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.

(Economist)   Republicans are so terrified of cutting entitlements that they literally will not name any entitlement cuts they might want to make   (economist.com) divider line 153
    More: Obvious, Republican, entitlements, Ross Douthat, entitlement cuts, James Kwak, Jonathan Chait, Matthew Yglesias, needy  
•       •       •

3002 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Jan 2013 at 8:39 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-07 08:12:10 AM  
 
2013-01-07 08:15:05 AM  
If reducing our national debt/deficit is such a big f*cking deal, you're gonna have to cut something.
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2013-01-07 08:16:29 AM  
That's because Republicans prefer to cut help to those in need from behind closed doors like the cowards they are.  They would prefer for you to wake up one day and realize that despite the fact that you have paid into Social Security your entire life, that suddenly that check you were expecting doesn't arrive. The funding instead went to the nation's billionaires so they can afford to spend a million dollars on party for their son or daughter.

Meanwhile there is no one to blame but a change in the law.
 
2013-01-07 08:34:15 AM  

xanadian: If reducing our national debt/deficit is such a big f*cking deal, you're gonna have to cut something.


I think the general idea is to not tell anybody what you're cutting until it's cut, and then blame someone else for cutting it when people complain that it has been cut. Y'know, the typical "party of personal responsibility" stuff.
 
2013-01-07 08:42:16 AM  
images.politico.com
Do these look like the sort of men who would be too cowardly to level with the American people?
 
2013-01-07 08:42:35 AM  
Huh, it's almost like they know their proposed cuts will be unpopular and want to avoid the responsibility of facing public criticism.
 
2013-01-07 08:50:43 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: [images.politico.com image 605x328]
Do these look like the sort of men who would be too cowardly to level with the American people?


Yes. Especially the one on the left. Looks extremely punchable.
 
2013-01-07 08:51:29 AM  
During the fiscal cliff negotiations, Republicans kept saying "No, Mr. Obama, come back with a proposal with more cuts, especially to entitlements." First Term Obama probably would have.

Second Term Obama said "If you want those cuts, you propose them, that's negotiation."

Republicans want the cuts, but they want Obama to propose them, so they can blame him for them. In the past he might have. In this instance, he told them they'd have to own them, and so much like how they ran away in terror from Paul Ryan's budget, they gave up on the cuts.

In two months they'll probably try the same thing - "Hey Obama, propose cuts!" I hope he again tells them that if they want specific cuts, they can propose them.
 
2013-01-07 08:51:58 AM  
Unlike Obama, who unabashedly "cuts" them to cover up the insane cost of ObamaCare.
 
2013-01-07 08:52:24 AM  
So........basically the GOP is run by mealy mouthed cowards.

But you already knew that.
 
2013-01-07 08:52:56 AM  
There are three deficit problems: short-term, medium-term, and long-term.

The short-term problem is there are too many people out of work who are not paying taxes and are collecting government benefits like SNAP to keep their families fed. These people generally don't want to be out of work. They want jobs. Getting more people back to work will solve the short-term deficit problem.

The medium-term problem is we don't collect enough revenues for the discretionary programs we want to run and we don't invest in programs that will improve economic growth. Modest targeted cuts of the approximate value of the sequester, modest tax increases that hit everyone but mostly hit the people who have benefited from the economic growth over the last thirty years, and modest investments in high-return infrastructure like a new electric grid will solve the medium-term deficit problem.

The long-term problem is health care costs are incredibly high and increasing fast. Throw a dart at a map and duplicate their health care system (assuming it's a first-world country). That will solve the long-term deficit problem.
 
2013-01-07 08:54:04 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: [images.politico.com image 605x328]
Do these look like the sort of men who would be too cowardly to level with the American people?


A turtle, an orange and a jazz singer? Probably no.
 
2013-01-07 08:55:06 AM  

Jairzinho: Philip Francis Queeg: [images.politico.com image 605x328]
Do these look like the sort of men who would be too cowardly to level with the American people?

A turtle, an orange and a jazz singer? Probably no yes.


I meant YES! doh!
 
