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.

(Washington Examiner)   What would America be like without Republicans? Just take a look at California, and you'll get a pretty clear picture of it   (washingtonexaminer.com) divider line 332
    More: Obvious, GOP  
•       •       •

3490 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Jul 2012 at 10:33 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-17 01:27:15 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: You're really not very smart Corvus.

There are different issues being discussed in the article. Contracted public sector pensions and Social Security obligations, both of which are government funded retirement plans for citizens. Neither of which has enough money, or are projected to ever take in enough money, to meet their obligations.


Then why are you pretending they are all the same thing? Can you answer or not?

Does Medicare and Social Security count as your "contracted pensions"? Yes or NO?

Why is it I can answer your question and you can't answer mine and seem to be clueless at these simple concepts?

If I am only going to earn, say, $10 million dollars in a lifetime, but I am projected to owe $20 million dollars in my lifetime, at some point, $10 million dollars of debt never gets paid. We owe more than we can ever collect in revenues, and while we are bringing in enough to not default today, we are falling behind, fast, and default at this rate is inevitable.

You are thinking that because of the word "future", that there is some chance that those debts might go away, or that the money will show up to pay for them. There is no solution even being discussed, by anyone, from either party, in any branch of government, to address the issue. No one has any ideas beyond draconian cuts that the people won't agree to. It doesn't matter if those obligations come due tomorrow, or next week, or next year - eventually, the supply of revenue doesn't meet the level of expenditures, and the system fails. Make sense yet?


No I understand there will be more FUTURE REVENUE TO COUNTER THOSE OBLIGATIONS AND THOSE OBLIGATIONS CAN CHANGE.


You seem to not understand that?

Answer me this:

Will there be a military in 10 years protecting you too? Then why isn't obligation also counted?

You are unable to answer any of my questions but you are calling me uneducated. If you are so educated about this why can't you answer my questions?
 
2012-07-17 01:27:49 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: Dr Dreidel: // oh, and how much of their contributions have been counted against that ZOMGZZZ$61 TRILLION?
// you know - money the pensioners haven't contributed yet, since they haven't gotten the paycheck yet, since the contract hasn't been signed yet, since the need hasn't been defined yet, since the deficiency hasn't yet manifested itself
// times thousands of government workers under age 40

I'll repeat what I just said to Corvus:

The $61 trillion problem cannot be resolved by our current system, as our national GDP is only about $15 trillion per year, and the $61 trillion number increases much faster each year than the GDP. Eventually, you reach a point where there is not enough money to cover annual costs, and then you default, and the system collapses.

The annual contributions you refer to don't even cover the interest on the debt of what is owed. That's why the Social Security system is due to fail well before you or I can collect our benefits.

It's a big Ponzi scheme, the biggest in the world, and unless we dramatically change things, like, right damned now, its end is just as inevitable as if Madoff were running it.


Calling SS a Ponzi scheme is too stupid a claim to respond to. Just google the phrase and watch as hit after hit (that don't lead to FoxNews, Daily Fail/Caller, NRO, PJM and the like) takes you to the words of respected economists who really don't see it that way. Or you could ask Reagan's budget guy. Plus, if we return the employee portion of the SS tax to 6.2% and remove (or raise) the income cap, or any number of smaller measures, we can make SS solvent for the next 300 years (instead of "only" the next 75 - a number, by the way, that is also gamed quite a bit).

That said, do you have any cites on "pension obligations are rising faster than GDP"? I know you're good for it, as you provided another one upthread.

I wonder if they use the "obligated" numbers that alarmists seem so fond of - counting future obligations, but not future revenues - or made some wild assumptions (like the one the Bush folks made about 7 years ago, where they assumed retirement age stayed at 67, but life expectancy jumped to 150). Surely, no one would attempt to deceive using math to make a cheap political point, right?

Also, how much of these estimates takes into account the economic cycle? I can make any number of dire predictions based on the last 24 months of economic data, but Disco Stu Math is dishonest and outdated. Real political players just use baldfaced lies these days.
 
2012-07-17 01:30:00 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: Corvus: Occam's Nailfile: It's a big Ponzi scheme, the biggest in the world, and unless we dramatically change things, like, right damned now, its end is just as inevitable as if Madoff were running it.

You don't know the definition of a Ponzi scheme, your once again embarrassing yourself with your lack of knowledge.

All pensions systems are not funded for all liability in the future. NONE ARE.

I know that Corvus. But if the total expected payout is greater than the total expected inbound revenue, the system is doomed to failure. That's where we are today. There is no way to ever take in the $61 trillion we are expected to eventually pay out, and it is certain that the $61 trillion number will increase even further.


IF NOTHING CHANGES.
I have already said the system needs to be modified. I have said this multiple times and you have ignored it. I also show you are being an idiot and your math is wrong you are trying to selectively count FUTURE obligations as current obligations which is BS.

But that is true for US MILITARY SPENDING TOO!! If we spend too much in US military spending it's not magically different! You are pretending it is.

Instead of calling people stupid because they are pointing out things you don't understand maybe you should try to understand.
 
2012-07-17 01:32:52 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: here is no solution even being discussed, by anyone, from either party, in any branch of government, to address the issue.


That's a complete lie. Obama made a bi-partisan committee that came up with solutions but since part of the solution was tax increases republicans refused to even entertain it.
 
