Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(American Thinker)   Congressman John Conyers (D-umbfounded) confused and frightened by increasing Congressional opinion to actually, GASP, cut the US budget   (americanthinker.com ) divider line
    More: Asinine, John Conyers  
•       •       •

8261 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Jul 2011 at 11:46 AM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



209 Comments     (+0 »)
 
 
2011-07-01 10:58:20 AM  
FTA: Those weren't Democrats he was referring to but Republican congressmen

Sounds more like he's more dumbfounded that anyone could be this self destructive to their own country.
 
2011-07-01 11:00:11 AM  
That was a nice snip from an incomplete article. What was he exactly talking about?


The spending bill to fund the U.S. Department of Agriculture that passed the House recently included more than $2.7 billion in discretionary spending cuts. But the reduction that's created the biggest partisan brouhaha is one to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children that helps about 9 million nationally.

Michigan receives $194 million in WIC money that's dispersed through county agencies. The majority - $137 million - covers food grants; the rest goes to nutrition education, breastfeeding promotion, drug abuse education and other programs.

The threat to WIC money comes as the caseload in one Metro Detroit county has jumped. In Oakland County, those receiving WIC benefits is at an all-time high of 16,000 clients a month as residents have been hard hit by the economic downturn that has slammed Michigan.


Rep. John Conyers, D-Detroit, said Congress will have reached an "all time low" in his four decades in Washington if it passes such a budget plan.

"It is simply un-American, immoral, heartless and unconscionable to take food away from the mouths of hungry children in the name of deficit reduction," he said.


From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110628/POLITICS02/106280366/WIC-funds-thr​eatened-in -budget-fight#ixzz1QrkpddgA



From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110628/POLITICS02/106280366/WIC-funds-thr​eatened-in -budget-fight#ixzz1QrkcyukS
 
2011-07-01 11:33:05 AM  
Wait a farking minute! American Thinker took something completely out of context and twisted it to fit their narrow minded view?

What is this world coming to?
 
2011-07-01 11:47:47 AM  
They want to circumsize the budget?
 
2011-07-01 11:48:22 AM  
Let's reduce demand during a recession! That'll get the economy going again!

/just pointing out that even by their own rules they are insane.
 
2011-07-01 11:48:28 AM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Wait a farking minute! American Thinker took something completely out of context and twisted it to fit their narrow minded view? What is this world coming to?


Don't you know? These are the endtimes. Obama's the Antichrist and the sky burns with the souls of the damned.

Duh.
 
2011-07-01 11:49:29 AM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Wait a farking minute! American Thinker took something completely out of context and twisted it to fit their narrow minded view?

What is this world coming to?


And they had such high journalistic ethics up to this point.
 
2011-07-01 11:50:50 AM  

Codenamechaz: FTA: Those weren't Democrats he was referring to but Republican congressmen

Sounds more like he's more dumbfounded that anyone could be this self destructive to their own country.


He should know by now that for Republicans politics trumps country every time.
 
2011-07-01 11:52:06 AM  
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2011-07-01 11:52:19 AM  
Why is that crook still in office?
 
2011-07-01 11:53:54 AM  
American Thinker links should automatically have the Satire tag pinned to it.
 
2011-07-01 11:54:05 AM  

stirfrybry: Why is that crook still in office?


This!!!
 
2011-07-01 11:55:14 AM  
John Conyer? There was this creepy looking cop flashing your baby pics around, asking if I'd seen you. Good thing he got the spelling wrong, amiright?
 
2011-07-01 11:55:22 AM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Wait a farking minute! American Thinker took something completely out of context and twisted it to fit their narrow minded view?

What is this world coming to?


DING! DING! DING!

WINNAH!
 
2011-07-01 11:56:08 AM  
farm6.static.flickr.com
 
2011-07-01 11:56:51 AM  
FTFA: "As Conyers makes clear, this is a concept completely alien to Democrats."

As one person's single sentence makes clear, this philosophy is central to an entire population.
Help me out, which rhetorical fallacy is that?

Now the blogger likes the idea of trimming the budget, and believes that Rep. Conyers thinks that trimming anything is anathema. However, the "dangerous point of view" to which Conyers refers is "cut whatever, regardless of the effects, consequences, it doesn't matter because all programs are equal in value at $0."

A microeconomic equivalent would be establishing a personal budget, and you need to trim expenses by $250 per month. The "cut anything" idea would say it doesn't matter, take it out of your car payment, house payment, booze budget, or whatever. Consequences be damned.

If you don't think that the GOP has that "f*ck everyone, just cut" message, look at the debt ceiling talks.
 
2011-07-01 11:56:57 AM  

HZS9PK: stirfrybry: Why is that crook still in office?

This!!!


Ah, the age old question since the days of senatorial Rome.
 
2011-07-01 11:57:17 AM  
Obvious troll link is obvious.
 
2011-07-01 11:57:18 AM  

mojodragon: John Conyer? There was this creepy looking cop flashing your baby pics around, asking if I'd seen you. Good thing he got the spelling wrong, amiright?


I giggled.
 
2011-07-01 11:57:57 AM  
He's astounded by absolutism in politicians who by nature are conciliatory. Usually politicians who make take-it-or-leave-it demands don't last long.
 
2011-07-01 11:58:05 AM  
Subby is part of the problem
 
2011-07-01 11:58:12 AM  

stirfrybry: Why is that crook still in office?


Popularity? I don't know... what specific crimes has he committed? I'm not familiar with the man.
 
2011-07-01 11:59:01 AM  
What would really be heartless, immoral, and un-American would be to implement a small increase in taxes on the rich.

Letting the poor starve is a time-honored tradition, but taxing Plutocrats is JUST CRAZY TALK!
 
2011-07-01 12:01:31 PM  
His wife Monica Conyers is in jail at the moment for shenanigans while she held a seat on the Detroit City Council. She is rotten to the core, decades younger than John (lots of spec that she's a beard or has something on him), and a miserable human being in general.

Not that it has much to do with this particular statement by John, but there's something wrong with both of them. Like, deeply wrong. Google Monica Conyers if you want to see exactly what folks in the D had to deal with.. and John seems to think his wife's behavior isn't much of a big deal.

Like the Kilpatricks, the Conyers are pretty infamous in these parts.
 
2011-07-01 12:01:46 PM  
It's like they care more about the country than their career! It's crazy talk!
 
2011-07-01 12:01:59 PM  
Who read it to him?

/at least he's trying on the 'starving kids' angle (laughable as it is)
//I was tiring of the 'scare grandma' angle
 
2011-07-01 12:02:01 PM  
Rep. John Conyers, D-Detroit, said Congress will have reached an "all time low" in his four decades in Washington if it passes such a budget plan.

"It is simply un-American, immoral, heartless and unconscionable to take food away from the mouths of hungry children in the name of deficit reduction," he said


I'll tell you what is "un-American" ---> turning to the government to feed you. Being an American means being an independent entity that contributes to the whole but does not expect or rely on others to keep one alive/functioning. You want food? You want survival? Go earn your way. Mother nature doesn't have a food-stamp plan for leaf-eaters, which is why animals migrate. There is no unemployment handout for any other living thing on earth, no severance package, no health care. They live and they die by their own efforts.

I personally don't mind such programs promoting breast feeding and giving out extra food when times are good and we can afford it. But it is abject nonsense to call it un-american to tighten one's belt and roll up the sleeves by spending less on that which truly does not matter and working on what does.
 
2011-07-01 12:03:27 PM  
If you go on a job interview, try telling them that if they hire you the only thing you're going to focus on is reducing the power of the company interviewing you. This will work especially well if you're interviewing with the Red Cross, or a victim's rights organization. But feel free to interview for a defense contractor and tell them "I really want to see the company getting less government money". Check back and let us know what their response is.
 
2011-07-01 12:03:34 PM  

Codenamechaz: FTA: Those weren't Democrats he was referring to but Republican congressmen

Sounds more like he's more dumbfounded that anyone could be this self destructive to their own country.


You sound like you were trying to say the Republicans were being destuctive and this Democrat was shocked so here I post the real quote with out cutting out the important part to confuse those who did not read the story.

"Those weren't Democrats he was referring to but Republican congressmen who have demonstrated their serious intent to do something about this economic crisis even if it costs them their jobs. "

//Your welcome
//Nice try
 
2011-07-01 12:03:48 PM  
Is the Politics tab closed for the holiday?
 
2011-07-01 12:04:16 PM  
It's this false narrative that "We're running out of money!! We have to CUT SPENDING NOW!!!".

No, we're not, and no, we don't.

It's not a case of mandatory cuts in social-net programs. It's a case where we need to increase revenue by returning tax rates to Pre-Reagan levels and reforming the tax code to close all the loopholes and dodges that the rich and big business use to avoid paying taxes year after year.
 
2011-07-01 12:04:46 PM  

give me doughnuts: What would really be heartless, immoral, and un-American would be to implement a small increase in taxes on the rich.

Letting the poor starve is a time-honored tradition, but taxing Plutocrats is JUST CRAZY TALK!


My issue is more with the republican's refusal to even do the most obvious of increases. Such as removing oil subsides and forcing wall street guys to pay the same as everyone else.
 
2011-07-01 12:05:19 PM  
The Democrats have offered $2 TRILLION in cuts. What the fark have the Republicans offered in return? Not one single tax increase or loophole closing.

A majority of Americans support a COMBINATION of budget cuts and tax increases. Why is the GOP against the will of the American people?
 
2011-07-01 12:05:49 PM  

Big Man On Campus: Rep. John Conyers, D-Detroit, said Congress will have reached an "all time low" in his four decades in Washington if it passes such a budget plan.

"It is simply un-American, immoral, heartless and unconscionable to take food away from the mouths of hungry children in the name of deficit reduction," he said

I'll tell you what is "un-American" ---> turning to the government to feed you. Being an American means being an independent entity that contributes to the whole but does not expect or rely on others to keep one alive/functioning. You want food? You want survival? Go earn your way. Mother nature doesn't have a food-stamp plan for leaf-eaters, which is why animals migrate. There is no unemployment handout for any other living thing on earth, no severance package, no health care. They live and they die by their own efforts.

I personally don't mind such programs promoting breast feeding and giving out extra food when times are good and we can afford it. But it is abject nonsense to call it un-american to tighten one's belt and roll up the sleeves by spending less on that which truly does not matter and working on what does.


NEEDS MOAR BOOTSTRAPS.
 
2011-07-01 12:06:07 PM  

Big Man On Campus: spending less on that which truly does not matter and working on what does.


So... feeding hungry children does not matter, but making sure tax cuts for the rich truly matters?
Jesus christ. You're insane. Probably psychotic.
 
2011-07-01 12:06:34 PM  
It looks like the submitter is doing his part by cutting the "s" out of Congressional.
 
2011-07-01 12:07:30 PM  

dahmers love zombie: If you go on a job interview, try telling them that if they hire you the only thing you're going to focus on is reducing the power of the company interviewing you. This will work especially well if you're interviewing with the Red Cross, or a victim's rights organization. But feel free to interview for a defense contractor and tell them "I really want to see the company getting less government money". Check back and let us know what their response is.


3/10

It's a good thing that you're elected by the public, rather than hired by the government, for these types of positions, then.
 
2011-07-01 12:08:49 PM  

RanDomino: Let's reduce demand during a recession! That'll get the economy going again!

/just pointing out that even by their own rules they are insane.


You do realize raising taxes also reduces demand.
 
2011-07-01 12:09:01 PM  

stpauler: That was a nice snip from an incomplete article. What was he exactly talking about?


The spending bill to fund the U.S. Department of Agriculture that passed the House recently included more than $2.7 billion in discretionary spending cuts. But the reduction that's created the biggest partisan brouhaha is one to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children that helps about 9 million nationally.

Michigan receives $194 million in WIC money that's dispersed through county agencies. The majority - $137 million - covers food grants; the rest goes to nutrition education, breastfeeding promotion, drug abuse education and other programs.

The threat to WIC money comes as the caseload in one Metro Detroit county has jumped. In Oakland County, those receiving WIC benefits is at an all-time high of 16,000 clients a month as residents have been hard hit by the economic downturn that has slammed Michigan.


Rep. John Conyers, D-Detroit, said Congress will have reached an "all time low" in his four decades in Washington if it passes such a budget plan.

"It is simply un-American, immoral, heartless and unconscionable to take food away from the mouths of hungry children in the name of deficit reduction," he said.

From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110628/POLITICS02/106280366/WIC-funds-thr​eatened-in -budget-fight#ixzz1QrkpddgA


From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110628/POLITICS02/106280366/WIC-funds-thr​eatened-in -budget-fight#ixzz1QrkcyukS


You see this is one of the things that is wrong with our government. 137 billion dollars for breast feeding promotion? Hello? You don't need to spend a single cent on that, women have been breast feeding kids since the dawn of man. Word of mouth will suffice. Nutrition education? Why you gotta spend so much money to teach people about healthy eating? Drug abuse education? Don't we already HAVE drug abuse eduction everywhere? Our politicians just tend to THROW money away without even considering if they are getting their money's worth. WIC is a good deal, it helps the poor from starving. But cuts are necessary.
 
2011-07-01 12:10:57 PM  

SharkTrager: RanDomino: Let's reduce demand during a recession! That'll get the economy going again!

/just pointing out that even by their own rules they are insane.

You do realize raising taxes also reduces demand.


Raising taxes on those making $250k+ won't reduce demand. These people can already afford to buy everything they want.
 
2011-07-01 12:11:02 PM  

SharkTrager: You do realize raising taxes also reduces demand


farking marginal propensity to consume; how does it work?
 
2011-07-01 12:11:10 PM  
Poor people are actually more prone to be obese. They need less food, not more.
 
2011-07-01 12:11:43 PM  

stirfrybry: Why is that crook still in office?


He;s got the magic D next to his name?
 
2011-07-01 12:11:52 PM  
i56.tinypic.com

i55.tinypic.com
 
2011-07-01 12:12:32 PM  
We've tried tax cuts for the last 30 years. It's not farking working. It's killing this country. Fark the rich, tax them until they squeal like the pigwhores that they are.
 
2011-07-01 12:15:06 PM  
Stealing from myself a few hundred threads ago:

First, we institute Trump's one-time wealth tax (approx. 25% of all wealth over 100 million per person).

Then we return to the tax tables as they were during Reagan's first term, after the Tax Reform Act of 1984. Indexed for inflation, of course., however, nobody is taxed on their FIRST $20,000 of income. Fair, because all taxpayers receive the credit. ALL income is taxed at this rate -- wages, interest, capital gains, and corporate.

We also remove the cap on Social Security and Medicare taxation, and put it on the "other" side. Nobody is payroll-taxed on their FIRST 20,000 of earned income -- No SS tax (Medicare goes away completely, see below), no income tax. Again, it's fair because everyone gets the payroll tax break it no matter their income level. Social Security payments will also be indexed to other income. After about $50,000, the Social Security payment is reduced (gradually) so that at $125,000, it goes away. Not permanently -- if your income dips down, Social Security comes back.

On the other side (because everyone has to share the pain, right?) we eliminate the Earned Income Tax Credit. No entity (individual or corporate) gets more money back from the IRS than they paid in income taxes during the year.

