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.

(Washington Post)   Oh, look, another Rethuglican spouting off at the mouth about Medicare being unsustainable and people getting $3 in services for every dollar they put in and fark it, let's just sick the liberal fact checkers on him. See, I told you...oh, he's right?   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 754
    More: Obvious, Medicare, fact checking, John Barrasso, average wage  
•       •       •

2704 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Mar 2013 at 12:24 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-20 12:44:24 PM

cameroncrazy1984: skullkrusher: Via Infinito: Sorry subs. Washington Post is on my no-clicky list. Nice try though.

WP? Sure you aren't confusing it with the Washington Times? WT is a pile of poop. WP isn't bad, relatively speaking.

Two words: Jennifer Rubin


Would also have accepted:

George Will

Charles Krauthammer
 
2013-03-20 12:44:50 PM

DamnYankees: cameroncrazy1984: MattStafford: Please explain to me how keeping millions of people, who by definition do not produce things or provide services, alive financed via a massive amount of debt is somehow going to make our country stronger?

Because old people buy lots of things and that helps the economy. I don't understand why this has to be explained to you over and over again.

To be fair, that's not the reason. If we killed all old people and gave their money to poor people, the substitution effect would equalize consumption. Doing so would simply require us to murder old people.


Good point, old people are still humans and keeping alive your elders is a good thing to do.
 
2013-03-20 12:46:11 PM

CPennypacker: If we were getting out a dollar for every dollar we put in, why would we need insurance in the first place? Couldn't we just pay for the medical care out of pocket?


Insurance insures that should you exceed that ratio due to a tragedy you are insured assuredly to receive insurance.

So if you never need a quarter million dollars in cancer treatments, consider yourself lucky.
 
2013-03-20 12:47:01 PM

meat0918: max_pooper: MattStafford: People still think borrowing money for Social Security and Medicare is a good idea?  Jesus, how dense are you guys?

Please explain to me how keeping millions of people, who by definition do not produce things or provide services, alive financed via a massive amount of debt is somehow going to make our country stronger?  Who cares if we provide massive amounts of jobs to doctor's providing them services?  Those jobs disappear once we can no longer borrow money to fund the scheme!

You are the dense one who does not understand even the most basic concepts of economics.

When are you going to admit you lied when you claimed to have earned a degree in economics?

Come now, he could have.  I doubt it, but he could have.

Even the guy that graduated last in his class at med school is still called "doctor".



Maybe he got his degree at the same institutions Sarah Palin got hers?
 
2013-03-20 12:47:09 PM
Ok, but it's not like they paid that money on the same day they got the benefits. Does time vale of money ring a bell? How about compound interest? Inflation?
 
2013-03-20 12:47:37 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Because old people buy lots of things and that helps the economy. I don't understand why this has to be explained to you over and over again.


Buying shiat does not help the economy!  Christ, how difficult is that to understand?

If a bank loaned me two trillion dollars, and I bought and consumed two trillion dollars worth of goods, would that help the economy?
 
2013-03-20 12:48:27 PM

MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: Because old people buy lots of things and that helps the economy. I don't understand why this has to be explained to you over and over again.

Buying shiat does not help the economy!  Christ, how difficult is that to understand?

If a bank loaned me two trillion dollars, and I bought and consumed two trillion dollars worth of goods, would that help the economy?


YES
 
2013-03-20 12:49:07 PM

MattStafford: If a bank loaned me two trillion dollars, and I bought and consumed two trillion dollars worth of goods, would that help the economy?


In the current economy? Yes. A lot.

Look, I understand that you fundamentally disagree with Keynesian economics, but is there some reason that you need to re-start every single thread pretending not to know what Keynesian's think, and re-asking the same questions over and over again?
 
2013-03-20 12:50:05 PM
Not many explanations as to how borrowing money to fund Social Security and Medicare makes economic sense - definitely a bunch of appeals to morality, however.

I understand and agree that providing for our elders is a good, moral thing.  We cannot, however, sustainably do that via borrowing, and to attempt so is very bad for the economy.

