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.

(NewsChannel 5 Nashville) NewsFlash Obama says fiscal cliff deal is "emerging." OK HOPE IS COMING OUT   (newschannel5.com) divider line 993
    More: NewsFlash, obama  
•       •       •

4955 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Dec 2012 at 2:28 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

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

Archived thread

First | « | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-31 09:07:58 PM  
Haven't you Farkers solved the fiscal cliff yet?
 
2012-12-31 09:08:30 PM  

johnnyrocket: Is this becoming clear for everyone?? The Republicans want to:

CUT Social Security
CUT Medicare
CUT Unemployment benefits
CUT Food stamps

at the same time:

CUT taxes on billionaires
NOT CUT a dime out of military contract spending.

Is it crystal clear which side the Republicans are on?


You're using that dipshiat liberal math where increasing spending on social programs by 10% instead of 15% is seen as a "cut".

The same math that says "the rich" only pay so-&-so Federal Income Taxes and ignore State and local taxes so it ends up someone making only $50k a year never sees over a THIRD of their pay.
 
2012-12-31 09:08:34 PM  

ChipNASA: [i1191.photobucket.com image 275x200]
"The Democrats will Fix This, Don't you all worry none
You'll have your cell phones and Your welfare checks but you ain't got no guns
Obammy's got yer back, Senate's gonna get er' done

Go back to your protesting, And watching CNN
Hillary's gonna be OK, Chocolate Jesus has Risen AGAIN!"


This is the level of maturity we've come to expect from the Republicans. Thank you for illustrating the point.
 
2012-12-31 09:10:11 PM  

StopLurkListen: The five-fold drop in violent crime is a welcome but puzzling development.


Actually no, because they redefined violent crime. If punch you, that's not violent. If I shoot you it is.
Se also rape,rape rape and legitimate rape.
 
2012-12-31 09:13:11 PM  

PsiChick: jigger: Taxes aren't a penalty? WTF is the Obamandate about? How is that enforced? What do they call the tax you are charged for non-compliance? They call it "the penalty."

Because a tax that is  intended asa penalty is not the same as the taxes that are inherently part of society. They are, in fact, different. Much as your IQ score probably is from the left half of the bell curve.


A "tax" intended as a penalty is called a fine, since we're having a productive semantic discussion here.
 
2012-12-31 09:13:23 PM  

ramblur: Haven't you Farkers solved the fiscal cliff yet?


Yeah, I have: Tax ID Religion and Riches.

We're done here.
 
2012-12-31 09:14:12 PM  

chuggernaught: Either you're trolling and committed a cardinal troll sin by using actual numbers, or you are as bad as I am when it comes to finances.


Or the fiancee is hiding it
 
2012-12-31 09:16:24 PM  

HeartBurnKid: jigger: Taxes aren't a penalty? WTF is the Obamandate about? How is that enforced? What do they call the tax you are charged for non-compliance? They call it "the penalty."

There is such a thing as a tax penalty; however, this does not make taxes, themselves, a penalty.


Call it whatever you want. It's forced payment made under threat of violence.
 
2012-12-31 09:16:53 PM  

scubamage: She's a teacher so she instantly loses 7% of her salary to state pension funds, then another 5% to her 403b


So you are a farking moron
 
2012-12-31 09:17:25 PM  

peterthx: johnnyrocket: Is this becoming clear for everyone?? The Republicans want to:

CUT Social Security
CUT Medicare
CUT Unemployment benefits
CUT Food stamps

at the same time:

CUT taxes on billionaires
NOT CUT a dime out of military contract spending.

Is it crystal clear which side the Republicans are on?

You're using that dipshiat liberal math where increasing spending on social programs by 10% instead of 15% is seen as a "cut".

The same math that says "the rich" only pay so-&-so Federal Income Taxes and ignore State and local taxes so it ends up someone making only $50k a year never sees over a THIRD of their pay.


