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.

(Political Wire)   Said one prominent Republican about plunging off the fiscal cliff: "It's a shiat show. Tax rates are going to go up on everyone, and we're going to get the blame"   (politicalwire.com) divider line 197
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

3378 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Dec 2012 at 9:30 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



197 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-29 11:14:20 AM  

Seabon: o5iiawah: jayhawk88: Good, you worthless sacks of shiat. You chose to try and use the worst financial crisis in a generation solely for political gain, while the people you supposedly serve, suffered. Bad enough when you all are simply incompetent or selling your services to the highest bidder, but to actively try and make things worse, just to make the sitting President look bad, is evil and unforgivable. You all deserve to lose everything in your life that gives you any kind of financial security, I hope each and every one of you finds yourself alone and desperate on the streets.

Boehner already agreed to most of the tax increases Obama has asked for. Obama meanwhile hasn't offered a penny of spending cuts - just reductions in a proposed rate of increase. Instead of a 9Tn deficit over the next 10 years, we'd be faced with a 7.4Tn deficit over the next 10 years. New revenue, meanwhile makes up maybe a trillion or two more but Obama's still asked for half a Trillion in public works stimulus. Also, keep in mind we're going to be back here in 10 years saying that the interest in the debt has swallowed any gains that these cliff negotiations had achieved. One party is sort of serious about new revenue. The other party doesn't give a shiat about spending.

If I vow to cut 10,000 worth of spending out of my budget next year, I dont do so by purchasing a $150,000 Ferrari instead of a $160,000 Lamborghini

Why does Obama need to 'offer' the spending cuts? Can't Boehner propose said cuts? Oh, thats right; because the cuts Republicans want are extremely unpopular, and Republicans want political cover for forcing unpopular cuts to entitlements by blaming the cuts on Obama because he 'proposed' them.

And here you are blaming Obama for not walking into that trap.


Yep. Boehner wanted to treat him as a parent would treat a child who they were trying to make do what they want but force the child to make the decision; sending the child back to their room until they come back with exactly what the parent wants to hear. This is what Republicans define "negotiating" as.
 
2012-12-29 11:16:17 AM  

syrynxx: starsrift: Why the absolute flying fark are we babbling about tax increases instead of the broadaxe of spending reductions that's going to be driven through the government across the board, instead of smartly, selectively, precisely cutting away the parts that do the least damage and are the least necessary?

Not many people know about the details of those other cuts. Defense contractors are going to get butchered, and states like Florida and California with high percentages of defense contract firms are going to lose a ton of jobs.  One of my friends has hopped around defense contracts for the past decade and had to take a lower-paying non-defense job recently so as not to be at risk.


Or maybe because it's even simpler than that: spending will not have a broadaxe taken to it, because that's not the way gov't spending works. There is only one day a year when gov't spending REALLY matters, and that is Sep 30th. Sure, quarterly targets are supposed to line up, but they are not as rigidly accounted for as is the last day of the fiscal year. IOW, Congress has MONTHS to restore spending for various departments of the Fed budget before ongoing programs feel the axe, and I have no doubt they will do so.

Many, if not all departments dependent on discretionary spending will see some cuts, but the whole topic of a "Fiscal Cliff" is the budgetary equivalent of the security theater pushed by DHS. It's a farce initially pushed by the GOP to scare the rabbits, and then taken up by the Dems as a with which to beat the GOP over the head. Now it's just pathetic.
 
2012-12-29 11:18:28 AM  

Into the blue again: Karac: Into the blue again: You cannot argue with stupidity. My father sent this to me. I cannot even begin to try to explain the debt ceiling to him. This is why the GOP will keep control of the house, perfect gerrymandering.
[duckduckgrayduck.files.wordpress.com image 850x1133]

Here's your response to dear old dad: any person who made $21,700, and owed $142,000 would not get told to just cut spending. They'd get told to get a second job and raise revenue.

Man, I must be tired. Simple and perfect response.


There's more--the budget cuts are low by a factor of ten because it was shifted down nine decimal places instead of eight. I could almost believe that's an accident. Almost.
 
2012-12-29 11:22:46 AM  

Infernalist: Serious Black: Infernalist: Do you all remember that 'open session meeting' that the GOP offered to Obama and he took? And then sat in front of the GOP House and openly TOLD them that they were painting themselves into a corner by pretending like he was the Devil or some murdering communist? That they would find it 'very' hard to actually compromise down the road if they didn't start acting more sensible and get back to the business of governing?

That was back in...2010, I think. Or 2009.

And here we are, with that very same reality staring them in the face and they have the unmitigated gall to act surprised.

