Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Obvious, Medicare, fact checking, John Barrasso, average wage  
•       •       •

2714 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Mar 2013 at 12:24 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


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

 
2013-03-20 12:59:04 PM  
Another thread gone to hell.
 
2013-03-20 12:59:15 PM  
Sick[sic] the liberal media!
 
2013-03-20 12:59:42 PM  

MattStafford: 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.


Back to the digging ditches false equivalency? How many times do you need to be shown that your simplistic analogies do not apply to the real world?

When are you going to admit you lied when you claimed to have earned a degree in economics?
 
2013-03-20 12:59:43 PM  

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


If I use the money to create a new market or enhance an existing one that results in a new tax revenue stream that lasts until the end of time, then it gets paid back times infinity.

How much of the federal highway system was built with revenue streams other than gas taxes?

What is the primary way that most people receive shipments to businesses and the home?

That borrowing resulted in an increase in our economy.

Now borrowing a trillion dollars to attack some nation that never attacked us under false pretensions, well, that is just farking retarded.
 
2013-03-20 12:59:51 PM  

qorkfiend: 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.


By definiition he thinks that tax dollars don't get spent ever. They'e just sucked out of the economy. Seriously.
 
2013-03-20 12:59:53 PM  

meat0918: skullkrusher: Dr. Whoof: cameroncrazy1984: skullkrusher: isn't the point of Medicare to give people more than they pay for?

I thought that was usually how insurance worked, yeah.

The concept of shared risk pooling is too difficult for Cletus to understand, so let's end Medicare.

if the average person is getting $3 back for every $1 put in, that's not very effective risk pooling.

Medicare was never about effective risk pooling for the government, it was about helping people the insurance companies refuse to cover because they are too high risk to cover profitably.


which was my original point.
 
2013-03-20 01:00:02 PM  
cameroncrazy1984: 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?



Just answer the question!  Would it be good for the economy?  If you replace me with a bunch of seniors, would it be good for the economy then?
 
2013-03-20 01:00:23 PM  
Medicare should be expanded and offered as the Public Option.  Cut 90% of the regulations from Obamacare and presto.  We have competition from government in the insurance industry, and pricing drops to adjust.  But in the expansion of Medicare they might want to pay more than $12 per year for eye exams and eye surgeries to opthalmologists and such or they will continue running from Medicare patients as fast as they can.
 
2013-03-20 01:00:28 PM  
MattStafford, the economic troll..
 
2013-03-20 01:00:31 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: 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.


Ahhh the Ron Paul school of economics. That's good for him... I guess.
 
2013-03-20 01:01:00 PM  

MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: 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?


Just answer the question!  Would it be good for the economy?  If you replace me with a bunch of seniors, would it be good for the economy then?


Right now - yes - considering most seniors don't know how to use a computer.

fark off, troll.
 
2013-03-20 01:01:08 PM  

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


Did you think this was the Moonies one? Cause that would be the Times.
 
2013-03-20 01:01:15 PM  

MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: 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?


Just answer the question!  Would it be good for the economy?  If you replace me with a bunch of seniors, would it be good for the economy then?


Are you seriously asking whether injecting $2 trillion into the economy is a good thing?
 
2013-03-20 01:02:02 PM  

qorkfiend: 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.


So are you agreeing that the economy would be better off?  What if I printed 20 trillion dollars, and hired every single working age person in America to produce goods for me?  Would the economy be better off then?
 
2013-03-20 01:02:04 PM  

MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: 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?


Just answer the question!  Would it be good for the economy?  If you replace me with a bunch of seniors, would it be good for the economy then?


Hell. Yes.  Not only would it be good for the economy, but it would be absolutely fantastic for FARK threads.
 
2013-03-20 01:02:24 PM  

MattStafford: Just answer the question!  Would it be good for the economy?  If you replace me with a bunch of seniors, would it be good for the economy then?


Why do you think the two are related?
 
2013-03-20 01:02:30 PM  

CPennypacker: Waiting for the scrolling mod post to show up on this thread telling us that we can ignore people


Yours is the only non-gray entry in a sequence of fifteen+ consecutive posts. People haven't learned yet, it seems.
 
2013-03-20 01:02:34 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: qorkfiend: 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.

By definiition he thinks that tax dollars don't get spent ever. They'e just sucked out of the economy. Seriously.


Yup. He also does not understand the future value of money, supply and demand, and the difference between debt and deficits. These are all very basic concepts of economics that he has little understanding of. It's hard to believe that a top 50 school would award him a degree in economics.
 
2013-03-20 01:02:58 PM  

MattStafford: So are you agreeing that the economy would be better off? What if I printed 20 trillion dollars, and hired every single working age person in America to produce goods for me? Would the economy be better off then?


No, you'd be exploiting your workers in typical capitalist fashion.
 