It is possible to have these two thoughts simultaneously, even though that might be difficult for some of you out there.
 
2013-03-20 12:50:05 PM

DamnYankees: MattStafford: If a bank loaned me two trillion dollars, and I bought and consumed two trillion dollars worth of goods, would that help the economy?

In the current economy? Yes. A lot.

Look, I understand that you fundamentally disagree with Keynesian economics, but is there some reason that you need to re-start every single thread pretending not to know what Keynesian's think, and re-asking the same questions over and over again?


Theory:
 
2013-03-20 12:50:16 PM

MattStafford: Please explain to me how keeping millions of people, who by definition do not produce things or provide services, alive financed via a massive amount of debt is somehow going to make our country stronger?


Free babysitting.
 
2013-03-20 12:50:27 PM
Please explain to me how keeping millions of people, who by definition do not produce things or provide services, alive financed via a massive amount of debt is somehow going to make our country stronger?

2030 was fiction. bad fiction.
 
2013-03-20 12:50:49 PM

MattStafford: Buying shiat does not help the economy! Christ, how difficult is that to understand?

If a bank loaned me two trillion dollars, and I bought and consumed two trillion dollars worth of goods, would that help the economy?


Yes it would.

Christ, how difficult is that to understand?
 
2013-03-20 12:51:01 PM

Paul Baumer: cameroncrazy1984: skullkrusher: Via Infinito: Sorry subs. Washington Post is on my no-clicky list. Nice try though.

WP? Sure you aren't confusing it with the Washington Times? WT is a pile of poop. WP isn't bad, relatively speaking.

Two words: Jennifer Rubin

Would also have accepted:

George Will

Charles Krauthammer


David Broder

Eugene Robinson

Richard Cohen

And many others. It's almost as though they've intentionally set out to offer a variety of perspectives.
 
2013-03-20 12:51:03 PM

CPennypacker: DamnYankees: MattStafford: If a bank loaned me two trillion dollars, and I bought and consumed two trillion dollars worth of goods, would that help the economy?

In the current economy? Yes. A lot.

Look, I understand that you fundamentally disagree with Keynesian economics, but is there some reason that you need to re-start every single thread pretending not to know what Keynesian's think, and re-asking the same questions over and over again?

Theory:


Sorry, what I meant was, Theory:

data.whicdn.com
 
2013-03-20 12:51:05 PM

DamnYankees: MattStafford: Please explain to me how keeping millions of people, who by definition do not produce things or provide services, alive financed via a massive amount of debt is somehow going to make our country stronger?

Your right. We should ritually murder every person once they hit the age of 65. That's the way to go.


encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2013-03-20 12:51:12 PM

CPennypacker: YES


DamnYankees: In the current economy? Yes. A lot.

Look, I understand that you fundamentally disagree with Keynesian economics, but is there some reason that you need to re-start every single thread pretending not to know what Keynesian's think, and re-asking the same questions over and over again?


If I borrowed ten trillion dollars?  What if I only spent it on comic books?

What happens when the bank no longer lends me money, and my consumption drops to zero?
 
2013-03-20 12:51:26 PM
Amazingly enough, I expect to take more money out of my IRA than I put in, too.

I don't quite get this "economics" stuff, but my understanding is that if I were to question it too much, the magic might go away and I'd only get the exact amount of money I'd saved.  Not goin' there.
 
2013-03-20 12:51:31 PM

netizencain: Via Infinito: Sorry subs. Washington Post is on my no-clicky list. Nice try though.

"I don't click any link that's not on my 'approve' list because I certainly don't want to see other opinions or understand the mindset of people that I disagree with."

This is the same narrow-mildness as the assholes that only watch Fox News.  Why not read the article on WaPo then find similar content on another site... then, with a little comprehension make your own judgement?


Oh nice. Tell me, do you  hitting yourself on the thumb with a hammer, because one of these times it might feel good?

There's only so much time in the day, and clicking a WaPo or Fox link on the odds there is thoughtful, accurate reporting or analysis is a generally losing proposition.

/Unless you're doing it out of pure self-loathing, like me reading Peggy Noonan's column every week.
 
