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)   Remember how the sequester was supposed to turn America into Mad Max meets Lord of the Flies? Seems we can live without a little spending   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 269
    More: Obvious, Concord Coalition  
•       •       •

1726 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Jul 2013 at 10:49 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-02 01:35:55 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Corvus: Who is really suggesting that? Can you give an example of something people (seriously) want to spend money that is completely unproductive?

[www.sci.fi image 600x391]


Pro-tip: Showing something produced is not a good way to give and example of something "non-productive".
 
2013-07-02 01:38:10 PM  

palelizard: Buying a car or taking a student loan, for instance, are both big expenditures but afford you more options down the road, like getting a job.


And if you count total liabilities (the total owed on student loans, the total owed on your house/car, total CC debt...), how many people are flush or better?

Some of America's OMG$16TRILLIONZZZZ debt isn't scheduled to be paid off until I'm Medicare-eligible. So long as we can afford to make the payments on schedule, we're golden.

// currently 31
 
2013-07-02 01:38:19 PM  
The government can operate with less money?

Imagine that.
 
2013-07-02 01:40:10 PM  
Still more spending this year than last.
 
2013-07-02 01:41:21 PM  
Whoa!
You mean democrats lied about the impact of a decrease in the amount of increase in the budget???

It wasn't even a cut.
 
2013-07-02 01:42:45 PM  
The sequester stuff was taken to extremes by both the Left and the Right, much as climate change is done as well.

If anyone had actually listened to the folks in charge of figuring this stuff out, instead of politicians and opinion peddlers who make their living by keeping you afraid, they'd know that:

1) the world isn't going to come to an end
2) people will suffer (are suffering) because of it
3) it is preventable, if we agree to prevent it
4) it is manageable to some degree
 
2013-07-02 01:42:48 PM  

Dr Dreidel: And if you count total liabilities (the total owed on student loans, the total owed on your house/car, total CC debt...), how many people are flush or better?

Some of America's OMG$16TRILLIONZZZZ debt isn't scheduled to be paid off until I'm Medicare-eligible. So long as we can afford to make the payments on schedule, we're golden.


The issue isn't making payments, the issue is that we are still adding on to the debt.  It isn't like we made a huge one time purchase we are paying off, a la student loans or a house, it's that that we are just running up a credit card (and using the credit card to make the payments).
 
2013-07-02 01:43:41 PM  
I was really looking forward to mounting gatling guns on my Kia.
 
2013-07-02 01:46:13 PM  
Welcome to the real world, folks. At my company, we've had to take unpaid furloughs two weeks each year for the past six years. Just got the latest notice, for the second half of the year, last week. I'm sure I'm not alone in the private sector in that.
 
2013-07-02 01:46:35 PM  

make me some tea: 3) it is preventable, if we agree to prevent it
4) it is manageable to some degree


I would argue that those two points are mutually exclusive.  In order to manage this situation, there have to be budget cuts (or at least a slowdown in budget increases).  If we fail to do that, we will reach a situation that truly is unmanageable.  If you want to manage it, you have to have some sort of sequestration.  If you want to prevent it, you will create an unmanageable situation.

/unless your "preventable" is referring to something else, in which case I apologize.
 
2013-07-02 01:47:36 PM  

MattStafford: Dr Dreidel: And if you count total liabilities (the total owed on student loans, the total owed on your house/car, total CC debt...), how many people are flush or better?

Some of America's OMG$16TRILLIONZZZZ debt isn't scheduled to be paid off until I'm Medicare-eligible. So long as we can afford to make the payments on schedule, we're golden.

The issue isn't making payments, the issue is that we are still adding on to the debt.  It isn't like we made a huge one time purchase we are paying off, a la student loans or a house, it's that that we are just running up a credit card (and using the credit card to make the payments).


Are you going to respond to my questions or my points or just keep ignoring I've shown you wrong or that you don't know what you are talking about?
 
2013-07-02 01:49:20 PM  
Still not spending enough.
 
2013-07-02 01:49:27 PM  

MattStafford: make me some tea: 3) it is preventable, if we agree to prevent it
4) it is manageable to some degree

I would argue that those two points are mutually exclusive.  In order to manage this situation, there have to be budget cuts (or at least a slowdown in budget increases).  If we fail to do that, we will reach a situation that truly is unmanageable.  If you want to manage it, you have to have some sort of sequestration.  If you want to prevent it, you will create an unmanageable situation.

/unless your "preventable" is referring to something else, in which case I apologize.