2012-07-17 01:35:58 PM  

Corvus: Occam's Nailfile: Corvus: Occam's Nailfile: It's a big Ponzi scheme, the biggest in the world, and unless we dramatically change things, like, right damned now, its end is just as inevitable as if Madoff were running it.

You don't know the definition of a Ponzi scheme, your once again embarrassing yourself with your lack of knowledge.

All pensions systems are not funded for all liability in the future. NONE ARE.

I know that Corvus. But if the total expected payout is greater than the total expected inbound revenue, the system is doomed to failure. That's where we are today. There is no way to ever take in the $61 trillion we are expected to eventually pay out, and it is certain that the $61 trillion number will increase even further.

IF NOTHING CHANGES. I have already said the system needs to be modified. I have said this multiple times and you have ignored it. I also show you are being an idiot and your math is wrong you are trying to selectively count FUTURE obligations as current obligations which is BS.

But that is true for US MILITARY SPENDING TOO!! If we spend too much in US military spending it's not magically different! You are pretending it is.

Instead of calling people stupid because they are pointing out things you don't understand maybe you should try to understand.


You're beyond help.

I answered your question. I explained that contracted public sector pension obligations and social security obligations are different obligations, both contributing to the total level of unfunded liabilities.

We either pay our obligations and go broke, or we don't honor the obligations, and either default or go headfirst into draconian austerity, breaking the promise we made to generations before because we couldn't stop spending their retirement money.

You are saying "there will be more FUTURE REVENUE TO COUNTER THOSE OBLIGATIONS". Oh yeah? Tell me, Corvus, where we're going to come up with the money? If we taxed every citizen 100% of their income, we still wouldn't make a dent. So what's your plan?
 
2012-07-17 01:44:33 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: You're beyond help.


lh4.googleusercontent.com

Remember your rant. You are hilarious!
 
2012-07-17 01:44:57 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: Corvus: Occam's Nailfile: Corvus: Occam's Nailfile: It's a big Ponzi scheme, the biggest in the world, and unless we dramatically change things, like, right damned now, its end is just as inevitable as if Madoff were running it.

You don't know the definition of a Ponzi scheme, your once again embarrassing yourself with your lack of knowledge.

All pensions systems are not funded for all liability in the future. NONE ARE.

I know that Corvus. But if the total expected payout is greater than the total expected inbound revenue, the system is doomed to failure. That's where we are today. There is no way to ever take in the $61 trillion we are expected to eventually pay out, and it is certain that the $61 trillion number will increase even further.

IF NOTHING CHANGES. I have already said the system needs to be modified. I have said this multiple times and you have ignored it. I also show you are being an idiot and your math is wrong you are trying to selectively count FUTURE obligations as current obligations which is BS.

But that is true for US MILITARY SPENDING TOO!! If we spend too much in US military spending it's not magically different! You are pretending it is.

Instead of calling people stupid because they are pointing out things you don't understand maybe you should try to understand.

You're beyond help.

I answered your question. I explained that contracted public sector pension obligations and social security obligations are different obligations, both contributing to the total level of unfunded liabilities.


So then why did you dishonestly lump them together? So you admit we are not contractually beholden to those payments you have been saying we are beholden too. You were lying.



We either pay our obligations and go broke, or we don't honor the obligations, and either default or go headfirst into draconian austerity, breaking the promise we made to generations before because we couldn't stop spending their retirement money.

No there is a middle road. Once again people like you love to live in a world of black and white false dichotomies. We can modify the system. Reduce benefits and increase the amount people pay into the system.


You are saying "there will be more FUTURE REVENUE TO COUNTER THOSE OBLIGATIONS". Oh yeah? Tell me, Corvus, where we're going to come up with the money? If we taxed every citizen 100% of their income ...


We don't have to pay for ALL THE FUTURE LIABILITY IN ONE YEAR. We keep explaining this to you and you never get it.

Like you refuse to answer:
We will need a military for the next 20 years, if we taxed everyone now for it we don't have the money. How do we pay for it? - That's the same asinine argument you are making.

Once again you idiot you are counting future obligations and current obligations.

Serious you suck at math!!!

We don't need to pay 20 -30 years of pensions, social security and medicare EVERY YEAR!!!


Just like we don't need to pay for 20 - 30 years of the military ever year.

You seem not to be able to grasp that! Serious you are an idiot.
 
2012-07-17 01:45:44 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: CPT Ethanolic: What would CA look like if pensions weren't invested into the scam that is wall street? See what happens when you put pensions into the private sector and the private sector goes tits up?

Swing and a miss.

Is there some "6 degrees to Kevin bacon" game you guys like to play to see how quickly you can blame wall street?

Let's see, how can we blame wall street for the mess? Let's review the facts - we overspend and give unreasonable pensions to public sector workers, we tie our feet together by passing ridiculous popular vote amendments that eliminate our ability to raise property taxes, we irresponsibly raise spending during a housing boom and then forget to reduce it when the bubble pops. We take losses on the assets in our already underfunded pension plans that calpers invested in stocks and bon......THAT'S IT!!! We lost money on investments and even though our pension plan manager (calpers and calsters) are public agencies, investments sounds pretty wall streety to me, therefore it's all their fault! Greedy bankers!




Yeah, it's not like there was recently a crash that destroyed 40+% of the world's wealth or anything.
 
2012-07-17 01:47:02 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: Philip Francis Queeg: So tell us, how much more are YOU personally willing to sacrifice to resolve the issue?

The $61 trillion dollar issue? Not a farking nickel more than what the government already takes from me. I don't generally like to throw good money after bad, especially when even if everyone in the US gave everything they earn, the problem would still be there.

