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 198
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

3369 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»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
2012-12-29 12:49:37 PM

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.


May I remind you that 0bama's unconvincing 'victory' in November does not give him a mandate to do as he pleases.

But as I predicted earlier this year he will continue to grandstand the economy into disaster.
 
2012-12-29 12:52:00 PM

Infernalist: 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.



Not better schools, a new school building. The district in my hometown laid off 15 teachers, but pushed a bond to build a $10 million high school building for a high school that has 500 students max. And this is to replace the building that was built in 1999.
 
2012-12-29 12:53:55 PM

mittromneysdog: 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.


I was going to respond to this, but in reading it a second time, I think I see what you are doing. Carry on.
 
2012-12-29 12:54:28 PM
Both sides want to keep the tax cuts for everyone making less than $250,000 a year. One side has decided that they won't do that unless they get to keep tax cuts for people making OVER $250,000 a year also. So when no one gets to keep tax cuts, guess which side is going to get blamed.
 
2012-12-29 12:54:56 PM

stoli n coke: Not better schools, a new school building. The district in my hometown laid off 15 teachers, but pushed a bond to build a $10 million high school building for a high school that has 500 students max. And this is to replace the building that was built in 1999.


I guess it's the difference between adequately supporting education and government corruption.
 
2012-12-29 12:55:17 PM

stoli n coke: Infernalist: 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.


Not better schools, a new school building. The district in my hometown laid off 15 teachers, but pushed a bond to build a $10 million high school building for a high school that has 500 students max. And this is to replace the building that was built in 1999.


So why not take infernalist's suggestion of moving out the district?

If your ignorant neighbors vote for more taxes, you pay more taxes. Don't want to pay those taxes, move.
 
2012-12-29 12:58:04 PM

Rueened: 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.

May I remind you that 0bama's unconvincing 'victory' in November does not give him a mandate to do as he pleases.

But as I predicted earlier this year he will continue to grandstand the economy into ...


lol

You're trolling, right? I mean, none of us have ever seen you before.
 
2012-12-29 01:00:31 PM

Marcus Aurelius: 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.


Hershey is relocating a large portion of their chocolate-making industry to Mexico. Ostensibly they say it's to be closer to the cocoa production (though Hershey, PA was originally chosen since it was close to the milk sources). However, I'm willing to bet $10 that Hershey will end up paying their workers about $0.30 an hour, be able to deliver their product to the US without paying tariffs, and won't lower the price of their end product one damn cent.
 
2012-12-29 01:00:44 PM
Tax rates are going to go up on everyone, and we're going to get the blame"


its because you deserve the blame, Jackoff. eventually, being a cock blocker catches up with you.
 
2012-12-29 01:04:03 PM
images2.dailykos.com
 
2012-12-29 01:05:17 PM
And all because you don't want to raise taxes a few measly percentage points on the super rich. Well, at least you are providing the Democrats with campaign material for the next billion years.
 
2012-12-29 01:19:42 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'.


Not this shiat again. Always with the godwinning. I just offered one in this very thread: end subsidies of child rearing. Also: educate the women of the world and promote family planning. Not giving birth to as many people isn't the same thing as rounding up existing people and killing them. By your logic, every person who potentially could be born that isn't has been "killed." So you're a murderer for not siring as many children as possible, or using your womb as a permanent carousel if you're a woman.
 
2012-12-29 01:21:13 PM

wjmorris3: 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'.

...


Eh? I think half of humans have 46 X chromosomes, and the other half have 45 Xs and a Y.
 
2012-12-29 01:24:39 PM

max_pooper: stoli n coke: Infernalist: 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.


Not better schools, a new school building. The district in my hometown laid off 15 teachers, but pushed a bond to build a $10 million high school building for a high school that has 500 students max. And this is to replace the building that was built in 1999.

So why not take infernalist's suggestion of moving out the district?

If your ignorant neighbors vote for more taxes, you pay more taxes. Don't want to pay those taxes, move.


Moving is expensive. You have to pay a real estate agent and moving companies, plus closing costs on a mortgage if you don't have enough to buy the new house in cash and equity. It ends up being several years worth of taxes, so it's not that simple.
 
2012-12-29 01:35:24 PM

Tommy Moo: max_pooper: stoli n coke: Infernalist: 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.


Not better schools, a new school building. The district in my hometown laid off 15 teachers, but pushed a bond to build a $10 million high school building for a high school that has 500 students max. And this is to replace the building that was built in 1999.

So why not take infernalist's suggestion of moving out the district?

If your ignorant neighbors vote for more taxes, you pay more taxes. Don't want to pay those ...


