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.

(Fox News)   Using the verbal equivalency of circling the wagons, top Dems claim balancing the budget now would actually be a bad idea   (foxnews.com) divider line 321
    More: Scary, Democrats, President Obama, balanced budgets, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, entitlement reform, David Axelrod  
•       •       •

937 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Sep 2012 at 11:35 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-04 10:34:15 AM

MattStafford: CPennypacker: If you think government debt and deficits caused this recession then there is no point talking to you about how to fix it because you are functionally retarded.

If you think you can afford to both maintain a global military and fund a massive safety net, financed almost entirely on debt, then there is no point talking to you about how to fix it because you are functionally retarded.


Or a Republican.
 
2012-09-04 10:39:47 AM

MattStafford: AurizenDarkstar: So you're saying get rid of anything to help those who can't help themselves, and use it only on the here & now?

What do you plan on doing with all of the people that will be dropping dead then? Mostly from the health related issues of both being old (if you strip SS and Medicare, since the elderly don't work anymore. Unless you believe that the elderly should STAY in the workforce, therefore making unemployment even worse for the youth of the nation), or from people that die of easily dealt with diseases when they can't afford any health care whatsoever (by dismantling Medicaid & Disability (and of course, Welfare, which guarantees that these people won't even be able to eat, much less worry about staying healthy.)))

These issues could be dealt with properly, if the bloody wealthy and corporate types would actually pay their damn entrance fee like the rest of the country. But they would rather crash & burn the United States in their ongoing efforts to strip everything of worth out of the nation, and it sounds like you would have no problem helping them do just that. Keynes was right about how he felt that the economy should work, it's just that only once in the last 100 years has someone actively done the other half of what Keynes spoke about (that is, raise taxes when things are better).

No, I am not saying that. I am fine with a safety net (I'd probably differ on how to create it), but in a country as wealthy as ours, there is no reason for people to starve in the streets. There is no reason for our elderly to go hungry. BUT WE NEED TO PAY FOR IT! Putting all that stuff on a credit card is completely idiotic. It is the most short sighted thing we can do! I am for many liberal ideas, I just understand that if you are going to have them, you are going to have to pay for it.

And I agree, we should raise taxes. Entirely for it. But every day we deficit spend on these things we are that much worse off in the long run, and it seems no one ...


If that's true, then start working towards telling the people that are already benefiting the most from our country's wealth to start helping to fix our debt & deficits. That means they need to pay more in taxation, whether they like it or not. And I'm not talking about those at the bottom, since they truly don't have any more that they can give without adversely affecting their everyday lives.

It's amazing that people on the Right continue to say how the wealthy in the US and corporations supposedly pay such usurious tax rates, yet at one time, our highest Federal tax rate was around 90%! And while very few actually ever paid that rate (if ever), they STILL paid more in taxes than the wealthy of today do. In all seriousness, progressive taxation does work, and all regressive taxation does is enrich the people at the top and destroy the people at the bottom.
 
2012-09-04 10:40:09 AM

MattStafford: CPennypacker: If you think government debt and deficits caused this recession then there is no point talking to you about how to fix it because you are functionally retarded.

If you think you can afford to both maintain a global military and fund a massive safety net, financed almost entirely on debt, then there is no point talking to you about how to fix it because you are functionally retarded.


Those problems aren't what caused the recession and addressing them now won't fix it. We spend too much, especially on the military. When we get out of the recession, then we start the cuts. Now is not the time. The only reason we are talking about it now is because people have been fooled into linking the debt/deficits and the current state of the economy.
 
2012-09-04 10:55:28 AM

AurizenDarkstar: If that's true, then start working towards telling the people that are already benefiting the most from our country's wealth to start helping to fix our debt & deficits. That means they need to pay more in taxation, whether they like it or not. And I'm not talking about those at the bottom, since they truly don't have any more that they can give without adversely affecting their everyday lives.

It's amazing that people on the Right continue to say how the wealthy in the US and corporations supposedly pay such usurious tax rates, yet at one time, our highest Federal tax rate was around 90%! And while very few actually ever paid that rate (if ever), they STILL paid more in taxes than the wealthy of today do. In all seriousness, progressive taxation does work, and all regressive taxation does is enrich the people at the top and destroy the people at the bottom.


Agreed. We either need to cut spending or raise taxes, and in reality we need to do both, dramatically, and immediately. I think we're too far gone at this point anyway,
 
2012-09-04 10:59:04 AM
>Those problems aren't what caused the recession and addressing them now won't fix it. We spend too much, especially on the military. When we get out of the recession, then we start the cuts. Now is not the time. The only reason we are talking about it now is because people have been fooled into linking the debt/deficits and the current state of the economy.

