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.

(Politico)   The sequester indicates that we need *real* long-term budget cuts instead of across-the-board slices of "FREEDOMS"   (politico.com) divider line 201
    More: Interesting, austerity measures, political freedom, Head Start, reductions  
•       •       •

1900 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 May 2013 at 8:16 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-13 08:16:48 AM
No it doesn't
 
2013-05-13 08:17:11 AM

CPennypacker: No it doesn't


Yes it does.
 
2013-05-13 08:19:23 AM

YodaBlues: CPennypacker: No it doesn't

Yes it does.


I don't know.
 
2013-05-13 08:22:16 AM

Vodka Zombie: YodaBlues: CPennypacker: No it doesn't

Yes it does.

I don't know.


Third base!
 
2013-05-13 08:22:39 AM
Social Security is just fine, all we need to do is remove the FICA cap on all income over $500k a year.

Medicare would be in better shape if we simply let them negotiate bulk drug purchases, like sane governments do around the world.

You want cuts?  The defense budget is completely out of control.  Let's cut the crap out of that.
 
2013-05-13 08:22:41 AM

CPennypacker: No it doesn't


we do need real, meaningful cuts that can do the least amount of damage to the actual government. Defense spending is one, but cutting personal, R&D and projects the DoD actually wants and needs is not something that needs to be cut. The crap that Congress insists upon is what needs cutting
 
2013-05-13 08:23:04 AM
who is on first
 
2013-05-13 08:23:07 AM
The military budget is where you could cut the most without affecting the department operation.  But it won't be cut.
 
2013-05-13 08:23:35 AM
Are the slices thin crust or thick crust? I need to know before I can answer.
 
2013-05-13 08:26:24 AM

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Vodka Zombie: YodaBlues: CPennypacker: No it doesn't

Yes it does.

I don't know.

Third base!


I don't give a darn!
 
2013-05-13 08:26:32 AM

EvilEgg: The military budget is where you could cut the most without affecting the department operation.  But it won't be cut.


But we need that tank plant in Lima, Ohio to continue manufacturing freedom machines!  So what if the Pentagon says they have enough, tank you very much, what do they know?

You think your fancy 0bamadr0nes are going to put a dent in a crazed bloodthirsty mob of a billion screaming Chinamen?
 
2013-05-13 08:27:22 AM

Tom_Slick: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Vodka Zombie: YodaBlues: CPennypacker: No it doesn't

Yes it does.

I don't know.

Third base!

I don't give a darn!


I don't like spam!
 
2013-05-13 08:28:27 AM
how about cutting out some of those tax loopholes and overseas tax havens that the wealthy enjoy so much?  how about cutting out the outsourcing of american jobs to commie china for cheap labor.  how about regulating Wall Street before we get another stunt like we did in 08/09.

yea, that's what i thought.   welcome to your new Plutocratic Nation.

morons.
 
2013-05-13 08:28:34 AM

Marcus Aurelius: Social Security is just fine, all we need to do is remove the FICA cap on all income over $500k a year.

Medicare would be in better shape if we simply let them negotiate bulk drug purchases, like sane governments do around the world.

You want cuts?  The defense budget is completely out of control.  Let's cut the crap out of that.


Yeah, we basically need to get rid of the GOP. They aren't helping.
 
2013-05-13 08:28:41 AM

somedude210: CPennypacker: No it doesn't

we do need real, meaningful cuts that can do the least amount of damage to the actual government. Defense spending is one, but cutting personal, R&D and projects the DoD actually wants and needs is not something that needs to be cut. The crap that Congress insists upon is what needs cutting


Yep, hell you could give the DoD pretty much a single line item budget with no strings attached and cut 20%, and DoD would be ecstatically happy.
 
