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.

(BBC)   The IMF says what we already knew: the US Congress is stupid   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 47
    More: Stupid, United States Congress, International Monetary Fund, fiscal adjustment, labour market, austerities, Christine Lagarde  
•       •       •

2936 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Jun 2013 at 6:37 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-06-14 06:40:52 PM  
It's that whole "The People" thing. Have you seen the gene pool we have to select from?
 
2013-06-14 06:42:47 PM  
2.bp.blogspot.com

Would comment, but he has to be absolutely silent...
 
2013-06-14 06:44:32 PM  
"indiscriminate" reductions in education, science and infrastructure spending could reduce potential growth i

What do you mean? It'll take us back to the 1950s which is what the Republicans want.

It's perfect.
 
2013-06-14 06:49:08 PM  

whidbey: What do you mean? It'll take us back to the 1950s which is what the Republicans want.


Unfortunately, the real 1950's.  Not the Andy Griffith/Leave it to Beaver 1950's Republicans so often confuse with reality.
 
2013-06-14 06:54:15 PM  

dookdookdook: whidbey: What do you mean? It'll take us back to the 1950s which is what the Republicans want.

Unfortunately, the real 1950's.  Not the Andy Griffith/Leave it to Beaver 1950's Republicans so often confuse with reality.


Yeah, before that useless Interstate system.
 
2013-06-14 06:56:33 PM  

simplicimus: dookdookdook: whidbey: What do you mean? It'll take us back to the 1950s which is what the Republicans want.

Unfortunately, the real 1950's.  Not the Andy Griffith/Leave it to Beaver 1950's Republicans so often confuse with reality.

Yeah, before that useless Interstate system.


And that Internets fad.
 
2013-06-14 07:04:34 PM  
Oh, the IMF? What, Cliff Claven was unavailable?
 
2013-06-14 07:06:12 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: Oh, the IMF? What, Cliff Claven was unavailable?


He's busy stumping for Allen West

/no, that is not a joke
 
2013-06-14 07:10:14 PM  
static.ddmcdn.com
 
2013-06-14 07:17:52 PM  
tap, tap, tap  GOOGLE, tap, tap, tap  IMF, tap, tap, tap CONGRESS, tap, tap $ . . . . .

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/11/us-usa-imf-funds-idUSBRE93A 0 0S20130411

-sigh-
 
2013-06-14 07:22:18 PM  

Vectron: [static.ddmcdn.com image 400x243]


Call me when it's 200% of GDP, like Japan's.
 
2013-06-14 07:24:41 PM  

Vectron: [static.ddmcdn.com image 400x243]


During the Clinton administration that billboard was taken down. Republicans hate to hear that.
 
2013-06-14 07:26:22 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: tap, tap, tap  GOOGLE, tap, tap, tap  IMF, tap, tap, tap CONGRESS, tap, tap $ . . . . .

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/11/us-usa-imf-funds-idUSBRE93A 0 0S20130411

-sigh-


Interesting, but completely irrelevant.

What will really happen?  The President's budget will get nearly unanimously defeated in both Houses.

The House will pass an appropriation at 2008 levels adjusted to 2014.  The Senate won't take it up.  They'll pass another continuing resolution to keep the government from shutting down.  The House will pass the CR, and the President will sign it.  Amazing.
 
2013-06-14 07:26:29 PM  
"It forecast growth of 1.9% for 2013, but said it could be as much as 1.75 percentage points higher without the rapid tightening of fiscal policy. "

That's not a bug, it's a feature. Don't forget who was Presidentin' while growth coulda been so much higher!
 
2013-06-14 07:32:45 PM  
Tautologically null statement.
 
2013-06-14 07:33:07 PM  

meat0918: Vectron: [static.ddmcdn.com image 400x243]

Call me when it's 200% of GDP, like Japan's.


But it's a BIG NUMBER! And big numbers scare me, so putting that number into any sort of context doesn't matter!
 
2013-06-14 07:34:56 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x250]

Would comment, but he has to be absolutely silent...


"We would have gone with the "obvious" tag."