Excessive credit expansion inflating bubbles is what caused the recession. There are a bunch of bubbles still out there, the only one that has popped so far is housing. Student loans, the military, and health care are all up to bat though. The more we spend on those things right now, the worse we are making the problem. We need to increase our productive spending (necessary infrastructure, necessary education, green energy perhaps) and dramatically reduce our unproductive spending (senior health care, defense spending). Doubling down on a bad idea (military spending) because we're in a recession is pure idiocy.
 
2012-09-04 11:07:50 AM

MattStafford: >Those problems aren't what caused the recession and addressing them now won't fix it. We spend too much, especially on the military. When we get out of the recession, then we start the cuts. Now is not the time. The only reason we are talking about it now is because people have been fooled into linking the debt/deficits and the current state of the economy.

Excessive credit expansion inflating bubbles is what caused the recession. There are a bunch of bubbles still out there, the only one that has popped so far is housing. Student loans, the military, and health care are all up to bat though. The more we spend on those things right now, the worse we are making the problem. We need to increase our productive spending (necessary infrastructure, necessary education, green energy perhaps) and dramatically reduce our unproductive spending (senior health care, defense spending). Doubling down on a bad idea (military spending) because we're in a recession is pure idiocy.


I agree with cutting military spending and increasing infrastructure and green energy spending, but credit expansion caused the financial crisis? lolwut?
 
2012-09-04 11:17:46 AM

MattStafford: ...and dramatically reduce our unproductive spending (senior health care, defense spending).


Cutting defense spending is something that I agree with completely. But what is unproductive about senior health care? What could possibly be more productive than keeping people healthy?
 
2012-09-04 11:57:41 AM

CPennypacker: I agree with cutting military spending and increasing infrastructure and green energy spending, but credit expansion caused the financial crisis? lolwut?


Sure. What do you think all of those subprime loans were? That was credit expansion. What do you think all of the massive leveraging in the financial sector was? That was credit expansion. Why do you think TARP was necessary? Because banks borrowed so much (due to credit expansion) and then couldn't afford to pay it back. Debt is a serious problem, yet for some reason the left ignores it (the right doesn't ignore it, but doesn't follow through on any of it so they're pretty much the same).
 
2012-09-04 11:59:04 AM

More_Like_A_Stain: But what is unproductive about senior health care? What could possibly be more productive than keeping people healthy?


Young, working people we should keep healthy. What is productive about keeping a person who stopped working when they were 67 alive until they are 87? What have they produced in those twenty years? Most likely, absolutely nothing.
 
2012-09-04 12:01:55 PM

MattStafford: CPennypacker: I agree with cutting military spending and increasing infrastructure and green energy spending, but credit expansion caused the financial crisis? lolwut?

Sure. What do you think all of those subprime loans were? That was credit expansion. What do you think all of the massive leveraging in the financial sector was? That was credit expansion. Why do you think TARP was necessary? Because banks borrowed so much (due to credit expansion) and then couldn't afford to pay it back. Debt is a serious problem, yet for some reason the left ignores it (the right doesn't ignore it, but doesn't follow through on any of it so they're pretty much the same).


lol ok I guess we're done here. You caught my ear on the lower derp level of cutting military and spending on infrastructure but then hit it out of the park with this derp.
 
2012-09-04 12:10:02 PM

MattStafford: Young, working people we should keep healthy. What is productive about keeping a person who stopped working when they were 67 alive until they are 87? What have they produced in those twenty years? Most likely, absolutely nothing.


Young, working people generally are healthy. That's why so few of them are willing to spend their own money on insurance. As far as the 67 to 87 thing goes, 100% of the people will die. And in the long view, what have any of them ever produced? Most likely, absolutely nothing. There have been a relative handful that have ever produced anything of true lasting value. The rest have produced nothing more than more people, who in turn will produce nothing more than more people.
 
2012-09-04 12:10:27 PM

CPennypacker: lol ok I guess we're done here. You caught my ear on the lower derp level of cutting military and spending on infrastructure but then hit it out of the park with this derp.


theeconomiccollapseblog.com

Surely you must think that there is at least something unsustainable about that graph? And, as you can see what happened during 2008 to now, when the credit level starts decreasing, the economy starts contracting.
 
2012-09-04 12:13:39 PM

More_Like_A_Stain: Young, working people generally are healthy. That's why so few of them are willing to spend their own money on insurance. As far as the 67 to 87 thing goes, 100% of the people will die. And in the long view, what have any of them ever produced? Most likely, absolutely nothing. There have been a relative handful that have ever produced anything of true lasting value. The rest have produced nothing more than more people, who in turn will produce nothing more than more people.


