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
 
2013-03-17 03:16:39 PM  
Good luck with that.

"If'n he's fer it, I'm ag'in it!" isn't a "vision document." It's rejection of reality at this point...
 
2013-03-17 03:22:19 PM  
They're just cranking up the spin machine to allow them to justify letting the deficits get bigger. Just like they always do.
 
2013-03-17 03:27:18 PM  

edmo: They're just cranking up the spin machine to allow them to justify letting the deficits get bigger. Just like they always do.


this
close the thread - we are DONE

WAIT A SECOND!!!
how do we have ANY deficit??
doesnt the house pass a balanced budget every year???
no?! really? they keep passing budgets with deficits?
I am SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO confused.
 
2013-03-17 03:30:16 PM  
So... Leon's not getting larger?
 
2013-03-17 03:30:33 PM  
"We are the healthiest-looking horse in the glue factory" is actually a  great phrase.
 
2013-03-17 03:33:29 PM  

edmo: They're just cranking up the spin machine to allow them to justify letting the deficits get bigger. Just like they always do.


Except they are getting smaller...
 
2013-03-17 03:38:44 PM  
i1214.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-17 03:41:32 PM  
That's going to piss off the right when they say we're already in one.  And I suppose, we are in one.  A completely manufactured one, and manufactured primarily by Paul Ryan, but that's still a crisis.
 
2013-03-17 03:53:37 PM  
My fear is that any of this Paul Ryan bill gets any traction.

There is NO sound economical thought behind it.
 
2013-03-17 03:56:11 PM  
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.
 
2013-03-17 04:00:47 PM  

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.


Pretty much this. The Republicans are 100% responsible for the sh*t they now think is a crisis. None of it WAS a crisis until Obama was elected, after 8-10 years of running up the debt. Eff those guys and eff them forever. Eff you if you vote for one.
 
2013-03-17 04:21:59 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: There is NO sound economical thought behind it.


But I've been assured that all we need to do is close loopholes, and then money will start flowing down the Potomac and make all the revenue losses from tax cuts disappear.
 
2013-03-17 04:31:59 PM  
Now what.
 
2013-03-17 05:54:41 PM  
But, Ryan added, a crisis is "irrefutably" on its way.

Yes, because you are so reliable about what is and is not refutable.
 
2013-03-17 05:57:07 PM  
We don't have a debt crisis yet?
That must be why it's OK for his 'solution' to that problem to be balanced with revenues sourced with rosy unicorn farts and spending cuts supplied by reneging on every promise and deal made with seniors for the last fifty or sixty years.
 
2013-03-17 05:59:08 PM  

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

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


Every two years, we see some new 'crisis' from republicans that proves that America is on it's last legs, and if they don't get elected, we'll dissolve into a thousand year darkness.  According to them, this country is so exceptional it can have one foot in the grave for decades and just keep on tickin'.
 
2013-03-17 06:00:45 PM  

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

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

Every two years, we see some new 'crisis' from republicans that proves that America is on it's last legs, and if they don't get elected, we'll dissolve into a thousand year darkness.  According to them, this country is so exceptional it can have one foot in the grave for decades and just keep on tickin'.


The people who have been pushing for austerity and cutting the debt were saying - in 2009 - that if we didn't act immediately our interest rates would explode within 2 years. Bowles Simpsons said this. They said explicitely - 2 years.

There's no reason on Earth to take these people seriously.
 
2013-03-17 06:07:07 PM  
Paul Ryan: "It's not as if we woke up the day after the election and said let's change our principles turn them in and throw in with government run healthcare"

More's the pity.

"Not a retread"? A "responsible balanced budget"?  A "Vision document"?

Repealing Obamacare, cutting taxes, cutting spending in the middle of a weak recovery?

[ohwaityou'reserious]

No debt crisis... yet?

When Ryan says that it sounds like a threat.
 
2013-03-17 06:11:54 PM  
Debt, what debt?
This is just a clever ruse to elect another Bush. JEBBY!
 
2013-03-17 06:14:36 PM  
You sure that's not Paul Krugman?

*clicks link*

Huh.
 
2013-03-17 06:29:14 PM  
Homer: If Homer Simpson wants his ten year old son to work in a burlesque house, then Homer Simpson's ten year old son is going to work in a burlesque house. That...

(Marge appears)

Homer: Ha-ha...hi! Now Marge, you're going to hear a lot of crazy talk about Bart working in a burlesque house.
 
2013-03-17 06:33:13 PM  

namatad: they keep passing budgets with deficits?


I wish more people understood this. I heard Glenn Beck say on his radio show one night "No more of this 'spending more than the budget' business!" We're not spending more than the budget. We have deficit budgets year after year after year...
 
