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

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