Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Telegraph)   Congress is somewhat desperate to avert the fiscal cliff, since on Wednesday, Obama is going to tell them what's getting cut 10%   (telegraph.co.uk) divider line 106
    More: Amusing, President Obama, congresses, John Avlon, Social Security Reform, farm bills, divided government  
•       •       •

4751 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Dec 2012 at 3:38 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-29 01:00:12 PM  
Cooperation is almost considered collaboration in the Vichy-France sense.

but only on the Republican side.  its worth noting that fact.  the GOP believes that compromise is evil
 
2012-12-29 01:02:18 PM  
Please say defense budget, please say defense budget.
 
2012-12-29 01:36:51 PM  
As usual, the press is making a mountain out of a molehill. According to the CBO, when we go off the "cliff," government spending will be initially cut by $9 billion, or 0.3%. By 2014 U.S. government spending will be above where it was this year. The deficit will go down by $487 billion. Of that $487 billion, $9 billion will be due to spending cuts and the other $478 billion will come from increased tax revenues. When the economy fails to revive, this will be blamed on the alleged "austerity" program of the federal government, without noting that the laughable "spending cuts" were vastly exceeded by the tax increases (e.g., spending cuts that the taxpayer will have to make).
 
2012-12-29 01:44:47 PM  
Oh look, a both sides are bad article.  Never mind that the Republicans engineered this whole thing to try and force massive spending cuts, only to discover that they didn't think their cunning plan all the way through.  Never mind that the House GOP stonewalled pretty much everyone including their own leadership.  Never mind that Boehner is the most impotent Speaker of the House in my memory.  Never mind that every time Obama offered a compromise, the GOP slapped his hand away and offered plans that tried to gut social programs for no reason other than ideology.  Never mind that the "hyper partisan liberals" are simply smart enough to realize that they can negotiate in good faith with no risk because in the end, the Republicans will blow everything up like they always do, the difference being that this time the public is ready to hold them accountable.  Never mind all of that, both sides are bad.
 
2012-12-29 02:49:10 PM  

Mentat: Oh look, a both sides are bad article.


Typical liberal media.
 
2012-12-29 02:57:39 PM  
So cute subby that you think the President determines the budgets and allocations.
 
2012-12-29 03:05:56 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: So cute subby that you think the President determines the budgets and allocations.


So cute that you take FARK headlines seriously.
 
2012-12-29 03:17:57 PM  
What will probably happen is that all of the Bush tax cuts get extended another year and SS/Medicare end up getting the majority of the cuts. Because "compromise".
 
2012-12-29 03:21:31 PM  
This might be a good time to bring Simpson-Bowles back for an up or down vote.
 
2012-12-29 03:43:14 PM  
Nice to see that tenpoundsofderp is being his usual charming self.
 
2012-12-29 03:45:04 PM  
POUND OF FLESH FROM THE RICH!!!

/Sorry, I was channeling another farker for a second.
 
2012-12-29 03:48:30 PM  

SilentStrider: Please say defense budget, please say defense budget.


As someone who works in the military (and awaiting a full-time position), this is not the greatest thing.

That being said, it sounds like most of the defense budget that will be cut will be the crap that Defense doesn't want (F-22 engine, etc) that Congress forces them to take. So we could have a win-win (no hiring freeze/contractors lose the unnecessary shiat)
 
2012-12-29 03:49:30 PM  

DrPainMD: When the economy fails to revive, this will be blamed on the alleged "austerity" program of the federal government, without noting that the laughable "spending cuts" were vastly exceeded by the tax increases (e.g., spending cuts that the taxpayer will have to make).


Fun fact, the CBO estimates that real gdp will decrease by 1/2 of 1 percent in 2013, but in 2014 it will go back up, leading to 5.5% unemployment by 2018.

That's WITH the fiscal cliff.
 
2012-12-29 03:51:06 PM  
I've heard that, due to the way the NSF does their grants, this DOES have the possibility of really, REALLY screwing over NSF grants, though.

/And as a physics grad student, this kinda worries me. =/.
 
2012-12-29 03:52:14 PM  
When exactly did Obama and the Democrats go from being against the Bush Tax cuts to being in favor of them? I remember Total Farkers hating the tax cuts not too long ago.
 
2012-12-29 03:53:11 PM  
the CONgress does what its big business/wealthy owners tells it to do.
 
2012-12-29 03:53:18 PM  

Nemo's Brother: When exactly did Obama and the Democrats go from being against the Bush Tax cuts to being in favor of them? I remember Total Farkers hating the tax cuts not too long ago.


