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 04:32:48 PM  

MattStafford: CPennypacker: Because gold isn't divisible enough to keep that up in perpetuity? Also, if you're going to deflate the shiat out of Gold why bother with a gold standard in the first place?

Because deflation isn't bad. Take a look at the electronics industry if you want an example. If we produced so much stuff, that you could live the rest of your life on an ounce of gold, there is nothing wrong with that.


Uh, yes deflation is bad. Remeber the great depression? That was a deflationary spiral. Deflation constricts an economy. Debt becomes prohibitively expensive as the amount you owe actually expands with time. I know you hate debt but you must realize we need some of it to grow, right?

MattStafford: CPennypacker: OK, I'm done with this analogy now because it's becoming just a little too dumb. Even for me to keep poking at.

You mean you no longer have an argument against it? That's what I thought. Everyone else gave up there too, and just went for the "hur dur how poor he must be to not be able to afford food" route, which is a lost argument.


We got four levels deep into the stupid. You can claim victory if you want but the only out-maneuvering you accomplished was that you made it so stupid I couldn't be bothered anymore. I'm pretty sure that's what happened to everyone else.
 
2012-12-13 04:33:48 PM  
This...this is just awful.
 
2012-12-13 04:34:54 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: The President's refusal to do my job for me shows that he's not serious about negotiating! Also, Tang.


lol
\o\
/o/

LOLTANG
 
2012-12-13 04:36:16 PM  

MattStafford: Actually, what I said was "If a person doesn't think he should have to pay taxes to fund earmarks, but is forced to pay taxes to fund it anyway, he is not a hypocrite to enjoying earmarks".


I actually agree, no snark. Ron Paul wasn't a hypocrite until he turned around after all of that and bragged about how he never voted for an earmark.

"I shouldn't have to pay taxes to fund earmarks"
"I have to anyway and I know this bill will pass no matter how much I complain, so here's my list of earmarks"

I got it, he hates the system but is playing by it. No worries. Then he follows it up with:

"I don't use earmarks."

Now you're just a hypocritical dick.
 
2012-12-13 04:36:18 PM  
I think I see the problem. Let's change the analogy.

Ten people are being held at gunpoint. Nine of them say: "Hey, there's some Chinese people. Let's eat them." The tenth one says: "No, I don't want to eat the Chinese. I want to shiat gold, and use it to pay for Mexicans." The other nine say: "No, then we'll need to divide up the gold you shiat out, and divide it equally among us nine." The tenth guy says: "No wait, if I'm shiatting out the gold, I want to keep some of the shiat-gold so I can trade it for some of the Chinese to exchange them for Mexicans, so I can eat them." They vote, and the nine guys vote to eat the Chinese people. Then the tenth guy steals the gun, assembles the nine guys, the Chinese people, and the Mexican people head-to-butt human centipede style, and walks away with his shiat-gold.

I assume I don't need to spell this out for you, do I?
 
2012-12-13 04:37:05 PM  

MattStafford: Because deflation isn't bad. Take a look at the electronics industry if you want an example. If we produced so much stuff, that you could live the rest of your life on an ounce of gold, there is nothing wrong with that.


hahaha hahahaha hahahah hahahah ahahah hahahaaha
you are so wrong about deflation it isnt even funny,

Today my house is worth 200k and I am trying to sell it. But you know that we are in a deflation cycle.
You know that you can wait until next year and get it for 180k. You have no incentive to buy today. and a huge savings if you wait until next year. (this example assumes that the "cost" of NOT buying today is much less than 20k)

Multiply that thinking by 100,000,000 households. No one will buy a house or a car this year. THEY KNOW that the same house and car will be 5%, 10% cheaper next year? HELLLLO, I can use that old car for 1 more year if I can save that much money!!!
 
2012-12-13 04:37:46 PM  

Fellate O'Fish: I think I see the problem. Let's change the analogy.

Ten people are being held at gunpoint. Nine of them say: "Hey, there's some Chinese people. Let's eat them." The tenth one says: "No, I don't want to eat the Chinese. I want to shiat gold, and use it to pay for Mexicans." The other nine say: "No, then we'll need to divide up the gold you shiat out, and divide it equally among us nine." The tenth guy says: "No wait, if I'm shiatting out the gold, I want to keep some of the shiat-gold so I can trade it for some of the Chinese to exchange them for Mexicans, so I can eat them." They vote, and the nine guys vote to eat the Chinese people. Then the tenth guy steals the gun, assembles the nine guys, the Chinese people, and the Mexican people head-to-butt human centipede style, and walks away with his shiat-gold.

