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 61
    More: Interesting, GOP, Republican, Jim VandeHei, Boehner  
•       •       •

5805 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-12-13 09:22:48 AM
23 votes:

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.
2012-12-13 09:30:46 AM
9 votes:
Decent enough article I suppose. What seems to be lacking, here and in other discussions, is that Congress is the body that approves spending. So it seems a little disingenuous to me to hear from them that "spending is out of control."

Coupled with the fact that they were on a spending spree and ran up the national card under Bush, I can only conclude that their real concern is not out of control spending. It's to stymie the president and preserve the many gifts to the rich, which we cannot afford, given under Bush.

Words and deeds.

And people like Orin Hatch should cram it. He fully admitted they didn't even think about how to pay for shiat when Bush was in the White House.

Do I believe we need to restrain spending? Sure, if done intelligently and fairly. Do I believe Congress is serious about it? Fark no.
2012-12-13 09:28:07 AM
8 votes:
Republicans demand that President Obama produce an offer of higher spending cuts, and Obama replies that Republicans should say what spending cuts they want, and Republicans insist that Obama should try to guess what kind of spending cuts they would like.

Uh, TFA author isn't wrong here. I keep hearing about "cuts" but only in nebulous form.

pecosdave: Spending is out of control. The GOP is just as guilty as the Democrats for it too, which is why I refer to them as "Republicrats". Both parties have the same goal in mind - control where the money flows - the only difference is where they want it to go, and they don't always disagree on that. Neither of them truly cares to reduce spending, they want to reduce it over "there" so we can spend it "here" instead.


When Eric Cantor went on The Daily Show a couple of years ago, Stewart showed a rarely seen angry streak. He basically called bullsh*t. To paraphrase it, "Stop telling me you want smaller government. The only difference is where you the government involved."

And he was right. We have multiple examples of Republican administrations ballooning the deficit, and yet they still look at us with a straight face and claim to be the party of "fiscal responsibility."

Well, they can all just fark right off. Just like Fox makes loud claims to be the polar opposite of what they actually are, the GOP will piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. And they have the nerve to wonder aloud why fewer people are taking them seriously these days.
2012-12-13 09:27:19 AM
7 votes:

pecosdave: Spending is out of control.


Apparently, what "out of control" looks like:
2.bp.blogspot.com

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.
2012-12-13 09:17:26 AM
6 votes:
Spending is out of control. The GOP is just as guilty as the Democrats for it too, which is why I refer to them as "Republicrats". Both parties have the same goal in mind - control where the money flows - the only difference is where they want it to go, and they don't always disagree on that. Neither of them truly cares to reduce spending, they want to reduce it over "there" so we can spend it "here" instead.
2012-12-13 11:40:59 AM
4 votes:

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.


Oh the GOP certainly has a proposal for defense spending.

www.washingtonpost.com

Link
2012-12-13 10:04:12 AM
4 votes:
The article resonated with me on the GOP's unwillingness to name what it is they want to cut (the Pauls excepted). But the article claims spending is rock-bottom. Were we to cut Defense spending by 50%, we're looking at a deficit for 2012 that's almost $1t - a number few people argue can be made up with revenue (we can get maybe halfway there). So if the article is right, we can't do anything and we're completely doomed. That doesn't seem likely.

There's a laundry list of sins that have been committed over the last few decades, and trying to argue over it now is like trying to argue over Israel Palestine and never getting past who did what to whom 90 years ago. The truth is that we have a serious problem that needs addressing, and the Republicans in the legislature have not been honest in dealing with Obama, being more concerned about their party's short-term vulnerability. They're still being cowards, and yet they're trapped because Obama is holding the best hand and he knows it. He's apparently willing to go off the cliff, now that his job is safe. Had Romney won, the situation would be reversed, and it would be the Democrats who were backed into a corner. But events have not been kind to Republicans, and their unwillingness to deal with reality is driving us off an entirely different cliff.
2012-12-13 09:24:24 AM
4 votes:

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.


QFT
2012-12-13 12:07:46 PM
3 votes:

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.
2012-12-13 09:38:36 AM
3 votes:

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

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

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

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

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

You want instant results?

