Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

5808 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

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






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report