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 76
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-03-20 11:49:28 AM
6 votes:

Car_Ramrod: Steuerle said that he was not trying to single out Medicare, but was trying to focus on both Social Security and Medicare. "I think we would probably engage in a better reform if we tried to reform both systems at the same time," he said in an e-mail.

But, if Medicare is the one with the problem, why does the other need reform?


Because they don't care about reform. They care about the government not providing these services. That's the goal.
2013-03-20 11:49:22 AM
6 votes:

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?
2013-03-20 11:48:10 AM
6 votes:
Wow, subs, were you able to finish while writing that headline?

Anyways:

Steuerle said that he was not trying to single out Medicare, but was trying to focus on both Social Security and Medicare. "I think we would probably engage in a better reform if we tried to reform both systems at the same time," he said in an e-mail.

But, if Medicare is the one with the problem, why does the other need reform? And why isn't it noted that the ratio has dropped from 7:1 for a 65 year old in 1960 to 3:1 in 2030? And does he realize you don't actually get that money when they pay for your services? Maybe services are too damned expensive. But that's crazy talk. I'm sure the answer is to cut off the poor people.
2013-03-20 12:56:26 PM
4 votes:

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 12:28:03 PM
4 votes:

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?


Ever heard of the boy who cried wolf?  Well, that's WaPo, Fox News, and the whole right-wing derposphere at this point.  If people make a point of not reading their stuff, it's only because they already know that what they're going to read is pure, unadulterated bullshiat.
2013-03-20 12:03:56 PM
4 votes:

Dusk-You-n-Me: mrshowrules: You should eliminate the age requirements.

Medicare for all would be fine by me.


We should.

s3.amazonaws.com
2013-03-20 11:58:28 AM
4 votes:

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?


Obviously you don't understand how ad revenue works.
2013-03-20 01:22:22 PM
3 votes:

MattStafford: 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?


Wait a second, so in this example, you are the government (since you're printing money), but everyone else (non-government), is making goods that only you, the government can use. So you're paying these people (with the money you borrowed), though paying them doesn't really mean anything since there's nothing left for them to consume?  And this example is supposed to prove what point?

For a while I really thought you were someone who just had a different view than most posters here, and while I didn't agree, I'd at least read what you have to say. But this thread has shown me you really are purposely misconstruing points just to have people engage in hypothetical debates that have no basis in reality. You're officially going on the Ignore list, and I hope others do the same, so that future posts aren't ruined.
2013-03-20 12:48:27 PM
3 votes:

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 12:32:47 PM
3 votes:
Yeah, that's how insurance works.

When you need it, you pull more out than you ever put in.

You also make it worse when the only people drawing out are the highest risk pool around.

Medicare is a great deal for insurance companies.  They get to pass off the customers that cost them the most money to the feds, while reaping the profits of carrying only low risk customers that (individually) pay them thousands and thousands of dollars every year while only going to the doctor once, if at all during that year.
2013-03-20 12:32:06 PM
3 votes:

skullkrusher: isn't the point of Medicare to give people more than they pay for?


I thought that was usually how insurance worked, yeah.
2013-03-20 11:53:23 AM
3 votes:
"sick" (sic) = sic.
2013-03-20 11:42:23 AM
3 votes:
We should be expanding the medicare age lower. We should also increase SS benefits. Cuts are not, contrary to what the Very Serious People in Washington and in the media say, necessary.
2013-03-20 11:33:49 AM
3 votes:
Sorry subs. Washington Post is on my no-clicky list. Nice try though.
2013-03-20 05:53:48 PM
2 votes:

MattStafford: I get so many responses because I'm right. You can also tell by the fact that the vast majority of posts are simply making fun of me as opposed to actually answering the questions I'm bringing up.


When you attempt to equivocate a multi-trillion dollar national economy of a population of over 300 million people with a purely fictional 'economy' involving 2 or 3 people and 2 or 3 products, you deserve to be mocked mercilessly. You're questions literally have no bearing on what is happening in the real world. You admit that government hiring workers creates demand that will result in increased demand leading to the hiring of more unemployed people to meet that demand, yet somehow think that those other newly employed people will not also create further demand of their own that also must be met by the hiring of additional new workers without explaining how or why demand leads to new jobs in one case, but not the other. You seem completely unwilling to acknowledge the idea of a phased end of stimulative measures to minimize the negative impact of removing government stimulus to ensure that the economy is self-sustaining.  In addition, you said that more people working leading to more tax receipts doesn't make much sense. For goodness sakes, that is basic mathematics. You deserve every bit of mocking you have received and more.