2013-03-20 01:03:14 PM  

MattStafford: qorkfiend: 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.

So are you agreeing that the economy would be better off?  What if I printed 20 trillion dollars, and hired every single working age person in America to produce goods for me?  Would the economy be better off then?


Psh, heck yeah!  It'd be awesome!
 
2013-03-20 01:03:29 PM  

max_pooper: Hey MattStafford, when are you going to admit you lied when you claimed to have earned a degree in economics?


Maybe he got a GED.
 
2013-03-20 01:03:30 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?


Old people buying things is not a one-time event. It is continuous and if you don't think buying shiat helps the economy, every business in existence would like a word with you.
 
2013-03-20 01:03:33 PM  

MattStafford: I have said repeatedly that borrowing money for R+D purposes is potentially good for the economy.


And building infrastructure,

or creating new markets
 
2013-03-20 01:03:48 PM  
oh fark, look, it's a matt stafford circle jerk thread.

/run away
 
2013-03-20 01:03:57 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: 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.


Listen, monkeys on pogosticks is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not some ape throwing fish at coconuts .

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-20 01:04:24 PM  
Medicare faces two issues:

The fraud inherent to a system that spends $ Billions with NO questions asked about whether the goods are delivered or needed.  No oversight whatsoever.  Think about that for a second.

It's also a system in which the couple who earns 12,000 per year in SS payments pays the same premium as the couple with $12 Million in assets, and retirement income of $163,000 per year.

We're so afraid of someone calling us "Socialists" that we refuse to act to fix something that virtually everyone in the nation agrees should be fixed.
 
2013-03-20 01:04:55 PM  
This Stafford fellow cannot be for real.
 
2013-03-20 01:05:21 PM  

MattStafford: qorkfiend: 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.

So are you agreeing that the economy would be better off?  What if I printed 20 trillion dollars, and hired every single working age person in America to produce goods for me?  Would the economy be better off then?


If every single working age person in America was being regularly paid for work it would be spectacular for the economy.
 
2013-03-20 01:05:27 PM  
Punish the poor! The bankers need more!
 
2013-03-20 01:07:01 PM  
We can and will soak the rich eventually. They'll still be rich when all is said and done.
 
2013-03-20 01:07:42 PM  
Alright, look guys - I'll try to make this as simple as possible:

Imagine the recipients of Medicare and Social Security as one collective entity.  They receive a great deal of borrowed money every year that they use to spend on goods and services.  People in this thread are claiming that this is good for the economy.

Suppose instead of that one collective entity, it was just me receiving that money.  If the US government borrowed the same amount of money every year, and just gave it to me, would that still be good for the economy?

And if you do think that that is good for the economy, let me ask some follow up questions.

When the government has to pay back those loans, where will they get the tax money from?  Me, or the rest of the economy?

If the government can no longer afford to borrow, what will they do?  Print the money?  You are suggesting that the government printing large quantities of money, giving that money to me, and having me buy goods with it will help the economy?  Stop giving me money?  They still need to raise taxes (again, not on me) and what will happen to all the jobs and businesses I support with my consumption?
 
2013-03-20 01:09:28 PM  
$3 back for every $1 paid in? That's pretty good. If you really want to be disgusted, try calculating the value (with interest) of your payments for home insurance over the lifetime of your house.
 
2013-03-20 01:09:39 PM  

MattStafford: Alright, look guys - I'll try to make this as simple as possible:



"To make a long story shor.."

"TOO LATE!"
 
2013-03-20 01:09:49 PM  

qorkfiend: Are you seriously asking whether injecting $2 trillion into the economy is a good thing?


Yeah, I am.  Why not inject 100 trillion into the economy?  And if injecting 100 trillion into the economy is a bad thing, and injecting 2 trillion into the economy is a good thing, why is that?  Where is the inflection point that changes it from good to bad?  What causes that inflection point to happen?
 
2013-03-20 01:09:52 PM  

MattStafford: Imagine the recipients of Medicare and Social Security as one collective entity


But they aren't one collective entity.....
 
2013-03-20 01:10:03 PM  

MattStafford: Suppose instead of that one collective entity, it was just me receiving that money.  If the US government borrowed the same amount of money every year, and just gave it to me, would that still be good for the economy?


You couldn't possibly spend the same amount that they do. Your little thought experiment is retarded. You are retarded. Fark off, RON PAUL tardnomics troll.

MattStafford: And if you do think that that is good for the economy, let me ask some follow up questions.


We're all out of potatoes.
 
2013-03-20 01:10:31 PM  
 

MattStafford: Alright, look guys - I'll try to make this as simple as possible:

Imagine the recipients of Medicare and Social Security as one collective entity.  They receive a great deal of borrowed money every year that they use to spend on goods and services.  People in this thread are claiming that this is good for the economy.

