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)   This could be it, folks: Sequestergate. Leaked email shows that Obama has been deliberately trying to make the sequester a bad thing   (foxnews.com) divider line 469
    More: Scary, President Obama, Sequestergate, White House, Kristi Noem, Gene Sperling, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, austerities  
•       •       •

3440 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Mar 2013 at 9:51 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-06 01:42:12 PM

MattStafford: Yeah - that is exactly what I've stated up front. We should only borrow money on productive programs


And in your world, feeding people who can't afford food and providing preventive medicine to people who can't afford healthcare aren't "productive programs"

'Bagger, please
 
2013-03-06 01:44:00 PM

MattStafford: Zasteva: The only way to satisfy you, mathematically speaking, is to have no borrowing at all, or to have only programs that you personally agree with. Wouldn't it be better just to state that up front?

/hope you weren't told there would be no math

Yeah - that is exactly what I've stated up front.  We should only borrow money on productive programs.  Programs that are worthwhile, and make our country stronger - even after we have to pay off the debt.


You are missing my point. Your statement and mine are different. Your statement implies that there is a way to borrow money for productive programs.

Yet if you assign borrowing amongst all programs, across the board, then you cannot borrow money for productive programs, because you will also be borrowing for unproductive programs.

In short, you are saying we shouldn't borrow money, and putting the "expect on productive programs" is just a feel good words that hides what you are really saying, probably even from yourself.
 
2013-03-06 01:44:33 PM

BeesNuts: Beef didn't get cheaper. Nor did the labor that produced it. The value of the  currency that purchased it however, did.


hurrrr.  Despite my best efforts to be as precise in language as Mr. Smith, I farked up.

The currency hasn't become cheaper in value, but cheaper in real dollars.  This contrasts with the situation before the creation of fiat currency in which silver fled from nations with faltering economies to nations with flourishing economies, draining real wealth from already troubled sovereignties and causing an inflationary effect in which whatever currency they were using became worth less and less in terms of real Labor Value with no apparent change in the Money Value of the silver that was leaving faster than Pauly D at a party with no booze, chicks or music.
 
2013-03-06 01:44:41 PM

MattStafford: Philip Francis Queeg: Do you produce enough goods to pay off the debt the country has accrues in keeping you in your current state?

I'm not sure why that is relevant.

If the government's investment in the poor lifts that class out of poverty, and they start producing enough goods to pay off that debt, then it was a good use of debt financed government spending.  If those people are unable to produce enough goods to pay off that debt, then it was a poor use of debt financed government spending.

Based on tax rates, I'm leaning towards poor use.


How do tax rates indicate anything, positive or negative on the productivity of those who have benefited from the social safety net?
 
2013-03-06 01:44:57 PM
I'm beginning to think a certain farker is here for the sole purpose of igniting a wayward discussion so as to divert attention from legitimate debate on sequestration. Threadjacking, as it were.

But now I sound like the crazies here who label anyone who does not agree with their groupthink as a "troll."

Boy, I'm concerned. And tired.
 
2013-03-06 01:50:02 PM

Ctrl-Alt-Del: If you borrow one hundred dollars and use it to heal a sick person who is producing nothing, and in the future he produces 200 dollars more worth of goods than he otherwise did, that money was well spent.

If you borrow one hundred dollars and use it to provide preventive healthcare to a person, and in the future he avoids needing 200,000 dollars of emergency procedures as a result of that preventive care, that money was well spent.


Borrowing to provide health care for the young and productive I would be for.  I would prefer a different system, but that spend is justifiable in my mind.  Borrowing to provide health care for the retired and no longer productive is not justifiable in my mind, even in the latter case you have provided.  In the example, it certainly seems like a good decision, but the general policy is not.  The idea of borrowing now because it prevents greater future borrowing is still not good borrowing.

Ctrl-Alt-Del: If you borrow one hundred dollars and use it to educate a kid, but the kid doesn't pay attention because he's farking HUNGRY and malnourished, and his extremely limited prospects in the world due to lack of education lead him to a life of crime and imprisonment costing tens of thousands of dollars per year, that's borrowed money that was just wasted.

Borrowing money to provide needed food or healthcare is neither wiser nor more frivolous than borrowing it to pay for needed education.


I have no problem borrowing to invest in our youth, even if it includes health care or nourishment.  By borrowing money and feeding that kid, you are allowing him to get an education and produce more in the future.

