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 (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 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.
 
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