Still don't hear an explanation about how reducing corporate salaries solves the problem though, or even makes the tiniest bit of difference. Still waiting.


Color me shocked that you believe that others must sacrifice but not you. It's s good thing that you haven't benefited from from any of the service provided by the Government or you might look like a greedy, entitled, hypocrite.
 
2012-07-17 01:49:58 PM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: Where was Reagan from, you dumb motherf*cker?


Really?
 
2012-07-17 01:50:40 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Occam's Nailfile: Philip Francis Queeg: So tell us, how much more are YOU personally willing to sacrifice to resolve the issue?

The $61 trillion dollar issue? Not a farking nickel more than what the government already takes from me. I don't generally like to throw good money after bad, especially when even if everyone in the US gave everything they earn, the problem would still be there.

Still don't hear an explanation about how reducing corporate salaries solves the problem though, or even makes the tiniest bit of difference. Still waiting.

Color me shocked that you believe that others must sacrifice but not you. It's s good thing that you haven't benefited from from any of the service provided by the Government or you might look like a greedy, entitled, hypocrite.


Right, I bet he believes the way to "save" medicare and social security is to ignore all those IOUS the general fund gave them so they could pay for the Bush Tax cuts. What a hero.
 
2012-07-17 01:52:08 PM  

I alone am best: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: Where was Reagan from, you dumb motherf*cker?

Really?


CA has had only 2 Democrat governors in the last 45 years. Also any tax increase needs Republican votes to pass in the legislature.
 
2012-07-17 01:55:45 PM  

Corvus: Occam's Nailfile: Corvus: Occam's Nailfile: Corvus: Occam's Nailfile: It's a big Ponzi scheme, the biggest in the world, and unless we dramatically change things, like, right damned now, its end is just as inevitable as if Madoff were running it.

You don't know the definition of a Ponzi scheme, your once again embarrassing yourself with your lack of knowledge.

All pensions systems are not funded for all liability in the future. NONE ARE.

I know that Corvus. But if the total expected payout is greater than the total expected inbound revenue, the system is doomed to failure. That's where we are today. There is no way to ever take in the $61 trillion we are expected to eventually pay out, and it is certain that the $61 trillion number will increase even further.

IF NOTHING CHANGES. I have already said the system needs to be modified. I have said this multiple times and you have ignored it. I also show you are being an idiot and your math is wrong you are trying to selectively count FUTURE obligations as current obligations which is BS.

But that is true for US MILITARY SPENDING TOO!! If we spend too much in US military spending it's not magically different! You are pretending it is.

Instead of calling people stupid because they are pointing out things you don't understand maybe you should try to understand.

You're beyond help.

I answered your question. I explained that contracted public sector pension obligations and social security obligations are different obligations, both contributing to the total level of unfunded liabilities.


So then why did you dishonestly lump them together? So you admit we are not contractually beholden to those payments you have been saying we are beholden too. You were lying.



We either pay our obligations and go broke, or we don't honor the obligations, and either default or go headfirst into draconian austerity, breaking the promise we made to generations before because we couldn't stop spending their retirement money.

No t ...


Dude, are you seriously that stupid?

We take in $2.1 trillion per year in taxes. Last year we spent $3.6 trillion. Even if we completely eliminated the military we would have spent $2.9 trillion.

Tell me how we are going to pay $61 trillion in future liabilities.
 
2012-07-17 01:56:42 PM  
I love how Republicans are now attacking Social Security for not being the system that they made fun of Al Gore for suggesting.
 
2012-07-17 01:57:28 PM  
Has this guy ever BEEN to California? Someone should tell him there are a LOT of Republicans there.
 
2012-07-17 01:58:13 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: Corvus: Occam's Nailfile: Corvus: Occam's Nailfile: It's a big Ponzi scheme, the biggest in the world, and unless we dramatically change things, like, right damned now, its end is just as inevitable as if Madoff were running it.

You don't know the definition of a Ponzi scheme, your once again embarrassing yourself with your lack of knowledge.

All pensions systems are not funded for all liability in the future. NONE ARE.

I know that Corvus. But if the total expected payout is greater than the total expected inbound revenue, the system is doomed to failure. That's where we are today. There is no way to ever take in the $61 trillion we are expected to eventually pay out, and it is certain that the $61 trillion number will increase even further.

IF NOTHING CHANGES. I have already said the system needs to be modified. I have said this multiple times and you have ignored it. I also show you are being an idiot and your math is wrong you are trying to selectively count FUTURE obligations as current obligations which is BS.

But that is true for US MILITARY SPENDING TOO!! If we spend too much in US military spending it's not magically different! You are pretending it is.

Instead of calling people stupid because they are pointing out things you don't understand maybe you should try to understand.

You're beyond help.

I answered your question. I explained that contracted public sector pension obligations and social security obligations are different obligations, both contributing to the total level of unfunded liabilities.

We either pay our obligations and go broke, or we don't honor the obligations, and either default or go headfirst into draconian austerity, breaking the promise we made to generations before because we couldn't stop spending their retirement money.

You are saying "there will be more FUTURE REVENUE TO COUNTER THOSE OBLIGATIONS". Oh yeah? Tell me, Corvus, where we're going to come up with the money? If we taxed every citizen 100% of their income ...


