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.

(Investors Business Daily)   How come there's no pressure on Dems to cough up spending cuts in the "fiscal cliff" talks?   (news.investors.com) divider line 427
    More: Strange, no pressure, D-Ill, Boehner, George Stephanopoulos, Party leaders of the United States Senate, Nancy Pelosi  
•       •       •

1881 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Nov 2012 at 10:31 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-11-27 09:13:35 AM  
Because they have said all along they would be willing to cut spending programs as a part of a balanced package?
 
2012-11-27 09:29:53 AM  
Isn't the entire problem with the fiscal cliff the fact that it's a giant spending cut? What am I missing?
 
2012-11-27 09:33:58 AM  
It is an even numbered year. Last year's manufactured economic apocalypse was resolved with all cuts and no revenue because it was an odd year. That means this time it is all revenue and no cuts.
 
2012-11-27 09:47:28 AM  
When writing about a balanced approach to fiscal policy, one that involves both spending cuts and new revenues, it should be noted that Congress and the President have actually already cut $1.5 trillion ($1.7t including interest savings) in discretionary spending, not including war costs, over the next decade. Link
 
2012-11-27 09:50:41 AM  
When you lose you're expected to make concessions.  Republicans lost.
 
2012-11-27 10:02:56 AM  
The Dems are not the ones steadfastly refusing any sort of compromise. The GOP is the one going all "Thelma and Louise" on us.
 
2012-11-27 10:05:59 AM  
It's Investor's Business Daily. Pay it no mind.
 
2012-11-27 10:20:35 AM  
"People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless." [IBD, Atlanta J-C, Ezra Klein]
 
2012-11-27 10:22:32 AM  

exick: Isn't the entire problem with the fiscal cliff the fact that it's a giant spending cut? What am I missing?


If you view temporary tax cuts as effectively spending (which I think it is), you are absolutely accurate.
 
2012-11-27 10:24:23 AM  
As anyone who's studied the federal budget knows, the problem isn't too little taxes. Even if we kept all the Bush tax cuts in place, federal revenues as a share of GDP will soon exceed historic averages.

Uhmm... HUH?? Do these historical averages include the time before income taxes or something?
 
2012-11-27 10:33:45 AM  
DNRTFA.

Am I missing something, or did this major publication completely miss the trillions of dollars in offered spending cuts that the GOP took an enormous steaming dump on before demanding more?
 
2012-11-27 10:34:51 AM  
The whine is strong in this one.
 
2012-11-27 10:35:16 AM  
Most of the cuts can be re-introduced and be good PR and the services will come back when people see the gaping hole it leaves.

Convincing the majority of Americans that the rich need tax cuts and expecting to be re-elected....that just isn't going to happen.
 
2012-11-27 10:36:02 AM  
Because they didn't get their asses handed to them back on November 6?

Because they've been conceding them all along even though they won't work on their own?

Because they never made a pinkie-swear to an unelected megalomaniac to never ever cut spending, cross our hearts and hope to die?

because fark you, that's why?
 
2012-11-27 10:36:04 AM  

tnpir: It's Investor's Business Daily. Pay it no mind.


IBD is WND for the semi-literate.
 
2012-11-27 10:36:09 AM  
Why should we have to cut programs people voted for? If people wanted to cut all that shiat, then Romney should have won.
 
2012-11-27 10:36:19 AM  
SCOREBOARD: 303 to 206. That's how come, biatch.
 
2012-11-27 10:36:50 AM  
because for the dems, improving the budget overages by 10% via taxes is a bigger class warfare win than dealing with the other 90% of the budget overages
 
2012-11-27 10:37:15 AM  

Rain-Monkey: Because they have said all along they would be willing to cut spending programs as a part of a balanced package?


Repeating, bears, etc.
 
2012-11-27 10:37:40 AM  

CPT Ethanolic: As anyone who's studied the federal budget knows, the problem isn't too little taxes. Even if we kept all the Bush tax cuts in place, federal revenues as a share of GDP will soon exceed historic averages.

Uhmm... HUH?? Do these historical averages include the time before income taxes or something?


Does he not know that from the end of WWII to now, we always collected about 19% GDP in revenues? Does he also not know that something happened around 2004 that caused this to drop to ~14% (and it's stayed there since)?

If he doesn't know that, why the bloody blue fark is he writing about government for a business publication?
 
2012-11-27 10:38:52 AM  
It must be fun to just make shiat up all the time.
 
2012-11-27 10:38:55 AM  

Daily reminder: The GOP's backing of the tax plan pushed by the loser of the presidential election is not a concession.

- Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) November 27, 2012
 
2012-11-27 10:39:15 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: because for the dems, improving the budget overages by 10% via taxes is a bigger class warfare win than dealing with the other 90% of the budget overages


Oh you're back? I've missed your brand of derp.
 
2012-11-27 10:39:23 AM  
Conservatives have no clue about a false crisis that their own party created? I'm not really all that surprised, honestly.
 
2012-11-27 10:39:32 AM  
I thought Obama offered 4 trillion in spending cuts?
 
2012-11-27 10:39:44 AM  

Rain-Monkey: Because they have said all along they would be willing to cut spending programs as a part of a balanced package?


done in one.

and, oh yeah, THE FISCAL CLIFF IS 100 PERCENT THE FAULT OF REPUBLICANS.
 
2012-11-27 10:40:46 AM  

EyeballKid: SCOREBOARD: 303 to 206. That's how come, biatch.


You left out Florida. The EVs have to total 538.
 
2012-11-27 10:41:01 AM  

Infernalist: DNRTFA.

Am I missing something, or did this major publication completely miss the trillions of dollars in offered spending cuts that the GOP took an enormous steaming dump on before demanding more?


By equating Democrats unwillingness to privatize Medicare and cut Social Security with the GOP's unwillingness to raise any taxes any amount.

It's dumb but you have to be dumb to play Both Sides are Bad.
 
2012-11-27 10:41:13 AM  
"We got 90% of what we wanted" - Boehner
 
2012-11-27 10:41:45 AM  
Because we're down ~640B a year in revenues from our average, while up ~320B in spending off our average?
 
2012-11-27 10:41:52 AM  
Because we have as much government as we want. The reality is nobody wants to cut entitlements, nobody and whining about it only shows how ignorant of the issue you really are.
 
2012-11-27 10:42:19 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: because for the dems, improving the budget overages by 10% via taxes is a bigger class warfare win than dealing with the other 90% of the budget overages


So, Obama isn't a Democrat now? You know, because his plan includes cuts?
 
2012-11-27 10:42:22 AM  

FlashHarry: Rain-Monkey: Because they have said all along they would be willing to cut spending programs as a part of a balanced package?

done in one.

and, oh yeah, THE FISCAL CLIFF IS 100 PERCENT THE FAULT OF REPUBLICANS.


Well technically, it's 98% the fault of Republicans but with commonly excepted rounding procedures I'm willing to let your number stand.
 
2012-11-27 10:42:34 AM  
Because of the liebral-leftist-driveby-lamestream-media-conspiracy. So only get your news from right wing conspiracy sites who tell the truth.
 
2012-11-27 10:42:48 AM  

mrshowrules: exick: Isn't the entire problem with the fiscal cliff the fact that it's a giant spending cut? What am I missing?

If you view temporary tax cuts as effectively spending (which I think it is), you are absolutely accurate.


No you are missing the second part of the fiscal cliff and that is an automatic 10% cut to all government programs across the board.
 
2012-11-27 10:42:51 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Daily reminder: The GOP's backing of the tax plan pushed by the loser of the presidential election is not a concession.- Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) November 27, 2012


+1. How many of the Congress critters that got re-elected were campaigning on cutting entitlements. Obama campaigned on raising taxes on the rich and protecting entitlements. If Congressman didn't campaign on protect the tax cuts for the rich and cutting entitlements, they should STFU.
 
2012-11-27 10:43:06 AM  
There is no negotiation to be had. The "cliff" will happen, and then we can work to restore some bits of it. Most likely Congress will be incapable of doing anything as simple as passing another tax cut, and we will get on with our lives as the economy continues to improve and no one really notices the change in tax rates
 
2012-11-27 10:44:20 AM  
Because they got 2% of what they wanted last time, you asshole?
 
2012-11-27 10:44:33 AM  

EyeballKid: SCOREBOARD: 303 to 206. That's how come, biatch.


If only they had similar results in the House of Representatives, they could do whatever they wanted. Sadly, the country voted for Republican control of the House of Representatives.

/Not really going to matter
//House Republicans will cave and cave quickly
 
2012-11-27 10:44:34 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: The Dems are not the ones steadfastly refusing any sort of compromise. The GOP is the one going all "Thelma and Louise" on us.


I was thinking more "Devil's Rejects".
 
2012-11-27 10:45:20 AM  
Because you touch yourself at night.
 
2012-11-27 10:45:21 AM  

Citrate1007: "We got 90% of what we wanted" - Boehner


This post brought to you by the margin of error of 10%.

//98% - respect
 
2012-11-27 10:45:59 AM  
The fiscal cliff isn't a cliff nor is it irreversible. There's no point to anyone trying to reach a deal before it kicks in.

Just let Jan 1 come and go, tax rates kick up and spending kicks down automatically.

If you really believe the deficit is a problem, you're done, the deficit's pretty much fixed. Otherwise:

THEN work out a deal to cut taxes and increase spending from that baseline.

Since you can get to a place with less deficit than today, without any politician having to support any tax increase or spending cut, politically everything's a lot easier.

Bonus: Republicans then have an incentive to actually make a deal; if they just blindly obstruct so nothing happens, taxes are higher than they like, and defense spending is lower than they like.
 
2012-11-27 10:46:41 AM  

mrshowrules: exick: Isn't the entire problem with the fiscal cliff the fact that it's a giant spending cut? What am I missing?

If you view temporary tax cuts as effectively spending (which I think it is), you are absolutely accurate.


Also the 8% cut in defense spending and some other automatic cuts, including a fairly meaningful chunk of medicare funding, are up for debate.

Much like the debt ceiling of yesteryear, the public will miraculously learn all about the machinations surrounding this debate the day after it matters. Then we will all be treated to experts telling us how easy it should have been.
 
2012-11-27 10:47:02 AM  

The Jami Turman Fan Club: I thought Obama offered 4 trillion in spending cuts?


$4 trillion in savings (cuts + revenue). And Obama's already enacted $1.5 trillion in cuts but gotten not one dollar in revenues. 

Spending cuts are actively detrimental to this economy. That we're actually debating how much bigger a cut to make is genuinely insane.
 
2012-11-27 10:47:31 AM  

Slaves2Darkness: mrshowrules: exick: Isn't the entire problem with the fiscal cliff the fact that it's a giant spending cut? What am I missing?

If you view temporary tax cuts as effectively spending (which I think it is), you are absolutely accurate.

No you are missing the second part of the fiscal cliff and that is an automatic 10% cut to all government programs across the board.


The 2nd part is well-understood as spending cuts. By point is that the whole thing is effectively all spending cuts.

I don't view letting the tax cuts expiring as a revenue increase (although it increases revenue). I view it primarily as ending a temporary subsidy (i.e., spending reduction).
 
2012-11-27 10:47:34 AM  

SunsetLament: the country voted for Republican control of the House of Representatives.


With a little help from Mr. Gerry Mander
assets.motherjones.com
 
2012-11-27 10:48:29 AM  

SunsetLament: //House Republicans will cave and cave quickly


We can only hope. Last time they decided they'd push it until we got an embarassing (but ultimately meaningless) credit downgrade.
 
2012-11-27 10:50:04 AM  
Pay them no attention. These are the same people who kept demanding Obama's birth certificate when he produced it, and the same ones who pretended for a year that Kerry had "no plan" when it was clearly posted online for the entire election cycle.

They don't care about facts or reality, just rhetoric.
 
2012-11-27 10:51:28 AM  
As a side note, does anyone remember 18 months ago when the original "fiscal cliff" debates started. Wasn't it an argument about something completely different? As I remember it, we were going to go off the fiscal cliff if we didn't raise the debt limit and our national credit rating was subsequently downgraded. "Going over the fiscal cliff" had nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts not being extended. If I didn't know better, I would start to believe the media (and the Democrats) were just declaring we were "about to go over the fiscal cliff" anytime they wanted to do something financially related - and that it doesn't really have anything to do with the country's finances teetering on the edge of cliff. Hmmm .....

Oh, and while we're at it, why is it that no one ever says "Hey media (and Democrats), you said the country's finances would go over a cliff 18 months ago if the credit rating was downgraded ... it was downgraded ... and life went on as though nothing changed. If you were so wrong then, how do we know you're not completely wrong now?"
 
2012-11-27 10:51:53 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: because for the dems, improving the budget overages by 10% via taxes is a bigger class warfare win than dealing with the other 90% of the budget overages


Say, did you ever get around to issuing an apology for all that confident boasting you were doing about an impending Romney victory?

So, tell us again why we should take you seriously?
 
2012-11-27 10:52:20 AM  

Headso: SunsetLament: the country voted for Republican control of the House of Representatives.

With a little help from Mr. Gerry Mander


Technically we voted for that too, by voting for Republican State legislators in 2010.

It might be worth highlighting as a national issue for the 2020 elections, like people highlight the President's effect on the Supreme Court.
 
2012-11-27 10:52:22 AM  

max_pooper: Well technically, it's 98% the fault of Republicans but with commonly excepted rounding procedures I'm willing to let your number stand.


point of order: had the house republicans simply passed the debt ceiling raise - as they had dozens of times before - the negotiations that resulted in the sequester would never have been necessary. instead, they felt, as mitch mcconnell said, that it was "a hostage worth taking."

so once again, i posit that this is in fact 100 percent owned by the GOP.
 
2012-11-27 10:52:52 AM  

Headso: SunsetLament: the country voted for Republican control of the House of Representatives.

With a little help from Mr. Gerry Mander
[assets.motherjones.com image 630x566]


Oh, that sucks. Maybe you should control state legislatures next time re-districting comes around.
 
2012-11-27 10:53:44 AM  

SunsetLament: As a side note, does anyone remember 18 months ago when the original "fiscal cliff" debates started. Wasn't it an argument about something completely different? As I remember it, we were going to go off the fiscal cliff if we didn't raise the debt limit and our national credit rating was subsequently downgraded. "Going over the fiscal cliff" had nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts not being extended. If I didn't know better, I would start to believe the media (and the Democrats) were just declaring we were "about to go over the fiscal cliff" anytime they wanted to do something financially related - and that it doesn't really have anything to do with the country's finances teetering on the edge of cliff. Hmmm .....

Oh, and while we're at it, why is it that no one ever says "Hey media (and Democrats), you said the country's finances would go over a cliff 18 months ago if the credit rating was downgraded ... it was downgraded ... and life went on as though nothing changed. If you were so wrong then, how do we know you're not completely wrong now?"


8/10. You're going to get a lot of bites since you actually sincere.
 
2012-11-27 10:54:02 AM  

Some 'Splainin' To Do: tenpoundsofcheese: because for the dems, improving the budget overages by 10% via taxes is a bigger class warfare win than dealing with the other 90% of the budget overages

Say, did you ever get around to issuing an apology for all that confident boasting you were doing about an impending Romney victory?

So, tell us again why we should take you seriously?


Because he knew Obamacare would be deemed unconstitutional.
 
2012-11-27 10:55:17 AM  
*sound sincere
 
2012-11-27 10:55:32 AM  

exick: Isn't the entire problem with the fiscal cliff the fact that it's a giant spending cut? What am I missing?


Also tax hikes.

So basically going over the "fiscal cliff" would give both sides what they want.
 
2012-11-27 10:55:48 AM  

SunsetLament: As a side note, does anyone remember 18 months ago when the original "fiscal cliff" debates started. Wasn't it an argument about something completely different? As I remember it, we were going to go off the fiscal cliff if we didn't raise the debt limit and our national credit rating was subsequently downgraded. "Going over the fiscal cliff" had nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts not being extended. If I didn't know better, I would start to believe the media (and the Democrats) were just declaring we were "about to go over the fiscal cliff" anytime they wanted to do something financially related - and that it doesn't really have anything to do with the country's finances teetering on the edge of cliff. Hmmm .....

Oh, and while we're at it, why is it that no one ever says "Hey media (and Democrats), you said the country's finances would go over a cliff 18 months ago if the credit rating was downgraded ... it was downgraded ... and life went on as though nothing changed. If you were so wrong then, how do we know you're not completely wrong now?"


18 months ago the republicans caved and we raised the debt limit.  And just to correct your chronology the downgrade in our rating happened before the republicans caved and was directly tied to fears that they would not allow the debt limit to be raised.
 
This situation is related to the bipartisan comission that was intended to come to a deficit deal as a response to the debt limit crisis.  Both parties agreed to a series of consequences should that comission not be able to come to an agreement.  They weren't able to (republicans regected everything that hinted at a tax increase) and so now we are dealing with those consequences.
 
2012-11-27 10:56:17 AM  

SunsetLament: I would start to believe the media


don't bother, just keep getting info from right wing sources. Now that Romney has won in a landslide he'll be able to turn around anything these democrats screw up during Obama's time as a lame duck.
 
2012-11-27 10:56:21 AM  

SunsetLament: As I remember it, we were going to go off the fiscal cliff if we didn't raise the debt limit and our national credit rating was subsequently downgraded.


What do you think would have happened if we didn't raise the debt ceiling?
 
2012-11-27 10:56:24 AM  
...because plenty of Democrats are willing to work out balanced cuts in social programs and military spending that far exceed the increased revenue from the Bush tax cuts to those making over $250K/yr?

...because the GOP's modus operandi all along has been, when offered pre-emptive cuts, to reset the debate with those offers as the new baseline?

...because only a fool would contend that THE logjam here isn't Republicans refusing to raise taxes on the rich?

They wanted a presidential race on the economy and the debt and which vision of how to resolve our government's fiscal problems would prevail, and they got it. The people spoke. They chose Obama. And that should be his message, again and again, like a hammer to an anvil. We laid out our plan, you laid out yours, and the people chose ours. You either respect that or you don't.
 
2012-11-27 10:57:26 AM  
I'd imagine it has something to do with the fact that they have been offering up spending cuts all along.
 
2012-11-27 10:58:35 AM  

SunsetLament: Oh, and while we're at it, why is it that no one ever says "Hey media (and Democrats), you said the country's finances would go over a cliff 18 months ago if the credit rating was downgraded ... it was downgraded ... and life went on as though nothing changed. If you were so wrong then, how do we know you're not completely wrong now?"


Everyone gets confused about that stuff, including the media and Democrats. The constant flow of bullshiat doesn't help either.

If you were listening to knowledgeable folks back then they'd have been telling you that the danger wasn't credit rating, but actual default. (Which we were annoyingly close to).

It's a danger not to our government finances directly as such, but because the global financial system is built upon the assumption that US T-Bills are safe. Yank that rug out from under it and watch the depression unfold. It'd be a bigger version of what happened in 2008, where only a part of the financial system got built upon the assumption that real estate was a safe investment, and that rug got yanked out.
 
2012-11-27 10:59:08 AM  

mrshowrules: Because he knew Obamacare would be deemed unconstitutional.


Anyone who thought that it was a forgone conclusion that the mandate would be overturned severely underestimates the Supreme Court's ability to twist the constitution and previous case law.
 
2012-11-27 10:59:17 AM  

HugsAndPuppies: Marcus Aurelius: The Dems are not the ones steadfastly refusing any sort of compromise. The GOP is the one going all "Thelma and Louise" on us.

I was thinking more "Devil's Rejects".



Oh good grief. That's just begging for an extended photoshop parody.

/Grover loves the gub'mint, stripped and lean,
//Drownin' in a bathtub of gas-o-line...
 
2012-11-27 11:00:01 AM  

SunsetLament: Oh, that sucks. Maybe you should control state legislatures next time re-districting comes around.


Maybe it's not about control, but about common sense. Gerrymandering sucks no matter who it benefits.
 
2012-11-27 11:00:28 AM  

jigger: mrshowrules: Because he knew Obamacare would be deemed unconstitutional.

Anyone who thought that it was a forgone conclusion that the mandate would be overturned severely underestimates the Supreme Court's ability to twist the constitution and previous case law.


In other words it's Judicial Activism when I don't agree with the ruling.
 
2012-11-27 11:01:16 AM  

CPT Ethanolic: As anyone who's studied the federal budget knows, the problem isn't too little taxes. Even if we kept all the Bush tax cuts in place, federal revenues as a share of GDP will soon exceed historic averages.

Uhmm... HUH?? Do these historical averages include the time before income taxes or something?


If you average it out from today back to the time that the continents split apart (going back any farther would just be silly because we weren't a separate country then), the average rate starts to approach 0. Therefore, we are being greatly over taxed. It's simple math, really.
 
2012-11-27 11:01:21 AM  

Gaseous Anomaly: The fiscal cliff isn't a cliff nor is it irreversible. There's no point to anyone trying to reach a deal before it kicks in.

Just let Jan 1 come and go, tax rates kick up and spending kicks down automatically.

If you really believe the deficit is a problem, you're done, the deficit's pretty much fixed. Otherwise:

THEN work out a deal to cut taxes and increase spending from that baseline.

Since you can get to a place with less deficit than today, without any politician having to support any tax increase or spending cut, politically everything's a lot easier.

Bonus: Republicans then have an incentive to actually make a deal; if they just blindly obstruct so nothing happens, taxes are higher than they like, and defense spending is lower than they like.


Agreed. The only problem I can see is a lot of folks won't be getting their tax refunds until the mess is sorted out. Plus, the IRS is going to be wasting a whole lot of manpower and printing costs.
 
2012-11-27 11:02:20 AM  
This message brought to you by: the "liberal" media that needs something besides Christmas to talk about until the end of the year. Because we've managed to let Christmas take over so much of the year that there's a month to go and nothing to be said on the subject.
 
2012-11-27 11:02:33 AM  
irregulartimes.com

Pick the group that has gained the most, and start there.
If you need more, let us know, mmmay?
 
2012-11-27 11:03:15 AM  

Fart_Machine: SunsetLament: As I remember it, we were going to go off the fiscal cliff if we didn't raise the debt limit and our national credit rating was subsequently downgraded.

What do you think would have happened if we didn't raise the debt ceiling?


We would have stopped borrowing money. Spending would have decreased. As "discretionary" government programs started to wash out (no money available), real discussions about how to renovate entitlement programs would have taken place and corrective action would have occurred (maybe not immediately, but over the course of a year or two). As we all know (because the credit agencies said at the time), the credit rating would have been downgraded either way because it had nothing to do with whether or not the debt ceiling was actually raised and had everything to do with the financial community believing that federal congressional gridlock (as desired by the US population - see two weeks ago) will never result in entitlement reform.
 
2012-11-27 11:04:17 AM  
Because you're a farking moron, whoever wrote this article.
 
2012-11-27 11:04:17 AM  
What was it that Republicans said in 2010? Oh yeah . . . Elections have consequences.
 
2012-11-27 11:04:24 AM  

swahnhennessy: SunsetLament: Oh, that sucks. Maybe you should control state legislatures next time re-districting comes around.

Maybe it's not about control, but about common sense. Gerrymandering sucks no matter who it benefits.


Including when the courts order your state to gerrymander so that blacks are elected to congress? Or is that "good gerrymandering"?
 
2012-11-27 11:05:03 AM  

Gaseous Anomaly: The fiscal cliff isn't a cliff nor is it irreversible. There's no point to anyone trying to reach a deal before it kicks in.

Just let Jan 1 come and go, tax rates kick up and spending kicks down automatically.

If you really believe the deficit is a problem, you're done, the deficit's pretty much fixed. Otherwise:


Pretty much. If you truly believe our national debt is our #1 threat, there's a pretty easy way to cut it in half.

dailydish.typepad.com
 
2012-11-27 11:05:11 AM  

SunsetLament: EyeballKid: SCOREBOARD: 303 to 206. That's how come, biatch.

If only they had similar results in the House of Representatives, they could do whatever they wanted. Sadly, the country voted for Republican control of the House of Representatives.

/Not really going to matter
//House Republicans will cave and cave quickly


Technically speaking the state legislatures voted for the House of Representatives using our hilariously undemocratic gerrymandering system.
 
2012-11-27 11:06:12 AM  

SunsetLament: derp


tldr

Can you post a cartoon?
 
2012-11-27 11:06:53 AM  

Taylor Mental: Gaseous Anomaly: The fiscal cliff isn't a cliff nor is it irreversible. There's no point to anyone trying to reach a deal before it kicks in.

Just let Jan 1 come and go, tax rates kick up and spending kicks down automatically.

