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.

(Orange County Register)   We are Not facing the fiscal cliff because the rich are not paying their fair share. It's because you want too many freebies   (ocregister.com) divider line 505
    More: Unlikely, Mark Steyn, American Love, sissy, Charles Schumer, surrender monkeys, government expenditure, syndicated columnist, Party leaders of the United States Senate  
•       •       •

3573 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Dec 2012 at 2:15 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-03 01:36:09 PM

slayer199: Marcus Aurelius: An industrialized nation's government needs about 20% of GDP to function well, and if I am not mistaken we're well below that. Taxation is also at near historic lows.

Less government spending isn't going to educate our population or fix our crumbling infrastructure.

Yes, and we're currently at 40% of GDP.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/include/us_total_spending_20c.png


That depends entirely on how you look at it.
 
2012-12-03 01:39:38 PM

Bontesla: I really hate how disingenuous the Republicans are. Their disingenuty creates unpleasant thoughts in my head.

We balanced the budget under Clinton and Bush Jr. Spent our surplus into oblivion. Now the Republicans are stamping their feet pouting about social spending the Democrats are pushing for. Ffs. Act like a grown ass adult.


That, and Obama has actually reduced the size of the federal government (not to mention the lowest spending of the last ten presidents). But they still believe some 1980s lie about tax-and-spend Democrats (instead of the reality of Clinton's balanced budget + surplus and Obama's reduction in spending), so they can label themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility.

Except their idea of fiscal responsibility is to keep the excess spending off the books, not to stop spending.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-12-03 01:49:54 PM

slayer199: Marcus Aurelius: An industrialized nation's government needs about 20% of GDP to function well, and if I am not mistaken we're well below that. Taxation is also at near historic lows.

Less government spending isn't going to educate our population or fix our crumbling infrastructure.

Yes, and we're currently at 40% of GDP.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/include/us_total_spending_20c.png


20% is what El Salvador spends. First world countries tend to be closer to 50%.
Link
 
2012-12-03 02:01:22 PM

tallguywithglasseson: You just have to accept that 90% of libertarian arguments are prefaced with them being ordained with some sort of special vision that everyone else lacks.


That's pretty much true because in a bi-partisan world there isn't a third way that's valid. If you're a True Believer in the one of the two parties you tend to see the world as "My party is right and the other party is wrong, and anything else is dumb." The way Democrats look at libertarianism is "Lol, Somalia.' They way Republicans look at libertarians is "Godless heathens pushing drugs and hookers." Both views are caricatures of libertarianism.

I'm pragmatic enough to realize that taxes need to be raised...but I also believe the government wastes a TON of money and we're not going to get out of it without significant spending cuts. I'm not talking about the traditional way government talks about cutting spending either (which is to say, they won't increase the budgets of departments). I'm talking about actually cutting the budgets and eliminating departments altogether (lets start with DHS). If you understand how the government spends money, there's no incentive for them to be efficient. In other words, if you run an efficient department and actually save money that means the following year you get less money (well, they obviously don't need as much).

Keep flag-waving for your party...right off the cliff like a bunch of lemmings.
 
2012-12-03 02:14:16 PM
If you want shiny new toys and guns and ships and roads and shiat, you gotta pay for it.

I'm sure there are ways we could cut government waste that do not include gimping our economy or the services government provides to its citizens for the overall betterment of society. Why don't we make a *serious* attempt at that before biatching about who's paying what.
 
2012-12-03 02:14:41 PM
Mark Steyn

AAAAAAND I'm done reading.
 
2012-12-03 02:17:18 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: We already have a more severely redistributive taxation system than Europe


True, but Europe's spending is also progressive. Imagine if the average American middle class family paid zero or near zero for healthcare. Imagine if the average middle class family paid zero or near zero for college tuition. Imagine all that money back into their pockets, and back into our economy driving up aggregate demand.


FOOL! The middle class doesn't drive aggregate demand! The job creators do!
 
2012-12-03 02:20:03 PM
OC Register is the Moonie Times of California.
 
2012-12-03 02:20:28 PM
The fiscal cliff couldn't have anything to do with 30 years of "starve the beast", now could it?
 
2012-12-03 02:20:31 PM
As Sean Hannity said, Monaco has very low taxes and have you seen it? It's like a fairytale. Low taxes on the rich can make us the next Monaco!!!
 
2012-12-03 02:21:08 PM

slayer199: That's the thing NEITHER side is talking about. Substantial reduction of spending. The Dems don't want to give up their social programs and the Republicans don't want to scale back on the military, Homeland Security or the War on Drugs.


Yeah, but only the social programs are helping the poor and middle class contribute to the economy. All the programs the Republicans are behind usually just line the pockets of executes at defense contractors and private prisons. It's not really going back into the economy after that.
 