They don't care. People like Tim Huelskamp literally believe they are on a holy crusade for God. The true believers are completely convinced that the Democrats are casuing America's apocalypse. Losing to Obama and the Democrats only makes them more hardened in their fight against evil because it brings the apocalypse that much closer in their eyes.

So, it's a religious delusion. Isn't there a requirement clause about 'sound mind' when operating in government?


I don't think so, sadly. Besides, good luck convincing anybody in our court system that religious beliefs are a psychological disorder.
 
2012-12-29 11:23:24 AM  

Stone Meadow: syrynxx: starsrift: Why the absolute flying fark are we babbling about tax increases instead of the broadaxe of spending reductions that's going to be driven through the government across the board, instead of smartly, selectively, precisely cutting away the parts that do the least damage and are the least necessary?

Not many people know about the details of those other cuts. Defense contractors are going to get butchered, and states like Florida and California with high percentages of defense contract firms are going to lose a ton of jobs.  One of my friends has hopped around defense contracts for the past decade and had to take a lower-paying non-defense job recently so as not to be at risk.

Or maybe because it's even simpler than that: spending will not have a broadaxe taken to it, because that's not the way gov't spending works. There is only one day a year when gov't spending REALLY matters, and that is Sep 30th. Sure, quarterly targets are supposed to line up, but they are not as rigidly accounted for as is the last day of the fiscal year. IOW, Congress has MONTHS to restore spending for various departments of the Fed budget before ongoing programs feel the axe, and I have no doubt they will do so.

Many, if not all departments dependent on discretionary spending will see some cuts, but the whole topic of a "Fiscal Cliff" is the budgetary equivalent of the security theater pushed by DHS. It's a farce initially pushed by the GOP to scare the rabbits, and then taken up by the Dems as a with which to beat the GOP over the head. Now it's just pathetic.


So, basically, the Democrats and Obama hijacked the GOP's own fear-propaganda and turned it on them.
 
2012-12-29 11:25:38 AM  
You Obama fellating libtards make me sick.

Despite the fact that the current situation is a direct result of Republican policies and the teabaggers' pathological need to see Fartbong0 fail, you continue to try to blame the GOP.
 
2012-12-29 11:25:55 AM  

Into the blue again: You cannot argue with stupidity. My father sent this to me. I cannot even begin to try to explain the debt ceiling to him. This is why the GOP will keep control of the house, perfect gerrymandering.
[duckduckgrayduck.files.wordpress.com image 850x1133]


Email him and tell him the good news: There are ten times as much budget cuts as in his example. He should be ecstatic.

Then, tell him that any retard that assumes simply cutting spending is a solution without getting a second job with more revenue is delusional.

Then, tell him that anyone that tries to compare micro and macro economics is a goddamn idiot because there is nothing about governmental economics that makes sense when comparing it to the "kitchen table".

Then, tell him that he is sending you emails over a system that was cultivated and built with large scale help from the government.

Then, delete the email and set up a spam filter to send any future emails from him to the trash.

------------------------------------
My solution may or may not be the best one.
 
2012-12-29 11:26:21 AM  

Serious Black: Infernalist: Serious Black: Infernalist: Do you all remember that 'open session meeting' that the GOP offered to Obama and he took? And then sat in front of the GOP House and openly TOLD them that they were painting themselves into a corner by pretending like he was the Devil or some murdering communist? That they would find it 'very' hard to actually compromise down the road if they didn't start acting more sensible and get back to the business of governing?

That was back in...2010, I think. Or 2009.

And here we are, with that very same reality staring them in the face and they have the unmitigated gall to act surprised.

They don't care. People like Tim Huelskamp literally believe they are on a holy crusade for God. The true believers are completely convinced that the Democrats are casuing America's apocalypse. Losing to Obama and the Democrats only makes them more hardened in their fight against evil because it brings the apocalypse that much closer in their eyes.

So, it's a religious delusion. Isn't there a requirement clause about 'sound mind' when operating in government?

I don't think so, sadly. Besides, good luck convincing anybody in our court system that religious beliefs are a psychological disorder.


I personally think that when we question candidates about their motivations in governing, we should mentally replace 'God' or 'Jesus' with 'the aliens' and then evaluate their motivations for governing.

"Abortion is immoral because the aliens say so."

"Sex is an evil according to the book written by the aliens."

"These crimes are happening because the aliens are angry at our pride."

"We must honor the aliens in this country or we shall fall from grace."
 
2012-12-29 11:27:19 AM  

Crabs_Can_Polevault: There's more--the budget cuts are low by a factor of ten because it was shifted down nine decimal places instead of eight. I could almost believe that's an accident. Almost.


Damn, I was aiming to be the first one to point out the oversight.

