitate. Which budget? Fiscal 2013? 2014? Did you compare historicals?

- DADES - This is a signature of my name, enjoy!

What proposed budget are you referring to? Obama's budget proposals, the whole 2 or so that he made, both got utterly destroyed and laughed out of voting. When your budget proposals get shot down 414-0 and you're own party won't buy in you have a problem.

The GOP's issue is they keep sticking their foot in their mouth with stupid comments about rape, and talking about blocking everything, at this point, the dictat..er President has another term, time to get some shit done because regardless, we're still going to be spending hand over foot with this guy in office, and his main focus is still going to be dividing the country with class warfare like he's done for 4 years already and growing the government with things like his Julia proposal.

But when it comes to spending changes need to be made. Militarily we need to be leaner and just plain smarter, 9/11 changed alot in rules as to who is accepted in, guys with criminal records and the like, that needs to change. Alot of units and battalions are still using equipment from the late 70's early 80's, expensive to maintain as well. All the personnel we still have overseas in places like Japan that have been there since the end of WW2, there's really no need for us to still be there, that would cut some spending there.

Medicare/caid/SS I don't have answers here but its 70% of our spending, but there has to be a better way, but to be honest I don't think they'll be a SS when I'm old enough to retire and I doubt I'll ever see any of that money I've paid into it already over the years.

Obamacare is a tax and an abuse of the commerce clause, why anyone is for it is beyond me, guess people like the government telling them what to do and putting bureaucratic bs between them and their doctors.

Pet projects We all know they exist cut the shit politicians.
NPR/PBS/like minded types of spending, yes they're small amounts, but government should not be funding these types of entities, and honestly PBS could get by on the donations they already get anyway.


End lobbying, this has less to do with spending but I'll toss that out for good measure.

End Politicians making a salary/benefits for life

Smarter better teachers rather than just more. There are so many just plan awful people teaching these days who's unions protect them.


Just a few things off the top of my head but at anyrate, regardless of where it is that cuts/changes are made, it has to happen.

Though I disagree with you on healthcare (SOMETHING needs to be done, HMOs are not the answer, and it's clearly not unconstitutional), and I think the teacher issue is a tricky one (in that "better" is not necessarily possible), I actually agree with you on every single one of these points, to some extent.

Dades wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 21:40:

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 16:32:
What arguments are those? I've consistantly said the same thing in nearly every post when it comes to politics. Stop spending so much money.

Which subsections of the proposed budget did you take issue with?
Obamacare is not an acceptable answer, its a news soundbite that is used on the uninformed and easily influenced. Sections, lines and numbers of the budget you are criticizing. You are so concerned with how government money is spent, I'm assuming you did some research into it instead of just getting vague talking points from the news to regurgitate. Which budget? Fiscal 2013? 2014? Did you compare historicals?

- DADES - This is a signature of my name, enjoy!

Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 16:06:

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 15:57:
I guess being against wealth redistribution, ie stealing to give to those who don't earn it, is a keyword for intolerance these days. Keep living in libtard disney world, it's worked out great for us the last 4 years. When we're 20 trillion in debt and at 15%+ unemployment in 4 years don't say I told ya so.

Lol, I love how you continually fail to respond to the arguments in the posts you reply to, but always try to change the subject. Then that gets rebutted, and you change the subject again. Some people are just incapable of dealing with reality.

Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 15:48:

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 13:54:

Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 12:06:

PHJF wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 11:55:
There are already millions of disenfranchised Americans... they're called people with criminal convictions.

There definitely should be higher standards for voters. My grandmother, for instance, is racist. She wouldn't vote for Obama on the sole fact of his being black. She should absolutely, positively, NOT be allowed to vote. In this day and age every citizen pretty much has access to tools to educate themselves and stay modestly informed... but a startling amount choose not to. I don't want uninformed bigots to have any say in a national election.

I agree that it sucks that uninformed and/or racist/bigoted folks can vote based only on their ignorance and hatred, but there's no good way to screen voters, so we just have to keep trying to educate more people and hope that each generation is at least a little more tolerant and a little less ignorant than the last. I think we're making progress on the tolerance part. Not sure about the ignorance, as there's plenty of that on both sides. I can't even talk to most co-workers, teammates, etc about politics, because they tend to have nothing more than gut reactions and crap they heard on TV/radio to go by.

