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 (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-13 03:22:13 PM  

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


The problem: Government taxes his constituents, and spends it in a way he disagrees with. He is unable to convince anyone not to do this.

Logical solution: Ask for some of the money back, and give that to his constituents.

Your solution: Forget about that money, and go raise revenue from somewhere else.
 
2012-12-13 03:23:21 PM  

Mrtraveler01: MattStafford: Just so we're clear, suppose there were ten people, and someone at the point of a gun made everyone throw in 100 bucks, then everyone was going to split up that 1000 bucks amongst them, you wouldn't accept any of the money because you thought the whole idea from the beginning was stupid? And if you did take that money, after saying you thought the whole idea was a bad one, you would consider yourself a hypocrite? I just want to hear you say yes to this one more time, for posterity's sake.

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


ok lets say i threatened to take a dump on your kid's chest if you didn't give me a hundred dollars

and then i gave you that same hundred dollars back

are you saying you still would take that money?

if so ron paul 2016
 
2012-12-13 03:23:49 PM  

I alone am best: Until you set a firm target for cuts or tax increases you are full of crap.


What if you just name your target; poor people and the middle-class
 
2012-12-13 03:24:08 PM  

lennavan: Weaver95: lennavan: Weaver95: lennavan:

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

Yeah, that seems legit.

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

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

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

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


Actually, it's pretty damn easy. Most of the so-called 'religious leaders' the Republicans court are the freaking Pharisees of the modern day. They talk a good game, but they are in the 'God game' for self-enrichment, nothing more. Why else do you think the people they try to get behind what they do are usually televangelists, 'prosperity gospel' types, and those in the Church who are attention whores?
 
2012-12-13 03:24:46 PM  

jst3p: magusdevil: pecosdave: Liberals may be fine with social issues, but they seem to have a really big issue with allowing conservatives to do with their own money as they please (see leaches/moochers statement). Conservatives tend to be very giving when it comes to voluntary charities, but they don't like the government version because the government doesn't filter. There's helping someone who needs a hand, and then there's enabling. I've been an enabler on a one to one basis before - I vowed never to be one again, then I was court ordered to enable someone else's drug and child abuse habit. I don't like doing it through my tax dollars also.

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

Wow, I am pretty jaded and cynical but I didn't make that connection. Well done.


Good catch, I didn't read the troll that closely. It's amazing what being on the paying end of a child support agreement does to a man's sense of personal responsibility.

And in case pecosdave pops up again: I'm a single dad, full time custody, and I have yet to see a dime of court mandated child support be paid yet. Your experience and understanding of a situation is not universal, nor is it outright dismissable, it is a piece of the whole. Try not to get hung up on your subjective experience because there's always going to be someone that can point to a situation that is the reverse of yours.

That said....is the tax code currently extending a helping hand or enabling bad behavior? Because that's how taxes work: everyone pays for what the government as a whole decides to do. I don't like paying to blow up brown people who had the temerity to live on top of oil deposits, you don't like paying for new rims on a welfare recipient's car. Neither of those statements nears reality, but they accurately collect the idea that we all, each and every one of us, pay taxes for things we don't like. That doesn't mean you get to pick up your ball and go home.

Think you can? Ask the Amish.
 
2012-12-13 03:24:47 PM  

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


BUT EVERYONE KNOWS THAT IF WE ARE ON THE GOLD STANDARD THERE WOULD BE ZERO INFLATION!!!!!! LOL
:D

MattStafford: And I'm sure 400% debt to GDP is going to work out real well for us too.


LOL what?
that includes:
household debt
which is personal. I have zero household debt and massive assests (paid-off house, nice 401k and small savings). People with a lot of debt are farked, those without are not. and HH debt/gdp hasnt change much in the last 20-40 years. so whatever.

financial sector
I dont even know what this means. The banks borrowed money? From other banks? From individual investors? Rich white people problem. SO the banks were lent money they could never pay back? LOL
And when they default they will fark over the rich people who lent them money? LOL

FED, state and local
As a percentage of gdp is pretty flat. Certainly not insanely worrisome compared to the great depression.

