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.

(Washington Post)   The absurdity of the GOP's position on spending, all in a handy dandy chart   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 240
    More: Amusing, GOP  
•       •       •

7038 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Feb 2013 at 9:52 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-07 09:54:43 AM
Another one? I was told the chart from yesterday was the single most important.
 
2013-02-07 09:55:53 AM
Sure.  Your little chart makes the GOP's plan look asinine and absurd.

Next time try doing that without using arabic numerals, libtards.
 
2013-02-07 09:56:18 AM
Don't borrow money and spend it on things unless those things have an ROI greater than one.  Applies to all entities.

/somehow completely insane
 
2013-02-07 09:57:37 AM
This is a tough position to be in, as Politico reports, but it's made worse by an inconvenient fact: If Republicans were to agree to closing loopholes, they would also get some of the spending cuts they want. In other words, the choice isn't: Either give Dems what they want while getting nothing in return or let the sequester destroy the economy. Rather, the choice is: Reach a compromise that gives both sides some of what they want or let the sequester destroy the economy. Link
 
2013-02-07 09:57:42 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-02-07 09:58:46 AM

MattStafford: Don't borrow money and spend it on things unless those things have an ROI greater than one.  Applies to all entities.

/somehow completely insane


To every complex problem there's a simple and straightforward answer that is also wrong.
 
2013-02-07 09:59:17 AM
...a 10 percent across the board reduction in the federal workforce.

*head desk*

They are quite, quite mad by this point.

Not even lightly tethered to reality.
 
2013-02-07 10:01:19 AM

quatchi: ...a 10 percent across the board reduction in the federal workforce.

*head desk*

They are quite, quite mad by this point.

Not even lightly tethered to reality.


1) Reduce Embassy security by 10%
2)????
3) Bengyatzee!!!
 
2013-02-07 10:01:34 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: If Republicans were to agree to closing loopholes


Hey, yeah - whatever happened to the $5 trillion in "loophole closings" the GOP thought it could find during the election? Why can't we do that independent of whatever handwringing over the deficit the GOP is doing this week - or is that part of the EEEEEEevil revenue the Democrats want to spend on illegal immigrant gay marriages to socialist foreign turtle abortions?
 
2013-02-07 10:02:12 AM

MattStafford: Don't borrow money and spend it on things unless those things have an ROI greater than one.  Applies to all entities.

/somehow completely insane


I see you've moved on to another thread pushing the same bullshiat.

When are you going to admit you lied when you claimed to have earned a degree in economics?
 
2013-02-07 10:02:51 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-02-07 10:03:15 AM

MattStafford: Don't borrow money and spend it on things unless those things have an ROI greater than one.  Applies to all entities.

/somehow completely insane


Unless you are borrowing at interest rates lower than inflation.
 
2013-02-07 10:03:24 AM
This deficit and debt is a problem, Jeeves.  Let's have the poors pay for it all.
 
2013-02-07 10:03:52 AM
We should just tax Muslims in America.  That's obviously the direction this discussion is going.

That's right, we're going to issue a VATwa on you, Abdul!
 
2013-02-07 10:06:45 AM

max_pooper: MattStafford: Don't borrow money and spend it on things unless those things have an ROI greater than one.  Applies to all entities.

/somehow completely insane

I see you've moved on to another thread pushing the same bullshiat.

When are you going to admit you lied when you claimed to have earned a degree in economics?


Maybe he's not lying.

After all - there's a lot of Liberty University type law grads that have NO CLUE what they're talking about when constitutional law comes up because they were taught an ideology and not the history and reality of Constitutional law.

And a lot of them got hired by the Bush administration...
 
2013-02-07 10:08:26 AM
l.wigflip.com
 
2013-02-07 10:09:40 AM

Lost Thought 00: MattStafford: Don't borrow money and spend it on things unless those things have an ROI greater than one.  Applies to all entities.

/somehow completely insane

Unless you are borrowing at interest rates lower than inflation.


