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 209
    More: Asinine, John Conyers  
•       •       •

8246 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Jul 2011 at 11:46 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



209 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
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-those-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.
 
Displayed 50 of 209 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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