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  
•       •       •

3439 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 02:33:11 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 horse to water...


somedude210:
okay, so if no services are affected by say...May? Is Fox still gonna be right?

clane:
oh they will try to make it look bad...  Tell me though, why so much pain when their are no cut but an increase in the funds?

PS
Federal workers take the day off -- paid, of course...
 
2013-03-06 02:34:10 PM

Zasteva: verbaltoxin: So why hasn't 0bama shown any leadership and forced the Senate to adopt any of the House's budget bills? Because he'd rather play politics and golf then help the American people.

You're doing well so far. Keeping the responses short and shrift. Just don't f*ck it up by pretending you're a dentist or economist.

And don't mention rape! I mentioned it once, but I think I got away it.

/dammit, I said rape!
/ twice


Your logic is faulty.
 
2013-03-06 02:35:14 PM

Ctrl-Alt-Del: MattStafford: [further douchebaggery]

pictat.com


"Give a man a fish, and you have fed him once. Teach him how to fish and you have fed him for a lifetime."

Classic proverbs, or straight douchebaggery - you decide.
 
2013-03-06 02:36:27 PM

MattStafford: 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.


Sales taxes from that $100 went to improve the streets in front of McDonalds. McDonalds hired people and bought um 'beef' for their burgers and a bunch of people were not hungry for one day.  That's a start, but not an end.

Now, say we gave more money to feed the homeless and helped them find a job at McDonalds? Then they would just be the working poor, and not homeless anymore. That's not the end you want in the long term, but it's in the right direction.
 
2013-03-06 02:36:47 PM

BeesNuts: Smackledorfer: Munchausen's Proxy: Outstanding

70 posts in and absolutely nobody has actually address the article.  Someone posted a copy of the email mentioned in the article, but then asked about "Lucy"  Many here will moan about people working together, then post crap about "the other side".  In the same post complaining about the other side only looking to place blame, the poster then tries to place blame.

Good job, keep at it

A. People did address it.
B. It was a bullshiat piece misreoresenting what was said in the email.
C. The important thing is you managed to make a meta-post that addressed the thread instead of the article to feel superior to those making posts about the thread instead of the article.

I wish I could barf through my monitor into your eyes and mouth.

It's been a long time coming, but it's official:
[img9.imageshack.us image 761x52]

You said something that made coffee come out my faceholes.


Thank you very much.
 
2013-03-06 02:36:55 PM

clane: clane:
oh they will try to make it look bad... Tell me though, why so much pain when their are no cut but an increase in the funds?

PS
Federal workers take the day off -- paid, of course...


I'm sorry, are you implying that my furlough will be paid? are you really  farking kidding me? Christ, I give up. You're a farking retard.

and btw, we're required to work from home during snow days if we have the ability to, so yes, we may be out of the office but that doesn't mean we're not working. So why do you not want to pay us for working?
 
2013-03-06 02:38:05 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...

somedude210: Biological Ali:
How has this troll not been permabanned yet?

because he's an idiot but not ban worthy yet


clane:
you ban for speaking the truth.  the truth stings doesnt it!
images.sodahead.com
 
2013-03-06 02:40:39 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?

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.


And McDonalds had to hire 10 people to make those extra 100 hamburgers, and pay them.

Next day we borrow 90 dollars to feed the remaining homeless, and we tax McDonald's $10 for today's payment back to Joe Schmo.

/silly analogy
 
2013-03-06 02:42:17 PM

clane: clane:
you ban for speaking the truth. the truth stings doesnt it!


Christ, almighty. I was defending your right to spew your misguided crap. I'll make sure not to defend that anymore then!

farking retarded you are.
 
2013-03-06 02:43:31 PM

GAT_00: I_C_Weener: 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

Those of us in the private sector have been dealing with that for years now.

Which gives you the right to inflict it on other people?  That's your governing philosophy?  Screw over other people's lives?  That makes you a shiatty supervillain, the kind that gets knocked out 10 minutes into the story, not any kind of rational person.



Far too many people saying, "Fark that guy over there for doing slightly better than me."
Not enough people saying, "Why can't more people do as well as that guy over there?"
 
2013-03-06 02:44:05 PM

Weaver95: so you're against how we pay for our various wars in the deserts around the world...?


First off, I'm entirely against our various wars in the deserts around the world.  Our actions are making us far less safe than we would be had we been minding our own business.