25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-06-14 07:52:35 PM  
Wow, only 5 days after admitting what fark ups they were about Greece.  God job IMF!

http://www.dw.de/imf-admits-mistakes-in-greece-policy/a-16868608
 
2013-06-14 07:58:13 PM  

StopLurkListen: "It forecast growth of 1.9% for 2013, but said it could be as much as 1.75 percentage points higher without the rapid tightening of fiscal policy. "

That's not a bug, it's a feature. Don't forget who was Presidentin' while growth coulda been so much higher!


To be fair, the Obama administration has been predicting growth at around that much higher than actual every year he has been President.  I'm starting to think that maybe those Keynesian economists may be overestimating the economic effects consistently.

When they predict correctly against actuals, then you can start listing their predictions again.
 
2013-06-14 08:01:11 PM  
And here is a written response destroying the "Europe is in Austerity!!" dullard's claims.

For some reason the pro-Keynesian crowd keeps referring to future growth instead of actual growth of their policies.  Weird.  Well anyways, have fun reading the written responses to Sen. Sheldon.

http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/2013/06/response-to-quest io ns-for-the-record
 
2013-06-14 08:18:18 PM  

Herr Docktor Heinrich Wisenheimer: simplicimus: dookdookdook: whidbey: What do you mean? It'll take us back to the 1950s which is what the Republicans want.

Unfortunately, the real 1950's.  Not the Andy Griffith/Leave it to Beaver 1950's Republicans so often confuse with reality.

Yeah, before that useless Interstate system.

And that Internets fad.


i thought they were shooting for 1900s....
 
2013-06-14 08:24:33 PM  

MyRandomName: And here is a written response destroying the "Europe is in Austerity!!" dullard's claims.

For some reason the pro-Keynesian crowd keeps referring to future growth instead of actual growth of their policies.  Weird.  Well anyways, have fun reading the written responses to Sen. Sheldon.

http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/2013/06/response-to-quest io ns-for-the-record


Wasn't Heritage claiming that the Ryan budget would lead to unemployment numbers dropping below 2%? Oh, and the immigration study written by the guy who claimed that hispanics were genetically inferior to whites? You're linking to those guys?

The Heritage Foundation is not a credible source.
 
2013-06-14 08:31:38 PM  

cptjeff: MyRandomName: And here is a written response destroying the "Europe is in Austerity!!" dullard's claims.

For some reason the pro-Keynesian crowd keeps referring to future growth instead of actual growth of their policies.  Weird.  Well anyways, have fun reading the written responses to Sen. Sheldon.

http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/2013/06/response-to-quest io ns-for-the-record

Wasn't Heritage claiming that the Ryan budget would lead to unemployment numbers dropping below 2%? Oh, and the immigration study written by the guy who claimed that hispanics were genetically inferior to whites? You're linking to those guys?

The Heritage Foundation is not a credible source.


And more importantly projected giving immigrants citizenship would cost a giggityjillion dollars.
 
2013-06-14 08:39:08 PM  

LordJiro: meat0918: Vectron: [static.ddmcdn.com image 400x243]

Call me when it's 200% of GDP, like Japan's.

But it's a BIG NUMBER! And big numbers scare me, so putting that number into any sort of context doesn't matter!


It's also utterly meaningless too. Japan's debt is over 250% of GDP, and they have absolutely zero risk of defaulting because they like the United States control their own sovereign currency and all of their debts are denominated in that currency.

but LOOK AT THEM ZEROES! DAMN THAT'S A LOT
 
2013-06-14 08:46:27 PM  
Since the IMF is part of the UN the righties will say they are wrong and that more cuts are needed to keep the poors in their place. Tinfoil brigade to the rescue.
 
2013-06-14 08:49:05 PM  

sparkeyjames: Since the IMF is part of the UN the righties will say they are wrong and that more cuts are needed to keep the poors in their place. Tinfoil brigade to the rescue.


I was hoping the dumbass paranoid fantasies about the UN would make the derpbaggers favor increasing public spending.
 
2013-06-14 09:02:52 PM  

whidbey: "indiscriminate" reductions in education, science and infrastructure spending could reduce potential growth i

What do you mean? It'll take us back to the 1950s which is what the Republicans want.

It's perfect.


No. The 1850's is more like it. The TeaTards want no part of a massive infrastructure upgrade or desegregation.
 
