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.

(New York Magazine)   The GOP claim that "spending is out of control" sounds like a rational argument, until you fact-check it   (nymag.com) divider line 472
    More: Interesting, GOP, Republican, Jim VandeHei, Boehner  
•       •       •

5807 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Dec 2012 at 12:06 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-12-13 09:17:26 AM  
Spending is out of control. The GOP is just as guilty as the Democrats for it too, which is why I refer to them as "Republicrats". Both parties have the same goal in mind - control where the money flows - the only difference is where they want it to go, and they don't always disagree on that. Neither of them truly cares to reduce spending, they want to reduce it over "there" so we can spend it "here" instead.
 
2012-12-13 09:22:48 AM  

pecosdave: Spending is out of control.


The only place spending is out of control is defense spending, which is why the GOP can't propose anything.
 
2012-12-13 09:24:24 AM  

GAT_00: pecosdave: Spending is out of control.

The only place spending is out of control is defense spending, which is why the GOP can't propose anything.


QFT
 
2012-12-13 09:24:55 AM  

pecosdave: Spending is out of control. The GOP is just as guilty as the Democrats for it too, which is why I refer to them as "Republicrats". Both parties have the same goal in mind - control where the money flows - the only difference is where they want it to go, and they don't always disagree on that. Neither of them truly cares to reduce spending, they want to reduce it over "there" so we can spend it "here" instead.


Huh. So both sides ar bad, you say? What a novel concept.
 
2012-12-13 09:27:19 AM  

pecosdave: Spending is out of control.


Apparently, what "out of control" looks like:
2.bp.blogspot.com

Strange how it trends down when a Democrat is in office, huh?

Anyway, I think you need to be more honest and say that spending WAS out of control, but with the winding down of two unfunded wars, things are steadily improving.
 
2012-12-13 09:28:05 AM  

pecosdave: Spending is out of control. The GOP is just as guilty as the Democrats for it too, which is why I refer to them as "Republicrats". Both parties have the same goal in mind - control where the money flows - the only difference is where they want it to go, and they don't always disagree on that. Neither of them truly cares to reduce spending, they want to reduce it over "there" so we can spend it "here" instead.


What a bold position you took there! You're the first one ever to point out that both sides are bad, but to do so by coining the phrase "Republicrats" is GENIUS! It's like you just sorta combined the names of the two parties, thereby demonstrating that there's no difference between the two. Which would be awesome if it weren't complete, utter bullshiat.
 
2012-12-13 09:28:07 AM  
Republicans demand that President Obama produce an offer of higher spending cuts, and Obama replies that Republicans should say what spending cuts they want, and Republicans insist that Obama should try to guess what kind of spending cuts they would like.

Uh, TFA author isn't wrong here. I keep hearing about "cuts" but only in nebulous form.

pecosdave: Spending is out of control. The GOP is just as guilty as the Democrats for it too, which is why I refer to them as "Republicrats". Both parties have the same goal in mind - control where the money flows - the only difference is where they want it to go, and they don't always disagree on that. Neither of them truly cares to reduce spending, they want to reduce it over "there" so we can spend it "here" instead.


When Eric Cantor went on The Daily Show a couple of years ago, Stewart showed a rarely seen angry streak. He basically called bullsh*t. To paraphrase it, "Stop telling me you want smaller government. The only difference is where you the government involved."

And he was right. We have multiple examples of Republican administrations ballooning the deficit, and yet they still look at us with a straight face and claim to be the party of "fiscal responsibility."

Well, they can all just fark right off. Just like Fox makes loud claims to be the polar opposite of what they actually are, the GOP will piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. And they have the nerve to wonder aloud why fewer people are taking them seriously these days.
 
2012-12-13 09:29:40 AM  
OK, I'll start fact-checking.

"The GOP claim...."

www.inc.com
 
2012-12-13 09:29:44 AM  

Vodka Zombie: pecosdave: Spending is out of control.

Apparently, what "out of control" looks like:
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 657x464]

Strange how it trends down when a Democrat is in office, huh?

Anyway, I think you need to be more honest and say that spending WAS out of control, but with the winding down of two unfunded wars, things are steadily improving.


May not be at its peak, but it's still looks a little out of control to me.
 
2012-12-13 09:30:46 AM  
Decent enough article I suppose. What seems to be lacking, here and in other discussions, is that Congress is the body that approves spending. So it seems a little disingenuous to me to hear from them that "spending is out of control."

Coupled with the fact that they were on a spending spree and ran up the national card under Bush, I can only conclude that their real concern is not out of control spending. It's to stymie the president and preserve the many gifts to the rich, which we cannot afford, given under Bush.

Words and deeds.

And people like Orin Hatch should cram it. He fully admitted they didn't even think about how to pay for shiat when Bush was in the White House.

Do I believe we need to restrain spending? Sure, if done intelligently and fairly. Do I believe Congress is serious about it? Fark no.
 
2012-12-13 09:31:46 AM  
spending is only out of control when the guy in the White House has a "D" next to his name.
 
2012-12-13 09:33:24 AM  

pecosdave: Vodka Zombie: pecosdave: Spending is out of control.

Apparently, what "out of control" looks like:
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 657x464]

Strange how it trends down when a Democrat is in office, huh?

Anyway, I think you need to be more honest and say that spending WAS out of control, but with the winding down of two unfunded wars, things are steadily improving.

May not be at its peak, but it's still looks a little out of control to me.


You want instant results?

The economy doesn't work like your broadband internet connection. These things take TIME. You maybe need to revisit your expectations and consider taking a more reasonable approach here. Maybe buy a better watch?
 
2012-12-13 09:34:02 AM  
the GOP won't let their position be dictated by fact-checkers!
 
2012-12-13 09:38:36 AM  

Vodka Zombie: pecosdave: Vodka Zombie: pecosdave: Spending is out of control.

Apparently, what "out of control" looks like:
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 657x464]

Strange how it trends down when a Democrat is in office, huh?

Anyway, I think you need to be more honest and say that spending WAS out of control, but with the winding down of two unfunded wars, things are steadily improving.

May not be at its peak, but it's still looks a little out of control to me.

You want instant results?

The economy doesn't work like your broadband internet connection. These things take TIME. You maybe need to revisit your expectations and consider taking a more reasonable approach here. Maybe buy a better watch?


Seriously.

Ever run up your credit? Try doing that, while also cutting your salary. Tell me how long it takes you to pay that off. Eating Ramen will only get you so far.
 
2012-12-13 09:40:05 AM  

FlashHarry: the GOP won't let their position be dictated by fact-checkers!


Isn't kind of funny to see them NOT learning that this is a really stupid way of doing things? Eventually, you just have to laugh at them.
 
2012-12-13 09:40:22 AM  

Vodka Zombie: You want instant results?

The economy doesn't work like your broadband internet connection. These things take TIME. You maybe need to revisit your expectations and consider taking a more reasonable approach here. Maybe buy a better watch?


Are you defending a president, a party, or a timeline?

It's inexcusable now, it was inexcusable 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 15 years ago. If you're defending parties you're doing the wrong thing, it's nothing but one group of thugs versus another. "Both" parties are guilty and if you're using that recent dip to defend the whole system you're still defending criminals either way. My watch is set via NIST BTW.
 
2012-12-13 09:41:05 AM  
Spending is out of control, just because we did it in the past doesnt mean that it isnt now.
 
2012-12-13 09:41:15 AM  

Diogenes: Vodka Zombie: pecosdave: Vodka Zombie: pecosdave: Spending is out of control.

Apparently, what "out of control" looks like:
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 657x464]

Strange how it trends down when a Democrat is in office, huh?

Anyway, I think you need to be more honest and say that spending WAS out of control, but with the winding down of two unfunded wars, things are steadily improving.

May not be at its peak, but it's still looks a little out of control to me.

You want instant results?

The economy doesn't work like your broadband internet connection. These things take TIME. You maybe need to revisit your expectations and consider taking a more reasonable approach here. Maybe buy a better watch?

Seriously.

Ever run up your credit? Try doing that, while also cutting your salary. Tell me how long it takes you to pay that off. Eating Ramen will only get you so far.


Joke's on you! I happen to LIKE ramen.
 
2012-12-13 09:41:16 AM  
i1282.photobucket.com

The deficit is currently dropping at a rate of 3%, the fastest since WWII. If it were to drop any faster, it could cause a recession.
 
2012-12-13 09:43:09 AM  
B-b-but...liberalsbiggovernmentspending...
 
2012-12-13 09:43:43 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Spending is out of control, just because we did it in the past doesnt mean that it isnt now.


True. Two wrongs and all that. But the fact remains that Obama has plans for or already has paid for what he's proposed. That was not true under Bush. All I'm saying is the mewling from Republicans right now is highly hollow. In addition to the fact that they are complicit in national spending. That's a large part of their job.
 
2012-12-13 09:43:53 AM  
This is just another example of the GOP using buzzwords and focus group-tested phrases to evoke an emotional response, despite the fact that they're devoid of facts.

Damn you, Frank Luntz!
 
2012-12-13 09:46:02 AM  

Trivia Jockey: This is just another example of the GOP using buzzwords and focus group-tested phrases to evoke an emotional response, despite the fact that they're devoid of facts.

Damn you, Frank Luntz!


For as much as I hate the guy, I don't think we can lay this one at his feet. "Tax and spend liberals" is an falsehood and anachronism that refuses to die. Reality be damned.
 
2012-12-13 09:47:20 AM  

Diogenes: For as much as I hate the guy, I don't think we can lay this one at his feet. "Tax and spend liberals" is an falsehood and anachronism that refuses to die. Reality be damned.


I know, that last part was just a joke. But those cliches like the one you mention above are very real, and (unfortunately) they have real power.
 
2012-12-13 09:49:29 AM  

Trivia Jockey: Diogenes: For as much as I hate the guy, I don't think we can lay this one at his feet. "Tax and spend liberals" is an falsehood and anachronism that refuses to die. Reality be damned.

I know, that last part was just a joke. But those cliches like the one you mention above are very real, and (unfortunately) they have real power.


Absolutely. Come with me to my family xmas dinner, and you can hear all about how liberals support big government & big spending, and they're bankrupting the country by wanting to give handouts to all the deadbeats and also socialism.
 
2012-12-13 09:50:01 AM  

pecosdave: The GOP is just as guilty as the Democrats for it too, which is why I refer to them as "Republicrats".


I prefer Doodiecrats and Republiqueefs.
 
2012-12-13 09:55:46 AM  

kid_icarus: Absolutely. Come with me to my family xmas dinner, and you can hear all about how liberals support big government & big spending, and they're bankrupting the country by wanting to give handouts to all the deadbeats and also socialism.


You forgot Sharia law and moral decline.
 
2012-12-13 09:56:07 AM  
Oooh, another one of those MadLib headlines.

The GOP claim that "__________" sounds like a rational argument, until you fact-check it

a. Poor women shouldn't have access to reproductive health care
b. Gay people marrying will cause the end of the world
c. There is a war on Christmas which will result in Baby Jesus being lynched in the street
d. Obama is going to double the tax on a bottle of aspirin -- because it's white and it works
 
2012-12-13 09:57:53 AM  

Chariset: d. Obama is going to double the tax on a bottle of aspirin -- because it's white and it works


LOL. I'm keeping that for the next time I'm in a bar with strangers and have to pretend to be a moronic conservative.
 
2012-12-13 10:01:49 AM  
It's unfortunate our political parties have polarized the people such as they have. The fundamental differences between left and right thinking people are how they approach things, rugged individualism or strength in numbers. Neither is exclusive in their thinking, it's just their default mindset. Left and right thinking people compliment and strengthen one another when they're not polarized into fighting about everything. Both types of people are valuable to society as a whole and keep each other in a balance in a "normal" state of affairs. I'm convinced most of the special interest that polarize the two groups would be easily become background noise if there weren't faction on either side pounding the war drums pushing the fights.
 
2012-12-13 10:02:56 AM  

pecosdave: It's unfortunate our political parties have polarized the people such as they have. The fundamental differences between left and right thinking people are how they approach things, rugged individualism or strength in numbers. Neither is exclusive in their thinking, it's just their default mindset. Left and right thinking people compliment and strengthen one another when they're not polarized into fighting about everything. Both types of people are valuable to society as a whole and keep each other in a balance in a "normal" state of affairs. I'm convinced most of the special interest that polarize the two groups would be easily become background noise if there weren't faction on either side pounding the war drums pushing the fights.


The two party hegemony is definitely failing us. I'll give you that.
 
2012-12-13 10:03:03 AM  
The Republican understanding of government spending is based on hazy, abstract notions that don't match reality

The Republican understanding of EVERYTHING doesn't match reality.
 
2012-12-13 10:03:46 AM  

Diogenes: Chariset: d. Obama is going to double the tax on a bottle of aspirin -- because it's white and it works

LOL. I'm keeping that for the next time I'm in a bar with strangers and have to pretend to be a moronic conservative.


You should also throw in that you also have to pick cotton to get to it, which reminds the urban moochers of the last time any of them did any actual work.
 
2012-12-13 10:04:12 AM  
The article resonated with me on the GOP's unwillingness to name what it is they want to cut (the Pauls excepted). But the article claims spending is rock-bottom. Were we to cut Defense spending by 50%, we're looking at a deficit for 2012 that's almost $1t - a number few people argue can be made up with revenue (we can get maybe halfway there). So if the article is right, we can't do anything and we're completely doomed. That doesn't seem likely.

There's a laundry list of sins that have been committed over the last few decades, and trying to argue over it now is like trying to argue over Israel Palestine and never getting past who did what to whom 90 years ago. The truth is that we have a serious problem that needs addressing, and the Republicans in the legislature have not been honest in dealing with Obama, being more concerned about their party's short-term vulnerability. They're still being cowards, and yet they're trapped because Obama is holding the best hand and he knows it. He's apparently willing to go off the cliff, now that his job is safe. Had Romney won, the situation would be reversed, and it would be the Democrats who were backed into a corner. But events have not been kind to Republicans, and their unwillingness to deal with reality is driving us off an entirely different cliff.
 
2012-12-13 10:09:32 AM  

pecosdave: Vodka Zombie: pecosdave: Spending is out of control.

Apparently, what "out of control" looks like:
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 657x464]

Strange how it trends down when a Democrat is in office, huh?

Anyway, I think you need to be more honest and say that spending WAS out of control, but with the winding down of two unfunded wars, things are steadily improving.

May not be at its peak, but it's still looks a little out of control to me.


In the last 30 years it is unchanged (look at 1982 versus today). The spending increases appear to be in the period from 1950 to 1982.
 
2012-12-13 10:14:44 AM  

sweetmelissa31: pecosdave: The GOP is just as guilty as the Democrats for it too, which is why I refer to them as "Republicrats".

I prefer Doodiecrats and Republiqueefs.


Farts and farts. You see, because both sides are the same.
 
2012-12-13 10:17:33 AM  
i.imgur.com i.imgur.com i.imgur.com i.imgur.com

DO NOT MAKE RON PAUL ANGRY
YOU WOULD NOT LIKE HIM WHEN HE'S ANGRY
 
2012-12-13 10:19:18 AM  

pecosdave: Left and right thinking people compliment and strengthen one another when they're not polarized into fighting about everything. Both types of people are valuable to society as a whole and keep each other in a balance in a "normal" state of affairs.


upload.wikimedia.org 

Approves.
 
2012-12-13 10:23:59 AM  

mrshowrules: In the last 30 years it is unchanged (look at 1982 versus today). The spending increases appear to be in the period from 1950 to 1982.


We are still dealing with the economic legacy of the Cold War. Russia ended up defaulting in 1998. I'm not sure we're going to get out of this either with our economy intact.
 
2012-12-13 10:28:01 AM  

pecosdave: May not be at its peak, but it's still looks a little out of control to me.



Look at the y-axis units -- "Federal Government Spending as a % of GDP". Now think about the math. Numerators, denominators, all that basic grade school arithmetic. (Spending ÷ GDP) x 100.

What happens to GDP in a recession, by definition? Now a thought experiment: Even if spending's held constant, which direction will the line trend while GDP decreases?

In such a situation, wouldn't looking at the trend and saying "THE SPENDING'S GOING OUT OF CONTROL" kinda be ignoring a huge part of what's happening?
 
2012-12-13 10:33:46 AM  

Somacandra: [i.imgur.com image 320x213] [i.imgur.com image 200x213] [i.imgur.com image 320x213] [i.imgur.com image 200x213]

DO NOT MAKE RON PAUL ANGRY
YOU WOULD NOT LIKE HIM WHEN HE'S ANGRY


I don't like him regardless of mood.
 
2012-12-13 10:38:05 AM  

pecosdave: Spending is out of control.


This is how pretty much everyone in Washington and almost all conservative things.

Spending (the abstract idea) is totally out of control!
Spending (in our actual budget) is pretty critical and we can't afford to cut anything!
 
2012-12-13 10:39:18 AM  

Somacandra: [i.imgur.com image 320x213] [i.imgur.com image 200x213] [i.imgur.com image 320x213] [i.imgur.com image 200x213]

DO NOT MAKE RON PAUL ANGRY
YOU WOULD NOT LIKE HIM WHEN HE'S ANGRY


I don't like him when he's happy either.
 
2012-12-13 10:43:46 AM  

GAT_00: pecosdave: Spending is out of control.

The only place spending is out of control is defense spending, which is why the GOP can't propose anything.


It's not "defense spending". When we buy a tank, we get an asset. An asset that goes 40 miles an hour and blows shiat up. That's investing. Defense investing, and investing is always a good thing. It's even better when you do it on margin, to take advantage of leverage.
Spending is only when we give services to poor people. When we give food stamps, we don't get an asset back. We get fat poor people back, and no one knows what to do with fat poor people. This is what we're talking about. This is spending. This is the problem.
 
2012-12-13 10:47:25 AM  

Trivia Jockey: kid_icarus: Absolutely. Come with me to my family xmas dinner, and you can hear all about how liberals support big government & big spending, and they're bankrupting the country by wanting to give handouts to all the deadbeats and also socialism.

You forgot Sharia law and moral decline.


Hence why I'm kinda glad I'm staying home for the holidays.
 
2012-12-13 10:48:36 AM  

rumpelstiltskin: GAT_00: pecosdave: Spending is out of control.

The only place spending is out of control is defense spending, which is why the GOP can't propose anything.

It's not "defense spending". When we buy a tank, we get an asset. An asset that goes 40 miles an hour and blows shiat up. That's investing. Defense investing, and investing is always a good thing. It's even better when you do it on margin, to take advantage of leverage.
Spending is only when we give services to poor people. When we give food stamps, we don't get an asset back. We get fat poor people back, and no one knows what to do with fat poor people. This is what we're talking about. This is spending. This is the problem.


Two major problems in your post.

1) Assets cost money to maintain. We have an excess of assets that are unused that only cost us. They cost us to create and cost us to maintain. The investment is pure cost.

2) We get assets back from spending on the poor because it helps keep them participating in the economy, which benefits us all. That's why welfare reform was so successful and good for the country in the 90s. It was focused on keeping people people participating in and contributing to the economy.
 
2012-12-13 10:59:47 AM  

rumpelstiltskin: It's not "defense spending". When we buy a tank, we get an asset. An asset that goes 40 miles an hour and blows shiat up. That's investing. Defense investing, and investing is always a good thing. It's even better when you do it on margin, to take advantage of leverage.
Spending is only when we give services to poor people. When we give food stamps, we don't get an asset back. We get fat poor people back, and no one knows what to do with fat poor people. This is what we're talking about. This is spending. This is the problem.


You're being facetious, right? I hope?
 
2012-12-13 11:00:23 AM  

make me some tea: Hence why I'm kinda glad I'm staying home for the holidays.


A wise person once told me that the best holidays are the ones spent with friends, rather than family.
 
2012-12-13 11:07:06 AM  

Trivia Jockey: make me some tea: Hence why I'm kinda glad I'm staying home for the holidays.

A wise person once told me that the best holidays are the ones spent with friends, rather than family.


Having done it both ways, I would definitely agree.
 
2012-12-13 11:15:19 AM  

Trivia Jockey: rumpelstiltskin: It's not "defense spending". When we buy a tank, we get an asset. An asset that goes 40 miles an hour and blows shiat up. That's investing. Defense investing, and investing is always a good thing. It's even better when you do it on margin, to take advantage of leverage.
Spending is only when we give services to poor people. When we give food stamps, we don't get an asset back. We get fat poor people back, and no one knows what to do with fat poor people. This is what we're talking about. This is spending. This is the problem.

You're being facetious, right? I hope?


I couldn't tell either. He's gooood.
 
2012-12-13 11:24:54 AM  

unyon: Trivia Jockey: rumpelstiltskin: It's not "defense spending". When we buy a tank, we get an asset. An asset that goes 40 miles an hour and blows shiat up. That's investing. Defense investing, and investing is always a good thing. It's even better when you do it on margin, to take advantage of leverage.
Spending is only when we give services to poor people. When we give food stamps, we don't get an asset back. We get fat poor people back, and no one knows what to do with fat poor people. This is what we're talking about. This is spending. This is the problem.

You're being facetious, right? I hope?

I couldn't tell either. He's gooood.


The best trolls never look like trolls.
 
2012-12-13 11:38:34 AM  

St_Francis_P: GAT_00: pecosdave: Spending is out of control.

The only place spending is out of control is defense spending, which is why the GOP can't propose anything.

QFT


easy enough to fix

1) cut ALL earmarks
100%
dont even bother reading them
TADA savings

2) wind down DOD spending
year 1 - 1%
year 2 - 2%
...
year 10 - 10%
at the end of ten years you would have slowly cut DOD spending by 55% ish
which would ALMOST be rational.
too fast, spread it out over 15-20 years ...

3) cap total income tax deductions at 100k
has no effect on the 98%
gets rid of the insane bullshiat deductions of the silly rich

4) tax all income the same
inheritance
dividends
cap gains
everything

tada
probably dont even need to "raise" the tax rates .... LOL
 
2012-12-13 11:39:16 AM  

GAT_00: pecosdave: Spending is out of control.

The only place spending is out of control is defense spending, which is why the GOP can't propose anything.


it's weird too...when you mention cutting defense spending (or cutting back on the war on drugs) the GOP types get this weird glare in their eyes....like they're about to burst a blood vessel or something.
 
2012-12-13 11:39:17 AM  
Let's unpack this a bit. We all know Republicans want to spend less money.

No, we don't all know that. What's hilarious is people believe it, including "journalists" who are supposed to get at the truth. But yeah, those guys who just proposed $2 trillion more in defense spending totally want to spend less money, that's why they went after NPR.
 
2012-12-13 11:40:59 AM  

GAT_00: pecosdave: Spending is out of control.

The only place spending is out of control is defense spending, which is why the GOP can't propose anything.


Oh the GOP certainly has a proposal for defense spending.

www.washingtonpost.com

Link
 
2012-12-13 12:01:04 PM  

lennavan: GAT_00: pecosdave: Spending is out of control.

The only place spending is out of control is defense spending, which is why the GOP can't propose anything.

Oh the GOP certainly has a proposal for defense spending.

[www.washingtonpost.com image 500x326]

Link


Jesus. I knew he wanted to hike defense spending, but I didn't realize by that much.
 
2012-12-13 12:04:08 PM  

GAT_00: lennavan: GAT_00: pecosdave: Spending is out of control.

The only place spending is out of control is defense spending, which is why the GOP can't propose anything.

Oh the GOP certainly has a proposal for defense spending.

[www.washingtonpost.com image 500x326]

Link

Jesus. I knew he wanted to hike defense spending, but I didn't realize by that much.


As the article put it "We all know Republicans want to spend less money."

Yeah, that seems legit.
 
2012-12-13 12:05:15 PM  

pecosdave: Vodka Zombie: pecosdave: Spending is out of control.

Apparently, what "out of control" looks like:
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 657x464]

Strange how it trends down when a Democrat is in office, huh?

Anyway, I think you need to be more honest and say that spending WAS out of control, but with the winding down of two unfunded wars, things are steadily improving.

May not be at its peak, but it's still looks a little out of control to me.


What is adequate funding?
 
2012-12-13 12:07:32 PM  

dickfreckle: And he was right. We have multiple examples of Republican administrations ballooning the deficit, and yet they still look at us with a straight face and claim to be the party of "fiscal responsibility."


Sure. Their voters won't hold them accountable for it, so they have no incentive to actually do anything fiscally responsible.
 
2012-12-13 12:07:42 PM  

pecosdave: Are you defending a president, a party, or a timeline?

It's inexcusable now, it was inexcusable 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 15 years ago. If you're defending parties you're doing the wrong thing, it's nothing but one group of thugs versus another. "Both" parties are guilty and if you're using that recent dip to defend the whole system you're still defending criminals either way. My watch is set via NIST BTW.


Oh, I see you are a Libertarian in your profile. You don't believe government has any role in protecting its people. No services, roads, health care, etc. Everybody is on their own. How cute. Of course, Libertarians was hard to define as they range from none to some government involvement in their lives.

As for both parties being "criminals" and "thugs," well, that's pretty cynical and inaccurate. That's like me saying Libertarians are anti-government until they need something from the government, like the home mortgage interest deduction, business depreciation rates, or clean water, food, safe drugs, etc.

Why don't you just admit you don't want government in your life and move to some barrier island, set up a lean-to shelter, catch fish, drink rainwater? That would be Libertarian Paradise, am I right?
 
2012-12-13 12:07:46 PM  

lennavan:

As the article put it "We all know Republicans want to spend less money."

Yeah, that seems legit.


its just strange to see a party that claims to be so religious can be so hostile to the sick and poor.
 
2012-12-13 12:08:04 PM  

pecosdave: Spending is out of control. The GOP is just as guilty as the Democrats for it too, which is why I refer to them as "Republicrats". Both parties have the same goal in mind - control where the money flows - the only difference is where they want it to go, and they don't always disagree on that. Neither of them truly cares to reduce spending, they want to reduce it over "there" so we can spend it "here" instead.


so... vote RON PAUL

/ron paul
/RON PAUL
/RON F'ING PAUL
 
2012-12-13 12:09:19 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Spending is out of control, just because we did it in the past doesnt mean that it isnt now.


Can you define your standard of measurements? I hear what you're saying but your conclusion offered no assessment on how you determined what's under-funded, adequately funded, and over funded.
 
2012-12-13 12:10:23 PM  
There really isn't money to be cut everywhere. The United States spends way less money on social services than do other advanced countries, and even that low figure is inflated by our sky-high health-care prices. The retirement benefits to programs like Social Security are quite meager. Public infrastructure is grossly underfunded.

wonderpho.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-12-13 12:11:41 PM  

Chariset: Oooh, another one of those MadLib headlines.

The GOP claim that "__________" sounds like a rational argument, until you fact-check it

a. Poor women shouldn't have access to reproductive health care
b. Gay people marrying will cause the end of the world
c. There is a war on Christmas which will result in Baby Jesus being lynched in the street
d. Obama is going to double the tax on a bottle of aspirin -- because it's white and it works


You. I like you.
 
2012-12-13 12:12:33 PM  

GAT_00: The only place spending is out of control is defense spending


Health care costs.

They're the biggest problem with Medicare/Medicaid/personal insurance, yet there's been very little done to try to directly address them. If we could reduce those significantly, we'd be able to cut massive amounts of spending on Medicare/Medicaid without reducing benefits.
 
2012-12-13 12:12:46 PM  

Diogenes: True. Two wrongs and all that. But the fact remains that Obama has plans for or already has paid for what he's proposed. That was not true under Bush. All I'm saying is the mewling from Republicans right now is highly hollow. In addition to the fact that they are complicit in national spending. That's a large part of their job.


Having plans is worth about as much as a +1 on the internet. And most of the time the best plains turn to a horror show! You know the only projected cost that was more than actual? The cost projections on Medicare Part D. The President had 4 years to start cutting/ raising taxes and he didn't. As Grandpa says "the proof is in the pudding".

And yes the vast majority of Republicans need to shut the fark up and all of the Democratics need to shut the fark up. We need to cover our bills. Understand that we are only going to get so much from the top 10% and start taking a meat cleaver to the spending.
 
2012-12-13 12:12:51 PM  

GAT_00: lennavan: GAT_00: pecosdave: Spending is out of control.

The only place spending is out of control is defense spending, which is why the GOP can't propose anything.

Oh the GOP certainly has a proposal for defense spending.

[www.washingtonpost.com image 500x326]

Link

Jesus. I knew he wanted to hike defense spending, but I didn't realize by that much.


I don't understand, what is the point of increasing defense spending? We already have a global military presence, capable of opening theaters anywhere we choose within a maximum of few weeks' time. Do Republicans think we should be present in outer space as well?
 
2012-12-13 12:14:24 PM  
if you're not willing to inflict epic levels of suffering on the very poor, there just aren't a lot of cuts to be had out there.

In other words, the GOP sees lots of cuts to be had out there.
 
2012-12-13 12:14:55 PM  

make me some tea: GAT_00: lennavan: GAT_00: pecosdave: Spending is out of control.

The only place spending is out of control is defense spending, which is why the GOP can't propose anything.

Oh the GOP certainly has a proposal for defense spending.

[www.washingtonpost.com image 500x326]

Link

Jesus. I knew he wanted to hike defense spending, but I didn't realize by that much.

I don't understand, what is the point of increasing defense spending? We already have a global military presence, capable of opening theaters anywhere we choose within a maximum of few weeks' time. Do Republicans think we should be present in outer space as well?


Defense spending is to make us feel safe. We spend a lot on defense but the TV still says we're in danger so we should be spending more.
 
2012-12-13 12:15:30 PM  
: unyon: Trivia Jockey: rumpelstiltskin: It's not "defense spending". When we buy a tank, we get an asset. An asset that goes 40 miles an hour and blows shiat up. That's investing. Defense investing, and investing is always a good thing. It's even better when you do it on margin, to take advantage of leverage.
Spending is only when we give services to poor people. When we give food stamps, we don't get an asset back. We get fat poor people back, and no one knows what to do with fat poor people. This is what we're talking about. This is spending. This is the problem.


So... we shoot the fat people out of the tanks, thereby turning both programs into investments while actually getting some use out of our assets before we sell them to the people who will try to use the tanks against us in the next war.

PROBLEM SOLVED
 
2012-12-13 12:15:36 PM  

make me some tea: I don't understand, what is the point of increasing defense spending?


It creates jobs and gets you new shiny things for campaign videos and furthermore America.

I mean, to be fair, he also wanted to go to war with Iran, so it may not have been a bad idea with that as a working assumption.

partisan222: so... vote RON PAUL


ugh
 
2012-12-13 12:15:38 PM  

make me some tea: I don't understand, what is the point of increasing defense spending?


Ter'rists! Security!
 
2012-12-13 12:16:34 PM  

sprawl15: GAT_00: The only place spending is out of control is defense spending

Health care costs.

They're the biggest problem with Medicare/Medicaid/personal insurance, yet there's been very little done to try to directly address them. If we could reduce those significantly, we'd be able to cut massive amounts of spending on Medicare/Medicaid without reducing benefits.


Hence why ObamaCare was passed to cap and attempt to reduce the growth of medical expenses in the private market.

If ObamaCare doesn't work, the next logical step is to introduce single payer, and government-set provider fees, which means we all become socialists.
 
2012-12-13 12:17:00 PM  

make me some tea: GAT_00: lennavan: GAT_00: pecosdave: Spending is out of control.

The only place spending is out of control is defense spending, which is why the GOP can't propose anything.

Oh the GOP certainly has a proposal for defense spending.

[www.washingtonpost.com image 500x326]

Link

Jesus. I knew he wanted to hike defense spending, but I didn't realize by that much.

I don't understand, what is the point of increasing defense spending? We already have a global military presence, capable of opening theaters anywhere we choose within a maximum of few weeks' time. Do Republicans think we should be present in outer space as well?


upload.wikimedia.org\
Moon base!
 
2012-12-13 12:17:37 PM  
I get the point. Republicans rail against spending but don't really want to cut spending. But federal spending is growing at a crazy rate. More than doubled in the past 10 years, in fact.

Like it or not. Support it or not. Rationalize it or not. We can spend some serious bank, people.

www.intellectualtakeout.org
 
2012-12-13 12:17:56 PM  
"Where are the president's spending cuts?"

In the DoD budget you pork barrel spending farkwad.
 
2012-12-13 12:18:35 PM  

sprawl15: It creates jobs and gets you new shiny things for campaign videos and furthermore America.


So you're saying that economic stimulus creates jobs? I thought conservatives were against stimulus of any kind?
 
2012-12-13 12:18:45 PM  

make me some tea: Hence why ObamaCare was passed to cap and attempt to reduce the growth of medical expenses in the private market.

If ObamaCare doesn't work, the next logical step is to introduce single payer, and government-set provider fees, which means we all become socialists.


The majority of that's focused on the insurance - rather than care - costs and mitigation of risk via larger pools.

Simple things like allowing Medicare to directly negotiate prescription prices are what I'm talking about.
 
2012-12-13 12:19:37 PM  

make me some tea: So you're saying that economic stimulus creates jobs? I thought conservatives were against stimulus of any kind?


well you see it is not the government creating jobs but rather defense contractors

checkmate libulardo
 
2012-12-13 12:20:25 PM  

namatad: St_Francis_P: GAT_00: pecosdave: Spending is out of control.

The only place spending is out of control is defense spending, which is why the GOP can't propose anything.

QFT

easy enough to fix

1) cut ALL earmarks
100%
dont even bother reading them
TADA savings

2) wind down DOD spending
year 1 - 1%
year 2 - 2%
...
year 10 - 10%
at the end of ten years you would have slowly cut DOD spending by 55% ish
which would ALMOST be rational.
too fast, spread it out over 15-20 years ...