I assume I don't need to spell this out for you, do I?


It's kind of telling that the best way to explain RONPAUL's political viewpoint is with an Aristocrats joke.
 
2012-12-13 04:38:02 PM  
I regard support for Ron Paul and/or the gold standard to be one of the easiest, most elegant, and most reliable IQ tests ever contrived.
 
2012-12-13 04:38:33 PM  
Eliminate medicare, medicaid, social security, and all forms of welfare. Make public schools private, and private prisons public, where the per capita inmate expense is poverty level at most.

Freeze defense spending at 2007 levels.

There, that's a start. If it isn't enough, then let me know, and I'll keep going.
 
2012-12-13 04:38:54 PM  
A controlled crash is still a crash - and we are but the test dummies.

MmmMMMmm MMMmMMMMmmm
 
2012-12-13 04:39:23 PM  

mcwehrle: /can't believe mattstafford isn't a troll...."jewelry and not much else"? REALLY????


yah ... he is either a troll or too stupid to live ... either way
anyone who thinks inflation is awesome and uses electronics as an example ....
One or the other or both
 
2012-12-13 04:39:36 PM  

SevenizGud: Eliminate medicare, medicaid, social security, and all forms of welfare. Make public schools private, and private prisons public, where the per capita inmate expense is poverty level at most.

Freeze defense spending at 2007 levels.

There, that's a start. If it isn't enough, then let me know, and I'll keep going.


Please, keep going, all the way out. Assuming you didn't drop this gem on your way out.
 
2012-12-13 04:41:18 PM  

Fellate O'Fish: I think I see the problem. Let's change the analogy.

Ten people are being held at gunpoint. Nine of them say: "Hey, there's some Chinese people. Let's eat them." The tenth one says: "No, I don't want to eat the Chinese. I want to shiat gold, and use it to pay for Mexicans." The other nine say: "No, then we'll need to divide up the gold you shiat out, and divide it equally among us nine." The tenth guy says: "No wait, if I'm shiatting out the gold, I want to keep some of the shiat-gold so I can trade it for some of the Chinese to exchange them for Mexicans, so I can eat them." They vote, and the nine guys vote to eat the Chinese people. Then the tenth guy steals the gun, assembles the nine guys, the Chinese people, and the Mexican people head-to-butt human centipede style, and walks away with his shiat-gold.

I assume I don't need to spell this out for you, do I?


Alright, this made me laugh as much as I've laughed in days.

+10000
 
2012-12-13 04:42:07 PM  

Fellate O'Fish: I think I see the problem. Let's change the analogy.

Ten people are being held at gunpoint. Nine of them say: "Hey, there's some Chinese people. Let's eat them." The tenth one says: "No, I don't want to eat the Chinese. I want to shiat gold, and use it to pay for Mexicans." The other nine say: "No, then we'll need to divide up the gold you shiat out, and divide it equally among us nine." The tenth guy says: "No wait, if I'm shiatting out the gold, I want to keep some of the shiat-gold so I can trade it for some of the Chinese to exchange them for Mexicans, so I can eat them." They vote, and the nine guys vote to eat the Chinese people. Then the tenth guy steals the gun, assembles the nine guys, the Chinese people, and the Mexican people head-to-butt human centipede style, and walks away with his shiat-gold.

I assume I don't need to spell this out for you, do I?


I understand completely.
 
2012-12-13 04:42:39 PM  

cbathrob: I regard support for Ron Paul and/or the gold standard to be one of the easiest, most elegant, and most reliable IQ tests ever contrived.


Yep, it is like a text version of a facial tattoo.
 
2012-12-13 04:43:34 PM  
CPennypacker:I'm pretty sure that's what happened to everyone else.

I stuck it through to the end. Despite being a rampant political person, I have avoided Paulites like this, though I have to put up with my mother's husband some. It's amazing how impenetrable the Paulite mind is.
 
2012-12-13 04:44:23 PM  

lennavan: MattStafford: Actually, what I said was "If a person doesn't think he should have to pay taxes to fund earmarks, but is forced to pay taxes to fund it anyway, he is not a hypocrite to enjoying earmarks".

I actually agree, no snark. Ron Paul wasn't a hypocrite until he turned around after all of that and bragged about how he never voted for an earmark.

