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  
•       •       •

5804 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 10:15:33 PM

pecosdave: jst3p: pecosdave: Is it child abuse not to do her laundry, feed her nothing but pizza, hot-dogs, and burger, not to make her brush her teeth, wash her hair, wipe her ass? According to you probably not.

Unless you can prove demonstrable physical or emotional harm, no it isn't. You walking around claiming that your ex abuses your daughter probably just makes the people around you dismissive.

Bad parenting is not necessarily abuse. The fact that you claim her taking 1/3 of your income is child abuse makes me laugh, but not with you.

It isn't a wonder that the judge didn't take you seriously.

Please point to where I said her taking 1/3 of my income is child abuse


What about getting 1/3 of my income while married to a millionaire and not putting clothes on her we send with her to make sure she has fitting clothes doesn't constitute child abuse?

Do you read before you hit "add comment" or do you just mash your face on the keyboard? I only bolded part of the sentence because, the way you structured it, this is how I took it:

What of the following items isn't child abuse? a) getting 1/3 of my income while married to a millionaire b) not dressing her in the clothes I send for her to wear or c) making sure she has clothes that don't fit.

If what you meant to say is "She is abusing her by not putting her in clothes that fit. She should have no problem doing this because I send child support, I also send clothes over that fit AND she is married to a millionaire." Well, that still isn't child abuse.

It's abuse to take it for her and not use it on her.

That isn't what you originally said. But even that isn't abuse. You really need to read up on what actually constitutes child abuse, you throw it around pretty loosely.

I'm paying for international trips and vacations, not child care.

I pay over $1,000 a month in child support and I understand wishing the money was better spent. Mine goes to help her support the other 8 kids she has (not kidding, she just had number 9 last year with doofus coworker at Dick's sporting goods who she had a drunken one night stand with.) It is a shiatty part of the system, but it isn't child abuse.
 
2012-12-13 11:19:51 PM

AirForceVet: But, you can learn the differences between poor parenting skills, assumed & real child abuse, and manage the heavy emotions you may be experiencing. By controlling yourself and working out the difficulties of being a parent not fully in control of your child's upbringing, you can present a better example for your kid of a parent.


I've got it covered. Trust me, I'm very objective and I've been to the recommended classes. There's a lot I haven't said here for various reasons.

Facts:
I have no criminal record.
I have a security clearance.

She's a convicted felon, that's been expunged
My daughter wants to live with me now

The things I've said are true, I haven't gone into more details. I spent two years feeling massive amounts of guilt because I had to abandon my step daughter to try to save my daughter, it really was save one or lose them both. She has suffered through this more than anyone else, including me or my daughter, it's taken a lot to wash my hands of that. The ex has cleaned up a lot since then, but she still hasn't come clean. She's still maintaining an upper hand on a foundation of lies. I can only hope that foundation crumbles.

There's been a lot of underhanded stuff done by the court itself. I've learned the hard way being right, doing the right thing means little in a court room. Hiring the judges friends and campaign contributors is the real ticket to victory. The judge is a Republican, the ex is pretty far left but know how to play the game, so she hires one Republican flunky after another with her current husbands money. Turns out the constitution means little unless you've got at least six figures to throw around to make sure it matters.
 
2012-12-13 11:25:01 PM

MattStafford: 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.


Haven't been so far.
 
2012-12-13 11:35:43 PM

cbathrob: MattStafford: 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.

Haven't been so far.


Because those first couple hundred years Americans were stupid for using it so successfully that we expanded from ocean to ocean.
 
2012-12-14 12:15:13 AM

cbathrob: MattStafford: 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.

Haven't been so far.


This.
 
2012-12-14 12:31:52 AM

pecosdave: jst3p: pecosdave: What about getting 1/3 of my income while married to a millionaire and not putting clothes on her we send with her to make sure she has fitting clothes doesn't constitute child abuse?