3) cap total income tax deductions at 100k
has no effect on the 98%
gets rid of the insane bullshiat deductions of the silly rich

4) tax all income the same
inheritance
dividends
cap gains
everything

tada
probably dont even need to "raise" the tax rates .... LOL


notsureifserious.jpg
 
2012-12-13 12:21:10 PM  

pecosdave: It's unfortunate our political parties have polarized the people such as they have. The fundamental differences between left and right thinking people are how they approach things, rugged individualism or strength in numbers. Neither is exclusive in their thinking, it's just their default mindset. Left and right thinking people compliment and strengthen one another when they're not polarized into fighting about everything. Both types of people are valuable to society as a whole and keep each other in a balance in a "normal" state of affairs. I'm convinced most of the special interest that polarize the two groups would be easily become background noise if there weren't faction on either side pounding the war drums pushing the fights.


I wonder which side of the aisle benefits from this more and has actively worked to fan the flames? I'm sure it's both sides, somehow.
 
2012-12-13 12:22:26 PM  

AirForceVet: pecosdave: Are you defending a president, a party, or a timeline?

It's inexcusable now, it was inexcusable 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 15 years ago. If you're defending parties you're doing the wrong thing, it's nothing but one group of thugs versus another. "Both" parties are guilty and if you're using that recent dip to defend the whole system you're still defending criminals either way. My watch is set via NIST BTW.

Oh, I see you are a Libertarian in your profile. You don't believe government has any role in protecting its people. No services, roads, health care, etc. Everybody is on their own. How cute. Of course, Libertarians was hard to define as they range from none to some government involvement in their lives.

As for both parties being "criminals" and "thugs," well, that's pretty cynical and inaccurate. That's like me saying Libertarians are anti-government until they need something from the government, like the home mortgage interest deduction, business depreciation rates, or clean water, food, safe drugs, etc.

Why don't you just admit you don't want government in your life and move to some barrier island, set up a lean-to shelter, catch fish, drink rainwater? That would be Libertarian Paradise, am I right?


There's a difference between Libertarianism and Anarchy. Anarchy and Communism don't work for the same reason, a couple of assholes ruins the whole setup. Reduced nanny-statism and neck-breathing on the other hand is far from Anarchy and would be welcome. The people who run the government are corrupt, every single thing done by the government is done to pad someone else's pockets, therefor the government has the anti-Midas touch - everything it touches turns to shiat. I would rather they kept their hands in their pockets for the most part. You're bringing up fallacies us Libertarians laugh at people like you over. We can have most everything you mentioned without government interference - first of all "mortgage interest deduction" if there were anarchy, like you're painting me to want, there would be no taxes, what would I be deducting my interest from? I'm pretty sure MUD districts work rather well without being an actual tax, I lived in one for a while, the water was safe. My God! How did people live for all those thousands of years before there was an FDA?!?!?! Don't you think non-government organizations would pop up to bless things? Sort of like the Snell rating on motorcycle helmets? Never mind you can buy stuff without the seal, it's a gamble you chose to take or not - like buying a Nintendo peripheral without the seal of quality....
 
2012-12-13 12:22:43 PM  

Cletus C.: More than doubled in the past 10 years, in fact.

[www.intellectualtakeout.org image 650x442]


2000 - 1.8 x 2 = 3.6
2010 - 3.5

2001 - 1.9 x 2 = 3.8
2011 - 3.6

2002 - 2.0 x 2 = 4.0
2012 - 3.8

Are we using different definitions of 10 or something?
 
2012-12-13 12:23:14 PM  

partisan222: pecosdave: Spending is out of control. The GOP is just as guilty as the Democrats for it too, which is why I refer to them as "Republicrats". Both parties have the same goal in mind - control where the money flows - the only difference is where they want it to go, and they don't always disagree on that. Neither of them truly cares to reduce spending, they want to reduce it over "there" so we can spend it "here" instead.

so... vote RON PAUL

/ron paul
/RON PAUL
/RON F'ING PAUL


I'm in his district. I voted for him every time he came across my ballot, be it for congress or president.
 
2012-12-13 12:23:54 PM  

pecosdave: Libertarianism, Anarchy and Communism don't work for the same reason, a couple of assholes ruins the whole setup.


FTFY.
 
2012-12-13 12:24:41 PM  

make me some tea: sprawl15: GAT_00: The only place spending is out of control is defense spending

Health care costs.

They're the biggest problem with Medicare/Medicaid/personal insurance, yet there's been very little done to try to directly address them. If we could reduce those significantly, we'd be able to cut massive amounts of spending on Medicare/Medicaid without reducing benefits.

Hence why ObamaCare was passed to cap and attempt to reduce the growth of medical expenses in the private market.

If ObamaCare doesn't work, the next logical step is to introduce single payer, and government-set provider fees, which means we all become socialists.


I don't see the single payer system being an option for another decade. Ultimately, insurance companies do make a healthy profit in our system because their expenses are smaller than other industrialized nations. The goal isn't to provide health care coverage but to make money.

As long as industries purchase congress critters - and those industries favor profit over people - I'm skeptical there will be change. Unless, of course, society bands together to form a national union in which membership is based on being a person. The union can negotiate with our congress critters.

Our voice needs to be bigger and more powerful than big business.
 
2012-12-13 12:27:28 PM  

lennavan: GAT_00: pecosdave: Spending is out of control.

The only place spending is out of control is defense spending, which is why the GOP can't propose anything.

Oh the GOP certainly has a proposal for defense spending.

[www.washingtonpost.com image 500x326]

Link


Yeah, well, Romney knew he wasn't going to deliver on 15 ships a year. That's a purely insane plan.
 
2012-12-13 12:28:08 PM  

pecosdave: My God! How did people live for all those thousands of years before there was an FDA?!?!?!


Um... many didn't. Lots of people died from tainted foods, lead poisoning, counting on unregulated placebos to work like medicine, plagues...

When you have a regulatory system that oversees the cleanliness and usefulness of food and medicine, fewer foods and medicines that are tainted or worthless get to the public.
 
2012-12-13 12:29:17 PM  

rumpelstiltskin: GAT_00: pecosdave: Spending is out of control.

The only place spending is out of control is defense spending, which is why the GOP can't propose anything.

It's not "defense spending". When we buy a tank, we get an asset. An asset that goes 40 miles an hour and blows shiat up. That's investing. Defense investing, and investing is always a good thing. It's even better when you do it on margin, to take advantage of leverage.
Spending is only when we give services to poor people. When we give food stamps, we don't get an asset back. We get fat poor people back, and no one knows what to do with fat poor people. This is what we're talking about. This is spending. This is the problem.


Hegemony or Defeat!

Amirite?
 
2012-12-13 12:30:12 PM  

ManateeGag: spending is only out of control when the guy in the White House has a "D" next to his name.


That's totally and demonstrably false.

Spending is only out of control when it's a black guy in the White House.
 
2012-12-13 12:30:15 PM  

pecosdave: Reduced nanny-statism and neck-breathing on the other hand is far from Anarchy and would be welcome.


Not necessarily.

And the reason we have a "nanny state" is because the people you want to see taking personal responsibility don't.

And in the not too distant future, we will be considering taxing fatty foods and possibly even banning some unhealthy lifestyle choices because they are contributing to our incredibly high health care costs. Yeah, I know you didn't want to hear that.
 
2012-12-13 12:30:55 PM  

Bloody William: Um... many didn't. Lots of people died from tainted foods, lead poisoning, counting on unregulated placebos to work like medicine, plagues...


Liberals may say that Defrutum's characteristic flavor came from lead (II) acetate, but the truth is that it's the long lost recipe of freedom that made it so sweet.
 
2012-12-13 12:31:00 PM  
A couple of years ago Ann Coulter was on Bill Maher, and the topic of spending came up. She said twice that nobody in Washington from either party is interested in reducing spending one bit.

Granted, she's an insufferable kuunt, but if she says anything derogatory about the Republicans it is almost certainly true, right? What are they going to do, call her a RINO?
 
2012-12-13 12:31:13 PM  

sprawl15: pecosdave: Libertarianism, Anarchy and Communism don't work for the same reason, a couple of assholes ruins the whole setup.

FTFY.


I thought you were a libertarian?
 
2012-12-13 12:34:13 PM  

sugardave: I wonder which side of the aisle benefits from this more and has actively worked to fan the flames? I'm sure it's both sides, somehow.


I'm going to disagree. The left seems to find out what the right doesn't like and make a bunch of noise about it and force issues to make the right look bad. The right does it's best to not fan flames and keep a good face while they try to be sneaky about what they do. The left benefits from trumpeting/fanning more - it's solidarity - it's a battle cry to round up like people. The right likes to look like it's being reasonable and responsible to gain the confidence of voters who think they're reasonable and responsible.

No - the left does a lot more flame fanning - it's their strength.
 
2012-12-13 12:35:18 PM  

pecosdave: The left seems to find out what the right doesn't like and make a bunch of noise about it and force issues to make the right look bad.


LOL we don't need to do anything to make "the right look bad," just sayin'.
 
2012-12-13 12:35:21 PM  
Eh, Obama has been reining it in, albeit not as much as we'd like.

Welcome to moderates being in charge. Kinda beats the alternatives so far presented, so it's got that going for it.
 
2012-12-13 12:35:24 PM  

incendi: Cletus C.: More than doubled in the past 10 years, in fact.

[www.intellectualtakeout.org image 650x442]

2000 - 1.8 x 2 = 3.6
2010 - 3.5

2001 - 1.9 x 2 = 3.8
2011 - 3.6

2002 - 2.0 x 2 = 4.0
2012 - 3.8

Are we using different definitions of 10 or something?


Right-o. Ten years from 2000 to 2011 (do you count 2000 or just the 10 years after?) equals doubling spending, not more than double, as I said. More that doubling didn't happen until 2012 when you've gone from 1.8 in 2000 to 3.8 for this year.
 
2012-12-13 12:35:28 PM  

Weaver95: lennavan:

As the article put it "We all know Republicans want to spend less money."

Yeah, that seems legit.

its just strange to see a party that claims to be so religious can be so hostile to the sick and poor.


This. I've been asking for years and people just look at me with this odd expression.
 
2012-12-13 12:35:58 PM  

whidbey: I thought you were a libertarian?


Nowhere close. Libertarianism relies on the idea that people will magically act for the greater good based solely on their own self interest - yet it's in nobody else's self interest that, say, an elderly person be taken care of.

For 'libertarianism' to have a chance of working, it has to take steps that undermine its own claims. Libertarians will generally argue the value of a police or fire department, but the assertion of libertarianism is that private security forces can do better what publicly funded security forces can do and that procuring defense and security for your own person or family is now a motivation to contribute to society rather than a given. Exact same argument used against things like food stamps or social security, but they suddenly disagree when it's applied universally.

I agree with libertarians in a lot of ways, but for totally different reasons that lead me to want things like a baseline universal guaranteed level of health care - the free market simply cannot, in many cases, provide what is objectively best for society because it is not subjectively the ideal choice for the individual actors.

YOU DON'T KNOW ME! YOU DON'T KNOW ME!
 
2012-12-13 12:36:46 PM  
i.huffpost.com
 
2012-12-13 12:37:49 PM  

sprawl15: I agree with libertarians in a lot of ways


In the sense that I come to a similar conclusion. I want meth sold at Walgreens, but I also want it regulated and taxed.
 
2012-12-13 12:38:46 PM  

Duke Slater: A couple of years ago Ann Coulter was on Bill Maher, and the topic of spending came up. She said twice that nobody in Washington from either party is interested in reducing spending one bit.

Granted, she's an insufferable kuunt, but if she says anything derogatory about the Republicans it is almost certainly true, right? What are they going to do, call her a RINO?


I've heard Coulter rip into Republicans on multiple occasions. She's a real Republican, by real I mean one who follows their written mission statement, which really is a rather noble statement just generally ignored by the party at large. She doesn't like corrupt Republicans, she just tolerates them a little more than she does corrupt Democrats since they're at least "in the right direction mostly". No, I've actually heard her single out and praise individual Democrats for the doing the right thing on occasion also, even when it's been in opposition to a corrupt Republican.
 
2012-12-13 12:41:12 PM  

whidbey: pecosdave: The left seems to find out what the right doesn't like and make a bunch of noise about it and force issues to make the right look bad.

LOL we don't need to do anything to make "the right look bad," just sayin'.


There's sneezing and getting a booger on your shirt, then there's someone yelling "Hey look, there's a booger on his shirt now!". When it's the guy who's pants were unzipped that yelled about the booger - well you get my point.
 
2012-12-13 12:43:07 PM  

make me some tea: I don't understand, what is the point of increasing defense spending? We already have a global military presence, capable of opening theaters anywhere we choose within a maximum of few weeks' time. Do Republicans think we should be present in outer space as well?


Our military is slowly losing capability. From a naval perspective, we used to be able to be just about everywhere at once in the '80s. In the '90s, we decided on a 2 Major Theater War (MTW) strategy, where we could fight in two major wars in two completely different places at once. Our shipbuilding rate is such that we cannot maintain 2MTW, and we might not be even capable of it now.

In the meantime, realize that in the Gulf War, some 10% of our ordnance was precision. Now, we're pretty close to 100%. Which means that, given the same size military, we increased the cost of heavy weapons we deliver by an order of magnitude. Our military is actually much smaller than it was in 1991. It's just way higher tech. (In Traveller Tech Level terms, we went from some units still being TL7 to all units being TL9.) It means we can do more with fewer people.

Of course, a lot of people are under the impression that we're so much more capable, quantity doesn't matter anymore, which is demonstrably false. Sure, we were able to defeat Saddam's army as fast as in 1991, if not faster, but we couldn't secure all the arms depots because we didn't have the personnel to do it. And for the Navy it's even worse, as our surface engagement capability is essentially 30 years old.

(A 1-star was complaining at a war game recently, "Why the hell am I limited to using systems we were using when I was a Lieutenant?" "Because they haven't changed, sir.")

All of that having been said, I am not endorsing Romney's spending plan - not by a long shot. I prefer defense cuts because I don't see any way out of it. I just understand that our capability is shrinking. But you can imagine hawkish Republicans thinking we need to increase spending to maintain our hyper-dominance on land, sea, air, and space.
 
2012-12-13 12:44:11 PM  

make me some tea: GAT_00: lennavan: GAT_00: pecosdave: Spending is out of control.

The only place spending is out of control is defense spending, which is why the GOP can't propose anything.

Oh the GOP certainly has a proposal for defense spending.

[www.washingtonpost.com image 500x326]

Link

Jesus. I knew he wanted to hike defense spending, but I didn't realize by that much.

I don't understand, what is the point of increasing defense spending? We already have a global military presence, capable of opening theaters anywhere we choose within a maximum of few weeks' time. Do Republicans think we should be present in outer space as well?


Newt Gingrich thought so. Link
 
2012-12-13 12:44:23 PM  

sprawl15: In the sense that I come to a similar conclusion. I want meth sold at Walgreens, but I also want it regulated and taxed.


Well that certainly won't work- with crippling regulations on small meth labs, how do you expect them to make it in this economy? And taxing it? People are already hurting, why deny them of their small pleasures? Next thing you know someone's going to be proposing that meth labs provide health care to their employees, and that is coming right out of the consumer's pocket.
 
2012-12-13 12:45:11 PM  

pecosdave: sugardave: I wonder which side of the aisle benefits from this more and has actively worked to fan the flames? I'm sure it's both sides, somehow.

I'm going to disagree. The left seems to find out what the right doesn't like and make a bunch of noise about it and force issues to make the right look bad. The right does it's best to not fan flames and keep a good face while they try to be sneaky about what they do. The left benefits from trumpeting/fanning more - it's solidarity - it's a battle cry to round up like people. The right likes to look like it's being reasonable and responsible to gain the confidence of voters who think they're reasonable and responsible.

No - the left does a lot more flame fanning - it's their strength.


Oh yeah, I totally forgot the hordes of liberals screaming about needing to take their country back. And the cries of "he's not one of us!" when Bush 2 was elected. It also bothers me how liberals are always going on and talking about leeches and moochers. Oh, and don't get me started on the liberals and their hatred for marriage equality and homosexuals in general. Why are liberals so divisive?
 
2012-12-13 12:47:03 PM  

sprawl15: The majority of that's focused on the insurance - rather than care - costs and mitigation of risk via larger pools.


Yes, you're right, it is. The first target, however, is the insurance companies. The 85/15 rule has basically put an end to insurance profiteering. The glory days of that are over. HR informed us that our premiums are dropping next plan year because of it. Additionally, the individual mandate starting in 2014 will bring in millions of new lives, increasing the coffers, which, coupled with the 85/15 rule will reduce premiums even further if all goes well.

Simple things like allowing Medicare to directly negotiate prescription prices are what I'm talking about.

Indeed, however Congress has not been able to pass anything remotely related to it lately: Link

Bontesla: I don't see the single payer system being an option for another decade. Ultimately, insurance companies do make a healthy profit in our system because their expenses are smaller than other industrialized nations. The goal isn't to provide health care coverage but to make money.

As long as industries purchase congress critters - and those industries favor profit over people - I'm skeptical there will be change. Unless, of course, society bands together to form a national union in which membership is based on being a person. The union can negotiate with our congress critters.

Our voice needs to be bigger and more powerful than big business.


Yup.
 
2012-12-13 12:47:11 PM  
Oh, so the GOP is completely full of shiat.

Right-o.
 
2012-12-13 12:47:38 PM  

Weaver95: lennavan:

As the article put it "We all know Republicans want to spend less money."

Yeah, that seems legit.

its just strange to see a party that claims to be so religious can be so hostile to the sick and poor.


Nah, that makes sense, you wanna court the religious voters. So you gotta pretend to be religious. We'll see a woman president before we see an atheist president. So I can totally understand why a political party might want to lie. What's truly strange is to see a religion demand its congregants vote for the political party with an agenda completely contradictory to their teachings.
 
2012-12-13 12:47:59 PM  

sprawl15: I want meth sold at Walgreens, but I also want it regulated and taxed.


I've seen you post that before. That's just a bizarre thing to want.
 
2012-12-13 12:48:01 PM  

Mentat: [i1282.photobucket.com image 600x369]

The deficit is currently dropping at a rate of 3%, the fastest since WWII. If it were to drop any faster, it could cause a recession.


That's like saying 110° weather in Death Valley is a "cold snap", because it was over 120° all last week.
 
2012-12-13 12:48:29 PM  

Cletus C.: I get the point. Republicans rail against spending but don't really want to cut spending. But federal spending is growing at a crazy rate. More than doubled in the past 10 years, in fact.

Like it or not. Support it or not. Rationalize it or not. We can spend some serious bank, people.

[www.intellectualtakeout.org image 650x442]


That's somewhat misleading. You have to compare it against a number of other factors (GDP and population, amongst others). Pure dollar amounts tell you almost nothing. Our spending could have tripled in ten years, but if our population had a boom and our GDP (somehow) sextupled, we'd probably be spending too little. Clearly, this isn't the case, and I agree with you that the spending needs to be drawn down (as is beginning to happen, as others have pointed out). It's just that chart is really meaningless save to be "scary" to people who don't understand big numbers.

/okay, yes, I was looking for an excuse to write "sextupled" 
 
2012-12-13 12:48:55 PM  

pecosdave: whidbey: pecosdave: The left seems to find out what the right doesn't like and make a bunch of noise about it and force issues to make the right look bad.

LOL we don't need to do anything to make "the right look bad," just sayin'.

There's sneezing and getting a booger on your shirt, then there's someone yelling "Hey look, there's a booger on his shirt now!". When it's the guy who's pants were unzipped that yelled about the booger - well you get my point.


I do?
 
2012-12-13 12:50:58 PM  

lennavan: Weaver95: lennavan:

As the article put it "We all know Republicans want to spend less money."

Yeah, that seems legit.

its just strange to see a party that claims to be so religious can be so hostile to the sick and poor.

Nah, that makes sense, you wanna court the religious voters. So you gotta pretend to be religious. We'll see a woman president before we see an atheist president. So I can totally understand why a political party might want to lie. What's truly strange is to see a religion demand its congregants vote for the political party with an agenda completely contradictory to their teachings.


if my goal was to make a complete mockery of the teachings of Christ, I couldn't come up with a better example than the current incarnation of the Republican party.
 
2012-12-13 12:51:13 PM  

vygramul: All of that having been said, I am not endorsing Romney's spending plan - not by a long shot. I prefer defense cuts because I don't see any way out of it. I just understand that our capability is shrinking. But you can imagine hawkish Republicans thinking we need to increase spending to maintain our hyper-dominance on land, sea, air, and space.


Even with a less capable military, we're still a good 50% above the biggest competition. There is no need to expand it further, we've got the upper hand for the foreseeable future.
 
2012-12-13 12:51:55 PM  

Andyxc: Newt Gingrich thought so. Link


For the record, I'm all for doubling or tripling NASA's funding.
 
2012-12-13 12:53:45 PM  

whidbey: sprawl15: I want meth sold at Walgreens, but I also want it regulated and taxed.

I've seen you post that before. That's just a bizarre thing to want.


Why?

If one consenting adult wants to shiat in a bottle and sell it to another consenting adult, that's not my farking problem. I may find it disgusting and stupid and something I'd never do, but those are the same arguments used for sodomy laws. My personal opinion on the substance shouldn't be a factor in it.

The point where I differ strongly from libertarians on this (and similar topics) is that I recognize the dangers inherent in information asymmetry. The consumer has to know the risks inherent in the transaction to have honest consent. And that's where the government's role is - to regulate the substance not just to ensure it's not laced with anything or produced in some neckbeard's van, but to ensure the consumer knows just what they're getting into if they choose to do it. Because it's certainly not in the interests of the meth manufacturer to inform people.

make me some tea: The first target, however, is the insurance companies.


I know. But targeting insurance companies is like targeting fraud/waste/abuse - not really a bad thing per se, but it kind of ignores the underlying problem.
 
2012-12-13 12:54:48 PM  

whidbey: pecosdave: whidbey: pecosdave: The left seems to find out what the right doesn't like and make a bunch of noise about it and force issues to make the right look bad.

LOL we don't need to do anything to make "the right look bad," just sayin'.

There's sneezing and getting a booger on your shirt, then there's someone yelling "Hey look, there's a booger on his shirt now!". When it's the guy who's pants were unzipped that yelled about the booger - well you get my point.

I do?


Maybe I gave you too much credit.
 
2012-12-13 12:55:04 PM  

Cletus C.: But federal spending is growing at a crazy rate. More than doubled in the past 10 years, in fact.


Yes, but GDP has gone up too, so increased spending by itself is not necessarily a problem. What's more relevant is spending as a percent of GDP, or probably more relevant, outlays vs. revenue as a percent of GDP:

2.bp.blogspot.com i46.tinypic.com
 
2012-12-13 12:56:06 PM  

Vodka Zombie: pecosdave: Vodka Zombie: pecosdave: Spending is out of control.

Apparently, what "out of control" looks like:
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 657x464]

Strange how it trends down when a Democrat is in office, huh?

Anyway, I think you need to be more honest and say that spending WAS out of control, but with the winding down of two unfunded wars, things are steadily improving.

May not be at its peak, but it's still looks a little out of control to me.

You want instant results?

The economy doesn't work like your broadband internet connection. These things take TIME. You maybe need to revisit your expectations and consider taking a more reasonable approach here. Maybe buy a better watch?


Without instant results from democrats they are identical to republicans!

I bet pecosdave wrote in Ron Paul.
 
2012-12-13 12:56:21 PM  

Weaver95: lennavan: Weaver95: lennavan:

As the article put it "We all know Republicans want to spend less money."

Yeah, that seems legit.

its just strange to see a party that claims to be so religious can be so hostile to the sick and poor.

Nah, that makes sense, you wanna court the religious voters. So you gotta pretend to be religious. We'll see a woman president before we see an atheist president. So I can totally understand why a political party might want to lie. What's truly strange is to see a religion demand its congregants vote for the political party with an agenda completely contradictory to their teachings.

if my goal was to make a complete mockery of the teachings of Christ, I couldn't come up with a better example than the current incarnation of the Republican party.


Right. Now imagine your goal was to make a complete mockery of the teachings of Christ AND get Christian leaders to endorse you. That shiat can't be easy. I mean Republican policy is counter to pretty much every single teaching. But none of that matters because of abortion? Nah. Something else is goin on.
 
2012-12-13 12:56:22 PM  

make me some tea: Andyxc: Newt Gingrich thought so. Link

For the record, I'm all for doubling or tripling NASA's funding.


Congress' only power is to spend money. Without they are relegated to nonsense legislation which does not turn into campaign contributions or fancy lobbyist jobs when they exit the office.
 
2012-12-13 12:56:55 PM  

rumpelstiltskin: GAT_00: pecosdave: Spending is out of control.

The only place spending is out of control is defense spending, which is why the GOP can't propose anything.

It's not "defense spending". When we buy a tank, we get an asset. An asset that goes 40 miles an hour and blows shiat up. That's investing. Defense investing, and investing is always a good thing. It's even better when you do it on margin, to take advantage of leverage.
Spending is only when we give services to poor people. When we give food stamps, we don't get an asset back. We get fat poor people back, and no one knows what to do with fat poor people. This is what we're talking about. This is spending. This is the problem.



orsonwellesclap.gif

THIS is how it's done!!!!

*tips imaginary hat*
 
2012-12-13 12:56:59 PM  

monoski: make me some tea: Andyxc: Newt Gingrich thought so. Link

For the record, I'm all for doubling or tripling NASA's funding.

Congress' only power is to spend money. Without they are relegated to nonsense legislation which does not turn into campaign contributions or fancy lobbyist jobs when they exit the office.


They can also make laws...
 
2012-12-13 12:57:21 PM  

make me some tea: vygramul: All of that having been said, I am not endorsing Romney's spending plan - not by a long shot. I prefer defense cuts because I don't see any way out of it. I just understand that our capability is shrinking. But you can imagine hawkish Republicans thinking we need to increase spending to maintain our hyper-dominance on land, sea, air, and space.

Even with a less capable military, we're still a good 50% above the biggest competition. There is no need to expand it further, we've got the upper hand for the foreseeable future.


Well, I certainly don't see us cutting to the point we couldn't win against a given contingency. The question is really how we want to approach our deployment strategies. To grossly over-simplify, if you have just one CVN, do you want it over by China, or do you want it in the Middle East? Because unless CVN80 is going to be the USS Heisenberg, it can't be in both places at once.

As long as we go into our decisions with clear eyes as to what reduced force-sizes means, I'm all for cutting. I just want everyone to understand our collective decision.

/It's asking an awful lot, I know. But I want as many people as possible to understand.
//Still asking an awful lot
 
2012-12-13 12:58:01 PM  

pecosdave: Duke Slater: A couple of years ago Ann Coulter was on Bill Maher, and the topic of spending came up. She said twice that nobody in Washington from either party is interested in reducing spending one bit.

Granted, she's an insufferable kuunt, but if she says anything derogatory about the Republicans it is almost certainly true, right? What are they going to do, call her a RINO?

I've heard Coulter rip into Republicans on multiple occasions. She's a real Republican, by real I mean one who follows their written mission statement, which really is a rather noble statement just generally ignored by the party at large. She doesn't like corrupt Republicans, she just tolerates them a little more than she does corrupt Democrats since they're at least "in the right direction mostly". No, I've actually heard her single out and praise individual Democrats for the doing the right thing on occasion also, even when it's been in opposition to a corrupt Republican.


He's still not going to sleep with you.

Er, SHE, I mean. She. Yes, but she's still not going to sleep with you.
 
2012-12-13 12:58:11 PM  

make me some tea: Andyxc: Newt Gingrich thought so. Link

For the record, I'm all for doubling or tripling NASA's funding.


I'm for increasing it until we reached the point of diminishing returns. I don't know how much more that is, but I suspect it's more than an order of magnitude away.
 
2012-12-13 01:02:36 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: The President had 4 years to start cutting/ raising taxes and he didn't


You realize it's Congress that has the power to modify tax rates, right? Not the President?
 
2012-12-13 01:03:04 PM  

pecosdave: silly stuff that makes my head hurt


Ok, move away then. That'll get big bad government outta your pockets.

Africa has lots of open space that the government doesn't seem to want to oversee. You could start there.

/plonk
 
2012-12-13 01:04:14 PM  

pecosdave: partisan222: pecosdave: Spending is out of control. The GOP is just as guilty as the Democrats for it too, which is why I refer to them as "Republicrats". Both parties have the same goal in mind - control where the money flows - the only difference is where they want it to go, and they don't always disagree on that. Neither of them truly cares to reduce spending, they want to reduce it over "there" so we can spend it "here" instead.

so... vote RON PAUL

/ron paul
/RON PAUL
/RON F'ING PAUL

I'm in his district. I voted for him every time he came across my ballot, be it for congress or president.


why do you hate America so much?
 
2012-12-13 01:04:24 PM  
There seems to be a good deal of misconception abounding in this thread, as usual.Libertarianism by itself is not a foundation for a just society. The proposal is that limiting government, especially at the federal level, is beneficial for individuals, families, and businesses. Does Ron Paul stand around saying that we should pay no taxes and have no public works or services and everyone should do whatever they wish, regardless of anyone else? (Hint: no)

Limiting government puts the brakes on tyranny. It does no more and no less to guarantee justice in society than totalitarianism or any form of socialism. But it moves moral culpability from the society at large (meaning, in reality, a small number of elected or appointed representatives) to the individual. If "the government" is the solution, then we will all be happy when "the government" takes over. We will have justice and fairness. We will treat each other well at all times. This we know not to be the case. Now, in the Libertarian view, the government is a major part of the problem. The problem is taking away freedom and power from all the people in favor of a select few. The people are no longer free moral agents, but merely cogs in a technocratic machine which aims to produce perfect contentment through manipulation of material goods, behavior, and the relationships between various persons and groups.

Why do Libertarians think excessive spending on warfare and welfare programs is a bad idea? It is inherently unfair (gives decision-making power and monetary wealth to a disproportionate few) and inherently unjust (fails to develop free and moral human agency in society). Justice does not automatically result from limiting government. People in their human actions and interactions need to enact justice. Potential formational systems include mentorship, families, various forms of education, and religious communities. Lawbreakers (people who disregard life, liberty, or property) are jailed or executed, but since the onus of responsibility is placed on the individual person or family rather than an amorphous government, it is both easier to discern the problem and easier to enact the solution when a failure occurs (i.e., when a crime is committed)
 
2012-12-13 01:04:57 PM  

sugardave: pecosdave: sugardave: I wonder which side of the aisle benefits from this more and has actively worked to fan the flames? I'm sure it's both sides, somehow.

I'm going to disagree. The left seems to find out what the right doesn't like and make a bunch of noise about it and force issues to make the right look bad. The right does it's best to not fan flames and keep a good face while they try to be sneaky about what they do. The left benefits from trumpeting/fanning more - it's solidarity - it's a battle cry to round up like people. The right likes to look like it's being reasonable and responsible to gain the confidence of voters who think they're reasonable and responsible.

No - the left does a lot more flame fanning - it's their strength.

Oh yeah, I totally forgot the hordes of liberals screaming about needing to take their country back. And the cries of "he's not one of us!" when Bush 2 was elected. It also bothers me how liberals are always going on and talking about leeches and moochers. Oh, and don't get me started on the liberals and their hatred for marriage equality and homosexuals in general. Why are liberals so divisive?


When Bush the W was elected there were many liberals who said "your president" and "not my president" - just GIS for "Bush chimp". Leeches and moochers - justified - they don't like paying for it. Liberals may be fine with social issues, but they seem to have a really big issue with allowing conservatives to do with their own money as they please (see leaches/moochers statement). Conservatives tend to be very giving when it comes to voluntary charities, but they don't like the government version because the government doesn't filter. There's helping someone who needs a hand, and then there's enabling. I've been an enabler on a one to one basis before - I vowed never to be one again, then I was court ordered to enable someone else's drug and child abuse habit. I don't like doing it through my tax dollars also. When conservatives do make noise liberals plant infiltrators in their groups to hold up signs and discredit their perspectives. More than one caught, multiple times at multiple locations. Heck, after the first Obama election there was a Liberal shattering windows a local DNC headquarters to make the right wingers look bad. Had he not been caught there would have been a lot of noise about it.

There's a lot of screaming, and the left does more than the right.
 
2012-12-13 01:06:33 PM  

Smackledorfer: I bet pecosdave wrote in Ron Paul.


No point. I voted Gary Johnson.
 
2012-12-13 01:07:57 PM  

Cletus C.: I get the point. Republicans rail against spending but don't really want to cut spending. But federal spending is growing at a crazy rate. More than doubled in the past 10 years, in fact.

Like it or not. Support it or not. Rationalize it or not. We can spend some serious bank, people.

[www.intellectualtakeout.org image 650x442]


Nice graph. I especially like the part of the graph that showed that it hasn't doubled in the last 10 years.
 
2012-12-13 01:08:29 PM  

BoxOfBees: Does Ron Paul stand around saying that we should pay no taxes and have no public works or services and everyone should do whatever they wish, regardless of anyone else? (Hint: no)


No he doesn't. But, then, Paul isn't a libertarian, either. He's just an anti-federalist. He's fine with 50 petty tyrannies in the US. He just doesn't want the big one.

/Plus, his personal platform departs significantly from that of the LP
 
2012-12-13 01:08:43 PM  

pecosdave: I'm pretty sure MUD districts work rather well without being an actual tax, I lived in one for a while, the water was safe. My God!


