Skip to content
 
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.

(MSN)   9 out of 10 economists agree: Republicans have screwed up the budget so badly and left us with so much debt that if we try to pay it down we're all going to die. The other economist chose Dentyne   (msn.com) divider line
    More: Facepalm, United States public debt, Federal government of the United States, Money, Tax, Public finance, Government debt, Deficit, Barack Obama  
•       •       •

2399 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Dec 2020 at 10:33 AM (13 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



101 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-12-02 9:41:17 AM  
Paying down the debt becomes easier if we start taxing the hyper-rich at 1950s levels again.

Close the loopholes and institute a wealth tax on everything above a million dollars.
 
2020-12-02 9:51:20 AM  

bloobeary: Paying down the debt becomes easier if we start taxing the hyper-rich at 1950s levels again.

Close the loopholes and institute a wealth tax on everything above a million dollars.


If this Twinkie represents a normal budget from 60 years ago, according to our current budget situation the Twinkie would be 190 feet long and weigh 30,000 metric tons.
 
2020-12-02 9:59:49 AM  

bloobeary: Paying down the debt becomes easier if we start taxing the hyper-rich at 1950s levels again.

Close the loopholes and institute a wealth tax on everything above a million dollars.


We don't have a spending problem - we have a revenue problem. The GOP tax cut insanity needs to be reversed, and adjusted to reality.
 
2020-12-02 10:02:40 AM  

NewportBarGuy: If this Twinkie represents a normal budget from 60 years ago, according to our current budget situation the Twinkie would be 190 feet long and weigh 30,000 metric tons.


A bigger bite is therefore exactly what is required.

In this case, a tax bite.

There's plenty of money out there to run the economy. It just needs to be drained out of the private holding tanks of a select few, and poured back into the hands of the general public.
 
2020-12-02 10:11:02 AM  

bloobeary: NewportBarGuy: If this Twinkie represents a normal budget from 60 years ago, according to our current budget situation the Twinkie would be 190 feet long and weigh 30,000 metric tons.

A bigger bite is therefore exactly what is required.

In this case, a tax bite.

There's plenty of money out there to run the economy. It just needs to be drained out of the private holding tanks of a select few, and poured back into the hands of the general public.


I'm not arguing against targeted higher taxes. Not at all. But we have done so much damage that taxes alone won't do it. We need to cut defense spending by half, but we also have to realize that will have a HUGE negative economic impact. At least in the short term. So, the moves we make are going to have to be very carefully done. Step one to save SS is absolutely remove the income threshold. That fixes SS for a few decades and we can focus on other stuff.

Just saying this is a monumental problem. One that f*ckface Paul Ryan and his budget bullsh*t never dealt with honestly. Because he's a lightweight Ayn Rander.
 
2020-12-02 10:17:07 AM  

OdradekRex: bloobeary: Paying down the debt becomes easier if we start taxing the hyper-rich at 1950s levels again.

Close the loopholes and institute a wealth tax on everything above a million dollars.

We don't have a spending problem - we have a revenue problem. The GOP tax cut insanity needs to be reversed, and adjusted to reality.


Can we sell Alaska to China and Texas to Mexico?
 
2020-12-02 10:33:35 AM  

OdradekRex: bloobeary: Paying down the debt becomes easier if we start taxing the hyper-rich at 1950s levels again.

Close the loopholes and institute a wealth tax on everything above a million dollars.

We don't have a spending problem - we have a revenue problem. The GOP tax cut insanity needs to be reversed, and adjusted to reality.


We do have a spending problem. We are addicted to Military. Our nation needs to go to military spenders anonymous to overcome it.
 
2020-12-02 10:35:08 AM  
There's a Tridebt joke in there
 
2020-12-02 10:35:33 AM  
i.kym-cdn.comView Full Size
 
2020-12-02 10:35:55 AM  
now that Dems hold the whitehouse i'm sure we'll get another tea party to fix this shiat right up.
 
2020-12-02 10:36:29 AM  

NewportBarGuy: We need to cut defense spending by half, but we also have to realize that will have a HUGE negative economic impact.


If we'd just shunt that money into 21st century infrastructure, it wouldn't.
 
