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.

(Christian Science Monitor)   Five reasons the federal budget is so farked not even Ron Paul can save it   (csmonitor.com) divider line 204
    More: Scary, Ron Paul  
•       •       •

7487 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Feb 2012 at 11:38 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



204 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-14 08:25:39 AM
I'm pretty sure those were talked about.
 
2012-02-14 08:52:08 AM

staplermofo: I'm pretty sure those were talked about.


True, he should have said, "Talked about intelligently."
 
2012-02-14 09:06:49 AM
Yeah, those five have, indeed, been talked about. I'd have to disagree that they haven't been talked about intelligently, but I would concede that they're not talked about in proportions that make any kind of sense.
 
2012-02-14 09:07:13 AM

ghare: True, he should have said, "Talked about intelligently."


Excuse me, I was still talking. Can I finish? Would you let me finish? If you'd let me finish I would have addressed this. This is an important issue, and I have to get my point across. The people here reading these posts deserve that. The American people deserve that. And those are the people I'm here to serve, honest, hard-working Americans who want what's best for the country. They're not interested in platitudes or politics as usual. They're ready to accept that life is not pain free. If you let the other posters ramble on and on, wasting everyone's time beating around the bush, talking about how they would have rephrased that sentence with platitudes and obfuscation, you ought to afford me the same chance. Now, if you'd let me finish, I'll answer this. We can all agree that the sentence is flawed. Some of the other posters would say that it's still functional. With all due respect, that simply is not true. We need to take a hard look at that sentence and rephrase it in a way that best serves the American people. We can't just rephrase it so it makes the namby pamby liberals comfortable. No, that's what we've been doing for the past four years, and that is not working. The American people can see it's not working, and if you'd let me finish, I'd get to that. They are suffering under the weight of this inaccurately phrased sentence that Obama doesn't want to do anything about. Well, if you'd let me finish, I'd rephrase that sentence so that it is true. It would be a sentence that does make sense, real sense, not just smoke and mirrors, but syntactically sound, fair way, like our forefathers phrased their sentences. If I could just finish. If you would just give me that, we could have this honest discourse like everyone here came for. Isn't that what this whole forum is about? Now, if you're going to insist on cutting me short, I'll say this: That sentence must be rephrased, and it has to be real change.
 
2012-02-14 09:20:47 AM

staplermofo: BBOT*


i213.photobucket.com

/*big block o' text
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-02-14 09:26:08 AM
People don't want to hear, that why no one talks about it. People want something for nothing.
 
2012-02-14 10:23:54 AM

vpb: People don't want to hear, that why no one talks about it. People want something for nothing.


Not true, people what money for nothing and chicks for free.
 
2012-02-14 10:24:19 AM
List with comments:

1) Medicare is America's largest budget burden: While true, it misses the point. Medicine is American's largest budget burden. Whether you take it off the books of the government or not, it's still going to break the backs of the people. You need to address that sector of the economy, not simply the government's involvement in it. Having the government say "this is too expensive, we can't afford it, so you do it yourself, even though you can't afford it either" is really no solution.

2) Social Security is fixable, but ignored: Basically correct.

3) Other government spending: Cuts? Yes. Eliminate deficit? Er... There isn't even a point to this one. Not sure what they are saying.

4) Low taxes: Is the boon overstated?: No farking kidding.

5) Growth: If it slows, there's no plan B Basically correct.
 
2012-02-14 10:32:55 AM
So vote Democrat?
 
2012-02-14 10:38:48 AM
Low taxes: Is the boon overstated?

Ya think?

I mean, it's not like we have decades of evidence to prove that point or anything.
 
2012-02-14 10:41:11 AM
6) 5 page slideshows reducing efficiency of clicking by 80%, at a cost to the economy of around $184.2 billion annually*

*
Figures quoted from the department of bullshiat statistics and outright lies.
 
2012-02-14 10:49:23 AM
Isn't the definition of insanity worded something like "Doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results"?

Why the fark do you keep on voting these two parties back into power?