A person with a basic understanding of economics would understand the relationship between inflation rates and interest rates as it applies to debt financed spending. MattStafford does not have a basic understanding of economics, which is why his claim of having earned a degree in economics is so hilarious.
 
2013-02-07 10:12:06 AM

Deneb81: max_pooper: MattStafford: Don't borrow money and spend it on things unless those things have an ROI greater than one.  Applies to all entities.

/somehow completely insane

I see you've moved on to another thread pushing the same bullshiat.

When are you going to admit you lied when you claimed to have earned a degree in economics?

Maybe he's not lying.

After all - there's a lot of Liberty University type law grads that have NO CLUE what they're talking about when constitutional law comes up because they were taught an ideology and not the history and reality of Constitutional law.

And a lot of them got hired by the Bush administration...


Except MattStafford claims to have earned a degree in economics from a top 50 school. I'm sure sure what metric is used to determine that but I can feel safe in assuming Liberty University does not fall into that category.
 
2013-02-07 10:13:06 AM

Lost Thought 00: MattStafford: Don't borrow money and spend it on things unless those things have an ROI greater than one.  Applies to all entities.

/somehow completely insane

Unless you are borrowing at interest rates lower than inflation.


The difference between our interest rates and inflation is not that great.  As a general rule of thumb it aint that bad of suggestion.  Or would you be happy with the suggestion of a ROI of .998?
 
2013-02-07 10:14:46 AM

Saiga410: As a general rule of thumb it aint that bad of suggestion.


Actually, it's a terrible suggestion because it paralyzes you from taking any action due to the reality of imperfect a-priori information
 
2013-02-07 10:15:07 AM
Wow are we going to have this same thread again? Fark is turning into some kind of weird internet version of Groundhog's Day.
 
2013-02-07 10:16:13 AM

born_yesterday: Sure.  Your little chart makes the GOP's plan look asinine and absurd.

Next time try doing that without using arabic numerals, libtards.


But using Roman numerals would be bowing to European socialism and supporting a culture that decayed under the corruptions of homosexuality and vice. Mayan is the way to go, I think, since they too could predict the end of the world.
 
2013-02-07 10:19:31 AM

Lost Thought 00: Saiga410: As a general rule of thumb it aint that bad of suggestion.

Actually, it's a terrible suggestion because it paralyzes you from taking any action due to the reality of imperfect a-priori information


How about as a general goal to strive for it is not that bad?
 
2013-02-07 10:19:33 AM
Can't liberals, democrats, moderates and actual conservatives take over the prepping cult and let republicans get 100% their way?  Save enough money to GTFO or ride it out?

I feel like this problem will never go away until we all just let them get their way long enough for it to pass or fail.  Give no resistance, let it all go through.  Every bit of it, maybe just ask for a fund to send everyone who disagrees out, a la sending freed slaves to Liberia.  Just... not Liberia.

Kind of like my view on a civil war - you can't put that back together... give it up man, cuz it's gone.  They're off the deep end and I just don't want to continue a fight against it when I think it would be better to just let them burn it to the ground so we can build it up from scratch, instead of putting out fires and dealing with cleanup all the time.
 
2013-02-07 10:21:32 AM

MattStafford: Don't borrow money and spend it on things unless those things have an ROI greater than one.  Applies to all entities.

/somehow completely insane


Ah yes, because the only thing that matters is monetary return. But then again this is you, so I'm not surprised.
 
2013-02-07 10:24:02 AM
If you believe raising taxes won't raise revenues, then this would make sense.  I know a lot of you are going to need me to explain how raising taxes could cause revenues to go down.  I have done this several times in several past threads.  Just read this instead.
 
2013-02-07 10:24:09 AM
That argument exposes the GOP's bluff. If the consequences will be as dire as Graham et al claim, then of course it's worth considering paying down sequestration with some new tax revenues. By contrast if the situation isn't desperate enough to make Republicans consider higher revenues, then how can they claim it will be a boon to the country's enemies. If both things are true then the GOP position amounts to prioritizing emboldening Iran and al Qaeda over modestly raising taxes on wealthy Americans.  Link
 
2013-02-07 10:26:56 AM

MattStafford: Don't borrow money and spend it on things unless those things have an ROI greater than one. Applies to all entities.