Yep it totally sucks that voting isn't totally restricted to socialists and those that share the view point that in order to prosper again, America needs to become another Europe.

Keep beating that straw man. That's not remotely what I said.

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 13:54:
It's hilarious that for a party that prattles on about tolerance so much, libs tend to not tolerate anyone that doesn't share their views, instead falling on the old playbook calling them bigots and racist for not buying into wealth redistribution so that those who make bad life choices can still prosper. It's ok Obama will level the playing field.

Ahh yes, the old "Why can't you be tolerant of my intolerance!?" argument. It's hilarious when people trot this out as a defense of their bigotry.

Cutter wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 14:59:

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 11:12:
And when we're a bankrupt 3rd world social utopia that you idiots want, those "social issues" won't mean shit. It's not that they've been courting the wrong people, it's that the liberal indoctrination that has gone on in public schools/colleges for the last 20-30 years have produced a bunch of entitled douchebags like yourself.

Try visiting some socialist nations and marvel at how much better their standard of living is than yours and then ask yourself why you keep defending the elites who only make your life worse by getting you to parrot th lie that socialism is bad.

Beamer wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 14:37:

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 13:54:
It's hilarious that for a party that prattles on about tolerance so much, libs tend to not tolerate anyone that doesn't share their views, instead falling on the old playbook calling them bigots and racist for not buying into wealth redistribution so that those who make bad life choices can still prosper. It's ok Obama will level the playing field.

So back to "tolerate my intolerance." "I don't believe gay people should have equal rights. It's my point of view, you should tolerate it!"

Scottish Martial Arts wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 14:27:

Yep it totally sucks that voting isn't totally restricted to socialists and those that share the view point that in order to prosper again, America needs to become another Europe.

You're a tea partier, right? So you view the Constitution as a document to be unerringly followed to the letter, correct? Did you ever notice how US Senators and the President are "voted" for? Go look it up: I'll wait. Back now? What's that? You couldn't find any provision for citizens to directly vote for either their US Senators or their President? Did you notice that Senators are to be selected by the state legislatures, with no voter input, and that Electors for the Presidency are to be selected by the state legislatures as well, again with no input from voters?

See the thing is, the Founders were HIGHLY suspicious of ordinary citizens being given too much power. They looked at the example of Ancient Athens, and generally recoiled in horror at the influence of demagogues on the hoi polloi, especially during the Peloponnesian War. As such, while they wanted to give ordinary citizens a voice in government, they didn't want to give them TOO MUCH of a voice. Therefore, they sought to insulate the Senate and the Presidency from the volatility of the public mood, by ensuring that only "the right kind of people" had the power to elect them, i.e. state legislatures, and electors, who were envisioned as being prominent citizens reputed for political wisdom, and thus less likely to be carried away by the will of the mob.

The point of all of this is that if you were truly a "Conservative" trying to preserve (the literal meaning of conservare, the Latin root of conservative) the original meaning of the US Constitution, then you'd very much be in support of only "the right kind of people" being allowed to vote.

Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 12:06:

PHJF wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 11:55:
There are already millions of disenfranchised Americans... they're called people with criminal convictions.

There definitely should be higher standards for voters. My grandmother, for instance, is racist. She wouldn't vote for Obama on the sole fact of his being black. She should absolutely, positively, NOT be allowed to vote. In this day and age every citizen pretty much has access to tools to educate themselves and stay modestly informed... but a startling amount choose not to. I don't want uninformed bigots to have any say in a national election.

I agree that it sucks that uninformed and/or racist/bigoted folks can vote based only on their ignorance and hatred, but there's no good way to screen voters, so we just have to keep trying to educate more people and hope that each generation is at least a little more tolerant and a little less ignorant than the last. I think we're making progress on the tolerance part. Not sure about the ignorance, as there's plenty of that on both sides. I can't even talk to most co-workers, teammates, etc about politics, because they tend to have nothing more than gut reactions and crap they heard on TV/radio to go by.

Beamer wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 11:47:

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 11:12:

Beamer wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 10:58:

Prez wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 10:54:

Creston wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 10:51:

Beamer wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 08:14:
Lastly, fuck the popular vote. This is WHY we have an electoral college. Old, rural white men turned out in droves for Mitt. Pretty much every other demographic went Obama. Why should we cater to old, rural white men? They're uneducated, they're bigoted, and this isn't their country anymore. It belongs to the educated, mixed masses in the cities.