ITS NOT GONNA farkING CHANGE WITH THE STATUS QUO
 
2012-02-14 10:52:06 AM

cman: Isn't the definition of insanity worded something like "Doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results"?

Why the fark do you keep on voting these two parties back into power?

ITS NOT GONNA farkING CHANGE WITH THE STATUS QUO


Man, college is fun. When do you graduate?
 
2012-02-14 11:30:43 AM
1) Medicare is America's largest budget burden: trivial to fix. cap the amount of coverage. stop paying billions of dollars to extend the life of someone who is 75 for 1 more year. sorry old people, but you didnt pay for this when you were working and now expect freebies. fark you die already.

2) Social Security is fixable, but ignored: once again, why do we continue to pay out to people who dont need the money? sliding scale and poor people? no problem. people with millions in their retirement accounts? nothing.

3) Other government spending: did you mean defense? because the rest of the budget is chump change compared to the first 3 parts.

4) Low taxes: Is the boon overstated?: No farking kidding.

5) Growth: If it slows, there's no plan B Basically correct.
 
2012-02-14 11:33:44 AM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: So vote Democrat?


So the democrats, at least in theory, will raise the taxes on the rich and close the loopholes on corporations.
Strangely enough education dollars have a net benefit.
Even food stamps have a positive effect in the economy.
People with no money for food, buy food. The stores and the manufacturers benefit by slightly increased sales.
There is little down side to this.

(yes yes yes, we know, this is just the government moving OUR money around. but feeding the poor has never destroyed a nation before and it is NOT whats destroying us now.)
 
2012-02-14 11:44:22 AM

staplermofo: ghare: True, he should have said, "Talked about intelligently."

Excuse me, I was still talking. Can I finish? Would you let me finish? If you'd let me finish I would have addressed this. This is an important issue, and I have to get my point across. The people here reading these posts deserve that. The American people deserve that. And those are the people I'm here to serve, honest, hard-working Americans who want what's best for the country. They're not interested in platitudes or politics as usual. They're ready to accept that life is not pain free. If you let the other posters ramble on and on, wasting everyone's time beating around the bush, talking about how they would have rephrased that sentence with platitudes and obfuscation, you ought to afford me the same chance. Now, if you'd let me finish, I'll answer this. We can all agree that the sentence is flawed. Some of the other posters would say that it's still functional. With all due respect, that simply is not true. We need to take a hard look at that sentence and rephrase it in a way that best serves the American people. We can't just rephrase it so it makes the namby pamby liberals comfortable. No, that's what we've been doing for the past four years, and that is not working. The American people can see it's not working, and if you'd let me finish, I'd get to that. They are suffering under the weight of this inaccurately phrased sentence that Obama doesn't want to do anything about. Well, if you'd let me finish, I'd rephrase that sentence so that it is true. It would be a sentence that does make sense, real sense, not just smoke and mirrors, but syntactically sound, fair way, like our forefathers phrased their sentences. If I could just finish. If you would just give me that, we could have this honest discourse like everyone here came for. Isn't that what this whole forum is about? Now, if you're going to insist on cutting me short, I'll say this: That sentence must be rephrased, an ...


Heh. Nice.
 
2012-02-14 11:45:17 AM
6) We account for almost half of the world's military spending.
 
2012-02-14 11:45:47 AM
#1 is a GOP scare tactic compounded with an already failing system of healthcare. Well, perhaps failing isn't the right word, but too "free-markety" right now. It's easy to see the decicit as it is now, put it to a power that would trail out to be 75 years and BAM. HUGE NUMBER. There's no substance to it.
 
2012-02-14 11:46:42 AM
a lot of the problem with medicare is cultural, in my uninformed and humble opinion. we have a culture where we try to extend life for as long as possible, regardless of the quality of that life. if the elderly were willing to make sacrifices for the greater good -- like forgoing chemotherapy at age 80 or going with pain management solutions for end-of-life care, rather than trying every trick in the book to keep from dying -- we wouldn't have a medicare crisis. Their doctors urge them to greater and greater expenses to prolong low-quality life, while society tells them they are entitled to bankrupt the rest of us because at some point they 'paid in' to the system.

the short answer to why we're in this mess even after a comprehensive overhaul of the healthcare industry? death panels.

burn in hell, sarah palin!
 
