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

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