I guess it was the same point the GOP was ok with raising taxes on the middle class as long as it protected the tax breaks for the wealthy.
 
2012-12-29 03:56:14 PM  

Nemo's Brother: When exactly did Obama and the Democrats go from being against the Bush Tax cuts to being in favor of them? I remember Total Farkers hating the tax cuts not too long ago.


They're against some of them... not all of them. Namely the ones for people who simply do not need them (hint... the rich folks don't need all those tax cuts).
 
2012-12-29 03:57:10 PM  

SilentStrider: Please say defense budget, please say defense budget.


I'm hoping for Congressional pay myself. It won't make much of a difference in the budget but it'll get some attention.
 
2012-12-29 03:59:00 PM  
Brain cells cut 10%

i.telegraph.co.uk
 
2012-12-29 03:59:51 PM  

SilentStrider: Please say defense budget, please say defense budget.


Too bad he can't cut the salaries and benefits of the House of Representatives by 10%. Only not across the board. Do it in whole congressmen -- 4.35 of them. I have a few nominees.
 
2012-12-29 04:00:52 PM  

Nemo's Brother: When exactly did Obama and the Democrats go from being against the Bush Tax cuts to being in favor of them? I remember Total Farkers hating the tax cuts not too long ago.


Since the Democrat's populist message of trickle-up economics gained traction.
 
2012-12-29 04:01:07 PM  

LordOfThePings: Brain cells cut 10%

[i.telegraph.co.uk image 140x87]


I think we're well past that point. Do congress critters even have any left? Did they have any to begin with?

I'm just asking questions
 
2012-12-29 04:01:33 PM  

Nemo's Brother: When exactly did Obama and the Democrats go from being against the Bush Tax cuts to being in favor of them? I remember Total Farkers hating the tax cuts not too long ago.


In a fragile economy, them all going away at once plus the debt ceiling getting hit around the same time- remember that?- equals economy going splat all over again. This is a thing you ease into.

Let me put it this way. If a starving family needs food, and you decide to give it to them, you give it to them over time at a rate in which they can be sustained. You don't fly over their house and drop a Wendy's through their roof.
 
2012-12-29 04:14:32 PM  

Nemo's Brother: When exactly did Obama and the Democrats go from being against the Bush Tax cuts to being in favor of them? I remember Total Farkers hating the tax cuts not too long ago.


We've pretty much always been against the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy. Because the 01 and 03 cuts do favor the wealthy.
 
2012-12-29 04:15:09 PM  

Gosling: Nemo's Brother: When exactly did Obama and the Democrats go from being against the Bush Tax cuts to being in favor of them? I remember Total Farkers hating the tax cuts not too long ago.

In a fragile economy, them all going away at once plus the debt ceiling getting hit around the same time- remember that?- equals economy going splat all over again. This is a thing you ease into.

Let me put it this way. If a starving family needs food, and you decide to give it to them, you give it to them over time at a rate in which they can be sustained. You don't fly over their house and drop a Wendy's through their roof.


What does anything that comes form Wendy's have to do with food?
 
2012-12-29 04:18:38 PM  
FTFA: In the past, divided government worked well in Washington - we accomplished great things with one party in control of the White House and another in control of Congress. The Marshall Plan, the Interstate Highway System, Civil Rights bills, all the accomplishments of the Reagan administration and even welfare reform occurred under divided government.

I like that their examples of "great things" achieved in the past consists of four specific examples and a vague, fact-free handjob for Reagan. "...all the accomplishments of the Reagan administration," my sweet ass.
 
2012-12-29 04:19:49 PM  

DrPainMD: As usual, the press is making a mountain out of a molehill. According to the CBO, when we go off the "cliff," government spending will be initially cut by $9 billion, or 0.3%. By 2014 U.S. government spending will be above where it was this year. The deficit will go down by $487 billion. Of that $487 billion, $9 billion will be due to spending cuts and the other $478 billion will come from increased tax revenues. When the economy fails to revive, this will be blamed on the alleged "austerity" program of the federal government, without noting that the laughable "spending cuts" were vastly exceeded by the tax increases (e.g., spending cuts that the taxpayer will have to make).


THIS

Funnier still, we are in this mess because the super committee was unable to compromise and just kicked the can down the road. Technically the "cliff" is exactly the compromise which was made. TADA
 
2012-12-29 04:20:26 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Nemo's Brother: When exactly did Obama and the Democrats go from being against the Bush Tax cuts to being in favor of them? I remember Total Farkers hating the tax cuts not too long ago.