2013-03-17 06:51:27 PM  
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 'bankrupt future' perspective is based on extrapolating the costs for Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security into the future at the current rate of expanding medical costs, with the current rate of expanding GDP, pointing thirty years in the future to the point where Insurance companies are saying a bandaid costs a hundred dollars, and then saying, 'SEE? THEY'RE GOING TO GO BANKRUPT!'
 
2013-03-17 06:51:59 PM  

TalenLee: Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 'bankrupt future' perspective is based on extrapolating the costs for Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security into the future at the current rate of expanding medical costs, with the current rate of expanding GDP, pointing thirty years in the future to the point where Insurance companies are saying a bandaid costs a hundred dollars, and then saying, 'SEE? THEY'RE GOING TO GO BANKRUPT!'


Basically, yes.
 
2013-03-17 06:53:00 PM  

edmo: They're just cranking up the spin machine to allow them to justify letting the deficits get bigger. Just like they always do.


They must have forgotten to tell him he's not Vice-President, so he doesn't need to trot out "deficits don't matter" just yet.
 
2013-03-17 06:58:55 PM  
I don't see a budget happening.  The House and Senate budgets are too disparate.  We'll get another continuing resolution and kick the can down the road.

I can't figure out what is behind the recent "there is no budget crisis" messaging with the Republicans.  TheTea Party nutters must be going crazy when they hear it.
 
2013-03-17 07:00:48 PM  
Well, I'm glad we had a congressional biatch fight over addressing our debt crisis, that took two farking years and got our country's credit downgraded.
 
2013-03-17 07:03:33 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: I don't see a budget happening.  The House and Senate budgets are too disparate.  We'll get another continuing resolution and kick the can down the road.

I can't figure out what is behind the recent "there is no budget crisis" messaging with the Republicans.  TheTea Party nutters must be going crazy when they hear it.


Could it be that this is a ham-fisted and clumsy attempt to actually moderate the DERP, as some in the party have been suggesting?

You're laughing because the answer is "no", aren't you?

/If they were to try to steer away from DERP, I don't see any smooth way to do it.
 
2013-03-17 07:05:39 PM  
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.
 
2013-03-17 07:10:38 PM  

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

There is NO sound economical thought behind it.


there has been little or no risk of this. the senate refuses to even vote on his insanity.
of course, the house refuses to vote on the insanity from the senate, so I guess they are even there.

cracks me up when the house biatches about the senate not voting on the house bill, while at the same time not voting on a senate bill.
of course, the GOP senate also filibusters any bill which is rational at this point.
bit scary
 
2013-03-17 07:16:47 PM  
Every small business is a deficit investment, no?

You pay into something that will lose in the short term to build something that will pay much larger dividends over time.

Hence, austerity when borrowings cots are near zero is foolish because we can actually rebuild our crumbling country at a discount and enjoy larger gains in the future.

It's too bad Paul Ryan never worked in the private sector or maybe he would understand this.
 
2013-03-17 07:19:32 PM  
would love the oportunity to stab him
 
2013-03-17 07:24:05 PM  
Step 1: Create a massive amount of "strategic debt" to try and scare people into defunding things you don't like that most people like.
Step 2: Blame the other guys for the "strategic debt".
Step 3: Freak out about the "strategic debt"
Step 4: Fail to defund the things you don't like that most people like.
Step 5: Pretend the "strategic debt" doesn't exist and hasn't caused a financial crisis.
Step 6: Continue to lose elections until your party is no more than an uncomfortable memory of how NOT to do things.
 
2013-03-17 07:27:51 PM  
He has very strong oral communication skills. That's it.

Every time one of his fellow conservatives open their mouth, stupid comes out. Simply owing to the fact that he can string words together in a coherent manner, he's their standard bearer.

His math doesn't add up, and he's easily stumped when asked specific questions... He's an empty suit. Lots of money to made in that racket, apparently.

He hands out a copy of Atlas Shrugged to every intern. Then, when the media starts asking about it... "No way! What? I don't even know who she is!"

Sad, pathetic little man with no morals.
 
2013-03-17 07:43:50 PM  

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

There is NO sound economical thought behind it.


What disturbs me, as many have noted, is that Ryan is touted as the "numbers guy." His supporters consider him the Nate Silver of budgets. Well, I suppose it's easy to fool your constituents when no one bothers to do the simple math in their heads before deciding for or against it.

The only thing I despise more than Paul Ryan is Illinois Nazis. Seriously, fark that guy.
 
2013-03-17 07:49:39 PM  

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

There is NO sound economical thought behind it.

What disturbs me, as many have noted, is that Ryan is touted as the "numbers guy." His supporters consider him the Nate Silver of budgets. Well, I suppose it's easy to fool your constituents when no one can do the simple math in their heads before deciding for or against it.