Why do you think increasing revenue has no affect to the budget?

You do understand it's: Surplus(deficit) = Revenue - Spending

You do understand that right? So why to you erroneously say the only way to balance the budget is through budget cuts instead of growing our economy?
 
2013-07-02 01:50:00 PM  

Corvus: MattStafford: Corvus: So you thing the US is the same as Sub-Saharan country economically?

Until you explain to me why a debt financed safety net in the US would have an ROI greater than one and a debt financed safety net in Sub-Saharan Africa would have an ROI less than one, I will operate under the assumption that a debt financed safety net works similarly in all countries.

Gross National Income/Capita Sub-Saharan US: : $50,120
Gross National Income/Capita Sub-Saharan Africa: $1,345

Well that's a big one.


In fairness, that trillion dollars is going to go a lot further in Sub-Saharan Africa.  With that kind of money, they could probably afford roads and clean water and some non-corrupt law enforcement, maybe set up some heavy duty solar power arrays with some power-distribution infrastructure.  All those people working and building things, and spending their borrowed-money paychecks on either local efforts or supplies bought with more of the borrowed money.  After some time, the economy would be bustling and you'll have taken a third world craphole and brought most of it into the 21st century.

So from that perspective, the ROI on the trillion subsaharan dollars makes it a smarter buy than that America place.
 
2013-07-02 01:50:21 PM  

Keys dude: Welcome to the real world, folks. At my company, we've had to take unpaid furloughs two weeks each year for the past six years. Just got the latest notice, for the second half of the year, last week. I'm sure I'm not alone in the private sector in that.


And corporate profits are the highest they have been in 50 years.
 
2013-07-02 01:50:53 PM  

MattStafford: Dr Dreidel: And if you count total liabilities (the total owed on student loans, the total owed on your house/car, total CC debt...), how many people are flush or better?

Some of America's OMG$16TRILLIONZZZZ debt isn't scheduled to be paid off until I'm Medicare-eligible. So long as we can afford to make the payments on schedule, we're golden.

The issue isn't making payments, the issue is that we are still adding on to the debt.  It isn't like we made a huge one time purchase we are paying off, a la student loans or a house, it's that that we are just running up a credit card (and using the credit card to make the payments).


And as long as we can keep making the payments, even on $eleventy trillions of billions of Sagans, we're golden.
 
2013-07-02 01:50:57 PM  

palelizard: In fairness, that trillion dollars is going to go a lot further in Sub-Saharan Africa.  With that kind of money, they could probably afford roads and clean water and some non-corrupt law enforcement, maybe set up some heavy duty solar power arrays with some power-distribution infrastructure.  All those people working and building things, and spending their borrowed-money paychecks on either local efforts or supplies bought with more of the borrowed money.  After some time, the economy would be bustling and you'll have taken a third world craphole and brought most of it into the 21st century.


I apologize, but the hypothetical was a trillion dollar safety net - not a trillion dollars in investment.
 
2013-07-02 01:52:05 PM  

palelizard: Corvus: MattStafford: Corvus: So you thing the US is the same as Sub-Saharan country economically?

Until you explain to me why a debt financed safety net in the US would have an ROI greater than one and a debt financed safety net in Sub-Saharan Africa would have an ROI less than one, I will operate under the assumption that a debt financed safety net works similarly in all countries.

Gross National Income/Capita Sub-Saharan US: : $50,120
Gross National Income/Capita Sub-Saharan Africa: $1,345

Well that's a big one.

In fairness, that trillion dollars is going to go a lot further in Sub-Saharan Africa.  With that kind of money, they could probably afford roads and clean water and some non-corrupt law enforcement, maybe set up some heavy duty solar power arrays with some power-distribution infrastructure.  All those people working and building things, and spending their borrowed-money paychecks on either local efforts or supplies bought with more of the borrowed money.  After some time, the economy would be bustling and you'll have taken a third world craphole and brought most of it into the 21st century.

So from that perspective, the ROI on the trillion subsaharan dollars makes it a smarter buy than that America place.


No the context I was talking about was getting people back to work. People make more money therefore you get more in tax money.

Also those government are much more corrupt than ours.
 
2013-07-02 01:52:40 PM  

VoodooTaco: PanicMan: palelizard: I don't know about other Federal programs, but the Navy just started the furlough this period.  They pushed the cuts to the money they'd be spending at the end of the year, so the wife's getting a 20% pay cut starting for work done this week. It's not the end of the world, but it still stinks.

Yep, mine starts next week.