How quickly does that return need to be realized? Do we take inflation into account (such that ROI must be greater than an inflation-adjusted 1)?

We spend many thousands of dollars feeding and educating children through middle school, only to have to pay for four MORE years of school! When will it end?!

// you're going to have to accept that the time-scale of government (and its concomitant lack of, e.g., food for itself) means that examining it like a monthly household budget is absurd
// the ROI for military ordnance, for further example, is effectively incalculable, as we buy bullets and bombs and get nothing but cordite and rubble in return
 
2013-02-07 10:27:10 AM

SlothB77: If you believe raising taxes won't raise revenues, then this would make sense.  I know a lot of you are going to need me to explain how raising taxes could cause revenues to go down.  I have done this several times in several past threads.  Just read this instead.


Ah yes, the laugher curve. LOL!

gapersblock.com
 
2013-02-07 10:28:12 AM

Saiga410: Lost Thought 00: Saiga410: As a general rule of thumb it aint that bad of suggestion.

Actually, it's a terrible suggestion because it paralyzes you from taking any action due to the reality of imperfect a-priori information

How about as a general goal to strive for it is not that bad?


It's not a bad goal, though the concept of ROI is quite abstract when discussing macro economics.
 
2013-02-07 10:28:42 AM
 
2013-02-07 10:29:53 AM

Saiga410: Lost Thought 00: Saiga410: As a general rule of thumb it aint that bad of suggestion.

Actually, it's a terrible suggestion because it paralyzes you from taking any action due to the reality of imperfect a-priori information

How about as a general goal to strive for it is not that bad?


I'd go so far as to say "understanding the financial ROI of our economic activity is probably worthwhile.  acting with that information in mind isn't bad, but actions based solely on that information are probably doomed from the outset."
 
2013-02-07 10:30:04 AM

MattStafford: Don't borrow money and spend it on things unless those things have an ROI greater than one. Applies to all entities.


Oh for farks sakes, you just aren't capable of learning anything new, are you? What are the parameters of the ROI? Measured in dollars or life quality index (because quite a deal many things the government does are meant to operate at a loss to enrich standard of living)? What is the timeframe for the ROI -- short term or longterm? Anything is good ROI if given a wide enough birth and long enough plan to develop. What if something doesn't make any ROI but it affects other things that come to depend on it for their ROI? The government isn't just a bunch of monolithic departments that you can cut willy-nilly, it's a big, teeming interconnected network of services and plans held together by various spending policies like a teetering Jenga tower, such that carelessly slashing one department because it doesn't meet your absolutist "ROI > 1" idea turd might collapse an entire wing of the government in another, grinding the American gearworks to a motherfarking halt.

Your assertion is stupid, myopic, uninformed, ignorant and dumb. Like everything else you post. You are the worst god damn armchair economist on Fark.
 
2013-02-07 10:31:38 AM

hasty ambush: Democrats on spending:

Panetta to proposes military pay cut after Obama raised federal officials, civil servants pay


The article states that Panetta recommends a 1% pay raise. So is it a raise or a cut?
 
2013-02-07 10:32:54 AM

Thats No Moose: MattStafford: Don't borrow money and spend it on things unless those things have an ROI greater than one.  Applies to all entities.

/somehow completely insane

Ah yes, because the only thing that matters is monetary return. But then again this is you, so I'm not surprised.


Actually, it is a fair point since he is talking about borrowing.

For example - waging a war is not going to have a specific ROI, but it needs to be done. HOWEVER, I have even checked with a history professor and he confirmed that the Bush Tax Cuts during the Iraq/Afghan wars were unprecedented in history. Large revenue cutting measures have never occurred at the same time as any major military engagement. When you go off to war - taxes rise to support that effort. Always! But we chose to not raise taxes which created Bush's $400-500B deficits during a period of economic expansion. The deficits were actually even larger since the war funding was off-budget until Obama took office.
So the point is valid about borrowing is still valid. Things that have no ROI typically come with new taxes.
 