Again, if you can make the argument that our country would be better off after the spending is done and the debt is paid off, I will most likely agree with it.
 
2013-03-06 01:50:03 PM

MattStafford: KhanAidan: Just to play a bit of Devil's Advocate here, you're assuming there are no spillover effects from a person's choice of consumption. That's a fairly heroic assumption you are making. If you consider the possibility of spillovers, it no longer becomes a black and white issue for the effects of consumption on future growth.

You are correct.  It is possible that if the government borrows money and gives it to JoeBlow, and JoeBlow buys an Xbox, Microsoft might use that 100 to invest in new technology, and revolutionize our life.  But if you are trying to get me to subscribe to an economic theory, and that assumption is pivotal to the success of your policies, I'm going to keep looking.


Wait...are you suggesting that consumer choice has no impact on firm budgeting decisions?  Because once again, that's a far more heroic assumption to make than my point that there is at least some form of spillover/externality effect tied to consumption.  I think it'd be far more prudent to go with the least restrictive assumptions when considering policy analysis.
 
2013-03-06 01:51:15 PM
I would like to take this opportunity to formally apologize for making what I had assumed would be a straightforward way to understand the framework of the debate into a right proper shiatshow.
 
2013-03-06 01:51:20 PM

Cletus C.: Let me state this as simply as possible. Yes, I understand sequestration was a sort of nuclear option. Yes, I get it.


Right, it was MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) intended to prevent War. Glad we are in agreement.

This thingy here? Well, it's a department saying maybe we can get by with conventional missile attacks, you know, so maybe save some lives. Then, someone saying, no, the nuclear option is what  we promised and what we must deliver. Make it hurt.the President saying, no, you farkers need to stop the war altogether, and not launch the nukes. And then the GOP saying, well, we are going to have war, so we are launching the nukes. We'll let you decide where they are targeted. And then the President saying, no, Fark You. I don't want to do your dirty work, don't launch anything! And I'm not going to collaborate in their launch or targeting.

Hint. WTF dude?

Yeah, fixed that example for you.
 
2013-03-06 01:51:36 PM

MattStafford: You can borrow all the money you want to fund our nation's "beauty of our poetry", but I guarantee those poets won't be the one's paying the debt when it comes due.


Not exactly a poet but Samuel L. Jackson's movies made $1.7B in domestic revenue in his career.  I will put his job creation and tax record ahead of Romney's any day.
 
2013-03-06 01:53:14 PM

Cletus C.: I'm beginning to think a certain farker is here for the sole purpose of igniting a wayward discussion so as to divert attention from legitimate debate on sequestration. Threadjacking, as it were.

But now I sound like the crazies here who label anyone who does not agree with their groupthink as a "troll."


They're trolling you say?
 
2013-03-06 01:54:09 PM

AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: I love the fark politics tab.  Especially the "total farkers"  It's the only place on the Internet where one can see people writhing in pain over their financial failure in life while spending $5/month to complain about not having any money.  Hey?  Maybe if you learned a TRADE rather then going to some community college (probably online while eating Cheetos in yer mommy's basement) to earn a worthless "degree", you coulda made something of yourselves?  Ever think of that?  Or are y'all too good to get yer hands dirty?  "But-but-but, I have a degree!"  Guess what, stupid?  So do the other 150 people who applied for this job.  What I need to know is do you have any SKILLS?  No?  Bye.


wut?

I think maybe a walk outside would do you some good, kid.
 
2013-03-06 01:55:18 PM

BeesNuts: I would like to take this opportunity to formally apologize for making what I had assumed would be a straightforward way to understand the framework of the debate into a right proper shiatshow.


there's nothing anyone can do right now.  the GOP isn't interested in explanations or being reasonable.  hell, Limbaugh has been having a meltdown all week.  so has most of the GOP spin machine.
 
2013-03-06 01:56:41 PM

Cletus C.: I'm beginning to think a certain farker is here for the sole purpose of igniting a wayward discussion so as to divert attention from legitimate debate on sequestration. Threadjacking, as it were.

But now I sound like the crazies here who label anyone who does not agree with their groupthink as a "troll."

Boy, I'm concerned. And tired.


No, we all know who you are talking about. The person has been trolling fark for some time now.  Unless Palin has a fark handle no one is that cartoonishly partisan for the GOP. I disagree with you quite a bit, but at least I know you are genuine.
 
