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.

(The New York Times)   Sen. Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican is against tax increases but pro "revenue increases"   (nytimes.com) divider line 56
    More: Hero, South Carolina, Republican, Leon E. Panetta, select committees, Budgetary Assessments, carbon sequestration, House Armed Services Committee, Parris Island  
•       •       •

1276 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Jun 2012 at 9:49 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-05 09:52:07 AM  
For the poors! Gotta broaden the base and put some skin in the game, right?

Just tax the people with the least money and then the economy will be fixed and we'll all be rich.
 
2012-06-05 09:52:32 AM  
The GOP: force women to have babies to be fed into the war machine.

/carlin: santitiy of life.mp3
 
2012-06-05 09:53:35 AM  
Some Lawmakers Look for Way Out as Defense Cuts Near to renege on deal for cuts, then cry that we're spending too much.
 
2012-06-05 09:55:27 AM  
Get rid of tax loop holes, problem solved. People who make the same amount should pay the same amount in taxes.
 
2012-06-05 09:56:35 AM  
Have we gotten to the point that we're using the Hero tag sarcastically?

Graham said "The debate on the debt is an opportunity to send the world a signal that we are going to remain the strongest military force in the world," he said. "We're saying, 'We're going to keep it, and we're going to make it the No. 1 priority of a broke nation.' "
 
2012-06-05 09:57:09 AM  
Drew should go back to "It's not news. It's Fark.com" if they are going to greenlight articles that are days old.
 
2012-06-05 09:59:07 AM  

theknuckler_33: Drew should go back to "It's not news. It's Fark.com" if they are going to greenlight articles that are days old.


Wait, that was changed?

[Looks up at new tagline.]

UGH! I hope no money exchanged hands for the creation of that.
 
2012-06-05 09:59:31 AM  
I'm shocked that Lindsey Graham is getting on his knees before the almighty military industry. Shocked and awed.

How long before we go back to Obama and the democrats being soft on national security and emboldening the terrorists?
 
2012-06-05 09:59:59 AM  

derpdeederp: Get rid of tax loop holes, problem solved. People who make the same amount should pay the same amount in taxes.


I can only assume you support the Ex-Patriot Act then?
 
2012-06-05 10:00:41 AM  
Republican Jesus: Take thine food from thine poor to pay for an unecessary war.
 
2012-06-05 10:01:22 AM  
It's not a tax increase. It's a temporary refund adjustment.
 
2012-06-05 10:01:40 AM  
FTA: "Mr. Graham said the sentiment for raising revenues by closing tax loopholes or imposing higher fees on items like federal oil leases is expanding in his party.

Asked about the 'no new taxes' pledge almost all Republicans have signed, he shrugged: 'I've crossed the Rubicon on that.'"


So last summer, they played chicken with the debt ceiling, and now they're wondering how they can meet the ludicrous expectations they set for themselves?

I think they should have agreed to the extra $3T the Dems asked for in revenue and called it a day. They're about to lose the battle they thought they'd won (98% of) last year, and they don't even realize it.
 
2012-06-05 10:02:05 AM  
I'm not saying it's the Democrats' fault. I'm not saying it's the Republicans' fault. It's both of y'all's fault."

Thanks for clarifying.

Article is whining about the mandatory across the board 10 year cuts to the military.

Ya want whining? Wait till the rest of the cuts kick in.

The GOP will fight tooth and nail to renege on the cuts to the military but not the rest.

Interesting times shall ensue.
 
2012-06-05 10:02:17 AM  
An 8% cut to anything shouldn't be catastrophic. I mean, really. Especially for the military. Stop throwing money at pet projects and failed technologies. And there's a lot of those.
 
2012-06-05 10:02:34 AM  
"I'm not saying it's the Democrats' fault. I'm not saying it's the Republicans' fault. It's both of y'all's fault."

So vote Republican, y'all.
 
2012-06-05 10:06:08 AM  

PanicMan: An 8% cut to anything shouldn't be catastrophic. I mean, really. Especially for the military. Stop throwing money at pet projects and failed technologies. And there's a lot of those.


Especially when said cut means military spending will go back to 2007 levels. ZOMG!!!!!
 