If you really believe the deficit is a problem, you're done, the deficit's pretty much fixed. Otherwise:

THEN work out a deal to cut taxes and increase spending from that baseline.

Since you can get to a place with less deficit than today, without any politician having to support any tax increase or spending cut, politically everything's a lot easier.

Bonus: Republicans then have an incentive to actually make a deal; if they just blindly obstruct so nothing happens, taxes are higher than they like, and defense spending is lower than they like.

Agreed. The only problem I can see is a lot of folks won't be getting their tax refunds until the mess is sorted out. Plus, the IRS is going to be wasting a whole lot of manpower and printing costs.


No, that's not even a problem, the IRS is dealing with tax year 2012.

Even if somehow the higher tax rates lasted through all of 2013, nobody files returns on that until Feb 2014 (I guess quarterly-estimated-tax filers might need to get paperwork in starting April 2013).

Paychecks will get affected right away because withholding rates will change right away (and the payroll tax cut expires). That plus the spending cuts will be an immediate drag on the economy, but that's what we get if we think it's a lesser evil than the deficit. (It's not, but that's another discussion).
 
2012-11-27 11:09:21 AM  

SunsetLament: "about to go over the fiscal cliff"


It is a misnomer. They should call it the "fiscal Incline" but that doesn't sound scary.
 
2012-11-27 11:09:27 AM  

SunsetLament: As we all know (because the credit agencies said at the time), the credit rating would have been downgraded either way because it had nothing to do with whether or not the debt ceiling was actually raised and had everything to do with the financial community believing that federal congressional gridlock (as desired by the US population - see two weeks ago) will never result in entitlement reform.


[citationneeded]
 
2012-11-27 11:14:01 AM  

SunsetLament: Headso: SunsetLament: the country voted for Republican control of the House of Representatives.

With a little help from Mr. Gerry Mander
[assets.motherjones.com image 630x566]

Oh, that sucks. Maybe you should control state legislatures next time re-districting comes around.


Blatantly antidemocratic gerrymandering is OK if it benefits your side? Fascinating point of view.
 
2012-11-27 11:14:57 AM  
www.caglecartoons.com
 
2012-11-27 11:15:46 AM  

Gaseous Anomaly: No, that's not even a problem, the IRS is dealing with tax year 2012.

Even if somehow the higher tax rates lasted through all of 2013, nobody files returns on that until Feb 2014 (I guess quarterly-estimated-tax filers might need to get paperwork in starting April 2013).

Paychecks will get affected right away because withholding rates will change right away (and the payroll tax cut expires). That plus the spending cuts will be an immediate drag on the economy, but that's what we get if we think it's a lesser evil than the deficit. (It's not, but that's another discussion).


Ah yes, thanks for pointing out the obvious. Don't know where I got that shiat from. Been listening to too much derp apparently.
 
2012-11-27 11:16:10 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: because for the dems, improving the budget overages by 10% via taxes is a bigger class warfare win than dealing with the other 90% of the budget overages


That would make sense, except democrats already have accepted huge spending cuts. So in other words, you didn't make any sense and neither does this article.

"Why isn't anybody pressuring Democrats to do something they have already done and are doing again???!!?! WHYYYYY?!?!"
 
2012-11-27 11:16:51 AM  
Remember folks, it's when ridiculously wealthy people might feel a pinch, it's "OMGZ teh fiscal cliff!!111"

And when we cut spending that benefit poor and working poor by $1.5 trillion (as we already have) it's merely "kicking a can down the road".


Semantics and word games are fun. Especially when it's used to imply that one outcome must be avoided at all cost, and one outcome not only needs to be revisited in the future but revisited in a Draconian manner.

/teh class wuhrfare
 
2012-11-27 11:16:54 AM  
I read the first sentence of that article:

"Republicans are being hounded mercilessly to abandon their no-tax pledge to get a deal on the fiscal cliff."

And immediately closed the tab before the derp overwhelmed me. Reporters asking them why they aren't willing to compromise at all when a) the democrats are and b) they just got their ass whipped in an election is "hounding mercilessly", now?
 
2012-11-27 11:17:05 AM  

James!: When you lose you're expected to make concessions.  Republicans lost.


Well, yeah, sure...a rational political party would think that.
 
2012-11-27 11:17:40 AM  

InmanRoshi: Pretty much. If you truly believe our national debt is our #1 threat, there's a pretty easy way to cut it in half


If you go by what Obama wants that only gets cut by a 1/6th.

I personally vote we go off the cliff. It gives me everything I want.
 
2012-11-27 11:18:13 AM  
Because they've been offering spending cuts since the beginning, you stupid motherfarkers.
 
2012-11-27 11:19:11 AM  

Lando Lincoln: James!: When you lose you're expected to make concessions.  Republicans lost.

Well, yeah, sure...a rational political party would think that.


But did they really lose? The Democrats won the White House, sure, but they didn't win every open seat in Congress. And if the Democrats didn't win, who did? The Republicans. QED
 
2012-11-27 11:20:24 AM  

Lando Lincoln: James!: When you lose you're expected to make concessions.  Republicans lost.

Well, yeah, sure...a rational political party would think that.


I'm really fond of the "We didn't lose enough seats in the house to have to turn over leadership so America wants US!" argument.  
 
2012-11-27 11:21:09 AM  
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-11-27 11:22:53 AM  

SunsetLament:

Oh, and while we're at it, why is it that no one ever says "Hey media (and Democrats), you said the country's finances would go over a cliff 18 months ago if the credit rating was downgraded ... it was downgraded ... and life went on as though nothing changed. If you were so wrong then, how do we know you're not completely wrong now?"


No, the nightmare scenario then was tht the debt ceiling wouldn't be raised - draconian cuts (a whole lot more than 8%), probable default on our debt. You default on t-bills, you suddenly turn the safest investment on the planet to a junk bond. Big. Farking. Deal.

The teatards and the Paulistinians, who view economics with all of the insight of a four year old, were cheering.
 
2012-11-27 11:23:30 AM  

culebra: [www.caglecartoons.com image 600x394]


So you're saying the Republicans are a bunch of petulant nine year old kids.. Makes sense they'd sign a pledge written by a thirteen year old upperclassman.
 
2012-11-27 11:23:48 AM  

Saiga410: InmanRoshi: Pretty much. If you truly believe our national debt is our #1 threat, there's a pretty easy way to cut it in half

If you go by what Obama wants that only gets cut by a 1/6th.

I personally vote we go off the cliff. It gives me everything I want.


Lets reward your failed party by...giving everything you want?

Only Republicans...
 
2012-11-27 11:24:04 AM  

TofuTheAlmighty: The Jami Turman Fan Club: I thought Obama offered 4 trillion in spending cuts?

$4 trillion in savings (cuts + revenue). And Obama's already enacted $1.5 trillion in cuts but gotten not one dollar in revenues. 

Spending cuts are actively detrimental to this economy. That we're actually debating how much bigger a cut to make is genuinely insane.


But the $4 trillion figure includes the $1.5 trillion already enacted, so its misleading: its really $2.5 trillion.

A trillion here, a trillion there, pretty soon we're talking real money
 
2012-11-27 11:25:39 AM  

Taylor Mental: Gaseous Anomaly: The fiscal cliff isn't a cliff nor is it irreversible. There's no point to anyone trying to reach a deal before it kicks in.

Just let Jan 1 come and go, tax rates kick up and spending kicks down automatically.

If you really believe the deficit is a problem, you're done, the deficit's pretty much fixed. Otherwise:

THEN work out a deal to cut taxes and increase spending from that baseline.

Since you can get to a place with less deficit than today, without any politician having to support any tax increase or spending cut, politically everything's a lot easier.

Bonus: Republicans then have an incentive to actually make a deal; if they just blindly obstruct so nothing happens, taxes are higher than they like, and defense spending is lower than they like.

Agreed. The only problem I can see is a lot of folks won't be getting their tax refunds until the mess is sorted out. Plus, the IRS is going to be wasting a whole lot of manpower and printing costs.


Well, this and the idea that with 10% across the board spending cuts combines with big defense cuts, lots of jobs will be lost immediately as businesses react to loss of projects. Even if those projects are later re-instated and the people rehired, still sucks being laid off and having so many thrown into uncertainty for their futures.
 
2012-11-27 11:28:10 AM  

Rain-Monkey: Because they have said all along they would be willing to cut spending programs as a part of a balanced package?

 
2012-11-27 11:29:35 AM  

qorkfiend: Lando Lincoln: James!: When you lose you're expected to make concessions.  Republicans lost.

Well, yeah, sure...a rational political party would think that.

But did they really lose? The Democrats won the White House, sure, but they didn't win every open seat in Congress. And if the Democrats didn't win, who did? The Republicans. QED


Well done.
 
2012-11-27 11:30:55 AM  

ValisIV: Bonus: Republicans then have an incentive to actually make a deal; if they just blindly obstruct so nothing happens, taxes are higher than they like, and defense spending is lower than they like.


ValisIV: Well, this and the idea that with 10% across the board spending cuts combines with big defense cuts, lots of jobs will be lost immediately as businesses react to loss of projects. Even if those projects are later re-instated and the people rehired, still sucks being laid off and having so many thrown into uncertainty for their futures.


It has been Republican policy to rule by fear since the Reagan administration. I do not see them changing their ways soon.
 
2012-11-27 11:32:02 AM  
The Romney/Ryan plan of fixing the budget through closing loopholes and getting rid of reductions was overwhelming rejected by voters in favor of Obama's plan of raising marginal tax rates on incomes over 250k. In response to this defeat republics decide their position should be to fix the budget they will only get rid of loop holes and deductions.
 
2012-11-27 11:34:33 AM  

Fart_Machine: In other words it's Judicial Activism when I don't agree with the ruling.


I wouldn't use the term "activism" but when you look at a written law, like the constitution, and it says something like 1+1=2 and the court comes back with a ruling that says now 1+1 = 1.5 to 2.5 everyone can see they stretched things beyond what the law says.
 
2012-11-27 11:35:18 AM  

jigger: mrshowrules: Because he knew Obamacare would be deemed unconstitutional.

Anyone who thought that it was a forgone conclusion that the mandate would be overturned severely underestimates the Supreme Court's ability to twist the constitution and previous case law.


Well it is constitutional so anyone who thought it wasn't was clearly wrong. Just like people thought Obama wouldn't get re-elected were clearly wrong. Some lies/delusions cannot be sustained just by repeating them, they collide with reality and there has been a pattern of this with Republicans in the past 2 years

You can argue that 50mA across the heart isn't enough to kill someone but when touch your hands on the electrodes, it doesn't matter how much faith you had in what you thought was true.
 
2012-11-27 11:35:25 AM  

Carth: The Romney/Ryan plan of fixing the budget through closing loopholes and getting rid of reductions was overwhelming rejected by voters in favor of Obama's plan of raising marginal tax rates on incomes over 250k. In response to this defeat republics decide their position should be to fix the budget they will only get rid of loop holes and deductions.


It makes sense if you don't think about it.
 
2012-11-27 11:35:49 AM  

James!: Lando Lincoln: James!: When you lose you're expected to make concessions.  Republicans lost.

Well, yeah, sure...a rational political party would think that.

I'm really fond of the "We didn't lose enough seats in the house to have to turn over leadership so America wants US!" argument.


Or Mitch McConnell's "If the President wants to compromise, he should just give us what we want. Then we'll compromise."

// he actually said words to the effect of "If the president wants compromise, he needs to compromise his principles, because we're not compromising ours."
 
2012-11-27 11:37:32 AM  

jigger: Fart_Machine: In other words it's Judicial Activism when I don't agree with the ruling.

I wouldn't use the term "activism" but when you look at a written law, like the constitution, and it says something like 1+1=2 and the court comes back with a ruling that says now 1+1 = 1.5 to 2.5 everyone can see they stretched things beyond what the law says.


Where in the Constitution does it clearly say - as clearly as "1+1=2" - that something like the ACA isn't permitted?
 
2012-11-27 11:37:55 AM  

SunsetLament: Fart_Machine: SunsetLament: As I remember it, we were going to go off the fiscal cliff if we didn't raise the debt limit and our national credit rating was subsequently downgraded.

What do you think would have happened if we didn't raise the debt ceiling?

We would have stopped borrowing money. Spending would have decreased. As "discretionary" government programs started to wash out (no money available), real discussions about how to renovate entitlement programs would have taken place and corrective action would have occurred (maybe not immediately, but over the course of a year or two). As we all know (because the credit agencies said at the time), the credit rating would have been downgraded either way because it had nothing to do with whether or not the debt ceiling was actually raised and had everything to do with the financial community believing that federal congressional gridlock (as desired by the US population - see two weeks ago) will never result in entitlement reform.


Except, as you well know, the financial community wanted a lot more than entitlement reform on the table, and apart from Medicare, entitlements aren't a serious cause of the budget deficit anyway. You cannot balance the budget on entitlements alone. (Or on tax increases alone or defense cuts alone, for that matter. You need all three., but mostly the taxes and defense spending, since those constitute a larger portion of the budget problem.)
 
2012-11-27 11:41:34 AM  

tnpir: It's Investor's Business Daily. Pay it no mind.


IBD is what stupid people think smart people read.
 
2012-11-27 11:44:22 AM  

mrshowrules: Well it is constitutional so anyone who thought it wasn't was clearly wrong.


Says 5 people in black dresses.

and to make it "constitutional" Roberts had to use some pretty twisty logic. First read this about Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. This case rightly decided that if Congress does not have the power to regulate something, then it can't regulate it through taxation, because it can't regulate it period. Roberts said that the mandate is outside Congress's power of regulating interstate commerce, but that it could regulate it using a tax, which would not be a penalty and wouldn't overturn Bailey v. Drexel Furniture because the tax wouldn't be too "burdensome." That's some pretty farking stupid logic and when SC justices use pretty farking stupid logic (Scalia is notorious) it just means they wanted a certain outcome for some reason or other and concocted an opinion to support it.
 
2012-11-27 11:44:59 AM  
Because Americans aren't as retarded as you assume?
 
2012-11-27 11:45:58 AM  

jigger: mrshowrules: Well it is constitutional so anyone who thought it wasn't was clearly wrong.

Says 5 people in black dresses.


They are "right" because they are final. They aren't final because they are right.
 
2012-11-27 11:46:22 AM  
People are giving us free money. We ought to be doing stimulus, not committing hara kiri through idiotic austerity. Our debt is not a problem.
 
2012-11-27 11:47:03 AM  

qorkfiend: Where in the Constitution does it clearly say - as clearly as "1+1=2" - that something like the ACA isn't permitted?


The power is not even there for the mandate.

A more glaring example is Kelo where they expanded "for public use" to "for perceived public benefit through private use."

How about the classic Wickard where "regulate commerce" became "regulate anything that may perceivably affect commerce."
 
2012-11-27 11:48:01 AM  

Wasteland: HugsAndPuppies: Marcus Aurelius: The Dems are not the ones steadfastly refusing any sort of compromise. The GOP is the one going all "Thelma and Louise" on us.

I was thinking more "Devil's Rejects".


Oh good grief. That's just begging for an extended photoshop parody.


That would be fantastic! If only my 'shop skills were up to the task.
 
2012-11-27 11:48:06 AM  
Has anyone around here come out in favor of the fiscal cliff? I'm entirely for it! Any attempt to push it off is just going to make the next cliff we run into even more precipitous. Here's a hint: we are going to be forced to both raise taxes and cut spending, there is no way around that. The fiscal cliff both raises taxes and cuts spending. It is better for us to do it now than a year from now.

Or we could just keep on believing that borrowing money to build bombs and buy gadgets from overseas is somehow going to fix the economy.
 
2012-11-27 11:48:21 AM  
If the Constitution clearly bans us from providing something that every single other Western Civilization operating today can do without much fuss then the farking problem is the Constitution.
 
2012-11-27 11:49:09 AM  
Because they've offered some, but the RW echosphere hasn't allowed it to be mentioned?
 
2012-11-27 11:50:10 AM  

Tigger: If the Constitution clearly bans us from providing something that every single other Western Civilization operating today can do without much fuss then the farking problem is the Constitution.


The Constitution was designed with the thought that mature adults who can agree to disagree would run the country.

God knows, the Founding Fathers were expecting the idiots like the ones running the GOP to be the ones running the show.
 
2012-11-27 11:50:13 AM  

jigger: qorkfiend: Where in the Constitution does it clearly say - as clearly as "1+1=2" - that something like the ACA isn't permitted?

The power is not even there for the mandate.

A more glaring example is Kelo where they expanded "for public use" to "for perceived public benefit through private use."

How about the classic Wickard where "regulate commerce" became "regulate anything that may perceivably affect commerce."


So no, it doesn't clearly say that and it's subject to interpretation? Fascinating.
 
2012-11-27 11:50:22 AM  

Tigger: If the Constitution clearly bans us from providing something that every single other Western Civilization operating today can do without much fuss then the farking problem is the Constitution.


Propose an amendment.
 
2012-11-27 11:50:56 AM  
Because Dems are idiots who want to break America's bank. It's not the Republicans that have gotten us into this mess, it's the liberal spendthrifts.
 
2012-11-27 11:51:35 AM  

jigger: Tigger: If the Constitution clearly bans us from providing something that every single other Western Civilization operating today can do without much fuss then the farking problem is the Constitution.

Propose an amendment.


You didn't so much as miss the point as you let it wee on you.
 
2012-11-27 11:52:02 AM  

MattStafford: Has anyone around here come out in favor of the fiscal cliff?


Only ignorant people who don't understand the economic consenquences at all.

MattStafford: I'm entirely for it!


Oh, I see.

MattStafford: Any attempt to push it off is just going to make the next cliff we run into even more precipitous.


And here is the verification that you don't know much about economics and shouldn't be commenting on it.

MattStafford: we are going to be forced to both raise taxes and cut spending, there is no way around that. The fiscal cliff both raises taxes and cuts spending. It is better for us to do it now than a year from now.


Because those are our only two options, a bunch of radical changes now, or the same radical changes in the future. It is impossible, in your world, to gradually raise taxes and cut spending in a manner that doesn't knock us into recession.
 
2012-11-27 11:52:04 AM  

ps69: People are giving us free money. We ought to be doing stimulus, not committing hara kiri through idiotic austerity. Our debt is not a problem.


ding ding ding
 
2012-11-27 11:52:11 AM  

qorkfiend: So no, it doesn't clearly say that and it's subject to interpretation? Fascinating.


It clearly does not grant Congress the power to impose a mandate on individuals to engage in commerce. The power does not exists. Well, it does now. Thanks Supreme Court. It's a terrible precedent.
 
2012-11-27 11:52:48 AM  

Tigger: jigger: Tigger: If the Constitution clearly bans us from providing something that every single other Western Civilization operating today can do without much fuss then the farking problem is the Constitution.

Propose an amendment.

You didn't so much as miss the point as you let it wee on you.


Well, what was your point? Abolish the constitution?
 
2012-11-27 11:52:58 AM  

tony41454: It's not the Republicans that have gotten us into this mess


If you ignore history, math, and reality this is definitely true.
 
2012-11-27 11:55:29 AM  

jigger: Tigger: jigger: Tigger: If the Constitution clearly bans us from providing something that every single other Western Civilization operating today can do without much fuss then the farking problem is the Constitution.

Propose an amendment.

You didn't so much as miss the point as you let it wee on you.

Well, what was your point? Abolish the constitution?


No.

It's that your argument is premised on a belief that the Constitution is infallible. Any such argument is tautologous.
 
2012-11-27 11:55:37 AM  

jigger: qorkfiend: So no, it doesn't clearly say that and it's subject to interpretation? Fascinating.

It clearly does not grant Congress the power to impose a mandate on individuals to engage in commerce. The power does not exists. Well, it does now. Thanks Supreme Court. It's a terrible precedent.


Well, then you should be working on an Amendment to the Constitution to make that clear.
 
2012-11-27 11:56:04 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: ps69: People are giving us free money. We ought to be doing stimulus, not committing hara kiri through idiotic austerity. Our debt is not a problem.

ding ding ding


If we only had some real world example that shows that austerity measures can make "bad" into "worse"
 
2012-11-27 11:56:56 AM  

jigger: qorkfiend: So no, it doesn't clearly say that and it's subject to interpretation? Fascinating.

It clearly does not grant Congress the power to impose a mandate on individuals to engage in commerce. The power does not exists. Well, it does now. Thanks Supreme Court. It's a terrible precedent.


Well if some guy says so on the Internet then it must be written in stone.
 
2012-11-27 11:56:57 AM  

tony41454: Because Dems are idiots who want to break America's bank. It's not the Republicans that have gotten us into this mess, it's the liberal spendthrifts.


You're boring.
 
2012-11-27 11:59:11 AM  

Mithiwithi: Except, as you well know, the financial community wanted a lot more than entitlement reform on the table, and apart from Medicare, entitlements aren't a serious cause of the budget deficit anyway. You cannot balance the budget on entitlements alone. (Or on tax increases alone or defense cuts alone, for that matter. You need all three., but mostly the taxes and defense spending, since those constitute a larger portion of the budget problem.)


Fixing medical inflation will fix the Federal budget more or less on its own. (That is, bringing increases in health care spending into line with the rest of economic growth, instead of being 5-10 times as much).

If we don't fix medical inflation we're scrod regardless of what happens with the Federal budget.
 
2012-11-27 11:59:35 AM  

MisterRonbo: SunsetLament:

Oh, and while we're at it, why is it that no one ever says "Hey media (and Democrats), you said the country's finances would go over a cliff 18 months ago if the credit rating was downgraded ... it was downgraded ... and life went on as though nothing changed. If you were so wrong then, how do we know you're not completely wrong now?"

No, the nightmare scenario then was tht the debt ceiling wouldn't be raised - draconian cuts (a whole lot more than 8%), probable default on our debt. You default on t-bills, you suddenly turn the safest investment on the planet to a junk bond. Big. Farking. Deal.

The teatards and the Paulistinians, who view economics with all of the insight of a four year old, were cheering.


Yup, that was the real danger. Of course the people who wanted this were hoping for the whole thing to burn down so they could start their version of Galt's Gulch.
 
2012-11-27 12:00:11 PM  

jigger: mrshowrules: Well it is constitutional so anyone who thought it wasn't was clearly wrong.

Says 5 people in black dresses.

and to make it "constitutional" Roberts had to use some pretty twisty logic. First read this about Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. This case rightly decided that if Congress does not have the power to regulate something, then it can't regulate it through taxation, because it can't regulate it period. Roberts said that the mandate is outside Congress's power of regulating interstate commerce, but that it could regulate it using a tax, which would not be a penalty and wouldn't overturn Bailey v. Drexel Furniture because the tax wouldn't be too "burdensome." That's some pretty farking stupid logic and when SC justices use pretty farking stupid logic (Scalia is notorious) it just means they wanted a certain outcome for some reason or other and concocted an opinion to support it.


That's all interesting but it is Constitutional and you are therefore wrong and are still wrong if you think it isn't.

You could write a 14,000 page dissertation on the subject and it wouldn't change anything.

Obamacare is Constitutional in the same sense the SCOTUS has the Constitutional authority to say it is. One cannot be divided from the other. If you feel cheated, it the Constitution itself that has cheated you, challenged your reality.
 
2012-11-27 12:01:18 PM  

tony41454: Because Dems are idiots who want to break America's bank. It's not the Republicans that have gotten us into this mess, it's the liberal spendthrifts.


Damn libs and their unfunded medicare pat D and two unfunded wars while giving tax cuts!

Spending is the problem*!


*when someone else is doing it
 
2012-11-27 12:02:01 PM  

jst3p: If we only had some real world example that shows that austerity measures can make "bad" into "worse"


Ayup. We should fix our stubbornly high unemployment problem and extraordinary income inequality. Fix those, you'll fix revenues, you'll fix the deficit and the debt. Not the other way around.
 
2012-11-27 12:02:44 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: jst3p: If we only had some real world example that shows that austerity measures can make "bad" into "worse"

Ayup. We should fix our stubbornly high unemployment problem and extraordinary income inequality. Fix those, you'll fix revenues, you'll fix the deficit and the debt. Not the other way around.


CLASS WARFARE! REDISTRIBUTION! PUNISHING SUCCESS!!!
 
2012-11-27 12:03:17 PM  

tony41454: Because Dems are idiots who want to break America's bank. It's not the Republicans that have gotten us into this mess, it's the liberal spendthrifts.


The reason that there is no pressure on the Democrats to cut spending is that the Democrats got us into this mess with their idiotically high spending? That's the potato you brought to the party? Go. Go and be ashamed of yourself.
 
