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  
•       •       •

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 02:49:35 PM  

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


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

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

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

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

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


foo fighters isnt that bad

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

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


Seems so:

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


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

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

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

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

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

/Nuanced my ass


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

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

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

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

foo fighters isnt that bad

i mean come on


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

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

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

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



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

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

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

[www.intellectualtakeout.org image 650x442]

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

/Nuanced my ass


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

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

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

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


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

blogs-images.forbes.com

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

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

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

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


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

Mrtraveler01: MattStafford: Switch to a gold standard

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


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

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

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


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

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

Nice.
 
2012-12-13 02:59:43 PM  

pecosdave: child abuse habit


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

namatad: Mrtraveler01: MattStafford: Switch to a gold standard

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

namatad: Mrtraveler01: MattStafford: Switch to a gold standard

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


no
no popcorn
no gold standard

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Therefore, spending is not out of control.

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

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

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


Some of my faves:

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


Then it gets even better...

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


Yes.
 
2012-12-13 03:11:47 PM  

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


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

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



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

upload.wikimedia.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

[upload.wikimedia.org image 270x250]

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

CPennypacker: The poop standard.


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

Mrtraveler01: CPennypacker: The poop standard.

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


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

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

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

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

Yes.


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes.

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

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

This is what liberals actually believe.


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

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


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

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


You just made your moronic analogy more moronic. Way to go.
 
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