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.

(Slate)   The biggest supporters of small government are the biggest supporters of big government   (slate.com) divider line 163
    More: Obvious, small government, TPM Media, Matthew Yglesias  
•       •       •

4160 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Jun 2012 at 12:38 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-25 10:28:45 AM  
I'm shocked - SHOCKED.
 
2012-06-25 10:36:31 AM  
I wish there was a fiscal conservative party I could support. As it is all I can do is vote against bat guano psychosis.
 
2012-06-25 11:09:21 AM  
63% of Republicans are birthers (and 9% of Democrats)? Both those numbers seem way high.
 
2012-06-25 12:30:58 PM  
They didn't ask about de-funding NPR, Planned Parenthood, or Obama's teleprompter as a way to balance the budget.
 
2012-06-25 12:39:59 PM  
If they had asked "eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse," I bet 100% of Republicans would have supported that even though it would get us precisely nowhere.
 
2012-06-25 12:40:28 PM  

Serious Black: If they had asked "eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse," I bet 100% of Republicans would have supported that even though it would get us precisely nowhere.


Pretty sure 100% of everyone supports eliminating waste, fraud and abuse.
 
2012-06-25 12:41:21 PM  
So vote Republican!
 
2012-06-25 12:42:51 PM  
Surely the plan is to build up the debt to such high levels that government would only be able to afford paying off debt and nothing else, which would by default make all other parts of government small.
 
2012-06-25 12:43:01 PM  

DamnYankees: Serious Black: If they had asked "eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse," I bet 100% of Republicans would have supported that even though it would get us precisely nowhere.

Pretty sure 100% of everyone supports eliminating waste, fraud and abuse.


Not the people profiting from the fraud.
 
2012-06-25 12:43:29 PM  

DamnYankees: Serious Black: If they had asked "eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse," I bet 100% of Republicans would have supported that even though it would get us precisely nowhere.

Pretty sure 100% of everyone supports eliminating waste, fraud and abuse.


Nuh-uh. Top men have informed me that the dirty pinko Commie socialist progressive Nazi fascist liberals like fraud, waste, and abuse in government!
 
2012-06-25 12:43:48 PM  
4.bp.blogspot.com

No kidding.
 
2012-06-25 12:44:00 PM  
Nice. They should reword that as "what would you support that would reduce the deficit, knowing that it's never going to happen anyway?"
 
2012-06-25 12:44:54 PM  

Fluorescent Testicle: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 400x300]

No kidding.


To be fair, those 2 signs aren't technically contradictory.
 
2012-06-25 12:47:10 PM  
They should have prefaced the question with: "Knowing (as you should) that spending on defense and Social Security/Medicare comprises 1/3 of the US' total spending..."

Because then we wouldn't have the "GOP actually believes that cutting subsidies to the NIH for researching bat saliva's therapeutic uses will balance the budget" canard to joke with. The GOP might actually have to examine their own arguments.

// pfffft, like that'd happen - they'd fall back on "According to who, lib?"
// ...or 'whom'
 
2012-06-25 12:51:10 PM  
Link seems to say "Both sides are bad.....so vote Dem."
 
2012-06-25 12:54:26 PM  

sammyk: I wish there was a fiscal conservative party I could support.


They're called "Democrats."
 
2012-06-25 12:55:03 PM  
Checks Federal budget. It looks like the options given leaves out almost 50% of the Federal budget.

The point of the poll?
 
2012-06-25 12:55:31 PM  

TofuTheAlmighty: sammyk: I wish there was a fiscal conservative party I could support.

They're called "Democrats."


THIS.
 
2012-06-25 12:56:35 PM  
Allowing Americans to keep more of their income ≠ Advocating Big Government
 
2012-06-25 12:57:03 PM  
It's a really really flawed question.

For instance, if I pay $X money into Social Security today, and I would rather have $X transferred to a private retirement account I would vote "No" to cutting Social Security but I wouldn't be supporting "Big Government". Likewise, if I support Medicare vouchers for private insurance I don't support cutting Medicare but I am also opposed to government run healthcare and would answer "No" to the survey.

And there you have it. It's not that the Republicans who were asked want bigger government, they simply support options not covered by that question.
 
