MattStafford: 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.
MattStafford: 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?
MattStafford: Is there ever government spending that is not a good thing, in your opinion?
SlothB77: the email from the white house official implies that there is discretion of make cuts that 'are not contradicting what we said the impact would be'. It doesn't say to make cuts according to the law. It says to make cuts consistent with what the dems said the impact would be.If there is discretion to make cuts to make impact, there is discretion to make cuts to reduce impact.
steppenwolf: MattStafford: People who think that the sequester won't be painful are ignorant. You're cutting 85 billion from the economy. Regardless of what those people who receive that money actually do - that's 85 billion less that people will be spending/investing. That said, spending cuts are both necessary and a good thing, regardless of the pain.Conservatives complain about the country turning into Greece, which is hilarious because austerity is exactly what would turn us into Greece.
MattStafford: 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.
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?
BillCo: 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?
BeesNuts: Smackledorfer: Munchausen's Proxy: Outstanding70 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 itA. 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.
somedude210: I_C_Weener: Those of us in the private sector have been dealing with that for years now.you also, in theory, get paid a lot better than those of us in government/we're just a bit more secure in our jobs
Dusk-You-n-Me: I_C_Weener: now it is time for the Democrats to give in on spending cuts.It's like the $2.8T in spending cuts signed already into law don't even exist.
Hack Patooey: 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?I dont see Jesus or gays mentioned. Rewrite it and I'll re-grade your paper by Friday.
Muk_Man: Because even though SS payments aren't necessarily a good long-term economic investment, I would still say it's necessary as a developed country. So I think splitting the number into two portions is too difficult to be useful. Also, ideally taxes should cover some of the investment capital as well imo.
Muk_Man: The bottom line is eventually the US is going to have to run a surplus for awhile, and to do that you'll need targeted spending cuts (these automatic cuts are insane), with tax increases (a few more points on the wealthy now imo, then extend the raises to the middle class once the economy is on it's feet a little more) AND you'll need economic growth. Which is hard when you're cutting spending and raising taxes, so the cuts and raises need to be phased in slowly. Unfortunately the politics in the US right now are so crazy this will never happen.
Muk_Man: Finally, while I agree the US could have a large issue with borrowing in the future as you suggest (if the US doesn't make progress towards a surplus) I don't think the crisis is as imminent as you think and believe that the economic harm caused by sharp tax raises/spending cuts needed to offset the current volume of borrowing would be pretty catastrophic. So for now a support continued borrowing. I don't think anyone is arguing this is a permanent solution though.
KhanAidan: Your arguments do as well. There is absolutely no specific productive benefit to constructing a road until it can be used (secondary expenditures of transportation). This would be similar for education, or almost anything you can think of. Nearly all government expenditures follow the same situation.
KhanAidan: I don't know. I'm not advocating a position for cuts in specific programs. I'm merely pointing out that your method of determining whether a program should have government expenditures involved makes little sense. Without knowing more about program spillovers/externalities, taking a stance on one program versus another just doesn't make sense.
MattStafford: You can determine whether or not a road will be a good investment through studies. You cannot determine whether or not the money that you give to a person will ever end up funding a good investment. To argue otherwise is rather asinine.
MattStafford: Obviously. I'm making the argument that you should only borrow and spend if you are borrowing and spending on a productive project. To determine whether or not something is a productive project, you need to do studies and research it. It seems as though you are suggesting that direct transfers of money to individuals could be productive - depending on what they spend it on - which is certainly possible, but I doubt that you could show it through any sort of study (and it doesn't seem too likely, particularly in this investment free economy) which is why I don't think you can call it productive spending.
Weaver95: so basically it goes like this:GOP: 'we love spending cuts. spending cuts are GREAT! [arranges sequester]. oh yeah, this is gonna be AWESOME!'Obama: 'um...this isn't necessary. we can find other ways to cut spending and minimize the impact on the poor and middle class.'GOP: 'SPENDING CUTS NAOW!'Obama: 'but...GOP: CUTS NAOW!'Obama: fine. its your budget, you live with it.GOP: 'hey, wait! people are mad at us! OBAMA! THIS IS YOUR FAULT! GOTDAMN YOUUUUUUUUUU!'
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Jan 16 2017 23:57:15
Runtime: 0.440 sec (440 ms)