So
whatever

sounds like the 400% is the new U6 unemployment numbers !!!
PANIC


If you are really concerned, call your congress critters and DEMAND a balanced budget !!!
HAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAH
whew
 
2012-12-13 03:25:05 PM  
MattStafford: Isitoveryet: how about cutting the b.s. or sticking to your principles. maybe find a way to find funding for his constituent without the earmarks and the doublespeak? generate revenue another way? i mean if not for earmarks he wouldn't receive any fed funds?

The problem: Government taxes his constituents, and spends it in a way he disagrees with. He is unable to convince anyone not to do this.

Logical solution: Ask for some of the money back, and give that to his constituents.

Your solution: Forget about that money, and go raise revenue from somewhere else.


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


Can you please make a cogent point with direct language that doesn't involve hypotheticals so I know which end of my Favorite Color Spectrum you belong on. I can tell you're stupid, I just can't quite tell which way it falls as your posts are so unclear.

Thanks
 
2012-12-13 03:25:46 PM  
MattStafford:
Just so we're clear, suppose there were ten people, and someone at the point of a gun made everyone throw in 100 bucks, then everyone was going to split up that 1000 bucks amongst them, you wouldn't accept any of the money because you thought the whole idea from the beginning was stupid? And if you did take that money, after saying you thought the whole idea was a bad one, you would consider yourself a hypocrite? I just want to hear you say yes to this one more time, for posterity's sake.

expecting someone to lead by (their own) example = asking to much & you should feel bad
 
2012-12-13 03:25:56 PM  

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

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

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

Yes.

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

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

This is what liberals actually believe.


There are amazing analogies, there are good analogies, there are average analogies, there are bad analogies, and there are analogies so bad they would make a 3 year old call you a moron. This is one of the latter.
 
2012-12-13 03:26:13 PM  
The ONLY facts you need to check is--is the deficit over $16 trillion now when it was a little over $1 trillion when Bush was in office? Then, yes, the Obama administration has a SPENDING problem.
 
2012-12-13 03:27:14 PM  
Sm3agol85: There are amazing analogies, there are good analogies, there are average analogies, there are bad analogies, and there are analogies so bad they would make a 3 year old call you a moron. This is one of the latter.


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

It's so bad I can't even really tell which way he's arguing from. I guess, if precedent holds, he falls to the right.
 
2012-12-13 03:27:35 PM  

CPennypacker: What an awful analogy


Where does it go wrong?

There is a group of ten people (group of 535 congressional districts). They are ordered to put money in a pot (they pay taxes). They decide to split this money up amongst the ten people (535 congressional districts). One person (1 congressional representative) thinks this is a dumb idea from the very beginning, and that they shouldn't do it.

If the one person (1 congressional representative) tries to get some of his money back via the dividing process (via earmarks), is he (Paul) a hypocrite for previously speaking out against the process? Would he (Paul) be considered dumb for not doing this?

The analogy is fairly accurate to the actual situation. You can make the argument that the one person (Paul) is wrong with regards to the morality of effectiveness of the plan (taxes and spending), but to then make the argument that the person is a hypocrite for trying to right the perceived wrong through the established process certainly goes a bit far.
 
2012-12-13 03:29:40 PM  
another thing, lets not talk like the government is some all seeing entity that is in the closet, Ron Paul is the farking govt.
 
2012-12-13 03:29:47 PM  

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


I don't know what frightening hellhole you're posting from, but last I checked, the US isn't a dictatorship.
 
2012-12-13 03:30:08 PM  

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

I mean aside from the fact that we used to do it and it didn't work out all that well. Maybe we should tie it to bottle caps. Or poop. Makes just as much sense. The poop standard.


Gold fulfills several qualities that very few materials on earth fulfill.

1. It is divisible.
2. It is easily transportable.
3. It is not easily created.
4. It has very few industrial uses.

Very few other elements fulfill those qualities, and of those that do, they are most certainly extremely valuable.
 
2012-12-13 03:30:14 PM  

tony41454: Heehaaw Heehaaw heehaawwww.

 
2012-12-13 03:30:44 PM  

lennavan: This is a reference to taxes, isn't it?


It is. Apparently putting "at the point of a gun" completely invalidates the entire analogy, it appears.
 
2012-12-13 03:31:32 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: start taking a meat cleaver to the spending.