Uh, hello. The old, bigoted rural white man has just as much of a right to vote on a president as you do. That's called democracy, remember? It's that thing that you're always bleating about, until it does something you don't like.

Creston

Jesus Christ - I wish the ignore function also blocked people quoting the ones being ignored. I feel dumber for just having read the idiotic statement you quoted. At least it serves to validate my choice to leave him on ignore when I read utter tripe like this.

I love that he doesn't actually address this. Look at the demographics: women voted overwhelmingly for Obama. Minorities voted overwhelmingly for Obama. Under 40 voted overwhelmingly for Obama. Cities voted overwhelmingly for Obama. Graduate degrees voted overwhelmingly for Obama.

Men, over 40, and rural voted overwhelmingly for Romney. THIS is the problem with the GOP - they have been courting the wrong people. The social issues are what won this election, and it was the democrats stances.


Someone please quote this. I would love to know what he took offense to.

And when we're a bankrupt 3rd world social utopia that you idiots want, those "social issues" won't mean shit. It's not that they've been courting the wrong people, it's that the liberal indoctrination that has gone on in public schools/colleges for the last 20-30 years have produced a bunch of entitled douchebags like yourself.

3rd world social utopia? Has that happened in the last 4 years?

More importantly, were we a 3rd world social utopia under Joe McCarthy? Its the tax policy he fought for that I want to go back to.
Amazing that people call Joe McCarthy a socialist these days.

And how am I entitled? I'm arguing to raise my taxes! The entire economy is hurting because too few people make too much money. I'm certainly not in the top 0.1%, which is the number I take most offense to, but if you adjust the 1960s tax brackets for inflation my taxes are still going way up as a single man making a very nice amount of cash.

Creston wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 11:28:

Beamer wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 10:53:

Creston wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 10:51:

Beamer wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 08:14:
Lastly, fuck the popular vote. This is WHY we have an electoral college. Old, rural white men turned out in droves for Mitt. Pretty much every other demographic went Obama. Why should we cater to old, rural white men? They're uneducated, they're bigoted, and this isn't their country anymore. It belongs to the educated, mixed masses in the cities.

Uh, hello. The old, bigoted rural white man has just as much of a right to vote on a president as you do. That's called democracy, remember? It's that thing that you're always bleating about, until it does something you don't like.

Creston

When did I say they didn't have the right to vote?
I said that they aren't relevant, not that they should be forbidden to vote...

Don't play coy, Beamer, you know damn well what you meant. Like it or not, those rural people are part of the united states. In 2000 every single liberal cried for months when Gore won the popular vote and Bush won the electoral college. It needed to be abolished, and it was ridiculous yadda yadda yadda.

And now you're championing it like it's the greatest gift to democracy that has ever been invented, because "IT SHUTS UP THE DAMN OLD WHITE PEOPLE!" You know just as well as I that the electoral college is fucking bullshit.

It wouldn't have mattered in this election (fortunately, since the last thing I want to hear is three more months of people whining about it), but if 300 million people vote, the guy who should be president is the one who gets 150,000,001+ votes. Not the one who happens to get enough votes in "important" states and gets 270 votes from a bunch of cocksuckers who work one day every four years.

If we got rid of the fucking electoral college, we could also get rid of the horseshit "LET'S SEE WHAT'S GOING ON IN OHIO!!!" news coverage. Does anyone give a shit about Ohio? (Or Florida, for that matter?) I don't think even people in Ohio give a shit about Ohio. Why are Florida and Ohio always the ones that elect the fucking president, for all intents and purposes?

So yes, the people you feel "don't matter" are part of the united states, and their vote DOES matter. And what they want to see happen in the country DOES matter. That's called Democracy.

Creston

Beamer wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 10:58:

Prez wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 10:54:

Creston wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 10:51:

Beamer wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 08:14:
Lastly, fuck the popular vote. This is WHY we have an electoral college. Old, rural white men turned out in droves for Mitt. Pretty much every other demographic went Obama. Why should we cater to old, rural white men? They're uneducated, they're bigoted, and this isn't their country anymore. It belongs to the educated, mixed masses in the cities.

Uh, hello. The old, bigoted rural white man has just as much of a right to vote on a president as you do. That's called democracy, remember? It's that thing that you're always bleating about, until it does something you don't like.

