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.

(CBS News)   Paul Ryan: "There is no debt crisis" Congrats on losing the conservative vote in 2016, schmuck   (cbsnews.com) divider line 165
    More: Followup, debt crisis, Amy Klobuchar, Erskine Bowles, Boehner, global currency  
•       •       •

3878 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Mar 2013 at 5:52 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-17 11:30:48 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Bennie Crabtree: The quantified finite resources that have static numbers attached to them at the moment you begin planning. Like, we have $100 in the bank right now, we know we can make 1000 widgets this year to sell for between $1-$3 in the next 6 months, and this is what we know we have when we start planning.

OK, now multiply that by a trillion. The government is not a business and we can "print" forever as long as we are the Reserve Currency. There is no quantification of the dollar. We have no idea how much we can print but we've come nowhere near the edge.


I guess you mean the reserve currency for other nations. If that were true then there would be no need to isolate nations that suffer hyperinflation, or to topple or negotiate with rogue regimes. There would be no need for a military except to deal with robberies and such. The USA could simply pay for anyone's political programs or dream projects by offering its currency as collateral. Instead, the world is in a currency crisis while military action is going through a period of inflation. Reserve currencies can't be used as a magic solution for global realpolitik.

Is there an edge? Probably one potential edge is a moment when the USA decides it can do anything because other nations use their dollar as reserve currency. At that point their elite business class will jump the shark and begin making ridiculous demands that a capitalist social contract (wage labour) can't solve on the homefront and ridiculous demands that capitalist investment from abroad couldn't trust.

I mean as long as you think there is an edge let's say it's a flat earth theory. There are all kinds of edges the USA could fall off of by assuming their dollar is an infinite collateral machine. And if that's the case, then the edge is actually really really close: the most prudish or the most timid policy option is always the best economic for the nation, maybe even because the American business culture assumes the greatest risk is the best policy.
 
2013-03-17 11:40:48 PM  
We have a revenue problem due to the recession causing a massive drop in tax receipts coupled with ill advised two wars and a few ill advised tax cuts.
 
2013-03-17 11:48:00 PM  
Karac:
revenues sourced by rosy unicorn farts

images3.wikia.nocookie.net

Turns out it's the pegasus farts you need to look out for.  You might just find a vein of free gemstones hidden in a rock, or something.
 
2013-03-18 12:00:05 AM  

Because People in power are Stupid: The cost of the Iraq war was  $3.2 to 4 trillion.
Did we sell war bonds to pay for this like in WW2? Did we ask Americans to sacrifice, to do without nylon or steel?

No, we gave the richest Americans a Tax Cut.

So when Ryan says stuff like:

"So we do not have a debt crisis right now, but, we see it coming. We know it's irrefutably happening"

It was caused by him. He knows it's real because he helped make it happen.

 
2013-03-18 12:02:36 AM  

Because People in power are Stupid: The cost of the Iraq war was  $3.2 to 4 trillion.
Did we sell war bonds to pay for this like in WW2? Did we ask Americans to sacrifice, to do without nylon or steel?

No, we gave the richest Americans a Tax Cut.


That reminds me of this old chestnut:

i651.photobucket.com

So when we're making coffee from snow and we've eaten all the birds, you can thank those tax cuts.
 
2013-03-18 12:07:55 AM  

Derwood: If we DO have an eventual debt crisis, let's remember the billions of additional interest we're now paying on that debt due to the GOP bricking our AAA credit rating.


well thank god the donald explained how we can get the iraqi war debt paid off. and the interest on it too.
 
2013-03-18 12:59:11 AM  
If we DO have an eventual debt crisis, let's remember the billions of additional interest we're now paying on that debt due to the GOP bricking our AAA credit rating.
But that isn't happening. Moody's doesn't set the interest rate and t-bills are selling cheaper than your mom.
 
2013-03-18 12:59:56 AM  

Harry_Seldon: m00: Marginalized by the mainstream media. A lot of conservatives were unhappy about Bush's spending. You just didn't hear about it on FOX or MSNBC.