Well, the fact that we are going massively into debt to keep these people who don't produce anything alive should be of some concern.
 
2012-09-04 12:18:44 PM

MattStafford: Well, the fact that we are going massively into debt to keep these people who don't produce anything alive should be of some concern.


Well, with global climate change, we no longer have a large inventory of ice floes. And with the cost of fossil fuels today, ovens aren't really a viable option. Perhaps keeping them alive isn't the best option, but it is the most workable.
 
2012-09-04 12:19:11 PM

MattStafford: CPennypacker: lol ok I guess we're done here. You caught my ear on the lower derp level of cutting military and spending on infrastructure but then hit it out of the park with this derp.

[theeconomiccollapseblog.com image 630x378]

Surely you must think that there is at least something unsustainable about that graph? And, as you can see what happened during 2008 to now, when the credit level starts decreasing, the economy starts contracting.


More business means more market debt? How is that possible?

www.marketoracle.co.uk
 
2012-09-04 12:24:52 PM

CPennypacker: MattStafford: CPennypacker: lol ok I guess we're done here. You caught my ear on the lower derp level of cutting military and spending on infrastructure but then hit it out of the park with this derp.

[theeconomiccollapseblog.com image 630x378]

Surely you must think that there is at least something unsustainable about that graph? And, as you can see what happened during 2008 to now, when the credit level starts decreasing, the economy starts contracting.

More business means more market debt? How is that possible?

[www.marketoracle.co.uk image 720x433]



Even adjusted for GDP, you can see what 30 years of credit expansion looks like. And we still have a ways to go before we return to the mean.
 
2012-09-04 12:25:33 PM
Forgot the image, sorry.

i.imgur.com
 
2012-09-05 04:55:02 AM

MattStafford: Well, the fact that we are going massively into debt to keep these people who don't produce anything alive should be of some concern.


You're about one step away from Logan's Run and then another half step from a society where who knows how many people are unworthy of assistance because they don't produce (whatever the fark that means) anything. Surely this concern of yours extends to other groups too. How do you feel about the sick, injured or disabled? What about the unemployed? I suppose there's an exemption for children because they can still grow up to produce stuff, but at what point would you cut them off from public education (among other services) because they'll never "produce" enough to be worth the expense?

Doesn't it bother you that you've reduced a person's worth and the ethics of helping them down to whether or not they "produce"?
 
2012-09-05 08:19:29 AM

Baryogenesis: MattStafford: Well, the fact that we are going massively into debt to keep these people who don't produce anything alive should be of some concern.

You're about one step away from Logan's Run and then another half step from a society where who knows how many people are unworthy of assistance because they don't produce (whatever the fark that means) anything. Surely this concern of yours extends to other groups too. How do you feel about the sick, injured or disabled? What about the unemployed? I suppose there's an exemption for children because they can still grow up to produce stuff, but at what point would you cut them off from public education (among other services) because they'll never "produce" enough to be worth the expense?

Doesn't it bother you that you've reduced a person's worth and the ethics of helping them down to whether or not they "produce"?



MattStafford: No, I am not saying that. I am fine with a safety net (I'd probably differ on how to create it), but in a country as wealthy as ours, there is no reason for people to starve in the streets. There is no reason for our elderly to go hungry. BUT WE NEED TO PAY FOR IT! Putting all that stuff on a credit card is completely idiotic. It is the most short sighted thing we can do! I am for many liberal ideas, I just understand that if you are going to have them, you are going to have to pay for it.



Hey, before you start making claims about what I believe, maybe you should check out what I believe.
 
2012-09-05 11:01:10 AM

CPennypacker: MattStafford: CPennypacker: lol ok I guess we're done here. You caught my ear on the lower derp level of cutting military and spending on infrastructure but then hit it out of the park with this derp.

[theeconomiccollapseblog.com image 630x378]

Surely you must think that there is at least something unsustainable about that graph? And, as you can see what happened during 2008 to now, when the credit level starts decreasing, the economy starts contracting.

More business means more market debt? How is that possible?

[www.marketoracle.co.uk image 720x433]


When a country's prosperity depends on ever-increasing debt, you're screwed.
 
2012-09-05 04:26:40 PM
MattStafford


gameshowhost: MattStafford: I LIKE TURTLES

Well thought out rebuttal. You are destroying the world, and refuse to listen to any arguments pointing out how dumb you are.



That's how Dems roll.
 
Displayed 21 of 321 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 »





Report