2012-12-03 02:21:52 PM

doyner: vpb: doyner: vernonFL: We've spent $4 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan. Plus thousands killed and tens of thousands injured.

FreedomTM isn't a freebie.

Yes, we would all be speaking Arabic now if we hadn't invaded Iraq.

Exactly. And I feel a Farsi coming on....


Has Red Dawn taught us nothing?
 
2012-12-03 02:24:03 PM
I really wish DC would ball up and soak the rich for everything they have.

It will be interesting to see what their plan involves next month.
 
2012-12-03 02:24:08 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Marcus Aurelius: Mitt Romney pays half of what I pay. Maybe taxing that farker at my rate won't balance the budget, but it would be a start.

I don't know for a fact. But I'm going to make a crazy guess and say Romney pays a hell of a lot more money than you do.


If he was a Real Patriotic American, he would get out of paying anything at all.
 
2012-12-03 02:26:25 PM
I do want freebies, but where the hell are they?
 
2012-12-03 02:27:45 PM
So, lets say you're in debt. Is it easier/faster to get out of debt by cutting things out of your life? or by getting another job to raise revenue?
 
2012-12-03 02:29:20 PM
"it's because we want too many freebies":

Yes! that is what we are talking about -- we need to generate more revenue so we can pay for the services people demand.

Reducing services is also part of the deal -- but PAYING for the services is the goal.

This is why the Democrats are the new party of adults, they are attempting to balance the budget honestly.

People want these services -- they are willing to sacrifice the appearance of other benefits for them -- one of
those is the appearance that low taxes on the rich increases the benefits in all lives.
 
2012-12-03 02:29:25 PM

Il Douchey: ...the expiry of the deferment of the implementation of the adjustment of the correction of the extension of the reduction to the proposed increase of the Alternative Minimum Growth Sustainability Reduction Rate.

Mark Steyn, you magnificent bastard


Magnificent isn't a word I'd associate with the gigantic douchebag that is Mark Steyn.
 
2012-12-03 02:31:28 PM
You mean tax payers should get something for their taxes?

Enlighten me on this new concept.
 
2012-12-03 02:31:59 PM
BOOM!! Love the headline subby.
 
2012-12-03 02:32:15 PM
Couldn't find "obvious" tag, subby?
 
2012-12-03 02:33:11 PM
Everyone wants freebies. The issue is some people only think the freebies that they get are valid regardless of how much the other ones may be needed or useful.
 
2012-12-03 02:34:51 PM

doyner: vernonFL: We've spent $4 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan. Plus thousands killed and tens of thousands injured.
FreedomTM isn't a freebie.


toppun.com
 
2012-12-03 02:35:23 PM

slayer199: Again, the populace gets sidelined by argument of the rich paying their fair share rather than the real problem. The farking government spends too damn much money. And it's not a Republican or Democrat issue...it's a U.S. Government issue as BOTH sides are to blame.

/facepalm

You can raise taxes to 90% on everyone above $100k and it's not going to do a damn thing unless BOTH sides can significantly cut spending. Budgets, how do they work?


Well, to begin it does well from a PR standpoint when the lower-classes don't feel the need to rise up and behead the rich and ransack their possessions while the similarly affected groups responsible for keeping order stand back and say "they brought it upon themselves."

But it goes deeper than that. The "job creators" have spent almost ten years actively working to make their employees work harder for much less and still keep as much from them in the form of benefits as possible.

As a card-carrying member of the middle-class who does the job of three people while employed as a contractor so that my employer won't have to give me health insurance I can tell you that it wasn't always this way. There was a point in time where they understood that the longer I remained working for them the more valuable I was due to knowing the job. There was a time when that was incentivized by a pay raises at regular intervals, vacation pay, bonuses, GOOD health insurance and other amenities.

There was a time when I would bust my ass because I was treated well and fairly. I WANTED the company to succeed because I felt some sense of responsibility even if all I was getting was a fair wage. Stay late? Sure. Weekends? I'm down. An overnight? If you need me, let me know.

Now, that for a company that actively works to give me as little as he legally can with managers who specialize in trying to convince me that what I am getting is the best I could ever hope for?

Not bloody likely.
 
2012-12-03 02:35:59 PM
Can't WAIT to see that REPUBLICAN tax plan that includes not taxing the wealthy any further, giving them more tax breaks, increasing defense spending, and STILL somehow balances pays down the entire deficit in one fell swoop (because remember! A little at a time is not at all!)

Yep! Aaaaaaany day now...can't wait!
 
2012-12-03 02:36:01 PM

CPennypacker: Everyone wants freebies. The issue is some people only think the freebies that they get are valid regardless of how much the other ones may be needed or useful.


Keeping American families afloat in this "jobless recovery" is more important than corporate contractor pork.
 