Single-payer. Nobody should have to choose between healthcare and food, OR (for those of you with aristocracy fetishes) have to choose between healthcare in their old age and being able to give their heirs something when they die.

Next, we pass a law stating that no company may engage in any political activity (donating to campaigns, lobbying, anything) unless that corporation pays at least 75% of the corporate income tax that they should have paid before deductions/loopholes/credits/etc. Any company that pays zero or a negative amount of corporate income tax during a calendar year is banned from engaging in any political activity for two years. And no, the righties don't get to pull the "well, then PEOPLE who don't pay taxes shouldn't get to vote". People are people, corporations are not, and we desperately need to ensure that this concept is fully embraced under law.

We then pass a law stating that any company that moves its operations overseas to a country with lower corporate taxes than the US must simply pay an import duty calculated to offset the loss to the federal government. Or they can decide not to have the US as customers at all. Either way works.
 
2011-07-01 12:15:11 PM  
Cutting spending is dangerous.

According to Obama the first thing to go will be food safety and free money for college kids. Because those are the ONLY places in the budget where they can cut.

But then again, if all the kids are dying due to the lack of food safety, then there will be more college money for the survivors.

/I am glad they aren't cutting the Department of Oxygen.
 
2011-07-01 12:15:32 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: The Democrats have offered $2 TRILLION in cuts.


So $2T over 10 years vs adding $1T per year to the budget since they took congress in 2006? What a deal!
 
2011-07-01 12:16:04 PM  

Infernalist: We've tried tax cuts for the last 30 years. It's not farking working. It's killing this country. Fark the rich, tax them until they squeal like the pigwhores that they are.


The Republicans will cut until people are shooting each other in the streets. I think it's their fantasy.
 
2011-07-01 12:16:34 PM  
When you give a tax cut or refund to the poor, they immediately spend it, creating jobs, generally boosting the economy.

When you give a tax cut to the rich, they put it in the bank and make interest off it, enabling the banks to make more loans. Poor people end up taking the loans to buy a car, house, etc., causing a lending bubble that eventually bursts, sending the economy further into a downward spiral.

/trickle-down economics is a lie
 
2011-07-01 12:16:43 PM  

nmiguy: You see this is one of the things that is wrong with our government. 137 billion dollars for breast feeding promotion? Hello? You don't need to spend a single cent on that, women have been breast feeding kids since the dawn of man. Word of mouth will suffice. Nutrition education? Why you gotta spend so much money to teach people about healthy eating? Drug abuse education? Don't we already HAVE drug abuse eduction everywhere? Our politicians just tend to THROW money away without even considering if they are getting their money's worth. WIC is a good deal, it helps the poor from starving. But cuts are necessary.


You got a little HURRRR in your DERRRRP!
 
2011-07-01 12:17:05 PM  
Conservatism:

i52.tinypic.com
 
2011-07-01 12:17:40 PM  

Big Man On Campus:
I'll tell you what is "un-American" ---> turning to the government to feed you. Being an American means being an independent entity that contributes to the whole but does not expect or rely on others to keep one alive/functioning. You want food? You want survival? Go earn your way. Mother nature doesn't have a food-stamp plan for leaf-eaters, which is why animals migrate. There is no unemployment handout for any other living thing on earth, no severance package, no health care. They live and they die by their own efforts.

I personally don't mind such programs promoting breast feeding and giving out extra food when times are good and we can afford it. But it is abject nonsense to call it un-american to tighten one's belt and roll up the sleeves by spending less on that which truly does not matter and working on what does.


montaraventures.com

www.shtfplan.com

lh4.googleusercontent.com

"I personally don't mind such programs ... giving out extra food when times are good and we can afford it."

You have it the opposite. We help out in a crises, not in times of prosperity.

The homo sapiens species, (that's us), has survived far beyond the natural lifespan due to our capability to care for others. Regardless of the nationalism of whether of not if it is the trait of being 'American' to care for only ourselves, It is the nature of our own selves as human beings to have empathy and we do help out, especially in a crises... not only in the times of prosperity.

In regards to the mother nature remark, Herds protect their own even against predators. In the linked video, the calf survived not by it's own efforts but the efforts of the herd:

Battle at Kruger (new window)
 
2011-07-01 12:18:18 PM  
There's no clearer admission that there is a problem than pols form both sides actually starting to deal with it.
 
2011-07-01 12:18:51 PM  

dahmers love zombie: Next, we pass a law stating that no company may engage in any political activity (donating to campaigns, lobbying, anything) unless that corporation pays at least 75% of the corporate income tax that they should have paid before deductions/loopholes/credits/etc. Any company that pays zero or a negative amount of corporate income tax during a calendar year is banned from engaging in any political activity for two years.


Would this include legitimate business expenses? Not all companies that pay zero income tax do so due to loopholes, you know: some are genuinely in trouble, and they, much like people in similar situations, have a need (and right) to be heard.
 
2011-07-01 12:19:23 PM  
Headso:

You need to adjust the units, too!
 
2011-07-01 12:20:16 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Cutting spending is dangerous..


Dangerous (new window)!
 
2011-07-01 12:21:01 PM  
yeah, i think its pretty heartless to cut food for needy children when you wont raise taxes on the ultra-wealthy upper classes at all, even though their taxes are already at historical lows.

and it could be argued that it was largely their actions that caused the economic meltdown we had. I think goldman sachs had a lot more to do with it then an unwed mother trying to fee her kids
 
2011-07-01 12:22:01 PM  

Big Man On Campus: Rep. John Conyers, D-Detroit, said Congress will have reached an "all time low" in his four decades in Washington if it passes such a budget plan.

"It is simply un-American, immoral, heartless and unconscionable to take food away from the mouths of hungry children in the name of deficit reduction," he said

I'll tell you what is "un-American" ---> turning to the government to feed you. Being an American means being an independent entity that contributes to the whole but does not expect or rely on others to keep one alive/functioning. You want food? You want survival? Go earn your way. Mother nature doesn't have a food-stamp plan for leaf-eaters, which is why animals migrate. There is no unemployment handout for any other living thing on earth, no severance package, no health care. They live and they die by their own efforts.

I personally don't mind such programs promoting breast feeding and giving out extra food when times are good and we can afford it. But it is abject nonsense to call it un-american to tighten one's belt and roll up the sleeves by spending less on that which truly does not matter and working on what does.


You had me up to the "we can afford it." Fact is, we CAN afford it. And if you take the viewpoint that a nation in the throes of an economic downturn should focus on meeting the basic necessities of it's most vulnerable, then we SHOULD afford it. That means giving up things we don't need, like a pork-laden Defense budget. Like subsidies for industries and people who seem to be doing quite well even during the recession. Like stuff which is superfluous like, well, public broadcasting, a program that I hardily support.

All the hand wringing about how we can't afford these programs is such utter bullshiat, it makes Jesus cry.
 
2011-07-01 12:22:53 PM  
Out of curiosity, does anyone have the numbers as far as how much of the WIC funds make it to the women and children? The quote provided above says $137m is used to feed 16,000 recipients. Is that $137m million annual? If that's the case are these women and children actually getting $700 or so a month in assistance? If not, how much do they get?

How much of that $137m is spent on overhead. Perhaps there's some room at the state level to reduce overhead costs to better absorb a cut from the federal level. The quote again says it's dispersed through county agencies, perhaps a consolidation at the state level along with an investment in better infrastructure to maintain/monitor the program could result in significant savings.

Also, how much money is spent on fraud detection? I'm sure most people here know someone that receives WIC and has bought friends bread and milk in exchange for beer or cigarette money. I know I have...
 
2011-07-01 12:23:43 PM  

tlchwi02: yeah, i think its pretty heartless to cut food for needy children when you wont raise taxes on the ultra-wealthy upper classes at all, even though their taxes are already at historical lows.

and it could be argued that it was largely their actions that caused the economic meltdown we had. I think goldman sachs had a lot more to do with it then an unwed mother trying to fee her kids


Ah, but to the Republicans, that unwed mother is a morally weak and needs to be punished for her lifestyle. the rich guy is rich because GOD made him rich! you can't punish the rich guy for doing the will of god and reward the unwed mother for being an immoral slut.

/this is what Republicans actually believe.
 
2011-07-01 12:23:47 PM  

dahmers love zombie: Big Man On Campus: Rep. John Conyers, D-Detroit, said Congress will have reached an "all time low" in his four decades in Washington if it passes such a budget plan.

"It is simply un-American, immoral, heartless and unconscionable to take food away from the mouths of hungry children in the name of deficit reduction," he said

I'll tell you what is "un-American" ---> turning to the government to feed you. Being an American means being an independent entity that contributes to the whole but does not expect or rely on others to keep one alive/functioning. You want food? You want survival? Go earn your way. Mother nature doesn't have a food-stamp plan for leaf-eaters, which is why animals migrate. There is no unemployment handout for any other living thing on earth, no severance package, no health care. They live and they die by their own efforts.

I personally don't mind such programs promoting breast feeding and giving out extra food when times are good and we can afford it. But it is abject nonsense to call it un-american to tighten one's belt and roll up the sleeves by spending less on that which truly does not matter and working on what does.

NEEDS MOAR BOOTSTRAPS.


img.photobucket.com

www.cartoonstock.com
 
2011-07-01 12:24:25 PM  

stpauler: That was a nice snip from an incomplete article. What was he exactly talking about?


The spending bill to fund the U.S. Department of Agriculture that passed the House recently included more than $2.7 billion in discretionary spending cuts. But the reduction that's created the biggest partisan brouhaha is one to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children that helps about 9 million nationally.

Michigan receives $194 million in WIC money that's dispersed through county agencies. The majority - $137 million - covers food grants; the rest goes to nutrition education, breastfeeding promotion, drug abuse education and other programs.

The threat to WIC money comes as the caseload in one Metro Detroit county has jumped. In Oakland County, those receiving WIC benefits is at an all-time high of 16,000 clients a month as residents have been hard hit by the economic downturn that has slammed Michigan.


Rep. John Conyers, D-Detroit, said Congress will have reached an "all time low" in his four decades in Washington if it passes such a budget plan.

"It is simply un-American, immoral, heartless and unconscionable to take food away from the mouths of hungry children in the name of deficit reduction," he said.

From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110628/POLITICS02/106280366/WIC-funds-thr​eatened-in -budget-fight#ixzz1QrkpddgA


From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110628/POLITICS02/106280366/WIC-funds-thr​eatened-in -budget-fight#ixzz1QrkcyukS


Detroit has a very large illegal immigration population where many low income earners have been displaced, so I think the number of unemployed needing help has gotten worse.
Even if you are illegally here you qualify for all these programs so you have to add in these folks also.
Plus the fact Detroits job market is at on all time low. This is why their need is so big. Then again I would think this is not the time to be making more babies to feed. Maybe birth control funding has been cut also or they are Catholic. ( - :
 
2011-07-01 12:25:39 PM  

nmiguy: stpauler: That was a nice snip from an incomplete article. What was he exactly talking about?


The spending bill to fund the U.S. Department of Agriculture that passed the House recently included more than $2.7 billion in discretionary spending cuts. But the reduction that's created the biggest partisan brouhaha is one to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children that helps about 9 million nationally.

Michigan receives $194 million in WIC money that's dispersed through county agencies. The majority - $137 million - covers food grants; the rest goes to nutrition education, breastfeeding promotion, drug abuse education and other programs.

The threat to WIC money comes as the caseload in one Metro Detroit county has jumped. In Oakland County, those receiving WIC benefits is at an all-time high of 16,000 clients a month as residents have been hard hit by the economic downturn that has slammed Michigan.


Rep. John Conyers, D-Detroit, said Congress will have reached an "all time low" in his four decades in Washington if it passes such a budget plan.

"It is simply un-American, immoral, heartless and unconscionable to take food away from the mouths of hungry children in the name of deficit reduction," he said.

From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110628/POLITICS02/106280366/WIC-funds-thr​eatened-in -budget-fight#ixzz1QrkpddgA


From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110628/POLITICS02/106280366/WIC-funds-thr​eatened-in -budget-fight#ixzz1QrkcyukS

You see this is one of the things that is wrong with our government. 137 billion dollars for breast feeding promotion? Hello?


You're not really good at reading comprehension are you?
 
2011-07-01 12:26:03 PM  
images.wikia.com
 
2011-07-01 12:26:18 PM  
Don't be surprised.

Spending cuts are like tax increases.

Everyone wants one, as long as it doesn't affect them directly
 
2011-07-01 12:27:00 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Wait a farking minute! American Thinker took something completely out of context and twisted it to fit their narrow minded view?


American Thinker seems pretty non-partisan to me. If they were truly conservative, their logo would be red, white and blue instead of that horrid democrat brown color.

And maybe have some crying eagles or something.
 
2011-07-01 12:27:12 PM  

CrispFlows: You have it the opposite. We help out in a crises, not in times of prosperity.


Actually, we "help out" (in quotes for reasons that will be gone into later) at both points, which is part of the problem. Even Keynes, beloved economist of liberals everywhere, understood that the debt from crises comes due at some point, and that the help must cease when it's no longer necessary so that the money which went to it during the crisis can go toward paying that debt back. If we actually did that then it might actually work, but you never see that happening, in part because people threaten to riot whenever anyone tries. Just look at Greece, and they're at a point where they actually can't afford everything they do; what do you think would happen if they could actually pay for it?

The homo sapiens species, (that's us), has survived far beyond the natural lifespan due to our capability to care for others. Regardless of the nationalism of whether of not if it is the trait of being 'American' to care for only ourselves, It is the nature of our own selves as human beings to have empathy and we do help out, especially in a crises... not only in the times of prosperity.

Helping is one thing. Enabling is quite another. Much of what we do falls into the latter category, because we don't provide any pressure to outgrow the need for such help, nor do we install remotely adequate safeguards against abuse and waste.
 
2011-07-01 12:28:21 PM  

ForgotMyTowel: Also, how much money is spent on fraud detection? I'm sure most people here know someone that receives WIC and has bought friends bread and milk in exchange for beer or cigarette money. I know I have...


I don't understand how that would work. WIC is authorized through the cash register and only very specific items are allowed to be scanned and purchased. The store has to sign off on every WIC purchase and if the government detects any type of fraud, the store is liable.
 
2011-07-01 12:29:15 PM  

Big Man On Campus: Rep. John Conyers, D-Detroit, said Congress will have reached an "all time low" in his four decades in Washington if it passes such a budget plan.

"It is simply un-American, immoral, heartless and unconscionable to take food away from the mouths of hungry children in the name of deficit reduction," he said

I'll tell you what is "un-American" ---> turning to the government to feed you. Being an American means being an independent entity that contributes to the whole but does not expect or rely on others to keep one alive/functioning. You want food? You want survival? Go earn your way. Mother nature doesn't have a food-stamp plan for leaf-eaters, which is why animals migrate. There is no unemployment handout for any other living thing on earth, no severance package, no health care. They live and they die by their own efforts.

I personally don't mind such programs promoting breast feeding and giving out extra food when times are good and we can afford it. But it is abject nonsense to call it un-american to tighten one's belt and roll up the sleeves by spending less on that which truly does not matter and working on what does.


Damn those babies. Why wont they just quit crying and go get a damn job already?

