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  
•       •       •

5805 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Dec 2012 at 12:06 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 472 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report