Not enough to actually do anything about it. According the the Constitution, it takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass any law. Seems a shame the Senate couldn't do it's job.


Would you be so kind as to point out where, exactly, it says that in the Constitution?
 
2013-03-18 01:04:51 AM  
Remember folks, deficits are only a problem if someone named Reagan is President.
 
2013-03-18 01:06:32 AM  
Sorry, my phone ate the clever part of my last comment.
 
2013-03-18 01:08:38 AM  

Cataholic: Remember folks, deficits are only a problem if someone named Reagan is President.


Deficits are a problem when they're skyrocketing, not when they're slowing. So, yes, they're only a problem if someone named Reagan or Bush is President, because recent Democratic presidents have caused the deficit's rate of growth to drop rapidly. One even gave us a surplus, or at least the closest thing to one we've had.
 
2013-03-18 01:12:52 AM  
They don't want to repay the nearly $4 trillion they "borrowed" from Social Security.
 
2013-03-18 01:13:07 AM  

DamnYankees: But, Ryan added, a crisis is "irrefutably" on its way.

Yes, because you are so reliable about what is and is not refutable.


Before the Imbecile Obama racked up $6T more, he declared our debt situation "unpatriotic."  Nobody knows more about being unpatriotic than Obama does.
 
2013-03-18 01:25:02 AM  

windstrider: They don't want to repay the nearly $4 trillion they "borrowed" from Social Security.


Social security should buy a real big mattress to keep its money in.

Or put it all in the stock market?

Or carry little to no cushion and go broke in an economic downturn?
 
m00
2013-03-18 01:27:07 AM  

LordJiro: So, yes, they're only a problem if someone named Reagan or Bush is President,

 
2013-03-18 01:36:51 AM  

windstrider: They don't want to repay the nearly $4 trillion they "borrowed" from Social Security.


lol, easier to just say social security is "broke" when it's not and shoot it out back so it can't rat them out for the robbery.
 
2013-03-18 01:42:13 AM  

Darth_Lukecash: My fear is that any of this Paul Ryan bill gets any traction.

There is NO sound economical thought behind it.


That.......thing Paul Ryan authored isn't a budget plan. It's a litany of death threats.
 
2013-03-18 02:00:17 AM  

m00: I'm sorry, I didn't know you personally knew every conservative on the Internet. And yes, I was on Fark during the Bush years (my account was created 2003) and yours was created in 2006. So I think I have a bit more of a handle on places like Fark during the Bush years, considering you were barely on Fark for them. A lot of conservatives, at the time, didn't like his domestic policies. I'm sorry if that doesn't fit your preconceived notions of what a conservative believes.


Ok, since opposition to Bush administration spending was so common among Republicans, could you cite... lets say two national level Republicans who spoke out against it? Bonus points if they spoke out against the crazy-expensive Iraq invasion.

Good luck.
 
2013-03-18 02:04:02 AM  

The Why Not Guy: Bonus points if they spoke out against the crazy-expensive Iraq invasion.

Good luck.


Oh, and double bonus points if they fashioned a hat from tea-bags and stood in a public area holding a poorly-composed sign. Because the Tea Partiers were just as angry at Bush's spending as they were at Obama's, right? Right?
 
m00
2013-03-18 02:06:24 AM  

The Why Not Guy: Ok, since opposition to Bush administration spending was so common among Republicans, could you cite... lets say two national level Republicans who spoke out against it? Bonus points if they spoke out against the crazy-expensive Iraq invasion.

Good luck.


As I said countless times, I'm talking about voters not pundits/grandstanding politicians.
 
2013-03-18 02:09:10 AM  

DamnYankees: But, Ryan added, a crisis is "irrefutably" on its way.

Yes, because you are so reliable about what is and is not refutable.


jinkchak.files.wordpress.com

"That wolf is totally going to kill you all next time, guys. Irrefutably."
 