I'll put $5 on it being intentional and assuming nobody would notice. And, if it is spotted, the response: "who cares, $400 won't make a difference either"
 
2012-12-29 11:29:28 AM  
republicans: "we're going to get the blame"

www.newlaunches.com

You get blamed because it IS your fault, you cretins! Stop it with your posturing and slobbering Pete Peterson's & Grover Norquist's knob and think about America for once in your damned lives!
 
2012-12-29 11:30:41 AM  

Karac: Into the blue again: You cannot argue with stupidity. My father sent this to me. I cannot even begin to try to explain the debt ceiling to him. This is why the GOP will keep control of the house, perfect gerrymandering.
[duckduckgrayduck.files.wordpress.com image 850x1133]

Here's your response to dear old dad: any person who made $21,700, and owed $142,000 would not get told to just cut spending. They'd get told to get a second job and raise revenue.


His father is right about Lesson #2. America should just hire a plumber to flush out $14 trillion in bonds.
 
2012-12-29 11:30:50 AM  
I'll save my blame for whoever is responsible for averting the "Fiscal Cliff"
 
2012-12-29 11:32:18 AM  

TV's Vinnie: You get blamed because it IS your fault, you cretins! Stop it with your posturing and slobbering Pete Peterson's & Grover Norquist's knob and think about America for once in your damned lives!


They are thinking about America. They're thinking about how nice it's been to get paid by America to either do nothing or cause harm depending on the issue. And they'd like to CONTINUE getting paid for that, so that why they have to try and shift blame to the "other guys".
 
2012-12-29 11:34:34 AM  

Crabs_Can_Polevault: Into the blue again: Karac: Into the blue again: You cannot argue with stupidity. My father sent this to me. I cannot even begin to try to explain the debt ceiling to him. This is why the GOP will keep control of the house, perfect gerrymandering.
[duckduckgrayduck.files.wordpress.com image 850x1133]

Here's your response to dear old dad: any person who made $21,700, and owed $142,000 would not get told to just cut spending. They'd get told to get a second job and raise revenue.

Man, I must be tired. Simple and perfect response.

There's more--the budget cuts are low by a factor of ten because it was shifted down nine decimal places instead of eight. I could almost believe that's an accident. Almost.


Even if you could argue with stupidity, you are wasting your time arguing with dishonesty.
 
2012-12-29 11:34:56 AM  
If they had not cut taxes when they did, we would have had money to pay for the stupid Iraq War and the very good Medicare Part D, that and declining revenues from the financial collapse would not have been as severe if we had the old tax code in place.

So, you can blame half the f*cking national debt on that wonderful policy.
 
2012-12-29 11:35:12 AM  

bulldg4life: Crabs_Can_Polevault: There's more--the budget cuts are low by a factor of ten because it was shifted down nine decimal places instead of eight. I could almost believe that's an accident. Almost.

Damn, I was aiming to be the first one to point out the oversight.

I'll put $5 on it being intentional and assuming nobody would notice. And, if it is spotted, the response: "who cares, $400 won't make a difference either"


Bonus points: "you're going to try to point out $400.00 in savings? The debt is $15 trillion! Considering foreign aid is $47 billion, the fact that they've only been willing to cut less than a thousand dollars is a joke."
 
2012-12-29 11:35:38 AM  

Infernalist: Stone Meadow: ... the whole topic of a "Fiscal Cliff" is the budgetary equivalent of the security theater pushed by DHS. It's a farce initially pushed by the GOP to scare the rabbits, and then taken up by the Dems as a stick with which to beat the GOP over the head. Now it's just pathetic.

So, basically, the Democrats and Obama hijacked the GOP's own fear-propaganda and turned it on them.


Exactly...as the Dems and the President have been doing for the past few years with nearly every GOP initiative.

/GOP is the political equivalent of the short bus
 
2012-12-29 11:38:18 AM  

DamnYankees: o5iiawah: jayhawk88: Good, you worthless sacks of shiat. You chose to try and use the worst financial crisis in a generation solely for political gain, while the people you supposedly serve, suffered. Bad enough when you all are simply incompetent or selling your services to the highest bidder, but to actively try and make things worse, just to make the sitting President look bad, is evil and unforgivable. You all deserve to lose everything in your life that gives you any kind of financial security, I hope each and every one of you finds yourself alone and desperate on the streets.

Boehner already agreed to most of the tax increases Obama has asked for. Obama meanwhile hasn't offered a penny of spending cuts - just reductions in a proposed rate of increase. Instead of a 9Tn deficit over the next 10 years, we'd be faced with a 7.4Tn deficit over the next 10 years. New revenue, meanwhile makes up maybe a trillion or two more but Obama's still asked for half a Trillion in public works stimulus. Also, keep in mind we're going to be back here in 10 years saying that the interest in the debt has swallowed any gains that these cliff negotiations had achieved. One party is sort of serious about new revenue. The other party doesn't give a shiat about spending.