The only thing I despise more than Paul Ryan is Illinois Nazis. Seriously, fark that guy.


FTFY
 
2013-03-17 07:50:45 PM  
I would recommend a tax on legitimate rape. Logically, if you don't like something (like women getting raped), you tax it to reduce it. It would have to be a flat tax, because that's more fair and we can't have moochers in the system. I would also recommend that if the girl can provide a receipt proving she is now armed because of the rape, that she can deduct the cost of the new weapon from the tax, dollar for dollar.

There, I just balanced the budget AND appeased all three windowlicking parts of the Republican party. Let's have the House vote on it.
 
2013-03-17 08:00:40 PM  

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

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


i176.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-17 08:03:48 PM  
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.
 
m00
2013-03-17 08:05:08 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: I can't figure out what is behind the recent "there is no budget crisis" messaging with the Republicans. TheTea Party nutters must be going crazy when they hear it.


Your disdain is noted. But the Republican leadership really doesn't like the tea party, because 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.
 
2013-03-17 08:10:06 PM  
fta Klobuchar conceded there are potential sticking points, including Ryan's proposed $4.5 trillion in tax cuts

$4.5 Trillion in tax cuts and no way to pay for them? Paul Ryan has a way to solve that whole "no debt crisis" thing.
 
2013-03-17 08:11:15 PM  

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.


It's very rare for someone to display such a confidence misunderstand of monetary economics. I'm EXTREMELY impressed.
 
2013-03-17 08:14:04 PM  

Notabunny: fta Klobuchar conceded there are potential sticking points, including Ryan's proposed $4.5 trillion in tax cuts

$4.5 Trillion in tax cuts and no way to pay for them? Paul Ryan has a way to solve that whole "no debt crisis" thing.


Tax cuts pay for themselves, duh.
 
2013-03-17 08:17:32 PM  

Fuggin Bizzy: Notabunny: fta Klobuchar conceded there are potential sticking points, including Ryan's proposed $4.5 trillion in tax cuts

$4.5 Trillion in tax cuts and no way to pay for them? Paul Ryan has a way to solve that whole "no debt crisis" thing.

Tax cuts pay for themselves, duh.


If Paul Ryan would pass $148 Quadzillian in tax cuts, we'd eliminate all our debt and be the most prosperous country in the history of forever!
 
2013-03-17 08:18:01 PM  

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.


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.
 
2013-03-17 08:20:01 PM  

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
 
2013-03-17 08:21:43 PM  

Notabunny: Fuggin Bizzy: Notabunny: fta Klobuchar conceded there are potential sticking points, including Ryan's proposed $4.5 trillion in tax cuts

$4.5 Trillion in tax cuts and no way to pay for them? Paul Ryan has a way to solve that whole "no debt crisis" thing.

Tax cuts pay for themselves, duh.

If Paul Ryan would pass $148 Quadzillian in tax cuts, we'd eliminate all our debt and be the most prosperous country in the history of forever!


Well he can't because of the Democrats. Also, our attractive and successful commander in chief. Those farkers.
 
2013-03-17 08:24:51 PM  

SploogeTime: Obama said virtually the same thing a week ago. Yet, no comment. Typical.



Typical of what or who?
 
2013-03-17 08:27:00 PM  

DamnYankees: 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.


Well, to a certain extent, sure. I just don't think people get how unique our position is. All of out debt is owed in our own currency. It affords us a metric f*ckton of leeway over all others. When I hear these people say we'll wind up like Greece, I want to jump out the window.
 
2013-03-17 08:28:16 PM  
"Fixing" the "Debt Crises" is easy, just increase all tax rates in all tax brackets by 50%. That will just about generate enough revenue to cover the current budget, then you cut government services until a "surplus" is achieved and the debt is paid.

The sad truth is this whole "Debt Crises" is nothing more then the Republicans trying to avoid paying the bills they ran up by raising taxes.
 
2013-03-17 08:30:52 PM  
Welp, he is supposedly the "wunder-kinder" of the GOP. He also helped the worst Presidential candidate in 40 years get his ass kicked.

This guy is a gift that keep on giving.

/I am FOR SHAME Fark,
//Nobody posted his shiatty workout PR pics.
///I am disappoint, son.
 
2013-03-17 08:37:06 PM  

dickfreckle: What disturbs me, as many have noted, is that Ryan is touted as the "numbers guy." His supporters consider him the Nate Silver of budgets. Well, I suppose it's easy to fool your constituents when no one bothers to do the simple math in their heads before deciding for or against it.


It's theater. Nobody wants to see numbers- numbers are boring.
 
2013-03-17 08:53:44 PM  

DamnYankees: 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.