2013-01-07 08:55:55 AM  
http://i52.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-07 08:56:47 AM  
Obstructionism 101
 
2013-01-07 08:58:01 AM  

gadian: Huh, it's almost like they know their proposed cuts will be unpopular and want to avoid the responsibility of facing public criticism.


Tax increases are unpopular too. But there's one party with a history of manning the f*ck up, and putting them on the table when the time is right.

This goes to the heart of Republican popularity in recent decades. The Democrats have long told people "we can have a strong safety net, but we have to pay for it." The Republicans have told people "we can cut taxes all you want--and we never have to pay for them with any spending cuts."
 
2013-01-07 08:58:27 AM  
You know, the ones that black people get.
 
2013-01-07 08:58:28 AM  

randomjsa: Unlike Obama, who unabashedly "cuts" them to cover up the insane cost of ObamaCare.


Drink!
 
2013-01-07 08:59:16 AM  

randomjsa: Unlike Obama, who unabashedly "cuts" them to cover up the insane cost of ObamaCare.


We shall derp on to the end. We shall derp in France, we shall derp on the seas and oceans, we shall derp with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our potatoes, whatever the cost may be. We shall derp on the beaches, we shall derp on the landing grounds, we shall derp in the fields and in the streets, we shall derp in the hills; we shall never surrender...
 
2013-01-07 08:59:46 AM  
So basically, the Republicans want Obama to do their job for them.

Party of Personal Responsibility my ass...
 
2013-01-07 08:59:53 AM  
The GOP should follow the sacred tradition of Saint Ronald Reagan, hallowed be his name, and borrow more from the Chinese.

Or sell chemical weapons to Iran and Iraq, whatever works.
 
2013-01-07 09:00:00 AM  

Tomahawk513: Philip Francis Queeg: [images.politico.com image 605x328]
Do these look like the sort of men who would be too cowardly to level with the American people?

Yes. Especially the one on the left. Looks extremely punchable.


You should never punch a turtle, that's animal cruelty.
 
2013-01-07 09:00:29 AM  
If our military spending were in line with what other nations spend, we wouldn't have a deficit problem. Do we need to be more careful in how we dole out money for our social safety nets? Of course! The government should be a good steward of any money it spends. However, the constant Republican Refrain of "fark THE POOR!" scares me enough that I don't want them anywhere near reforms for such programs.

Stop subsidizing fossil fuels, banks, and defense contractors and start collecting the taxes that they should have been paying all along. Institute a regressive tax system that discourages the hoarding of wealth and encourages investment in new businesses. When you put people to work for wages that put them in a position where they contribute to the tax base rather than depend on it. Every one wins. The exponential economic growth of this country from the late 30s to the early 70s worked on those very principles. It wasn't until Libertarian idiology (not ideology) started creeping into Congress and supply side economics started gaining a foot hold in national policy that our economy started going in the shiatter. Reagan and Bush tried raising tax rates on the middle class to fix the problem. The problem with that was that the middle class didn't have the money to fix it. The top 10% of earners did and since they find campaigns, we started hearing "fark THE POOR."

Clinton created a sensible tax structure that favored the middle class while addressing the debt. GW Bush used the Clinton surplus to justify massive tax cuts that exceeded the surplus and multiplied military spending 10 fold while also borrowing money to pay for Medicare D.

Now Republicans want to point at social security programs as the problem with our debt? fark them and the horse they rode in on.
 
2013-01-07 09:01:31 AM  

dracos31: You should never punch a turtle, that's animal cruelty.


Please, no turtle in nature can come that close to the Platonic ideal of a turtle
 
2013-01-07 09:02:02 AM  
Republicans are the biggest "socialists" around. the only difference is that their free govnerment money goes to big businesses, big farms, wall stroke, etc.

its not socialism unless it goes to the American people.
 
2013-01-07 09:02:30 AM  
Here's the irony:  I'm in that "under but near 55" class that the GOP is willing to throw under the bus.  I'd be amenable (if less than thrilled) to talk about cuts in benefits and delays until the benefits start...IF there were also real, creditable talk about cutting corporate subsidies, raising taxes back to reasonable levels on the very wealthy, and significant cuts in "security" spending (which includes not only the Pentagon budget but all the other places where hundreds of billions of spending are squirreled away).