Also, I loved your last part. That was the icing on an already well-baited hook. Because really, spending money on food is just wasteful. Obviously cutting ENTITLEMENT SOCIALISM is the answer so we can afford to maintain our military since it's good honest all-american work.
 
2011-07-01 12:32:40 PM  
Until a budget is passed that reduces the deficit by {insert random % pulled from random rectum} then congress and senate positions should be "volunteer".

/No matter how much power you have, the hookers and blow don't buy themselves.
 
2011-07-01 12:33:26 PM  
Like we really didn't already know that most politicians only care about re-election and keep their own personal money train going, but its good to get an admission from someone as brilliant as Conyers. And let's not forget his wife is going to prison for taking a bribe as a public official.
 
2011-07-01 12:34:42 PM  

Detinwolf: ForgotMyTowel: Also, how much money is spent on fraud detection? I'm sure most people here know someone that receives WIC and has bought friends bread and milk in exchange for beer or cigarette money. I know I have...

I don't understand how that would work. WIC is authorized through the cash register and only very specific items are allowed to be scanned and purchased. The store has to sign off on every WIC purchase and if the government detects any type of fraud, the store is liable.


I'm on WIC. I go to the store, purchase 2 gallons of milk and 2 loaves of bread. I walk out, hand you one of each and you give me cash in return. I then go to the gas station on the corner, cash in hand and buy cigs or beer or whatever.

I actually knew a woman on WIC through my wife that would post on facebook when she was going to the store, asking if anyone "needed" anything in exchange for cash.

/no not THAT kind of anything
 
2011-07-01 12:34:53 PM  

Millennium: CrispFlows: You have it the opposite. We help out in a crises, not in times of prosperity.

Actually, we "help out" (in quotes for reasons that will be gone into later) at both points, which is part of the problem. Even Keynes, beloved economist of liberals everywhere, understood that the debt from crises comes due at some point, and that the help must cease when it's no longer necessary so that the money which went to it during the crisis can go toward paying that debt back. If we actually did that then it might actually work, but you never see that happening, in part because people threaten to riot whenever anyone tries. Just look at Greece, and they're at a point where they actually can't afford everything they do; what do you think would happen if they could actually pay for it?

The homo sapiens species, (that's us), has survived far beyond the natural lifespan due to our capability to care for others. Regardless of the nationalism of whether of not if it is the trait of being 'American' to care for only ourselves, It is the nature of our own selves as human beings to have empathy and we do help out, especially in a crises... not only in the times of prosperity.

Helping is one thing. Enabling is quite another. Much of what we do falls into the latter category, because we don't provide any pressure to outgrow the need for such help, nor do we install remotely adequate safeguards against abuse and waste.


Yes that tiny percentage of people abusing welfare is obviously a symptom of inadequate defense against welfare fraud.
Same thing with the majority of people who use the program as it is intended: to help get back on their feet. Obviously a sign of enabling.
 
2011-07-01 12:34:59 PM  
Excessive zealotry *is* dangerous. Treating a purely numerical, financial debate as though it were a matter of religion is destabilizing -- it prevents the necessary dialog & compromise and increases the chances of fundamentalist-style ultimatums.
 
2011-07-01 12:35:01 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: The Democrats have offered $2 TRILLION in cuts. What the fark have the Republicans offered in return? Not one single tax increase or loophole closing.


If we can do without $2 Trillion in spending, why did the Democrats even fund those programs in the first place when they controlled Congress for last 6 of Bush's 8 years? Congress writes the budgets, you know. The D's shouldn't be acting all "aggrieved party," now. It is hypocritical and short memoried.

Yes, I said "memoried." I made up a word. Deal with it.
 
2011-07-01 12:37:52 PM  

GORDON: If we can do without $2 Trillion in spending, why did the Democrats even fund those programs in the first place when they controlled Congress for last 6 of Bush's 8 years? Congress writes the budgets, you know. The D's shouldn't be acting all "aggrieved party," now. It is hypocritical and short memoried.


What does any of this have to do with the current situation? There are bigger problems at the moment than figuring out who to blame for budgets that passed 8 years ago -- that's a complete red herring. Even if we all agreed on an answer, it wouldn't fix the current problem.
 
2011-07-01 12:39:23 PM  
And this got the front page.
Drew, what the fark are you doing?
 
2011-07-01 12:39:46 PM  

ForgotMyTowel: Detinwolf: ForgotMyTowel: Also, how much money is spent on fraud detection? I'm sure most people here know someone that receives WIC and has bought friends bread and milk in exchange for beer or cigarette money. I know I have...

I don't understand how that would work. WIC is authorized through the cash register and only very specific items are allowed to be scanned and purchased. The store has to sign off on every WIC purchase and if the government detects any type of fraud, the store is liable.

I'm on WIC. I go to the store, purchase 2 gallons of milk and 2 loaves of bread. I walk out, hand you one of each and you give me cash in return. I then go to the gas station on the corner, cash in hand and buy cigs or beer or whatever.

I actually knew a woman on WIC through my wife that would post on facebook when she was going to the store, asking if anyone "needed" anything in exchange for cash.

/no not THAT kind of anything


Oh yes, people abuse the system, so let's abolish the system.

By that logic, we'd have no systems at all in this country.

You don't abolish a system simply because it's being mis-used. You find the abusers, punish them and keep the system clean.
 
6M
2011-07-01 12:40:05 PM  

Detinwolf: ForgotMyTowel: someone that receives WIC and has bought friends bread and milk in exchange for beer or cigarette money. I know I have...

I don't understand how that would work. WIC purchase and if the government detects any type of fraud, the store is liable.


Silly goose. Deliver me product I want from the grocery on your WIC card and I'll pay you back in cigs, or crack, or whatever you need.
 
2011-07-01 12:40:09 PM  

RulerOfNone: And this got the front page.
Drew, what the fark are you doing?


Ahem. This. :)
 
2011-07-01 12:40:18 PM  
American Derper strikes again!

/No, nitwit rightwingers, factual errors and lies do not deserve to be treated with respect.
//apologies to the disappearing sane rightwingers.
 
2011-07-01 12:42:08 PM  
I just don't see where we can cut...

dc-cdn.virtacore.com
 
2011-07-01 12:42:47 PM  

GORDON: shower_in_my_socks: The Democrats have offered $2 TRILLION in cuts. What the fark have the Republicans offered in return? Not one single tax increase or loophole closing.


If we can do without $2 Trillion in spending, why did the Democrats even fund those programs in the first place when they controlled Congress for last 6 of Bush's 8 years? Congress writes the budgets, you know. The D's shouldn't be acting all "aggrieved party," now. It is hypocritical and short memoried.

Yes, I said "memoried." I made up a word. Deal with it.


besides those $2T in cuts are:
1. Over 10 years.
2. Largely based on "we were planning to spend money on something in the future, but now aren't, so that counts as a cut".

Honey, I was planning to buy this Ferrari but now I am not. Can I use that "savings" to buy a Porsche?
 
2011-07-01 12:42:52 PM  
Wow, a lot of Farkers don't understand simple math. Not coincidentally, it's always the same usual suspects.
 
2011-07-01 12:43:04 PM  

Big Man On Campus: Being an American means being an independent entity that contributes to the whole but does not expect or rely on others to keep one alive/functioning.


Yet we've been gleefully depending on the Saudis for oil for about a half-century and two of our wars are being mostly underwritten by the Chinese nowadays.

Being an American means... being pretty confused about what being an American is... I guess.
 
2011-07-01 12:43:35 PM  
GORDON: "If we can do without $2 Trillion in spending, why did the Democrats even fund those programs in the first place when they controlled Congress for last 6 of Bush's 8 years?"

Because anyone who didn't vote for war and tax cuts was branded a traitor and dragged through the mud?
If you're accusing the Democrats of being spineless, I don't think you'll find anyone to argue with you.

If you're accusing the Democrats of _wanting_ those things, that's a very different argument.
Though it's academic and pointless. Since the desires of the party that capitulates just don't matter if they're just going to capitulate.
 
2011-07-01 12:44:13 PM  
stryker4526: Yes that tiny percentage of people abusing welfare is obviously a symptom of inadequate defense against welfare fraud.
Same thing with the majority of people who use the program as it is intended: to help get back on their feet. Obviously a sign of enabling.



I think you're hopelessly optimistic about the "tiny" percentage of fraud in social programs. I believe 100% that there are people who need the money and who will directly benefit from it in a positive way. I would never advocate cutting off emergency funds to children and those that are temporarily down on their luck. The problem is fraud is so rampant that it completely undermines the goal of the program, not to mention the public's opinion of it.

If people and politicians that ran these programs would give fraud detection even half as much focus as they give convincing people to give them more money, you'd not only see a large reduction in cost of the programs but you'd see a massive up swell of support.
 
2011-07-01 12:46:53 PM  

ForgotMyTowel: stryker4526: Yes that tiny percentage of people abusing welfare is obviously a symptom of inadequate defense against welfare fraud.
Same thing with the majority of people who use the program as it is intended: to help get back on their feet. Obviously a sign of enabling.


I think you're hopelessly optimistic about the "tiny" percentage of fraud in social programs. I believe 100% that there are people who need the money and who will directly benefit from it in a positive way. I would never advocate cutting off emergency funds to children and those that are temporarily down on their luck. The problem is fraud is so rampant that it completely undermines the goal of the program, not to mention the public's opinion of it.

If people and politicians that ran these programs would give fraud detection even half as much focus as they give convincing people to give them more money, you'd not only see a large reduction in cost of the programs but you'd see a massive up swell of support.


[citation needed]

You idiots love to point to the supposedly "rampant" fraud in welfare programs as a reason to abolish them completely, but are never able to point it out.
I bet you believe poor black women have twenty kids so they can get $100k a year from the government and buy an Escalade, don't you?
 
2011-07-01 12:47:39 PM  

GORDON: shower_in_my_socks: The Democrats have offered $2 TRILLION in cuts. What the fark have the Republicans offered in return? Not one single tax increase or loophole closing.


If we can do without $2 Trillion in spending, why did the Democrats even fund those programs in the first place when they controlled Congress for last 6 of Bush's 8 years? Congress writes the budgets, you know. The D's shouldn't be acting all "aggrieved party," now. It is hypocritical and short memoried.

Yes, I said "memoried." I made up a word. Deal with it.


madshakespeare.com
 
2011-07-01 12:48:55 PM  
This tard is pro-choice. That's some nice bullshiat grandstanding for a schmuck who doesn't give a flying fark about kids to begin with.

OH MY GOD THE REPUBLICANS WANT TO KILL KIDS!

ROFL
 
2011-07-01 12:49:22 PM  
Infernalist Oh yes, people abuse the system, so let's abolish the system.

By that logic, we'd have no systems at all in this country.

You don't abolish a system simply because it's being mis-used. You find the abusers, punish them and keep the system clean.


Yes, because that's what I said. Abolish the program. Beacuse that's what republicans have been arguing, throw the whole welfare system out. Nice strawman.

What I'm saying is we CAN cut the money going into programs without reducing the benefit that's coming out. Fraud reduciton is one way(and a large one at that) to accomplish this. So is getting rid of the all the overhead. People are fark are happy to complain about top heavy corporations but never seem to complain about top heavy govt agencies. Both can stand to trim a lot of fat without affecting the final product.
 
2011-07-01 12:49:53 PM  

ForgotMyTowel: The problem is fraud is so rampant that it completely undermines the goal of the program, not to mention the public's opinion of it.


no evidence. heck, even the politicians don't make a stink about welfare being corrupt anymore. Remember when it was a hot button issue back in the 90's and then they reformed it and now it's neither a hot bed of corruption or a big political issue?

it wasn't THAT long ago
 
2011-07-01 12:50:09 PM  

CrispFlows:

You have it the opposite. We help out in a crises, not in times of prosperity.


what makes you think we're in a crisis lol?

let me know when 30% unemployment hits. etc

people on welfare etc really dont need to be. have you spent any time with poor people? you'd be amazed how they often arent that bad off, theyre just lazy and whine a lot. grocery stores subways etc throw out a ton of food because it went bad before it sold. now if people dont get welfare, they start figuring things out like this... and make deals. often times the grocery stores will donate excess directly to places like salvation army, who then distribute it out that day. salvation army for one has rules tho, things like "show up for the job we set up up for, and actually work at it" if they dont after a month, they are denied for a while to make room for other people.

does government take these steps or just hand out money? and really "nutrition education, breastfeeding promotion, drug abuse education and other programs." that all can go.


the problem with democrats is they want the US budget (taxed from citizens) to fund things that they want. it should be cut completely from the US budget (because its not an initiative that all people want or will benefit from).


if some individuals have a problem with knowing that some people may slip through the cracks into poverty and desperation.... then send money and/or help them yourselves. dont be so lame as to demand that other people (via US budget) do what you are unwilling to do yourselves.

the only people that should be on welfare are persons with medical or mental disabilities.
 
2011-07-01 12:50:49 PM  

stryker4526: SharkTrager: RanDomino: Let's reduce demand during a recession! That'll get the economy going again!

/just pointing out that even by their own rules they are insane.

You do realize raising taxes also reduces demand.

Raising taxes on those making $250k+ won't reduce demand. These people can already afford to buy everything they want.


This attitude makes my teeth itch. Just because you make $250k does not mean you have an unlimited expense account.
 
2011-07-01 12:51:29 PM  
Subby, intellectual dishonesty ain't gonna solve the problem.
 
2011-07-01 12:52:21 PM  
I am not about to defend Mr. Conyers...it IS time for him to go...but that is THE most conservative rag to quote from...well, if nothing else it will really confuse Google and Bing as they try to decide what sites to direct me toward in the future. I book marked it in the hope that I would make just one server somewhere suffer the BSOD.

BWAhahaha!

/conservatives, they think we give a crap.
 
2011-07-01 12:52:22 PM  
Don't we WANT our politicians to be worried about re-election? If they do things we don't like, we'll vote them out. We don't want them to do whatever they THINK is best for us, regardless of the consequences. That's the main advantage we as voters have as a system of checks and balances with our elected representatives.
 
2011-07-01 12:54:28 PM  

Goldstien Sachs: stryker4526: SharkTrager: RanDomino: Let's reduce demand during a recession! That'll get the economy going again!

/just pointing out that even by their own rules they are insane.

You do realize raising taxes also reduces demand.

Raising taxes on those making $250k+ won't reduce demand. These people can already afford to buy everything they want.

This attitude makes my teeth itch. Just because you make $250k does not mean you have an unlimited expense account.


Oh okay, you're right, I guess they really can't afford to buy that fifth vacation home, or a lambo for each of their kids, themselves, and their wives. So it isn't quite everything they want.
We'd better give them a tax break to make that possible.
 
2011-07-01 12:56:12 PM  

jshine: Excessive zealotry *is* dangerous. Treating a purely numerical, financial debate as though it were a matter of religion is destabilizing -- it prevents the necessary dialog & compromise and increases the chances of fundamentalist-style ultimatums.


That sounds like something a witch would say!

/Only the Sith and Republicans deal in absolutes.
 
2011-07-01 12:58:25 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Wait a farking minute! American Thinker took something completely out of context and twisted it to fit their narrow minded view?

What is this world coming to?


To be fair, it appears they lifted it from politico who had the same unexplained wording. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/58076_Page2.html
 
2011-07-01 12:58:43 PM  

Goldstien Sachs: stryker4526: SharkTrager: RanDomino: Let's reduce demand during a recession! That'll get the economy going again!