2013-03-18 02:12:26 AM  

armoredbulldozer: Before the Imbecile Obama racked up $6T more, he declared our debt situation "unpatriotic."  Nobody knows more about being unpatriotic than Obama does.


Didn't we already debunk this talking point hundreds of times already?
 
m00
2013-03-18 02:18:33 AM  

themindiswatching: Didn't we already debunk this talking point hundreds of times already?


Im curious, which part was debunked?
 
2013-03-18 02:20:29 AM  

m00: As I said countless times, I'm talking about voters not pundits/grandstanding politicians.


Ok, then cite a Tea Party demonstration that protested Bush administration spending.
 
m00
2013-03-18 02:26:48 AM  

The Why Not Guy: m00: As I said countless times, I'm talking about voters not pundits/grandstanding politicians.

Ok, then cite a Tea Party demonstration that protested Bush administration spending.


Tea party began in 2009. But, since you asked:

* February 27, 2009 to protest the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) bailout bill signed by President George W. Bush in October 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_protests


So ever after Bush had left office, they were protesting Bush spending. Satisfied?
 
2013-03-18 02:27:16 AM  

The Why Not Guy: m00: ..the tea party has actual principles (agree or disagree with them) and they can't be convinced by the media to change their deeply held beliefs whenever it suits the party.

Where were the Tea Party and those "deeply held beliefs" prior to January of 2009?


the media hadn't told them what their deeply held beliefs where yet.
 
2013-03-18 02:27:35 AM  

m00: themindiswatching: Didn't we already debunk this talking point hundreds of times already?

Im curious, which part was debunked?


The part where it was Obama's fault.
 
2013-03-18 02:27:54 AM  
were, too. wherewolves of london.
 
2013-03-18 02:33:31 AM  

m00: The Why Not Guy: Where were the Tea Party and those "deeply held beliefs" prior to January of 2009?

Marginalized by the mainstream media. A lot of conservatives were unhappy about Bush's spending. You just didn't hear about it on FOX or MSNBC.


So you mean to tell us that MSNBC just ignored several years of opportunities to point out that not even Bush's own supporters and political party were behind him?  Please...  He went from 47.9% of the popular vote on his first election to 50.7% during the second, and the second time around there was a much higher voter turnout.  In fact, in terms of raw votes he got 12 million more votes on his second election, which equated to about 20% more people showing up to the polls and casting their vote for him.  And somehow you want us to believe that all this dissent you speak of simply wasn't noticed by anyone because it wasn't being covered by MSM outlets?  All those liberally-biased lamestream main MSM media outlets?  They all dropped the ball on years of making sure all them liberals knew that not even Republicans were happy with what Bush was doing?  You've got to be shiatting us..... Apparently you forgot about the near decade of lockstep "if you don't support a wartime President than you can git aht my Murika!!!"
 
2013-03-18 02:35:23 AM  

m00: So ever after Bush had left office, they were protesting Bush spending. Satisfied?


this would be good humor writing, if only i could pretend that was your intent.
 
2013-03-18 02:37:31 AM  

m00: Tea party began in 2009. But, since you asked:


So let's recap.

I asked where the Tea Party was prior to January of 2009. You assured me they were active and vocal about Bush administration spending prior to January of 2009, but Fox and MSNBC just weren't covering it.

When i asked for an example, you told me the Tea Party began in 2009. Yeah, they really held the Bush administration's feet to the flame.
 
m00
2013-03-18 02:38:55 AM  

themindiswatching: m00: themindiswatching: Didn't we already debunk this talking point hundreds of times already?

Im curious, which part was debunked?

The part where it was Obama's fault.


Ah. Yes, in the pursuit of internet arguing I've studied the budget from Bush through Obama years. The deficit certainly grew under the Obama administration (deficit, different than debt. Obviously debt grew too) because the budget increased. Every year since 2007, more money was spent than the previous year. But year-to-year who is responsible... the Executive or Congress? The budget process includes both of them. Democrats held the house and senate until 2010. I guess you could say Bush was responsible for the entire cost of the Iraq war (including under Obama), but I was following politics in 2001 and about half of senate Democrats and a third of house Democrats voted for it.