Look, it's trying to use words! Awww...
 
2012-12-31 09:20:40 PM  

stratagos: Jake Steed: Government should do what a responsible American would do in the same situation. STOP spending so much and live within your means, its all very simple.

So you're in favor of the defense cuts?


Yep, we're spending way too much on defense.
 
2012-12-31 09:24:31 PM  

jigger: PsiChick: jigger: Taxes aren't a penalty? WTF is the Obamandate about? How is that enforced? What do they call the tax you are charged for non-compliance? They call it "the penalty."

Because a tax that is  intended asa penalty is not the same as the taxes that are inherently part of society. They are, in fact, different. Much as your IQ score probably is from the left half of the bell curve.

A "tax" intended as a penalty is called a fine, since we're having a productive semantic discussion here.


Purdy much, but the SCOTUS did rule it as a tax, so I figured that was a bit too complicated at this point.
 
2012-12-31 09:25:31 PM  

ProfessorOhki: StopLurkListen: Somacandra: o5iiawah: News to some folks, but politicians have altered the tax code to promote certain behaviors among the population in exchange for 'vote for me, I gave you a tax cut" In any normal world, being married wouldn't be any benefit since every living breathing soul over 18 would have to pay taxes regardless of whether or not they swore their life to someone else. Each person benefits from the protections of the Federal government, thus each should pay. Or as Madison called it - the General Welfare.

Its more than that. Rather than mandating behaviors more beneficial to the 'General Welfare,' the U.S. has chosen to incentivize these behaviors. In the U.S. home ownership has traditionally built more stable communities than rentals. Same with marriage versus being single. Optimizing these behaviors means fewer police interventions and frankly, longer and healthier life spans (for men anyway.) Thus less burden for police and emergency medical intervention and so forth and so on. You want to live in a way that potentially hits all of us more in the pocketbook and quality of life? Fine, but you'll pay more for doing so. We can dispute the wisdom of using the tax code to strengthen the social welfare like this, but this is how the USA has historically chosen to do this.

Going kinda off-topic here (but what else is new, hello Fark) -- violent crime has dropped so far and so fast that it's impossible to ascribe it to any one factor. Did five times as many couples get married since 1991? Of course not. I agree with everything you said, though. The five-fold drop in violent crime is a welcome but puzzling development.

[www.motherjones.com image 388x277]

August 23, 1991 - The day the SNES was released in North America. Clearly, CLEARLY, video games reduce violence.


Nope. It's less unwanted children.
 
2012-12-31 09:27:24 PM  

ski9600: stratagos: Jake Steed: Government should do what a responsible American would do in the same situation. STOP spending so much and live within your means, its all very simple.

So you're in favor of the defense cuts?

Yep, we're spending way too much on defense.


Agreed. Defense spending has been out of control for a long time.
 
2012-12-31 09:29:22 PM  

virusdynamo: I thought this was explicitly outlawed in the constitution.


Please see my previous comments regarding Teabaggers.
One of those asshats may try, but it won't go any where. Congress has ground to a halt because the GOP will block any vote for anything in the House.
 
2012-12-31 09:29:53 PM  

PsiChick: jigger: PsiChick: jigger: Taxes aren't a penalty? WTF is the Obamandate about? How is that enforced? What do they call the tax you are charged for non-compliance? They call it "the penalty."

Because a tax that is  intended asa penalty is not the same as the taxes that are inherently part of society. They are, in fact, different. Much as your IQ score probably is from the left half of the bell curve.

A "tax" intended as a penalty is called a fine, since we're having a productive semantic discussion here.

Purdy much, but the SCOTUS did rule it as a tax, so I figured that was a bit too complicated at this point.


They can call it whatever they want, but it's a fine, a punishment. If you'd like to call it a tax, then it's a tax that's a punishment. Taxes aren't collected because the payer is nice and wants to make a contribution. They're collected because the payer is in fear of the consequences of non-compliance.
 