We've pretty much always been against the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy. Because the 01 and 03 cuts do favor the wealthy.


THIS
 
2012-12-29 04:20:45 PM  
The first thing I'd do is cut all payments to defense contractors in Tea Party districts. After all, they're screaming for budget cuts, so why not give them some?
 
2012-12-29 04:20:57 PM  
I'd rather go over the fiscal cliff than some last-minute bargain.

You know we're all farked if there's a bargain of some sort.

And I hate the media hyping up the "fiscal cliff" over and over again scaring people. It's such demagoguery.
 
2012-12-29 04:24:37 PM  

Weaver95: Cooperation is almost considered collaboration in the Vichy-France sense.

but only on the Republican side.  its worth noting that fact.  the GOP believes that compromise is evil


It's begining to be that for democratic people as well. Most liberals are tired of "compromise". We've continually slid to the right... To the point we have a conservative black democratic president.
 
2012-12-29 04:34:00 PM  

JohnnyC: Nemo's Brother: When exactly did Obama and the Democrats go from being against the Bush Tax cuts to being in favor of them? I remember Total Farkers hating the tax cuts not too long ago.

They're against some of them... not all of them. Namely the ones for people who simply do not need them (hint... the rich folks don't need all those tax cuts).


yeah, good government policy is based on who "needs" to keep the money they earned.

remember, the Bush tax cuts caused all sorts of problems and was the decline of Western civilization and the economy.
But somehow that was only caused by a small portion of the tax cuts.  The other tax cuts apparently were good for the economy.
 
2012-12-29 04:37:56 PM  
Quick question: that $250,000 per year line between middle-class and upper-class -- who drew that line?
And is it per household or per person?

At the peak of his career, my dad was making around $110,000 a year, nowhere close to the line. I don't see why we can't lower it to $150,000 or so. That would actually help put a dent in the deficit.
 
2012-12-29 04:42:55 PM  

Seth'n'Spectrum: Quick question: that $250,000 per year line between middle-class and upper-class -- who drew that line?
And is it per household or per person?

At the peak of his career, my dad was making around $110,000 a year, nowhere close to the line. I don't see why we can't lower it to $150,000 or so. That would actually help put a dent in the deficit.


I agree. Six figures and up should equal tax raises.
 
2012-12-29 04:45:26 PM  
fark it. Let's do this thing. Put it in high gear and drive, motherfarkers. LET'S GO.

I'm tired of watching this posturing. Let's pull the trigger on this son of a biatch.

It'll hurt everyone in the short term, but it'll REALLY hurt the GOP in the long term. And I'm starting to be OK with that, because our future depends on getting these inveterate douchebags as far away from decision-making power in this country as we can possibly get them.
 
2012-12-29 04:47:38 PM  

Seth'n'Spectrum: Quick question: that $250,000 per year line between middle-class and upper-class -- who drew that line?
And is it per household or per person?

At the peak of his career, my dad was making around $110,000 a year, nowhere close to the line. I don't see why we can't lower it to $150,000 or so. That would actually help put a dent in the deficit.


Argument against that is you catch too many small business owners if you go that low, and that's where the real job creation exists. *shrug* I think it's a BS number too. Personally, I have no problem with going over the fiscal cliff; if you can't afford the taxes going up next year, you weren't handling your budget properly to begin with.

/let's be honest folks, an entire generation of people who overspent their income is exactly why we are in this mess; why are we surprised that government started doing the same thing?
 
2012-12-29 04:48:09 PM  
Dear GOP - You put your dick in crazy. Now, 9 months later, crazy is at the door, holding a baby and screaming about child support.
 
2012-12-29 04:50:16 PM  
This far into the comments and no one is busting his balls over misquoting Churchill and attributing it to Lincoln? Fark, I am disappoint.
 
2012-12-29 04:51:25 PM  

Seth'n'Spectrum: Quick question: that $250,000 per year line between middle-class and upper-class -- who drew that line?


0bama drew that line.


And is it per household or per person?

200k per person or 250k for a household.

At the peak of his career, my dad was making around $110,000 a year, nowhere close to the line. I don't see why we can't lower it to $150,000 or so. That would actually help put a dent in the deficit.

That really is the joke about all this.  The tax hikes for the "rich" addresses less than 10% of the annual budget deficit - that is assuming that there is no downside to those tax cuts on economic growth. Would be good to actually spend all this effort and political capital on the other 90%.
 