OH RLY? $61 Trillion in unfunded liabilities ... what's the total GDP of that same time period ... $15 trillion * (Y * 1.03) > $61 trillion ... you are a moron ... in 4 years of 100% taxation, it'd be paid off. Now, that of course is the extreme, but yeah, I think taxes need to be something like 10% higher for the lower brackets and 20-25% higher for the higher brackets. We should add back on a few brackets at the top that were lobbed off in the 60s ... 90% taxation over $10 million or something like that.

Combine that with the necessary SS age increase, larger personal SS/OASDI contributions, halving or quartering the DoD and you have a way to fund everything you just talked about ...

There are solutions, but if any solution that deals with a tax increase makes you put your fingers in your ear and scream "la la la la", you're right, we're all going to go bust. So, instead of being pissed at Obamacare (which only adds about $20 billion in total taxes to the general public) and pissed at every other Obama intitative, why don't you realize that we just put two and a half wars on the national credit card and it's time to pay up ... richest first on down the line.

I make a high five-figure salary, I live comfortably, if my effective tax rate went from 24% to 34%, I could easily make that happen with just a couple of rearrangements.
 
2012-07-17 01:59:01 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Occam's Nailfile: Philip Francis Queeg: So tell us, how much more are YOU personally willing to sacrifice to resolve the issue?

The $61 trillion dollar issue? Not a farking nickel more than what the government already takes from me. I don't generally like to throw good money after bad, especially when even if everyone in the US gave everything they earn, the problem would still be there.

Still don't hear an explanation about how reducing corporate salaries solves the problem though, or even makes the tiniest bit of difference. Still waiting.

Color me shocked that you believe that others must sacrifice but not you. It's s good thing that you haven't benefited from from any of the service provided by the Government or you might look like a greedy, entitled, hypocrite.


So because I am not donating extra tax money to the government, you think I am a greedy, entitled, hypocrite.

You're a fool, a troll, or both.
 
2012-07-17 01:59:14 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: Tell me how we are going to pay $61 trillion in future liabilities.


I did! I did like 20 times already! Here you go because you don't seem to get it.

We can modify the system. Reduce benefits and increase the amount people pay into the system.

We can modify the system. Reduce benefits and increase the amount people pay into the system.

We can modify the system. Reduce benefits and increase the amount people pay into the system.

We can modify the system. Reduce benefits and increase the amount people pay into the system.

We can modify the system. Reduce benefits and increase the amount people pay into the system.

We can modify the system. Reduce benefits and increase the amount people pay into the system.

We can modify the system. Reduce benefits and increase the amount people pay into the system.

We can modify the system. Reduce benefits and increase the amount people pay into the system.
 
2012-07-17 01:59:54 PM  

seadoo2006: $15 trillion * (Y * 1.03) > $61 trillion ... you are a moron ... in 4 years of 100% taxation, it'd be paid off.


GDP ISN'T INCOME YOU NITWIT
 
2012-07-17 02:01:04 PM  

karnal: One example of why California is broke:
Link


The question I have is, how the hell did moving that cost $200K? It should've run about $10K at the most in my mind.
 
2012-07-17 02:01:13 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: seadoo2006: $15 trillion * (Y * 1.03) > $61 trillion ... you are a moron ... in 4 years of 100% taxation, it'd be paid off.

GDP ISN'T INCOME YOU NITWIT


100% taxation = GDP you dumb fark.
 
2012-07-17 02:01:45 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: We take in $2.1 trillion per year in taxes. Last year we spent $3.6 trillion. Even if we completely eliminated the military we would have spent $2.9 trillion.

Tell me how we are going to pay $61 trillion in future liabilities.


I have a question.

Do you think we should get rid of social security and Medicare?

If so would we also get rid of those taxes we pay for it or still have the middle class pay into those without getting anything?

How much does it save if we ALSO get rid of those tax revenues? Or are you only counting the expenditures?


You say you are the expert so this should be easy for you to answer.
 
2012-07-17 02:02:28 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: So because I am not donating extra tax money to the government, you think I am a greedy, entitled, hypocrite.


Yes wanting to steal people's social security and medicare money that they paid into to pay less taxes is greedy.
 
2012-07-17 02:04:05 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: Philip Francis Queeg: Occam's Nailfile: Philip Francis Queeg: So tell us, how much more are YOU personally willing to sacrifice to resolve the issue?

The $61 trillion dollar issue? Not a farking nickel more than what the government already takes from me. I don't generally like to throw good money after bad, especially when even if everyone in the US gave everything they earn, the problem would still be there.

Still don't hear an explanation about how reducing corporate salaries solves the problem though, or even makes the tiniest bit of difference. Still waiting.

Color me shocked that you believe that others must sacrifice but not you. It's s good thing that you haven't benefited from from any of the service provided by the Government or you might look like a greedy, entitled, hypocrite.

So because I am not donating extra tax money to the government, you think I am a greedy, entitled, hypocrite.

You're a fool, a troll, or both.


No I think that you are a greedy, entitled , hypocrite because you demand that others who provide services that you benefit from should make sacrifices that you are unwilling to make yourself.
 
2012-07-17 02:08:35 PM  

Fart_Machine: Super Chronic: Fart_Machine: Super Chronic: Fart_Machine: Also you're forgetting Pete Wilson and George Deukmejian.

I didn't write the article. But in any event, which of Wilson or Deukmejian do you think was elected after 1994?

Pete Wilson was in office till 1999. You wanna try that again?

