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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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

Boohoo.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?!

An aggregate site links to Buzzfeed citing Some Guy.

This is important.

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

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.

You were the fark nuts that voted for them. Of course you'll get the blame.