The economy doesn't work like your broadband internet connection. These things take TIME. You maybe need to revisit your expectations and consider taking a more reasonable approach here. Maybe buy a better watch?


Seriously.

Ever run up your credit? Try doing that, while also cutting your salary. Tell me how long it takes you to pay that off. Eating Ramen will only get you so far.
2012-12-13 09:33:24 AM
3 votes:

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

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

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

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

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


You want instant results?

The economy doesn't work like your broadband internet connection. These things take TIME. You maybe need to revisit your expectations and consider taking a more reasonable approach here. Maybe buy a better watch?
2012-12-13 09:31:46 AM
3 votes:
spending is only out of control when the guy in the White House has a "D" next to his name.
2012-12-13 04:24:29 PM
2 votes:

BeesNuts: A while ago you were mostly focused on the merits of the gold standard. I wanna have that conversation. I couldn't care less about RON PAUL if I tried. Is he even a congresscritter anymore?


It's a horrible concept. The price of gold, due to its rarity, is extremely fluid. What if somebody bought up a bunch of gold? Would we no longer be able to export goods thanks to the strong dollar? The whole point of capitalism is loaning money to people who will produce something with it. How does gold help this?

If we really want to go with a linked currency, go with beer. Make a can of the usual American swill $1. The U.S. can have a "U.S. Strategic Beer Reserve" where it owns giant tanks of beer before it gets canned. The exchange rate would be how much domestic beer costs in the other country, so one Euro would get you 12 oz of Belgian beer, for example.

If the country falls apart and the dollar is worthless, what's gold going to do for you? Nobody's going to want gold. But beer...beer is always valuable.
2012-12-13 03:12:32 PM
2 votes:

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


We're accusing Ron Paul of talking about how he wants to take the high road but refuses to impose the results of that high road onto his constituency because that would be 'unfair'.
2012-12-13 01:40:47 PM
2 votes:

BoxOfBees: Libertarianism by itself is not a foundation for a just society. The proposal is that limiting government, especially at the federal level, is beneficial for individuals, families, and businesses.


The first sentence simply means that Libertarianism, as a philosophy, is unsound. It is not a complete, true answer to the ideal relationship between individual and government. The second sentence reinforces this, as it shows one of the biggest issues with Libertarianism - it relies on the federal/state structure of the United States for its assumptions. The argument that states can decide better than the fed - or that tyranny at the local is 'better' than tyranny at the general - is problem specific. You can't apply the formula to a government that doesn't keep much power at a smaller level. Libertarianism is fundamentally flawed and by definition it is not universal.

BoxOfBees: If "the government" is the solution, then we will all be happy when "the government" takes over. We will have justice and fairness. We will treat each other well at all times. This we know not to be the case. Now, in the Libertarian view, the government is a major part of the problem. The problem is taking away freedom and power from all the people in favor of a select few. The people are no longer free moral agents, but merely cogs in a technocratic machine which aims to produce perfect contentment through manipulation of material goods, behavior, and the relationships between various persons and groups.


This is wrong on a few fronts. Libertarianism does not create a different type of freedom than (say) a social democrat's solution. It's not ultimate freedom, as even the most Libertarian psycho would agree that the government has a role to enforce contracts. So you're not talking about something fundamentally different than what you're arguing against, you're simply saying the slider should be a more on one side than the other. But your language in discussing it is dishonest in failing to recognize that. You're arguing it as if it were a binary case, that the freedom you have to operate as a moral agent under the EPA is a totally different creature than the freedom you have to operate under a privatized replacement. It's not.

BoxOfBees: Why do Libertarians think excessive spending on warfare and welfare programs is a bad idea? It is inherently unfair (gives decision-making power and monetary wealth to a disproportionate few) and inherently unjust (fails to develop free and moral human agency in society).


The problem is the fundamental nature of government is welfare. You cannot afford privatized security forces, but government taxes other people - including many who probably could afford privatized security forces - to pay for your security. In every case, government does not provide anything novel that could not be provided privately, generally speaking. But the recognition is that in many cases - especially on the fringe of capacity to afford - the value to society of handing out that welfare check (or paying for police forces) is higher than the burden to society of collecting the revenues required to write the check in the first place.