2013-03-20 12:52:13 PM

maniacbastard: Yes it would.

Christ, how difficult is that to understand?


You guys are idiots.  Do you not understand the concept of a loan!?  It has to be paid back!
 
2013-03-20 12:52:13 PM

MattStafford: CPennypacker: YES

DamnYankees: In the current economy? Yes. A lot.

Look, I understand that you fundamentally disagree with Keynesian economics, but is there some reason that you need to re-start every single thread pretending not to know what Keynesian's think, and re-asking the same questions over and over again?

If I borrowed ten trillion dollars?  What if I only spent it on comic books?

What happens when the bank no longer lends me money, and my consumption drops to zero?


Then you run out of coconuts
 
2013-03-20 12:52:34 PM

maniacbastard: MattStafford: Buying shiat does not help the economy! Christ, how difficult is that to understand?

If a bank loaned me two trillion dollars, and I bought and consumed two trillion dollars worth of goods, would that help the economy?

Yes it would.

Christ, how difficult is that to understand?


He'd buy $2T of used goods from one guy at cost.
 
2013-03-20 12:52:41 PM
The hybrid health care system we have is nonsensical, and just invites price inflation and abuse by well-connected medical companies.

We can address a lot of the problems with health care in this country by joining the rest of the civilized world and enacting single payer health care.
 
2013-03-20 12:52:50 PM

CPennypacker: Then you run out of coconuts


Then you result to ad hominems, because your precious theory completely falls apart.
 
2013-03-20 12:53:01 PM

MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: Because old people buy lots of things and that helps the economy. I don't understand why this has to be explained to you over and over again.

Buying shiat does not help the economy!  Christ, how difficult is that to understand?

If a bank loaned me two trillion dollars, and I bought and consumed two trillion dollars worth of goods, would that help the economy?


I think we need to help you out with some definitions. Let's start with "dollar", "economy", "bank", "loan", and "two".

/ Kidding. With you I think we need to start with "the".
 
2013-03-20 12:53:18 PM

MattStafford: CPennypacker: YES

DamnYankees: In the current economy? Yes. A lot.

Look, I understand that you fundamentally disagree with Keynesian economics, but is there some reason that you need to re-start every single thread pretending not to know what Keynesian's think, and re-asking the same questions over and over again?

If I borrowed ten trillion dollars?  What if I only spent it on comic books?

What happens when the bank no longer lends me money, and my consumption drops to zero?


I repeat: I understand that you fundamentally disagree with Keynesian economics, but is there some reason that you need to re-start every single thread pretending not to know what Keynesian's think, and re-asking the same questions over and over again?

We've been through this many times before.
 
2013-03-20 12:53:22 PM

maniacbastard: CPennypacker: If we were getting out a dollar for every dollar we put in, why would we need insurance in the first place? Couldn't we just pay for the medical care out of pocket?

Insurance insures that should you exceed that ratio due to a tragedy you are insured assuredly to receive insurance.

So if you never need a quarter million dollars in cancer treatments, consider yourself lucky.


Exaclty. I hope I'm a net profit for insurance companies and a subsidy for medicare recipients, I'd prefer paying money that I won't benefit prom than having a disease which cost tons in medical expenses.

DamnYankees: Your right. We should ritually murder every person once they hit the age of 65. That's the way to go.


Don't be ridiculous, clearly we should only murder poor people over 65, rich people who can afford a private doctor and cover all medical expenses clearly earned their extra years.
 
2013-03-20 12:53:24 PM

MattStafford: People still think borrowing money for Social Security and Medicare is a good idea?  Jesus, how dense are you guys?

Please explain to me how keeping millions of people, who by definition do not produce things or provide services, alive financed via a massive amount of debt is somehow going to make our country stronger?  Who cares if we provide massive amounts of jobs to doctor's providing them services?  Those jobs disappear once we can no longer borrow money to fund the scheme!


Please explain to me why we keep subsidizing wealthy individuals, who by definition do not produce things or provide services?
 
2013-03-20 12:53:29 PM

MattStafford: We cannot, however, sustainably do that via borrowing, and to attempt so is very bad for the economy.