So, really, it's a situation where someone just doesn't want to spend money and doesn't want to spend money to save money in the long term.

And rather than work to remove himself from a community where he doesn't feel obligated to contribute as much as his neighbors, he'd rather just 'opt out' of paying taxes that he believes incorrectly don't benefit him at all.

Adorable.
 
2012-12-29 01:47:12 PM

Tommy Moo: Not this shiat again. Always with the godwinning. I just offered one in this very thread: end subsidies of child rearing. Also: educate the women of the world and promote family planning. Not giving birth to as many people isn't the same thing as rounding up existing people and killing them. By your logic, every person who potentially could be born that isn't has been "killed." So you're a murderer for not siring as many children as possible, or using your womb as a permanent carousel if you're a woman.


No, actually I was pointing out what a stupid ass argument you were positing by making an equally stupid ass reply.

The reality is that the birth rate has been going down regularly over the past few years in the US, and if we did exactly what you said, in the end we would have an even larger amount of elderly in the US without a large enough population of young people to replace those who would leave the work force. Which would leave us with 2 choices. An overburdened young working population who work for nothing other than to pay to keep the aging population supported (through Medicare and SS), or we let the elderly die off without those things, and the population of the US drops even further. You can say I'm talking bullshiat as far as the steadily dropping birthrates in the US, but the statistics bear my argument out.
 
2012-12-29 01:54:47 PM

o5iiawah: 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


People who compare national budgets to household budgets should be punched in the face forever.
 
2012-12-29 01:56:31 PM

Tommy Moo: I just offered one in this very thread: end subsidies of child rearing.


How's that working out in countries that don't subsidize child rearing? I think you'll find your theory lacking after a visit to a third world country.
 
2012-12-29 01:59:37 PM
1. This would mean that it's probably time to get a second job to BRING MORE REVENUE INTO YOUR HOUSEHOLD! Because cutting spending can only go so far.

2. THE DEBT CEILING DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!!!

I think whoever made this (below) needs to be punched simultaneously in the face and the groin.

duckduckgrayduck.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-12-29 02:00:12 PM

Tommy Moo: Not this shiat again. Always with the godwinning. I just offered one in this very thread: end subsidies of child rearing. Also: educate the women of the world and promote family planning. Not giving birth to as many people isn't the same thing as rounding up existing people and killing them. By your logic, every person who potentially could be born that isn't has been "killed." So you're a murderer for not siring as many children as possible, or using your womb as a permanent carousel if you're a woman


Poor people are more likely to have kids. Without those breaks more kids are going to be brought up in poverty and more likely to have kids.
 
2012-12-29 02:13:52 PM
don't want the blame? Then tell Norquist to fark off and do what must be done. Failure to do so will likely cost you the house and perhaps even seats in the senate.
 
2012-12-29 02:18:37 PM

Biological Ali: o5iiawah: 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

People who compare national budgets to household budgets should be punched in the face forever.



Conservatives that use the household budget analogy should be able to see the folly of the tax cuts in the first place.

Cutting taxes and then starting a war is the household equivalent to quitting your job, taking a job that pays a lot less, and then deciding to buy a bigger house.
 
2012-12-29 02:21:28 PM
I'm comfortably middle class. My tax rates are going up, and I don't care. The teahadists are finally getting what they've always claimed to want (we're actually going to do something about the deficit/out-of-control spending), but they and their Republican bed mates are pissed and writhing and poised to suffer more electoral losses.

Hypocrisy pointed up? Yep. Lies underscored? Yep. Sure enough, the president is a ni-BONG. And yes, it matters to these shiatstains. You got what you wanted. Why u mad, tho?

Bonus schadenfreude: The taxes of people more wealthy than me are going up more. Suck it, Richie Riches.
/fark Republicans
 
2012-12-29 02:22:17 PM

stoli n coke: Biological Ali: o5iiawah: 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

People who compare national budgets to household budgets should be punched in the face forever.


Conservatives that use the household budget analogy should be able to see the folly of the tax cuts in the first place.

Cutting taxes and then starting a war is the household equivalent to quitting your job, taking a job that pays a lot less, and then deciding to buy a bigger house.


That would require them to remember how we got the tax cuts and wars in the first place.
 
2012-12-29 02:27:25 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]


"Let's now remove 8 zeros and pretend [the U.S. budget is] a household budget..."

This is a sure sign the person speaking is an uninformed moran.
 
2012-12-29 02:33:49 PM

Fuggin Bizzy: 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]

"Let's now remove 8 zeros and pretend [the U.S. budget is] a household budget..."

This is a sure sign the person speaking is an uninformed moran.