2013-05-13 08:28:53 AM
His only detail is to defer to the Bowles-Simpson plan, which features:

1. Lower tax rates (while promising to reduce "tax breaks"--this means you, home mortgage holder. Corporations making huge campaign donations? I'm sure we wouldn't pass their fat tax breaks over, right?  Energy, agribusiness, big pharma, telecom, all will feel the bite, right?)
2. Less taxation of corporate income earned abroad
3. Cap (not cut) defense spending growth at the inflation rate. No cuts in defense spending.
4. Actual cuts to Medicare spending
5. Chained CPI for SS

So when you look at it, what it really seems to say is, "Cut taxes for the wealthy, keep defense spending where it is, cap or cut benefits for retirees"

Yeah that'll fly.
 
2013-05-13 08:30:14 AM
Yeah, except for that whole part where the link between austerity and economic growth was based on cherry picked data and an Excel error.

But other than that, austerity totally works. Look at Europe!
 
2013-05-13 08:31:04 AM
and WHATEVER you do, don't touch the Penisgon budget.  they have "Freedom" to protect.

the Freedom for the wealthy and Big Business to continue owning our Government and exploiting overseas 'resources' in other Nations.  the Freedom to keep Democracy from 'getting out'.


ain't Crony Capitalism a treat!
 
2013-05-13 08:32:56 AM

YodaBlues: Tom_Slick: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Vodka Zombie: YodaBlues: CPennypacker: No it doesn't

Yes it does.

I don't know.

Third base!

I don't give a darn!

I don't like spam!


thats our shortstop
 
2013-05-13 08:34:47 AM

MindStalker: Yep, hell you could give the DoD pretty much a single line item budget with no strings attached and cut 20%, and DoD would be ecstatically happy.


yup, and we wouldn't have a bunch of useless shiat.

/man, could I tell you about the mandated waste we create
 
2013-05-13 08:35:06 AM
By ED RENDELL

Of the Fix the Debt scam artists.

These 90 Fix the Debt member firms raked in at least $953 million - and as much as $1.6 billion - from the "performance pay" loophole between 2009-2011. The exact full value of corporate windfalls from this loophole will remain impossible to compute until we have more complete mandated disclosure for executive compensation.

Top executives at these same Fix the Debt companies are aggressively advocating cuts to government programs that benefit the ordinary American taxpayers subsidizing their compensation. Many of these executives have also added to America's debt and deficit by using tax havens and other accounting tricks to have their corporations avoid paying their fair tax share. Link

--

A group of wealthy people representing large corporations are very concerned and Very Serious about the debt, so obviously we have to cut entitlements and programs for the poor. Shared sacrifice and all that (and don't you dare ask about shared prosperity, that would be unAmerican).

npa-us.org
 
2013-05-13 08:37:16 AM
Doesn't the sequester prove America's legislative bodies are where the real problems are?
 
2013-05-13 08:37:18 AM
Tax church assets over a certain amount and remove exemptions for any church that engages in political speech.

End oil subsidies.

Let our allies pay for their own defense.

Stop foreign aid, especially to countries that hate our guts.

Legalize and tax marijuana.
 
2013-05-13 08:39:32 AM
 
2013-05-13 08:45:21 AM

theinsultabot9000: YodaBlues: Tom_Slick: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Vodka Zombie: YodaBlues: CPennypacker: No it doesn't

Yes it does.

I don't know.

Third base!

I don't give a darn!

I don't like spam!

thats our shortstop


That's right. He hit a touchdown yesterday.
 
2013-05-13 08:46:02 AM
We spend about twice as much on defense as we need by any sane metric (whether you measure it in absolute dollars, per capita, a fraction of GDP, or in comparison to any other country or combination of countries).

We spend about 50% more per capita on healthcare and get a worse outcome while covering fewer people compared to any other industrialized country.

After we fix those two things, I'm willing to entertain a conversation about whatever marginal, trivial, politically partisan, agenda-driven "solution" the article's author is proposing.

/Oh wait. No, I'm not.
 
