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.

(Fark)   What all this about Big bir.....awww lawd   (fark.com) divider line 453
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

28351 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Oct 2012 at 11:24 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-04 01:27:29 PM  
Daniel Tiger is very good. It was created by Angela Santomero. (Blues Clues, Super Why). She really knows her shiat.

Kevin Clash is an amazing dude and hating him or Elmo is sort of silly.

obamadidcoke: Fark Elmo

Grover Rules

[smollin.com image 398x540]
Greatest book ever written.


Agreed. My four year old reads that book on her iPad about 40 times a day. The two year old about 10. It really is an amazing thing.
 
2012-10-04 01:29:06 PM  

liam76: The 20% cuts he mentioned will amount to 4.8 trillion, but he has some unamed "loopholes" or "deductions" he will remove that will reduce that number (impossible to reduce below 4.8 trillion). His refusal to specify what he wants to remove makes it impossible to call out specifics on how he is wrong.


Things like this always strike me. Did somebody ask for specifics and did he answer "I refuse to give any"? If he answered something different, how did he get away with it, or if nobody asked that question, why didn't they?

/didn't WTFD, it was 3 AM over here
 
2012-10-04 01:29:28 PM  

spcMike: Kyro: Agreed 100%. That was the only remark anyone actually remembers. Farkin' PBS? Really? They run on like $20.

That's BS and you know it. Everyone knows we have to borrow $5 trillion every day from China so the Corporation for Socialist Broadcast can keep indoctrinating our children. Ever notice how Elmo is red, like as in Communism?


Are you Frank Stallone?

But srsly, all Romney said was he wouldn't let the gov't SUBSIDIZE PBS. That makes total sense to me. Hell, you wouldn't THINK they were subsidized given the frequent and desperate sounding money drives.

You'd think if PBS/NPR were that relevant, out of the 113+ million households they could raise a million or two - just ask for $1 from each. I donate because I listen to NPR all the time and my typical $100 donation is 100 hhlds that don't have to donate $1. If they could even get 1% of the households to give $1, they would be good.
 
2012-10-04 01:30:00 PM  
I want an "I survived the cock monkey/big bird holocaust" badge.
 
2012-10-04 01:30:40 PM  

CeroX:

Yep, they'll just pack up and leave, GE, GM, Boeing, Wall Street, White Westing House, Time Warner, Ford... They'll all just pack up and leave won't they? Just like they did in the generations past... There are entire generations of cars missing from ford because they left the US in the 70's, 80's, and 90's when taxes were 10% higher than they are now... The jobs just packed up and left, no one worked, no one prospered, the county was a desolate wasteland wasn't it?

Have you talked to your doctor about the possibility of Dementia?


It's funny because it suggests or admits that the rich only stay in the US due to the tax rate, and that they are all unpatriotic enough to pack up and leave if that changes.
 
2012-10-04 01:31:24 PM  

lumiere: As Neil DeGrasse Tyson aptly pointed out:

[i.imgur.com image 487x239] 

I also loved Big Bird's [@BigBird] tweet: "Yo Mitt Romney, Sesame Street is brought to you today by the letters F & U! #debates #SupportBigBird"


I'll aptly point out that the way to eat an Elephant is one bite at a time.
 
2012-10-04 01:32:36 PM  
My Halloween costume:

Suit, Romney sticker, big bird mask
 
2012-10-04 01:35:35 PM  

buckeyebrain: Wade_Wilson: I always wonder why they didn't just spin Elmo off into his own show. He's popular enough to carry one, and the others characters have been able to carry one for over 40 years. Seems like you could get two popular shows out of it.

Like what Animaniacs did when Pinky and the Brain became big.

Wade_Wilson, are you pondering what I'm pondering?


I think so, but burlap chafes me so...
 
2012-10-04 01:36:12 PM  

fireclown: I'm pretty sure that Sesame Street is profitable. What's the problem?


PBS is more than just Sesame Street.

If public funding dries up, then contributions from individuals or corporations will have to make up the difference. And that might influence content, so as to avoid offending a large sponsor.