"I shouldn't have to pay taxes to fund earmarks"
"I have to anyway and I know this bill will pass no matter how much I complain, so here's my list of earmarks"

I got it, he hates the system but is playing by it. No worries. Then he follows it up with:

"I don't use earmarks."

Now you're just a hypocritical dick.


The problem with that is that he can't make the nuanced argument that, hey he disagrees with the spending and earmarks in general, but goes after them anyway because he has to play the game, into an easy sound bite.

He has made the same argument I've made for him when he is given a chance to be more nuanced. If his options are to say "I've voted for earmarks" and "I didnt vote for earmarks", which would you expect him to say?

It's just the way the game is played.
 
2012-12-13 04:44:29 PM  

namatad: mcwehrle: /can't believe mattstafford isn't a troll...."jewelry and not much else"? REALLY????

yah ... he is either a troll or too stupid to live ... either way
anyone who thinks inflation is awesome and uses electronics as an example ....
One or the other or both


Both, I'd go with both. He also has absolutely no problem with letting old folks die rather than funding Medicare for them. It's more economical that way. So I'm really truly not surprised by his gold standard blah.
 
2012-12-13 04:46:23 PM  

cbathrob: I regard support for Ron Paul and/or the gold standard to be one of the easiest, most elegant, and most reliable IQ tests ever contrived.


You'd be surprised.
 
2012-12-13 04:46:41 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: This...this is just awful.


Agreed. It might be the biggest threadshiat I've ever seen. Thanks RON PAUL.
 
2012-12-13 04:46:44 PM  
This opinion piece doesn't support it's own premise. The fact that Republicans can't (or won't) articulate where they'd like to see cuts doesn't mean that cuts don't need to be made. It just means that they are politically motivated to not be specific.

Our spending *is* out of control by any rational measure one would care to apply. Our debt to GDP is so bad that we would be denied membership if we applied to join the EU. We spend $3 for every $2 we raise. This year's budget has us spending a trillion dollars (with a T) we don't have, and that's *with* sequestration.
Neither party is serious about getting the budget in order because they know that the cuts that are required are political suicide. But the only way to avoid a complete fiscal meltdown and hyperinflation is by making those cuts.
I don't expect that those cuts will ever be made. Especially with all the "fiscal cliff" rhetoric floating around. So we're doomed to find out the hard way what happens when this finally catches up with us.
 
2012-12-13 04:49:05 PM  

mcwehrle: namatad: mcwehrle: /can't believe mattstafford isn't a troll...."jewelry and not much else"? REALLY????

yah ... he is either a troll or too stupid to live ... either way
anyone who thinks inflation is awesome and uses electronics as an example ....
One or the other or both

Both, I'd go with both. He also has absolutely no problem with letting old folks die rather than funding Medicare for them. It's more economical that way. So I'm really truly not surprised by his gold standard blah.


I've said several times, including in this thread, that I'm in favor of wealth redistribution and access to health care for everyone. What I also say is that, if you fund those things via debt, you're going to destroy your economy. Which is what is happening.
 
2012-12-13 04:50:31 PM  

mcwehrle: Both, I'd go with both. He also has absolutely no problem with letting old folks die rather than funding Medicare for them. It's more economical that way. So I'm really truly not surprised by his gold standard blah.


In a STRANGE way, letting the old ones die would stimulate the economy:
increased funerals and all that business
increased inheritances and increased spending there of
lowered unemployment when all the walmart greeters die

so yah, increasing the medicare age from 65 to 67 is farked
2 more years of those jobs not opening up for the young'ens

lawl
 
2012-12-13 04:53:19 PM  

CPennypacker: MattStafford: CPennypacker: Because gold isn't divisible enough to keep that up in perpetuity? Also, if you're going to deflate the shiat out of Gold why bother with a gold standard in the first place?

Because deflation isn't bad. Take a look at the electronics industry if you want an example. If we produced so much stuff, that you could live the rest of your life on an ounce of gold, there is nothing wrong with that.

Uh, yes deflation is bad. Remeber the great depression? That was a deflationary spiral. Deflation constricts an economy. Debt becomes prohibitively expensive as the amount you owe actually expands with time. I know you hate debt but you must realize we need some of it to grow, right?

MattStafford: CPennypacker: OK, I'm done with this analogy now because it's becoming just a little too dumb. Even for me to keep poking at.

You mean you no longer have an argument against it? That's what I thought. Everyone else gave up there too, and just went for the "hur dur how poor he must be to not be able to afford food" route, which is a lost argument.