Bangladesh has almost no regulations. Ideal for companies like Walmart, who want the lowest wages so they can provide the lowest prices. Sounds good, right? Except that their practices caused fires that killed over 100 people. Well, so what, you say. They passed their inspections. Regulations don't really require safety and fire codes.

This happened before. Here in the US. Before regulation. In New York. Over 100 people died in a massive fire because they had no fire codes. This event helped push people to demand their Government provide them with regulations to help prevent this from happening again. They did and it has.

Corporations only want to make a profit. The only thing that stands in their way of removing things we long cherish is the Government. So even if it is corrupt, I'm going to stand with the Government against Corporations, banks and wealthy assholes like the Kochs. 

Also, I do think people forget our populations are growing. If the Federal Government stopped adding any jobs, they'd automatically be shrinking, in terms of a percentage of Governing to Governed. And as society gets more complex, you want more protections. Out here in the deserts, there aren't many free running rivers and streams anymore. Take away Government protection and it'd ... let's just say the original pioneers and homesteaders asked the Government for help in sharing that precious resource we have.
 
2012-12-13 01:09:27 PM  

whidbey: sprawl15: I want meth sold at Walgreens, but I also want it regulated and taxed.

I've seen you post that before. That's just a bizarre thing to want.


Not if you like meth.
 
2012-12-13 01:10:07 PM  

lennavan: Weaver95: lennavan: Weaver95: lennavan:

As the article put it "We all know Republicans want to spend less money."

Yeah, that seems legit.

its just strange to see a party that claims to be so religious can be so hostile to the sick and poor.

Nah, that makes sense, you wanna court the religious voters. So you gotta pretend to be religious. We'll see a woman president before we see an atheist president. So I can totally understand why a political party might want to lie. What's truly strange is to see a religion demand its congregants vote for the political party with an agenda completely contradictory to their teachings.

if my goal was to make a complete mockery of the teachings of Christ, I couldn't come up with a better example than the current incarnation of the Republican party.

Right. Now imagine your goal was to make a complete mockery of the teachings of Christ AND get Christian leaders to endorse you. That shiat can't be easy. I mean Republican policy is counter to pretty much every single teaching. But none of that matters because of abortion? Nah. Something else is goin on.


Totally. I don't understand how abortion can be so evil that it supersedes the moral importance of taking care of the poor and loving each other as put forth by Jesus.
 
2012-12-13 01:10:44 PM  

vygramul: make me some tea: I don't understand, what is the point of increasing defense spending? We already have a global military presence, capable of opening theaters anywhere we choose within a maximum of few weeks' time. Do Republicans think we should be present in outer space as well?

Our military is slowly losing capability. From a naval perspective, we used to be able to be just about everywhere at once in the '80s. In the '90s, we decided on a 2 Major Theater War (MTW) strategy, where we could fight in two major wars in two completely different places at once. Our shipbuilding rate is such that we cannot maintain 2MTW, and we might not be even capable of it now.


I think the two carrier groups and the missiles make a more than global reach, which is the point of theatre warfare. Since 1998, the move has been to supplement the threatre aspects with more tactically versatile units that can keep local peace or support ground forces in a small theatre, thus the focus on new destroyers and subs while replacement of platforms like carriers rather than making new and more of them. So we've got the big picture stabilized. Iraq and Afghanistan pretty much proved that the wars of the future won't be won at that grand level, though.
 
2012-12-13 01:12:06 PM  
Hey guys! Listen to this:

Whenever credit is extended, whether it be to the government, corporations, or private individuals, it is essentially completely new money entering the economy. What happens when completely new money enters the economy? Initially, there is a boom. It seems like there is more demand, people are spending more, businesses are expanding, and everything is great. But what happens when people have to pay that money back? Well, that money is destroyed and exits the system. What happens when money leaves a system? Well, there is less demand, people spend less, businesses contract, and we enter a recession. Fairly straightforward stuff.

So how does this apply to our federal spending? Well, the private sector is deleveraging. They are paying down debt, or defaulting on it. This is causing a reduction in the money supply, and a reduction in spending, and would create a recession. So for the federal government to prevent that, they need to go deep enough into debt to counteract that leveraging. Unfortunately, our creditors are relatively unwilling to float us the cash (China reducing holdings, SS starting to collect on their debt), so we've had to resort to the Federal Reserve outright printing money to buy this debt. Take a look at the chart below.

creditwritedowns.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com

We have three options here.

1. Grow the economy to where the size of these debts are manageable. This is often the stated policy of politicians, particularly Republicans. This is absurd. We're running massive trade deficits and still losing manufacturing jobs. We are not going to be the productive capitol of a globalized world while having an extremely high living standard and environmental regulations. (And no, increasing our consumption does not count as growth)

2. Let the debts get paid down. As I said, this would result in a recession. An incredibly large recession. Most likely with extreme political consequences throughout the world. All bets are off.

3. Monetize the debt. Just print currency to pay the debts. This will result in massive inflation, and likely extreme political turmoil. All bets are off.

In my opinion, the best solution is to immediately cancel all debts. Make creditors 50% whole with freshly printed currency. Switch to a gold standard and allow the market to set interest rates to prevent anything like this from ever happening again.
 
2012-12-13 01:17:57 PM  

partisan222: vygramul: make me some tea: I don't understand, what is the point of increasing defense spending? We already have a global military presence, capable of opening theaters anywhere we choose within a maximum of few weeks' time. Do Republicans think we should be present in outer space as well?

Our military is slowly losing capability. From a naval perspective, we used to be able to be just about everywhere at once in the '80s. In the '90s, we decided on a 2 Major Theater War (MTW) strategy, where we could fight in two major wars in two completely different places at once. Our shipbuilding rate is such that we cannot maintain 2MTW, and we might not be even capable of it now.


I think the two carrier groups and the missiles make a more than global reach, which is the point of theatre warfare. Since 1998, the move has been to supplement the threatre aspects with more tactically versatile units that can keep local peace or support ground forces in a small theatre, thus the focus on new destroyers and subs while replacement of platforms like carriers rather than making new and more of them. So we've got the big picture stabilized. Iraq and Afghanistan pretty much proved that the wars of the future won't be won at that grand level, though.


You would like to think that, but you'd be mistaken. First off, our primary surface engagement missile is STILL the Harpoon, and its range is not as far as some of the other surface-surface weapons out there. Our primary ASW weapon is the MK46 (unless someone put in an order for a shiatload of MK54s while I wasn't looking) and, to quote the Chief of the Boat of the USS Atlanta, he sure as hell wouldn't be concerned if someone was firing those at him.

I wouldn't extrapolate Iraq and Afghanistan too much. "America is always preparing for the last war," is a complaint we hear rather frequently, so suggesting we should only prepare for the last war now seems to be ill-advised.
 
2012-12-13 01:20:22 PM  
My apologies, I should have found a more recent graph:

snbchf.snbchfcom.netdna-cdn.com

It looks like we've decreased private debt by 45% and increased public debt by 37%. If we are forced to decrease the public sector debt, say via the fiscal cliff, we're going to be in trouble.
 
2012-12-13 01:22:23 PM  

AirForceVet: pecosdave: Are you defending a president, a party, or a timeline?

It's inexcusable now, it was inexcusable 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 15 years ago. If you're defending parties you're doing the wrong thing, it's nothing but one group of thugs versus another. "Both" parties are guilty and if you're using that recent dip to defend the whole system you're still defending criminals either way. My watch is set via NIST BTW.

Oh, I see you are a Libertarian in your profile. You don't believe government has any role in protecting its people. No services, roads, health care, etc. Everybody is on their own. How cute. Of course, Libertarians was hard to define as they range from none to some government involvement in their lives.

As for both parties being "criminals" and "thugs," well, that's pretty cynical and inaccurate. That's like me saying Libertarians are anti-government until they need something from the government, like the home mortgage interest deduction, business depreciation rates, or clean water, food, safe drugs, etc.

Why don't you just admit you don't want government in your life and move to some barrier island, set up a lean-to shelter, catch fish, drink rainwater? That would be Libertarian Paradise, am I right?


NIST? The US government time agency? Sorry, NIST isn't on the Constition.
 
2012-12-13 01:22:55 PM  

moefuggenbrew: whidbey: sprawl15: I want meth sold at Walgreens, but I also want it regulated and taxed.

I've seen you post that before. That's just a bizarre thing to want.

Not if you like meth.


pjmedia.com
It was my understanding there would be no meth. 
 
2012-12-13 01:23:19 PM  
Sorry to spam all of this images, but this one is good to put our credit problem in context.

blog.moneymanagedproperly.com

The pain we've gone through so far is only the smallest bit of deleveraging. If we are headed back towards historical norms, which I believe we are, better get a helmet. Oh, and if you wonder how this credit problem came about, just take a look at what happened to the Fed Funds Rate right around 1980.
 
2012-12-13 01:23:21 PM  

lennavan: monoski: make me some tea: Andyxc: Newt Gingrich thought so. Link

For the record, I'm all for doubling or tripling NASA's funding.

Congress' only power is to spend money. Without they are relegated to nonsense legislation which does not turn into campaign contributions or fancy lobbyist jobs when they exit the office.

They can also make laws...


True, like the attempt to redefine rape. That was a good one
 
2012-12-13 01:23:48 PM  

Mentat: [i1282.photobucket.com image 600x369]

The deficit is currently dropping at a rate of 3%, the fastest since WWII. If it were to drop any faster, it could cause a recession.


You know what I love about that graph?

Bill Clinton enters office (1993)
Bill Clinton leaves office and GWB starts 1st of 2 unfunded wars (2001)
Obama takes office amid global financial crisis (2009)

Bbbutt Fartbongo socialist spending like crazy...
 
2012-12-13 01:23:48 PM  

Vodka Zombie: Diogenes: Vodka Zombie: pecosdave: Vodka Zombie: pecosdave: Spending is out of control.

Apparently, what "out of control" looks like:
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 657x464]

Strange how it trends down when a Democrat is in office, huh?

Anyway, I think you need to be more honest and say that spending WAS out of control, but with the winding down of two unfunded wars, things are steadily improving.

May not be at its peak, but it's still looks a little out of control to me.

You want instant results?

The economy doesn't work like your broadband internet connection. These things take TIME. You maybe need to revisit your expectations and consider taking a more reasonable approach here. Maybe buy a better watch?

Seriously.

Ever run up your credit? Try doing that, while also cutting your salary. Tell me how long it takes you to pay that off. Eating Ramen will only get you so far.

Joke's on you! I happen to LIKE ramen.


Then you'd love jail.
 
2012-12-13 01:24:56 PM  

pecosdave: sugardave: pecosdave: sugardave: I wonder which side of the aisle benefits from this more and has actively worked to fan the flames? I'm sure it's both sides, somehow.

I'm going to disagree. The left seems to find out what the right doesn't like and make a bunch of noise about it and force issues to make the right look bad. The right does it's best to not fan flames and keep a good face while they try to be sneaky about what they do. The left benefits from trumpeting/fanning more - it's solidarity - it's a battle cry to round up like people. The right likes to look like it's being reasonable and responsible to gain the confidence of voters who think they're reasonable and responsible.

No - the left does a lot more flame fanning - it's their strength.

Oh yeah, I totally forgot the hordes of liberals screaming about needing to take their country back. And the cries of "he's not one of us!" when Bush 2 was elected. It also bothers me how liberals are always going on and talking about leeches and moochers. Oh, and don't get me started on the liberals and their hatred for marriage equality and homosexuals in general. Why are liberals so divisive?

When Bush the W was elected there were many liberals who said "your president" and "not my president" - just GIS for "Bush chimp". Leeches and moochers - justified - they don't like paying for it. Liberals may be fine with social issues, but they seem to have a really big issue with allowing conservatives to do with their own money as they please (see leaches/moochers statement). Conservatives tend to be very giving when it comes to voluntary charities, but they don't like the government version because the government doesn't filter. There's helping someone who needs a hand, and then there's enabling. I've been an enabler on a one to one basis before - I vowed never to be one again, then I was court ordered to enable someone else's drug and child abuse habit. I don't like doing it through my tax dollars also. ...


In my opinion equating Bush with a chimpanzee was totally justified as well, so your equating calling a large portion of the population leeches/moochers and demonstrating ONE man's utter ineptitude as the same thing sort of falls apart. I bet you're going to tell me the reason conservatives "do better" with voluntary charities is because they're all big ol' loveable softies who really FEEL for the common person and not because it lowers their tax burden, aren't you?

Also, how in the world did those poor, poor job creators/robber barons manage to continue with their kind and loving ways back whentax rates were so high that you guys are pants-shiatting afraid we MIGHT get to 1/3 of that level?

Tell me again how the de facto news organization for the Democratic Party is in constant "us v them" mode, spewing blatant lies and misrepresentations every single day, instigating people, propping up "grassroots" movements based on fear, uncertainty, doubt, and above-all else hatred, etc. Tell me again how "the left" continually tries to pass legislation limiting an individual's liberty.

Your attempt to make "the left" look like they are the primary source of political antagonism and "go team!" gamesmanship is laughable at best.
 
2012-12-13 01:25:28 PM  

monoski: lennavan: monoski: make me some tea: Andyxc: Newt Gingrich thought so. Link

For the record, I'm all for doubling or tripling NASA's funding.

Congress' only power is to spend money. Without they are relegated to nonsense legislation which does not turn into campaign contributions or fancy lobbyist jobs when they exit the office.

They can also make laws...

True, like the attempt to redefine rape. That was a good one


Eh, Congress' power is not limited to non-stupid things.
 
2012-12-13 01:25:36 PM  
www.westernjournalism.com

The President's refusal to do my job for me shows that he's not serious about negotiating! Also, Tang.
 
2012-12-13 01:29:14 PM  

qorkfiend: You realize it's Congress that has the power to modify tax rates, right? Not the President?


yes.

I also understand that the President has the power to vote spending bills.

Couple that with the fact that the President of the United States has the largest most impressive soapbox in the history of man and has just now started talking about cuts and you see why I dont think his heart is in it.
 
2012-12-13 01:29:59 PM  

pecosdave: Liberals may be fine with social issues, but they seem to have a really big issue with allowing conservatives to do with their own money as they please (see leaches/moochers statement). Conservatives tend to be very giving when it comes to voluntary charities, but they don't like the government version because the government doesn't filter. There's helping someone who needs a hand, and then there's enabling. I've been an enabler on a one to one basis before - I vowed never to be one again, then I was court ordered to enable someone else's drug and child abuse habit. I don't like doing it through my tax dollars also.


I just really didn't want this to get too buried. Would you like to explain, or should we just assume that you're a deadbeat dad?
 
2012-12-13 01:30:34 PM  
Two unfunded wars and a financial industry whose dangerously irresponsible and greedy behavior nearly destroyed the world's economy, decades of outsourcing manufacturing, the health demands of an aging baby boom population, a series of decade long tax cuts - how long will it take to recover? Patience and the long view are not qualities normally associated with the American psyche, yet both will be required to get us out of this mess. The idea that there is some sort of quick fix is wrong.
 
2012-12-13 01:30:43 PM  
Compare US government spending as a percent of GDP to other countries in the developed world - it's relatively low, but not the absolute lowest, IIRC. Then compare it to countries with a much lower standard of living - it's much higher than those.

You can't run a prosperous country on the cheap. Taxes are the price we pay for civilization. There are a lot of countries with much lower tax rates, but they're not very nice places to live. Public services cost money, and we're not funding a lot of them adequately as it is.
 
2012-12-13 01:33:38 PM  

lennavan: True, like the attempt to redefine rape. That was a good one

Eh, Congress' power is not limited to non-stupid things.



Power, no. Thought process, seems limited.

http://www.dccc.org/page/content/whenarethejobs
 
2012-12-13 01:33:55 PM  

red5ish: Two unfunded wars and a financial industry whose dangerously irresponsible and greedy behavior nearly destroyed the world's economy, decades of outsourcing manufacturing, the health demands of an aging baby boom population, a series of decade long tax cuts - how long will it take to recover? Patience and the long view are not qualities normally associated with the American psyche, yet both will be required to get us out of this mess. The idea that there is some sort of quick fix is wrong.


As my supply-side econ professor said, we created a perverse incentive by bailing them out, but neither can he say it's the wrong thing to have done because the alternative was frightening. I'm hearing some conservatives say we should not allow a bank to become "too big to fail" and break it up. Granted, these are the same people who would have howled loudest had we tried that before 2007.
 
2012-12-13 01:34:18 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Diogenes: True. Two wrongs and all that. But the fact remains that Obama has plans for or already has paid for what he's proposed. That was not true under Bush. All I'm saying is the mewling from Republicans right now is highly hollow. In addition to the fact that they are complicit in national spending. That's a large part of their job.

Having plans is worth about as much as a +1 on the internet. And most of the time the best plains turn to a horror show! You know the only projected cost that was more than actual? The cost projections on Medicare Part D. The President had 4 years to start cutting/ raising taxes and he didn't. As Grandpa says "the proof is in the pudding".

And yes the vast majority of Republicans need to shut the fark up and all of the Democratics need to shut the fark up. We need to cover our bills. Understand that we are only going to get so much from the top 10% and start taking a meat cleaver to the spending.


How were the 90's for you? I bet they were real good--economy booming, great infrastructure, everyone making more money...
 
2012-12-13 01:34:29 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Couple that with the fact that the President of the United States has the largest most impressive soapbox in the history of man and has just now started talking about cuts and you see why I dont think his heart is in it.


Obama signed the Budget Control Act from the first debt ceiling go round.

$1.5T in spending cuts in exchange for zero tax increases. So whose heart isn't it?
 
2012-12-13 01:36:01 PM  
"Where are the president's spending cuts?" asks John Boehner. With Republicans coming to grips with their inability to stop taxes on the rich from rising, the center of the debate has turned to the expenditure side. In the short run, the two parties have run into an absurd standoff, where Republicans demand that President Obama produce an offer of higher spending cuts, and Obama replies that Republicans should say what spending cuts they want, and Republicans insist that Obama should try to guess what kind of spending cuts they would like.

This is because the Republicans want effective and popular programs like Social Security and Medicare cut down to the bare bones to where they are ineffective and unpopular making them easier to eliminate. The GOP "feels" that the government can't do anything correctly, even the stuff it does do well, so they will intentionally sabotage programs. That is why they rejected the President's proposed cuts and tax increases, because they probably are in a way which strengthens and preserves stuff like Social Security and Medicare rather than weakening and destroying them. The GOP claims "fiscal responsibility" but in truth it is only populist rhetoric meant to distract from their intended agenda, which is extreme right wing social engineering.
 
2012-12-13 01:36:19 PM  
paulalanrichardson.files.wordpress.com

Look at Fartbama tripling the deficit.

This is what Republicans actually believe!
 
2012-12-13 01:36:33 PM  

vygramul: red5ish: Two unfunded wars and a financial industry whose dangerously irresponsible and greedy behavior nearly destroyed the world's economy, decades of outsourcing manufacturing, the health demands of an aging baby boom population, a series of decade long tax cuts - how long will it take to recover? Patience and the long view are not qualities normally associated with the American psyche, yet both will be required to get us out of this mess. The idea that there is some sort of quick fix is wrong.

As my supply-side econ professor said, we created a perverse incentive by bailing them out, but neither can he say it's the wrong thing to have done because the alternative was frightening. I'm hearing some conservatives say we should not allow a bank to become "too big to fail" and break it up. Granted, these are the same people who would have howled loudest had we tried that before 2007.


They'd still howl, even to this day, if anyone suggested something that radical.
 
2012-12-13 01:40:07 PM  
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-12-13 01:40:47 PM  

BoxOfBees: Libertarianism by itself is not a foundation for a just society. The proposal is that limiting government, especially at the federal level, is beneficial for individuals, families, and businesses.


The first sentence simply means that Libertarianism, as a philosophy, is unsound. It is not a complete, true answer to the ideal relationship between individual and government. The second sentence reinforces this, as it shows one of the biggest issues with Libertarianism - it relies on the federal/state structure of the United States for its assumptions. The argument that states can decide better than the fed - or that tyranny at the local is 'better' than tyranny at the general - is problem specific. You can't apply the formula to a government that doesn't keep much power at a smaller level. Libertarianism is fundamentally flawed and by definition it is not universal.

BoxOfBees: If "the government" is the solution, then we will all be happy when "the government" takes over. We will have justice and fairness. We will treat each other well at all times. This we know not to be the case. Now, in the Libertarian view, the government is a major part of the problem. The problem is taking away freedom and power from all the people in favor of a select few. The people are no longer free moral agents, but merely cogs in a technocratic machine which aims to produce perfect contentment through manipulation of material goods, behavior, and the relationships between various persons and groups.


This is wrong on a few fronts. Libertarianism does not create a different type of freedom than (say) a social democrat's solution. It's not ultimate freedom, as even the most Libertarian psycho would agree that the government has a role to enforce contracts. So you're not talking about something fundamentally different than what you're arguing against, you're simply saying the slider should be a more on one side than the other. But your language in discussing it is dishonest in failing to recognize that. You're arguing it as if it were a binary case, that the freedom you have to operate as a moral agent under the EPA is a totally different creature than the freedom you have to operate under a privatized replacement. It's not.

BoxOfBees: Why do Libertarians think excessive spending on warfare and welfare programs is a bad idea? It is inherently unfair (gives decision-making power and monetary wealth to a disproportionate few) and inherently unjust (fails to develop free and moral human agency in society).


The problem is the fundamental nature of government is welfare. You cannot afford privatized security forces, but government taxes other people - including many who probably could afford privatized security forces - to pay for your security. In every case, government does not provide anything novel that could not be provided privately, generally speaking. But the recognition is that in many cases - especially on the fringe of capacity to afford - the value to society of handing out that welfare check (or paying for police forces) is higher than the burden to society of collecting the revenues required to write the check in the first place.

By couching Libertarianism in terms that paint it as a completely different approach, you only speak to your own ignorance.
 
2012-12-13 01:42:56 PM  

rumpelstiltskin: GAT_00: pecosdave: Spending is out of control.

The only place spending is out of control is defense spending, which is why the GOP can't propose anything.

It's not "defense spending". When we buy a tank, we get an asset. An asset that goes 40 miles an hour and blows shiat up. That's investing. Defense investing, and investing is always a good thing. It's even better when you do it on margin, to take advantage of leverage.
Spending is only when we give services to poor people. When we give food stamps, we don't get an asset back. We get fat poor people back, and no one knows what to do with fat poor people. This is what we're talking about. This is spending. This is the problem.


That was fantastic! I heard this in McConnells voice. 9/10.
 
2012-12-13 01:54:07 PM  

whidbey: pecosdave: whidbey: pecosdave: The left seems to find out what the right doesn't like and make a bunch of noise about it and force issues to make the right look bad.

LOL we don't need to do anything to make "the right look bad," just sayin'.

There's sneezing and getting a booger on your shirt, then there's someone yelling "Hey look, there's a booger on his shirt now!". When it's the guy who's pants were unzipped that yelled about the booger - well you get my point.

I do?


The point is; Dave's got a booger on his shirt. Or his johnson is peeking out. It seems I'm not so sure after all.
 
2012-12-13 01:55:07 PM  

Vodka Zombie:
Anyway, I think you need to be more honest and say that spending WAS out of control, but with the winding down of two unfunded wars, things are steadily improving.


When will Obama supporters start taking personal responsibility instead of blaming his predecessors?

/that is the argument that was made when Obama said "I came in with two wars and a global recession, remember that?"
 
2012-12-13 01:56:24 PM  

Cletus C.: I get the point. Republicans rail against spending but don't really want to cut spending. But federal spending is growing at a crazy rate. More than doubled in the past 10 years, in fact.

Like it or not. Support it or not. Rationalize it or not. We can spend some serious bank, people.

[www.intellectualtakeout.org image 650x442]


That chart is meaningless because it doesn't factor in population growth or GDP.
 
2012-12-13 02:09:26 PM  

MattStafford: Hey guys! Listen to this:

We have three options here.

1. Grow the economy to where the size of these debts are manageable. This is often the stated policy of politicians, particularly Republicans. This is absurd. We're running massive trade deficits and still losing manufacturing jobs. We are not going to be the productive capitol of a globalized world while having an extremely high living standard and environmental regulations. (And no, increasing our consumption does not count as growth)

2. Let the debts get paid down. As I said, this would result in a recession. An incredibly large recession. Most likely with extreme political consequences throughout the world. All bets are off.

3. Monetize the debt. Just print currency to pay the debts. This will result in massive inflation, and likely extreme political turmoil. All bets are off.

In my opinion, the best solution is to immediately cancel all debts. Make creditors 50% whole with freshly printed currency. Switch to a gold standard and allow the market to set interest rates to prevent anything like this from ever happening again


Your "best solution" is insane. The U.S. would never recover.

The best way to do it is to do all three, with a very careful balance between #2 (which causes deflation) and #3 (which causes inflation).

And there is this:

Link

The U.S. government pays interest on bonds to the Fed, who in turn gives that money back to the U.S. government at the end of the year as surplus funds. Fed-owned debt shouldn't really count.


TABLE OFS-1.-Distribution of Federal Securities by Class of Investors and Type of Issues
[In millions of dollars. Source: Financial Management Service]

End of fiscal year held by Federal Reserve banks
2008 484,486
2009 827,126
2010 909,910
2011 1,689,186
2012 1,744,275
Data Gleaned from here

The debt has increased by $6 trillion in the last five years, but almost a quarter of that is effectively fake- bought by the Federal Reserve with newly printed currency. We could cancel that debt at any time.

While it doesn't show until we cancel that debt, effectively we've paid almost a quarter of our deficit over the last five years with #3. As long as inflation doesn't rear its ugly head, we should keep right on doing it. Add in some #2 to keep inflation in check, and let #1 handle itself.
 
2012-12-13 02:13:04 PM  
If only Republicans held a part of some legislative body where spending bills originate, they could do something about this "out of control" spending.
 
2012-12-13 02:15:40 PM  

propasaurus: AirForceVet: pecosdave: Are you defending a president, a party, or a timeline?

It's inexcusable now, it was inexcusable 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 15 years ago. If you're defending parties you're doing the wrong thing, it's nothing but one group of thugs versus another. "Both" parties are guilty and if you're using that recent dip to defend the whole system you're still defending criminals either way. My watch is set via NIST BTW.

Oh, I see you are a Libertarian in your profile. You don't believe government has any role in protecting its people. No services, roads, health care, etc. Everybody is on their own. How cute. Of course, Libertarians was hard to define as they range from none to some government involvement in their lives.

As for both parties being "criminals" and "thugs," well, that's pretty cynical and inaccurate. That's like me saying Libertarians are anti-government until they need something from the government, like the home mortgage interest deduction, business depreciation rates, or clean water, food, safe drugs, etc.

Why don't you just admit you don't want government in your life and move to some barrier island, set up a lean-to shelter, catch fish, drink rainwater? That would be Libertarian Paradise, am I right?

NIST? The US government time agency? Sorry, NIST isn't on the Constition.


Actually the constitution allows the govt to set standards on measurements.
 
2012-12-13 02:18:43 PM  
Why is it that any "fact" that starts with "The GOP claims" is usually complete bullshiat?
 
2012-12-13 02:23:50 PM  

Ishidan: When will Obama supporters start taking personal responsibility instead of blaming his predecessors?


When will Republicans take personal responsibility for what happened under Bush? Or will they? We've already heard them say that Obama is to blame for the problems Bush caused. The entire past election it was the norm for the Republicans. The same Republicans who voted in lockstep with Bush and helped put us in the mess were in. FARK has it's own saying(Obama's time machine) because of it. Hell, Bush was nowhere to be seen for 2 entire election cycles and his own party kept him hid away from public veiw because even they understand what he did. Maybe if the GOP would just stand up and say "we farked things up under Bush" instead of trying to lay it at the feet of Obama things might be different. And I don't mean those on FARK or the internet, I mean those in Congress and the Media. They won't and never will so you get to hear about how it's all Bush's fault because it is, and even the Republicans know it.
 
2012-12-13 02:26:10 PM  

make me some tea:
I don't understand, what is the point of increasing defense spending? We already have a global military presence, capable of opening theaters anywhere we choose within a maximum of few weeks' time. Do Republicans think we should be present in outer space as well?


Please don't tell me you don't know about the X-37. It's a spacecraft that was designed and built by NASA, who then cancelled the program due to budget cuts. The DoD picked it up, and have been flying it on ULTAR-SEKRIT missions which really aren't all that secret and they're really not telling anyone what they're doing, because, ta daa, they really don't have any need to have this shiat, they just, well, have ALL THE MONEY and ALL THE TOYS and they're playing with them. Kind of, you know, a war dividend. fark that.
 
2012-12-13 02:26:34 PM  

pecosdave: partisan222: pecosdave: Spending is out of control. The GOP is just as guilty as the Democrats for it too, which is why I refer to them as "Republicrats". Both parties have the same goal in mind - control where the money flows - the only difference is where they want it to go, and they don't always disagree on that. Neither of them truly cares to reduce spending, they want to reduce it over "there" so we can spend it "here" instead.

so... vote RON PAUL

/ron paul
/RON PAUL
/RON F'ING PAUL

I'm in his district. I voted for him every time he came across my ballot, be it for congress or president.


Even though he routinely requested pork-barrel spending; attaching it to bills that he then voted against so he could get spending in his district?

For FY 2011, Rep. Paul submitted requests for 41 earmarks worth $157,093,544. The previous year, he submitted 54 earmarks totaling a whopping $398,460,640, including $2.5 million for a redevelopment project in Baytown, Texas. Among the essential public services that the earmark would finance were "trash cans...and decorative street lighting."
...
Paul, on the other hand, pretends that he is completely against earmarks while continuing to exploit the earmark process to bring home the bacon to his own district, a practice he allegedly deplores.
Paul lards up spending bills with pork via earmarks for his Texas district, knowing that the spending bill will pass, then votes against it. He then piously claims he is against pork barrel spending, a practice he has mastered. When called out on it, he claims he's lassoing tax dollars his Texans have sent to Washington, corralling them to be driven back to his district like so many cattle rustled by black-hatted government badmen.


He attached earmarks to bills that were sure to pass...then voted against the bills so he could look like a stalwart defender of fiscal discipline.

Link
 
2012-12-13 02:29:29 PM  

The Jami Turman Fan Club: Your "best solution" is insane. The U.S. would never recover.

The best way to do it is to do all three, with a very careful balance between #2 (which causes deflation) and #3 (which causes inflation).


My "solution" is a combination of two and three. Immediate default on half the debt (2) combined with monetizing the other half (3). From there on out, it is just living within your means.

The Jami Turman Fan Club: The debt has increased by $6 trillion in the last five years, but almost a quarter of that is effectively fake- bought by the Federal Reserve with newly printed currency. We could cancel that debt at any time.

While it doesn't show until we cancel that debt, effectively we've paid almost a quarter of our deficit over the last five years with #3. As long as inflation doesn't rear its ugly head, we should keep right on doing it. Add in some #2 to keep inflation in check, and let #1 handle itself.


If we destroy the Treasuries held by the Fed, we are admitting that they will never "wind down" QE and that the money printing is just that, straight up printing money. Right now, the plan is to eventually sell those treasuries back into the market and destroy some of that currency floating around. Destroying the treasuries prevents that, and would give inflation a huge kick start. It is essentially monetizing 1.7 trillion in debt in one fell swoop.
 
2012-12-13 02:29:29 PM  

MattStafford: Switch to a gold standard


It failed to work the last time it was implemented but surely it won't happen again.
 
2012-12-13 02:29:38 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: He attached earmarks to bills that were sure to pass...then voted against the bills so he could look like a stalwart defender of fiscal discipline.

Link


I actually question the sanity of someone this dysfunctional.
 
2012-12-13 02:30:52 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: He attached earmarks to bills that were sure to pass...then voted against the bills so he could look like a stalwart defender of fiscal discipline.


So he's a hypocrite?

Hmm...guess he really is a Republican after all.

I just wish my Facebook friends who believe in his tripe wisen up to it sooner or later.
 
2012-12-13 02:31:00 PM  

Saiga410: propasaurus: AirForceVet: pecosdave: Are you defending a president, a party, or a timeline?

It's inexcusable now, it was inexcusable 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 15 years ago. If you're defending parties you're doing the wrong thing, it's nothing but one group of thugs versus another. "Both" parties are guilty and if you're using that recent dip to defend the whole system you're still defending criminals either way. My watch is set via NIST BTW.

Oh, I see you are a Libertarian in your profile. You don't believe government has any role in protecting its people. No services, roads, health care, etc. Everybody is on their own. How cute. Of course, Libertarians was hard to define as they range from none to some government involvement in their lives.

As for both parties being "criminals" and "thugs," well, that's pretty cynical and inaccurate. That's like me saying Libertarians are anti-government until they need something from the government, like the home mortgage interest deduction, business depreciation rates, or clean water, food, safe drugs, etc.

Why don't you just admit you don't want government in your life and move to some barrier island, set up a lean-to shelter, catch fish, drink rainwater? That would be Libertarian Paradise, am I right?

NIST? The US government time agency? Sorry, NIST isn't on the Constition.

Actually the constitution allows the govt to set standards on measurements.


Sure, one guy with a stopwatch, but a whole agency? Who needs it?
 
2012-12-13 02:31:52 PM  

Pincy: Why is it that any "fact" that starts with "The GOP claims" is usually complete bullshiat?


Facts have a liberal bias
 
2012-12-13 02:33:05 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: He attached earmarks to bills that were sure to pass...then voted against the bills so he could look like a stalwart defender of fiscal discipline.