It's very rare for someone to display such a confidence misunderstand of monetary economics. I'm EXTREMELY impressed.


Fun Fact: We're 5th in the world expected to go belly up, guess who 1-4 is: Greece, Spain, Ireland, (this one is a little more obscure) Japan, and then us.  USA, USA, USA.  This is according to the Sovereignty Vulnerability Index.
 
2013-03-17 08:53:44 PM  

quatchi: Paul Ryan: "It's not as if we woke up the day after the election and said let's change our principles turn them in and throw in with government run healthcare"

More's the pity.

"Not a retread"? A "responsible balanced budget"?  A "Vision document"?

Repealing Obamacare, cutting taxes, cutting spending in the middle of a weak recovery?

[ohwaityou'reserious]

No debt crisis... yet?

When Ryan says that it sounds like a threat.


We're living in a world where Congressional Republicans declared ON PUBLIC RECORD that their #1 mission was to make President Obama a one-termer and literally held the economy hostage to advance their agenda. We passed "sounds like" over a year ago.
 
2013-03-17 08:54:49 PM  

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?
 
2013-03-17 08:55:11 PM  

TheDarkSaintOfGin: Fun Fact: We're 5th in the world expected to go belly up, guess who 1-4 is: Greece, Spain, Ireland, (this one is a little more obscure) Japan, and then us.  USA, USA, USA.  This is according to the Sovereignty Vulnerability Index.


Cite?
 
2013-03-17 08:55:23 PM  

NewportBarGuy: 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.

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.


"We're invincible so we can ignore economic realities".   If you represent the majority thinking, we are so screwed.
 
2013-03-17 08:56:06 PM  

TheDarkSaintOfGin: DamnYankees: 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.

It's very rare for someone to display such a confidence misunderstand of monetary economics. I'm EXTREMELY impressed.

Fun Fact: We're 5th in the world expected to go belly up, guess who 1-4 is: Greece, Spain, Ireland, (this one is a little more obscure) Japan, and then us.  USA, USA, USA.  This is according to the Sovereignty Vulnerability Index.


Let me correct myself... Just looked it up, its been updated since I got my data: Greece, Japan, Portugal, Ireland, USA.  At least we're holding steady?
 
2013-03-17 08:56:46 PM  
I'm convinced he has no interest in ever running for national office again.  He wants the Speakership after Boehner gets ousted.  Nobody that wants to be a Republican nominee for president makes a farkup this stupid.
 
2013-03-17 08:57:31 PM  

DamnYankees: 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.

It's very rare for someone to display such a confidence misunderstand of monetary economics. I'm EXTREMELY impressed.


Having seen you express your lack of intelligence in past posts, I am confident that if you criticize anything I say, I'm right on the money.  Basically, if I do the opposite of what you say, I'm safe.
 
2013-03-17 08:58:43 PM  
Itt: people who think printing money is equivalent to creating wealth.

Having the reserve currency is nice, but it is in no way a permanent thing that allows you to run massive deficits forever. Eventually you get called out on it, and when that happens it is going to be very painful.
 
2013-03-17 09:03:51 PM  

MattStafford: Eventually you get called out on it, and when that happens it is going to be very painful.


"Eventually" can be a rather long period of time.

//Still waiting for "Eventually" to hit Japan's economy,
 
2013-03-17 09:05:22 PM  

Karac: unicorn farts


img.izismile.com
 
2013-03-17 09:07:46 PM  

TheDarkSaintOfGin: TheDarkSaintOfGin: DamnYankees: 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.

It's very rare for someone to display such a confidence misunderstand of monetary economics. I'm EXTREMELY impressed.

Fun Fact: We're 5th in the world expected to go belly up, guess who 1-4 is: Greece, Spain, Ireland, (this one is a little more obscure) Japan, and then us.  USA, USA, USA.  This is according to the Sovereignty Vulnerability Index.

Let me correct myself... Just looked it up, its been updated since I got my data: Greece, Japan, Portugal, Ireland, USA.  At least we're holding steady?


STILL old data.. ANYWAY-

here's how its judged-  https://www2.blackrock.com/webcore/litService/search/getDocument.seam ? venue=PUB_IND&source=GLOBAL&contentId=1111142235

to be honest, I can't find anything beyond my own notes from the seminar I attended on rankings, that I'll concede.  I do know that particural lecture was given by one Dr. Clay Moffett.  Take it or leave it.
 
2013-03-17 09:25:05 PM  

MattStafford: Eventually you get called out on it, and when that happens it is going to be very painful.


Eventually we're all dead. This is not a useful metric.
 
2013-03-17 09:26:08 PM  

TheDarkSaintOfGin: DamnYankees: 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.

It's very rare for someone to display such a confidence misunderstand of monetary economics. I'm EXTREMELY impressed.