Creston

Jesus Christ - I wish the ignore function also blocked people quoting the ones being ignored. I feel dumber for just having read the idiotic statement you quoted. At least it serves to validate my choice to leave him on ignore when I read utter tripe like this.

I love that he doesn't actually address this. Look at the demographics: women voted overwhelmingly for Obama. Minorities voted overwhelmingly for Obama. Under 40 voted overwhelmingly for Obama. Cities voted overwhelmingly for Obama. Graduate degrees voted overwhelmingly for Obama.

Men, over 40, and rural voted overwhelmingly for Romney. THIS is the problem with the GOP - they have been courting the wrong people. The social issues are what won this election, and it was the democrats stances.


Someone please quote this. I would love to know what he took offense to.

Prez wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 10:30:

PHJF wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 10:13:
US Federal Spending 2010

"around 70%"??? And note this does NOT include funding for stuff like Homeland Security or the VA.

Medicare and SS serve a practical purpose, for all their flaws. I'm at far greater risk of dying of cancer than of a bullet from a Chinaman (as are you).

I agree that the defense budget would be less painful to cut - the point I was inelegantly trying to make is that the defense budget isn't the key to fixing America's financial woes. We probably don't need to be spending near as much as we are in defense, true, but what worries me is how far people seem willing to slash it without considering the potential risks involved.

Social Security is a huge drain on our budget that at least bears looking at. There are options that can be explored that could save a whole lot of money while still allowing us to keep our promises to our 'seasoned citizens' that were made long ago. But touching Social Security in DC is tantamount to political suicide - it is practically sacrosanct so no one is even willing to approach the subject because it would be career death. The main point is that with the country's finances in such a state of disarray I believe EVERYTHING needs to be on the table (including higher taxes) - With the understanding that we aren't just going to turn our backs on our elderly and sick, of course. But let's look where we can save some or make sure what we spend is spent more efficiently everywhere.

nin wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 10:04:
I'm rather surprised the recreational marijuana passed. Opens up a number of new questions (If federal says it's illegal, then what? If someones involved in an accident, how is it determined (or at what level) are they under the influence? Will the munchies finally lead to violent crime? ( ) etc etc).

Went to bed at 11, missed the speeches...

Prez wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 09:21:

Verno wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 09:08:

I think Obama got plenty done, I just don't agree with all of it. That said, it's time to look forward and make due with what we have. He might be a Democrat but he's our President for the next 4 years. There is no reason that the country can't work together with reasoned debate instead of rhetoric and blame games. It starts with people like us too.

Yeah I agree with that. What bothered me most about his first term is what he *didn't* get passed - no federal budget in 4 years ( 2 of them while Democrats contolled the Congress and virtually any budget he wanted would have passed with ease) is just inexcusably irresponsible, which is the main reason I voted for Romney. Alas, Romney didn't win, so it's time to move on. Let's just hope that Obama shows a considerably larger amount of fiscal discretion this time around. With the deficit as out of control as it is some serious restraint in spending is a must in this term.

Beamer wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 08:14:

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 00:30:

Beamer wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 00:02:

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 6, 2012, 17:48:

Bodolza wrote on Nov 6, 2012, 16:31:

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 6, 2012, 16:25:
Don't just raise taxes while still spending out of control like both parties are currently doing.

Wow. After your previous rants, I'm a bit surprised that you support Obama's position on spending.

LOL Obama's position on spending is raise taxes while continuing to spend. So no, I don't support the Obmessiah's position.

Spending isn't the issue people make it out to be. They love to, because China, but China barely has any of our debt.

Taxation is a problem. We need to go back to the same marginal tax rates as when we had a strong middle class. People act like it's a recent thing that the middle class is in decline, as if it can happen in 4 years instead of 30.

Pretty much there's a nice divide between people that still believe America is the end all and be all in the world, and that it can just print personal income, and people that realize that America is competing on a global economy and that personal income is disappearing to other nations yet somehow growing at the very top. That growth is coming from somewhere. If it isn't other nations it must be... the middle class!

Taxes are the lowest they've been across the board for the middle class in a long time. How hard is it to fathom that the 1% can't cover everything, they're already taxed more than anyone else and those people at the bottom that rake in all the handouts pay zero.

The issue is most definitely spending, you can't spend more than you take in and expect to prosper. Common sense beamer come on.

Once again it's the same ol song and dance, tax the rich, they'll pay for it all. Class warfare rah rah rah.

