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.

(Fox News)   Three days until America finally accepts its future destiny as a dystopian hellscape   (foxnews.com ) divider line
    More: Cool, Boone Pickens, managements, Bob Woodward, David Kerley, crimes against nature, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, R. E. M  
•       •       •

2377 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Feb 2013 at 6:26 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-02-26 03:47:22 PM  
4 votes:
At this point, I think a dystopian hellscape would be a HUGE improvement for this country.
2013-02-26 06:57:53 PM  
3 votes:
From a Pew poll released today:

Sixty-two percent of adults say the GOP is out of touch with the American people, 56 percent say it's not open to change and 52 percent say it's too extreme, according to a Pew Research Center poll released Tuesday.

Forty-six percent of adults say the Democratic Party is out of touch with the American people, 38 percent of people say it's not open to change and 39 percent say it's too extreme.

Dear gop,
You're going to lose this sequestration fight too. Look for these numbers to soon be the good old days. You farks.

Sincerely,
The Majority
2013-02-26 06:44:29 PM  
3 votes:

WTFDYW: We will move on without missing hardly a beat. As a country, we need a "hair cut". We've been spending like there's no tomorrow at least since I graduated high school in 1981.


As a country, "we" have been forced to feed hundreds of billions of dollars into the gaping maw of the super-rich while cutting social services to the bone and beyond.  Spending isn't the problem.

Douche.
2013-02-26 03:48:50 PM  
3 votes:
My guess is that at about 11:59 pm Thursday night they'll find a way to kick the can down the road 6 months or so and we'll go through all this nonsense again in the summer.
2013-02-26 09:10:27 PM  
2 votes:
Tannax

Don't talk down to me as if you think you are smart

You could help by not saying such stupid things.

only 3 months of the year will have passed

Like this, for example. The fiscal year starts October 1st. Five months. Can you count that high?

it is 44 billion out of 3600-ish billion.

or this, for example. It's $85 billion, and it is not out of the whole 3.5 trillion. 60% of the budget is off the table, and 40% of the year has already passed. That leaves less than a third of the budget. This has been explained to you, but you're, well, stupid.

Oh, and by the way, those tax increases will have to hit every single person. There isn't enough rich people in the US for us to suck dry to save us.

More stupid. Here's how stupid happens: start with an actual fact: if we taxed EARNED income of the wealthy at 100% it wouldn't cover the debt. Now simplify it in to "if we taxed rich people 100%" and you're in the land of stupid.

Capital gains (unearned income) is $2 trillion. Over 90% of it flows to the top 2% of earners. You damn well could solve the deficit problem taxing that at even 50%.

You could also start taxing wealth as opposed to income. Sheldon Adelson has $8 billion or so? Take 2% a year.

You could also put in a corporate minimum tax. The portion of the tax burden carried by corporations has declined by more than half in the last 50 years.

Hint: the top 2% have 80% of the wealth. The richest 400 people in America have more wealth than the poorest 50% of the country. The Wal Mart heirs and Warren Buffet and Bill Gates and Sheldon Adelson and GE - that's where you get the money from.

But you'll keep spouting the same utter bullshiat, because no doubt you've read these facts before and reject them.
2013-02-26 07:58:47 PM  
2 votes:

Mrtraveler01: smitty04: [z.about.com image 500x334]

While the Republicans want to pass the debt on to our children's, children's, children's, children's, children.


I'm pretty sure the Republicans actually want to pass the debt onto the poor.

How else can you explain the effort to eliminate corporate and income taxes and replace the revenue with increased sales taxes?
2013-02-26 07:30:30 PM  
2 votes:

Tannax: Seriously, how farking hard can a 1.2% cut to the budget hurt? It's a goddamn rounding error compared to the money we are spending out of our children's piggy bank.


You really don't know much about budgets, do you?

The spending cuts are to:

1) discretionary spending

and

2) apply only to the remainder of the budget year.