Suppose instead of that one collective entity, it was just me receiving that money.  If the US government borrowed the same amount of money every year, and just gave it to me, would that still be good for the economy?

And if you do think that that is good for the economy, let me ask some follow up questions.

When the government has to pay back those loans, where will they get the tax money from?  Me, or the rest of the economy?

If the government can no longer afford to borrow, what will they do?  Print the money?  You are suggesting that the government printing large quantities of money, giving that money to me, and having me buy goods with it will help the economy?  Stop giving me money?  They still need to raise taxes (again, not on me) and what will happen to all the jobs and businesses I support with my consumption?


When are you going to admit you lied when you claimed to have earned a degree in economics?
 
2013-03-20 01:11:04 PM  

MattStafford: qorkfiend: 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.

So are you agreeing that the economy would be better off?  What if I printed 20 trillion dollars, and hired every single working age person in America to produce goods for me?  Would the economy be better off then?


Is this stupid analogy time?
 
2013-03-20 01:11:05 PM  

FarkedOver: MattStafford: Imagine the recipients of Medicare and Social Security as one collective entity

But they aren't one collective entity.....


No no, see you have to imagine it - because his problem is imaginary.
 
2013-03-20 01:11:07 PM  

MattStafford: Alright, look guys - I'll try to make this as simple as possible:

Imagine the recipients of Medicare and Social Security as one collective entity.  They receive a great deal of borrowed money every year that they use to spend on goods and services.  People in this thread are claiming that this is good for the economy.

Suppose instead of that one collective entity, it was just me receiving that money.  If the US government borrowed the same amount of money every year, and just gave it to me, would that still be good for the economy?

And if you do think that that is good for the economy, let me ask some follow up questions.

When the government has to pay back those loans, where will they get the tax money from?  Me, or the rest of the economy?

If the government can no longer afford to borrow, what will they do?  Print the money?  You are suggesting that the government printing large quantities of money, giving that money to me, and having me buy goods with it will help the economy?  Stop giving me money?  They still need to raise taxes (again, not on me) and what will happen to all the jobs and businesses I support with my consumption?


Stop asking the same questions over and over which have been answered in many other threads.
 
2013-03-20 01:11:17 PM  

MattStafford: Suppose instead of that one collective entity, it was just me receiving that money.


So completely change the crux of the argument.

You can't run a nation from a spreadsheet, get over it.
 
2013-03-20 01:11:32 PM  

MattStafford: If you replace me with a bunch of seniors, would it be good for the economy then?


YES.
 
2013-03-20 01:12:01 PM  

qorkfiend: MattStafford: qorkfiend: 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.

So are you agreeing that the economy would be better off? What if I printed 20 trillion dollars, and hired every single working age person in America to produce goods for me? Would the economy be better off then?

If every single working age person in America was being regularly paid for work it would be spectacular for the economy.


This is a joke.  What the fark are they going to buy with their money?  I'm employing literally every able bodied person in America to produce goods for me to consume!  They won't have anything to purchase!  What good is the money going to do for them?
 
2013-03-20 01:12:04 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?


Are you really that dumb, or are you just screwing with us?
 
2013-03-20 01:12:54 PM  

farm3.static.flickr.com
MattStafford (artist's conception)

 
2013-03-20 01:12:58 PM  

Epoch_Zero: FarkedOver: MattStafford: Imagine the recipients of Medicare and Social Security as one collective entity

But they aren't one collective entity.....

No no, see you have to imagine it - because his problem is imaginary.


Ohhhh so i have to suspend my belief in reality and check my brain out and travel the potato brick road to tardville to understand this economic principle he has..... sounds like fun. I am going to need some acid and airplane glue for this journey.
 
2013-03-20 01:13:30 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 people keep biting.  Want to shut him up?  Stop responding to him.
 
2013-03-20 01:13:46 PM  

FarkedOver: MattStafford: Imagine the recipients of Medicare and Social Security as one collective entity

But they aren't one collective entity.....


Why would the effect on the economy be different if it was one person spending the money as opposed to one thousand people?  The same amount of money is injected into the economy.
 
2013-03-20 01:13:53 PM  
Look guys, here it is in a nutshell. If you don't believe Medicare is bad then imagine all that money being stuffed into an eggplant and shoved up a giraffe's ass. Do you think that's good for the economy?
 
2013-03-20 01:14:16 PM  

Rapmaster2000: If this headline was a person, it would corner you in a bar and rant about how the judge gave all of its money to its ex-wife.


It took me a couple of years to get the ranting under control.   But that farkin' judge did give all my money to my ex-wife.

/  Sleepin' in my car
//  She's in Vegas
/// Single payer
 
Displayed 50 of 754 comments


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


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