2013-05-13 08:46:35 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: By ED RENDELL

Of the Fix the Debt scam artists.


bears bears bears
 
2013-05-13 08:46:38 AM

hugram: theinsultabot9000: YodaBlues: Tom_Slick: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Vodka Zombie: YodaBlues: CPennypacker: No it doesn't

Yes it does.

I don't know.

Third base!

I don't give a darn!

I don't like spam!

thats our shortstop

That's right. He hit a touchdown yesterday.


Goooooooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaal!!!
 
2013-05-13 08:47:36 AM

Kibbler: His only detail is to defer to the Bowles-Simpson plan, which features:

1. Lower tax rates (while promising to reduce "tax breaks"--this means you, home mortgage holder. Corporations making huge campaign donations? I'm sure we wouldn't pass their fat tax breaks over, right?  Energy, agribusiness, big pharma, telecom, all will feel the bite, right?)
2. Less taxation of corporate income earned abroad


Apparently, government is one of the supposed beneficiaries of trickle-down at a time when it needs a goddamn floodgate.

3. Cap (not cut) defense spending growth at the inflation rate. No cuts in defense spending.

Tying things to inflation is generally a bad idea. We need a new world engagement philosophy before we start cutting defense, but it needs doing.

4. Actual cuts to Medicare spending

Universal health care would fix this.

5. Chained CPI for SS

I am agnostic on chained CPI. One side wants it because it cuts social benefits. The other side hates it because it cuts social benefits. Neither side is really all that interested in whether it's accurate.
 
2013-05-13 08:55:25 AM

czetie: We spend about twice as much on defense as we need by any sane metric (whether you measure it in absolute dollars, per capita, a fraction of GDP, or in comparison to any other country or combination of countries).


As fraction of GDP, we're tied with Russia for second.

But spending isn't really a great way to compare military expenditures, because you can spend a lot less and still have the same number of planes, tanks, and soldiers, if you're willing to forego body armor, safety systems, hi-tech medical facilities, and precision weapons (opting for leveling a city block to get a radio transmitter rather than just the transmitter in a civilian housing area).

We can cut some military spending, but any meaningful cuts requires us to completely reorient what we expect our military to do, not just to say, "do less of the same thing." We need a new philosophy for our place in the world and be prepared for the consequences of a loss of stability.
 
2013-05-13 08:58:19 AM

hugram: theinsultabot9000: YodaBlues: Tom_Slick: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Vodka Zombie: YodaBlues: CPennypacker: No it doesn't

Yes it does.

I don't know.

Third base!

I don't give a darn!

I don't like spam!

thats our shortstop

That's right. He hit a touchdown yesterday.


Yes, I remember. I had lasagna.
 
2013-05-13 09:01:03 AM
On Monday, Lloyd Blankfein, chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs, a Fix the Debt signatory, told CBS News: "[Social Security] wasn't devised to be a system that supported you for a 30-year retirement after a 25-year career ... You're going to have to do something, undoubtedly, to lower people's expectations of what they're going to get, the entitlements, and what people think they're going to get, because you're not going to get it."

Last year, Blankfein earned $16 million. His net worth is $450 million. Link

You hear that Grandma? You'll just have to make due with a cut in your SS because some Very Serious Person with more money than god is very concerned about the debt. He can't possibly be asked to pay a penny more in taxes, so that one check you rely on for everything needs to be less. See, shared sacrifice!
 
2013-05-13 09:01:06 AM
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
 
2013-05-13 09:01:45 AM
I'm thinking of something that rhymes with, "Fax sluts."
 
2013-05-13 09:02:49 AM

Vodka Zombie: hugram: theinsultabot9000: YodaBlues: Tom_Slick: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Vodka Zombie: YodaBlues: CPennypacker: No it doesn't

Yes it does.

I don't know.

Third base!

I don't give a darn!

I don't like spam!

thats our shortstop

That's right. He hit a touchdown yesterday.

Goooooooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaal!!!