To put that into perspective, current discretionary spending is at an historic low as a percentage of GDP.  So, are current taxes.  If we went back to the tax rates of the 1990s, we'd be out of this mess.  Instantly.
2013-02-26 06:52:36 PM  
2 votes:
I love how every republican is saying that Obama is completely responsible for the sequester, even though the republicans voted for it after Boehner gave his infamous PowerPoint presentation extolling its virtues. Not to mention Paul Ryan has spent years in the House repeatedly demanding a sequester tied to exceeding a spending cap be put into place.

Because it's totally relevant, here's a re-link to So what did Paul Ryan think about the sequester before he started blaming it on Obama? Go on, guess
2013-02-27 01:12:08 AM  
1 vote:
The republicans would rather drive us into a recession than raise taxes on the wealthy a few percentage points. And when that self-inflicted recession inevitably happens, they will easily convince their retarded, knuckle-dragging, newly-unemployed supporters that the "liberalist president evarrrrr" WANTED massive budget cuts. And they will continue to get away with it until the either South secedes, or their misinformed, sellout boomer supporters f*cking die.
2013-02-27 12:39:52 AM  
1 vote:
When government is framed as a business with customers it's only a matter of time before it becomes a kleptocracy.

We're f*cking citizens, I wish we'd stop with this bullshiat that we're nothing but consumers whose purpose is to either make someone money or cost someone money.
2013-02-26 10:35:03 PM  
1 vote:

clowncar on fire: NeoCortex42: clowncar on fire: Y2K!11

So the government should just max out all their credit cards. When the computers go down, they don't have to pay them off.
How quickly we forget.  Remember all the nay-sayers predicting the collapse of the economy as all the computers of the world collapsed after partying like it was 1999?  Companies wasted millions in y2k pre-testing computer systems and updating software in an effort to prevent that crash.  People pulled cash from the banks and sold off stock and come December 31st at midnight, we all stayed in our homes with one eye on the computer, waiting for any sign of that predicted crash.

By quarter past there was this huge collective groan as we realized that, not only had the crash of polite socite occurred, but that we had been ripped off millions protecting ourselves against the fears of the nay-sayers.

Now we face sequestration.  Again we only have the cries of the nay-sayers ringing in our ears as they take up cadence whispering a line from their most favorite but feared childhood fable, "the sky is falling, the sky is falling...".


Umm, companies didn't waste millions.  Companies spent millions making sure their software was up to date and wouldn't crash.  Had they not done that all those things that were predicted would have happened.

There was a very specific issue - software that only used 2 digit years (quite a lot) would roll over and think it was 1900.  Companies had to either update their software to use 4 digit years, update their software to continue using 2 digit years but assume some range other than 1900-2000 (1970-2070 or whatever), or to ensure that there were no comparisons or subtractions that would cause problems.  e.g., your company's payroll software calculates ((clockout - clockin)*your hourly rate) - but since you clocked out in 1900 you just worked negative 100 years, you now are automatically billed $5M instead of paid for your 2 hours of work over the new year.
2013-02-26 09:47:14 PM  
1 vote:
Sales tax on shares of stock.

How many shares changed hands today?
2013-02-26 09:05:09 PM  
1 vote:

MisterRonbo: Tannax: Seriously, how farking hard can a 1.2% cut to the budget hurt? It's a goddamn rounding error compared to the money we are spending out of our children's piggy bank.

Seriously, are you this stupid?

I'm going to make it really, really simple for your dumb ass. Let's say my household budget is $100K a year. I decide to cut $2,300.  That's 2.3%   How hard could it be?

But I'm not going to cut it from rent, utilities, gas, entertainment, clothing.  I'm only going to cut it from my grocery budget, which is $10K a year.

Gee, how could that little 2.3% be difficult?

See, we're cutting $85 billion from a portion of the budget that is about $2 trillion.  AND half the fiscal year has already gone by.

