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  
•       •       •

3368 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
 
2012-12-29 09:22:11 AM
You got blamed when you enacted them and you'll get blamed when you let them expire.

Maybe if you learned how to spin like the other guys this wouldn't be a problem.

also, let them expire
 
2012-12-29 09:24:58 AM
Boohoo.
 
2012-12-29 09:33:44 AM
"It's like the citizens somehow got this idea that the deficit is at least partly our party's fault. Crazy! But what can you do."
 
2012-12-29 09:34:44 AM
As well you should. Maybe you'll be reasonable the next time. And when that doesn't happen, maybe people will wise up and finish what they started in 2012.
 
2012-12-29 09:35:16 AM
But one Farker told me that it's all the Democrats fault because they want their "pound of flesh" from the rich.
 
2012-12-29 09:35:35 AM
The american people's complete lack of sympathy for their situation should indicate something to them, but I know they won't get it.
 
2012-12-29 09:36:01 AM
You were the fark nuts that voted for them. Of course you'll get the blame.
 
2012-12-29 09:36:08 AM
Nevermind the fact this is the same farker that's ok with the Bush Tax Cuts expiring for everyone but not ok with the Bush Tax Cuts expiring just for the rich.

/Can't explain that
 
2012-12-29 09:37:03 AM
You shiat the bed. You get to sleep in it. You bet it all on Willard and lost.
 
2012-12-29 09:37:19 AM

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.


What lack of sympathy. You need to remember that something like 97% of Congressmen were re-elected. Their voters do support them, at least in their minds.
 
2012-12-29 09:38:02 AM
If you'd freaking agreed to just allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire and agreed to cut back defense spending just a bit, none of this would have mattered in the first place! This is entirely due to your party's constant refusal to behave rationally. Of course your party is going to get the blame---everyone knows that this situation was totally avoidable and that Obama offered you some outstanding deals that you turned down because you and your mouth-breathing constituents think that reverting to Clinton-era tax levels for the top 2% is SOCHALIZM LOL.

/farking idiots, man
 
2012-12-29 09:38:46 AM
Didn't Boner say in 2011 he got everything in the deal he wanted?
 
2012-12-29 09:39:51 AM
Really surprised he didn't say "in somebody elses shiat".
 
2012-12-29 09:40:21 AM

astonrickenbach: Didn't Boner say in 2011 he got everything in the deal he wanted?


He did. He stayed speaker. As far as I can tell Boehner doesn't really have any other negotiating stances he cares about.
 
2012-12-29 09:40:26 AM
Minorities are voting... and getting elected! No one is doing what we tell them anymore... and somehow *sniff*, somehow this is all our fault! WE"RE GOING HOME!!! *sob*

/The GOP everyone, let's give them a big round of applause
 
2012-12-29 09:40:43 AM
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!
 
2012-12-29 09:40:58 AM
FTFA: They will likely be cornered into a broader tax hike than the best deal they could get from President Barack Obama today, and with none of the spending cuts that might now be on the table.

Then why on earth wouldn't you take the deal? These farkers KNOW that the outcome will be less favorable to them after Jan. 1, so wouldn't it just make sense to take Obama's recent offer and salvage a Pyrrhic victory? Or are they all THAT afraid of getting primaried by Super Grover?
 
2012-12-29 09:41:15 AM

astonrickenbach: Didn't Boner say in 2011 he got everything in the deal he wanted?


98%, but that's close enough.
 
2012-12-29 09:42:18 AM
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.
 
2012-12-29 09:43:00 AM

Serious Black: astonrickenbach: Didn't Boner say in 2011 he got everything in the deal he wanted?

98%, but that's close enough.


And I forgot to mention that the 2% he didn't get was being able to kick Obama in the balls on the steps of the Capitol while wearing a steel-toed boot and have the booting played live on national television.
 
2012-12-29 09:43:04 AM

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!


Does this mean you're going to "Go Galt" on us?