We got four levels deep into the stupid. You can claim victory if you want but the only out-maneuvering you accomplished was that you made it so stupid I couldn't be bothered anymore. I'm pretty sure that's what happened to everyone else.


Deflation when caused as a result of monetary shenanigans is bad (not necessarily bad, as it is necessary, but painful).

Deflation when caused as a result of an increase in technology and production is a good thing.

As for the analogy? Nah, pretty sure you just gave up when the going got tough.
 
2012-12-13 04:54:07 PM  
Only someone unconscious or stupid can believe spending is fine. The funny but ironic thing is that it will be the stupid yoot's, who voted for the Resident, who will pay for our re-living of the 1930's.
 
2012-12-13 04:54:19 PM  

GoSlash27: Neither party is serious about getting the budget in order because they know that the cuts that are required are political suicide.


Budget Control Act. Obama signed off on $1.5T in spending cuts in exchange for zero tax increases. So no, "neither side is serious" is not true.
 
2012-12-13 05:02:56 PM  

qqqq: Only someone unconscious or stupid can believe spending is fine.


Ya, that pretty much explains the eight years of GWB.
 
2012-12-13 05:04:31 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: GoSlash27: Neither party is serious about getting the budget in order because they know that the cuts that are required are political suicide.

Budget Control Act. Obama signed off on $1.5T in spending cuts in exchange for zero tax increases. So no, "neither side is serious" is not true.


Only 17 billion (at most) if you take into account the elevation of the debt ceiling. WIth an option to raise the debt ceiling further later. That Act was kind of a wash - or, an act if you will.
 
2012-12-13 05:05:02 PM  

GoSlash27: We spend $3 for every $2 we raise.


Technically this is TRIVIAL to fix.

1) cut 1/3 of spending
2) raise revenue by 50%
3) combination of both

so lets cut 100% of discretionary spending, including all money paid to congress and the whitehouse.
AUSTERITY!!

Link

TADA
we just saved 1.5T dollars
we can use the extra .5T we have left over to pay off the national debt!

oh wait, you probably wont want to cut DoD?

FINE
we got .9T cuts if we leave in DoD discretionary.
TADA
we are actually close to a balanced budget
alas

a LOT of people will be out of work and the VA is broke again.
no problem there, put the VA into the DOD where it belongs, and no, the DOD doesnt get MORE money.
 
2012-12-13 05:05:19 PM  
As long as we continue down the path of deficit spending, we will continue to be indirectly taxed by the federal government through artificially depressed interest rates and (currently and for the near-future) quantitative easing.

America is like the heroin addict that takes advantage of a drop in the price of smack to shoot-up twice as much as much as they once did. The worst-case scenario isn't the long term damage being done to the body. That is inevitable. It's the risk that the price of heroin will spiral upwards when it now takes twice as much smack to reach the same high. And we all know that when drug addicts are fiending, their decision making goes down the drain.
 
2012-12-13 05:06:57 PM  

qqqq: Only someone unconscious or stupid can believe spending is fine. The funny but ironic thing is that it will be the stupid yoot's, who voted for the Resident, who will pay for our re-living of the 1930's.


zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Meh
they already have a perfect plan in place. Do nothing, spending will be cut and taxes will go up. TADA
Wait, what was congress doing the whole time that this thing was in place, ticking???
Nothing??? LOLOLOLOL
 
2012-12-13 05:06:59 PM  

highendmighty: Only 17 billion (at most) if you take into account the elevation of the debt ceiling.


I don't understand how paying for what we've already spent negates cuts signed into law. Or we doing a semantics thing?
 
2012-12-13 05:07:33 PM  

SevenizGud: Eliminate medicare, medicaid, social security, and all forms of welfare. Make public schools private, and private prisons public, where the per capita inmate expense is poverty level at most.

Freeze defense spending at 2007 levels.

There, that's a start. If it isn't enough, then let me know, and I'll keep going.


Simple answers for simple minds I suppose.
 
2012-12-13 05:08:17 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: GoSlash27: Neither party is serious about getting the budget in order because they know that the cuts that are required are political suicide.

Budget Control Act. Obama signed off on $1.5T in spending cuts in exchange for zero tax increases. So no, "neither side is serious" is not true.


That's 1.5T total over the course of 10 years for a budget projected to accumulate 11.2 T in the same time. No, that's not "serious".
www.americanthinker.com
 
2012-12-13 05:09:26 PM  
Republicans declared that "the number-one job is to make Obama a one-term president". Not fixing the economy, not getting America out of debt, not doing anything intelligent and rational and helpful. All they care(d) about was getting the scary black Democrat out of the White House by any means necessary.