2012-12-03 02:36:50 PM

Koggie: Yeah, those free wars were awesome. Please sir, may I have another?


But I thought they were going to pay for themselves in oil revenues?
 
2012-12-03 02:37:07 PM

slayer199: That's the thing NEITHER side is talking about. Substantial reduction of spending. The Dems don't want to give up their social programs and the Republicans don't want to scale back on the military, Homeland Security or the War on Drugs.


Reality spent Jive with your assessment of the parties.

Also, there's no equivalency within your imagined framework anyway. Social programs= grandma can get her medicine this week even if she does eat something that isn't catfood. Homeland security, the military, and war on drugs= horrifying machinery of oppression and murder.
 
2012-12-03 02:37:08 PM
Should be a slash between balances/pays down. THAT'S how excited I am to see it, I can't even TYPE COHERENTLY!!
 
2012-12-03 02:37:28 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I don't know for a fact. But I'm going to make a crazy guess and say Romney pays a hell of a lot more money than you do.

Forget it, he's rolling.


Are you guys serious?

Naw, you can't possibly be serious...can you?
 
2012-12-03 02:37:55 PM
So -

On the one hand, we have Democrats arguing for cuts in defense spending and savings in social programs, and increased revenues through taxes, to pay for these programs and reduce the deficit up front.
On the other hand, we have Republicans arguing for savings AND cuts in social programs, more defense spending, and lower taxes, banking on economic growth in a couple of quarters to offset the lost immediate revenue and reduce the deficit after growth.

On the gripping hand, we have a cumulative failure of enjoying more government than we've paid for, for over the past thirty years. It's time to pay your bills, kids. Taxes need to go up for everybody, and stay there for a while. Or they'll have to go up even more later.

/Larry Niven is my co-pilot
//But Pournelle is my bombardier
 
2012-12-03 02:38:09 PM
I have a suspicion that regardless of the outcome of this mess, the GOP as we know it is going to fold.
 
2012-12-03 02:40:52 PM

slayer199: That's the thing NEITHER side is talking about. Substantial reduction of spending. The Dems don't want to give up their social programs and the Republicans don't want to scale back on the military, Homeland Security or the War on Drugs.


"THEIR social programs"? Republicans get no benefits from Social Security, Medicare, college loans, food stamps, or disaster relief -- is that what you're saying? Because I have an unemployed, fundamentalist, Obama-hating sister-in-law who was delighted to get in line for food stamps when she qualified following the most recent hurricane.
 
2012-12-03 02:40:54 PM

Captain_Sunshine: Taxes need to go up for everybody, and stay there for a while.


Shockingly (or not), history and economic theory demonstrates you can do this and still have a prosperous economy.

The biggest lie the GOP has spread, continues to spread and will continue to spread is that "higher taxes hurts the economy and eliminates jobs".
 
2012-12-03 02:41:40 PM

Koggie: Yeah, those free wars were awesome. Please sir, may I have another?


The way Fartbongo is going we'll have another 20 of them by this time next year.
 
2012-12-03 02:42:53 PM
And by "you", he means Defense contractors and oil companies right?
 
2012-12-03 02:43:24 PM

slayer199: tallguywithglasseson: You just have to accept that 90% of libertarian arguments are prefaced with them being ordained with some sort of special vision that everyone else lacks.

That's pretty much true because in a bi-partisan world there isn't a third way that's valid. If you're a True Believer in the one of the two parties you tend to see the world as "My party is right and the other party is wrong, and anything else is dumb." The way Democrats look at libertarianism is "Lol, Somalia.' They way Republicans look at libertarians is "Godless heathens pushing drugs and hookers." Both views are caricatures of libertarianism.

I'm pragmatic enough to realize that taxes need to be raised...but I also believe the government wastes a TON of money and we're not going to get out of it without significant spending cuts. I'm not talking about the traditional way government talks about cutting spending either (which is to say, they won't increase the budgets of departments). I'm talking about actually cutting the budgets and eliminating departments altogether (lets start with DHS). If you understand how the government spends money, there's no incentive for them to be efficient. In other words, if you run an efficient department and actually save money that means the following year you get less money (well, they obviously don't need as much).

Keep flag-waving for your party...right off the cliff like a bunch of lemmings.


I see you've gone in and tried to corner the market on strawman slaying. I guess that explains the user name.
 
2012-12-03 02:43:38 PM

Trivia Jockey: I have a suspicion that regardless of the outcome of this mess, the GOP as we know it is going to fold.


I doubt it. They'll still be wiping their feces all over the halls of congress for another 20 years or so until the Boomers start dying off en masse.
 
2012-12-03 02:44:01 PM

Smeggy Smurf: Koggie: Yeah, those free wars were awesome. Please sir, may I have another?