/coconuts
2013-03-20 01:50:31 PM
2 votes:

MattStafford: skullkrusher: it would, actually. That injection of cash would stimulate demand which in turn stimulates more demand. The inflationary impact, if any, would not be immediately apparent. That's why it works to stimulate the economy out of recession but is not a good idea as a matter of continuing policy

It would help it in the short term, I agree.  It would actively hurt it in the long term, however.

I print up currency and hire a bunch of people to dig ditches and fill them back in.  They go out and use that currency to buy goods and services.  Demand picks up, production picks up, the economy is booming.

I stop printing money, and fire all of the ditch diggers.  They stop consuming.  Demand drops.  Production drops.  You return to the status quo, except you suffer the huge opportunity cost of all of those people digging ditches when they could have been doing something else.


Actually you've managed to show why wealth concentration amongst a tiny elite is a bad idea. Nobody has proposed this except for the GOP "job creator" mythology which you seem to adhere to.
2013-03-20 01:41:40 PM
2 votes:

MattStafford: LoneWolf343: That's because if you printed up several trillion dollars, they would be counterfeit.

How is it different if the government printed them up?  If the government printed them and gave them to me, would the economics change at all?


Considering the value of the dollar has not degraded in direct proportion to the amount of new money supply, observable reality shows that printing REAL currency clearly has a different result than printing counterfeit currency. The reasons are complex and that is why your attempts to reduce the largest economy in the world down to two people continue to show an entirely juvenile view of economics.

/coconuts
2013-03-20 01:28:28 PM
2 votes:

sharpness: MattStafford: 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?

Wait a second, so in this example, you are the government (since you're printing money), but everyone else (non-government), is making goods that only you, the government can use. So you're paying these people (with the money you borrowed), though paying them doesn't really mean anything since there's nothing left for them to consume?  And this example is supposed to prove what point?

For a while I really thought you were someone who just had a different view than most posters here, and while I didn't agree, I'd at least read what you have to say. But this thread has shown me you really are purposely misconstruing points just to have people engage in hypothetical debates that have no basis in reality. You're officially going on the Ignore list, and I hope others do the same, so that future posts aren't ruined.


Agreed 100%.  Up until this post, I thought he just had a unique viewpoint or maybe a fundamental misunderstanding of a core principal of macroeconomics.  Now, though, I can clearly see he's just A) developmentally delayed or B) an incredibly successful Troll.
2013-03-20 12:59:04 PM
2 votes:
Another thread gone to hell.
2013-03-20 12:58:09 PM
2 votes:

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 12:57:39 PM
2 votes:

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 12:50:49 PM
2 votes:

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 12:33:41 PM
2 votes:

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.
2013-03-20 12:01:36 PM
2 votes:

mrshowrules: You should eliminate the age requirements.


Medicare for all would be fine by me.
2013-03-20 11:39:55 AM
2 votes:
imagemacros.files.wordpress.com


///Wait until subtard finds out about private health insurance
2013-03-20 10:30:25 PM
1 votes:
As  long as the private sector proves itself to be unwilling to provide the kind of social safety net its workers need,  government is going to continue to step in with "unsustainable*"  programs like Medicare and Social Security.

*but why you mad, Teabaggers?
2013-03-20 07:52:56 PM
1 votes:
Who wakes up in the morning and says "I'm going to be an economics troll."?
2013-03-20 05:15:29 PM
1 votes:

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?


Why would I click on a link to a site with a well-trod history of half-truths, flat-out lies and completely biased reporting? Or to put it another way:

sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
2013-03-20 04:29:16 PM
1 votes:

NateGrey: Why aren't you addressing his issues instead of pushing him off?


because I've addressed it a number of times, directly to him, in this very thread. From now on, when you're about to say something thinking it's cutting and witty you should probably just avoid saying it because it's probably neither.
2013-03-20 03:26:37 PM
1 votes:

MattStafford: DarwiOdrade: The same thing car manufacturers get from selling to their employees now - greater market share among other things that aren't addressed by your oversimplified analogy.

I assure you, if the entirety of car manufacturers demand came from their employees, they wouldn't exist.


And yet they do exist. It's as if there is demand for cars beyond the employees of the car company. Maybe the shoemaker has people besides government employed ditch diggers buying their shoes.
2013-03-20 03:22:19 PM
1 votes:

MattStafford: DarwiOdrade: The same thing car manufacturers get from selling to their employees now - greater market share among other things that aren't addressed by your oversimplified analogy.