2012-06-25 12:57:57 PM  
I shut down the third world, you win they lose. I shut down America, they win, you lose. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
 
2012-06-25 12:58:30 PM  
The GOP doesn't do math.

That is for the intellectual elite....
 
2012-06-25 01:01:07 PM  

DamnYankees: Serious Black: If they had asked "eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse," I bet 100% of Republicans would have supported that even though it would get us precisely nowhere.

Pretty sure 100% of everyone supports eliminating waste, fraud and abuse.


Why does nobody like the things I like? :(
 
2012-06-25 01:01:33 PM  

RolandGunner: It's a really really flawed question.

For instance, if I pay $X money into Social Security today, and I would rather have $X transferred to a private retirement account I would vote "No" to cutting Social Security but I wouldn't be supporting "Big Government". Likewise, if I support Medicare vouchers for private insurance I don't support cutting Medicare but I am also opposed to government run healthcare and would answer "No" to the survey.

And there you have it. It's not that the Republicans who were asked want bigger government, they simply support options not covered by that question.


How would either of those options reduce the deficit?
 
2012-06-25 01:01:57 PM  

RolandGunner: Likewise, if I support Medicare vouchers for private insurance I don't support cutting Medicare


You must work for FactCheck.
 
2012-06-25 01:04:11 PM  
I will never take any Republican's "outrage" about spending seriously until they're ready to make deep cuts to the obscene Defense budgets before throwing the elderly and the poor in this country under a bus...
 
2012-06-25 01:08:16 PM  

RolandGunner: It's a really really flawed question.

For instance, if I pay $X money into Social Security today, and I would rather have $X transferred to a private retirement account I would vote "No" to cutting Social Security but I wouldn't be supporting "Big Government". Likewise, if I support Medicare vouchers for private insurance I don't support cutting Medicare but I am also opposed to government run healthcare and would answer "No" to the survey.

And there you have it. It's not that the Republicans who were asked want bigger government, they simply support options not covered by that question.


I agree that the question is flawed (see above). However, what you described was already accounted for, in that they asked which of those options they'd most strongly consider cutting to pay down the debt. "None of the above" is even tracked as an answer (Republicans support that option ~50%). The problem is in the interpretation.

It sure looks like the GOP wants to hunt through the cushions in the federal budget looking to buy a car with the change they find, but that survey can't be your only point supporting that claim. However, if they immediately "take off the table" any cuts to defense/SS/Medicare, and forbid raising of any new taxes, what that group's opinion shows (especially as compared with the other cohort groups) is an unwillingness to confront the problem as those other cohort groups do.

The GOP wants to look at the other half of the federal budget for places to cut. Which, again, is fine, only until you realize that those are things like farm subsidies, oil subsidies, tax cuts (which I believe count as "spending", budget-wise), interest and debt payments for shiat we already bought, payroll (people do work for the Feds)...and a lot of THAT is stuff the GOP likes as well.

So we've eliminated the biggest 3 parts of the budget (about 50-60% - defense is ~1/3, SS/Medicare/caid is another ~1/3), eliminated ways to "make the pie higher" (by raising revenues), and there are certainly cuts to that other 1/3 that the GOP is against (oil subsidies, for example). So how then to pay down the debt, Guy Who I Just Labeled 'GOP Spokesman'?
 
2012-06-25 01:09:14 PM  
So given:

A) Republican politicians want to do X
B) Republican voters do not want to do X
X = lowering costs to social and military budgets
C) Republican voters are overwhelmingly against Obama

A + B +C = D

D) Republican voters hate the HNIC.
 
2012-06-25 01:09:51 PM  

coeyagi: So given:

A) Republican politicians want to do X
B) Republican voters do not want to do X
X = lowering costs to social and military budgets
C) Republican voters are overwhelmingly against Obama

A + B +C = D

D) Republican voters hate the HNIC.


....because he's black.

//we get it

///FTFM
 
2012-06-25 01:12:37 PM  

Dr Dreidel:
So we've eliminated the biggest 3 parts of the budget (about 50-60% - defense is ~1/3, SS/Medicare/caid is another ~1/3), eliminated ways to "make the pie higher" (by raising reve ...