2012-12-31 09:33:34 PM  

jigger: HeartBurnKid: jigger: Taxes aren't a penalty? WTF is the Obamandate about? How is that enforced? What do they call the tax you are charged for non-compliance? They call it "the penalty."

There is such a thing as a tax penalty; however, this does not make taxes, themselves, a penalty.

Call it whatever you want. It's forced payment made under threat of violence.


Welcome to the last quarter century, man.
 
2012-12-31 09:34:36 PM  
I like potatoes.

And

RIP Heathcliffe
 
2012-12-31 09:35:26 PM  
It's

JolobinSmokin: I like potatoes.

And

RIP Heathcliffe


It's no myth
 
2012-12-31 09:36:10 PM  

jigger: PsiChick: jigger: PsiChick: jigger: Taxes aren't a penalty? WTF is the Obamandate about? How is that enforced? What do they call the tax you are charged for non-compliance? They call it "the penalty."

Because a tax that is  intended asa penalty is not the same as the taxes that are inherently part of society. They are, in fact, different. Much as your IQ score probably is from the left half of the bell curve.

A "tax" intended as a penalty is called a fine, since we're having a productive semantic discussion here.

Purdy much, but the SCOTUS did rule it as a tax, so I figured that was a bit too complicated at this point.

They can call it whatever they want, but it's a fine, a punishment. If you'd like to call it a tax, then it's a tax that's a punishment. Taxes aren't collected because the payer is nice and wants to make a contribution. They're collected because the payer is in fear of the consequences of non-compliance.


denver.mylittlefacewhen.com
 
2012-12-31 09:36:41 PM  

cchris_39: scubamage: There you go. My finances. I have nothing to hide.

Ok why not.

245 here. Basically you, 20 years from now.

3k house payment, titer up ancillary expenses associated with that.
2 kids in college. Financial aid? No, you're paying full freight. 50k a year there. And all of those wonderful education credits are completely phased out.
Most of your other deductions are phased out or down to the minimum allowed.
Another 50k in federal income taxes.
Another 12k in FICA and Medicare.
4 car payments.
Car insurance for 2 college age boys isn't cheap. Neither is life insurance for 50+ Mom & Dad.

Weddings are coming next (at least they aren't girls).

So is retirement.

It's a good living and I'm grateful for it, but you're not getting rich at this level.


There are a few things that you could shift that would help a lot...

-Car payments: You shouldn't have any. Pay off your car and then keep it up. If you're legitimately between cars at the moment and paying *yours* off, at the very least you shouldn't be having car payments for your kids. Buy them a one time basic car (2K-3K cash) and let them keep it up (help as necessary).

-Car insurance: You're paying insurance for your *adult* kids...why? They want to drive, they pay their own insurance.

-College: Unless they've got something they know they're going into, don't waste the money. They can go work until they figure out what they *really* want to do and THEN the education will be worth something. Lots of people with debt out there and no jobs because they went off to "find themselves" in college. That doesn't work anymore.

-Life Insurance for Mom and Dad: This may or may not be a necessity depending on what sort of bills you parents will have when they die and which of those you'll be responsible for. But I'd take a good long look at it....

-House Payment: Depending on your housing situation, and assuming you've actually made headway into your loan over the years, consider re-financing. Then you can pay down the principle at your leisure. (Which you should do as soon as possible since housing is one of the biggest chunks of your budget in general.)
 
2012-12-31 09:41:28 PM  

cuzsis: -College: Unless they've got something they know they're going into, don't waste the money. They can go work until they figure out what they *really* want to do and THEN the education will be worth something. Lots of people with debt out there and no jobs because they went off to "find themselves" in college. That doesn't work anymore.


Or dip your toes in at a JC until you figure something out. It blows me away how many people waste epic money on school before they are really ready.
 