They did their best to fark up the economy even more and try blame it on Obama. They filibustered and gerrymandered and fought and whined about everything that tried to happen in Congress. Obama can't even put ketchup on his hamburger without Republicans screeching about how evil and anti-American it is. And in all that time the Republicans didn't offer a damned thing, except a record number of anti-woman and anti-gay laws.

And now that their "one-term Obama" campaign has failed, Republicans have gone insane. They're going to destroy America out of hatred and anger and spite. "If we can't have it, NO ONE CAN!" is their new number-one job. They already declared how it was everyone's fault but their own that Romney wasn't elected, they're putting out TV commercials that are basically threatening people to either oppose the tax increases or bad things will happen, and they're see-sawing between trying to court minorities and women and blaming them for America's problems, often in the same breath.

The right doesn't care about America anymore.
 
2012-12-13 05:09:49 PM  

GoSlash27: That's 1.5T total over the course of 10 years for a budget projected to accumulate 11.2 T in the same time. No, that's not "serious".


It's more serious than refusing to do anything whatsoever on the tax side. Sure, both sides are bad. Both sides are not equally bad.
 
2012-12-13 05:11:03 PM  

namatad: AUSTERITY!!


Yeah, lets go with the method that has proven to make things worse.

Link
 
2012-12-13 05:13:21 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: highendmighty: Only 17 billion (at most) if you take into account the elevation of the debt ceiling.

I don't understand how paying for what we've already spent negates cuts signed into law. Or we doing a semantics thing?


No, not semantics, just a net total of the amount we're allowed to spend vs. the total that can be spent. The ratio of debt limit to spending limit is statistically the same.
I'm not saying that the act is a bad thing - it reduces the rate of spending to try to avoid "falling off the fiscal cliff", but there is not much in the way of any kind of cost cuts. It cuts the increase in spending more than the spending itself.
 
2012-12-13 05:15:37 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: GoSlash27: That's 1.5T total over the course of 10 years for a budget projected to accumulate 11.2 T in the same time. No, that's not "serious".

It's more serious than refusing to do anything whatsoever on the tax side. Sure, both sides are bad. Both sides are not equally bad.


No, it's just a different kind of "not serious". I'm not blaming the Democrats or defending the Republicans. I'm just pointing out that neither side is willing to fix this and we're all going to suffer as a result. And I can hardly blame them. If they seriously tried to get this budget back to some semblance of sanity, they'd be run out of town on a rail. It's really the voters' fault.
 
2012-12-13 05:19:26 PM  

Pincy: qqqq: Only someone unconscious or stupid can believe spending is fine.

Ya, that pretty much explains the eight years of GWB.


So that squared is smart? I'll go with STUPID for you and I'll raise you Biden.
 
2012-12-13 05:19:50 PM  

GoSlash27: Dusk-You-n-Me: GoSlash27: That's 1.5T total over the course of 10 years for a budget projected to accumulate 11.2 T in the same time. No, that's not "serious".

It's more serious than refusing to do anything whatsoever on the tax side. Sure, both sides are bad. Both sides are not equally bad.

No, it's just a different kind of "not serious". I'm not blaming the Democrats or defending the Republicans. I'm just pointing out that neither side is willing to fix this and we're all going to suffer as a result. And I can hardly blame them. If they seriously tried to get this budget back to some semblance of sanity, they'd be run out of town on a rail. It's really the voters' fault.


"I could end the deficit in five minutes. You just pass a law that says that any time there's a deficit of more than three percent of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election. Yeah, yeah, now you've got the incentives in the right place, right?" -W. Buffet
 
2012-12-13 05:22:17 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Republicans declared that "the number-one job is to make Obama a one-term president". Not fixing the economy, not getting America out of debt, not doing anything intelligent and rational and helpful. All they care(d) about was getting the scary black Democrat out of the White House by any means necessary.

They did their best to fark up the economy even more and try blame it on Obama. They filibustered and gerrymandered and fought and whined about everything that tried to happen in Congress. Obama can't even put ketchup on his hamburger without Republicans screeching about how evil and anti-American it is. And in all that time the Republicans didn't offer a damned thing, except a record number of anti-woman and anti-gay laws.