Sure, I'll try that again. Which of Wilson or Deukmejian do you think was ELECTED after 1994? And I'll refer you back to the quote with which this whole conversation started: "California, where no non-cyborg Republican has been elected governor since 1994."

Pete Wilson was elected in 1994. Are you really going to parse that because he wasn't elected in 1995 and was instead serving as acting governor at the time?


It's not parsing, it's plain farking English. No president has been elected in the United States since 2008. Barack Obama is the sitting president and has served in 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012. However, to say that a president has been elected at any time since 2008 would be incorrect. That's not parsing. Words have meanings. Pete Wilson was not elected in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 or 1999.
 
2012-07-17 02:12:15 PM  

technicolor-misfit: Debeo Summa Credo: CPT Ethanolic: What would CA look like if pensions weren't invested into the scam that is wall street? See what happens when you put pensions into the private sector and the private sector goes tits up?

Swing and a miss.

Is there some "6 degrees to Kevin bacon" game you guys like to play to see how quickly you can blame wall street?

Let's see, how can we blame wall street for the mess? Let's review the facts - we overspend and give unreasonable pensions to public sector workers, we tie our feet together by passing ridiculous popular vote amendments that eliminate our ability to raise property taxes, we irresponsibly raise spending during a housing boom and then forget to reduce it when the bubble pops. We take losses on the assets in our already underfunded pension plans that calpers invested in stocks and bon......THAT'S IT!!! We lost money on investments and even though our pension plan manager (calpers and calsters) are public agencies, investments sounds pretty wall streety to me, therefore it's all their fault! Greedy bankers!



Yeah, it's not like there was recently a crash that destroyed 40+% of the world's wealth or anything.


Really? The S & p 500 is now down 13% from its all time peak in the summer of '07. Pension fund investments in bonds are up over the same time period then. Markets fluctuate but over the long term, they make money, which is why pension funds (private and public) invest rather than stuff the cash in the mattress.

What is your solution? Do you think california's pension plans would be better served by taking all their assets now and putting them in treasuries? Because California pensions, in assessing their levels of over/underfunding, assume long term investment
returns of 7.5%. You're not going to get 7.5% in a treasury and mattress investment program.

Markets/investments aren't the problem. Pension guarantees combined with an unwillingness to pay for such pensions is what is causing the problem.
 
2012-07-17 02:14:10 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: No I think that you are a greedy, entitled , hypocrite because you demand that others who provide services that you benefit from should make sacrifices that you are unwilling to make yourself.


I already pay more income taxes than more than 200 million other Americans. Half of them don't pay anything at all. I'm paying my fair share, and thanks to the rocket surgeons running the country, we are not only getting father in debt anyways, but anyone who does pay taxes is demonized because they don't pay enough.

Corvus: Occam's Nailfile: We take in $2.1 trillion per year in taxes. Last year we spent $3.6 trillion. Even if we completely eliminated the military we would have spent $2.9 trillion.

Tell me how we are going to pay $61 trillion in future liabilities.

I have a question.

Do you think we should get rid of social security and Medicare?

If so would we also get rid of those taxes we pay for it or still have the middle class pay into those without getting anything?

How much does it save if we ALSO get rid of those tax revenues? Or are you only counting the expenditures?

You say you are the expert so this should be easy for you to answer.


Here. Read it yourself.

Link

And no, we absolutely cannot get rid of social security and medicare. People have paid into those systems, they deserve their returns, as promised.

We cut everything else. (Including much of the military, you're surprised I thought as much I am sure). We cut government salaries and benefits. We cut optional social programs. We can raise the retirement age a few years to account for advances in science and health, but not much.

We keep cutting until the budget is in surplus, so we can whittle away at our national debt. We take our punishment for spending like drunken sailors, and we pass a balanced budget amendment. Done.

Gotta run, look forward to talking to you again soon.
 
2012-07-17 02:16:02 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: Philip Francis Queeg: No I think that you are a greedy, entitled , hypocrite because you demand that others who provide services that you benefit from should make sacrifices that you are unwilling to make yourself.

I already pay more income taxes than more than 200 million other Americans. Half of them don't pay anything at all. I'm paying my fair share, and thanks to the rocket surgeons running the country, we are not only getting father in debt anyways, but anyone who does pay taxes is demonized because they don't pay enough.

Corvus: Occam's Nailfile: We take in $2.1 trillion per year in taxes. Last year we spent $3.6 trillion. Even if we completely eliminated the military we would have spent $2.9 trillion.

Tell me how we are going to pay $61 trillion in future liabilities.

I have a question.

Do you think we should get rid of social security and Medicare?

If so would we also get rid of those taxes we pay for it or still have the middle class pay into those without getting anything?

How much does it save if we ALSO get rid of those tax revenues? Or are you only counting the expenditures?

You say you are the expert so this should be easy for you to answer.

Here. Read it yourself.

Link

And no, we absolutely cannot get rid of social security and medicare. People have paid into those systems, they deserve their returns, as promised.

We cut everything else. (Including much of the military, you're surprised I thought as much I am sure). We cut government salaries and benefits. We cut optional social programs. We can raise the retirement age a few years to account for advances in science and health, but not much.

We keep cutting until the budget is in surplus, so we can whittle away at our national debt. We take our punishment for spending like drunken sailors, and we pass a balanced budget amendment. Done.

Gotta run, look forward to talking to you again soon.


As long as we reinstate Eisenhower tax laws and brackets, I'm good with that.
 
2012-07-17 02:16:04 PM  

Fark It: Proposition 13 was a ballot initiative approved by the majority of voters in California, garnering almost 65% of the popular vote. It's a terrible law.