By couching Libertarianism in terms that paint it as a completely different approach, you only speak to your own ignorance.
2012-12-13 01:34:29 PM
2 votes:

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Couple that with the fact that the President of the United States has the largest most impressive soapbox in the history of man and has just now started talking about cuts and you see why I dont think his heart is in it.


Obama signed the Budget Control Act from the first debt ceiling go round.

$1.5T in spending cuts in exchange for zero tax increases. So whose heart isn't it?
2012-12-13 12:48:29 PM
2 votes:

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

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

[www.intellectualtakeout.org image 650x442]


That's somewhat misleading. You have to compare it against a number of other factors (GDP and population, amongst others). Pure dollar amounts tell you almost nothing. Our spending could have tripled in ten years, but if our population had a boom and our GDP (somehow) sextupled, we'd probably be spending too little. Clearly, this isn't the case, and I agree with you that the spending needs to be drawn down (as is beginning to happen, as others have pointed out). It's just that chart is really meaningless save to be "scary" to people who don't understand big numbers.

/okay, yes, I was looking for an excuse to write "sextupled" 
2012-12-13 12:22:26 PM
2 votes:

AirForceVet: pecosdave: Are you defending a president, a party, or a timeline?

It's inexcusable now, it was inexcusable 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 15 years ago. If you're defending parties you're doing the wrong thing, it's nothing but one group of thugs versus another. "Both" parties are guilty and if you're using that recent dip to defend the whole system you're still defending criminals either way. My watch is set via NIST BTW.

Oh, I see you are a Libertarian in your profile. You don't believe government has any role in protecting its people. No services, roads, health care, etc. Everybody is on their own. How cute. Of course, Libertarians was hard to define as they range from none to some government involvement in their lives.

As for both parties being "criminals" and "thugs," well, that's pretty cynical and inaccurate. That's like me saying Libertarians are anti-government until they need something from the government, like the home mortgage interest deduction, business depreciation rates, or clean water, food, safe drugs, etc.

Why don't you just admit you don't want government in your life and move to some barrier island, set up a lean-to shelter, catch fish, drink rainwater? That would be Libertarian Paradise, am I right?


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 there were anarchy, like you're painting me to want, there would be no taxes, what would I be deducting my interest from? I'm pretty sure MUD districts work rather well without being an actual tax, I lived in one for a while, the water was safe. My God! How did people live for all those thousands of years before there was an FDA?!?!?! Don't you think non-government organizations would pop up to bless things? Sort of like the Snell rating on motorcycle helmets? Never mind you can buy stuff without the seal, it's a gamble you chose to take or not - like buying a Nintendo peripheral without the seal of quality....
2012-12-13 10:48:36 AM
2 votes:

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.


Two major problems in your post.

1) Assets cost money to maintain. We have an excess of assets that are unused that only cost us. They cost us to create and cost us to maintain. The investment is pure cost.

2) We get assets back from spending on the poor because it helps keep them participating in the economy, which benefits us all. That's why welfare reform was so successful and good for the country in the 90s. It was focused on keeping people people participating in and contributing to the economy.
2012-12-13 09:41:16 AM
2 votes:
i1282.photobucket.com

The deficit is currently dropping at a rate of 3%, the fastest since WWII. If it were to drop any faster, it could cause a recession.
2012-12-13 09:29:40 AM
2 votes:
OK, I'll start fact-checking.

"The GOP claim...."

www.inc.com
2012-12-13 09:28:05 AM
2 votes:

pecosdave: Spending is out of control. The GOP is just as guilty as the Democrats for it too, which is why I refer to them as "Republicrats". Both parties have the same goal in mind - control where the money flows - the only difference is where they want it to go, and they don't always disagree on that. Neither of them truly cares to reduce spending, they want to reduce it over "there" so we can spend it "here" instead.