Second, yes - we should absolutely not be paying for the wars with debt.  The amount of debt we accrued from our various excursions will do far more to destroy our country than a few people five thousand miles away will ever do.  We do need a military for defensive purposes, and it should be paid for out of tax revenue.

Third, we got a lot of cool tech from the military, so I won't say it was a complete waste.  But if our goal is tech, we should invest in the tech and ditch the massive jobs and friends of congress kickback programs that go with it

Ike said it best with the whole every dollar to the MIC is a dollar from our children's mouth.  People thought we got around that with borrowing, but that's just taking it from future kids' mouths.
 
2013-03-06 02:44:54 PM
clane:  [images.sodahead.com image 640x494]

I eagerly await your explanation of how the sequester cuts are not actually cuts because Fox said so, even though I gave you a direct quote from Fox News where they defined the sequester as cuts.

/still waiting
 
2013-03-06 02:48:22 PM

This Face Left Blank: Far too many people saying, "Fark that guy over there for doing slightly better than me."
Not enough people saying, "Why can't more people do as well as that guy over there?"


Exactly. The idea of everyone doing better used to be the American Dream. Now that dream seems largely dead and "I got mine" is the new refrain.
 
2013-03-06 02:48:47 PM

clane: the truth stings doesnt it!


no.
why does truth sting you?
 
2013-03-06 02:49:03 PM

Zasteva: And McDonalds had to hire 10 people to make those extra 100 hamburgers, and pay them.

Next day we borrow 90 dollars to feed the remaining homeless, and we tax McDonald's $10 for today's payment back to Joe Schmo.

/silly analogy


You are suggesting that McDonalds will permanently hire people based on the perceived demand from that government spending.  In other words, if I give those homeless people a bunch of money, the increased demand will result in Mcdonalds hiring some of those people.  In your mind, that is the end of the story.  In reality, however, Mcdonalds will only keep those people on board as long as that extra demand is there - if you were to stop giving those homeless people money (or even less money) - that demand decreases, and those homeless people are laid off.
 
2013-03-06 02:49:22 PM

I_C_Weener: I_C_Weener: St_Francis_P: The talking points are always a little confusing, but lately they're just flat contradictory. The sequester is and isn't bad, but the government is hoarding bullets to shoot patriots who riot because of the sequester, but the GOP wanted to cut spending the whole time, but it's Obama's fault. There, did I cover all the salient points?

It was Obama's idea.  It was designed to punish, not cut.  It has military spending cuts in it (not just cuts to future increases) and yet the Democrats aren't happy with that either.

Now, I think we've got it.

Oh, and Republicans already gave in on Tax Increases, now it is time for the Democrats to give in on spending cuts.


It took Obama 4 years to get the GOP to agree to tax increases, and he didn't even get all the increases he wanted. Meanwhile, he's been tax-cutting the shiat out of businesses for the last four years so they can still not hire more workers. Obama has given enough. The GOP needs to give more.
 
2013-03-06 02:50:08 PM

MattStafford: 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.


God.  Don't ever change.  I'm smiling ear to ear at the moment.

Where I'm going is straight to Part II chapter 5.  There are four ways to spend capital that increase the value of that capital.
1. Gathering Natural Resources
2. Working Those Resources Into Manufactures
3. Selling Or Otherwise Moving Those Resources And Manufactures.
and
4. Dividing Those Resources And Manufactures Into Parts That More Easily Facilitate Consumption.

Capital spent that does not align with one of these four vehicles destroy wealth.  Capital spent in one of these ways increases wealth.

I noticed that you were casting about looking for a way to define "good" and "bad" spending, and to determine what is productive and unproductive spending.  I'm trying to give you a working definition.

You could argue that police factor into a value calculation based on 3 or 4, But unless that police officer replaces his wages and benefits, the capital which was spent on him, with profits on that capital stock equal to or greater than the natural rate of interest, then they are unproductive hands.

Paying farmers to PRODUCE is productive.  Paying farmers to NOT PRODUCE is unproductive.  Paying Farmers lacks the necessary precision of language to pass judgement one way or the other.

Does that make better sense?
 
2013-03-06 02:51:11 PM

jehovahs witness protection: Philip Francis Queeg: BillCo: It's called the Washington Memorial Strategy.