But until that happens?  No.

Talk to today's retirees, and suggest to them that the GOP actually wants to cut their current benefits by 0.01% (which they don't), and they would immediately go into hyperrage mode, and the GOP knows it.
 
2013-01-07 09:03:18 AM  
"We DEMAND cuts!"

"Ok, what do you want to cut?"

"You tell us!"

"But I don't really want to cut anything. How about we start with defense?"

"No! People support those! Name something people will hate."

"Like what?"

"Social Security cuts?"

"YEAH!"

"Ok, I'll let everyone know you want to cut Social Security."

"NO U DO"
 
2013-01-07 09:03:57 AM  

xanadian: If reducing our national debt/deficit is such a big f*cking deal, you're gonna have to cut something.


OK. Let's close our military bases in, you know, Germany and whatnot. And maybe start taxing oil companies instead of subsidizing them. And, I don't know, start taxing church property? Legalize and tax pot, maybe?

Seriously, our "options" aren't nearly as limited as we've been duped into believing.
 
2013-01-07 09:04:51 AM  

Kibbler: Here's the irony:  I'm in that "under but near 55" class that the GOP is willing to throw under the bus.  I'd be amenable (if less than thrilled) to talk about cuts in benefits and delays until the benefits start...IF there were also real, creditable talk about cutting corporate subsidies, raising taxes back to reasonable levels on the very wealthy, and significant cuts in "security" spending (which includes not only the Pentagon budget but all the other places where hundreds of billions of spending are squirreled away).

But until that happens?  No.

Talk to today's retirees, and suggest to them that the GOP actually wants to cut their current benefits by 0.01% (which they don't), and they would immediately go into hyperrage mode, and the GOP knows it.


Apparently we will fix our debt and deficit by making people like you work until you're 70 (regardless of where you work or what your skill set is) and giving you a coupon for the insanely high health insurance we will most assuredly have in 202X
 
2013-01-07 09:05:00 AM  

randomjsa: Unlike Obama, who unabashedly "cuts" them to cover up the insane cost of ObamaCare.


www.teufelaffe.com
 
2013-01-07 09:05:42 AM  

markfara: xanadian: If reducing our national debt/deficit is such a big f*cking deal, you're gonna have to cut something.

OK. Let's close our military bases in, you know, Germany and whatnot. And maybe start taxing oil companies instead of subsidizing them. And, I don't know, start taxing church property? Legalize and tax pot, maybe?

Seriously, our "options" aren't nearly as limited as we've been duped into believing.


But those options would make Republican Jesus cry.
 
2013-01-07 09:07:57 AM  
Let's remember that the Baby Boom is not a phenomenon that was discovered yesterday. In fact, Social Security was fixed in the 80's-

The fix raised retirement age, AND made your Social Security income taxable!

There is no reason at all to raise the retirement age. It's been DONE. Now the Republicans want to raise the age again, a burden that falls most painfully upon the weakest among us. And why do the poor need to work more for less? Just to keep tax breaks for the people who least need them.
 
2013-01-07 09:10:09 AM  

ghare: Now the Republicans want to raise the age again, a burden that falls most painfully upon the weakest among us. And why do the poor need to work more for less? Just to keep tax breaks for the people who least need them.


OMGZ CLASS WARFAREZ!!!!!!111111!!!!!!
 
2013-01-07 09:10:27 AM  

NFA: That's because Republicans prefer to cut help to those in need from behind closed doors like the cowards they are.  They would prefer for you to wake up one day and realize that despite the fact that you have paid into Social Security your entire life, that suddenly that check you were expecting doesn't arrive. The funding instead went to the nation's billionaires so they can afford to spend a million dollars on party for their son or daughter.


Ideally they would also prefer that you blame the Democrats for the cuts but also credit the Republicans for working to balance the budget.
 
2013-01-07 09:12:42 AM  

mittromneysdog: putting them on the table when the time is right.


Well.... only a decade or so late. Shoulda been "You want to blow up Afghanistan AND Iraq? Okay, but we'll have to cancel some of those tax cuts we just made."
 