2012-02-14 11:48:35 AM
I've been assured that we need not worry about these things. As soon as the rich start paying their fair share our budget problems will disappear, right?
 
2012-02-14 11:49:46 AM

DamnYankees: 1) Medicare is America's largest budget burden: While true, it misses the point. Medicine is American's largest budget burden. Whether you take it off the books of the government or not, it's still going to break the backs of the people. You need to address that sector of the economy, not simply the government's involvement in it. Having the government say "this is too expensive, we can't afford it, so you do it yourself, even though you can't afford it either" is really no solution.


Correct. Medical inflation is the core problem. If we can fix that everything else is manageable with reasonable (e.g. 1990s-ish) tax levels.

If we can't fix that we're all boned regardless of what happens with the Federal budget.
 
2012-02-14 11:50:25 AM
Subby lies. Ron Paul will save the budget through libertarian magic and Ayn Randian voodoo.
 
2012-02-14 11:50:33 AM

Koalacaust: I've been assured that we need not worry about these things. As soon as the rich start paying their fair share our budget problems will disappear, right?


If we can bring down medical inflation to amounts comparable to inflation in the rest of the economy, then YES.
 
2012-02-14 11:51:11 AM

NallTWD: #1 is a GOP scare tactic compounded with an already failing system of healthcare. Well, perhaps failing isn't the right word, but too "free-markety" right now. It's easy to see the decicit as it is now, put it to a power that would trail out to be 75 years and BAM. HUGE NUMBER. There's no substance to it.


It is funny to project 75 years into the future. They include some minor factor for inflation and interest.
But do they include a factor for things getting cheaper? All of the currently expensive new drugs will be generic in less than 20 years. So we could cap all treatments paid by medicare today to ONLY include generic drugs. period.

This would cut the expenses to next to nothing and save the system.

/no, I dont care about those few 75+ people who would have been saved by 100k a year meds. sorry. we do not have infinite resources.
 
2012-02-14 11:51:12 AM
Is there a spending problem? Sure. There is plenty we should cut, such as trimming the size of our military budget and reducing certain agriculture subsidies. But there is also additional spending we need, such as fixing our crumbling infrastructure.

The main problem is the revenue side and the Republicans will not admit this. They cut revenue off at the knees more than once in the 00's and then spent like drunken sailors. Then they have the audacity to say it's a spending problem.

If you believe that we can fix the deficit without an increase in revenue, I have a bridge to sell you.
 
2012-02-14 11:51:21 AM

CapnBlues: a lot of the problem with medicare is cultural, in my uninformed and humble opinion. we have a culture where we try to extend life for as long as possible, regardless of the quality of that life. if the elderly were willing to make sacrifices for the greater good -- like forgoing chemotherapy at age 80 or going with pain management solutions for end-of-life care, rather than trying every trick in the book to keep from dying -- we wouldn't have a medicare crisis. Their doctors urge them to greater and greater expenses to prolong low-quality life, while society tells them they are entitled to bankrupt the rest of us because at some point they 'paid in' to the system.

the short answer to why we're in this mess even after a comprehensive overhaul of the healthcare industry? death panels.

burn in hell, sarah palin!


It's the worst mix of business and emotion. The people empowered to make end-of-life decisions are the most emotionally involved; doctors get paid regardless; with Medicare, there's not even a question of "can I afford this?". There's no limiting factor anywhere and no incentive to do it yourself.
 
2012-02-14 11:52:36 AM
namatad:2) Social Security is fixable, but ignored: once again, why do we continue to pay out to people who dont need the money? sliding scale and poor people? no problem. people with millions in their retirement accounts? nothing.

