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.

(Wall Street Journal)   Sequester politics brings together McCain, Pelosi. In other news, fire and brimstone coming down from the skies, rivers and seas boiling, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria   (blogs.wsj.com ) divider line
    More: Unlikely, John McCain, House Minority Leader, White House, credit ratings, acceptance of responsibility, Dodd, carbon sequestration  
•       •       •

855 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Feb 2013 at 11:13 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-11 10:14:34 AM  
The military is playing hardball with Congress.  Now they're claiming they can't refuel the USS Abraham Lincoln.
 
2013-02-11 10:15:35 AM  
fta:  "their prescriptions would likely be in conflict"

which prescriptions do they each take that would be in conflict?
 
2013-02-11 10:51:06 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: which prescriptions do they each take that would be in conflict?


Viagra, Xanax, Lipitor and Valtrex.
 
2013-02-11 11:09:58 AM  

vernonFL: tenpoundsofcheese: which prescriptions do they each take that would be in conflict?

Viagra, Xanax, Lipitor and Valtrex.


And that's just Pelosi!
 
2013-02-11 11:12:24 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: vernonFL: tenpoundsofcheese: which prescriptions do they each take that would be in conflict?

Viagra, Xanax, Lipitor and Valtrex.

And that's just Pelosi!


www.hobbeslives.com
 
2013-02-11 11:18:44 AM  
McCain primaried in 3...2...
 
2013-02-11 11:19:50 AM  
These cuts are necessary.  They are going to be painful, but you can only kick the can down the road for so long until the whole thing collapses.

This is one of the fundamental problems with politics - politicians are only worried about short term gains.  Sure, their actions might doom a future generation, but as long as they get reelected and get a paycheck, full steam ahead.  We need term limits.
 
2013-02-11 11:20:10 AM  

Mentat: The military is playing hardball with Congress.  Now they're claiming they can't refuel the USS Abraham Lincoln.


I'm sure someone on board knows how to panhandle for gas money.
 
2013-02-11 11:21:09 AM  
We should be increasing spending, not cutting it.
 
2013-02-11 11:21:58 AM  

MattStafford: These cuts are necessary


Wall Street is soaring, companies are bringing in record profits but the government simply can't afford to fund necessary social programs because of tax gifts and military posturing. Amirite?
 
2013-02-11 11:24:02 AM  

MattStafford: These cuts are necessary.  They are going to be painful, but you can only kick the can down the road for so long until the whole thing collapses.

This is one of the fundamental problems with politics - politicians are only worried about short term gains.  Sure, their actions might doom a future generation, but as long as they get reelected and get a paycheck, full steam ahead.  We need term limits.


Nah man I think the real fundamental problem with politics is relying to heavily on hackneyed phrases and soundbites ad naseum. Ya know kinda like, "kick the can down the road".
 
2013-02-11 11:25:24 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: We should be increasing spending, not cutting it.


Depends on what sort of spending you mean.  We really don't need to spend any more on Defense, but infrastructure and our social safety net need a boost.
 
2013-02-11 11:26:55 AM  
More like Fancy PEElosi, amirite!?
 
2013-02-11 11:27:23 AM  
How is having those two agreeing amazing?  Sequestration was designed to do just that albeit it is about a year-year and a half late.
 
2013-02-11 11:29:31 AM  

Saiga410: How is having those two agreeing amazing?  Sequestration was designed to do just that albeit it is about a year-year and a half late.


Given McCain's behavior lately, that it didn't come with some absurd tie-in about Benghazi is moderately amazing.
 
2013-02-11 11:33:02 AM  
But if they're right . . . Lenny . . . you will have saved the checkbooks of MILLIONS of registered voters.
 
2013-02-11 11:35:02 AM  

incendi: Saiga410: How is having those two agreeing amazing?  Sequestration was designed to do just that albeit it is about a year-year and a half late.

Given McCain's behavior lately, that it didn't come with some absurd tie-in about Benghazi is moderately amazing.


Eh. Lindsay's driving that crazy train now. This is McCain's "be a mavrik" week.

Saiga410: How is having those two agreeing amazing? Sequestration was designed to do just that albeit it is about a year-year and a half late.