Some people would find it unsettling or suspicious if certain people or entities with a high profile political agenda were funding a show like NOVA.
 
2012-10-04 01:36:24 PM  

MikeBoomshadow: lumiere: Needsun: I think the mental midgets have, once again, missed the point.
PBS is a commercially viable product capable of supporting itself
and showing a profit on the bottom line. Why are they collecting
welfare from the feral gub'amint (aka taxpayers)? Oh, it's ONLY
.0012%! The amount of support isn't relevant, the fact they're
being supported at all is the issue. Don't worry tho - your food
stamp president will come to the rescue.

Jim DeMint: "From 2003 to 2006, 'Sesame Street' made more than $211 million from toy and consumer product sales."

PolitiFact: "We got the 2009 990 tax form submitted by the Sesame Workshop, the nonprofit group that produces the show, and DeMint is correct. It shows Knell's salary at $806,990, with an additional $149,523 worth of other compensation. For the toy sales numbers, we have to go to the 2008 990 tax form. In a section on "other income," it reports "toys and consumer products" as bringing just over $211 million from 2003 through 2006 (nearly $53 million a year, on average)."

source^

Of course, the current appropriation for ONE year for the CPB is $445.2 million, so your and DeMint's definition of "profitable" seems not to reflect math or reality.


So, the thing here is, CPB produces more shows than just Sesame Street. So, DeMint is completely correct when he says Sesame Workshop is profitable. You and lumiere are both incorrect when you think that is equivalent to CPB as a whole.
 
2012-10-04 01:37:13 PM  

Meatybrain: Luthien's Tempest: Ruca: Solty Dog: F Elmo.

i used to be an elmo hater too, until i had a kid that fell in love with him. now he has really grown on me. everything he does is cute

sprout already syndicates sesame street, maybe they'll pick it up

My brother freaking loved Elmo growing up. My grandmother totally fed into his Elmo love, too, and got him all sorts of Elmo stuff and would watch Elmo with him, and would have him talk about Elmo whenever we went to visit her at work with all the other office ladies. Even now, I still have a strong affinity for Elmo (and can still sing along with the Elmo's World song, last I heard), and my brother is 16.

/Thankfully I never worked at Sesame Place to destroy that affinity...

Thank God I was indoctrinated during the Cookie Monster years.

That's good enough for me.


My sister and I grew up more with Cookie Monster, but my brother really, really took to Elmo, so I remember it way better (and I'm 7 years older than him). Though we all did take quite well to the ones Jim Henson voiced because my dad does an awesome impression of all of them.
 
2012-10-04 01:38:24 PM  
FirstNationalBastard: So, the whole animated Daniel Tiger thing is decent? It's not crapping on the legacy of Mister Rogers Neighborhood?

There was an episode about going potty; does that count?

/ Yes, it's good
 
2012-10-04 01:40:13 PM  

HeadLever: liam76: The 20% cuts he mentioned will amount to 4.8 trillion, but he has some unamed "loopholes" or "deductions" he will remove that will reduce that number (impossible to reduce below 4.8 trillion).

Why is it impossible to reduce below 4.8Trillion? If one reduces rates and closes enough loopholes, one could theoretically increase tax revenue.


I haven't doen the numbers myself, but what I heard on NPR from the Tax Policy center* is there aren't enough deductions there to cover the 4.8 trillion.

Ilmarinen: Things like this always strike me. Did somebody ask for specifics and did he answer "I refuse to give any"? If he answered something different, how did he get away with it, or if nobody asked that question, why didn't they?


Yes. Many times inthe campaign. The fact that he brought up the 20% cut is pretty new. He and Paul won't answer. They just insist it will work.

He doesn't say "I will refuse to give it away," he just says we have a plan, it will work, they don't want to get into it, or they don't want to give it away before they negotiate with congress.

They get away with it because people who have decided to vote for him don't care.

They want to coem in with 20% across the board and leave it on dems to decide which deductions or loopholes get cut so they can turn around and blame them for their 20% cut not working.