What a bold position you took there! You're the first one ever to point out that both sides are bad, but to do so by coining the phrase "Republicrats" is GENIUS! It's like you just sorta combined the names of the two parties, thereby demonstrating that there's no difference between the two. Which would be awesome if it weren't complete, utter bullshiat.
2012-12-14 12:59:00 AM
1 votes:

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 12:34:28 AM
1 votes:

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 12:31:52 AM
1 votes:

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
2012-12-13 10:15:33 PM
1 votes:

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 09:06:01 PM
1 votes:

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.
2012-12-13 05:32:38 PM
1 votes:

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 04:38:02 PM
1 votes:
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 04:36:16 PM
1 votes:

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 04:15:21 PM
1 votes:

MattStafford: CPennypacker: You just trade them for stagnated growth caused by tying you rmonetary supply to how many rocks you can dig out of the ground. Makes much more sense.

Your growth is stagnated based on your supply of currency. The currency just deflates in value. If there is 1000 pieces of gold and 1000 loaves of bread in society, and someone develops a machine that now produces 10,000 loaves, growth didn't stop or anything like that, gold has just deflated.


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?
2012-12-13 03:56:18 PM
1 votes:

MattStafford: Alright, let's change the analogy. Suppose everyone is pitching in for food. One guy wants wings, everyone else wants Chinese.


Ron Paul is not advocating different spending, he is advocating no spending.

Suppose everyone chips in money to attend a meeting. The majority of people at the meeting decide to use some of the money to order Chinese food. One dude says he's not hungry, and goes on a huge rant about how Chinese food makes you fat and unhealthy and is ruining the country. Then he asks for an some sweet and sour chicken, crab rangoon and a shrimp egg roll.
2012-12-13 03:36:00 PM
1 votes:

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 03:20:44 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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

Yes.

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

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

This is what liberals actually believe.


What an awful analogy
2012-12-13 03:12:18 PM
1 votes:

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



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

upload.wikimedia.org

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

The US is responsible for 41% of all military spending globally. Big boogeyman China? about 8.2%
2012-12-13 02:34:56 PM
1 votes:

propasaurus: NIST? The US government time agency? Sorry, NIST isn't on the Constition.


NIST stands for "National Institute of Standards and Technology." It's not an agency solely dedicated to "time."

And as for the Constitution...

Article I, Section 8

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures

So many Fark Libertarians...
2012-12-13 02:18:43 PM
1 votes:
Why is it that any "fact" that starts with "The GOP claims" is usually complete bullshiat?
2012-12-13 01:30:43 PM
1 votes:
Compare US government spending as a percent of GDP to other countries in the developed world - it's relatively low, but not the absolute lowest, IIRC. Then compare it to countries with a much lower standard of living - it's much higher than those.

You can't run a prosperous country on the cheap. Taxes are the price we pay for civilization. There are a lot of countries with much lower tax rates, but they're not very nice places to live. Public services cost money, and we're not funding a lot of them adequately as it is.
2012-12-13 01:23:19 PM
1 votes:
Sorry to spam all of this images, but this one is good to put our credit problem in context.

blog.moneymanagedproperly.com

The pain we've gone through so far is only the smallest bit of deleveraging. If we are headed back towards historical norms, which I believe we are, better get a helmet. Oh, and if you wonder how this credit problem came about, just take a look at what happened to the Fed Funds Rate right around 1980.
2012-12-13 01:20:22 PM
1 votes:
My apologies, I should have found a more recent graph:

snbchf.snbchfcom.netdna-cdn.com

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.
2012-12-13 01:02:36 PM
1 votes:

The Stealth Hippopotamus: The President had 4 years to start cutting/ raising taxes and he didn't


You realize it's Congress that has the power to modify tax rates, right? Not the President?
2012-12-13 12:53:45 PM
1 votes:

whidbey: sprawl15: I want meth sold at Walgreens, but I also want it regulated and taxed.

I've seen you post that before. That's just a bizarre thing to want.


Why?

If one consenting adult wants to shiat in a bottle and sell it to another consenting adult, that's not my farking problem. I may find it disgusting and stupid and something I'd never do, but those are the same arguments used for sodomy laws. My personal opinion on the substance shouldn't be a factor in it.