2012-06-05 10:07:01 AM  
Aren't some of the top generals saying that the pork barell crap that congress keeps adding is unecessary? I certainly remember this to be the case a month ago when the "fiscal conservative" proposed a NE coast missile defense system and one of the top Navy dudes tried to explain that our missle defense is an epic mobile floatilla of awesomeness so the senator is a dumbfark for trying to waste money on a limited and redundant system.
 
2012-06-05 10:09:10 AM  

Citrate1007: Aren't some of the top generals saying that the pork barell crap that congress keeps adding is unecessary? I certainly remember this to be the case a month ago when the "fiscal conservative" proposed a NE coast missile defense system and one of the top Navy dudes tried to explain that our missle defense is an epic mobile floatilla of awesomeness so the senator is a dumbfark for trying to waste money on a limited and redundant system.


A lot of those projects are less about securing the nation's defense than they are about bringing tax dollars back to their district.
 
2012-06-05 10:09:17 AM  

Citrate1007: Aren't some of the top generals saying that the pork barell crap that congress keeps adding is unecessary? I certainly remember this to be the case a month ago when the "fiscal conservative" proposed a NE coast missile defense system and one of the top Navy dudes tried to explain that our missle defense is an epic mobile floatilla of awesomeness so the senator is a dumbfark for trying to waste money on a limited and redundant system.


I believe the Republican response was to publicly call them liars.
 
2012-06-05 10:10:02 AM  

Dr Dreidel: FTA: "Mr. Graham said the sentiment for raising revenues by closing tax loopholes or imposing higher fees on items like federal oil leases is expanding in his party.

Asked about the 'no new taxes' pledge almost all Republicans have signed, he shrugged: 'I've crossed the Rubicon on that.'"

So last summer, they played chicken with the debt ceiling, and now they're wondering how they can meet the ludicrous expectations they set for themselves?

I think they should have agreed to the extra $3T the Dems asked for in revenue and called it a day. They're about to lose the battle they thought they'd won (98% of) last year, and they don't even realize it.



My guess is that they are going to hold the debt ceiling hostage again for political points. That's hard to do if they get the deficit down. The House needs to have a massive deficit that they can blame on Obama.
 
2012-06-05 10:10:10 AM  

Citrate1007: Aren't some of the top generals saying that the pork barell crap that congress keeps adding is unecessary? I certainly remember this to be the case a month ago when the "fiscal conservative" proposed a NE coast missile defense system and one of the top Navy dudes tried to explain that our missle defense is an epic mobile floatilla of awesomeness so the senator is a dumbfark for trying to waste money on a limited and redundant system.


Was his house in the NE? His constituents?

I want my own missile defense system as well.
 
2012-06-05 10:10:11 AM  
So the usual GOP bullshiat... Got it.
 
2012-06-05 10:10:25 AM  
So was Romney as Governor in Massachusetts. He increased fees instead (like that's a real difference).
 
2012-06-05 10:10:51 AM  
"The debate on the debt is an opportunity to send the world a signal that we are going to remain the strongest military force in the world," he said. "We're saying, 'We're going to keep it, and we're going to make it the No. 1 priority of a broke nation.' "

Sigh. If you're broke, don't make military spending the top priority. You can't eat jet fighters, moron. You can't pay SS obligations with cruise missiles.
 
2012-06-05 10:11:57 AM  

CorporatePerson: For the poors! Gotta broaden the base and put some skin in the game, right?

Just tax the people with the least money and then the economy will be fixed and we'll all be rich.


more like some foreskin in the game
 
2012-06-05 10:12:33 AM  
Well, sure, if significant military budget cuts were made, certain states that are a drain on our nation's economy may have to find a way to actually contribute rather than constantly suck on DC's teat every time it wants something. A certain state that seceded from our union comes to mind....
 
2012-06-05 10:12:49 AM  

IrateShadow: Citrate1007: Aren't some of the top generals saying that the pork barell crap that congress keeps adding is unecessary? I certainly remember this to be the case a month ago when the "fiscal conservative" proposed a NE coast missile defense system and one of the top Navy dudes tried to explain that our missle defense is an epic mobile floatilla of awesomeness so the senator is a dumbfark for trying to waste money on a limited and redundant system.

A lot of those projects are less about securing the nation's defense than they are about bringing tax dollars back to their district.


Sure, but those tax dollars do directly lead to jobs.
 
