WhyteRaven74: And if incomes weren't stagnant for 30 years this wouldn't be a problem,
that bosnian sniper: The unemployed left looking for jobs elsewhere. Clearly, it a resounding success.
fickenchucker: What a bunch of poop-flinging idiots FARK has devolved into. The constant denial that spending is way higher than it should be is astounding.
HeadLever: MFK: I find it interesting that not a one of you republicans is willing to point to which loopholes are going to magically reduce the deficit.Here is a good start. Add in the ethanol tax breaks, and we will start saving billions right now.
MFK: This is not an arguement against closing those loopholes.
Hastor: Ah, the magic 'revenue-neutral' tax cuts.
MFK: It takes a while but after you get them going they'll confess that the 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting but the "right to kill US cops and soldiers."
HeadLever: With that type of economic growth, it shouldn't be too hard to find those jobs, should it?
Dusk-You-n-Me: HeadLever: Not sure why you think that we should make it worse with more spending and more debt.Because the debt isn't our biggest problem. It's not even in the top five. A balanced budget is the result of a robust economy, not the cause. Fix the persistent high unemployment problem, you'll fix revenues, you'll fix the deficit and the debt. Not the other way around.
that bosnian sniper: HeadLever: Really? If that is what you consider as fact, I guess I can write you off as a hack. No need to read any further.The unemployed left looking for jobs elsewhere. Clearly, it a resounding success.
IlGreven: ...the problem here is, unemployment is not the only problem here. It's not just how many jobs there are, it's how many well-paying jobs there are. And minimum wage jobs and $10-hr jobs requiring a four-year degree are not well-paying jobs.
HeadLever: MFK: This is not an arguement against closing those loopholes.Of course it is not. Is is an argument FOR closing these loopholes. I agree they are foolish.But this is a drop in the bucket and is not the "closing loopholes" that the national GOP is floating.I like how you moved the goalpost from "NOT ONE REPUBLICAN" to now 'NATIONAL GOP'.In order to close that big a gap, the only possible way is to get rid of the mortgage deduction and the child credit.No, it is not the only way. You can reduce them or implement Feldstien's Plan. but in order to "close loopholes without raising new revenues" you're going to have to hit the middle class and this is the very thing that you're avoiding talking about until it's too late.Not sure what you are getting at here. Closing loopholes will generally raise revenues. If you wanted to close loopholes without raising revenue, you would have to give this money back in some sort of tax break. If you hit the middle class with a tax break, I don't think the middle class would mind one bit. I certainly don't see the republicans needing to avoid this.
that bosnian sniper: I guess this guy's a hack, too, huh?
MFK: That's not what I was saying and you know it.
MFK: I said "new revenues" as in the form of raising taxes particularly on those who have taken advantage of the system while the rest of us suffer.
HeadLever: Nope, there is nothing mutually exclusive with generallized austerity and growth stimulating policies.
HeadLever: that bosnian sniper: I guess this guy's a hack, too, huh?Nope, there is nothing mutually exclusive with generallized austerity and growth stimulating policies.You mean the "growth" that still pegs the Latvian GDP as 85% of its pre-crisis level?Sure. During these times, there are countries that would kill to have 85% of its Pre-Crisis GDP growth. We are currently about 50%.
jst3p: MFK: That's not what I was saying and you know it.Either he is too ignorant to understand what you said (it was pretty clear) or he is being intentionally dishonest. In either case I don't know why you bother responding to him, it isn't like he is putting forward interesting and insightful arguments.
that bosnian sniper: not talking about growth, I'm talking about total GDP. US GDP is 105.5% of its peak pre-crisis level ($14.21T in 2008 compared to $14.99T in 2011).
Gecko Gingrich: If I recall my Solomonic fables, the GOP would be the one's who rolled over on their baby and killed it. "Obama" would be the one who will say, "Don't cut it in half!" right at the last second.
HeadLever: Ah, gotcha. Sorry about the misunderstanding. You are correct here, but with the high growth rates, it will likely not take them very long to make that back up.
HotWingConspiracy: fickenchucker: HotWingConspiracy: fickenchucker: What a bunch of poop-flinging idiots FARK has devolved into. The constant denial that spending is way higher than it should be is astounding.You sound smart, how much should we really be spending?Even with the sarcasm, I'll answer it. Spending should be on par with revenues, or a few percent less to chip away at the bloated debt.Now let us know everything you're going to cut.
DamnYankees: I don't understand why such stupidity gets national press. I really don't.
Car_Ramrod: By Charles KrauthammerLOL NO.
Saborlas: Because we're totes not suffering due to insanely low tax rates already.
that bosnian sniper: HeadLever: Teufelaffe: OK, now find us that pretty graph sourced directly from the CBO instead of pulled from some economic doom and gloom blog.here you go PDF WARNINGThat's from 2009, and the GAO. Just sayin'.
that bosnian sniper: Of course, digging deeper into this, Latvia also employed a mixed regimeof targeted opposed to blanket austerity measures, and at the same time employed targeted stimulus. And, they've since ceased using austerity and moved into stimulus as part of a more encompassing, phased economic recovery plan.
HeadLever: It makes it easier to re-institute these types of activities
Ablejack: This is the point where this idiot begins! I think a basic problem is a disagreement about the definition of the word "entitlement". It seems that for liberals, entitlements are things to which you are entitled. Conservatives (it seems) tend to think entitlements are that to which you are not entitled.
cameroncrazy1984: They reinstituted the stimulus when the austerity didn't work.
lordluzr: empirical evidence, please.
HeadLever: cameroncrazy1984: They reinstituted the stimulus when the austerity didn't work.lol, not according to Krugman. That talking point only came out as it did start to work. Had to cover your arse, I guess.
cameroncrazy1984: Show me where.
HeadLever: cameroncrazy1984: Show me where.From 8 months ago:The bottom line is that while Latvia's willingness to endure extreme austerity is politically impressive, its economic data don't support any of the claims being made about its economic lessons.Not only austerity, but EXTREME AUSTERITY! I'll give you an E for effort on the No True Scotsmen deflection though.lol.
Rann Xerox: By Charles Krauthammer*CLOSES LINK*
HeadLever: That is true because their deficits have been reduced to about 1.5% of GDP and their and debt level is only about 50% of GDP. It makes it easier to re-institute these types of activities
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Jun 28 2017 16:34:15
Runtime: 0.345 sec (344 ms)