/just pointing out that even by their own rules they are insane.

You do realize raising taxes also reduces demand.

Raising taxes on those making $250k+ won't reduce demand. These people can already afford to buy everything they want.

This attitude makes my teeth itch. Just because you make $250k does not mean you have an unlimited expense account.


A good portion of this country is living in poverty and another good portion is living week-to-week, so you'll forgive me if I fail to find much sympathy for you and your 'limited expense account'.
 
2011-07-01 01:00:01 PM  

factoryconnection: If you don't think that the GOP has that "f*ck everyone, just cut" message, look at the debt ceiling talks.


As opposed to the Dems: "f*ck everyone including those yet unborn, just spend" mentality.
 
2011-07-01 01:01:15 PM  
So let me get this straight - Dems have been in control since 2006, ran up the deficit under Barry to a bazillion trillion, the Republicans say you don't have the money to pay for these things and the Democrats are blaming the Republicans for the deficit?

Uh huh.
 
2011-07-01 01:01:31 PM  

stryker4526: ForgotMyTowel: stryker4526: Yes that tiny percentage of people abusing welfare is obviously a symptom of inadequate defense against welfare fraud.
Same thing with the majority of people who use the program as it is intended: to help get back on their feet. Obviously a sign of enabling.


I think you're hopelessly optimistic about the "tiny" percentage of fraud in social programs. I believe 100% that there are people who need the money and who will directly benefit from it in a positive way. I would never advocate cutting off emergency funds to children and those that are temporarily down on their luck. The problem is fraud is so rampant that it completely undermines the goal of the program, not to mention the public's opinion of it.

If people and politicians that ran these programs would give fraud detection even half as much focus as they give convincing people to give them more money, you'd not only see a large reduction in cost of the programs but you'd see a massive up swell of support.

[citation needed]

You idiots love to point to the supposedly "rampant" fraud in welfare programs as a reason to abolish them completely, but are never able to point it out.
I bet you believe poor black women have twenty kids so they can get $100k a year from the government and buy an Escalade, don't you?


Link (new window)
This is from LA showing $9.2m in fraud in 2009. This is just what was caught. Imagine what slips through the system...

Link (new window)
Here's one that says New York can save $72m a year if they implement a fraud reduction system.

Unless you want to make the argument that these are rare cases and the rest of the welfare system in this country is fraud free, I think it will be clear to anyone paying attention that there is in fact rampant fraud in the system.

Again, don't abolish the system. Recuce the fraud and waste and most reasonable people will be more than happy to pay into it.
 
2011-07-01 01:02:37 PM  
jjorsett:As opposed to the Dems: "f*ck everyone including those yet unborn...

This is not the abortion-thread you are looking for.

www.downriverwaterproofing.com
 
2011-07-01 01:03:46 PM  
Big Man On Campus
I'll tell you what is "un-American" ---> turning to the government to feed you. Being an American means being an independent entity that contributes to the whole but does not expect or rely on others to keep one alive/functioning. You want food? You want survival? Go earn your way. Mother nature doesn't have a food-stamp plan for leaf-eaters, which is why animals migrate. There is no unemployment handout for any other living thing on earth, no severance package, no health care. They live and they die by their own efforts. I'm a troll, a moronic asshole, or both. Poe's Law is in effect.

Fixed!
 
2011-07-01 01:05:20 PM  
Congressman John Conyers (D-umbfounded) confused and frightened by increasing Congresional opinion to actually, GASP, cut the US budget

Subby, either admit it actually matters where we cut from the US budget or start advocating a budget of $0. Stop being a pussy.
 
2011-07-01 01:07:13 PM  

stryker4526: ForgotMyTowel: stryker4526: Yes that tiny percentage of people abusing welfare is obviously a symptom of inadequate defense against welfare fraud.
Same thing with the majority of people who use the program as it is intended: to help get back on their feet. Obviously a sign of enabling.


I think you're hopelessly optimistic about the "tiny" percentage of fraud in social programs. I believe 100% that there are people who need the money and who will directly benefit from it in a positive way. I would never advocate cutting off emergency funds to children and those that are temporarily down on their luck. The problem is fraud is so rampant that it completely undermines the goal of the program, not to mention the public's opinion of it.

If people and politicians that ran these programs would give fraud detection even half as much focus as they give convincing people to give them more money, you'd not only see a large reduction in cost of the programs but you'd see a massive up swell of support.

[citation needed]

You idiots love to point to the supposedly "rampant" fraud in welfare programs as a reason to abolish them completely, but are never able to point it out.
I bet you believe poor black women have twenty kids so they can get $100k a year from the government and buy an Escalade, don't you?


Link (new window)
$9.6m in fraud uncovered in 2009 in LA. And that's just what the detected. Image what slips through the cracks..

Link (new window)
Article says $72m in fraud could be detected by a new fraud detection system.

Are you really trying to make the argument that there is little to no fraud in the system. Here was two, easy to find examples of fraud. I think any reasonable person can see that there is still plenty of fraud to be had..

Again, I'm not talking about abolishing the system. I'm talking about reducing the fraud a waste.
 
2011-07-01 01:07:37 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Cutting spending is dangerous.

According to Obama the first thing to go will be food safety and free money for college kids. Because those are the ONLY places in the budget where they can cut.

But then again, if all the kids are dying due to the lack of food safety, then there will be more college money for the survivors.

/I am glad they aren't cutting the Department of Oxygen.


Wat? Couldnt hear you over all the morans in this thread saying that all cuts are taking cheese from the mouths of infants.

If you vote for the likes of Conyers you are an idiot who would rather sit under the money tree than work for what you need.
 
2011-07-01 01:07:46 PM  

jshine: jjorsett:As opposed to the Dems: "f*ck everyone including those yet unborn...

This is not the abortion-thread you are looking for.

[www.downriverwaterproofing.com image 359x300]



Too bad. You can't whine about starving kids when you support killing them for a voter block.

Deal with it hypocrites.
 
2011-07-01 01:10:18 PM  
Whoops, sorry for the double post. Internet is acting funny and didn't realise the first went through...
 
2011-07-01 01:14:10 PM  

gameshowhost: Conservatism:

[i52.tinypic.com image 402x307]


Actually, we don't. See 'Laffer Curve'.
 
2011-07-01 01:16:53 PM  

tlchwi02: ForgotMyTowel: The problem is fraud is so rampant that it completely undermines the goal of the program, not to mention the public's opinion of it.

no evidence. heck, even the politicians don't make a stink about welfare being corrupt anymore. Remember when it was a hot button issue back in the 90's and then they reformed it and now it's neither a hot bed of corruption or a big political issue?

it wasn't THAT long ago


There's ample evidence of fraud but that's beside the point. Your argument is like saying we don't accidently lock up anywhere near as many innocent people as we used to so we shouldn't worry about the ones we do.

Take a step back and look at what you're arguing for. I never said get rid of welfare. I never said make the requirements more strict and reduce the benefits to people. I simply said there is fraud and waste and we can cut those costs and spend less money on the programs without compromising the help they provide.

You and others on the other hand will only stick their fingers in your ears and tell yourself over and over that the system is fine and any cuts will kill women and children. Why can't you just admit that there's room for improvement?
 
2011-07-01 01:18:37 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: jshine: Excessive zealotry *is* dangerous. Treating a purely numerical, financial debate as though it were a matter of religion is destabilizing -- it prevents the necessary dialog & compromise and increases the chances of fundamentalist-style ultimatums.

That sounds like something a witch would say!

/Only the Sith and Republicans deal in absolutes.


Oh, good. I'm a witch! A Wiccan, in fact! So I'll say it, then.

WE HAVE A LESSON TO LEARN FROM COMMUNISM.

/Only the Libertarians and Jedi dislike sanity.
//(No, seriously, the Jedi forbid their members from seeing psychiatrists. A floating fan theory is that the entire six movies could have been avoided without it.)
 
2011-07-01 01:19:27 PM  

ForgotMyTowel: tlchwi02: ForgotMyTowel: The problem is fraud is so rampant that it completely undermines the goal of the program, not to mention the public's opinion of it.

no evidence. heck, even the politicians don't make a stink about welfare being corrupt anymore. Remember when it was a hot button issue back in the 90's and then they reformed it and now it's neither a hot bed of corruption or a big political issue?

it wasn't THAT long ago

There's ample evidence of fraud but that's beside the point. Your argument is like saying we don't accidently lock up anywhere near as many innocent people as we used to so we shouldn't worry about the ones we do.

Take a step back and look at what you're arguing for. I never said get rid of welfare. I never said make the requirements more strict and reduce the benefits to people. I simply said there is fraud and waste and we can cut those costs and spend less money on the programs without compromising the help they provide.

You and others on the other hand will only stick their fingers in your ears and tell yourself over and over that the system is fine and any cuts will kill women and children. Why can't you just admit that there's room for improvement?


Why don't you admit that you're digging around in 1-2% of the budget that's pretty tight when the Pentagon piece is filled with low-hanging fruit to be cut?
 
2011-07-01 01:19:43 PM  

Close2TheEdge: Fact is, we CAN afford it.


I would suppose that depends on how you define 'we'. Personally, *I* can afford it. A reasonable portion of my earnings could be diverted to helping needy people, because I make more money in a year than I spend, and each year, my debt decreases, while the value of that for which I am in debt increases. Similar statements can be accurately made for many private enterprises, but not for others.

The United States Government, on the other hand, cannot make such a claim. It is deeply in debt, and its credit eligibility continues to worsen. Most of the money it receives from tax payers and its debtors, it squanders. The programs to help underprivileged pregnant mothers and their children are likely wasting more money (that should be used to help its intended beneficiaries) than the proposed budget cuts could strip away.

The problem I see in people's comprehension of budget cuts is this: Cuts are proposed for some agencies, bureaus, or programs, and if they have a name that sounds noble, people respond, not to the fact that some government organization, whose purpose is to advance some cause, is going to lose money, but to the idea that the cause itself is losing money. Not so. Depending on how efficient the program is, a very small to a very large amount of funding is actually used on the cause's behalf. When bureaucrats who almost never get fired, or forced to work, lose funding, there is a chance they are given some amount of motivation to do their jobs correctly. If they can just do enough work to make somebody look good, i.e., advance the cause of the organization, or at least appear to be advancing the cause of the organization, they might get their funding back. But guaranteed steady funding each year? Analysts just go shopping during the day, and bosses just create staff level GS15s for their close friends so they can come in and make powerpoint presentations.
 
2011-07-01 01:19:54 PM  

Big Man On Campus: I'll tell you what is "un-American" ---> turning to the government to feed you. Being an American means being an independent entity that contributes to the whole but does not expect or rely on others to keep one alive/functioning. You want food? You want survival? Go earn your way. Mother nature doesn't have a food-stamp plan for leaf-eaters, which is why animals migrate. There is no unemployment handout for any other living thing on earth, no severance package, no health care. They live and they die by their own efforts.

I personally don't mind such programs promoting breast feeding and giving out extra food when times are good and we can afford it. But it is abject nonsense to call it un-american to tighten one's belt and roll up the sleeves by spending less on that which truly does not matter and working on what does.


So you'd rather see your own countrymen and their children starve than say, cut the defense budget by 30%?

US spent $687 billion on guns and planes in 2010. The next highest spender on defense was France @ $61 billion.

Some very interesting priorities this country has ...
 
2011-07-01 01:20:21 PM  

CrispFlows: Big Man On Campus:
I'll tell you what is "un-American" ---> turning to the government to feed you. Being an American means being an independent entity that contributes to the whole but does not expect or rely on others to keep one alive/functioning. You want food? You want survival? Go earn your way. Mother nature doesn't have a food-stamp plan for leaf-eaters, which is why animals migrate. There is no unemployment handout for any other living thing on earth, no severance package, no health care. They live and they die by their own efforts.

I personally don't mind such programs promoting breast feeding and giving out extra food when times are good and we can afford it. But it is abject nonsense to call it un-american to tighten one's belt and roll up the sleeves by spending less on that which truly does not matter and working on what does.

"I personally don't mind such programs ... giving out extra food when times are good and we can afford it."

You have it the opposite. We help out in a crises, not in times of prosperity.

The homo sapiens species, (that's us), has survived far beyond the natural lifespan due to our capability to care for others. Regardless of the nationalism of whether of not if it is the trait of being 'American' to care for only ourselves, It is the nature of our own selves as human beings to have empathy and we do help out, especially in a crises... not only in the times of prosperity.

In regards to the mother nature remark, Herds protect their own even against predators. In the linked video, the calf survived not by it's own efforts but the efforts of the herd:

Battle at Kruger (new window)


Personally, I would just as soon the government get out of social programs. Regardless of who's in office, the government continually demonstrates their inability to manage something right and/or efficiently. Maybe we need to let the private sector handle the welfare of people. It pretty much used to be that way, when you needed charity, you went to a charity, or a benefactor. The stigma associated with that helped motivate people to fend more for themselves, yet the safety existed. Your first image may even support that opinion. With a little cursory research another site credits this image as a soup kitchen setup by Al Capone (Yes, the gangster).

http://therehearsalstudio.blogspot.com/2009/02/this-line-looks-like-th​ose-pictu r es-of.html
 
2011-07-01 01:21:11 PM  
Federal budget 2000. $1.78 Trillion

Federal budget 2010 $3.5 Trillion

Oh noes ! We must not cut spending and go back to the brutal dark ages of 10 years ago. Don't you remember how during the Clinton years the US resembled Mad Max?
 
2011-07-01 01:24:50 PM  
Everyone wants to cut spending-- as long as its spending they don't agree with. The reason Congress has trouble cutting spending is every time they try *someone* screams bloody murder about it.
 
2011-07-01 01:27:28 PM  

Infernalist: It's this false narrative that "We're running out of money!! We have to CUT SPENDING NOW!!!".

No, we're not, and no, we don't.

It's not a case of mandatory cuts in social-net programs. It's a case where we need to increase revenue by returning tax rates to Pre-Reagan levels and reforming the tax code to close all the loopholes and dodges that the rich and big business use to avoid paying taxes year after year.


Best-case scenario if that happens is that tax revenues go from 15% of GDP to 20%. The historic post-war average is 18%. Our current budget is spending 25%+. Do you still wish to insist there is no spending problem?
 
2011-07-01 01:28:03 PM  
i860.photobucket.com
 
2011-07-01 01:29:08 PM  
1) Return tax rates to pre-Reagan levels.

2) Reform the tax code, close the loopholes and dodges.

3) Reform Medicare/Medicaid, cut down on fraud and waste.

4) Cut the DoD, remove bloated projects and redundant projects, put a halt to new aircraft carriers and unnecessary systems like the F-22 Raptor.

Ta-da. Budget will be balanced, and not with a single cut in spending aside from the ones above.
 
2011-07-01 01:31:00 PM  

painless42: Federal budget 2000. $1.78 Trillion

Federal budget 2010 $3.5 Trillion

Oh noes ! We must not cut spending and go back to the brutal dark ages of 10 years ago. Don't you remember how during the Clinton years the US resembled Mad Max?


It is funny how we hear over and over about how it wouldn't kill anyone to go back to Clinton era tax levels, but nobody ever mentions going back to Clinton era spending levels. Curious.
 