/Contrary to what you may think, you won't be missed
 
2012-12-29 09:46:36 AM
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?

That's the real farking 'fiscal cliff'.
 
2012-12-29 09:48:26 AM
image.legios.org
 
2012-12-29 09:50:01 AM

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.
 
2012-12-29 09:50:32 AM
i75.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-29 09:50:37 AM
I think if they just get one or two more no-nonsense, no-compromise tea-partiers on board, people will start swinging their way again.
 
2012-12-29 09:52:04 AM

TheBigJerk: [i75.photobucket.com image 640x512]


That story always amazed me. He tells it as though it was a wise lesson from his father, but when I heard him tell all I thought was "wow, this dad seriously farked up his kid".
 
2012-12-29 09:55:34 AM

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?

That's the real farking 'fiscal cliff'.


Because taxes are the sticking point. The democrats are willing to enact spending cuts - probably not happy to, but they'd suck it up and do it.
 
2012-12-29 09:55:53 AM

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
 
2012-12-29 09:56:09 AM
I love how Republicans biatch about 'deficit spending' and now that that is about to be resolved in dramatic form, its a bad thing.
 
2012-12-29 09:57:02 AM
I really don't see where these people see they aren't liable for more than half the blame.

1) Rather than attempt to negotiate with Democrats, Bush decided to pass his tax cuts through reconciliation, which required the tax cuts expire in 2010 unless they paid for themselves. (These cuts were extended 2 years as part of a deal between Congress and Obama after the 2010 Midterms in exchange for extending payroll tax cuts, unemployment benefits, and a few recurring issues like the doc fix for the same period.)

2) Republicans decided that despite negative real interest rates on t bills that they would hold the debt ceiling hostage, and claimed they would let the government default if Obama did not cut the budget (that Congress had passed) significantly. Ultimately they signed an agreement for a major across the board cut unless both parties could come up with a compromise that both parties would agree to.

3) The supercommittee failed to come up with a solution, and in the subsequent negotiations have refused to budge an inch on taxes, even when Democrats offered pretty severe entitlement cuts (the equivalent sacred cow for their side.) Even when their own Speaker offered to only raise marginal tax rates on millionares (while also extending estate tax and capital gains tax cuts that would primarily benefit them) their own party revolted against the idea, despite a majority of Republicans agreeing that the original tax increases on the rich Obama proposed are acceptable.

They led us here every step of the way, and are now complaining that they'll get blamed if Democrats don't swerve in this game of chicken that they proposed and have been playing for the last four years.
 
2012-12-29 09:58:02 AM

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?
 
2012-12-29 09:58:34 AM
EVERYTHING WILL ASPLODE
 
2012-12-29 09:58:51 AM

Mrtraveler01: 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!

Does this mean you're going to "Go Galt" on us?

/Contrary to what you may think, you won't be missed


Contrary to what you think, none of what you said makes any sense. Poor people do not "Go Galt". Poor people can try to convince themselves that they are John Galt, but they are not.

So, if you'd like to make another attempt at insulting me, go ahead.
 
2012-12-29 09:59:22 AM

o5iiawah: Boehner already agreed to most of the tax increases Obama has asked for.


The best offer Boehner has proposed is not renewing the increases for people making $400,000, a damn sight higher than Obama's $250K. And that's not even mentioning the fact that the Dick knows he'd never be able to get enough votes to get that plan passed.

Negotiations in bad faith do not count as honest offers.
 
2012-12-29 10:00:17 AM

Grungehamster: I really don't see where these people see they aren't liable for more than half the blame.


Because the powers that be don't blame them either. I'm gonna quote form a great EK article:

Twitter has been rather amused by Starbucks' plan to solve the fiscal cliff by scrawling "come together" on every peppermint mocha and salted caramel latte sold in the Beltway. But I want to take the project a bit more seriously. But the specific sentiment - what you might call the ideology of "come togetherism" - is, ironically, one of the big reasons that nothing in Washington ever seems to get solved and that the two sides never seem to come together.