As I'm sure you've heard, that money is going to be spent anyway. He might as well direct it to his district, if possible. Basically, the government is saying we're going to spend 100 billion dollars, and congress critters get to split that up amongst their districts. If Paul doesn't grab some, his district gets zero, and the government spends 100 billion. If he does grab some, his district gets something, and the government spends 100 billion. He doesn't think the government should spend the 100 billion, so he votes against it, but if they do spend it (which they will) he should still try and get some of it for his constituents.

It might be a little nuanced for you, but it makes sense.
 
2012-12-13 02:34:56 PM  

propasaurus: NIST? The US government time agency? Sorry, NIST isn't on the Constition.


NIST stands for "National Institute of Standards and Technology." It's not an agency solely dedicated to "time."

And as for the Constitution...

Article I, Section 8

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures

So many Fark Libertarians...
 
2012-12-13 02:37:03 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: propasaurus: NIST? The US government time agency? Sorry, NIST isn't on the Constition.

NIST stands for "National Institute of Standards and Technology." It's not an agency solely dedicated to "time."

And as for the Constitution...

Article I, Section 8

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures

So many Fark Libertarians...


It's almost like they've never read it.
 
2012-12-13 02:37:11 PM  

MattStafford: As I'm sure you've heard, that money is going to be spent anyway. He might as well direct it to his district, if possible. Basically, the government is saying we're going to spend 100 billion dollars, and congress critters get to split that up amongst their districts. If Paul doesn't grab some, his district gets zero, and the government spends 100 billion. If he does grab some, his district gets something, and the government spends 100 billion. He doesn't think the government should spend the 100 billion, so he votes against it, but if they do spend it (which they will) he should still try and get some of it for his constituents.

It might be a little nuanced for you, but it makes sense.


Yeah, he doesn't like government spending unless it benefits him.

Otherwise he wouldn't be grabbing at the pot of money like everyone else.

Just face it, he's another Washington hypocrite.
 
2012-12-13 02:38:37 PM  

Cletus C.: I get the point. Republicans rail against spending but don't really want to cut spending. But federal spending is growing at a crazy rate. More than doubled in the past 10 years, in fact.

Like it or not. Support it or not. Rationalize it or not. We can spend some serious bank, people.

[www.intellectualtakeout.org image 650x442]


How much of that is a result - direct or indirect - of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, two recessions over those periods and increasing boomer retirements?

I'm fine with seeking out reasonable spending cuts as part of the deficit reduction solution, but your chart in no way, shape or form suggests that there's any problem because it lacks any context at all.
 
2012-12-13 02:40:00 PM  

Mrtraveler01: It failed to work the last time it was implemented but surely it won't happen again.


When people say the gold standard "failed to work", what the mean is that if forced people to live within their means. If people started living beyond their means, fueled by credit, then they rather quickly ran into a funding constraint and we're forced into a recession. Fiat allows us to escape that constraint, and live beyond our means indefinitely. Eventually, however, even fiat reaches this point of no return, and instead of just a recession, we are faced with a complete currency collapse. Which is what will happen if we try to monetize this debt.
 
2012-12-13 02:40:04 PM  

MattStafford: rufus-t-firefly: He attached earmarks to bills that were sure to pass...then voted against the bills so he could look like a stalwart defender of fiscal discipline.

As I'm sure you've heard, that money is going to be spent anyway. He might as well direct it to his district, if possible. Basically, the government is saying we're going to spend 100 billion dollars, and congress critters get to split that up amongst their districts. If Paul doesn't grab some, his district gets zero, and the government spends 100 billion. If he does grab some, his district gets something, and the government spends 100 billion. He doesn't think the government should spend the 100 billion, so he votes against it, but if they do spend it (which they will) he should still try and get some of it for his constituents.

It might be a little nuanced for you, but it makes sense.


Yeah, far be it from RON PAUL to stick by his principles. But no, he chose the weaselly way of voting against the bill, but still got the earmarks passed. That's scumbag behavior.

It's like Jack the Ripper - what's the big deal? His victims would have been dead by now anyway, right?
 
2012-12-13 02:42:45 PM  

pecosdave: whidbey: pecosdave: whidbey: pecosdave: The left seems to find out what the right doesn't like and make a bunch of noise about it and force issues to make the right look bad.

LOL we don't need to do anything to make "the right look bad," just sayin'.

There's sneezing and getting a booger on your shirt, then there's someone yelling "Hey look, there's a booger on his shirt now!". When it's the guy who's pants were unzipped that yelled about the booger - well you get my point.

I do?

Maybe I gave you too much credit.


so it's like Pot meet Kettle, but Pot has a bullhorn (the media).
 
2012-12-13 02:43:38 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Yeah, he doesn't like government spending unless it benefits him.


No, he doesn't like government spending even when it does benefit him. If he could earmark part of that hundred billion to just not be spent, and be used to pay down the deficit he would. Or at least he claims he would.

Mrtraveler01: Otherwise he wouldn't be grabbing at the pot of money like everyone else.

Just face it, he's another Washington hypocrite.


So I guess it was too nuanced for you. If the government is going to spend 100 billion regardless of what he does, and regardless of whether or not he believes it is a good idea for the government to spend that 100 billion, it makes sense for him to try to direct as much of that 100 billion to his constituents. It isn't being a hypocrite, it is being smart. Being a hypocrite would be him voting for those spending bills.
 
2012-12-13 02:44:21 PM  

zorgon: Please don't tell me you don't know about the X-37. It's a spacecraft that was designed and built by NASA, who then cancelled the program due to budget cuts. The DoD picked it up, and have been flying it on ULTAR-SEKRIT missions which really aren't all that secret and they're really not telling anyone what they're doing, because, ta daa, they really don't have any need to have this shiat, they just, well, have ALL THE MONEY and ALL THE TOYS and they're playing with them. Kind of, you know, a war dividend. fark that.


You have have noticed I'm all for increasing funding to NASA.
 
2012-12-13 02:44:49 PM  

magusdevil: pecosdave: Liberals may be fine with social issues, but they seem to have a really big issue with allowing conservatives to do with their own money as they please (see leaches/moochers statement). Conservatives tend to be very giving when it comes to voluntary charities, but they don't like the government version because the government doesn't filter. There's helping someone who needs a hand, and then there's enabling. I've been an enabler on a one to one basis before - I vowed never to be one again, then I was court ordered to enable someone else's drug and child abuse habit. I don't like doing it through my tax dollars also.

I just really didn't want this to get too buried. Would you like to explain, or should we just assume that you're a deadbeat dad?


Wow, I am pretty jaded and cynical but I didn't make that connection. Well done.
 
2012-12-13 02:45:14 PM  

MattStafford: It isn't being a hypocrite, it is being smart. Being a hypocrite would be him voting for those spending bills.


No, being a hypocrite would be taking money from those spending bills that he voted against.

He doesn't stick by his principles at all and it's funny to see you defend his hypocrisy. 

/Nuanced my ass
 
2012-12-13 02:46:41 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: Yeah, far be it from RON PAUL to stick by his principles. But no, he chose the weaselly way of voting against the bill, but still got the earmarks passed. That's scumbag behavior.


You obviously don't see the nuances behind the whole thing.
 
2012-12-13 02:46:55 PM  

Mrtraveler01: rufus-t-firefly: He attached earmarks to bills that were sure to pass...then voted against the bills so he could look like a stalwart defender of fiscal discipline.

So he's a hypocrite?

Hmm...guess he really is a Republican after all.

I just wish my Facebook friends who believe in his tripe wisen up to it sooner or later.


They'll just rationalize it. Like the Ayn Rand acolytes who won't condemn her for accepting Social Security and Medicare while others like here actually lived by their principles and refused to do so.

RON PAUL is a man who puts himself out there as an expert on the Constitution, yet has written that "the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution [are] both replete with references to God."

Go to this link and do a Ctrl-F for "God."

You now know one more thing about the Constitution than RON PAUL does.
 
2012-12-13 02:47:31 PM  
Until you set a firm target for cuts or tax increases you are full of crap.
 
2012-12-13 02:48:38 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: Yeah, far be it from RON PAUL to stick by his principles. But no, he chose the weaselly way of voting against the bill, but still got the earmarks passed. That's scumbag behavior.


Are you incapable of understanding the argument? The government is going into debt to spend 100 billion dollars. Everyone in the country is now footing the bill, including Ron Paul's constituents. Ron Paul thinks this is a bad idea, and votes against. Despite his efforts, the government is going to spend the 100 billion anyway. It would be irresponsible of him, and he would be letting down his constituents, to not try and get some of that money for his district, as they are on the hook for the money.

You know, for how much some people make fun of the right, the left sure is dumb sometimes as well.
 
2012-12-13 02:49:35 PM  

vygramul: As my supply-side econ professor said, we created a perverse incentive by bailing them out, but neither can he say it's the wrong thing to have done because the alternative was frightening. I'm hearing some conservatives say we should not allow a bank to become "too big to fail" and break it up. Granted, these are the same people who would have howled loudest had we tried that before 2007.


best option would have been the middle thingy
We bail them out for 90% share of the company.
They can choose to take it or leave it.
I seem to remember that this is something like was done in sweden.
FARKING THIS

Nirvana compared to the abortion which we did instead.
Some banks did not want to give shares to the government and privately dealt with their issues.
Funny. It worked perfectly.

Our bailout was similar, but not as draconian ....

too big to fail? break them up TODAY. PERIOD
otherwise they are not too big too fail
 
2012-12-13 02:50:31 PM  

namatad: Nirvana compared to the abortion which we did instead.


foo fighters isnt that bad

i mean come on
 
2012-12-13 02:52:02 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: They'll just rationalize it.


Seems so:

MattStafford: Are you incapable of understanding the argument? The government is going into debt to spend 100 billion dollars. Everyone in the country is now footing the bill, including Ron Paul's constituents. Ron Paul thinks this is a bad idea, and votes against. Despite his efforts, the government is going to spend the 100 billion anyway. It would be irresponsible of him, and he would be letting down his constituents, to not try and get some of that money for his district, as they are on the hook for the money.


I mean sure government spending is bad and all, but hey, if they're going to spend it anyway, might as well come to me right?

That doesn't make me look like a hypocrite at all taking money from the government while I'm decrying others of taking money from the government right?

You obviously don't see the nuances in the whole thing is all...
 
2012-12-13 02:52:20 PM  

Mrtraveler01: No, being a hypocrite would be taking money from those spending bills that he voted against.

He doesn't stick by his principles at all and it's funny to see you defend his hypocrisy.

/Nuanced my ass


You mean the spending bills that are being paid for by taxes paid by his constituency and debt his constituency is on the hook for?

Let me make a quick analogy for you. Suppose someone said that everyone in the conversation had to throw in twenty bucks, and then we would borrow another 200 more, which we would be on the hook for. We are then going to divide that money up between us, based on how we vote.

If you thought the whole idea was dumb, and that we shouldn't do it, and voted against the entire thing, would you just let the rest of us split your money up? Or would you try to get some of it back?
 
2012-12-13 02:53:18 PM  

sprawl15: namatad: Nirvana compared to the abortion which we did instead.

foo fighters isnt that bad

i mean come on


I still think Nickleback is the musical equivalent to an abortion.

/What were we taking about again?
 
2012-12-13 02:54:16 PM  

Mrtraveler01: I mean sure government spending is bad and all, but hey, if they're going to spend it anyway, might as well come to me right?

That doesn't make me look like a hypocrite at all taking money from the government while I'm decrying others of taking money from the government right?



Hey, guess where the money funding the government comes from? The people! Including people living in Ron Paul's district! So if Ron didn't fight for those ear marks, basically he would just be saying "no it's cool, just come in, take my constituent's money against their wishes and distribute it to the rest of the country." Don't you see how farking stupid that is?
 
2012-12-13 02:54:22 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Cletus C.: I get the point. Republicans rail against spending but don't really want to cut spending. But federal spending is growing at a crazy rate. More than doubled in the past 10 years, in fact.

Like it or not. Support it or not. Rationalize it or not. We can spend some serious bank, people.

[www.intellectualtakeout.org image 650x442]

How much of that is a result - direct or indirect - of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, two recessions over those periods and increasing boomer retirements?

I'm fine with seeking out reasonable spending cuts as part of the deficit reduction solution, but your chart in no way, shape or form suggests that there's any problem because it lacks any context at all.


As others and you have correctly pointed out it does lack context on many levels. Growth of spending vs. GDP, as you say growth in entitlement spending and Defense spending. Spending growth vs. revenue growth. Also, spending growth vs. inflation growth, where it does not look good.

Ultimately, I was just looking at hard dollars. How much? We spend a lot. Good, justified or otherwise, it is not slowing it is growing.
 
2012-12-13 02:54:53 PM  

MattStafford: rufus-t-firefly: Yeah, far be it from RON PAUL to stick by his principles. But no, he chose the weaselly way of voting against the bill, but still got the earmarks passed. That's scumbag behavior.

Are you incapable of understanding the argument? The government is going into debt to spend 100 billion dollars. Everyone in the country is now footing the bill, including Ron Paul's constituents. Ron Paul thinks this is a bad idea, and votes against. Despite his efforts, the government is going to spend the 100 billion anyway. It would be irresponsible of him, and he would be letting down his constituents, to not try and get some of that money for his district, as they are on the hook for the money.

You know, for how much some people make fun of the right, the left sure is dumb sometimes as well.


so he gets to wear the badge of fiscal responsibility while being fiscally irresponsible.
i get where you are coming from, the money is going to be spent, may as well spend in my back yard.
rather than stick to his fundamental principles, he talks the talk yet strays from the path because "it's going to be spent anyways".

and you want me to believe that he is against gov't spending? well, i can believe it but what i see is spending (earmarks).

a politician can sound great all day everyday, i don't care how they sound, i care how legislate.
 
2012-12-13 02:55:56 PM  

MattStafford: If you thought the whole idea was dumb, and that we shouldn't do it, and voted against the entire thing, would you just let the rest of us split your money up? Or would you try to get some of it back?


That depends, am I going to abandon my principles just so I can have my share of the pie too?

Speaking of abortions...that analogy was a good example of one.
 
2012-12-13 02:56:10 PM  

Mrtraveler01: MattStafford: It isn't being a hypocrite, it is being smart. Being a hypocrite would be him voting for those spending bills.

No, being a hypocrite would be taking money from those spending bills that he voted against.

He doesn't stick by his principles at all and it's funny to see you defend his hypocrisy. 

/Nuanced my ass


Yup. Nuance has nothing to do with anything. The government is spending so Paul extends out his hand. Well, secretly extends out his hand. Wouldn't want to tarnish is image and have all his fans stop deifying him.

Just like all the small government patriots riding around on their Medicare scooters. "I'm against government spending so because the government is spending Im gonna grab every available penny possible. Now let's talk about those lazy mooching minorities who just want handouts. They're ruining the country! I'm really itching to shoot all those free loaders just like the founders would have done..."
 
2012-12-13 02:56:52 PM  

Mrtraveler01: rufus-t-firefly: Yeah, far be it from RON PAUL to stick by his principles. But no, he chose the weaselly way of voting against the bill, but still got the earmarks passed. That's scumbag behavior.

You obviously don't see the nuances behind the whole thing.


The "nuance" being "I would like to be reelected to this den of thieves, so I gotta bring home the bacon."

blogs-images.forbes.com

He's part of the government, so that makes him...

And for fun, here are some of his quotes on earmarks. Bonus: they're indexed as if they were Bible verses.

If you have to make such an effort to show the "nuance" of your actions versus your words, then maybe you aren't exactly honest.
 
2012-12-13 02:56:53 PM  

MattStafford: So if Ron didn't fight for those ear marks, basically he would just be saying "no it's cool, just come in, take my constituent's money against their wishes and distribute it to the rest of the country." Don't you see how farking stupid that is?


So he'll admit that he likes earmark spending as long as it benefits his district?
 
2012-12-13 02:57:55 PM  

Mrtraveler01: MattStafford: Switch to a gold standard

It failed to work the last time it was implemented but surely it won't happen again.


I love reading about WHAT would actually happen and HOW we would switch over to the gold standard.
It is pretty farking INSANE shiat.
Inflation would be completely out of control no matter how and when they set the exchange rate.
The US going on the gold standard without both the euro and yen doing the same thing, would be the end of the US.

shudder
but go ahead and keep choking that chicken goldies!!
 
2012-12-13 02:59:15 PM  

namatad: I love reading about WHAT would actually happen and HOW we would switch over to the gold standard.
It is pretty farking INSANE shiat.
Inflation would be completely out of control no matter how and when they set the exchange rate.
The US going on the gold standard without both the euro and yen doing the same thing, would be the end of the US.


Diablo 3's economy proved that the gold standard leads to rampant inflation.

The fiat currencies of runes or SoJ's in Diablo 2 were far more stable.
 
2012-12-13 02:59:20 PM  
"Howling void."

Nice.
 
2012-12-13 02:59:43 PM  

pecosdave: child abuse habit


I did not know it was habit forming. Awww man, I really should quit it that is the case.
 
2012-12-13 03:00:07 PM  
MARK MY WORDS THEY WILL FIND THOSE WMD'S!!!!!
 
2012-12-13 03:00:22 PM  

namatad: Mrtraveler01: MattStafford: Switch to a gold standard

It failed to work the last time it was implemented but surely it won't happen again.

I love reading about WHAT would actually happen and HOW we would switch over to the gold standard.
It is pretty farking INSANE shiat.
Inflation would be completely out of control no matter how and when they set the exchange rate.
The US going on the gold standard without both the euro and yen doing the same thing, would be the end of the US.

shudder
but go ahead and keep choking that chicken goldies!!


What? You mean you don't yearn for the days when the economy was more erratic and boom/bust cycles were more frequent?
 
2012-12-13 03:01:15 PM  

Mrtraveler01: MattStafford: So if Ron didn't fight for those ear marks, basically he would just be saying "no it's cool, just come in, take my constituent's money against their wishes and distribute it to the rest of the country." Don't you see how farking stupid that is?

So he'll admit that he likes earmark spending as long as it benefits his district?


And never mind the fact that if every congressman acted as he does, then the spending available to be earmarked would increase.

"I've never voted for an earmark in my life."
-- Remark by Paul on NBC's "Meet the Press," Dec. 23, 2007

Sure, he puts them in bills that he knows will pass, but he doesn't vote for the bills. :HERO TAG NEEDED:

"Honey, she was going to jerk someone off anyway, so why not me? I didn't ask her to do it, so it wasn't really cheating anyway."
 
2012-12-13 03:01:57 PM  
It's like I've said before - about 99% of the most vocal "concern" over the debt, deficits or spending in general isn't based on any particular logic beyond "Big scary numbers! Look how big they are and be scared!" Though in the case of the GOP it's sometimes hard to say how much of it is down to genuine stupidity and how much is just a smokescreen for an attack on programs that they're ideologically opposed to.
 
2012-12-13 03:02:02 PM  
Wow are we really doing the gold standard thing in this thread? Really? Where the fark is my popcorn?
 
2012-12-13 03:02:06 PM  

Isitoveryet: so he gets to wear the badge of fiscal responsibility while being fiscally irresponsible.
i get where you are coming from, the money is going to be spent, may as well spend in my back yard.
rather than stick to his fundamental principles, he talks the talk yet strays from the path because "it's going to be spent anyways".

and you want me to believe that he is against gov't spending? well, i can believe it but what i see is spending (earmarks).

a politician can sound great all day everyday, i don't care how they sound, i care how legislate.


If people in his district are being taxed, and people in his district are on the hook for the deficit, even if he thinks the spending is a bad thing you are going to fault him for trying to get some of that money directed towards his district?

Are you guys being serious right now? How does that make him a hypocrite? The other course of action would be letting the government tax his constituents, borrow money his constituents are on the hook for, and then spend that money in other parts of the country. You honestly think that is the course of action he needs to take to prove that he is "serious" about his dislike of spending and earmarks?
 
2012-12-13 03:02:06 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: And for fun, here are some of his quotes on earmarks. Bonus: they're indexed as if they were Bible verses.


That is creepy as hell.
 
2012-12-13 03:04:07 PM  

Mrtraveler01: namatad: Mrtraveler01: MattStafford: Switch to a gold standard

It failed to work the last time it was implemented but surely it won't happen again.

I love reading about WHAT would actually happen and HOW we would switch over to the gold standard.
It is pretty farking INSANE shiat.
Inflation would be completely out of control no matter how and when they set the exchange rate.
The US going on the gold standard without both the euro and yen doing the same thing, would be the end of the US.

shudder
but go ahead and keep choking that chicken goldies!!

What? You mean you don't yearn for the days when the economy was more erratic and boom/bust cycles were more frequent?


bwhahaahahahahahahaha
you take a look at the +/- before WW2 and you just shiver.
These tards want to go back to THAT???
REALLY???

Plus I am certain that none of them understand inflation in any way shape or form.

OMG MY LOAF of MILK COSTS $4 it used to cost 2 cents!!!!!!
Why yes, that is true. But you used to work an hour to buy that milk for 2 cents and now you work 10 minutes.

Julian Simon did most of his analysis in wage-hour space. Buying a car takes less hours of wages than it did in 1950s. Any other way of looking at this is just plain silly.
 
2012-12-13 03:04:20 PM  

Bloody William: pecosdave: My God! How did people live for all those thousands of years before there was an FDA?!?!?!

Um... many didn't. Lots of people died from tainted foods, lead poisoning, counting on unregulated placebos to work like medicine, plagues...

When you have a regulatory system that oversees the cleanliness and usefulness of food and medicine, fewer foods and medicines that are tainted or worthless get to the public.


I was going to reply to him by posting a bunch of really nasty images of diseases and pollution that gov't organizations protect us from, but iPad's safari won't let me copy image locations in order to get an image on fark. Consider yourself lucky?
 
2012-12-13 03:05:02 PM  

Mrtraveler01: That depends, am I going to abandon my principles just so I can have my share of the pie too?

Speaking of abortions...that analogy was a good example of one.


No, that analogy was actually pretty much spot on to what is happening. Would you try and get some of that money back, or would you let the rest of us split it up? And if you did try to get some of that money back, would you consider yourself a hypocrite?

Unless you answer those questions, you aren't trying to have a serious debate right now, and are just as bad as any of the right wing commentators you love so much to rail against. Holding onto partisan beliefs just because they are beliefs your side has, regardless of the intellectual honesty behind those beliefs.
 
2012-12-13 03:05:45 PM  

namatad: Mrtraveler01: MattStafford: Switch to a gold standard

It failed to work the last time it was implemented but surely it won't happen again.

I love reading about WHAT would actually happen and HOW we would switch over to the gold standard.
It is pretty farking INSANE shiat.
Inflation would be completely out of control no matter how and when they set the exchange rate.
The US going on the gold standard without both the euro and yen doing the same thing, would be the end of the US.

shudder
but go ahead and keep choking that chicken goldies!!


Part of Keynesian theory that was wrong was that people expect inflation to be 0. A lot of people are surprised that this is an expectation Keynes asserted, thinking it's obvious that inflation is always positive. That's because it has been. Since about when we left the gold standard. Before, there were years where inflation was 20% and years where it was -20%. These were outliers, of course, but the point is that people have this perception about the stability of the gold standard that is simply not supported by history. Inflation went up and down, and so the expected value for inflation at the time Keynes wrote his General Theory was, in fact, 0, because you truly didn't know where it would lead. (It also explains the long-abandoned natural price theory.)
 
2012-12-13 03:05:45 PM  

namatad: I love reading about WHAT would actually happen and HOW we would switch over to the gold standard.
It is pretty farking INSANE shiat.
Inflation would be completely out of control no matter how and when they set the exchange rate.
The US going on the gold standard without both the euro and yen doing the same thing, would be the end of the US.

shudder
but go ahead and keep choking that chicken goldies!!


And I'm sure 400% debt to GDP is going to work out real well for us too.
 
2012-12-13 03:06:22 PM  

CPennypacker: Wow are we really doing the gold standard thing in this thread? Really? Where the fark is my popcorn?


no
no popcorn
no gold standard

strangely enough, no civilized country is on the gold standard
I wonder why?
You wou ... oh nevermind
 
2012-12-13 03:06:23 PM  
Hai guys. Thx for taking half a thread to tell me that Ron Paul's an irrelevant maroon.
 
2012-12-13 03:06:38 PM  

MattStafford: Are you guys being serious right now? How does that make him a hypocrite? The other course of action would be letting the government tax his constituents, borrow money his constituents are on the hook for, and then spend that money in other parts of the country.


I remember when Jesus said "What, you want me to suffer for your sins? Why don't you people take a turn on the cross first, see how you like it."
 
2012-12-13 03:08:25 PM  

pecosdave: Vodka Zombie: pecosdave: Spending is out of control.

Apparently, what "out of control" looks like:
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 657x464]

Strange how it trends down when a Democrat is in office, huh?

Anyway, I think you need to be more honest and say that spending WAS out of control, but with the winding down of two unfunded wars, things are steadily improving.

May not be at its peak, but it's still looks a little out of control to me.


We're capable of lowering our deficit, as evidenced by that very chart.

If spending were "out of control" we wouldn't be able to "control" it in predictable ways. Lowering the deficit steadily over time *heavily* implies that we are able to control our deficit.

Therefore, spending is not out of control.

What percentage of GDP is an "appropriate" spending level? I ask this very specific question because your logic is on par with the taxes discussion. If all we're talking about is whether something needs to be raised or lowered, then we can never have an honest conversation about where that things should actually be, and whether it should be allowed to continue to change as the world around it does.

Spending is high. Yes. But the company I work for drops some 30% of revenue back into itself every year. That's the same as running a deficit that is 30% of GDP. Not all spending is equal. If we take the simple approach, we end up hamstringing ourselves for no reason other than making ourselves *feel* smart by *acting* dumb.
 
2012-12-13 03:08:39 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: And for fun, here are some of his quotes on earmarks. Bonus: they're indexed as if they were Bible verses.


Some of my faves:

2009 Ron Paul 24:2
The truth is that if you removed all the earmarks from the budget, you would remove 1 percent of the budget. So there's not a lot of savings. But, even if you voted against all the earmarks actually, you don't even save the 1 percent because you don't save any money.


Then it gets even better...

2009 Ron Paul 24:3
What is done is, those earmarks are removed, and some of them are very wasteful and unnecessary, but that money then goes to the executive branch. So, in many ways, what we are doing here in the Congress is reneging on our responsibilities, because it is the responsibility of the Congress to earmark. That is our job. We are supposed to tell the people how we are spending the money, not to just deliver it in a lump sum to the executive branch and let them deal with it, and then it's dealt with behind the scenes.

2009 Ron Paul 24:4
Actually, if you voted against all the earmarks, there would be less transparency. Earmarks really allow transparency, and we know exactly where the money is being spent.


Yes..he's actually defending earmarks in this speech.
 
2012-12-13 03:10:00 PM  

Mrtraveler01: namatad: Mrtraveler01: MattStafford: Switch to a gold standard

It failed to work the last time it was implemented but surely it won't happen again.

I love reading about WHAT would actually happen and HOW we would switch over to the gold standard.
It is pretty farking INSANE shiat.
Inflation would be completely out of control no matter how and when they set the exchange rate.
The US going on the gold standard without both the euro and yen doing the same thing, would be the end of the US.

shudder
but go ahead and keep choking that chicken goldies!!

What? You mean you don't yearn for the days when the economy was more erratic and boom/bust cycles were more frequent?


The boom bust cycles were more frequent, I won't disagree. The nature of a gold standard creates the situation where credit bubbles are quickly stamped out. A credit bubble creates a boom, and then when it collapses, it creates a bust. The problem with fiat, is that these credit bubbles aren't quickly stamped out. They are allowed to build and build, to the point of systemic collapse. And, if you take a look at those graphs I posted a while back, it looks like we've been in the mother of all credit bubbles for about thirty years, and when this baby blows? Economic Yellowstone.
 
2012-12-13 03:11:04 PM  
Entitlements should go hand in hand with defense spending and tax cuts.

Big Biz wants American boys and girls to bleed for their interests then they pay.

It's just business.
 
2012-12-13 03:11:09 PM  

MattStafford: Would you try and get some of that money back, or would you let the rest of us split it up?


If I was someone who doesn't like government spending. Would I want the government to spend money on my district?

MattStafford: And if you did try to get some of that money back, would you consider yourself a hypocrite?


Yes.
 
2012-12-13 03:11:47 PM  

sprawl15: I remember when Jesus said "What, you want me to suffer for your sins? Why don't you people take a turn on the cross first, see how you like it."


How is that relevant to the conversation? Or are we now accusing Ron Paul of being a hypocrite because he is religious and isn't willing to give his constituent's money away to the rest of the country?
 
2012-12-13 03:12:18 PM  

make me some tea: Even with a less capable military, we're still a good 50% above the biggest competition



And by biggest competition, you mean the next five biggest spenders combined. We're at almost 500% of the closest competition.

upload.wikimedia.org

And as a % of GDP, none of the other top 5 countries are even close. U.S. 4.7% Russia 3.9% World Average 2.2% China 2.1%

The US is responsible for 41% of all military spending globally. Big boogeyman China? about 8.2%
 
2012-12-13 03:12:29 PM  

MattStafford: Isitoveryet: so he gets to wear the badge of fiscal responsibility while being fiscally irresponsible.
i get where you are coming from, the money is going to be spent, may as well spend in my back yard.
rather than stick to his fundamental principles, he talks the talk yet strays from the path because "it's going to be spent anyways".

and you want me to believe that he is against gov't spending? well, i can believe it but what i see is spending (earmarks).

a politician can sound great all day everyday, i don't care how they sound, i care how legislate.

If people in his district are being taxed, and people in his district are on the hook for the deficit, even if he thinks the spending is a bad thing you are going to fault him for trying to get some of that money directed towards his district?

Are you guys being serious right now? How does that make him a hypocrite? The other course of action would be letting the government tax his constituents, borrow money his constituents are on the hook for, and then spend that money in other parts of the country. You honestly think that is the course of action he needs to take to prove that he is "serious" about his dislike of spending and earmarks?


i can't fault him for anything it's a conundrum and we will go back and forth about it. but based on his record, he does one thing but listen to him & he says another. how about cutting the b.s. or sticking to your principles. maybe find a way to find funding for his constituent without the earmarks and the doublespeak? generate revenue another way? i mean if not for earmarks he wouldn't receive any fed funds?

now i feel silly.
 
2012-12-13 03:12:32 PM  

MattStafford: Or are we now accusing Ron Paul of being a hypocrite because he is religious and isn't willing to give his constituent's money away to the rest of the country?


We're accusing Ron Paul of talking about how he wants to take the high road but refuses to impose the results of that high road onto his constituency because that would be 'unfair'.
 
2012-12-13 03:15:20 PM  

MattStafford: Mrtraveler01: namatad: Mrtraveler01: MattStafford: Switch to a gold standard

It failed to work the last time it was implemented but surely it won't happen again.

I love reading about WHAT would actually happen and HOW we would switch over to the gold standard.
It is pretty farking INSANE shiat.
Inflation would be completely out of control no matter how and when they set the exchange rate.
The US going on the gold standard without both the euro and yen doing the same thing, would be the end of the US.

shudder
but go ahead and keep choking that chicken goldies!!

What? You mean you don't yearn for the days when the economy was more erratic and boom/bust cycles were more frequent?

The boom bust cycles were more frequent, I won't disagree. The nature of a gold standard creates the situation where credit bubbles are quickly stamped out. A credit bubble creates a boom, and then when it collapses, it creates a bust. The problem with fiat, is that these credit bubbles aren't quickly stamped out. They are allowed to build and build, to the point of systemic collapse. And, if you take a look at those graphs I posted a while back, it looks like we've been in the mother of all credit bubbles for about thirty years, and when this baby blows? Economic Yellowstone.


Why would we tie our money supply to a completely unrelated, arbitrary asset?

I mean aside from the fact that we used to do it and it didn't work out all that well. Maybe we should tie it to bottle caps. Or poop. Makes just as much sense. The poop standard.
 
2012-12-13 03:15:32 PM  

abrannan: make me some tea: Even with a less capable military, we're still a good 50% above the biggest competition


And by biggest competition, you mean the next five biggest spenders combined. We're at almost 500% of the closest competition.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 270x250]

And as a % of GDP, none of the other top 5 countries are even close. U.S. 4.7% Russia 3.9% World Average 2.2% China 2.1%

The US is responsible for 41% of all military spending globally. Big boogeyman China? about 8.2%


The f*cking defense industry and their congressional whores are doing a hell of a lot more damage than any "moochers"

But it's fun and easy to pick on poor people!!
 
2012-12-13 03:16:42 PM  

sprawl15: MattStafford: Or are we now accusing Ron Paul of being a hypocrite because he is religious and isn't willing to give his constituent's money away to the rest of the country?

We're accusing Ron Paul of talking about how he wants to take the high road but refuses to impose the results of that high road onto his constituency because that would be 'unfair'.


Though to be fair, it's kind of besides the point. RONPAUL is an idiot for many reasons, and the earmarks thing is a minor one.
 
2012-12-13 03:16:51 PM  

CPennypacker: The poop standard.


I can increase the supply easily after a few trips to White Castle.
 
2012-12-13 03:18:14 PM  

Mrtraveler01: CPennypacker: The poop standard.

I can increase the supply easily after a few trips to White Castle.


At the very least, you'd be able to tell who is rich by how bad they smell.
 
2012-12-13 03:19:14 PM  

Mrtraveler01: MattStafford: Would you try and get some of that money back, or would you let the rest of us split it up?

If I was someone who doesn't like government spending. Would I want the government to spend money on my district?

MattStafford: And if you did try to get some of that money back, would you consider yourself a hypocrite?

Yes.


Well, at least you'll admit to being a complete idiot in your neverending quest to show how much of a hypocrite Ron Paul is.

