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  
•       •       •

1880 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Nov 2012 at 10:31 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 427 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report