I guess I'm not really interested in laying blame at this point, other than holding government collectively responsible for coming up with a solution. This isn't about what party "wins" or "loses." The only losers are us, and the only winners are the political class who keeps getting re-elected because their campaigns are funded by PACs and anonymous wealthy donors who benefit from policies that harm the rest of us.
 
2013-03-18 02:43:36 AM  

m00: The Why Not Guy: m00: As I said countless times, I'm talking about voters not pundits/grandstanding politicians.

Ok, then cite a Tea Party demonstration that protested Bush administration spending.

Tea party began in 2009. But, since you asked:

* February 27, 2009 to protest the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) bailout bill signed by President George W. Bush in October 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_protests


So ever after Bush had left office, they were protesting Bush spending. Satisfied?


They protest Bush's spending every time they whine about the debt. That doesn't mean they put the blame for it on Bush.
 
m00
2013-03-18 02:49:23 AM  

The Why Not Guy: m00: Tea party began in 2009. But, since you asked:

So let's recap.

I asked where the Tea Party was prior to January of 2009. You assured me they were active and vocal about Bush administration spending prior to January of 2009, but Fox and MSNBC just weren't covering it.

When i asked for an example, you told me the Tea Party began in 2009. Yeah, they really held the Bush administration's feet to the flame.


Hang on, lets pause for a second. See that part I bolded? Please find a quote, from me, where I say this. Guess what -- you won't find it. Because it doesn't exist.

What I said was:  A lot of conservatives were unhappy about Bush's spending. You just didn't hear about it on FOX or MSNBC.

See, I never "assured you the Tea Party existed in 2009." I said conservatives where unhappy with Bush's spending. This is in response to being asked where the "deeply held convictions" were prior to 2009. Here is the problem with debating on the Internet. I say X, but in your mind it turns into Y, because Y conforms to your preconceived notions. Every time I say "no, I didn't say Y... I said X" you read that final X as Y and say "ah-ha!" Because you aren't really interested in having a conversation, you are interested in confirming your pre-existing bias.

A better question you could have asked instead, is "why did the anti-Bush sentiment amongst the Republican Party votes only become an organized movement after Bush left office."  But as I said, you're not really interested in having a conversation, are you?
 
m00
2013-03-18 02:54:38 AM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: So you mean to tell us that MSNBC just ignored several years of opportunities to point out that not even Bush's own supporters and political party were behind him? Please... He went from 47.9% of the popular vote on his first election to 50.7% during the second, and the second time around there was a much higher voter turnout. In fact, in terms of raw votes he got 12 million more votes on his second election, which equated to about 20% more people showing up to the polls and casting their vote for him. And somehow you want us to believe that all this dissent you speak of simply wasn't noticed by anyone because it wasn't being covered by MSM outlets? All those liberally-biased lamestream main MSM media outlets? They all dropped the ball on years of making sure all them liberals knew that not even Republicans were happy with what Bush was doing? You've got to be shiatting us..... Apparently you forgot about the near decade of lockstep "if you don't support a wartime President than you can git aht my Murika!!!"


I think you are projecting other people's arguments onto me. MSNBC only pretends to be liberal. They are owned by GE, a corporation that not only pays no taxes, but actually receives taxpayer money from the government. The whole "being liberal" schtick is a business model -- but MSNBC (and same goes for FOX for that matter) aren't really interested in serious journalism. They are interested in securing profits for their parent companies.

The fact is, the Bush administration had a very evil rule which is it only gave access to news organizations that "played ball" on every single issue. So, by and large, news organizations played ball. GE doesn't give a shiat, they took their taxpayer handout and kept their mouth shut.
 