I don't think you can look at the last three years and say the White House hasn't tried to come together with the Republicans.

I also don't think you can look at the last three years and say the Republicans have tried to come together with the White House.

The check on that sort of behavior is blame. If Republicans are being intransigent and the American people want compromise, then, in theory, the Republicans will get blamed. And that does seem to be happening: The GOP polls terribly, and they lost the 2012 election.

But at the elite level - which encompasses everyone from CEOs to media professionals - there's a desire to keep up good relations on both sides of the aisle. And so it's safer, when things are going wrong, to offer an anodyne criticism that offends nobody - "both sides should come together!" - then to actually blame one side or the other. It's a way to be angry about Washington's failure without alienating anyone powerful. That goes doubly for commercial actors, like Starbucks, that need to sell coffee to both Republicans and Democrats.

That breaks the system.
It hurts the basic mechanism of accountability, which is the public's ability to apportion blame. If one side's intransigence will lead to both sides getting blamed, then it makes perfect sense to be intransigent: You'll get all the benefits and only half the blame.
 
2012-12-29 10:00:42 AM
The GOP put themselves into this position by making the Bush tax cuts temporary. They thought they could make it a perpetual election winning issue. Too bad for them!
 
2012-12-29 10:01:09 AM

Karac: The best offer Boehner has proposed is not renewing the increases for people making $400,000, a damn sight higher than Obama's $250K.


This was Obama's proposal, not Boehner's. The GOP rejected this offer. Remember, the GOP "Plan B" was to only raise taxes on people with incomes over $1,000,000, and they rejected even that.
 
2012-12-29 10:02:09 AM

mat catastrophe: Mrtraveler01: 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!

Does this mean you're going to "Go Galt" on us?

/Contrary to what you may think, you won't be missed

Contrary to what you think, none of what you said makes any sense. Poor people do not "Go Galt". Poor people can try to convince themselves that they are John Galt, but they are not.

So, if you'd like to make another attempt at insulting me, go ahead.


Sorry, I misread your post. I haven't had enough coffee yet this morning.
 
2012-12-29 10:03:21 AM

DamnYankees: Karac: The best offer Boehner has proposed is not renewing the increases for people making $400,000, a damn sight higher than Obama's $250K.

This was Obama's proposal, not Boehner's. The GOP rejected this offer. Remember, the GOP "Plan B" was to only raise taxes on people with incomes over $1,000,000, and they rejected even that.


Well, my bad; thanks for the correction. But those numbers just make my case even more that the GOP is the party that's not willing to bend even an inch.
 
2012-12-29 10:03:39 AM
I'm waiting to see how much physician reimbursement will be cut from Medicare. Instead of destroying it outright, lawmakers have made it almost financially impossible for doctors to accept Medicare. If the 29% cut goes through, the fun begins. Good job guys. Good job.
/not a physician
//knows a few nervous physicians however
 
2012-12-29 10:03:51 AM
All because the mainline GOP is too cowardly to stand up to the conservative minority in their party.
 
2012-12-29 10:04:23 AM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAGaaaaaaassssppppppppHAHAHH Ahahhahh...
 
2012-12-29 10:05:36 AM
An aggregate site links to Buzzfeed citing Some Guy.

This is important.
 
2012-12-29 10:05:36 AM

DubyaHater: I'm waiting to see how much physician reimbursement will be cut from Medicare. Instead of destroying it outright, lawmakers have made it almost financially impossible for doctors to accept Medicare. If the 29% cut goes through, the fun begins. Good job guys. Good job.
/not a physician
//knows a few nervous physicians however


Nervous physicians don't mean anything, to be honest. They will continue to accept medicare.

Doctors are tradesman like any other. They don't like it when they face a possible cut in profits. But they are doing fine and will hardly be bankrupted by lower medicare payments.
 