That's good way to end up deeper in debt. Ask Texas how much money they are saving by defunding family planning services.
 
2012-12-13 03:31:37 PM  

Mrtraveler01: You just made your moronic analogy more moronic. Way to go.


It changes the meat of the analogy in what way? It is still essentially applicable to the situation with Ron Paul, unless there is something you would like to point out to me.
 
2012-12-13 03:32:21 PM  

MattStafford: CPennypacker: What an awful analogy

Where does it go wrong?

There is a group of ten people (group of 535 congressional districts). They are ordered to put money in a pot (they pay taxes). They decide to split this money up amongst the ten people (535 congressional districts). One person (1 congressional representative) thinks this is a dumb idea from the very beginning, and that they shouldn't do it.

If the one person (1 congressional representative) tries to get some of his money back via the dividing process (via earmarks), is he (Paul) a hypocrite for previously speaking out against the process? Would he (Paul) be considered dumb for not doing this?

The analogy is fairly accurate to the actual situation. You can make the argument that the one person (Paul) is wrong with regards to the morality of effectiveness of the plan (taxes and spending), but to then make the argument that the person is a hypocrite for trying to right the perceived wrong through the established process certainly goes a bit far.


Because its a gross oversimplification and doesn't address the background of what actually makes it hypocrisy?

Because you pay taxes regardless, they weren't raising a specific pot for this stimulus. We have a massive deficit anyway, so taking more money out just increases that deifict. And because you champion the fact that stimulus money is bad, doesn't create jobs, and will turn the recession into a depression and then you take some of that money anyway. That makes you a hypocrite. It may make you pragmatic but you're still a farking hypocrite in the end.
 
2012-12-13 03:33:38 PM  
MattStafford: CPennypacker: Why would we tie our money supply to a completely unrelated, arbitrary asset?

I mean aside from the fact that we used to do it and it didn't work out all that well. Maybe we should tie it to bottle caps. Or poop. Makes just as much sense. The poop standard.

Gold fulfills several qualities that very few materials on earth fulfill.

1. It is divisible.
2. It is easily transportable.
3. It is not easily created.
4. It has very few industrial uses.

Very few other elements fulfill those qualities, and of those that do, they are most certainly extremely valuable.



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

Ok, most stupid stupid assed analogy I have ever read on Fark, with a clarification that mentions Ron Paul and now here comes the Gold Standard crap.

I'm gonna need a bigger color.
 
2012-12-13 03:34:46 PM  

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

I mean aside from the fact that we used to do it and it didn't work out all that well. Maybe we should tie it to bottle caps. Or poop. Makes just as much sense. The poop standard.

Gold fulfills several qualities that very few materials on earth fulfill.

1. It is divisible.
2. It is easily transportable.
3. It is not easily created.
4. It has very few industrial uses.

Very few other elements fulfill those qualities, and of those that do, they are most certainly extremely valuable.


Poop fulfills 1, 2 and 4, and 3 has no bearing over whether or not a currency should be tied to an asset. You dig up gold, you excrete poop. Both have nothing to do with currency.
 
2012-12-13 03:35:42 PM  

joonyer: Hai guys. Thx for taking half a thread to tell me that Ron Paul's an irrelevant maroon.


who ?
 
2012-12-13 03:36:00 PM  

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

The problem: Government taxes his constituents, and spends it in a way he disagrees with. He is unable to convince anyone not to do this.

Logical solution: Ask for some of the money back, and give that to his constituents.

Your solution: Forget about that money, and go raise revenue from somewhere else.


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


Can you please make a cogent point with direct language that doesn't involve hypotheticals so I know which end of my Favorite Color Spectrum you belong on. I can tell you're stupid, I just can't quite tell which way it falls as your posts are so unclear.

Thanks


I hate doing this but I have to side with Matt, it doesn't make him a hypocrite.

It is kinda like the Warren Buffet situation.

Buffet says "Rich guys like me should pay more taxes!"
Idiots on the right say "Feel free if you think you should pay more, cut a check."