*going from memory,
 
2012-10-04 01:41:59 PM  

Parthenogenetic: hdhale: kayanlau: Romney couldn't dent the deficit with the PBS cut. It is a mere 0.012% of budget.

You would prefer another target, an entitlement target? Then name the entitlement program! I grow tired of asking this so it will be the last time: *Where* is the money to balance the budget?

...Medicare. It's in Medicare.

There. You see, Lord Norquist, she can be reasonable. Continue with the operation; you may cut when ready.

WHAT?

You're far too trusting. Medicare is too popular to make an effective demonstration - but don't worry; we will deal with your moocher 47 percenter friends soon enough.

[i.imgur.com image 300x300]


This. Is. Beautiful.
 
2012-10-04 01:42:43 PM  

ProfessorOhki: MikeBoomshadow: lumiere: Needsun: I think the mental midgets have, once again, missed the point.
PBS is a commercially viable product capable of supporting itself
and showing a profit on the bottom line. Why are they collecting
welfare from the feral gub'amint (aka taxpayers)? Oh, it's ONLY
.0012%! The amount of support isn't relevant, the fact they're
being supported at all is the issue. Don't worry tho - your food
stamp president will come to the rescue.

Jim DeMint: "From 2003 to 2006, 'Sesame Street' made more than $211 million from toy and consumer product sales."

PolitiFact: "We got the 2009 990 tax form submitted by the Sesame Workshop, the nonprofit group that produces the show, and DeMint is correct. It shows Knell's salary at $806,990, with an additional $149,523 worth of other compensation. For the toy sales numbers, we have to go to the 2008 990 tax form. In a section on "other income," it reports "toys and consumer products" as bringing just over $211 million from 2003 through 2006 (nearly $53 million a year, on average)."

source^

Of course, the current appropriation for ONE year for the CPB is $445.2 million, so your and DeMint's definition of "profitable" seems not to reflect math or reality.

So, the thing here is, CPB produces more shows than just Sesame Street. So, DeMint is completely correct when he says Sesame Workshop is profitable. You and lumiere are both incorrect when you think that is equivalent to CPB as a whole.


So what other CPB revenues push the total over the amount appropriated, thus making CPB profitable? And have the revenues remained consistent since 2009, especially in the wake of flat or decreasing retail sales? Show your work on the same page.
 
2012-10-04 01:47:59 PM  

Mrs.Sharpier: [i96.photobucket.com image 612x612]


This is hilarious
 
2012-10-04 01:48:29 PM  
I find it interesting that conspicuously excluded from the rhetoric here is what Romney actually SAID. He said he would cut funding to PBS IF IT MEANT BORROWING MONEY FROM CHINA TO PAY FOR IT.
 
2012-10-04 01:48:32 PM  
americablog.com
 
2012-10-04 01:48:49 PM  

DaCaptain19: But srsly, all Romney said was he wouldn't let the gov't SUBSIDIZE PBS. That makes total sense to me. Hell, you wouldn't THINK they were subsidized given the frequent and desperate sounding money drives.


It's your typical "penny-wise / pound-foolish" Republican strategy.

Show the people that you're "fiscally responsible" for defunding PBS while increasing military funding by twenty times that amount.

Eliminate pork-barrel spending! Who cares if it's less than one half of a percent of our expenditures! We've got to beat this drum endlessly on it! We've got to convince the people that we're fiscally responsible!

It's all a bunch of bullshiat, and I'm tired of Americans falling for it time and time again.

The fact that they don't want to admit is that taxes absolutely positively have to go up in order for us to rein in our deficit problems.
 
2012-10-04 01:48:51 PM  

Bender The Offender: I want an "I survived the cock monkey/big bird holocaust" badge.