2012-12-31 09:44:14 PM  

jigger: PsiChick: jigger: PsiChick: jigger: Taxes aren't a penalty? WTF is the Obamandate about? How is that enforced? What do they call the tax you are charged for non-compliance? They call it "the penalty."

Because a tax that is  intended asa penalty is not the same as the taxes that are inherently part of society. They are, in fact, different. Much as your IQ score probably is from the left half of the bell curve.

A "tax" intended as a penalty is called a fine, since we're having a productive semantic discussion here.

Purdy much, but the SCOTUS did rule it as a tax, so I figured that was a bit too complicated at this point.

They can call it whatever they want, but it's a fine, a punishment. If you'd like to call it a tax, then it's a tax that's a punishment. Taxes aren't collected because the payer is nice and wants to make a contribution. They're collected because the payer is in fear of the consequences of non-compliance.


True, but the difference between a true tax and a fine is that one is intended as a punishment, while the other is eating your vegetables (if you don't like vegetables).
 
2012-12-31 09:54:52 PM  

JolobinSmokin: I like potatoes.

And

RIP Heathcliffe


Threatening me is just another platitude, man, and if you think you are the only one who gets you, you are mistaken...
 
2012-12-31 09:54:58 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-31 09:55:58 PM  

Indubitably: JolobinSmokin: I like potatoes.

And

RIP Heathcliffe

Threatening me is just another platitude, man, and if you think you are the only one who gets you, you are mistaken...


"me" in this sentence is you.
 
2012-12-31 09:57:32 PM  

sonnyboy11: ski9600: stratagos: Jake Steed: Government should do what a responsible American would do in the same situation. STOP spending so much and live within your means, its all very simple.

So you're in favor of the defense cuts?

Yep, we're spending way too much on defense.

Agreed. Defense spending has been out of control for a long time.


Also I wish we were more honest and called it offense spending.  Aircraft carriers and nuclear weapons for example are not for defense.  We havent used our military for our defense in a very long time.
 
2012-12-31 10:04:24 PM  

cuzsis: There are a few things that you could shift that would help a lot...

-Car insurance: You're paying insurance for your *adult* kids...why? They want to drive, they pay their own insurance.

-College: Unless they've got something they know they're going into, don't waste the money. They can go work until they figure out what they *really* want to do and THEN the education will be worth something. Lots of people with debt out there and no jobs because they went off to "find themselves" in college. That doesn't work anymore.


Maybe his kids are serious students and paying for their cars allows them to take unpaid internships that benefit them with a job in the future. Or maybe he's just a decent parent.

My parents helped with my car insurance and covered my rent and power bills in college. This allowed me to volunteer on projects and take a part time minimum wage job in my field that payed off a year after I graduated. Meanwhile people working the crap jobs they could land at 18-21 years old ended up having to compete against people like me when they tried to get a job in their field. Three years of experience at 23 will get a lot more than a foot in the door.

and the best gift a parent can give a kid is to not have them burdened with student loans. When they are taking student loan money they tend not to care, when they are taking mom and dad's money there is a limit or the money will stop.
 
2012-12-31 10:05:03 PM  
Frederick:

Also I wish we were more honest and called it offense spending.  Aircraft carriers and nuclear weapons for example are not for defense.  We havent used our military for our defense in a very long time.

yes, we learned that we are not even willing to defend our embassy and ambassador in Benghazi.
 
2012-12-31 10:08:52 PM  

peterthx: johnnyrocket: Is this becoming clear for everyone?? The Republicans want to:

CUT Social Security
CUT Medicare
CUT Unemployment benefits
CUT Food stamps

at the same time:

CUT taxes on billionaires
NOT CUT a dime out of military contract spending.

Is it crystal clear which side the Republicans are on?

You're using that dipshiat liberal math where increasing spending on social programs by 10% instead of 15% is seen as a "cut".