They agree they don't want it to happen. McCain's solution will likely involve cutting federally-funded social and safety-net programs to restore cuts to the military's budget, while Pelosi's probably has some mix of tax increases (or other "new revenue") and cuts to different programs.

Literally nothing has changed since the sequester was decided as a course of action, except perhaps for the consequences (pre-sequester there were none).
 
2013-02-11 11:36:53 AM  

milsorgen: Nah man I think the real fundamental problem with politics is relying to heavily on hackneyed phrases and soundbites ad naseum. Ya know kinda like, "kick the can down the road".


Kick the can, you say?
 
2013-02-11 11:38:30 AM  
I would have thought all the fire and brimstone would be frozen...
 
2013-02-11 11:39:19 AM  

Epoch_Zero: Wall Street is soaring, companies are bringing in record profits but the government simply can't afford to fund necessary social programs because of tax gifts and military posturing. Amirite?


I am entirely in favor of raising taxes.  But if you think that raising taxes will fix the situation we have, you are entirely misguided.  Those record profits are being invested in bonds and stocks, which increase the value of pensions and lower the cost of government.  Take that money out of there, you get falling pensions and increased government spending costs, and the average Joe still feels the pain.
 
2013-02-11 11:39:53 AM  

MattStafford: milsorgen: Nah man I think the real fundamental problem with politics is relying to heavily on hackneyed phrases and soundbites ad naseum. Ya know kinda like, "kick the can down the road".

Kick the can, you say?


Way to RTFA
 
2013-02-11 11:41:08 AM  

CPennypacker: Way to RTFA


Which article?

Anyway, it seemed like milsorgen was taking a shot at me for using the hackneyed phrase "kick the can" when I just alluding to our lord and savior Paul Krugman's recent article.
 
2013-02-11 11:41:45 AM  

MattStafford: CPennypacker: Way to RTFA

Which article?

Anyway, it seemed like milsorgen was taking a shot at me for using the hackneyed phrase "kick the can" when I just alluding to our lord and savior Paul Krugman's recent article.


His article was mocking Boehner, who used the term

Way to read your own link
 
2013-02-11 11:41:51 AM  

MattStafford: Those record profits are being invested in bonds and stocks, which increase the value of pensions and lower the cost of government.


WTF?
 
2013-02-11 11:43:37 AM  
Why Obama should ignore the deficit in his SOTU

I don't think he will, but a man can dream.
 
2013-02-11 11:43:58 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: MattStafford: Those record profits are being invested in bonds and stocks, which increase the value of pensions and lower the cost of government.

WTF?


DON'T THINK ABOUT IT LET IT PASS THROUGH YOUR BRAIN LIKE A NEUTRINO WAVE!!

/Too late.  He's been DERPed, sir.
 
2013-02-11 11:45:02 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: MattStafford: Those record profits are being invested in bonds and stocks, which increase the value of pensions and lower the cost of government.

WTF?


Coconuts have an ROI greater than 1, which when securitized allow the government to run at  alower cost. Its as though there were two people on an island beating each other over the head because their economy, which is exactly like ours, runs on the supply of bananas.
 
2013-02-11 11:45:07 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: which increase the value of pensions and lower the cost of government.

WTF?


It is truly astonishing, isn't it?
 
2013-02-11 11:46:00 AM  
Look, I'm all for the budget being cut by 15% for the DoD, but there's across the board cuts and there's a reduction that only cuts what needs to be cut, not slashing and praying it doesn't fark things up.

/and get rid of these goddamn "50-state contracting solutions" that the DoD doesn't want
 
2013-02-11 11:49:19 AM  

Dwight_Yeast: Depends on what sort of spending you mean.  We really don't need to spend any more on Defense, but infrastructure and our social safety net need a boost.


Absolutely. Rumor has it Obama will ask for infrastructure spending at the SOTU.

Link
 
2013-02-11 11:49:27 AM  

MattStafford: Epoch_Zero: Wall Street is soaring, companies are bringing in record profits but the government simply can't afford to fund necessary social programs because of tax gifts and military posturing. Amirite?