2012-11-27 12:03:45 PM  

jigger: mrshowrules: Well it is constitutional so anyone who thought it wasn't was clearly wrong.

Says 5 people in black dresses.


Who happen to be the designated arbiters of what's constitutional.

Are you saying we need a Supremer Court?

There is a check on the Supreme Court, the justices can be impeached. If their ruling is plainly blatantly contrary to the Constitution then impeaching them should be easy, right?
 
2012-11-27 12:07:07 PM  

mrshowrules: That's all interesting but it is Constitutional and you are therefore wrong and are still wrong if you think it isn't.


For now, if the court revereses itself it isn't. It has happened before so it isn't exactly carved in stone.
 
2012-11-27 12:07:58 PM  

jst3p: Because those are our only two options, a bunch of radical changes now, or the same radical changes in the future. It is impossible, in your world, to gradually raise taxes and cut spending in a manner that doesn't knock us into recession.


I think you underestimate the magnitude of our problem. The Fed has been buying the vast majority of our debt over the past year. Do you think that is sustainable? We need serious action, and we need that action to be taken as soon as possible. Acting as though gradual fixes is going to solve this problem is naivete beyond words.
 
2012-11-27 12:09:22 PM  

Gaseous Anomaly: jigger: mrshowrules: Well it is constitutional so anyone who thought it wasn't was clearly wrong.

Says 5 people in black dresses.

Who happen to be the designated arbiters of what's constitutional.

Are you saying we need a Supremer Court?

There is a check on the Supreme Court, the justices can be impeached. If their ruling is plainly blatantly contrary to the Constitution then impeaching them should be easy, right?


The SCOTUS gets its authority from the Constitution. The Constitution comes directly from God. I think they should take their appeal right to the big guy. If Jesus finds out that Obama is been trying to get health care for more people, He's going to be pissed. The last guy who pulled that shiat on God was Romney, and you saw what happened there. He shoved a hurricane right up his ass to give the election to Obama.
 
2012-11-27 12:09:40 PM  

jigger: qorkfiend: So no, it doesn't clearly say that and it's subject to interpretation? Fascinating.

It clearly does not grant Congress the power to impose a mandate on individuals to engage in commerce. The power does not exists. Well, it does now. Thanks Supreme Court. It's a terrible precedent.


Incentives to engage in commerce have long been part of the Constitutional lexicon. The mortgage interest deduction is the clearest example; if you do not have a mortgage - you have not engaged in commerce to solicit a loan for the express purpose of engaging in commerce to buy property - you will have a higher tax bill than someone who does. Likewise, if you do not have health insurance, you will have a higher tax bill than someone who does.

There's also the historical case of the Militia Acts, which required people to purchase arms from a private company. It was passed by a Congress that included many of the Founding Fathers, signed into law by George Washington, and not overturned by the Supreme Court. This notion of yours that the Founders would somehow disapprove of the ACA is contradicted by the Founders' own actions.
 
2012-11-27 12:10:10 PM  

jst3p: mrshowrules: That's all interesting but it is Constitutional and you are therefore wrong and are still wrong if you think it isn't.

For now, if the court revereses itself it isn't. It has happened before so it isn't exactly carved in stone.


I guess one could argue that nothing is truly Constitutional or not, then. How useful.
 
2012-11-27 12:10:13 PM  

ps69: People are giving us free money. We ought to be doing stimulus, not committing hara kiri through idiotic austerity. Our debt is not a problem.


To make an analogy: suppose banks were lending an individual money at near zero interest rates, with absolutely no indication that they would raise rates in the near future. Do you think it would be financially prudent for that individual to borrow as much money as humanly possible and spend it on booze and hookers?
 
2012-11-27 12:10:34 PM  

jigger: Says 5 people in black dresses.


What other SCOTUS decisions shall we ignore because their ceremonial robes are silly? Wickard/Filburn? Kelo/New London? Roe/Wade? Miranda/Arizona? Marbury/Madison (which would be HILARIOUS)? Brown/Board of Ed? Dover/Kitzmiller? Flynt/Falwell?

// I can go on, but I'm almost out of famous cases I can recall off the top of my head
 
2012-11-27 12:10:54 PM  

jigger: Says 5 people in black dresses.


Are you stupid? Are you retarded? Those people are the arbiters of what is actually constitutional.
 
2012-11-27 12:14:11 PM  

Dr Dreidel: What other SCOTUS decisions shall we ignore because their ceremonial robes are silly? Wickard/Filburn? Kelo/New London? Roe/Wade? Miranda/Arizona? Marbury/Madison (which would be HILARIOUS)? Brown/Board of Ed? Dover/Kitzmiller? Flynt/Falwell?


Ask him about Bush v Gore.
 
2012-11-27 12:14:28 PM  

MattStafford: ps69: People are giving us free money. We ought to be doing stimulus, not committing hara kiri through idiotic austerity. Our debt is not a problem.

To make an analogy: suppose banks were lending an individual money at near zero interest rates, with absolutely no indication that they would raise rates in the near future. Do you think it would be financially prudent for that individual to borrow as much money as humanly possible and spend it on booze and hookers?


The financial prudence of the borrowing depends entirely on what it is spent on.

Should you borrow to finance destruction, like booze or hookers or war? No. You get zero return on these; they are pure loss from a financial perspective, because the gains are either nonexistent or short-term. Except for the companies that supply booze, hookers, and war, of course.

Should you borrow to finance construction, like education and infrastructure? Yes. These will increase your earning power over the long run, allowing you to pay back your debt. It's "spend money to make money".

Are you somehow under the impression that no entity ever borrows to finance growth?
 
2012-11-27 12:14:31 PM  

jst3p: mrshowrules: That's all interesting but it is Constitutional and you are therefore wrong and are still wrong if you think it isn't.

For now, if the court revereses itself it isn't. It has happened before so it isn't exactly carved in stone.


It's Constitutional now and he is wrong now. If I divorce my wife 10 years from now, it doesn't change the fact that I was legally married today.
 
2012-11-27 12:14:57 PM  

MattStafford: I think you underestimate the magnitude of our problem. The Fed has been buying the vast majority of our debt over the past year. Do you think that is sustainable? We need serious action, and we need that action to be taken as soon as possible. Acting as though gradual fixes is going to solve this problem is naivete beyond words.


Oh look, another economic Harold Camping.
 
2012-11-27 12:16:05 PM  

MattStafford: Do you think it would be financially prudent for that individual to borrow as much money as humanly possible and spend it on booze and hookers?


Yes, we should borrow while rates are zero or near zero. We should not spend it on booze and hookers.
 
2012-11-27 12:17:25 PM  

thurstonxhowell: jst3p: mrshowrules: That's all interesting but it is Constitutional and you are therefore wrong and are still wrong if you think it isn't.

For now, if the court revereses itself it isn't. It has happened before so it isn't exactly carved in stone.

I guess one could argue that nothing is truly Constitutional or not, then. How useful.


No, just that the fact that it is constitutional now doesn't mean it always will be. In addition, if the people disagree with the court there is also the option to push for a constitutional amendment. Nothing is set in stone and "Welp the supreme court decided, that's that!" isn't completely accurate.

I am for ACA but if I were opposed I wouldn't give up just because the SCOTUS made this ruling. I don't think there is a realistic chance of reversal or constitutional amendment but I don't begrudge the idea that it is still debatable,.
 
US1
2012-11-27 12:17:26 PM  
because we won
 
2012-11-27 12:18:08 PM  

mrshowrules: jst3p: mrshowrules: That's all interesting but it is Constitutional and you are therefore wrong and are still wrong if you think it isn't.

For now, if the court revereses itself it isn't. It has happened before so it isn't exactly carved in stone.

It's Constitutional now and he is wrong now. If I divorce my wife 10 years from now, it doesn't change the fact that I was legally married today.


Fair point. In the same respect the fact that you are married now does not mean you always will be.
 
2012-11-27 12:18:10 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: MattStafford: Do you think it would be financially prudent for that individual to borrow as much money as humanly possible and spend it on booze and hookers?

Yes, we should borrow while rates are zero or near zero. We should not spend it on booze and hookers.


I don't have any graphs to back it up, but spending on booze and hookers would probably help rural, Southern and urban areas, areas that need lots of help.

Why do hate...? Nevermind,.
 
2012-11-27 12:18:22 PM  
How come nobody is pressuring the GOP to cut taxes and spending, hmmm? Answer me that.
 
2012-11-27 12:18:29 PM  

MattStafford: ps69: People are giving us free money. We ought to be doing stimulus, not committing hara kiri through idiotic austerity. Our debt is not a problem.

To make an analogy: suppose banks were lending an individual money at near zero interest rates, with absolutely no indication that they would raise rates in the near future. Do you think it would be financially prudent for that individual to borrow as much money as humanly possible and spend it on booze and hookers?


Spend it on booze and hookers? No. Spend it on acquiring new better/job skills or investing it into your own private business? Yes.

I don't put renovating our crumbling, decrepit infrastructure and investing in the emerging technologies that will run the world in future generations in the "booze and hookers" category.
 
2012-11-27 12:20:43 PM  

mrshowrules: Gaseous Anomaly: jigger: mrshowrules: Well it is constitutional so anyone who thought it wasn't was clearly wrong.

Says 5 people in black dresses.

Who happen to be the designated arbiters of what's constitutional.

Are you saying we need a Supremer Court?

There is a check on the Supreme Court, the justices can be impeached. If their ruling is plainly blatantly contrary to the Constitution then impeaching them should be easy, right?

The SCOTUS gets its authority from the Constitution. The Constitution comes directly from God. I think they should take their appeal right to the big guy. If Jesus finds out that Obama is been trying to get health care for more people, He's going to be pissed. The last guy who pulled that shiat on God was Romney, and you saw what happened there. He shoved a hurricane right up his ass to give the election to Obama.


I like you Mrs. How Rules.
 
2012-11-27 12:20:47 PM  

Rain-Monkey: Because they have said all along they would be willing to cut spending programs as a part of a balanced package?


Also, probably because they never signed a pledge to a lobbyist to never ever cut spending no matter what.
 
2012-11-27 12:21:12 PM  

tony41454: Because Dems are idiots who want to break America's bank. It's not the Republicans that have gotten us into this mess, it's the liberal spendthrifts.


Only President Romney can save us tony!

Palin 2016.
 
2012-11-27 12:24:06 PM  

jst3p: MattStafford: Has anyone around here come out in favor of the fiscal cliff?

Only ignorant people who don't understand the economic consenquences at all.

MattStafford: I'm entirely for it!

Oh, I see.

MattStafford: Any attempt to push it off is just going to make the next cliff we run into even more precipitous.

And here is the verification that you don't know much about economics and shouldn't be commenting on it.

MattStafford: we are going to be forced to both raise taxes and cut spending, there is no way around that. The fiscal cliff both raises taxes and cuts spending. It is better for us to do it now than a year from now.

Because those are our only two options, a bunch of radical changes now, or the same radical changes in the future. It is impossible, in your world, to gradually raise taxes and cut spending in a manner that doesn't knock us into recession.


While that should be the obvious course of action, it's not at all clear that it can actually happen while the GOP controls the House. And unless the GOP really screws the pooch they will probably gain seats in 2014, so they will have even less incentive to go along with it later. One hope they would then get spanked in 2016 for that bad behavior, but that's 4 years away, and a lot can happen.

If Dems can't get a reasonable compromise with the GOP, then the smart strategy would be to have some bills ready to undo the entitlement cuts and restore the tax cuts for income below $250,000. If we go over the "cliff", then after the average person gets their first smaller paycheck there will be a lot of pressure on the GOP to sign on to those bills, and relatively little sympathy for the idea that wealthy need that tax cut just as much as than everyone else.

Not saying this is certain, but that's the way things look now from the opinion polls.
 
2012-11-27 12:24:54 PM  

qorkfiend: The financial prudence of the borrowing depends entirely on what it is spent on.

Should you borrow to finance destruction, like booze or hookers or war? No. You get zero return on these; they are pure loss from a financial perspective, because the gains are either nonexistent or short-term. Except for the companies that supply booze, hookers, and war, of course.

Should you borrow to finance construction, like education and infrastructure? Yes. These will increase your earning power over the long run, allowing you to pay back your debt. It's "spend money to make money".

Are you somehow under the impression that no entity ever borrows to finance growth?


So it then must be asked, what is the US spending the vast majority of its borrowed money on? The answers would be: Military (I'd argue very little gain, although there could be some technological arguments. Still not a good use of money). Interest on the debt (absolutely no gain). Medicare/Medicaid (Very little gain. The elderly produce very little, and the vast majority of money is spent on their final, completely unproductive years.)

I would agree that education and necessary infrastructure are good uses of borrowed money. I would argue, compared to the above items, the amount of money spent on those programs is insignificant.
 
2012-11-27 12:26:12 PM  

jst3p: mrshowrules: jst3p: mrshowrules: That's all interesting but it is Constitutional and you are therefore wrong and are still wrong if you think it isn't.

For now, if the court revereses itself it isn't. It has happened before so it isn't exactly carved in stone.

It's Constitutional now and he is wrong now. If I divorce my wife 10 years from now, it doesn't change the fact that I was legally married today.

Fair point. In the same respect the fact that you are married now does not mean you always will be.


I never argued that he would remain wrong for all eternity. Probably just in our lifetimes. I don't think a future reversal would make him retroactively right.
 
2012-11-27 12:26:49 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Yes, we should borrow while rates are zero or near zero. We should not spend it on booze and hookers.


Well, we're spending it on keeping our unproductive, retired elderly alive, maintaining an unproductive military, servicing interest on the debt, and as welfare to the poor. I'm not arguing that these aren't important things for a country to spend money on, but I will argue that we should not be spending borrowed money on them. We are spending on the equivalent of booze and hookers.
 
2012-11-27 12:27:38 PM  

InmanRoshi: Spend it on booze and hookers? No. Spend it on acquiring new better/job skills or investing it into your own private business? Yes.

I don't put renovating our crumbling, decrepit infrastructure and investing in the emerging technologies that will run the world in future generations in the "booze and hookers" category.


Does everyone here not realize what we spend the vast majority of our money on? It isn't education and R+D.
 
2012-11-27 12:28:44 PM  

MattStafford: Dusk-You-n-Me: Yes, we should borrow while rates are zero or near zero. We should not spend it on booze and hookers.

Well, we're spending it on keeping our unproductive, retired elderly alive, maintaining an unproductive military, servicing interest on the debt, and as welfare to the poor. I'm not arguing that these aren't important things for a country to spend money on, but I will argue that we should not be spending borrowed money on them. We are spending on the equivalent of booze and hookers.


That's right folks, keeping grandma from starving to death is exactly the same as spending on booze and hookers.
 
2012-11-27 12:28:44 PM  

Dr Dreidel: jigger: Says 5 people in black dresses.

What other SCOTUS decisions shall we ignore because their ceremonial robes are silly? Wickard/Filburn? Kelo/New London? Roe/Wade? Miranda/Arizona? Marbury/Madison (which would be HILARIOUS)? Brown/Board of Ed? Dover/Kitzmiller? Flynt/Falwell?

// I can go on, but I'm almost out of famous cases I can recall off the top of my head


You just named 8 more than Palin. You named 8.
 
2012-11-27 12:29:06 PM  
Just so everyone is aware, the argument you guys are making is: if the individual spends at least some money on education and investing in himself, it is perfectly fine to continue spending the vast majority of his money on booze and hookers. Which is a farking dumb argument.
 
2012-11-27 12:30:06 PM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: jigger: Says 5 people in black dresses.

Are you stupid? Are you retarded? Those people are the arbiters of what is actually constitutional.


Heh, you had to ask. That's silly. I like you.
 
2012-11-27 12:30:10 PM  

tony41454: Because Dems are idiots who want to break America's bank. It's not the Republicans that have gotten us into this mess, it's the liberal spendthrifts.


For more than 30 years it's been the dumbassed idea that we should keep cutting taxes to "starve the beast". If you don't recongize that this philosophy has utterly failed by now, it isn't everyone elses fault that you keep wanting to try harder.
 
2012-11-27 12:30:35 PM  

MattStafford: jst3p: Because those are our only two options, a bunch of radical changes now, or the same radical changes in the future. It is impossible, in your world, to gradually raise taxes and cut spending in a manner that doesn't knock us into recession.

I think you underestimate the magnitude of our problem. The Fed has been buying the vast majority of our debt over the past year. Do you think that is sustainable? We need serious action, and we need that action to be taken as soon as possible. Acting as though gradual fixes is going to solve this problem is naivete beyond words.


It's not sustainable, nobody claimed it was.

All he said was that taking action that throws us back into recession will make it worse (it will), not that we shouldn't take action. We just need to take action in a way that doesn't throw us back into recession. And yes, that action should be taken as soon as possible.
 
2012-11-27 12:30:48 PM  

Rain-Monkey: Because they have said all along they would be willing to cut spending programs as a part of a balanced package?

 
2012-11-27 12:31:10 PM  
Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick with egg in his beard, some contards just never tire of whining.
 
2012-11-27 12:31:26 PM  

MattStafford: Just so everyone is aware, the argument you guys are making is: if the individual spends at least some money on education and investing in himself, it is perfectly fine to continue spending the vast majority of his money on booze and hookers. Which is a farking dumb argument.


Except keeping people alive isn't the equivalent of wasting money on booze and hookers. This is exactly why looking at spending as a risk/reward investment makes sense in business but is unfathomably stupid in government.
 
2012-11-27 12:31:48 PM  

MattStafford: Well, we're spending it on keeping our unproductive, retired elderly alive, maintaining an unproductive military, servicing interest on the debt, and as welfare to the poor. I'm not arguing that these aren't important things for a country to spend money on, but I will argue that we should not be spending borrowed money on them. We are spending on the equivalent of booze and hookers.


Yeah, f*ck the elderly. You should run for office on that platform.

75% of welfare recipients, if you're referring to TANF, are children. So f*ck them too I guess, and vote for me or something.

Military spending is very inefficient with regards to creating jobs, relative to other forms of spending. On that I agree.
 
2012-11-27 12:31:49 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: That's right folks, keeping grandma from starving to death is exactly the same as spending on booze and hookers.


In terms of how much it helps the economy? Yeah, they are rather similar. How does keeping grandma alive in a nursing home from when she is 70 to when she is 80 help the economy?

And if you argue it creates a health care industry...well guess the fark what. Once we are forced to stop spending money on grandma, that health care industry dies along with it. There is no long term gain to keeping grandma alive.
 
2012-11-27 12:32:29 PM  

mrshowrules: jst3p: mrshowrules: jst3p: mrshowrules: That's all interesting but it is Constitutional and you are therefore wrong and are still wrong if you think it isn't.

For now, if the court revereses itself it isn't. It has happened before so it isn't exactly carved in stone.

It's Constitutional now and he is wrong now. If I divorce my wife 10 years from now, it doesn't change the fact that I was legally married today.

Fair point. In the same respect the fact that you are married now does not mean you always will be.

I never argued that he would remain wrong for all eternity. Probably just in our lifetimes. I don't think a future reversal would make him retroactively right.


True. Also, if you are a married man then you are wrong as long as you are married. Thems the rules.
 
2012-11-27 12:34:22 PM  

MattStafford: Just so everyone is aware, the argument you guys are making is:


I really appreciate you coming in here and summarizing everyone's argument. I had no idea what I, or everyone else, was arguing about. Thanks!
 
2012-11-27 12:34:25 PM  

MattStafford: Just so everyone is aware, the argument you guys are making is: if the individual spends at least some money on education and investing in himself, it is perfectly fine to continue spending the vast majority of his money on booze and hookers. Which is a farking dumb argument.


For starters, stop conflating individual spending and government spending. It's a poor analogy and it's only going to cause confusion as the conversation progresses. Stick with government spending, the f*cking topic at hand.
 
2012-11-27 12:35:34 PM  

MattStafford: Philip Francis Queeg: That's right folks, keeping grandma from starving to death is exactly the same as spending on booze and hookers.

In terms of how much it helps the economy? Yeah, they are rather similar. How does keeping grandma alive in a nursing home from when she is 70 to when she is 80 help the economy?

And if you argue it creates a health care industry...well guess the fark what. Once we are forced to stop spending money on grandma, that health care industry dies along with it. There is no long term gain to keeping grandma alive.


So I assume you have urged your unproductive grandparents to off themselves for the greater good, rather than continuing to consume resources, right? You will of course blow your own brains out if you ever cease to work.
 
2012-11-27 12:36:23 PM  

mrshowrules: Dr Dreidel: jigger: Says 5 people in black dresses.

What other SCOTUS decisions shall we ignore because their ceremonial robes are silly? Wickard/Filburn? Kelo/New London? Roe/Wade? Miranda/Arizona? Marbury/Madison (which would be HILARIOUS)? Brown/Board of Ed? Dover/Kitzmiller? Flynt/Falwell?

// I can go on, but I'm almost out of famous cases I can recall off the top of my head

You just named 8 more than Palin. You named 8.


Technically 7. The question put to Gvnr Palin was "Other than Roe/Wade..."

// so I'm 7x as smart as Palin?
// *burns diplomas*
// *cries*
// *slashes wrists*
 
2012-11-27 12:36:33 PM  

odinsposse: MattStafford: Just so everyone is aware, the argument you guys are making is: if the individual spends at least some money on education and investing in himself, it is perfectly fine to continue spending the vast majority of his money on booze and hookers. Which is a farking dumb argument.

Except keeping people alive isn't the equivalent of wasting money on booze and hookers. This is exactly why looking at spending as a risk/reward investment makes sense in business but is unfathomably stupid in government.


Same people that state with utter conviction "The USPS does not turn a profit! It's a failure!"

Just so, so dumb.
 
2012-11-27 12:36:44 PM  

MattStafford: Philip Francis Queeg: That's right folks, keeping grandma from starving to death is exactly the same as spending on booze and hookers.

In terms of how much it helps the economy? Yeah, they are rather similar. How does keeping grandma alive in a nursing home from when she is 70 to when she is 80 help the economy?

And if you argue it creates a health care industry...well guess the fark what. Once we are forced to stop spending money on grandma, that health care industry dies along with it. There is no long term gain to keeping grandma alive.


Ron Paul lost. Go till the soil in Galt's Gulch, we'll check back in with you in a couple years.
 
2012-11-27 12:36:52 PM  

odinsposse: Except keeping people alive isn't the equivalent of wasting money on booze and hookers. This is exactly why looking at spending as a risk/reward investment makes sense in business but is unfathomably stupid in government.


Yep, and the real kicker is that a lot of these folks like in rural areas whose infrastructure is heavily subsidized by the government because the private sector wouldn't do it themselves.

If we still had that mindset, huge swaths of Rural America still wouldn't have electricity.
 
2012-11-27 12:37:57 PM  

Zasteva: MattStafford: jst3p: Because those are our only two options, a bunch of radical changes now, or the same radical changes in the future. It is impossible, in your world, to gradually raise taxes and cut spending in a manner that doesn't knock us into recession.

I think you underestimate the magnitude of our problem. The Fed has been buying the vast majority of our debt over the past year. Do you think that is sustainable? We need serious action, and we need that action to be taken as soon as possible. Acting as though gradual fixes is going to solve this problem is naivete beyond words.

It's not sustainable, nobody claimed it was.

All he said was that taking action that throws us back into recession will make it worse (it will), not that we shouldn't take action. We just need to take action in a way that doesn't throw us back into recession. And yes, that action should be taken as soon as possible.


As far as I am concerned he has demonstrated that it isn't worthwhile to debate him on this subject so I let it go, but you are absolutely correct.
 
2012-11-27 12:40:50 PM  

Mrtraveler01: odinsposse: Except keeping people alive isn't the equivalent of wasting money on booze and hookers. This is exactly why looking at spending as a risk/reward investment makes sense in business but is unfathomably stupid in government.

Yep, and the real kicker is that a lot of these folks like in rural areas whose infrastructure is heavily subsidized by the government because the private sector wouldn't do it themselves.

If we still had that mindset, huge swaths of Rural America still wouldn't have electricity.


Did anyone catch the insane Forbes article*** ("Obama is Hitler; Democrats are Fascists") from earlier this week? Author of that steaming pile claimed the TVA didn't help the economy. (He offers no citation, of course - just expects that we "know" it.)

***CANCER WARNING. Seriously, the stupid in that article can melt steel at 50 paces.
 
2012-11-27 12:41:01 PM  

MattStafford: Just so everyone is aware, the argument you guys are making is: if the individual spends at least some money on education and investing in himself, it is perfectly fine to continue spending the vast majority of his money on booze and hookers. Which is a farking dumb argument.