If I vow to cut 10,000 worth of spending out of my budget next year, I dont do so by purchasing a $150,000 Ferrari instead of a $160,000 Lamborghini

If this is the GOP stance, why is Boehner not asking for any of this?


It's not the GoP stance. It's the conservative think tanks stance. The ONLY spending cuts the GOP has put forth are:
1) Defund Planned Parenthood
2) Kill off NPR and PBS

Repealing Obamacare ain't a spending cut, in fact, it would add 400 Billion in Obamacare medicare savings to our existing UNEMPLOYMENT driven deficit.

It's getting easier and easier to see who the consumers of Drudge report, Newsmax and Prison Planet really are.
 
2012-12-29 11:38:22 AM  
Republicans are going to get blamed for higher taxes in every scenario.  But only in the going over the cliff scenario do they credit for reducing spending.
 
2012-12-29 11:38:26 AM  

Mercutio74: TV's Vinnie: You get blamed because it IS your fault, you cretins! Stop it with your posturing and slobbering Pete Peterson's & Grover Norquist's knob and think about America for once in your damned lives!

They are thinking about America. They're thinking about how nice it's been to get paid by America to either do nothing or cause harm depending on the issue. And they'd like to CONTINUE getting paid for that, so that why they have to try and shift blame to the "other guys".



Yep. They're thinking about doing their best to not piss off the teabaggers who voted for them, so they get to keep their jobs.

Can't say I blame them. There aren't many jobs that pay six figures a year without requiring you to do some actual work.

Congressional Republicans are six figure welfare queens.
 
2012-12-29 11:39:54 AM  

EnviroDude: mat catastrophe: HAHA! I'M POOR AS HELL SO MY TAX RATES DON'T GO UP.

SUCK IT, MIDDLE CLASS ASSHOLES! THIS IS WHAT YOU VOTED FOR! THIS IS WHAT YOU GET!

I

If you have children, the child credit goes away. It was part of the Bush tax plan that the democrats in the Senate refuse to extend


I will gladly take that hit if it greatly inconveniences the middle class. If it also upsets the upper middle class, or even the rich, so much the better.

Anything that shocks this country out of its comfortable stupor (where we complain about $4 milk and gas) is fine. Let's go ahead and let these assholes start the fire and see what happens.

The only thing that's a shiat show is the ongoing usage of these "crises" as fund raising tactics by the American Political Machine.
 
2012-12-29 11:42:41 AM  

SlothB77: Republicans are going to get blamed for higher taxes in every scenario.  But only in the going over the cliff scenario do they credit for reducing spending.


lol
 
2012-12-29 11:44:20 AM  

Grungehamster: Into the blue again: You cannot argue with stupidity. My father sent this to me. I cannot even begin to try to explain the debt ceiling to him. This is why the GOP will keep control of the house, perfect gerrymandering.

That's the most frustrating part of politics, and it's not new or unique to America. How the hell do you have a debate about, say, healthcare reform, if the public at large doesn't understand the difference between a single payer system and a private system with a public option (hell, I still hear people saying that "Obamacare" nationalizes hospitals so they can make the rich pay for all the poor people)? How do you discuss a potential Medicare overhaul when the public (and some of the candidates even) have no clue what seperates a defined benefits plan ("this is what care we will pay for") from a premium support plan ("this is how much money towards your care you receive").

Republicanism is supposed to safeguard against this: the public at large might not understand the issues well enough to have an informed opinion on them, but they should have a say in who does decide these things. The problem is that those who study these things enough to know what the pros and cons of each are often outgunned by populist rabblerousers who argue that you know more in your gut than anyone who studied a subject could ever learn with their brain.


What they have done is purposefully poison the well. This way the masses continue with the stupid talking points that don't actually make any sense. The Obamacare issue was almost as frustrating as this one. I could not believe the amount of absolute hate and going around Obamacare. You like all of the things in it but hate it? WTF IS THIS SHIAT!
 
2012-12-29 11:44:22 AM  
It seems obvious that the GOP wants to go off before reaching a deal. That way they can say they voted to lower taxes rather than raise them to get to the same deal. It's freaking retarded, but that's why.
 
2012-12-29 11:49:31 AM  

Mrtraveler01: But one Farker told me that it's all the Democrats fault because they want their "pound of flesh" from the rich.


*golfclap*

Just catching up on some threads from the last day or so. Well played.
 