Cuts taxes for the job creators. It has been empirically proven that lowering taxes always increased revenues. If we lower them to 0% or lower, we can have unlimited revenue. How hard is that to graph, put on a powerpoint and show it as fact?
 
2012-06-25 01:14:32 PM  

Dr Dreidel: The GOP wants to look at the other half of the federal budget for places to cut.


That mystical third half that nobody has thought of yet???

//yeah, that is the ticket
 
2012-06-25 01:14:46 PM  

RolandGunner: It's a really really flawed question.

For instance, if I pay $X money into Social Security today, and I would rather have $X transferred to a private retirement account I would vote "No" to cutting Social Security but I wouldn't be supporting "Big Government". Likewise, if I support Medicare vouchers for private insurance I don't support cutting Medicare but I am also opposed to government run healthcare and would answer "No" to the survey.

And there you have it. It's not that the Republicans who were asked want bigger government, they simply support options not covered by that question.


Social Security is a pay as you go system, so your option wouldn't be feasible. But sure, let's come up with unworkable options and watch conservatives support them.

Let's start with "increase revenues by cutting taxes."
 
2012-06-25 01:15:19 PM  

Corvus: TofuTheAlmighty: sammyk: I wish there was a fiscal conservative party I could support.

They're called "Democrats."

THIS.


They are not crazy either. I currently support them. But they are a long way from being fiscally conservative.
 
2012-06-25 01:18:28 PM  

sammyk: Corvus: TofuTheAlmighty: sammyk: I wish there was a fiscal conservative party I could support.

They're called "Democrats."

THIS.

They are not crazy either. I currently support them. But they are a long way from being fiscally conservative.


What, by actually wanting to raise revenue to pay for new programs?

What's your definition of "fiscal conservative"?
 
2012-06-25 01:20:53 PM  
That question is biased. If they had defunding NPR and stop paying for free abortions as an option, then we'd run a surplus and be able to cut taxes back to rates from the Reagan years which I imagine to be much lower than they are now.
 
2012-06-25 01:21:12 PM  

qorkfiend: sammyk: Corvus: TofuTheAlmighty: sammyk: I wish there was a fiscal conservative party I could support.

They're called "Democrats."

THIS.

They are not crazy either. I currently support them. But they are a long way from being fiscally conservative.

What, by actually wanting to raise revenue to pay for new programs?

What's your definition of "fiscal conservative"?


Borrow-and-spend is much better than tax-and-spend because socialism. Unless a Democrat is President, then you biatch about how much money we've borrowed.
 
2012-06-25 01:21:47 PM  

sammyk: They are not crazy either. I currently support them. But they are a long way from being fiscally conservative.


Ok, define fiscal conservatism and how it differs from actual Democratic policies.

When Bernie Sanders is made majority leader, then you'll have a case that Democrats aren't economically conservative.
 
2012-06-25 01:22:58 PM  

balki1867: That question is biased. If they had defunding NPR and stop paying for free abortions as an option, then we'd run a surplus and be able to cut taxes back to rates from the Reagan years which I imagine to be much lower than they are now.


I hear they didn't even HAVE taxes back then, the government was so small and productive that they didn't need them!
 
2012-06-25 01:24:19 PM  

sammyk: Corvus: TofuTheAlmighty: sammyk: I wish there was a fiscal conservative party I could support.

They're called "Democrats."

THIS.

They are not crazy either. I currently support them. But they are a long way from being fiscally conservative.


Seriously, what does "fiscally conservative" even mean at this point?

Reagan? Called himself fiscally conservative. Got us started on our current national debt problems.

GHW Bush? Called himself fiscally conservative. Still ran massive deficits, but at least tried to get things under control.

Clinton? Didn't make a big deal about calling himself a fiscal conservative, but reduced deficits and actually managed to turn a goddamned surplus.

Bush II? Called himself fiscally conservative. Inherited a surplus, then piled on massive levels of debt and seriously weakened the US's long-term financial security. Might have been the worst financial manager of the past century.


At this point, the "fiscally conservative" label should be radioactive. And don't "no true Scotsman" this either, because everybody who loves that label defended all three of the "fiscal conservatives" above until their last days in office.
 