2012-06-05 10:13:20 AM  
Let's take a wild guess here:

"Revenue increases" = Higher quotas for traffic cops and more busts for pot possession?
 
2012-06-05 10:14:02 AM  
Revenues can increase without raising taxes.
That aside, I personally think it is a good thing cut spending drastically at the federal level.
 
2012-06-05 10:14:09 AM  
Graham said. "We're saying, 'We're going to keep it, and we're going to make it the No. 1 priority of a broke nation.' "

In other words, we priorities being able to kick everyone else's ass higher than maintaining our own well-being. Gawd he makes the US sound ignorant.
 
2012-06-05 10:17:35 AM  
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-06-05 10:18:48 AM  

Tyee: That aside, I personally think it is a good thing cut spending drastically at the federal level.


Why? What pressing problem would that solve, and is solving that problem such an overriding concern that we should ignore all of the negative effects of such a drastic cut in federal spending?
 
2012-06-05 10:32:57 AM  

qorkfiend: Why? What pressing problem would that solve,


Lets just say that I believe, you may not, that we really, really need to limit the size, cost and especially the scope of the federal government. It has for a long time involved itself in areas where it doesn't belong. the cost has been paid both monetarily and with freedoms.
Pressing, because if we don't start reversing we continue down the wrong road.
 
2012-06-05 10:38:26 AM  

Tyee: Lets just say that I believe, you may not, that we really, really need to limit the size, cost and especially the scope of the federal government. It has for a long time involved itself in areas where it doesn't belong. the cost has been paid both monetarily and with freedoms.
Pressing, because if we don't start reversing we continue down the wrong road.


Is this truly a problem that must be solved right now, before we address anything else? And why is this problem so pressing that we should ignore all of the negative effects of such a drastic move?

Also, what are some areas where the federal government "has for a long time involved itself in areas where it doesn't belong"?
 
2012-06-05 10:39:11 AM  
FTA : "To that end, his arguments grow increasingly complex, involving a near-term confrontation with Syria and what he is sure will be a military strike on Iran late this summer, "an air and sea campaign from hell," he tells an audience in Sumter. A large screen ... broadcasts a multicolored map of Iran with its air defenses demarcated in loud, red circles."

I think everyone missed the big takeaway from the article.
 
2012-06-05 10:41:27 AM  

Tyee: qorkfiend: Why? What pressing problem would that solve,

Lets just say that I believe, you may not, that we really, really need to limit the size, cost and especially the scope of the federal government. It has for a long time involved itself in areas where it doesn't belong. the cost has been paid both monetarily and with freedoms.
Pressing, because if we don't start reversing we continue down the wrong road.


The economy is a bit more pressing at the moment. Double-dip recession is a bad thing.
 
2012-06-05 10:53:01 AM  

PanicMan: Sigh. If you're broke, don't make military spending the top priority. You can't eat jet fighters, moron. You can't pay SS obligations with cruise missiles.


I will forgo all of my social security benefits if they will give me a cruise missile and the means to fire it.
 
2012-06-05 10:58:05 AM  

qorkfiend: is this truly a problem that must be solved right now, before we address anything else? And why is this problem so pressing that we should ignore all of the negative effects of such a drastic move?


Yes, it is in many ways responsible for the reasons we are where we are right now and the negative effects it that involvement has caused

Also, what are some areas where the federal government "has for a long time involved itself in areas where it doesn't belong"?

That should be another thread, way to big an issue for this one, in the meantime contemplate; enumerated powers, unenumerated powers in addition to unenumerated rights, rights aren't given by the government but only can be taken away by the government and value and powers granted or not grated in the 10th amendment.

The gym, 26 minutes to get there.
 
2012-06-05 11:00:42 AM  

Sabyen91: The economy is a bit more pressing at the moment. Double-dip recession is a bad thing.


Not fixing a contributing problem or learning from mistakes allows those problems and mistakes to happen again.


23 minutes, out.
 
2012-06-05 11:08:55 AM  

Tyee: Sabyen91: The economy is a bit more pressing at the moment. Double-dip recession is a bad thing.

Not fixing a contributing problem or learning from mistakes allows those problems and mistakes to happen again.


23 minutes, out.


I am glad you are for increased regulation but that has nothing to do with giant spending cuts.
 
2012-06-05 11:10:16 AM  

Tyee: Yes, it is in many ways responsible for the reasons we are where we are right now and the negative effects it that involvement has caused


How?