2013-03-06 01:58:30 PM

AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: I love the fark politics tab.  Especially the "total farkers"  It's the only place on the Internet where one can see people writhing in pain over their financial failure in life while spending $5/month to complain about not having any money.  Hey?  Maybe if you learned a TRADE rather then going to some community college (probably online while eating Cheetos in yer mommy's basement) to earn a worthless "degree", you coulda made something of yourselves?  Ever think of that?  Or are y'all too good to get yer hands dirty?  "But-but-but, I have a degree!"  Guess what, stupid?  So do the other 150 people who applied for this job.  What I need to know is do you have any SKILLS?  No?  Bye.


Sorry you got turned down for a job.

/It will get better for you
//Especially if you get some skills
 
2013-03-06 02:00:12 PM

AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: I love the fark politics tab.  Especially the "total farkers"  It's the only place on the Internet where one can see people writhing in pain over their financial failure in life while spending $5/month to complain about not having any money.  Hey?  Maybe if you learned a TRADE rather then going to some community college (probably online while eating Cheetos in yer mommy's basement) to earn a worthless "degree", you coulda made something of yourselves?  Ever think of that?  Or are y'all too good to get yer hands dirty?  "But-but-but, I have a degree!"  Guess what, stupid?  So do the other 150 people who applied for this job.  What I need to know is do you have any SKILLS?  No?  Bye.


You have a problem with engineers? Really? Is that not good enough of a degree for you? You have any idea what skills and abilities go into engineering? You understand why engineers despise people like you? because you have no ability to reason, to problem solve, to figure out what problems people like you cause and why people like you are always the last to figure it out. We don't need worthless people like you, you know why? Because people like you got us into this mess, they're the ones that refused to give us a livable wage so that we had to get degrees to prove our "worth" so we can make enough to survive in this world you've created. I have a degree and I get my hands dirty. I work with men and women who's purpose is protecting people, whether it's hiding them in plain sight or keeping them from getting severely injured when pieces of lead fly into them, they are the people that do good and they are the people who have purpose in life. Unlike you, you bloodsucking leech. What the fark have you done in this miserable existence of your hellish life? Huh? Nothing. You haven't done a damn thing worthwhile in life. You have never ended a day satisfied that you've made a difference in the world. Maybe not to a grand scale, but even a small difference in your little corner of the world, that benefits more than your money-grubbing hands.

So I ask again, what the fark have you done with your skills? Eh? Nothing? You've kept yourself alive? Well lad-de-da, welcome to the rest of the world, you pain in my goddamn ass. Why don't you go crawl in a hole somewhere and contemplate the meaning of life, cause you sure as shiat not proven to me that you have any meaning in life, you just want to shiat on everyone else trying to make a difference in this world. So fark you, you piece of crap. The world needs less assholes like you
 
2013-03-06 02:00:40 PM

AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: I love the fark politics tab.  Especially the "total farkers"  It's the only place on the Internet where one can see people writhing in pain over their financial failure in life while spending $5/month to complain about not having any money.  Hey?  Maybe if you learned a TRADE rather then going to some community college (probably online while eating Cheetos in yer mommy's basement) to earn a worthless "degree", you coulda made something of yourselves?  Ever think of that?  Or are y'all too good to get yer hands dirty?  "But-but-but, I have a degree!"  Guess what, stupid?  So do the other 150 people who applied for this job.  What I need to know is do you have any SKILLS?  No?  Bye.


that's one of the dumbest things I've ever seen posted in the fark politics tab....and I've been here a LONG time!
 
2013-03-06 02:02:23 PM
clane:
If Obama doesn't get his way he acts like the spoiled liberal Socialist brat that he is.
This was not even a cut but i am sure you don't even know that...
He lied over and over again trying to hide that this was his idea...
...
Seriously i watch NBC, CNN/HLN and FOX, CNN and NBC lie and pound the drums for the Democrats, FOX explains the truth.


Zasteva:
THE TRUTH
[img.math-fail.com image 750x600]


clane:
NBC said the sequester was going to result in "DEEP CUTS" Fox said it's not cuts at all...  hmmm  who lied?

\sadly you can lead a hore to water...
 
2013-03-06 02:04:00 PM

fluffy2097: Jobber8742: huh? Congress' pay isn't affected at all. It's the peons who are affected. They didn't creat this mess.

yeah. That's my point and the problem.