/Army

Ditto. But the 20% cut results in 20-25% gross take home pay loss on average (23% for me).   Especially awesome for us primary providers trying to raise a young family.

/Navy Civ
//Time for the classics: Diapers, Natty-Ice and Ramen!


Remember that the good liberals of fark always want to cut military spending

The GOP doesn't
 
2013-07-02 01:52:59 PM  

Tommy Moo: Check my posts from three to six months ago. I called it a bluff then and have stuck with that ever since. Obama was being a dick by intentionally threatening to make the cuts in the most visible, painful areas as possible in order to make it look to the American people like this is what will necessarily happen if we cut even the tiniest sliver of federal spending. "Let's see... $60 million in cuts from the FAA. Shall we do away with bonuses, encourage teleconferencing instead of travel, and combine some administrative responsibilities? Nah. Let's furlough all the air traffic controllers so planes fall out of the sky and people die screaming in smoking hulks of twisted metal. That will show the American people how evil the Republicans are for forcing the sequester on us."


We did all that stuff and more. But due to the retarded way the law was written, ATC had to be furloughed, too. The "fix" didn't actually restore any funding, it just let us make more intelligent cuts.
 
2013-07-02 01:53:42 PM  

MattStafford: palelizard: In fairness, that trillion dollars is going to go a lot further in Sub-Saharan Africa.  With that kind of money, they could probably afford roads and clean water and some non-corrupt law enforcement, maybe set up some heavy duty solar power arrays with some power-distribution infrastructure.  All those people working and building things, and spending their borrowed-money paychecks on either local efforts or supplies bought with more of the borrowed money.  After some time, the economy would be bustling and you'll have taken a third world craphole and brought most of it into the 21st century.

I apologize, but the hypothetical was a trillion dollar safety net - not a trillion dollars in investment.


Wow, one thing I agree with you on.

But you asked me a question and I answered and you still are holding your fingers in your ears and pretending not to notice I showed you why it is very different.
 
2013-07-02 01:55:40 PM  
Some scientist in the article said that conferences were where the "real science" happened. I would understand his butthurt if this was 1995, but this is 2013. I certainly don't want to take anything away from the collegiality and the community that conferences build, but exaggerating their importance doesn't help his argument.
 
2013-07-02 01:55:57 PM  
Oh, and by the way, the DoD civilian workforce has not completely started their furloughs.

//Monday is my first.
 
2013-07-02 01:57:25 PM  

vpb: Unless you're poor and rely on community health centers or one of the other health programs cut, but I guess subby didn't include them in "we".


Since very few poor people read the Washington Post, they didn't think that worth mentioning.
 
2013-07-02 01:59:03 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: VoodooTaco: PanicMan: palelizard: I don't know about other Federal programs, but the Navy just started the furlough this period.  They pushed the cuts to the money they'd be spending at the end of the year, so the wife's getting a 20% pay cut starting for work done this week. It's not the end of the world, but it still stinks.

Yep, mine starts next week.

/Army

Ditto. But the 20% cut results in 20-25% gross take home pay loss on average (23% for me).   Especially awesome for us primary providers trying to raise a young family.

/Navy Civ
//Time for the classics: Diapers, Natty-Ice and Ramen!

Remember that the good liberals of fark always want to cut military spending

The GOP doesn't


The conservatives on here would cut military funding too, but the Democratic Party adamantly refuses to do so.

My post is as honest as yours.
 
2013-07-02 01:59:27 PM  

cman: People take shiat to the extremes.

We need to stop bullshiatting ourselves and stop being afraid of our own farking shadows.

The apocalypse isnt coming! Even if it were there is nothing we could do about it.


It ain't no apocalypse, but I sure don't appreciate the 20% pay cut our family must endure because republicans are obstructionist dicks.
 
2013-07-02 01:59:48 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Remember that the good liberals of fark always want to cut military spending

The GOP doesn't


You were just saying these weren't even "real" cuts. So they magically become "real" when it affects the military?

Shouldn't you be telling this guys in the military they are lying and actually still getting more money?

Well you would if you arguments ever had any consistency to them.
 
2013-07-02 02:04:29 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: austerity101: Debeo Summa Credo: When you are in debt and spending more than you earn, do you borrow more to maintain your unsustainable lifestyle?

If I am in debt to my friends and I can't afford my rent, I borrow more money from them so that I don't end up homeless.  I don't start paying back my debt with my rent money instead.

And since the US seems pretty keen on reducing revenue as well, apparently part of the solution is to make my wife quit her job as well.