If the money borrowed is used to create markets that did not exist before then it is very good for the economy.

Let's turn the discussion away from healthcare, and use an easier to understand federal investment, the internet.

Did the governments borrowing of money to fund the internet result in something that is good for the economy?
 
2013-03-20 12:53:38 PM

MattStafford: CPennypacker: Then you run out of coconuts

Then you result to ad hominems, because your precious theory completely falls apart.


How many times do we have to go through this? That's not an ad hominem. I'm mocking you.
 
2013-03-20 12:53:50 PM
If I printed ten trillion dollars, and bought ten trillion dollars worth of goods and services, would our economy be better off?
 
2013-03-20 12:54:02 PM

meat0918: max_pooper: MattStafford: People still think borrowing money for Social Security and Medicare is a good idea?  Jesus, how dense are you guys?

Please explain to me how keeping millions of people, who by definition do not produce things or provide services, alive financed via a massive amount of debt is somehow going to make our country stronger?  Who cares if we provide massive amounts of jobs to doctor's providing them services?  Those jobs disappear once we can no longer borrow money to fund the scheme!

You are the dense one who does not understand even the most basic concepts of economics.

When are you going to admit you lied when you claimed to have earned a degree in economics?

Come now, he could have.  I doubt it, but he could have.

Even the guy that graduated last in his class at med school is still called "doctor".


True, but the guy that graduated last in his class at med school actually graduated from med school. MattStafford has provided no proof that he actually earned a degree in economics, while providing plenty of stupidity to support the theory that he lied about his education. He always just ignores the comments when people bring up his claim of earning an economics degree from a top 50 school.

Hey MattStafford, when are you going to admit you lied when you claimed to have earned a degree in economics?
 
2013-03-20 12:54:02 PM
Wow that is one unbelievably bitter headline.
 
2013-03-20 12:54:26 PM

MattStafford: maniacbastard: Yes it would.

Christ, how difficult is that to understand?

You guys are idiots.  Do you not understand the concept of a loan!?  It has to be paid back!


So you're saying successful businesses never borrow money.
 
2013-03-20 12:54:29 PM

DamnYankees: I repeat: I understand that you fundamentally disagree with Keynesian economics, but is there some reason that you need to re-start every single thread pretending not to know what Keynesian's think, and re-asking the same questions over and over again?

We've been through this many times before.


Because until people understand that it is bullshiat, it needs to be restarted.
 
2013-03-20 12:55:08 PM

FarkedOver: Please explain to me why we keep subsidizing wealthy individuals, who by definition do not produce things or provide services?


We shouldn't!  What makes you think I'm in favor of that?
 
2013-03-20 12:55:16 PM
Waiting for the scrolling mod post to show up on this thread telling us that we can ignore people
 
2013-03-20 12:56:11 PM

MattStafford: You guys are idiots. Do you not understand the concept of a loan!? It has to be paid back!


It does??  Thanks for telling me that?  Is there some reason you're pointing that out in this thread?
 
2013-03-20 12:56:26 PM

MattStafford: DamnYankees: I repeat: I understand that you fundamentally disagree with Keynesian economics, but is there some reason that you need to re-start every single thread pretending not to know what Keynesian's think, and re-asking the same questions over and over again?

We've been through this many times before.

Because until people understand that it is bullshiat, it needs to be restarted.


So you're like a tourist who doesn't speak French, and thinks that in order to order food in Paris you just need to speak English even louder.
 
2013-03-20 12:56:53 PM

MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: Because old people buy lots of things and that helps the economy. I don't understand why this has to be explained to you over and over again.

Buying shiat does not help the economy!  Christ, how difficult is that to understand?

If a bank loaned me two trillion dollars, and I bought and consumed two trillion dollars worth of goods, would that help the economy?


Please try to come up with a reasonable example. The one you keep using will never happen and is thus not worth discussing. Can you stay in the real-world, please?
 
2013-03-20 12:56:56 PM

maniacbastard: If the money borrowed is used to create markets that did not exist before then it is very good for the economy.