Challenge Accepted...

ytrewq.com
 
2012-10-04 01:49:58 PM  

ReverendLoki: [25.media.tumblr.com image 500x235] 

/The one thing that's good about Elmo's World? Bill Irwin.
//Kinda trippy watching him as Mr. Noodle in the morning, then as a psychopathic serial killer on CSI that evening


From what I can tell, Elmo's World is gone this season and has been replaced with Elmo the Musical. Different story and backgrounds and new simple songs each episode. The one I saw with my daughter last week was Elmo taking a rocket ship to deliver a pizza to Mars. On the way he ran into something like the Death Star with a Darth Vader like chicken, and he ended up losing all the pizza slices, but it was ok because the martians (the Yip-Yips) really just wanted the box.
It was pretty good in that it included more variety, plus counting, basic subtraction and shapes and imagination play.

/my daughter seems to be taking the change ok so far, which is good. I was worried about an Elmo related meltdown. 
//also, cutting PBS funding to fix the deficit is like saving on your home budget by holding back one penny from the Leave a Penny tray at your gas station per year. Sesame Street itself is self funding, but there are plenty of programs on PBS that do not have positive revenue due to the lack of advertising and are just as education or important. Full corporate advertising would ruin it.
 
2012-10-04 01:50:08 PM  

liam76: Ilmarinen: Things like this always strike me. Did somebody ask for specifics and did he answer "I refuse to give any"? If he answered something different, how did he get away with it, or if nobody asked that question, why didn't they?

Yes. Many times inthe campaign. The fact that he brought up the 20% cut is pretty new. He and Paul won't answer. They just insist it will work.

He doesn't say "I will refuse to give it away," he just says we have a plan, it will work, they don't want to get into it, or they don't want to give it away before they negotiate with congress.


Well yes, that's what I gathered from the past weeks. But in a debate with a moderator and everything Obama could have asked for a specification and after Romney's answer say, "so you refuse to give specifics". In front of the whole country.

But then, I just remembered that Al Gore tried this, while W walked around saying how he could "get things done" and that it wasn't about philosophies and thus 'won' the debate. So maybe not a good idea, tactically speaking. Perhaps Obama should try the 1 minute silence thing someone posted upthread.
 
2012-10-04 01:51:24 PM  
If this is the takeaway Romney lost the debate. Obama should mention his daughters and Big Bird every day, even incidentally.
 
2012-10-04 01:51:28 PM  

Marine1: We need PBS.

On the other hand, compared to the BBC, they freakin' suck.


No, we need to not spend money on things that are not necessary. PBS is not necessary. It's nice to have but if they can't make it on their own then they need to go away. Times are tough all over. I can't feed my family if I have to feed somebody else's first.
 
2012-10-04 01:51:45 PM  

mcsestretch: The Liberal butthurt today is simply glorious.

Your messiah got trounced since he couldn't use a teleprompter and all you have to say is, "OMG...HE WIL KILZ THE BIGBURD~!!!!~~~"

Obama had his chance. Now it's time for someone who knows what he's doing to take over.


So you're not voting for Romney, who ARE you voting for?
 
2012-10-04 01:52:32 PM  

Queue33: Why would you stake out a position in opposition to childhood joy and unconditional love?


See also: debates on homosexuality, and judging people based on who they have fallen in love with, as a political platform.

Why? Because it works on their base and gets votes. They don't want children's hearts and minds, they want political power and money, by whatever means necessary.

Both sides.

But yes, the long tail of such a stance has the potential to be pretty damning for them as a whole. Trees, forest, etc.
 
2012-10-04 01:57:19 PM  
It's no mystery.

i.dailymail.co.uk
 
2012-10-04 01:58:02 PM  

LowbrowDeluxe: Needsun: I think the mental midgets have, once again, missed the point.
PBS is a commercially viable product capable of supporting itself
and showing a profit on the bottom line. Why are they collecting
welfare from the feral gub'amint (aka taxpayers)? Oh, it's ONLY
.0012%! The amount of support isn't relevant, the fact they're
being supported at all is the issue. Don't worry tho - your food
stamp president will come to the rescue.

