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?
SunsetLament: the country voted for Republican control of the House of Representatives.
Rain-Monkey: Because they have said all along they would be willing to cut spending programs as a part of a balanced package?
Daily reminder: The GOP's backing of the tax plan pushed by the loser of the presidential election is not a concession.- Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) November 27, 2012
Infernalist: DNRTFA.Am I missing something, or did this major publication completely miss the trillions of dollars in offered spending cuts that the GOP took an enormous steaming dump on before demanding more?
CPT Ethanolic: As anyone who's studied the federal budget knows, the problem isn't too little taxes. Even if we kept all the Bush tax cuts in place, federal revenues as a share of GDP will soon exceed historic averages.Uhmm... HUH?? Do these historical averages include the time before income taxes or something?
hasty ambush: Philip Francis Queeg: Please show me where the US Constitution enumerates that the federal Government has the power to create an Air Force. Please also indicate where it enumerates that they may maintain an Air Traffic Control system.Air traffic control comes in two parts. First it is part of treaties ratified by the US which then have the same power as the Constitution itself and tow to regulate commerce between the states as the does the FCC etc.The USAF comes under the enumerated powers to raise , fund and regulate (all enumerated not general) the military it can also define organizational structure hence the department of the Air Force. You might argue it says nothing about airplanes but it also says nothing about horses, bayonets or Johnny cakes.If your going to argue food stamps comes under general welfare you as well argue that the Patriot Act or unlimited detention comes under the common defense
hasty ambush: Freedom and being cared for are two different things. Freedom comes with burdens among them being self reliance and self responsibility. The more those two burdens are lessened the less freedom you have. As you become more dependent and ceded more control of your life to those doing the "caring for" you are less free.
MattStafford: jst3p: Your premise, that the government exists only to promote policies and programs that are economically productive, is flawed. You understanding of Civics is on par with your understanding of economics. I really hope you are trolling because if a person as ignorant and outspoken as you really exists I weep for our public education system.Except for the fact I'm in favor of wealth redistribution. I'm not in favor of spending borrowed money on unproductive things.
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.
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.
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
tony41454: It's not the Republicans that have gotten us into this mess
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.
SunsetLament: Oh, that sucks. Maybe you should control state legislatures next time re-districting comes around.
SunsetLament: I would start to believe the media
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
Slaves2Darkness: mrshowrules: exick: Isn't the entire problem with the fiscal cliff the fact that it's a giant spending cut? What am I missing?If you view temporary tax cuts as effectively spending (which I think it is), you are absolutely accurate.No you are missing the second part of the fiscal cliff and that is an automatic 10% cut to all government programs across the board.
MattStafford: Gaseous Anomaly: What, exactly, is "unsustainable" about our national "lifestyle"?Are you serious? The fact that 70% of our economy is based on consumption should be enough to convince anyone. Combine that with massive trade deficits year after year, and it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see where we are heading.
Zasteva: incendi: Zasteva: Personally, I'd rather see it use the newly created money to buy high interest rate individual debt (say from credit card companies or payday lenders), and then change the payment terms on that debt to be at prime interest rate and with much more forgiving repayment terms.I'm not quite sure how I'd feel about it if one day I suddenly was in debt to the federal government instead of my bank. A few points off would go a long way towards reducing that unease, but still...And how would you feel about it if the interest rate dropped from 25% to 2%, which would be fairly typical of a payday loan.Dunno about you, but the easiest debt I've ever had to deal with was my consolidated student loan. Owed directly to the government, but with all kinds of nice rules about forbearance and graduated payback levels and none of the overly harsh penalties for missing a payment (actually, never have missed a payment, but I do know they don't double your interest rate because of it).
MattStafford: The problem is, people don't see money printing as a method to pay off our debts, and then live within our means. Instead, they see it as a method to continue living beyond our means, simply with accounting trickery. This is not a solution, and does not fix the problem.It is the difference between saying "let's fund Medicare via money printing indefinitely" and "let's print money, pay off our current Medicare obligations, then pay for all future Medicare costs out of our revenue." The former is not a solution (and in my opinion, is downright idiotic), whereas the latter has some merit to it.
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]
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?
Zasteva: Budget simulator:Link
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.
MattStafford: Eventually the borrowed money is going to run out, and when that happens, it doesn't matter what option you want, our only choice will be to let them die.
MattStafford: the borrowing on money isn't a good thing.
MattStafford: That doesn't answer whether or not they are productive or not. And no, spending is the main driver of our current deficit. If an individual spends twice as much money as he makes, I doubt you would say the main driver of his deficit is that he doesn't make enough money.
MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: You're right, you're not buying it. But they are. You know there is such a thing as "the economy" right?Explain to me how an old person who does absolutely nothing productive is productive. All they do is consume. Although I'm sure you of the belief that consumption is god's gift to the economy, particularly when that consumption is funded by debt. Which is absolutely idiotic.
MattStafford: But the idea that I get from many of the people on the left in this thread
MattStafford: I just sort of assumed he thought
MattStafford: operating under the assumption
MattStafford: Mrtraveler01: But you have to choose between the two. You just can't say to hell with that person, we can't afford to treat you. It's against the law to deny medical treatment to anyone in an ER.So one way or another, we have to spend money to keep this "unproductive" person alive.I understand that. But I'm arguing that we shouldn't be spending the 100,000 or the 1,000,000. Just because the 100,000 is better than the 1,000,000 doesn't mean I shouldn't argue against both.
Ardilla: How about this?
MattStafford: odinsposse: The government does not work solely to create economic benefit. Why can't you get this?I understand that. I am entirely for wealth redistribution. But borrowing money and spending that on unproductive things destroys our economy.
MattStafford: Mrtraveler01: So letting them get severely sick before seeking medical treatment at the ER is more cost effective how?I suppose it is more cost effective to buy a steady steam of booze than to buy a ton of booze at once. Doesn't change the fact you're buying booze with borrowed money.
MattStafford: mcwehrle: dafuq?Tell ya what. Fark you and any elderly in your family, let's go with that. YOU FIRST.And I'll even volunteer to drive your sorry ass into the wildnerness and drop you off when you hit 70.farkyoufarkyoufarkyou and the horse you rode in on, and welcome to ignore, you ignorant fark.Ignorant? You're attempting to counter my arguments with appeals to emotion. Just tell me what productive thing the elderly do for the economy, and I will take it back. What are they producing? Who is buying their services? Seriously, if I'm wrong, just let me know.
MattStafford: odinsposse: Except keeping people alive isn't the equivalent of wasting money on booze and hookers. This is exactly why looking at spending as a risk/reward investment makes sense in business but is unfathomably stupid in government.It is wasteful spending. Explain to me how keeping an 80 year old person who does absolutely no work alive for another 10 years, at a massive cost funded almost entirely by borrowing is somehow beneficial to our economy. All you are making is an appeal to emotion.
mcwehrle: MattStafford:The elderly produce very little, and the vast majority of money is spent on their final, completely unproductive years.)MattStafford:Well, we're spending it on keeping our unproductive, retired elderly alive, maintaining an unproductive military, servicing interest on the debt, and as welfare to the poor. I'm not arguing that these aren't important things for a country to spend money ondafuq?Tell ya what. Fark you and any elderly in your family, let's go with that. YOU FIRST.And I'll even volunteer to drive your sorry ass into the wildnerness and drop you off when you hit 70.farkyoufarkyoufarkyou and the horse you rode in on, and welcome to ignore, you ignorant fark.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
jigger: mrshowrules: Well it is constitutional so anyone who thought it wasn't was clearly wrong.Says 5 people in black dresses.
jst3p: If we only had some real world example that shows that austerity measures can make "bad" into "worse"
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.
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.
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.
SunsetLament: Headso: SunsetLament: the country voted for Republican control of the House of Representatives.With a little help from Mr. Gerry Mander[assets.motherjones.com image 630x566]Oh, that sucks. Maybe you should control state legislatures next time re-districting comes around.
SunsetLament: EyeballKid: SCOREBOARD: 303 to 206. That's how come, biatch.If only they had similar results in the House of Representatives, they could do whatever they wanted. Sadly, the country voted for Republican control of the House of Representatives./Not really going to matter//House Republicans will cave and cave quickly
Gaseous Anomaly: The fiscal cliff isn't a cliff nor is it irreversible. There's no point to anyone trying to reach a deal before it kicks in.Just let Jan 1 come and go, tax rates kick up and spending kicks down automatically.If you really believe the deficit is a problem, you're done, the deficit's pretty much fixed. Otherwise:
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?"
The Jami Turman Fan Club: I thought Obama offered 4 trillion in spending cuts?
Citrate1007: "We got 90% of what we wanted" - Boehner
Dusk-You-n-Me: Daily reminder: The GOP's backing of the tax plan pushed by the loser of the presidential election is not a concession.- Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) November 27, 2012
EyeballKid: SCOREBOARD: 303 to 206. That's how come, biatch.
tnpir: It's Investor's Business Daily. Pay it no mind.
Want more stories with less ads? Try
It's what the cool kids are doing.It's also how we pay the bills.
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Dec 18 2017 01:11:16
Runtime: 0.630 sec (629 ms)