2020-12-02 10:38:17 AM  

Porkbelly: OdradekRex: bloobeary: Paying down the debt becomes easier if we start taxing the hyper-rich at 1950s levels again.

Close the loopholes and institute a wealth tax on everything above a million dollars.

We don't have a spending problem - we have a revenue problem. The GOP tax cut insanity needs to be reversed, and adjusted to reality.

Can we sell Alaska to China and Texas to Mexico?


Texas is the 10th largest economy in the world. How the hell are you going to be successful without Texas?
 
2020-12-02 10:38:41 AM  
It's simple. We, uh, kill Grover Norquist.

i.ytimg.comView Full Size
 
2020-12-02 10:39:16 AM  

Rozotorical: Porkbelly: OdradekRex: bloobeary: Paying down the debt becomes easier if we start taxing the hyper-rich at 1950s levels again.

Close the loopholes and institute a wealth tax on everything above a million dollars.

We don't have a spending problem - we have a revenue problem. The GOP tax cut insanity needs to be reversed, and adjusted to reality.

Can we sell Alaska to China and Texas to Mexico?

Texas is the 10th largest economy in the world. How the hell are you going to be successful without Texas?


Sell it for a good price....
 
2020-12-02 10:42:05 AM  

Sophont: NewportBarGuy: We need to cut defense spending by half, but we also have to realize that will have a HUGE negative economic impact.

If we'd just shunt that money into 21st century infrastructure, it wouldn't.


I would even suggest that shunting that money into our infrastructure (including updating and upgrading the online control components) can be legitimately postured as defense spending.
 
2020-12-02 10:42:42 AM  
There is little reason to even attempt to pare down the debt (as the article clearly states).  Interest rates are lower than inflation!  Now is the time (especially considering economic issues due to Covid) to borrow more, not less.
 
2020-12-02 10:43:01 AM  
As usual, this is the exact time that Republicans start caring about the debt and deficits again (JOM).
 
2020-12-02 10:43:03 AM  

Rozotorical: Porkbelly: OdradekRex: bloobeary: Paying down the debt becomes easier if we start taxing the hyper-rich at 1950s levels again.

Close the loopholes and institute a wealth tax on everything above a million dollars.

We don't have a spending problem - we have a revenue problem. The GOP tax cut insanity needs to be reversed, and adjusted to reality.

Can we sell Alaska to China and Texas to Mexico?

Texas is the 10th largest economy in the world. How the hell are you going to be successful without Texas?


Real answer. Texas rich people are the biggest funder of republican bullshiat in the country. If we sacrifice their money now, we can avoid their running everything into the ground on an ongoing basis. Also, imagine the country without John Cornyn and Ted Cruz. Without Louis Gohmert and Dan Crenshaw.

The vileness of Texas more than outweighs it's oil money.
 
2020-12-02 10:43:17 AM  
Remember budget surpluses? I know its been a hot minute since the Clinton era when those were a thing but if you can actually start running a government which consistently produces a surplus then even mild inflation makes existing debt manageable over time. The alternative is to pay for that debt the way we paid for the cold war, selling T-bills with interest rates that run 5 to 10 percent and kicking the can even further down the road.
 
2020-12-02 10:45:26 AM  

Rozotorical: Porkbelly: OdradekRex: bloobeary: Paying down the debt becomes easier if we start taxing the hyper-rich at 1950s levels again.

Close the loopholes and institute a wealth tax on everything above a million dollars.

We don't have a spending problem - we have a revenue problem. The GOP tax cut insanity needs to be reversed, and adjusted to reality.

Can we sell Alaska to China and Texas to Mexico?

Texas is the 10th largest economy in the world. How the hell are you going to be successful without Texas?


We still have California, New York, Illinois, Florida, Ohio, and so on.

Losing Texas might hurt a little but it wouldn't be the end of the USA's economic might.
 
2020-12-02 10:45:26 AM  

Rozotorical: Porkbelly: OdradekRex: bloobeary: Paying down the debt becomes easier if we start taxing the hyper-rich at 1950s levels again.

Close the loopholes and institute a wealth tax on everything above a million dollars.

We don't have a spending problem - we have a revenue problem. The GOP tax cut insanity needs to be reversed, and adjusted to reality.