No it isn't. You're making the same mistake the people focusing on Big Bird are, in conflating some successful studios who produce content for the PBS market with PBS. However, unlike those people, you're wrong on additional levels, because the removal of PBS would in fact destroy the product those studios make. In your invisible free hand capitalist utopia they would be forced to accept creative 'input' from the stations, modify content to fit advertisers, and eventually turn into the exact kind of toyetic crap that makes them and their ability to avoid that by being on PBS a breath of fresh air compared to the content available on the other stations. In short, you are a whore's john shilling for pimps, and should very much go fark yourself with a bag of burning cocks, you sulpherous whoreson.

And I mean that with all due honesty and intent. Anyone who goes after PBS deserves their world of reality TV and Paris Hilton, but I do not personally want to have to live in it as well. Your statement is either disingenuous or outright lying, and regardless of which, deserving of nothing but the outright scorn, contempt, and hatred of all thinking beings. "HURP if people wanted books, they'd go buy them, we should get rid of libraries! DERP electricity practically pays for itself, let the free market decide! HURPADERP if people want to drive in their neighborhood, they'd pay to have them paved, no need for gubmint handouts!" fark you. fark you. fark everyone you know. fark your whole entire extended family. Generally I'd rather avoid divisive politics, but your sort of pseudo-intellectual 'my ignorance is just as good as his knowledge' lying, manipulative, idiotic, farktarded bullshiat is ACTUALLY what is ruining this country. Corporate greed can be mitigated, stupidity can be taught away, proud ignorance masquerading as intelligence however, is forever. Which you will prove by coming back and doubling down on your idiocy, I have no doubts.


You like this.



/yesseyedoo
 
2012-10-04 01:58:11 PM  
As we say in the Defense Contracting biz, "Billion here,a billion there and pretty soon you're talking about real money.

but damn it, leave BB alone!
 
2012-10-04 01:59:51 PM  

liam76: I haven't doen the numbers myself, but what I heard on NPR from the Tax Policy center* is there aren't enough deductions there to cover the 4.8 trillion.


Fair enough and I guess that could be. That amounts to $480 B/year which is a fair amount. I would like to see these numbers however. The Child Tax Credit and Home Mortgage Interest deductions are pretty big.
 
2012-10-04 02:00:32 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: It's no mystery.

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x430]


BB is the greatest monster in HISTORY!
 
2012-10-04 02:02:44 PM  

Ilmarinen: Well yes, that's what I gathered from the past weeks. But in a debate with a moderator and everything Obama could have asked for a specification and after Romney's answer say, "so you refuse to give specifics". In front of the whole country.


He did. Romney's answer was "I govern from philosophy, because compromise is important and I don't want to get tied down to numbers and have someone use them against me later."

He then forgot to add "...and I know, because we've spent an entire campaign misreading your stimulus numbers," and he forgot to finish with a "...and by the way, teabaggers who think compromise is weakness: I just cut you farkers off at the knees. Vote Romney."

// is it a pyrrhic victory if the teabaggers are chest-thumping Romney's "win" and not realizing that in doing so, he basically undermined both their raison d'etre and their favorite non-social causes?
 
2012-10-04 02:03:00 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: No, we need to not spend money on things that are not necessary. PBS is not necessary. It's nice to have but if they can't make it on their own then they need to go away. Times are tough all over. I can't feed my family if I have to feed somebody else's first.


THIS

Cut funding to ALL non-essential programs. Including PBS, NPR, AMTRAK (WHY DAFUQ ARE WE IN THE TRAIN BUSINESS?), Big Oil, Big Pharma, Banking, Unions, Special Interest Groups, OTHER COUNTRIES, NASA, the Postal Service, Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, DEA, ATF, DHS, TSA, DoE, etc.

We don't HAVE to have any of these.

If you're poor and broke... Get a goddamn job. You got a negative attitude. You reek of shiat. Do you know that?
 
2012-10-04 02:06:56 PM  

Needsun: I think the mental midgets have, once again, missed the point. PBS is a commercially viable product capable of supporting itself and showing a profit on the bottom line.


Certain stations are profitable. Stations in big cities like Boston, Chicago, Philly, etc.

Many PBS stations aren't. So if you defund PBS then a lot of the stations that feed rural areas are going to close down. A lot of redneck kids are going to have to go without.