And, we really don't need the memo to prove that Obama is engaging in it.  He shut down tours of the White House for fark's sake.  Can't get much more transparent than that.  He is doing everything in his power to make the American public think that this is still the end of the world.

It's pretty sad when the President of the United States resorts to such childish tactics to scare the American people.  Whatever happened to the concept of leadership?

Are public tours of the White House a vital function of the Federal Government? That seems like a pretty smart cut to me.

Tours are done by volunteers...AND COST NOTHING


I'm pretty sure the National Park Service runs the tours. I have a friend who used to do WH tours while in college (and after) and she was a paid employee of the NPS.
 
2013-03-06 02:51:37 PM

MattStafford: Third, we got a lot of cool tech from the military, so I won't say it was a complete waste.  But if our goal is tech, we should invest in the tech and ditch the massive jobs and friends of congress kickback programs that go with it


I'd argue for putting that into the space program. Equal or harder problems to solve, but with long term benefits for mankind, rather than an arsenal of weapons that do their greatest economic benefits by never being used.

We do need some military. It should big enough to make a foreign invasion very costly, but no much more.
 
2013-03-06 02:52:54 PM

clane: the truth stings doesnt it!


Hard to tell, haven't heard any truth from you yet.
 
2013-03-06 02:53:43 PM

MattStafford: To say that they don't have value if you use the market to determine it is, I would argue, a false statement.


I'd like to address this specifically now.

I wouldn't say that they "don't have value" simply because you're using market rates to determine the value.  I'm just saying that the Value as determined by market price is prone to inaccuracy,
 
2013-03-06 02:54:00 PM

somedude210: farking retarded you are.


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-06 02:56:52 PM

Mike Chewbacca: somedude210: farking retarded you are.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 230x163]


I never realized Yoda is grumpy cat
 
2013-03-06 03:02:44 PM

clane: the truth stings doesnt it!


I had never seen irony so clear in a forum post.
 
2013-03-06 03:06:39 PM

BeesNuts: You could argue that police factor into a value calculation based on 3 or 4, But unless that police officer replaces his wages and benefits, the capital which was spent on him, with profits on that capital stock equal to or greater than the natural rate of interest, then they are unproductive hands.

Paying farmers to PRODUCE is productive. Paying farmers to NOT PRODUCE is unproductive. Paying Farmers lacks the necessary precision of language to pass judgement one way or the other.

Does that make better sense?


Well, if paying for the police (or a security guard, or hell, a lock) creates a situation that prevents the loss of other capital, and the cost of the security is less that the potential loss, it seems like a productive use of capital.  Perhaps it is not, based on Smith's definition, but at that point, it appears we are arguing semantics.  I would argue that paying for security is a productive expenditure, if it creates a situation where there is an increased amount of production over the nonsecure state greater than the cost of the security.

Without a police force, town produces X goods.  With a police force, town produces Y goods.  The police force costs Z goods.  It Y-X > Z, I would consider it a productive use of resources.  Perhaps Adam Smith would not, but then again, I'm no Adam Smith.
 
2013-03-06 03:09:47 PM

BeesNuts: I wouldn't say that they "don't have value" simply because you're using market rates to determine the value. I'm just saying that the Value as determined by market price is prone to inaccuracy,


I would agree.  It would be very difficult to adequately determine the market value of services often provided by the state, such as large infrastructure or the police/courts.  And in some cases, it would be very difficult to make an economic calculation to determine whether or not and investment in those areas would be beneficial.  If we beefed up Detroit's police force, would business come back?  It is a difficult question, and every time you pose one of these questions, it has different inputs and variables that must be considered, and is a completely unique use of money.
 
2013-03-06 03:10:09 PM

This Face Left Blank: GAT_00: I_C_Weener: 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

Those of us in the private sector have been dealing with that for years now.

Which gives you the right to inflict it on other people?  That's your governing philosophy?  Screw over other people's lives?  That makes you a shiatty supervillain, the kind that gets knocked out 10 minutes into the story, not any kind of rational person.


Far too many people saying, "Fark that guy over there for doing slightly better than me."
Not enough people saying, "Why can't more people do as well as that guy over there?"


Fair argument, but do you consider "you can't get blood from a stone, welfare programs are good for the health of a society, and we need more revenue so it will have to come from the wealthy who can afford it" to mean "fark that guy over there"?
 