Imagine if we fined congress critters $10,000 a day for not creating a balanced budget after a certain date.


Unfortunately, that's illegal. But, maybe we can just raise the heat in the congressional building and offices by one degree per day of fail. Lock the doors.
 
2013-03-06 02:04:07 PM

BeesNuts: OK then. I disagree. I subscribe to the notion that value is determined specifically and only by the amount of labor it commands. Removing money and market rates from the equation. As an example, a crap ton of silver was discovered in the turn of the 18th century as a result of exploration in the America's. Most of this silver found its way back to Europe. Most of Europe's currency was based on silver. As the real amount of silver increased, their currencies deflated relative to the amount of labor they commanded, but not in relation to the market value of silver. Put another way, the amount of labor commanded by a unit of that currency increased while no apparent change in the relationship of the value of the currency and the value of the commodity whence the currency was derived occurred anywhere in Europe. The VALUE of silver would appear to have decreased, in your definition, whereas in mine, the VALUE of silver increased, as the same quantity of silver, represented by a certain quantity of currency, would command a larger amount of labor in the market.

Beef didn't get cheaper. Nor did the labor that produced it. The value of the currency that purchased it however, did.


I'll be honest, I struggled to follow this.

What exactly are we talking about here?  The value of money?  The value of goods?  Your second sentence states that we should remove money and market rates from the equation, and then you give an example that entirely deals with money and market rates?

I'm not sure how you are saying that the labor commanded by a unit of currency increased after the increase in silver.  If inflation occurred, as it would of after the increase in silver, then each unit of currency would command less labor.

If we're talking about money here, the value of money is entirely determined by the value of real goods it can purchase.  If there are one hundred units of currency in the economy, and 100 units of goods, each unit of currency is worth one unit of good.  If 200 units of goods become available, the value of currency increases to two units of goods.  If another 100 units of currency are added, each unit of currency is now worth half a good.

But again, I'm not entirely sure what we are talking about here - I'm going to need another explanation.

BeesNuts: Police, to use your example, are unproductive labor, in this construction. They provide no value as their economic activity neither increases the value of capital stock by cultivating land or accounts, nor the value of raw goods by turning them into manufactured goods, nor the value of manufactures by transporting them to areas of increased demand.


No, police are obviously productive labor.  Security is a good, just like anything else.  Without the police, people would be forced to provide for their own security, which takes labor.  With the police, people can focus more on producing.  Security is part of the labor of producing anything.

BeesNuts: If *none* of this sounds familiary, I strongly recommend you read Wealth of Nations cover to cover. Wait 6 months. Then read Wealth of Nations cover to cover *again*.


I think you may need to read it again, if this is as best as you can explain it.
 
2013-03-06 02:04:47 PM

Weaver95: BeesNuts: I would like to take this opportunity to formally apologize for making what I had assumed would be a straightforward way to understand the framework of the debate into a right proper shiatshow.

there's nothing anyone can do right now.  the GOP isn't interested in explanations or being reasonable.  hell, Limbaugh has been having a meltdown all week.  so has most of the GOP spin machine.


Naw, I'm just talking about the side bar I'm having with Stafford.  I've been asking for this very conversation for MONTHS and he's the first farker to step up and try and hash out real causes and effects of an imminent economic melt down.  But he meanders, loses focus, appears to lack the comprehensive grasp of macroeconomics necessary to talk about it clearly, but he has an idea and he's trying to express it to shouts of coconuts.  Shouts that are hilarious, and well deserved according to the morality of this here internets.  But I think deep down the guy is willing to have an earnest conversation about the economic destiny of our country.

As such, I thought I could get a bead on the framework under which his ideas formed.  That turned into me finding out, much to my dismay, that *nobody* has read (or at least absorbed) WoN,

Carry on!
 
2013-03-06 02:05:44 PM

somedude210: So I ask again, what the fark have you done with your skills?


To be fair, he did manage to get a big fat hook in your lip
 
2013-03-06 02:06:03 PM

Ctrl-Alt-Del: And in your world, feeding people who can't afford food and providing preventive medicine to people who can't afford healthcare aren't "productive programs"

'Bagger, please


Correct.  If I borrow a dollar to feed someone, then tax another person a dollar to pay down the debt, are we better off?  Certainly the individual is better off, but are we as a society?
 