But you do cancel your cable, right? Or at least switch from the gold plan with HBO and Showtime to basic cable. Thats a better analogy for the sequester cuts than not paying your rent.


No. A better "analogy" would be: "you quit eating and paying rent so you can keep your HBO and Showtime, right?"

You've made it clear people losing their only source of income (all 70,000 of them) are worthless moochers. Let them starve so we don't cut anything out of the "defense" budget.
 
2013-07-02 02:07:27 PM  

sxacho: tenpoundsofcheese: VoodooTaco: PanicMan: palelizard: I don't know about other Federal programs, but the Navy just started the furlough this period.  They pushed the cuts to the money they'd be spending at the end of the year, so the wife's getting a 20% pay cut starting for work done this week. It's not the end of the world, but it still stinks.

Yep, mine starts next week.

/Army

Ditto. But the 20% cut results in 20-25% gross take home pay loss on average (23% for me).   Especially awesome for us primary providers trying to raise a young family.

/Navy Civ
//Time for the classics: Diapers, Natty-Ice and Ramen!

Remember that the good liberals of fark always want to cut military spending

The GOP doesn't

The conservatives on here would cut military funding too, but the Democratic Party adamantly refuses to do so.

My post is as honest as yours.


All depends on who builds what in who's district.......

/good ol' liberal
//wants to cut the military budget
///but not via horizontal cuts across the board
 
2013-07-02 02:09:16 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Also:


He looks legit. Maybe he CAN solve our problems...

// he's a doctor, after all


Donkey Teeth
 
2013-07-02 02:10:43 PM  

Corvus: Eddie Adams from Torrance: Corvus: Who is really suggesting that? Can you give an example of something people (seriously) want to spend money that is completely unproductive?

[www.sci.fi image 600x391]

Pro-tip: Showing something produced is not a good way to give and example of something "non-productive".


It is possible to produce things that are basically useless.
 
2013-07-02 02:11:11 PM  

Dr Dreidel: With growth at just under 2% for the 2nd quarter, it's looking less like a knife to the gut and more like pricking your finger. The bigger threat is the Fed quitting bond-buys by Labor Day.


Less than 2% is pretty shiatty. Might not be seppuku knife cut  to the bowels, but it's stab in the gut nevertheless. Besides, some of the sequester-related spend was going to be staggered to end of fiscal year (3rd calendar quarter) so the full effect may not have been felt yet.
 
2013-07-02 02:11:37 PM  

MattStafford: Mercutio74: I mostly agree.  A well-run safety net actually does supply a positive ROI to the gov't and the nation.  For example, you don't want to lose a skilled worker because he or she will be faced with a temporary inability to work (due to either illness/injury or something more macroeconomic like Wall St. deciding to defraud the globe).

I would disagree on the safety net being a positive ROI.  Would a Sub-Saharan country have a stronger economy if they borrowed a bunch of money and instituted a safety net?  I would argue no.


Yup.  It would be much better for our country if we basically cut off the elderly, the disabled, and poor and the unemployed from any help and did away with the safety net completely.  Nothing bad would ever happen if we do that, right?

right?
 
2013-07-02 02:14:55 PM  

MattStafford: I apologize, but the hypothetical was a trillion dollar safety net - not a trillion dollars in investment.


All right, bad response on my part.  Still, assuming there was a viable economy to begin with, a trillion dollar safety net keeps people without jobs eating, makes them less inclined towards crime (to feed themselves or their family) and allows businesses to continue to have customers, necessary to the survival of the business (and the ability to pay employees who also buy things), which is necessary to the survival of the area's economy.

I understand picking a trillion dollars and one year are arbitrary numbers to illustrate a point, so ignoring the amounts and time for a moment, a safety net keeps things afloat long enough for the natural cycles to get back on the upswing.  In cases of places where there's no longer a source of income (the factory moved, the mine dried up, the plant closed, etc), it gives those people enough of a bump to move to a more viable area rather than stay trapped in a cycle of poverty.
 
2013-07-02 02:14:55 PM  

MattStafford: make me some tea: 3) it is preventable, if we agree to prevent it
4) it is manageable to some degree

I would argue that those two points are mutually exclusive.  In order to manage this situation, there have to be budget cuts (or at least a slowdown in budget increases).  If we fail to do that, we will reach a situation that truly is unmanageable.  If you want to manage it, you have to have some sort of sequestration.  If you want to prevent it, you will create an unmanageable situation.