2012-12-29 10:07:48 AM

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.
 
2012-12-29 10:08:22 AM

lexslamman: All because the mainline GOP is too cowardly to stand up to the conservative minority in their party.


Exactly this.

If Boehner put forth the bill the Senate passed in July to keep rates the same for incomes below $250k it would pass...but that's exactly what he's afraid of. The farking craven piece of shiat.
 
2012-12-29 10:09:13 AM

lexslamman: All because the mainline GOP is too cowardly to stand up to the conservative minority in their party.


Since when are conservatives a minority of the GOP?
 
2012-12-29 10:10:53 AM

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!


Actually the poorest people will get hit the hardest on the marginal level. The lowest tax bracket is going to disappear completely, so there is a 5% increase on every dollar made up to $8,700(single)/$17,400(married), the same amount for every dollar made up to $35,350/$70,700, 3% on every dollar made up to $388,350, and 4.6% on every dollar made after that. Add in an extra 2% FICA for every dollar earned up to $106,800 and as far as earned income is concerned the most marginal people will be hardest hit, not even going into the cuts to benefits we can expect.

There are the estate and capital gains rates to consider that will hit upper income individuals harder, but "I don't make enough to see my taxes increase!" is incorrect unless you don't earn income at all.
 
2012-12-29 10:11:39 AM

Shrugging Atlas: lexslamman: All because the mainline GOP is too cowardly to stand up to the conservative minority in their party.

Exactly this.

If Boehner put forth the bill the Senate passed in July to keep rates the same for incomes below $250k it would pass...but that's exactly what he's afraid of. The farking craven piece of shiat.


Don't they have some rule that no bill will be introduced unless it has majority republican support? What happens if Boehner breaks that rule?
 
2012-12-29 10:11:48 AM
Thanks to gerrymandering, virtually all those repub Congressional seats are secure. Sure they've lost the White House for the forseeable future, but their personal jobs are safe. So why compromise? The American people will suffer, but the American people deserves to suffer. You had the gall to reelect the black guy for four more years? This'll teach you, slaves! Incredibly their personal constituents, who will suffer along with the rest of us and maybe more so, will support them in this victory of ideology over common sense. Go figure.
 
2012-12-29 10:11:49 AM

HMS_Blinkin: This is entirely due to your party's constant refusal to behave rationally.


[this this this and this.jpg]
 
2012-12-29 10:12:37 AM

Fubar: Don't they have some rule that no bill will be introduced unless it has majority republican support? What happens if Boehner breaks that rule?


He's probably lose his speakership.
 
2012-12-29 10:15:22 AM

Grungehamster: I really don't see where these people see they aren't liable for more than half the blame.

1) Rather than attempt to negotiate with Democrats, Bush decided to pass his tax cuts through reconciliation, which required the tax cuts expire in 2010 unless they paid for themselves. (These cuts were extended 2 years as part of a deal between Congress and Obama after the 2010 Midterms in exchange for extending payroll tax cuts, unemployment benefits, and a few recurring issues like the doc fix for the same period.)

2) Republicans decided that despite negative real interest rates on t bills that they would hold the debt ceiling hostage, and claimed they would let the government default if Obama did not cut the budget (that Congress had passed) significantly. Ultimately they signed an agreement for a major across the board cut unless both parties could come up with a compromise that both parties would agree to.

3) The supercommittee failed to come up with a solution, and in the subsequent negotiations have refused to budge an inch on taxes, even when Democrats offered pretty severe entitlement cuts (the equivalent sacred cow for their side.) Even when their own Speaker offered to only raise marginal tax rates on millionares (while also extending estate tax and capital gains tax cuts that would primarily benefit them) their own party revolted against the idea, despite a majority of Republicans agreeing that the original tax increases on the rich Obama proposed are acceptable.

They led us here every step of the way, and are now complaining that they'll get blamed if Democrats don't swerve in this game of chicken that they proposed and have been playing for the last four years.