Is that what you want?
 
2012-10-04 02:07:45 PM  

Lando Lincoln: djh0101010: If it had been balanced, you'd see the overall debt total go down, which you can see it doesn't.

The budget could be balanced (and it was), but that doesn't necessarily mean that the debt would have gone down.

There was a tax surplus. That money could have gone towards paying down the debt, but it wasn't. It also could have gone towards giving a tax cut to Americans instead. Or it could have gone towards starting up new government programs, or increasing funding for current ones.


So, that means it wasn't balanced. "could have been but we spent it anyways" doesn't mean balanced. This isn't even subtle.
 
2012-10-04 02:08:18 PM  

Dr Dreidel: He did. Romney's answer was "I govern from philosophy, because compromise is important and I don't want to get tied down to numbers and have someone use them against me later."


Lol he actually said that? Let me recycle from the Crackpot Index:

10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".
 
2012-10-04 02:12:44 PM  

djh0101010: So, that means it wasn't balanced. "could have been but we spent it anyways" doesn't mean balanced. This isn't even subtle.


No, it definitely was balanced. How are you not getting this?

If I spend $900 dollars in a month and I earn $1,000 in that same month, then I've got a $100 surplus. I could spend that $100 on paying down my credit card bill next month on purchases I made a long time ago, or I could just blow it on something else.
 
2012-10-04 02:13:48 PM  

PallMall: Smeggy Smurf: No, we need to not spend money on things that are not necessary. PBS is not necessary. It's nice to have but if they can't make it on their own then they need to go away. Times are tough all over. I can't feed my family if I have to feed somebody else's first.

THIS

Cut funding to ALL non-essential programs. Including PBS, NPR, AMTRAK (WHY DAFUQ ARE WE IN THE TRAIN BUSINESS?), Big Oil, Big Pharma, Banking, Unions, Special Interest Groups, OTHER COUNTRIES, NASA, the Postal Service, Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, DEA, ATF, DHS, TSA, DoE, etc.

We don't HAVE to have any of these.

If you're poor and broke... Get a goddamn job. You got a negative attitude. You reek of shiat. Do you know that?


I think it will be especially funny when your "no moniez for insurance help me pay for this farker's chemo" thread gets red lit after your deep cutting left your stupid ass exposed to the realities of a toothless government. And then since youre an asshole no one likes the cancer mets and you die. Ha. Ha.
 
2012-10-04 02:18:52 PM  

hdhale: kayanlau: Romney couldn't dent the deficit with the PBS cut. It is a mere 0.012% of budget.

You would prefer another target, an entitlement target? Then name the entitlement program! I grow tired of asking this so it will be the last time: *Where* is the money to balance the budget?


Capital gains... they're in capital gains.
 
2012-10-04 02:19:55 PM  

HeadLever: liam76: I haven't doen the numbers myself, but what I heard on NPR from the Tax Policy center* is there aren't enough deductions there to cover the 4.8 trillion.

Fair enough and I guess that could be. That amounts to $480 B/year which is a fair amount. I would like to see these numbers however. The Child Tax Credit and Home Mortgage Interest deductions are pretty big.


What is funny about that is if he did go after those "sacred cows" there would be a tax increase for many poor and middle class Americans.

djh0101010: So, that means it wasn't balanced. "could have been but we spent it anyways" doesn't mean balanced. This isn't even subtle


"Balanced budget" doesn't equal "no deficit", "shrunk deficit" and with interest on the deficit it doesn't mean no "deficit grow", it means the deficit didn't grow to cover the budget, get it?
 
2012-10-04 02:21:24 PM  

DubyaHater: I'll be interested to see new polls on Friday. I understand that Romney looked very calm and collected, but I want to know if anyone fell for the lines of bullshiat oozing out of Mitt's mouth.
I want to see ads from th Obama camp saying, "Mitt Romney's plan for fiscal solvency is slashing funding for PBS and NPR. Does Mr. Romney really believe we can balance the budget by slashing less than 1% of spending?". They should show an image of a small child happily watching Big Bird, then the television screen mysteriously turning to static. Personally, I feel that would be a very powerful image.