The same math that says "the rich" only pay so-&-so Federal Income Taxes and ignore State and local taxes so it ends up someone making only $50k a year never sees over a THIRD of their pay.


wtf are you saying.  You do know that Federal Income Taxes is different from State and Local taxes, don't you?  don't you??

What areas have state and local taxes at 33% total effective rate?  Even California is only 11% top marginal rate.

Are you just making things up again?
 
2012-12-31 10:11:43 PM  

Frederick:
Also I wish we were more honest and called it offense spending.  Aircraft carriers and nuclear weapons for example are not for defense.  We havent used our military for our defense in a very long time.


Um,how about looking up the word deterrent?

/Cheezus Tapdancing Crisp
 
2012-12-31 10:17:19 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Frederick:

Also I wish we were more honest and called it offense spending.  Aircraft carriers and nuclear weapons for example are not for defense.  We havent used our military for our defense in a very long time.

yes, we learned that we are not even willing to defend our embassy and ambassador in Benghazi.


Well, that'd be your boys hard at work

Link

But maybe we can all agree we don't need another billion dollar submarine or two at the expense of more important things for this country.
 
2012-12-31 10:21:37 PM  

peterthx: Frederick:
Also I wish we were more honest and called it offense spending.  Aircraft carriers and nuclear weapons for example are not for defense.  We havent used our military for our defense in a very long time.

Um,how about looking up the word deterrent?

/Cheezus Tapdancing Crisp


So you are proposing calling it deterrent spending?  Are you arguing with me or agreeing with me?

tenpoundsofcheese: Frederick:

Also I wish we were more honest and called it offense spending.  Aircraft carriers and nuclear weapons for example are not for defense.  We havent used our military for our defense in a very long time.

yes, we learned that we are not even willing to defend our embassy and ambassador in Benghazi.


There is an even easier solution....do not have an embassy in Benghazi.  Problem solved; cheaply.
 
2012-12-31 10:22:28 PM  

peterthx: Frederick:
Also I wish we were more honest and called it offense spending.  Aircraft carriers and nuclear weapons for example are not for defense.  We havent used our military for our defense in a very long time.

Um,how about looking up the word deterrent?

/Cheezus Tapdancing Crisp


Deterrent against what, exactly? We have two huge oceans surrounding us like a big moat. You're gonna be fine, cupcake.
 
2012-12-31 10:22:38 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: wtf are you saying.  You do know that Federal Income Taxes is different from State and Local taxes, don't you?  don't you??

What areas have state and local taxes at 33% total effective rate?  Even California is only 11% top marginal rate.

Are you just making things up again?


You forget CASDI, SS, Medicare, and the mandatory union "contribution". Add state and Fed...just under one third: POOF!

Of course now $100 additional is gone starting this month because of the SS change, and Prop 30 hasn't even taken it's bite yet...that's NEXT month.

/$50k must be the "other" 1%

/
 
2012-12-31 10:26:34 PM  

sonnyboy11:
Deterrent against what, exactly? We have two huge oceans surrounding us like a big moat. You're gonna be fine, cupcake.


Good thing nobody else has navies or long range missiles/bombers

/headdesk
 
2012-12-31 10:30:31 PM  

sonnyboy11: tenpoundsofcheese: Frederick:

Also I wish we were more honest and called it offense spending.  Aircraft carriers and nuclear weapons for example are not for defense.  We havent used our military for our defense in a very long time.

yes, we learned that we are not even willing to defend our embassy and ambassador in Benghazi.

Well, that'd be your boys hard at work


No, your boys were given a budget.  They decided not use enough of it in Bengazi and instead spent the money in Australia, Germany and Japan, the real hot spots for terrorism.

It is incredibly lame to whine that you don't have an unlimited checkbook because of the GOP so you have no responsibility for how you spend the money.

Besides, this isn't just about the defense of the embassy, it was the stand down reaction to the attack.
 