The point where I differ strongly from libertarians on this (and similar topics) is that I recognize the dangers inherent in information asymmetry. The consumer has to know the risks inherent in the transaction to have honest consent. And that's where the government's role is - to regulate the substance not just to ensure it's not laced with anything or produced in some neckbeard's van, but to ensure the consumer knows just what they're getting into if they choose to do it. Because it's certainly not in the interests of the meth manufacturer to inform people.

make me some tea: The first target, however, is the insurance companies.


I know. But targeting insurance companies is like targeting fraud/waste/abuse - not really a bad thing per se, but it kind of ignores the underlying problem.
2012-12-13 12:50:58 PM
1 votes:

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.
2012-12-13 12:45:11 PM
1 votes:

pecosdave: sugardave: I wonder which side of the aisle benefits from this more and has actively worked to fan the flames? I'm sure it's both sides, somehow.

I'm going to disagree. The left seems to find out what the right doesn't like and make a bunch of noise about it and force issues to make the right look bad. The right does it's best to not fan flames and keep a good face while they try to be sneaky about what they do. The left benefits from trumpeting/fanning more - it's solidarity - it's a battle cry to round up like people. The right likes to look like it's being reasonable and responsible to gain the confidence of voters who think they're reasonable and responsible.

No - the left does a lot more flame fanning - it's their strength.


Oh yeah, I totally forgot the hordes of liberals screaming about needing to take their country back. And the cries of "he's not one of us!" when Bush 2 was elected. It also bothers me how liberals are always going on and talking about leeches and moochers. Oh, and don't get me started on the liberals and their hatred for marriage equality and homosexuals in general. Why are liberals so divisive?
2012-12-13 12:18:45 PM
1 votes:

make me some tea: Hence why ObamaCare was passed to cap and attempt to reduce the growth of medical expenses in the private market.

If ObamaCare doesn't work, the next logical step is to introduce single payer, and government-set provider fees, which means we all become socialists.


The majority of that's focused on the insurance - rather than care - costs and mitigation of risk via larger pools.

Simple things like allowing Medicare to directly negotiate prescription prices are what I'm talking about.
2012-12-13 12:12:33 PM
1 votes:

GAT_00: The only place spending is out of control is defense spending


Health care costs.

They're the biggest problem with Medicare/Medicaid/personal insurance, yet there's been very little done to try to directly address them. If we could reduce those significantly, we'd be able to cut massive amounts of spending on Medicare/Medicaid without reducing benefits.
2012-12-13 12:10:23 PM
1 votes:
There really isn't money to be cut everywhere. The United States spends way less money on social services than do other advanced countries, and even that low figure is inflated by our sky-high health-care prices. The retirement benefits to programs like Social Security are quite meager. Public infrastructure is grossly underfunded.

wonderpho.files.wordpress.com
2012-12-13 12:07:42 PM
1 votes:

pecosdave: Are you defending a president, a party, or a timeline?

It's inexcusable now, it was inexcusable 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 15 years ago. If you're defending parties you're doing the wrong thing, it's nothing but one group of thugs versus another. "Both" parties are guilty and if you're using that recent dip to defend the whole system you're still defending criminals either way. My watch is set via NIST BTW.


Oh, I see you are a Libertarian in your profile. You don't believe government has any role in protecting its people. No services, roads, health care, etc. Everybody is on their own. How cute. Of course, Libertarians was hard to define as they range from none to some government involvement in their lives.

As for both parties being "criminals" and "thugs," well, that's pretty cynical and inaccurate. That's like me saying Libertarians are anti-government until they need something from the government, like the home mortgage interest deduction, business depreciation rates, or clean water, food, safe drugs, etc.

Why don't you just admit you don't want government in your life and move to some barrier island, set up a lean-to shelter, catch fish, drink rainwater? That would be Libertarian Paradise, am I right?
2012-12-13 12:04:08 PM
1 votes:

GAT_00: lennavan: 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.

Oh the GOP certainly has a proposal for defense spending.