2013-01-07 09:17:05 AM  
That's the whole Republican strategy. They don't have the balls to go through with entitlements cuts, so they're trying to sucker Obama into naming cuts he would be willing to accept and then blame the cuts on him.
 
2013-01-07 09:17:06 AM  
Of farking course they won't. They'll stamp their feet and yell about how Obama won't name cuts. Then, if he does, they'll complain about the cuts he chose to make. If he doesn't, they'll whine about how he is unwilling to cut.

Naming the cuts to make would involve actually taking a course of action that could be criticized. With "generic Republican" polling better than anything the Republicans have done in the past 4 years, that's a bad plan. Better to remain a faceless Republican-branded suit than to actually present an idea.
 
2013-01-07 09:19:09 AM  
I am a terrified Republican, and this is my story.
 
2013-01-07 09:26:55 AM  
Why don't they propose reducing the number of carrier battle groups? That would save a ton of money.
 
2013-01-07 09:31:54 AM  
It's been a little while since I checked the numbers do if anyone has better figures I'd welcome them.

Policy set by a Republican controlled House, agreed on by a controlled Republican Senate and signed into law by a Republican President:

Bush Tax Cuts ~ 300 billion/ year = ~3.6 Trillion
Increase in Defense Spending (non-TWAT) ~150 billion/year = ~1.8 Trillion
The War Against Terror = ~ 4 Trillion
Medicare Part D ~ Approx 50 billion/year =~ ~ 600 billion

Total GOP spending and tax breaks due to GOP policy from 2000 to 2006: Approx 10 Trillion.

National Debt 2000: Approx. 6 Trillion
National Debt 2013: Approx. 16 Trillion
 
2013-01-07 09:32:56 AM  
You will have to pass the bill to find out what's in it.
 
2013-01-07 09:33:45 AM  

BlueDWarrior: So basically, the Republicans want Obama to do their job for them.

Party of Personal Responsibility my ass...


Pres. Obama should "propose" cutting Congressional salaries to $1/year. A cut that would be rough, but, given time, the American people could learn to live with.
 
2013-01-07 09:36:24 AM  
What about PBS and free abortion entitlements?
 
2013-01-07 09:37:51 AM  

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: Increase in Defense Spending (non-TWAT) ~150 billion/year = ~1.8 Trillion
The War Against Terror = ~ 4 Trillion


I just want to say that abbreviating The War Against Terror as TWAT is awesome.
 
2013-01-07 09:37:55 AM  

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: It's been a little while since I checked the numbers do if anyone has better figures I'd welcome them.

Policy set by a Republican controlled House, agreed on by a controlled Republican Senate and signed into law by a Republican President:

Bush Tax Cuts ~ 300 billion/ year = ~3.6 Trillion
Increase in Defense Spending (non-TWAT) ~150 billion/year = ~1.8 Trillion
The War Against Terror = ~ 4 Trillion
Medicare Part D ~ Approx 50 billion/year =~ ~ 600 billion

Total GOP spending and tax breaks due to GOP policy from 2000 to 2006: Approx 10 Trillion.

National Debt 2000: Approx. 6 Trillion
National Debt 2013: Approx. 16 Trillion


No no, all increases of the national debt from 2000 to any date after is solely due to Obama. ONLY.
 
2013-01-07 09:38:56 AM  
Raise the 100% entry point to 67, change the cola, and add another inflex point at around 80k.
 
2013-01-07 09:41:12 AM  

Muta: Why don't they propose reducing the number of carrier battle groups? That would save a ton of money.


And let the specter of Hugo Chavez run roughshod over the Western Hemisphere?
 
2013-01-07 09:41:50 AM  
Teufelaffe:
[www.teufelaffe.com image 599x434]

i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-07 09:48:13 AM  
So who is going to show some leadership on making this hard decision?

Expecting this from the GOP seems pretty stupid.

Basically any cuts anywhere will mean more unemployed people.
 
2013-01-07 09:48:16 AM  

Toots de la Footsjelly: http://[i52.photobucket.com image 491x399]


That is hilarious.
 
Displayed 50 of 153 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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