Just so we're clear, suppose there were ten people, and someone at the point of a gun made everyone throw in 100 bucks, then everyone was going to split up that 1000 bucks amongst them, you wouldn't accept any of the money because you thought the whole idea from the beginning was stupid? And if you did take that money, after saying you thought the whole idea was a bad one, you would consider yourself a hypocrite? I just want to hear you say yes to this one more time, for posterity's sake.

This is what liberals actually believe.
 
2012-12-13 03:19:47 PM  
abrannan: The US is responsible for 41% of all military spending globally. Big boogeyman China? about 8.2%


------------------------------------

I'm Ok with that. I'm Ok with the USA far outstripping, militarily, the next four most powerful countries combined. We have every right to dominate the globe as we have saved it more than once now and have been the world's leader for quite some time.

But if the Business of America is business, then we should get a portion of the rewards. We should all share in it, it's our kids dying for oilfields and pipelines after all. Make a National Stock, which is representative of the 50 largest American companies (if there is even such a thing anymore) and pay us a dividend. You want to see things settle down and everybody get along more? Pay us. Look at Alaska, where they wailed and gnashed teeth over their pristine state being sullied by big oil until they came up with a plan to pay everybody in the state for the privilege of raping their land. And it got quiet.
 
2012-12-13 03:20:44 PM  

MattStafford: Mrtraveler01: MattStafford: Would you try and get some of that money back, or would you let the rest of us split it up?

If I was someone who doesn't like government spending. Would I want the government to spend money on my district?

MattStafford: And if you did try to get some of that money back, would you consider yourself a hypocrite?

Yes.

Well, at least you'll admit to being a complete idiot in your neverending quest to show how much of a hypocrite Ron Paul is.

Just so we're clear, suppose there were ten people, and someone at the point of a gun made everyone throw in 100 bucks, then everyone was going to split up that 1000 bucks amongst them, you wouldn't accept any of the money because you thought the whole idea from the beginning was stupid? And if you did take that money, after saying you thought the whole idea was a bad one, you would consider yourself a hypocrite? I just want to hear you say yes to this one more time, for posterity's sake.

This is what liberals actually believe.


What an awful analogy
 
2012-12-13 03:20:55 PM  

MattStafford: Just so we're clear, suppose there were ten people, and someone at the point of a gun made everyone throw in 100 bucks


This is a reference to taxes, isn't it?
 
2012-12-13 03:22:07 PM  

MattStafford: Just so we're clear, suppose there were ten people, and someone at the point of a gun made everyone throw in 100 bucks, then everyone was going to split up that 1000 bucks amongst them, you wouldn't accept any of the money because you thought the whole idea from the beginning was stupid? And if you did take that money, after saying you thought the whole idea was a bad one, you would consider yourself a hypocrite? I just want to hear you say yes to this one more time, for posterity's sake.


You just made your moronic analogy more moronic. Way to go.
 
2012-12-13 03:22:13 PM  

Isitoveryet: how about cutting the b.s. or sticking to your principles. maybe find a way to find funding for his constituent without the earmarks and the doublespeak? generate revenue another way? i mean if not for earmarks he wouldn't receive any fed funds?


The problem: Government taxes his constituents, and spends it in a way he disagrees with. He is unable to convince anyone not to do this.

Logical solution: Ask for some of the money back, and give that to his constituents.

Your solution: Forget about that money, and go raise revenue from somewhere else.
 
2012-12-13 03:23:21 PM  

Mrtraveler01: MattStafford: Just so we're clear, suppose there were ten people, and someone at the point of a gun made everyone throw in 100 bucks, then everyone was going to split up that 1000 bucks amongst them, you wouldn't accept any of the money because you thought the whole idea from the beginning was stupid? And if you did take that money, after saying you thought the whole idea was a bad one, you would consider yourself a hypocrite? I just want to hear you say yes to this one more time, for posterity's sake.

You just made your moronic analogy more moronic. Way to go.


ok lets say i threatened to take a dump on your kid's chest if you didn't give me a hundred dollars

and then i gave you that same hundred dollars back

are you saying you still would take that money?

if so ron paul 2016
 
2012-12-13 03:23:49 PM  

I alone am best: Until you set a firm target for cuts or tax increases you are full of crap.


What if you just name your target; poor people and the middle-class
 
2012-12-13 03:24:08 PM  

lennavan: Weaver95: lennavan: Weaver95: lennavan:

As the article put it "We all know Republicans want to spend less money."

Yeah, that seems legit.

its just strange to see a party that claims to be so religious can be so hostile to the sick and poor.

Nah, that makes sense, you wanna court the religious voters. So you gotta pretend to be religious. We'll see a woman president before we see an atheist president. So I can totally understand why a political party might want to lie. What's truly strange is to see a religion demand its congregants vote for the political party with an agenda completely contradictory to their teachings.

if my goal was to make a complete mockery of the teachings of Christ, I couldn't come up with a better example than the current incarnation of the Republican party.

Right. Now imagine your goal was to make a complete mockery of the teachings of Christ AND get Christian leaders to endorse you. That shiat can't be easy. I mean Republican policy is counter to pretty much every single teaching. But none of that matters because of abortion? Nah. Something else is goin on.


Actually, it's pretty damn easy. Most of the so-called 'religious leaders' the Republicans court are the freaking Pharisees of the modern day. They talk a good game, but they are in the 'God game' for self-enrichment, nothing more. Why else do you think the people they try to get behind what they do are usually televangelists, 'prosperity gospel' types, and those in the Church who are attention whores?
 
2012-12-13 03:24:46 PM  

jst3p: magusdevil: pecosdave: Liberals may be fine with social issues, but they seem to have a really big issue with allowing conservatives to do with their own money as they please (see leaches/moochers statement). Conservatives tend to be very giving when it comes to voluntary charities, but they don't like the government version because the government doesn't filter. There's helping someone who needs a hand, and then there's enabling. I've been an enabler on a one to one basis before - I vowed never to be one again, then I was court ordered to enable someone else's drug and child abuse habit. I don't like doing it through my tax dollars also.

I just really didn't want this to get too buried. Would you like to explain, or should we just assume that you're a deadbeat dad?

Wow, I am pretty jaded and cynical but I didn't make that connection. Well done.


Good catch, I didn't read the troll that closely. It's amazing what being on the paying end of a child support agreement does to a man's sense of personal responsibility.

And in case pecosdave pops up again: I'm a single dad, full time custody, and I have yet to see a dime of court mandated child support be paid yet. Your experience and understanding of a situation is not universal, nor is it outright dismissable, it is a piece of the whole. Try not to get hung up on your subjective experience because there's always going to be someone that can point to a situation that is the reverse of yours.

That said....is the tax code currently extending a helping hand or enabling bad behavior? Because that's how taxes work: everyone pays for what the government as a whole decides to do. I don't like paying to blow up brown people who had the temerity to live on top of oil deposits, you don't like paying for new rims on a welfare recipient's car. Neither of those statements nears reality, but they accurately collect the idea that we all, each and every one of us, pay taxes for things we don't like. That doesn't mean you get to pick up your ball and go home.

Think you can? Ask the Amish.
 
2012-12-13 03:24:47 PM  

vygramul: Part of Keynesian theory that was wrong was that people expect inflation to be 0. A lot of people are surprised that this is an expectation Keynes asserted, thinking it's obvious that inflation is always positive. That's because it has been. Since about when we left the gold standard. Before, there were years where inflation was 20% and years where it was -20%. These were outliers, of course, but the point is that people have this perception about the stability of the gold standard that is simply not supported by history. Inflation went up and down, and so the expected value for inflation at the time Keynes wrote his General Theory was, in fact, 0, because you truly didn't know where it would lead. (It also explains the long-abandoned natural price theory.)


BUT EVERYONE KNOWS THAT IF WE ARE ON THE GOLD STANDARD THERE WOULD BE ZERO INFLATION!!!!!! LOL
:D

MattStafford: And I'm sure 400% debt to GDP is going to work out real well for us too.


LOL what?
that includes:
household debt
which is personal. I have zero household debt and massive assests (paid-off house, nice 401k and small savings). People with a lot of debt are farked, those without are not. and HH debt/gdp hasnt change much in the last 20-40 years. so whatever.

financial sector
I dont even know what this means. The banks borrowed money? From other banks? From individual investors? Rich white people problem. SO the banks were lent money they could never pay back? LOL
And when they default they will fark over the rich people who lent them money? LOL

FED, state and local
As a percentage of gdp is pretty flat. Certainly not insanely worrisome compared to the great depression.

So
whatever

sounds like the 400% is the new U6 unemployment numbers !!!
PANIC


If you are really concerned, call your congress critters and DEMAND a balanced budget !!!
HAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAH
whew
 
2012-12-13 03:25:05 PM  
MattStafford: Isitoveryet: how about cutting the b.s. or sticking to your principles. maybe find a way to find funding for his constituent without the earmarks and the doublespeak? generate revenue another way? i mean if not for earmarks he wouldn't receive any fed funds?

The problem: Government taxes his constituents, and spends it in a way he disagrees with. He is unable to convince anyone not to do this.

Logical solution: Ask for some of the money back, and give that to his constituents.

Your solution: Forget about that money, and go raise revenue from somewhere else.


---------------------------------------------


Can you please make a cogent point with direct language that doesn't involve hypotheticals so I know which end of my Favorite Color Spectrum you belong on. I can tell you're stupid, I just can't quite tell which way it falls as your posts are so unclear.

Thanks
 
2012-12-13 03:25:46 PM  
MattStafford:
Just so we're clear, suppose there were ten people, and someone at the point of a gun made everyone throw in 100 bucks, then everyone was going to split up that 1000 bucks amongst them, you wouldn't accept any of the money because you thought the whole idea from the beginning was stupid? And if you did take that money, after saying you thought the whole idea was a bad one, you would consider yourself a hypocrite? I just want to hear you say yes to this one more time, for posterity's sake.

expecting someone to lead by (their own) example = asking to much & you should feel bad
 
2012-12-13 03:25:56 PM  

MattStafford: Mrtraveler01: MattStafford: Would you try and get some of that money back, or would you let the rest of us split it up?

If I was someone who doesn't like government spending. Would I want the government to spend money on my district?

MattStafford: And if you did try to get some of that money back, would you consider yourself a hypocrite?

Yes.

Well, at least you'll admit to being a complete idiot in your neverending quest to show how much of a hypocrite Ron Paul is.

Just so we're clear, suppose there were ten people, and someone at the point of a gun made everyone throw in 100 bucks, then everyone was going to split up that 1000 bucks amongst them, you wouldn't accept any of the money because you thought the whole idea from the beginning was stupid? And if you did take that money, after saying you thought the whole idea was a bad one, you would consider yourself a hypocrite? I just want to hear you say yes to this one more time, for posterity's sake.

This is what liberals actually believe.


There are amazing analogies, there are good analogies, there are average analogies, there are bad analogies, and there are analogies so bad they would make a 3 year old call you a moron. This is one of the latter.
 
2012-12-13 03:26:13 PM  
The ONLY facts you need to check is--is the deficit over $16 trillion now when it was a little over $1 trillion when Bush was in office? Then, yes, the Obama administration has a SPENDING problem.
 
2012-12-13 03:27:14 PM  
Sm3agol85: There are amazing analogies, there are good analogies, there are average analogies, there are bad analogies, and there are analogies so bad they would make a 3 year old call you a moron. This is one of the latter.


---------------------------

It's so bad I can't even really tell which way he's arguing from. I guess, if precedent holds, he falls to the right.
 
2012-12-13 03:27:35 PM  

CPennypacker: What an awful analogy


Where does it go wrong?

There is a group of ten people (group of 535 congressional districts). They are ordered to put money in a pot (they pay taxes). They decide to split this money up amongst the ten people (535 congressional districts). One person (1 congressional representative) thinks this is a dumb idea from the very beginning, and that they shouldn't do it.

If the one person (1 congressional representative) tries to get some of his money back via the dividing process (via earmarks), is he (Paul) a hypocrite for previously speaking out against the process? Would he (Paul) be considered dumb for not doing this?

The analogy is fairly accurate to the actual situation. You can make the argument that the one person (Paul) is wrong with regards to the morality of effectiveness of the plan (taxes and spending), but to then make the argument that the person is a hypocrite for trying to right the perceived wrong through the established process certainly goes a bit far.
 
2012-12-13 03:29:40 PM  
another thing, lets not talk like the government is some all seeing entity that is in the closet, Ron Paul is the farking govt.
 
2012-12-13 03:29:47 PM  

MattStafford: Just so we're clear, suppose there were ten people, and someone at the point of a gun made everyone throw in 100 bucks


I don't know what frightening hellhole you're posting from, but last I checked, the US isn't a dictatorship.
 
2012-12-13 03:30:08 PM  

CPennypacker: Why would we tie our money supply to a completely unrelated, arbitrary asset?

I mean aside from the fact that we used to do it and it didn't work out all that well. Maybe we should tie it to bottle caps. Or poop. Makes just as much sense. The poop standard.


Gold fulfills several qualities that very few materials on earth fulfill.

1. It is divisible.
2. It is easily transportable.
3. It is not easily created.
4. It has very few industrial uses.

Very few other elements fulfill those qualities, and of those that do, they are most certainly extremely valuable.
 
2012-12-13 03:30:14 PM  

tony41454: Heehaaw Heehaaw heehaawwww.

 
2012-12-13 03:30:44 PM  

lennavan: This is a reference to taxes, isn't it?


It is. Apparently putting "at the point of a gun" completely invalidates the entire analogy, it appears.
 
2012-12-13 03:31:32 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: start taking a meat cleaver to the spending.


That's good way to end up deeper in debt. Ask Texas how much money they are saving by defunding family planning services.
 
2012-12-13 03:31:37 PM  

Mrtraveler01: You just made your moronic analogy more moronic. Way to go.


It changes the meat of the analogy in what way? It is still essentially applicable to the situation with Ron Paul, unless there is something you would like to point out to me.
 
2012-12-13 03:32:21 PM  

MattStafford: CPennypacker: What an awful analogy

Where does it go wrong?

There is a group of ten people (group of 535 congressional districts). They are ordered to put money in a pot (they pay taxes). They decide to split this money up amongst the ten people (535 congressional districts). One person (1 congressional representative) thinks this is a dumb idea from the very beginning, and that they shouldn't do it.

If the one person (1 congressional representative) tries to get some of his money back via the dividing process (via earmarks), is he (Paul) a hypocrite for previously speaking out against the process? Would he (Paul) be considered dumb for not doing this?

The analogy is fairly accurate to the actual situation. You can make the argument that the one person (Paul) is wrong with regards to the morality of effectiveness of the plan (taxes and spending), but to then make the argument that the person is a hypocrite for trying to right the perceived wrong through the established process certainly goes a bit far.


Because its a gross oversimplification and doesn't address the background of what actually makes it hypocrisy?

Because you pay taxes regardless, they weren't raising a specific pot for this stimulus. We have a massive deficit anyway, so taking more money out just increases that deifict. And because you champion the fact that stimulus money is bad, doesn't create jobs, and will turn the recession into a depression and then you take some of that money anyway. That makes you a hypocrite. It may make you pragmatic but you're still a farking hypocrite in the end.
 
2012-12-13 03:33:38 PM  
MattStafford: CPennypacker: Why would we tie our money supply to a completely unrelated, arbitrary asset?

I mean aside from the fact that we used to do it and it didn't work out all that well. Maybe we should tie it to bottle caps. Or poop. Makes just as much sense. The poop standard.

Gold fulfills several qualities that very few materials on earth fulfill.

1. It is divisible.
2. It is easily transportable.
3. It is not easily created.
4. It has very few industrial uses.

Very few other elements fulfill those qualities, and of those that do, they are most certainly extremely valuable.



---------------------------------------------

Ok, most stupid stupid assed analogy I have ever read on Fark, with a clarification that mentions Ron Paul and now here comes the Gold Standard crap.

I'm gonna need a bigger color.
 
2012-12-13 03:34:46 PM  

MattStafford: CPennypacker: Why would we tie our money supply to a completely unrelated, arbitrary asset?

I mean aside from the fact that we used to do it and it didn't work out all that well. Maybe we should tie it to bottle caps. Or poop. Makes just as much sense. The poop standard.

Gold fulfills several qualities that very few materials on earth fulfill.

1. It is divisible.
2. It is easily transportable.
3. It is not easily created.
4. It has very few industrial uses.

Very few other elements fulfill those qualities, and of those that do, they are most certainly extremely valuable.


Poop fulfills 1, 2 and 4, and 3 has no bearing over whether or not a currency should be tied to an asset. You dig up gold, you excrete poop. Both have nothing to do with currency.
 
2012-12-13 03:35:42 PM  

joonyer: Hai guys. Thx for taking half a thread to tell me that Ron Paul's an irrelevant maroon.


who ?
 
2012-12-13 03:36:00 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: MattStafford: Isitoveryet: how about cutting the b.s. or sticking to your principles. maybe find a way to find funding for his constituent without the earmarks and the doublespeak? generate revenue another way? i mean if not for earmarks he wouldn't receive any fed funds?

The problem: Government taxes his constituents, and spends it in a way he disagrees with. He is unable to convince anyone not to do this.

Logical solution: Ask for some of the money back, and give that to his constituents.

Your solution: Forget about that money, and go raise revenue from somewhere else.


---------------------------------------------


Can you please make a cogent point with direct language that doesn't involve hypotheticals so I know which end of my Favorite Color Spectrum you belong on. I can tell you're stupid, I just can't quite tell which way it falls as your posts are so unclear.

Thanks


I hate doing this but I have to side with Matt, it doesn't make him a hypocrite.

It is kinda like the Warren Buffet situation.

Buffet says "Rich guys like me should pay more taxes!"
Idiots on the right say "Feel free if you think you should pay more, cut a check."


That completely misses the point, does nothing to address the problem and Buffet isn't a hypocrite by paying only what he is required. Even Romney implied that it is poor fiscal management to pay more in taxes than legally required. "I don't pay more than are legally due and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due I don't think I'd be qualified to become president." (then he went and paid more than was due and wasn't elected. I found something he was right about!)

Ron Paul saying the rules need to change but going ahead and playing the game under the current rules does not make him a hypocrite. It makes him a good representative for his constituents. Now there are plenty of reasons to mock him, but I don't think this is one.
 
2012-12-13 03:36:24 PM  

namatad: household debt
which is personal. I have zero household debt and massive assests (paid-off house, nice 401k and small savings). People with a lot of debt are farked, those without are not. and HH debt/gdp hasnt change much in the last 20-40 years. so whatever.


Almost had me going there for a second. Despite the fact I bite on a lot, not going to bite on this one.
 
2012-12-13 03:37:08 PM  
MattStafford: CPennypacker: Why would we tie our money supply to a completely unrelated, arbitrary asset?I mean aside from the fact that we used to do it and it didn't work out all that well. Maybe we should tie it to bottle caps. Or poop. Makes just as much sense. The poop standard.Gold fulfills several qualities that very few materials on earth fulfill.1. It is divisible.2. It is easily transportable.3. It is not easily created.4. It has very few industrial uses.Very few other elements fulfill those qualities, and of those that do, they are most certainly extremely valuable.



-------------------------------------------

Our currency gets backing vis a vis the Gray Standard. Gray is the color of our aircraft carriers.
 
2012-12-13 03:37:18 PM  

MattStafford: It changes the meat of the analogy in what way? It is still essentially applicable to the situation with Ron Paul, unless there is something you would like to point out to me.


I'm just going to piggy back off of this post:

CPennypacker: Because its a gross oversimplification and doesn't address the background of what actually makes it hypocrisy?

Because you pay taxes regardless, they weren't raising a specific pot for this stimulus. We have a massive deficit anyway, so taking more money out just increases that deifict. And because you champion the fact that stimulus money is bad, doesn't create jobs, and will turn the recession into a depression and then you take some of that money anyway. That makes you a hypocrite. It may make you pragmatic but you're still a farking hypocrite in the end.

 
2012-12-13 03:38:53 PM  

CPennypacker: MattStafford: CPennypacker: Why would we tie our money supply to a completely unrelated, arbitrary asset?

I mean aside from the fact that we used to do it and it didn't work out all that well. Maybe we should tie it to bottle caps. Or poop. Makes just as much sense. The poop standard.

Gold fulfills several qualities that very few materials on earth fulfill.

1. It is divisible.
2. It is easily transportable.
3. It is not easily created.
4. It has very few industrial uses.

Very few other elements fulfill those qualities, and of those that do, they are most certainly extremely valuable.

Poop fulfills 1, 2 and 4, and 3 has no bearing over whether or not a currency should be tied to an asset. You dig up gold, you excrete poop. Both have nothing to do with currency.


Also, money fulfills 1,2, and 4 which is why we stopped tying it to anything altogether.
 
2012-12-13 03:38:53 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: Can you please make a cogent point with direct language that doesn't involve hypotheticals so I know which end of my Favorite Color Spectrum you belong on. I can tell you're stupid, I just can't quite tell which way it falls as your posts are so unclear.

Thanks


I follow Austrian economics, and am a massive deficit hawk. I am also largely in favor of wealth redistribution and the vast majority of other liberal ideas. I would likely implement them differently, but I'm entirely in favor of everyone having access to health care, education, adequate housing and adequate food in a nation as rich as ours. But you can't pay for those things via debt, or else you're farked.
 
2012-12-13 03:39:16 PM  

MattStafford: lennavan: This is a reference to taxes, isn't it?

It is. Apparently putting "at the point of a gun" completely invalidates the entire analogy, it appears.


Hey man, I'm with you. Taxes are just legalized theft.

Imagine you are Adolf Hitler making a decision to invade Russia. No one understand why you did it and no one understands why you hate the jews. That's what this is like. No one understands you. But I do man, I do.

/ron paul 2016
 
2012-12-13 03:39:35 PM  

Sm3agol85: There are amazing analogies, there are good analogies, there are average analogies, there are bad analogies, and there are analogies so bad they would make a 3 year old call you a moron. This is one of the latter.


Care you explain where the analogy falls apart?
 
2012-12-13 03:40:32 PM  
jst3p: Ron Paul saying the rules need to change but going ahead and playing the game under the current rules does not make him a hypocrite. It makes him a good representative for his constituents. Now there are plenty of reasons to mock him, but I don't think this is one.


----------------------------------


Ron Paul is not a good representative for his constituents, or anybody else. He is, or was, an untreated mentally ill person in Congress.
 
2012-12-13 03:40:45 PM  

Biological Ali: MattStafford: Just so we're clear, suppose there were ten people, and someone at the point of a gun made everyone throw in 100 bucks

I don't know what frightening hellhole you're posting from, but last I checked, the US isn't a dictatorship.


So if the other nine people voted on the whole everyone throw in a hundred bucks, otherwise we'll beat you up, does the analogy work then?
 
2012-12-13 03:41:35 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: Ron Paul is not a good representative for his constituents, or anybody else. He is, or was, an untreated mentally ill person in Congress.


The two are not mutually exclusive.
 
2012-12-13 03:41:35 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: Can you please make a cogent point with direct language that doesn't involve hypotheticals so I know which end of my Favorite Color Spectrum you belong on. I can tell you're stupid, I just can't quite tell which way it falls as your posts are so unclear.



You sir, have just gone up on my FCS!!
 
2012-12-13 03:43:44 PM  

MattStafford: wealth redistribution


i think this is a myth, equality in the workforce, living wages these are the liberal ideas, the redistribution of wealth is an reaction to those core ideas.
 
2012-12-13 03:46:32 PM  

MattStafford: My apologies, I should have found a more recent graph:

[snbchf.snbchfcom.netdna-cdn.com image 674x491]

It looks like we've decreased private debt by 45% and increased public debt by 37%. If we are forced to decrease the public sector debt, say via the fiscal cliff, we're going to be in trouble.


You aren't so good with the math, and your suggestions are, to put it mildly, rather stupid. The game plan so far has been a combination of solutions 1, 2 and 3, which has resulted in a debt to GDP ratio reduction from 386% to 366%. So far it is working - let's hope the private sector continues to reduce their leverage. Tying our hands to the dead weight anchor of the gold standard would be stupid at this point. It would eliminate the biggest tool we have to get out of this hole, and future holes, which is devaluing our currency. While it hurts savers, we shouldn't be taking on procrustean measures to try to protect that stored value at the expense of our economy. And since the first thing you suggest is give them a 50% haircut you aren't even achieving that goal.

You also know nothing about gold standard business cycles. Despite the apparent GDP growth from 1880 to 1900 this was entirely driven by population growth. Per capital GDP growth was flat from late 1880 to 1896 - 16 years of essentially zero growth or improvement for the public at large. The economy got bigger only because the number of people in the US was growing above 20% per decade.

Please take your Austrian economic stupidity and leave. It has never been the right solution, and never will be the right solution.
 
2012-12-13 03:48:43 PM  

MattStafford: Biological Ali: MattStafford: Just so we're clear, suppose there were ten people, and someone at the point of a gun made everyone throw in 100 bucks

I don't know what frightening hellhole you're posting from, but last I checked, the US isn't a dictatorship.

So if the other nine people voted on the whole everyone throw in a hundred bucks, otherwise we'll beat you up, does the analogy work then?


Wow, whatever country you're in must be a terrifying place indeed. I mean, in the US, people are free to emigrate if they find the politics of the country that distasteful. The Americans really should spare a thought for your countrymen and be thankful that they're not in a country where their only options are "Pay a hundred bucks" or "get beaten up".
 
2012-12-13 03:48:55 PM  

CPennypacker: Because you pay taxes regardless, they weren't raising a specific pot for this stimulus. We have a massive deficit anyway, so taking more money out just increases that deifict.


Irrelevant. The money for the stimulus came, in part, from constituents in Ron Paul's district. When people have to pay, either through higher taxes or inflation, for the deficits, some of those people will be in Ron Paul's district. Some of the money came from his district, that is undeniable.

CPennypacker: And because you champion the fact that stimulus money is bad, doesn't create jobs, and will turn the recession into a depression and then you take some of that money anyway.


If the two options are "completely lose that money from your district", and "have money taken from you district, then returned in an inefficient way" the latter is the better option.

CPennypacker: That makes you a hypocrite. It may make you pragmatic but you're still a farking hypocrite in the end.


Alright, let's change the analogy. Suppose everyone is pitching in for food. One guy wants wings, everyone else wants Chinese. They decide on the Chinese, and make the guy throw in his money for it as well. The guy says, "but we're all gonna be hungry in a half hour anyway! And this Chinese place always has health violations, we're gonna get sick!" And this happens every time this group of friends wants to eat. Would you consider the guy who wants wings a hypocrite for eating the Chinese when it arrives?
 
2012-12-13 03:49:35 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: Ok, most stupid stupid assed analogy I have ever read on Fark, with a clarification that mentions Ron Paul and now here comes the Gold Standard crap.

I'm gonna need a bigger color.


Um, that wasn't an analogy. It was a fact. Name another material on earth that fulfills those four qualities.
 
2012-12-13 03:50:15 PM  

abrannan: make me some tea: Even with a less capable military, we're still a good 50% above the biggest competition


And by biggest competition, you mean the next five biggest spenders combined. We're at almost 500% of the closest competition.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 270x250]

And as a % of GDP, none of the other top 5 countries are even close. U.S. 4.7% Russia 3.9% World Average 2.2% China 2.1%

The US is responsible for 41% of all military spending globally. Big boogeyman China? about 8.2%


We're close to 100% precision ordnance. No one else is. Then look at defensive systems. Our soldiers are mostly issued full armor now. Compare that to China's 3 million troops without any armor other than a steel helmet (except for a few elite show troops).

And once you consider other things, like compensation, it starts getting to be a terrible comparison. Even for our navy, as many expensive, high-tech ships we have, the majority of the cost is personnel. Cut our personnel costs to China's, and you'd cut our military budget by almost 50%.

I'm not saying we don't spend shiatloads on our military. I'm saying that looking at $$$ is a grossly distorting statistic. A better measure (but with its own problems) is to look at military spending as a proportion of GDP. It puts us at over twice China's, about 50% more than Russia, about 150% more than France... It gives a truer perspective when compared to other industrialized nations. (We're about half of Saudi Arabia's.)

Then you can look at the raw size of the military, where we're seventh in troops. We only have twice the troops Pakistan does. China has more tanks than we do. Russia has almost three times as many tanks as we do.

As a proportion of our population, we're not in the top 60 militaries, and there's a dozen European countries with a higher proportion of their population in military/reserves/paramilitary.

We're either incredibly inefficient compared to, say, Greece, or we're buying something for that cash that others are not.
 
2012-12-13 03:51:20 PM  

CPennypacker: Poop fulfills 1, 2 and 4, and 3 has no bearing over whether or not a currency should be tied to an asset. You dig up gold, you excrete poop. Both have nothing to do with currency.


Being difficult to reproduce is very important in a currency, otherwise it allows you to create credit bubbles like we're currently in. Credit bubbles aren't impossible under a gold standard, but they are generally squashed well before they can become dangerous.
 
2012-12-13 03:51:23 PM  

pecosdave: There's a difference between Libertarianism and Anarchy. Anarchy and Communism don't work for the same reason, a couple of assholes ruins the whole setup. Reduced nanny-statism and neck-breathing on the other hand is far from Anarchy and would be welcome. The people who run the government are corrupt, every single thing done by the government is done to pad someone else's pockets, therefor the government has the anti-Midas touch - everything it touches turns to shiat. I would rather they kept their hands in their pockets for the most part. You're bringing up fallacies us Libertarians laugh at people like you over. We can have most everything you mentioned without government interference - first of all "mortgage interest deduction" if th ...


I stand corrected. You're cynical, irrational, and hysterical. Have you considered medication?

That's OK. You can still vote, own guns, unless you're a felon.

You may laugh at my observations of Libertarians. But I giggling at your silly rantings. Oh, my, you are a silly, silly goose. ;-)
 
2012-12-13 03:51:49 PM  

MattStafford: I follow Austrian economics, and am a massive deficit hawk. I am also largely in favor of wealth redistribution and the vast majority of other liberal ideas. I would likely implement them differently, but I'm entirely in favor of everyone having access to health care, education, adequate housing and adequate food in a nation as rich as ours. But you can't pay for those things via debt, or else you're farked.


so here is a funny question:
Say we need another massive bailout of the banks. THe last time we gave them cash and they gave us stock, blah blah blah. They didnt collapse, paid nice bonuses (lol) and we recovered most of the cash.

How about this for next time.
Take that 800 billion, divide it by the number of people who paid taxes last year (at least 18% :-) and give them the money. Would be about 4000-10,000 dollars each. That would be some AWESOME local stimulus.

They can use that money to buy stock in the failing banks or spend it elsewhere.
My guess is that the banks would collapse, write off the bad debt or find private investors; the people who stimulate the fark out of the economy.
 
2012-12-13 03:53:03 PM  

MattStafford: CPennypacker: Because you pay taxes regardless, they weren't raising a specific pot for this stimulus. We have a massive deficit anyway, so taking more money out just increases that deifict.

Irrelevant. The money for the stimulus came, in part, from constituents in Ron Paul's district. When people have to pay, either through higher taxes or inflation, for the deficits, some of those people will be in Ron Paul's district. Some of the money came from his district, that is undeniable.

CPennypacker: And because you champion the fact that stimulus money is bad, doesn't create jobs, and will turn the recession into a depression and then you take some of that money anyway.

If the two options are "completely lose that money from your district", and "have money taken from you district, then returned in an inefficient way" the latter is the better option.

CPennypacker: That makes you a hypocrite. It may make you pragmatic but you're still a farking hypocrite in the end.

Alright, let's change the analogy. Suppose everyone is pitching in for food. One guy wants wings, everyone else wants Chinese. They decide on the Chinese, and make the guy throw in his money for it as well. The guy says, "but we're all gonna be hungry in a half hour anyway! And this Chinese place always has health violations, we're gonna get sick!" And this happens every time this group of friends wants to eat. Would you consider the guy who wants wings a hypocrite for eating the Chinese when it arrives?


Wow even worse. What toilet are you fishing these analogies out of?

Lets make you analogy work: Before you ordered, you expressed your deep knowledge of how not only would the chinese food not cure the group's hunger, but it would also give all of you aids. Then when it came you ate a big heaping pile of it. You're not going to starve to death but you're still a farking hypocrite.
 
2012-12-13 03:53:29 PM  

MattStafford: The money for the stimulus came, in part, from constituents in Ron Paul's district.


That's not a particularly helpful way of looking at government spending. It's not a discrete transaction (like, say, me paying my rent) where you can say exactly where some specific money allocated by the government for whatever purpose "came from".
 
2012-12-13 03:53:49 PM  

Isitoveryet: MattStafford: wealth redistribution

i think this is a myth, equality in the workforce, living wages these are the liberal ideas, the redistribution of wealth is an reaction to those core ideas.


Progressive ideas are about more fairness ... not perfection, but steady improvement.
If your wage slave is living day to day, paycheck to paycheck, it is impossible to improve ...
 
2012-12-13 03:54:23 PM  

namatad: MattStafford: I follow Austrian economics, and am a massive deficit hawk. I am also largely in favor of wealth redistribution and the vast majority of other liberal ideas. I would likely implement them differently, but I'm entirely in favor of everyone having access to health care, education, adequate housing and adequate food in a nation as rich as ours. But you can't pay for those things via debt, or else you're farked.

so here is a funny question:
Say we need another massive bailout of the banks. THe last time we gave them cash and they gave us stock, blah blah blah. They didnt collapse, paid nice bonuses (lol) and we recovered most of the cash.