Fun Fact: We're 5th in the world expected to go belly up, guess who 1-4 is: Greece, Spain, Ireland, (this one is a little more obscure) Japan, and then us.  USA, USA, USA.  This is according to the Sovereignty Vulnerability Index.


And at least a couple of those countries ahead of us tried austerity...which made their problems worse. Because you don't farking carelessly gut government spending in a bad economy.
 
2013-03-17 09:27:19 PM  

OgreMagi: Having seen you express your lack of intelligence in past posts, I am confident that if you criticize anything I say, I'm right on the money.  Basically, if I do the opposite of what you say, I'm safe.


Always glad to help.
 
m00
2013-03-17 09:29:36 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-17 09:39:12 PM  

KarmicDisaster: Now what.


Fish tacos with a side of black beans, Mexcian rice and a Shiner
 
m00
2013-03-17 09:39:44 PM  

NewportBarGuy: 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.

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.


Well, I'll tell you my theory.

So in the US situation, the worst scenario we could face is hyper massive inflation. We wouldn't go "bankrupt" we would just have worthless currency and other countries would stop buying our bonds, and stop using the USD as the reserve currency. You would have $100 for a double cheeseburger at McDonalds.

The 1% that are funding political campaigns actually want this, and are actively seeking this outcome. They're invested offshore and in illiquid assets such as property, stock of international companies, and so forth. Instruments that will weather a massive devaluation of US currency. And even if it not, doesn't matter... if your 500 million dollars is suddenly worth 100 million dollars, doesn't matter to your lifestyle. The reason they want this to happen is basically to make the rest of us economic slaves. Regular people will have to sell their houses, get rid of their cars, live in tiny apartments and eat rice and beans. It will "save the environment" because the 99% will have no carbon footprint, and the 1% will still be flying around on private jets paid for by tax loopholes unavailable to you. The 1% then have infinite power. Right now, they control all the "stuff" and have gold plated yachts, but "regular people" still have autonomy. They see power and wealth has a zero-sum game and won't stop until we're all literal slaves, because then they "win."
 
2013-03-17 09:39:49 PM  

OgreMagi: "We're invincible so we can ignore economic realities". If you represent the majority thinking, we are so screwed.


Economic realities. Yeah. Define that for me.
 
2013-03-17 09:42:37 PM  

m00: Well, I'll tell you my theory.

So in the US situation, the worst scenario we could face is hyper massive inflation.


How could a nation with the Reserve Currency and debt to GDP at a manageable level, reach hyper-inflation?

You're talking about 1000% inflation on a weekly basis. So, where the f*ck are you pulling that from?
 
2013-03-17 09:43:29 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Economic realities. Yeah. Define that for me.


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.
 
2013-03-17 09:43:33 PM  
WTF?   GOPers have been screaming about out of control spending and the debt crisis so much that they've been wetting their pants for ages.  Do they even listen to themselves when they talk?
 
2013-03-17 09:45:40 PM  

m00: The 1% that are funding political campaigns actually want this, and are actively seeking this outcome.


Are you insane? You think it its the donor class that is AGAINST austerity?
 
2013-03-17 09:45:58 PM  

GodsTumor: Debt, what debt?
This is just a clever ruse to elect another Bush. JEBBY!


Don't ever say that. Not even as a joke.
 
2013-03-17 09:46:26 PM  

Generation_D: 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.

Pretty much this. The Republicans are 100% responsible for the sh*t they now think is a crisis. None of it WAS a crisis until Obama was elected, after 8-10 years of running up the debt. Eff those guys and eff them forever. Eff you if you vote for one.


You're kidding yourself if you think that the Dems haven't sold their souls to the defense contractors, too. I didn't see them voting against war spending and the development of new weapons.
 
2013-03-17 09:52:31 PM  

DamnYankees: MattStafford: Eventually you get called out on it, and when that happens it is going to be very painful.

Eventually we're all dead. This is not a useful metric.


A policy will eventually destroy the country. In your view, we should continue that policy because, hey, it was going to happen eventually.
 
2013-03-17 09:55:12 PM  

doofusss: would love the oportunity to stab him


no, you wouldn't.  you're not a rightwing shiat.
 
2013-03-17 09:56:44 PM  

MattStafford: A policy will eventually destroy the country. In your view, we should continue that policy because, hey, it was going to happen eventually.


The death of the sun is eventually going to destroy the world. WHY AREN'T WE SENDING ROCKETS TO THE SUN LIKE IN THAT MOVIE SUNSHINE WITH THAT DUDE FROM THAT OTHER MOVIE?!?
 
2013-03-17 09:57:05 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-17 09:57:37 PM  

MattStafford: DamnYankees: MattStafford: Eventually you get called out on it, and when that happens it is going to be very painful.