I can't fucking believe Americans want another 4 years of record debt and unemployment. Though when you look at the popular vote, Mittens clearly won. Might be time to revisit that whole electoral college bullshit and why an entire state that's pretty much all red, can flip to blue based on a single county and vise versa.

1) I think I clearly said, in the above post, that it isn't taxes on the middle class that's the problem. It's not what you earn, it's what you earn propotionately

2) Do you actually know anyone happy to earn so little that they don't get taxed? No, you haven't. You'll claim to know some "welfare queen" but here's a hint: they don't exist. No one is happy being a bottom feeder

3) Spending doesn't really matter. It never has. Why is it important? It's a symptom, and not a particularly meaningful one

4) I never said anything about the rich paying for anything, and I certainly never said anything about class warfare. You suck at reading. How could you think I'm talking about paying for anything when I'm saying spending isn't the issue? Jesus, man, Jesus. I'm saying that the problem is that we only make so much money in this country and most of it goes to few people. It's simple math

5) We had record debt under Bush. And, the US isn't a bubble - that unemployment is a global thing the president can't do much to change. It will get better on its own. And, at that point, you'll claim that it got better on its own, even though you somehow think the president should be fixing something that's coming at us from Europe and Asia


Lastly, fuck the popular vote. This is WHY we have an electoral college. Old, rural white men turned out in droves for Mitt. Pretty much every other demographic went Obama. Why should we cater to old, rural white men? They're uneducated, they're bigoted, and this isn't their country anymore. It belongs to the educated, mixed masses in the cities.

Cutter wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 00:46:

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 00:30:
Taxes are the lowest they've been across the board for the middle class in a long time. How hard is it to fathom that the 1% can't cover everything, they're already taxed more than anyone else and those people at the bottom that rake in all the handouts pay zero.

But they can. They don't pay their share, not even close. That's why the tax laws are so convoluted and there are so many tax lawyers. When guys like Buffet say they're not paying enough - Buffet paid 17% last year while his secretary paid 35%. How else do you think that less than 1% of the population control over 90% of the wealth? So how you can argue they're not paying enough is absurd at best.

The issue is most definitely spending, you can't spend more than you take in and expect to prosper.

No one disagrees with that it's just a question of where those cuts come from. Maybe you want to live in some version of a post-apocalypse America where everyone fends for themselves but most people - even on the right - do not.

Once again it's the same ol song and dance, tax the rich, they'll pay for it all. Class warfare rah rah rah.

And guys like you defending them even as they make your life harder. Why is that?

I can't fucking believe Americans want another 4 years of record debt and unemployment. Though when you look at the popular vote, Mittens clearly won. Might be time to revisit that whole electoral college bullshit and why an entire state that's pretty much all red, can flip to blue based on a single county and vise versa.

I can't believe people voted for the GOP after the last 4 years of obstructionist politics where they won't budge an inch on anything they don't want. That's why nothing is getting done. And yeah, if there was no electoral college there never would have been a Dubya and America wouldn't be in the mess its in right now so I agree with you on that.

Edit: Well, looks like Obama wins the popular vote too. Oh that's gotta sting, huh?

Beamer wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 00:02:

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 6, 2012, 17:48:

Bodolza wrote on Nov 6, 2012, 16:31:

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 6, 2012, 16:25:
Don't just raise taxes while still spending out of control like both parties are currently doing.

Wow. After your previous rants, I'm a bit surprised that you support Obama's position on spending.

LOL Obama's position on spending is raise taxes while continuing to spend. So no, I don't support the Obmessiah's position.

Spending isn't the issue people make it out to be. They love to, because China, but China barely has any of our debt.

Taxation is a problem. We need to go back to the same marginal tax rates as when we had a strong middle class. People act like it's a recent thing that the middle class is in decline, as if it can happen in 4 years instead of 30.

Pretty much there's a nice divide between people that still believe America is the end all and be all in the world, and that it can just print personal income, and people that realize that America is competing on a global economy and that personal income is disappearing to other nations yet somehow growing at the very top. That growth is coming from somewhere. If it isn't other nations it must be... the middle class!

Bodolza wrote on Nov 6, 2012, 16:31:

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 6, 2012, 16:25:
Don't just raise taxes while still spending out of control like both parties are currently doing.

Wow. After your previous rants, I'm a bit surprised that you support Obama's position on spending.