I am entirely in favor of raising taxes.  But if you think that raising taxes will fix the situation we have, you are entirely misguided.  Those record profits are being invested in bonds and stocks, which increase the value of pensions and lower the cost of government.  Take that money out of there, you get falling pensions and increased government spending costs, and the average Joe still feels the pain.


If the rich don't get richer we'll ALL PAY!!!

Pensions are going the way of the dinosaur (where they are not being raided by vulture capitalists), and stock/bond ownership is largely the purview of the already wealthy.

Some cuts need to be made, but a shifting the burden of maintaining our quality of life status quo slightly up-market to those doing the best makes sense in a down market with a disconnect between the top and everyone else.

There is no perfect tax rate or spending level for all times. The two rates have to shift to meet current conditions. Just because we cocked it up by jacking spending and cutting taxes from 2001 to 2010 when we had good times doesn't mean we have to screw it up again by doing the opposite in a harder time.
 
2013-02-11 11:51:20 AM  

Dwight_Yeast: Dusk-You-n-Me: We should be increasing spending, not cutting it.

Depends on what sort of spending you mean.  We really don't need to spend any more on Defense, but infrastructure and our social safety net need a boost.


After two "off the books" wars, we have a LOT of equipment that is worn out and needs replacing.  And we need to keep up the R&D that lets us keep a technology edge.  We do NOT need to go back to the bad old days of Nam when every military action had huge body counts.  Is there room to cut some fat in the military budget?  Of course.  Are there programs that don't make sense?  Of course.  But surgery is better done with a scalpel than with a battle axe.  Sequester is the battle axe.
 
2013-02-11 11:56:02 AM  
Please don't give him the thread.
 
2013-02-11 11:56:46 AM  

CPennypacker: His article was mocking Boehner, who used the term


FTA:  "While it's true that we will eventually need some combination of revenue increases and spending cuts to rein in the growth of U.S. government debt, now is very much not the time to act. Given the state we're in, it would be irresponsible and destructive not to kick that can down the road."

So yeah, Krugman is in fact arguing to kick the deficit can down the road.  That's a direct quote.
 
2013-02-11 11:57:37 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Dwight_Yeast: Depends on what sort of spending you mean.  We really don't need to spend any more on Defense, but infrastructure and our social safety net need a boost.

Absolutely. Rumor has it Obama will ask for infrastructure spending at the SOTU.

Link


And?  IIRC he and Bushy has called for increased infrastructure spending in just about every SOTUS that they did.
 
2013-02-11 11:58:34 AM  

Soup4Bonnie: Please don't give him the thread.


But...can't resist...somebody is wrong on the internet!!!!
 
2013-02-11 12:00:21 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: Dusk-You-n-Me: We should be increasing spending, not cutting it.

Depends on what sort of spending you mean.  We really don't need to spend any more on Defense, but infrastructure and our social safety net need a boost.


Our Road and Bridge network was done with DOD contracts. As was most of our telecommunications network. Saying no more Defense spending is idiotic.
 
2013-02-11 12:02:16 PM  

GoldSpider: CPennypacker: His article was mocking Boehner, who used the term

FTA:  "While it's true that we will eventually need some combination of revenue increases and spending cuts to rein in the growth of U.S. government debt, now is very much not the time to act. Given the state we're in, it would be irresponsible and destructive not to kick that can down the road."

So yeah, Krugman is in fact arguing to kick the deficit can down the road.  That's a direct quote.


The only reason he's using the term is because he is directly addressing Boehner's comments.

FTFA:

John Boehner, the speaker of the House, claims to be exasperated. "At some point, Washington has to deal with its spending problem," http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/07/us/politics/two-parties-map-strategy -on-automatic-budget-cuts.html">he said Wednesday. "I've watched them kick this can down the road for 22 years since I've been here. I've had enough of it. It's time to act."
 
2013-02-11 12:03:23 PM  

Lost Thought 00: Our Road and Bridge network was done with DOD contracts.


No they weren't.
 
2013-02-11 12:05:01 PM  

Saiga410: And?


It was a complete statement. There was no and.
 
2013-02-11 12:09:03 PM  
Well that was a useless article.
 
2013-02-11 12:09:21 PM  

MattStafford: These cuts are necessary.  They are going to be painful, but you can only kick the can down the road for so long until the whole thing collapses.