I'll go one further. California's biggest problem is our initiative system. It's way too easy for any damned interest to get something on the ballot and to use that as a tool for completely tying the hands of the legislature. For every good thing that comes out of that process, it seems like there's ten bad things that add to our legal cruft.
 
2012-07-17 02:16:14 PM  

HeartBurnKid: Super Chronic: Fart_Machine: Super Chronic: Fart_Machine: Also you're forgetting Pete Wilson and George Deukmejian.

I didn't write the article. But in any event, which of Wilson or Deukmejian do you think was elected after 1994?

Pete Wilson was in office till 1999. You wanna try that again?

Sure, I'll try that again. Which of Wilson or Deukmejian do you think was ELECTED after 1994? And I'll refer you back to the quote with which this whole conversation started: "California, where no non-cyborg Republican has been elected governor since 1994."

Wow, that's cherry picking. "No Republican governors were elected after this Republican governor's election. Except for that one Republican governor, who was elected twice. Out of a sample size of four elections."


Indeed it is. And all I ever did in this thread was address all the people saying "LOL he forgot about Reagan and Schwarzenegger!!1!" by pointing out this quote indicating that he did not forget about pre-1994 governors and "cyborgs." That's it. The date mentioned was 1994, the last year Pete Wilson was elected, so obviously the author had Wilson in mind; and yet this Fart Machine character seems to be picking an argument on the basis that it's wrong about Wilson. What the fark, people?
 
2012-07-17 02:18:52 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: Philip Francis Queeg: No I think that you are a greedy, entitled , hypocrite because you demand that others who provide services that you benefit from should make sacrifices that you are unwilling to make yourself.

I already pay more income taxes than more than 200 million other Americans. Half of them don't pay anything at all. I'm paying my fair share, and thanks to the rocket surgeons running the country, we are not only getting father in debt anyways, but anyone who does pay taxes is demonized because they don't pay enough.


Oh yes, I forgot what an important , impressive person you are. You need to remind everyone of that more often.
 
2012-07-17 02:20:38 PM  

Some 'Splainin' To Do: Fark It: Proposition 13 was a ballot initiative approved by the majority of voters in California, garnering almost 65% of the popular vote. It's a terrible law.

I'll go one further. California's biggest problem is our initiative system. It's way too easy for any damned interest to get something on the ballot and to use that as a tool for completely tying the hands of the legislature. For every good thing that comes out of that process, it seems like there's ten bad things that add to our legal cruft.


2 things:

1) Get rid of the initiative system

2) allow actual representative democracy and get rid of the 2/3 vote budget/tax rule which the Republicans now just vote no on unless the get political favors in return.
 
2012-07-17 02:21:18 PM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: vygramul: Psst! Don't tell him about all the California Republican governors!

All the Republicans in California are RINOs.


Like Issa, Hunter and the other loonies?
 
2012-07-17 02:21:53 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: We keep cutting until the budget is in surplus, so we can whittle away at our national debt. We take our punishment for spending like drunken sailors, and we pass a balanced budget amendment. Done.


You know we would of lost WWII with a balanced budget amendment? right?

That's ok with you?
 
2012-07-17 02:23:59 PM  

odinsposse: Slaves2Darkness: Sadly Republicans are no longer conservatives, not sure what we should call them, but not conservatives.

Feudalists? They do adhere to the Southern culture of a handful rich, adored, landowners ruling over a mass of poorly educated people who think "Hey, at least I'm not a slave. That means I can be rich too someday!" That was essentially Americans trying to emulate European feudal culture.


Feudalists are fascists before the concept of corporations existed.
 
2012-07-17 02:28:32 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: Philip Francis Queeg: No I think that you are a greedy, entitled , hypocrite because you demand that others who provide services that you benefit from should make sacrifices that you are unwilling to make yourself.

I already pay more income taxes than more than 200 million other Americans. Half of them don't pay anything at all. I'm paying my fair share, and thanks to the rocket surgeons running the country, we are not only getting father in debt anyways, but anyone who does pay taxes is demonized because they don't pay enough.

Corvus: Occam's Nailfile: We take in $2.1 trillion per year in taxes. Last year we spent $3.6 trillion. Even if we completely eliminated the military we would have spent $2.9 trillion.

Tell me how we are going to pay $61 trillion in future liabilities.

I have a question.

Do you think we should get rid of social security and Medicare?

If so would we also get rid of those taxes we pay for it or still have the middle class pay into those without getting anything?

How much does it save if we ALSO get rid of those tax revenues? Or are you only counting the expenditures?

You say you are the expert so this should be easy for you to answer.

Here. Read it yourself.

Link

And no, we absolutely cannot get rid of social security and medicare. People have paid into those systems, they deserve their returns, as promised.

We cut everything else. (Including much of the military, you're surprised I thought as much I am sure). We cut government salaries and benefits. We cut optional social programs. We can raise the retirement age a few years to account for advances in science and health, but not much.

We keep cutting until the budget is in surplus, so we can whittle away at our national debt. We take our punishment for spending like drunken sailors, and we pass a balanced budget amendment. Done.

Gotta run, look forward to talking to you again soon.


I believe not 1 PENNY of social security or Medicare should be paid out to prop up the general fund. (like most Republicans are now suggesting we don't pay back our IOUs)

Your idea that the general fund should be used to prop up social security or medicare is dumb. You are not fixing the problem you are just kicking it down the road. Social Security and Medicare need to be made self sufficient so it can last.
 