Eventually we're all dead. This is not a useful metric.

A policy will eventually destroy the country. In your view, we should continue that policy because, hey, it was going to happen eventually.


The policy of 'Give the 1%  every cent we can squeeze out of the middle and lower classes' (also known as 'supply-side economics') will destroy America a HELL of a lot quicker than the national debt.

And of course, all this biatching ignores the fact that the deficit (and thus the debt) skyrocketed under Reagan, Bush, and Bush Jr., while Obama and Clinton shrank the deficit quite a bit, and Obama continues to do so at a ridiculous rate. Republican administrations and their policies are demonstrably, and significantly, worse for the economy. The sooner we get them the fark OUT of government, the sooner America can recover from them.
 
2013-03-17 10:09:35 PM  

DamnYankees: You think it its the donor class that is AGAINST austerity?


I try to think of it this way,

If I push the public sector towards a surplus (which means its printing/creating less money), where would the other sectors of the economy go to for funding? (Maybe to the sector that has surplus funds to lend. And I can rule out households and the trade account.)

//During the Clinton surplus you had a public sector surplus, a surplus among firms, a deficit among households, and a large trade deficit.
//The "donor class" made off pretty darn well when they were lending to households.
 
2013-03-17 10:19:16 PM  
singlesourcespeakers.com

/cigarette smokin' messed up your lungs
 
2013-03-17 10:25:56 PM  

MattStafford: DamnYankees: MattStafford: Eventually you get called out on it, and when that happens it is going to be very painful.

Eventually we're all dead. This is not a useful metric.

A policy will eventually destroy the country. In your view, we should continue that policy because, hey, it was going to happen eventually.


Your view is to tank the economy now because the economy might eventually tank if we continue what we're doing forever.  Everyone else's view is continue what we're doing UNTIL the economy is more secure footing. The latter group is guessing the economy becoming on more secure footing under the current policies will happen before it tanks the economy.  Choosing the course of action that doesn't tank the economy NOW seems the more sane approach.
 
m00
2013-03-17 10:33:10 PM  

DamnYankees: Are you insane? You think it its the donor class that is AGAINST austerity?


Dude, you know where our spending goes? Corporate handouts. Bailouts. Wars. Tax breaks (and even handouts) for the rich. Payouts to insurance companies. Subsidizing risky banking with taxpayer money, but privatizing the rewards. True austerity means an end to that gravy train.

As was noted in a fark thread not too long ago, 7/10 of the wealthiest districts in the US are suburbs of DC. Government spending feeds the wealthy class.
 
2013-03-17 10:33:30 PM  

GodsTumor: Debt, what debt?
This is just a clever ruse to elect another Bush. JEBBY!


There's also another George Bush entering the world of politics, running for Texas land commissioner next year.
 
m00
2013-03-17 10:38:02 PM  

NewportBarGuy: ...and debt to GDP at a manageable level, reach hyper-inflation?


I posted in another thread comparing 2007 spending levels to 2012 spending levels. It's insane, pretty much every budget area increased by 50% (including defense), while revenue barely increased. Whether or not you want to argue our debt to GDP is "manageable" now (not sure what manageable means in this context), it soon get very destructive. But again, my argument is that the 1% is actively seeking to destroy the country, via massive campaign contribution and influencing elections, for their own benefit.
 
2013-03-17 11:04:38 PM  

DamnYankees: The death of the sun is eventually going to destroy the world. WHY AREN'T WE SENDING ROCKETS TO THE SUN LIKE IN THAT MOVIE SUNSHINE WITH THAT DUDE FROM THAT OTHER MOVIE?!?


even the most diehard keynesian economists like krugman openly admit that our debt will become a gigantic problem within a decade... but yeah, it's totally the same as the sun burning out, great analogy
 
2013-03-17 11:09:12 PM  
JESUS CHRIST DOG SHADDUP N QUIT YER HOWLING OR I WILL COME FIND YOU AND KICK YOU SO YOU CAN REALLY HOWL YERSELF A PIECE

SERIOUSLY, GOD DAMN
 
2013-03-17 11:11:43 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-17 11:12:55 PM  

Bucky Katt: WTF?   GOPers have been screaming about out of control spending and the debt crisis so much that they've been wetting their pants for ages.  Do they even listen to themselves when they talk?




No after awhile they just tune out. Hey, does anybody remember big-league chew?
 
2013-03-17 11:13:15 PM  

DamnYankees: MattStafford: A policy will eventually destroy the country. In your view, we should continue that policy because, hey, it was going to happen eventually.

The death of the sun is eventually going to destroy the world. WHY AREN'T WE SENDING ROCKETS TO THE SUN LIKE IN THAT MOVIE SUNSHINE WITH THAT DUDE FROM THAT OTHER MOVIE?!?