Four?!
 
2012-12-29 10:18:38 AM

o5iiawah: Boehner already agreed to most of the tax increases Obama has asked for.


And the House Republicans told him to go fark himself.
 
2012-12-29 10:20:11 AM
If you look at the current fiscal situation and find any blame in Obama, then you are either high as a kite or functionally retarded.
 
2012-12-29 10:20:42 AM
We're blaming the Republicans because they're the ones at fault. They forced the creation of the "fiscal cliff", they caused us to lose a notch of credit rating for the first time, they're been doing everything they can to make this recovery as slow as possible, now they refused to negotiate something less severe for Jan 1.

We're blaming you because you are to blame, Republicans.
 
2012-12-29 10:21:25 AM

Mrtraveler01: mat catastrophe: Mrtraveler01: 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!

Does this mean you're going to "Go Galt" on us?

/Contrary to what you may think, you won't be missed

Contrary to what you think, none of what you said makes any sense. Poor people do not "Go Galt". Poor people can try to convince themselves that they are John Galt, but they are not.

So, if you'd like to make another attempt at insulting me, go ahead.

Sorry, I misread your post. I haven't had enough coffee yet this morning.


YAY! COFFEE!

LET'S DRINK!
 
2012-12-29 10:21:57 AM
LESS FILLING
 
2012-12-29 10:23:46 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-29 10:25:06 AM

DamnYankees: lexslamman: All because the mainline GOP is too cowardly to stand up to the conservative minority in their party.

Since when are conservatives a minority of the GOP?


it's a really big tent
 
2012-12-29 10:25:19 AM

Karac: o5iiawah: Boehner already agreed to most of the tax increases Obama has asked for.

The best offer Boehner has proposed is not renewing the increases for people making $400,000, a damn sight higher than Obama's $250K. And that's not even mentioning the fact that the Dick knows he'd never be able to get enough votes to get that plan passed.

Negotiations in bad faith do not count as honest offers.


Obama's initial offer was 250K but he upped it to 400K AND actually agreed to the Social Security changes. Boehner's best offer was only raising taxes on those making more than $1,000,000 and that never went up for a vote because he knew he didn't have the votes of Republicans to support even that.

Also (and this isn't directed at you), this "cut the rate of growth" argument is rather stupid when the rate of growth is cut below the rate of inflation and doesn't account for population growth. Real per capita spending gets cut by these proposals: I hear people saying we should go back to Clinton era spending levels in gross terms if we're going back to Clinton era tax rates, but if the population has grown 10% since then and inflation has been about 34% (once compounded) a cut of that magnitude would be devastating as anyone with an ounce of macroeconomic familiarity knows.
 
2012-12-29 10:26:57 AM

Shrugging Atlas: lexslamman: All because the mainline GOP is too cowardly to stand up to the conservative minority in their party.

Exactly this.


Yeah...no. Look at what's happened over the past two election cycles, where any establishment GOP candidate who breathed the 'compromise' word got bushwhacked by Teatards screaming sozulizm. There's no 'standing up' when all it gets you is voted out of office.

OTOH, voters are increasingly turned off by the Teatards in the GOP, and last month they lost 8 seats to the Dems.

Good times, eh?
 
2012-12-29 10:27:43 AM

SilentStrider: Boohoo.


Done in two.
 
2012-12-29 10:31:35 AM
These threads always amuse me, they always instantly demonstrate who knows the different between macro and micro economics.

/hint, most of you tools arguing for the republicans don't.
 
2012-12-29 10:33:23 AM
RINO

No real Republican recognizes reality.
 