That completely misses the point, does nothing to address the problem and Buffet isn't a hypocrite by paying only what he is required. Even Romney implied that it is poor fiscal management to pay more in taxes than legally required. "I don't pay more than are legally due and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due I don't think I'd be qualified to become president." (then he went and paid more than was due and wasn't elected. I found something he was right about!)

Ron Paul saying the rules need to change but going ahead and playing the game under the current rules does not make him a hypocrite. It makes him a good representative for his constituents. Now there are plenty of reasons to mock him, but I don't think this is one.
 
2012-12-13 03:36:24 PM  

namatad: household debt
which is personal. I have zero household debt and massive assests (paid-off house, nice 401k and small savings). People with a lot of debt are farked, those without are not. and HH debt/gdp hasnt change much in the last 20-40 years. so whatever.


Almost had me going there for a second. Despite the fact I bite on a lot, not going to bite on this one.
 
2012-12-13 03:37:08 PM  
MattStafford: CPennypacker: Why would we tie our money supply to a completely unrelated, arbitrary asset?I mean aside from the fact that we used to do it and it didn't work out all that well. Maybe we should tie it to bottle caps. Or poop. Makes just as much sense. The poop standard.Gold fulfills several qualities that very few materials on earth fulfill.1. It is divisible.2. It is easily transportable.3. It is not easily created.4. It has very few industrial uses.Very few other elements fulfill those qualities, and of those that do, they are most certainly extremely valuable.



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

Our currency gets backing vis a vis the Gray Standard. Gray is the color of our aircraft carriers.
 
2012-12-13 03:37:18 PM  

MattStafford: It changes the meat of the analogy in what way? It is still essentially applicable to the situation with Ron Paul, unless there is something you would like to point out to me.


I'm just going to piggy back off of this post:

CPennypacker: Because its a gross oversimplification and doesn't address the background of what actually makes it hypocrisy?

Because you pay taxes regardless, they weren't raising a specific pot for this stimulus. We have a massive deficit anyway, so taking more money out just increases that deifict. And because you champion the fact that stimulus money is bad, doesn't create jobs, and will turn the recession into a depression and then you take some of that money anyway. That makes you a hypocrite. It may make you pragmatic but you're still a farking hypocrite in the end.

 
2012-12-13 03:38:53 PM  

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

I mean aside from the fact that we used to do it and it didn't work out all that well. Maybe we should tie it to bottle caps. Or poop. Makes just as much sense. The poop standard.

Gold fulfills several qualities that very few materials on earth fulfill.

1. It is divisible.
2. It is easily transportable.
3. It is not easily created.
4. It has very few industrial uses.

Very few other elements fulfill those qualities, and of those that do, they are most certainly extremely valuable.

Poop fulfills 1, 2 and 4, and 3 has no bearing over whether or not a currency should be tied to an asset. You dig up gold, you excrete poop. Both have nothing to do with currency.


Also, money fulfills 1,2, and 4 which is why we stopped tying it to anything altogether.
 
2012-12-13 03:38:53 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: Can you please make a cogent point with direct language that doesn't involve hypotheticals so I know which end of my Favorite Color Spectrum you belong on. I can tell you're stupid, I just can't quite tell which way it falls as your posts are so unclear.

Thanks


I follow Austrian economics, and am a massive deficit hawk. I am also largely in favor of wealth redistribution and the vast majority of other liberal ideas. I would likely implement them differently, but I'm entirely in favor of everyone having access to health care, education, adequate housing and adequate food in a nation as rich as ours. But you can't pay for those things via debt, or else you're farked.
 
2012-12-13 03:39:16 PM  

MattStafford: lennavan: This is a reference to taxes, isn't it?

It is. Apparently putting "at the point of a gun" completely invalidates the entire analogy, it appears.


Hey man, I'm with you. Taxes are just legalized theft.

Imagine you are Adolf Hitler making a decision to invade Russia. No one understand why you did it and no one understands why you hate the jews. That's what this is like. No one understands you. But I do man, I do.

/ron paul 2016
 
2012-12-13 03:39:35 PM  

Sm3agol85: There are amazing analogies, there are good analogies, there are average analogies, there are bad analogies, and there are analogies so bad they would make a 3 year old call you a moron. This is one of the latter.


Care you explain where the analogy falls apart?
 