/unless your "preventable" is referring to something else, in which case I apologize.


Well, it's pretty clear from reading the WaPo article that Congress is actually doing exactly what they should've done to begin with, which is to choose where to cut and where to fund, which is why we're not feeling as much as the scaremongers had predicted, and we're feeling it more than the naysayers scoffed at. The GOP House actually did get their way on this at the end of that day. The cuts almost certainly will affect economic growth negatively, but hey, the deficit is reduced, right? Yes, the economy is growing, but it could be growing a lot more right now. We can worry about deficit reduction when the economy is back to being a powerhouse and there's ample money to pay it off in the GDP.
 
2013-07-02 02:15:33 PM  

VoodooTaco: /good ol' liberal
//wants to cut the military budget
///but not via horizontal cuts across the board


It figures a lib like you would be soft on terrorism. Go ahead decimate our military, for God's sake we'll have Russia and the terrorists marching across our borders within a week. It disgusts me that people like you would support such a thing. Not me. I love America. Check out my flag pin.
 
2013-07-02 02:18:25 PM  

mediablitz: Debeo Summa Credo: austerity101: Debeo Summa Credo: When you are in debt and spending more than you earn, do you borrow more to maintain your unsustainable lifestyle?

If I am in debt to my friends and I can't afford my rent, I borrow more money from them so that I don't end up homeless.  I don't start paying back my debt with my rent money instead.

And since the US seems pretty keen on reducing revenue as well, apparently part of the solution is to make my wife quit her job as well.

But you do cancel your cable, right? Or at least switch from the gold plan with HBO and Showtime to basic cable. Thats a better analogy for the sequester cuts than not paying your rent.

No. A better "analogy" would be: "you quit eating and paying rent so you can keep your HBO and Showtime, right?"

You've made it clear people losing their only source of income (all 70,000 of them) are worthless moochers. Let them starve so we don't cut anything out of the "defense" budget.


70,000 people will starve because of the sequester. This is what farklibs actually believe.
 
2013-07-02 02:20:14 PM  

Geotpf: Corvus: Eddie Adams from Torrance: Corvus: Who is really suggesting that? Can you give an example of something people (seriously) want to spend money that is completely unproductive?

[www.sci.fi image 600x391]

Pro-tip: Showing something produced is not a good way to give and example of something "non-productive".

It is possible to produce things that are basically useless.


Sure it is. But in making it your being productive. Which is what my point is. It is also paying people salaries who then spend money. I am not saying in any way that it is the best use of resources but to state it is completely unproductive and to imply that the ROI is 0 is totally wrong.

That was the discussion that was going on. If you don't want to be part of it then don't reply.
 
2013-07-02 02:20:35 PM  

Geotpf: Corvus: Eddie Adams from Torrance: Corvus: Who is really suggesting that? Can you give an example of something people (seriously) want to spend money that is completely unproductive?

[www.sci.fi image 600x391]

Pro-tip: Showing something produced is not a good way to give and example of something "non-productive".

It is possible to produce things that are basically useless.


Like Subby's mom did!  Hey-o!
 
2013-07-02 02:21:48 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: Yup.  It would be much better for our country if we basically cut off the elderly, the disabled, and poor and the unemployed from any help and did away with the safety net completely.  Nothing bad would ever happen if we do that, right?

right?


No, we should support the elderly, disabled, poor, unemployed, and really everyone - but we should do it via tax revenue.  Actually paying to support those people is a good, sustainable thing.  Borrowing money to support those people is a bad, unsustainable thing.
 
2013-07-02 02:21:52 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: mediablitz: Debeo Summa Credo: austerity101: Debeo Summa Credo: 
70,000 people will starve because of the sequester. This is what farklibs actually believe.


And everyone who relies on safety net programs are worthless moochers and parasites.  This is what FarkIndependents  actually believe.

See, I can play the same game.
 
2013-07-02 02:22:16 PM  

palelizard: MattStafford: I apologize, but the hypothetical was a trillion dollar safety net - not a trillion dollars in investment.

All right, bad response on my part.  Still, assuming there was a viable economy to begin with, a trillion dollar safety net keeps people without jobs eating, makes them less inclined towards crime (to feed themselves or their family) and allows businesses to continue to have customers, necessary to the survival of the business (and the ability to pay employees who also buy things), which is necessary to the survival of the area's economy.