2012-12-29 11:53:46 AM  

Lupine Chemist: It seems obvious that the GOP wants to go off before reaching a deal. That way they can say they voted to lower taxes rather than raise them to get to the same deal. It's freaking retarded, but that's why.


If that's the case, it seems that Obama would be in a very good position to get 98% of what he wants. The GOP will already be blamed for the cliff and will be in even less of a position to negotiate, especially with Boehner bungling the whole "Plan B" nonsense and essentially sending congress home for Xmas with so many days left to negotiate.

It'll be even worse if the house comes back and decides they need a more teabaggish speaker... it'll be a hole the GOP never digs itself out of.

I hope there's people at Fox shiatting their pants. Unleashing the tea party upon the political process was supposed to be like a biological attack. I don't think they planned on it essentially eliminating the efficacy of an entire branch of government while leaving a Dem in charge of the white house.
 
2012-12-29 11:56:00 AM  

Infernalist: Tommy Moo: EnviroDude: mat catastrophe: HAHA! I'M POOR AS HELL SO MY TAX RATES DON'T GO UP.

SUCK IT, MIDDLE CLASS ASSHOLES! THIS IS WHAT YOU VOTED FOR! THIS IS WHAT YOU GET!

I

If you have children, the child credit goes away. It was part of the Bush tax plan that the democrats in the Senate refuse to extend

Good. We are overpopulated. It's time for the government to stop subsidizing child rearing. Make people confront the full cost of raising a kid, so more will choose to have zero or one instead of three or four. You could lower marginal rates to compensate, but I'm sick of paying taxes to raise other people's contributions to global warming and unemployment.

I agree with the sentiment of 'too many kids', but we're not overpopulated. A few cities might have some congestion, but the nation itself is far from overpopulated.


What is 8% unemployment, other than 8% too many workers? There's more to overpopulation than traffic congestion. The ideal population is one where every person is necessary. Not to mention that when you take into account that approximately 10% of all workers are unnecessary, either working corporate jobs they got due to nepotism or government jobs that were made up for the sole purpose of disguising unemployment, the real figure is something like 15% too many workers. Plus, with automation replacing more and more sectors, it's going to get even worse. Soon you will buy clothes with RFID chips in the tags that automatically debit your bank account when you walk out with them. The nation's 10 million retail employees will get dumped onto the dole. This doesn't mean that they are horrible or lazy. Most of them want to work, but there are too many workers for the future economy.
 
2012-12-29 11:57:52 AM  

Lupine Chemist: It seems obvious that the GOP wants to go off before reaching a deal. That way they can say they voted to lower taxes rather than raise them to get to the same deal. It's freaking retarded, but that's why.


Honestly, I'm not sure why they haven't repassed the Ryan Budget and said that is their compromise offer.

"See, we'll let the tax cuts for the rich go from 35% back up to 39.6%, just so long as they then are changed to 28%. Everybody wins!"
 
2012-12-29 11:59:25 AM  
So the party that has staked out a no taxes and reduced spending platform do define themselves is about to increase taxes through inaction and is currently fighting spending cuts that they already agreed to.

img.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-29 12:02:58 PM  

Tommy Moo: What is 8% unemployment, other than 8% too many workers? There's more to overpopulation than traffic congestion. The ideal population is one where every person is necessary. Not to mention that when you take into account that approximately 10% of all workers are unnecessary, either working corporate jobs they got due to nepotism or government jobs that were made up for the sole purpose of disguising unemployment, the real figure is something like 15% too many workers. Plus, with automation replacing more and more sectors, it's going to get even worse. Soon you will buy clothes with RFID chips in the tags that automatically debit your bank account when you walk out with them. The nation's 10 million retail employees will get dumped onto the dole. This doesn't mean that they are horrible or lazy. Most of them want to work, but there are too many workers for the future economy.


That doesn't take into account the effect of economic policy on the private sector. I think it's clear why unemployment spikes in a recession and to suggest otherwise is an oversimplification.

In addition, you seem to think these same rfid chips will also merchandise new stock, re-merchandize stock that was handled by customers, transport clothing back from changing rooms to the racks and be there to try and upsell customers to "just buy both, they look amazing on you".

Plus, there will literally be years, perhaps decades, where people will still prefer to use credit as opposed to actual money in their accounts... how will the rfid sort that out?
 
2012-12-29 12:05:53 PM  
The tax rates going to where they are is not good. We really need to triple or quadruple current tax rates, as well as cut all government spending, if we want to get debt free by the next election. Of course, none of the politicians have the guts to propose that...
 