2012-12-29 10:34:57 AM

clambam: Thanks to gerrymandering, virtually all those repub Congressional seats are secure. Sure they've lost the White House for the forseeable future, but their personal jobs are safe. So why compromise? The American people will suffer, but the American people deserves to suffer. You had the gall to reelect the black guy for four more years? This'll teach you, slaves! Incredibly their personal constituents, who will suffer along with the rest of us and maybe more so, will support them in this victory of ideology over common sense. Go figure.


pretty much, but additionally, they're saying you voted for this level/volume of government, now you can pay for it.
 
2012-12-29 10:36:43 AM

Knight of the Woeful Countenance: These threads always amuse me, they always instantly demonstrate who knows the different between macro and micro economics.

/hint, most of you tools arguing for the republicans don't.


Those are Greek words... Why do you love socialism?
 
2012-12-29 10:37:08 AM

Fjornir: Grungehamster: I really don't see where these people see they aren't liable for more than half the blame.

1) Rather than attempt to negotiate with Democrats, Bush decided to pass his tax cuts through reconciliation, which required the tax cuts expire in 2010 unless they paid for themselves. (These cuts were extended 2 years as part of a deal between Congress and Obama after the 2010 Midterms in exchange for extending payroll tax cuts, unemployment benefits, and a few recurring issues like the doc fix for the same period.)

2) Republicans decided that despite negative real interest rates on t bills that they would hold the debt ceiling hostage, and claimed they would let the government default if Obama did not cut the budget (that Congress had passed) significantly. Ultimately they signed an agreement for a major across the board cut unless both parties could come up with a compromise that both parties would agree to.

3) The supercommittee failed to come up with a solution, and in the subsequent negotiations have refused to budge an inch on taxes, even when Democrats offered pretty severe entitlement cuts (the equivalent sacred cow for their side.) Even when their own Speaker offered to only raise marginal tax rates on millionares (while also extending estate tax and capital gains tax cuts that would primarily benefit them) their own party revolted against the idea, despite a majority of Republicans agreeing that the original tax increases on the rich Obama proposed are acceptable.

They led us here every step of the way, and are now complaining that they'll get blamed if Democrats don't swerve in this game of chicken that they proposed and have been playing for the last four years.

Four?!


The current game of chicken has been going on for four years; Republicans became completely instringent when Obama was elected and have decided that their brand is so toxic after Bush that any attempts to derail everything will have to hurt Democrats more than them because their public support couldn't fall much further. Besides Democrats are pussies and will roll over if you push back against them, so they should still be able to dictate policy as the minority party. The fact that Democrats would be so reckless as to fail to avoid their car when Republicans try to ram them should show they are at fault!
 
2012-12-29 10:38:45 AM

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


Um, that's exactly what you do. If I have budgeted for a $160,000 car, and I find that I'm $10,000 over, I cut $10,000 out of my budget by buying a Ferrari instead of a Lambo.

The plan Obama suggested in 2011 would allow the national debt to increase 6 trillion over 10 years instead of 13. While it would be nice to get it a lot lower than that, it's a hell of a lot better than a kick in the teeth.
 
2012-12-29 10:40:09 AM

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


Don't you have some teeth to clean, Phil?
 
2012-12-29 10:40:14 AM
The zombie chicken that the GOP has had its way with has come back from the grave and is reversing the role.

You don't have a leg to stand on when your team rejects your own abortion of "Plan B." You deserve everything that Obama serves you up. 250K, no more. The people voted for it in the election. Get it?
 
2012-12-29 10:41:19 AM

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.


I came in here to rant about something, but I'll just go with a "this." Worthless sacks of shiat. Monitor THIS, why don't you?
 
2012-12-29 10:42:19 AM
This is what you get when your idea of "negotiation" is to slap every single offer out of the other person's hand, and then throw yourselves a parade about how awesome you are at your jobs.
 
2012-12-29 10:46:33 AM
Party of personal responsibility strikes again.
 
2012-12-29 10:48:10 AM
Maybe Obama will come up with a last-minute 'bi-partisan' solution that the GOP can reject!
 