2013-03-06 02:06:37 PM

fluffy2097: Imagine if we fined congress critters $10,000 a day for not creating a balanced budget after a certain date.


No, that way the richest ones can just wait it out and get everything they want.
 
2013-03-06 02:07:14 PM

Zasteva: Yet if you assign borrowing amongst all programs, across the board, then you cannot borrow money for productive programs, because you will also be borrowing for unproductive programs.

In short, you are saying we shouldn't borrow money, and putting the "expect on productive programs" is just a feel good words that hides what you are really saying, probably even from yourself.


Actually, saying it like that, I do see what you are saying, and I agree with it.

I guess a better way to phrase it would be that our total borrowing should never exceed the total cost of our productive programs.
 
2013-03-06 02:07:19 PM

clane: NBC said the sequester was going to result in "DEEP CUTS" Fox said it's not cuts at all... hmmm who lied?

\sadly you can lead a hore to water...


okay, so if no services are affected by say...May? Is Fox still gonna be right?
 
2013-03-06 02:07:46 PM

Weaver95: BeesNuts: I would like to take this opportunity to formally apologize for making what I had assumed would be a straightforward way to understand the framework of the debate into a right proper shiatshow.

there's nothing anyone can do right now.  the GOP isn't interested in explanations or being reasonable.  hell, Limbaugh has been having a meltdown all week.  so has most of the GOP spin machine.


Let's bring it back full circle: is the talking point "Sequester bad, Obama bad," or "Sequester meh, Obama still bad?" Because I've literally seen both spouted by the same person today.
 
2013-03-06 02:08:02 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: How do tax rates indicate anything, positive or negative on the productivity of those who have benefited from the social safety net?


They don't, I retract that statement.
 
2013-03-06 02:08:13 PM

Ctrl-Alt-Del: somedude210: So I ask again, what the fark have you done with your skills?

To be fair, he did manage to get a big fat hook in your lip


I could just be pissed and took my anger out on him, because why not. He's a dumbass and needed a dressing down
 
2013-03-06 02:09:07 PM

Cletus C.: I'm beginning to think a certain farker is here for the sole purpose of igniting a wayward discussion so as to divert attention from legitimate debate on sequestration. Threadjacking, as it were.

But now I sound like the crazies here who label anyone who does not agree with their groupthink as a "troll."

Boy, I'm concerned. And tired.


This discussion thread gets to the heart of the issue - what are the ramifications of our spending, and how serious of an issue is it?
 
2013-03-06 02:09:14 PM

verbaltoxin: Weaver95: BeesNuts: I would like to take this opportunity to formally apologize for making what I had assumed would be a straightforward way to understand the framework of the debate into a right proper shiatshow.

there's nothing anyone can do right now.  the GOP isn't interested in explanations or being reasonable.  hell, Limbaugh has been having a meltdown all week.  so has most of the GOP spin machine.

Let's bring it back full circle: is the talking point "Sequester bad, Obama bad," or "Sequester meh, Obama still bad?" Because I've literally seen both spouted by the same person today.


the GOP default assumption is that everything bad is Obama's fault.
 
2013-03-06 02:09:24 PM

MattStafford: Correct.  If I borrow a dollar to feed someone, then tax another person a dollar to pay down the debt, are we better off?  Certainly the individual is better off, but are we as a society?


Yes. You keep crime and poverty down, everyone wins.

 It's when you tax someone too much to pay for people who don't work, then you have a problem.
 
2013-03-06 02:10:13 PM

Tommy Moo: verbaltoxin: Tommy Moo: somedude210: Well, sequester really is a bad thing, and anyone who thinks that blindly cutting our way to prosperity isn't a bad thing should be smacked around with my furlough notice

Take a 20% pay cut and get back to me how your spending isn't affected by it

Except the sequester is nowhere near 20% of the federal budget. It's closer to 2%. And yes, if I were a hog buying $1000 hammers and $500 toilet seats, I could find a way to survive a 2% pay cut.

Obama is being a dick here, and I say that as a person who voted for him. This is a Republicanesque tactic: scorching the earth and shooting the hostage to make the other guy look bad.

Yeah, how dare he write a bill by himself and force Congress to pass it at gunpoint. Oh right, that's now how legislation works at all.

His executive power to decide what bills to pay circumvents Congress. This isn't about legislation. He is deliberately, unilaterally choosing to short change the most publicly visible and necessary programs in order to make the Republicans look as bad as possible.