2013-03-06 03:11:53 PM

clane: 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...

somedude210: Biological Ali:
How has this troll not been permabanned yet?

because he's an idiot but not ban worthy yet

clane:
you ban for speaking the truth.  the truth stings doesnt it!
[images.sodahead.com image 640x494]


You try way to hard to troll the politics tab, over time you will learn subtly.
 
2013-03-06 03:13:53 PM
 Just stop talking the MattStafford guys. It will never stop if you don't. We don't even get the coconut analogy anymore.
 
2013-03-06 03:15:46 PM
So the email says they can't keep departments open or close departments contrary to what the word from above is, that they don't have full autonomy to do whatever the heck they want with the reductions, bosses be damned. Well, I'm shocked, shocked I say. It's almost like that guys boss thinks he's some kind of "boss" figure who should be consulted with before lower-level workers change the plans he set forth.

Truly history's greatest monster.
 
2013-03-06 03:16:09 PM

Muk_Man: Just stop talking the MattStafford guys. It will never stop if you don't. We don't even get the coconut analogy anymore.


I was talking coconuts this very thread!
 
2013-03-06 03:18:49 PM

MattStafford: Muk_Man: Just stop talking the MattStafford guys. It will never stop if you don't. We don't even get the coconut analogy anymore.

I was talking coconuts this very thread!


I'm glad you admitted to just being inflammatory. When you said you had a degree in this stuff I was starting to get concerned.
 
2013-03-06 03:21:35 PM
Politicians playing politics?!?!?! This is an outrage! What's next, basketball players playing basketball? Dogs playing fetch? Cats playing don't give a fark? Cops chasing criminals?

What kind of crazy world is that!?!?

I demand answers!!!

/Benghazi!
 
2013-03-06 03:23:12 PM

NateGrey: I'm glad you admitted to just being inflammatory. When you said you had a degree in this stuff I was starting to get concerned.


It isn't as though I don't believe the stuff I'm posting.  I mean, it isn't even that extreme.  Don't borrow money and spend it on consumption.  Borrow money only if you are going to do something worthwhile.

Somehow that just makes the Fark collective's head explode.
 
2013-03-06 03:34:01 PM

MattStafford: Muk_Man: Just stop talking the MattStafford guys. It will never stop if you don't. We don't even get the coconut analogy anymore.

I was talking coconuts this very thread!


Haha, I just got there :p.
 
2013-03-06 03:39:13 PM

MattStafford: NateGrey: I'm glad you admitted to just being inflammatory. When you said you had a degree in this stuff I was starting to get concerned.

It isn't as though I don't believe the stuff I'm posting.  I mean, it isn't even that extreme.  Don't borrow money and spend it on consumption.  Borrow money only if you are going to do something worthwhile.

Somehow that just makes the Fark collective's head explode.


It's more that it's a very simplistic look at a complex problem and spending isn't really broken down into "borrowed spending" and "taxed spending" so I don't really understand what you really think we should do.
 
2013-03-06 03:59:01 PM

Muk_Man: It's more that it's a very simplistic look at a complex problem and spending isn't really broken down into "borrowed spending" and "taxed spending" so I don't really understand what you really think we should do.


As someone above stated, the amount we borrow per year should never exceed what we are spending on "productive" programs.

Of course, the problem becomes determining what is a productive program, and that is a complex issue.  Each instance of government spending will operate in a relatively unique situation, with a unique combination of variables, and determining how this spending will affect the economy is a difficult action.  You can't make a blanket statement along the lines of "increasing the amount of police in a city will increase the economic activity in the city" - that will be completely different for different cities.  You can't say "building a bridge will increase trade in the area" because it entirely depends on the bridge, the area, and a whole host of other factors.

Which is all fairly straightforward stuff.  The problem is, some Farker's can't grasp the concept that it is possible for the government to spend on things that aren't productive, or in other words, the government can never make a bad investment.  And those are the people who fight me tooth and nail on this kind of stuff.

All I'm looking for is someone to say "increasing the amount of money we give to retire people will increase economic activity enough to pay for that program" - which no one is able to do.  You can easily show how building a hypothetical bridge will increase economic activity enough to pay for the bridge, or providing a hypothetical police force, or a hypothetical youth education/healthcare program, but you cannot show how a hypothetical increase in spending on retired people will create the economic activity to pay for the program.
 
2013-03-06 03:59:51 PM

MattStafford:   Borrow money only if you are going to do something worthwhile.