2012-12-29 12:06:01 PM  
i1256.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-29 12:06:39 PM  

Into the blue again: You cannot argue with stupidity. My father sent this to me. I cannot even begin to try to explain the debt ceiling to him. This is why the GOP will keep control of the house, perfect gerrymandering.
[duckduckgrayduck.files.wordpress.com image 850x1133]


Ah yes, the household budget analogy. I'd like to add on to it.

If the household budget is really that out of whack, I would recommend getting a better job and telling the guy who's been living almost rent-free on your couch for the past decade to nut up and start paying rent.
 
2012-12-29 12:07:47 PM  
It's totally unfair! You spend four solid years negotiating in bad faith, filibustering for the sake of filibustering, even filibustering your own goddamn bills, and doing everything in your power to prevent meaningful legislation from passing...

Then when you fail to pass a bill to prevent a tax increase, everyone acts like it's all your fault!

I bet the Jews/the liberal media/Obama did this!
 
2012-12-29 12:08:48 PM  

Mercutio74: Tommy Moo: What is 8% unemployment, other than 8% too many workers? There's more to overpopulation than traffic congestion. The ideal population is one where every person is necessary. Not to mention that when you take into account that approximately 10% of all workers are unnecessary, either working corporate jobs they got due to nepotism or government jobs that were made up for the sole purpose of disguising unemployment, the real figure is something like 15% too many workers. Plus, with automation replacing more and more sectors, it's going to get even worse. Soon you will buy clothes with RFID chips in the tags that automatically debit your bank account when you walk out with them. The nation's 10 million retail employees will get dumped onto the dole. This doesn't mean that they are horrible or lazy. Most of them want to work, but there are too many workers for the future economy.

That doesn't take into account the effect of economic policy on the private sector. I think it's clear why unemployment spikes in a recession and to suggest otherwise is an oversimplification.

In addition, you seem to think these same rfid chips will also merchandise new stock, re-merchandize stock that was handled by customers, transport clothing back from changing rooms to the racks and be there to try and upsell customers to "just buy both, they look amazing on you".

Plus, there will literally be years, perhaps decades, where people will still prefer to use credit as opposed to actual money in their accounts... how will the rfid sort that out?


On a more fundamental level he ignores the root cause of unemployment being our new love of free trade agreements. Great for Wall Street, fantastic for CEOs, not so great for the US job picture.

Corporations are real happy with the current US unemployment picture.
 
2012-12-29 12:09:08 PM  
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com

Agrees
 
2012-12-29 12:12:00 PM  
Taxes are not the only solution here. Why can't we cut 100% of government spending? The Constitution does not give the government the right to spend money.
 
2012-12-29 12:12:00 PM  

Tommy Moo: Infernalist: Tommy Moo: EnviroDude: mat catastrophe: HAHA! I'M POOR AS HELL SO MY TAX RATES DON'T GO UP.

SUCK IT, MIDDLE CLASS ASSHOLES! THIS IS WHAT YOU VOTED FOR! THIS IS WHAT YOU GET!

I

If you have children, the child credit goes away. It was part of the Bush tax plan that the democrats in the Senate refuse to extend

Good. We are overpopulated. It's time for the government to stop subsidizing child rearing. Make people confront the full cost of raising a kid, so more will choose to have zero or one instead of three or four. You could lower marginal rates to compensate, but I'm sick of paying taxes to raise other people's contributions to global warming and unemployment.

I agree with the sentiment of 'too many kids', but we're not overpopulated. A few cities might have some congestion, but the nation itself is far from overpopulated.

What is 8% unemployment, other than 8% too many workers? There's more to overpopulation than traffic congestion. The ideal population is one where every person is necessary. Not to mention that when you take into account that approximately 10% of all workers are unnecessary, either working corporate jobs they got due to nepotism or government jobs that were made up for the sole purpose of disguising unemployment, the real figure is something like 15% too many workers. Plus, with automation replacing more and more sectors, it's going to get even worse. Soon you will buy clothes with RFID chips in the tags that automatically debit your bank account when you walk out with them. The nation's 10 million retail employees will get dumped onto the dole. This doesn't mean that they are horrible or lazy. Most of them want to work, but there are too many workers for the future economy.


I'm sure you have a solution to this problem? I'm wagering a 'final' one, perhaps?

Because that is the only way we would deal with your specious overpopulation argument. The only decision would be who would be 'dealt with'.
 
2012-12-29 12:13:18 PM  

Tommy Moo: What is 8% unemployment, other than 8% too many workers? There's more to overpopulation than traffic congestion. The ideal population is one where every person is necessary.


No, this is shortsighted and kind of foolish to the extreme. If there's 0% unemployment,t here's no job fluidity. If every person is 'necessary', then no one can try to see if there are jobs they'd be better suited for, or enjoy more. There'd be no ability to fire people who SUCK at the job.
 