Hey, you catch the Lakers game the other night? That Gretzky sure can punt. I love baseball!

/oldie but goodie
 
2013-05-13 09:07:26 AM

winterbraid: Dusk-You-n-Me: By ED RENDELL

Of the Fix the Debt scam artists.

bears bears bears


Isn't this the guy Corbett is worse than?
 
2013-05-13 09:09:40 AM

Marcus Aurelius: You want cuts? The defense budget is completely out of control. Let's cut the crap out of that.


I would be absolutely ok with cutting Medicare as well and redirecting that money to other health initiatives. I'm sorry, but when you're ninety years old you don't need heavy medical intervention with a 50/50 shot of saving you so you might live another year while some six year old kid living in poverty isn't getting some critical operation he needs that will definitely save his life.

Medicare benefits should be capped by age and we should seriously look at cutting back on the procedures that are covered. A half million dollar procedure with a 10% chance of saving the life of a 75 year old is not a good expenditure.

/ death panels are not a bad idea
// which is why insurers already use them
 
2013-05-13 09:10:28 AM
From the article:

The markets must be reassured that the government is willing to control its debt over the long term. Enacting a plan now allows us to gradually phase in changes , allowing Americans time to adjust.


Old people barely getting by on Social Security need to tighten their belts because the "markets" are sensitive and we can't risk hurting their feelings. That this constitutes wisdom from the supposedly "left" side of the aisle tells you all you need to know about why every political negotiation in this country takes place in the small window between "what does Eric Cantor want?" and "what is Glenn Beck frothing about?"
 
2013-05-13 09:11:34 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: On Monday, Lloyd Blankfein, chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs, a Fix the Debt signatory, told CBS News: "[Social Security] wasn't devised to be a system that supported you for a 30-year retirement after a 25-year career ... You're going to have to do something, undoubtedly, to lower people's expectations of what they're going to get, the entitlements, and what people think they're going to get, because you're not going to get it."

Last year, Blankfein earned $16 million. His net worth is $450 million. Link

You hear that Grandma? You'll just have to make due with a cut in your SS because some Very Serious Person with more money than god is very concerned about the debt. He can't possibly be asked to pay a penny more in taxes, so that one check you rely on for everything needs to be less. See, shared sacrifice!


I love how the super rich think social security is an entitlement. I'm pretty sure I'm entitled to get my money back eventually.
 
2013-05-13 09:14:46 AM
Just soak the rich, they're leeches.
 
2013-05-13 09:15:48 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: [i.imgur.com image 800x934]

John Nichols: 'Fix the Debt' Run by Billionaires Who Really Want Lower Taxes


The link I posted above about how we should fix the debt was written by none other than Ed Rendell.
 
2013-05-13 09:16:52 AM

YodaBlues: CPennypacker: No it doesn't

Yes it does.


An argument is an intellectual process, contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes!
 
2013-05-13 09:17:57 AM

heidinoele: I love how the super rich think social security is an entitlement. I'm pretty sure I'm entitled to get my money back eventually.


upload.wikimedia.org

You realize that's never going to happen, right? The baby boomers are called boomers because they were part of a population boom. They're also among the first to benefit from massive advances in medical technology, so not only are there a lot of them, they've living to be older than Noah.

They're going to suck every last penny out of your bank account and then die and you're not going to get shiat back. You're paying to help sustain the largesse of a huge population of selfish people who already took everything there was to take and there isn't anybody coming after you to do the same. They screwed you on SS benefits, they screwed you on housing and land values, they're screwing you on the debt and they screwed you on the environment and employment.

You'll be lucky if they don't kill you to harvest your internal organs to boot.
 
2013-05-13 09:19:17 AM

QueenMamaBee: YodaBlues: CPennypacker: No it doesn't

Yes it does.

An argument is an intellectual process, contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes!


Says you!
 
2013-05-13 09:19:28 AM
Maybe my reading comprehension just sucks, but wtf was the point of this column? I have no idea what the author was trying to say. What does he want us to do about the deficit?
 
