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  
•       •       •

2589 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Mar 2014 at 3:39 PM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 181 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report