Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Global Geopolitics)   Panic-fest 2014 hits the US Treasury as we now have to raise the debt ceiling again. Fark double-panic Bonus: Almost all the cash will be gone soon after due to your tax refunds   (glblgeopolitics.wordpress.com ) divider line
    More: Scary, debt limit, Bipartisan Policy Center, Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew, tax refunds, treasuries  
•       •       •

4689 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Feb 2014 at 11:55 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-04 01:40:52 PM  

JC22: The fact that this happens every year now or every few months should tell you that there is a reallllly bad problem here...sooner or later folks this sh-t is going to collapse in upon itself.


I used to think this, that eventually as we did this over and over the Republicans would fail to blink, and we'd get hit with a market plunge that makes 2008 look like a momentary blip.

But I think it's actually petering out... the Republicans haven't yet decided what they're going to ask for, and  the best they're even shooting for is elimination of an obscure part of Obamacare (risk corridors for insurers, because someone called it a bailout).

The Republican leadership knows they're not going to win a debt ceiling fight, so they appear to just be committed to doing the minimum to appease the nutjobs.
 
2014-02-04 01:41:24 PM  

lennavan: I wasn't joking, I really am okay with cuts to defense.  I'm also okay with increasing tax revenue.


You can be a smartass and still be joking at all :)

I ultimately agree with you that DoD is going to have to be one of the biggest parts of government that will need to tighten the belt.  While entitlement reforms are also necessary, you cannot ignore the elephant in the room.
 
2014-02-04 01:42:26 PM  

HeadLever: You can be a smartass and still

not be joking at all :)

FIFM
 
2014-02-04 01:45:27 PM  

HeadLever: With the baby boomers starting to retire in droves and globalization becoming more commonplace, you are not going to see much in the way of increased unemployment for the working class unless we change quite a few things.  Add that to the increase entitlement spending that is demanded by these folks retiring and we are not in a good position moving forward.  Because of this our options are very limited.  Eventually, we are going to have to cut spending and increase tax revenue via policy shifts in many fronts in order to contain these deficits going forward.  Right now deficits are shrinking, but that does not mean that we are out of the woods.


In the long run, our deficit problems are entirely driven by medical inflation.

If we don't fix medical inflation, we're all boned regardless of how we finance the government.
If we do fix it, there's no debt problem.
 
2014-02-04 01:45:37 PM  
This will completely destroy the world economy and we will all be living in huts, just like the last 4 times it has happened within the last year.
 
2014-02-04 01:47:59 PM  

HeadLever: I ultimately agree with you that DoD is going to have to be one of the biggest parts of government that will need to tighten the belt. While entitlement reforms are also necessary, you cannot ignore the elephant in the room.


Yeah... no, no they aren't necessary.

You see that big elephant in the room?  I'm not suggesting we ignore it, I'm suggesting we feed it because you see, that elephant is what keeps families afloat.  It keeps people fed, housed and with heat in the winter.  You and anyone else would be a giant dickhead to spend even $1 on a gun or a bullet before you make sure your own population is fed.

What is the farking point of "defending" our country by sending troops to far away countries if meanwhile people back at home are starving?  We'll defend their right to starve to death?
 
2014-02-04 01:48:37 PM  
Waiit a dat'gummed minute. You mean Obama isn't paying all the handouts from his own pocket and it's adding up to a disproportionate amount that's unsustainable?
 
2014-02-04 01:48:54 PM  
The national debt does not ever have to be paid off.

As long as it grows more slowly than the economy, there's no problem.

We haven't paid off WWII yet, but the debt remaining from it is worth the cost of two hammers and a toilet seat at today's prices.
 
2014-02-04 01:51:08 PM  

Target Builder: menschenfresser: I have a dumb but serious question: Do other countries collect tax like this and expect people to file annual 'returns' after calculating their own taxes?

For employees the UK system is pretty simple - your employer works out what your taxes will be and...


I guess Canada could be considered a hybrid of the two. Income tax is taken out by the employer based on your income as well. Mine takes out based on my union dues paid and pension. However, we still [have to] file a tax return where we can claim dependents and other tax credits to hopefully get a refund. We don't really have any really complex write-offs. We can't claim mortgage interest, but can claim stuff like bus passes, child sports expenses. A couple years back we could do household renovations. For a working family, taxes can be pretty simple and can be filled out and submitted online pretty quickly.
 