"I have to cut $50 million from the FAA. Let's see... I could order the agency to switch from paper to wireless and consolidate the redundant administrative staff. NAH! I think I'll fire all the air traffic controllers so everyone dies in fiery plane crashes. That will show the American people how evil the Republicans are for forcing this sequester!"


Maybe congress should not have sent him this bill then.
 
2013-03-06 02:11:42 PM

MattStafford: Correct. If I borrow a dollar to feed someone, then tax another person a dollar to pay down the debt, are we better off? Certainly the individual is better off, but are we as a society?


The fact that you have to ask if our society is better of if we feed hungry people and heal sick people tells me a lot about you. The fact that you ask it as an obviously rhetorical question, with your position clearly being staked out as "feeding the hungry and curing the sick does not make our society better if they are part of the MOOCHER class" tells me pretty much everything I need to know about you.

Good day, sir
 
2013-03-06 02:13:54 PM

clane: Fox said Romney won the election? umm ok So that Benghazi thing, yea innocent people died because Obama couldn't take time from his golf outing but hey they were just little people so your liberal left media says let's just go on about our business and pretend it didn't happen. my god NBC and CNN lies more times a day than i can count and you have to go back 30 years to think of something...


How has this troll not been permabanned yet?
 
2013-03-06 02:14:21 PM
All-Star Troll Thread.
 
2013-03-06 02:14:31 PM

Biological Ali: clane: Fox said Romney won the election? umm ok So that Benghazi thing, yea innocent people died because Obama couldn't take time from his golf outing but hey they were just little people so your liberal left media says let's just go on about our business and pretend it didn't happen. my god NBC and CNN lies more times a day than i can count and you have to go back 30 years to think of something...

How has this troll not been permabanned yet?


because he's an idiot but not ban worthy yet
 
2013-03-06 02:14:32 PM

Joe USer: MattStafford: Correct.  If I borrow a dollar to feed someone, then tax another person a dollar to pay down the debt, are we better off?  Certainly the individual is better off, but are we as a society?

Yes. You keep crime and poverty down, everyone wins.

 It's when you tax someone too much to pay for people who don't work, then you have a problem.


Which brings up an interesting question about our population, because we're about to see the largest generation of retirees ever, and they're leaving behind a smaller workforce in their place. We actually will have huge expenses for a lot of people who don't work. Some can't or won't be able.

Japan is already dealing with it. I'm not sure what the specifics are though.
 
2013-03-06 02:16:30 PM

Joe USer: Yes. You keep crime and poverty down, everyone wins.

It's when you tax someone too much to pay for people who don't work, then you have a problem.


But once the spending stops - the person is poor again, and we face the same issues.

If you are suggesting that we should tax the person who ends up paying the debt, and giving the poor person that tax revenue, I'm entirely with you on that one.  The problem with borrowing is that, particularly in this case, the person who ends up on the hook for the debt has no idea he has to pay it, and hasn't been preparing for that eventuality.

It is the difference between saying "this person needs a dollar, so we're going to take a dollar from you and give it to him" and "this person needs a dollar, so we're going to give him one, and take one from at a later date".

The former is fine, the latter creates a situation where the taxpayer (and society in general) lives life without understanding that the bill is going to be coming due.
 
2013-03-06 02:18:52 PM

Ctrl-Alt-Del: The fact that you have to ask if our society is better of if we feed hungry people and heal sick people tells me a lot about you. The fact that you ask it as an obviously rhetorical question, with your position clearly being staked out as "feeding the hungry and curing the sick does not make our society better if they are part of the MOOCHER class" tells me pretty much everything I need to know about you.


If today I borrow one hundred dollars, and buy a bunch of homeless people Mcdonalds, and then tomorrow take that money from Joe Schmo down the street to pay it off, are we better off as a society?

We still have a bunch of hungry homeless people - the only difference is that McDonald's has an extra 100 in their wallet and Joe Schmo has 100 less.  The homeless people are still homeless and hungry.
 
2013-03-06 02:19:23 PM

MattStafford: Borrowing to provide health care for the young and productive I would be for.  I would prefer a different system, but that spend is justifiable in my mind.  Borrowing to provide health care for the retired and no longer productive is not justifiable in my mind, even in the latter case you have provided.  In the example, it certainly seems like a good decision, but the general policy is not.  The idea of borrowing now because it prevents greater future borrowing is still not good borrowing.