Because child abuse has a definition and that doesn't fit it:

I will break it down for you:

"What about getting 1/3 of my income while married to a millionaire"
This has no direct effect on the kid. Sucks for you, but you being broke isn't child abuse.

not putting clothes on her we send with her


She has no obligation to put her in the clothes you send her.

to make sure she has fitting clothes


I'll fitting clothes do not constitute child abuse.

If what you say is true (and I don't know if it is or isn't but my experience tells me that most people who aren't happy with the results of a custody case embellish at the very least, many outright lie) she is a biatch, but nothing you have described is child abuse.

"I find the fact that you dressed your daughter in a shirt that was ill fitting to be despicable. I have no idea how someone could be so callus to one's own flesh and blood. You make me sick! I find you guilty of child abuse! Take her away!"

Said no judge, ever.

Your technicalities may be accurate but the mental abuse is still abuse. She continues to do to the children, ours and hers, what she used to do to me and her older child when we were married. Our child was too young at the time but she gets the abuse now as well. It's amazing what water works can do to counter reason. Is bullshiat like this part of the reason I have doubts in government? You bet.

She actually had my daughter convinced she had a magic crystal ball she could watch and listen to her with when she wasn't with her to keep her from saying anything negative about her the court appointed shrink or to us. My daughter told me so - after the case.

Is it child abuse not to do her laundry, feed her nothing but pizza, hot-dogs, and burger, not to make her brush her teeth, wash her ...


seek help
 
2012-12-14 12:34:28 AM

pecosdave: AirForceVet: But, you can learn the differences between poor parenting skills, assumed & real child abuse, and manage the heavy emotions you may be experiencing. By controlling yourself and working out the difficulties of being a parent not fully in control of your child's upbringing, you can present a better example for your kid of a parent.

I've got it covered. Trust me, I'm very objective and I've been to the recommended classes. There's a lot I haven't said here for various reasons.

Facts:
I have no criminal record.
I have a security clearance.

She's a convicted felon, that's been expunged
My daughter wants to live with me now

The things I've said are true, I haven't gone into more details. I spent two years feeling massive amounts of guilt because I had to abandon my step daughter to try to save my daughter, it really was save one or lose them both. She has suffered through this more than anyone else, including me or my daughter, it's taken a lot to wash my hands of that. The ex has cleaned up a lot since then, but she still hasn't come clean. She's still maintaining an upper hand on a foundation of lies. I can only hope that foundation crumbles.

There's been a lot of underhanded stuff done by the court itself. I've learned the hard way being right, doing the right thing means little in a court room. Hiring the judges friends and campaign contributors is the real ticket to victory. The judge is a Republican, the ex is pretty far left but know how to play the game, so she hires one Republican flunky after another with her current husbands money. Turns out the constitution means little unless you've got at least six figures to throw around to make sure it matters.


No seriously, seek help
 
2012-12-14 12:59:00 AM

rumpelstiltskin: GAT_00: pecosdave: Spending is out of control.

The only place spending is out of control is defense spending, which is why the GOP can't propose anything.

It's not "defense spending". When we buy a tank, we get an asset. An asset that goes 40 miles an hour and blows shiat up. That's investing. Defense investing, and investing is always a good thing. It's even better when you do it on margin, to take advantage of leverage.
Spending is only when we give services to poor people. When we give food stamps, we don't get an asset back. We get fat poor people back, and no one knows what to do with fat poor people. This is what we're talking about. This is spending. This is the problem.


You have it entirely backwards.

Buying a tank does not give you an asset since it has almost no resale value. It has military value, but no economic value. Indeed, its role in economics is destruction. Also, in modern warfare, a tank is all but useless. If there is ever going to be a conflict that requires mobilization of tanks, we're in a shiat load of trouble, far beyond what we have to deal with in regards to the fiscal cliff and everything else.