Congratulations. You wrote that. Good job.
 
2012-11-27 12:42:20 PM  

SunsetLament: As a side note, does anyone remember 18 months ago when the original "fiscal cliff" debates started. Wasn't it an argument about something completely different? As I remember it, we were going to go off the fiscal cliff if we didn't raise the debt limit and our national credit rating was subsequently downgraded. "Going over the fiscal cliff" had nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts not being extended. If I didn't know better, I would start to believe the media (and the Democrats) were just declaring we were "about to go over the fiscal cliff" anytime they wanted to do something financially related - and that it doesn't really have anything to do with the country's finances teetering on the edge of cliff. Hmmm .....

Oh, and while we're at it, why is it that no one ever says "Hey media (and Democrats), you said the country's finances would go over a cliff 18 months ago if the credit rating was downgraded ... it was downgraded ... and life went on as though nothing changed. If you were so wrong then, how do we know you're not completely wrong now?"


Why is it no one ever says, "Hey mom (and dad), you said I would get burnt if I touched the stove... I touched the stove... and I did not get burnt. If you were so wrong then, how do I know you're not completely wrong now, when you're telling me not to stick this fork in the power outlet?"
 
2012-11-27 12:42:54 PM  

thurstonxhowell: MattStafford: Just so everyone is aware, the argument you guys are making is: if the individual spends at least some money on education and investing in himself, it is perfectly fine to continue spending the vast majority of his money on booze and hookers. Which is a farking dumb argument.

Congratulations. You wrote that. Good job.


i2.cdn.turner.com

You didn't write that!
 
2012-11-27 12:42:57 PM  

MattStafford: Dusk-You-n-Me: Yes, we should borrow while rates are zero or near zero. We should not spend it on booze and hookers.

Well, we're spending it on keeping our unproductive, retired elderly alive, maintaining an unproductive military, servicing interest on the debt, and as welfare to the poor. I'm not arguing that these aren't important things for a country to spend money on, but I will argue that we should not be spending borrowed money on them. We are spending on the equivalent of booze and hookers.


Good, then lets stop spending on the booze (unproductive military) and raise taxes on highly excess income (above $250,000 year) to pay for the hookers (retired elderly, welfare). Oh, and pay our bills (interest on the debt).

Which is pretty much what the Dems want to do, and what the GOP is resisting.
 
2012-11-27 12:49:14 PM  

Zasteva: Good, then lets stop spending on the booze (unproductive military) and raise taxes on highly excess income (above $250,000 year) to pay for the hookers (retired elderly, welfare). Oh, and pay our bills (interest on the debt).

Which is pretty much what the Dems evil socialists want to do, and what the GOP Baby Jesus is resisting.


Come on. Let's be real here.
 
2012-11-27 12:50:50 PM  
Large cuts to everything are unavoidable even with tax increases.

"If you took every single penny that Warren Buffett has, it'd pay for 4-1/2 days of the US government. This tax-the-rich won't work. The problem here is the government is way bigger than even the capacity of the rich to sustain it."

"According to the Congressional Budget Office "the Buffett Rule" will raise $3.2 billion per year. Or what the United States government currently borrows every 17 hours. So in 514 years it will have raised enough additional revenue to pay off the 2011 federal budget deficit.

"There is only one Warren Buffett. He is the third-wealthiest person on the planet. The first is a Mexican, and beyond the reach of the U.S. Treasury. Mr. Buffett is worth $44 billion. If he donated the entire lot to the Government of the United States, they would blow through it within four-and-a-half days. OK, so who's the fourth-richest guy? He's French. And the fifth guy's a Spaniard. No. 6 six is Larry Ellison. He's American, but that loser is only worth $36 billion. So he and Buffett between them could keep the United States Government going for a week. The next-richest American is Christy Walton of Wal-Mart, and she's barely a semi-Buffett. So her $25 billion will see you through a couple of days of the second week. There aren't a lot of other semi-Buffetts, but, if you scrounge around, you can rustle up some hemi-demi-semi-Buffetts: If you confiscate the total wealth of the Forbes 400 richest Americans it comes to $1.5 trillion, which is just a little less than the Obama budget deficit for year."

Link
 
2012-11-27 12:54:45 PM  

hasty ambush: Large cuts to everything are unavoidable even with tax increases.


Everyone agrees with that. Everyone is proposing spending cuts. No one is on the other side of your argument.
 
2012-11-27 12:54:46 PM  

hasty ambush: Large cuts to everything are unavoidable even with tax increases.


Let's go with large tax increases then. On the upper income brackets. Also an estate tax. Cap gains as normal income. Maybe a penny per trade as well. That's a start.
 
2012-11-27 12:55:49 PM  

7 nude people protesting budget cuts in Boehner's office right now, screaming and chanting. Surreal.

- Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) November 27, 2012
 
2012-11-27 12:56:26 PM  

hasty ambush: Large cuts to everything are unavoidable even with tax increases.

"If you took every single penny that Warren Buffett has, it'd pay for 4-1/2 days of the US government. This tax-the-rich won't work. The problem here is the government is way bigger than even the capacity of the rich to sustain it."

"According to the Congressional Budget Office "the Buffett Rule" will raise $3.2 billion per year. Or what the United States government currently borrows every 17 hours. So in 514 years it will have raised enough additional revenue to pay off the 2011 federal budget deficit.

"There is only one Warren Buffett. He is the third-wealthiest person on the planet. The first is a Mexican, and beyond the reach of the U.S. Treasury. Mr. Buffett is worth $44 billion. If he donated the entire lot to the Government of the United States, they would blow through it within four-and-a-half days. OK, so who's the fourth-richest guy? He's French. And the fifth guy's a Spaniard. No. 6 six is Larry Ellison. He's American, but that loser is only worth $36 billion. So he and Buffett between them could keep the United States Government going for a week. The next-richest American is Christy Walton of Wal-Mart, and she's barely a semi-Buffett. So her $25 billion will see you through a couple of days of the second week. There aren't a lot of other semi-Buffetts, but, if you scrounge around, you can rustle up some hemi-demi-semi-Buffetts: If you confiscate the total wealth of the Forbes 400 richest Americans it comes to $1.5 trillion, which is just a little less than the Obama budget deficit for year."

Link


Every bit helps right?

/using the same logic the GOP uses to defend cuts to NPR/PBS
 
2012-11-27 12:56:35 PM  

hasty ambush: Large cuts to everything are unavoidable even with tax increases.

"If you took every single penny that Warren Buffett has, it'd pay for 4-1/2 days of the US government. This tax-the-rich won't work. The problem here is the government is way bigger than even the capacity of the rich to sustain it."

"According to the Congressional Budget Office "the Buffett Rule" will raise $3.2 billion per year. Or what the United States government currently borrows every 17 hours. So in 514 years it will have raised enough additional revenue to pay off the 2011 federal budget deficit.

"There is only one Warren Buffett. He is the third-wealthiest person on the planet. The first is a Mexican, and beyond the reach of the U.S. Treasury. Mr. Buffett is worth $44 billion. If he donated the entire lot to the Government of the United States, they would blow through it within four-and-a-half days. OK, so who's the fourth-richest guy? He's French. And the fifth guy's a Spaniard. No. 6 six is Larry Ellison. He's American, but that loser is only worth $36 billion. So he and Buffett between them could keep the United States Government going for a week. The next-richest American is Christy Walton of Wal-Mart, and she's barely a semi-Buffett. So her $25 billion will see you through a couple of days of the second week. There aren't a lot of other semi-Buffetts, but, if you scrounge around, you can rustle up some hemi-demi-semi-Buffetts: If you confiscate the total wealth of the Forbes 400 richest Americans it comes to $1.5 trillion, which is just a little less than the Obama budget deficit for year."

Link


What individual cut will solve the deficit problem entirely on it's own?
 
2012-11-27 12:57:25 PM  

mrshowrules: Dr Dreidel: jigger: Says 5 people in black dresses.

What other SCOTUS decisions shall we ignore because their ceremonial robes are silly? Wickard/Filburn? Kelo/New London? Roe/Wade? Miranda/Arizona? Marbury/Madison (which would be HILARIOUS)? Brown/Board of Ed? Dover/Kitzmiller? Flynt/Falwell?

// I can go on, but I'm almost out of famous cases I can recall off the top of my head

You just named 8 more than Palin. You named 8.


Dr Dreidel 2016!
 
2012-11-27 12:58:19 PM  

MattStafford: qorkfiend: The financial prudence of the borrowing depends entirely on what it is spent on.

Should you borrow to finance destruction, like booze or hookers or war? No. You get zero return on these; they are pure loss from a financial perspective, because the gains are either nonexistent or short-term. Except for the companies that supply booze, hookers, and war, of course.

Should you borrow to finance construction, like education and infrastructure? Yes. These will increase your earning power over the long run, allowing you to pay back your debt. It's "spend money to make money".

Are you somehow under the impression that no entity ever borrows to finance growth?

So it then must be asked, what is the US spending the vast majority of its borrowed money on? The answers would be: Military (I'd argue very little gain, although there could be some technological arguments. Still not a good use of money). Interest on the debt (absolutely no gain). Medicare/Medicaid (Very little gain. The elderly produce very little, and the vast majority of money is spent on their final, completely unproductive years.)

I would agree that education and necessary infrastructure are good uses of borrowed money. I would argue, compared to the above items, the amount of money spent on those programs is insignificant.


Remind me again which political party says we should spend less on the military, and more on education, infrastructure, and social programs, and which political party says we should spend more on the military, and less on education, infrastructure, and social programs.
 
2012-11-27 12:59:11 PM  

hasty ambush: Large cuts to everything are unavoidable even with tax increases.

"If you took every single penny that Warren Buffett has, it'd pay for 4-1/2 days of the US government. This tax-the-rich won't work. The problem here is the government is way bigger than even the capacity of the rich to sustain it."

"According to the Congressional Budget Office "the Buffett Rule" will raise $3.2 billion per year. Or what the United States government currently borrows every 17 hours. So in 514 years it will have raised enough additional revenue to pay off the 2011 federal budget deficit.

"There is only one Warren Buffett. He is the third-wealthiest person on the planet. The first is a Mexican, and beyond the reach of the U.S. Treasury. Mr. Buffett is worth $44 billion. If he donated the entire lot to the Government of the United States, they would blow through it within four-and-a-half days. OK, so who's the fourth-richest guy? He's French. And the fifth guy's a Spaniard. No. 6 six is Larry Ellison. He's American, but that loser is only worth $36 billion. So he and Buffett between them could keep the United States Government going for a week. The next-richest American is Christy Walton of Wal-Mart, and she's barely a semi-Buffett. So her $25 billion will see you through a couple of days of the second week. There aren't a lot of other semi-Buffetts, but, if you scrounge around, you can rustle up some hemi-demi-semi-Buffetts: If you confiscate the total wealth of the Forbes 400 richest Americans it comes to $1.5 trillion, which is just a little less than the Obama budget deficit for year."

Link


Heh, conflating personal wealth and personal taxes to what only identifies as an argument for "raising taxes", just to show it's no where near enough. That's cute, ridiculously over-simplified, but still cute.
 
2012-11-27 01:00:49 PM  

MattStafford:
The elderly produce very little, and the vast majority of money is spent on their final, completely unproductive years.)
MattStafford:
Well, we're spending it on keeping our unproductive, retired elderly alive, maintaining an unproductive military, servicing interest on the debt, and as welfare to the poor. I'm not arguing that these aren't important things for a country to spend money on



dafuq?

Tell ya what. Fark you and any elderly in your family, let's go with that. YOU FIRST.

And I'll even volunteer to drive your sorry ass into the wildnerness and drop you off when you hit 70.

farkyoufarkyoufarkyou and the horse you rode in on, and welcome to ignore, you ignorant fark.
 
2012-11-27 01:00:54 PM  
hasty ambush

Which is why that is one part of one plan. (I assume you mean the "income over $1m taxed at X%, no deductions" rule?)

There are other parts of that plan to both raise revenue (by cutting those deductions the GOP seems to think can raise $20 trillion in a year or somesuch) and cut spending, and there are other plans that don't create new Buffet-level tax brackets which still raise rates (like by letting the Bush rates on the top two brackets revert to 1990s levels).

Also, that is possibly the dumbest strawman in a season full of them. Not one person has said that taking the 400 richest Americans' wealth is the solution, nor has anyone advanced that plan. Nor has anyone said that letting the newer rates expire will fix the problem in a year. The idea is to RAISE MORE REVENUE - by closing/capping deductions, raising rates/fees and a whole bunch of things - while also CUTTING SPENDING - hopefully, by not increasing budgets by the same amounts that they planned to (even cutting some programs entirely or combining them).

Attrition is also a way to shrink government (shrink expenditures, surely), and IIRC Obama's better at that than anyone but Clinton.
 
2012-11-27 01:04:09 PM  

mcwehrle: MattStafford:
The elderly produce very little, and the vast majority of money is spent on their final, completely unproductive years.)
MattStafford:
Well, we're spending it on keeping our unproductive, retired elderly alive, maintaining an unproductive military, servicing interest on the debt, and as welfare to the poor. I'm not arguing that these aren't important things for a country to spend money on



dafuq?

Tell ya what. Fark you and any elderly in your family, let's go with that. YOU FIRST.

And I'll even volunteer to drive your sorry ass into the wildnerness and drop you off when you hit 70.

farkyoufarkyoufarkyou and the horse you rode in on, and welcome to ignore, you ignorant fark.


I think he's about as much of a prick as anyone else, but shiat, this is just the internet. Calm down killer.
 
2012-11-27 01:04:30 PM  

Dr Dreidel: mrshowrules: Dr Dreidel: jigger: Says 5 people in black dresses.

What other SCOTUS decisions shall we ignore because their ceremonial robes are silly? Wickard/Filburn? Kelo/New London? Roe/Wade? Miranda/Arizona? Marbury/Madison (which would be HILARIOUS)? Brown/Board of Ed? Dover/Kitzmiller? Flynt/Falwell?

// I can go on, but I'm almost out of famous cases I can recall off the top of my head

You just named 8 more than Palin. You named 8.

Technically 7. The question put to Gvnr Palin was "Other than Roe/Wade..."

// so I'm 7x as smart as Palin?
// *burns diplomas*
// *cries*
// *slashes wrists*


I think they may have falsely assumed she even knew what Roe V. Wade was.
 
2012-11-27 01:06:05 PM  
It certainly seems fair that before anyone breaks their solemn oath and pledge to raise taxes they know what they are getting for their constituents in spending cuts. Raising taxes on the rich is a talking point that does so very little to solve the problems which are the result of overspending. Tell everyone where the spending cuts happen and which solves 98% of the problems before committing to raising the taxes which only solve 2% of the problem.
 
2012-11-27 01:06:41 PM  

Zasteva: Good, then lets stop spending on the booze (unproductive military) and raise taxes on highly excess income (above $250,000 year) to pay for the hookers (retired elderly, welfare). Oh, and pay our bills (interest on the debt).


You might be on to something. Hookers who are retired, elderly, and on welfare will be relatively cheap.
 
2012-11-27 01:07:29 PM  

Anti_illuminati: mcwehrle: MattStafford:
The elderly produce very little, and the vast majority of money is spent on their final, completely unproductive years.)
MattStafford:
Well, we're spending it on keeping our unproductive, retired elderly alive, maintaining an unproductive military, servicing interest on the debt, and as welfare to the poor. I'm not arguing that these aren't important things for a country to spend money on



dafuq?

Tell ya what. Fark you and any elderly in your family, let's go with that. YOU FIRST.

And I'll even volunteer to drive your sorry ass into the wildnerness and drop you off when you hit 70.

farkyoufarkyoufarkyou and the horse you rode in on, and welcome to ignore, you ignorant fark.

I think he's about as much of a prick as anyone else, but shiat, this is just the internet. Calm down killer.



Oh I know, but I have heard entirely too much of "lets kill old people and starve kids" and I snapped.

Actually, I'm usually pretty rational.

But still, fark him.
 
2012-11-27 01:10:07 PM  

Tyee: It certainly seems fair that before anyone breaks their solemn oath and pledge to raise taxes they know what they are getting for their constituents in spending cuts. Raising taxes on the rich is a talking point that does so very little to solve the problems which are the result of overspending. Tell everyone where the spending cuts happen and which solves 98% of the problems before committing to raising the taxes which only solve 2% of the problem.


Well we already know 1/3 of it (Defense) is off limits. So that leaves us with little to work with.
 
2012-11-27 01:10:27 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Yeah, f*ck the elderly. You should run for office on that platform.

75% of welfare recipients, if you're referring to TANF, are children. So f*ck them too I guess, and vote for me or something.


Because what will get me elected is what is best for our country. Wait, no, that isn't right.

We spend, what, 20 billion a year on TANF? You still have a long farking way to go to convince me we are spending our money wisely.
 
2012-11-27 01:10:37 PM  

mcwehrle: Tell ya what. Fark you and any elderly in your family, let's go with that. YOU FIRST.


Be nice. He may be of the generation that sucked from the Boomer tax teat their entire lives and dread weaning off. All the government benefits they've enjoyed to date really came from Santa, don't wreck the illusion.
 
2012-11-27 01:11:11 PM  
When we tried to avert this disaster the first time, Obama offered $2.50 in cuts for ever $1 in revenue. The GOP said no.



Now they can sleep in the bed they made.

fark em.
 
2012-11-27 01:11:41 PM  

mrshowrules: I think they may have falsely assumed she even knew what Roe V. Wade was.


she knew it had something to do with water.
 
2012-11-27 01:12:06 PM  

Tyee: Tell everyone where the spending cuts happen


We've already made $1.5T in cuts. So we're good. Time for tax increases.
 
2012-11-27 01:12:53 PM  

MattStafford: Dusk-You-n-Me: Yeah, f*ck the elderly. You should run for office on that platform.

75% of welfare recipients, if you're referring to TANF, are children. So f*ck them too I guess, and vote for me or something.

Because what will get me elected is what is best for our country. Wait, no, that isn't right.

We spend, what, 20 billion a year on TANF? You still have a long farking way to go to convince me we are spending our money wisely.


Yeah, fark the poor. Let them starve. Those kids should have choosen to be born to richer parents, damn kids.
 
2012-11-27 01:13:01 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: So I assume you have urged your unproductive grandparents to off themselves for the greater good, rather than continuing to consume resources, right? You will of course blow your own brains out if you ever cease to work.


This doesn't do anything to combat my argument that keeping the elderly alive does nothing beneficial to our economy. It is simply an appeal to emotion.

Tell me why we should be going into debt to keep these people alive. What economic benefit is it providing for our country.
 
2012-11-27 01:14:18 PM  

Zasteva: All he said was that taking action that throws us back into recession will make it worse (it will), not that we shouldn't take action. We just need to take action in a way that doesn't throw us back into recession. And yes, that action should be taken as soon as possible.


Unfortunately, that action is going to throw us into recession no matter what. I'm in favor of pain now as opposed to more pain later.
 
2012-11-27 01:15:21 PM  

MattStafford: Because what will get me elected is what is best for our country. Wait, no, that isn't right.


I believe taking care of children, of which one in five live in poverty, is the best thing for our country. I also believe that platform would be popular and help in getting me elected. I guess what you think is right, isn't.


Funny, that is

MattStafford: We spend, what, 20 billion a year on TANF? You still have a long farking way to go to convince me we are spending our money wisely.


I don't have f*ck all to do with convincing you of anything.
 
2012-11-27 01:15:43 PM  

odinsposse: Except keeping people alive isn't the equivalent of wasting money on booze and hookers. This is exactly why looking at spending as a risk/reward investment makes sense in business but is unfathomably stupid in government.


It is wasteful spending. Explain to me how keeping an 80 year old person who does absolutely no work alive for another 10 years, at a massive cost funded almost entirely by borrowing is somehow beneficial to our economy. All you are making is an appeal to emotion.
 
2012-11-27 01:15:53 PM  

MattStafford: Tell me why we should be going into debt to keep these people alive.



This will get some bites.
 
2012-11-27 01:15:59 PM  

MattStafford: Philip Francis Queeg: So I assume you have urged your unproductive grandparents to off themselves for the greater good, rather than continuing to consume resources, right? You will of course blow your own brains out if you ever cease to work.

This doesn't do anything to combat my argument that keeping the elderly alive does nothing beneficial to our economy. It is simply an appeal to emotion.

Tell me why we should be going into debt to keep these people alive. What economic benefit is it providing for our country.


How does having people get sick and starve beneficial to our economy?
 
2012-11-27 01:16:44 PM  

Anti_illuminati: I really appreciate you coming in here and summarizing everyone's argument. I had no idea what I, or everyone else, was arguing about. Thanks!


Three people responded me the exact same way in a row. I wanted to address all of them, but didn't want to quote them all to know.
 
2012-11-27 01:17:02 PM  

MattStafford: Zasteva: All he said was that taking action that throws us back into recession will make it worse (it will), not that we shouldn't take action. We just need to take action in a way that doesn't throw us back into recession. And yes, that action should be taken as soon as possible.

Unfortunately, that action is going to throw us into recession no matter what.


You must have a GED in Economiz, your intellect is dizzying.


/goddamnit I am still biting
 
2012-11-27 01:17:14 PM  

Tyee: It certainly seems fair that before anyone breaks their solemn oath and pledge to raise taxes


lolwut?

Republicans are retarded.
 
2012-11-27 01:18:01 PM  

MattStafford: odinsposse: Except keeping people alive isn't the equivalent of wasting money on booze and hookers. This is exactly why looking at spending as a risk/reward investment makes sense in business but is unfathomably stupid in government.

It is wasteful spending. Explain to me how keeping an 80 year old person who does absolutely no work alive for another 10 years, at a massive cost funded almost entirely by borrowing is somehow beneficial to our economy. All you are making is an appeal to emotion.


The government does not work solely to create economic benefit. Why can't you get this?
 
2012-11-27 01:18:54 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: For starters, stop conflating individual spending and government spending. It's a poor analogy and it's only going to cause confusion as the conversation progresses. Stick with government spending, the f*cking topic at hand.


The argument was, if government has access to nearly unlimited amounts of funds at extremely low rates, should they spend them. My argument is, just like an individual's financial situation, it is only a good idea to borrow those funds if they are being spent on something productive. If there is something wrong with that analogy, please let me know. Just saying it is a bad analogy isn't an argument.
 
2012-11-27 01:19:14 PM  

MattStafford: my argument that keeping the elderly alive does nothing beneficial to our economy


grammy & grammpy don't spend money, play with stocks, or purchase gifts for the kiddies? Hell, some people think they are a source to borrow money from.

are you a fisherman?
 
2012-11-27 01:20:08 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Ron Paul lost. Go till the soil in Galt's Gulch, we'll check back in with you in a couple years.


Hey wait! He's making arguments I don't know how to respond to. Better reach into my ad hominem bag and call him a dumb Ron Paul supporter. Ah, another successful debate.
 
2012-11-27 01:20:10 PM  

neenerist: mcwehrle: Tell ya what. Fark you and any elderly in your family, let's go with that. YOU FIRST.

Be nice. He may be of the generation that sucked from the Boomer tax teat their entire lives and dread weaning off. All the government benefits they've enjoyed to date really came from Santa, don't wreck the illusion.


meh, he's a fark you I got mine, so fark you and yours you can all starve and/or die of terrible illnesses because it doesn't affect ME ME ME ME.

I have no tolerance for crap like him.

But since he's on ignore now, my day just got so much better!!!
 
2012-11-27 01:20:40 PM  

Rain-Monkey: Because they have said all along they would be willing to cut spending programs as a part of a balanced package?


Also, Democrats never signed a pledge saying they would never cut spending no matter what, which is what 90% of the questions are about.
 
2012-11-27 01:22:02 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Well we already know 1/3 of it (Defense) is off limits. So that leaves us with little to work with.


I agree, what is the democrat's plan, Obama's plan for spending cuts that will solve 98% of the problem? Give the republicans than and they better come through on the tax raises that will cover the 2%. The democrats just got elected to solve the problem, what is their plan other than the 2% they are asking the republicans to solve?
 
2012-11-27 01:22:03 PM  

Zasteva: Good, then lets stop spending on the booze (unproductive military) and raise taxes on highly excess income (above $250,000 year) to pay for the hookers (retired elderly, welfare). Oh, and pay our bills (interest on the debt).

Which is pretty much what the Dems want to do, and what the GOP is resisting.


Yes, that is what they pay lip service to. Then you come to this thread, and find that everyone is biatching about raising taxes and lowering spending.
 