I think it is called a contract. Workers paid into the system for years (their contractual obligation) and the Federal Government pays them and annuity payment after retirement age (their contractual obligation).

If the knuckleheads in Washington continually mis-managed the revenue over the years, that is not the seniors fault.
 
2012-02-14 11:53:06 AM

cman: Isn't the definition of insanity worded something like "Doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results"?

Why the fark do you keep on voting these two parties back into power?

ITS NOT GONNA farkING CHANGE WITH THE STATUS QUO


actually, the legal definition of insanity follows the M'Naughton rule (Link). It is most commonly associated with knowing that a given act was wrong. The insanity defense in general has been largely abandoned in favor of the plea "Guilty but mentally ill," which (ironically) often results in longer placements in corrections than traditional guilty pleas.

Your definition of insanity came from Albert Einstein, who made numerous contributions to physics and mathematics but two horribly misused contributions to neuroscience and psychology. The first is the one you presented, and the second is about the "we only use 10% of our brains" thing. We use the whole brain. Einstein was saying most people only use about 10% of the potential of their brains, which is a reasonable claim but not by any means supported empirically.
 
2012-02-14 11:53:07 AM

heinekenftw: Subby lies. Ron Paul will save the budget through libertarian magic and Ayn Randian voodoo.


LOL
By cutting medicare/aid and socsec by 100% you would TOTALLY be running a surplus.
This would TOTALLY solve the budget problem.
With the new line-item budget veto power, this would be trivial (I LIE).

And those non-producing old people who got sick and didnt save enough money? Well they will get sick and die quickly enough, further reducing any budget problems.
 
2012-02-14 11:53:19 AM
Cut defense spending by 50%
Bring home all overseas troops, close all overseas bases.
Let the Bush Tax Cuts expire
Raise the social security/medicare eligibility age to 70
1000% tax increase on all corporations which outsource labor.
No more subsidies for Big Oil, Big Pharma, or Big Ag.
 
2012-02-14 11:53:49 AM
True facts gleaned over the years:
1. If it scares, it sells ad space.
2. Of the biggest stories of the last 100 years--NONE were predicted (Pearl Harbor, Dewey Wins, 9/11, The Great Depresssion, The Financial Crisis of 2008...)

/If you hear predictions on CNN/FOX/MSNBC, be calm because they'll never come true.
//Move along citizens, there's nothing to see here.
 
2012-02-14 11:54:09 AM

namatad: 2) Social Security is fixable, but ignored: once again, why do we continue to pay out to people who dont need the money? sliding scale and poor people? no problem. people with millions in their retirement accounts? nothing.


This would be the death of Social Security. So long as it's administered as an insurance program and paid out evenly to all enrollees without means testing, it's politically popular. Add means testing, and it's just another welfare program subject to the political winds. The Republicans and Blue Dogs would be slashing it like they were Freddy Krueger.
 
2012-02-14 11:54:48 AM

qorkfiend: It's the worst mix of business and emotion. The people empowered to make end-of-life decisions are the most emotionally involved; doctors get paid regardless; with Medicare, there's not even a question of "can I afford this?". There's no limiting factor anywhere and no incentive to do it yourself.


Cyan 4. Been meaning to do that for a while. You're awesome. :)
 
2012-02-14 11:55:25 AM
Here are all the numbers you could want on where our excess health care spending goes. It's staggering in scale.

My favorite bit of low-hanging fruit is drugs. The amount we *over*pay for drugs, as a nation, compared to other countries, is bigger than the pharma industry's entire R&D and marketing budgets combined. (And marketing is bigger than R&D).

If the costs of actual manufacture and distribution of the drugs are small compared to R&D, it suggests we could publicly fund pharma R&D at current levels, literally *give the drugs away* to the world, and still come out ahead.
 
2012-02-14 11:56:17 AM

Beerguy: namatad:2) Social Security is fixable, but ignored: once again, why do we continue to pay out to people who dont need the money? sliding scale and poor people? no problem. people with millions in their retirement accounts? nothing.