2013-05-13 09:21:46 AM

heidinoele: I love how the super rich think social security is an entitlement. I'm pretty sure I'm entitled to get my money back eventually.


It IS an entitlement, just, you know, the ORIGINAL and CORRECT meaning of the word.  An entitlement is something you're entitled to.  Seems pretty simple.  Unfortunately people even simpler than that concept have been snookered into believing that the word means something a spoiled child whines about, and can (should) be withheld, even if the recipient has already paid for it.

The power of neighbor-hate is formidable indeed when it can be used to convince people that they should suffer and give up what they've already paid for, just to be sure that others suffer with them.
 
2013-05-13 09:23:23 AM

GiantRex: Maybe my reading comprehension just sucks, but wtf was the point of this column? I have no idea what the author was trying to say. What does he want us to do about the deficit?


tl;dr version is basically "undo the sequester and enact the Simpson-Bowles plan".
 
2013-05-13 09:26:21 AM

skozlaw: heidinoele: I love how the super rich think social security is an entitlement. I'm pretty sure I'm entitled to get my money back eventually.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 500x377]

You realize that's never going to happen, right? The baby boomers are called boomers because they were part of a population boom. They're also among the first to benefit from massive advances in medical technology, so not only are there a lot of them, they've living to be older than Noah.

They're going to suck every last penny out of your bank account and then die and you're not going to get shiat back. You're paying to help sustain the largesse of a huge population of selfish people who already took everything there was to take and there isn't anybody coming after you to do the same. They screwed you on SS benefits, they screwed you on housing and land values, they're screwing you on the debt and they screwed you on the environment and employment.

You'll be lucky if they don't kill you to harvest your internal organs to boot.


You should try to moderate your "us vs. them" mentality a bit.  I was born in the early 60's.  I've been paying into SS all my life.  I'm in the baby boom generation.  Now they're talking about raising the retirement age, which increases the odds that I'll never collect even a nickel in benefits, and at the very least, they're ensuring that I will collect far less.

To repeat:  Baby boomer.  Paid in all of my life.  Haven't collected a nickel.  May never collect anything.

But I don't think the situation is, "Greedy selfish farks deliberately gamed the system to steal from their grandchildren."

Now, can you give me assurances that, when your generation reaches retirement age, they will only take back exactly what they put in, nothing more?
 
2013-05-13 09:28:21 AM

skozlaw: heidinoele: I love how the super rich think social security is an entitlement. I'm pretty sure I'm entitled to get my money back eventually.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 500x377]

You realize that's never going to happen, right? The baby boomers are called boomers because they were part of a population boom. They're also among the first to benefit from massive advances in medical technology, so not only are there a lot of them, they've living to be older than Noah.

They're going to suck every last penny out of your bank account and then die and you're not going to get shiat back. You're paying to help sustain the largesse of a huge population of selfish people who already took everything there was to take and there isn't anybody coming after you to do the same. They screwed you on SS benefits, they screwed you on housing and land values, they're screwing you on the debt and they screwed you on the environment and employment.

You'll be lucky if they don't kill you to harvest your internal organs to boot.


So...f*ck old people? 'Cause I'm pretty sure I'm going to be old myself some day.
 
2013-05-13 09:28:42 AM

neomunk: heidinoele: I love how the super rich think social security is an entitlement. I'm pretty sure I'm entitled to get my money back eventually.

It IS an entitlement, just, you know, the ORIGINAL and CORRECT meaning of the word.


Good Point.

skozlaw:

You realize that's never going to happen, right? The baby boomers are called boomers because they were part of a population boom. They're also among the first to benefit from massive advances in medical technology, so not only are there a lot of them, they've living to be older than Noah.


That is depressing. The day after Mother's day and now I'm going to have to punch her in the face. I'll wait until Father's Day to punch my dad.
 
Displayed 50 of 201 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report