2012-12-29 10:49:21 AM
Hey, GOP:

i78.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-29 10:50:20 AM

The Jami Turman Fan Club:

The plan Obama suggested in 2011 would allow the national debt to increase 6 trillion over 10 years instead of 13. While it would be nice to get it a lot lower than that, it's a hell of a lot better than a kick in the teeth.


While our current deficits are in the $1.5 trillion range, so, give a second here, . . . 4 moar years and fark you I'll be in Hawaii?
 
2012-12-29 10:50:27 AM
There are enough votes between Democrats and Republicans to get a deal done. Boehner could stop trying to force the bill to pass along party lines and it would go down.
 
2012-12-29 10:50:54 AM

DamnYankees: lexslamman: All because the mainline GOP is too cowardly to stand up to the conservative minority in their party.

Since when are conservatives a minority of the GOP?


I think you've put your finger on it.  The modern state of the GOP is:

1) A large majority of them put themselves into the "severely conservative" camp, into the "gubbmint too big" camp, into the "must slash spending" camp, into the "income tax is EVIL" camp.

2) A majority even of Republicans want taxes on the top 1% to go up.

This has kept the party stuck in an infinite loop.  There is no resolution of these wildly-contradictory positions.
 
2012-12-29 10:51:40 AM
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
 
2012-12-29 10:55:44 AM
My 9 year old nephew asked for an Xbox 360 with a Kinnect and about a dozen games, including the latest Call of Duty. On Christmas morning he opened his Xbox 360 with a Kinnect and a bunch of games. He did not get the Call of Duty game because he's nine. He then picked the Xbox up over his head and smashed it into thousands of pieces on the tile floor while screaming about lack of compromise and socialism.

It was a proud moment for the family of patriotic Tea Party patriots.
 
2012-12-29 10:58:37 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]


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.
 
2012-12-29 10:59:32 AM

Kibbler: DamnYankees: lexslamman: All because the mainline GOP is too cowardly to stand up to the conservative minority in their party.

Since when are conservatives a minority of the GOP?

I think you've put your finger on it.  The modern state of the GOP is:

1) A large majority of them put themselves into the "severely conservative" camp, into the "gubbmint too big" camp, into the "must slash spending" camp, into the "income tax is EVIL" camp.

2) A majority even of Republicans want taxes on the top 1% to go up.

This has kept the party stuck in an infinite loop.  There is no resolution of these wildly-contradictory positions.


That's the problem with 'demonization'.

You can portray your opponents as ignorant, stupid, rancid, misguided, deluded... whatever... and excuse away having to make a deal with them.

However, if you convince your constituents that your opponents are evil minions of Satan, how can you later justify compromising with the hellspawn?
 
2012-12-29 11:01:18 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]


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.
 
2012-12-29 11:02:03 AM

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
 
2012-12-29 11:02:43 AM

Xetal: We're blaming the Republicans because they're the ones at fault. They forced the creation of the "fiscal cliff", they caused us to lose a notch of credit rating for the first time, they're been doing everything they can to make this recovery as slow as possible, now they refused to negotiate something less severe for Jan 1.

We're blaming you because you are to blame, Republicans.



But, Moooooooooom, the president is still presidenting while not being a white Republican from an old-money family.

Great. You just made Boehner cry. I hope it makes you feel like a big man to pick on such a sensitive, precious flower.
 
2012-12-29 11:03:26 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.


Man, I must be tired. Simple and perfect response.
 
2012-12-29 11:04:39 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.


Ugh. I saw that on Facebook, and it's so I dunno, symbolic of the tea partiers.

They like to condense complex social/economic governmental duties into caveman, brut like talk. Me no likey gubment.

I guess it's working, we do have the least productive Congress right now, that's what they were elected to do.
 
2012-12-29 11:04:56 AM

Fubar: Don't they have some rule that no bill will be introduced unless it has majority republican support? What happens if Boehner breaks that rule?