2012-07-17 02:29:02 PM  

Corvus: Occam's Nailfile: We keep cutting until the budget is in surplus, so we can whittle away at our national debt. We take our punishment for spending like drunken sailors, and we pass a balanced budget amendment. Done.

You know we would of lost WWII with a balanced budget amendment? right?

That's ok with you?


Not that I'm in favor of a BBA, but I believe that those that have been proposed had some exceptions or loopholes for "national emergencies" or something like that, presumably for which a huge war would qualify.
 
2012-07-17 02:30:42 PM  

js34603: spiderpaz: Oh yes - California is terrible. All the sunshine and year-around crops and culture and technology is such a burden. DON'T move to California. It's just the worst. If I could only muster the $50 or so it would cost to buy a double wide in the mid west, I would definitely do it ... I just can't afford the $30 heater that I'd have to put under it to keep the pipes from freezing 6 months out of the year.

All these views from mountain tops and beaches and valleys are just terrible. I'd much rather be living in flyover country where everything looks flat and uniform in every direction.

And the government IS the worst. They don't even try to force pregnant women to be penetrated by ultra-sounds when they don't accept the Lord Jesus. Can you believe it? And I remember when I went to public school they made us take all these books home to learn "math" and "science" with ... all I need is my Bible to know how the earth was made.

And the public museums and parks and universities ... they're everywhere. What a WASTE. Do you know how many dollar trees that could have built?

So all that means California has no economic problems?

The scenery in Cali being nice has nothing to do with the political party in control of the government, whereas the tax rates and massively in debt state budget probably do have something to do with who's running the state. But yeah the scenery is really nice there so let's ignore the economic failure and laugh at the flyover states!

/article is dumb...plenty of Republicans in California...much better example would be the northeast like Mass or Vermont
//wonder how they're doing economically and tax wise...bet they even have those science and math books we hear so much about that only exist in California I guess


The primary economic problem that CA has is that for every $1 the federal government gets from californians and corporations in California, the federal government gives back about 75¢. The other 25% goes to poorer red-states like MS, WV, AL, SC...

If CA got back even just 85¢ to the dollar of taxes paid to the federal government, we'd be clear of all economic woes without having to add more taxes and fees from within the state.

As it is, CA is the fifth largest economy IN THE WORLD. There's a reason Apple, Intel, Facebook, Yahoo, Google, Genentech, Hollywood... are in CA and it isn't the weather or the hot chicks. Even small start-ups prefer CA (primarily the SF Bay Area) to other places despite the daunting high fees and start-up costs, despite the high rental market, and other negative attributes. It's because of the education and the creativity and the drive and the culture and the secularism that if so prominent along the coast of California. You know, the blue part of the state as shown at the top of this thread.
 
2012-07-17 02:31:03 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Corvus: Occam's Nailfile: We keep cutting until the budget is in surplus, so we can whittle away at our national debt. We take our punishment for spending like drunken sailors, and we pass a balanced budget amendment. Done.

You know we would of lost WWII with a balanced budget amendment? right?

That's ok with you?

Not that I'm in favor of a BBA, but I believe that those that have been proposed had some exceptions or loopholes for "national emergencies" or something like that, presumably for which a huge war would qualify.


Making war the way out of a fiscal crisis just might have some severe negative consequences.
 
2012-07-17 02:41:55 PM  
Sweetmelissa31:
Because states always handle things just fine themselves. Seriously, if we left everything to the states, segregation would still be allowed, and the South might not have even gotten past slavery.

I love fark for the simple reason that there is usually a trough of simple explanations that attempt to explain complicated issues. This is the main reason why Fox and MSNBC are so successful.
 
2012-07-17 02:43:02 PM  

ferretman: My Grandfather retired at 55 yrs old for Bell Atlantic....he's currently 97 and still collecting his pension. He only worked for Bell for ~30 yrs; he's been collecting a pension for longer than he actually worked. Pension plans had their appropriate time & place but now it is time for them to become more reasonable.


So everyone who worked for Bell Atlantic lives to 97? I'm guessing a lot of those employees died much earlier, offsetting the costs of the small minority that live to 97.
 
2012-07-17 02:44:01 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: Corvus: Occam's Nailfile: We keep cutting until the budget is in surplus, so we can whittle away at our national debt. We take our punishment for spending like drunken sailors, and we pass a balanced budget amendment. Done.

You know we would of lost WWII with a balanced budget amendment? right?

That's ok with you?

Not that I'm in favor of a BBA, but I believe that those that have been proposed had some exceptions or loopholes for "national emergencies" or something like that, presumably for which a huge war would qualify.

Making war the way out of a fiscal crisis just might have some severe negative consequences.


Yeah, I suppose it's a bad idea for that reason too.
 
2012-07-17 02:58:51 PM  

Super Chronic: The date mentioned was 1994, the last year Pete Wilson was elected, so obviously the author had Wilson in mind; and yet this Fart Machine character seems to be picking an argument on the basis that it's wrong about Wilson. What the fark, people?


U mad bro? I'm pointing out that it's a dumb argument.
 
2012-07-17 02:59:55 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: Philip Francis Queeg: No I think that you are a greedy, entitled , hypocrite because you demand that others who provide services that you benefit from should make sacrifices that you are unwilling to make yourself.