2013-03-18 02:55:04 AM  

m00: What I said was:  A lot of conservatives were unhappy about Bush's spending. You just didn't hear about it on FOX or MSNBC.


Then what you said had no relevance to my question, since I asked about the Tea Party.
 
2013-03-18 03:13:00 AM  

m00: A better question you could have asked instead, is "why did the anti-Bush sentiment amongst the Republican Party votes only become an organized movement after Bush left office."  But as I said, you're not really interested in having a conversation, are you?


re-read that, and pretend somebody else typed that to you.

would that person seem really inclined towards conversation or would they instead seem as if they were a textual fart on a griddle just trying not to get pinned down?

to me, it looks like the latter, but that's half the fun. perspective is a helluva drug.
 
m00
2013-03-18 03:23:15 AM  

heap: re-read that, and pretend somebody else typed that to you.

would that person seem really inclined towards conversation or would they instead seem as if they were a textual fart on a griddle just trying not to get pinned down?

to me, it looks like the latter, but that's half the fun. perspective is a helluva drug.


Yeah see, I'm interested in political conversation. Because I find politics a fascinating subject. I'm not a "rah rah for my team" kinda guy, because I don't have a team. Politicians of all stripes can go to hell. What annoys me is that when people make assumptions... like because someone defends the tea party (for example) that therefor they are Republican and therefor don't believe in evolution. Or, whatever. So I tend to avoid conservation arcs that I think are headed in that direction, because I don't find that to be particularly interesting.
 
2013-03-18 03:30:04 AM  

m00: Yeah see, I'm interested in political conversation.


don't for a second pretend you haven't been an assumption-o-tron, man. you listed your assumptions after saying you don't like assumptions. you've assumed people have labeled you a republican, or given you thoughts on evolution. these things aren't in this thread, they're in your head. they are *your* assumptions.

what i've seen here is the textual fart on a griddle routine where you have your perspective - that there was some mass of conservative dissatisfaction with bush's domestic policies during bush's tenure - but have done absolutely nothing to support this perspective. instead, you've danced around acting as if the tea party starting in 2009 was all about bush, or something.

that isn't conversation, that's wanking.
 
2013-03-18 03:51:41 AM  

m00: A better question you could have asked instead, is "why did the anti-Bush sentiment amongst the Republican Party votes only become an organized movement after Bush left office."  But as I said, you're not really interested in having a conversation, are you?


Ooh, I know this one! "Because if ye aint with us, yer agin' us!"
 
m00
2013-03-18 03:59:32 AM  

heap: that isn't conversation, that's wanking.


If you don't like it, then don't participate. You came in at the tail end of the conversation as a cheerleader. As for your point, my observation on messageboards is that there was noticeable disagreement with bush's spending policies amongst the right. This sentiment eventually mobilized to become the Tea Party. Note the Cato institute, which was founded by the Koch brothers (the same Koch Brothers who funded the Tea Party), was of the same opinion in 2005.

http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/grand-old-spending- pa rty-how-republicans-became-big-spenders
 
2013-03-18 04:10:47 AM  

m00: If you don't like it, then don't participate


i am participating. i'm telling you you're wanking.
that isn't cheerleading, that's me exorcising my boredom, the same as you are.

m00: my observation on messageboards is that there was noticeable disagreement with bush's spending policies amongst the right.


in that, there isn't much disagreement - but you've got to acknowledge we've went from 'a lot of conservatives disagreed' to 'messageboards' to 'a guy at cato' - if that isn't erosion of the point defined, i don't know what is.

big picture, authoritarians care about possession of authority more than what the authority does.
having the power is more important than what is done with the power.  if you want my quick-capsule review of why nobody rose up to decry loudly bush's domestic policies from the right, there it is - entirely too many on the right are concerned with holding power, but far too few have any inkling of what should be done with it. they just know they need to have it. and when they do have it, things like policies or principles are more flexible than gumby.  and this RWA or RWA-Lite mindset holds entirely too much sway within conservative politics to ever hold their own to any standards, so long as that person attains power.
 