2012-12-29 12:13:27 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: Tommy Moo: Infernalist: Tommy Moo: EnviroDude: mat catastrophe: HAHA! I'M POOR AS HELL SO MY TAX RATES DON'T GO UP.

SUCK IT, MIDDLE CLASS ASSHOLES! THIS IS WHAT YOU VOTED FOR! THIS IS WHAT YOU GET!

I

If you have children, the child credit goes away. It was part of the Bush tax plan that the democrats in the Senate refuse to extend

Good. We are overpopulated. It's time for the government to stop subsidizing child rearing. Make people confront the full cost of raising a kid, so more will choose to have zero or one instead of three or four. You could lower marginal rates to compensate, but I'm sick of paying taxes to raise other people's contributions to global warming and unemployment.

I agree with the sentiment of 'too many kids', but we're not overpopulated. A few cities might have some congestion, but the nation itself is far from overpopulated.

What is 8% unemployment, other than 8% too many workers? There's more to overpopulation than traffic congestion. The ideal population is one where every person is necessary. Not to mention that when you take into account that approximately 10% of all workers are unnecessary, either working corporate jobs they got due to nepotism or government jobs that were made up for the sole purpose of disguising unemployment, the real figure is something like 15% too many workers. Plus, with automation replacing more and more sectors, it's going to get even worse. Soon you will buy clothes with RFID chips in the tags that automatically debit your bank account when you walk out with them. The nation's 10 million retail employees will get dumped onto the dole. This doesn't mean that they are horrible or lazy. Most of them want to work, but there are too many workers for the future economy.

I'm sure you have a solution to this problem? I'm wagering a 'final' one, perhaps?

Because that is the only way we would deal with your specious overpopulation argument. The only decision would be who would be 'dealt with'.


That one's easy. Start with all nonhumans. All humans have two X chromosomes, so disposing of those who don't is a good thing.
 
2012-12-29 12:16:16 PM  
Okay so the republicans are going to get blamed for higher taxes on everyone...

.. does that mean the democrats are going to campaign on lowering taxes now?
 
2012-12-29 12:16:43 PM  

Tommy Moo: EnviroDude: mat catastrophe: ...

Good. We are overpopulated. It's time for the government to stop subsidizing child rearing. Make people confront the full cost of raising a kid, so more will choose to have zero or one instead of three or four. You could lower marginal rates to compensate, but I'm sick of paying taxes to raise other people's contributions to global warming and unemployment.



You remind me of this friend who was telling me how his dog should count as a dependent the way my kid did, since it costs money to raise, and it's a choice to have a kid just like it is to have a pet... Yeah, because those are the same things at all.

I think it's pretty reasonable that everyone subsidize the future of humanity a little. Even those who don't think their own genes should be part of it.
 
2012-12-29 12:18:44 PM  

Tommy Moo: Infernalist: Tommy Moo: EnviroDude: mat catastrophe: HAHA! I'M POOR AS HELL SO MY TAX RATES DON'T GO UP.

SUCK IT, MIDDLE CLASS ASSHOLES! THIS IS WHAT YOU VOTED FOR! THIS IS WHAT YOU GET!

I

If you have children, the child credit goes away. It was part of the Bush tax plan that the democrats in the Senate refuse to extend

Good. We are overpopulated. It's time for the government to stop subsidizing child rearing. Make people confront the full cost of raising a kid, so more will choose to have zero or one instead of three or four. You could lower marginal rates to compensate, but I'm sick of paying taxes to raise other people's contributions to global warming and unemployment.

I agree with the sentiment of 'too many kids', but we're not overpopulated. A few cities might have some congestion, but the nation itself is far from overpopulated.

What is 8% unemployment, other than 8% too many workers? There's more to overpopulation than traffic congestion. The ideal population is one where every person is necessary. Not to mention that when you take into account that approximately 10% of all workers are unnecessary, either working corporate jobs they got due to nepotism or government jobs that were made up for the sole purpose of disguising unemployment, the real figure is something like 15% too many workers. Plus, with automation replacing more and more sectors, it's going to get even worse. Soon you will buy clothes with RFID chips in the tags that automatically debit your bank account when you walk out with them. The nation's 10 million retail employees will get dumped onto the dole. This doesn't mean that they are horrible or lazy. Most of them want to work, but there are too many workers for the future economy.


Actually, a bit of unemployment is good for the nation. It represents a certain amount of 'labor lubrication'. Meaning bad employees 'can' be fired and replaced by people who will do better. The idea of 0% unemployment means....Even if you have a bad worker, you can't fire him because...there's no one out there to replace him with.