2011-07-01 01:32:09 PM  

Nightsweat: ForgotMyTowel: tlchwi02: ForgotMyTowel: The problem is fraud is so rampant that it completely undermines the goal of the program, not to mention the public's opinion of it.

no evidence. heck, even the politicians don't make a stink about welfare being corrupt anymore. Remember when it was a hot button issue back in the 90's and then they reformed it and now it's neither a hot bed of corruption or a big political issue?

it wasn't THAT long ago

There's ample evidence of fraud but that's beside the point. Your argument is like saying we don't accidently lock up anywhere near as many innocent people as we used to so we shouldn't worry about the ones we do.

Take a step back and look at what you're arguing for. I never said get rid of welfare. I never said make the requirements more strict and reduce the benefits to people. I simply said there is fraud and waste and we can cut those costs and spend less money on the programs without compromising the help they provide.

You and others on the other hand will only stick their fingers in your ears and tell yourself over and over that the system is fine and any cuts will kill women and children. Why can't you just admit that there's room for improvement?

Why don't you admit that you're digging around in 1-2% of the budget that's pretty tight when the Pentagon piece is filled with low-hanging fruit to be cut?


Who said the Pentagon's budget can't be cut? Why allow 1-2% (and its larger than that but whatever) in fraud when it can be stopped? Why go on record moaning about how unamerican it is for republicans to want to cut funding to programs that are mired in fraud. A better answer would be "how about instead of cutting the WIC budger by X%, why don't we keep it at the current funding levels and instead use that X% to clamp down on fraud a waste while keeping the women and children fed." Who could argue with that?

Same with the Pentagon's budget ;)
 
2011-07-01 01:32:13 PM  
Actually if you just let the Bush tax cuts expire, the budget goes back into balance even at current spending levels.
 
2011-07-01 01:33:09 PM  
Sounds more like he's more dumbfounded that anyone could be this self destructive to their own country.
 
2011-07-01 01:33:33 PM  
While the AT article puts it in a context that's kind of stupid, the only real justification anyone has for why WIC shouldn't be cut roughly commensurate with the rest of the department budget is much more "oh, no, think of the children" than it is logical. There are a number of overlapping programs for feeding poor people and we don't have the money to continue at the current funding level.

I mean, I'd love to give everyone in the thread a million dollars, and it'd be a damned nice thing for me to do, but I do not have that much money. If you don't have the money to fund something at a certain level, you don't have the money.
 
2011-07-01 01:34:23 PM  

Millennium: If we actually did that then it might actually work, but you never see that happening, in part because people threaten to riot whenever anyone tries.


Uh, we were doing that at the end of the 90s. Then we elected a guy who thought that government should never run a surplus and that the money should be given back to the people instead of being used to pay down the debt and save for a rain day (and then to add insult to injury he started multiple wars and passes huge unfunded programs).
 
2011-07-01 01:34:52 PM  

Jim_Callahan: While the AT article puts it in a context that's kind of stupid, the only real justification anyone has for why WIC shouldn't be cut roughly commensurate with the rest of the department budget is much more "oh, no, think of the children" than it is logical. There are a number of overlapping programs for feeding poor people and we don't have the money to continue at the current funding level.

I mean, I'd love to give everyone in the thread a million dollars, and it'd be a damned nice thing for me to do, but I do not have that much money. If you don't have the money to fund something at a certain level, you don't have the money.


You know how I know that you don't understand finances at the national level?
 
2011-07-01 01:38:33 PM  

ForgotMyTowel: Who said the Pentagon's budget can't be cut? Why allow 1-2% (and its larger than that but whatever) in fraud when it can be stopped? Why go on record moaning about how unamerican it is for republicans to want to cut funding to programs that are mired in fraud. A better answer would be "how about instead of cutting the WIC budger by X%, why don't we keep it at the current funding levels and instead use that X% to clamp down on fraud a waste while keeping the women and children fed." Who could argue with that?


because they aren't talking about cutting fraud. If they were, i'd agree with them. They want to cut everything because they morally believe that people who are poor are inferior and bad. That's not at all about cutting fraud.
 
2011-07-01 01:40:12 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: 2. Largely based on "we were planning to spend money on something in the future, but now aren't, so that counts as a cut".


Wow, you are seriously complaining that somehow cuts to the budget aren't cuts to the budget? Do you understand what a budget is? Are you seriously this farking stupid?
 
2011-07-01 01:47:50 PM  

tlchwi02: ForgotMyTowel: Who said the Pentagon's budget can't be cut? Why allow 1-2% (and its larger than that but whatever) in fraud when it can be stopped? Why go on record moaning about how unamerican it is for republicans to want to cut funding to programs that are mired in fraud. A better answer would be "how about instead of cutting the WIC budger by X%, why don't we keep it at the current funding levels and instead use that X% to clamp down on fraud a waste while keeping the women and children fed." Who could argue with that?

because they aren't talking about cutting fraud. If they were, i'd agree with them. They want to cut everything because they morally believe that people who are poor are inferior and bad. That's not at all about cutting fraud.



Yes, it's because they're poor and inferior. It has nothing to do with $14+ trillion debt, jackass.
 
2011-07-01 01:51:15 PM  

Nocens: tlchwi02: ForgotMyTowel: Who said the Pentagon's budget can't be cut? Why allow 1-2% (and its larger than that but whatever) in fraud when it can be stopped? Why go on record moaning about how unamerican it is for republicans to want to cut funding to programs that are mired in fraud. A better answer would be "how about instead of cutting the WIC budger by X%, why don't we keep it at the current funding levels and instead use that X% to clamp down on fraud a waste while keeping the women and children fed." Who could argue with that?

because they aren't talking about cutting fraud. If they were, i'd agree with them. They want to cut everything because they morally believe that people who are poor are inferior and bad. That's not at all about cutting fraud.


Yes, it's because they're poor and inferior. It has nothing to do with $14+ trillion debt, jackass.


They could abolish the whole WIC/Welfare/Foodstamp troika and it'd come nowhere close to fixing 'that' mess.

Now, raising taxes back to pre-Reagan levels, that'd fix the problem in a heartbeat. How's that grab you, retard?
 
2011-07-01 01:56:30 PM  

tlchwi02: ForgotMyTowel: Who said the Pentagon's budget can't be cut? Why allow 1-2% (and its larger than that but whatever) in fraud when it can be stopped? Why go on record moaning about how unamerican it is for republicans to want to cut funding to programs that are mired in fraud. A better answer would be "how about instead of cutting the WIC budger by X%, why don't we keep it at the current funding levels and instead use that X% to clamp down on fraud a waste while keeping the women and children fed." Who could argue with that?

because they aren't talking about cutting fraud. If they were, i'd agree with them. They want to cut everything because they morally believe that people who are poor are inferior and bad. That's not at all about cutting fraud.


You know, I see statements like this and wonder how many people actually believe this. You honestly think the average republican looks at mother's with starving children and doesn't care? I know many that resent seeing millions going to the welfare system but who will be the first to give money at their church or at fundraisers. They'll be the first to volunteer during natural disasters (yes even ones that affect minorities).

About the worst thing I've seen some of my more conservative friends do is look at someone like that and just assume that they are in that position because they got themselves into it and don't want to get back out. And do you know why that is? It's because they're aware of the fraud that goes on. Just like the old saying that one bad apple spoils the bunch, so it is the case with welfare. This is also why I feel so strongly about fixing the system. I understand that sometimes life really screws you over and you need help before you and your children starve and end up out on the street. I understand that some social programs are absolutely vital to keeping people alive. But I also understand that unless you change people's attitudes about the system, they won't care. What's the best way to change their attitudes? Address the problems and waste that everyone sees and knows is there. Don't just dig your heals and double down by saying everything is fine, just keep shoveling money into the fire. Instead, band together and fix the dang system.
 
2011-07-01 01:56:59 PM  

stpauler: "It is simply un-American, immoral, heartless and unconscionable to take food away from the mouths of hungry children in the name of deficit reduction," he said.


I wonder what he calls it when people have children any way when they can't afford to.
 
2011-07-01 01:59:43 PM  

PsiChick: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: jshine: Excessive zealotry *is* dangerous. Treating a purely numerical, financial debate as though it were a matter of religion is destabilizing -- it prevents the necessary dialog & compromise and increases the chances of fundamentalist-style ultimatums.

That sounds like something a witch would say!

/Only the Sith and Republicans deal in absolutes.

Oh, good. I'm a witch! A Wiccan, in fact! So I'll say it, then.

WE HAVE A LESSON TO LEARN FROM COMMUNISM.

/Only the Libertarians and Jedi dislike sanity.
//(No, seriously, the Jedi forbid their members from seeing psychiatrists. A floating fan theory is that the entire six movies could have been avoided without it.)


Depending on what lesson you refer will depend on my agreement or not. If providing for the basic foundation of society through direct government intervention and progressively scaling taxes on those who can most afford to pay (in accordance with Saint Smith - the patron of rational markets) while creating an environment for economic growth through minimal barriers to entry and moderate regulation is deemed socially optimal, than yes; we DO have something to learn from Communism: pissed off poor people will riot.

The ideal government is one that handles public goods (goods which can only be possible through government funding since the result is a net negative for the one shouldering the cost but a net positive for society as a whole - things like roads, hospitals, national defense, and police protection) and handles unprofitable ventures for economic development (rural electrification and the space program come to mind). The private sector fails in providing public goods and the public sector cannot effectively compete with private industry in most fields.

/Libertarian
//Philosophical one, not the bat-shiat crazy political variety
 
2011-07-01 02:07:22 PM  
I want to believe that when Bush II was in office that Fark looked like a mirror version of this thread... but I'm having a hard time believing it.
 
2011-07-01 02:08:30 PM  

Infernalist: Nocens: tlchwi02: ForgotMyTowel: Who said the Pentagon's budget can't be cut? Why allow 1-2% (and its larger than that but whatever) in fraud when it can be stopped? Why go on record moaning about how unamerican it is for republicans to want to cut funding to programs that are mired in fraud. A better answer would be "how about instead of cutting the WIC budger by X%, why don't we keep it at the current funding levels and instead use that X% to clamp down on fraud a waste while keeping the women and children fed." Who could argue with that?

because they aren't talking about cutting fraud. If they were, i'd agree with them. They want to cut everything because they morally believe that people who are poor are inferior and bad. That's not at all about cutting fraud.


Yes, it's because they're poor and inferior. It has nothing to do with $14+ trillion debt, jackass.

They could abolish the whole WIC/Welfare/Foodstamp troika and it'd come nowhere close to fixing 'that' mess.

Now, raising taxes back to pre-Reagan levels, that'd fix the problem in a heartbeat. How's that grab you, retard?



It still wouldn't touch the deficit you ignorant mouth breathing regurgitating jackass.
 
2011-07-01 02:09:13 PM  

Nocens: Yes, it's because they're poor and inferior. It has nothing to do with $14+ trillion debt, jackass.


it clearly doesn't, since ending all those programs would do almost nothing to help us with that.

If its not about poor people not deserving any help because they brought these issues on themselves and don't work hard enough to change AND its been shown repeatedly that cutting these programs wont do us any substantial good against that 14 trillion BUT republicans refuse to raise taxes on the wealthy, stop spending money on wars or cut the military budget then what IS the explination for the charge to cut them?

why are they targeting this relative small fry social programs and ignoring the big spenders and lowly taxed super rich if there is no element of republican social engineering in play here? if its TRULY about just cutting the budget, why only go after items that republicans object to morally but don't do much to cut the budget?
 
2011-07-01 02:10:15 PM  

Big Man On Campus: Rep. John Conyers, D-Detroit, said Congress will have reached an "all time low" in his four decades in Washington if it passes such a budget plan.

I personally don't mind such programs promoting breast feeding and giving out extra food when times are good and we can afford it. But it is abject nonsense to call it un-american to tighten one's belt and roll up the sleeves by spending less on that which truly does not matter and working on what does.


*Spending less on that which truly does not matter and working on what does.*

*That which truly does not matter*

*Does not matter*

...since when did feeding the poor and the children not matter? I'm sorry, I thought we evolved a bit past animals by this point and developed some things called culture and compassion. It may not matter to YOU to make sure infants and their mothers have proper nutrition, but I have no problem sacrificing a little of your so-called "Americanism" to make sure babies don't starve.

Get a farking heart why don't you
 
2011-07-01 02:11:05 PM  

Nocens: Infernalist: Nocens: tlchwi02: ForgotMyTowel: Who said the Pentagon's budget can't be cut? Why allow 1-2% (and its larger than that but whatever) in fraud when it can be stopped? Why go on record moaning about how unamerican it is for republicans to want to cut funding to programs that are mired in fraud. A better answer would be "how about instead of cutting the WIC budger by X%, why don't we keep it at the current funding levels and instead use that X% to clamp down on fraud a waste while keeping the women and children fed." Who could argue with that?

because they aren't talking about cutting fraud. If they were, i'd agree with them. They want to cut everything because they morally believe that people who are poor are inferior and bad. That's not at all about cutting fraud.


Yes, it's because they're poor and inferior. It has nothing to do with $14+ trillion debt, jackass.

They could abolish the whole WIC/Welfare/Foodstamp troika and it'd come nowhere close to fixing 'that' mess.

Now, raising taxes back to pre-Reagan levels, that'd fix the problem in a heartbeat. How's that grab you, retard?


It still wouldn't touch the deficit you ignorant mouth breathing regurgitating jackass.


Not immediately, you you you...young republican you.

lol
 
2011-07-01 02:13:45 PM  
www.bradblog.comthinkprogress.org

The undeniable, objective fact is that the massive bulk of the deficit is due to maintaining the Bush-era tax cuts and the Iraq/Afghanistan wars. You can argue about cutting WIC and Planned Parenthood and it's all empty rhetoric because it's not a player in the problem.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for war. But this is INCREDIBLY expensive in the big economic picture, and it just doesn't seem to be accomplishing anything. Honestly- we're 10 years into a war that was initially claimed to be a project of a few months then years of reconstruction. We're arguably no better off, and Afghanistan is no better off, than Day 1.

We've settled into a condition where we're burning something like half a billion PER DAY and it's assumed "necessary" to maintain the status quo. There's bold talk of conquering the enemy but no plausible avenue to do so, and dire warnings of losing everything we fought for. But there's just no endgame in sight here except to keep dumping money into it at 100x a sustainable rate perpetually.
 
2011-07-01 02:15:57 PM  

Nocens: Yes, it's because they're poor and inferior. It has nothing to do with $14+ trillion debt, jackass.


And cutting WIC will ease that debt by about 1/1000 of 0.01. (1 / 1.39 x 10^5)

What a relief. The economy is saved.
 
2011-07-01 02:19:31 PM  

Infernalist: Not immediately, you you you...young republican you.


There's no need for that kind of filthy language!!!
 
2011-07-01 02:23:21 PM  

CarnySaur: It looks like the submitter is doing his part by cutting the "s" out of Congressional.


Came here for this.
 
2011-07-01 02:24:14 PM  

Nocens: Too bad. You can't whine about starving kids when you support killing them for a voter block.


An egg is not a chicken.
An acorn is not a tree.
A bulb is not a flower.
A fetus is not a child.