2013-02-07 10:34:08 AM

SlothB77: If you believe raising taxes won't raise revenues, then this would make sense.  I know a lot of you are going to need me to explain how raising taxes could cause revenues to go down.  I have done this several times in several past threads.  Just read this instead.


If you are really interested, you should read some of your link's author's other, uh, "articles". Link

Clearly an objective voice in this highly partisan discussion.
 
2013-02-07 10:36:09 AM

hasty ambush: Democrats on spending:

Panetta to proposes military pay cut after Obama raised federal officials, civil servants pay


FTA:  "Panetta will recommend to Congress that military salaries be limited to a one percent increase in 2014,

Lying Republican Derp, as usual.
 
2013-02-07 10:37:10 AM

max_pooper: hasty ambush: Democrats on spending:

Panetta to proposes military pay cut after Obama raised federal officials, civil servants pay

The article states that Panetta recommends a 1% pay raise. So is it a raise or a cut?


It's a cut of the raises
 
2013-02-07 10:38:51 AM
Why a farking absurd column. "a few pennies more from the rich"?? Didn't we just raise tax rates on the rich ordinary income by 15% ((39.6+0.9 ACA)/35 previous rate), and on cap gains/dividends by 59% ((20+3.9 ACA)/15 previous rate)?? You know this jackass, and others like him, will never be satisfied. Even if there are additional hikes now, he'll be back at the trough again in six months or so whining "why can't we ask the rich to pay a little more"?

If we want more revenue, how about rescinding the other 90% of the bush tax cuts just made permanent? Why isn't that on the table?
 
2013-02-07 10:38:58 AM

hasty ambush: Democrats on spending:

Panetta to proposes military pay cut after Obama raised federal officials, civil servants pay


Let's not start arguing about who wants to cut military pay more. Wasn't that long ago that the (House?) GOP literally clapped and cheered when they cut military pay.

// can't find the link, and it's killing me
 
2013-02-07 10:39:38 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: This is a tough position to be in, as Politico reports, but it's made worse by an inconvenient fact: If Republicans were to agree to closing loopholes, they would also get some of the spending cuts they want. In other words, the choice isn't: Either give Dems what they want while getting nothing in return or let the sequester destroy the economy. Rather, the choice is: Reach a compromise that gives both sides some of what they want or let the sequester destroy the economy. Link


Everything I am seeing has the president saying we need tax adjustment and maybe some spending cuts.  And then the congress dems are pointing at the repubs to come up with both... and the repubs are not willing to put the noose for both taxes and cuts around their necks.  I dont blame them.
 
2013-02-07 10:41:02 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: Why a farking absurd column. "a few pennies more from the rich"?? Didn't we just raise tax rates on the rich ordinary income by 15% ((39.6+0.9 ACA)/35 previous rate), and on cap gains/dividends by 59% ((20+3.9 ACA)/15 previous rate)?? You know this jackass, and others like him, will never be satisfied. Even if there are additional hikes now, he'll be back at the trough again in six months or so whining "why can't we ask the rich to pay a little more"?

If we want more revenue, how about rescinding the other 90% of the bush tax cuts just made permanent? Why isn't that on the table?


Cuz this

wiki.econwiki.com
 
2013-02-07 10:41:54 AM

Lost Thought 00: MattStafford: Don't borrow money and spend it on things unless those things have an ROI greater than one.  Applies to all entities.

/somehow completely insane

Unless you are borrowing at interest rates lower than inflation.


Actually that does satisfy MattStafford's condition -- theoretically, if the government just uses treasuries to finance purchases of assets and just holds them for the next ten years (or until such purchases drive treasury rates up), their ROI would be positive.
 
2013-02-07 10:42:05 AM

SlothB77: If you believe raising taxes won't raise revenues, then this would make sense.  I know a lot of you are going to need me to explain how raising taxes could cause revenues to go down.  I have done this several times in several past threads.  Just read this instead.