Is this so hard to grasp?  Medicare - off the table.  Social security - off the table. Military salaries off the table. Contractual obligations like leases. Etc.

Farkity fark fark fark some people insist on being stupid.


----

Not only that, but we're not actually cutting anything.  The government is required to do everything it does by law.  Congress says "you will do this and you get this much money to do it."  The sequester isn't shutting down any programs.  Doing that takes time and planning.  We're not canceling contracts immediately.  We're not consolidating offices.  Agencies can't just unilaterally decide to cut the fat.  That fat is usually specifically earmarked into bills.

So, the only real option to cut costs is to have everyone stop coming in one day a week, but to otherwise keep doing the exact same thing.  Just, you know, with a 20% pay cut that surely wont hurt the economy much or cause any sort of retention issues.

To use a stupid household analogy, this is like deciding that you're not making enough money to cover your expenses and deciding to deal with it by not eating on Tuesdays and by flipping your circuit breaker for the house off on Saturdays.
2013-02-26 08:31:24 PM  
1 vote:

cchris_39: Troll or simpleton?  Please be troll.  I get tempted to debate simpletons.


This was worth your time to post.
2013-02-26 08:08:15 PM  
1 vote:
The sequester is a one-day weight loss program: chop off a couple fingers, maybe a toe. No more than 2% of your body weight. (so, ok, the whole hand) No big deal, right? And clearly the most intelligent way to go about losing some weight.

Stupid, short sighted and violent. No wonder the R(ape) party likes it.
2013-02-26 08:07:38 PM  
1 vote:

Dusk-You-n-Me: Tannax: We absolutely have a spending problem.

Right now we're not spending enough.


True.  But Republicans are committed to austerity and trickle-down...you know, the plans that have never worked for anyone anywhere at any time?  Yeah, that's how "conservatives" roll.
2013-02-26 08:05:44 PM  
1 vote:

Tannax: Don't talk down to me as if you think you are smart. First of all, the cuts come to both discretionary and Military spending.


Um, military spending is a kind of discretionary spending.  I don't want to talk down to you...but, do you know what the phrase "discretionary spending" means?  You don't seem to.

Tannax: I would absolutely gleefully go back to those tax rates if you would also agree for us to go back to those spending rates as well.


Per capita?  ABSO-FARKING-LUTELY.  Not in absolute terms, of course...because that would be a reduction in real spending.

Tannax: Oh, and by the way, those tax increases will have to hit every single person. There isn't enough rich people in the US for us to suck dry to save us.


Under the current president, the deficit has shrunk by a serious amount.  We could balance the budget if we returned to pre-Bush taxation levels...and, if we eliminated loopholes introduced by the Republican Congress (1995-) that sought to shield lots of income from taxation.

Tannax: We absolutely have a spending problem.


Our spending as a percentage of GDP is at an historical LOW for the modern era.  You might not have been aware of it; but, it's the truth.
2013-02-26 08:02:20 PM  
1 vote:

Tannax: We absolutely have a spending problem.


Right now we're not spending enough.
2013-02-26 08:01:45 PM  
1 vote:
FTA: "R.E.M. sang, "It's the end of the world as we know it." If ever there were a theme song for the liberal media's coverage of the sequester the band's iconic song would be it."


I knew Fux News doesn't have any taste, but come on man, "Bad Day" would have been so much better.
2013-02-26 07:52:55 PM  
1 vote:

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Circusdog320: the article failed to mention conservatives going off full tilt about a couple of parked aircraft carriers...My nutty republican "friend" said we should prepare for massive attack!


WOLVERINES!

You should really get this person a copy of Civ 2, 3, 4, or 5, or maybe an old copy of Rise of Nations.  Maybe they can get a better understanding of how much naval power it would take to effectively invade the USA.  Unless they think Canada is coming for us, or Mexico, in which case one supercarrier group sitting on the dock at the beginning of a land invasion wouldn't matter.  Even with no opposing navy, it still takes a huge amount of naval transport capacity to supply and replace lost people/equipment, which is sure to happen when they near landfall and try to set up operations.  We're not exactly small on the land/air forces that would swarm them as soon as they got within range of the coast.