2012-12-13 03:40:32 PM  
jst3p: Ron Paul saying the rules need to change but going ahead and playing the game under the current rules does not make him a hypocrite. It makes him a good representative for his constituents. Now there are plenty of reasons to mock him, but I don't think this is one.


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


Ron Paul is not a good representative for his constituents, or anybody else. He is, or was, an untreated mentally ill person in Congress.
 
2012-12-13 03:40:45 PM  

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

I don't know what frightening hellhole you're posting from, but last I checked, the US isn't a dictatorship.


So if the other nine people voted on the whole everyone throw in a hundred bucks, otherwise we'll beat you up, does the analogy work then?
 
2012-12-13 03:41:35 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: Ron Paul is not a good representative for his constituents, or anybody else. He is, or was, an untreated mentally ill person in Congress.


The two are not mutually exclusive.
 
2012-12-13 03:41:35 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: Can you please make a cogent point with direct language that doesn't involve hypotheticals so I know which end of my Favorite Color Spectrum you belong on. I can tell you're stupid, I just can't quite tell which way it falls as your posts are so unclear.



You sir, have just gone up on my FCS!!
 
2012-12-13 03:43:44 PM  

MattStafford: wealth redistribution


i think this is a myth, equality in the workforce, living wages these are the liberal ideas, the redistribution of wealth is an reaction to those core ideas.
 
2012-12-13 03:46:32 PM  

MattStafford: My apologies, I should have found a more recent graph:

[snbchf.snbchfcom.netdna-cdn.com image 674x491]

It looks like we've decreased private debt by 45% and increased public debt by 37%. If we are forced to decrease the public sector debt, say via the fiscal cliff, we're going to be in trouble.


You aren't so good with the math, and your suggestions are, to put it mildly, rather stupid. The game plan so far has been a combination of solutions 1, 2 and 3, which has resulted in a debt to GDP ratio reduction from 386% to 366%. So far it is working - let's hope the private sector continues to reduce their leverage. Tying our hands to the dead weight anchor of the gold standard would be stupid at this point. It would eliminate the biggest tool we have to get out of this hole, and future holes, which is devaluing our currency. While it hurts savers, we shouldn't be taking on procrustean measures to try to protect that stored value at the expense of our economy. And since the first thing you suggest is give them a 50% haircut you aren't even achieving that goal.

You also know nothing about gold standard business cycles. Despite the apparent GDP growth from 1880 to 1900 this was entirely driven by population growth. Per capital GDP growth was flat from late 1880 to 1896 - 16 years of essentially zero growth or improvement for the public at large. The economy got bigger only because the number of people in the US was growing above 20% per decade.

Please take your Austrian economic stupidity and leave. It has never been the right solution, and never will be the right solution.
 
2012-12-13 03:48:43 PM  

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

I don't know what frightening hellhole you're posting from, but last I checked, the US isn't a dictatorship.

So if the other nine people voted on the whole everyone throw in a hundred bucks, otherwise we'll beat you up, does the analogy work then?


Wow, whatever country you're in must be a terrifying place indeed. I mean, in the US, people are free to emigrate if they find the politics of the country that distasteful. The Americans really should spare a thought for your countrymen and be thankful that they're not in a country where their only options are "Pay a hundred bucks" or "get beaten up".
 
2012-12-13 03:48:55 PM  

CPennypacker: Because you pay taxes regardless, they weren't raising a specific pot for this stimulus. We have a massive deficit anyway, so taking more money out just increases that deifict.


Irrelevant. The money for the stimulus came, in part, from constituents in Ron Paul's district. When people have to pay, either through higher taxes or inflation, for the deficits, some of those people will be in Ron Paul's district. Some of the money came from his district, that is undeniable.

CPennypacker: And because you champion the fact that stimulus money is bad, doesn't create jobs, and will turn the recession into a depression and then you take some of that money anyway.


If the two options are "completely lose that money from your district", and "have money taken from you district, then returned in an inefficient way" the latter is the better option.

CPennypacker: That makes you a hypocrite. It may make you pragmatic but you're still a farking hypocrite in the end.