2012-11-27 01:23:08 PM  

MattStafford: Anti_illuminati: I really appreciate you coming in here and summarizing everyone's argument. I had no idea what I, or everyone else, was arguing about. Thanks!

Three people responded me the exact same way in a row. I wanted to address all of them, but didn't want to quote them all to know.


So you just summarized their arguments for them? Interdasting.
 
2012-11-27 01:23:18 PM  

MattStafford: Tell me why we should be going into debt to keep these people alive.


Promote the general welfare.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.


What the f*ck country do you think we live in? The government is not a business. Take your Randian bullsh*t elsewhere, it will never, ever happen here.
 
2012-11-27 01:23:51 PM  

Tyee: Mrtraveler01: Well we already know 1/3 of it (Defense) is off limits. So that leaves us with little to work with.

I agree, what is the democrat's plan, Obama's plan for spending cuts that will solve 98% of the problem? Give the republicans than and they better come through on the tax raises that will cover the 2%. The democrats just got elected to solve the problem, what is their plan other than the 2% they are asking the republicans to solve?


They offered spending cuts, the only reason the Republicans don't like it is because it's attached with tax increases.

They just want to cut spending on the programs they don't like.
 
2012-11-27 01:24:53 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: We've already made $1.5T in cuts. So we're good. Time for tax increases.


Not nearly enough, what is the plan after you get tax raise and it doesn't do any good? We already know taxing the rich won't get us close to where we need to be, what is the plan?
 
2012-11-27 01:25:14 PM  

Tyee: I agree, what is the democrat's plan, Obama's plan for spending cuts that will solve 98% of the problem? Give the republicans than and they better come through on the tax raises that will cover the 2%. The democrats just got elected to solve the problem, what is their plan other than the 2% they are asking the republicans to solve?


Link
 
2012-11-27 01:25:53 PM  

SunsetLament: As we all know (because the credit agencies said at the time), the credit rating would have been downgraded either way because it had nothing to do with whether or not the debt ceiling was actually raised and had everything to do with the financial community believing that federal congressional gridlock (as desired by the US population - see two weeks ago) will never result in entitlement reform.


It was only one credit agency, and it was one facing investigation by the feds for some shady practices.
 
2012-11-27 01:27:21 PM  

Tyee: Not nearly enough


It's not nothing either. Which is the point. You asked where are the spending cuts, we should show those first before we even consider tax increases.

We have, and I did. So now it's the other side's turn to pony up on taxes.
 
2012-11-27 01:28:35 PM  

Tyee: Dusk-You-n-Me: We've already made $1.5T in cuts. So we're good. Time for tax increases.

Not nearly enough, what is the plan after you get tax raise and it doesn't do any good? We already know taxing the rich won't get us close to where we need to be, what is the plan?


Do both again; more spending cuts and more tax increases.

Is this too terribly difficult to understand?
 
2012-11-27 01:29:05 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Tyee: Not nearly enough

It's not nothing either. Which is the point. You asked where are the spending cuts, we should show those first before we even consider tax increases.

We have, and I did. So now it's the other side's turn to pony up on taxes.


Yes, but if we don't privatize Medicare and repeal Obamacare as well, then it doesn't count.
 
2012-11-27 01:33:40 PM  

mcwehrle: dafuq?

Tell ya what. Fark you and any elderly in your family, let's go with that. YOU FIRST.

And I'll even volunteer to drive your sorry ass into the wildnerness and drop you off when you hit 70.

farkyoufarkyoufarkyou and the horse you rode in on, and welcome to ignore, you ignorant fark.


Ignorant? You're attempting to counter my arguments with appeals to emotion. Just tell me what productive thing the elderly do for the economy, and I will take it back. What are they producing? Who is buying their services? Seriously, if I'm wrong, just let me know.
 
2012-11-27 01:33:52 PM  

MisterRonbo: It was only one credit agency, and it was one facing investigation by the feds for some shady practices.


However, they raise a valid point: if a significant part of the governing body is seriously willing to default on their debts if they don't get their way, that's not an organization that deserves to have its debt held in the highest possible regard. There's no fear that the US can not pay its debt, just that it will not. They made a better decision there than they did when they were rating bundled mortgage products.
 
2012-11-27 01:34:45 PM  
Because the Dems are already asking for spending cuts, subtardmitter.
 
2012-11-27 01:35:05 PM  
How's the trollin' this fine afternoon?
 
2012-11-27 01:36:27 PM  

MattStafford: mcwehrle: dafuq?

Tell ya what. Fark you and any elderly in your family, let's go with that. YOU FIRST.

And I'll even volunteer to drive your sorry ass into the wildnerness and drop you off when you hit 70.

farkyoufarkyoufarkyou and the horse you rode in on, and welcome to ignore, you ignorant fark.

Ignorant? You're attempting to counter my arguments with appeals to emotion. Just tell me what productive thing the elderly do for the economy, and I will take it back. What are they producing? Who is buying their services? Seriously, if I'm wrong, just let me know.


What benefit is there to having the elderly get sick, starve, and die? 

That will just mean more medical costs the taxpayer will foot the bill for because the elderly won't be able to afford any medical treatment.

So if you want to waste more taxpayer money by making elderly people wait until they get really sick for medical treatment, who am I to stop you.
 
2012-11-27 01:36:34 PM  

MattStafford: Philip Francis Queeg: So I assume you have urged your unproductive grandparents to off themselves for the greater good, rather than continuing to consume resources, right? You will of course blow your own brains out if you ever cease to work.

This doesn't do anything to combat my argument that keeping the elderly alive does nothing beneficial to our economy. It is simply an appeal to emotion.

Tell me why we should be going into debt to keep these people alive. What economic benefit is it providing for our country.


Let's assume that you are correct and they provide no economic benefit. So why haven't you killed you worthless grandparents yet? Are you actively trying to destroy the country? A real patriot would eliminate the threat they pose.
 
2012-11-27 01:36:41 PM  

CPennypacker: How's the trollin' this fine afternoon?

Productive

, the only thing that matters, apparently.
 
2012-11-27 01:37:16 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: MattStafford: Philip Francis Queeg: So I assume you have urged your unproductive grandparents to off themselves for the greater good, rather than continuing to consume resources, right? You will of course blow your own brains out if you ever cease to work.

This doesn't do anything to combat my argument that keeping the elderly alive does nothing beneficial to our economy. It is simply an appeal to emotion.

Tell me why we should be going into debt to keep these people alive. What economic benefit is it providing for our country.

Let's assume that you are correct and they provide no economic benefit. So why haven't you killed you worthless grandparents yet? Are you actively trying to destroy the country? A real patriot would eliminate the threat they pose.


OOH OOH Can I do it?

/patriot
 
2012-11-27 01:37:56 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: I believe taking care of children, of which one in five live in poverty, is the best thing for our country. I also believe that platform would be popular and help in getting me elected. I guess what you think is right, isn't.


When have I argued that we shouldn't spend money on the youth? All I said was that the amount we spend on TANF is a drop in the bucket. Personally, I think we should spend more on our youth.
 
2012-11-27 01:38:23 PM  

MattStafford: mcwehrle: dafuq?

Tell ya what. Fark you and any elderly in your family, let's go with that. YOU FIRST.

And I'll even volunteer to drive your sorry ass into the wildnerness and drop you off when you hit 70.

farkyoufarkyoufarkyou and the horse you rode in on, and welcome to ignore, you ignorant fark.

Ignorant? You're attempting to counter my arguments with appeals to emotion. Just tell me what productive thing the elderly do for the economy, and I will take it back. What are they producing? Who is buying their services? Seriously, if I'm wrong, just let me know.


Your premise, that the government exists only to promote policies and programs that are economically productive, is flawed. You understanding of Civics is on par with your understanding of economics. I really hope you are trolling because if a person as ignorant and outspoken as you really exists I weep for our public education system.
 
2012-11-27 01:39:02 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: MattStafford: Philip Francis Queeg: So I assume you have urged your unproductive grandparents to off themselves for the greater good, rather than continuing to consume resources, right? You will of course blow your own brains out if you ever cease to work.

This doesn't do anything to combat my argument that keeping the elderly alive does nothing beneficial to our economy. It is simply an appeal to emotion.

Tell me why we should be going into debt to keep these people alive. What economic benefit is it providing for our country.

Let's assume that you are correct and they provide no economic benefit. So why haven't you killed you worthless grandparents yet? Are you actively trying to destroy the country? A real patriot would eliminate the threat they pose.


Casey Anthony agrees, that kid was a leech.
 
2012-11-27 01:40:14 PM  

Mrtraveler01: How does having people get sick and starve beneficial to our economy?


Who said that would be beneficial? The point of what I am saying is that keeping the elderly alive for an extra ten years while they do nothing productive is the economic equivalent to letting them die, except for the fact we have to go massively into debt to keep them alive.
 
2012-11-27 01:41:50 PM  

odinsposse: The government does not work solely to create economic benefit. Why can't you get this?


I understand that. I am entirely for wealth redistribution. But borrowing money and spending that on unproductive things destroys our economy.
 
2012-11-27 01:41:57 PM  

MattStafford: Mrtraveler01: How does having people get sick and starve beneficial to our economy?

Who said that would be beneficial? The point of what I am saying is that keeping the elderly alive for an extra ten years while they do nothing productive is the economic equivalent to letting them die, except for the fact we have to go massively into debt to keep them alive.


So letting them get severely sick before seeking medical treatment at the ER is more cost effective how?
 
2012-11-27 01:42:28 PM  

EyeballKid: SCOREBOARD: 303 332 to 206. That's how come, biatch.


FTFY.
 
2012-11-27 01:42:45 PM  
FTA:

Union groups are already mounting a six-figure ad campaign to pressure key Democrats.



OOoooOooOoooooo a 6 figure ad campaign....what is that? A little less than it takes to get a tent at the Masters for you and your golf buddies.

I love articles written to enrage poor republicans. After a 5 billion dollar presidential, these rubes are OUTRAGED by nearly 300k being spent to lobby congress. "Six figures" is a lot of money if youre poor. 

1.bp.blogspot.com

Like this images that drove so many NUTS. If this is what you think rich people eat, youre not a rich person. If this is extravagant, you've never had the opportunity to really pull the throttles off. But so many poor Republicans saw this has the height of wasteful spending on luxury by the first lady because it seemed so fancy, and out of reach, to them.

The rich are eating heirloom tomatoes on organic micro greens. Artisinal cheese, small vintage wines, and charcuterie trays. Not 40 dollar bottles of bubbly and caviar. And, on top of everything, if the Waldorf is selling 2 lobsters with wine and snacks for less than $500, they have the most affordable room service in NYC. 

So even if the article wasnt all bull, which is clearly is, its hard to be anything other than amused by the butthurt a "6 figure" ad campaign is causing. 
 
2012-11-27 01:43:03 PM  

Isitoveryet: grammy & grammpy don't spend money, play with stocks, or purchase gifts for the kiddies? Hell, some people think they are a source to borrow money from.

are you a fisherman?


Sure, that is entirely fine if they are spending their own money. If they're spending money that the government is borrowing and giving to them, it is not a good thing. Consumption isn't production.
 
2012-11-27 01:43:31 PM  

EyeballKid: SCOREBOARD: 303 to 206. That's how come, biatch.


at least you're going full bore with the sporting event mentality now
 
2012-11-27 01:44:20 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Promote the general welfare.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.


What the f*ck country do you think we live in? The government is not a business. Take your Randian bullsh*t elsewhere, it will never, ever happen here.


I'm in favor of wealth redistribution. We're a wealthy country, and we should take care of our own. I'm against borrowing money to do that.
 
2012-11-27 01:46:17 PM  
Because the "fiscal cliff" removes the disastrous Bush Tax Cuts, slashes Defense spending, and the public is already prepared to blame the GOP for any negative side-effects.

You played the all-or-nothing game and you lost, Republicans. Now you have to eat the shiat sandwich you have been preparing all this time.
 
2012-11-27 01:46:42 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Let's assume that you are correct and they provide no economic benefit. So why haven't you killed you worthless grandparents yet? Are you actively trying to destroy the country? A real patriot would eliminate the threat they pose.


Yeah, this is a great argument. I cannot believe this is what your argument has devolved to: "Unless you kill your grandparents you don't believe we aren't spending too much money on the elderly". Pure farking genius.
 
2012-11-27 01:47:13 PM  

MattStafford: keeping the elderly alive for an extra ten years


who does that? typically, once you suffer a life threatening medical incident, you go pretty fast, otherwise you recover and life returns to normal sans vision or the use of one of two arms or legs. who in the hell leaves elderly on life support for 10 years? and what about quality of life, you seem to be making up a number 80 and pretending all 80 y/o are sponges.

do you have any sources for the information you are using to support your let the elderly die argument?
 
2012-11-27 01:47:41 PM  

jst3p: Your premise, that the government exists only to promote policies and programs that are economically productive, is flawed. You understanding of Civics is on par with your understanding of economics. I really hope you are trolling because if a person as ignorant and outspoken as you really exists I weep for our public education system.


Except for the fact I'm in favor of wealth redistribution. I'm not in favor of spending borrowed money on unproductive things.
 
2012-11-27 01:48:48 PM  

MattStafford: I'm in favor of wealth redistribution. We're a wealthy country, and we should take care of our own. I'm against borrowing money to do that.


Well we're in debt, so you can't have it both ways.
 
2012-11-27 01:48:55 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Because the "fiscal cliff" removes the disastrous Bush Tax Cuts, slashes Defense spending, and the public is already prepared to blame the GOP for any negative side-effects.

You played the all-or-nothing game and you lost, Republicans. Now you have to eat the shiat sandwich you have been preparing all this time.


fortunately, I think the President and congressional Dems aren't the scorched earth dickbags that you apparently are
 
2012-11-27 01:49:20 PM  

skullkrusher: EyeballKid: SCOREBOARD: 303 to 206. That's how come, biatch.

at least you're going full bore with the sporting event mentality now


Yeah after your side loses then its "we are all in this together!".

Please cry moar Republicans.
 
2012-11-27 01:50:43 PM  

MattStafford: jst3p: Your premise, that the government exists only to promote policies and programs that are economically productive, is flawed. You understanding of Civics is on par with your understanding of economics. I really hope you are trolling because if a person as ignorant and outspoken as you really exists I weep for our public education system.

Except for the fact I'm in favor of wealth redistribution. I'm not in favor of spending borrowed money on unproductive things.


So answer this for me:

Mrtraveler01: So letting them get severely sick before seeking medical treatment at the ER is more productive way to spend money how?

 
2012-11-27 01:50:55 PM  

MattStafford: Philip Francis Queeg: So I assume you have urged your unproductive grandparents to off themselves for the greater good, rather than continuing to consume resources, right? You will of course blow your own brains out if you ever cease to work.

This doesn't do anything to combat my argument that keeping the elderly alive does nothing beneficial to our economy. It is simply an appeal to emotion.

Tell me why we should be going into debt to keep these people alive. What economic benefit is it providing for our country.


We aren't. We are collecting taxes and using that revenue to take care of the elderly, the poor, and in some cases the sick. We are also providing research and infrastructure that helps everyone and to boosts our businesses. All that we are doing with the taxes we already collect.

We are borrowing money to finance wars, build a "defense" force as large as the entire rest of the world combined, and to provide tax breaks for large and extremely profitable businesses to do what they would do anyway.
 
2012-11-27 01:51:02 PM  

MattStafford: jst3p: Your premise, that the government exists only to promote policies and programs that are economically productive, is flawed. You understanding of Civics is on par with your understanding of economics. I really hope you are trolling because if a person as ignorant and outspoken as you really exists I weep for our public education system.

Except for the fact I'm in favor of wealth redistribution. I'm not in favor of spending borrowed money on unproductive things.


Your premise, that the government exists only to promote policies and programs that are economically productive, is flawed.

Your premise, that the government exists only to promote policies and programs that are economically productive, is flawed.

Your premise, that the government exists only to promote policies and programs that are economically productive, is flawed.
 

Why the assumption that the borrowed money is supporting old people. The old people have to be paid for, because it is the right thing to do. We are paying for them with the revenue we take in. We are bowrrowing money to maintain the largest military, by far, in the world and conduct nation building in the Middle East. How is that econonomically productive?
 
2012-11-27 01:51:19 PM  

Mrtraveler01: So letting them get severely sick before seeking medical treatment at the ER is more cost effective how?


I suppose it is more cost effective to buy a steady steam of booze than to buy a ton of booze at once. Doesn't change the fact you're buying booze with borrowed money.
 
2012-11-27 01:52:15 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Well we're in debt, so you can't have it both ways.


Step one - stop spending on social services by using debt. Step two - start spending money on social services generated by taxes. It is a two step process.
 
2012-11-27 01:53:17 PM  

Isitoveryet: MattStafford: keeping the elderly alive for an extra ten years

who does that? typically, once you suffer a life threatening medical incident, you go pretty fast, otherwise you recover and life returns to normal sans vision or the use of one of two arms or legs. who in the hell leaves elderly on life support for 10 years? and what about quality of life, you seem to be making up a number 80 and pretending all 80 y/o are sponges.

do you have any sources for the information you are using to support your let the elderly die argument?


I have a counter-argument:

One-quarter to one-third of all medical spending is done in the last year of the patient's life. (Half of THAT is on "the elderly", but the last year of a 26 year old's life can be just as expensive as the last year of a centenarian's.)

// source 1
// source 2
// source 3
 
2012-11-27 01:53:36 PM  

Zasteva: We aren't. We are collecting taxes and using that revenue to take care of the elderly, the poor, and in some cases the sick. We are also providing research and infrastructure that helps everyone and to boosts our businesses. All that we are doing with the taxes we already collect.

We are borrowing money to finance wars, build a "defense" force as large as the entire rest of the world combined, and to provide tax breaks for large and extremely profitable businesses to do what they would do anyway.


I don't think the money that we have borrowed is earmarked for anything. This is a disingenuous argument.
 
2012-11-27 01:54:19 PM  

MattStafford: I suppose it is more cost effective to buy a steady steam of booze than to buy a ton of booze at once. Doesn't change the fact you're buying booze with borrowed money.


That booze gets a lot more expensive when the distiller has to make a large capital investment to produce your large, time sensitive order of booze, then the equipment sits idle after that order is completed.
 
2012-11-27 01:54:42 PM  

MattStafford: Consumption isn't production.


no it is not, it does however stimulate an economy and generate revenue for state/fed.

MattStafford Sure, that is entirely fine if they are spending their own money. If they're spending money that the government is borrowing and giving to them, it is not a good thing.

That's the entire purpose of work and employment, you save for retirement, you've paid into those beneficial programs as well, and again, i would like to see the information you are basing these "not a good thing" scenarios on.
 
2012-11-27 01:55:04 PM  

MattStafford: odinsposse: The government does not work solely to create economic benefit. Why can't you get this?

I understand that. I am entirely for wealth redistribution. But borrowing money and spending that on unproductive things destroys our economy.


What? No. Our economy is in trouble because people in the financial sector made bets, borrowed money assuming they would win those bets, and then lost them. Government spending has some effect on the economy but it isn't the foundation. The government can help kick start things with spending but primarily though spending increases. Shifting spending from one sector to another wouldn't have a huge effect and certainly isn't the difference between a failing and succeeding economy.
 
2012-11-27 01:55:13 PM  

MattStafford: Step one - stop spending on social services by using debt. Step two - start spending money on social services generated by taxes.


Outside of SS, it's one big pool of money. If drawing a dashed line and splitting one pile into what comes from debt and the other from what comes from taxes would make you feel better, you can do that. Your problem has been solved.
 
2012-11-27 01:55:42 PM  

jst3p: Your premise, that the government exists only to promote policies and programs that are economically productive, is flawed.


Well, except the part where I stated that isn't what I believe, so fark off.

jst3p: Why the assumption that the borrowed money is supporting old people. The old people have to be paid for, because it is the right thing to do. We are paying for them with the revenue we take in. We are bowrrowing money to maintain the largest military, by far, in the world and conduct nation building in the Middle East. How is that econonomically productive?


If we cut our entire military budget, we would still be running a deficit. Try again.

And, as I have said, the military isn't productive. I'm more against the military than I am social security, so don't act as though I am in favor of the military.
 
2012-11-27 01:56:15 PM  

MattStafford: I don't think the money that we have borrowed is earmarked for anything. This is a disingenuous argument.


Mitt Romney, is that you?

MattStafford: The point of what I am saying is that keeping the elderly alive for an extra ten years while they do nothing productive is the economic equivalent to letting them die, except for the fact we have to go massively into debt to keep them alive.

 
2012-11-27 01:56:23 PM  

MattStafford: Mrtraveler01: So letting them get severely sick before seeking medical treatment at the ER is more cost effective how?

I suppose it is more cost effective to buy a steady steam of booze than to buy a ton of booze at once. Doesn't change the fact you're buying booze with borrowed money.


Booze is a terrible analogy and you're smart enough to know that.

ER's are not allowed to refuse any patients regardless of whether or not they can pay. One way or another, these seniors are going to get medical treatment, whether it's with Medicare or through the ER (which tends to cost a lot more).

So...explain to me why it's smarter to just wait for these people to get sick enough to go to the ER and unable to pay the medical bill which then rests on the taxpayer (ie: us) to pay for?
 
2012-11-27 01:56:55 PM  

MattStafford: Step one - stop spending on social services by using debt. Step two - start spending money on social services generated by taxes. It is a two step process.


So you support soaking the rich to ensure that the entirety of the federal budget is covered by tax revenues? I'm okay with that.
 
2012-11-27 01:57:33 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Outside of SS, it's one big pool of money. If drawing a dashed line and splitting one pile into what comes from debt and the other from what comes from taxes would make you feel better, you can do that. Your problem has been solved.


Cut all of the money going to discretionary spending. You're still running a deficit (and now have millions of extra unemployed people).
 
2012-11-27 01:59:35 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Booze is a terrible analogy and you're smart enough to know that.

ER's are not allowed to refuse any patients regardless of whether or not they can pay. One way or another, these seniors are going to get medical treatment, whether it's with Medicare or through the ER (which tends to cost a lot more).

So...explain to me why it's smarter to just wait for these people to get sick enough to go to the ER and unable to pay the medical bill which then rests on the taxpayer (ie: us) to pay for?


What's smart is saving money, or raising taxes to pay for it. What isn't smart is borrowing money to pay for it. Not sure why this is difficult for you to understand. If the government borrows 100,000 dollars to keep an unproductive old person alive now, or borrows 1,000,000 dollars to keep that same person alive down the road, it doesn't change the fact that the borrowing on money isn't a good thing.
 
2012-11-27 02:00:20 PM  

Dr Dreidel: I have a counter-argument:

One-quarter to one-third of all medical spending is done in the last year of the patient's life. (Half of THAT is on "the elderly", but the last year of a 26 year old's life can be just as expensive as the last year of a centenarian's.)

// source 1
// source 2
// source 3


Interesting data, still reading, thanks.
 
2012-11-27 02:00:28 PM  

odinsposse: What? No. Our economy is in trouble because people in the financial sector made bets, borrowed money assuming they would win those bets, and then lost them. Government spending has some effect on the economy but it isn't the foundation. The government can help kick start things with spending but primarily though spending increases. Shifting spending from one sector to another wouldn't have a huge effect and certainly isn't the difference between a failing and succeeding economy.


Our economy is in trouble because we're 50 trillion in debt. Government's 16 trillion is a significant portion of that.
 
2012-11-27 02:01:17 PM  

MattStafford: Mrtraveler01: How does having people get sick and starve beneficial to our economy?

Who said that would be beneficial? The point of what I am saying is that keeping the elderly alive for an extra ten years while they do nothing productive is the economic equivalent to letting them die, except for the fact we have to go massively into debt to keep them alive.


I call Poe.

/ or maybe Rand Poe?
 
2012-11-27 02:01:24 PM  

incendi: So you support soaking the rich to ensure that the entirety of the federal budget is covered by tax revenues? I'm okay with that.


You could soak all of the rich, and it would not come close to covering our deficit. We need to raise taxes and cut spending, both to a large degree.
 
2012-11-27 02:07:42 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: MattStafford: Tell me why we should be going into debt to keep these people alive.

Promote the general welfare.


"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." - James Madison

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798

"[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any." - James Madison, Federalist 14

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." - James Madison, Federalist 45

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but
an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


"The U.S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself." -- Benjamin Franklin"

Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..

It does not say give me your huddled masses so that we may care for them. There was not even a Federal Welfare system and very few state level ones when that was written

Freedom and being cared for are two different things. Freedom comes with burdens among them being self reliance and self responsibility. The more those two burdens are lessened the less freedom you have. As you become more dependent and ceded more control of your life to those doing the "caring for" you are less free.
 