From a financial perspective only, what do you think happens to elderly people who can't afford health care?

When a retired person can't afford healthcare, they don't receive the regular checkups, advice and early treatment that helps keep their healthcare costs low. Instead they go to emergency rooms when things are seriously wrong, and now very expensive to treat.

Perhaps their family steps in. This takes money from their pockets that could be spent on more productive things, and the stress reduces the productivity of the workers in the family, and reduces the attention that can be paid to the education of the children.

Or perhaps the family has no resources, so the hospital absorbs much of the cost. The hospital still must return a profit to it's shareholders, so it increases costs to other patients to absorb the cost of the treatment.

Often the people who are paying for that care are borrowing the money. They are just borrowing it at a higher interest rate than the government would pay for the same borrowing. And unlike government, they have no power to negotiate for the lowest possible prices for the services.

That's why there is economic benefit to having health care for the retired, even when it is borrowed. Because the government has a lower cost of borrowing than individuals do, and greater negotiating power to get lower costs.
 
2013-03-06 02:20:19 PM

Ctrl-Alt-Del: somedude210: Tyrano Soros: No thanks. Playing golf is what got us into this mess.

I like when the new trolls come out to play, I just hope they live up to the old class from back in the day

/I miss EnviroDude sometimes

I don't. We haven't had entertaining trolls since the Marine Core days, if you ask me. Case in point:

Tyrano Soros: So why hasn't 0bama shown any leadership and forced the Senate

Dude seriously, you need to get funnier PDQ if you want to stay off everyone's ignore list


Too late! By one comment. I miss him already.
 
2013-03-06 02:21:30 PM

MattStafford: BeesNuts: OK then. I disagree. I subscribe to the notion that value is determined specifically and only by the amount of labor it commands. Removing money and market rates from the equation. As an example, a crap ton of silver was discovered in the turn of the 18th century as a result of exploration in the America's. Most of this silver found its way back to Europe. Most of Europe's currency was based on silver. As the real amount of silver increased, their currencies deflated relative to the amount of labor they commanded, but not in relation to the market value of silver. Put another way, the amount of labor commanded by a unit of that currency increased while no apparent change in the relationship of the value of the currency and the value of the commodity whence the currency was derived occurred anywhere in Europe. The VALUE of silver would appear to have decreased, in your definition, whereas in mine, the VALUE of silver increased, as the same quantity of silver, represented by a certain quantity of currency, would command a larger amount of labor in the market.

Beef didn't get cheaper. Nor did the labor that produced it. The value of the currency that purchased it however, did.

I'll be honest, I struggled to follow this.

What exactly are we talking about here?  The value of money?  The value of goods?  Your second sentence states that we should remove money and market rates from the equation, and then you give an example that entirely deals with money and market rates?

I'm not sure how you are saying that the labor commanded by a unit of currency increased after the increase in silver.  If inflation occurred, as it would of after the increase in silver, then each unit of currency would command less labor.

If we're talking about money here, the value of money is entirely determined by the value of real goods it can purchase.  If there are one hundred units of currency in the economy, and 100 units of goods, each unit of currency is worth one unit of good.  ...


I'm not going to be able to summarize 700 pages of economic treatise in a fark thread.

I used the relative values of commodities, labor and fiat currency to illustrate the point that value isn't determined by the amount of money something is worth in a specific market, but by the amount of labor it commands in that market.  It's a subtle, complex, but important distinction for the reasons illustrated by the silver example above.  he Labor Theory of Value isn't really news, but if you want to know where I'm getting this from, I point you to Part One Chapter 5.

The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it. What every thing is really worth to the man who has acquired it, and who wants to dispose of it or exchange it for something else, is the toil and trouble which it can save to himself, and which it can impose upon other people. What is bought with money or with goods is purchased by labour, as much as what we acquire by the toil of our own body.  That money or those goods indeed save us this toil. They contain the value of a certain quantity of labour which we exchange for what is supposed at the time to contain the value of an equal quantity. Labour was the first price, the original purchase-money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all the wealth of the world was originally purchased; and its value, to those who possess it, and who want to exchange it for some new productions, is precisely equal to the quantity of labour which it can enable them to purchase or command.

Smith spent several disparate chapters going over the (at the time) contemporary example of silver.  It sticks less in my mind though because it's not as fundamental to his treatise as this passage is.  It comes up repeatedly.  The entire work is predicated on this definition of Value.
 
