Zasteva: That's not entirely true. Money that is spent on weapon systems does not have the same positive effect on the economy. Compare building an fighter to building a road, for example. In both cases, you get benefits of the pay going to workers and spending on materials. But with the fighter, the benefits stop there. The road, on the other hand, provides ongoing economic benefits to everyone who uses it long after it is built.That's not to say that that you can't waste money on a useless road, or that you don't get some benefits from security provided by a fighter. But currently we have plenty of fighters, and an aging and often inadequate infrastructure in many other areas.
InmanRoshi: Corvus: There is almost nothing that gives me more joy than watching the GOP screw themselves over.How can he not take Obama's deal now? He can't get the votes to pass his own deal in the Republican house.GOP you suck!!!He can't even take Obama's deal, because he can't deliver votes on it.At this point, Obama is better off going around him and working with Pelosi to reach out to whatever small sliver of sane moderates are left in the GOP to strike a deal that will get them to join the Democrats to get enough vote to pass the House. I know moderate sane Republicans are all but an extinct species, but there have to be some defense hawks from military districts who are shiatting bricks right now about now.
Mentat: We're not in disagreement on any of this. But again, we're talking about different time frames. Rachel Maddow showed a graph tonight that showed projected growth figures for the next two quarters. If we go off the cliff, growth will go from 3.1% (3Q2012) to 2% (4Q2012) to -3.9% (1Q2013). That's the time frame we're talking about.
cloakandbadger: Say what you want about Tom Delay... but he would not have put up with this sh*t. Republican rank and file would be waking up to horse heads.
Resin33: Why would cuts in defense spending be a bad thing? I think too much is spent on defense already and am all in favor of cuts in that area. Where is the negative component?Because the defense industry employs a lot of people. People who are educated and paid very handsomely. A lot of white collar people would lose their jobs, which will be a bigger impact to the economy than all the construction workers who lost their jobs in 2008.
Mentat: thornhill: Mentat: From the perspective of the economy, it doesn't matter where the money is being spent so long as it's being spent. Long term, obviously, it would be better to reallocate to domestic spending, but that's not the issue with the fiscal cliff.That's not right at all. Spending it on infrastructure produces more longterm economic activity than defense spending. Taking Hurricane Sandy as an example, if we spent $6 billion or so on a sea wall that could prevent flooding to Lower Manhattan, that would prevent future huge economic losses when Lower Manhattan floods. Or just think of all the economic activity that can occur thanks to a bridge or highway.Once again, we're arguing about different time scales. I absolutely agree that in the long term, domestic spending is better because it represents an investment that will generate greater returns than what we put in. But in the immediate term, a sudden loss of government spending is going to have a negative economic impact. RIGHT NOW, it doesn't matter where the money is being spent, only that it's being spent. If that happens, it's going to have an immediate negative economic effect.
Dusk-You-n-Me: Carn: Why?I think he was kidding. But you're absolutely right. The Senate passed an extension of the <$250K tax cuts back in July. They can pass those again and force the GOP to make a decision. Cut taxes for 98% of Americans or vote against tax cuts - and at the same time vote against their entire political philosophy for the last 30 years.
Darth_Lukecash: Worse. Speaker. Of. The. House. Ever.This man is bad at his job.
MaudlinMutantMollusk: kg2095: That's the face of someone who has seen Newton naked.Awwww, man... I did NOT need that mental image/I mean... just..... GAaahhhh!
RandomRandom: So who's going to be the new Speaker of the House?Boehner shouldn't even want the job any longer. The teabaggers set him up, then left him out to hang. He should be thinking "fark them".If the tea party installs one of their own as speaker, any remaining charade of Republican willingness to negotiate will evaporate. Boehner may be a terrible leader, but he's not a complete wingnut. If they vote a tea party wingnut into the job, it might result in their losing the house in the 2014 mid-terms./Here's hoping//We are almost certainly going over the cliff. Now, the Repubicans are going to get all of the blame.///Popcorn
NewportBarGuy: On a positive note, gasoline might break below $3!
COMALite J: No, he really is the worst.Not just in incompetence, but also in sheer evil and willingness to corrupt the process without a hint of shame nor conscience.
Tyranicle: If I was Boner, I would have said 'f+ck it, do whatever you want'. That way, when and if the economy collapses, the American people can place all blame on the black feller, the repub party is destroyed (which it is already) and Americans will finally create a true nationalist party.
12349876: I assume they're all up there by now.
Mentat: So all of you on the left who were raging at Obama for compromising, this is why I told you to relax. The GOP is farking clown shoes.
fatassbastard: 12349876: I assume they're all up there by now.Why assume? :)
BeSerious: Wait, he was actually trying to get Republicans to go for the tax hike?Actually?
Crafty Bernardo: Obama's offering this guy a lifeline by trying to give him cover with an increase to $400k and chained CPI on social security...All Obama has to do is wait for the "cliff" to happen and then come back and say "OK, how about tax cuts for everyone making under $250k, huh? Maybe I'll give back half the automatic Pentagon cuts, too.. You gonna go on record voting against tax cuts and military spending, Republican House members? Hmmm...I think Boehner wants to take the deal today, but his constituency, and many House republicans, are cray-cray and he knows it.
angryjd: Pelosi doesn't want a deal. The only deal she wants would raise taxes to a point that would sink the future of the Democratic party in order to not make entitlement cuts. Her entire plan was premised on Republicans going over the cliff and taking the blame for it. There is no going around Boehner at this point. There is NO proposal that can pass both houses of congress.