Alright, let's change the analogy. Suppose everyone is pitching in for food. One guy wants wings, everyone else wants Chinese. They decide on the Chinese, and make the guy throw in his money for it as well. The guy says, "but we're all gonna be hungry in a half hour anyway! And this Chinese place always has health violations, we're gonna get sick!" And this happens every time this group of friends wants to eat. Would you consider the guy who wants wings a hypocrite for eating the Chinese when it arrives?
 
2012-12-13 03:49:35 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: Ok, most stupid stupid assed analogy I have ever read on Fark, with a clarification that mentions Ron Paul and now here comes the Gold Standard crap.

I'm gonna need a bigger color.


Um, that wasn't an analogy. It was a fact. Name another material on earth that fulfills those four qualities.
 
2012-12-13 03:50:15 PM  

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


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

[upload.wikimedia.org image 270x250]

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

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


We're close to 100% precision ordnance. No one else is. Then look at defensive systems. Our soldiers are mostly issued full armor now. Compare that to China's 3 million troops without any armor other than a steel helmet (except for a few elite show troops).

And once you consider other things, like compensation, it starts getting to be a terrible comparison. Even for our navy, as many expensive, high-tech ships we have, the majority of the cost is personnel. Cut our personnel costs to China's, and you'd cut our military budget by almost 50%.

I'm not saying we don't spend shiatloads on our military. I'm saying that looking at $$$ is a grossly distorting statistic. A better measure (but with its own problems) is to look at military spending as a proportion of GDP. It puts us at over twice China's, about 50% more than Russia, about 150% more than France... It gives a truer perspective when compared to other industrialized nations. (We're about half of Saudi Arabia's.)

Then you can look at the raw size of the military, where we're seventh in troops. We only have twice the troops Pakistan does. China has more tanks than we do. Russia has almost three times as many tanks as we do.

As a proportion of our population, we're not in the top 60 militaries, and there's a dozen European countries with a higher proportion of their population in military/reserves/paramilitary.

We're either incredibly inefficient compared to, say, Greece, or we're buying something for that cash that others are not.
 
2012-12-13 03:51:20 PM  

CPennypacker: Poop fulfills 1, 2 and 4, and 3 has no bearing over whether or not a currency should be tied to an asset. You dig up gold, you excrete poop. Both have nothing to do with currency.


Being difficult to reproduce is very important in a currency, otherwise it allows you to create credit bubbles like we're currently in. Credit bubbles aren't impossible under a gold standard, but they are generally squashed well before they can become dangerous.
 
2012-12-13 03:51:23 PM  

pecosdave: There's a difference between Libertarianism and Anarchy. Anarchy and Communism don't work for the same reason, a couple of assholes ruins the whole setup. Reduced nanny-statism and neck-breathing on the other hand is far from Anarchy and would be welcome. The people who run the government are corrupt, every single thing done by the government is done to pad someone else's pockets, therefor the government has the anti-Midas touch - everything it touches turns to shiat. I would rather they kept their hands in their pockets for the most part. You're bringing up fallacies us Libertarians laugh at people like you over. We can have most everything you mentioned without government interference - first of all "mortgage interest deduction" if th ...


I stand corrected. You're cynical, irrational, and hysterical. Have you considered medication?

That's OK. You can still vote, own guns, unless you're a felon.

You may laugh at my observations of Libertarians. But I giggling at your silly rantings. Oh, my, you are a silly, silly goose. ;-)
 
2012-12-13 03:51:49 PM  

MattStafford: I follow Austrian economics, and am a massive deficit hawk. I am also largely in favor of wealth redistribution and the vast majority of other liberal ideas. I would likely implement them differently, but I'm entirely in favor of everyone having access to health care, education, adequate housing and adequate food in a nation as rich as ours. But you can't pay for those things via debt, or else you're farked.


so here is a funny question:
Say we need another massive bailout of the banks. THe last time we gave them cash and they gave us stock, blah blah blah. They didnt collapse, paid nice bonuses (lol) and we recovered most of the cash.

How about this for next time.
Take that 800 billion, divide it by the number of people who paid taxes last year (at least 18% :-) and give them the money. Would be about 4000-10,000 dollars each. That would be some AWESOME local stimulus.

They can use that money to buy stock in the failing banks or spend it elsewhere.
My guess is that the banks would collapse, write off the bad debt or find private investors; the people who stimulate the fark out of the economy.
 