That and the fact they fail to realize that people tend to get a second job to bring in more revenue (ie: tax increases) when they're in that much debt.
 
2012-12-29 02:33:50 PM

Fuggin Bizzy: 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]

"Let's now remove 8 zeros and pretend [the U.S. budget is] a household budget..."

This is a sure sign the person speaking is an uninformed moran.


America is just like a household; where you give one child 3 sandwiches, another child 1 sandwich, cut a sandwich in half and give it to your two other children, and the youngest gets nothing
 
2012-12-29 03:02:54 PM

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.


It might even be a good idea to take out a bit more debt in the short-term in order to retrain for a higher-paying job. Focus on their "personal infrastructure" if you will.
 
2012-12-29 03:08:41 PM
it's not a bad thing. It will reduce government debt. It will slow the inflation we've all been observing (cpi be damned).
Hell, the Republicans got maneuvered to give the democrats everything they wanted.
 
2012-12-29 03:10:00 PM

bromah: It will slow the inflation we've all been observing


What inflation?
 
2012-12-29 03:11:50 PM
Well, try not to step on your collective schlong in such spectacular fashion next time, slugger.

Unfortunately, the GOP doesn't want to improve their behavior so... wash, rinse, repeat ad infinitum.
 
2012-12-29 03:13:13 PM
Cool story bro time

Last night my derpy cousin and I were arguing on fb messager about the cliff. He was complaining about Obama not proposing spending cuts. I was making the point that Republicans are trying to force Obama to propose cuts just so they could lambast him for doing so.

I told him "Plus Obama offered Chained CPI. Liberals seem to hate the idea, but it's a way to reduce Social Security costs. Republicans wouldn't sign onto it and won't offer their own proposal."

"What's Chained CPI?" he asked.

I gave him a brief description and sent him an article from the Atlantic so he could look it up. A few moments later.

"Of course Obama's gonna cut Social Security! He's just trying to steal from old people!"
 
2012-12-29 03:49:02 PM

CorporatePerson: Cool story bro time

Last night my derpy cousin and I were arguing on fb messager about the cliff. He was complaining about Obama not proposing spending cuts. I was making the point that Republicans are trying to force Obama to propose cuts just so they could lambast him for doing so.

I told him "Plus Obama offered Chained CPI. Liberals seem to hate the idea, but it's a way to reduce Social Security costs. Republicans wouldn't sign onto it and won't offer their own proposal."

"What's Chained CPI?" he asked.

I gave him a brief description and sent him an article from the Atlantic so he could look it up. A few moments later.

"Of course Obama's gonna cut Social Security! He's just trying to steal from old people!"



HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA
*Breathe*
HAHHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAH

/Thanks for that CSB
 
2012-12-29 03:57:41 PM

Marcus Aurelius: 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.


tucsoncitizen.com

/a pox on both houses' ... inability to look in the mirror
 
2012-12-29 03:58:42 PM

cameroncrazy1984: bromah: It will slow the inflation we've all been observing

What inflation?


The inflation the goldbugs and Becks have been whining about, duh.
 
2012-12-29 04:01:30 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.


childless people, no.

if you have children, people paid your way - in some shape or form - time to return the favor. if you have children, doesn't matter if the children are out of the house, you got help you need to return the help.

if you have children, whether you go to private school or not, you need to help. if anything, someone in a position to put their kids in private school is in a better position to help than someone who is too broke to put their kids in private school.

everybody needs to help.

if anybody gets an out - it's the childless, NOT the rich (the private schoolers).
 
2012-12-29 04:06:31 PM

Rueened: 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.

May I remind you that 0bama's unconvincing 'victory' in November does not give him a mandate to do as he pleases.

But as I predicted earlier this year he will continue to grandstand the economy into ...


I don't know where you're getting the first part from. A man who doesn't need Ohio and Florida to win, after all, has a VERY convincing victory in his hands.

But you're right, it was not a mandate... just like Bush's victories in 2000 and 2004 were not mandates. However, Bush's supporters refused to believe otherwise. Time to pay the piper on that one, homie. If Bush had mandates in 2000 and 2004, then Obama had mandates for 2008 and 2012.

Can you explain why it wasn't a convincing win, though?
 
2012-12-29 04:17:09 PM

Mrtraveler01: Fuggin Bizzy: 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]

"Let's now remove 8 zeros and pretend [the U.S. budget is] a household budget..."

This is a sure sign the person speaking is an uninformed moran.

That and the fact they fail to realize that people tend to get a second job to bring in more revenue (ie: tax increases) when they're in that much debt.