You are suggesting that, if I borrowed a trillion dollars from a bank, and then hired millions and millions of people to dig ditches and fill them back, creating the ditch digging market, that our economy would be better off?

maniacbastard: Let's turn the discussion away from healthcare, and use an easier to understand federal investment, the internet.

Did the governments borrowing of money to fund the internet result in something that is good for the economy?


I have said repeatedly that borrowing money for R+D purposes is potentially good for the economy.
 
2013-03-20 12:57:03 PM

jaytkay: MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: Because old people buy lots of things and that helps the economy. I don't understand why this has to be explained to you over and over again.

Buying shiat does not help the economy!  Christ, how difficult is that to understand?

If a bank loaned me two trillion dollars, and I bought and consumed two trillion dollars worth of goods, would that help the economy?

I think we need to help you out with some definitions. Let's start with "dollar", "economy", "bank", "loan", and "two".

/ Kidding. With you I think we need to start with "the".


He is constitutionally incapable of understanding anything that doesn't involve monkeys on pogosticks throwing fish at coconuts as a model of the real-world economy.
 
2013-03-20 12:57:06 PM

MattStafford: FarkedOver: Please explain to me why we keep subsidizing wealthy individuals, who by definition do not produce things or provide services?

We shouldn't!  What makes you think I'm in favor of that?


Well you're not a Keynesian.... I'm pretty sure you're not a Marxist.   Oh you're just an "end the fed and everything will fall into place" kind of person? is that what we have here?  Do you want to go back to the gold standard while we're at it?
 
2013-03-20 12:57:13 PM

jaytkay: MattStafford: maniacbastard: Yes it would.

Christ, how difficult is that to understand?

You guys are idiots.  Do you not understand the concept of a loan!?  It has to be paid back!

So you're saying successful businesses never borrow money.


Also, that banks never loan money to governments/companies in order to improve the economy because it doesn't work that way.
 
2013-03-20 12:57:18 PM

MattStafford: If I printed ten trillion dollars, and bought ten trillion dollars worth of goods and services, would our economy be better off?


How many times does this need to be explained to you?


When are you going to admit you lied when you claimed to have earned a degree in economics?
 
2013-03-20 12:57:39 PM

MattStafford: DamnYankees: I repeat: I understand that you fundamentally disagree with Keynesian economics, but is there some reason that you need to re-start every single thread pretending not to know what Keynesian's think, and re-asking the same questions over and over again?

We've been through this many times before.

Because until people understand that it is bullshiat, it needs to be restarted.


But your assertion it is bullshiat flies in the face of documented reality.
 
2013-03-20 12:58:09 PM

MattStafford: If I printed ten trillion dollars, and bought ten trillion dollars worth of goods and services, would our economy be better off?


What do you think happens to that $10 trillion? It doesn't just vanish.
 
2013-03-20 12:58:14 PM

Cletus C.: Paul Baumer: cameroncrazy1984: skullkrusher: Via Infinito: Sorry subs. Washington Post is on my no-clicky list. Nice try though.

WP? Sure you aren't confusing it with the Washington Times? WT is a pile of poop. WP isn't bad, relatively speaking.

Two words: Jennifer Rubin

Would also have accepted:

George Will

Charles Krauthammer

David Broder

Eugene Robinson

Richard Cohen

And many others. It's almost as though they've intentionally set out to offer a variety of perspectives.


errr.... hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but Broder hasn't really published much since  March 9, 2011.
 
2013-03-20 12:58:24 PM

FarkedOver: MattStafford: FarkedOver: Please explain to me why we keep subsidizing wealthy individuals, who by definition do not produce things or provide services?

We shouldn't!  What makes you think I'm in favor of that?

Well you're not a Keynesian.... I'm pretty sure you're not a Marxist.   Oh you're just an "end the fed and everything will fall into place" kind of person? is that what we have here?  Do you want to go back to the gold standard while we're at it?


His actual economic ideas are Sillyasstrollism.
 
2013-03-20 12:58:44 PM
$10 trillion buys a lot of coconuts
 
Displayed 50 of 754 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report