I already pay more income taxes than more than 200 million other Americans. Half of them don't pay anything at all. I'm paying my fair share, and thanks to the rocket surgeons running the country, we are not only getting father in debt anyways, but anyone who does pay taxes is demonized because they don't pay enough.

Corvus: Occam's Nailfile: We take in $2.1 trillion per year in taxes. Last year we spent $3.6 trillion. Even if we completely eliminated the military we would have spent $2.9 trillion.

Tell me how we are going to pay $61 trillion in future liabilities.

I have a question.

Do you think we should get rid of social security and Medicare?

If so would we also get rid of those taxes we pay for it or still have the middle class pay into those without getting anything?

How much does it save if we ALSO get rid of those tax revenues? Or are you only counting the expenditures?

You say you are the expert so this should be easy for you to answer.

Here. Read it yourself.

Link

And no, we absolutely cannot get rid of social security and medicare. People have paid into those systems, they deserve their returns, as promised.

We cut everything else. (Including much of the military, you're surprised I thought as much I am sure). We cut government salaries and benefits. We cut optional social programs. We can raise the retirement age a few years to account for advances in science and health, but not much.

We keep cutting until the budget is in surplus, so we can whittle away at our national debt. We take our punishment for spending like drunken sailors, and we pass a balanced budget amendment. Done.

Gotta run, look forward to talking to you again soon.


Drastic cutting is a terrible way to solve the problem, but ok.

Cuts and revenue increases have to happen, but it's needs to be at a certain rate that doesn't retard the economy.

Also, balanced budget amendments are pretty unrealistic in terms of actually governing.

I don't think you've thought a lot about how much policies like this would retard growth.
 
2012-07-17 03:00:53 PM  
The FARK Politics Tab has become a cess pool of ignorant bullying liberals who have little to no understanding of Economics, State's Rights or even a fundemental grasp of Politcal Science.

Sad.
 
2012-07-17 03:23:16 PM  

2 grams: The FARK Politics Tab has become a cess pool of ignorant bullying liberals who have little to no understanding of Economics, State's Rights or even a fundemental grasp of Politcal Science.

Sad.


OhWaitYou'reSeriousLetMeLaughHarder.jpg
 
2012-07-17 03:32:31 PM  

Fart_Machine: Super Chronic: The date mentioned was 1994, the last year Pete Wilson was elected, so obviously the author had Wilson in mind; and yet this Fart Machine character seems to be picking an argument on the basis that it's wrong about Wilson. What the fark, people?

U mad bro? I'm pointing out that it's a dumb argument.


Take it up with the author, which, I'm telling you for the second time, is not me. All I said is that he didn't forget Schawarzenegger or Reagan, and he didn't forget Wilson, either.

When was the last time the United States elected a Republican president? 2004. Bush was president all the way up until early 2009, and yet it is correct to say we have not elected a Republican president since 2004. Not in a "technically correct is the best kind of correct" sense, but in a sense that arguing against it is simply wrong. Similarly, California has not elected a non-Schwarzenegger Republican governor since 1994; I'm not saying it's an important point or a valid argument or a meaningful distinction or anything else you seem to be imputing to me; I'm saying it's a fact.
 
2012-07-17 03:35:28 PM  
I would agree with him for the most part; we liberals sometimes need conservatives to be the grown-ups. Every once in a while we need someone to stand up and say "And how are you going to pay for that?" The idea of a one-party government rightfully scares the hell out of me, but right now the Republican party scares me a lot more.

Republicans sound awesome when they're telling you about the heart and soul of their ideals - small, non-intrusive government, humble foreign policy, and a commitment to individual liberty. Anyone who tells you that they're a Republican will tell you that it's for one of their core ideals. None of them can give me an explanation for "Argle blargle we hate it if the President is for it, down with freedom, we hate smart people, crash the economy if we don't get our way." Whenever I see Marco Rubio wailing about how victimized and marginalized his party has been, I want to gag.

Conservatives, COME BACK. We need you. We miss sane, sensible, intelligent, intellectual conservatism. I don't even remember the last time my beliefs have been challenged by a trenchant conservative argument based on principle. And we all know how dangerous echo chambers can be. Put down the wedge issues and back away from the dog whistles, slowly.
 
2012-07-17 03:48:31 PM  

js34603: /article is dumb...plenty of Republicans in California...much better example would be the northeast like Mass or Vermont
//wonder how they're doing economically and tax wise...bet they even have those science and math books we hear so much about that only exist in California I guess


However many GOPers there are in Cally, they're an endangered species in elective office, which is the only place that matters. They don't hold a single statewide elective position and their numbers in the legislature are just barely sufficient to keep the Democrats from having a two-thirds majority. Because it requires a two-thirds majority, he ONLY power they have is to block tax increases. After the November election they may not even have enough members to do even that. If that happens, you're going to see the full-blown consequences of an unchecked Democratic reign.

i48.tinypic.com
 
2012-07-17 03:51:43 PM  

peasandcarrots: I would agree with him for the most part; we liberals sometimes need conservatives to be the grown-ups.


I think you should go back to your desk and re-write this. Keep in mind that having tolerance and respect for other people's religions, different racial and cultural backgrounds, sexual orientation and lifestyles, believing in education, science, helping others who are less fortunate due to circumstances beyond their control, creating sustainable industries, preserving the environment and many other very grown up and reasonable ideals are "Liberal". When you begin by saying "we liberals" do not immediately consign liberals to the role of being childish; you could not be making a greater mistake.
 
Displayed 50 of 332 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | 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