And now that their "one-term Obama" campaign has failed, Republicans have gone insane. They're going to destroy America out of hatred and anger and spite. "If we can't have it, NO ONE CAN!" is their new number-one job. They already declared how it was everyone's fault but their own that Romney wasn't elected, they're putting out TV commercials that are basically threatening people to either oppose the tax increases or bad things will happen, and they're see-sawing between trying to court minorities and women and blaming them for America's problems, often in the same breath.

The right doesn't care about America anymore.



It's depressing how right you are about all of that.
 
2012-12-13 05:22:32 PM  

GoSlash27: If they seriously tried to get this budget back to some semblance of sanity, they'd be run out of town on a rail


That depends on how they go about trying to balance it. Spending cuts are a popular idea until you specify what exactly you're cutting, then a lot of people with ties to that spending tend to get upset. Both sides know this. Boehner wants Obama to name specific spending cuts so he can blast Obama for the cuts being insufficient and pull the debate further to the right. Fortunately Obama doesn't feel like playing that game.

America wants the upper brackets raised. Hell, a majority of Republicans want those taxes raised. Boehner's in a tough spot. Obama not nearly as much. They're meeting...right now actually, so we'll see what comes of that.
 
2012-12-13 05:22:49 PM  
Namat, doing nothing is the best choice. The 'cliff' means spending will be cut. That NEVER happens. Government is the problem. Statists are the problem.
 
2012-12-13 05:23:27 PM  

namatad: GoSlash27: We spend $3 for every $2 we raise.

Technically this is TRIVIAL to fix.

1) cut 1/3 of spending
2) raise revenue by 50%
3) combination of both

so lets cut 100% of discretionary spending, including all money paid to congress and the whitehouse.
AUSTERITY!!

Link

TADA
we just saved 1.5T dollars
we can use the extra .5T we have left over to pay off the national debt!

oh wait, you probably wont want to cut DoD?

FINE
we got .9T cuts if we leave in DoD discretionary.
TADA
we are actually close to a balanced budget
alas

a LOT of people will be out of work and the VA is broke again.
no problem there, put the VA into the DOD where it belongs, and no, the DOD doesnt get MORE money.


I have no idea why you'd think I'm against DoD cuts. I certainly never said anything to indicate that. Perhaps you should refrain from making snap judgements of people you don't know...
/your proposal is actually fairly sensible
//which is why you'd never get elected...
 
2012-12-13 05:26:42 PM  

jst3p: GoSlash27: Dusk-You-n-Me: GoSlash27: That's 1.5T total over the course of 10 years for a budget projected to accumulate 11.2 T in the same time. No, that's not "serious".

It's more serious than refusing to do anything whatsoever on the tax side. Sure, both sides are bad. Both sides are not equally bad.

No, it's just a different kind of "not serious". I'm not blaming the Democrats or defending the Republicans. I'm just pointing out that neither side is willing to fix this and we're all going to suffer as a result. And I can hardly blame them. If they seriously tried to get this budget back to some semblance of sanity, they'd be run out of town on a rail. It's really the voters' fault.

"I could end the deficit in five minutes. You just pass a law that says that any time there's a deficit of more than three percent of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election. Yeah, yeah, now you've got the incentives in the right place, right?" -W. Buffet


Said law would have to be passed by Congress... Oh.

It would work out great in an ideal world. Of course, if this was an ideal world, we wouldn't be in this mess.
 
2012-12-13 05:26:48 PM  
Keizer_Ghidorah I call bullshiat.

Idiots, like you, who don't know that the freedom they have is NOT normal is the problem. Rule of law and property rights are why free people are free.
 
2012-12-13 05:32:10 PM  
Bullshiat.

Greece is not at war yet is broken. If Eunuchstan reduced military spending to zero would they be solvent?

Morons given blank checks are the problem. As are bullshiat canons. (spelling intentional)
 
2012-12-13 05:32:38 PM  

jst3p: namatad: AUSTERITY!!

Yeah, lets go with the method that has proven to make things worse.

Link


Greece wouldn't be in their crisis if even showed an iota of fiscal responsibility. Bringing up Greece in this argument is not exactly helpful to your argument.
 
2012-12-13 05:37:24 PM  

you have pee hands: The article is wrong. It says that the Republican position is unsatisfiable because there isn't much money to cut without kicking the poor really hard in the balls. The Republicans don't care; they want to kick the poor really hard in the balls. They think it's what the poor deserve, or even that it will help.


Of course, but they want to turn around and blame Obama when 2014 comes along. They're demanding cuts that they don't want to be held responsible for when the next election rolls along.
 
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