I assure you, if the entirety of car manufacturers demand came from their employees, they wouldn't exist.


I assure you, this is part of what makes your analogy fail. Monopsony and monopoly exists but you can't build macroeconomic theories on them.
2013-03-20 03:10:11 PM
1 votes:

James F. Campbell: TheMysticS

If one of the brighter mods is working, your post will probably disappear. See, it's OK for the right-wingers to troll us, but pointing out the hypocrisy is "trolling" him.


Shhh...

I might even get a time out. But this is not the one. So, who knows?
Brighter?
Nah, really just less stuck up. Or afraid the illusion will shatter.
2013-03-20 02:52:00 PM
1 votes:

MattStafford: So if there was a down and out town, and the government put a military base there, would you expect that town to grow to the point where removing the military base would not destroy the economy of the town?


See, now thats a better example and incidentally question. Of course the chances are high that it could destroy the town or at least shrink to pre base levels economically unless that is some other cottage industry planted roots while the base was there and established itself in which case the blow would be softend.

But I fail to see what point you are trying to make here, are you comparing social security as a direct comparison to military spending? Because that's just being purposely obtuse on the benefits of not having Grandma eat cat food.
2013-03-20 02:35:04 PM
1 votes:

NeverDrunk23: Sounds like someone moved from a GED in law to a GED in economics. Switch the names and the post style match up.


El-oh-el, chip.
2013-03-20 02:29:45 PM
1 votes:

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


Doesn't he have a GED in economics?

MattStafford: MattStafford prints one trillion new dollars, and buys goods from everyone else.


Look, I don't have a GED in economics, but I understand that the concept of money is to allow for transactions between inherently dissimilar goods/services.  How much of my time setting up routers is worth the number of chickens you want to give me?  Beats the hell out of me, but I could probably get $100/billable hour for my services for a small business.  As a teacher, I can get $60 per billable hour.  I then take those dollars and buy chickens from the supermarket, which have value added because they are killed, cleaned feathered and chopped up, all of which I don't have to do.

Now, the amount of money available in an economy needs to be roughly equivalent to the agreed upon worth of all the goods and services available in that economy.  So, when you rant about "printing money", you clearly don't understand why money gets printed, how much should be printed or what the consequences should be for printing too much or not enough money.

So take your Ron Paul rants to people who are as gormless as you are, and you will be hailed as a really smrt person.
2013-03-20 02:00:45 PM
1 votes:
Honestly? I don't have a problem if Medicare isn't self-sustaining, just like I don't give two shiats if the Post Office operates at a loss. That's the point.

Government does these things because the private sector can't. I would much rather go bankrupt as a country funding healthcare for our most in need instead of going bankrupt bombing and dieing in some shiat hole in the Middle East.
2013-03-20 01:55:28 PM
1 votes:

MattStafford: And what about the taxes to pay for that jobs program? How does that affect the feedback loop?


24.media.tumblr.com
2013-03-20 01:48:18 PM
1 votes:
MattStafford: Epoch_Zero: MattStafford: Epoch_Zero: MattStafford: There is a town that produces a variety of goods.  They have their own currency.  I print up a ton of currency, go to this town, and buy a bunch of their goods.  I leave the town with these real goods.

The town is better off after this happened.

Keynes, baby.

[i0.kym-cdn.com image 191x177]
BUT IT WORKS IN MY MIIIIIND! WAAHH
AGREE WITH ME!!
PLEAAAASE!

Isn't that what people are arguing?  Injecting currency into an economy makes it stronger?  Does it not work in this example?

Yes, due to you trying to troll by claiming it doesn't - yes it does - and no.

Also, not actually an example.

Why does it not work in that example? Why would me injecting money into that economy not work?  What makes it different from monetary injections that do work?


It seems like this is something a person would learn while taking economics class in pursuit of an economics degree.

When are you going to admit you lied when you claimed to have earned a degree in economics?
2013-03-20 01:32:45 PM
1 votes:

MattStafford: Job Creator: Just wanted to point this out. Buying stuff doesn't help the economy. Got it.

/please be a troll, don't tell me you believe this

Maybe this is difficult for you to understand.  If I printed up several trillion dollars, and bought a whole ton of shiat, it would not help the economy.  If you think otherwise, you're completely brainwashed.


That's because if you printed up several trillion dollars, they would be counterfeit.
2013-03-20 01:32:26 PM
1 votes:
Reading this "discussion" is like watching a monkey fark a football. Ultimately pointless, a little funny, and at least someone is having a good time.
2013-03-20 01:24:01 PM
1 votes:

skullkrusher: 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.