How about this for next time.
Take that 800 billion, divide it by the number of people who paid taxes last year (at least 18% :-) and give them the money. Would be about 4000-10,000 dollars each. That would be some AWESOME local stimulus.

They can use that money to buy stock in the failing banks or spend it elsewhere.
My guess is that the banks would collapse, write off the bad debt or find private investors; the people who stimulate the fark out of the economy.


You can't give people money because they make bad decisions, unless those people are corporations.
 
2012-12-13 03:54:24 PM  

Isitoveryet: i think this is a myth, equality in the workforce, living wages these are the liberal ideas, the redistribution of wealth is an reaction to those core ideas.


I'm way beyond living wages man. We're aren't even going to need jobs in the future, with the amount of wealth we'll be redistributing. When we can produce a billion iPads with the flip of a switch, man?
 
2012-12-13 03:54:54 PM  

MattStafford: Insatiable Jesus: Ok, most stupid stupid assed analogy I have ever read on Fark, with a clarification that mentions Ron Paul and now here comes the Gold Standard crap.

I'm gonna need a bigger color.

Um, that wasn't an analogy. It was a fact. Name another material on earth that fulfills those four qualities.


Colbert's premium man seed.
 
2012-12-13 03:55:19 PM  

tony41454: The ONLY facts you need to check is--is the deficit over $16 trillion now when it was a little over $1 trillion when Bush was in office? Then, yes, the Obama administration has a SPENDING problem.


Bush had a surplus when he took over.
 
2012-12-13 03:55:59 PM  

MattStafford: CPennypacker: Why would we tie our money supply to a completely unrelated, arbitrary asset?

I mean aside from the fact that we used to do it and it didn't work out all that well. Maybe we should tie it to bottle caps. Or poop. Makes just as much sense. The poop standard.

Gold fulfills several qualities that very few materials on earth fulfill.

1. It is divisible.
2. It is easily transportable.
3. It is not easily created.
4. It has very few industrial uses.

Very few other elements fulfill those qualities, and of those that do, they are most certainly extremely valuable.


You again fail at facts. Gold does actually have a significant number of industrial uses, but because of the hoarding fetish of irrational people most applications end up looking for an alternative because the price has been driven up too high.

Gold is a bad currency. It isn't readily created. What you think is a plus is actually a very big minus. Gold has a tendancy in a currency to create deflationary cycles, which impedes economic growth.

It is also terrible at being transported. Fiat currency can go to 50 different cities on 6 different continents in under an hour (ie. electronic transfers), gold cannot.

It is also rather hard to divide relative to modern fiat currencies.

Your stupidity appears to be boundless. Too bad it can't be burned as a fuel, since we'd finally achieve cheap energy, since you seem to give away your stupidity so freely.
 
2012-12-13 03:56:05 PM  
If spending is out of control, that must mean... OH GOD, THE SQUIRRELS ARE IN CONTROL OF THE MONEY! We must stop the squirrels from trading all our money for unlimited acorns! DO YOU THINK ACORNS GROW ON TREES?!
 
2012-12-13 03:56:18 PM  

MattStafford: Alright, let's change the analogy. Suppose everyone is pitching in for food. One guy wants wings, everyone else wants Chinese.


Ron Paul is not advocating different spending, he is advocating no spending.

Suppose everyone chips in money to attend a meeting. The majority of people at the meeting decide to use some of the money to order Chinese food. One dude says he's not hungry, and goes on a huge rant about how Chinese food makes you fat and unhealthy and is ruining the country. Then he asks for an some sweet and sour chicken, crab rangoon and a shrimp egg roll.
 
2012-12-13 03:56:27 PM  

MattStafford: namatad: I love reading about WHAT would actually happen and HOW we would switch over to the gold standard.
It is pretty farking INSANE shiat.
Inflation would be completely out of control no matter how and when they set the exchange rate.
The US going on the gold standard without both the euro and yen doing the same thing, would be the end of the US.

shudder
but go ahead and keep choking that chicken goldies!!

And I'm sure 400% debt to GDP is going to work out real well for us too.


How exactly do you plan on financing a government that has accumulated 16 trillion dollars in debt with a product that has a global total value of 1.6 trillion dollars? If the US was in control of ALL the gold, platinum and silver in the ENTIRE WORLD, we would be able to finance our spending for 10 years.

How exactly do you plan to maintain a GDP of of 15.1 trillion dollars with liquid currency valued at under 1 trillion dollars?

And how exactly do you plan to KEEP that gold inside the united states? Cause everyone else wants it too. For non-monetary reasons.

/Gold standard makes as much sense as a Lumber Standard.
//Correction. Lumber standard makes more sense.
 
2012-12-13 03:57:20 PM  

MattStafford: CPennypacker: Poop fulfills 1, 2 and 4, and 3 has no bearing over whether or not a currency should be tied to an asset. You dig up gold, you excrete poop. Both have nothing to do with currency.

Being difficult to reproduce is very important in a currency, otherwise it allows you to create credit bubbles like we're currently in. Credit bubbles aren't impossible under a gold standard, but they are generally squashed well before they can become dangerous.


You just trade them for stagnated growth caused by tying you rmonetary supply to how many rocks you can dig out of the ground. Makes much more sense.
 
2012-12-13 03:57:53 PM  

Biological Ali: Wow, whatever country you're in must be a terrifying place indeed. I mean, in the US, people are free to emigrate if they find the politics of the country that distasteful. The Americans really should spare a thought for your countrymen and be thankful that they're not in a country where their only options are "Pay a hundred bucks" or "get beaten up".


Ah, the old "if you don't like it, just move" canard. Well, it isn't that easy to just---wait, sorry there, I thought you were a Republican. Carry on.
 
2012-12-13 03:58:15 PM  

MattStafford: CPennypacker: Why would we tie our money supply to a completely unrelated, arbitrary asset?

I mean aside from the fact that we used to do it and it didn't work out all that well. Maybe we should tie it to bottle caps. Or poop. Makes just as much sense. The poop standard.

Gold fulfills several qualities that very few materials on earth fulfill.

1. It is divisible.
2. It is easily transportable.
3. It is not easily created.
4. It has very few industrial uses.

Very few other elements fulfill those qualities, and of those that do, they are most certainly extremely valuable.


There is 20% more proven gold reserves now than 20 years ago.

It's all academic: a currency backed by a commodity constrains growth.

Besides, it's hardly a panacea: # of Depressions in the US on Gold Standard: 1. # of Depressions in the US on Fiat Currency: 0. And during the Great Depression, countries got better in the same order they left the gold standard.
 
2012-12-13 04:00:30 PM  

MattStafford: Biological Ali: Wow, whatever country you're in must be a terrifying place indeed. I mean, in the US, people are free to emigrate if they find the politics of the country that distasteful. The Americans really should spare a thought for your countrymen and be thankful that they're not in a country where their only options are "Pay a hundred bucks" or "get beaten up".

Ah, the old "if you don't like it, just move" canard. Well, it isn't that easy to just---wait, sorry there, I thought you were a Republican. Carry on.


Don't lash out at others just because your analogy sucks.
 
2012-12-13 04:01:31 PM  

MattStafford: Mrtraveler01: namatad: Mrtraveler01: MattStafford: Switch to a gold standard

It failed to work the last time it was implemented but surely it won't happen again.

I love reading about WHAT would actually happen and HOW we would switch over to the gold standard.
It is pretty farking INSANE shiat.
Inflation would be completely out of control no matter how and when they set the exchange rate.
The US going on the gold standard without both the euro and yen doing the same thing, would be the end of the US.

shudder
but go ahead and keep choking that chicken goldies!!

What? You mean you don't yearn for the days when the economy was more erratic and boom/bust cycles were more frequent?

The boom bust cycles were more frequent, I won't disagree. The nature of a gold standard creates the situation where credit bubbles are quickly stamped out. A credit bubble creates a boom, and then when it collapses, it creates a bust. The problem with fiat, is that these credit bubbles aren't quickly stamped out. They are allowed to build and build, to the point of systemic collapse. And, if you take a look at those graphs I posted a while back, it looks like we've been in the mother of all credit bubbles for about thirty years, and when this baby blows? Economic Yellowstone.


upload.wikimedia.org
Hai Guys! What's going on in this thread?

img834.imageshack.us
For real!
 
2012-12-13 04:02:07 PM  

sweetmelissa31: pecosdave: The GOP is just as guilty as the Democrats for it too, which is why I refer to them as "Republicrats".

I prefer Doodiecrats and Republiqueefs.


I love you
 
2012-12-13 04:02:16 PM  

CPennypacker: Wow even worse. What toilet are you fishing these analogies out of?

Lets make you analogy work: Before you ordered, you expressed your deep knowledge of how not only would the chinese food not cure the group's hunger, but it would also give all of you aids. Then when it came you ate a big heaping pile of it. You're not going to starve to death but you're still a farking hypocrite.


Man, your definition of hypocrite blows.

If I claim that we should get Chinese food for a litany of reasons, and say that I wouldn't buy Chinese food with my money, yet due to forces beyond my control, my money is taken and spent on Chinese food, I am not a hypocrite for eating that food.

You are really struggling here if you're going to cling to this hypocritical claim this hard.
 
2012-12-13 04:04:07 PM  

Biological Ali: That's not a particularly helpful way of looking at government spending. It's not a discrete transaction (like, say, me paying my rent) where you can say exactly where some specific money allocated by the government for whatever purpose "came from".


I can certainly say what percentage of the population is in Ron Paul's district, and what percentage of total federal revenues come from that district.

/and I'm pretty sure it is less than what they receive from the government, so with regards to that, he might be hypocritical. Luckily none of you guys made that argument.
 
2012-12-13 04:05:10 PM  

MattStafford: If I claim that we should not get Chinese food for a litany of reasons, and say that I wouldn't buy Chinese food with my money, yet due to forces beyond my control, my money is taken and spent on Chinese food, I am not a hypocrite for eating that food.


"We all need to stop buying Chinese food because it is destroying the country."
"Pass me the egg foo young."

Nothing hypocritical there!
 
2012-12-13 04:08:00 PM  

MattStafford: CPennypacker: Wow even worse. What toilet are you fishing these analogies out of?

Lets make you analogy work: Before you ordered, you expressed your deep knowledge of how not only would the chinese food not cure the group's hunger, but it would also give all of you aids. Then when it came you ate a big heaping pile of it. You're not going to starve to death but you're still a farking hypocrite.

Man, your definition of hypocrite blows.

If I claim that we should get Chinese food for a litany of reasons, and say that I wouldn't buy Chinese food with my money, yet due to forces beyond my control, my money is taken and spent on Chinese food, I am not a hypocrite for eating that food.

You are really struggling here if you're going to cling to this hypocritical claim this hard.


It's like splitting the check at dinner, being one of the guys that ordered the steak instead of the chicken, and then complaining about what a bad idea it was to split the check.
 
2012-12-13 04:08:08 PM  

MattStafford: Biological Ali: That's not a particularly helpful way of looking at government spending. It's not a discrete transaction (like, say, me paying my rent) where you can say exactly where some specific money allocated by the government for whatever purpose "came from".

I can certainly say what percentage of the population is in Ron Paul's district, and what percentage of total federal revenues come from that district.

/and I'm pretty sure it is less than what they receive from the government, so with regards to that, he might be hypocritical. Luckily none of you guys made that argument.


Why are we arguing about whether Ron Paul is a hypocrite, instead of just continually pointing out that shifting to a fiat currency was a *smart* decision that when coupled with other smart decisions, like preventing over-leveraging and limiting the practice of redrawing on accounts, is the only sensible monetary policy in the modern world?

A while ago you were mostly focused on the merits of the gold standard. I wanna have that conversation. I couldn't care less about RON PAUL if I tried. Is he even a congresscritter anymore?
 
2012-12-13 04:08:22 PM  

lennavan: Suppose everyone chips in money to attend a meeting. The majority of people at the meeting decide to use some of the money to order Chinese food. One dude says he's not hungry, and goes on a huge rant about how Chinese food makes you fat and unhealthy and is ruining the country. Then he asks for an some sweet and sour chicken, crab rangoon and a shrimp egg roll.


lennavan: One dude says he's not hungry,


One dude says that the meeting's dues should not be used to spend on food, and that everyone can use their money to eat prior, as they see fit. Since the food budget is included in the meeting's dues, and that dude can no longer afford to go out and eat on his own, he is forced to eat the Chinese.

There ya go.
 
2012-12-13 04:08:43 PM  
The article is wrong. It says that the Republican position is unsatisfiable because there isn't much money to cut without kicking the poor really hard in the balls. The Republicans don't care; they want to kick the poor really hard in the balls. They think it's what the poor deserve, or even that it will help.
 
2012-12-13 04:09:22 PM  

MattStafford: CPennypacker: Wow even worse. What toilet are you fishing these analogies out of?

Lets make you analogy work: Before you ordered, you expressed your deep knowledge of how not only would the chinese food not cure the group's hunger, but it would also give all of you aids. Then when it came you ate a big heaping pile of it. You're not going to starve to death but you're still a farking hypocrite.

Man, your definition of hypocrite blows.

If I claim that we should get Chinese food for a litany of reasons, and say that I wouldn't buy Chinese food with my money, yet due to forces beyond my control, my money is taken and spent on Chinese food, I am not a hypocrite for eating that food.

You are really struggling here if you're going to cling to this hypocritical claim this hard.


You're the one that's struggling. You analogy is crap on a stick, but if we're sticking to it, the person against ordering the chinese (the "ron paul or crappy analogies") isn't saying "I wouldn't buy Chinese with my money." He's saying that Chinese is awful, its horrible for everyone, it tastes bad and it actually makes you hungrier. And if we're keeping to the analogy, then really, everyone didn't throw in for dinner, everyone paid their monthly club dues, and this month, they are using some of the club dues to buy a bonus dinner for the members. So you can either eat the bonus dinner, which is chinese which you vocally hate and are sure will give you all cancer, and not be hungry, which makes you a hypocrite, or you can refuse to eat it which lets you keep your integrity but you have to eat cardboard because you are oh-so-hungry. Pick one.

But keep shoveling. Maybe by the time you're done we'll have enough for my Poop Standard.
 
2012-12-13 04:09:43 PM  

MattStafford: /and I'm pretty sure it is less than what they receive from the government, so with regards to that, he might be hypocritical. Luckily none of you guys made that argument.


Well if you totally imagine it to be true, that's good enough for me.

Reminds me, one of my favorite looks I have ever gotten from someone was right after I explained to a Ron Paul supporter that Ron Paul thinks if you cannot afford life saving medical care and are uninsured, you made a poor choice should die. The look of shock on his face, his entire political world was just flipped upside down. Then he refused to believe it, it was truly magnificent.
 
2012-12-13 04:10:23 PM  

MattStafford: I can certainly say what percentage of the population is in Ron Paul's district, and what percentage of total federal revenues come from that district.


Like I said, it's not like some guy paying his rent. Government spending and government revenues are two different things which aren't related in the manner you're implying. This is especially true for stimulus spending, which will be carried out regardless of whether or not corresponding revenue has been raised separately.
 
2012-12-13 04:11:04 PM  

BeesNuts: How exactly do you plan on financing a government that has accumulated 16 trillion dollars in debt with a product that has a global total value of 1.6 trillion dollars? If the US was in control of ALL the gold, platinum and silver in the ENTIRE WORLD, we would be able to finance our spending for 10 years.

How exactly do you plan to maintain a GDP of of 15.1 trillion dollars with liquid currency valued at under 1 trillion dollars?

And how exactly do you plan to KEEP that gold inside the united states? Cause everyone else wants it too. For non-monetary reasons.

/Gold standard makes as much sense as a Lumber Standard.
//Correction. Lumber standard makes more sense.


Um, obviously the value of gold would appreciate massively relative to the dollar over night.

And if gold leaves the country, say through a trade deficit with another country, we would be out of luck. That is called living within your means. Oh, I'm sorry, did you think we could run multi billion dollar trade deficits every year indefinitely? Sorry.

What is gold used for industrially? For jewelry, yes, but industrially?
 
2012-12-13 04:11:42 PM  

MattStafford: BeesNuts: How exactly do you plan on financing a government that has accumulated 16 trillion dollars in debt with a product that has a global total value of 1.6 trillion dollars? If the US was in control of ALL the gold, platinum and silver in the ENTIRE WORLD, we would be able to finance our spending for 10 years.

How exactly do you plan to maintain a GDP of of 15.1 trillion dollars with liquid currency valued at under 1 trillion dollars?

And how exactly do you plan to KEEP that gold inside the united states? Cause everyone else wants it too. For non-monetary reasons.

/Gold standard makes as much sense as a Lumber Standard.
//Correction. Lumber standard makes more sense.

Um, obviously the value of gold would appreciate massively relative to the dollar over night.

And if gold leaves the country, say through a trade deficit with another country, we would be out of luck. That is called living within your means. Oh, I'm sorry, did you think we could run multi billion dollar trade deficits every year indefinitely? Sorry.

What is gold used for industrially? For jewelry, yes, but industrially?


Monster Cables?
 
2012-12-13 04:12:49 PM  

CPennypacker: You just trade them for stagnated growth caused by tying you rmonetary supply to how many rocks you can dig out of the ground. Makes much more sense.


Your growth is stagnated based on your supply of currency. The currency just deflates in value. If there is 1000 pieces of gold and 1000 loaves of bread in society, and someone develops a machine that now produces 10,000 loaves, growth didn't stop or anything like that, gold has just deflated.
 
2012-12-13 04:13:43 PM  

MattStafford: One dude says that the meeting's dues should not be used to spend on food, and that everyone can use their money to eat prior, as they see fit


Ok...

MattStafford: Since the food budget is included in the meeting's dues, and that dude can no longer afford to go out and eat on his own, he is forced to eat the Chinese.


The food budget was so much it nearly bankrupt the guy?

What an awful analogy.
 
2012-12-13 04:14:17 PM  

buck1138: It's like splitting the check at dinner, being one of the guys that ordered the steak instead of the chicken, and then complaining about what a bad idea it was to split the check.


Um, no, not exactly.
 
2012-12-13 04:14:17 PM  

MattStafford: One dude says that the meeting's dues should not be used to spend on food, and that everyone can use their money to eat prior, as they see fit. Since the food budget is included in the meeting's dues, and that dude can no longer afford to go out and eat on his own, he is forced to eat the Chinese.


Oh okay then. So now to bring the analogy back, if I gather, the IRS forces Ron Paul and his constituents to pay taxes which are so high, he and his constituents can no longer afford to survive without earmarks and are forced to take them. Okay then, I didn't realize how important those earmarks were. Shiat.
 
2012-12-13 04:15:21 PM  

MattStafford: CPennypacker: You just trade them for stagnated growth caused by tying you rmonetary supply to how many rocks you can dig out of the ground. Makes much more sense.

Your growth is stagnated based on your supply of currency. The currency just deflates in value. If there is 1000 pieces of gold and 1000 loaves of bread in society, and someone develops a machine that now produces 10,000 loaves, growth didn't stop or anything like that, gold has just deflated.


Because gold isn't divisible enough to keep that up in perpetuity? Also, if you're going to deflate the shiat out of Gold why bother with a gold standard in the first place?
 
2012-12-13 04:17:19 PM  

CPennypacker: You're the one that's struggling. You analogy is crap on a stick, but if we're sticking to it, the person against ordering the chinese (the "ron paul or crappy analogies") isn't saying "I wouldn't buy Chinese with my money." He's saying that Chinese is awful, its horrible for everyone, it tastes bad and it actually makes you hungrier. And if we're keeping to the analogy, then really, everyone didn't throw in for dinner, everyone paid their monthly club dues, and this month, they are using some of the club dues to buy a bonus dinner for the members. So you can either eat the bonus dinner, which is chinese which you vocally hate and are sure will give you all cancer, and not be hungry, which makes you a hypocrite, or you can refuse to eat it which lets you keep your integrity but you have to eat cardboard because you are oh-so-hungry. Pick one.


First, when you say monthly bonus dinner, you mean weekly dinner, right? Because this happens every year.

Second, the argument isn't just that we shouldn't be eating Chinese, the argument is that we shouldn't be using club dues to buy food. Everyone should spend their money how they see fit prior to the meeting. If the club decides to buy food, however, using the dues, then I can no longer afford to buy my own food prior to the meeting and must resort to eating Chinese.
 
2012-12-13 04:17:59 PM  

buck1138: What is gold used for industrially? For jewelry, yes, but industrially?

Monster Cables?




Link

Quite a few things actually.
 
2012-12-13 04:18:02 PM  

lennavan: Reminds me, one of my favorite looks I have ever gotten from someone was right after I explained to a Ron Paul supporter that Ron Paul thinks if you cannot afford life saving medical care and are uninsured, you made a poor choice should die. The look of shock on his face, his entire political world was just flipped upside down. Then he refused to believe it, it was truly magnificent.


Reminds me of when I said I'm entirely for everyone having access to medical care.
 
2012-12-13 04:18:18 PM  

MadHatter500: It is also terrible at being transported. Fiat currency can go to 50 different cities on 6 different continents in under an hour (ie. electronic transfers), gold cannot.

It is also rather hard to divide relative to modern fiat currencies.


Wouldnt we just create gold notes? Exchangeable on demand?
:-D
 
2012-12-13 04:19:21 PM  

Mrtraveler01: The food budget was so much it nearly bankrupt the guy?

What an awful analogy.


Suppose the meeting's dues are massive? Something like 25% of his total pay?
 
2012-12-13 04:19:39 PM  

MattStafford: CPennypacker: You're the one that's struggling. You analogy is crap on a stick, but if we're sticking to it, the person against ordering the chinese (the "ron paul or crappy analogies") isn't saying "I wouldn't buy Chinese with my money." He's saying that Chinese is awful, its horrible for everyone, it tastes bad and it actually makes you hungrier. And if we're keeping to the analogy, then really, everyone didn't throw in for dinner, everyone paid their monthly club dues, and this month, they are using some of the club dues to buy a bonus dinner for the members. So you can either eat the bonus dinner, which is chinese which you vocally hate and are sure will give you all cancer, and not be hungry, which makes you a hypocrite, or you can refuse to eat it which lets you keep your integrity but you have to eat cardboard because you are oh-so-hungry. Pick one.

First, when you say monthly bonus dinner, you mean weekly dinner, right? Because this happens every year.

Second, the argument isn't just that we shouldn't be eating Chinese, the argument is that we shouldn't be using club dues to buy food. Everyone should spend their money how they see fit prior to the meeting. If the club decides to buy food, however, using the dues, then I can no longer afford to buy my own food prior to the meeting and must resort to eating Chinese.


OK, I'm done with this analogy now because it's becoming just a little too dumb. Even for me to keep poking at.
 
2012-12-13 04:20:06 PM  

MattStafford: BeesNuts: How exactly do you plan on financing a government that has accumulated 16 trillion dollars in debt with a product that has a global total value of 1.6 trillion dollars? If the US was in control of ALL the gold, platinum and silver in the ENTIRE WORLD, we would be able to finance our spending for 10 years.

How exactly do you plan to maintain a GDP of of 15.1 trillion dollars with liquid currency valued at under 1 trillion dollars?

And how exactly do you plan to KEEP that gold inside the united states? Cause everyone else wants it too. For non-monetary reasons.

/Gold standard makes as much sense as a Lumber Standard.
//Correction. Lumber standard makes more sense.

Um, obviously the value of gold would appreciate massively relative to the dollar over night.

And if gold leaves the country, say through a trade deficit with another country, we would be out of luck. That is called living within your means. Oh, I'm sorry, did you think we could run multi billion dollar trade deficits every year indefinitely? Sorry.

What is gold used for industrially? For jewelry, yes, but industrially?


PC Boards, cables, connectors and electrical adapters... your standard 747 has about 100 oz of gold in it. Every Computer in the world has maybe 10 bucks worth. Your car.

Gold, and all commodities for that matter, travel to the country or sovereignty that values it the highest. ANY hiccup in our economy would flush all that gold right out the door. Probably to China. It would not require a ruinous practice on our part, merely a temporary depression of gold value relative to its fiat value.

"obviously" the value of a commodity isn't tied to any sort of governmental policy towards that commodity. I'm not sure where you got the idea that it was, but you seem really convinced. Can you elaborate on why gold values would increase if we tied it to our debt/gdp directly?
 
2012-12-13 04:20:38 PM  

Biological Ali: Like I said, it's not like some guy paying his rent. Government spending and government revenues are two different things which aren't related in the manner you're implying. This is especially true for stimulus spending, which will be carried out regardless of whether or not corresponding revenue has been raised separately.


I don't think you understand what I'm saying. The population is on the hook for the vast majority of government spending, whether it was funded via taxes or debt. Ron Paul's constituents make up a portion of that population.
 
2012-12-13 04:20:43 PM  

MattStafford: Second, the argument isn't just that we shouldn't be eating Chinese, the argument is that we shouldn't be using club dues to buy food. Everyone should spend their money how they see fit prior to the meeting. If the club decides to buy food, however, using the dues, then I can no longer afford to buy my own food prior to the meeting and must resort to eating Chinese.


meh, eating dinner together at the club is part of the being a member of the club thing. They have a great chef and live music. And the cheap bastard who doesnt pay his dues gets kicked.

hmmmm
I wonder where this is going.
 
2012-12-13 04:21:35 PM  

MattStafford: Your growth is stagnated based on your supply of currency. The currency just deflates in value. If there is 1000 pieces of gold and 1000 loaves of bread in society, and someone develops a machine that now produces 10,000 loaves, growth didn't stop or anything like that, gold has just deflated.


That is not how that works.

You've clearly read it, or its cliff's notes anyway. Re-read that biatch front to back.
 
2012-12-13 04:22:03 PM  

MattStafford: Biological Ali: Like I said, it's not like some guy paying his rent. Government spending and government revenues are two different things which aren't related in the manner you're implying. This is especially true for stimulus spending, which will be carried out regardless of whether or not corresponding revenue has been raised separately.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. The population is on the hook for the vast majority of government spending, whether it was funded via taxes or debt. Ron Paul's constituents make up a portion of that population.


Welcome to society. Thanks for paying admission?
 
2012-12-13 04:24:29 PM  

BeesNuts: A while ago you were mostly focused on the merits of the gold standard. I wanna have that conversation. I couldn't care less about RON PAUL if I tried. Is he even a congresscritter anymore?


It's a horrible concept. The price of gold, due to its rarity, is extremely fluid. What if somebody bought up a bunch of gold? Would we no longer be able to export goods thanks to the strong dollar? The whole point of capitalism is loaning money to people who will produce something with it. How does gold help this?

If we really want to go with a linked currency, go with beer. Make a can of the usual American swill $1. The U.S. can have a "U.S. Strategic Beer Reserve" where it owns giant tanks of beer before it gets canned. The exchange rate would be how much domestic beer costs in the other country, so one Euro would get you 12 oz of Belgian beer, for example.

If the country falls apart and the dollar is worthless, what's gold going to do for you? Nobody's going to want gold. But beer...beer is always valuable.
 
2012-12-13 04:25:14 PM  

lennavan: Oh okay then. So now to bring the analogy back, if I gather, the IRS forces Ron Paul and his constituents to pay taxes which are so high, he and his constituents can no longer afford to survive without earmarks and are forced to take them. Okay then, I didn't realize how important those earmarks were. Shiat.


If the meeting's dues were about 20% of the person's budget, it would certainly affect the way he ate. But, it does appear you now agree with me, and your only complaint now is that you think that person is being cheap.
 
2012-12-13 04:25:23 PM  

pecosdave: sugardave: I wonder which side of the aisle benefits from this more and has actively worked to fan the flames? I'm sure it's both sides, somehow.

I'm going to disagree. The left seems to find out what the right doesn't like and make a bunch of noise about it and force issues to make the right look bad. The right does it's best to not fan flames and keep a good face while they try to be sneaky about what they do. The left benefits from trumpeting/fanning more - it's solidarity - it's a battle cry to round up like people. The right likes to look like it's being reasonable and responsible to gain the confidence of voters who think they're reasonable and responsible.

No - the left does a lot more flame fanning - it's their strength.


That's pretty good. You got me.
8/10
simply because you took it to opposite land in such an exquisitely detailed fashion.
 
2012-12-13 04:26:28 PM  

CPennypacker: Because gold isn't divisible enough to keep that up in perpetuity? Also, if you're going to deflate the shiat out of Gold why bother with a gold standard in the first place?


Because deflation isn't bad. Take a look at the electronics industry if you want an example. If we produced so much stuff, that you could live the rest of your life on an ounce of gold, there is nothing wrong with that.
 
2012-12-13 04:28:36 PM  

MattStafford: I don't think you understand what I'm saying. The population is on the hook for the vast majority of government spending, whether it was funded via taxes or debt.


Yup. And like any other time someone get heavily in debt, at some point, you have to think about filing for bankruptcy. BOOM
Print New Dollars (TM)

TADA
No debt!!!

/yes, I know, the world would collapse. But at least we wont owe anymore money!!
/plus we would finally screw all the people and companies holding cash off shore
 
2012-12-13 04:28:41 PM  

jst3p: buck1138: What is gold used for industrially? For jewelry, yes, but industrially?

Monster Cables?



Link

Quite a few things actually.


came to post this...you beat me by 12 mins or so. Good job.

/can't believe mattstafford isn't a troll...."jewelry and not much else"? REALLY????
 
2012-12-13 04:28:53 PM  

CPennypacker: OK, I'm done with this analogy now because it's becoming just a little too dumb. Even for me to keep poking at.


You mean you no longer have an argument against it? That's what I thought. Everyone else gave up there too, and just went for the "hur dur how poor he must be to not be able to afford food" route, which is a lost argument.
 
2012-12-13 04:29:17 PM  

MattStafford: I don't think you understand what I'm saying. The population is on the hook for the vast majority of government spending, whether it was funded via taxes or debt. Ron Paul's constituents make up a portion of that population.


Which has nothing to do with what you were talking about. The "revenues" that come from Ron Paul's constituents will have no bearing on size or scope of the stimulus. These are two completely different things. Talking about being "on the hook" for the spending in some grand long-term sense is meaningless because it's not clear what the effect of the spending will be - if the stimulus works, the economy may improve to the point where there's nothing to be "on the hook" for.

You take (and spend) stimulus money because it's the economically sensible thing to do, not because you're somehow "owed" the money in a grand philosophical sense.
 
2012-12-13 04:29:20 PM  

MattStafford: . If the club decides to buy food, however, using the dues, then I can no longer afford to buy my own food prior to the meeting and must resort to eating Chinese.


So if I follow, taxes are like the government sticking a gun to your head to steal all of your money to starving like levels. That's why it's okay for Ron Paul to earmark a bill for $2 million to buy new bike racks, while simultaneously bragging that he has never voted for an earmark in his life. Because he was forced to do that earmark, akin to a starving person.

I got it now.
 
2012-12-13 04:30:56 PM  

namatad: meh, eating dinner together at the club is part of the being a member of the club thing. They have a great chef and live music. And the cheap bastard who doesnt pay his dues gets kicked.

hmmmm
I wonder where this is going.


That isn't the argument that is being made. The argument that is being made is: if someone thought they shouldn't have to pay for the chef and live music, but has to pay for it anyway, is he a hypocrite for subsequently enjoying the chef and live music?
 
2012-12-13 04:32:45 PM  

lennavan: MattStafford: . If the club decides to buy food, however, using the dues, then I can no longer afford to buy my own food prior to the meeting and must resort to eating Chinese.

So if I follow, taxes are like the government sticking a gun to your head to steal all of your money to starving like levels. That's why it's okay for Ron Paul to earmark a bill for $2 million to buy new bike racks, while simultaneously bragging that he has never voted for an earmark in his life. Because he was forced to do that earmark, akin to a starving person.

I got it now.


Yes, that is exactly what I said.

Actually, what I said was "If a person doesn't think he should have to pay taxes to fund something, but is forced to pay taxes to fund it anyway, he is not a hypocrite to enjoying whatever it was that he funded".

Seems pretty reasonable, if you ask me.
 
2012-12-13 04:32:48 PM  

MattStafford: CPennypacker: Because gold isn't divisible enough to keep that up in perpetuity? Also, if you're going to deflate the shiat out of Gold why bother with a gold standard in the first place?

Because deflation isn't bad. Take a look at the electronics industry if you want an example. If we produced so much stuff, that you could live the rest of your life on an ounce of gold, there is nothing wrong with that.


Uh, yes deflation is bad. Remeber the great depression? That was a deflationary spiral. Deflation constricts an economy. Debt becomes prohibitively expensive as the amount you owe actually expands with time. I know you hate debt but you must realize we need some of it to grow, right?

MattStafford: CPennypacker: OK, I'm done with this analogy now because it's becoming just a little too dumb. Even for me to keep poking at.

You mean you no longer have an argument against it? That's what I thought. Everyone else gave up there too, and just went for the "hur dur how poor he must be to not be able to afford food" route, which is a lost argument.


We got four levels deep into the stupid. You can claim victory if you want but the only out-maneuvering you accomplished was that you made it so stupid I couldn't be bothered anymore. I'm pretty sure that's what happened to everyone else.
 
2012-12-13 04:33:48 PM  
This...this is just awful.
 
2012-12-13 04:34:54 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: The President's refusal to do my job for me shows that he's not serious about negotiating! Also, Tang.


lol
\o\
/o/

LOLTANG
 
2012-12-13 04:36:16 PM  

MattStafford: Actually, what I said was "If a person doesn't think he should have to pay taxes to fund earmarks, but is forced to pay taxes to fund it anyway, he is not a hypocrite to enjoying earmarks".


I actually agree, no snark. Ron Paul wasn't a hypocrite until he turned around after all of that and bragged about how he never voted for an earmark.