MaudlinMutantMollusk: Cry havoc! And let slip the cuts to war!
The Jami Turman Fan Club: New Senate rules
sonnyboy11: Resin33: Why would cuts in defense spending be a bad thing? I think too much is spent on defense already and am all in favor of cuts in that area. Where is the negative component?Because the defense industry employs a lot of people. People who are educated and paid very handsomely. A lot of white collar people would lose their jobs, which will be a bigger impact to the economy than all the construction workers who lost their jobs in 2008.So because we are worried some defense contractors would lose their jobs, we should just stay the course and let government ram something through to help save them? I'm sorry but that's not a good reason. I lost my job this past year and had to retrain and re-adjust my skills to get back into the job market doing something at the salary I desire. I'm sorry for all these defense contractors who are paid handsomely and might lose their jobs- but tough situation. They're educated and they'll be fine. And I'm not saying I want the economy overall to suffer or want to see a massive increase in unemployment. But defense spending needs to be cut, even if pain is felt by us all in the short term.
Grungehamster: incendi: Clearly, this just shows how unwilling Obama is to compromise.Within a year you'll hear conservatives Bob Woodward saying that Boehner made such significant concessions in his counteroffer that the Republican party couldn't support it, so that is proof that Obama didn't compromise enough if Democrats would still vote for his offer.
LouisXIII: sonnyboy11: Dusk-You-n-Me: sonnyboy11: Is this chance of recession the only real reason not to strike some kind of deal now?We have to raise taxes and cut spending or else we'll go over the cliff which will result in us raising taxes and cutting spending.So in short, this is all a buncha nonsense. Good. Let's go over the damn cliff already! Whatever it takes to get the wealthy back to paying their fair share.Well, the House will either eat shiat or own the recession. Not a great prognosis.
This Face Left Blank: The Teabaggers are the ones who are the ball-lickers. The Democrats are gonna maintain our social safety net while they watch and cry like little whiny biatches. Once we get to Washington and find those Tea Party farks who is holding up progress... we're gonna make them eat our bills, then shiat out our bills, and then eat their shiat that's made up of our bills that we made 'em eat. Then you're all you Senate GOP motherfarks are next.Love,Jay and Silent Bob.
Smackledorfer: sonnyboy11: Resin33: Why would cuts in defense spending be a bad thing? I think too much is spent on defense already and am all in favor of cuts in that area. Where is the negative component?Because the defense industry employs a lot of people. People who are educated and paid very handsomely. A lot of white collar people would lose their jobs, which will be a bigger impact to the economy than all the construction workers who lost their jobs in 2008.So because we are worried some defense contractors would lose their jobs, we should just stay the course and let government ram something through to help save them? I'm sorry but that's not a good reason. I lost my job this past year and had to retrain and re-adjust my skills to get back into the job market doing something at the salary I desire. I'm sorry for all these defense contractors who are paid handsomely and might lose their jobs- but tough situation. They're educated and they'll be fine. And I'm not saying I want the economy overall to suffer or want to see a massive increase in unemployment. But defense spending needs to be cut, even if pain is felt by us all in the short term.It isn't just that. It is that the cuts, by design to incentivise a compromise, are inefficient as all hell. So expect more jobs lost than a controlled 10% cut would have AND 'good' money turned bad as programs cost 90% of what they used to but deliver 80% of the results. Our budgets are bloated, but they aren't random, and the bloat isn't going to be what gets cut.You won't see the overpriced backscatters get sold off by tsa, you will see them kept in a garage or left unmaintained while agents get fired. I know, fark the tsa, but double fark the massive spending on mediocre toys. The political will that bought them isn't taking the cut here. The employees likely havw less voice than the machines.And so on throughout both the defense department AND the "entitlements".Only a foolish libertarian would want the cuts over a compr ...
Arcturus72: Why can't we herd all of the House and Senate back in there (yes, I know, herding cats) and chain lock the doors until they figure something workable out, while they're dropped down to minimum wages for a year?Oh yeah, that's right... Because it's all Obama's fault...We're completely farked, either way...
NukeEuropeNow: enry:For all the misguided hate on Pelosi, she really got stuff done.You know who else got shiat done?
Seth'n'Spectrum: The Jami Turman Fan Club: New Senate rulesWait, what's in the pipeline with regards to these?
Zulu_as_Kono: Let's not forget that this is only a week or so after Mitch McConnell maneuvered himself into threatening to filibuster his own bill.
Gosling: In a parliamentary system, we'd be calling new elections right about now.
Gawdzila: Wow, the TP'ers and the rest of the Republicans must be incredibly stupid.Now Obama, the Dems, and everyone else in the country knows that they're incapable of making even the smallest overtures at compromise, even after Obama made some very reasonable offers to meet in the middle. Either the Democrats will just find a few moderate Republicans (if such a thing exists) and barter for votes to get their plan passed ASAP and in the process probably get more of what they want than with Obama's last offer, or they will go over the cliff. At that point everyone will know that the Republicans are completely responsible for it, and the Dems will be able to negotiate from the standpoint of lowering taxes. Just watch how popular Republicans become if they try and stall tax cuts on everyone in the name of arguing for tax cuts on $250k+ earners.
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Jul 22 2017 18:14:08
Runtime: 0.543 sec (543 ms)