2012-11-27 02:09:41 PM  

MattStafford: Mrtraveler01: Booze is a terrible analogy and you're smart enough to know that.

ER's are not allowed to refuse any patients regardless of whether or not they can pay. One way or another, these seniors are going to get medical treatment, whether it's with Medicare or through the ER (which tends to cost a lot more).

So...explain to me why it's smarter to just wait for these people to get sick enough to go to the ER and unable to pay the medical bill which then rests on the taxpayer (ie: us) to pay for?

What's smart is saving money, or raising taxes to pay for it. What isn't smart is borrowing money to pay for it. Not sure why this is difficult for you to understand. If the government borrows 100,000 dollars to keep an unproductive old person alive now, or borrows 1,000,000 dollars to keep that same person alive down the road, it doesn't change the fact that the borrowing on money isn't a good thing.


But you have to choose between the two. You just can't say to hell with that person, we can't afford to treat you. It's against the law to deny medical treatment to anyone in an ER.

So one way or another, we have to spend money to keep this "unproductive" person alive.
 
2012-11-27 02:10:12 PM  

MattStafford: incendi: So you support soaking the rich to ensure that the entirety of the federal budget is covered by tax revenues? I'm okay with that.

You could soak all of the rich, and it would not come close to covering our deficit. We need to raise taxes and cut spending, both to a large degree.


How about this?
 
2012-11-27 02:10:19 PM  

hasty ambush: Dusk-You-n-Me: MattStafford: Tell me why we should be going into debt to keep these people alive.

Promote the general welfare.

"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." - James Madison

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798

"[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any." - James Madison, Federalist 14

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." - James Madison, Federalist 45

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but
an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


"The U.S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself." -- Benjamin Franklin"

Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..

It does not say give me your huddled masses so that we may care for them. There was not even a Federal Welfare system and very few state level ones when that was written

Freedom and being cared for are two different things. Freedom comes with burdens among them being self reliance and self responsibility. The more those two burdens are lessened the less freedom you have. As you become more dependen ...


Please show me where the US Constitution enumerates that the federal Government has the power to create an Air Force. Please also indicate where it enumerates that they may maintain an Air Traffic Control system.
 
2012-11-27 02:10:41 PM  

skullkrusher: EyeballKid: SCOREBOARD: 303 to 206. That's how come, biatch.

at least you're going full bore with the sporting event mentality now


Awwww, it's cute that you wanna be "can't we all just get along" after November 6. Wonder what happened. Sorry, friend. As a makeshift robot with a motherly personality once said, "Uh uh! No way! This is YOUR dishwashing liquid, YOU soak in it!"
 
2012-11-27 02:13:48 PM  

MattStafford: odinsposse: The government does not work solely to create economic benefit. Why can't you get this?

I understand that. I am entirely for wealth redistribution. But borrowing money and spending that on unproductive things destroys our economy.


Unproductive things: tax cuts and 2 wars

Productive things: healthcare and social security
 
2012-11-27 02:14:39 PM  
Why is people who feel taxing the rich to the tune of several billion dollars a year is a waste of time because it doesn't completely eliminate the deficit in one fell swoop feel that eliminating PBS to the tune of $150 million a year is a good first step and well worth doing?
 
2012-11-27 02:16:01 PM  

hasty ambush: Freedom and being cared for are two different things. Freedom comes with burdens among them being self reliance and self responsibility. The more those two burdens are lessened the less freedom you have. As you become more dependent and ceded more control of your life to those doing the "caring for" you are less free.


I don't believe caring for people, be they poor or elderly or sick, in their time of need makes them dependent on that care. In the same way having access to a fire extinguisher does not cause one to start fires. 

I believe this is a fundamental difference between left and right. The left tends to believe people use that care because they need it, not because they want to. The right tends to believe if people use that care because they need it, they will then always want to.
 
2012-11-27 02:16:04 PM  

hasty ambush: "With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." - James Madison

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798

"[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any." - James Madison, Federalist 14

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." - James Madison, Federalist 45

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but
an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792


"The U.S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself." -- Benjamin Franklin"


"I don't know who I wanna fark next: one of my first cousins, or one of my slaves." -- Every founding father you just quoted


They were human beings with flaws, all farking kinds of flaws, so many that they allowed the Constitution to be changed, or "amended," just in case one of their ideas wasn't so bright in the big picture. The point is, they're not gods, absolutely nothing they said is gospel, quit deifying them, and grow the fark up.
 
2012-11-27 02:17:02 PM  

MattStafford: Zasteva: We aren't. We are collecting taxes and using that revenue to take care of the elderly, the poor, and in some cases the sick. We are also providing research and infrastructure that helps everyone and to boosts our businesses. All that we are doing with the taxes we already collect.

We are borrowing money to finance wars, build a "defense" force as large as the entire rest of the world combined, and to provide tax breaks for large and extremely profitable businesses to do what they would do anyway.

MattStafford: I don't think the money that we have borrowed is earmarked for anything. This is a disingenuous argument.


I completely agree, which is why it's silly that you are making it:

MattStafford: Who said that would be beneficial? The point of what I am saying is that keeping the elderly alive for an extra ten years while they do nothing productive is the economic equivalent to letting them die, except for the fact we have to go massively into debt to keep them alive.


MattStafford: I'm in favor of wealth redistribution. We're a wealthy country, and we should take care of our own. I'm against borrowing money to do that.


So, assuming we all agree that we want to quit borrowing money, which set of things do we cut:

Excessive military spending and corporate welfare? Or school lunch programs and health care for the elderly? Which is more valuable to our society, in your view?
 
2012-11-27 02:17:12 PM  

Mrtraveler01: But you have to choose between the two. You just can't say to hell with that person, we can't afford to treat you. It's against the law to deny medical treatment to anyone in an ER.

So one way or another, we have to spend money to keep this "unproductive" person alive.



I understand that. But I'm arguing that we shouldn't be spending the 100,000 or the 1,000,000. Just because the 100,000 is better than the 1,000,000 doesn't mean I shouldn't argue against both.
 
2012-11-27 02:18:06 PM  
Fine, here's some spending cuts:

Get rid of all the subsidies to the oil companies who are already making billions of dollars in profit.

Get rid of all the subsidies to giant farm corporations getting paid not to farm.

Cut the defense budget in logical areas to retool the military for current threats.

Close Guantanamo.

Eliminate tax incentives for companies to send work overseas.

That's just for starters.
 
2012-11-27 02:20:07 PM  

Dog Welder: Fine, here's some spending cuts:

Get rid of all the subsidies to the oil companies who are already making billions of dollars in profit.

Get rid of all the subsidies to giant farm corporations getting paid not to farm.

Cut the defense budget in logical areas to retool the military for current threats.

Close Guantanamo.

Eliminate tax incentives for companies to send work overseas.

That's just for starters.


That doesn't add up to much, except maybe the military piece, depending on what you cut.
 
2012-11-27 02:21:32 PM  

Ardilla: How about this?


That's the budget I want, and the budget, when polled on the items individually, most American people want. Which is of course why we heard nothing about it on the super liberal media and spent the last 2 years talking about the Ryan budget.
 
2012-11-27 02:23:40 PM  

MattStafford: incendi: So you support soaking the rich to ensure that the entirety of the federal budget is covered by tax revenues? I'm okay with that.

You could soak all of the rich, and it would not come close to covering our deficit. We need to raise taxes and cut spending, both to a large degree.


I think we've got differing definitions of rich, but that's an arbitrary point. I think we could make that trillion with a moderate portion from the absurdly rich, a larger portion from the very rich, the bulk of it from the somewhat rich, and the remainder eating into the upper end of middle class. Add a few brackets, remove the special treatment for long term capital gains, cap deductions at some relatively high level (say, the median household income in the US), etc.
 
2012-11-27 02:24:23 PM  
Maybe because they've already agreed to some? And have for years?
 
2012-11-27 02:25:35 PM  

MattStafford: Mrtraveler01: But you have to choose between the two. You just can't say to hell with that person, we can't afford to treat you. It's against the law to deny medical treatment to anyone in an ER.

So one way or another, we have to spend money to keep this "unproductive" person alive.


I understand that. But I'm arguing that we shouldn't be spending the 100,000 or the 1,000,000. Just because the 100,000 is better than the 1,000,000 doesn't mean I shouldn't argue against both.


Except we are require by law to spend at least the 100,000. That's the reality you seem to want to ignore.

That's why I'm asking if it's smarter to pay 100,000 so that we don't have to pay 1,000,000 later.
 
2012-11-27 02:26:00 PM  

Ardilla: MattStafford: incendi: So you support soaking the rich to ensure that the entirety of the federal budget is covered by tax revenues? I'm okay with that.

You could soak all of the rich, and it would not come close to covering our deficit. We need to raise taxes and cut spending, both to a large degree.

How about this?


That ispretty interesting actually, are those endorsements for realz?
 
2012-11-27 02:31:09 PM  

EyeballKid: SCOREBOARD: 303 to 206. That's how come, biatch.


what was the score in the House?
Did the dems recover from the historic shellacking of 2010 when the public said stop spending (hello Tea Party).

How did Pelosi do in winning back the House and the mandate to spend the way they were back in 2007 - 2010?
 
2012-11-27 02:33:45 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: what was the score in the House?
Did the dems recover from the historic shellacking of 2010 when the public said stop spending (hello Tea Party).


Well the Democrats managed to gain seats this past election...yet somehow this is still a mandate for the Tea Party and the GOP...even though they got stomped on a Senate and Presidential level.
 
2012-11-27 02:36:00 PM  

Ardilla: MattStafford: incendi: So you support soaking the rich to ensure that the entirety of the federal budget is covered by tax revenues? I'm okay with that.

You could soak all of the rich, and it would not come close to covering our deficit. We need to raise taxes and cut spending, both to a large degree.

How about this?


Without investigating too far, it appears the majority of the savings come from cutting the military and raising taxes. It seems like they underestimate how many jobs that is going to cost, and the effect that that will have on the bond and stock markets. If we raise taxes on the wealthy, bond prices will go up resulting in greater interest payments, and stocks will go down, which will result in pensions (who are invested in the stock market) take a hit as well. I would probably be in favor of something like this, but to act as though it won't be extremely painful is naive.
 
2012-11-27 02:36:54 PM  

MattStafford: t seems like they underestimate how many jobs that is going to cost,


Based on what? Republican Math To Make You Feel Better?
 
2012-11-27 02:38:01 PM  

MattStafford: but to act as though it won't be extremely painful is naive.


Where did he act like that in this sentence: "How about this?"
 
2012-11-27 02:38:45 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Well the Democrats managed to gain seats this past election...yet somehow this is still a mandate for the Tea Party and the GOP...even though they got stomped on a Senate and Presidential level.


And nationally, a significantly larger number of people voted for democratic representatives than republican representatives. Redistricting served the Republicans well.
 
2012-11-27 02:38:46 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Unproductive things: tax cuts and 2 wars


Agreed on the wars, tax cuts aren't unproductive, as it isn't spending.

cameroncrazy1984: Productive things: healthcare and social security


How are old people productive? Health care for the young and working is productive (assuming they are productive members of society), but for the elderly? Not buying it.
 
2012-11-27 02:41:13 PM  

Zasteva: So, assuming we all agree that we want to quit borrowing money, which set of things do we cut:

Excessive military spending and corporate welfare? Or school lunch programs and health care for the elderly? Which is more valuable to our society, in your view?


Spending on our youth is the most valuable, in my opinion. I would rather spend on the elderly than the military or corporate welfare, of course. The problem is, even if you cut all discretionary spending, you would still be running a deficit (not to mention the millions of recently unemployed we would have to take care of). We're going to need massive cuts in all sectors, along with tax raises. Which is why I'm in favor of the fiscal cliff.
 
2012-11-27 02:41:52 PM  

Dog Welder: That's just for starters.


I should hope so, because that's barely a drop in the bucket.
 
2012-11-27 02:42:53 PM  

MattStafford: Agreed on the wars, tax cuts aren't unproductive, as it isn't spending.


Tax cuts are the main driver of our current deficit.
 
2012-11-27 02:43:28 PM  

MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: Unproductive things: tax cuts and 2 wars

Agreed on the wars, tax cuts aren't unproductive, as it isn't spending.

cameroncrazy1984: Productive things: healthcare and social security

How are old people productive? Health care for the young and working is productive (assuming they are productive members of society), but for the elderly? Not buying it.


You're right, you're not buying it. But they are. You know there is such a thing as "the economy" right?
 
2012-11-27 02:43:45 PM  

incendi: I think we could make that trillion with a moderate portion from the absurdly rich, a larger portion from the very rich, the bulk of it from the somewhat rich, and the remainder eating into the upper end of middle class.


And you would be wrong, unless it was a wealth tax (not income). Even then, it probably wouldn't be enough. And a wealth tax is a one time thing, and a very dangerous precedent to set.
 
2012-11-27 02:44:04 PM  

MattStafford: Ardilla: MattStafford: incendi: So you support soaking the rich to ensure that the entirety of the federal budget is covered by tax revenues? I'm okay with that.

You could soak all of the rich, and it would not come close to covering our deficit. We need to raise taxes and cut spending, both to a large degree.

How about this?

Without investigating too far, it appears the majority of the savings come from cutting the military and raising taxes. It seems like they underestimate how many jobs that is going to cost, and the effect that that will have on the bond and stock markets. If we raise taxes on the wealthy, bond prices will go up resulting in greater interest payments, and stocks will go down, which will result in pensions (who are invested in the stock market) take a hit as well. I would probably be in favor of something like this, but to act as though it won't be extremely painful is naive.


Pension funds have dedicated fund managers who are aware of all this, and will begin shifting assets if they see that is likely. And even if people lose their pensions completely in the market (which would be unfortunate but won't happen), retired people have Social Security and Medicare to fall back on. Or at least they would under the People's Budget plan.
 
2012-11-27 02:45:27 PM  

MattStafford: incendi: I think we could make that trillion with a moderate portion from the absurdly rich, a larger portion from the very rich, the bulk of it from the somewhat rich, and the remainder eating into the upper end of middle class.

And you would be wrong, unless it was a wealth tax (not income). Even then, it probably wouldn't be enough. And a wealth tax is a one time thing, and a very dangerous precedent to set.


[citation needed]
 
2012-11-27 02:45:31 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Where did he act like that in this sentence: "How about this?"


To be fair, he didn't. But the idea that I get from many of the people on the left in this thread is that there is a way out of this situation that isn't that painful for the average person. That simply isn't true. I just sort of assumed he thought a budget like that would somehow fix our issues without affecting the quality of life for the majority of people.
 
2012-11-27 02:46:02 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Please show me where the US Constitution enumerates that the federal Government has the power to create an Air Force. Please also indicate where it enumerates that they may maintain an Air Traffic Control system.


Air traffic control comes in two parts. First it is part of treaties ratified by the US which then have the same power as the Constitution itself and tow to regulate commerce between the states as the does the FCC etc.

The USAF comes under the enumerated powers to raise , fund and regulate (all enumerated not general) the military it can also define organizational structure hence the department of the Air Force. You might argue it says nothing about airplanes but it also says nothing about horses, bayonets or Johnny cakes.

If your going to argue food stamps comes under general welfare you as well argue that the Patriot Act or unlimited detention comes under the common defense
 
2012-11-27 02:46:59 PM  

MattStafford: idea that I get from many of the people on the left in this thread is that there is a way out of this situation that isn't that painful for the average person. That simply isn't true


[citation needed]
 
2012-11-27 02:47:57 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Except we are require by law to spend at least the 100,000. That's the reality you seem to want to ignore.

That's why I'm asking if it's smarter to pay 100,000 so that we don't have to pay 1,000,000 later.


I'm saying if the three options are to pay 1,000,000, 100,000, or to change the law so we don't pay anything, the last choice is the best choice. I guess the problem here is that you are saying it is mandatory that we are going to spend massive amounts of money on our elderly, and I am operating under the assumption that that is not necessarily true, and in fact, will become nigh impossible in the near future. Depressions aren't pretty, and that is what we are setting ourselves up for.
 
2012-11-27 02:48:14 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: Unproductive things: tax cuts and 2 wars

Agreed on the wars, tax cuts aren't unproductive, as it isn't spending.

cameroncrazy1984: Productive things: healthcare and social security

How are old people productive? Health care for the young and working is productive (assuming they are productive members of society), but for the elderly? Not buying it.

You're right, you're not buying it. But they are. You know there is such a thing as "the economy" right?


He still hasn't gotten back to me on the fact that it's against the law for ER's to flat out deny elderly health treatment even if they can't afford it. So we either have to spend money on Medicare, or money on paying unpaid ER bills after elderly people get severely sick.

It's one or the other and there's no way to get out of doing both.

Until he realizes that, his reasoning is severely flawed.
 
2012-11-27 02:49:07 PM  

MattStafford: operating under the assumption


You're operating under a hell of a lot of assumptions, and very little reality.
 
2012-11-27 02:49:22 PM  

MattStafford: Mrtraveler01: Except we are require by law to spend at least the 100,000. That's the reality you seem to want to ignore.

That's why I'm asking if it's smarter to pay 100,000 so that we don't have to pay 1,000,000 later.

I'm saying if the three options are to pay 1,000,000, 100,000, or to change the law so we don't pay anything, the last choice is the best choice. I guess the problem here is that you are saying it is mandatory that we are going to spend massive amounts of money on our elderly, and I am operating under the assumption that that is not necessarily true, and in fact, will become nigh impossible in the near future. Depressions aren't pretty, and that is what we are setting ourselves up for.


So our best option is to overturn a law requiring hospitals to treat people regardless of their ability to pay and to let them get sick and die in the streets?
 
2012-11-27 02:51:44 PM  

MattStafford: Zasteva: So, assuming we all agree that we want to quit borrowing money, which set of things do we cut:

Excessive military spending and corporate welfare? Or school lunch programs and health care for the elderly? Which is more valuable to our society, in your view?

Spending on our youth is the most valuable, in my opinion. I would rather spend on the elderly than the military or corporate welfare, of course. The problem is, even if you cut all discretionary spending, you would still be running a deficit (not to mention the millions of recently unemployed we would have to take care of). We're going to need massive cuts in all sectors, along with tax raises. Which is why I'm in favor of the fiscal cliff.


That sounds reasonable, but I think that it is incorrect. Tell you what, let's both try this:

http://federal.budgetchallenge.org/pages/overview

And see if we can get to a balanced budget and what we have to do to get there. I've never used it before, but hopefully we can bookmark our solutions and share them somehow. Interested?
 
2012-11-27 02:51:53 PM  

MattStafford: But the idea that I get from many of the people on the left in this thread


MattStafford: I just sort of assumed he thought


Gee I wonder if these two things are related in some way.

The People's Budge is the least painful for the majority of Americans, the middle class and poor. Which is apparently why none of the big news networks talks about it. Funny how that works.
 
2012-11-27 02:53:37 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Tax cuts are the main driver of our current deficit.


That doesn't answer whether or not they are productive or not. And no, spending is the main driver of our current deficit. If an individual spends twice as much money as he makes, I doubt you would say the main driver of his deficit is that he doesn't make enough money.

cameroncrazy1984: You're right, you're not buying it. But they are. You know there is such a thing as "the economy" right?


Explain to me how an old person who does absolutely nothing productive is productive. All they do is consume. Although I'm sure you of the belief that consumption is god's gift to the economy, particularly when that consumption is funded by debt. Which is absolutely idiotic.
 
2012-11-27 02:54:49 PM  

MattStafford: Dusk-You-n-Me: Where did he act like that in this sentence: "How about this?"

To be fair, he didn't. But the idea that I get from many of the people on the left in this thread is that there is a way out of this situation that isn't that painful for the average person. That simply isn't true. I just sort of assumed he thought a budget like that would somehow fix our issues without affecting the quality of life for the majority of people.


You're free, of course, to speculate. But unfounded speculation is easy. Trying to make a change for the better is hard. What would you do differently from the People's Budget, and why?

I'll show my work (long PDF; pops). Will you? 

/Not actually my work.
//It's an expression.
 
2012-11-27 02:55:42 PM  

hasty ambush: Philip Francis Queeg: Please show me where the US Constitution enumerates that the federal Government has the power to create an Air Force. Please also indicate where it enumerates that they may maintain an Air Traffic Control system.

Air traffic control comes in two parts. First it is part of treaties ratified by the US which then have the same power as the Constitution itself and tow to regulate commerce between the states as the does the FCC etc.

The USAF comes under the enumerated powers to raise , fund and regulate (all enumerated not general) the military it can also define organizational structure hence the department of the Air Force. You might argue it says nothing about airplanes but it also says nothing about horses, bayonets or Johnny cakes.

If your going to argue food stamps comes under general welfare you as well argue that the Patriot Act or unlimited detention comes under the common defense


The word "military" is not used in the Constitution. It only refers to Armies and Navies specifically. I'm sure a strict constitutionalists like you will agree that the Air Force as it is now established is wholly unconstitutional and should be abolished. You wouldn't want to see the Founders clear specific words interpreted to include other things.
 
2012-11-27 02:56:32 PM  

MattStafford: That doesn't answer whether or not they are productive or not. And no, spending is the main driver of our current deficit. If an individual spends twice as much money as he makes, I doubt you would say the main driver of his deficit is that he doesn't make enough money.


Tax cuts are the main driver of the deficit when we were making enough for how much we spent, then decided to willingly make less. Thus, they drove the deficit.

See how that works?

MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: You're right, you're not buying it. But they are. You know there is such a thing as "the economy" right?

Explain to me how an old person who does absolutely nothing productive is productive. All they do is consume. Although I'm sure you of the belief that consumption is god's gift to the economy, particularly when that consumption is funded by debt. Which is absolutely idiotic.


Okay, please cite any study that shows that consumption is not the main driver for the US economy.
 
2012-11-27 02:57:26 PM  

Mrtraveler01: So our best option is to overturn a law requiring hospitals to treat people regardless of their ability to pay and to let them get sick and die in the streets?


Well, I have bad news for you, if we continue on our current path it is going to stop being an option and simply become reality. Eventually the borrowed money is going to run out, and when that happens, it doesn't matter what option you want, our only choice will be to let them die. Better to start cutting back now.
 
2012-11-27 02:59:35 PM  

MattStafford: , if we continue on our current path it is going to stop being an option and simply become reality.


Our current path is sequestration.

Oops, someone hasn't been paying attention to the news because he's been too busy reading Ayn Rand and masturbating.
 
2012-11-27 02:59:57 PM  

MattStafford: the borrowing on money isn't a good thing.


Your premise is wrong when interest rates are negative, you know.
 
2012-11-27 03:00:07 PM  

MattStafford: Eventually the borrowed money is going to run out, and when that happens, it doesn't matter what option you want, our only choice will be to let them die.


Personal and international finances are different beasts entirely. I was willing to give you some credit up till this point.
 
2012-11-27 03:04:52 PM  

MattStafford: Mrtraveler01: So our best option is to overturn a law requiring hospitals to treat people regardless of their ability to pay and to let them get sick and die in the streets?

Well, I have bad news for you, if we continue on our current path it is going to stop being an option and simply become reality. Eventually the borrowed money is going to run out, and when that happens, it doesn't matter what option you want, our only choice will be to let them die. Better to start cutting back now.


Another flawed premise. Mostly anyway.

Old people aren't just going to disappear if we, say, get rid of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Ones with no family left may well just starve away.

But old people who still have family alive will go move in with them. Unless that family turns out the old person, now they're burdening people who *are* productive.

Eliminate Medicaid, and watch all the people whose nursing home care is funded thereby (about 75% of nursing home residents IIRC) move in with kids, then a bunch of those kids drop out of the workforce (shrinking the economy) to take care of them.
 
2012-11-27 03:09:16 PM  

MattStafford: Eventually the borrowed money is going to run out


Yet another flawed premise.

Put together a model for us that shows something other than US T-Bills becoming the world financial system's safe asset of choice, and how we get there. (Currently, we could never pay the OMG NATIONAL DEBT down to 0, the global financial system would implode for lack of this baseline asset, and push back *hard* against that payoff.)

Make sure the asset has deep and liquid-enough markets (e.g. before thinking Swiss Francs or GOLLLLLLLLLLLD).
 
2012-11-27 03:10:46 PM  
Budget simulator:

Link
 
2012-11-27 03:11:06 PM  

Gaseous Anomaly: MattStafford: the borrowing on money isn't a good thing.

Your premise is wrong when interest rates are negative, you know.


That isn't necessarily true. Suppose interest rates are negative, and we borrow hundreds of billions of dollars and employ everyone to build completely worthless things. What happens if interest rates rise? Well, we're going to have to cut all of that spending, and completely destroy our economy.
 