Tyee: That should be another thread, way to big an issue for this one, in the meantime contemplate; enumerated powers, unenumerated powers in addition to unenumerated rights, rights aren't given by the government but only can be taken away by the government and value and powers granted or not grated in the 10th amendment.


No specifics? Can't say I'm surprised.
 
2012-06-05 11:16:46 AM  
DON'T YOU EVER, EVER USE THE HERO TAG WITH LINDSEY GRAHAM AGAIN.
 
2012-06-05 11:18:39 AM  

qorkfiend: Why? What pressing problem would that solve, and is solving that problem such an overriding concern that we should ignore all of the negative effects of such a drastic cut in federal spending?


Because the debt load that result from the continuation of these policies will be nearly impossible to fix. Yes we do need to find a way to get our economy growing again. However, we need to be very concerned about the deficits at the same time.

endoftheamericandream.com

/Death by a thousand papercuts and all that
 
2012-06-05 11:24:08 AM  
Sen. Lindsey Graham...

//I don't care what this a-hole says.
 
2012-06-05 11:24:24 AM  

qorkfiend: Also, what are some areas where the federal government "has for a long time involved itself in areas where it doesn't belong"?


There is plenty of examples:

1) Pretty much the entire bureaucratic agency that is the ATF
2) DEA - the list is a mile long here
3) EPA - See Sackett case and the Spruce No. 1 Veto override case
4) ethanol subsidies

/just to name a few.
 
2012-06-05 11:29:56 AM  
"I'm personally offended that they're playing a high-stakes game of chicken with our national defense federal welfare," fumed Weston Newton, chairman of the Beaufort County Council, after hearing Mr. Graham's dire warnings.

FTFY
 
2012-06-05 11:40:04 AM  

HeadLever: qorkfiend: Why? What pressing problem would that solve, and is solving that problem such an overriding concern that we should ignore all of the negative effects of such a drastic cut in federal spending?

Because the debt load that result from the continuation of these policies will be nearly impossible to fix. Yes we do need to find a way to get our economy growing again. However, we need to be very concerned about the deficits at the same time.

[endoftheamericandream.com image 640x466]

/Death by a thousand papercuts and all that


Interesting that the "receipts" line on your graph stays flat.

It's almost as though you aren't considering tax increases as a future course of action....
 
2012-06-05 11:47:33 AM  

Ardilla: Interesting that the "receipts" line on your graph stays flat.


As a percentage of GDP, that is a pretty good assumption. Some of this concept is described by Hauser's Law:

2.bp.blogspot.com

As you can see by this tax increases are not as big of an impact as you may thing. For the most part, a healthy and growing economy has more to do with tax receipts than actual tax rate.

That being said, I do agree with you insinuation that we do need policies that result in increased federal tax revenue until we get this debt probolem dealt with.
 
2012-06-05 11:49:12 AM  

theknuckler_33: derpdeederp: Get rid of tax loop holes, problem solved. People who make the same amount should pay the same amount in taxes.

I can only assume you support the Ex-Patriot Act then?


It seems a bit selective. Why not just have a rule for people who denounce their US citizenship to never be US citizens again, and have capital gains taxes on US assets of non-US nationals. Laws should be inclusive of all individuals.
 
2012-06-05 12:03:52 PM  

HeadLever: As you can see by this tax increases are not as big of an impact as you may thing. For the most part, a healthy and growing economy has more to do with tax receipts than actual tax rate.

That being said, I do agree with you insinuation that we do need policies that result in increased federal tax revenue until we get this debt probolem dealt with.


I think that graph is a little disingenuous, because it doesn't mention how fast the GDP was growing at the time. A higher GDP would bring in more taxes, and a growing GDP would mean more dollars flowing in, whether or not the percentage changed. But then, humans have trouble with percentages.
There are other benefits to taxes besides the government being funded, such as what becomes a good investment. A 90% tax rate on high incomes means that cashing out your business into your personal wealth is shyed away from in favor of smaller payouts over a long term, ensuring healthy reinvestment in business. A 10% tax rate on high income means it's advantageous to transfer money from your business into your personal wealth, and discourages long-term investment in business, favors short-term investment and vehicles designed to enhance personal wealth.
 
Displayed 50 of 56 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report