You are an idiot.
 
2011-07-01 02:24:50 PM  

ForgotMyTowel: tlchwi02: ForgotMyTowel: Who said the Pentagon's budget can't be cut? Why allow 1-2% (and its larger than that but whatever) in fraud when it can be stopped? Why go on record moaning about how unamerican it is for republicans to want to cut funding to programs that are mired in fraud. A better answer would be "how about instead of cutting the WIC budger by X%, why don't we keep it at the current funding levels and instead use that X% to clamp down on fraud a waste while keeping the women and children fed." Who could argue with that?

because they aren't talking about cutting fraud. If they were, i'd agree with them. They want to cut everything because they morally believe that people who are poor are inferior and bad. That's not at all about cutting fraud.

You know, I see statements like this and wonder how many people actually believe this. You honestly think the average republican looks at mother's with starving children and doesn't care? I know many that resent seeing millions going to the welfare system but who will be the first to give money at their church or at fundraisers. They'll be the first to volunteer during natural disasters (yes even ones that affect minorities).


See, now you're starting to come dangerously close to the stupidity that is espousing reliance on voluntary taxation.

Here's my problem with cutting food stamps, WIC, student lunch and breakfast subsidies and the EPA: we're effectively robbing from children (born and unborn) to pay for a better life for the elderly: Medicare, Social Security-- 1 trillion dollars of our 3.5 trillion dollar budget every year.

In business one of the guiding principles for achieving cost savings is the pareto principle (new window). The way I can tell that those proposing budget cuts on both sides aren't really serious about actually making real cuts is that BOTH sides have exempted the 3 largest chunks of the federal budget from any scrutiny at all. If defense, social security and medicare aren't on the table (45% of the federal budget) we're just screwing around on the edges of the problem. If we're going to make cuts that aren't really going to fix the problem, then I cannot support any proposal that engages in political posturing on the backs of the future of people who will have to be paying for MY retirement.
 
2011-07-01 02:34:16 PM  

Nightsweat: Actually if you just let the Bush tax cuts expire, the budget goes back into balance even at current spending levels.


No, it doesn't. Tax rates do not exist in a vacuum.
 
2011-07-01 02:34:54 PM  

Infernalist: Nocens: Infernalist: Nocens: tlchwi02: ForgotMyTowel: Who said the Pentagon's budget can't be cut? Why allow 1-2% (and its larger than that but whatever) in fraud when it can be stopped? Why go on record moaning about how unamerican it is for republicans to want to cut funding to programs that are mired in fraud. A better answer would be "how about instead of cutting the WIC budger by X%, why don't we keep it at the current funding levels and instead use that X% to clamp down on fraud a waste while keeping the women and children fed." Who could argue with that?

because they aren't talking about cutting fraud. If they were, i'd agree with them. They want to cut everything because they morally believe that people who are poor are inferior and bad. That's not at all about cutting fraud.


Yes, it's because they're poor and inferior. It has nothing to do with $14+ trillion debt, jackass.

They could abolish the whole WIC/Welfare/Foodstamp troika and it'd come nowhere close to fixing 'that' mess.

Now, raising taxes back to pre-Reagan levels, that'd fix the problem in a heartbeat. How's that grab you, retard?


It still wouldn't touch the deficit you ignorant mouth breathing regurgitating jackass.

Not immediately, you you you...young republican you.

lol


Jackass, I'm a 50 year old engineer who agrees my taxes will have to be raised to tackle the problem.

However, you're living off my taxes and my work. My portion supporting your free loading ass needs to be thrown in the pot first.
 
2011-07-01 02:39:21 PM  

mojodragon: When you give a tax cut to the rich, they put it in the bank and make interest off it, enabling the banks to make more loans. Poor people end up taking the loans to buy a car, house, etc., causing a lending bubble that eventually bursts, sending the economy further into a downward spiral.


The crack pipe has spoken.

Carry on.
 
2011-07-01 02:40:13 PM  

XveryYpettyZ: ForgotMyTowel: tlchwi02: ForgotMyTowel: I know many that resent seeing millions going to the welfare system but who will be the first to give money at their church or at fundraisers. They'll be the first to volunteer during natural disasters (yes even ones that affect minorities).


See, now you're starting to come dangerously close to the stupidity that is espousing reliance on voluntary taxation.

Here's my problem with cutting food stamps, WIC, student lunch and breakfast subsidies and the EPA: we're effectively robbing from children (born and unborn) to pay for a better life for the elderly: Medicare, Social Security-- 1 trillion dollars of our 3.5 trillion dollar budget every year.

In business one of the guiding principles for achieving cost savings is the pareto principle (new window). The way I can tell that those proposing budget cuts on both sides aren't really serious about actually making real cuts is that BOTH sides have exempted the 3 largest chunks of the federal budget from any scrutiny at all. If defense, social security and medicare aren't on the table (45% of the federal budget) we're just screwing around on the edges of the problem. If we're going to make cuts that aren't really going to fix the problem, then I cannot support any proposal that engages in political posturing on the backs of the future of people who will have to be paying for MY retirement.


I'm not even remotely suggesting voluntary taxation or relying on charity to house and feed the poor. My entire point was that by in large, republicans aren't some evil people who spit on the poor and less fortunate while walking down the street, lighting cigars with $100 bills.

You average everyday republican cares about the poor starving mother as much as the average everyday democrat. The difference is how they view the effectiveness of the current welfare system. Republicans see and recognize that major changes need to be made in order to make the system effective. Without making those changes, you're throwing money down a hole. We are currently spending more money on welfare programs like WIC than is necessary to run the program and feed the hungry. With reform, we can cut a good deal out of the budget and still achieve the necessary goals.

I understand that other cuts in other areas are still necessary. TFA just happens to be about WIC, thus my focus on it. But saying that its such a small amount so we shouldn't bother with it is a lot like saying I'm $3000/month in debt but I'm still going to get my nails done twice a month. After all, compared to how much money I owe, it's a drop in the bucket.

No no no, you need to cut back everywhere. Defense, social security, Medicare, entitlements (both for the rich and the poor), etc. It all needs to be done. Frankly I fail to see why this is even a partisan issue, other than the fact that this is politics of course.
 
2011-07-01 02:40:35 PM  

RulerOfNone: And this got the front page.
Drew, what the fark are you doing?


I think it's a hint for us to leave the computers and go play outside.
 
2011-07-01 02:41:38 PM  

Big Man On Campus: Rep. John Conyers, D-Detroit, said Congress will have reached an "all time low" in his four decades in Washington if it passes such a budget plan.

"It is simply un-American, immoral, heartless and unconscionable to take food away from the mouths of hungry children in the name of deficit reduction," he said

I'll tell you what is "un-American" ---> turning to the government to feed you. Being an American means being an independent entity that contributes to the whole but does not expect or rely on others to keep one alive/functioning. You want food? You want survival? Go earn your way. Mother nature doesn't have a food-stamp plan for leaf-eaters, which is why animals migrate. There is no unemployment handout for any other living thing on earth, no severance package, no health care. They live and they die by their own efforts.

I personally don't mind such programs promoting breast feeding and giving out extra food when times are good and we can afford it. But it is abject nonsense to call it un-american to tighten one's belt and roll up the sleeves by spending less on that which truly does not matter and working on what does.


You know what's UnAmerican?

Being a selfish bastard, like you are. From this point on, you are no longer allowed to use the roads, internet, power network, phone networks, and clean air that the money I have given to the government to provide these common services to the compassionate of us.

And if you're that worried about money, then have words with the @ssholes that ruined the banking system, and took us to war with every brown person on the earth. That's where all that frickin money went.

\snort
 
2011-07-01 02:43:05 PM  

l3randon: Nightsweat: Actually if you just let the Bush tax cuts expire, the budget goes back into balance even at current spending levels.

No, it doesn't. Tax rates do not exist in a vacuum.


Tell it to the GAO. They're the ones who said it.
 
2011-07-01 02:44:20 PM  

Close2TheEdge: it makes Jesus cry.


If it's harshing jesus' day, then we better get busy.
 
2011-07-01 02:51:09 PM  

l3randon: Nightsweat: Actually if you just let the Bush tax cuts expire, the budget goes back into balance even at current spending levels.

No, it doesn't. Tax rates do not exist in a vacuum.


But the top 5% wealth holders do? They don't owe anyone anything.
 
2011-07-01 02:52:37 PM  

Akula308: gameshowhost: Conservatism:

[i52.tinypic.com image 402x307]

Actually, we don't. See 'Laffer Curve'.


Oh my goodness. I've never heard of that! I should've paid attention more during my undergraduate degree in economics and during graduate business school. =|

See: By your *actions*, that's basically what you believe the curve actually looks like. MOAR TAX CUTZ! KEEPZ CUTTING! MOAR! MOAR!

/never mind the comically-oversimplified notion of only one tax
//and the fact that 0% and 100% tax are the only known revenue points
///and that the 'curve' could look like almost anything
 
2011-07-01 02:55:03 PM  

Rockdrummer: So let me get this straight - Dems have been in control since 2006, ran up the deficit under Barry to a bazillion trillion, the Republicans say you don't have the money to pay for these things and the Democrats are blaming the Republicans for the deficit?

Uh huh.


Yep, that's how it happened.

There was no deficit on Jan 20, and the economy was screaming along at a fantastic rate. Health care was cheap, jobs were plentiful, and everyone had a farking Unicorn in their backyard.

The Obumbler showed up and destroyed it all with his Kenyan darkness.

\the Democrats are spineless
\\you know this, you've been workin' it for 30 years
\\\you went right into the sh*thead file the moment you dropped that "Barry"
 
2011-07-01 02:55:04 PM  

Infernalist: Now, raising taxes back to pre-Reagan levels, that'd fix the problem in a heartbeat. How's that grab you, retard?


Can I have my deductions on credit card debt and real estate tax shelters back as well? It's called "effective tax rate".
 
2011-07-01 02:55:12 PM  

ringersol: Because anyone who didn't vote for war and tax cuts was branded a traitor and dragged through the mud?
If you're accusing the Democrats of being spineless, I don't think you'll find anyone to argue with you.

If you're accusing the Democrats of _wanting_ those things, that's a very different argument.
Though it's academic and pointless. Since the desires of the party that capitulates just don't matter if they're just going to capitulate.


Obviously they were Democrat-inspired programs. That's why they had to override Bush's veto on every single one of them.
 
2011-07-01 02:59:42 PM  

GORDON: If we can do without $2 Trillion in spending, why did the Democrats even fund those programs in the first place when they controlled Congress for last 6 of Bush's 8 years?


Democrats controlled congress for the last six years of the Bush admin? Really?

I'm going to have a flat spot on my forehead if I keep reading this thread.
 
2011-07-01 03:00:04 PM  

Weaver95: tlchwi02: yeah, i think its pretty heartless to cut food for needy children when you wont raise taxes on the ultra-wealthy upper classes at all, even though their taxes are already at historical lows.

and it could be argued that it was largely their actions that caused the economic meltdown we had. I think goldman sachs had a lot more to do with it then an unwed mother trying to fee her kids

Ah, but to the Republicans, that unwed mother is a morally weak and needs to be punished for her lifestyle. the rich guy is rich because GOD made him rich! you can't punish the rich guy for doing the will of god and reward the unwed mother for being an immoral slut.

/this is what Republicans actually believe.


Who does Goldman give more money to, Pubs, or Dems? :)
 
2011-07-01 03:06:22 PM  

Nocens: Infernalist: Nocens: Infernalist: Nocens: tlchwi02: ForgotMyTowel: Who said the Pentagon's budget can't be cut? Why allow 1-2% (and its larger than that but whatever) in fraud when it can be stopped? Why go on record moaning about how unamerican it is for republicans to want to cut funding to programs that are mired in fraud. A better answer would be "how about instead of cutting the WIC budger by X%, why don't we keep it at the current funding levels and instead use that X% to clamp down on fraud a waste while keeping the women and children fed." Who could argue with that?

because they aren't talking about cutting fraud. If they were, i'd agree with them. They want to cut everything because they morally believe that people who are poor are inferior and bad. That's not at all about cutting fraud.


Yes, it's because they're poor and inferior. It has nothing to do with $14+ trillion debt, jackass.

They could abolish the whole WIC/Welfare/Foodstamp troika and it'd come nowhere close to fixing 'that' mess.

Now, raising taxes back to pre-Reagan levels, that'd fix the problem in a heartbeat. How's that grab you, retard?


It still wouldn't touch the deficit you ignorant mouth breathing regurgitating jackass.

Not immediately, you you you...young republican you.

lol

Jackass, I'm a 50 year old engineer who agrees my taxes will have to be raised to tackle the problem.

However, you're living off my taxes and my work. My portion supporting your free loading ass needs to be thrown in the pot first.


So, now that you've proven tlchwi02's point I assume you'll be bowing out?
 
2011-07-01 03:09:02 PM  
Did anybody point out that subby left out an "S" in Congressional?
 
2011-07-01 03:15:40 PM  

gameshowhost: Akula308: gameshowhost: Conservatism:

[i52.tinypic.com image 402x307]

Actually, we don't. See 'Laffer Curve'.

Oh my goodness. I've never heard of that! I should've paid attention more during my undergraduate degree in economics and during graduate business school. =|

See: By your *actions*, that's basically what you believe the curve actually looks like. MOAR TAX CUTZ! KEEPZ CUTTING! MOAR! MOAR!

/never mind the comically-oversimplified notion of only one tax
//and the fact that 0% and 100% tax are the only known revenue points
///and that the 'curve' could look like almost anything


Well you sure told me Mr. "I got a degree in economics"...my point was that your chart was a strawman. Unless that's what you actually think conservatives believe. In which case, you should have gone to a better school.
 
2011-07-01 03:15:59 PM  
1. Repeal the Bush/Obama tax cuts for millionaires
2. Means test Social Security
3. Balance
 
2011-07-01 03:17:25 PM  

FireBreathingLiberal: 1. Repeal the Bush/Obama tax cuts for millionaires
2. Means test Social Security
3. Balance


2 is a bad idea because then it turns Social Security into a welfare program and makes it vulnerable to cuts/elimination. Removing the cap on contributions is better than means testing.
 
2011-07-01 03:18:13 PM  

ForgotMyTowel: No no no, you need to cut back everywhere. Defense, social security, Medicare, entitlements (both for the rich and the poor), etc. It all needs to be done. Frankly I fail to see why this is even a partisan issue, other than the fact that this is politics of course.


Right, but you could cut the entire non-defense discretionary budget and you still wouldn't close the current budget deficit. Entitlement reform is everything.
 
2011-07-01 03:19:43 PM  

Nocens: Infernalist: Nocens: Infernalist: Nocens: tlchwi02: ForgotMyTowel: Who said the Pentagon's budget can't be cut? Why allow 1-2% (and its larger than that but whatever) in fraud when it can be stopped? Why go on record moaning about how unamerican it is for republicans to want to cut funding to programs that are mired in fraud. A better answer would be "how about instead of cutting the WIC budger by X%, why don't we keep it at the current funding levels and instead use that X% to clamp down on fraud a waste while keeping the women and children fed." Who could argue with that?

because they aren't talking about cutting fraud. If they were, i'd agree with them. They want to cut everything because they morally believe that people who are poor are inferior and bad. That's not at all about cutting fraud.