On the other hand, food stamps and other social welfare expenses have shown to be of positive economic value. For every $1 spent in welfare for the poor, the country gets back $1.48 (or so) in savings, tax receipts and the like. You see, a food stamp can't be accumulated. It has to be used since it's only partially fungible. When it's spent, the vendor who sells a food product gets paid, and the person down the line gets paid and so on. On most of those exchanges, the government gets paid, so the government almost recoups 100% of the cost of the food stamp directly from the use of that food stamp. On top of that, a fed person is less likely to be committing a crime of economics (stealing from someone, burglary, etc), more healthy, and not in other dire straits. Those three elements, if not addressed, contribute a lot to the government expense in policing, health costs and lowered property and other values.

The number one problem is accumulation of wealth. When wealth is accumulated, to the levels of the bazillionaires, it's obviously not being used. When it's not used, being circulated in the economy, we can't tax the transactions, so there's no revenue to the government. Furthermore, there's no revenue to merchants. That money just sits there like a black hole, swallowing up more money. That's why it's important to tax the rich at a higher rate. Force them to spend the money, either pre-tax or post-tax. When that money is freed up, it washes over all those merchants. Those merchants will then pay taxes on those profits and so on.

Also, pre-tax money would go into investments into many more new businesses. Those new businesses will strike rich on occasions and that is when the rising tide lifts all boats. Right now, the super rich has built a dam so that when the tide rises, it only lifts their boats. Break that dam, and the only way the government can break that dam is by taxation.
 
2012-12-14 01:44:37 AM

dericwater: Buying a tank does not give you an asset since it has almost no resale value. It has military value, but no economic value. Indeed, its role in economics is destruction. Also, in modern warfare, a tank is all but useless. If there is ever going to be a conflict that requires mobilization of tanks, we're in a shiat load of trouble, far beyond what we have to deal with in regards to the fiscal cliff and everything else.


If the US were ever invaded (not bloody likely) I sure as hell hope the idiot bastards waste resources transporting easily destructed tanks.
 
2012-12-14 02:48:17 AM
Yeah libs, keep ignoring the coming crisis involving the baby boomer retirement. Good lick paying for their SS and Medicare.
 
2012-12-14 02:49:41 AM

GAT_00: pecosdave: Spending is out of control.

The only place spending is out of control is defense spending, which is why the GOP can't propose anything.


Lmao, yeah.,.. Medicare is competent under control.
 
2012-12-14 02:50:18 AM

GAT_00: pecosdave: Spending is out of control.

The only place spending is out of control is defense spending, which is why the GOP can't propose anything.


Completely
 
2012-12-14 02:53:30 AM

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.


The coming unfunded SS and Medicare entitlements will dwarf the wars.
 
2012-12-14 05:14:46 AM

giftedmadness: 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.

The coming unfunded SS and Medicare entitlements will dwarf the wars.


Except that both SS and Medicare are fully funded. And, if we lift the cap of where FICA is not taxed (currently, $101,000/yr (?)), SS can be solvent indefinitely. As for medicare, the best way to make it work is to stop the corporate and insurance fraud that occurs, and lower the age eligibility for medicare from the current 65 to 0. That way, all other health insurance would disappear and people would have to pay much less. Much easier to pay the 2.6% or so from wages than to pay an additional $500 or $2000 per pay period for health insurance. Even if that 2.6% is raised to 4%, it's still much cheaper for the vast majority of people in the US.
 
2012-12-14 06:17:41 AM

dericwater: giftedmadness: 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.

The coming unfunded SS and Medicare entitlements will dwarf the wars.

Except that both SS and Medicare are fully funded. And, if we lift the cap of where FICA is not taxed (currently, $101,000/yr (?)), SS can be solvent indefinitely. As for medicare, the best way to make it work is to stop the corporate and insurance fraud that occurs, and lower the age eligibility for medicare from the current 65 to 0. That way, all other health insurance would disappear and people would have to pay much less. Much easier to pay the 2.6% or so from wages than to pay an additional $500 or $2000 per pay period for health insurance. Even if that 2.6% is raised to 4%, it's still much cheaper for the vast majority of people in the US.