2012-12-31 10:32:01 PM  

peterthx: sonnyboy11:
Deterrent against what, exactly? We have two huge oceans surrounding us like a big moat. You're gonna be fine, cupcake.

Good thing nobody else has navies or long range missiles/bombers

/headdesk


No one we're worried about at any rate.  Seriously, there is no country that can threaten the continental US.  We are vastly superior.  We can cut military spending by a lot.
 
2012-12-31 10:36:23 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Besides, this isn't just about the defense of the embassy, it was the stand down reaction to the attack.


Stand down?
 
2012-12-31 10:46:11 PM  

Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: Besides, this isn't just about the defense of the embassy, it was the stand down reaction to the attack.

Stand down?


Forget it, he's rolling.
 
2012-12-31 10:49:41 PM  

peterthx: tenpoundsofcheese: wtf are you saying.  You do know that Federal Income Taxes is different from State and Local taxes, don't you?  don't you??

What areas have state and local taxes at 33% total effective rate?  Even California is only 11% top marginal rate.

Are you just making things up again?

You forget CASDI, SS, Medicare, and the mandatory union "contribution". Add state and Fed...just under one third: POOF!

Of course now $100 additional is gone starting this month because of the SS change, and Prop 30 hasn't even taken it's bite yet...that's NEXT month.

/$50k must be the "other" 1%

/


Prop 30 is retroactive to the beginning of 2012
People making 50k aren't getting a lot deducted for Fed income tax, and if they are, they don't understand their own taxes.
Not everyone is part of a union, so don't throw those costs in.
 
2012-12-31 11:03:41 PM  

jigger: PsiChick: jigger: PsiChick: jigger: Taxes aren't a penalty? WTF is the Obamandate about? How is that enforced? What do they call the tax you are charged for non-compliance? They call it "the penalty."

Because a tax that is  intended asa penalty is not the same as the taxes that are inherently part of society. They are, in fact, different. Much as your IQ score probably is from the left half of the bell curve.

A "tax" intended as a penalty is called a fine, since we're having a productive semantic discussion here.

Purdy much, but the SCOTUS did rule it as a tax, so I figured that was a bit too complicated at this point.

They can call it whatever they want, but it's a fine, a punishment. If you'd like to call it a tax, then it's a tax that's a punishment. Taxes aren't collected because the payer is nice and wants to make a contribution. They're collected because the payer is in fear of the consequences of non-compliance.


Shut up, you lost. Elections have consequences.

How the hell can you argue that people should be allowed to not carry health insurance, but not be refused healthcare, thus increasing the cost for everyone? Stop being moronic or pedantic. You pick which.
 
2012-12-31 11:08:53 PM  

Mighty Taternuts: The whole 250k in New York City is such a bullshiat argument.

The median household income in New York City is like 66k, 1/4 of 250k. If you make 4 times the average family you can stand a 3% hit on your income above 250k.


In all fairness, I think that when people say NYC they specifically meant Manhattan and not the all the boroughs... in which case they are closer to the truth than not.
$66K in Manhattan would be quite challenging to live to say the least.
 
2012-12-31 11:12:52 PM  

Frederick: No one we're worried about at any rate. Seriously, there is no country that can threaten the continental US. We are vastly superior. We can cut military spending by a lot.


My brother works for a defense contractor, and even he says they waste so much money it's unbelievable. He works on multi-million dollar projects that are never used.
 
2012-12-31 11:18:09 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: sonnyboy11: tenpoundsofcheese: Frederick:

Also I wish we were more honest and called it offense spending.  Aircraft carriers and nuclear weapons for example are not for defense.  We havent used our military for our defense in a very long time.

yes, we learned that we are not even willing to defend our embassy and ambassador in Benghazi.

Well, that'd be your boys hard at work

No, your boys were given a budget.  They decided not use enough of it in Bengazi and instead spent the money in Australia, Germany and Japan, the real hot spots for terrorism.