I think it is called a contract. Workers paid into the system for years (their contractual obligation) and the Federal Government pays them and annuity payment after retirement age (their contractual obligation).

If the knuckleheads in Washington continually mis-managed the revenue over the years, that is not the seniors fault.


it is called breaking the contract. YAWN.
fark them. they signed a fraudulent contract with themselves (the people are the government, correct?)
the people we would be cutting off were the same people who lied about the ponzi scheme in the first place.

/why arent these systems considered ponzi schemes again? I have read explanations and they never ring true.

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation.

yup, we are going to pay your socsec payments from the money paid by the current workers.
yup, ponzi scheme.
 
2012-02-14 11:57:02 AM

cubic_spleen: Cut defense spending by 50%
Bring home all overseas troops, close all overseas bases.
Let the Bush Tax Cuts expire
Raise the social security/medicare eligibility age to 70
1000% tax increase on all corporations which outsource labor.
No more subsidies for Big Oil, Big Pharma, or Big Ag.


can I sign up for you newsletter?
 
2012-02-14 11:57:06 AM

qorkfiend: It's the worst mix of business and emotion. The people empowered to make end-of-life decisions are the most emotionally involved; doctors get paid regardless; with Medicare, there's not even a question of "can I afford this?". There's no limiting factor anywhere and no incentive to do it yourself.


Also, end-of-life care is often only obvious in retrospect.
 
2012-02-14 11:57:08 AM

DamnYankees: List with comments:

1) Medicare is America's largest budget burden: While true, it misses the point. Medicine is American's largest budget burden. Whether you take it off the books of the government or not, it's still going to break the backs of the people. You need to address that sector of the economy, not simply the government's involvement in it. Having the government say "this is too expensive, we can't afford it, so you do it yourself, even though you can't afford it either" is really no solution.

2) Social Security is fixable, but ignored: Basically correct.

3) Other government spending: Cuts? Yes. Eliminate deficit? Er... There isn't even a point to this one. Not sure what they are saying.

4) Low taxes: Is the boon overstated?: No farking kidding.

5) Growth: If it slows, there's no plan B Basically correct.


The two biggies:
1) We cannot continue to allow healthcare costs to skyrocket. We are eventually going to arrive at Universal Healthcare, so let's get there already and start managing costs more effectively. (No, UH is not a panacea, but it's a necessary step.)
4) Taxes are stupid-low and have been since Reagan.
 
2012-02-14 11:59:07 AM

namatad: yup, we are going to pay your socsec payments from the money paid by the current workers.


That's the way SS has always worked. The trust fund is to try to cover the demographic shortfall from the Baby Boomers retiring.

namatad: yup, ponzi scheme.


Is there a difference between "ponzi scheme" and "insurance plan" in your world? What makes SS the former but not the latter? It's not and has never been a savings/investment plan.
 
2012-02-14 12:00:09 PM
Ron Paul can cut programs by 115%.
It sounds crazy, but hear me out. If I ate an apple a day, and you took away all of my apples, that would be a 100% cut in my apple funding. But, if you were to use nuclear fusion to destroy my daily apple, some apple matter would no longer exist. That's more than taking away my apple. Now, through nuclear fusion, elements move from tiny atoms like hydrogen or carbon, to heavier atoms, like gold.
That's right, Ron Paul can cut programs so hard they turn into gold. Boom, new source of income.
 
2012-02-14 12:00:11 PM

namatad: I don't understand how insurance works.


Yes, we know.
 
2012-02-14 12:00:18 PM

fenianfark: Is there a spending problem? Sure. There is plenty we should cut, such as trimming the size of our military budget and reducing certain agriculture subsidies. But there is also additional spending we need, such as fixing our crumbling infrastructure.

The main problem is the revenue side and the Republicans will not admit this. They cut revenue off at the knees more than once in the 00's and then spent like drunken sailors. Then they have the audacity to say it's a spending problem.