Ok, nevermind then.

It seems to me the most pragmatic solution is to expand Medicare to everyone.
2013-03-20 01:22:11 PM
1 votes:
Look, you guys just aren't understanding: Conceptualize the economy as a frictionless sphere of constant density. On this sphere there are two potatoes, one of whom has all of the coconuts and the other has all of the gravity. Now, if the gravity potato trades all of his gravity to the coconut potato, but the coconut potato only has X-1 coconuts, the gravity potato AND the coconut potato will float away, and the sphere will collapse into a black hole.

DO YOU GET IT NOW, LIIIIBS?
2013-03-20 01:21:33 PM
1 votes:
Man you all are easy to troll
2013-03-20 01:21:28 PM
1 votes:

MattStafford: m00: MattStafford: What the fark are they going to buy with their money?

crap made in China?

Why would people in China accept dollars?  They have nothing to spend it on either!


When are you going to admit you lied when you claimed to have earned a degree in economics?
2013-03-20 01:18:17 PM
1 votes:
i.imgur.com
2013-03-20 01:18:16 PM
1 votes:

MattStafford: Conceptualize the economy as two entities - Me, MattStafford, and every other actor in the economy.

Start:  MattStafford has X goods and Y dollars.  Everyone else has A goods and Y dollars.

MattStafford prints one trillion new dollars, and buys goods from everyone else.

End:  MattStafford has X goods + 1 trillion dollars more worth of goods and Y dollars.  Everyone else has A goods - 1 trillion dollars worth of goods, and Y + 1 trillion dollars.

Are you actually suggesting that the rest of the economy benefited from that transaction?


When are you going to admit you lied when you claimed to have earned a degree in economics?
2013-03-20 01:14:54 PM
1 votes:

MattStafford: 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?


When are you going to admit you lied when you claimed to have earned a degree in economics?
2013-03-20 01:13:30 PM
1 votes:

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 01:11:04 PM
1 votes:

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 01:10:03 PM
1 votes:

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 01:05:21 PM
1 votes:

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 01:04:55 PM
1 votes:
This Stafford fellow cannot be for real.
2013-03-20 01:00:28 PM
1 votes:
MattStafford, the economic troll..
2013-03-20 12:59:42 PM
1 votes:

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 12:58:44 PM
1 votes:
$10 trillion buys a lot of coconuts
2013-03-20 12:57:03 PM
1 votes:

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 12:53:38 PM
1 votes:

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 12:53:18 PM
1 votes:

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 12:53:01 PM
1 votes:

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 12:52:13 PM
1 votes:

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 12:51:05 PM
1 votes:

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 12:49:07 PM
1 votes:

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 12:47:01 PM
1 votes:

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 12:46:11 PM
1 votes:

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 12:44:24 PM
1 votes:

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 12:43:51 PM
1 votes:

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?


You're right. We should let all those people that spent the last 40 years putting into Medicare die in the streets. I liked your idea better the first time I read about it, when it was called "Animal Farm."
2013-03-20 12:42:13 PM
1 votes:

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?
2013-03-20 12:39:33 PM
1 votes:
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!
2013-03-20 12:38:22 PM
1 votes:

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


That's about the equivalent of putting the NYT on your no fly list...
2013-03-20 12:36:30 PM
1 votes:

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.
2013-03-20 12:36:08 PM
1 votes:
In college I noticed that out of all the people majoring in the sciences, the pre-med majors were the greedy f*cks.
2013-03-20 12:29:22 PM
1 votes:
I hope rich people understand that we poor do out number them.
2013-03-20 12:27:25 PM
1 votes:
isn't the point of Medicare to give people more than they pay for?
2013-03-20 12:22:22 PM
1 votes:
So yeah, we should totally abandon Medicare and let old people die. Well...old people that can't afford to pay for their treatments die. We are a Christian Nation, after all. Everybody knows how much Jesus hated sick people.
2013-03-20 12:07:16 PM
1 votes:
Obamacare includes reforms of Medicare that are already working to reduce spending per beneficiary: http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2013/medicarespendinggrowth/ib.cfm   The Teahadists have limited time to get the Derp in before the savings become obvious even to the willfully ignorant.

Who am I kidding? Facts don't matter to the Fox crowd
2013-03-20 11:59:37 AM
1 votes:

Dusk-You-n-Me: We should be expanding the medicare age lower. We should also increase SS benefits. Cuts are not, contrary to what the Very Serious People in Washington and in the media say, necessary.


You should eliminate the age requirements.
 
Displayed 76 of 76 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report