[www.washingtonpost.com image 500x326]

Link

Jesus. I knew he wanted to hike defense spending, but I didn't realize by that much.


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

Yeah, that seems legit.
2012-12-13 11:39:17 AM
1 votes:
Let's unpack this a bit. We all know Republicans want to spend less money.

No, we don't all know that. What's hilarious is people believe it, including "journalists" who are supposed to get at the truth. But yeah, those guys who just proposed $2 trillion more in defense spending totally want to spend less money, that's why they went after NPR.
2012-12-13 11:00:23 AM
1 votes:

make me some tea: Hence why I'm kinda glad I'm staying home for the holidays.


A wise person once told me that the best holidays are the ones spent with friends, rather than family.
2012-12-13 10:38:05 AM
1 votes:

pecosdave: Spending is out of control.


This is how pretty much everyone in Washington and almost all conservative things.

Spending (the abstract idea) is totally out of control!
Spending (in our actual budget) is pretty critical and we can't afford to cut anything!
2012-12-13 10:03:46 AM
1 votes:

Diogenes: Chariset: d. Obama is going to double the tax on a bottle of aspirin -- because it's white and it works

LOL. I'm keeping that for the next time I'm in a bar with strangers and have to pretend to be a moronic conservative.


You should also throw in that you also have to pick cotton to get to it, which reminds the urban moochers of the last time any of them did any actual work.
2012-12-13 10:03:03 AM
1 votes:
The Republican understanding of government spending is based on hazy, abstract notions that don't match reality

The Republican understanding of EVERYTHING doesn't match reality.
2012-12-13 10:01:49 AM
1 votes:
It's unfortunate our political parties have polarized the people such as they have. The fundamental differences between left and right thinking people are how they approach things, rugged individualism or strength in numbers. Neither is exclusive in their thinking, it's just their default mindset. Left and right thinking people compliment and strengthen one another when they're not polarized into fighting about everything. Both types of people are valuable to society as a whole and keep each other in a balance in a "normal" state of affairs. I'm convinced most of the special interest that polarize the two groups would be easily become background noise if there weren't faction on either side pounding the war drums pushing the fights.
2012-12-13 09:56:07 AM
1 votes:
Oooh, another one of those MadLib headlines.

The GOP claim that "__________" sounds like a rational argument, until you fact-check it

a. Poor women shouldn't have access to reproductive health care
b. Gay people marrying will cause the end of the world
c. There is a war on Christmas which will result in Baby Jesus being lynched in the street
d. Obama is going to double the tax on a bottle of aspirin -- because it's white and it works
2012-12-13 09:50:01 AM
1 votes:

pecosdave: The GOP is just as guilty as the Democrats for it too, which is why I refer to them as "Republicrats".


I prefer Doodiecrats and Republiqueefs.
2012-12-13 09:43:43 AM
1 votes:

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Spending is out of control, just because we did it in the past doesnt mean that it isnt now.


True. Two wrongs and all that. But the fact remains that Obama has plans for or already has paid for what he's proposed. That was not true under Bush. All I'm saying is the mewling from Republicans right now is highly hollow. In addition to the fact that they are complicit in national spending. That's a large part of their job.
2012-12-13 09:41:05 AM
1 votes:
Spending is out of control, just because we did it in the past doesnt mean that it isnt now.
2012-12-13 09:40:22 AM
1 votes:

Vodka Zombie: You want instant results?

The economy doesn't work like your broadband internet connection. These things take TIME. You maybe need to revisit your expectations and consider taking a more reasonable approach here. Maybe buy a better watch?


Are you defending a president, a party, or a timeline?

It's inexcusable now, it was inexcusable 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 15 years ago. If you're defending parties you're doing the wrong thing, it's nothing but one group of thugs versus another. "Both" parties are guilty and if you're using that recent dip to defend the whole system you're still defending criminals either way. My watch is set via NIST BTW.
2012-12-13 09:29:44 AM
1 votes:

Vodka Zombie: pecosdave: Spending is out of control.

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

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

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


May not be at its peak, but it's still looks a little out of control to me.
 
Displayed 61 of 61 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report