Yes, it's because they're poor and inferior. It has nothing to do with $14+ trillion debt, jackass.

They could abolish the whole WIC/Welfare/Foodstamp troika and it'd come nowhere close to fixing 'that' mess.

Now, raising taxes back to pre-Reagan levels, that'd fix the problem in a heartbeat. How's that grab you, retard?


It still wouldn't touch the deficit you ignorant mouth breathing regurgitating jackass.

Not immediately, you you you...young republican you.

lol

Jackass, I'm a 50 year old engineer who agrees my taxes will have to be raised to tackle the problem.

However, you're living off my taxes and my work. My portion supporting your free loading ass needs to be thrown in the pot first.


Thank you for proving a point, retard. lol
 
2011-07-01 03:20:30 PM  
Small Government Conservative + Balanced Budget Amendment viewpoint should be:

Spending side:
Hi, Mr. Congressman! Here is what taxes brought in last year. You may spend 98% of that this year on operations (capital/infrastructure separated). 1% MUST be placed in a contingency fund for emergencies (thinking natural disasters) that earns interest (the interest MUST be spent on debt principal reduction) and 1% MUST be used for debt principal reduction. Two cases allow for spending beyond this amount - a declared natural disaster, the cost of which exceeds current contingency funds, and a declared war (not an authorization for military action, a REAL declared war - big difference between these two things). Government spending on operations WILL NOT exceed receipts. Bond issuance will be limited to emergencies as above, or capital/infrastructure investments with an expected usable life longer than the term of the bonds.

Budgets shall consist not of $ amounts allocated, but % of total receipts (e.g., 5% Military, 5% Justice, etc.). Percentages may be adjusted annually. Failure to reach an agreement by October 1st (beginning of Fiscal year) results in previous year's % allocation to be used, with no increase in dollar amounts - any $ overage equally split between debt reduction and contingency fund. (In other words, inaction or inability to reach an agreement does not materially affect programs/agencies, assuming same or increased revenues - they get the same % of federal receipts, up to the same $ amount received in previous fiscal year - if $ amounts are less due to lower receipts, budget will be slashed equally across the board.)

All benefits paid out are means tested.

Social Security retirement will be phased out. If you are 46.9 (20 years younger than current retirement age) or younger, you will continue to pay the tax until the last recipient dies (47 or older). If you are 57 or younger, retirment age is set at 72. SS payments will be means tested. SS payouts may not exceed SS tax receipts - this will probably reduce benefits. Assistance to retired persons with limited recources will be covered by other existing programs for housing assistance, food assistance, utilities assistance, etc. Other SS programs (disability, widows, etc.) will be phased out and covered by other social assistance programs.

Revenue Side:
Individual Income tax:
Either 1) Eliminate it, and move to a nat'l sales tax that excludes food, housing, childcare, and medicine, etc. or
2) Make it much simpler: e.g. 10% of income above poverty level (with # of persons in household allowance), with an additional 1% applied for each X of poverty level, up to a maximum of 25% - a household would not reach 25% until they are making 15x the poverty level. No deductions. A household of 5 would pay 10% of income over 25,790, 11% of income between 51,580 and 77,370, etc. - a household of 5 with an annual income of $67,000 would pay about 3,719 in taxes - the same HH would not reach 25% level until they were making 386,850. (Based on '09 poverty levels (new window)). Interest on savings or dividends from investment are NOT taxed as income.

Capital Gains:
Flat 10%. Only applied when gains are monetized; in other words, if I buy real estate or equity at X, then sell it at X+Y, I pay 10% of Y to taxes. If I buy real estate or equity at Z within same fiscal year, I pay (10% of Y)-Z. No deduction for losses. This should encourage wise investment!

Corporate Income tax:
Eliminate it. Corporate taxes are simply passed along to the consumer, anyway. I know this is going to make the libs scream - until they see the numbers for how much this reduces prices (or should - businesses are free to keep their prices high while their competitors drop prices).

Inheritance tax:
Eliminate it. The money and property have already been taxed enough times before being passed along to heirs. Why penalize people who are frugal or invest wisely, or whose parents did so?
 
2011-07-01 03:21:22 PM  
What this country needs is a theocracy where all social programs are cut, which affords more subsudies and tax cuts for corporations. I know this does not cover the difference, so all regulations are nullified, and the regulatory branches of government are closed for good.
Now i realise we cannot have anarchy so we need to have much stricter laws, which the privately owned prisons can use the labor from these scofflaws so they can pay their own way just as our founding fathers imagined.
From stitching together all the current mainstream GOP talking points, this is their end game.
 
2011-07-01 03:22:32 PM  

ForgotMyTowel: I'm not even remotely suggesting voluntary taxation or relying on charity to house and feed the poor. My entire point was that by in large, republicans aren't some evil people who spit on the poor and less fortunate while walking down the street, lighting cigars with $100 bills.


and its nice you say that, but presently their actions speak louder than words. Under the guise of "rescueing the budget" they are feverishly defending a budget plan that cuts social programs for the poor despite it being shown repeatedly that it wont help fix the budget issues while still defending tax cuts to the ultra rich, an ongoing series of unwinnable and unsustainable wars or cuts to the defense industry.

If republicans truly were the caring, passionate people you claim, why do their actual actions not support that? its all well and good to claim they are the first to show up in a disaster but right now they specifically want to take food from starving children without reasonable justification. Those two positions are opposite positions
 
2011-07-01 03:24:18 PM  

ForgotMyTowel: I think you're hopelessly optimistic about the "tiny" percentage of fraud in social programs. I believe 100% that there are people who need the money and who will directly benefit from it in a positive way. I would never advocate cutting off emergency funds to children and those that are temporarily down on their luck. The problem is fraud is so rampant that it completely undermines the goal of the program, not to mention the public's opinion of it.


I just don't see how WIC fits this mold.

Having worked in a grocery store for way too long, I helped a lot of people get started on their WIC programs: showing them what they could buy and how it worked for their first time through the system. These people were almost universally distressed at the life situations that caused them to be there. They generally had very young children and no father in tow, and struggling to hold down a job and raise an infant at the same time. They were embarrassed to be where they were. Often angry. Almost never pleased at their windfall of free milk and bread. In all that time I met only a single person who even joked about how WIC was a great way to get some extra cash.

Maybe people are able to stay on the WIC program longer than they should be able to; maybe the WIC abusers shop at higher-brow stores than I worked at. Maybe my state is especially devoid of cheaters (ha! I live in Florida). And probably we should both agree that neither your nor my personal observations are worth squat when it comes to telling how many people are really cheating. But I just don't see where you're coming from.

I definitely don't think fraud is "so rampant that it completely undermines the goal of the program." The only way I can imagine you getting that impression is if you're never around the people on WIC. If you only hear about it on the news, I could see that happening.

/ Note: WIC is not the same as food stamps
 
2011-07-01 03:39:47 PM  
2) Make it much simpler: e.g. 10% of income above poverty level (with # of persons in household allowance), with an additional 1% applied for each X of poverty level, up to a maximum of 25% - a household would not reach 25% until they are making 15x the poverty level. No deductions. A household of 5 would pay 10% of income over 25,790, 11% of income between 51,580 and 77,370, etc. - a household of 5 with an annual income of $67,000 would pay about 3,719 in taxes - the same HH would not reach 25% level until they were making 386,850. (Based on '09 poverty levels (new window)). Interest on savings or dividends from investment are NOT taxed as income.

Sorry to quote myself on what was already a tl;dr post... Meant to extend the example. The family of 5, if they made 1,000,000, would pay ~219,000 in taxes....
 
2011-07-01 03:57:26 PM  

txhitech: American Thinker links should automatically have the Satire tag pinned to it.


We could totally do this....with the power of CODE!!

/Not you and I, but...you know.
 
2011-07-01 04:12:15 PM  

Grenwulf: Capital Gains:
Flat 10%. Only applied when gains are monetized; in other words, if I buy real estate or equity at X, then sell it at X+Y, I pay 10% of Y to taxes. If I buy real estate or equity at Z within same fiscal year, I pay (10% of Y)-Z. No deduction for losses. This should encourage wise investment!


You actually want to lower the cap gains tax?

I do love the "this should encourage wise investment" line. I could have sworn the desire to actually make money on investments is what encourages wise investment. How exactly would a huge reduction to the cap gains tax further encourage wise investment?

And don't even get me started on the idea to replace income tax with a sales tax. That idea is so profoundly retarded on its face it only serves to identify people who don't think things through. Replacing income tax with a sales tax would be the greatest boon to organized crime since prohibition. I'm just not sure how creating a massive black market for all goods is going to save our economy.
 
2011-07-01 04:15:27 PM  

Grenwulf: Corporate Income tax:
Eliminate it. Corporate taxes are simply passed along to the consumer, anyway. I know this is going to make the libs scream - until they see the numbers for how much this reduces prices (or should - businesses are free to keep their prices high while their competitors drop prices).


No the people who scream when they hear the notion that all corporate taxes as passed on to the consumer are the people who have acquired even the most basic grasp of economics. They also tend to laugh when they hear the ridiculous utopian fantasy that if we lower taxes on corporate profits they will certainly lower prices.
 
2011-07-01 04:18:42 PM  
I am all for cutting waste in programs, and enforcement of laws regarding that waste, but what I haven't heard yet is how cutting funding for these programs helps them eliminate that waste. When a company needs to "right size" their number of employees, they tend to bring in experts to look at the numbers and find areas with excess human capital. A net gain is achieved, though money has to be input into the system initially to realize those gains later. Rather than attacking these programs' whole kitty of funding, why not establish reform laws and mandates specific to the programs. An immediate cut to funding will only make these organizations less able to police themselves, as personnel cuts are the primary initial cost centers impacted by large cuts. If there is genuine waste or abuse of the system, analysis and correction would result in substantial long term savings.

Ultimately this is the problem; Republicans want immediate, deep and permanent cuts to everything, which to be achieved means immediate personnel reductions; cut funding, cut jobs and efficiency. Establish strong mandates and "right size" funding goals for the organizations, giving a positive enticement for reducing fraud and inefficiencies and let these organizations do the work. Democrats want to protect these organizations, but have no genuine solution to the problems these organizations have; let's bring in the people who can fix it, and get that accomplished. It happens every day in business, so if the government is as ponderous and inefficient as everyone is saying, it should be easy for a reduction expert to locate and eliminate waste.

It should be blisteringly obvious to everyone that there's never been an enticement at the level of these programs to produce efficiency and eliminate waste (at least not since WWII). Develop an enticement, establish a mandate to cut waste and graft in all federally funded services, and bring in advisers wherever needed to help meet goals. Everyone can be supportive of that; it increases fairness in the programs while reducing long term costs and establishes a new concept in federal funding; positive reinforcement for eliminating waste.
 
2011-07-01 04:23:39 PM  

essucht: shower_in_my_socks: The Democrats have offered $2 TRILLION in cuts.

So $2T over 10 years vs adding $1T per year to the budget since they took congress in 2006? What a deal!


I can make up a bunch of numbers too. Where is your empirical data to back up your BS claim?
 
2011-07-01 04:40:43 PM  

Grenwulf: wall of text


TL;DR it's "Derp! Cut taxes so revenue goes up!"

We live in a trickle-up game. This encourages stability but ultimately destroys itself unless someone keep resetting the board every so often.
 
2011-07-01 04:52:52 PM  

Thrag: Grenwulf: Corporate Income tax:
Eliminate it. Corporate taxes are simply passed along to the consumer, anyway. I know this is going to make the libs scream - until they see the numbers for how much this reduces prices (or should - businesses are free to keep their prices high while their competitors drop prices).

No the people who scream when they hear the notion that all corporate taxes as passed on to the consumer are the people who have acquired even the most basic grasp of economics. They also tend to laugh when they hear the ridiculous utopian fantasy that if we lower taxes on corporate profits they will certainly lower prices.


OK - we aren't going to agree on that point. If shareholders demand X% profit, and corporations can achieve that by reducing prices by the amount they would have paid in taxes (not to mention reducing staff that previously calculated/avoided taxes), why wouldn't they reduce prices to achieve competitive advantage or remain on competitive par? We aren't going to agree - you think I am economically ignorant/utopian for believing competition would work to consumers' advantage, I think you are economically ignorant/anti-corp for believing it won't. Truth probably lies somewhere in between. Prices would probably go down slightly and coporate profits would probably increase slightly.

You actually want to lower the cap gains tax?

Should have filled in a variable "X" for the percent - I don't care what the percent is. As I understand it, though, you are now taxed on NET capital gains/losses - in other words, again I am admitting partial ignorance, I think you can sell X for a $10 profit and Y for a $10 loss and owe no taxes. I am proposing a tax on the realized profit WITHOUT allowing offsetting losses. If I have that fact wrong, mea culpa, and we can work out my stupidity - and not allowing write-offs for losses MIGHT discourage some risky investment.

And don't even get me started on the idea to replace income tax with a sales tax. That idea is so profoundly retarded on its face it only serves to identify people who don't think things through. Replacing income tax with a sales tax would be the greatest boon to organized crime since prohibition. I'm just not sure how creating a massive black market for all goods is going to save our economy.

I want to encourage savings and investment - I don't believe it would create an "off-books" economy any more than the current system encourages people to be paid "under the table". Again, we probably wouldn't agree on that. I prefer to keep an income tax, actually, since it would be too open to political wrangling as to what to include on the "exempt" list. Excise taxes on luxuries? I don't know - just throwing an idea out there.

Mainly, I want to force Congress' collective hands on a balanced budget, and not allow them to deficit spend, except in the case of true national emergencies. Beyond that, it is all details.
 
2011-07-01 04:58:46 PM  

Undulation: Ultimately this is the problem; Republicans want immediate, deep and permanent cuts to everything, which to be achieved means immediate personnel reductions; cut funding, cut jobs and efficiency.


Everything except for what their constituents want: defense, Medicare, Social Security. Oh, and bridges to nowhere, agricultural subsidies, corporate welfare and oil company subsidies.

Establish strong mandates and "right size" funding goals for the organizations, giving a positive enticement for reducing fraud and inefficiencies and let these organizations do the work. Democrats want to protect these organizations, but have no genuine solution to the problems these organizations have; let's bring in the people who can fix it, and get that accomplished. It happens every day in business, so if the government is as ponderous and inefficient as everyone is saying, it should be easy for a reduction expert to locate and eliminate waste.

Nowhere is this in any Republican budget. Their answer is, "cut funding, and let them try to figure out how to survive." Oh, and "privatize," because corporations aren't making enough money off government programs. And again, don't dare touch the 45% of the budget that their constituents want to keep.
 
2011-07-01 05:03:46 PM  

TheBigJerk: Grenwulf: wall of text

TL;DR it's "Derp! Cut taxes so revenue goes up!"

We live in a trickle-up game. This encourages stability but ultimately destroys itself unless someone keep resetting the board every so often.


No, I don't believe cutting taxes is the answer - I believe in simplifying the tax code to reduce the ability to cheat/game the system. I am not an ignorant derper. I want to see taxes AND spending decreased. We have to pay off the last 40 years somehow, so taxes are not going to decrease any time soon. The generations that have enjoyed the deficit spending government have to be made to pay for it now. Unfortunately, that means those of us who only partially enjoyed it and our children and grandchildren must also pay for it.