This is one of the fundamental problems with politics - politicians are only worried about short term gains.  Sure, their actions might doom a future generation, but as long as they get reelected and get a paycheck, full steam ahead.  We need term limits.


Why would term limits cause politicians to worry about the long term? It seems it would just make them completely unaccountable - just lie to get in, sell out as quickly and completely as possible, and who cares what the electors think. Wanting to be re-elected seems like it is one of the strongest pulls on a politician to behave themselves at least somewhat in the publics interest.
 
2013-02-11 12:14:12 PM  

Mentat: The military is playing hardball with Congress.  Now they're claiming they can't refuel the USS Abraham Lincoln.


Congress should pull them out of all those farking countries we occupy, and cut their budget by 2/3.

Then congress should take turns shooting each other in the face.
 
2013-02-11 12:16:12 PM  
I'm thinking about getting a cat to keep my dog in line when we're not here.

What say you, Fark?
 
2013-02-11 12:19:53 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: MattStafford: Those record profits are being invested in bonds and stocks, which increase the value of pensions and lower the cost of government.

WTF?


Well, what else is that money doing?  Do you believe Apple has a big room in Cupertino filled with bills, a la Scrooge McDuck?
 
2013-02-11 12:23:17 PM  

MattStafford: Philip Francis Queeg: MattStafford: Those record profits are being invested in bonds and stocks, which increase the value of pensions and lower the cost of government.

WTF?

Well, what else is that money doing?  Do you believe Apple has a big room in Cupertino filled with bills, a la Scrooge McDuck?


Please explain how investments reduce the cost of government.
 
2013-02-11 12:25:08 PM  

GoldSpider: CPennypacker: His article was mocking Boehner, who used the term

FTA:  "While it's true that we will eventually need some combination of revenue increases and spending cuts to rein in the growth of U.S. government debt, now is very much not the time to act. Given the state we're in, it would be irresponsible and destructive not to kick that can down the road."

So yeah, Krugman is in fact arguing to kick the deficit can down the road.  That's a direct quote.


"But aren't we facing a fiscal crisis? No, not at all. The federal government can borrow more cheaply than at almost any point in history, and medium-term forecasts, like the 10-year projections released Tuesday by the Congressional Budget Office, are distinctly not alarming. Yes, there's a long-term fiscal problem, but it's not urgent that we resolve that long-term problem right now. The alleged fiscal crisis exists only in the minds of Beltway insiders."   - Krugman

Sounds like can-kicking to me.
 
2013-02-11 12:26:15 PM  

Epoch_Zero: MattStafford: These cuts are necessary

Wall Street is soaring, companies are bringing in record profits but the government simply can't afford to fund necessary social programs because of tax gifts and military posturing. Amirite?


Well, all those soaring companies just laid off 1/4 of their workforce because of "budget woes", so...
 
2013-02-11 12:28:08 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: GoldSpider: CPennypacker: His article was mocking Boehner, who used the term

FTA:  "While it's true that we will eventually need some combination of revenue increases and spending cuts to rein in the growth of U.S. government debt, now is very much not the time to act. Given the state we're in, it would be irresponsible and destructive not to kick that can down the road."

So yeah, Krugman is in fact arguing to kick the deficit can down the road.  That's a direct quote.

"But aren't we facing a fiscal crisis? No, not at all. The federal government can borrow more cheaply than at almost any point in history, and medium-term forecasts, like the 10-year projections released Tuesday by the Congressional Budget Office, are distinctly not alarming. Yes, there's a long-term fiscal problem, but it's not urgent that we resolve that long-term problem right now. The alleged fiscal crisis exists only in the minds of Beltway insiders."   - Krugman

Sounds like can-kicking to me.


Sounds to me like he's saying the can is a false construct.
 
2013-02-11 12:33:17 PM  
And in a surprise to absolutely no one, Republicans begin folding faster than superman on laundry day once the money pipeline to their benefactors Lockheed, GD, KBR, et al is about to be cut. Too clever by half again - there is no leverage when carrying out the threat is anathema to your own
 
Displayed 50 of 76 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | 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