If you believe that we can fix the deficit without an increase in revenue, I have a bridge to sell you.


Well, they do know a little about spending problems. It just seems that the subtext is, don't let these bozos have control of the purse again.

Seriously, what was/is wrong with "Tax and Spend"?
 
2012-02-14 12:02:10 PM

namatad: And those non-producing old people who got sick and didnt save enough money? Well they will get sick and die quickly enough, further reducing any budget problems.


Kill people the moment they retire and you don't have to pay pensions or retirement.

Its a win/win situation.
 
2012-02-14 12:02:27 PM

namatad: cubic_spleen: Cut defense spending by 50%
Bring home all overseas troops, close all overseas bases.
Let the Bush Tax Cuts expire
Raise the social security/medicare eligibility age to 70
1000% tax increase on all corporations which outsource labor.
No more subsidies for Big Oil, Big Pharma, or Big Ag.

can I sign up for you newsletter?


Sure! You are Member # 000000001

Also: Smoking more than one pack a day, and/or being morbidly obese, are re-classified as deliberate and suicidal behavior, and therefore not eligible for medical insurance, or any medical care beyond psychotherapy. Why throw good doctor money at someone who is only trying to die anyway?
 
2012-02-14 12:03:27 PM

heinekenftw: namatad: And those non-producing old people who got sick and didnt save enough money? Well they will get sick and die quickly enough, further reducing any budget problems.

Kill people the moment they retire and you don't have to pay pensions or retirement.

Its a win/win situation.


We just need to find a use for the bodies.
 
2012-02-14 12:03:27 PM

Gaseous Anomaly: qorkfiend: It's the worst mix of business and emotion. The people empowered to make end-of-life decisions are the most emotionally involved; doctors get paid regardless; with Medicare, there's not even a question of "can I afford this?". There's no limiting factor anywhere and no incentive to do it yourself.

Also, end-of-life care is often only obvious in retrospect.


i've heard this argument repeatedly. i'd like to see the stats on things like age at beginning of crisis/decline relative to expenditure to extend life. I just don't believe that "well, you never know when someone's going to die, so you might as well do everything you can every time." That's like giving up on a problem because there's no obvious solution. There has to be a better way.

I'd also like to point out, that I've noticed a correlation (albeit anecdotal) between likelihood of espousing this view and likelihood of supporting the death penalty despite the possibility of executing innocents.
 
2012-02-14 12:03:44 PM

Gaseous Anomaly: Koalacaust: I've been assured that we need not worry about these things. As soon as the rich start paying their fair share our budget problems will disappear, right?

If we can bring down medical inflation to amounts comparable to inflation in the rest of the economy, then YES.


How do we go about accomplishing this?

/I know my earlier post was a little snarky, but I don't know an awful lot about healthcare and am genuinely curious as to how more well-informed people think we should approach this issue
 
2012-02-14 12:03:49 PM

CapnBlues: qorkfiend: It's the worst mix of business and emotion. The people empowered to make end-of-life decisions are the most emotionally involved; doctors get paid regardless; with Medicare, there's not even a question of "can I afford this?". There's no limiting factor anywhere and no incentive to do it yourself.

Cyan 4. Been meaning to do that for a while. You're awesome. :)


Hooray! ...I hope cyan is a good color!
 
2012-02-14 12:03:59 PM

Beerguy: I think it is called a contract. Workers paid into the system for years (their contractual obligation) and the Federal Government pays them and annuity payment after retirement age (their contractual obligation).


Personally, I don't give a shiat. As some right winger once said, Social security isn't meant to be paying for your green fees. The folks who are collecting the checks had every opportunity to demand the knuckleheads manage the revenue correctly. But they didn't, so I couldn't care less if a guy who has a net worth of millions of dollars doesn't get his SS check.
 
2012-02-14 12:05:15 PM

blastoh: 6) We account for almost half of the world's military spending.


But that is an investment that pays off. We are boss of the applesauce, which benefits our economy in significant ways.
 
Displayed 50 of 204 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report