And while I agree with your assessment that there aren't enough jobs right now, it's not a symptom of overpopulation.

Just sayin.
 
2012-12-29 12:19:05 PM  

carterjw: Tommy Moo: EnviroDude: mat catastrophe: ...

Good. We are overpopulated. It's time for the government to stop subsidizing child rearing. Make people confront the full cost of raising a kid, so more will choose to have zero or one instead of three or four. You could lower marginal rates to compensate, but I'm sick of paying taxes to raise other people's contributions to global warming and unemployment.


You remind me of this friend who was telling me how his dog should count as a dependent the way my kid did, since it costs money to raise, and it's a choice to have a kid just like it is to have a pet... Yeah, because those are the same things at all.

I think it's pretty reasonable that everyone subsidize the future of humanity a little. Even those who don't think their own genes should be part of it.


Absolutely not. With the way humanity is wrecking this planet, we should be giving penalties to those with kids.
 
2012-12-29 12:22:43 PM  

wjmorris3: carterjw: Tommy Moo: EnviroDude: mat catastrophe: ...

Good. We are overpopulated. It's time for the government to stop subsidizing child rearing. Make people confront the full cost of raising a kid, so more will choose to have zero or one instead of three or four. You could lower marginal rates to compensate, but I'm sick of paying taxes to raise other people's contributions to global warming and unemployment.


You remind me of this friend who was telling me how his dog should count as a dependent the way my kid did, since it costs money to raise, and it's a choice to have a kid just like it is to have a pet... Yeah, because those are the same things at all.

I think it's pretty reasonable that everyone subsidize the future of humanity a little. Even those who don't think their own genes should be part of it.

Absolutely not. With the way humanity is wrecking this planet, we should be giving penalties to those with kids.


Yeah, that'll show those polluting corporations and developing nations.
 
2012-12-29 12:25:44 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-29 12:33:19 PM  

carterjw: Tommy Moo: EnviroDude: mat catastrophe: ...

Good. We are overpopulated. It's time for the government to stop subsidizing child rearing. Make people confront the full cost of raising a kid, so more will choose to have zero or one instead of three or four. You could lower marginal rates to compensate, but I'm sick of paying taxes to raise other people's contributions to global warming and unemployment.


You remind me of this friend who was telling me how his dog should count as a dependent the way my kid did, since it costs money to raise, and it's a choice to have a kid just like it is to have a pet... Yeah, because those are the same things at all.

I think it's pretty reasonable that everyone subsidize the future of humanity a little. Even those who don't think their own genes should be part of it.



At the very least, childless people, people with kids going to private school, and people with adult children should not have to pay school taxes.

Why should a 60 year old couple have to pay a 2-thousand dollar a year property tax hike just because idiots just had to vote in a bond to build a new high school 15 years after they built the last one?

As it stands, you catch a lot of breaks from people subsidizing your child. Don't act like the world owes it to you.
 
2012-12-29 12:40:24 PM  
It looks like the GOP has finally managed to underestimate the intelligence of the average American.
 
2012-12-29 12:42:51 PM  

stoli n coke: Why should a 60 year old couple have to pay a 2-thousand dollar a year property tax hike just because idiots just had to vote in a bond to build a new high school 15 years after they built the last one


Agreed. Because the only people in the community who benefit from educating our children are the children themselves. There are NO benefits from an educated population felt ANYWHERE else.
 
2012-12-29 12:45:26 PM  

stoli n coke: carterjw: Tommy Moo: EnviroDude: mat catastrophe: ...

Good. We are overpopulated. It's time for the government to stop subsidizing child rearing. Make people confront the full cost of raising a kid, so more will choose to have zero or one instead of three or four. You could lower marginal rates to compensate, but I'm sick of paying taxes to raise other people's contributions to global warming and unemployment.


You remind me of this friend who was telling me how his dog should count as a dependent the way my kid did, since it costs money to raise, and it's a choice to have a kid just like it is to have a pet... Yeah, because those are the same things at all.

I think it's pretty reasonable that everyone subsidize the future of humanity a little. Even those who don't think their own genes should be part of it.


At the very least, childless people, people with kids going to private school, and people with adult children should not have to pay school taxes.

Why should a 60 year old couple have to pay a 2-thousand dollar a year property tax hike just because idiots just had to vote in a bond to build a new high school 15 years after they built the last one?

As it stands, you catch a lot of breaks from people subsidizing your child. Don't act like the world owes it to you.


Whine more, you selfish little prick. You don't get go pick and choose what aspects of society your taxes go toward.

Don't like paying higher taxes for better schools? Move the 'fark' out of the district and into the boonies.
 
Displayed 50 of 197 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report