Even among the few economists that don't think the Laffer Curve is nonsense there are those who would tell you we're already on the left side of the peak.

(hint: that means that if we lower taxes revenue goes down)
 
2013-02-07 10:43:11 AM

Saiga410: Everything I am seeing has the president saying we need tax adjustment and maybe some spending cuts.  And then the congress dems are pointing at the repubs to come up with both... and the repubs are not willing to put the noose for both taxes and cuts around their necks.  I dont blame them.


The Constitution specifically requires the US House to originate all tax/spending bills. The GOP controls the US House - so it is their responsibility. If the GOP want to have enough of their Reps leave office and turn those seats over the Dems so that adults can be in charge - fine, but the GOP is legally required to address this due to their control of the US House.
 
2013-02-07 10:45:48 AM

Saiga410: and the repubs are not willing to put the noose for both taxes and cuts around their necks.  I dont blame them.


If they want spending cuts they should name what they want to cut. Not doing so makes sense politically, but not helping them by naming some cuts makes sense politically for the other side as well. Like the author said, a though position to be in.
 
2013-02-07 10:47:03 AM

Lost Thought 00: MattStafford: Don't borrow money and spend it on things unless those things have an ROI greater than one.  Applies to all entities.

/somehow completely insane

Unless you are borrowing at interest rates lower than inflation.


Huh? Not that i concur that we cant spend on unprofitable programs, but if you have an ROI of less than one, you are losing money even if inflation is 20%.

If I borrow $100 at 2% when inflation is 3%, and in five years when I pay it back my investment is worth $99, is still have to go into my pocket for the other $3.

Also, FWIW, today's low interest rates won't last forever. The average maturity of the debt we are issuing today is under 6 years. When we have to refinance the debt incurred today via our trillion dollar deficits, well have to pay market rates. Unless you think well be paying down our debt, which is obviously not going to happen.
 
2013-02-07 10:48:35 AM

Lost Thought 00: max_pooper: hasty ambush: Democrats on spending:

Panetta to proposes military pay cut after Obama raised federal officials, civil servants pay

The article states that Panetta recommends a 1% pay raise. So is it a raise or a cut?

It's a cut of the raises


What will America do without its best and brightest spending more of their taxpayer-paid paychecks on strippers and beer?

It's the military, a volunteer military.  I got paid when I was in, got discounts at local businesses.  If a lack of a large paycheck is too much of a hindrance... well, it's volunteer.  Know that won't be a popular statement, but it isn't like I was in destitute poverty when I was in, I lived better than most live in much better paid positions, because of all the benefits and opportunities available.
 
2013-02-07 10:49:00 AM

madgonad: I have even checked with a history professor and he confirmed that the Bush Tax Cuts during the Iraq/Afghan wars were unprecedented in history. Large revenue cutting measures have never occurred at the same time as any major military engagement.


Essentially.

All fiscal issues stem from the fact that the United States attempted a bold experiment which had never been accomplished: It waged a war without raising taxes. Actually, three wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, and Terror. The War on Terror includes things like the Department of Homeland Security, provisional spending for the Patriot Act and other 1984ish bullshiat).

NO state, nation, country, empire or junta has EVER, in world history, simultaneously started a war AND cut taxes. That's not how it works. You're supposed to RAISE taxes to fund wars. You don't cut them.

It's almost as if the Bush Administration did it to see what would happen because it had never been done before. At least now we know what the results are.
 
2013-02-07 10:50:24 AM

quatchi: ...a 10 percent across the board reduction in the federal workforce.

*head desk*

They are quite, quite mad by this point.

Not even lightly tethered to reality.


What? Don't you know the way to fix unemployment is to terminate 440,000 people overnight (282,000 if we somehow exempt the military)?

Since government was crowding out all those independent national agricultural libraries and the like that could finally start hiring these displaced workers and be so profitable that they'd have to hire more of the currently unemployed too. Makes sense to me!
 
Displayed 50 of 240 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report