Because they were trying to reignite a dying sun in that movie.

DamnYankees: trying to destroy the world with his mad sun-exploding schemes.
 
2013-03-17 11:14:11 PM  
There is no debt crisis.

When Clinton had left office, the Treasury came screaming to bush that they'd lost their ability to control the money supply because the amount of T-bills and other government debt instruments in circulation were too low.

So basically what the treasury said is that we need to have 1-2% of GDP in T-bills in circulation at any time to be able to have control levers into monetary policy.

If you really think that there is a debt crisis, Then you should also know that 'entitlements' of social security and Medicare are NOT responsible, since they are both totally funded by their own 6% 'flat' tax on the incomes of everyone making under 120,000$ annually. In fact, this flat tax has been providing congress with EXTRA money beyond other methods of taxation, as SS, Medicare and Medicaid have cost LESS than the 6% flat tax (on everyone's income under the $120,000 amount).

Congress has been taking the surplus out of the medicare fund by instructing the trustee to 'invest' the leftover money in treasury bills and treasury bonds.
 
2013-03-17 11:15:25 PM  

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


I didn't hear about it on places like Fark or from the Conservatives I know in person, either. Fox must be more powerful than I realized... or then again maybe you're just full of shiat.
 
2013-03-17 11:17:10 PM  

invictus2: Bucky Katt: WTF?   GOPers have been screaming about out of control spending and the debt crisis so much that they've been wetting their pants for ages.  Do they even listen to themselves when they talk?

No after awhile they just tune out. Hey, does anybody remember big-league chew?


The shredded bubble gum in a pouch?  No, never heard of it.
 
2013-03-17 11:17:50 PM  
Well... when you can borrow below the rate of inflation there's no crisis.

Seriously. Go look up inflation rates and Treasury offers. Anything less than a 30 year is less than 3%, and for most of the past decade we've been at 2%-3%.

So, if you can manage to grow the economy at <4%, inflation at >2%, and borrow money at less than 2%, everything can continue operating. Just, if you want to blow a trillion dollars, do it with something that'll have long term benefits for the masses. I think you might have been able to literally buy everyone a hybrid for what we spent on that war. Or at least subsidize them to being $10k, although my inner economist is already screaming that would incentivise hybrid makers to make them cost $60k to produce.
 
2013-03-17 11:20:38 PM  

Bucky Katt: invictus2: Bucky Katt: WTF?   GOPers have been screaming about out of control spending and the debt crisis so much that they've been wetting their pants for ages.  Do they even listen to themselves when they talk?

No after awhile they just tune out. Hey, does anybody remember big-league chew?

The shredded bubble gum in a pouch?  No, never heard of it.


www.chocolatebuttons.co.uk
 
m00
2013-03-17 11:20:45 PM  

The Why Not Guy: I didn't hear about it on places like Fark or from the Conservatives I know in person, either. Fox must be more powerful than I realized... or then again maybe you're just full of shiat.


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.
 
m00
2013-03-17 11:23:11 PM  

Harry_Seldon: 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.


It is a shame that few politicians actually serve the public interest.
 
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.
 
2013-03-18 08:41:45 AM  

Thats No Moose: THANK YOU.

I'm tired of hearing the "Reserve Currency" BS.


Worked well for Zimbabwe?
 
2013-03-18 09:04:21 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.


To be fair, it's impossible to refute something that hasn't happened yet.
 
2013-03-18 10:53:50 AM  

TheDarkSaintOfGin: TheDarkSaintOfGin: TheDarkSaintOfGin: DamnYankees: 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.

It's very rare for someone to display such a confidence misunderstand of monetary economics. I'm EXTREMELY impressed.

Fun Fact: We're 5th in the world expected to go belly up, guess who 1-4 is: Greece, Spain, Ireland, (this one is a little more obscure) Japan, and then us.  USA, USA, USA.  This is according to the Sovereignty Vulnerability Index.

Let me correct myself... Just looked it up, its been updated since I got my data: Greece, Japan, Portugal, Ireland, USA.  At least we're holding steady?

STILL old data.. ANYWAY-

here's how its judged-  https://www2.blackrock.com/webcore/litService/search/getDocument.seam ? venue=PUB_IND&source=GLOBAL&contentId=1111142235

to be honest, I can't find anything beyond my own notes from the seminar I attended on rankings, that I'll concede.  I do know that particural lecture was given by one Dr. Clay Moffett.  Take it or leave it.


1) please warn PDF/doc reader.

2) there is a suspicious lack of background info for this measure in a regular Google or a Google scholar search.