2013-06-14 10:15:40 PM  

cptjeff: The Heritage Foundation is not a credible source.


origin.heritage.org
 
2013-06-14 10:29:47 PM  
This is actually a shocking statement, because economy-crushing austerity is typically what the IMF pushes for so that internationals can rob the country blind.
 
2013-06-14 11:10:00 PM  
Who needs roads and bridges when you are rich and have helicopters and private jets?  When everything falls apart the money the rich have will be worth even more and they can have slaves again.
 
2013-06-14 11:29:15 PM  

whidbey: "indiscriminate" reductions in education, science and infrastructure spending could reduce potential growth i

What do you mean? It'll take us back to the 1950s which is what the Republicans want.

It's perfect.


Do you mean the real 1950s, with massive increases in public education spending, huge public works projects, a top tax rate above 90%, and federal spending at about the same 30% of GDP we had at the end of Clinton's term, before the spend-but-don't-tax republicans took control?

Or the imaginary 1950s that conservatives remember, with magic gumdrop trees and unicorn farts everywhere?
 
2013-06-15 12:41:19 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: cptjeff: The Heritage Foundation is not a credible source.

[origin.heritage.org image 539x436]


What does "uncommotted" mean?
 
2013-06-15 02:06:01 AM  

fusillade762: Dusk-You-n-Me: cptjeff: The Heritage Foundation is not a credible source.

[origin.heritage.org image 539x436]

What does "uncommotted" mean?


Funds not committed to use, aka a "surplus". In other words, The Heritage Foundation was lying through it's teeth to us about the Bush tax cuts. Dusk was just proving that to us by showing one of the graphs they put out.
 
2013-06-15 03:03:40 AM  
Anybody who takes the advice of the IMF is an idiot.
 
2013-06-15 04:54:47 AM  
What cuts?  Spending is still way ay above 2007 levels.
 
2013-06-15 05:17:55 AM  

tbeatty: What cuts?


These cuts.  Don't worry though, they mostly just fark over poor people, so they didn't cut anything important.
 
2013-06-15 10:32:45 AM  
i39.tinypic.com
 
2013-06-15 11:56:18 AM  
What? Their not doing what they're told?
 
2013-06-15 01:48:42 PM  
Nice to see the IMF pulling its head out of its ass with some regularity lately, after they helped the EU and ECB destroy Greece, Spain, Ireland, and others.
 
2013-06-15 02:08:19 PM  

Tripp Johnston Private Eye: LordJiro: meat0918: Vectron: [static.ddmcdn.com image 400x243]

Call me when it's 200% of GDP, like Japan's.

But it's a BIG NUMBER! And big numbers scare me, so putting that number into any sort of context doesn't matter!

It's also utterly meaningless too. Japan's debt is over 250% of GDP, and they have absolutely zero risk of defaulting because they like the United States control their own sovereign currency and all of their debts are denominated in that currency.

but LOOK AT THEM ZEROES! DAMN THAT'S A LOT


I think we should seriously start using logarithms for expressing big numbers like that. The natural log of the debt is only 30.5, for instance. Every time someone links to that chart showing historic national debt I tend to post the next page of that report that puts it in log format and suddenly the sky stops falling.
 
2013-06-15 04:46:18 PM  

dookdookdook: tbeatty: What cuts?

These cuts.  Don't worry though, they mostly just fark over poor people, so they didn't cut anything important.


Oh, the cuts from a projected increase (from a well-trusted source too).  Try that with your boss.

"Hey, Mr. McDonalds supervisor, I projected that my raise would be 25% and that's my baseline budget.  You only gave me a 5% raise.  I can't live with a 20% cut like that.  Can you please change it to 25%?"

Try this: check the U.S. budget for the last 10 years and rank the sequester budget to it.  I believe it is the second highest budget.
 
2013-06-15 04:53:02 PM  
The things they say..
 
2013-06-15 04:55:20 PM  

FlashHarry: [i39.tinypic.com image 605x328]


And you're an idiot.  The sequester was the consequence a future promise by Obama to cut spending.  Yet it never happened.  Cutting spending is not his thing.  He promised to match tax hikes with spending cuts.  But in reality he only wants tax hikes and spending hikes.  The last tax hike was the most regressive tax hike possible.
 