2014-02-04 01:51:20 PM  

Gaseous Anomaly: In the long run, our deficit problems are entirely driven by medical inflation.

If we don't fix medical inflation, we're all boned regardless of how we finance the government.
If we do fix it, there's no debt problem.


I would mostly agree with that.  Medical inflation is the driver of the 'primary' deficit through anticipated increases of Medicare.  However, that is not all inflation in the common sense of the word, but a demographic shift that puts more folks into this program.  See Social Security as well.

However, if you look at that graph the spending item that really balloons in the upcoming decade is the Interest Payment on the National Debt.  That one is tough to peg since it is dependent upon the current debt, primary debt, inflation and interest rates.  However, we can pretty safely anticipate that it will greatly increase in the future.
 
2014-02-04 01:51:25 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: spending isn't  actually out of control. Deficit's shrinking, remember?


Even if it were (and I agree it's not), the debt ceiling isn't the way to bring it under control anyway.

If Congress doesn't like the amount of debt we're building up, they can take it up with the people who set tax rates and appropriate government expenses.
 
2014-02-04 01:52:21 PM  

russsssman: Waiit a dat'gummed minute. You mean Obama isn't paying all the handouts from his own pocket and it's adding up to a disproportionate amount that's unsustainable?


Racist.

lennavan:  We'll defend their right to starve to death?


How many people starved to death in America last year?  Do you think it's fewer than the number employed and/or fed by the US Military?
 
2014-02-04 01:55:35 PM  
I think we should raise that ceiling again.    And then raise taxes to pay for even more new spending.

Because we don't have enough stuff.
 
2014-02-04 01:57:03 PM  

master_dman: No problem.  They will just print more.. The debt ceiling will be raised.. we'll borrow more money from China, then we'll waste it.  We'll kick the bucket down to our childrens children to pay.  Meanwhile, we'll continue to spend even more money on social feel good programs to lure in more voters.


www.theblaze.com

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/30/odd-national-debt-stuck-a t- exactly-16699396000000-for-70-days/
 
2014-02-04 01:58:27 PM  

HeadLever: if you look at that graph the spending item that really balloons in the upcoming decade is the Interest Payment on the National Debt.  That one is tough to peg since it is dependent upon the current debt, primary debt, inflation and interest rates.  However, we can pretty safely anticipate that it will greatly increase in the future.


Dunno. Most projections I see along those lines just tend to assume that interest rates will pop to 5% or so, with no cause, other than that they used to be there. The causes for such a thing that I can think of:

- Demand for savings drops significantly (this seems unlikely given an ever-more-top-heavy wealth distribution)
- Supply of other things to invest in increases significantly, making saving by loaning to the government less attractive (that could only happen if the economy improves a lot, in which case debt-to-GDP drops)
- Our trade deficit shrinks a lot (maybe if China stops pegging their currency? Would lead to some economic growth, but most new jobs would be for robots, so not sure how that would shake out overall)
 
2014-02-04 02:02:10 PM  
Fine by me. I've a huge return coming, thanks to working my ass off, and we'll get to see the crazier segment of the Republicans once again try to hold the country hostage. We'll get lots of conjecture, posturing, and panic, only this time, Obama's going to laugh at these farkers and say, "Sorry, tried to work with you last time, made compromises, and you spat in my face for it. Good luck, kids! You know what you need to do - how about you go get to it?"

2014? Yeah, good luck with that, GOP. You've brought the country to the brink of disaster once over your posturing, and it wasn't well received. What do you think you're going to gain by doing it again?
 
2014-02-04 02:03:01 PM  

MythDragon: That Guy Jeff: BizarreMan: Tax refund? What's that+

I know right? I paid more in taxes this year then I used to make in a year. It's ridiculous. Farking old people. I wish I could pay taxes a la carte, like "hmm, you didn't pay into social security so you can't collect it, but you did pay into education so you can send your kid to public school. You've paid road taxes, here's your drivers license. Why isn't anyone paying to drop bombs on Pakistani children? Come on guys, we really want to make a bunch of brown folk angry at us, why won't you opt in to that tax?"


Because then you get this:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 328x475]


Need an ambulance? Hope your ambulance subscription is paid up. Oh, you're out of your coverage area? Better have that credit card ready before they dispatch.


Last I checked I still get billed for a trip in an ambulance and I pay a lot of taxes. But I know what you're trying to say, and it sounds AWESOME. I love reading news stories where someone's house burns down in a county that's "pay for fire service or you don't get it" and the firemen stand there watching it burn, making sure it doesn't spread to their paying customers. I'm perfectly OK with that system. Those people who paid for fire service paid less because there weren't 20 layers of overweight middle ages harpy bureaucrats all scrambling to take their "share" of the money before it even got to the fire company. And those people who don't saved might a little money by taking a gamble, a gamble that sometimes they win and sometimes they don't. It's win-win all around, and best yet, people get to decide for themselves what they want. What more could you want? Fire service for less money, and the choice to have it or not. Smells like... freedom. :D

I've worked with the government, specifically the department of education of my state. I speak from personal experience when I say that government is a cesspool of waste, a quivering cellulite riddled spend-orgy of worthless bureaucrats engaged in never ending petty interdepartmental feuds and constant attempts for more budget for no other reason than expanding "the kingdom." Having worked with these people, there's not a chance in hell I will ever vote to give them so much as another cent and I would welcome ANY measure that burned the leeches off. I would MUCH prefer to just give a few thousand dollars to a school that doesn't have all those parasites hanging over it. Any who, the point is this: there's a lot of crap the government spends money on (bureaucrats, killing brown people, molesting children in airports, destroying the internet, etc) that I would just as well not like to contribute to.
 
2014-02-04 02:03:11 PM  
Perhaps we shouldn't be cutting refunds for millions of dollars for convicted felons?

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2011-02-16-1Ainmate s1 6_CV_N.htm

/but if taxation is theft, then i guess these people are just patriotic robin hoods, right GOTP?
 
2014-02-04 02:03:27 PM  

FLMountainMan: lennavan: We'll defend their right to starve to death?

How many people starved to death in America last year?


He was suggesting we cut back.  Under the current situation, 1 in 7 households are "food insecure."  6.7 million are very food insecure.  That means over the course of the year, they experience periods with actual hunger pains.  That's where we are now, and if you keep cutting you'll start seeing third world shiat here.

FLMountainMan: Do you think it's fewer than the number employed and/or fed by the US Military?


So pay the US Military the exact same wage.  Instead of buying them tanks and guns, let's buy them vans and lots of groceries to deliver.  If there are people left we don't need to deliver food, we can get them to work insulating poverty stricken homes or upgrading infrastructure.  I guarantee you, there's no shortage of work to be done in our country and if you give me the Department of Defense budget, I can do a hell of a lot more good than shootin up brown dudes in Afghanistan.
 
2014-02-04 02:05:31 PM  
Why don't just stop giving aid to the rest of the World for one year.  I don't want to do the math but I'm sure it would cover some of our... indiscretions?  Yeah, people would starve and things would be generally bad in some places but when I have bills to pay the first thing I cut is charity.  Charity starts at home.
 
2014-02-04 02:08:27 PM  

lennavan: I guarantee you, there's no shortage of work to be done in our country and if you give me the Department of Defense budget, I can do a hell of a lot more good than shootin up brown dudes in Afghanistan.


This and soooo many other reasons is why you are farkied "very smart" in light green.
 
2014-02-04 02:11:41 PM  
ManateeGag: "Ah, this old song and dance.  there will be another punt.  to June maybe.  just in time for all those midterm elections to be in full swing"

Given how things went last time, and how the polling looks this time, I wouldn't be surprised if this was just quietly extended past the midterms.
Maybe they'll hang a nothing-burger on there as a condition, like mandating a "Revenge Of Simpson-Bowles" committee.
That would generate some good "deficit!" headlines to rile up the base, but without the negative polling that followed their last couple stunts.
 
2014-02-04 02:12:46 PM  
Wait, I thought we were in an recovery and employment was down so tax revenue was going up from all the employed people paying taxes. Why do we keep electing politicians and hoping they will finally get it and learn how to budget and not borrow more money. Am I missing something or is it that government is so large that it can no longer fund itself without borrowing more money. And don't tell me about the social programs, the streets and stuff that the government provides and fixes.
 
2014-02-04 02:12:54 PM  

lennavan: He was suggesting we cut back.  Under the current situation, 1 in 7 households are "food insecure."  6.7 million are very food insecure.  That means over the course of the year, they experience periods with actual hunger pains.  That's where we are now, and if you keep cutting you'll start seeing third world shiat here.


A recent study lent some confirmation and salience to this:

Among lower-income neighborhoods, ER visits for hypoglycemia go up at the end of the month. This doesn't happen for appendicitis, nor in less-poor neighborhoods.
 
2014-02-04 02:13:54 PM  
Would this be a problem if we got rid of refundable tax credits?
 
2014-02-04 02:15:26 PM  

Gaseous Anomaly: HeadLever: if you look at that graph the spending item that really balloons in the upcoming decade is the Interest Payment on the National Debt.  That one is tough to peg since it is dependent upon the current debt, primary debt, inflation and interest rates.  However, we can pretty safely anticipate that it will greatly increase in the future.

Dunno. Most projections I see along those lines just tend to assume that interest rates will pop to 5% or so, with no cause, other than that they used to be there. The causes for such a thing that I can think of:

- Demand for savings drops significantly (this seems unlikely given an ever-more-top-heavy wealth distribution)
- Supply of other things to invest in increases significantly, making saving by loaning to the government less attractive (that could only happen if the economy improves a lot, in which case debt-to-GDP drops)
- Our trade deficit shrinks a lot (maybe if China stops pegging their currency? Would lead to some economic growth, but most new jobs would be for robots, so not sure how that would shake out overall)


Since the Fed is buying most of the debt right now via QE, they have the interest rate pegged much lower than would be in the standard secondary market.  Not many folks will be willingly buying government bonds with a rate of return lower than inflation.  However, this has began to taper off in the last few weeks.  We will see how this tapering will continue into the future.

Another thing to think about if the economy ever starts to really heat up, there could be huge inflationary pressures with all the free money at the top.  if this happens the fed has two choices as I see it:  1) Allow inflation to become pretty high by keeping rates low in order to devalue the National Debt principal or 2) try to fight this inflation by jacking rates up which will maintain the principal of the debt at a higher value and will also greatly increase the interest expense on this debt.
 
2014-02-04 02:16:00 PM  
don't correct me if I'm wrong but -
wouldn't I have had to have a job to get a refund?

No job, I've a joke, a bad joke, a joke with no punchline.
 
2014-02-04 02:16:58 PM  

pmdgrwr: Am I missing something or is it that government is so large that it can no longer fund itself without borrowing more money.


It's not a matter of "can't" but "won't"; we could raise taxes to a budget-balancing point if we wanted to.

Not that it's a good idea at the moment, right now there's a huge global pool of money that's willing to pay the US government to make use of that money.
 
2014-02-04 02:18:48 PM  
Will we have:
A. A government shutdown
B. Tea party blockades
C. Political pandering
D. Politics over country
E. More tax cuts to the detriment of our crumbling infrastructure
F. All of the above
 
2014-02-04 02:20:14 PM  
img.fark.net

/Really.
 
2014-02-04 02:20:59 PM  
Ugh, HeadLever finally made my Ignore list.  I've seen a lot stupider and a lot worse, but I can only take the same goddamn debunked debtbug arguments so many times.
It's like that crazy uncle at family reunions. . . no, not the creepy one that just got out of jail, but the one everyone tries to avoid because every time it's the same conversation.
 
2014-02-04 02:21:10 PM  

HeadLever: Another thing to think about if the economy ever starts to really heat up, there could be huge inflationary pressures with all the free money at the top.  if this happens the fed has two choices as I see it:  1) Allow inflation to become pretty high by keeping rates low in order to devalue the National Debt principal or 2) try to fight this inflation by jacking rates up which will maintain the principal of the debt at a higher value and will also greatly increase the interest expense on this debt.


A serious question: For that money to lead to inflation and higher rates, wouldn't they have to be investing it in something productive, or buying stuff with it? Either way, that leads to economic growth. (If the rich keep "parking" the money in government bonds then the interest rate on said bonds doesn't have to go up).
 
2014-02-04 02:22:41 PM  

Bit'O'Gristle: Why not just raise taxes so high, that people are fighting over cans of dog food and pond water. Not that you would spend that extra money unwisely. Sure, raise our debt ceiling. We don't mind you raising taxes every year to make up for it and never making sure that people have a living wage to survive. But the good news now is, i have to have insurance that i cant afford the premium on, or, the deductible.


/thanks Obama.


I choose to believe you're trolling rather than having no concept of what the debt ceiling represents.

Once congress spends the money, the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government is on the line.

It's like not paying your cell phone bill after you've already accepted the more expensive service bracket.
 
2014-02-04 02:23:30 PM  

The Irresponsible Captain: More tax cuts to the detriment of our crumbling infrastructure


Since spending on infrastructure is pretty much independent of tax cuts, this argument is pretty much just a simplified talking point.  There is nothing holding us back from spending more on infrastructure and cutting taxes.

/not saying that is a wise decision.....
 
2014-02-04 02:25:32 PM  

pmdgrwr: Am I missing something or is it that government is so large that it can no longer fund itself without borrowing more money.


There is nothing that can be cut. Nothing. There are nothing that can be saved in any social program. There is nothing in the defense budget that is not absolutely necessary. Never mind those reports of fraud or planes being flown from the factory to the bone yard. We are running lean and mean. This debt ceiling thing is just the result of a revenue stream problem.

The people that make the budgets must be brimming with pride at how they have such a well run efficient machine humming along that has zero fat to trim.
 
2014-02-04 02:26:05 PM  
Tax refund  LOL
They've suckered people into believing that they get a HUGE refund, they've pulled one
over on the IRS....I have my deductions set to give me back at most 200.00, which will
cushion if I get a reward/bonus, to help offset that.  Anything more than that, the government
got your money to waste INTEREST FREE for the whole year.  I'd rather have it to blow on
something, than have the government waste it on something stupid (which is about everything).
 
2014-02-04 02:28:53 PM  

stupiddream: Why don't just stop giving aid to the rest of the World for one year.  I don't want to do the math but I'm sure it would cover some of our... indiscretions?  Yeah, people would starve and things would be generally bad in some places but when I have bills to pay the first thing I cut is charity.  Charity starts at home.


A lot of that "aid" is basically to either bribe various people not to attack each other and draw the US in or to maintain US influence over a particular country, as opposed to then buddying up with China or Russia.

It's not exactly charity.
 
2014-02-04 02:31:10 PM  

Gaseous Anomaly: lennavan: He was suggesting we cut back.  Under the current situation, 1 in 7 households are "food insecure."  6.7 million are very food insecure.  That means over the course of the year, they experience periods with actual hunger pains.  That's where we are now, and if you keep cutting you'll start seeing third world shiat here.

A recent study lent some confirmation and salience to this:

Among lower-income neighborhoods, ER visits for hypoglycemia go up at the end of the month. This doesn't happen for appendicitis, nor in less-poor neighborhoods.


Have we maybe considered that giving them checks once a month is a bad idea?  Maybe once a week?

I mean, given that there are upper-middle-class people making several hundred thousand a year living (very nicely) paycheck to paycheck, and given that we don't actually have that much money, maybe cutting them a check once a week (or once a day or once a year.  Play with the numbers a bit) would be a better response to this than spending even more money?

Especially given that for political reasons it's a non-starter to give them even more money?
 
2014-02-04 02:33:48 PM  

lennavan: FLMountainMan: lennavan: We'll defend their right to starve to death?

How many people starved to death in America last year?

He was suggesting we cut back.  Under the current situation, 1 in 7 households are "food insecure."  6.7 million are very food insecure.  That means over the course of the year, they experience periods with actual hunger pains.  That's where we are now, and if you keep cutting you'll start seeing third world shiat here.

FLMountainMan: Do you think it's fewer than the number employed and/or fed by the US Military?

So pay the US Military the exact same wage.  Instead of buying them tanks and guns, let's buy them vans and lots of groceries to deliver.  If there are people left we don't need to deliver food, we can get them to work insulating poverty stricken homes or upgrading infrastructure.  I guarantee you, there's no shortage of work to be done in our country and if you give me the Department of Defense budget, I can do a hell of a lot more good than shootin up brown dudes in Afghanistan.


Actually that's not a bad idea.  It would be steallar PR for the military, create duties for active military who aren't deployed, create a social program that is "zomg the military is awesome!" which sort of trumps saving money in conservativeland and promote trust of the government in poorer communities where they instinctively won't call police when things get bad.  They could even use this as a "desk job" for injured vets.  It would also put faces into the public for disaster response.

It's win-win.  We get big military AND social programs.  Plus, being in the military isn't all murdering muslims.
 
2014-02-04 02:35:28 PM  

Gaseous Anomaly: pmdgrwr: Am I missing something or is it that government is so large that it can no longer fund itself without borrowing more money.

It's not a matter of "can't" but "won't"; we could raise taxes to a budget-balancing point if we wanted to.

Not that it's a good idea at the moment, right now there's a huge global pool of money that's willing to pay the US government to make use of that money.

Global pool, you mean US dollars that was given out as bailouts to other countries. So we are paying interest on our own money to countries that borrowed it from us and then turned around and bought treasuries with it. Can our government find any more ways to squander money.

 
2014-02-04 02:36:55 PM  

generallyso: tarheel07: Devil's advocate, but if you owe taxes at the end of the year, the government's essentially loaned you money which you pay back interest-free too.

If you owe taxes at the end of the year you're going to pay penalties. You can put in an extension for filing but under normal circumstances there is no extension for payment.


Not if you pay them when you file.
 
2014-02-04 02:37:09 PM  
Hey I got a silly idea,  stop wasting all the goddam money already.
 
2014-02-04 02:44:57 PM  

Pangea: generallyso: tarheel07: Devil's advocate, but if you owe taxes at the end of the year, the government's essentially loaned you money which you pay back interest-free too.

If you owe taxes at the end of the year you're going to pay penalties. You can put in an extension for filing but under normal circumstances there is no extension for payment.

Not if you pay them when you file.


This position has been thoroughly rebutted I see. I clearly am not a rich person.
 
2014-02-04 02:51:28 PM  

Pangea: Pangea: generallyso: tarheel07: Devil's advocate, but if you owe taxes at the end of the year, the government's essentially loaned you money which you pay back interest-free too.

If you owe taxes at the end of the year you're going to pay penalties. You can put in an extension for filing but under normal circumstances there is no extension for payment.

Not if you pay them when you file.

This position has been thoroughly rebutted I see. I clearly am not a rich person.


I first ran into it in an interesting non-rich situation: a university fellowship.

I got a tuition waiver (that's not taxable) and the same stipend that TAs and such get. The stipend was taxable income, but because it wasn't a job per se they couldn't withhold taxes from it. Therefore I had to pay quarterly estimated taxes (essentially, doing my own withholding). The university warned us of this ahead of time so it wouldn't be a surprise.
 
2014-02-04 03:00:35 PM  

Gaseous Anomaly: For that money to lead to inflation and higher rates, wouldn't they have to be investing it in something productive, or buying stuff with it? Either way, that leads to economic growth.


True, rapid economic growth combined with 'easy money' is typically one driver of inflation.  Currently, we are awash in money, but economic growth has been pretty slow.

(If the rich keep "parking" the money in government bonds then the interest rate on said bonds doesn't have to go up).

That is true, but the rich are generally looking for the best ROI.  If you have an economy that is hot or heating up, you are not going to be parking much money in bonds.
 
2014-02-04 03:03:15 PM  

dragonchild: Ugh, HeadLever finally made my Ignore list.


wellbye.jpg

I noticed that you just threw a fit and left without actually trying to refute anything I said.  I wonder why that is........
 
2014-02-04 03:14:51 PM  

SwiftFox: The tax refunds don't belong to the government to begin with.

Why were they ever counted as part of the money available to be spent on other things, if it has to be replaced now?


Because whoever designed our tax system was an inefficient moran?
 
2014-02-04 03:32:42 PM  

HeadLever: cameroncrazy1984: Because spending isn't  actually out of control.

Actually, spending is still much higher (as a percentage of GDP) than historical norms (about 22%, currently).

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 657x464]

And don't forget the point that if we want to actually reduce the debt (not the deficit), we are going to  have to reduce it some more.


Spending on programs approved during Bush years as a percentage of teh GDP of an economy that Bush crashed?  Yep, that's what I would expect the chart to look like.

Tell you what, you guys go ahead and scream and shout and fret and shiat your pants, I'm going to ignore all these political assholes the same way they ignore me and just wait for the announcement that we printed ourselves a few trillion dollars to push the decision off to some golden day in the future.
 
2014-02-04 03:47:49 PM  

MaliFinn: I'm going to ignore all these political assholes the same way they ignore me and just wait for the announcement that we printed ourselves a few trillion dollars to push the decision off to some golden day in the future.


So you are going to act exactly like the folks that you loath?  Brilliant plan. That will show them.
 
2014-02-04 03:48:37 PM  
I don't ever get a refund anymore and I'm ok with that. I'd rather hold onto the money than let the gubmint hold onto it, thanks very much.
 
Displayed 50 of 204 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 »
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