3) this link does NOT say what you say it does. On page 7 of 12 the chart clearly has the US in the positive and in the middle of the spectrum.


Thanks for failing!
 
2013-03-18 11:50:53 AM  
Folks, Paul Ryan is a math guy and a policy wonk. If he says there's no debt crisis, there's clearly no debt crisis. As long as we defund Obamacare.
 
2013-03-18 11:55:34 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.


Does that goalpost have wheels, or is it really heavy to move?
 
2013-03-18 12:51:54 PM  
This is no different than what he's always said, tardmitter.

We're on a course that will present huge problems, and relative to many other nations we're the best turd in the toilet.  There's time to fix it, and that's the point.  Do responsible people maintain their homes correctly, or do they wait until it's on fire to clear out the hoarded newspapers?
 
2013-03-18 01:19:47 PM  

SenorPez: 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.

Does that goalpost have wheels, or is it really heavy to move?


It's got a hemi
 
2013-03-18 02:21:50 PM  

m00: 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.


Here is the problem.  There is no problem.  Yes, deficits need to be reduced/eliminated.  There are two times you can't care about deficits, though - war and depression.  When things were humming along (no pun) under Clinton, that was a great time to nun a surplus.  Bush took that, shiat on it immediately and then had 9/11 happen to him and gave himself a war.  Then he made it worse by choosing to have another one.  Ok, so fark.  We have a debit problem.  Then we have recessionapocolips right at the end of Bush.  I know people hate it when people like me blame Bush for Obama's problems with the budget, but man, you couldn't have dug a deeper hole if you tried.  Low recipts made even lower by people being out of work, eight years of cuts to jobs programs.  Thousands of disabled vets and more with brain fark who will never work right.  The financial system tripping balls sideways because the earth melted and never goten over the hangover.  My god, it's amazing that Obama hasn't just said "fark it!"

But at the end of that, there is no problem.  Deficits will reduce as the economy improves and we grow our way out of it.  Throwing people out on the street and not investing in America is not the way to grow an economy or preserve America's soul.  So here's the final point, REPUBLICANS KNOW THIS AND ARE JUST BLOWING shiat.
 
2013-03-18 02:42:46 PM  

plewis: Deficits will reduce as the economy improves and we grow our way out of it.


Actaully, most folks will disagee with you here.

Yes, growth is a part of the solution to the problem, but it must also be addressed by cutting spending and increasing revenues. There is no getting around that.  We also need to be very careful about what kind of growth we want.  I think that we can agree that building growth on the back of debt and loose money will likely end us back on fiscal curb and will erase any headway we may have made.

Putting that aside for a bit, from CBO estimates, deficits will continue to decrease some as the economy continues to find its footing.  However, that trend is extpected to be pretty short as the increase in entitlements will start to strip away any ground we make up.   Here in about 5 years, deficits are again expected to increase and this will put more pressure on our fiscal health.
 
2013-03-18 02:54:10 PM  
Debt crisis in the future, yeah we know.  What are you going to do about the job crisis right now?  Or the disparity of income vs. inflation?  If minimum wage kept up with inflation over the past 30 years it'd be over $11 an hour right now.  What are you going to do about the rising costs of healthcare or education, besides cutting taxes for people that can already easily afford those things?

"Not my problem," isn't an answer.
 
2013-03-18 03:31:00 PM  

heap: were, too. wherewolves of london.


There wolf.
There castle.
There tree.
 
2013-03-18 03:33:29 PM  

MattStafford: Thats No Moose: THANK YOU.

I'm tired of hearing the "Reserve Currency" BS.

Worked well for Zimbabwe?


is that on some desert island, somewhere?
 
2013-03-18 03:34:38 PM  

burning_bridge: What are you going to do about the job crisis right now? Or the disparity of income vs. inflation? If minimum wage kept up with inflation over the past 30 years it'd be over $11 an hour right now.


Get rid of free trade?  There is a reason why our wages are under pressure in a new world economy.  Much of it does not have to do with Republican or Democratic fiscal policies.
 
m00
2013-03-19 10:28:30 AM  

heap: 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


My interaction with conservatives is two-fold. Messageboards and in real life. What additional interactions do you have with people? I'm curious...

I am simply telling you my personal observation. I can't prove real life conversations. I found some links to message board threads from the early 2000s but again the response would be "oh you found 20 threads out of millions, whoop-dee-do." So I thought I'd go with the Cato institute since this all started talking about the tea party.

Basically there is zero evidence you would ever except to refute your point. So I don't know why I bother to waste my time trying to find any. Guess I got trolled.
 
2013-03-19 11:08:28 AM  
Gee, this thread turned interesting.

Me happy.

In a way.

Thanks, m00.

Thanks heap.

Thanks plewis.
 
Displayed 165 of 165 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report