2013-03-06 02:25:28 PM

Ctrl-Alt-Del: The fact that you have to ask if our society is better of if we feed hungry people and heal sick people tells me a lot about you. The fact that you ask it as an obviously rhetorical question, with your position clearly being staked out as "feeding the hungry and curing the sick does not make our society better if they are part of the MOOCHER class" tells me pretty much everything I need to know about you.

Good day, sir


MattStafford: [further douchebaggery]


pictat.com
 
2013-03-06 02:28:20 PM

Joe USer: Cletus C.: I'm beginning to think a certain farker is here for the sole purpose of igniting a wayward discussion so as to divert attention from legitimate debate on sequestration. Threadjacking, as it were.

But now I sound like the crazies here who label anyone who does not agree with their groupthink as a "troll."

They're trolling you say?


No, sincere. Blindly dogged but sincere.
 
2013-03-06 02:28:32 PM

clane: Zasteva:
THE TRUTH
[img.math-fail.com image 750x600]

clane:
NBC said the sequester was going to result in "DEEP CUTS" Fox said it's not cuts at all...  hmmm  who lied?


Fox News:

"The "sequester" is the Washington word for the $85 billion in 2013 spending cuts set to hit starting March 1, with more than $1 trillion in cuts on tap over the next decade. "

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/20/boehner-to-obama-created- sp ending-cut-crisis-fix-it/
 
2013-03-06 02:29:02 PM
I'll add that I'm really not trying to be a dick here.  Wealth of Nations is dense, enormous, and anachronistic as all hell.  I have no expectation that you *have* read it, any more than I'd expect that you've read Paradise Lost.  But the notions within are paramount to the logic that dictates our economic policy.

You're obviously not shilling, and you're obviously not dumb.  You're thought process isn't flawed.  And absent your... bizarre analogies... you mostly make sense.  At this point, I am pretty sure you're less convinced of your original (read, several weeks ago) positions and are starting to conceive of the machine in all its magnificent complexity.  The interplay of parts and cogs and systems and actors and power.

The reason it's hard to follow the wealth vs currency vs production vs value discussion is because it is fantastically complicated and unreasonably nuanced.  To make it clearer, you're talking about what Smith calls the Money Value of goods and services.  Smith calls this a mistake and invents a new term, the Real Value of goods and services and defines it as stated above... with extensive elaborations throughout the remaining 700 pages of the opus.
 
2013-03-06 02:31:03 PM

MattStafford: Zasteva: Yet if you assign borrowing amongst all programs, across the board, then you cannot borrow money for productive programs, because you will also be borrowing for unproductive programs.

In short, you are saying we shouldn't borrow money, and putting the "expect on productive programs" is just a feel good words that hides what you are really saying, probably even from yourself.

Actually, saying it like that, I do see what you are saying, and I agree with it.

I guess a better way to phrase it would be that our total borrowing should never exceed the total cost of our productive programs.


Excellent. That's a statement I can agree with. Of course we may disagree on what our productive programs are.
 
2013-03-06 02:31:07 PM
MattStafford:
If today I borrow one hundred dollars, and buy a bunch of homeless people Mcdonalds, and then tomorrow take that money from Joe Schmo down the street to pay it off, are we better off as a society?

so
you're against how we pay for our various wars in the deserts around the world...?
 
2013-03-06 02:32:56 PM

BeesNuts: I used the relative values of commodities, labor and fiat currency to illustrate the point that value isn't determined by the amount of money something is worth in a specific market, but by the amount of labor it commands in that market. It's a subtle, complex, but important distinction for the reasons illustrated by the silver example above. he Labor Theory of Value isn't really news, but if you want to know where I'm getting this from,


Sure - this I understand.  If I collect a coconut, that coconut isn't worth X dollars, that coconut is worth what it would take for a man to get me to part with that coconut.  The work that he would have to do to produce something to trade with me for that coconut.  Currency is just introduced to make that process and calculation a bit easier.

That said - where are you going with this?  If I had to worry about providing my own security for my coconut collecting corporation, I might collect four coconuts.  If I hired the police, I might collect eight coconuts.  Clearly, the police service is worth four coconuts to me, so I would pay them somewhere in that neighborhood.  To say that they don't have value if you use the market to determine it is, I would argue, a false statement.
 
Displayed 50 of 469 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report