That's where you lose lots of us.  Because there is a HUGE difference in what you would consider "worthwhile" if you had the purse strings, and what the greater collection of us human beings would consider worthwhile.
 
2013-03-06 04:01:06 PM

MattStafford: but you cannot show how a hypothetical increase in spending on retired people will create the economic activity to pay for the program.


Such as new medical technologies?
 
2013-03-06 04:02:05 PM

Satan's Bunny Slippers: That's where you lose lots of us. Because there is a HUGE difference in what you would consider "worthwhile" if you had the purse strings, and what the greater collection of us human beings would consider worthwhile.


Financially worthwhile, I should have said.
 
2013-03-06 04:04:19 PM

KhanAidan: Such as new medical technologies?


Are those medical technologies applicable to strictly the elderly, or to the youth as well.  If we spend a ton of money developing methods to keep retired people alive - we aren't making our economy any stronger.  If we develop technologies to keep the young and productive alive - we are making our economy stronger.

Giving money to the elderly for medical care will result primarily in the former, not the latter.  In fact, it will actually hinder progress on the latter as many smart doctor's will be focused on the former as opposed to the latter, due to the influence of government spending.
 
2013-03-06 04:08:13 PM

MattStafford: Satan's Bunny Slippers: That's where you lose lots of us. Because there is a HUGE difference in what you would consider "worthwhile" if you had the purse strings, and what the greater collection of us human beings would consider worthwhile.

Financially worthwhile, I should have said.


But there is still the difference that many of us think that investing in programs to ensure the welfare of others regardless of their future earning potential is worthwhile, but you do not.  You make no secret of that, and that's ok, just stop acting surprised when we say that letting old people die because you would not recommend borrowing money to help keep them cared for is ok.  It's not ok.  It will never be ok.
 
2013-03-06 04:09:40 PM

MattStafford: BeesNuts: You could argue that police factor into a value calculation based on 3 or 4, But unless that police officer replaces his wages and benefits, the capital which was spent on him, with profits on that capital stock equal to or greater than the natural rate of interest, then they are unproductive hands.

Paying farmers to PRODUCE is productive. Paying farmers to NOT PRODUCE is unproductive. Paying Farmers lacks the necessary precision of language to pass judgement one way or the other.

Does that make better sense?

Well, if paying for the police (or a security guard, or hell, a lock) creates a situation that prevents the loss of other capital, and the cost of the security is less that the potential loss, it seems like a productive use of capital.  Perhaps it is not, based on Smith's definition, but at that point, it appears we are arguing semantics.  I would argue that paying for security is a productive expenditure, if it creates a situation where there is an increased amount of production over the nonsecure state greater than the cost of the security.

Without a police force, town produces X goods.  With a police force, town produces Y goods.  The police force costs Z goods.  It Y-X > Z, I would consider it a productive use of resources.  Perhaps Adam Smith would not, but then again, I'm no Adam Smith.


Don't confuse clarity and precision of language with semantics.  Productive doesn't mean utilitarian, or even "useful" or "valuable".  A Productive Use of Capital means, very specifically, that when you spend that capital on something, that thing increases the value of THAT capital.

Police aren't worthless.  They clearly have a "value" for society, and you describe it well.  The reason that using capital to pay police and soldiers is "Unproductive" is because they don't "produce" additional Labor Value with that capital.  A town paying 100 cops 50k a piece has no reasonable expectation to recoup that investment plus interest.  The police are not using that capital to bring additional goods to broader markets, produce raw materials, or work those materials into manufactures.

These definitions are important in the same way that knowing your multiplication tables is important.  This language is the mortar that holds any discussion about macroeconomics together.  Unless we are unified in these definitions, we can't actually carry on a conversation.

I would agree with your assessment of the value of police.  And an argument can be made that police, peculiarly, augment either the amount of goods brought to market or the cheapness of those goods, demand notwithstanding.  But that argument can only truly be had if our definitions are clear and our language precise.

Things have Worth.  Things have Value.  These are two distinct qualities of Things.
 
2013-03-06 04:12:03 PM

MattStafford: KhanAidan: Such as new medical technologies?

Are those medical technologies applicable to strictly the elderly, or to the youth as well.  If we spend a ton of money developing methods to keep retired people alive - we aren't making our economy any stronger.  If we develop technologies to keep the young and productive alive - we are making our economy stronger.