Your arguments and claims are so stupid and off base that I honestly don't know how to reply or where to start. The first statement alone is factually incorrect. We currently pay out more in SS than we take in via taxes. The coming baby boomer retirement is gonna decimate Medicare. The rest of your paragraph is so full of derp I don't even know what to say. I'll let a smarter farker than myself handle it.
 
2012-12-14 09:48:21 AM
Obama is willing to cut spending.
The GOP is not willing to raise taxes/revenue.

Which side actually gives a shiat about the deficit?
 
2012-12-14 09:58:13 AM

sweetmelissa31:

I prefer Doodiecrats and Republiqueefs.


This is the kind of thing that makes you a favorite
 
2012-12-14 10:22:50 AM

pecosdave: AirForceVet: But, you can learn the differences between poor parenting skills, assumed & real child abuse, and manage the heavy emotions you may be experiencing. By controlling yourself and working out the difficulties of being a parent not fully in control of your child's upbringing, you can present a better example for your kid of a parent.

I've got it covered. Trust me, I'm very objective and I've been to the recommended classes. There's a lot I haven't said here for various reasons.

Facts:
I have no criminal record.
I have a security clearance.

She's a convicted felon, that's been expunged
My daughter wants to live with me now

The things I've said are true, I haven't gone into more details. I spent two years feeling massive amounts of guilt because I had to abandon my step daughter to try to save my daughter, it really was save one or lose them both. She has suffered through this more than anyone else, including me or my daughter, it's taken a lot to wash my hands of that. The ex has cleaned up a lot since then, but she still hasn't come clean. She's still maintaining an upper hand on a foundation of lies. I can only hope that foundation crumbles.

There's been a lot of underhanded stuff done by the court itself. I've learned the hard way being right, doing the right thing means little in a court room. Hiring the judges friends and campaign contributors is the real ticket to victory. The judge is a Republican, the ex is pretty far left but know how to play the game, so she hires one Republican flunky after another with her current husbands money. Turns out the constitution means little unless you've got at least six figures to throw around to make sure it matters.


I am guessing the phrase "paranoid schizophrenia" appears in some of those court transcripts.
 
2012-12-14 10:29:44 AM

pecosdave: magusdevil: just assume that you're a deadbeat dad?

Call me deadbeat one more time.

I'm supporting my daughter at least three times over. I'm shelling out more money than it costs to raise any healthy kid in child support. I'm maintaining a place to live big enough for her to live here full time along with clothing etc. Despite having an income above the national average - not huge but above average - I'm living paycheck to paycheck providing for her just to watch her be mentally abused and uncared for. I work extra jobs just to make ends meet and catch up. My vehicle doesn't have a whole lot of miles left in it, part of the reason I bike to work as much as possible but without a doubt I'm going to have to keep something to drive with absolutely no way to afford my next one. 1/3 of your income is a lot for child support. Stack on the bigger than I need just for me apartment and everything else I'm up over 1/2 my income spent caring for my daughter.

One more time asshole, call me a deadbeat.


I didn't call you a deadbeat, I asked if you were a deadbeat. And, to be fair, I don't realize at the time that you were an internet tough guy. You resentfully pay your court ordered child support. I will put you down as "aspiring deadbeat dad"
 
2012-12-14 10:48:51 AM

MattStafford: 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.


No one forced him to brag later that he doesn't vote for earmarks.

MattStafford: 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?


You have never seen a politician get asked a question, have you? There has never been a question in the history of politics that limits the options of the responder. Ever.
 
2012-12-14 12:06:16 PM

Citrate1007: Obama is willing to cut spending.
The GOP is not willing to raise taxes/revenue.

Which side actually gives a shiat about the deficit?


Um, since it's already been pointed out to you that the "out of control spending" argument is a crock, the honorable thing for you to do is consider your other choice.

Hint: we need to raise revenues.
 
2012-12-14 03:22:50 PM
S.E. Cupp just almost lost her shiat on MSNBC.
 
Displayed 22 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 closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report