2013-03-18 06:37:23 AM  

armoredbulldozer: DamnYankees: But, Ryan added, a crisis is "irrefutably" on its way.

Yes, because you are so reliable about what is and is not refutable.

Before the Imbecile Obama racked up $6T more, he declared our debt situation "unpatriotic."  Nobody knows more about being unpatriotic than Obama does.



Your performance art is fantastic, could you give me like 2 or 3 more hate filled rants to finish off your collage?
 
2013-03-18 07:07:50 AM  

DamnYankees: NewportBarGuy: Do any of those countries possess the Reserve Currency? No.
Do any of those countries have the economic might of the US? No.
Do any of thos...

Jesus. Stop regurgitating sh*t you hear on talk radio. It's just sad.

It's not even an issue of reserve currency. It's an issue of having your OWN currency. If you have your own currency, you're basically completely find. If you don't, you're farked. It's really simple.

[graphics8.nytimes.com image 480x297]


THANK YOU.

I'm tired of hearing the "Reserve Currency" BS.
 
2013-03-18 07:25:55 AM  

m00: A lot of conservatives, at the time, didn't like his domestic policies.


But they voted for him anyway. Didn't they?
 
2013-03-18 07:31:22 AM  

safetycap: That reminds me of this old chestnut:


That reminds you of an image from your private image collection?

darkcornernews.com
 
2013-03-18 08:17:29 AM  
Republicans will say there's an impending debt crisis until exactly the day when the next Republican makes it into the White House, at which point it will be back to
earthisland.com
 
2013-03-18 08:24:36 AM  

Zeno-25: Republicans will say there's an impending debt crisis until exactly the day when the next Republican makes it into the White House, at which point it will be back to
[earthisland.com image 600x153]


Exactly.  Are the GOP calling Dick a liar about His Holiness, Saint Reagan?

Show Dick some respect!
 
2013-03-18 08:35:12 AM  

m00: heap: that isn't conversation, that's wanking.

If you don't like it, then don't participate. You came in at the tail end of the conversation as a cheerleader. As for your point, my observation on messageboards is that there was noticeable disagreement with bush's spending policies amongst the right. This sentiment eventually mobilized to become the Tea Party. Note the Cato institute, which was founded by the Koch brothers (the same Koch Brothers who funded the Tea Party), was of the same opinion in 2005.

http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/grand-old-spending- pa rty-how-republicans-became-big-spenders


I get so tired on both sides of people basing their opinions on ad hominems and who is funding what or whatever.

We will soon have a $20 trillion debt.
Entitlements for the elderly consume half the budget and that plus interest alone will soon be greater than federal tax revenue.

It doesn't matter whether the message comes from Soros or Koch brothers or Warren Buffett. We've got a problem and both sides are dodging it. Obama especially. Ryan is saying there isn't a debt crisis YET. Obama is saying 'its sustainable'. That's idiotic.
He lied about balancing the budget before becoming president.

A lot of Democrats are getting sick of the prevarication and unicorn farts coming out of the W.H.

http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324128504578344611522010 1 32
 
2013-03-18 08:40:00 AM  

OgreMagi: Anyone who claims we can continue to go deeper into debt with no consequences has obviously not been paying attention to history or current world events.  Multiple countries in Europe believed they could spend forever and are now discovering how untrue that is.  Greece, Spain, Italy, Cyprus, etc.  They're all farked.

At the moment Germany is paying to keep the EU from completely falling apart, but they're starting to get annoyed at having to pay for everyone else's mistakes.  Trust me, you don't want to annoy the Germans.  That never ends well.

We're heading down the same road as the EU.


We're de-centralizing our currency and throwing the full weight of our economy behind nations that have been faltering for hundreds of years?

We should stop that.  Mexico can keep it's pesos or whatever.  I heard they used dollars in Canada, I hope they are their own dollars.  I'd hate to think they're using US dollars up in our hat.
 
Displayed 50 of 165 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report