And that the debt represents money ALREADY SPENT. The Republicans spent it - Bush tax cuts (which by the way stimulated exactly zero job-creation), the unfunded Medicare Part D, the Iraq war, etc. It's gone, man, just gone. Cutting current and future spending to zero does not address the money the Republicans already spent.

Here's another way to simplify the debt situation to an stupid but maybe more descriptive household metaphor:
You work hard to support your family and have a credit card to get you through the tough times.
Your abusive alcoholic husband cashes your paychecks and spends it on whatever he feels like. Then he maxes out the credit card to buy a bass boat and a lifetime subscription to the gun-of-the-month and club and a lap-dance tour of south Florida. Now you can't make house payments and the bank keeps calling and you can't afford oil or tires for the car or food for the kids or your heart medicine. He refuses to get a job to pay off what he bought, or to let you get another job (who's going to manage the home if you do) or to stop the gun-of-the-month subscription, and instead demands you stop spending so much on the car and food and medication.
 
2012-12-29 04:54:27 PM

Fuggin Bizzy: 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]

"Let's now remove 8 zeros and pretend [the U.S. budget is] a household budget..."

This is a sure sign the person speaking is an uninformed moran.


That came up on my facebook feed this morning... this ensued:
him:  I think one of the biggest challenges to a discussion about the fiscal situation in the US is that we mere mortals can't comprehend billions and trillions of dollars...this is a very simple way of framing the issue in terms that make more sense...

me: terms that are simpler and easier to comprehend, certainly, but unfortunately do not adequately reflect the reality of the situation. The finances of a sovereign state that provides the world's primary reserve currency cannot be directly compared to a household budget.

me: ...unless you're in a mafia family running a protection racket, and then it starts to converge a bit. But still. Comparing the federal budget to a household budget as a simplification tool actually only clouds the issue further.

him: Simple, yes. But how do you justify any reality where the national debt has swelled from 30% of GDP to 80% of GDP in the past 10 years? There's a big problem and spending is at its core.

 http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=nYBzs4tjiYE&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv %3D nYBzs4tjiYE
The Economist explains: The fiscal cliff

me:
That is a clear and concise video, and is definitely recommended viewing for anyone who doesn't have the time to follow political drama on a daily basis.

That's a great explanation of what's going on politically right now, but let's get back to your central thesis: "There's a big problem and spending is at its core." At first glance, this seems intuitive, especially following a statement such as "the national debt has swelled from 30% of GDP to 80% of GDP in the past 10 years." However, it's pretty loaded with assumptions, so let's break it down:
1. There is a big problem.
2. Spending is at the core of that problem.
In regards to #1: what, precisely, is the problem caused by our current abnormally high debt-to-gdp ratio? The usual complaint about this is inspired by the experience of the late 70's and early 80's, when the so-called "bond vigilantes" drove yields obscenely high. A three month t-bill, for example, yielded an annualized 14% in 1981. At that rate, continued borrowing IS a terrible idea, as there aren't many options where government spending will result in an increase in GDP (and thus government revenues) that will exceed the additional cost of interest on that debt. However, we are not in that situation. The cost of borrowing money right now is minuscule in absolute terms and in fact negative after adjusting for inflation - to quote Futurama, people are shouting "SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY" at us louder than they ever have before. The market for US treasuries is larger and more liquid than it ever has been. We are not at risk of exceeding the demand for our debt, even with the current elevated spending levels, which are primarily a response to a fiscal crisis to begin with (that whole housing collapse business) The primary risk to the cost of borrowing money right now is purely political: Congress has the capacity to force us into a selective default via the debt ceiling. If that should happen, we would have a problem, but that is purely a politically instigated crisis, and is unrelated to the magnitude of our debt or the ratio of our debt to gdp. So is there a big problem? If there is, it's mostly that Congress cannot get their shiat together and act in ANY capacity. They can't do what the Democrats believe is the right answer, they can't do what the mainstream Republicans think is the right answer, and they can't do what the subset of Republicans that are referred to as the Tea Party think is the right answer.
In regards to #2: assuming, for a moment, that the growth of the debt-GDP ratio is, in and of itself, a big problem, it is quite a leap from there to "spending is at its core." It is not a trivial math problem, and here's why: the variables are neither independent, nor is their relationship easily defined. Reducing government expenditure unwisely may reduce GDP resulting in a higher debt/GDP ratio even if it slows the growth of the debt. Increased spending, if done stupidly, may increase the growth of the debt more than it stimulates GDP, likewise resulting in an unfavorable outcome. This is why the fiscal cliff is a big deal - not because it cuts, but because it cuts stupidly (and intentionally so). Not because it raises taxes, but because it raises taxes stupidly. So by and large, people agree we ought not let that happen. Then what should we do instead? Republicans generally say, in one form or another, cut spending and engage in stimulative tax-cutting. Democrats generally say, in one form or another, increase taxes and engage in stimulative spending. Either one of these, if properly performed, CAN work, however, what we've actually been doing for the past 12 years is cutting taxes AND increasing spending AND, worst of all, both getting progressively more pissed off at the other side because of it. The risk of the cost of our debt becoming unsustainable is much more remote and manageable (via deliberate inflation, in the worst case scenario) than the risk we've created politically of torpedoing the entire thing through spite for each other via the debt ceiling.
So, am I saying you're wrong? Not entirely. We probably should reduce our spending, in a careful and controlled fashion. I just think that these persistent extreme simplifications (comparisons between national and household finances, unqualified "spending is the problem") are doing everybody a disservice and distract from the real nature of the problems.