I understand picking a trillion dollars and one year are arbitrary numbers to illustrate a point, so ignoring the amounts and time for a moment, a safety net keeps things afloat long enough for the natural cycles to get back on the upswing.  In cases of places where there's no longer a source of income (the factory moved, the mine dried up, the plant closed, etc), it gives those people enough of a bump to move to a more viable area rather than stay trapped in a cycle of poverty.


That really has nothing to do with what we are talking about again.

Why not stop or read the thread so you can understand. It's not our job to reexplain it to you.
 
2013-07-02 02:22:46 PM  

greenboy: Oh, and by the way, the DoD civilian workforce has not completely started their furloughs.

//Monday is my first.


I'm Wednesdays.
 
2013-07-02 02:23:56 PM  

MattStafford: AurizenDarkstar: Yup.  It would be much better for our country if we basically cut off the elderly, the disabled, and poor and the unemployed from any help and did away with the safety net completely.  Nothing bad would ever happen if we do that, right?

right?

No, we should support the elderly, disabled, poor, unemployed, and really everyone - but we should do it via tax revenue.  Actually paying to support those people is a good, sustainable thing.  Borrowing money to support those people is a bad, unsustainable thing.


Really?  Then accept that the farkers at the top of our economy are the ones not paying what they should.  Those are the ones that need to be properly taxed (and by that, meaning they can't just offshore their money or hide it so they show no actual 'income').  Unless you think it's better to demand higher taxes on those at the bottom.  You know the old saw of trying to get blood from a stone?
 
2013-07-02 02:24:24 PM  

MattStafford: AurizenDarkstar: Yup.  It would be much better for our country if we basically cut off the elderly, the disabled, and poor and the unemployed from any help and did away with the safety net completely.  Nothing bad would ever happen if we do that, right?

right?

No, we should support the elderly, disabled, poor, unemployed, and really everyone - but we should do it via tax revenue.  Actually paying to support those people is a good, sustainable thing.  Borrowing money to support those people is a bad, unsustainable thing.



Why is it unsustainable if we keep our debt/GDP ratio about the same?
 
2013-07-02 02:25:59 PM  
Since spending was cut 10% by the sequestration, can we get and across the board 10% tax cut?
 
2013-07-02 02:26:16 PM  

Corvus: MattStafford: A Dark Evil Omen: Beautiful! There's that MattStafford comedy gold!

The StaffordCUBE never fails to please.  But in all seriousness, that is what people are suggesting.   If we borrow money and spend it on unproductive things (like transfer payments), our economy will actually be stronger after we collect taxes and pay off that debt (plus the interest).  That doesn't even take into consideration the misallocation of capital that occurs.

Who is really suggesting that? Can you give an example of something people (seriously) want to spend money that is completely unproductive?


Well, most conservatives think the recipients of transfer payments (the elderly, the poors) are notoriously unproductive.

// they spend money on things like food, the bastards
 
2013-07-02 02:27:34 PM  

MattStafford: AurizenDarkstar: Yup.  It would be much better for our country if we basically cut off the elderly, the disabled, and poor and the unemployed from any help and did away with the safety net completely.  Nothing bad would ever happen if we do that, right?

right?

No, we should support the elderly, disabled, poor, unemployed, and really everyone - but we should do it via tax revenue.  Actually paying to support those people is a good, sustainable thing.  Borrowing money to support those people is a bad, unsustainable thing.


upload.wikimedia.org

We've had debt for over 200 years. When does this "unsustainable " actually happen?
 
2013-07-02 02:27:51 PM  

RsquaredW: Well, most conservatives think the recipients of transfer payments (the elderly, the poors) are notoriously unproductive.

// they spend money on things like food, the bastards


And ultimately that money gets flushed down the toilet.
 
2013-07-02 02:29:14 PM  

RsquaredW: Corvus: MattStafford: A Dark Evil Omen: Beautiful! There's that MattStafford comedy gold!

The StaffordCUBE never fails to please.  But in all seriousness, that is what people are suggesting.   If we borrow money and spend it on unproductive things (like transfer payments), our economy will actually be stronger after we collect taxes and pay off that debt (plus the interest).  That doesn't even take into consideration the misallocation of capital that occurs.

Who is really suggesting that? Can you give an example of something people (seriously) want to spend money that is completely unproductive?

Well, most conservatives think the recipients of transfer payments (the elderly, the poors) are notoriously unproductive.

// they spend money on things like food, the bastards


Yeah but unless food comes out of thin air recently it still something that is produced. People work, get paid and pay taxes. So there is an ROI higher than zero and production.
 
Displayed 50 of 269 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | 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