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 34
    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 (Funniest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-12-13 09:50:01 AM
11 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 09:28:05 AM
7 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.
2012-12-13 04:36:18 PM
5 votes:
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 10:43:46 AM
5 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.


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.
2012-12-13 09:29:40 AM
4 votes:
OK, I'll start fact-checking.

"The GOP claim...."

www.inc.com
2012-12-13 09:57:53 AM
3 votes:

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.
2012-12-13 09:34:02 AM
3 votes:
the GOP won't let their position be dictated by fact-checkers!
2012-12-13 09:24:55 AM
3 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.


Huh. So both sides ar bad, you say? What a novel concept.
2012-12-13 12:15:30 PM
2 votes:
: unyon: Trivia Jockey: rumpelstiltskin: 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.


So... we shoot the fat people out of the tanks, thereby turning both programs into investments while actually getting some use out of our assets before we sell them to the people who will try to use the tanks against us in the next war.

PROBLEM SOLVED
2012-12-13 10:39:18 AM
2 votes:

Somacandra: [i.imgur.com image 320x213] [i.imgur.com image 200x213] [i.imgur.com image 320x213] [i.imgur.com image 200x213]

DO NOT MAKE RON PAUL ANGRY
YOU WOULD NOT LIKE HIM WHEN HE'S ANGRY


I don't like him when he's happy either.
2012-12-13 10:19:18 AM
2 votes:

pecosdave: 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.


upload.wikimedia.org 

Approves.
2012-12-13 09:56:07 AM
2 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
2012-12-14 10:29:44 AM
1 votes:

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"
2012-12-13 05:19:50 PM
1 votes:

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 04:42:39 PM
1 votes:

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 04:24:29 PM
1 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 03:56:18 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 03:51:23 PM
1 votes:

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


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

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

You may laugh at my observations of Libertarians. But I giggling at your silly rantings. Oh, my, you are a silly, silly goose. ;-)
2012-12-13 03:39:16 PM
1 votes:

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

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


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

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

/ron paul 2016
2012-12-13 03:25:05 PM
1 votes:
MattStafford: Isitoveryet: how about cutting the b.s. or sticking to your principles. maybe find a way to find funding for his constituent without the earmarks and the doublespeak? generate revenue another way? i mean if not for earmarks he wouldn't receive any fed funds?

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

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

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


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


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

Thanks
2012-12-13 03:20:55 PM
1 votes:

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


This is a reference to taxes, isn't it?
2012-12-13 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 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 01:25:36 PM
1 votes:
www.westernjournalism.com

The President's refusal to do my job for me shows that he's not serious about negotiating! Also, Tang.
2012-12-13 12:58:01 PM
1 votes:

pecosdave: Duke Slater: A couple of years ago Ann Coulter was on Bill Maher, and the topic of spending came up. She said twice that nobody in Washington from either party is interested in reducing spending one bit.

Granted, she's an insufferable kuunt, but if she says anything derogatory about the Republicans it is almost certainly true, right? What are they going to do, call her a RINO?

I've heard Coulter rip into Republicans on multiple occasions. She's a real Republican, by real I mean one who follows their written mission statement, which really is a rather noble statement just generally ignored by the party at large. She doesn't like corrupt Republicans, she just tolerates them a little more than she does corrupt Democrats since they're at least "in the right direction mostly". No, I've actually heard her single out and praise individual Democrats for the doing the right thing on occasion also, even when it's been in opposition to a corrupt Republican.


He's still not going to sleep with you.

Er, SHE, I mean. She. Yes, but she's still not going to sleep with you.
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 12:44:23 PM
1 votes:

sprawl15: In the sense that I come to a similar conclusion. I want meth sold at Walgreens, but I also want it regulated and taxed.


Well that certainly won't work- with crippling regulations on small meth labs, how do you expect them to make it in this economy? And taxing it? People are already hurting, why deny them of their small pleasures? Next thing you know someone's going to be proposing that meth labs provide health care to their employees, and that is coming right out of the consumer's pocket.
2012-12-13 12:38:46 PM
1 votes:

Duke Slater: A couple of years ago Ann Coulter was on Bill Maher, and the topic of spending came up. She said twice that nobody in Washington from either party is interested in reducing spending one bit.

Granted, she's an insufferable kuunt, but if she says anything derogatory about the Republicans it is almost certainly true, right? What are they going to do, call her a RINO?


I've heard Coulter rip into Republicans on multiple occasions. She's a real Republican, by real I mean one who follows their written mission statement, which really is a rather noble statement just generally ignored by the party at large. She doesn't like corrupt Republicans, she just tolerates them a little more than she does corrupt Democrats since they're at least "in the right direction mostly". No, I've actually heard her single out and praise individual Democrats for the doing the right thing on occasion also, even when it's been in opposition to a corrupt Republican.
2012-12-13 12:14:24 PM
1 votes:
if you're not willing to inflict epic levels of suffering on the very poor, there just aren't a lot of cuts to be had out there.

In other words, the GOP sees lots of cuts to be had out there.
2012-12-13 11:40:59 AM
1 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 11:15:19 AM
1 votes:

Trivia Jockey: rumpelstiltskin: 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're being facetious, right? I hope?


I couldn't tell either. He's gooood.
2012-12-13 10:59:47 AM
1 votes:

rumpelstiltskin: 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're being facetious, right? I hope?
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 09:28:07 AM
1 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.
 
Displayed 34 of 34 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report