Drawing attention to budget cutting and presenting it as something that isn't being done ENOUGH would raise its own questions. Particularly it would mean that the Obama camp would have to present a case where they too show a commitment to cutting the deficit through reduced spending and they'd have to show that they are going to do it without doing damage to PBS and NPR. From what I've seen of their platform, the Democrats are not prepared to do this. Though the cuts to PBS and NPR are misguided I don't think its a safe move on the part of the Democrats to draw attention to it as a move that doesn't "cut the deficit enough" but rather as cutting the deficit in the wrong way.

Frankly, if Obama did turn around right there on the spot and declare that the cuts to NPR/PBS were a terrible idea and instead spending cuts would take place here, here and here, I'd have been super impressed. I'd have been shocked first since neither party has seriously been interested in cutting spending since as far back as I can remember comfortably.
 
2012-10-04 02:25:46 PM  

Cedarbridge: DubyaHater: I'll be interested to see new polls on Friday. I understand that Romney looked very calm and collected, but I want to know if anyone fell for the lines of bullshiat oozing out of Mitt's mouth.
I want to see ads from th Obama camp saying, "Mitt Romney's plan for fiscal solvency is slashing funding for PBS and NPR. Does Mr. Romney really believe we can balance the budget by slashing less than 1% of spending?". They should show an image of a small child happily watching Big Bird, then the television screen mysteriously turning to static. Personally, I feel that would be a very powerful image.

Drawing attention to budget cutting and presenting it as something that isn't being done ENOUGH would raise its own questions. Particularly it would mean that the Obama camp would have to present a case where they too show a commitment to cutting the deficit through reduced spending and they'd have to show that they are going to do it without doing damage to PBS and NPR. From what I've seen of their platform, the Democrats are not prepared to do this. Though the cuts to PBS and NPR are misguided I don't think its a safe move on the part of the Democrats to draw attention to it as a move that doesn't "cut the deficit enough" but rather as cutting the deficit in the wrong way.

Frankly, if Obama did turn around right there on the spot and declare that the cuts to NPR/PBS were a terrible idea and instead spending cuts would take place here, here and here, I'd have been super impressed. I'd have been shocked first since neither party has seriously been interested in cutting spending since as far back as I can remember comfortably.


Again, the $900 BILLION ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM has not been addressed. Government welfare is bad - unless it goes to Northrop-Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Haliburton, and Blackwater ... mhmmm, got it.

/Delete the DoD off the budget, raise taxes back to Eisenhower-era rates, and make capital gains taxable at marginal income rates and guess what? Our country has no more financial problems.
//If we just HALVED the DoD, and did nothing else, the debt would be paid off in 30 years.
 
2012-10-04 02:26:59 PM  

liam76: What is funny about that is if he did go after those "sacred cows" there would be a tax increase for many poor and middle class Americans.


Of course. Things like 'having kids' and 'paying on a mortgage' is not exclusive to the rich.
 
2012-10-04 02:29:30 PM  

djh0101010: Lando Lincoln: djh0101010: If it had been balanced, you'd see the overall debt total go down, which you can see it doesn't.

The budget could be balanced (and it was), but that doesn't necessarily mean that the debt would have gone down.

There was a tax surplus. That money could have gone towards paying down the debt, but it wasn't. It also could have gone towards giving a tax cut to Americans instead. Or it could have gone towards starting up new government programs, or increasing funding for current ones.

So, that means it wasn't balanced. "could have been but we spent it anyways" doesn't mean balanced. This isn't even subtle.


I though it being balanced would mean that the graph would level out, which it does, due to us not getting more new debt. But we all got our $300 check when Bush got into office and that was that.

Not obtaining new debt doesn't mean you're paying your old debt. It just means you put the Mastercard down not that we started paying the bill more.

What did you do with you chunk of possible debt payment?

l-userpic.livejournal.com
 
2012-10-04 02:29:57 PM  

liam76: djh0101010: If it had been balanced, you'd see the overall debt total go down, which you can see it doesn't.