It is incredibly lame to whine that you don't have an unlimited checkbook because of the GOP so you have no responsibility for how you spend the money.

Besides, this isn't just about the defense of the embassy, it was the stand down reaction to the attack.


It's amusing and sad that your talking points about Benghazi change every other day or so.

What was the "stand down reaction"? A group of people did respond twenty minutes after the attack, two of them were killed. We didn't need to send in tanks and bombers and indiscriminately slaughter people.

And it's also amusing how much you complain about how Democrats spend, when Republicans wanted ANOTHER war, this time with Iran, after all the money wasted with Bush's first two wars. Then they biatch about how societal safety systems are a waste of money and demand we destroy them all and let the poor, sick, mentally handicapped, and soon the middle class fend for themselves while we worship the true bastions of America, the "job-creating" rich.
 
2012-12-31 11:29:58 PM  

Frederick: sonnyboy11: ski9600: stratagos: Jake Steed: Government should do what a responsible American would do in the same situation. STOP spending so much and live within your means, its all very simple.

So you're in favor of the defense cuts?

Yep, we're spending way too much on defense.

Agreed. Defense spending has been out of control for a long time.

Also I wish we were more honest and called it offense spending.  Aircraft carriers and nuclear weapons for example are not for defense.  We havent used our military for our defense in a very long time.


I would call nukes more of a deterrent type weapon system. Aircraft carriers would fall close to that area as well...Everyone knows that nukes are so outrageously dangerous and a weapon of such unimaginable horror that having even just one can actually minimize the risk or war or total escalation. In some ironic and discombobulated ways having nukes is actually a good thing.
 
2012-12-31 11:33:27 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: And it's also amusing how much you complain about how Democrats spend, when Republicans wanted ANOTHER war, this time with Iran, after all the money wasted with Bush's first two wars. Then they biatch about how societal safety systems are a waste of money and demand we destroy them all and let the poor, sick, mentally handicapped, and soon the middle class fend for themselves while we worship the true bastions of America, the "job-creating" rich.


People with the same mentality were also gung-ho to spend money spreading democracy in SE Asia and South America.  Look at all the benefits that reaped for us.  Their "spending" mantra is so dishonest.
 
2012-12-31 11:36:51 PM  
Obama's chief negotiator celebrates the fiscal cliff deal:

www.troubleinrivercity.com
 
2012-12-31 11:42:20 PM  

cryinoutloud: Frederick: No one we're worried about at any rate. Seriously, there is no country that can threaten the continental US. We are vastly superior. We can cut military spending by a lot.

My brother works for a defense contractor, and even he says they waste so much money it's unbelievable. He works on multi-million dollar projects that are never used.


I used to work for one and I can confirm that it's insane the amount of time and money they waste. T

cryinoutloud: Frederick: No one we're worried about at any rate. Seriously, there is no country that can threaten the continental US. We are vastly superior. We can cut military spending by a lot.

My brother works for a defense contractor, and even he says they waste so much money it's unbelievable. He works on multi-million dollar projects that are never used.


Well they're used to launder tax money into GOP campaign contributions.
 
2012-12-31 11:42:26 PM  

SuperNinjaToad: I would call nukes more of a deterrent type weapon system. Aircraft carriers would fall close to that area as well...Everyone knows that nukes are so outrageously dangerous and a weapon of such unimaginable horror that having even just one can actually minimize the risk or war or total escalation. In some ironic and discombobulated ways having nukes is actually a good thing.


I agree with bolded.  My point is we can scale back that spending a lot and still maintain the effects.  The language we use is purposeful.  The term "Defense spending" is used because of the perception it creates.  As if cutting "defense spending" would leave us vulnerable -when it wouldnt.  I find that purposeful use intentionally misleading.

Also, I know this will be unpopular, but we loose a little bit of the integrity of saying "deterrent" when we actually used nukes (A-bombs) offensively previously.
 
Displayed 50 of 993 comments

First | « | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report