Giving money to the elderly for medical care will result primarily in the former, not the latter.  In fact, it will actually hinder progress on the latter as many smart doctor's will be focused on the former as opposed to the latter, due to the influence of government spending.


If we are able to keep elderly alive longer, that may translate into longer working lives; therefore more productivity.  But that point doesn't matter.  What I was getting at is that one could easily make an argument for most expenditures that results in some sort of positive future economic growth.  Given the immense difficulty in capturing spillover/externality effects in economic research, attempting to limit government expenditures to only 'beneficial' projects makes little sense.
 
2013-03-06 04:13:30 PM

somedude210: Mike Chewbacca: somedude210: farking retarded you are.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 230x163]

I never realized Yoda is grumpy cat


HA!
 
2013-03-06 04:22:50 PM

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


umm - welcome to what all of us in the private sector have come to call THE LAST 5 YEARS

there's a reason people have such an issue with the public sector & you just demonstrated it perfectly

/is it nice in that bubble you live in?
/i know i'm late but whatever
 
2013-03-06 04:25:22 PM

Satan's Bunny Slippers: But there is still the difference that many of us think that investing in programs to ensure the welfare of others regardless of their future earning potential is worthwhile, but you do not. You make no secret of that, and that's ok, just stop acting surprised when we say that letting old people die because you would not recommend borrowing money to help keep them cared for is ok. It's not ok. It will never be ok.


I understand that people think that it is a worthwhile decision, but financially speaking, they're wrong.  And that is what it comes down to.
 
2013-03-06 04:27:10 PM

GAT_00: I_C_Weener: GAT_00: I_C_Weener: 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

Those of us in the private sector have been dealing with that for years now.

Which gives you the right to inflict it on other people?  That's your governing philosophy?  Screw over other people's lives?  That makes you a shiatty supervillain, the kind that gets knocked out 10 minutes into the story, not any kind of rational person.

Nope.  But I'm not too sympathetic to people biatching about hitting the recession 4 years after the rest of us did.

Woohoo, other people who never did anything wrong to me got hurt!  Time for a happy dance!


People who had to go through shiat have a primal need to see, know, or force others to go through the same shiat. This is often explained away as "life ain't fair," but in reality, gives these people an undeserved feeling of a fairer world.
 
2013-03-06 04:29:20 PM

KhanAidan: If we are able to keep elderly alive longer, that may translate into longer working lives; therefore more productivity. But that point doesn't matter. What I was getting at is that one could easily make an argument for most expenditures that results in some sort of positive future economic growth. Given the immense difficulty in capturing spillover/externality effects in economic research, attempting to limit government expenditures to only 'beneficial' projects makes little sense.


Yes - if medical technology allowed us to have an increased length of livelihood (which it has) - that would be good for the economy, with one caveat - we would actually have to work for that increased amount of time, which we haven't.

If your argument relies on secondary expenditures, things beyond the control of government, it isn't a good fiscal policy.  Your argument is that government should spend on the elderly, and that hopefully that money will end up somewhere productive after they spend it?  That isn't a smart fiscal policy, particularly when that money is borrowed.  What happens when it doesn't end up there?

Is there ever government spending that is not a good thing, in your opinion?
 
2013-03-06 04:35:55 PM

MattStafford: KhanAidan: If we are able to keep elderly alive longer, that may translate into longer working lives; therefore more productivity. But that point doesn't matter. What I was getting at is that one could easily make an argument for most expenditures that results in some sort of positive future economic growth. Given the immense difficulty in capturing spillover/externality effects in economic research, attempting to limit government expenditures to only 'beneficial' projects makes little sense.

Yes - if medical technology allowed us to have an increased length of livelihood (which it has) - that would be good for the economy, with one caveat - we would actually have to work for that increased amount of time, which we haven't.


Not necessarily.  Increasing the size of the labor pool doesn't mean you increase production, and can lead (and, in fact, has led) to higher unemployment, producing a natural drag on economic growth.

Increasing the size of the *consumer* pool has been shown to lead to increased production and higher demand for labor, reducing unemployment and ultimately creating wealth out of truly Unproductive spending.

The calculus is INSANELY COMPLICATED.  Saying that increasing the working life of people would help the economy is like saying that increasing the amount of oxygen in the water would make it more flammable.  There are far too many steps between A and B to make that leap.
 
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 closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report