2012-12-13 03:53:03 PM  

MattStafford: CPennypacker: Because you pay taxes regardless, they weren't raising a specific pot for this stimulus. We have a massive deficit anyway, so taking more money out just increases that deifict.

Irrelevant. The money for the stimulus came, in part, from constituents in Ron Paul's district. When people have to pay, either through higher taxes or inflation, for the deficits, some of those people will be in Ron Paul's district. Some of the money came from his district, that is undeniable.

CPennypacker: And because you champion the fact that stimulus money is bad, doesn't create jobs, and will turn the recession into a depression and then you take some of that money anyway.

If the two options are "completely lose that money from your district", and "have money taken from you district, then returned in an inefficient way" the latter is the better option.

CPennypacker: That makes you a hypocrite. It may make you pragmatic but you're still a farking hypocrite in the end.

Alright, let's change the analogy. Suppose everyone is pitching in for food. One guy wants wings, everyone else wants Chinese. They decide on the Chinese, and make the guy throw in his money for it as well. The guy says, "but we're all gonna be hungry in a half hour anyway! And this Chinese place always has health violations, we're gonna get sick!" And this happens every time this group of friends wants to eat. Would you consider the guy who wants wings a hypocrite for eating the Chinese when it arrives?


Wow even worse. What toilet are you fishing these analogies out of?

Lets make you analogy work: Before you ordered, you expressed your deep knowledge of how not only would the chinese food not cure the group's hunger, but it would also give all of you aids. Then when it came you ate a big heaping pile of it. You're not going to starve to death but you're still a farking hypocrite.
 
2012-12-13 03:53:29 PM  

MattStafford: The money for the stimulus came, in part, from constituents in Ron Paul's district.


That's not a particularly helpful way of looking at government spending. It's not a discrete transaction (like, say, me paying my rent) where you can say exactly where some specific money allocated by the government for whatever purpose "came from".
 
2012-12-13 03:53:49 PM  

Isitoveryet: MattStafford: wealth redistribution

i think this is a myth, equality in the workforce, living wages these are the liberal ideas, the redistribution of wealth is an reaction to those core ideas.


Progressive ideas are about more fairness ... not perfection, but steady improvement.
If your wage slave is living day to day, paycheck to paycheck, it is impossible to improve ...
 
2012-12-13 03:54:23 PM  

namatad: MattStafford: I follow Austrian economics, and am a massive deficit hawk. I am also largely in favor of wealth redistribution and the vast majority of other liberal ideas. I would likely implement them differently, but I'm entirely in favor of everyone having access to health care, education, adequate housing and adequate food in a nation as rich as ours. But you can't pay for those things via debt, or else you're farked.

so here is a funny question:
Say we need another massive bailout of the banks. THe last time we gave them cash and they gave us stock, blah blah blah. They didnt collapse, paid nice bonuses (lol) and we recovered most of the cash.

How about this for next time.
Take that 800 billion, divide it by the number of people who paid taxes last year (at least 18% :-) and give them the money. Would be about 4000-10,000 dollars each. That would be some AWESOME local stimulus.

They can use that money to buy stock in the failing banks or spend it elsewhere.
My guess is that the banks would collapse, write off the bad debt or find private investors; the people who stimulate the fark out of the economy.


You can't give people money because they make bad decisions, unless those people are corporations.
 
2012-12-13 03:54:24 PM  

Isitoveryet: i think this is a myth, equality in the workforce, living wages these are the liberal ideas, the redistribution of wealth is an reaction to those core ideas.


I'm way beyond living wages man. We're aren't even going to need jobs in the future, with the amount of wealth we'll be redistributing. When we can produce a billion iPads with the flip of a switch, man?
 
2012-12-13 03:54:54 PM  

MattStafford: Insatiable Jesus: Ok, most stupid stupid assed analogy I have ever read on Fark, with a clarification that mentions Ron Paul and now here comes the Gold Standard crap.

I'm gonna need a bigger color.

Um, that wasn't an analogy. It was a fact. Name another material on earth that fulfills those four qualities.


Colbert's premium man seed.
 
Displayed 50 of 472 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report