2013-06-15 05:14:30 PM  

tbeatty: FlashHarry: [i39.tinypic.com image 605x328]

And you're an idiot.  The sequester was the consequence a future promise by Obama to cut spending.  Yet it never happened.  Cutting spending is not his thing.  He promised to match tax hikes with spending cuts.  But in reality he only wants tax hikes and spending hikes.  The last tax hike was the most regressive tax hike possible.


Wow. Obama does not create the budget, i.e., spending. That's Congress's job. "most regressive tax hike possible"? You have a limited imagination.
 
2013-06-15 10:26:12 PM  

simplicimus: tbeatty: FlashHarry: [i39.tinypic.com image 605x328]

And you're an idiot.  The sequester was the consequence a future promise by Obama to cut spending.  Yet it never happened.  Cutting spending is not his thing.  He promised to match tax hikes with spending cuts.  But in reality he only wants tax hikes and spending hikes.  The last tax hike was the most regressive tax hike possible.

Wow. Obama does not create the budget, i.e., spending. That's Congress's job. "most regressive tax hike possible"? You have a limited imagination.


What are you talking about?  Congress passes the budget but the executive branch creates it.  That Pentagon request, Department of States, Education, etc, are all budgets created by the executive branch.  They create a baseline of expectation and submit it.  If it was just Congress, the the House would just pass a budget (as all budget bills arise in the house) and move to the Senate.  The issue is the budgets submitted by the White house are larger than the house will pass.

And a 2% hike in taxe on people up to $110,000 is pretty regressive and it was in January.
 
2013-06-16 12:14:35 AM  

tbeatty: simplicimus: tbeatty: FlashHarry: [i39.tinypic.com image 605x328]

And you're an idiot.  The sequester was the consequence a future promise by Obama to cut spending.  Yet it never happened.  Cutting spending is not his thing.  He promised to match tax hikes with spending cuts.  But in reality he only wants tax hikes and spending hikes.  The last tax hike was the most regressive tax hike possible.

Wow. Obama does not create the budget, i.e., spending. That's Congress's job. "most regressive tax hike possible"? You have a limited imagination.

What are you talking about?  Congress passes the budget but the executive branch creates it.  That Pentagon request, Department of States, Education, etc, are all budgets created by the executive branch.  They create a baseline of expectation and submit it.  If it was just Congress, the the House would just pass a budget (as all budget bills arise in the house) and move to the Senate.  The issue is the budgets submitted by the White house are larger than the house will pass.

And a 2% hike in taxe on people up to $110,000 is pretty regressive and it was in January.


The budget sent down by Obama included reductions in spending. The 'tax increase' was the planned expiration of the temporary Bush tax cuts. The Ryan budget is just too toxic to be passed by the Senate.
 
2013-06-16 12:27:28 AM  

tbeatty: And you're an idiot.  The sequester was the consequence a future promise by Obama to cut spending.  Yet it never happened.  Cutting spending is not his thing.  He promised to match tax hikes with spending cuts.  But in reality he only wants tax hikes and spending hikes.  The last tax hike was the most regressive tax hike possible.


bull. farking. shiat.

the sequester is a law specified in the budget control act of 2011 and was triggered by the supercommittee's failure to reach an agreement (thanks primary to republicans refusing to raise taxes one penny on the super-wealthy - even having the gall to lower the top rate). the supercommittee itself was created as part of a deal to raise the debt ceiling, because republicans refused to raise it unless their political demands were met. not raising the debt ceiling had up until that point been unthinkable and would have caused the US to default on its debt obligations for the first time in history. this wildly reckless brinksmanship actually caused the US to lose its AAA bond rating for the first time in history. their actions not only caused the credit downgrade, they also caused markets around the world to plummet and an already tenuous recovery to stall.

republicans themselves referred to it as a "hostage worth ransoming."

had they simply followed what was up until that point in history a pro forma vote - a formality that had been passed dozens of times before regardless of the parties in the white house or congress - there would be no sequester and the US would still have its top credit rating.

in other words, republicans threatened to destroy the US economy if their political demands weren't met. there is a word for that, and that word is terrorism.
 
Displayed 47 of 47 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report