I do think that X% of 1000000 is still more than X% of 100000 (that is basic math). A "rate" of 35% that because of loopholes ends up really being much lower only serves to pacify the masses and employ accountants. Make it fair and allow for poverty level (as I did in my example), and flatten the tax rate and eliminate the loopholes. Simplification.
 
2011-07-01 05:18:36 PM  

Grenwulf: I want to encourage savings and investment - I don't believe it would create an "off-books" economy any more than the current system encourages people to be paid "under the table".


Reality and history disagree with you. Just look at the black market in cigarettes that has grown significantly in places like NYC under high cigarette taxes.
 
2011-07-01 06:11:50 PM  
The problem is what half they'd like to cut. I'd like to run for President on a Nuclear Submarines for Mexican Baby Healthcare platform.

Think I can get RedEmily for Veep?
 
2011-07-01 06:37:55 PM  

Spartan_Manhandler: I respond to known trolls


Please stop that.
 
2011-07-01 06:42:08 PM  

Grenwulf: No, I don't believe cutting taxes is the answer...I want to see taxes AND spending decreased


...

So anyways, you were saying about flat taxes...

I believe in simplifying the tax code to reduce the ability to cheat/game the system.

Sounds like a plan, but your plan also included exempting a whole crapload of income because it was corporate or capital gains or inheritance and just as you can throw in arbitrary exemptions, so can everyone else. That's how the system GETS gamed in the first place.

Not to mention you're still clinging to the supply-sider nonsense that investment spending is superior to consumer spending. Investment spending only "creates wealth" for the already wealthy, so if you want a "rising tide that lifts all boats" you're going to swamp most of them to lift a few mega-yachts.

And to take another quick tangent, sales taxes have exemptions to! In Texas there was a big debate (which the rich won) explaining how there should be a cap on sales tax so if I buy a peanut I pay 8.5% sales tax but if Ron Paul buys a mega-yacht he pays less than 1% in sales tax.

Bottom line, class warfare is real and the rich have been winning at the expense of the nation since Reagan was elected.
 
2011-07-01 07:17:47 PM  

ForgotMyTowel: Out of curiosity, does anyone have the numbers as far as how much of the WIC funds make it to the women and children? The quote provided above says $137m is used to feed 16,000 recipients. Is that $137m million annual? If that's the case are these women and children actually getting $700 or so a month in assistance? If not, how much do they get?


No, the quote said the State of Michigan gets $137M a year in subsidies.

It further says that Oakland County (the most affluent county in Michigan) has a record 16,000 recipients (I figured there would be that many alone in Hazel Tucky). The paragraph also tells you what the administrative costs are.

When I was on WIC, I got about $45 a month in coupons for milk, baby formula, non-cartoon sugar cereal and real cheese for two children. It is the reason I haven't eaten Velveeta since 1988. (No, I haven't been on WIC since 1988 - they don't let you use the coupons for processed cheese and totally cured me of that habit)

/second post that totally misinterpreted or completely misunderstood the figures in that paragraph.
//reading comprehension Nazi
 
2011-07-01 08:09:20 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: mojodragon: John Conyer? There was this creepy looking cop flashing your baby pics around, asking if I'd seen you. Good thing he got the spelling wrong, amiright?

I giggled.


I guffawed
 
2011-07-01 08:45:21 PM  

ForgotMyTowel: Infernalist Oh yes, people abuse the system, so let's abolish the system.

By that logic, we'd have no systems at all in this country.

You don't abolish a system simply because it's being mis-used. You find the abusers, punish them and keep the system clean.

Yes, because that's what I said. Abolish the program. Beacuse that's what republicans have been arguing, throw the whole welfare system out. Nice strawman.

What I'm saying is we CAN cut the money going into programs without reducing the benefit that's coming out. Fraud reduciton is one way(and a large one at that) to accomplish this. So is getting rid of the all the overhead. People are fark are happy to complain about top heavy corporations but never seem to complain about top heavy govt agencies. Both can stand to trim a lot of fat without affecting the final product.


Fraud detection actually costs a lot more than fraud itself - investigators are much more highly trained (and thus expensive) if you want anything better than dumb rent-a-cops lording over the poor masses. The computer programs to automatically database and sift out fraud cost billions of dollars to create and maintain at credit card companies and banks, so that's right out. The necessary in-system appeals cost money, outside prosecution costs an inordinate amount of money. Then you consider the reduced productivity of workers in an environment where they have to order background checks, tax returns, and statements from companies, be suspicious of everyone, have every approval or denial signed off by their manager and his director, etc. (I'm including everyone people complain about here: WIC, Worker's comp, disability, etc.) And then every time someone is caught and prosecuted, people somehow get the impression that there's much more fraud than there is and people aren't doing their jobs by catching fraudsters - despite that they just did.

Go ask any company over 100 people how much money they spend on fraud detection and prevention, internal and external. And then ask how much they still lose to fraud and then figure that there would still be more that wasn't dug up, but not much. All of that is a major financial burden and time sink on any company.

There's already a ton of red tape and fraud investigation that drives up costs, but because it doesn't eliminate 100%, it's ignored by a lot of people. The costs have to exist because the same people who complain about fraud will absolutely refuse to turn in fraudsters, figuring it's not their problem, or it's a friend, or whatever - it's just the nebulous others that's the problem. But whatever, because WIC is cheap and WIC fraud is small fish; disability fraud is more common and much more expensive, and insurance fraud even more so. All this arguing about WIC fraud is arguing over what amounts to a few tens of thousands over the whole country.
 
2011-07-01 08:50:35 PM  
Are there no work houses?
 
2011-07-01 10:22:24 PM  

nmiguy:
You see this is one of the things that is wrong with our government. 137 billion dollars for breast feeding promotion? Hello? You don't need to spend a single cent on that, women have been breast feeding kids since the dawn of man. Word of mouth will suffice. Nutrition education? Why you gotta spend so much money to teach people about healthy eating? Drug abuse education? Don't we already HAVE drug abuse eduction everywhere? Our politicians just tend to THROW money away without even considering if they are getting their money's worth. WIC is a good deal, it helps the poor from starving. But cuts are necessary.


Cuts are necessary ... in WIC? I don't believe you.

Any time someone talks about cutting the budget and doesn't talk about defunding, in whole or in part, one or more of the - what, SIX? - wars that we're engaged in, they are lying to you.
 
2011-07-01 11:00:48 PM  
Tax "Break" implies some sort of limitation of time. My lunch "break" is 30 mins or so. The break isn't doing anyone any favors, and it's clearly not enough to keep people from being butthurt about specific programs and demographics because their morals and beliefs don't match the folks like boehner.

Enforcing your beliefs on the rest of the world by way of cutting funding to programs you no likey isn't part of your job description.

Break time's over kids. Time for you to give back for all this vacation time you've had.
 
2011-07-01 11:28:01 PM  

Infernalist: It's this false narrative that "We're running out of money!! We have to CUT SPENDING NOW!!!".

No, we're not, and no, we don't.

It's not a case of mandatory cuts in social-net programs. It's a case where we need to increase revenue by returning tax rates to Pre-Reagan levels and reforming the tax code to close all the loopholes and dodges that the rich and big business use to avoid paying taxes year after year.


We hit the debt ceiling two months ago, so I'd say that's a good indicator that not only are we running out of money, we're also running out of CHINA'S money.

As far as your tax comment, you're half right. Reagan lowered the tax rates, but at the same time, he eliminated most deductions. The result was greater revenue for the government. Pre-Reagan tax rates would be those that Carter operated under. You remember Carter's administration, right? That was the one where we had a nice little recession going, increasing trouble with Iran, and soaring gas prices. It's simply that subsequent legislatures have added those deductions back to the tax code and crafted new ones since the last tax code overhaul in 1986.

It also goes without saying that government spending has increased exponentially. Any budget proposal needs to involve both revenue generation and spending cuts. Though I'm not saying those cuts necessarily must come entirely from entitlement programs, it's clear that everyone needs to tighten their belts, which means some cuts in those programs are likely.
 
2011-07-02 01:53:59 AM  
Fark it. They should just do what the Democrats want and get it over with. They're NEVER going to quit biatching and moaning til we do. Never cut one single dollar of spending EVER AGAIN. Then spend as much money as humanly possible on everything under the sun and give it all away to everyone who in their eyes is not "the rich". I say keep spending til enough money is spent that 5 generations from now still can't pay it off. Then when the whole country blows the fark up from all the damage, they STILL will be biatching about how Bush and the Republicans are at fault for it all.

That's pretty much what they want, in a nutshell.
 
2011-07-02 03:31:52 AM  

3StratMan:

You sure you didn't mean to sign up with 3StrawMan? Even most of the conservatives here actually try to refer to the actual budget before passing sweeping judgment...

Well-read Baron: We hit the debt ceiling two months ago, so I'd say that's a good indicator that not only are we running out of money, we're also running out of CHINA'S money.


US and German banks own most of the debt. China's portion is growing, but still pretty small - the amount of domestic capital that big business hand over, on the other hand, is truly frightening.
 
2011-07-02 05:15:56 AM  
Since no one seems to have said it yet, let's toss out a basic point:

Income levels for the wealthy show higher volatility than income levels for the rest of the population.

Yeah, we could arrange the tax code so all the revenue came from the wealthiest 5% of the public.. that segment already pays something like 40% of all personal income tax. Problem is, if the stock market performs badly, those people at the top 5% tend to feel it the most. It's not like they go broke or anything, but they end up paying less income tax for that year.

That's part of why we have budget problems right now. When the 5% of people who pay 40% of all personal income tax lost 30-40% of their net worth a few years ago, that took a big bite out of federal tax revenue.

The people who complain most about Republicans wanting to cut social programs don't seem to realize that 'tax the rich' means exposing those same programs to dramatic cuts any time the rich have a bad year in the stock market.

If you want stable budgets for social programs, you need stability in your tax revenue. Stability in the tax revenue comes from averaging the gains and losses out across a large portion of the population.

The Democratic mindset seems to be, "if tax revenue is up because the rich had a good year, increase social spending. Keep doing that until the rich have a bad year and tax revenues drop. Then say we have to raise tax rates to meet our obligations. As soon as the rich have another good year and tax revenue increases, return to step 1."
 
2011-07-02 11:58:11 AM  
Flat tax. That is all.
 
2011-07-02 04:08:26 PM  

imprimere: Flat tax. That is all.


Yeah, I'm rich, so this idea sounds fantastic.
 
2011-07-02 04:17:23 PM  

lewismarktwo: imprimere: Flat tax. That is all.

Yeah, I'm rich, so this idea sounds fantastic.


That is a retarded argument. Their 25% will contibute way more than yours. I've never understood the opposition to this.
 
2011-07-02 04:45:31 PM  

imprimere: lewismarktwo: imprimere: Flat tax. That is all.

Yeah, I'm rich, so this idea sounds fantastic.

That is a retarded argument. Their 25% will contibute way more than yours. I've never understood the opposition to this.


Because the poor folk will end up paying more money. The rich will end up paying less. That's why. See poor folk still have to pay the same amount for a speeding ticket or for sales tax as the guy who owns the local restaurant chain. A DISPROPORTIONATE amount of money would be taken from the poor, who have MUCH LESS DISPOSABLE INCOME.

Tho, if you take into account how little the uber rich pay anyway by hiding their money and playing shell games, it might actually be more costly for those uber rich (not the merely wealthy) to go to a simple flat tax. This could be the reason why we don't already have it.

If a 'flat tax' is ever implemented it will not be simple, I can assure you that.
 
2011-07-02 04:55:15 PM  
Your argument (while I respect it) still doesn't ring ture for me. If everyone has 25% taken off the top, then the other 75% still goes to 'whatever'. You could also make fines a percentage and, again, we're covered (though I'd have issues with this).

A flat tax does not have to be complicated.

And yes, the fact that a flat tax has not been implemented tells you that the RICH don't want it. It would hurt them more.
 
2011-07-03 02:15:15 AM  
As usual, the proggies have no ideas for deficit reduction, except take money away from the people/corps who actually create jobs. But that would go against their agenda for keeping the majority of us dependent on the government. Keep saying the repubs are insane all you want, not many are listening. The progressive view is about 20% of the population, and they want total control. You are going to lose yet again for never understanding that you cannot spend your way out of a recession. History yet repeats itself again and again.


I am disgustitated
 
2011-07-03 08:34:59 AM  

imprimere: Your argument (while I respect it) still doesn't ring ture for me. If everyone has 25% taken off the top, then the other 75% still goes to 'whatever'.


The problem isn't in the tax rate.

Let's look at two people, call them A and B.

Person A flips burgers for a living and makes around $11k, year.
Person B was born with a silver spoon in their mouth and makes at least $100k/year on bank interest alone.

Let's enact your magical flat tax.
Person A would be losing $2,750 a year.
Person B would be losing $25,000 a year.

Herein lies the problem: that $2,750 is a much higher burden for person A than for person B. Person B makes most of their money on investments, person A holds down a job.

When you're only making around $800 a month working full time, losing a quarter of that to taxes is a huge life burden.

What i've just described is what's known as a regressive tax.
 
2011-07-03 10:41:12 AM  

TsukasaK: imprimere: Your argument (while I respect it) still doesn't ring ture for me. If everyone has 25% taken off the top, then the other 75% still goes to 'whatever'.

The problem isn't in the tax rate.

Let's look at two people, call them A and B.

Person A flips burgers for a living and makes around $11k, year.
Person B was born with a silver spoon in their mouth and makes at least $100k/year on bank interest alone.

Let's enact your magical flat tax.
Person A would be losing $2,750 a year.
Person B would be losing $25,000 a year.

Herein lies the problem: that $2,750 is a much higher burden for person A than for person B. Person B makes most of their money on investments, person A holds down a job.

When you're only making around $800 a month working full time, losing a quarter of that to taxes is a huge life burden.

What i've just described is what's known as a regressive tax.


Still not a problem for me. We all know that what you make is not what you actually make. When you look at actual numbers it's easy to say 'it's a larger burden', however, it's the same burden. (I actually think this would drive up the middle class) Moreover, if you actually enforced this, the extra money from the 'rich', would actually lower the percentage for everyone (assuming you don't let the government spend too much).
 
2011-07-03 11:01:13 AM  
In fact, let's look at all the flat taxes which already exist;

Bottle deposits
Licensing
Electricity
Gas
State taxes
Car Insurance

We all pay the same amount (based on usage). The 'rich' feel it a helluva lot less! Same argument.

FLAT TAX!
 
2011-07-04 10:25:20 AM  

foxyshadis: 3StratMan:

You sure you didn't mean to sign up with 3StrawMan? Even most of the conservatives here actually try to refer to the actual budget before passing sweeping judgment...


#1: Sweeping judgment? Not hardly. Just pointing out the path the Liberals and Democrats are wanting the country go down, and their strategy on spending as a whole. Disagree? Prove me wrong.

#2: Conservatives? On this site? Yeah, there's maybe like about 10 of us, but when it comes to going toe to toe with the Liberals here, a couple chime in once in a while, but it's usually pretty lopsided. Usually 1 Conservative VS 4 or 5 Libs at a time.
 
Displayed 209 of 209 comments


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report