If it was balanced it would stay the same from one year to the next, like from 1999 to 2000.


The only place it appears to have gone down is on the inflation corrected graph.

/captions. What do they MEAN?!?!?
 
2012-10-04 02:30:32 PM  

seadoo2006: Again, the $900 BILLION ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM has not been addressed.


If you are talking about DoD, you number is a little 'optimistic'. Defense (including the wars) is about $650 to $675 Billion this year.
 
2012-10-04 02:32:33 PM  

Lando Lincoln: djh0101010: So, that means it wasn't balanced. "could have been but we spent it anyways" doesn't mean balanced. This isn't even subtle.

No, it definitely was balanced. How are you not getting this?

If I spend $900 dollars in a month and I earn $1,000 in that same month, then I've got a $100 surplus. I could spend that $100 on paying down my credit card bill next month on purchases I made a long time ago, or I could just blow it on something else.


You're serious?

If you pay off debt with that 100, then yes, it's balanced. If you spend it instead, you've chosen to SPEND it rather than REPAY it, and have failed to balance it. It stuns me that someone could fail to understand the difference between "could have balanced but chose not to" and "balanced".

I won't even get into the level of unknowing it took for the person I originally responded to, to say "So, all the cold war debt was paid off" in conjunction with this tenuous at best claim of a balanced budget that one time.
 
2012-10-04 02:33:03 PM  

HeadLever: seadoo2006: Again, the $900 BILLION ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM has not been addressed.

If you are talking about DoD, you number is a little 'optimistic'. Defense (including the wars) is about $650 to $675 Billion this year.


Actually ...

i47.tinypic.com
 
2012-10-04 02:35:43 PM  

Undulation: hdhale: Except that the budget was balanced in the 90s, so the Cold War debt was paid off. We had to go into Afghanistan, so I'm sorry for your problems, but if that war wasn't justified, get on a plane and get out of my country. Iraq was a total judgment call and I personally would have order us in, but I wouldn't have just assumed that the natives would all be friendly like the French in 1944. Yes, your taxes should have gone up to the old Clinton era rates at some point, but also remember that the economy was on the downhill slide BEFORE Bush took office, thanks to the dotcom bubble bursting and thousands of high tech, high paying jobs disappeared over night. 9/11 didn't help either. Raising taxes without mobilizing the country properly (another Bush mistake IMHO...never declare a war on anything without a draft) would have made things worse.

There is a hell of a lot of blame to go around regarding why we went from the black (done with a Moderate to Liberal President and a basically Moderate to Conservative Congress) to deep crimson with the Federal budget. What's also clear is that Mr. Obama means well but he's incapable of balancing the budget or even getting it moving in that direction. Mr. Romney at least gives us a chance...however slim...of getting back there.

Now wait just a minute... balancing the budget does not mean the debt was paid. No sir. You're not out of debt the moment you can afford to start paying back your debts, it does not work that way. Although the tech bubble burst was not helpful for the economy, we would nonetheless be facing a mere fraction of the debt we have now if Bush the Lesser had not cut taxes. Motivation for going to war and all of that is meaningless right now; we've done it, now we have to pay for the damn thing. We have to look forward and start paying this off. There are specific changes that will start covering that distance; raising SS and medicare eligibility ages, removing the SS cap for high incomes, and a ran ...


Wait you mean there are more than 2 options that are extreme opposites of each other?
Unpossible!
 
2012-10-04 02:38:03 PM  

seadoo2006: //If we just HALVED the DoD, and did nothing else, the debt would be paid off in 30 years.


That is weapons-grade stuipid right there. Don't know where you got that talking point but you may want to mark it as 'Bullshiat'. Cutting the DoD budget in half will save you about 325 Billion per year. Our estimated deficits are going to average about 1T per year over the next decade. In essence you are only going to cutting the deficit to $675 Billion per year. Total debt is still going to increase an additional $6.75 Trillion over that 10 year period.
 
Displayed 50 of 453 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | 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