Well it's a 'rule' in the sense it's something Boehner came up with for cover in situations like this where he's scared to death to offend the 20 or so Tea Party idiots in his caucus...but it's not a real rule. And hell, they've been breaking plenty of their own rules lately when it suits them.

The bottom line is this bill would pass easily. It would have massive Dem support, and there are GOP House members who have said they would vote for it. It's a maintaining of the status quo and NOT voting on it leads to a tax increase.

When you stop to think about this, it's just farking amazing. There's a bill to keep taxes at their current rate for something like 98% of Americans. A rate dictated by a GOP President. Not voting on the bill means a tax increase. And they won't farking vote on it!
 
2012-12-29 11:05:34 AM

TheOther: Kibbler: DamnYankees: lexslamman: All because the mainline GOP is too cowardly to stand up to the conservative minority in their party.

Since when are conservatives a minority of the GOP?

I think you've put your finger on it.  The modern state of the GOP is:

1) A large majority of them put themselves into the "severely conservative" camp, into the "gubbmint too big" camp, into the "must slash spending" camp, into the "income tax is EVIL" camp.

2) A majority even of Republicans want taxes on the top 1% to go up.

This has kept the party stuck in an infinite loop.  There is no resolution of these wildly-contradictory positions.

That's the problem with 'demonization'.

You can portray your opponents as ignorant, stupid, rancid, misguided, deluded... whatever... and excuse away having to make a deal with them.

However, if you convince your constituents that your opponents are evil minions of Satan, how can you later justify compromising with the hellspawn?


Bingo.

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.
 
2012-12-29 11:05:46 AM
Two words... Strategic Deficit.

Two more words... Fuk Republicans.
 
2012-12-29 11:07:32 AM

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.
 
2012-12-29 11:09:52 AM

Shrugging Atlas: Fubar: Don't they have some rule that no bill will be introduced unless it has majority republican support? What happens if Boehner breaks that rule?

Well it's a 'rule' in the sense it's something Boehner came up with for cover in situations like this where he's scared to death to offend the 20 or so Tea Party idiots in his caucus...but it's not a real rule. And hell, they've been breaking plenty of their own rules lately when it suits them.

The bottom line is this bill would pass easily. It would have massive Dem support, and there are GOP House members who have said they would vote for it. It's a maintaining of the status quo and NOT voting on it leads to a tax increase.

When you stop to think about this, it's just farking amazing. There's a bill to keep taxes at their current rate for something like 98% of Americans. A rate dictated by a GOP President. Not voting on the bill means a tax increase. And they won't farking vote on it!


That unofficial rule is the backbone of the GOP's strength. Strength through Unity. Unity through Faith. They simply cannot have a vote on a bill where half of the GOP votes for it and the other half votes against it. It's unimaginable for them because then...they're in disagreement with each other. That means, one group is wrong and has to be purged. But which side? Both sides are going to think that they're the pure GOP, so...The knives come out.

That's why boehner ran from the Plan B vote when he realized he wasn't going to get a united GOP vote for it.
 
2012-12-29 11:10:16 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


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.
 
2012-12-29 11:10:41 AM

EnviroDude: It was part of the Bush tax plan that the democrats in the Senate refuse to extend


What? Republicans and Democrats agreed to the current plan (lots of "good" stuff goes away unless a new plan is agreed to).

The republicans refuse to let middle class keep the chid deduction unless rich get a tax break as well.

That is what the republicn party is hanging their hat on. Keeping tax breaks for the wealthy is more important than anything else.
 
2012-12-29 11:12:11 AM

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.
 
2012-12-29 11:12:26 AM

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.
 
2012-12-29 11:13:42 AM

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.


People aren't going to stop having kids over this. They are just going to be in a worse position to raise them.

Which, in the long run, is going to lead to more unemployment, and more kids.
 
2012-12-29 11:13:58 AM

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?
 
2012-12-29 11:14:14 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.


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.
 
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.
 
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 198 of 198 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report