2012-11-27 03:11:16 PM  

MattStafford: Dog Welder: That's just for starters.

I should hope so, because that's barely a drop in the bucket.


Looking forward to seeing your ideas. Sorry I don't have the time to go through the Federal Budget and highlight everything for you.

Oh, how about this?

GET THE FARK OUT OF AFGHANISTAN. NOW. Seems like that would solve a huge chunk of the problem right there. Bin Laden is dead. All of the warlords there have been at each others' throats for years. That's not going to change. We have no purpose there, and we can fly drones in when needed.
 
2012-11-27 03:12:03 PM  

Zasteva: Budget simulator:

Link


I was just poking at that a few minutes ago. There's a lot of missing options I wish they would add.
 
2012-11-27 03:12:53 PM  

MattStafford: Gaseous Anomaly: MattStafford: the borrowing on money isn't a good thing.

Your premise is wrong when interest rates are negative, you know.

That isn't necessarily true. Suppose interest rates are negative, and we borrow hundreds of billions of dollars and employ everyone to build completely worthless things. What happens if interest rates rise? Well, we're going to have to cut all of that spending, and completely destroy our economy.


wut
 
2012-11-27 03:13:02 PM  
Here's one reason:

i.imgur.com
 
2012-11-27 03:14:08 PM  

MattStafford: If an individual spends twice as much money as he makes, I doubt you would say the main driver of his deficit is that he doesn't make enough money.


Governments have much more latitude to vary their income than do (most) individuals. And somewhat less latitude to vary their spending.
 
2012-11-27 03:15:49 PM  

FourBlackBars: FTA:

Union groups are already mounting a six-figure ad campaign to pressure key Democrats.


OOoooOooOoooooo a 6 figure ad campaign....what is that? A little less than it takes to get a tent at the Masters for you and your golf buddies.

I love articles written to enrage poor republicans. After a 5 billion dollar presidential, these rubes are OUTRAGED by nearly 300k being spent to lobby congress. "Six figures" is a lot of money if youre poor. 

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 257x400]

Like this images that drove so many NUTS. If this is what you think rich people eat, youre not a rich person. If this is extravagant, you've never had the opportunity to really pull the throttles off. But so many poor Republicans saw this has the height of wasteful spending on luxury by the first lady because it seemed so fancy, and out of reach, to them.

The rich are eating heirloom tomatoes on organic micro greens. Artisinal cheese, small vintage wines, and charcuterie trays. Not 40 dollar bottles of bubbly and caviar. And, on top of everything, if the Waldorf is selling 2 lobsters with wine and snacks for less than $500, they have the most affordable room service in NYC. 

So even if the article wasnt all bull, which is clearly is, its hard to be anything other than amused by the butthurt a "6 figure" ad campaign is causing.


Plus, of course, it was Pants-On-Fire fakery...
 
2012-11-27 03:19:00 PM  

Shrugging Atlas: Here's one reason:

[i.imgur.com image 350x189]


THIS
 
2012-11-27 03:19:05 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Isitoveryet: MattStafford: keeping the elderly alive for an extra ten years

who does that? typically, once you suffer a life threatening medical incident, you go pretty fast, otherwise you recover and life returns to normal sans vision or the use of one of two arms or legs. who in the hell leaves elderly on life support for 10 years? and what about quality of life, you seem to be making up a number 80 and pretending all 80 y/o are sponges.

do you have any sources for the information you are using to support your let the elderly die argument?

I have a counter-argument:

One-quarter to one-third of all medical spending is done in the last year of the patient's life. (Half of THAT is on "the elderly", but the last year of a 26 year old's life can be just as expensive as the last year of a centenarian's.)

// source 1
// source 2
// source 3


here's what i get out of the information you've provided;

1. I would not want to be an actuary in the health/medical field.
2. you don't have to have 10 terminal years to accrue7x (approx.) the cost of non-terminal annual expense, you can do it in 1.
3. Rather than 80 years of age (as i stated) the scale is from 65 to 85+ (which is significant considering or taking into account the quality of those years leading up to the terminal year)
4. Getting old is not as costly as being terminally ill.

/admitting that was a lot for me to chew on!
//thanks again for the info.
///will never support the idea that our elderly "cost to much and are nonproductive" as they are the ones who got us where we are today, they've done their job as far as production goes (for better or worse, i think better).
 
2012-11-27 03:20:26 PM  

NateGrey: skullkrusher: EyeballKid: SCOREBOARD: 303 to 206. That's how come, biatch.

at least you're going full bore with the sporting event mentality now

Yeah after your side loses then its "we are all in this together!".

Please cry moar Republicans.


holy crap you're a tedious little boy
 
2012-11-27 03:20:49 PM  
Sorry, FourBlackBars, you said it was bull.

You're right. If you want to know how the rich really live, try this.

forums.pelicanparts.com

A one-time fee of $7,500 to get one, then $2,500 a year. And $2,500 for each additional card. American Express does not publicly disclose the requirements necessary for getting a card except that the cardholder has a net worth of at least $20 million and they are a former platinum card holder.

And for that you get your own dedicated concierge and travel agent, complimentary, companion airline tickets on international flights on selected airlines with the purchase of a full-fare ticket, personal shoppers at retailers such as Gucci, Louis Vuitton, Escada, Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus, access to airport clubs, first-class flight upgrades, membership in Sony's Cierge personal shopping program and dozens of other elite club memberships. Hotel benefits include one free night when at least one paid night is booked during the same stay in every Mandarin Oriental hotel worldwide once a year (except for the New York City property), and privileges at hotel chains like Ritz-Carlton, Leading Hotels of the World, and Amanresorts.
 
2012-11-27 03:21:25 PM  

EyeballKid: skullkrusher: EyeballKid: SCOREBOARD: 303 to 206. That's how come, biatch.

at least you're going full bore with the sporting event mentality now

Awwww, it's cute that you wanna be "can't we all just get along" after November 6. Wonder what happened. Sorry, friend. As a makeshift robot with a motherly personality once said, "Uh uh! No way! This is YOUR dishwashing liquid, YOU soak in it!"


I dunno - do you remember me cheering "rah rah team!" Of course not so stop trying to justify your stupid by inventing the behavior of others.
 
2012-11-27 03:21:47 PM  
man, the butthurt from the Republicans is going to be SO amazing for the next 4 years!
 
2012-11-27 03:23:42 PM  

MattStafford: Gaseous Anomaly: MattStafford: the borrowing on money isn't a good thing.

Your premise is wrong when interest rates are negative, you know.

That isn't necessarily true. Suppose interest rates are negative, and we borrow hundreds of billions of dollars and employ everyone to build completely worthless things. What happens if interest rates rise? Well, we're going to have to cut all of that spending, and completely destroy our economy.


Suppose we borrow money at negative rates instead of increasing taxes, to buy things we were going to buy anyway. That's more analogous to what's going on, and is cheaper in the long run no matter what happens to future rates.

That is, if I can buy a house today for $100000, or finance it for 10 years at total payments of $90000, if I finance it, I've paid less for the house, regardless of whether my existing debt is $0 or $10 million, and what the rate is on that debt.

Do you have a Theory Of Immaculate Interest Rate Hikes to share with us? The economics community would love to know about it. It's shockingly common, the idea that with nothing else changing about economic growth, balances of trade, or government finances, T-Bill interest rates are just going to jump to 7% out of nowhere. But I've never seen anyone articulate how that might come about other than "they were that high once, so they must!" or with inapplicable personal-finance analogies.
 
2012-11-27 03:33:07 PM  

Shrugging Atlas: Here's one reason:

[i.imgur.com image 350x189]


Here's another. They're already paying more than their fair share.

i48.tinypic.com

Urban tax money subsidize rural areas in multiple states, in report that surprises absolutely nobody in the fact-based community.
 
2012-11-27 03:33:43 PM  

Lost Thought 00: There is no negotiation to be had. The "cliff" will happen, and then we can work to restore some bits of it. Most likely Congress will be incapable of doing anything as simple as passing another tax cut, and we will get on with our lives as the economy continues to improve and no one really notices the change in tax rates


I think you're right. Congress lacks the capacity to actually pass any meaningful legislation. If the dems gave them everything they wanted, the republicans still wouldn't vote for it. So why give them anything if they're just going to stonewall?

Let's do this. It's time for the cliff.
 
2012-11-27 03:37:22 PM  

skullkrusher: NateGrey: skullkrusher: EyeballKid: SCOREBOARD: 303 to 206. That's how come, biatch.

at least you're going full bore with the sporting event mentality now

Yeah after your side loses then its "we are all in this together!".

Please cry moar Republicans.

holy crap you're a tedious little boy


So cute how you teabaggers are handling the loss, lashing out at everything.

Good luck in 2016. Maybe you guys will have better luck with Palin. lol
 
2012-11-27 03:39:45 PM  

NateGrey: skullkrusher: NateGrey: skullkrusher: EyeballKid: SCOREBOARD: 303 to 206. That's how come, biatch.

at least you're going full bore with the sporting event mentality now

Yeah after your side loses then its "we are all in this together!".

Please cry moar Republicans.

holy crap you're a tedious little boy

So cute how you teabaggers are handling the loss, lashing out at everything.

Good luck in 2016. Maybe you guys will have better luck with Palin. lol


hehe, now I'm a teabagger? You realize that Obama's victory neither upsets me nor does it make you anything but a repetitive halfwit, right?
 
2012-11-27 03:48:50 PM  

Jackpot777: Shrugging Atlas: Here's one reason:

[i.imgur.com image 350x189]

Here's another. They're already paying more than their fair share.

[i48.tinypic.com image 800x588]

Urban tax money subsidize rural areas in multiple states, in report that surprises absolutely nobody in the fact-based community.


It is funny, I have yet to see an infographic of states that reflects poorly on Colorado (despite Bush electoral maps). We pretty much rock at everything.



Level 1 literacy rate:

www.fhwa.dot.gov

sas-origin.onstreammedia.com 

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-11-27 03:49:54 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: When writing about a balanced approach to fiscal policy, one that involves both spending cuts and new revenues, it should be noted that Congress and the President have actually already cut $1.5 trillion ($1.7t including interest savings) in discretionary spending, not including war costs, over the next decade. Link


No they havent.

The deficit over the next decade is slated to be $8-10Tn.

Cutting $1.5Tn from this is still increasing spending
 
2012-11-27 03:52:47 PM  

o5iiawah: Cutting $1.5Tn from this is still increasing spending


Increasing spending less than it otherwise would have been increased.
 
2012-11-27 03:55:23 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: The word "military" is not used in the Constitution. It only refers to Armies and Navies specifically. I'm sure a strict constitutionalists like you will agree that the Air Force as it is now established is wholly unconstitutional and should be abolished. You wouldn't want to see the Founders clear specific words interpreted to include other things.


With the stroke of a pen, the air force could be absorbed into the Army Air Corps and Naval Air command. One could argue also that the air force supports the Army and Navy and is thus constitutional.

the "General welfare" on its own doesn't exist. it is defined by the enumerated powers. If General welfare was supposed to be an overarching, open-ended power, why did Madison bother to enumerate 18 powers of congress?
 
2012-11-27 03:58:58 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: o5iiawah: Cutting $1.5Tn from this is still increasing spending

Increasing spending less than it otherwise would have been increased.


Cutting 1.5Tn from a proposed rate of growth is not a cut. you've reduced the rate of growth. you havent cut.
 
2012-11-27 04:00:04 PM  

Gaseous Anomaly: That is, if I can buy a house today for $100000, or finance it for 10 years at total payments of $90000, if I finance it, I've paid less for the house, regardless of whether my existing debt is $0 or $10 million, and what the rate is on that debt.


That isn't what is happening. We're aren't buying a house. We aren't making a one time purchase. We are paying for our current lifestyle. We're going into debt to rent a luxurious apartment. That is the difference.
 
2012-11-27 04:00:42 PM  

FlashHarry: Rain-Monkey: Because they have said all along they would be willing to cut spending programs as a part of a balanced package?

done in one.

and, oh yeah, THE FISCAL CLIFF IS 100 PERCENT THE FAULT OF REPUBLICANS.


Wrong! It's 98.6474 the fault of idiotic libs and their creation of a society of welfare recipients. And Obamaks fault for trillions in new debt. YOUR FAULT!

/QED
 
2012-11-27 04:02:07 PM  

Gaseous Anomaly: MattStafford: Mrtraveler01: So our best option is to overturn a law requiring hospitals to treat people regardless of their ability to pay and to let them get sick and die in the streets?

Well, I have bad news for you, if we continue on our current path it is going to stop being an option and simply become reality. Eventually the borrowed money is going to run out, and when that happens, it doesn't matter what option you want, our only choice will be to let them die. Better to start cutting back now.

Another flawed premise. Mostly anyway.

Old people aren't just going to disappear if we, say, get rid of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Ones with no family left may well just starve away.

But old people who still have family alive will go move in with them. Unless that family turns out the old person, now they're burdening people who *are* productive.

Eliminate Medicaid, and watch all the people whose nursing home care is funded thereby (about 75% of nursing home residents IIRC) move in with kids, then a bunch of those kids drop out of the workforce (shrinking the economy) to take care of them.


But somehow this is better for the economy...somehow.
 
2012-11-27 04:02:40 PM  

o5iiawah: Philip Francis Queeg: The word "military" is not used in the Constitution. It only refers to Armies and Navies specifically. I'm sure a strict constitutionalists like you will agree that the Air Force as it is now established is wholly unconstitutional and should be abolished. You wouldn't want to see the Founders clear specific words interpreted to include other things.

With the stroke of a pen, the air force could be absorbed into the Army Air Corps and Naval Air command. One could argue also that the air force supports the Army and Navy and is thus constitutional.

the "General welfare" on its own doesn't exist. it is defined by the enumerated powers. If General welfare was supposed to be an overarching, open-ended power, why did Madison bother to enumerate 18 powers of congress?


Nope, even then the Air Force is Unconstitutional.

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces

Congress can only make rules and regulations for land and naval forces. As a strict Constitutionalists, you must agree that Congress has greatly overstepped it's bounds for over a century for allowing any sort of an Air Force. The language of the Constitution is precise and clear.
 
2012-11-27 04:04:20 PM  

o5iiawah: Cutting 1.5Tn from a proposed rate of growth is not a cut. you've reduced the rate of growth. you havent cut.


This definitely seems worth our time arguing over. Call it whatever you'd like, and I'll do the same.
 
2012-11-27 04:05:21 PM  

o5iiawah: Dusk-You-n-Me: When writing about a balanced approach to fiscal policy, one that involves both spending cuts and new revenues, it should be noted that Congress and the President have actually already cut $1.5 trillion ($1.7t including interest savings) in discretionary spending, not including war costs, over the next decade. Link

No they havent.

The deficit over the next decade is slated to be $8-10Tn.

Cutting $1.5Tn from this is still increasing spending


If I had an agreement to pay 2000 a month on my mortgage next year but then I refinanced that agreement to only pay 1900 a month, how much money will I save next year? Over 10 years not including interest. In 10 years including interest?

Math is hard.
 
2012-11-27 04:07:08 PM  

o5iiawah: Dusk-You-n-Me: o5iiawah: Cutting $1.5Tn from this is still increasing spending

Increasing spending less than it otherwise would have been increased.

Cutting 1.5Tn from a proposed rate of growth is not a cut. you've reduced the rate of growth. you havent cut.


If that $1.5tn comes from a number that has already been bandied about - you do know that the $16-17tn number comes from an examination of current law (spending vs projections of revenue), which includes these planned increases, right?

So it's a "cut" relative to what was planned, but it's also a "nothing" since we're planning on spending less than we had planned to earlier (but total expenditures are still 0 at this point either way). If I plan on spending $25k for a car, but I did some research and the car I want only costs $20k, I cut my projected spending. That doesn't mean I have more money now than I otherwise would have, or that I now have $5k to spend on cocaine, but I did cut expenditures relative to the initial baseline.

// Congress will spend the $1.5tn on cocaine, though
// and people will believe that we "saved" (not "cut") $1.5tn
 
2012-11-27 04:07:20 PM  

MattStafford: Gaseous Anomaly: That is, if I can buy a house today for $100000, or finance it for 10 years at total payments of $90000, if I finance it, I've paid less for the house, regardless of whether my existing debt is $0 or $10 million, and what the rate is on that debt.

That isn't what is happening. We're aren't buying a house. We aren't making a one time purchase. We are paying for our current lifestyle. We're going into debt to rent a luxurious apartment. That is the difference.


We're going into debt to ourselves. Only 17% of our debt is foreign-owned. I still fail to see where this is a bad thing, especially since interest rates on bonds are negative.
 
2012-11-27 04:09:43 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Congress can only make rules and regulations for land and naval forces. As a strict Constitutionalists, you must agree that Congress has greatly overstepped it's bounds for over a century for allowing any sort of an Air Force. The language of the Constitution is precise and clear.


I dont know what is worse - that you're wrong or that you're so dumb as to think you're actually right.

Article 1, Section 8

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;


What part of supporting an army does the air force not satisfy?
 
2012-11-27 04:10:58 PM  

Dr Dreidel: o5iiawah: Dusk-You-n-Me: o5iiawah: Cutting $1.5Tn from this is still increasing spending

Increasing spending less than it otherwise would have been increased.

Cutting 1.5Tn from a proposed rate of growth is not a cut. you've reduced the rate of growth. you havent cut.

If that $1.5tn comes from a number that has already been bandied about - you do know that the $16-17tn number comes from an examination of current law (spending vs projections of revenue), which includes these planned increases, right?

So it's a "cut" relative to what was planned, but it's also a "nothing" since we're planning on spending less than we had planned to earlier (but total expenditures are still 0 at this point either way). If I plan on spending $25k for a car, but I did some research and the car I want only costs $20k, I cut my projected spending. That doesn't mean I have more money now than I otherwise would have, or that I now have $5k to spend on cocaine, but I did cut expenditures relative to the initial baseline.

// Congress will spend the $1.5tn on cocaine, though
// and people will believe that we "saved" (not "cut") $1.5tn


If you have an unsustainable lifestyle, and cant afford a $25,000 car, spending $20,000 on a car instead is not a spending cut.
 
2012-11-27 04:11:56 PM  

Jackpot777: Sorry, FourBlackBars, you said it was bull.

You're right. If you want to know how the rich really live, try this.

[forums.pelicanparts.com image 320x240]

A one-time fee of $7,500 to get one, then $2,500 a year. And $2,500 for each additional card. American Express does not publicly disclose the requirements necessary for getting a card except that the cardholder has a net worth of at least $20 million and they are a former platinum card holder.

And for that you get your own dedicated concierge and travel agent, complimentary, companion airline tickets on international flights on selected airlines with the purchase of a full-fare ticket, personal shoppers at retailers such as Gucci, Louis Vuitton, Escada, Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus, access to airport clubs, first-class flight upgrades, membership in Sony's Cierge personal shopping program and dozens of other elite club memberships. Hotel benefits include one free night when at least one paid night is booked during the same stay in every Mandarin Oriental hotel worldwide once a year (except for the New York City property), and privileges at hotel chains like Ritz-Carlton, Leading Hotels of the World, and Amanresorts.


As Adam Carolla has stated many times on his podcast. Not many take that card and it's worthless in most airports.
 
2012-11-27 04:13:50 PM  
Coming back to this thread after about 5 hours and I see that some fark posters have absolutely no life.

Well, anyway.

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-11-27 04:14:57 PM  

jigger: Coming back to this thread after about 5 hours and I see that some fark posters have absolutely no life.

Well, anyway.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 640x512]


Why does it have to be one or the other? Why not both? Taxes are historically low and spending vs. GDP high. Why not meet in the middle?
 
2012-11-27 04:22:06 PM  

o5iiawah: Philip Francis Queeg: Congress can only make rules and regulations for land and naval forces. As a strict Constitutionalists, you must agree that Congress has greatly overstepped it's bounds for over a century for allowing any sort of an Air Force. The language of the Constitution is precise and clear.

I dont know what is worse - that you're wrong or that you're so dumb as to think you're actually right.

Article 1, Section 8

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

What part of supporting an army does the air force not satisfy?


Do you know what the word "army" means? Not to mention the fact that the Congress is specifically limited to providing regulations for "land" and "naval" forces.

The specific words in the Constitution matter and are not subject to having their definition expanded as needed, right?
 
2012-11-27 04:22:15 PM  

o5iiawah: Dr Dreidel: o5iiawah: Dusk-You-n-Me: o5iiawah: Cutting $1.5Tn from this is still increasing spending

Increasing spending less than it otherwise would have been increased.

Cutting 1.5Tn from a proposed rate of growth is not a cut. you've reduced the rate of growth. you havent cut.

If that $1.5tn comes from a number that has already been bandied about - you do know that the $16-17tn number comes from an examination of current law (spending vs projections of revenue), which includes these planned increases, right?

So it's a "cut" relative to what was planned, but it's also a "nothing" since we're planning on spending less than we had planned to earlier (but total expenditures are still 0 at this point either way). If I plan on spending $25k for a car, but I did some research and the car I want only costs $20k, I cut my projected spending. That doesn't mean I have more money now than I otherwise would have, or that I now have $5k to spend on cocaine, but I did cut expenditures relative to the initial baseline.

// Congress will spend the $1.5tn on cocaine, though
// and people will believe that we "saved" (not "cut") $1.5tn

If you have an unsustainable lifestyle, and cant afford a $25,000 car, spending $20,000 on a car instead is not a spending cut.


What if you got a raise and were pulling in 20k more a year in revenue I mean income? hint hint.
 
2012-11-27 04:24:50 PM  

JusticeandIndependence: jigger: Coming back to this thread after about 5 hours and I see that some fark posters have absolutely no life.

Well, anyway.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 640x512]

Why does it have to be one or the other? Why not both? Taxes are historically low and spending vs. GDP high. Why not meet in the middle?


Because:
images3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2012-11-27 04:26:10 PM  
We should have a draft for solving the deficit. Divide the federal deficit by the number of legislators (1.68 billion per legislator for FY2013) and let them go one at a time (in order of increasing seniority) and pick how they want to raise revenue or lower spending. So if you want higher taxes on people who make over $1 million a year, your $1.68 billion will come from that. If you want less welfare spending, you cut the welfare budget by $1.68 billion. You could divide your dollar amount between any number of revenue and spending programs as you wish. You could even put caps on categories (like no tax rate can go up by more than 20% and no department as a whole can have it's budget cut by 20%. Entire programs within departments could still be cut entirely so long as they fit under that 20% cap). If we could get at least half the House and 60 Senators plus the president on board with this, it could be done. Oh, and if you refuse to participate, another congressman is randomly selected (may be same party, may be different) and gets to choose your savings.
 
2012-11-27 04:36:07 PM  

MattStafford: odinsposse: What? No. Our economy is in trouble because people in the financial sector made bets, borrowed money assuming they would win those bets, and then lost them. Government spending has some effect on the economy but it isn't the foundation. The government can help kick start things with spending but primarily though spending increases. Shifting spending from one sector to another wouldn't have a huge effect and certainly isn't the difference between a failing and succeeding economy.

Our economy is in trouble because we're 50 trillion in debt. Government's 16 trillion is a significant portion of that.


No, actually, the economy is in trouble because we're not in debt enough. It's one of the neat things about capitalism. Production is almost entirely a factor of debt. One of the major reasons for the Japanese economic problems was that the Japanese weren't going into debt enough.

This was one of the cool things about Henry Ford's program, is that you could actually see it happening. Borrow money to pay the workers more and produce more cars. Workers then used that money to buy the newly produced cars. Repeat until you're one of the largest companies in the world. Usually it's not that obvious, but it still works. If I borrow money, it's to buy something. That purchase is an increase in the economy. That improves the economy, which improves the wages more than I spent on borrowing.

That's the reason why the prime rate is low now- to encourage borrowing, which in turn will increase production. If the economy is growing too fast, you raise the prime rate, which in turn lowers borrowing which lowers production.

The problem with GOVERNMENT borrowing that it tends to crowd out private borrowing. Why would you buy corporate bonds if government bonds are cheap? That's not the choke point right now- interest rates are below 3%, which should help borrowing, and the return on bonds is close to zero, which should REALLY help private borrowing- why get 0% on your money when you can get lots loaning it to businesses? The real problem right now is money hoarding- an enormous number of private entities have money but aren't loaning it out. Some of it is fear of fraud, some of it is fear of the Euro, some of it is...well, I don't know what some of it is. But it isn't government borrowing that's hurting the economy.