"I shouldn't have to pay taxes to fund earmarks"
"I have to anyway and I know this bill will pass no matter how much I complain, so here's my list of earmarks"

I got it, he hates the system but is playing by it. No worries. Then he follows it up with:

"I don't use earmarks."

Now you're just a hypocritical dick.
 
2012-12-13 04:36:18 PM  
I think I see the problem. Let's change the analogy.

Ten people are being held at gunpoint. Nine of them say: "Hey, there's some Chinese people. Let's eat them." The tenth one says: "No, I don't want to eat the Chinese. I want to shiat gold, and use it to pay for Mexicans." The other nine say: "No, then we'll need to divide up the gold you shiat out, and divide it equally among us nine." The tenth guy says: "No wait, if I'm shiatting out the gold, I want to keep some of the shiat-gold so I can trade it for some of the Chinese to exchange them for Mexicans, so I can eat them." They vote, and the nine guys vote to eat the Chinese people. Then the tenth guy steals the gun, assembles the nine guys, the Chinese people, and the Mexican people head-to-butt human centipede style, and walks away with his shiat-gold.

I assume I don't need to spell this out for you, do I?
 
2012-12-13 04:37:05 PM  

MattStafford: Because deflation isn't bad. Take a look at the electronics industry if you want an example. If we produced so much stuff, that you could live the rest of your life on an ounce of gold, there is nothing wrong with that.


hahaha hahahaha hahahah hahahah ahahah hahahaaha
you are so wrong about deflation it isnt even funny,

Today my house is worth 200k and I am trying to sell it. But you know that we are in a deflation cycle.
You know that you can wait until next year and get it for 180k. You have no incentive to buy today. and a huge savings if you wait until next year. (this example assumes that the "cost" of NOT buying today is much less than 20k)

Multiply that thinking by 100,000,000 households. No one will buy a house or a car this year. THEY KNOW that the same house and car will be 5%, 10% cheaper next year? HELLLLO, I can use that old car for 1 more year if I can save that much money!!!
 
2012-12-13 04:37:46 PM  

Fellate O'Fish: I think I see the problem. Let's change the analogy.

Ten people are being held at gunpoint. Nine of them say: "Hey, there's some Chinese people. Let's eat them." The tenth one says: "No, I don't want to eat the Chinese. I want to shiat gold, and use it to pay for Mexicans." The other nine say: "No, then we'll need to divide up the gold you shiat out, and divide it equally among us nine." The tenth guy says: "No wait, if I'm shiatting out the gold, I want to keep some of the shiat-gold so I can trade it for some of the Chinese to exchange them for Mexicans, so I can eat them." They vote, and the nine guys vote to eat the Chinese people. Then the tenth guy steals the gun, assembles the nine guys, the Chinese people, and the Mexican people head-to-butt human centipede style, and walks away with his shiat-gold.

I assume I don't need to spell this out for you, do I?


It's kind of telling that the best way to explain RONPAUL's political viewpoint is with an Aristocrats joke.
 
2012-12-13 04:38:02 PM  
I regard support for Ron Paul and/or the gold standard to be one of the easiest, most elegant, and most reliable IQ tests ever contrived.
 
2012-12-13 04:38:33 PM  
Eliminate medicare, medicaid, social security, and all forms of welfare. Make public schools private, and private prisons public, where the per capita inmate expense is poverty level at most.

Freeze defense spending at 2007 levels.

There, that's a start. If it isn't enough, then let me know, and I'll keep going.
 
2012-12-13 04:38:54 PM  
A controlled crash is still a crash - and we are but the test dummies.

MmmMMMmm MMMmMMMMmmm
 
2012-12-13 04:39:23 PM  

mcwehrle: /can't believe mattstafford isn't a troll...."jewelry and not much else"? REALLY????


yah ... he is either a troll or too stupid to live ... either way
anyone who thinks inflation is awesome and uses electronics as an example ....
One or the other or both
 
2012-12-13 04:39:36 PM  

SevenizGud: Eliminate medicare, medicaid, social security, and all forms of welfare. Make public schools private, and private prisons public, where the per capita inmate expense is poverty level at most.

Freeze defense spending at 2007 levels.

There, that's a start. If it isn't enough, then let me know, and I'll keep going.


Please, keep going, all the way out. Assuming you didn't drop this gem on your way out.
 
2012-12-13 04:41:18 PM  

Fellate O'Fish: I think I see the problem. Let's change the analogy.

Ten people are being held at gunpoint. Nine of them say: "Hey, there's some Chinese people. Let's eat them." The tenth one says: "No, I don't want to eat the Chinese. I want to shiat gold, and use it to pay for Mexicans." The other nine say: "No, then we'll need to divide up the gold you shiat out, and divide it equally among us nine." The tenth guy says: "No wait, if I'm shiatting out the gold, I want to keep some of the shiat-gold so I can trade it for some of the Chinese to exchange them for Mexicans, so I can eat them." They vote, and the nine guys vote to eat the Chinese people. Then the tenth guy steals the gun, assembles the nine guys, the Chinese people, and the Mexican people head-to-butt human centipede style, and walks away with his shiat-gold.

I assume I don't need to spell this out for you, do I?


Alright, this made me laugh as much as I've laughed in days.

+10000
 
2012-12-13 04:42:07 PM  

Fellate O'Fish: I think I see the problem. Let's change the analogy.

Ten people are being held at gunpoint. Nine of them say: "Hey, there's some Chinese people. Let's eat them." The tenth one says: "No, I don't want to eat the Chinese. I want to shiat gold, and use it to pay for Mexicans." The other nine say: "No, then we'll need to divide up the gold you shiat out, and divide it equally among us nine." The tenth guy says: "No wait, if I'm shiatting out the gold, I want to keep some of the shiat-gold so I can trade it for some of the Chinese to exchange them for Mexicans, so I can eat them." They vote, and the nine guys vote to eat the Chinese people. Then the tenth guy steals the gun, assembles the nine guys, the Chinese people, and the Mexican people head-to-butt human centipede style, and walks away with his shiat-gold.

I assume I don't need to spell this out for you, do I?


I understand completely.
 
2012-12-13 04:42:39 PM  

cbathrob: I regard support for Ron Paul and/or the gold standard to be one of the easiest, most elegant, and most reliable IQ tests ever contrived.


Yep, it is like a text version of a facial tattoo.
 
2012-12-13 04:43:34 PM  
CPennypacker:I'm pretty sure that's what happened to everyone else.

I stuck it through to the end. Despite being a rampant political person, I have avoided Paulites like this, though I have to put up with my mother's husband some. It's amazing how impenetrable the Paulite mind is.
 
2012-12-13 04:44:23 PM  

lennavan: MattStafford: Actually, what I said was "If a person doesn't think he should have to pay taxes to fund earmarks, but is forced to pay taxes to fund it anyway, he is not a hypocrite to enjoying earmarks".

I actually agree, no snark. Ron Paul wasn't a hypocrite until he turned around after all of that and bragged about how he never voted for an earmark.

"I shouldn't have to pay taxes to fund earmarks"
"I have to anyway and I know this bill will pass no matter how much I complain, so here's my list of earmarks"

I got it, he hates the system but is playing by it. No worries. Then he follows it up with:

"I don't use earmarks."

Now you're just a hypocritical dick.


The problem with that is that he can't make the nuanced argument that, hey he disagrees with the spending and earmarks in general, but goes after them anyway because he has to play the game, into an easy sound bite.

He has made the same argument I've made for him when he is given a chance to be more nuanced. If his options are to say "I've voted for earmarks" and "I didnt vote for earmarks", which would you expect him to say?

It's just the way the game is played.
 
2012-12-13 04:44:29 PM  

namatad: mcwehrle: /can't believe mattstafford isn't a troll...."jewelry and not much else"? REALLY????

yah ... he is either a troll or too stupid to live ... either way
anyone who thinks inflation is awesome and uses electronics as an example ....
One or the other or both


Both, I'd go with both. He also has absolutely no problem with letting old folks die rather than funding Medicare for them. It's more economical that way. So I'm really truly not surprised by his gold standard blah.
 
2012-12-13 04:46:23 PM  

cbathrob: I regard support for Ron Paul and/or the gold standard to be one of the easiest, most elegant, and most reliable IQ tests ever contrived.


You'd be surprised.
 
2012-12-13 04:46:41 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: This...this is just awful.


Agreed. It might be the biggest threadshiat I've ever seen. Thanks RON PAUL.
 
2012-12-13 04:46:44 PM  
This opinion piece doesn't support it's own premise. The fact that Republicans can't (or won't) articulate where they'd like to see cuts doesn't mean that cuts don't need to be made. It just means that they are politically motivated to not be specific.

Our spending *is* out of control by any rational measure one would care to apply. Our debt to GDP is so bad that we would be denied membership if we applied to join the EU. We spend $3 for every $2 we raise. This year's budget has us spending a trillion dollars (with a T) we don't have, and that's *with* sequestration.
Neither party is serious about getting the budget in order because they know that the cuts that are required are political suicide. But the only way to avoid a complete fiscal meltdown and hyperinflation is by making those cuts.
I don't expect that those cuts will ever be made. Especially with all the "fiscal cliff" rhetoric floating around. So we're doomed to find out the hard way what happens when this finally catches up with us.
 
2012-12-13 04:49:05 PM  

mcwehrle: namatad: mcwehrle: /can't believe mattstafford isn't a troll...."jewelry and not much else"? REALLY????

yah ... he is either a troll or too stupid to live ... either way
anyone who thinks inflation is awesome and uses electronics as an example ....
One or the other or both

Both, I'd go with both. He also has absolutely no problem with letting old folks die rather than funding Medicare for them. It's more economical that way. So I'm really truly not surprised by his gold standard blah.


I've said several times, including in this thread, that I'm in favor of wealth redistribution and access to health care for everyone. What I also say is that, if you fund those things via debt, you're going to destroy your economy. Which is what is happening.
 
2012-12-13 04:50:31 PM  

mcwehrle: Both, I'd go with both. He also has absolutely no problem with letting old folks die rather than funding Medicare for them. It's more economical that way. So I'm really truly not surprised by his gold standard blah.


In a STRANGE way, letting the old ones die would stimulate the economy:
increased funerals and all that business
increased inheritances and increased spending there of
lowered unemployment when all the walmart greeters die

so yah, increasing the medicare age from 65 to 67 is farked
2 more years of those jobs not opening up for the young'ens

lawl
 
2012-12-13 04:53:19 PM  

CPennypacker: MattStafford: CPennypacker: Because gold isn't divisible enough to keep that up in perpetuity? Also, if you're going to deflate the shiat out of Gold why bother with a gold standard in the first place?

Because deflation isn't bad. Take a look at the electronics industry if you want an example. If we produced so much stuff, that you could live the rest of your life on an ounce of gold, there is nothing wrong with that.

Uh, yes deflation is bad. Remeber the great depression? That was a deflationary spiral. Deflation constricts an economy. Debt becomes prohibitively expensive as the amount you owe actually expands with time. I know you hate debt but you must realize we need some of it to grow, right?

MattStafford: CPennypacker: OK, I'm done with this analogy now because it's becoming just a little too dumb. Even for me to keep poking at.

You mean you no longer have an argument against it? That's what I thought. Everyone else gave up there too, and just went for the "hur dur how poor he must be to not be able to afford food" route, which is a lost argument.

We got four levels deep into the stupid. You can claim victory if you want but the only out-maneuvering you accomplished was that you made it so stupid I couldn't be bothered anymore. I'm pretty sure that's what happened to everyone else.


Deflation when caused as a result of monetary shenanigans is bad (not necessarily bad, as it is necessary, but painful).

Deflation when caused as a result of an increase in technology and production is a good thing.

As for the analogy? Nah, pretty sure you just gave up when the going got tough.
 
2012-12-13 04:54:07 PM  
Only someone unconscious or stupid can believe spending is fine. The funny but ironic thing is that it will be the stupid yoot's, who voted for the Resident, who will pay for our re-living of the 1930's.
 
2012-12-13 04:54:19 PM  

GoSlash27: Neither party is serious about getting the budget in order because they know that the cuts that are required are political suicide.


Budget Control Act. Obama signed off on $1.5T in spending cuts in exchange for zero tax increases. So no, "neither side is serious" is not true.
 
2012-12-13 05:02:56 PM  

qqqq: Only someone unconscious or stupid can believe spending is fine.


Ya, that pretty much explains the eight years of GWB.
 
2012-12-13 05:04:31 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: GoSlash27: Neither party is serious about getting the budget in order because they know that the cuts that are required are political suicide.

Budget Control Act. Obama signed off on $1.5T in spending cuts in exchange for zero tax increases. So no, "neither side is serious" is not true.


Only 17 billion (at most) if you take into account the elevation of the debt ceiling. WIth an option to raise the debt ceiling further later. That Act was kind of a wash - or, an act if you will.
 
2012-12-13 05:05:02 PM  

GoSlash27: We spend $3 for every $2 we raise.


Technically this is TRIVIAL to fix.

1) cut 1/3 of spending
2) raise revenue by 50%
3) combination of both

so lets cut 100% of discretionary spending, including all money paid to congress and the whitehouse.
AUSTERITY!!

Link

TADA
we just saved 1.5T dollars
we can use the extra .5T we have left over to pay off the national debt!

oh wait, you probably wont want to cut DoD?

FINE
we got .9T cuts if we leave in DoD discretionary.
TADA
we are actually close to a balanced budget
alas

a LOT of people will be out of work and the VA is broke again.
no problem there, put the VA into the DOD where it belongs, and no, the DOD doesnt get MORE money.
 
2012-12-13 05:05:19 PM  
As long as we continue down the path of deficit spending, we will continue to be indirectly taxed by the federal government through artificially depressed interest rates and (currently and for the near-future) quantitative easing.

America is like the heroin addict that takes advantage of a drop in the price of smack to shoot-up twice as much as much as they once did. The worst-case scenario isn't the long term damage being done to the body. That is inevitable. It's the risk that the price of heroin will spiral upwards when it now takes twice as much smack to reach the same high. And we all know that when drug addicts are fiending, their decision making goes down the drain.
 
2012-12-13 05:06:57 PM  

qqqq: Only someone unconscious or stupid can believe spending is fine. The funny but ironic thing is that it will be the stupid yoot's, who voted for the Resident, who will pay for our re-living of the 1930's.


zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Meh
they already have a perfect plan in place. Do nothing, spending will be cut and taxes will go up. TADA
Wait, what was congress doing the whole time that this thing was in place, ticking???
Nothing??? LOLOLOLOL
 
2012-12-13 05:06:59 PM  

highendmighty: Only 17 billion (at most) if you take into account the elevation of the debt ceiling.


I don't understand how paying for what we've already spent negates cuts signed into law. Or we doing a semantics thing?
 
2012-12-13 05:07:33 PM  

SevenizGud: Eliminate medicare, medicaid, social security, and all forms of welfare. Make public schools private, and private prisons public, where the per capita inmate expense is poverty level at most.

Freeze defense spending at 2007 levels.

There, that's a start. If it isn't enough, then let me know, and I'll keep going.


Simple answers for simple minds I suppose.
 
2012-12-13 05:08:17 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: GoSlash27: Neither party is serious about getting the budget in order because they know that the cuts that are required are political suicide.

Budget Control Act. Obama signed off on $1.5T in spending cuts in exchange for zero tax increases. So no, "neither side is serious" is not true.


That's 1.5T total over the course of 10 years for a budget projected to accumulate 11.2 T in the same time. No, that's not "serious".
www.americanthinker.com
 
2012-12-13 05:09:26 PM  
Republicans declared that "the number-one job is to make Obama a one-term president". Not fixing the economy, not getting America out of debt, not doing anything intelligent and rational and helpful. All they care(d) about was getting the scary black Democrat out of the White House by any means necessary.

They did their best to fark up the economy even more and try blame it on Obama. They filibustered and gerrymandered and fought and whined about everything that tried to happen in Congress. Obama can't even put ketchup on his hamburger without Republicans screeching about how evil and anti-American it is. And in all that time the Republicans didn't offer a damned thing, except a record number of anti-woman and anti-gay laws.

And now that their "one-term Obama" campaign has failed, Republicans have gone insane. They're going to destroy America out of hatred and anger and spite. "If we can't have it, NO ONE CAN!" is their new number-one job. They already declared how it was everyone's fault but their own that Romney wasn't elected, they're putting out TV commercials that are basically threatening people to either oppose the tax increases or bad things will happen, and they're see-sawing between trying to court minorities and women and blaming them for America's problems, often in the same breath.

The right doesn't care about America anymore.
 
2012-12-13 05:09:49 PM  

GoSlash27: That's 1.5T total over the course of 10 years for a budget projected to accumulate 11.2 T in the same time. No, that's not "serious".


It's more serious than refusing to do anything whatsoever on the tax side. Sure, both sides are bad. Both sides are not equally bad.
 
2012-12-13 05:11:03 PM  

namatad: AUSTERITY!!


Yeah, lets go with the method that has proven to make things worse.

Link
 
2012-12-13 05:13:21 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: highendmighty: Only 17 billion (at most) if you take into account the elevation of the debt ceiling.

I don't understand how paying for what we've already spent negates cuts signed into law. Or we doing a semantics thing?


No, not semantics, just a net total of the amount we're allowed to spend vs. the total that can be spent. The ratio of debt limit to spending limit is statistically the same.
I'm not saying that the act is a bad thing - it reduces the rate of spending to try to avoid "falling off the fiscal cliff", but there is not much in the way of any kind of cost cuts. It cuts the increase in spending more than the spending itself.
 
2012-12-13 05:15:37 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: GoSlash27: That's 1.5T total over the course of 10 years for a budget projected to accumulate 11.2 T in the same time. No, that's not "serious".

It's more serious than refusing to do anything whatsoever on the tax side. Sure, both sides are bad. Both sides are not equally bad.


No, it's just a different kind of "not serious". I'm not blaming the Democrats or defending the Republicans. I'm just pointing out that neither side is willing to fix this and we're all going to suffer as a result. And I can hardly blame them. If they seriously tried to get this budget back to some semblance of sanity, they'd be run out of town on a rail. It's really the voters' fault.
 
2012-12-13 05:19:26 PM  

Pincy: qqqq: Only someone unconscious or stupid can believe spending is fine.

Ya, that pretty much explains the eight years of GWB.


So that squared is smart? I'll go with STUPID for you and I'll raise you Biden.
 
2012-12-13 05:19:50 PM  

GoSlash27: Dusk-You-n-Me: GoSlash27: That's 1.5T total over the course of 10 years for a budget projected to accumulate 11.2 T in the same time. No, that's not "serious".

It's more serious than refusing to do anything whatsoever on the tax side. Sure, both sides are bad. Both sides are not equally bad.

No, it's just a different kind of "not serious". I'm not blaming the Democrats or defending the Republicans. I'm just pointing out that neither side is willing to fix this and we're all going to suffer as a result. And I can hardly blame them. If they seriously tried to get this budget back to some semblance of sanity, they'd be run out of town on a rail. It's really the voters' fault.


"I could end the deficit in five minutes. You just pass a law that says that any time there's a deficit of more than three percent of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election. Yeah, yeah, now you've got the incentives in the right place, right?" -W. Buffet
 
2012-12-13 05:22:17 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Republicans declared that "the number-one job is to make Obama a one-term president". Not fixing the economy, not getting America out of debt, not doing anything intelligent and rational and helpful. All they care(d) about was getting the scary black Democrat out of the White House by any means necessary.

They did their best to fark up the economy even more and try blame it on Obama. They filibustered and gerrymandered and fought and whined about everything that tried to happen in Congress. Obama can't even put ketchup on his hamburger without Republicans screeching about how evil and anti-American it is. And in all that time the Republicans didn't offer a damned thing, except a record number of anti-woman and anti-gay laws.

And now that their "one-term Obama" campaign has failed, Republicans have gone insane. They're going to destroy America out of hatred and anger and spite. "If we can't have it, NO ONE CAN!" is their new number-one job. They already declared how it was everyone's fault but their own that Romney wasn't elected, they're putting out TV commercials that are basically threatening people to either oppose the tax increases or bad things will happen, and they're see-sawing between trying to court minorities and women and blaming them for America's problems, often in the same breath.

The right doesn't care about America anymore.



It's depressing how right you are about all of that.
 
2012-12-13 05:22:32 PM  

GoSlash27: If they seriously tried to get this budget back to some semblance of sanity, they'd be run out of town on a rail


That depends on how they go about trying to balance it. Spending cuts are a popular idea until you specify what exactly you're cutting, then a lot of people with ties to that spending tend to get upset. Both sides know this. Boehner wants Obama to name specific spending cuts so he can blast Obama for the cuts being insufficient and pull the debate further to the right. Fortunately Obama doesn't feel like playing that game.

America wants the upper brackets raised. Hell, a majority of Republicans want those taxes raised. Boehner's in a tough spot. Obama not nearly as much. They're meeting...right now actually, so we'll see what comes of that.
 
2012-12-13 05:22:49 PM  
Namat, doing nothing is the best choice. The 'cliff' means spending will be cut. That NEVER happens. Government is the problem. Statists are the problem.
 
2012-12-13 05:23:27 PM  

namatad: GoSlash27: We spend $3 for every $2 we raise.

Technically this is TRIVIAL to fix.

1) cut 1/3 of spending
2) raise revenue by 50%
3) combination of both

so lets cut 100% of discretionary spending, including all money paid to congress and the whitehouse.
AUSTERITY!!

Link

TADA
we just saved 1.5T dollars
we can use the extra .5T we have left over to pay off the national debt!

oh wait, you probably wont want to cut DoD?

FINE
we got .9T cuts if we leave in DoD discretionary.
TADA
we are actually close to a balanced budget
alas

a LOT of people will be out of work and the VA is broke again.
no problem there, put the VA into the DOD where it belongs, and no, the DOD doesnt get MORE money.


I have no idea why you'd think I'm against DoD cuts. I certainly never said anything to indicate that. Perhaps you should refrain from making snap judgements of people you don't know...
/your proposal is actually fairly sensible
//which is why you'd never get elected...
 
2012-12-13 05:26:42 PM  

jst3p: GoSlash27: Dusk-You-n-Me: GoSlash27: That's 1.5T total over the course of 10 years for a budget projected to accumulate 11.2 T in the same time. No, that's not "serious".

It's more serious than refusing to do anything whatsoever on the tax side. Sure, both sides are bad. Both sides are not equally bad.

No, it's just a different kind of "not serious". I'm not blaming the Democrats or defending the Republicans. I'm just pointing out that neither side is willing to fix this and we're all going to suffer as a result. And I can hardly blame them. If they seriously tried to get this budget back to some semblance of sanity, they'd be run out of town on a rail. It's really the voters' fault.

"I could end the deficit in five minutes. You just pass a law that says that any time there's a deficit of more than three percent of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election. Yeah, yeah, now you've got the incentives in the right place, right?" -W. Buffet


Said law would have to be passed by Congress... Oh.

It would work out great in an ideal world. Of course, if this was an ideal world, we wouldn't be in this mess.
 
2012-12-13 05:26:48 PM  
Keizer_Ghidorah I call bullshiat.

Idiots, like you, who don't know that the freedom they have is NOT normal is the problem. Rule of law and property rights are why free people are free.
 
2012-12-13 05:32:10 PM  
Bullshiat.

Greece is not at war yet is broken. If Eunuchstan reduced military spending to zero would they be solvent?

Morons given blank checks are the problem. As are bullshiat canons. (spelling intentional)
 
2012-12-13 05:32:38 PM  

jst3p: namatad: AUSTERITY!!

Yeah, lets go with the method that has proven to make things worse.

Link


Greece wouldn't be in their crisis if even showed an iota of fiscal responsibility. Bringing up Greece in this argument is not exactly helpful to your argument.
 
2012-12-13 05:37:24 PM  

you have pee hands: The article is wrong. It says that the Republican position is unsatisfiable because there isn't much money to cut without kicking the poor really hard in the balls. The Republicans don't care; they want to kick the poor really hard in the balls. They think it's what the poor deserve, or even that it will help.


Of course, but they want to turn around and blame Obama when 2014 comes along. They're demanding cuts that they don't want to be held responsible for when the next election rolls along.
 
2012-12-13 05:39:06 PM  

MattStafford: Deflation when caused as a result of an increase in technology and production is a good thing.


But that hasn't happened in the last... what... 50 years? 100?

You could probably describe the last 200 years as one continuous deflation spiral. Evidence: Stagnation in wages and a reduction in aggregate demand has coincided with every increase in the buying power of a dollar in US history.

Further. Globalization is a HUGE game changer when we talk about "money".
 
2012-12-13 05:40:21 PM  

justinguarini4ever: jst3p: namatad: AUSTERITY!!

Yeah, lets go with the method that has proven to make things worse.

Link

Greece wouldn't be in their crisis if even showed an iota of fiscal responsibility. Bringing up Greece in this argument is not exactly helpful to your argument.


Austerity is not the only way to achieve fiscal responsibility, and when times are tough it seems to make things worse. We need to roll back the Bush/Obama tax cuts, put them back at Clinton levels. Create new tax brackets at 1,000,0000 and 50,000,000 (40% and 45%) and roll back the top bracket 2013. Roll back another bracket every year till they are all fixed. Obama is already cutting, but cutting alone wont get the job done.
 
2012-12-13 05:41:04 PM  

MattStafford: Mrtraveler01: That depends, am I going to abandon my principles just so I can have my share of the pie too?

Speaking of abortions...that analogy was a good example of one.

No, that analogy was actually pretty much spot on to what is happening. Would you try and get some of that money back, or would you let the rest of us split it up? And if you did try to get some of that money back, would you consider yourself a hypocrite?

Unless you answer those questions, you aren't trying to have a serious debate right now, and are just as bad as any of the right wing commentators you love so much to rail against. Holding onto partisan beliefs just because they are beliefs your side has, regardless of the intellectual honesty behind those beliefs.


Your analogy doesn't work well. If you were going to have everyone throw in twenty bucks, fine. And if you were going to borrow another 200, fine. If I voted against it all to begin with, I would be a hypocrite to make a grab for the money "because it's going to be spent anyway". Why? Because as an elected representative - one who was elected on the principle of bringing down the deficit and cutting government spending - I should be using EVERY opportunity to cut spending. If I'm attaching riders to popular bills, then to stay within my elected principles, they would be riders that cut the deficit or direct spending to paying off the debt, or maybe returning the taxes collected to those who paid them (in a 1:1 ratio, of course - just refund the damn money). What I do NOT do, is make a grab for the money anyway.

Your analogy breaks down because Ron Paul knowingly added spending riders to bills he knew were going to pass regardless of his voting against them. If he knows in advance they'll pass, then he's attaching the wrong kind of rider - and being a hypocrite in the process. He's only doing it so that he can take his fiscal freedom fighter stance while still doing what's necessary to stay in Congress - appease his lobbyists and wealthy constituents. He's a political expert, and to portray him as some kind of noble fighter for the cause is just absolutely ludicrous on its face.
 
2012-12-13 05:42:50 PM  

YoungLochinvar: you have pee hands: The article is wrong. It says that the Republican position is unsatisfiable because there isn't much money to cut without kicking the poor really hard in the balls. The Republicans don't care; they want to kick the poor really hard in the balls. They think it's what the poor deserve, or even that it will help.

Of course, but they want to turn around and blame Obama when 2014 comes along. They're demanding cuts that they don't want to be held responsible for when the next election rolls along.


Yes. Your point being...?
That's exactly the problem; politicians shouldn't be afraid to take credit for having forced cuts. That sort of behavior should be rewarded, not punished. That's why we're ultimately at fault for this mess.
 
2012-12-13 05:47:54 PM  

jst3p: namatad: AUSTERITY!!

Yeah, lets go with the method that has proven to make things worse.

Link


sorry, I thought I put a sarcastic mark after it ;-)

it is funny how hard it is for us to learn things.

no, pure communism/socialism does not work. we have two GREAT examples:
east vs west germany
north vs south korea

trickle down economics do not work
period
if they did, we would be living in paradise after 30+ years of it trickling down.

The list goes on and on and one
 
2012-12-13 05:48:32 PM  

qqqq: Keizer_Ghidorah I call bullshiat.

Idiots, like you, who don't know that the freedom they have is NOT normal is the problem. Rule of law and property rights are why free people are free.


And that has anything to do with what I said... how?

qqqq: Bullshiat.

Greece is not at war yet is broken. If Eunuchstan reduced military spending to zero would they be solvent?

Morons given blank checks are the problem. As are bullshiat canons. (spelling intentional)


You mean like Bush's two wars on a credit card that we're having to pay off now?
 
2012-12-13 05:48:41 PM  
Of course, but they want to turn around and blame Obama when 2014 comes along. They're demanding cuts that they don't want to be held responsible for when the next election rolls along.

Obama want's cuts? Bullshiat.
 
2012-12-13 05:50:29 PM  

jst3p: Create new tax brackets at 1,000,0000 and 50,000,000


*critical hit*

Add in a mechanism to cap the amount of capital gains taxed as such (all cap gains over 1,000,000 is income or some such) and I think we're more aligned with the realities of today.
 
2012-12-13 05:50:53 PM  

qqqq: Obama want's cuts? Bullshiat.


Weird of him to approve $1.5T in cuts last year then.
 
2012-12-13 05:51:06 PM  

namatad: sorry, I thought I put a sarcastic mark after it ;-)


My meter must be on the fritz. Apologies.
 
2012-12-13 05:53:05 PM  

GoSlash27: I have no idea why you'd think I'm against DoD cuts.


cuts are one thing, 90% of DOD spending is discretionary ....
they could fire all the soldiers and shut down the pentagon ...
it is a discretion ....

not an entitlement which is required spending .... LOLOLOLOL

NO ONE has been pushing for cuts that deep in DOD (other than the nuts)
but, 5% a year for 10 years would work too

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
WHY DO YOU HATE AMERIKA?!!
 
2012-12-13 05:58:31 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: You mean like Bush's two wars on a credit card that we're having to pay off now?


Remember when O'Neill and Greenspan were talking about what to do with the surplus once we have paid off the national debt?

THANKS GOP. THANKS BUSH.
What was WRONG with paying off our longer overdue bills???
farkERS
 
2012-12-13 06:00:49 PM  

namatad: GoSlash27: I have no idea why you'd think I'm against DoD cuts.

cuts are one thing, 90% of DOD spending is discretionary ....
they could fire all the soldiers and shut down the pentagon ...
it is a discretion ....

not an entitlement which is required spending .... LOLOLOLOL

NO ONE has been pushing for cuts that deep in DOD (other than the nuts)
but, 5% a year for 10 years would work too

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
WHY DO YOU HATE AMERIKA?!!


Can anyone else make heads or tails of what this guy is saying? Or why he's directing it at me? I'm at a loss...
 
2012-12-13 06:17:08 PM  

GoSlash27: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
WHY DO YOU HATE AMERIKA?!!

Can anyone else make heads or tails of what this guy is saying? Or why he's directing it at me? I'm at a loss...


dammit
yet another case of missing sarcasm mark
you were getting uppity that I was insinuating that you were or were not against cuts in defense.
when what I had written was not CUTS in defense but closing DOD down ....
but go on ....
 
2012-12-13 06:34:26 PM  

MattStafford: One dude says that the meeting's dues should not be used to spend on food, and that everyone can use their money to eat prior, as they see fit. Since the food budget is included in the meeting's dues, and that dude can no longer afford to go out and eat on his own, he is forced to eat the Chinese.

There ya go.


• One dude says that the meeting's dues should not be used to spend on food
• Everyone uses their money to eat prior, as they see fit
• That dude can no longer afford to go out and eat on his own

So if they had listened to this guy and NOT used the dues for food, he is the crabby, hungry guy in the back of the room who biatches about everything that goes on during the meeting?
 
2012-12-13 06:36:12 PM  

GoSlash27: Dusk-You-n-Me: GoSlash27: Neither party is serious about getting the budget in order because they know that the cuts that are required are political suicide.

Budget Control Act. Obama signed off on $1.5T in spending cuts in exchange for zero tax increases. So no, "neither side is serious" is not true.

That's 1.5T total over the course of 10 years for a budget projected to accumulate 11.2 T in the same time. No, that's not "serious".
[www.americanthinker.com image 626x575]



www.americanthinker.com

So you're saying a Republican will be elected in 2016?
 
2012-12-13 06:37:12 PM  

Rich Cream: So you're saying a Republican will be elected in 2016?


Elected *president*.

/lol
 
2012-12-13 06:45:48 PM  
Spending isn't "out of control". Every penny has been appropriate by Congress as required by the Constitution.

The federal budget deficit is different from the national debt so stop using the terms interchangably. It just makes you look stupid.

Your numbers comparing the federal budget deficit for all presidential administrations are crap because they aren't adjusted for inflation. Link

The federal budget deficit grew when Obama put Bush's off the books spending on the books. No new money was spent.

About a third of Obama's "stimulus" was tax cuts and tax cuts don't increase the deficit. Link.

The federal bailout of AIG actually made a $22.7B profit for the US taxpayer. Link

They're budget hawks when Democrats are in office but when GOPers are in office we get "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" by Dick Cheney.
 
2012-12-13 06:46:17 PM  

Cletus C.: More that doubling didn't happen until 2012 when you've gone from 1.8 in 2000 to 3.8 for this year.


Except 3.8 is incorrect. It was 3.538.
 
2012-12-13 06:46:57 PM  
oops.

About a third of Obama's "stimulus" was tax cuts and tax cuts don't increase the deficit. Link.
 
2012-12-13 06:51:05 PM  

Rich Cream: Rich Cream: So you're saying a Republican will be elected in 2016?

Elected *president*.