I'm still waiting for a response.
 
2012-12-29 05:31:50 PM

o5iiawah: Obama meanwhile hasn't offered a penny of spending cuts - blah, blah, blah.


Where were the republican proposed spending cuts?
 
2012-12-29 05:50:30 PM

stoli n coke: Congressional Republicans are six figure welfare queens.


Welfare moms are at least taking care of kids. Try hiring someone to care for those kids 24/7 and it would cost a lot more than a welfare payment.
 
2012-12-29 05:58:15 PM
Doesn't matter the contents of the bottle- only that the people will remember who's name was on the lable.
 
2012-12-29 06:28:49 PM
Republicans built everything around the trickle down theory. Tax Cuts, Protecting the Rich, Deregulation, Letting Wall Street do whatever they want, Killing Unions, Crapping on the poor. Ever tried to rebrand as Job Creators when people got wise to it

Now everyone knows that not only its baloney, they know thats all the Republicans have to offer. If we go over the cliff we were put in that direction by the GOP. Im sick of them breaking stuff and expecting the Democrats to fix it.

Always felt that trickle down was a huge insult..Here is your pittance lower person! Its basically getting pissed on by the rich and saying thank you
 
2012-12-29 07:38:15 PM

o5iiawah: 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.


What kind of crazy person logic is this? Obama has proposed reductions in spending, and yet that somehow means that he hasn't proposed spending cuts?
 
2012-12-29 08:26:34 PM

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]

Oh, and for lesson 2: after you clean up the mess, you'd most likely biatch to the city that they need to spend money to fix their sewer system.


Also, you know what you need to do to clean up shiat of that magnitude? SPEND SOME farkING MONEY!
 
2012-12-30 01:30:06 AM

MBrady: bborchar: The american people's complete lack of sympathy for their situation should indicate something to them, but I know they won't get it.

The American people are blaming them, and I'll bet money that if we go off the cliff, the Republicans will lost the House in 2014.


Too many states are heavily gerrimandered for that to happen.
 
2012-12-30 03:50:18 AM

incendi: Fuggin Bizzy: 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]

"Let's now remove 8 zeros and pretend [the U.S. budget is] a household budget..."

This is a sure sign the person speaking is an uninformed moran.

That came up on my facebook feed this morning... this ensued:
him:  I think one of the biggest challenges to a discussion about the fiscal situation in the US is that we mere mortals can't comprehend billions and trillions of dollars...this is a very simple way of framing the issue in terms that make more sense...

me: terms that are simpler and easier to comprehend, certainly, but unfortunately do not adequately reflect the reality of the situation. The finances of a sovereign state that provides the world's primary reserve currency cannot be directly compared to a household budget.

me: ...unless you're in a mafia family running a protection racket, and then it starts to converge a bit. But still. Comparing the federal budget to a household budget as a simplification tool actually only clouds the issue further.

him: Simple, yes. But how do you justify any reality where the national debt has swelled from 30% of GDP to 80% of GDP in the past 10 years? There's a big problem and spending is at its core.

 http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=nYBzs4tjiYE&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv %3D nYBzs4tjiYE
The Economist explains: The fiscal cliff

me:
That is a clear and concise video, and is definitely recommended viewing for anyone who doesn't have the time to follow political drama on a daily basis.

That's a great explanation of what's going on politically right now, but let's get back to your central thesis: "There's a big problem and spending is at its core." At first glance, this seems intuitive, especially following a statement such as "the national ...


At least you get some responses that seem to show a modicum of intelligent thought behind them. All I get usually is "HURR DURR Fartbongo worst president ever HURR DURR destroying America HURR DURR job creators are awesome"
 
Displayed 48 of 198 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 »






Report