In fact, right now what we should really do is spend more money. It doesn't even matter what we spend it on- they all have about the same economic effect. I happen to like infrastructure, because I like the results (more trains), but we could spend it on the military, or the elderly, or give it away in raffles. Doesn't make a difference. As long as government borrowing doesn't take from corporate borrowing, the more you spend the better. In the long run, every dollar we borrow and spend now is another dollar we'll collect later in tax revenue.

The problem is, this is a slow process. We shouild be spending a lot more right now, but that would have had to have been scheduled in 2009. If we increase the budget now, the likely result is that by the time the money gets spent, interest rates will have risen and government borrowing will cut into corporate borrowing. So it's late to get into heavy spending, but that doesn't mean the deficit is a bad thing.

The best thing to do right now, from a production standpoint, is to print more money. A lot more money. Like have a 0 deficit not because we're getting in as much as we spend, but because instead of borrowing money we just print more money to pay for it. This devalues the existing money out there, and makes hoarding really unprofitable. However, the hoarders are really upset by this idea, and it's unlikely to happen. Besides, there are a lot of people out there who can't believe a 7% annual inflation rate would actually be good for the economy.

tl:dr- Borrowing is good. Government borrowing is good as long as it doesn't cut into private borrowing. Right now, inflation would actually be the best thing for us.
 
2012-11-27 04:54:54 PM  

EyeballKid: SCOREBOARD: 303 to 206. That's how come, biatch.


Yup. When you win, you treat the other guys like your biatch.
 
2012-11-27 04:55:13 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: because for the dems, improving the budget overages by 10% via taxes is a bigger class warfare win than dealing with the other 90% of the budget overages


People like you are a good argument for making "class warfare" a genuine shooting war.
 
2012-11-27 04:59:51 PM  

incendi: Zasteva: Budget simulator:

Link

I was just poking at that a few minutes ago. There's a lot of missing options I wish they would add.


Yeah, though even so I managed to save Medicare and Social Security, add a bunch of new money for science and education in both private and public sector, build a base on the moon, and keep the tax cuts on income
 
2012-11-27 05:03:15 PM  
The Republican's position on this makes a lot of sense when you realize that they are hoping to finish what the robber barons started before government created stopgaps were put into place to stop them, and things like the New Deal made life for the average American citizen a lot better than it had been when the businessmen and wealthy were making all the rules for the rest of the country.
 
2012-11-27 05:13:23 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: tenpoundsofcheese: because for the dems, improving the budget overages by 10% via taxes is a bigger class warfare win than dealing with the other 90% of the budget overages

So, Obama isn't a Democrat now? You know, because his plan includes cuts?


$20 says that tenpounds never once acknowledges this statement.

Either he's deliberately stirring shiat, or he literally cannot perceive information that contradicts his preconceived narrative.
 
2012-11-27 05:19:09 PM  

tnpir: It's Investor's Business Daily. Pay it no mind.


Actually, the part where they used the term "Obamacare" as opposed to "the ACA" is all you needed to dismiss it as juvenile partisan writing. If they can't write like an adult in a publication, then it isn't worth being read by adults. The same goes for the left when they use terms like "Teatards" or "Bible Thumpers".

If you want to use language like that, go hang out in the comments forum of a blog.
 
2012-11-27 05:30:12 PM  
Jackpot777 :

Plus, of course, it was Pants-On-Fire fakery...

Oh yeah--totally bogus and some took it hook line and sinker. Lobster?!?!!? Thats Thurston Howell the Third territory. OUTRAGE! Just like "six figure" lobbying; call us back when its 15 figure.
 
2012-11-27 05:40:53 PM  

Gaseous Anomaly: Bonus: Republicans then have an incentive to actually make a deal; if they just blindly obstruct so nothing happens, taxes are higher than they like, and defense spending is lower than they like.


I'd suggest that some Republicans actually want to see the fiscal cliff enacted. They know that there is a revenue issue that cannot be fixed by spending cuts alone, but that it would be political suicide to openly support tax cuts. It taxes go up because of the cliff, they can still deny culpability.

Sure, you could point out that they may have voted for the fiscal cliff language, but they could respond by saying that the law was only meant to be a bargaining tool and was never meant to actually be enacted.

As for cuts to senior entitlement programs, Republicans love the situation. Seniors are practically a single issue constituency, and they tend to lean right. If Democrats support cuts, the Republicans will hit them over the head with the issue and seniors will eat it up.
 
2012-11-27 05:41:04 PM  

The Jami Turman Fan Club: No, actually, the economy is in trouble because we're not in debt enough. It's one of the neat things about capitalism. Production is almost entirely a factor of debt. One of the major reasons for the Japanese economic problems was that the Japanese weren't going into debt enough.


We're through the looking glass, people.
 
2012-11-27 05:57:41 PM  

MattStafford: ps69: People are giving us free money. We ought to be doing stimulus, not committing hara kiri through idiotic austerity. Our debt is not a problem.

To make an analogy: suppose banks were lending an individual money at near zero interest rates, with absolutely no indication that they would raise rates in the near future. Do you think it would be financially prudent for that individual to borrow as much money as humanly possible and spend it on booze and hookers?


If I was able to repay the bank by having the bank of ps69 print money when the loan comes due, there would not be a lot of risk to that proposal. So yes?

Even better, let's say I could spend it on houses, equipment, guns, food for poors and give and lend some of it to people and enable them to give some of it to me annually on the taxes I impose on them? Velocity. It's like, crazy!

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-11-27 06:00:11 PM  

jigger: Coming back to this thread after about 5 hours and I see that some fark posters have absolutely no life.

Well, anyway.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 640x512]


Go ahead. Do it. Tell us what you can do with just spending cuts and no new revenue:

Try to Stabilize The Debt
 
2012-11-27 06:01:05 PM  

MattStafford: The Jami Turman Fan Club: No, actually, the economy is in trouble because we're not in debt enough. It's one of the neat things about capitalism. Production is almost entirely a factor of debt. One of the major reasons for the Japanese economic problems was that the Japanese weren't going into debt enough.

We're through the looking glass, people.


Right? People are starting to actually acknowledge how the economy works instead of pretending that self flagellation and belt tightening and an austerity fairy will make the economy god fix things that aren't actually broken.
 
2012-11-27 06:15:24 PM  

ps69: MattStafford: The Jami Turman Fan Club: No, actually, the economy is in trouble because we're not in debt enough. It's one of the neat things about capitalism. Production is almost entirely a factor of debt. One of the major reasons for the Japanese economic problems was that the Japanese weren't going into debt enough.

We're through the looking glass, people.

Right? People are starting to actually acknowledge how the economy works instead of pretending that self flagellation and belt tightening and an austerity fairy will make the economy god fix things that aren't actually broken.


Yeah, but what The Jami Turman Fan Club said doesn't really apply to how how I would run my household budget, therefore I can't make sense of it.

Come on, use some bad analogy about how buying sushi on a Disover Card, or some such drivel.
 
2012-11-27 07:39:05 PM  

Carn: o5iiawah: Dusk-You-n-Me: When writing about a balanced approach to fiscal policy, one that involves both spending cuts and new revenues, it should be noted that Congress and the President have actually already cut $1.5 trillion ($1.7t including interest savings) in discretionary spending, not including war costs, over the next decade. Link

No they havent.

The deficit over the next decade is slated to be $8-10Tn.

Cutting $1.5Tn from this is still increasing spending

If I had an agreement to pay 2000 a month on my mortgage next year but then I refinanced that agreement to only pay 1900 a month, how much money will I save next year? Over 10 years not including interest. In 10 years including interest?

Math is hard.


That's not a cut. That's a reduction in not-cutting.
 
2012-11-27 08:01:42 PM  

ps69: If I was able to repay the bank by having the bank of ps69 print money when the loan comes due, there would not be a lot of risk to that proposal. So yes?


So your solution is to just monetize the debt. Do you not see any issues that may arise from that?
 
2012-11-27 08:10:54 PM  

ps69: Right? People are starting to actually acknowledge how the economy works instead of pretending that self flagellation and belt tightening and an austerity fairy will make the economy god fix things that aren't actually broken.


Yes, the solution to our economic problems is money printing via debt creation and the printing press. It is completely absurd that these ideas have any traction in this day and age.
 
2012-11-27 08:48:50 PM  

MattStafford: ps69: Right? People are starting to actually acknowledge how the economy works instead of pretending that self flagellation and belt tightening and an austerity fairy will make the economy god fix things that aren't actually broken.

Yes, the solution to our economic problems is money printing via debt creation and the printing press. It is completely absurd that these ideas have any traction in this day and age.


M3 stands at a little less than $16 trillion dollars. If we were to print a trillion dollars more then the value of all the money in the system would be about 1/16 less, equivalent to a 6.5% flat tax on all liquid assets. Really though, a change in the value of the dollar represent as change in the value of all wealth. In 2009 that was estimated at $54.2 trillion, so it's really more accurate to say that all wealth is reduced by 1.8% in value. That would make a substantial dent in our national debt.

There are lots of ways this could be handled, but the simplest way, economically speaking, would be for the Federal Reserve to acquire buy external debt with newly created money.

Personally, I'd rather see it use the newly created money to buy high interest rate individual debt (say from credit card companies or payday lenders), and then change the payment terms on that debt to be at prime interest rate and with much more forgiving repayment terms.
 
2012-11-27 08:59:32 PM  

Zasteva: Personally, I'd rather see it use the newly created money to buy high interest rate individual debt (say from credit card companies or payday lenders), and then change the payment terms on that debt to be at prime interest rate and with much more forgiving repayment terms.


I'm not quite sure how I'd feel about it if one day I suddenly was in debt to the federal government instead of my bank. A few points off would go a long way towards reducing that unease, but still...
 
2012-11-27 09:02:37 PM  

Zasteva: M3 stands at a little less than $16 trillion dollars. If we were to print a trillion dollars more then the value of all the money in the system would be about 1/16 less, equivalent to a 6.5% flat tax on all liquid assets. Really though, a change in the value of the dollar represent as change in the value of all wealth. In 2009 that was estimated at $54.2 trillion, so it's really more accurate to say that all wealth is reduced by 1.8% in value. That would make a substantial dent in our national debt.

There are lots of ways this could be handled, but the simplest way, economically speaking, would be for the Federal Reserve to acquire buy external debt with newly created money.

Personally, I'd rather see it use the newly created money to buy high interest rate individual debt (say from credit card companies or payday lenders), and then change the payment terms on that debt to be at prime interest rate and with much more forgiving repayment terms.


The real question about printing money is what you do with it. If you print money to pay off debts, and then no longer run a deficit, it may not be a bad idea. I've suggested in the past that perhaps the quickest way to extricate ourselves from this situation is to cancel debts and pay creditors 50% via freshly printed currency (or something along those lines).

The problem is, people don't see money printing as a method to pay off our debts, and then live within our means. Instead, they see it as a method to continue living beyond our means, simply with accounting trickery. This is not a solution, and does not fix the problem.

It is the difference between saying "let's fund Medicare via money printing indefinitely" and "let's print money, pay off our current Medicare obligations, then pay for all future Medicare costs out of our revenue." The former is not a solution (and in my opinion, is downright idiotic), whereas the latter has some merit to it.
 
2012-11-27 09:07:37 PM  

o5iiawah: If you have an unsustainable lifestyle, and cant afford a $25,000 car, spending $20,000 on a car instead is not a spending cut.


Your value judgments about what is and isn't "unsustainable" doesn't magically change the definition of the word "cut".
 
2012-11-27 09:19:18 PM  
i75.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-27 09:25:33 PM  

qorkfiend: SunsetLament: Headso: SunsetLament: the country voted for Republican control of the House of Representatives.

With a little help from Mr. Gerry Mander
[assets.motherjones.com image 630x566]

Oh, that sucks. Maybe you should control state legislatures next time re-districting comes around.

Blatantly antidemocratic gerrymandering is OK if it benefits your side? Fascinating point of view.


Naw, see his point is that Demmycrats are dummies for not using large amounts of out-of-state money to buystrategizing around winning state and local legislatures. It's the old, "don't hate the playa, hate the game."

I mean, clearly when you commit a sin, it is the fault of others for allowing you do commit it.

If you're a Republican.
 
2012-11-27 09:35:24 PM  
Mandate, motherf*ckers.
 
2012-11-27 09:48:59 PM  
The President can sit on his hands and all of the Bush tax cuts expire.

That's why the Republicans have to argue a strong position that would provide a rationale for the totality of said tax cuts to continue.

Question answered?
 
2012-11-27 09:54:08 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Mandate, motherf*ckers.


Enjoy your mandate! Conservatives will ALWAYS have more money than you, more resources at their disposal, more travel, more leisure, more work ethic, more intellect, more steak, more bacon, more land and more influence. You will ALWAYS be subservient and eat their crumbs when they share their crumbs. You will ALWAYS resent it and covet other's possessions, and you will ALWAYS blame them for your inadequacies. Enjoy your power trip, and the next 4 years of crumbs. Or, you can be industrious, get into fracking and make some serious coin - poor victim!
 
2012-11-27 10:23:27 PM  

SunsetLament: Good luck holding 18 of 23 seats next go-round.


Hey buddy! Long time no see!

And thanks for that "good luck" way back when, it worked! (highfive)
 
2012-11-27 10:33:33 PM  

fatassbastard: Good luck holding 18 of 23 seats next go-round.


Keep hunting around the same time ... you'll find me saying, repeatedly, that the only way the Republicans could lose the Presidency and the Senate was if they nominated Romney. Tada!

/Not my fault establishment Republicans are stupid.
 
2012-11-27 10:34:19 PM  

TheBigJerk: qorkfiend: SunsetLament: Headso: SunsetLament: the country voted for Republican control of the House of Representatives.

With a little help from Mr. Gerry Mander
[assets.motherjones.com image 630x566]

Oh, that sucks. Maybe you should control state legislatures next time re-districting comes around.

Blatantly antidemocratic gerrymandering is OK if it benefits your side? Fascinating point of view.

Naw, see his point is that Demmycrats are dummies for not using large amounts of out-of-state money to buystrategizing around winning state and local legislatures. It's the old, "don't hate the playa, hate the game."

I mean, clearly when you commit a sin, it is the fault of others for allowing you do commit it.

If you're a Republican.


Did you biatch and moan when the courts forced legislatures to gerrymander districts so blacks would win congressional seats ... or is that considered "good" gerrymandering?
 
2012-11-27 10:38:22 PM  
i.imgur.com

Weird...
 
2012-11-27 10:59:39 PM  

fatassbastard: [i.imgur.com image 707x398]

Weird...


Same search for me came up with 803 hits. Happy hunting.
 
2012-11-27 11:03:02 PM  

SunsetLament: TheBigJerk: qorkfiend: SunsetLament: Headso: SunsetLament: the country voted for Republican control of the House of Representatives.

With a little help from Mr. Gerry Mander
[assets.motherjones.com image 630x566]

Oh, that sucks. Maybe you should control state legislatures next time re-districting comes around.

Blatantly antidemocratic gerrymandering is OK if it benefits your side? Fascinating point of view.

Naw, see his point is that Demmycrats are dummies for not using large amounts of out-of-state money to buystrategizing around winning state and local legislatures. It's the old, "don't hate the playa, hate the game."

I mean, clearly when you commit a sin, it is the fault of others for allowing you do commit it.

If you're a Republican.

Did you biatch and moan when the courts forced legislatures to gerrymander districts so blacks would win congressional seats ... or is that considered "good" gerrymandering?


Republicans should consider it a "good" kind of gerrymandering because it allows them to crowd even more Democrats into Democrat districts. In VA, Bobby Scott won with over 80% of the vote. The next biggest margin of victory was 20% less.
 
2012-11-27 11:16:12 PM  
Do we still have to subsidize the shenanigans of homosexual pedophile PBS puppeteers?
 
2012-11-27 11:18:28 PM  

OneBrightMonkey: The President can sit on his hands and all of the Bush tax cuts expire.

That's why the Republicans have to argue a strong position that would provide a rationale for the totality of said tax cuts to continue.

Question answered?


^THIS

He wants tax hikes for everybody - he's a tax and spend liberal, the more money and power that gets transferred to the federal government, the better he likes it.

It's a once in a lifetime opportunity for a guy him to get exactly what he wants and blame it ALL on the other party.

Come back afterwards a toss a few sheckles to his minions. Like stealing four hubcaps and giving back one.
 
2012-11-27 11:47:23 PM  
Because austerity ends up costing more by collapsing the economy than you save in spending cuts?
 
2012-11-28 01:40:55 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: Do we still have to subsidize the shenanigans of homosexual pedophile PBS puppeteers?


Yes.
 
2012-11-28 01:59:01 AM  

incendi: Zasteva: Personally, I'd rather see it use the newly created money to buy high interest rate individual debt (say from credit card companies or payday lenders), and then change the payment terms on that debt to be at prime interest rate and with much more forgiving repayment terms.

I'm not quite sure how I'd feel about it if one day I suddenly was in debt to the federal government instead of my bank. A few points off would go a long way towards reducing that unease, but still...


And how would you feel about it if the interest rate dropped from 25% to 2%, which would be fairly typical of a payday loan.

Dunno about you, but the easiest debt I've ever had to deal with was my consolidated student loan. Owed directly to the government, but with all kinds of nice rules about forbearance and graduated payback levels and none of the overly harsh penalties for missing a payment (actually, never have missed a payment, but I do know they don't double your interest rate because of it).
 
2012-11-28 02:50:26 AM  

MattStafford: Zasteva: M3 stands at a little less than $16 trillion dollars. If we were to print a trillion dollars more then the value of all the money in the system would be about 1/16 less, equivalent to a 6.5% flat tax on all liquid assets. Really though, a change in the value of the dollar represent as change in the value of all wealth. In 2009 that was estimated at $54.2 trillion, so it's really more accurate to say that all wealth is reduced by 1.8% in value. That would make a substantial dent in our national debt.

There are lots of ways this could be handled, but the simplest way, economically speaking, would be for the Federal Reserve to acquire buy external debt with newly created money.

Personally, I'd rather see it use the newly created money to buy high interest rate individual debt (say from credit card companies or payday lenders), and then change the payment terms on that debt to be at prime interest rate and with much more forgiving repayment terms.

The real question about printing money is what you do with it. If you print money to pay off debts, and then no longer run a deficit, it may not be a bad idea. I've suggested in the past that perhaps the quickest way to extricate ourselves from this situation is to cancel debts and pay creditors 50% via freshly printed currency (or something along those lines).

The problem is, people don't see money printing as a method to pay off our debts, and then live within our means. Instead, they see it as a method to continue living beyond our means, simply with accounting trickery. This is not a solution, and does not fix the problem.

It is the difference between saying "let's fund Medicare via money printing indefinitely" and "let's print money, pay off our current Medicare obligations, then pay for all future Medicare costs out of our revenue." The former is not a solution (and in my opinion, is downright idiotic), whereas the latter has some merit to it.


Yep... if we just do the same thing all over then it's not much help.
 
2012-11-28 06:43:34 AM  

Zasteva: And how would you feel about it if the interest rate dropped from 25% to 2%, which would be fairly typical of a payday loan.


Given the choice, I wouldn't hesitate. Even if it came as a surprise, I'd probably be extremely happy, especially if I was in the sort of financial situation that leads one to get payday loans in the first place. I guess my unease with the idea stems from my years in the military - if you owed the government there, they will take it from your paycheck at an arbitrary time determined by how fast the bureaucracy has been moving lately, which will inevitably be the worst possible time for you personally. It probably works a bit differently when they're not the ones cutting your paycheck.

In short, I agree, but I've got some unjustified paranoia.
 
2012-11-28 09:45:28 AM  

MattStafford: The problem is, people don't see money printing as a method to pay off our debts, and then live within our means. Instead, they see it as a method to continue living beyond our means, simply with accounting trickery. This is not a solution, and does not fix the problem.

It is the difference between saying "let's fund Medicare via money printing indefinitely" and "let's print money, pay off our current Medicare obligations, then pay for all future Medicare costs out of our revenue." The former is not a solution (and in my opinion, is downright idiotic), whereas the latter has some merit to it.


What, exactly, is "unsustainable" about our national "lifestyle"? It seems to be a basic assumption of yours. Are you assuming that spending growth rates must always increase, and/or that tax rates may never ever increase?

I'm not sure who is advocating never ever decreasing the deficit (it never has to decrease to 0 or go into surplus, only to be less than the growth in the economy). Are you assuming (I've seen this from other Farkers but not IIRC from you) that US taxes can never ever be more than X% of GDP because they haven't gotten higher than that before? If that were true, what's different about America that makes it impossible when other countries do just fine with higher taxes?

Health care cost growth is clearly unsustainable, and that's what drives our projected long-term Federal budget problems. But simply chanting "cut cut cut" (that is, have the Federal government just stop paying for anybody's health care) isn't a solution at all. The same problem would apply, just to States and individuals. (A voluntary-suicide movement as you hint at upthread is unlikely to take off).

The best way to but health care costs is to have the government take it over. I know the solution "solve the problem of government spending too much by having them take on more spending responsibility" lacks appeal to your intuition, but it works. (See: everywhere else).

If you think everyone else's health care costs are low because the rest of the world is free-riding on our innovative-y-ness, run the numbers. Check out theincidentaleconomist.com. In pharma in particular there's a lot of low-hanging fruit; the much-vaunted high R&D costs are a small fraction of the US total expenditure on drugs (not to mention the rest of the world).
 
2012-11-28 09:51:36 AM  

Zasteva: incendi: Zasteva: Personally, I'd rather see it use the newly created money to buy high interest rate individual debt (say from credit card companies or payday lenders), and then change the payment terms on that debt to be at prime interest rate and with much more forgiving repayment terms.

I'm not quite sure how I'd feel about it if one day I suddenly was in debt to the federal government instead of my bank. A few points off would go a long way towards reducing that unease, but still...

And how would you feel about it if the interest rate dropped from 25% to 2%, which would be fairly typical of a payday loan.

Dunno about you, but the easiest debt I've ever had to deal with was my consolidated student loan. Owed directly to the government, but with all kinds of nice rules about forbearance and graduated payback levels and none of the overly harsh penalties for missing a payment (actually, never have missed a payment, but I do know they don't double your interest rate because of it).


There is a downside to owing the government money, you can't escape it. Like Federal student loans: they're not dischargeable in bankruptcy. On the other hand that may well be worth the reduced interest rates, forbearances, etc.

I've though such a model might work well for post-crisis underwater-homeowner rescue. The government refinances the mortgage for the amount owed at low interest rates, with the caveat that the debt follows you forever until paid off (like student loans) even if you walk away from the house. A nice dose of "personal responsibility" to go with the macroeconomy-friendly bailout.
 
2012-11-28 10:56:17 AM  

Gaseous Anomaly: What, exactly, is "unsustainable" about our national "lifestyle"?


Are you serious? The fact that 70% of our economy is based on consumption should be enough to convince anyone. Combine that with massive trade deficits year after year, and it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see where we are heading.
 
2012-11-28 11:30:52 AM  

MattStafford: Gaseous Anomaly: What, exactly, is "unsustainable" about our national "lifestyle"?

Are you serious? The fact that 70% of our economy is based on consumption should be enough to convince anyone. Combine that with massive trade deficits year after year, and it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see where we are heading.


OK, where are we heading? Yes, I'm asking serious questions, trying to illuminate where your thinking may be muddy on these issues.

For one example, ponder what devaluation of the dollar does to trade deficits. (This helped me a lot; I used to be absolutely convinced that free trade could never lead anywhere but the whole world having Third World standards of living, with no chance for improvement. Learning some actual geography-of-trade and international-finance concepts has refuted that.)

For another example, what's bad about basing an economy on consumption? Instead of "it makes me feel icky and it should make you feel icky too", try to explain what "should" be different, how that would affect the world, and why it's better.

If (to pick a common example) you're concerned that "too much" of our economy is in services vs. manufacturing (I used to believe this too), keep in mind that there's not any big philosophical divide between those two. If I make pasta and serve it to you on a plate, that's services. If I make pasta, freeze it and put it in a box, that's manufacturing.

/Yes, I get a lot of this from Matt Yglesias, I find him enlightening
 
2012-11-28 11:45:21 AM  

MattStafford: Gaseous Anomaly: What, exactly, is "unsustainable" about our national "lifestyle"?

Are you serious? The fact that 70% of our economy is based on consumption should be enough to convince anyone. Combine that with massive trade deficits year after year, and it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see where we are heading.


Trade deficits are a result of being wealthy. There is nothing you can do about them, and, really, there's nothing you WANT to do about them.
 
Displayed 427 of 427 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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