/lol


No... what I'm *saying* is exactly what I said. Neither party is serious about balancing the budget. Period. Full stop.
/reading is FUNdamental
 
2012-12-13 06:51:13 PM  

sweetmelissa31: pecosdave: The GOP is just as guilty as the Democrats for it too, which is why I refer to them as "Republicrats".

I prefer Doodiecrats and Republiqueefs.


This is why we all love you.
 
2012-12-13 07:04:52 PM  
The only cuts Republicans really want is to cut Obamacare.

They really need to apply the ointment and move on...
 
2012-12-13 07:07:29 PM  
My proposal: Give everyone a 20% tax break while increasing military spending.

When you sit back and think about that, it sounds laughable, not even remotely plausible for a second.

Two months ago: Half the country was spouting it like gospel. Simply deflected and avoided people challenging them on the logic of it. They nearly won the popular vote with a 'proposal' like that.

Our elections now have very little to do with policy and more to do with who's team your on. 
ryansingercomedy.com

PS - do any of these sheep look like wolves to anyone else?
 
2012-12-13 07:09:51 PM  

whidbey: sprawl15: I want meth sold at Walgreens, but I also want it regulated and taxed.

I've seen you post that before. That's just a bizarre thing to want.


Not so much. Sprawl and I agree on this.
 
2012-12-13 07:36:29 PM  

Bontesla: whidbey: sprawl15: I want meth sold at Walgreens, but I also want it regulated and taxed.

I've seen you post that before. That's just a bizarre thing to want.

Not so much. Sprawl and I agree on this.


Yeah but seriously. "Regulating" meth=prohibition

There is no "safe" use of meth for any purpose.
 
2012-12-13 07:38:59 PM  

whidbey: Bontesla: whidbey: sprawl15: I want meth sold at Walgreens, but I also want it regulated and taxed.

I've seen you post that before. That's just a bizarre thing to want.

Not so much. Sprawl and I agree on this.

Yeah but seriously. "Regulating" meth=prohibition

There is no "safe" use of meth for any purpose.


Weight loss?

/sorry
 
2012-12-13 07:48:53 PM  

mgshamster: Weight loss?

/sorry


Hey you know, if a shrunken brain means a few less pounds, awesome.
 
2012-12-13 08:08:29 PM  

jst3p: buck1138: What is gold used for industrially? For jewelry, yes, but industrially?

Monster Cables?



Link

Quite a few things actually.


Gold is why airbags are $5000.
 
2012-12-13 08:10:49 PM  

whidbey: mgshamster: Weight loss?

/sorry

Hey you know, if a shrunken brain means a few less pounds, awesome.


Snerk. But really, meth is a schedule 2 drug, so that means there are some medical uses for it. I've seen it prescribed for weight loss before (you never see a fat meth addict, do you?). And according to wiki (which is never wrong and always right), ADHD.

I don't know if it still used in the US for any medical uses, but at the very least it used to be.
 
2012-12-13 08:13:45 PM  

mgshamster: whidbey: mgshamster: Weight loss?

/sorry

Hey you know, if a shrunken brain means a few less pounds, awesome.

Snerk. But really, meth is a schedule 2 drug, so that means there are some medical uses for it. I've seen it prescribed for weight loss before (you never see a fat meth addict, do you?). And according to wiki (which is never wrong and always right), ADHD.

I don't know if it still used in the US for any medical uses, but at the very least it used to be.


I have lost 30 pounds, I have 20 to go and they are being stubborn. I am pretty sure that a 1 month supply of meth would do it. The genius part of the plan is that I am such a square there is no way I would be able to get more after the month was over, so no long term effects.

"Never meth, not even once!"

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!
 
2012-12-13 08:17:18 PM  

jst3p: mgshamster: whidbey: mgshamster: Weight loss?

/sorry

Hey you know, if a shrunken brain means a few less pounds, awesome.

Snerk. But really, meth is a schedule 2 drug, so that means there are some medical uses for it. I've seen it prescribed for weight loss before (you never see a fat meth addict, do you?). And according to wiki (which is never wrong and always right), ADHD.

I don't know if it still used in the US for any medical uses, but at the very least it used to be.

I have lost 30 pounds, I have 20 to go and they are being stubborn. I am pretty sure that a 1 month supply of meth would do it. The genius part of the plan is that I am such a square there is no way I would be able to get more after the month was over, so no long term effects.

"Never meth, not even once!"

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!


Makes me wonder what the difference is between therapeutic and abuse doses. Don't feel like looking it up on the ipad. Discovering information on this device is just not as quick as a desktop (for me, anyways).
 
2012-12-13 08:19:22 PM  

mgshamster: I don't know if it still used in the US for any medical uses, but at the very least it used to be.


I'm sure at one time it was.
 
2012-12-13 08:20:01 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Out here in the deserts, there aren't many free running rivers and streams anymore. Take away Government protection and it'd ... let's just say the original pioneers and homesteaders asked the Government for help in sharing that precious resource we have.


I know a little something about dried rivers. I'm from Pecos. The once mighty Pecos river is little more than a trickle now because New Mexico decided to keep it for mostly recreational purposes. Texas sued them over it in the late 70's/early 80's. Texas won - New Mexico was ordered to let water through. They didn't.

Nothing.

The Pecos river is still little more than a mud bed with a trickle flowing down the middle while people in New Mexico are skiing and fishing it up. Ignore the order, all is fine.
 
2012-12-13 08:22:50 PM  

whidbey: mgshamster: I don't know if it still used in the US for any medical uses, but at the very least it used to be.

I'm sure at one time it was.


From wiki:

Medical use

Desoxyn (methamphetamine) 5 mg tablets
Methamphetamine has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in treating ADHD and exogenous obesity (obesity originating from factors outside of the patient's control) in both adults and children.[10]
Methamphetamine is a Schedule II drug in the United States and is sold under the trademark name Desoxyn.[10]
Desoxyn may be prescribed off-label for the treatment of narcolepsy and treatment-resistant depression.[11]
 
2012-12-13 08:24:39 PM  

magusdevil: I just really didn't want this to get too buried. Would you like to explain, or should we just assume that you're a deadbeat dad?


There's nothing deadbeat about me. 1/3 of my income gone. My daughter? When I pick her up filthy with ill fitting dirty clothes. This man with a security clearance and no record fought a convicted felon in court for seven year, wound up on the news over it. Use all the reason, logic, and proof you want, when a woman turns on the water works child abuse becomes legal.
 
2012-12-13 08:28:45 PM  

pecosdave: magusdevil: I just really didn't want this to get too buried. Would you like to explain, or should we just assume that you're a deadbeat dad?

There's nothing deadbeat about me. 1/3 of my income gone. My daughter? When I pick her up filthy with ill fitting dirty clothes. This man with a security clearance and no record fought a convicted felon in court for seven year, wound up on the news over it. Use all the reason, logic, and proof you want, when a woman turns on the water works child abuse becomes legal.


Found your probelm. Dirty ill fitting clothes do not constitute child abuse.
 
2012-12-13 08:31:49 PM  

magusdevil: just assume that you're a deadbeat dad?


Call me deadbeat one more time.

I'm supporting my daughter at least three times over. I'm shelling out more money than it costs to raise any healthy kid in child support. I'm maintaining a place to live big enough for her to live here full time along with clothing etc. Despite having an income above the national average - not huge but above average - I'm living paycheck to paycheck providing for her just to watch her be mentally abused and uncared for. I work extra jobs just to make ends meet and catch up. My vehicle doesn't have a whole lot of miles left in it, part of the reason I bike to work as much as possible but without a doubt I'm going to have to keep something to drive with absolutely no way to afford my next one. 1/3 of your income is a lot for child support. Stack on the bigger than I need just for me apartment and everything else I'm up over 1/2 my income spent caring for my daughter.

One more time asshole, call me a deadbeat.
 
2012-12-13 08:37:42 PM  

pecosdave: 1/3 of your income is a lot for child support.


I will agree with you there, I pay ~10% for 2 kids.Although I do have 50% physical custody I have noticed that child support seems to be pretty regressive. I have a bit over twice the national median income and I pay a much lower percentage than most people I hear about. And it isn't like I had a better lawyer, I pay what the chart says for my income and parenting time.
 
2012-12-13 08:42:30 PM  

jst3p: Found your probelm. Dirty ill fitting clothes do not constitute child abuse.


She's married to a millionaire now, that's how she was able to keep a court case going for seven years and win. She wants power over me, doesn't need my money but takes it for the power purpose. Doesn't actually care about our kid, just wants to make sure I don't have her.

What about getting 1/3 of my income while married to a millionaire and not putting clothes on her we send with her to make sure she has fitting clothes doesn't constitute child abuse?
 
2012-12-13 08:51:36 PM  

pecosdave: What about getting 1/3 of my income while married to a millionaire and not putting clothes on her we send with her to make sure she has fitting clothes doesn't constitute child abuse?


Because child abuse has a definition and that doesn't fit it:

I will break it down for you:

"What about getting 1/3 of my income while married to a millionaire"
This has no direct effect on the kid. Sucks for you, but you being broke isn't child abuse.

not putting clothes on her we send with her


She has no obligation to put her in the clothes you send her.

to make sure she has fitting clothes


I'll fitting clothes do not constitute child abuse.

If what you say is true (and I don't know if it is or isn't but my experience tells me that most people who aren't happy with the results of a custody case embellish at the very least, many outright lie) she is a biatch, but nothing you have described is child abuse.

"I find the fact that you dressed your daughter in a shirt that was ill fitting to be despicable. I have no idea how someone could be so callus to one's own flesh and blood. You make me sick! I find you guilty of child abuse! Take her away!"

Said no judge, ever.
 
2012-12-13 08:58:41 PM  

Vodka Zombie: pecosdave: Vodka Zombie: pecosdave: Spending is out of control.

Apparently, what "out of control" looks like:
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 657x464]

Strange how it trends down when a Democrat is in office, huh?

Anyway, I think you need to be more honest and say that spending WAS out of control, but with the winding down of two unfunded wars, things are steadily improving.

May not be at its peak, but it's still looks a little out of control to me.

You want instant results?

The economy doesn't work like your broadband internet connection. These things take TIME. You maybe need to revisit your expectations and consider taking a more reasonable approach here. Maybe buy a better watch?


Yes, the national (and international) economy does take time before actions cause results. However, government spending is pretty much dictated by the previous year's budget, so that is fairly immediate. So those results are precisely the one-year after a budget enactment.
 
2012-12-13 09:01:28 PM  

jst3p: pecosdave: What about getting 1/3 of my income while married to a millionaire and not putting clothes on her we send with her to make sure she has fitting clothes doesn't constitute child abuse?

Because child abuse has a definition and that doesn't fit it:

I will break it down for you:

"What about getting 1/3 of my income while married to a millionaire"
This has no direct effect on the kid. Sucks for you, but you being broke isn't child abuse.

not putting clothes on her we send with her


She has no obligation to put her in the clothes you send her.

to make sure she has fitting clothes


I'll fitting clothes do not constitute child abuse.

If what you say is true (and I don't know if it is or isn't but my experience tells me that most people who aren't happy with the results of a custody case embellish at the very least, many outright lie) she is a biatch, but nothing you have described is child abuse.

"I find the fact that you dressed your daughter in a shirt that was ill fitting to be despicable. I have no idea how someone could be so callus to one's own flesh and blood. You make me sick! I find you guilty of child abuse! Take her away!"

Said no judge, ever.


Your technicalities may be accurate but the mental abuse is still abuse. She continues to do to the children, ours and hers, what she used to do to me and her older child when we were married. Our child was too young at the time but she gets the abuse now as well. It's amazing what water works can do to counter reason. Is bullshiat like this part of the reason I have doubts in government? You bet.

She actually had my daughter convinced she had a magic crystal ball she could watch and listen to her with when she wasn't with her to keep her from saying anything negative about her the court appointed shrink or to us. My daughter told me so - after the case.

Is it child abuse not to do her laundry, feed her nothing but pizza, hot-dogs, and burger, not to make her brush her teeth, wash her hair, wipe her ass? According to you probably not. If not I've lost even more faith in our government overlords. The girl used to love veggies and good food when she was little, before she was wrestled away, now she refuses to eat anything not from a can or the fast food looking menu. All hail our government overlords who know what's best for us!
 
2012-12-13 09:02:37 PM  

dericwater: Yes, the national (and international) economy does take time before actions cause results. However, government spending is pretty much dictated by the previous year's budget, so that is fairly immediate. So those results are precisely the one-year after a budget enactment.



National economics isn't like your household budget. Cutting spending results in a loss of GDP and increases unemployment. If it is done too quickly we go into recession or worse.

I agree it needs to be done but it needs to be done carefully.
 
2012-12-13 09:04:02 PM  
Anything over about 18% of GDP is "out of control". We have not been "in control" for a long time.
 
2012-12-13 09:06:01 PM  

pecosdave: Is it child abuse not to do her laundry, feed her nothing but pizza, hot-dogs, and burger, not to make her brush her teeth, wash her hair, wipe her ass? According to you probably not.


Unless you can prove demonstrable physical or emotional harm, no it isn't. You walking around claiming that your ex abuses your daughter probably just makes the people around you dismissive.

Bad parenting is not necessarily abuse. The fact that you claim her taking 1/3 of your income is child abuse makes me laugh, but not with you.

It isn't a wonder that the judge didn't take you seriously.
 
2012-12-13 09:07:18 PM  

whidbey: Bontesla: whidbey: sprawl15: I want meth sold at Walgreens, but I also want it regulated and taxed.

I've seen you post that before. That's just a bizarre thing to want.

Not so much. Sprawl and I agree on this.

Yeah but seriously. "Regulating" meth=prohibition

There is no "safe" use of meth for any purpose.


I'm not interested in a safe USE for meth. I'm interested in solving the meth problem and the first step is acknowledging that criminalizing a health problem is only making a bad situation worse.
 
2012-12-13 09:52:19 PM  

jst3p: pecosdave: Is it child abuse not to do her laundry, feed her nothing but pizza, hot-dogs, and burger, not to make her brush her teeth, wash her hair, wipe her ass? According to you probably not.

Unless you can prove demonstrable physical or emotional harm, no it isn't. You walking around claiming that your ex abuses your daughter probably just makes the people around you dismissive.

Bad parenting is not necessarily abuse. The fact that you claim her taking 1/3 of your income is child abuse makes me laugh, but not with you.

It isn't a wonder that the judge didn't take you seriously.


Please point to where I said her taking 1/3 of my income is child abuse. It's abuse to take it for her and not use it on her. I'm paying for international trips and vacations, not child care. At least I honestly think she kicked the method habit.
 
2012-12-13 09:58:19 PM  

pecosdave: At least I honestly think she kicked the method habit.


Stupid auto-correct. Meth habit.

BTW - I'm clean and she said so in the court room. She took it back later to get me tested on a long shot after she got busted again, but no, I was still clean.
 
2012-12-13 10:10:23 PM  

pecosdave: Your technicalities may be accurate but the mental abuse is still abuse. She continues to do to the children, ours and hers, what she used to do to me and her older child when we were married. Our child was too young at the time but she gets the abuse now as well. It's amazing what water works can do to counter reason. Is bullshiat like this part of the reason I have doubts in government? You bet.

She actually had my daughter convinced she had a magic crystal ball she could watch and listen to her with when she wasn't with her to keep her from saying anything negative about her the court appointed shrink or to us. My daughter told me so - after the case.

Is it child abuse not to do her laundry, feed her nothing but pizza, hot-dogs, and burger, not to make her brush her teeth, wash her ass? According to you probably not. If not I've lost even more faith in our government overlords. The girl used to love veggies and good food when she was little, before she was wrestled away, now she refuses to eat anything not from a can or the fast food looking menu. All hail our government overlords who know what's best for us!


As a divorced father who paid more of his income to his ex in child support, alimony, lawyers' fees, and military pension than you have (try 50% plus), I sense some bitterness in your comments and overall demeanor in this thread. I understand and have experienced that bitterness. I also strongly suspect you are not being objective in your views being expressed here concerning a great many things.

Seriously, I recommend professional counseling. Not being snarky about this at all. I'm quite serious.

You may not convince us and/or any judge your ex is abusing your child. But, you can learn the differences between poor parenting skills, assumed & real child abuse, and manage the heavy emotions you may be experiencing. By controlling yourself and working out the difficulties of being a parent not fully in control of your child's upbringing, you can present a better example for your kid of a parent.

She may stay with her mom. She may decide later to live with you. My son did when he was 15. Under our state's laws, a child can decide to live with which ever parent they want at 12.

But, I will warn you not to force the issue or throw your emotions upon your child, even if you think it's in their best interest. Such behavior is not good.

Likewise, there is never any guarantee that there will be a happy ending in the future. My son moved in with me, but, five years later, he died in an accident here. Your kid may have a great life, or turn into a neerdowell or worse. All you can do is to do your best and hope.
 
2012-12-13 10:15:33 PM  

pecosdave: jst3p: pecosdave: Is it child abuse not to do her laundry, feed her nothing but pizza, hot-dogs, and burger, not to make her brush her teeth, wash her hair, wipe her ass? According to you probably not.

Unless you can prove demonstrable physical or emotional harm, no it isn't. You walking around claiming that your ex abuses your daughter probably just makes the people around you dismissive.

Bad parenting is not necessarily abuse. The fact that you claim her taking 1/3 of your income is child abuse makes me laugh, but not with you.

It isn't a wonder that the judge didn't take you seriously.

Please point to where I said her taking 1/3 of my income is child abuse


What about getting 1/3 of my income while married to a millionaire and not putting clothes on her we send with her to make sure she has fitting clothes doesn't constitute child abuse?

Do you read before you hit "add comment" or do you just mash your face on the keyboard? I only bolded part of the sentence because, the way you structured it, this is how I took it:

What of the following items isn't child abuse? a) getting 1/3 of my income while married to a millionaire b) not dressing her in the clothes I send for her to wear or c) making sure she has clothes that don't fit.

If what you meant to say is "She is abusing her by not putting her in clothes that fit. She should have no problem doing this because I send child support, I also send clothes over that fit AND she is married to a millionaire." Well, that still isn't child abuse.

It's abuse to take it for her and not use it on her.

That isn't what you originally said. But even that isn't abuse. You really need to read up on what actually constitutes child abuse, you throw it around pretty loosely.

I'm paying for international trips and vacations, not child care.

I pay over $1,000 a month in child support and I understand wishing the money was better spent. Mine goes to help her support the other 8 kids she has (not kidding, she just had number 9 last year with doofus coworker at Dick's sporting goods who she had a drunken one night stand with.) It is a shiatty part of the system, but it isn't child abuse.
 
2012-12-13 11:19:51 PM  

AirForceVet: But, you can learn the differences between poor parenting skills, assumed & real child abuse, and manage the heavy emotions you may be experiencing. By controlling yourself and working out the difficulties of being a parent not fully in control of your child's upbringing, you can present a better example for your kid of a parent.


I've got it covered. Trust me, I'm very objective and I've been to the recommended classes. There's a lot I haven't said here for various reasons.

Facts:
I have no criminal record.
I have a security clearance.

She's a convicted felon, that's been expunged
My daughter wants to live with me now

The things I've said are true, I haven't gone into more details. I spent two years feeling massive amounts of guilt because I had to abandon my step daughter to try to save my daughter, it really was save one or lose them both. She has suffered through this more than anyone else, including me or my daughter, it's taken a lot to wash my hands of that. The ex has cleaned up a lot since then, but she still hasn't come clean. She's still maintaining an upper hand on a foundation of lies. I can only hope that foundation crumbles.

There's been a lot of underhanded stuff done by the court itself. I've learned the hard way being right, doing the right thing means little in a court room. Hiring the judges friends and campaign contributors is the real ticket to victory. The judge is a Republican, the ex is pretty far left but know how to play the game, so she hires one Republican flunky after another with her current husbands money. Turns out the constitution means little unless you've got at least six figures to throw around to make sure it matters.
 
2012-12-13 11:25:01 PM  

MattStafford: cbathrob: I regard support for Ron Paul and/or the gold standard to be one of the easiest, most elegant, and most reliable IQ tests ever contrived.

You'd be surprised.


Haven't been so far.
 
2012-12-13 11:35:43 PM  

cbathrob: MattStafford: cbathrob: I regard support for Ron Paul and/or the gold standard to be one of the easiest, most elegant, and most reliable IQ tests ever contrived.

You'd be surprised.

Haven't been so far.


Because those first couple hundred years Americans were stupid for using it so successfully that we expanded from ocean to ocean.
 
2012-12-14 12:15:13 AM  

cbathrob: MattStafford: cbathrob: I regard support for Ron Paul and/or the gold standard to be one of the easiest, most elegant, and most reliable IQ tests ever contrived.

You'd be surprised.

Haven't been so far.


This.
 
2012-12-14 12:31:52 AM  

pecosdave: jst3p: pecosdave: What about getting 1/3 of my income while married to a millionaire and not putting clothes on her we send with her to make sure she has fitting clothes doesn't constitute child abuse?

Because child abuse has a definition and that doesn't fit it:

I will break it down for you:

"What about getting 1/3 of my income while married to a millionaire"
This has no direct effect on the kid. Sucks for you, but you being broke isn't child abuse.

not putting clothes on her we send with her


She has no obligation to put her in the clothes you send her.

to make sure she has fitting clothes


I'll fitting clothes do not constitute child abuse.

If what you say is true (and I don't know if it is or isn't but my experience tells me that most people who aren't happy with the results of a custody case embellish at the very least, many outright lie) she is a biatch, but nothing you have described is child abuse.

"I find the fact that you dressed your daughter in a shirt that was ill fitting to be despicable. I have no idea how someone could be so callus to one's own flesh and blood. You make me sick! I find you guilty of child abuse! Take her away!"

Said no judge, ever.

Your technicalities may be accurate but the mental abuse is still abuse. She continues to do to the children, ours and hers, what she used to do to me and her older child when we were married. Our child was too young at the time but she gets the abuse now as well. It's amazing what water works can do to counter reason. Is bullshiat like this part of the reason I have doubts in government? You bet.

She actually had my daughter convinced she had a magic crystal ball she could watch and listen to her with when she wasn't with her to keep her from saying anything negative about her the court appointed shrink or to us. My daughter told me so - after the case.

Is it child abuse not to do her laundry, feed her nothing but pizza, hot-dogs, and burger, not to make her brush her teeth, wash her ...


seek help
 
2012-12-14 12:34:28 AM  

pecosdave: AirForceVet: But, you can learn the differences between poor parenting skills, assumed & real child abuse, and manage the heavy emotions you may be experiencing. By controlling yourself and working out the difficulties of being a parent not fully in control of your child's upbringing, you can present a better example for your kid of a parent.

I've got it covered. Trust me, I'm very objective and I've been to the recommended classes. There's a lot I haven't said here for various reasons.

Facts:
I have no criminal record.
I have a security clearance.

She's a convicted felon, that's been expunged
My daughter wants to live with me now

The things I've said are true, I haven't gone into more details. I spent two years feeling massive amounts of guilt because I had to abandon my step daughter to try to save my daughter, it really was save one or lose them both. She has suffered through this more than anyone else, including me or my daughter, it's taken a lot to wash my hands of that. The ex has cleaned up a lot since then, but she still hasn't come clean. She's still maintaining an upper hand on a foundation of lies. I can only hope that foundation crumbles.

There's been a lot of underhanded stuff done by the court itself. I've learned the hard way being right, doing the right thing means little in a court room. Hiring the judges friends and campaign contributors is the real ticket to victory. The judge is a Republican, the ex is pretty far left but know how to play the game, so she hires one Republican flunky after another with her current husbands money. Turns out the constitution means little unless you've got at least six figures to throw around to make sure it matters.


No seriously, seek help
 
2012-12-14 12:59:00 AM  

rumpelstiltskin: GAT_00: pecosdave: Spending is out of control.

The only place spending is out of control is defense spending, which is why the GOP can't propose anything.

It's not "defense spending". When we buy a tank, we get an asset. An asset that goes 40 miles an hour and blows shiat up. That's investing. Defense investing, and investing is always a good thing. It's even better when you do it on margin, to take advantage of leverage.
Spending is only when we give services to poor people. When we give food stamps, we don't get an asset back. We get fat poor people back, and no one knows what to do with fat poor people. This is what we're talking about. This is spending. This is the problem.


You have it entirely backwards.

Buying a tank does not give you an asset since it has almost no resale value. It has military value, but no economic value. Indeed, its role in economics is destruction. Also, in modern warfare, a tank is all but useless. If there is ever going to be a conflict that requires mobilization of tanks, we're in a shiat load of trouble, far beyond what we have to deal with in regards to the fiscal cliff and everything else.

On the other hand, food stamps and other social welfare expenses have shown to be of positive economic value. For every $1 spent in welfare for the poor, the country gets back $1.48 (or so) in savings, tax receipts and the like. You see, a food stamp can't be accumulated. It has to be used since it's only partially fungible. When it's spent, the vendor who sells a food product gets paid, and the person down the line gets paid and so on. On most of those exchanges, the government gets paid, so the government almost recoups 100% of the cost of the food stamp directly from the use of that food stamp. On top of that, a fed person is less likely to be committing a crime of economics (stealing from someone, burglary, etc), more healthy, and not in other dire straits. Those three elements, if not addressed, contribute a lot to the government expense in policing, health costs and lowered property and other values.

The number one problem is accumulation of wealth. When wealth is accumulated, to the levels of the bazillionaires, it's obviously not being used. When it's not used, being circulated in the economy, we can't tax the transactions, so there's no revenue to the government. Furthermore, there's no revenue to merchants. That money just sits there like a black hole, swallowing up more money. That's why it's important to tax the rich at a higher rate. Force them to spend the money, either pre-tax or post-tax. When that money is freed up, it washes over all those merchants. Those merchants will then pay taxes on those profits and so on.

Also, pre-tax money would go into investments into many more new businesses. Those new businesses will strike rich on occasions and that is when the rising tide lifts all boats. Right now, the super rich has built a dam so that when the tide rises, it only lifts their boats. Break that dam, and the only way the government can break that dam is by taxation.
 
2012-12-14 01:44:37 AM  

dericwater: Buying a tank does not give you an asset since it has almost no resale value. It has military value, but no economic value. Indeed, its role in economics is destruction. Also, in modern warfare, a tank is all but useless. If there is ever going to be a conflict that requires mobilization of tanks, we're in a shiat load of trouble, far beyond what we have to deal with in regards to the fiscal cliff and everything else.


If the US were ever invaded (not bloody likely) I sure as hell hope the idiot bastards waste resources transporting easily destructed tanks.
 
2012-12-14 02:48:17 AM  
Yeah libs, keep ignoring the coming crisis involving the baby boomer retirement. Good lick paying for their SS and Medicare.
 
2012-12-14 02:49:41 AM  

GAT_00: pecosdave: Spending is out of control.

The only place spending is out of control is defense spending, which is why the GOP can't propose anything.


Lmao, yeah.,.. Medicare is competent under control.
 
2012-12-14 02:50:18 AM  

GAT_00: pecosdave: Spending is out of control.

The only place spending is out of control is defense spending, which is why the GOP can't propose anything.


Completely
 
2012-12-14 02:53:30 AM  

Vodka Zombie: pecosdave: Spending is out of control.

Apparently, what "out of control" looks like:
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 657x464]

Strange how it trends down when a Democrat is in office, huh?

Anyway, I think you need to be more honest and say that spending WAS out of control, but with the winding down of two unfunded wars, things are steadily improving.


The coming unfunded SS and Medicare entitlements will dwarf the wars.
 
2012-12-14 05:14:46 AM  

giftedmadness: Vodka Zombie: pecosdave: Spending is out of control.

Apparently, what "out of control" looks like:
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 657x464]

Strange how it trends down when a Democrat is in office, huh?

Anyway, I think you need to be more honest and say that spending WAS out of control, but with the winding down of two unfunded wars, things are steadily improving.

The coming unfunded SS and Medicare entitlements will dwarf the wars.


Except that both SS and Medicare are fully funded. And, if we lift the cap of where FICA is not taxed (currently, $101,000/yr (?)), SS can be solvent indefinitely. As for medicare, the best way to make it work is to stop the corporate and insurance fraud that occurs, and lower the age eligibility for medicare from the current 65 to 0. That way, all other health insurance would disappear and people would have to pay much less. Much easier to pay the 2.6% or so from wages than to pay an additional $500 or $2000 per pay period for health insurance. Even if that 2.6% is raised to 4%, it's still much cheaper for the vast majority of people in the US.
 
2012-12-14 06:17:41 AM  

dericwater: giftedmadness: Vodka Zombie: pecosdave: Spending is out of control.

Apparently, what "out of control" looks like:
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 657x464]

Strange how it trends down when a Democrat is in office, huh?

Anyway, I think you need to be more honest and say that spending WAS out of control, but with the winding down of two unfunded wars, things are steadily improving.

The coming unfunded SS and Medicare entitlements will dwarf the wars.

Except that both SS and Medicare are fully funded. And, if we lift the cap of where FICA is not taxed (currently, $101,000/yr (?)), SS can be solvent indefinitely. As for medicare, the best way to make it work is to stop the corporate and insurance fraud that occurs, and lower the age eligibility for medicare from the current 65 to 0. That way, all other health insurance would disappear and people would have to pay much less. Much easier to pay the 2.6% or so from wages than to pay an additional $500 or $2000 per pay period for health insurance. Even if that 2.6% is raised to 4%, it's still much cheaper for the vast majority of people in the US.


Your arguments and claims are so stupid and off base that I honestly don't know how to reply or where to start. The first statement alone is factually incorrect. We currently pay out more in SS than we take in via taxes. The coming baby boomer retirement is gonna decimate Medicare. The rest of your paragraph is so full of derp I don't even know what to say. I'll let a smarter farker than myself handle it.
 
2012-12-14 09:48:21 AM  
Obama is willing to cut spending.
The GOP is not willing to raise taxes/revenue.

Which side actually gives a shiat about the deficit?
 
2012-12-14 09:58:13 AM  

sweetmelissa31:

I prefer Doodiecrats and Republiqueefs.


This is the kind of thing that makes you a favorite
 
2012-12-14 10:22:50 AM  

pecosdave: AirForceVet: But, you can learn the differences between poor parenting skills, assumed & real child abuse, and manage the heavy emotions you may be experiencing. By controlling yourself and working out the difficulties of being a parent not fully in control of your child's upbringing, you can present a better example for your kid of a parent.

I've got it covered. Trust me, I'm very objective and I've been to the recommended classes. There's a lot I haven't said here for various reasons.

Facts:
I have no criminal record.
I have a security clearance.

She's a convicted felon, that's been expunged
My daughter wants to live with me now

The things I've said are true, I haven't gone into more details. I spent two years feeling massive amounts of guilt because I had to abandon my step daughter to try to save my daughter, it really was save one or lose them both. She has suffered through this more than anyone else, including me or my daughter, it's taken a lot to wash my hands of that. The ex has cleaned up a lot since then, but she still hasn't come clean. She's still maintaining an upper hand on a foundation of lies. I can only hope that foundation crumbles.

There's been a lot of underhanded stuff done by the court itself. I've learned the hard way being right, doing the right thing means little in a court room. Hiring the judges friends and campaign contributors is the real ticket to victory. The judge is a Republican, the ex is pretty far left but know how to play the game, so she hires one Republican flunky after another with her current husbands money. Turns out the constitution means little unless you've got at least six figures to throw around to make sure it matters.


I am guessing the phrase "paranoid schizophrenia" appears in some of those court transcripts.
 
2012-12-14 10:29:44 AM  

pecosdave: magusdevil: just assume that you're a deadbeat dad?

Call me deadbeat one more time.

I'm supporting my daughter at least three times over. I'm shelling out more money than it costs to raise any healthy kid in child support. I'm maintaining a place to live big enough for her to live here full time along with clothing etc. Despite having an income above the national average - not huge but above average - I'm living paycheck to paycheck providing for her just to watch her be mentally abused and uncared for. I work extra jobs just to make ends meet and catch up. My vehicle doesn't have a whole lot of miles left in it, part of the reason I bike to work as much as possible but without a doubt I'm going to have to keep something to drive with absolutely no way to afford my next one. 1/3 of your income is a lot for child support. Stack on the bigger than I need just for me apartment and everything else I'm up over 1/2 my income spent caring for my daughter.

One more time asshole, call me a deadbeat.


I didn't call you a deadbeat, I asked if you were a deadbeat. And, to be fair, I don't realize at the time that you were an internet tough guy. You resentfully pay your court ordered child support. I will put you down as "aspiring deadbeat dad"
 
2012-12-14 10:48:51 AM  

MattStafford: The problem with that is that he can't make the nuanced argument that, hey he disagrees with the spending and earmarks in general, but goes after them anyway because he has to play the game, into an easy sound bite.


No one forced him to brag later that he doesn't vote for earmarks.

MattStafford: He has made the same argument I've made for him when he is given a chance to be more nuanced. If his options are to say "I've voted for earmarks" and "I didnt vote for earmarks", which would you expect him to say?


You have never seen a politician get asked a question, have you? There has never been a question in the history of politics that limits the options of the responder. Ever.
 
2012-12-14 12:06:16 PM  

Citrate1007: Obama is willing to cut spending.
The GOP is not willing to raise taxes/revenue.

Which side actually gives a shiat about the deficit?


Um, since it's already been pointed out to you that the "out of control spending" argument is a crock, the honorable thing for you to do is consider your other choice.

Hint: we need to raise revenues.
 
2012-12-14 03:22:50 PM  
S.E. Cupp just almost lost her shiat on MSNBC.
 
Displayed 472 of 472 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »