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.

(The Raw Story)   According to Fox News' Stuart Varney, the point of food stamp cuts isn't to save federal money... it's to punish poor people   (rawstory.com) divider line 181
    More: Asinine, Stuart Varney, SNAP, Fox News, poor people, Brian Kilmeade  
•       •       •

2592 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Mar 2014 at 3:39 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



181 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-03-11 02:42:31 PM  
what a vindictive little prick.
 
2014-03-11 02:45:48 PM  
Can we drop this little prick into the Atlantic and see if he'll float back home?  We don't want him any more.
 
2014-03-11 02:47:46 PM  
I guess they can drop that fake moniker of "Compassionate Conservative" now, right? (or have they dropped it years ago when the blah guy first came into office?)
 
2014-03-11 02:48:39 PM  
"You are told that you are taking food out of the mouths of children. You're making people starve. You are bad because you're cutting. You can't win! How will we ever get a handle on our debt if you can't cut $8 billion out of food stamps over a 10-year period? How will you ever do that?"

How is cutting $8 billion going to help the deficit when defense spending is over $700 billion a year?  Cut 2% from the military and you're way past $8 billion, you worthless piece of stinking garbage.
 
2014-03-11 02:53:40 PM  
If you're looking to trim the fat, let's start with the military, which is EASILY 10 times the size needed to protect our own borders.
 
2014-03-11 02:55:54 PM  
"You are demagogued to death!" Varney cried. "You are told that you are taking food out of the mouths of children. You're making people starve. You are bad because you're cutting. You can't win! How will we ever get a handle on our debt if you can't cut $8 billion out of food stamps over a 10-year period? How will you ever do that?"
 

$800M/year is .1% of the annual military budget. But I'm sure there's no fat there to trim.
 
2014-03-11 02:56:15 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: How is cutting $8 billion going to help the deficit when defense spending is over $700 billion a year?


I never liked the "because it isn't everything means it does nothing" argument. $8 billion in cuts is $8 billion removed from the deficit.

However:

Marcus Aurelius: Cut 2% from the military and you're way past $8 billion, you worthless piece of stinking garbage.


This is still a valid statement.
 
2014-03-11 02:57:59 PM  
Who would Jesus starve?
 
2014-03-11 03:00:57 PM  

nmrsnr: Marcus Aurelius: How is cutting $8 billion going to help the deficit when defense spending is over $700 billion a year?

I never liked the "because it isn't everything means it does nothing" argument. $8 billion in cuts is $8 billion removed from the deficit.

However:

Marcus Aurelius: Cut 2% from the military and you're way past $8 billion, you worthless piece of stinking garbage.

This is still a valid statement.


Sorry for ranting.  I am becoming highly intolerant of these people.  How anyone can watch this channel is way beyond me.  All the 24x7 channels are bad, but FOX is positively toxic.
 
2014-03-11 03:01:08 PM  
I propose a truce in the Class War. Quit trying to take that slice of bread out of that kid's mouth, and we'll quit calling bankers "farking bankers".
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-03-11 03:03:46 PM  
I think we pretty much knew that.
 
2014-03-11 03:05:29 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: How anyone can watch this channel is way beyond me


I'll give you a hint: Arizona & Florida demographics.
 
2014-03-11 03:10:19 PM  
How will we ever get a handle on our debt if you can't cut $8 billion out of food stamps over a 10-year period? How will you ever do that?"


Well, you pedantic little prick, we could start with the USS Gerald Ford, which is ESTIMATED to cost $17.5 billion dollars and is a first of it's kind super carrier.

But we need that, right? Because of this guy:

www.independent.co.uk
 
2014-03-11 03:17:03 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: Marcus Aurelius: How anyone can watch this channel is way beyond me

I'll give you a hint: Arizona & Florida demographics.


The heat stroked and drug addled?
 
2014-03-11 03:20:37 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Sorry for ranting. I am becoming highly intolerant of these people.


That's fine, but your argument was the same one that the right used to argue that $70 billion (or whatever the actual number was) in revenue from increasing taxes on those making over $250k was insignificant in light of the $700 billion deficit, so why bother? It wasn't a very good argument then, and it's still not a good argument. The good argument is: because taking food out of the mouth of children is monstrous, especially if you are doing it so that you don't have to stop building tanks and aircraft that nobody wants.
 
2014-03-11 03:36:53 PM  
We get it, Republicans hate poor people and wish they would die or just go away somehow. We know.
 
2014-03-11 03:37:45 PM  

nmrsnr: Marcus Aurelius: Sorry for ranting. I am becoming highly intolerant of these people.

That's fine, but your argument was the same one that the right used to argue that $70 billion (or whatever the actual number was) in revenue from increasing taxes on those making over $250k was insignificant in light of the $700 billion deficit, so why bother? It wasn't a very good argument then, and it's still not a good argument. The good argument is: because taking food out of the mouth of children is monstrous, especially if you are doing it so that you don't have to stop building tanks and aircraft that nobody wants.


Noted.  I will restrain myself from here on out.
 
2014-03-11 03:41:09 PM  
The obvious tag starve to death or something?
 
2014-03-11 03:41:27 PM  

kronicfeld: $800M/year is .1% of the annual military budget. But I'm sure there's no fat there to trim.


The trouble is that cutting military budgets is dangerous politically. If something bad does happen, you're tarred and feathered because "HE DIDN'T KEEP US SAFE"

Rather than cut the costs, let's start defraying them by billing others for military services rendered.

"Hey, ExxonMobil.. that's a nice little straight you've got over there. It costs $1million/day to keep our carrier group there... It would be a shame if they left and something bad happened"
 
2014-03-11 03:42:21 PM  
There was a time when they weren't so obvious with the greed.
 
2014-03-11 03:42:22 PM  
Obvious tag can't qualify for benefits anymore?
 
2014-03-11 03:43:39 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: The trouble is that cutting military budgets is dangerous politically.


I get that, but I'm appalled that "hungry children" isn't more politically dangerous.
 
2014-03-11 03:43:51 PM  
No one is feeding people for votes, you ignorant arrogant little asshat.

We're feeding people because they're human, they're hungry, and it is the right thing to do.

/an idea totally lost on you, I know.
 
2014-03-11 03:44:35 PM  
So, unable to say the phrase "compassionate convervatism" with a straight face anymore, they've moved on to "life for people who have it hard should suck even more if we have any say over it."  Very nice.
 
2014-03-11 03:44:40 PM  

what_now: Eddie Adams from Torrance: The trouble is that cutting military budgets is dangerous politically.

I get that, but I'm appalled that "hungry children" isn't more politically dangerous.


Jesus, right? What has happened to our national moral compass?
 
2014-03-11 03:45:10 PM  
I find the parallels between Republican social policy and torture very interesting, especially that both are predicated on the use of enforced pain or suffering in order to alter behavior.
 
2014-03-11 03:45:19 PM  
Ah yes, they have stumbled on onto the democrats master plan to enslave the population of poors by feeding them and robbing them of their dignity and their soul.
//on the bright side it seems you have to be soul-less to vote republican so this may backfire
 
2014-03-11 03:46:09 PM  
"It shows you, once you've got a program, you can never get rid of it and it's very difficult to cut.

Actually, it's very easy.  You just cut funding to it, which is not what was done here.  Here, they merely raised the states' copays to $20, which several states thought was a worthwhile expenditure to keep their citizenry from starvation.

do you want to be the party that goes up to the poor and says, 'Take that back'?" Kilmeade said.

Apparently, you do.

"You are demagogued to death!" Varney cried. "You are told that you are taking food out of the mouths of children. You're making people starve.

Yes, you are being demagogued.  Because, yes, you are taking the food out of the mouths of children.  Did you not catch Rand Paul's CPAC speech?

Face it Fox.  Republicans looked at this change and thought it was worth it.  Democrats (and probably a few state-level Republicans) looked at this change and thought spending the extra $20 to get more than that back as assistance to their citizens was worth it.  If you have a problem with what you did, then maybe you shouldn't have done it.
 
2014-03-11 03:46:11 PM  

what_now: Eddie Adams from Torrance: The trouble is that cutting military budgets is dangerous politically.

I get that, but I'm appalled that "hungry children" isn't more politically dangerous.


You can't fire hungry children into Baghdad and blow up a building!

...Or can you?
 
2014-03-11 03:46:37 PM  
"How will we ever get a handle on our debt if you can't cut $8 billion out of food stamps over a 10-year period? How will you ever do that?"

Getting a handle on our debt is easy ... raise taxes until there is no more deficit and then just hold spending at that level until the debt is serviced. Unfortunately the right wing religious anti-tax nut jobs fight tooth and nail to prevent such an occurrence.
 
2014-03-11 03:46:55 PM  
I can't wait to hear the derp behind this one. So who do you guys think our first contestant will be?
 
2014-03-11 03:47:03 PM  

Confabulat: We get it, Republicans hate poor people and wish they would die or just go away somehow. We know.


I'm sure you've seen the numbers comparing Republicans' charitable contributions versus Democrats.  Because you have a different idea on how to help poor people doesn't mean you hate them.
 
2014-03-11 03:47:50 PM  
Little Billy, just remember that when your stomach hurts tonight because we don't have enough food, Stuart Varney really has it worse because you're demagoguing him to exasperation.
 
2014-03-11 03:48:07 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Can we drop this little prick into the Atlantic and see if he'll float back home?  We don't want him any more.


That's pollution. Shoot him up with the Mars 01 crew, at least he'd be the first space janitor.
 
2014-03-11 03:48:10 PM  

what_now: Well, you pedantic little prick, we could start with the USS Gerald Ford, which is ESTIMATED to cost $17.5 billion dollars and is a first of it's kind super carrier.

But we need that, right? Because of this guy:


Thing is, maybe we do need that thing, maybe we don't, but Congress spends buttloads of money on stuff THE MILITARY ITSELF SAYS THEY DON'T NEED.  Apparently we can't even cut the stuff that the military doesn't even want.
 
2014-03-11 03:48:14 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Rather than cut the costs, let's start defraying them by billing others for military services rendered.

"Hey, ExxonMobil.. that's a nice little straight you've got over there. It costs $1million/day to keep our carrier group there... It would be a shame if they left and something bad happened"


Given that we can't get Exxon/Mobil to clean up their own messes, I have a feeling getting them to run their own security would be a long, hard fight indeed.
 
2014-03-11 03:48:19 PM  

what_now: How will we ever get a handle on our debt if you can't cut $8 billion out of food stamps over a 10-year period? How will you ever do that?"


Well, you pedantic little prick, we could start with the USS Gerald Ford, which is ESTIMATED to cost $17.5 billion dollars and is a first of it's kind super carrier.

But we need that, right? Because of this guy:

[www.independent.co.uk image 620x465]


That's not why we need it.  We need it because, from your link:
Gerald R. Ford will enter the fleet replacing the inactive  Enterprise (CVN-65), which ended its 51 years of active service in December 2012.

Now, the defense budget's line items do fall into three categories:
Cannot be cut
Can be cut
Should be cut

I do agree with you that a very significant portion of it falls into the latter two categories, the USS Gerald R Ford is really not one of them.
 
2014-03-11 03:48:44 PM  
76% of SNAP households included a child, an elderly person, or a disabled person. These vulnerable households receive 83% of all SNAP benefits.

Why would you want to get rid of this program, Stu?
 
2014-03-11 03:48:58 PM  

ISOLATED INCIDENT! ROGUE STAFFER! FOX DOESN'T SPEAK FOR REPUBLICANS!

 
2014-03-11 03:49:51 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: "How will we ever get a handle on our debt if you can't cut $8 billion out of food stamps over a 10-year period? How will you ever do that?"

Getting a handle on our debt is easy ... raise taxes until there is no more deficit and then just hold spending at that level until the debt is serviced. Unfortunately the right wing religious anti-tax nut jobs fight tooth and nail to prevent such an occurrence.


I especially enjoy the implicit assertion that we cannot get a handle on the debt unless we let poor people go hungry.
 
2014-03-11 03:50:25 PM  
You can't win! How will we ever get a handle on our debt if you can't cut $8 billion out of food stamps over a 10-year period? How will you ever do that?


How about not building 500 biilion dollar planes that don't work and not building tanks just to sit in a desert to die? Can we start there?
 
2014-03-11 03:51:12 PM  

Cat Food Sandwiches: Because you have a different idea on how to help poor people doesn't mean you hate them.


That is utter bullshiat. I've listened to enough Republicans talk. They DESPISE poor people and always blame them for being poor. Every time.

Republicans WANT poor people to suffer. They believe they deserve it. They say as much out loud all the time.
 
2014-03-11 03:51:17 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: what_now: Eddie Adams from Torrance: The trouble is that cutting military budgets is dangerous politically.

I get that, but I'm appalled that "hungry children" isn't more politically dangerous.

You can't fire hungry children into Baghdad and blow up a building!

...Or can you?


we wont know until we try. for science!
 
2014-03-11 03:51:22 PM  

Karac: "You are demagogued to death!" Varney cried. "You are told that you are taking food out of the mouths of children. You're making people starve.

Yes, you are being demagogued. Because, yes, you are taking the food out of the mouths of children. Did you not catch Rand Paul's CPAC speech?


Or that other pantywaist pussified commie who never met a conflict he couldn't cut and run from:

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

// yup, still Rand Paul
 
2014-03-11 03:51:54 PM  

GQueue: Thing is, maybe we do need that thing,


lol
 
2014-03-11 03:52:51 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: "You are told that you are taking food out of the mouths of children. You're making people starve. You are bad because you're cutting. You can't win! How will we ever get a handle on our debt if you can't cut $8 billion out of food stamps over a 10-year period? How will you ever do that?"

How is cutting $8 billion going to help the deficit when defense spending is over $700 billion a year?  Cut 2% from the military and you're way past $8 billion, you worthless piece of stinking garbage.


"you can't ever win!"

Uhhh, well I guess that depends on exactly what game you were playing in the first place,  though I'm really not sure I want to know the rules of the one that has "More poor people starving to death" as a victory condition
 
2014-03-11 03:53:06 PM  

qorkfiend: I find the parallels between Republican social policy and torture very interesting, especially that both are predicated on the use of enforced pain or suffering in order to alter behavior.


Authoritarians only understand coercion as a motivator. Hence "taxes: legal theft" and the idea that rapists are compelled to rape by the coercive sluttiness of women in short skirts.
 
2014-03-11 03:54:15 PM  

what_now: Eddie Adams from Torrance: The trouble is that cutting military budgets is dangerous politically.

I get that, but I'm appalled that "hungry children" isn't more politically dangerous.


Because we're dealing with these kinds of people:

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-03-11 03:54:28 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: 76% of SNAP households included a child, an elderly person, or a disabled person. These vulnerable households receive 83% of all SNAP benefits.

Why would you want to get rid of this program, Stu?


The standard Fark-right answer is they are all faking the disability and just living large on the public dole.
 
2014-03-11 03:54:52 PM  

what_now: Eddie Adams from Torrance: The trouble is that cutting military budgets is dangerous politically.

I get that, but I'm appalled that "hungry children" isn't more politically dangerous.


The Overton Window is slowly sinking in the middle of the Atlantic.
 
2014-03-11 03:55:21 PM  
Food stamps are as much of a handout to grocery stores, farmers, and big food companies like Nestle as they are handouts to poor people
 
2014-03-11 03:55:31 PM  
#32 More than one out of every four children in the United States is enrolled in the food stamp program.

That link is aged a couple of years, but it should still serve to upset you if you have a soul.
 
2014-03-11 03:55:35 PM  

Magorn: Marcus Aurelius: "You are told that you are taking food out of the mouths of children. You're making people starve. You are bad because you're cutting. You can't win! How will we ever get a handle on our debt if you can't cut $8 billion out of food stamps over a 10-year period? How will you ever do that?"

How is cutting $8 billion going to help the deficit when defense spending is over $700 billion a year?  Cut 2% from the military and you're way past $8 billion, you worthless piece of stinking garbage.

"you can't ever win!"

Uhhh, well I guess that depends on exactly what game you were playing in the first place,  though I'm really not sure I want to know the rules of the one that has "More poor people starving to death" as a victory condition



Remember, it's only government waste when you're feeding or educating brown skin people.  Blowing them up is always money well spent.
 
2014-03-11 03:56:14 PM  
Here's another Eisenhower quote:

izquotes.com

If it hadn't been for the 1953 Coup of Iran, I'd put him in my top 10 US presidents.
 
2014-03-11 03:57:59 PM  
How much did the USA promise to give Ukraine again?

Was it a measly $1 billion?
 
2014-03-11 03:58:00 PM  
Any good conservative Christian knows, Jesus said "Give a man a fish and he will be satisfied.  Kill thousands with a bombardment from a battleship and you save money giving them all those fish."
 
2014-03-11 04:02:13 PM  
Is the Obvious tag away at a job fair, where he'll pass out 30 resumes and not get a call back from any of our holy job creatures, despite being well-qualified for the positions available, followed up by a night and a morning drinking cheap whisky in a bar in order to summon the courage to tell his wife that in order to feed their children they're going to have to default on their mortgage and lose everything they've worked hard to get, lost when his company outsourced his job to India, and demonized by politicans for being lazy, despite the fact that he's been applying to 30+ jobs every week for the past 70 weeks while working part time as a server at the local Applebee's?
 
2014-03-11 04:02:36 PM  
Points for honesty, at least.
 
2014-03-11 04:04:21 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: #32 More than one out of every four children in the United States is enrolled in the food stamp program.

That link is aged a couple of years, but it should still serve to upset you if you have a soul.


What precisely should be upsetting about that? What is the proper amount of children that should be covered?
 
2014-03-11 04:04:34 PM  

Bith Set Me Up: Here's another Eisenhower quote:

[izquotes.com image 850x400]

If it hadn't been for the 1953 Coup of Iran, I'd put him in my top 10 US presidents.


The only problem with that is that Republicans see poor people getting food as a 'privilege' and not feeding them as a 'principle.
 
2014-03-11 04:04:37 PM  

rosebud_the_sled: Any good conservative Christian knows, Jesus said "Give a man a fish and he will be satisfied.  Kill thousands with a bombardment from a battleship and you save money giving them all those fish."


"Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for the night. SET a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. Or something, was never really clear on the whole subject"

/Terry Pratchett knows all
 
2014-03-11 04:04:52 PM  

Rhino_man: what_now: How will we ever get a handle on our debt if you can't cut $8 billion out of food stamps over a 10-year period? How will you ever do that?"


Well, you pedantic little prick, we could start with the USS Gerald Ford, which is ESTIMATED to cost $17.5 billion dollars and is a first of it's kind super carrier.

But we need that, right? Because of this guy:

[www.independent.co.uk image 620x465]

That's not why we need it.  We need it because, from your link:
Gerald R. Ford will enter the fleet replacing the inactive  Enterprise (CVN-65), which ended its 51 years of active service in December 2012.

Now, the defense budget's line items do fall into three categories:
Cannot be cut
Can be cut
Should be cut

I do agree with you that a very significant portion of it falls into the latter two categories, the USS Gerald R Ford is really not one of them.


I would argue that building a ship that is can take on the combined power of the Navy's of the rest of the world is less important than feeding our citizens.

There are no other superpowers. The USS Enterprise was needed at the time, because we were afraid of the Soviets, but that's not our world.
 
2014-03-11 04:05:36 PM  
Well, duh.
 
2014-03-11 04:06:22 PM  

Dr Dreidel: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."


This quote should be tatooed on every politician and posted every five feet in all government buildings.
 
2014-03-11 04:07:16 PM  
"There is a common misconception-magnified during the recent presidential election-that low income families are 'takers' who do not work, instead relying on government assistance to meet their needs. But in 2011, more than 7 in 10 low income families and half of all poor families were working.They simply didn't earn enough money to pay for basic living expenses."
 
2014-03-11 04:07:30 PM  

Raoul Eaton: So, unable to say the phrase "compassionate convervatism" with a straight face anymore, they've moved on to "life for people who have it hard should suck even more if we have any say over it."  Very nice.


But how else will the poors have the incentive to pull themselves up by their bootstraps?

/that was sarcasm
//i think i really felt that way, i would kill myself.
 
2014-03-11 04:07:38 PM  
FTA: Varney agreed that Republicans were the true victims here.

Deport this c*cksucker straight to Hell.
 
2014-03-11 04:09:13 PM  
I would love to see Stuart Varney lose his life savings through a Bernie Madoff style Ponzi scheme, need the social safety net, but not qualify due to some cuts he endorsed/promoted which wound up becoming law.
 
2014-03-11 04:10:32 PM  
Imagine how these buttholes would feel about a black gay person on food stamps.
 
2014-03-11 04:12:08 PM  

heavymetal: I would love to see Stuart Varney lose his life savings through a Bernie Madoff style Ponzi scheme, need the social safety net, but not qualify due to some cuts he endorsed/promoted which wound up becoming law.


Or how about sone kind of 'Trading Places' type experiment where he is reduced to nothing and a random black guy is given his job at Fox and his house and possessions?
 
2014-03-11 04:12:45 PM  

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: No one is feeding people for votes, you ignorant arrogant little asshat.

We're feeding people because they're human, they're hungry, and it is the right thing to do.

/an idea totally lost on you, I know.


This is the same guy who told off Pope Francis that he was ignorant of how unfettered capitalism was good for the soul and is what Jesus would have supported, and suggested that Francis crossed a line by trying to use religious faith to argue political points.

Based on his personal moral compass people like you who would be aligned with Satan to Varney.
 
2014-03-11 04:16:47 PM  

Cat Food Sandwiches: Confabulat: We get it, Republicans hate poor people and wish they would die or just go away somehow. We know.

I'm sure you've seen the numbers comparing Republicans' charitable contributions versus Democrats.  Because you have a different idea on how to help poor people doesn't mean you hate them.


This argument is total garbage. Why? Because, for one thing, ensuring that people eat, are sheltered, educated and housed ought to be the goal and practice of a modern, successful society. It ought not to be charity. The world and its resources belong to the people who were born here. It's not like they can go anywhere else. All government is is (at its best) is an expression of what we all in common want to accomplish. In this case, people should be fed because they are our people and not because they are charity cases. Also, in case you haven't heard, charities aren't doing particularly well lately, either. They can't keep up with the demand for what they provide. That means your glorious conservative donors alone can't manage it. If we the people can choose in common to bomb the shiat out of strangers, we the people can in common choose to feed our citizens.
 
2014-03-11 04:17:38 PM  

Splish: What precisely should be upsetting about that?


That we're supposed to be the wealthiest country in the world yet 1 in 4 kids is on SNAP may not bother you, but it does me.
 
2014-03-11 04:18:37 PM  
Finally, some honesty from these assholes.
 
2014-03-11 04:18:49 PM  

gshepnyc: If we the people can choose in common to bomb the shiat out of strangers, we the people can in common choose to feed our citizens.


The flaw in this argument, of course, is that Republicans are in favor of bombing our poor neighborhoods. Look how delighted so many of them were by Katrina.
 
2014-03-11 04:18:57 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-03-11 04:19:01 PM  

grumpfuff: ISOLATED INCIDENT! ROGUE STAFFER! FOX DOESN'T SPEAK FOR REPUBLICANS!


Neither does Sarah Palin, or Ted Nugent, or Michele Bachmann, or Steve Stockman, or Allen West, or Louis Gomert, or Wayne LaPierre, or Victoria Jackson, or Paul Broun, or any of the loons at CPAC

All just isolated, extremist rogue individuals.
 
2014-03-11 04:20:53 PM  
You do get demagogued, because you really are cutting off your nose to spite your face, all to score some political points with your ever shrinking base.

There is no cycle of food stamp dependence.

And Wal-Mart blamed lowered earnings on those very food stamp cuts.

We can help people off of food stamps by ensuring they actually have an economy that pays them a fair wage.

All the money all trickles up anyways, but on its way back up, generates a lot of economic activity.
 
2014-03-11 04:21:14 PM  

vernonFL: heavymetal: I would love to see Stuart Varney lose his life savings through a Bernie Madoff style Ponzi scheme, need the social safety net, but not qualify due to some cuts he endorsed/promoted which wound up becoming law.

Or how about sone kind of 'Trading Places' type experiment where he is reduced to nothing and a random black guy is given his job at Fox and his house and possessions?


Then in the end Steve Varney learns his lesson after moving in with a hooker, teams up with the black guy, and through zany shenanigans causes Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch to lose their fortunes in a shady futures deal gone wrong.
 
2014-03-11 04:21:40 PM  

lockers: [img.fark.net image 850x595]


That guy has the same TV he had 20 years ago and still is reading print newspapers. Hmm he sounds like a Fox News viewer.
 
2014-03-11 04:35:20 PM  
Now what's really going on here is the government's buying votes. They're keeping, churning out the food stamps in return for votes. That's what's happening."

Yes. The Democratic Party that does nice things for people are getting supported with their votes. Unlike the gop who abuses and torments the poor with sadistic glee, and then wonders why those dirty stinking subhuman poors refuse to vote republican. Damn ingrates!
 
2014-03-11 04:35:31 PM  

Rhino_man: what_now: How will we ever get a handle on our debt if you can't cut $8 billion out of food stamps over a 10-year period? How will you ever do that?"


Well, you pedantic little prick, we could start with the USS Gerald Ford, which is ESTIMATED to cost $17.5 billion dollars and is a first of it's kind super carrier.

But we need that, right? Because of this guy:

[www.independent.co.uk image 620x465]

That's not why we need it.  We need it because, from your link:
Gerald R. Ford will enter the fleet replacing the inactive  Enterprise (CVN-65), which ended its 51 years of active service in December 2012.

Now, the defense budget's line items do fall into three categories:
Cannot be cut
Can be cut
Should be cut

I do agree with you that a very significant portion of it falls into the latter two categories, the USS Gerald R Ford is really not one of them.


Why the hell not?  Why do we need to replace the Enterprise?  What catastrophe will befall if we just have fewer farking aircraft carriers?  We already have as many as the rest of the world put together, why do we need  more of the damn things?
 
2014-03-11 04:36:14 PM  
He brings shame to the name of Varney...
 
2014-03-11 04:38:48 PM  

Dr Dreidel: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."// yup, still Rand Paul


fark that asshole.  He voted right along with the GOP to cut food stamps because he thinks millionaires are using them too much or something.  Rand may be against military spending, but he gives absolutely zero farks about the poor in this country.
 
2014-03-11 04:40:59 PM  

Raoul Eaton: So, unable to say the phrase "compassionate convervatism" with a straight face anymore, they've moved on to "life for people who have it hard should suck even more if we have any say over it." Very nice.


There's a reason they had to ADD the word "compassionate" in the first place.
 
2014-03-11 04:43:16 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Sin_City_Superhero: Marcus Aurelius: How anyone can watch this channel is way beyond me

I'll give you a hint: Arizona & Florida demographics.

The heat stroked and drug addled?


More like the old and stroke-addled, amirite?
 
2014-03-11 04:46:08 PM  

illogic: Dr Dreidel: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."// yup, still Rand Paul

fark that asshole.  He voted right along with the GOP to cut food stamps because he thinks millionaires are using them too much or something.  Rand may be against military spending, but he gives absolutely zero farks about the poor in this country.


You, uh...may want to look up the origins of that quote.

// hint: not RANDPAUL
 
2014-03-11 04:46:19 PM  
What a miserable prick... How do some people watch a steady diet of this crap?
 
2014-03-11 04:47:18 PM  

toastmonkey42: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Sin_City_Superhero: Marcus Aurelius: How anyone can watch this channel is way beyond me

I'll give you a hint: Arizona & Florida demographics.

The heat stroked and drug addled?

More like the old and stroke-addled, amirite?


Worst. Soap Opera. Ever.
 
2014-03-11 04:48:38 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: grumpfuff: ISOLATED INCIDENT! ROGUE STAFFER! FOX DOESN'T SPEAK FOR REPUBLICANS!

Neither does Sarah Palin, or Ted Nugent, or Michele Bachmann, or Steve Stockman, or Allen West, or Louis Gomert, or Wayne LaPierre, or Victoria Jackson, or Paul Broun, or any of the loons at CPAC

All just isolated, extremist rogue individuals.


Don't forget those RINOs in Congress. Except for my representative. He's a true conservative hero.
 
2014-03-11 04:49:57 PM  

what_now: The USS Enterprise was needed at the time, because we were afraid of the Soviets, but that's not our world.


Who are we afraid of now?

Besides our own CIA, NSA, DHS, ICE, FBI, NSA, DOE, and DOJ?
 
2014-03-11 05:00:20 PM  
Jesus conservatives are f*ckin' mean. Seriously, buncha mean little f*cks.
 
2014-03-11 05:00:20 PM  
 
2014-03-11 05:03:10 PM  

Confabulat: Cat Food Sandwiches: Because you have a different idea on how to help poor people doesn't mean you hate them.

That is utter bullshiat. I've listened to enough Republicans talk. They DESPISE poor people and always blame them for being poor. Every time.

Republicans WANT poor people to suffer. They believe they deserve it. They say as much out loud all the time.


He's equating dumping money at the local mega church with helping the poor. That's what the survey did.
 
2014-03-11 05:03:33 PM  

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: No one is feeding people for votes, you ignorant arrogant little asshat.

We're feeding people because they're human, they're hungry, and it is the right thing to do.

/an idea totally lost on you, I know.


To be fair, people who have starved to death are pretty bad voters.

/except in Florida
//and Chicago
 
2014-03-11 05:04:02 PM  

Cat Food Sandwiches: Confabulat: We get it, Republicans hate poor people and wish they would die or just go away somehow. We know.

I'm sure you've seen the numbers comparing Republicans' charitable contributions versus Democrats.  Because you have a different idea on how to help poor people doesn't mean you hate them.


It's just that Republicans' words and deeds indicate that they do, in fact, hate poor people. At least as long as they are brown. And mostly white ones, too.
 
2014-03-11 05:05:13 PM  

UndeadPoetsSociety: Rhino_man: what_now: How will we ever get a handle on our debt if you can't cut $8 billion out of food stamps over a 10-year period? How will you ever do that?"


Well, you pedantic little prick, we could start with the USS Gerald Ford, which is ESTIMATED to cost $17.5 billion dollars and is a first of it's kind super carrier.

But we need that, right? Because of this guy:

[www.independent.co.uk image 620x465]

That's not why we need it.  We need it because, from your link:
Gerald R. Ford will enter the fleet replacing the inactive  Enterprise (CVN-65), which ended its 51 years of active service in December 2012.

Now, the defense budget's line items do fall into three categories:
Cannot be cut
Can be cut
Should be cut

I do agree with you that a very significant portion of it falls into the latter two categories, the USS Gerald R Ford is really not one of them.

Why the hell not?  Why do we need to replace the Enterprise?  What catastrophe will befall if we just have fewer farking aircraft carriers?  We already have as many as the rest of the world put together, why do we need  more of the damn things?


I will take a swing at this one.

Navy deployments put 2/3s of the fleet on work-ups or post-deployment shake-downs at any one time. This leaves between 3 and 4 carriers on deployment at any one time, one or two on-station, and one or two relieving them. The Navy does ensure right-of-transit in any of the contested or potentially-contested waterways in the world, and acts as the ocean's cops (yes, we are the world's police). No one else has our power-projection (no puns here), but everyone else does benefit from that projected power. For all our failures elsewhere, the Navy is a steadying hand on much of the world. It is a relief when a carrier can deliver 200000 gallons of water, daily, to people in distress, or can power a small country with the reactors.

Carriers play a very large "medium" power role in the nations defense. They can hit hard, especially when added with an amphibious group, but they provide plenty of regional and disaster support in peacetime. Gaps in coverage are much like gaps in car insurance: not necessarily noticeable when not needed  but darned expensive when needed and not there.
 
2014-03-11 05:09:32 PM  

whosits_112: He brings shame to the name of Varney...


I know. God, would you take this asshole and bring back Jim Varney?

vernonFL: heavymetal: I would love to see Stuart Varney lose his life savings through a Bernie Madoff style Ponzi scheme, need the social safety net, but not qualify due to some cuts he endorsed/promoted which wound up becoming law.

Or how about sone kind of 'Trading Places' type experiment where he is reduced to nothing and a random black guy is given his job at Fox and his house and possessions?


I'm quite convinced that the Koch Brothers have been trying to bring economic ruin to America over a $1 bet.
 
2014-03-11 05:11:57 PM  
Do Republicans really believe that charities would swoop in and save the nation's poor, if only we weren't forced to spend that money on taxes?

Of course they don't believe that; they know they'd spend that money on a new jet ski and the poor can go fark themselves.

And yes, this is what Republicans actually believe but are too scared to say out loud.
 
2014-03-11 05:18:26 PM  
Can we please all just acknowledge that the far right's true platform is feudalism? It's not even a joke anymore.
 
2014-03-11 05:18:51 PM  

what_now: How will we ever get a handle on our debt if you can't cut $8 billion out of food stamps over a 10-year period? How will you ever do that?"


Well, you pedantic little prick, we could start with the USS Gerald Ford, which is ESTIMATED to cost $17.5 billion dollars and is a first of it's kind super carrier.

But we need that, right? Because of this guy:

[www.independent.co.uk image 620x465]


You know he's not really a Somali pirate? (But he does a damn convincing job of portraying one.)
 
2014-03-11 05:21:24 PM  

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: No one is feeding people for votes, you ignorant arrogant little asshat.

We're feeding people because they're human, they're hungry, and it is the right thing to do.

/an idea totally lost on you, I know.


I doubt that people vote democratic because they've received food stamps, but I bet they will NOT vote for the party that cuts their food stamps.
 
2014-03-11 05:21:33 PM  

the_innkeeper: UndeadPoetsSociety: Rhino_man: what_now: How will we ever get a handle on our debt if you can't cut $8 billion out of food stamps over a 10-year period? How will you ever do that?"


Well, you pedantic little prick, we could start with the USS Gerald Ford, which is ESTIMATED to cost $17.5 billion dollars and is a first of it's kind super carrier.

But we need that, right? Because of this guy:

[www.independent.co.uk image 620x465]

That's not why we need it.  We need it because, from your link:
Gerald R. Ford will enter the fleet replacing the inactive  Enterprise (CVN-65), which ended its 51 years of active service in December 2012.

Now, the defense budget's line items do fall into three categories:
Cannot be cut
Can be cut
Should be cut

I do agree with you that a very significant portion of it falls into the latter two categories, the USS Gerald R Ford is really not one of them.

Why the hell not?  Why do we need to replace the Enterprise?  What catastrophe will befall if we just have fewer farking aircraft carriers?  We already have as many as the rest of the world put together, why do we need  more of the damn things?

I will take a swing at this one.

Navy deployments put 2/3s of the fleet on work-ups or post-deployment shake-downs at any one time. This leaves between 3 and 4 carriers on deployment at any one time, one or two on-station, and one or two relieving them. The Navy does ensure right-of-transit in any of the contested or potentially-contested waterways in the world, and acts as the ocean's cops (yes, we are the world's police). No one else has our power-projection (no puns here), but everyone else does benefit from that projected power. For all our failures elsewhere, the Navy is a steadying hand on much of the world. It is a relief when a carrier can deliver 200000 gallons of water, daily, to people in distress, or can power a small country with the reactors.

Carriers play a very large "medium" power role in the nations defense. They can hit hard ...


Thanks for stepping up while I was away.  You said it far better than I could have.
 
2014-03-11 05:27:25 PM  
Republican national hero.
 
2014-03-11 05:30:58 PM  

the_innkeeper: UndeadPoetsSociety:

Why the hell not?  Why do we need to replace the Enterprise?  What catastrophe will befall if we just have fewer farking aircraft carriers?  We already have as many as the rest of the world put together, why do we need  more of the damn things?

I will take a swing at this one.

Navy deployments put 2/3s of the fleet on work-ups or post-deployment shake-downs at any one time. This leaves between 3 and 4 carriers on deployment at any one time, one or two on-station, and one or two relieving them.


My point is that if we weren't devoted to the idea that we need to be able to "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business,"  as a more honest than usual conservative put it, we wouldn't actually need any carriers on station, and then we could just keep one or two around in case of need.
The Navy does ensure right-of-transit in any of the contested or potentially-contested waterways in the world, and acts as the ocean's cops (yes, we are the world's police).
Two points:
1)Hey, here's a crazy idea:  Why don't we let other people police their own damned seaways?
2) And we all know that carrier groups are a great way to deal with piracy.  Unless you're referring to some nation who's trying to navally contest right of way, in which case I point you to the fact that 90% of the other countries that have any carriers at all are our allies, and they could probably be convinced to donate one to the cause in the unlikely event that both the powers with carriers who aren't our allies for some reason decided to do that at once.
No one else has our power-projection (no puns here), but everyone else does benefit from that projected power.

Bluntly, citation needed.  What specific, tangible benefits do our dozen carrier groups provide to the world at large?

For all our failures elsewhere, the Navy is a steadying hand on much of the world. It is a relief when a carrier can deliver 200000 gallons of water, daily, to people in distress, or can power a small country with the reactors.
And we could do a lot more of that if we didn't keep sending out carrier groups to kill a few hundred thousand foreigners instead.  Further, I bet that a dedicated relief vessel that could do both of those things as well as the Gerald Ford for a damn sight less money.  I am entirely unimpressed by justifications for military spending based on humanitarian aid which could be provided far more efficiently by dedicated humanitarian aid organizations that didn't devote most of their budget and training to killing people and breaking things.

Carriers play a very large "medium" power role in the nations defense.

Defense against WHO, for the love of all that is holy?  That's the question that no one's ever able to answer.  Where is there a potential military threat to the U.S.?  Who has the sea carriage to attempt an invasion in the face of even land-based defenses, especially since those include air wings and cruise missiles?  WHAT THE LIVING fark ARE YOU JACKASSES SO farkING TERRIFIED OF, AND WHY?
 
2014-03-11 05:33:06 PM  

UndeadPoetsSociety: WHAT THE LIVING fark ARE YOU JACKASSES SO farkING TERRIFIED OF, AND WHY?


I've been wondering this about America's conservatives for a long time.

I think the short answer is: The future.
 
2014-03-11 05:34:37 PM  

Confabulat: UndeadPoetsSociety: WHAT THE LIVING fark ARE YOU JACKASSES SO farkING TERRIFIED OF, AND WHY?

I've been wondering this about America's conservatives for a long time.

I think the short answer is: The future.


I would posit the answer is "Them."

"Them" being "Not us", by the way. Not the giant ants.

/though they might be afraid of those too
 
2014-03-11 05:36:50 PM  
"Now what's really going on here is the government's buying votes. They're keeping, churning out the food stamps in return for votes. That's what's happening"

"Those damned Democrats keep HELPING people!  They keep doing what their constituents ask, and people LIKE them for it!  This is an OUTRAGE!  How are we going to keep farking people over if the other side keeps doing NICE things?!"
 
2014-03-11 05:37:58 PM  

grumpfuff: I would posit the answer is "Them."

"Them" being "Not us", by the way. Not the giant ants.


Ha that was actually the tag line in one of our more obnoxious campaigns lately (that election is today, wonder how it will turn out)

but the Republican ad ended with a black & white image of his Democratic competitor with the voiceover "Working for THEM. Not for US."

and I laughed.
 
2014-03-11 05:38:30 PM  

grumpfuff: Dr Dreidel: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

This quote should be tatooed on every politician and posted every five feet in all government buildings.


So they can feel great about who they are screwing over?
 
2014-03-11 05:38:52 PM  

the_innkeeper: UndeadPoetsSociety: Rhino_man: what_now: How will we ever get a handle on our debt if you can't cut $8 billion out of food stamps over a 10-year period? How will you ever do that?"


Well, you pedantic little prick, we could start with the USS Gerald Ford, which is ESTIMATED to cost $17.5 billion dollars and is a first of it's kind super carrier.

But we need that, right? Because of this guy:

[www.independent.co.uk image 620x465]

That's not why we need it.  We need it because, from your link:
Gerald R. Ford will enter the fleet replacing the inactive  Enterprise (CVN-65), which ended its 51 years of active service in December 2012.

Now, the defense budget's line items do fall into three categories:
Cannot be cut
Can be cut
Should be cut

I do agree with you that a very significant portion of it falls into the latter two categories, the USS Gerald R Ford is really not one of them.

Why the hell not?  Why do we need to replace the Enterprise?  What catastrophe will befall if we just have fewer farking aircraft carriers?  We already have as many as the rest of the world put together, why do we need  more of the damn things?

I will take a swing at this one.

Navy deployments put 2/3s of the fleet on work-ups or post-deployment shake-downs at any one time. This leaves between 3 and 4 carriers on deployment at any one time, one or two on-station, and one or two relieving them. The Navy does ensure right-of-transit in any of the contested or potentially-contested waterways in the world, and acts as the ocean's cops (yes, we are the world's police). No one else has our power-projection (no puns here), but everyone else does benefit from that projected power. For all our failures elsewhere, the Navy is a steadying hand on much of the world. It is a relief when a carrier can deliver 200000 gallons of water, daily, to people in distress, or can power a small country with the reactors.

Carriers play a very large "medium" power role in the nations defense. They can hit hard ...


Was the Enterprise incapable of filling those roles? One would assume so, since it was on active duty until recently, so why do we need a $17.5 billion brand-new carrier to replace it?
 
2014-03-11 05:42:38 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: Splish: What precisely should be upsetting about that?

That we're supposed to be the wealthiest country in the world yet 1 in 4 kids is on SNAP may not bother you, but it does me.


We're not the wealthiest country in the world. And even if we were, that doesn't mean that every person living here is wealthy. What alternative would you suggest?

Children born in poor homes are forcibly taken and reassigned to rich homes? Poor people are prohibited from having children? Poor families with children just don't receive any assistance? Wealth redistribution to poor families without earmarking it for food?

Here's another way of looking at it: no child has starved to death in this country because their family simply couldn't afford food in decades, largely because of SNAP and food stamps and similar programs. That's something to be proud of.
 
2014-03-11 05:45:33 PM  
qorkfiend: Was the  Enterprise incapable of filling those roles? One would assume so, since it was on active duty until recently, so why do we need a $17.5 billion brand-new carrier to replace it?   ...


This one first, the one above it later when I have time to think it out.

Enterprise was 50+ years old. That's old. Her systems were outdated and expensive to maintain. It is pricey to keep older hardware talking to newer hardware. She was becoming a drag on the Fleet. It does become apparent that a newer asset will serve the country's current needs better than an aging asset, and that's what new carriers cost, currently.
 
2014-03-11 05:51:29 PM  

Splish: Soup4Bonnie: Splish: What precisely should be upsetting about that?

That we're supposed to be the wealthiest country in the world yet 1 in 4 kids is on SNAP may not bother you, but it does me.

We're not the wealthiest country in the world. And even if we were, that doesn't mean that every person living here is wealthy. What alternative would you suggest?

Children born in poor homes are forcibly taken and reassigned to rich homes? Poor people are prohibited from having children? Poor families with children just don't receive any assistance? Wealth redistribution to poor families without earmarking it for food?

Here's another way of looking at it: no child has starved to death in this country because their family simply couldn't afford food in decades, largely because of SNAP and food stamps and similar programs. That's something to be proud of.


Not if you're a Republican.
 
2014-03-11 05:52:08 PM  

Confabulat: grumpfuff: I would posit the answer is "Them."

"Them" being "Not us", by the way. Not the giant ants.

Ha that was actually the tag line in one of our more obnoxious campaigns lately (that election is today, wonder how it will turn out)

but the Republican ad ended with a black & white image of his Democratic competitor with the voiceover "Working for THEM. Not for US."

and I laughed.


My post was actually inspired by Republican ads I've seen, so your post amuses me greatly.


rosebud_the_sled: grumpfuff: Dr Dreidel: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

This quote should be tatooed on every politician and posted every five feet in all government buildings.

So they can feel great about who they are screwing over?


Alright, inscribed on the 2x4s we beat them with when they get a bit off track?
 
2014-03-11 06:02:31 PM  

qorkfiend: the_innkeeper: UndeadPoetsSociety: Rhino_man: what_now: How will we ever get a handle on our debt if you can't cut $8 billion out of food stamps over a 10-year period? How will you ever do that?"


Well, you pedantic little prick, we could start with the USS Gerald Ford, which is ESTIMATED to cost $17.5 billion dollars and is a first of it's kind super carrier.

But we need that, right? Because of this guy:

[www.independent.co.uk image 620x465]

That's not why we need it.  We need it because, from your link:
Gerald R. Ford will enter the fleet replacing the inactive  Enterprise (CVN-65), which ended its 51 years of active service in December 2012.

Now, the defense budget's line items do fall into three categories:
Cannot be cut
Can be cut
Should be cut

I do agree with you that a very significant portion of it falls into the latter two categories, the USS Gerald R Ford is really not one of them.

Why the hell not?  Why do we need to replace the Enterprise?  What catastrophe will befall if we just have fewer farking aircraft carriers?  We already have as many as the rest of the world put together, why do we need  more of the damn things?

I will take a swing at this one.

Navy deployments put 2/3s of the fleet on work-ups or post-deployment shake-downs at any one time. This leaves between 3 and 4 carriers on deployment at any one time, one or two on-station, and one or two relieving them. The Navy does ensure right-of-transit in any of the contested or potentially-contested waterways in the world, and acts as the ocean's cops (yes, we are the world's police). No one else has our power-projection (no puns here), but everyone else does benefit from that projected power. For all our failures elsewhere, the Navy is a steadying hand on much of the world. It is a relief when a carrier can deliver 200000 gallons of water, daily, to people in distress, or can power a small country with the reactors.

Carriers play a very large "medium" power role in the nations defense. Th ...


Yeah you're probably right I mean its not like the defense department has a reputation for wasting money or anything.
 
2014-03-11 06:04:35 PM  

what_now: Eddie Adams from Torrance: The trouble is that cutting military budgets is dangerous politically.

I get that, but I'm appalled that "hungry children" isn't more politically dangerous.


Hungry minors don't vote. Greedy miners do.
 
2014-03-11 06:04:53 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: "You are told that you are taking food out of the mouths of children. You're making people starve. You are bad because you're cutting. You can't win! How will we ever get a handle on our debt if you can't cut $8 billion out of food stamps over a 10-year period? How will you ever do that?"

How is cutting $8 billion going to help the deficit when defense spending is over $700 billion a year?  Cut 2% from the military and you're way past $8 billion, you worthless piece of stinking garbage.


More to the point, that $8.7 billion cut reduces the GDP by $15 billion.
 
2014-03-11 06:05:26 PM  

Splish: We're not the wealthiest country in the world. And even if we were, that doesn't mean that every person living here is wealthy. What alternative would you suggest?

Children born in poor homes are forcibly taken and reassigned to rich homes? Poor people are prohibited from having children? Poor families with children just don't receive any assistance? Wealth redistribution to poor families without earmarking it for food?

Here's another way of looking at it: no child has starved to death in this country because their family simply couldn't afford food in decades, largely because of SNAP and food stamps and similar programs. That's something to be proud of.


I would suggest not holding up programs like SNAP as a source of pride saying we do take care of our own and then have Republicans looking for every possible means to cut them.  I would also suggest things like a minimum wage hike to $15/hour to get some of these working poor families off of SNAP.  I would rather see programs like SNAP expanded especially in rural areas rather than an increase in military spending.

It's great that we have programs like SNAP and TANF and WIC to serve as life vests for people who are drowning in a lake of poverty but it would be just super duper if we could figure out how all those people are falling into the lake in the first place.
 
2014-03-11 06:06:58 PM  

KeatingFive: Splish: Soup4Bonnie: Splish: What precisely should be upsetting about that?

That we're supposed to be the wealthiest country in the world yet 1 in 4 kids is on SNAP may not bother you, but it does me.

We're not the wealthiest country in the world. And even if we were, that doesn't mean that every person living here is wealthy. What alternative would you suggest?

Children born in poor homes are forcibly taken and reassigned to rich homes? Poor people are prohibited from having children? Poor families with children just don't receive any assistance? Wealth redistribution to poor families without earmarking it for food?

Here's another way of looking at it: no child has starved to death in this country because their family simply couldn't afford food in decades, largely because of SNAP and food stamps and similar programs. That's something to be proud of.

Not if you're a Republican.


Of course it is. They'd also point to that as a reason it doesn't need to be expanded.
 
2014-03-11 06:11:57 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: Splish: We're not the wealthiest country in the world. And even if we were, that doesn't mean that every person living here is wealthy. What alternative would you suggest?

Children born in poor homes are forcibly taken and reassigned to rich homes? Poor people are prohibited from having children? Poor families with children just don't receive any assistance? Wealth redistribution to poor families without earmarking it for food?

Here's another way of looking at it: no child has starved to death in this country because their family simply couldn't afford food in decades, largely because of SNAP and food stamps and similar programs. That's something to be proud of.

I would suggest not holding up programs like SNAP as a source of pride saying we do take care of our own and then have Republicans looking for every possible means to cut them.  I would also suggest things like a minimum wage hike to $15/hour to get some of these working poor families off of SNAP.  I would rather see programs like SNAP expanded especially in rural areas rather than an increase in military spending.

It's great that we have programs like SNAP and TANF and WIC to serve as life vests for people who are drowning in a lake of poverty but it would be just super duper if we could figure out how all those people are falling into the lake in the first place.


Economists could and will argue for months about the effect of a minimum wage hike and what it would do for the (currently) working poor. But if you want to expand SNAP and TANF, you're going to have more people on them, not fewer.
 
2014-03-11 06:14:41 PM  

Lord_Baull: How about not building 500 biilion dollar planes that don't work and not building tanks just to sit in a desert to die? Can we start there?


"Uh, no. No we cannot. "Why?" you ask? It's simple, really. Can't let my campaign donors take the hit, now can I?"
 
2014-03-11 06:15:19 PM  

the_innkeeper: qorkfiend: Was the  Enterprise incapable of filling those roles? One would assume so, since it was on active duty until recently, so why do we need a $17.5 billion brand-new carrier to replace it?   ...


This one first, the one above it later when I have time to think it out.

Enterprise was 50+ years old. That's old. Her systems were outdated and expensive to maintain. It is pricey to keep older hardware talking to newer hardware. She was becoming a drag on the Fleet. It does become apparent that a newer asset will serve the country's current needs better than an aging asset, and that's what new carriers cost, currently.


That's not even mentioning the fact that older equipment (particularly nuclear equipment) becomes hazardous to the crew, regardless of how well you maintain it.  Plus, the new carrier will be more fuel efficient, more capable, have significantly lower maintenance costs and presumably serve for the NEXT 51 years.
 
2014-03-11 06:16:05 PM  
Regardless of what the funds are used for, there is a valid point here.  A program that has had its budget tripled over a relatively short period of time can never have a 5% cut without extreme wailing and gnashing of teeth.
 
2014-03-11 06:23:19 PM  

Cataholic: Regardless of what the funds are used for, there is a valid point here.  A program that has had its budget tripled over a relatively short period of time can never have a 5% cut without extreme wailing and gnashing of teeth.


Like the military budget?
 
2014-03-11 06:29:40 PM  
Cataholic: Regardless of what the funds are used for, there is a valid point here.  A program that has had its budget tripled over a relatively short period of time can never have a 5% cut without extreme wailing and gnashing of teeth.

There is no valid point here but you thinking there is doesn't surprise me.  This is the second cut to SNAP in recent months.  Take food away from hungry people and you will hear them complain.  Besides, Stu Baby is whining about states changing their rules so that more people are eligible.  He'll just have to get over it.

SNAP benefits lag the unemployment index which is recovering very slowly, mostly thanks to Republican obstruction.  Throw a giant public works program out there, develop the infrastructure, pay people a decent wage and watch the SNAP benefits being paid out decline.



As the economy recovers and people go back to work, SNAP participation and program costs, too, can be expected to decline. Unemployment has begun to slowly fall, and SNAP participation growth has flattened out. The Congressional Budget Office projects SNAP participation to begin declining in 2015, with both unemployment and SNAP participation returning to near pre-recession levels by 2022.[v]
 
2014-03-11 06:32:39 PM  

MFAWG: There was a time when they weren't so obvious with the greed.


Yeah. It was a Tuesday. Afternoon, I think. But it was so long ago that I really can't be sure.
 
2014-03-11 06:36:44 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: The Congressional Budget Office projects SNAP participation to begin declining in 2015, with both unemployment and SNAP participation returning to near pre-recession levels by 2022.[v]


Unless the GOP has their way and completely tanks the economy again.
 
2014-03-11 06:53:02 PM  

Cat Food Sandwiches: Confabulat: We get it, Republicans hate poor people and wish they would die or just go away somehow. We know.

I'm sure you've seen the numbers comparing Republicans' charitable contributions versus Democrats.  Because you have a different idea on how to help poor people doesn't mean you hate them.


Then say that! When you have asshats like this going on about food stamps, health care, and other social spending have them come up with an alternative, besides "not my problem." Otherwise they look like heartless bastards.

/because hint: most of them are
 
2014-03-11 07:17:38 PM  

Rhino_man: the_innkeeper: qorkfiend: Was the  Enterprise incapable of filling those roles? One would assume so, since it was on active duty until recently, so why do we need a $17.5 billion brand-new carrier to replace it?   ...


This one first, the one above it later when I have time to think it out.

Enterprise was 50+ years old. That's old. Her systems were outdated and expensive to maintain. It is pricey to keep older hardware talking to newer hardware. She was becoming a drag on the Fleet. It does become apparent that a newer asset will serve the country's current needs better than an aging asset, and that's what new carriers cost, currently.

That's not even mentioning the fact that older equipment (particularly nuclear equipment) becomes hazardous to the crew, regardless of how well you maintain it.  Plus, the new carrier will be more fuel efficient, more capable, have significantly lower maintenance costs and presumably serve for the NEXT 51 years.


Which still doesn't address the question of who it is y'all are so afraid of that you think we need a dozen carrier groups to protect us from it.
 
2014-03-11 07:18:22 PM  
"Buying votes," he says.

img.fark.net

img.fark.net

img.fark.net

Hm. I'm curious what he might call what these guys are doing...
 
2014-03-11 07:20:09 PM  

rzrwiresunrise: Hm. I'm curious what he might call what these guys are doing...


"Supporting freedom"
 
2014-03-11 07:32:28 PM  
The US sends $3.1 BILLION dollars in military aid to Israel every year, and this guy tells us we can't reduce the deficit unless we cut 0.8 BILLION in food stamps from our yearly budget.

Let's start the cuts with Israel and other foreign countries, shall we?
 
2014-03-11 07:33:28 PM  

TV's Vinnie: keylock71: What a miserable prick... How do some people watch a steady diet of this crap?

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/27/i_lost_my_dad_to_fox_news_how_a_gene ra tion_was_captured_by_thrashing_hysteria/


...is it bad that I first read that as 'thrashing hyenas' and it STILL made perfect sense?
 
2014-03-11 07:42:05 PM  

nmrsnr: I never liked the "because it isn't everything means it does nothing" argument. $8 billion in cuts is $8 billion removed from the deficit.


The real objection is "you can't slash taxes, spiral military spending out of control, and then cut a few pennies (relatively speaking) from food stamps, and then style yourself 'fiscally responsible.'"

Yet this has been, with inconsequential variations, the campaign argument of every Republican presidential nominee since Reagan.
 
2014-03-11 07:49:51 PM  

Slackfumasta: The US sends $3.1 BILLION dollars in military aid to Israel every year, and this guy tells us we can't reduce the deficit unless we cut 0.8 BILLION in food stamps from our yearly budget.
Let's start the cuts with Israel and other foreign countries, shall we?


No. Let's do the following before we cut a single item from the budget.

1. Raise minimum wage to $15/hr
2. Tax capital gains over $250k at income rates.
3. Remove the FICA cap.
4. Levy a Contingency Military Operations tax upon all earnings over $250k, automatically implemented when DFAS reports that at least 5,000 servicemembers received at least 30 days of Imminent Danger Pay.

There is nothing, and I mean nothing, that would have a more immediate impact upon the budget deficit. Higher wages will shoot the stock market through the roof - the gross increase in their investment earnings will take most of the bite out of the increased tax rate. And then, when all those one percenters see that every bullet and bean used in a combat zone has a personal effect on their earnings, they will drop-kick the chickenhawks off Capitol Hill at the earliest opportunity.
 
2014-03-11 07:52:00 PM  
Man, all you people thinking military cuts are the easy way out, don't understand how the US GOVT uses funds.

LAWS govern how military/dod money is spent, disbursed, or used.  While a lot of it is surely "wasteful", it's really not clear how to reform those laws in a high-throughput way to save any significant money.  It'd be like unmixing the cream from your coffee to use less cream.

One way to save money would be to actually INCREASE the size of government: TONS of money goes right out the DOD door to companies as soon as it comes in. These same activities could be carried out by the government at far less cost; but due to caps on personnel (agencies have a max number of feds determined by law), that work has to instead be contracted out for WAY more than it costs for an equivalent government employee.  Remember Snowden getting paid >$100k/year?  A government employee would cost maybe $30-40K to do that same work.

Enacting this type of reform requires new hiring.  Also, it requires cutting out lots of income to companies.  I bet republicans (and democrats) have a big problem with this.
 
2014-03-11 08:24:44 PM  
Splish:

Here's another way of looking at it: no child has starved to death in this country because their family simply couldn't afford food in decades, largely because of SNAP and food stamps and similar programs. That's something to be proud of.

And now the republicans would like to remove that. SEE
 
2014-03-11 08:26:58 PM  

UndeadPoetsSociety: Which still doesn't address the question of who it is y'all are so afraid of that you think we need a dozen carrier groups to protect us from it.


The military serves a purpose beyond protecting the nation from existential threats. The US has areas of legitimate interest all over the world, and a carrier group has the unique ability to independently and securely access virtually all of them, any time, in a variety of ways, for as long as needed. Having a couple of them readily available at all times (which is what you tend to get by having a dozen or so in existence) is probably one of the last items I'd cut out of the military budget, speaking as someone who would happily slash military spending and prioritize feeding hungry people.
 
2014-03-11 08:31:18 PM  
Nope theres no class war going on. Not even a little bit

A regular meeting of the minds there with Varney and Kilmade. The Douche and the Dunce
 
2014-03-11 08:32:03 PM  

clkeagle: Slackfumasta: The US sends $3.1 BILLION dollars in military aid to Israel every year, and this guy tells us we can't reduce the deficit unless we cut 0.8 BILLION in food stamps from our yearly budget.
Let's start the cuts with Israel and other foreign countries, shall we?

No. Let's do the following before we cut a single item from the budget.

1. Raise minimum wage to $15/hr
2. Tax capital gains over $250k at income rates.
3. Remove the FICA cap.
4. Levy a Contingency Military Operations tax upon all earnings over $250k, automatically implemented when DFAS reports that at least 5,000 servicemembers received at least 30 days of Imminent Danger Pay.

There is nothing, and I mean nothing, that would have a more immediate impact upon the budget deficit. Higher wages will shoot the stock market through the roof - the gross increase in their investment earnings will take most of the bite out of the increased tax rate. And then, when all those one percenters see that every bullet and bean used in a combat zone has a personal effect on their earnings, they will drop-kick the chickenhawks off Capitol Hill at the earliest opportunity.


I like the cut of your jib.
/Item 4 is a nice twist of the dagger.
//On other issues? Not so much.
 
2014-03-11 08:39:30 PM  

golden goat: Man, all you people thinking military cuts are the easy way out, don't understand how the US GOVT uses funds.

LAWS govern how military/dod money is spent, disbursed, or used.  While a lot of it is surely "wasteful", it's really not clear how to reform those laws in a high-throughput way to save any significant money.  It'd be like unmixing the cream from your coffee to use less cream.


Bullshiat.  The laws can be changed, by an act of Congress.  We have loads of people whose job it is to work out how to juggle budgets and keep the bits we need.  I will note that bits we need explicitly does not include the ability to kill a few million random foreigners at the drop of a hat.

One way to save money would be to actually INCREASE the size of government: TONS of money goes right out the DOD door to companies as soon as it comes in.

And we could instead be paying that money to companies that did things like build high-speed rail lines, install high-capacity fiber across the country, fix bridges, update the electrical grid, and do dozens of other things that have a positive ROI for the nation.  This is how a lot of government spending works and always has.

These same activities could be carried out by the government at far less cost; but due to caps on personnel (agencies have a max number of feds determined by law), that work has to instead be contracted out for WAY more than it costs for an equivalent government employee.
And who is it who keeps pushing for that bullshiat?  'Fiscal Conservatives' every farking time.  That's why I have nothing but contempt for people who describe themselves that way.

Enacting this type of reform requires new hiring.  Also, it requires cutting out lots of income to companies.  I bet republicans (and democrats) have a big problem with this.

I don't. 

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: UndeadPoetsSociety: Which still doesn't address the question of who it is y'all are so afraid of that you think we need a dozen carrier groups to protect us from it.

The military serves a purpose beyond protecting the nation from existential threats. The US has areas of legitimate interest all over the world, and a carrier group has the unique ability to independently and securely access virtually all of them, any time, in a variety of ways, for as long as needed.


Name four, and describe how a carrier group helps with them. Show your work. Note that the alleged 'need' to be an international bully doesn't count.
 
2014-03-11 08:44:26 PM  

gaspode: Splish:

Here's another way of looking at it: no child has starved to death in this country because their family simply couldn't afford food in decades, largely because of SNAP and food stamps and similar programs. That's something to be proud of.

And now the republicans would like to remove that. SEE


Well, yeah. But apparently she thinks too many children benefit from it, while simultaneously thinking it needs to be expanded.

What portion of the budget that is allocated for defense/military also ultimately ends up going to feed/clothe/house very low income workers, either soldiers or employees of military contractors? None of this exists in a vacuum.
 
2014-03-11 09:00:16 PM  
movies.trekcore.com

"This simple feeling is beyond CPAC's comprehension. No meaning, no hope, ...and, Jim, no answers."
 
2014-03-11 09:01:35 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: Lord_Baull: How about not building 500 biilion dollar planes that don't work and not building tanks just to sit in a desert to die? Can we start there?

"Uh, no. No we cannot. "Why?" you ask? It's simple, really. Can't let my campaign donors take the hit, now can I?"


"Alas," said Goodgulf solemnly, "it does not work that way."
"But why?"
"Alas" Goodgulf explained.
 
2014-03-11 09:12:50 PM  

UndeadPoetsSociety: I don't. 
Monkeyfark Ridiculous: UndeadPoetsSociety: Which still doesn't address the question of who it is y'all are so afraid of that you think we need a dozen carrier groups to protect us from it.

The military serves a purpose beyond protecting the nation from existential threats. The US has areas of legitimate interest all over the world, and a carrier group has the unique ability to independently and securely access virtually all of them, any time, in a variety of ways, for as long as needed.


Name four, and describe how a carrier group helps with them. Show your work. Note that the alleged 'need' to be an international bully doesn't count.



Show my work? Fark you, you pissy little twit. If you want to be an asshole to me when I have given you exactly ZERO reason to, then no, I will not google that for you. If you're genuinely befuddled at the concept that the US has interests beyond merely continuing to exist as a nation, then maybe you should start by opening a world map and asking someone to read the words to you.
 
2014-03-11 09:31:15 PM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: UndeadPoetsSociety: I don't. 
Monkeyfark Ridiculous: UndeadPoetsSociety: Which still doesn't address the question of who it is y'all are so afraid of that you think we need a dozen carrier groups to protect us from it.

The military serves a purpose beyond protecting the nation from existential threats. The US has areas of legitimate interest all over the world, and a carrier group has the unique ability to independently and securely access virtually all of them, any time, in a variety of ways, for as long as needed.


Name four, and describe how a carrier group helps with them. Show your work. Note that the alleged 'need' to be an international bully doesn't count.


Show my work? Fark you, you pissy little twit. If you want to be an asshole to me when I have given you exactly ZERO reason to, then no, I will not google that for you. If you're genuinely befuddled at the concept that the US has interests beyond merely continuing to exist as a nation, then maybe you should start by opening a world map and asking someone to read the words to you.


Bite me.  Every militaristic saber-rattler goes on about out so-called 'interests' that we can only deal with by outspending the rest of the world put together on the ability to commit mass murder anywhere on the planet on a moment's notice.  None of you can ever specify what it is that you think you're defending other than a desire to randomly kill a few hundred thousand foreigners anytime you get your dicks up, and I'm sick of hearing your bullshiat excuses for why you insist on pissing money down that particular rathole.
 
2014-03-11 09:54:16 PM  

UndeadPoetsSociety: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: UndeadPoetsSociety: I don't. 
Monkeyfark Ridiculous: UndeadPoetsSociety: Which still doesn't address the question of who it is y'all are so afraid of that you think we need a dozen carrier groups to protect us from it.

The military serves a purpose beyond protecting the nation from existential threats. The US has areas of legitimate interest all over the world, and a carrier group has the unique ability to independently and securely access virtually all of them, any time, in a variety of ways, for as long as needed.


Name four, and describe how a carrier group helps with them. Show your work. Note that the alleged 'need' to be an international bully doesn't count.


Show my work? Fark you, you pissy little twit. If you want to be an asshole to me when I have given you exactly ZERO reason to, then no, I will not google that for you. If you're genuinely befuddled at the concept that the US has interests beyond merely continuing to exist as a nation, then maybe you should start by opening a world map and asking someone to read the words to you.

Bite me.  Every militaristic saber-rattler goes on about out so-called 'interests' that we can only deal with by outspending the rest of the world put together on the ability to commit mass murder anywhere on the planet on a moment's notice.  None of you can ever specify what it is that you think you're defending other than a desire to randomly kill a few hundred thousand foreigners anytime you get your dicks up, and I'm sick of hearing your bullshiat excuses for why you insist on pissing money down that particular rathole.



How about you spend less time trying to put words in my mouth which I've already specifically refused, you stupid hard-of-reading moran, and more time trying to get the slightest farking handle on reality. You behave exactly like a teabagger: proud of your wilful ignorance, biatchy for no reason, really interested in dicks, and concerned with how the military makes you feel rather than with rational policy.
 
2014-03-11 10:00:23 PM  
www.rawstory.com
"What is it with these poors? Every other day, it's Food! Food! Food!"
 
2014-03-11 10:25:02 PM  

TV's Vinnie: [www.rawstory.com image 615x345]
"What is it with these poors? Every other day, it's Food! Food! Food!"


No, sometimes it's affordable housing. On the weekends.
 
2014-03-11 10:27:59 PM  

golden goat: Man, all you people thinking military cuts are the easy way out, don't understand how the US GOVT uses funds.

LAWS govern how military/dod money is spent, disbursed, or used.  While a lot of it is surely "wasteful", it's really not clear how to reform those laws in a high-throughput way to save any significant money.  It'd be like unmixing the cream from your coffee to use less cream.

One way to save money would be to actually INCREASE the size of government: TONS of money goes right out the DOD door to companies as soon as it comes in. These same activities could be carried out by the government at far less cost; but due to caps on personnel (agencies have a max number of feds determined by law), that work has to instead be contracted out for WAY more than it costs for an equivalent government employee.  Remember Snowden getting paid >$100k/year?  A government employee would cost maybe $30-40K to do that same work.

Enacting this type of reform requires new hiring.  Also, it requires cutting out lots of income to companies.  I bet republicans (and democrats) have a big problem with this.


This x infinity. The biggest source of waste in the military (not sure about the rest of the govt) is contractors. There is no reason we should have contractors getting paid 15 to 20 dollars an hour to ladle food at the chow hall. God knows what sodexo actually charges the govt for that service. There is also no reason we should be paying a contractor 150k+ a year to do a piss poor job of instructing the Iraqi and Afghan forces when you could easily detach a few infantry platoons that would be able to do a better job since, you know, they are actually out doing that stuff every day.

There are so many contractors doing things that an e-3 used to do its bizarre. Why the hell is the guy at CIF getting paid 80k a year to drive a forklift and the pfc who works in supply is sitting around with his thumb up his butt? It's all in an effort to keep personnel numbers down, and it's unbelievable how wasteful it is. If you want to cut military spending, cut the contractors and let the military do what it always did, peel potatoes, stack the boxes, and all the mind numbing crap that we outsourced. Guarantee you will see a massive drop in spending in 10 years with the same, if not better performance.
 
2014-03-11 11:16:04 PM  

UndeadPoetsSociety: Rhino_man: the_innkeeper: qorkfiend: Was the  Enterprise incapable of filling those roles? One would assume so, since it was on active duty until recently, so why do we need a $17.5 billion brand-new carrier to replace it?   ...


This one first, the one above it later when I have time to think it out.

Enterprise was 50+ years old. That's old. Her systems were outdated and expensive to maintain. It is pricey to keep older hardware talking to newer hardware. She was becoming a drag on the Fleet. It does become apparent that a newer asset will serve the country's current needs better than an aging asset, and that's what new carriers cost, currently.

That's not even mentioning the fact that older equipment (particularly nuclear equipment) becomes hazardous to the crew, regardless of how well you maintain it.  Plus, the new carrier will be more fuel efficient, more capable, have significantly lower maintenance costs and presumably serve for the NEXT 51 years.

Which still doesn't address the question of who it is y'all are so afraid of that you think we need a dozen carrier groups to protect us from it.


It's like you haven't even been reading the thread.  Do you seriously have no idea how tremendous the benefit is of having an American nuclear aircraft carrier in your waters when your whole country has been ripped to shreds by an earthquake or a hurricane?

Just ask Haiti.
 
2014-03-11 11:26:00 PM  

nubzers: golden goat: Man, all you people thinking military cuts are the easy way out, don't understand how the US GOVT uses funds.

LAWS govern how military/dod money is spent, disbursed, or used.  While a lot of it is surely "wasteful", it's really not clear how to reform those laws in a high-throughput way to save any significant money.  It'd be like unmixing the cream from your coffee to use less cream.

One way to save money would be to actually INCREASE the size of government: TONS of money goes right out the DOD door to companies as soon as it comes in. These same activities could be carried out by the government at far less cost; but due to caps on personnel (agencies have a max number of feds determined by law), that work has to instead be contracted out for WAY more than it costs for an equivalent government employee.  Remember Snowden getting paid >$100k/year?  A government employee would cost maybe $30-40K to do that same work.

Enacting this type of reform requires new hiring.  Also, it requires cutting out lots of income to companies.  I bet republicans (and democrats) have a big problem with this.

This x infinity. The biggest source of waste in the military (not sure about the rest of the govt) is contractors. There is no reason we should have contractors getting paid 15 to 20 dollars an hour to ladle food at the chow hall. God knows what sodexo actually charges the govt for that service. There is also no reason we should be paying a contractor 150k+ a year to do a piss poor job of instructing the Iraqi and Afghan forces when you could easily detach a few infantry platoons that would be able to do a better job since, you know, they are actually out doing that stuff every day.

There are so many contractors doing things that an e-3 used to do its bizarre. Why the hell is the guy at CIF getting paid 80k a year to drive a forklift and the pfc who works in supply is sitting around with his thumb up his butt? It's all in an effort to keep personnel numbers down ...


The status quo is a win-win for both parties is why it will never change back to the way things used to be done.
One party can say "we reduced government employees and let the private sector handle things" on the GS (civilian employee) side while the other can feel good about reducing the number of members of the military, both officers and enlisted.

They never want to talk about the fact that a lot of the mundane tasks that fell to those people still need to be done, but now they're done by contract employees who don't make any more than the PFC they replaced, but is billed at a rate that's about three times what the government would be paying had they kept the PFC on the chow line.
 
2014-03-11 11:30:08 PM  

UndeadPoetsSociety: Rhino_man: what_now: How will we ever get a handle on our debt if you can't cut $8 billion out of food stamps over a 10-year period? How will you ever do that?"


Well, you pedantic little prick, we could start with the USS Gerald Ford, which is ESTIMATED to cost $17.5 billion dollars and is a first of it's kind super carrier.

But we need that, right? Because of this guy:

[www.independent.co.uk image 620x465]

That's not why we need it.  We need it because, from your link:
Gerald R. Ford will enter the fleet replacing the inactive  Enterprise (CVN-65), which ended its 51 years of active service in December 2012.

Now, the defense budget's line items do fall into three categories:
Cannot be cut
Can be cut
Should be cut

I do agree with you that a very significant portion of it falls into the latter two categories, the USS Gerald R Ford is really not one of them.

Why the hell not?  Why do we need to replace the Enterprise?  What catastrophe will befall if we just have fewer farking aircraft carriers?  We already have as many as the rest of the world put together, why do we need  more of the damn things?


If we are looking to defend our country the military is way too big. If we are looking to run a world empire it is way too small.
 
2014-03-11 11:40:46 PM  

Rhino_man: UndeadPoetsSociety: Rhino_man: the_innkeeper: qorkfiend: Was the  Enterprise incapable of filling those roles? One would assume so, since it was on active duty until recently, so why do we need a $17.5 billion brand-new carrier to replace it?   ...


This one first, the one above it later when I have time to think it out.

Enterprise was 50+ years old. That's old. Her systems were outdated and expensive to maintain. It is pricey to keep older hardware talking to newer hardware. She was becoming a drag on the Fleet. It does become apparent that a newer asset will serve the country's current needs better than an aging asset, and that's what new carriers cost, currently.

That's not even mentioning the fact that older equipment (particularly nuclear equipment) becomes hazardous to the crew, regardless of how well you maintain it.  Plus, the new carrier will be more fuel efficient, more capable, have significantly lower maintenance costs and presumably serve for the NEXT 51 years.

Which still doesn't address the question of who it is y'all are so afraid of that you think we need a dozen carrier groups to protect us from it.

It's like you haven't even been reading the thread.  Do you seriously have no idea how tremendous the benefit is of having an American nuclear aircraft carrier in your waters when your whole country has been ripped to shreds by an earthquake or a hurricane?

Just ask Haiti.


Yeah things are wonderful they are now, aren't they?
 
2014-03-11 11:46:04 PM  

buzzcut73: nubzers: golden goat: Man, all you people thinking military cuts are the easy way out, don't understand how the US GOVT uses funds.

LAWS govern how military/dod money is spent, disbursed, or used.  While a lot of it is surely "wasteful", it's really not clear how to reform those laws in a high-throughput way to save any significant money.  It'd be like unmixing the cream from your coffee to use less cream.

One way to save money would be to actually INCREASE the size of government: TONS of money goes right out the DOD door to companies as soon as it comes in. These same activities could be carried out by the government at far less cost; but due to caps on personnel (agencies have a max number of feds determined by law), that work has to instead be contracted out for WAY more than it costs for an equivalent government employee.  Remember Snowden getting paid >$100k/year?  A government employee would cost maybe $30-40K to do that same work.

Enacting this type of reform requires new hiring.  Also, it requires cutting out lots of income to companies.  I bet republicans (and democrats) have a big problem with this.

This x infinity. The biggest source of waste in the military (not sure about the rest of the govt) is contractors. There is no reason we should have contractors getting paid 15 to 20 dollars an hour to ladle food at the chow hall. God knows what sodexo actually charges the govt for that service. There is also no reason we should be paying a contractor 150k+ a year to do a piss poor job of instructing the Iraqi and Afghan forces when you could easily detach a few infantry platoons that would be able to do a better job since, you know, they are actually out doing that stuff every day.

There are so many contractors doing things that an e-3 used to do its bizarre. Why the hell is the guy at CIF getting paid 80k a year to drive a forklift and the pfc who works in supply is sitting around with his thumb up his butt? It's all in an effort to keep personnel numbers down ...

The status quo is a win-win for both parties is why it will never change back to the way things used to be done.
One party can say "we reduced government employees and let the private sector handle things" on the GS (civilian employee) side while the other can feel good about reducing the number of members of the military, both officers and enlisted.

They never want to talk about the fact that a lot of the mundane tasks that fell to those people still need to be done, but now they're done by contract employees who don't make any more than the PFC they replaced, but is billed at a rate that's about three times what the government would be paying had they kept the PFC on the chow line.


I know, and it irritates me. It's objectively worse in terms of performance and more expensive. Yet every time they talk about cutting the budget it's one side screaming about making us weaker and the other side wanting to cut benefits to the people in uniform or going after new weapons/equipment programs and saying "why do we need this, what are you scared of hurrdurr". It's infuriating that we can't have an honest open discussion about what we need to do.
 
2014-03-11 11:52:29 PM  
You are demagogued to death!" Varney cried. "You are told that you are taking food out of the mouths of children. You're making people starve. You are bad because you're cutting. You can't win! How will we ever get a handle on our debt if you can't cut $8 billion out of food stamps over a 10-year period? How will you ever do that?"

Just going out on a limb here, but, uh, a laser-like focus on getting jobs in America would go a long way towards getting folks off of food stamps.

Maybe that's crazy talk.
 
2014-03-12 12:24:48 AM  

nubzers: I know, and it irritates me. It's objectively worse in terms of performance and more expensive. Yet every time they talk about cutting the budget it's one side screaming about making us weaker and the other side wanting to cut benefits to the people in uniform or going after new weapons/equipment programs and saying "why do we need this, what are you scared of hurrdurr". It's infuriating that we can't have an honest open discussion about what we need to do.


No, we need to go after both. The Army has told Congress to stop buying tanks. What's in the budget? $3 billion for tanks.

Much better example: the F-35. What possible advantage does it offer compared to the Eurofighter Typhoon or renewing the F-16 and F-18 contracts when it comes to CAS or Air Superiority against tin-pot dictators and terror training compounds? We have no threat to our national defense that possesses fifth-generation combat aircraft. Russia? For all Putin's saber-rattling, the Soviet Union is gone, and Russia's growing business interests do not favor war. China? Zero socioeconomic possibility of war for at least a generation. Their economy would collapse in six months without the west as a trade partner. North Korea, Syria, Libya, or anyone else? A generation or two behind in technology, almost a century behind in military training.
 
2014-03-12 12:25:59 AM  

CigaretteSmokingMan: Rhino_man: UndeadPoetsSociety: Rhino_man: the_innkeeper: qorkfiend: Was the  Enterprise incapable of filling those roles? One would assume so, since it was on active duty until recently, so why do we need a $17.5 billion brand-new carrier to replace it?   ...


This one first, the one above it later when I have time to think it out.

Enterprise was 50+ years old. That's old. Her systems were outdated and expensive to maintain. It is pricey to keep older hardware talking to newer hardware. She was becoming a drag on the Fleet. It does become apparent that a newer asset will serve the country's current needs better than an aging asset, and that's what new carriers cost, currently.

That's not even mentioning the fact that older equipment (particularly nuclear equipment) becomes hazardous to the crew, regardless of how well you maintain it.  Plus, the new carrier will be more fuel efficient, more capable, have significantly lower maintenance costs and presumably serve for the NEXT 51 years.

Which still doesn't address the question of who it is y'all are so afraid of that you think we need a dozen carrier groups to protect us from it.

It's like you haven't even been reading the thread.  Do you seriously have no idea how tremendous the benefit is of having an American nuclear aircraft carrier in your waters when your whole country has been ripped to shreds by an earthquake or a hurricane?

Just ask Haiti.

Yeah things are wonderful they are now, aren't they?


They're about back to normal... which is a significant improvement over the way it was when the USS Carl Vinson got there (along with the USS Bataan, USS Carter Hall, USS Fort McHenry, USNS Comfort, and several others).

Do you know WHY they're back to normal?  Because our ships were able to go down there and provide critical aid to help stem the tide of deaths.  Just because the norm sucks doesn't mean that the ships didn't have an extremely significant impact.
 
2014-03-12 12:31:39 AM  
Stuart Varney, the man that was responsible for creating this meme:

img.fark.net

Him, Neil Cavuto and Larry Kudlow all try to compete to see who is the biggest suck-up to Wall Street.
 
2014-03-12 12:33:10 AM  

nubzers: buzzcut73: nubzers: golden goat: Man, all you people thinking military cuts are the easy way out, don't understand how the US GOVT uses funds.

LAWS govern how military/dod money is spent, disbursed, or used.  While a lot of it is surely "wasteful", it's really not clear how to reform those laws in a high-throughput way to save any significant money.  It'd be like unmixing the cream from your coffee to use less cream.

One way to save money would be to actually INCREASE the size of government: TONS of money goes right out the DOD door to companies as soon as it comes in. These same activities could be carried out by the government at far less cost; but due to caps on personnel (agencies have a max number of feds determined by law), that work has to instead be contracted out for WAY more than it costs for an equivalent government employee.  Remember Snowden getting paid >$100k/year?  A government employee would cost maybe $30-40K to do that same work.

Enacting this type of reform requires new hiring.  Also, it requires cutting out lots of income to companies.  I bet republicans (and democrats) have a big problem with this.

This x infinity. The biggest source of waste in the military (not sure about the rest of the govt) is contractors. There is no reason we should have contractors getting paid 15 to 20 dollars an hour to ladle food at the chow hall. God knows what sodexo actually charges the govt for that service. There is also no reason we should be paying a contractor 150k+ a year to do a piss poor job of instructing the Iraqi and Afghan forces when you could easily detach a few infantry platoons that would be able to do a better job since, you know, they are actually out doing that stuff every day.

There are so many contractors doing things that an e-3 used to do its bizarre. Why the hell is the guy at CIF getting paid 80k a year to drive a forklift and the pfc who works in supply is sitting around with his thumb up his butt? It's all in an effort to keep pe ...


Hey, I'm not saying we shouldn't also stop subcontracting every goddamned thing out to theiving contracting companies, but we'd still need a lot fewer people scrubbing dishes for the military (or whatever), be they soldiers or contractors, if we didn't insist on keeping such a large military around in the first place.  And then we could pay all those people to do things that have a positive ROI for the nation, like the aforementioned infrastructure.
 
2014-03-12 01:08:58 AM  

Sin_City_Superhero: Marcus Aurelius: How anyone can watch this channel is way beyond me

I'll give you a hint: Arizona & Florida demographics.


Wait a minute!  A lot of the Fox watching retards around here are retirees from YOUR states.  Take them back and we'll call it even.
 
2014-03-12 01:10:23 AM  

what_now: How will we ever get a handle on our debt if you can't cut $8 billion out of food stamps over a 10-year period? How will you ever do that?"


Well, you pedantic little prick, we could start with the USS Gerald Ford, which is ESTIMATED to cost $17.5 billion dollars and is a first of it's kind super carrier.

But we need that, right? Because of this guy:

[www.independent.co.uk image 620x465]


Wow, Kobe Bryant has really let himself go.
 
2014-03-12 03:08:22 AM  

CigaretteSmokingMan: If we are looking to defend our country the military is way too big. If we are looking to run a world empire it is way too small.


That right there is brilliant, is what that is.
 
2014-03-12 03:18:48 AM  

Cat Food Sandwiches: Confabulat: We get it, Republicans hate poor people and wish they would die or just go away somehow. We know.

I'm sure you've seen the numbers comparing Republicans' charitable contributions versus Democrats.  Because you have a different idea on how to help poor people doesn't mean you hate them.


Can we see these numbers [citation requested]?
 
2014-03-12 03:25:38 AM  

CigaretteSmokingMan: If we are looking to defend our country the military is way too big. If we are looking to run a world empire it is way too small.


If you're looking to perpetuate an informal hegemonic or hyperpower status, it's in the right ballpark.
 
2014-03-12 03:29:14 AM  

Fury Pilot: Cat Food Sandwiches: Confabulat: We get it, Republicans hate poor people and wish they would die or just go away somehow. We know.

I'm sure you've seen the numbers comparing Republicans' charitable contributions versus Democrats.  Because you have a different idea on how to help poor people doesn't mean you hate them.

Can we see these numbers [citation requested]?


You'd want to break out the politico-religious "charity" on each side for more useful numbers.
 
2014-03-12 05:40:45 AM  

LasersHurt: what_now: Eddie Adams from Torrance: The trouble is that cutting military budgets is dangerous politically.

I get that, but I'm appalled that "hungry children" isn't more politically dangerous.

Jesus, right? What has happened to our national moral compass?


Jesus you answered your own question
 
2014-03-12 06:01:37 AM  

buzzcut73: nubzers: golden goat: Man, all you people thinking military cuts are the easy way out, don't understand how the US GOVT uses funds.

LAWS govern how military/dod money is spent, disbursed, or used.  While a lot of it is surely "wasteful", it's really not clear how to reform those laws in a high-throughput way to save any significant money.  It'd be like unmixing the cream from your coffee to use less cream.

One way to save money would be to actually INCREASE the size of government: TONS of money goes right out the DOD door to companies as soon as it comes in. These same activities could be carried out by the government at far less cost; but due to caps on personnel (agencies have a max number of feds determined by law), that work has to instead be contracted out for WAY more than it costs for an equivalent government employee.  Remember Snowden getting paid >$100k/year?  A government employee would cost maybe $30-40K to do that same work.

Enacting this type of reform requires new hiring.  Also, it requires cutting out lots of income to companies.  I bet republicans (and democrats) have a big problem with this.

This x infinity. The biggest source of waste in the military (not sure about the rest of the govt) is contractors. There is no reason we should have contractors getting paid 15 to 20 dollars an hour to ladle food at the chow hall. God knows what sodexo actually charges the govt for that service. There is also no reason we should be paying a contractor 150k+ a year to do a piss poor job of instructing the Iraqi and Afghan forces when you could easily detach a few infantry platoons that would be able to do a better job since, you know, they are actually out doing that stuff every day.

There are so many contractors doing things that an e-3 used to do its bizarre. Why the hell is the guy at CIF getting paid 80k a year to drive a forklift and the pfc who works in supply is sitting around with his thumb up his butt? It's all in an effort to keep personnel num ...


Exactly.  All contracting out work does is create an unnecessary middle man who gets a cut and jacks up costs.  A lot of this contracting out of services and shifting stuff to state and local levels promoted by the GOP actually makes government more expensive too. It is kind of like forcing people to shop at the local convenience store rather than the big box discount store.  Plus it makes states & cities to replicate the bureaucracy on a local level in order to perform the services they are now getting a "block grant" to implement.  So money that could go directly to whatever it was intended for gets siphoned off replicating the bureaucracy needed to implement it on the state and local level.
 
2014-03-12 06:17:29 AM  

what_now: How will we ever get a handle on our debt if you can't cut $8 billion out of food stamps over a 10-year period? How will you ever do that?"


Well, you pedantic little prick, we could start with the USS Gerald Ford, which is ESTIMATED to cost $17.5 billion dollars and is a first of it's kind super carrier.

But we need that, right? Because of this guy:

[www.independent.co.uk image 620x465]


Didn't you see the movie? Captain Phillips was rescued by a frigate, not a carrier.
 
2014-03-12 06:19:06 AM  
Wrong:  States using a loophole in the HEAP to help feed children who lost their benefits due to an act of Congress.
Right: States using a loophole in the ACA to take healthcare away from poor people who would otherwise qualify.
 
2014-03-12 06:39:40 AM  
I have plodded through this whole thread and have come to one conclusion.

Take of an NUKE it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

This stuff doesn't just affect the US it infects the whole world, and it just spells doom for our species, for most species. I am beginning to agree with those that say we where and aberration, a mistake.

I hope the Crimea escalates and they just fire all of the nukes off, we need to reset even if that means going back to the stone age.
 
2014-03-12 08:16:13 AM  

Rhino_man: CigaretteSmokingMan: Rhino_man: UndeadPoetsSociety: Rhino_man: the_innkeeper: qorkfiend: Was the  Enterprise incapable of filling those roles? One would assume so, since it was on active duty until recently, so why do we need a $17.5 billion brand-new carrier to replace it?   ...


This one first, the one above it later when I have time to think it out.

Enterprise was 50+ years old. That's old. Her systems were outdated and expensive to maintain. It is pricey to keep older hardware talking to newer hardware. She was becoming a drag on the Fleet. It does become apparent that a newer asset will serve the country's current needs better than an aging asset, and that's what new carriers cost, currently.

That's not even mentioning the fact that older equipment (particularly nuclear equipment) becomes hazardous to the crew, regardless of how well you maintain it.  Plus, the new carrier will be more fuel efficient, more capable, have significantly lower maintenance costs and presumably serve for the NEXT 51 years.

Which still doesn't address the question of who it is y'all are so afraid of that you think we need a dozen carrier groups to protect us from it.

It's like you haven't even been reading the thread.  Do you seriously have no idea how tremendous the benefit is of having an American nuclear aircraft carrier in your waters when your whole country has been ripped to shreds by an earthquake or a hurricane?

Just ask Haiti.

Yeah things are wonderful they are now, aren't they?

They're about back to normal... which is a significant improvement over the way it was when the USS Carl Vinson got there (along with the USS Bataan, USS Carter Hall, USS Fort McHenry, USNS Comfort, and several others).

Do you know WHY they're back to normal?  Because our ships were able to go down there and provide critical aid to help stem the tide of deaths.  Just because the norm sucks doesn't mean that the ships didn't have an extremely significant impact.


I forgot that crappy is the new normal.

/wonders what happened to that Clinton-Bush money
 
kab
2014-03-12 08:19:19 AM  
Have republicans arrived at the conclusion that their stance on abortion is in direct conflict with their stance on poor people?

Probably not.
 
2014-03-12 08:41:54 AM  
Conservatives keep celebrating punishment as a means to motivate people.  Even after multiple psychological studies show it is the worst way to motivate people.   They are projecting their S&M fantasy on the rest of us.
 
2014-03-12 08:52:13 AM  

clkeagle: nubzers: I know, and it irritates me. It's objectively worse in terms of performance and more expensive. Yet every time they talk about cutting the budget it's one side screaming about making us weaker and the other side wanting to cut benefits to the people in uniform or going after new weapons/equipment programs and saying "why do we need this, what are you scared of hurrdurr". It's infuriating that we can't have an honest open discussion about what we need to do.

No, we need to go after both. The Army has told Congress to stop buying tanks. What's in the budget? $3 billion for tanks.

Much better example: the F-35. What possible advantage does it offer compared to the Eurofighter Typhoon or renewing the F-16 and F-18 contracts when it comes to CAS or Air Superiority against tin-pot dictators and terror training compounds? We have no threat to our national defense that possesses fifth-generation combat aircraft. Russia? For all Putin's saber-rattling, the Soviet Union is gone, and Russia's growing business interests do not favor war. China? Zero socioeconomic possibility of war for at least a generation. Their economy would collapse in six months without the west as a trade partner. North Korea, Syria, Libya, or anyone else? A generation or two behind in technology, almost a century behind in military training.


See those are things that can be cut. I agree with you. What we do need to invest in is upgrading our infantry weapons. We are still using the m16 model when there have been major advances in small arms since then. I get that the m16 a4 is a solid rifle, and with the rail system its highly adaptable, but there are just better rifles out there. And this isn't like the f35 or tanks that never get used. In counter insurgency missions and the peace keeping missions our military more than likely will participate in, a new rifle will be used and more than likely save (service members)lives. Other things we could develop is superior radios, body armor, drone integration, the list goes on. All things that will have a dramatic impact on actual performance of daily duties. A new fighter when the old ones are already superior to everything else and tanks that haven't been used in a decade is wasteful. Making sure that the guys on the ground have equipment that's not been beaten to hell and sub par isn't.
 
2014-03-12 09:13:08 AM  

UndeadPoetsSociety: Hey, I'm not saying we shouldn't also stop subcontracting every goddamned thing out to theiving contracting companies, but we'd still need a lot fewer people scrubbing dishes for the military (or whatever), be they soldiers or contractors, if we didn't insist on keeping such a large military around in the first place.  And then we could pay all those people to do things that have a positive ROI for the nation, like the aforementioned infrastructure.


We could do that now, but we don't. The reserves and National Guard have tons of horizontal construction engineer companies and  civil engineering squadrons. They are mandated by US law to perform two weeks of Annual Training each year. Instead of sending them to installations around the country to dig holes and fill them up, we should have these units work on US Interstate repairs during their scheduled AT periods.


nubzers: See those are things that can be cut. I agree with you. What we do need to invest in is upgrading our infantry weapons. We are still using the m16 model when there have been major advances in small arms since then. I get that the m16 a4 is a solid rifle, and with the rail system its highly adaptable, but there are just better rifles out there. And this isn't like the f35 or tanks that never get used. In counter insurgency missions and the peace keeping missions our military more than likely will participate in, a new rifle will be used and more than likely save (service members)lives. Other things we could develop is superior radios, body armor, drone integration, the list goes on. All things that will have a dramatic impact on actual performance of daily duties. A new fighter when the old ones are already superior to everything else and tanks that haven't been used in a decade is wasteful. Making sure that the guys on the ground have equipment that's not been beaten to hell and sub par isn't.


Fair enough, I'm with you. The same logic should be applied to duty uniforms. As soon as the USMC came up with their pattern (2000 or 2001), the Pentagon should have said "Hey, thanks guys! We're going to remove your logo from everything but the field cap, and issue that uniform across all four services." Instead, we spent millions of dollars on utterly useless ACUs and ABUs, on NWUs, and on the Multicam stuff that is actually used overseas.
 
2014-03-12 09:34:05 AM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: "Hey, ExxonMobil.. that's a nice little straight you've got over there. It costs $1million/day to keep our carrier group there... It would be a shame if they left and something bad happened"


You're evil. I like that.

www.cateringspecialist.com
 
2014-03-12 10:32:28 AM  
clkeagle:
We could do that now, but we don't. The reserves and National Guard have tons of horizontal construction engineer companies and  civil engineering squadrons. They are mandated by US law to perform two weeks of Annual Training each year. Instead of sending them to installations around the country to dig holes and fill them up, we should have these units work on US Interstate repairs during their scheduled AT periods.

Can you imagine the sheer terror that would cause to the frightened right? Soliders working on fixing roads? Clearly an Obama plot to track our movements.
 
2014-03-12 12:25:34 PM  

clkeagle: UndeadPoetsSociety: Hey, I'm not saying we shouldn't also stop subcontracting every goddamned thing out to theiving contracting companies, but we'd still need a lot fewer people scrubbing dishes for the military (or whatever), be they soldiers or contractors, if we didn't insist on keeping such a large military around in the first place.  And then we could pay all those people to do things that have a positive ROI for the nation, like the aforementioned infrastructure.

We could do that now, but we don't. The reserves and National Guard have tons of horizontal construction engineer companies and  civil engineering squadrons. They are mandated by US law to perform two weeks of Annual Training each year. Instead of sending them to installations around the country to dig holes and fill them up, we should have these units work on US Interstate repairs during their scheduled AT periods.


I'm aware of that.  I'm arguing that we should be doing that.  I just don't see that we actually need to keep the part where we also pay them to spend time shooting off guns and driving around in tanks and such like.  There's very little need for that kind of thing in infrastructure construction, and it's quite expensive.
 
2014-03-12 02:04:51 PM  

CigaretteSmokingMan: Rhino_man: CigaretteSmokingMan: Rhino_man: UndeadPoetsSociety: Rhino_man: the_innkeeper: qorkfiend: Was the  Enterprise incapable of filling those roles? One would assume so, since it was on active duty until recently, so why do we need a $17.5 billion brand-new carrier to replace it?   ...


This one first, the one above it later when I have time to think it out.

Enterprise was 50+ years old. That's old. Her systems were outdated and expensive to maintain. It is pricey to keep older hardware talking to newer hardware. She was becoming a drag on the Fleet. It does become apparent that a newer asset will serve the country's current needs better than an aging asset, and that's what new carriers cost, currently.

That's not even mentioning the fact that older equipment (particularly nuclear equipment) becomes hazardous to the crew, regardless of how well you maintain it.  Plus, the new carrier will be more fuel efficient, more capable, have significantly lower maintenance costs and presumably serve for the NEXT 51 years.

Which still doesn't address the question of who it is y'all are so afraid of that you think we need a dozen carrier groups to protect us from it.

It's like you haven't even been reading the thread.  Do you seriously have no idea how tremendous the benefit is of having an American nuclear aircraft carrier in your waters when your whole country has been ripped to shreds by an earthquake or a hurricane?

Just ask Haiti.

Yeah things are wonderful they are now, aren't they?

They're about back to normal... which is a significant improvement over the way it was when the USS Carl Vinson got there (along with the USS Bataan, USS Carter Hall, USS Fort McHenry, USNS Comfort, and several others).

Do you know WHY they're back to normal?  Because our ships were able to go down there and provide critical aid to help stem the tide of deaths.  Just because the norm sucks doesn't mean that the ships didn't have an extremely significant impact.

I forgot that crapp ...


The Haitians asked for help getting back to normal.  We got them back to normal.  They asked us to leave.  We left.  They said thank you.  It's their problem now.

/which really is a shame, since the only time Haiti's government has worked is when the US Marine Corps ran it.
 
Displayed 181 of 181 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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