2012-06-25 01:28:54 PM  

sammyk: I wish there was a fiscal conservative party I could support. As it is all I can do is vote against bat guano psychosis.


There was the Blue Dog Coalition that focused on fiscal responsibility but didn't really do anything on social issues. Technically there still is but it's only got about 25 members instead of 50 nowadays.

TofuTheAlmighty: Ok, define fiscal conservatism and how it differs from actual Democratic policies.


Kinda depends on the Democrat, they're kind of a coalition party at the moment. They range from de facto communists to people that would've been in the GOP fifteen years ago. There aren't enough of them focused on fiscal issues to actually prevent arbitrary spending on useless programs or control the costs of existing programs, so I'd say the party in general isn't, though.
 
2012-06-25 01:30:23 PM  

Serious Black: DamnYankees: Serious Black: If they had asked "eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse," I bet 100% of Republicans would have supported that even though it would get us precisely nowhere.

Pretty sure 100% of everyone supports eliminating waste, fraud and abuse.

Nuh-uh. Top men have informed me that the dirty pinko Commie socialist progressive Nazi fascist liberals like fraud, waste, and abuse in government!


Who?
 
2012-06-25 01:31:13 PM  

wingnut396: If we lower them to 0% or lower, we can have unlimited revenue.


illinoischannel.org
people-equation.com

Both laugh at you stupidity

phelps.donotremove.net
 
2012-06-25 01:31:41 PM  
They'll do it by grinding poor people into a nutritive paste which can be used to feed the soldiers. It would save the army money, but they're not going to give it to the army. They're going to sell it at a loss to Halliburton, who will then turn around and sell it to the army at a tidy profit. So it won't actually reduce the deficit, but it will enrich a private corporation AND it gets rid of dirty poor people, so it's all good.
 
2012-06-25 01:33:32 PM  

Jim_Callahan: There aren't enough of them focused on fiscal issues to actually prevent arbitrary spending on useless programs or control the costs of existing programs, so I'd say the party in general isn't, though.


The party in general is interested in paying for new spending by raising revenues, in contrast to the GOP who wants to pay for new spending by borrowing.

Out of the two parties, both of which like to spend, who's more fiscally conservative: the group that wants to raise revenue to pay for spending, or the group that wants to borrow to pay for spending?
 
2012-06-25 01:34:21 PM  

Welfare Xmas: wingnut396: If we lower them to 0% or lower, we can have unlimited revenue.

[illinoischannel.org image 300x200]
[people-equation.com image 322x316]

Both laugh at you stupidity

[phelps.donotremove.net image 339x302]


Complexities aside (like a couple of recessions lowering tax receipts), don't most economists think we're on the left side of the curve at the moment?
 
2012-06-25 01:35:12 PM  
Republicans are a united front. Democrats truly are not. Democrats aren't fiscally conservative all the the time. However it seems republicans like to say they are but nothing they do actually is.
Amirite?
 
2012-06-25 01:36:01 PM  

meat0918: don't most economists think we're on the left side of the curve at the moment?


I don't know but would the benefit be of operating on the right side of the curve?
 
2012-06-25 01:38:09 PM  

meat0918:

Complexities aside (like a couple of recessions lowering tax receipts), don't most economists think we're on the left side of the curve at the moment?


Look, you can throw around like this all day. At the end, who are you going to trust?

1. Some elitist that has spend years studying taxation issues, how that impact the economy and likely got paid handsomely by rich people for his opinion.

or

2. A guy on fancy TV commerical that has flashy graphics telling us why taxes are tools of godless baby killers?

The choice is pretty clear...
 
MFL
2012-06-25 01:39:37 PM  
sammyk: I wish there was a fiscal conservative party I could support.

TofuTheAlmighty They're called "Democrats."

lol

/lol
//lol
 
2012-06-25 01:39:45 PM  

Welfare Xmas: meat0918: don't most economists think we're on the left side of the curve at the moment?

I don't know but would the benefit be of operating on the right side of the curve?


I don't know; I haven't been alive at a time where we weren't both on the left side and moving hard towards the origin.
 
Displayed 50 of 163 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | 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


  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