/Yes, those games are simplified in terms of actual warfare
//Sounds like this "friend" needs something to dumb it down a bit


To be fair, the cartels have more firepower than the Mexican army. Hell, they are part of the Mexican Army.
2013-02-26 07:30:08 PM  
1 vote:
www.badmovies.org
2013-02-26 07:17:35 PM  
1 vote:
I'm too busy being amused at Fox accusing the "mainstream" media of hysteria and hyperbole.

Because Fox is such a bastion of rational discourse and objective analysis.
2013-02-26 07:10:15 PM  
1 vote:

NeoCortex42: So from my tea party family member, it seems the current talking point is that the sequestor won't really affect anybody. Nobody is getting laid off and places will still be hiring.  That's good to know.


I have a friend who works for NOAA.  She and the entire rest of the staff are being furloughed 22 days next year.  The sequester is really effecting her and her family, as she is sole income for the household.  Although it's probably incredibly tiresome, you can tell your tea party family member that they're wrong.  Again.
2013-02-26 07:01:03 PM  
1 vote:

Evil High Priest: Dear gop,
You're going to lose this sequestration fight too. Look for these numbers to soon be the good old days. You farks.


It's not a question of winning the battle though. Half of the GOP Congressmen want the sequester to go through. If they vote for anything Obama proposes, they will be crucified at home. If they vote against it, even if it means the sequester goes into effect, it means they get to keep their jobs no matter how much they just screwed over the country.

I fully expect the can to be kicked further down the road rather than an actual solution.
2013-02-26 06:55:57 PM  
1 vote:
Can I crack open my neighbors skull and feast on the goo inside yet?
2013-02-26 06:53:51 PM  
1 vote:

insano: WTFDYW: We will move on without missing hardly a beat. As a country, we need a "hair cut". We've been spending like there's no tomorrow at least since I graduated high school in 1981.

Yeah we were really spending too much on curing Alzheimer's and cancer and diabetes. Those automatic cuts to NIH and NSF funding were surely just the thing we needed to end the wanton spending. While we're at it, let's get a bunch of people laid off and thus spending less money into the economy; that's exactly what we need coming out of the recession.


Yeah, any budget cuts will come from releasing the most dangerous criminals and letting children starve.  Surely, there is no alternative.
2013-02-26 06:42:02 PM  
1 vote:

WTFDYW: We will move on without missing hardly a beat. As a country, we need a "hair cut". We've been spending like there's no tomorrow at least since I graduated high school in 1981.


Yeah we were really spending too much on curing Alzheimer's and cancer and diabetes. Those automatic cuts to NIH and NSF funding were surely just the thing we needed to end the wanton spending. While we're at it, let's get a bunch of people laid off and thus spending less money into the economy; that's exactly what we need coming out of the recession.
2013-02-26 06:38:16 PM  
1 vote:
I'm going to go against what seems to be the consensus here and predict that the sequester will, in fact, kick in.  There will be cuts and there will be layoffs.  Now, I don't think they will leave it at that forever; I think they'll probably get something done in maybe a couple of weeks or months.  But my expectation is that Friday will arrive and there will not be a deal.
2013-02-26 06:30:11 PM  
1 vote:
i.imgur.com
 I knew this was coming. They were warning us.
2013-02-26 04:26:01 PM  
1 vote:
I like how Fox seamlessly switches from denouncing Obama for creating it, never mind John Boehner proposed it, and saying it is incredibly destructive, to blaming the media for hyperbole.

Republicans of course can't understand why the above is wrong.
2013-02-26 03:56:21 PM  
1 vote:
Future?
 
Displayed 31 of 31 comments

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