2012-12-29 04:55:32 PM  

Peki: Argument against that is you catch too many small business owners if you go that low, and that's where the real job creation exists.


Could you explain that for those of us who are less knowledgeable?
It's to do with how tax responsibility passes through limited partnerships, right?

Do small businesses get taxed on the revenue or the profit after expenses?
I really don't feel any sympathy for small business owners who are paying their employees terribly and not reinvesting in their business, taking a massive cut for themselves instead.
 
2012-12-29 04:56:12 PM  

MontanaDave: This far into the comments and no one is busting his balls over misquoting Churchill and attributing it to Lincoln? Fark, I am disappoint.


Churchill got it from Lincoln who got it from Gandhi.
 
2012-12-29 05:00:47 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: MontanaDave: This far into the comments and no one is busting his balls over misquoting Churchill and attributing it to Lincoln? Fark, I am disappoint.

Churchill got it from Lincoln who got it from Gandhi.


You can't be this stupid in real life can you?

How can Lincoln get something from someone who wasn't even alive yet?
 
2012-12-29 05:03:34 PM  

Seth'n'Spectrum: Peki: Argument against that is you catch too many small business owners if you go that low, and that's where the real job creation exists.

Could you explain that for those of us who are less knowledgeable?
It's to do with how tax responsibility passes through limited partnerships, right?

Do small businesses get taxed on the revenue or the profit after expenses?
I really don't feel any sympathy for small business owners who are paying their employees terribly and not reinvesting in their business, taking a massive cut for themselves instead.


Well for starters, it's not really true that really small businesses create most jobs, those fail with alarming regularity
 
2012-12-29 05:04:36 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: 0bama drew that line.


To annoy people, I've taken to reading '0bama' as Nil-bama. I hope the faux Britishism will enrage the "America, fark yeah" crowd.

tenpoundsofcheese: The tax hikes for the "rich" addresses less than 10% of the annual budget deficit


That's actually substantially more than I had expected. I'm pretty sure most liberals know the move is largely symbolic.

That's not to say I'm not for it, even if it's only $250,000 and up. Symbolism can do a hell of a lot, especially when the Republicans are taking such an adamant stand.

At the end of the day, the most important thing is to figure out how to lower medical costs across the industry. Is it because the drug companies have found that making cures for niche diseases is an incredibly lucrative way of gouging the insurance companies? Is it medical practitioner insurance/liability reform? Whatever the correct answer is, the solution will require a lot of government intervention and getting the Republicans on board with that means getting them used to caving now, not later.
 
2012-12-29 05:09:16 PM  

Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: MontanaDave: This far into the comments and no one is busting his balls over misquoting Churchill and attributing it to Lincoln? Fark, I am disappoint.

Churchill got it from Lincoln who got it from Gandhi.

You can't be this stupid in real life can you?

How can Lincoln get something from someone who wasn't even alive yet?


Do you think that Mahatma Gandhi was the first person in the world to be called Gandhi?  Do you even know who MG's granddad was?
 
2012-12-29 05:10:34 PM  

MontanaDave: This far into the comments and no one is busting his balls over misquoting Churchill and attributing it to Lincoln? Fark, I am disappoint.


'Ouch, my head.'

-Winston Churchill

Evened it out.
 
2012-12-29 05:11:56 PM  

Seth'n'Spectrum: tenpoundsofcheese: The tax hikes for the "rich" addresses less than 10% of the annual budget deficit

That's actually substantially more than I had expected. I'm pretty sure most liberals know the move is largely symbolic.

That's not to say I'm not for it, even if it's only $250,000 and up. Symbolism can do a hell of a lot,


Yeah.  Unfortunately the liberals are about symbolism rather than results.  I don't think this symbolism can do a hell of a lot in terms of:
1.  Creating jobs (isn't that important anymore)
2.  Balancing the budget.
3.  Reducing the debt...or at least not increasing it anymore than the 16,000,000,000,000 we have now.
 
2012-12-29 05:12:19 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: Weaver95: Cooperation is almost considered collaboration in the Vichy-France sense.

but only on the Republican side.  its worth noting that fact.  the GOP believes that compromise is evil

It's begining to be that for democratic people as well. Most liberals are tired of "compromise". We've continually slid to the right... To the point we have a conservative black democratic president.


"We" are not tired of compromise. We are tired of giving in. We are tired of being the only side which has to compromise its positions. Not quite the same thing.
 
2012-12-29 05:13:02 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: So cute subby that you think the President determines the budgets and allocations.


So cute that you know how sequestration works
 
Displayed 50 of 106 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report