The way Fartbongo is going we'll have another 20 of them by this time next year.


Yeah, but it doesn't cost much to predator drone reporters and teenagers. Obama's wars aren't really *budgetary* concerns.
 
2012-12-03 02:44:07 PM
I thought the Republicans were all about the wisdom of the common man, as opposed to all those effete, over-educated types who support the Democrats.
 
2012-12-03 02:44:29 PM

mksmith: "THEIR social programs"? Republicans get no benefits from Social Security, Medicare, college loans, food stamps, or disaster relief -- is that what you're saying? Because I have an unemployed, fundamentalist, Obama-hating sister-in-law who was delighted to get in line for food stamps when she qualified following the most recent hurricane.


The difference is, Republicans deserve the benefits they get, while Democrats think they are entitled.
 
2012-12-03 02:45:12 PM

Smeggy Smurf: Koggie: Yeah, those free wars were awesome. Please sir, may I have another?

The way Fartbongo is going we'll have another 20 of them by this time next year.


You're a tool.
 
2012-12-03 02:46:37 PM

Trivia Jockey: I have a suspicion that regardless of the outcome of this mess, the GOP as we know it is going to fold.


community.us.playstation.com
 
2012-12-03 02:48:22 PM

Trivia Jockey: Shockingly (or not), history and economic theory demonstrates you can do this and still have a prosperous economy.


Absolutely. The idea that none of these conservatives will even entertain the idea that we are still on the left side of their oh-so-descriptive Laffer Curve is extremely dishonest. It's their treatment of supply-side economics as religion showing through.

Didn't someone actually play around with the numbers a couple of years ago and estimate the peak of that curve at around a 70% tax rate for the top earners? I seem to remember that, but I can't find it (and I have to get back to work).
 
2012-12-03 02:48:40 PM

ToxicMunkee: Fine. Let's end all the "entitlement programs" and let people f*cking die. I'm sick of all of this stupid bullish*t. Who needs Death Panels when all we have to do is let people starve?

America. F*ck yeah.


I agree. People should fend for themselves and not leach off their neighbors.
 
2012-12-03 02:48:46 PM
Subby, those two ideas are not exactly mutually exclusive.

Actually, I think they are one and the same. The rich people are enjoying their freebies and reduced rates.
 
2012-12-03 02:49:36 PM

Captain_Sunshine: Didn't someone actually play around with the numbers a couple of years ago and estimate the peak of that curve at around a 70% tax rate for the top earners?


If any politician suggested that, the Koch brothers would sh*t an ingot.
 
2012-12-03 02:49:53 PM

Captain_Sunshine: Trivia Jockey: Shockingly (or not), history and economic theory demonstrates you can do this and still have a prosperous economy.

Absolutely. The idea that none of these conservatives will even entertain the idea that we are still on the left side of their oh-so-descriptive Laffer Curve is extremely dishonest. It's their treatment of supply-side economics as religion showing through.

Didn't someone actually play around with the numbers a couple of years ago and estimate the peak of that curve at around a 70% tax rate for the top earners? I seem to remember that, but I can't find it (and I have to get back to work).


Here you go.
 
2012-12-03 02:50:15 PM

Cythraul: Koggie: Yeah, those free wars were awesome. Please sir, may I have another?

"I'd like Two Unpaid Wars, please. Oh, and a side of Unregulated Banking Industry. That many calories, really? Okay, just shave off a few with a Frank / Dodd salad. Yeah, go ahead and super-size it. Thanks!"


Also a Medicare Plan D, which was not only 1 trillion/10 years payoff of taxpayer money to big pharm, but a 1 trillion/10 years money to big pharm in which the GOP didn't even give the pretense that they needed to put it on the books or pay for it in any way. They farking froze the cameras on CSPAN, because the GOP Caucus had to browbeat any GOPer who dissented with it on the floor and they didn't want it to be caught on camera. This was voted for by Jim Bunning, Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, Mike Crapo, Orrin Hatch, Jon Kyl, Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, John Boehner,
 
2012-12-03 02:52:08 PM

ToxicMunkee: Fine. Let's end all the "entitlement programs" and let people f*cking die. I'm sick of all of this stupid bullish*t. Who needs Death Panels when all we have to do is let people starve?

America. F*ck yeah.


This is the type of ignorant hyperbole that completely defines the left.

Conservatives are not arguing to eliminate life saving entitlements. They are arguing to eliminate stupid ones like free cell phones and food stamps and welfare programs for healthy people who simply choose not to work. And I'll go ahead and throw in tax-payer funded, multi-million dollar vacations and star-studded parties for our "first family". Where exactly is their sacrifice for the greater good?

Seems like all good socialist leaders who preach sacrifice and condemn the rich have this weakness when it comes to their own personal wealth.
 
Displayed 50 of 505 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report