Can we sell Alaska to China and Texas to Mexico?

Texas is the 10th largest economy in the world. How the hell are you going to be successful without Texas?


Texas has 9% of the world's COVID cases.

How is Texas going to be successful without TEXAS under control?

// maybe some kind of, I dunno, pooling of funds to achieve a common end
// subject to some guidelines all can agree on (or enough of them)
// and they'll need administrators and bylaws and such, to make it all work
// but at least they won't have THE BIG BAD GOVERNMENT around, right?
 
2020-12-02 10:45:26 AM  
I'm sure the senate will care about debts and deficits again come January. Mind you, not until later in the month on a particular day, probably in the afternoon. Then it'll become really important
 
2020-12-02 10:46:03 AM  
if you want to sell stuff , i'm pretty sure you could package guam the marianas, and samoa and sell it to china for a good trillion dollar.
 
2020-12-02 10:47:02 AM  
Ok guys, we said it when the tax cut was passed - THAT WAS THE POINT.

Cut taxes to create a huge deficit hole, then a few years later claim that the "only" way to fix the issue is to cut Medicare, Medicaid, a dozen provisions from the ACA, and divert Social Security funds to fill the gap.

The second Biden is in office, the GOP gets to go back to their deficit-hawking BS.  Cut all spending, cut social programs, and "stimulate" the economy with more tax cuts.  Rinse and repeat, just like ever election cycle since 1980.
 
2020-12-02 10:47:03 AM  

bloobeary: Paying down the debt becomes easier if we start taxing the hyper-rich at 1950s levels again.


Including corporations.

bloobeary: Close the loopholes and institute a wealth tax on everything above a million dollars.


A federal wealth tax seems likely unconstitutional without a new Amendment. There's no chance of such Amendment, microscopic chance such a law would pass the current or impending Senate, sub-microscopic chance such a law would be upheld in any Circuit, and probably wouldn't ever get certiori to be laughed out of the SCOTUS.
 
2020-12-02 10:47:26 AM  

peterquince: Rozotorical: Porkbelly: OdradekRex: bloobeary: Paying down the debt becomes easier if we start taxing the hyper-rich at 1950s levels again.

Close the loopholes and institute a wealth tax on everything above a million dollars.

We don't have a spending problem - we have a revenue problem. The GOP tax cut insanity needs to be reversed, and adjusted to reality.

Can we sell Alaska to China and Texas to Mexico?

Texas is the 10th largest economy in the world. How the hell are you going to be successful without Texas?

Sell it for a good price....


Texas has a larger economy than Mexico. I mean you could sell Texas to France, but it wouldn't be at market value. You would have to take a loss, and then you wouldn't get Governor Matthew Mcconaughey, and still not make up the revenue.

If you want to sell of parts of the country sell of Louisiana Alabama and Mississippi. Those states are nothing but trouble and costs us billions.
 
2020-12-02 10:47:43 AM  
But Republicans don't care about deficits.
/ right now
// Republicans to become deficit hawks on January 20, 2021
 
2020-12-02 10:48:14 AM  
Guys, sometimes I think a system that incentives short-term gains over long-term health might have some... not good outcomes.  But, on the other hand, that MBA over there disagrees, so who knows?  I mean, LOL what is an externality anyway?  Sounds like some Commie shiat!
 
2020-12-02 10:48:47 AM  
The other "economist" was Peter Navarro.
 
2020-12-02 10:50:04 AM  

fortheloveof: Rozotorical: Porkbelly: OdradekRex: bloobeary: Paying down the debt becomes easier if we start taxing the hyper-rich at 1950s levels again.

Close the loopholes and institute a wealth tax on everything above a million dollars.

We don't have a spending problem - we have a revenue problem. The GOP tax cut insanity needs to be reversed, and adjusted to reality.

Can we sell Alaska to China and Texas to Mexico?

Texas is the 10th largest economy in the world. How the hell are you going to be successful without Texas?

We still have California, New York, Illinois, Florida, Ohio, and so on.

Losing Texas might hurt a little but it wouldn't be the end of the USA's economic might.


No selling off Texas would cripple the economy. I think you misunderstand the role of Texas in the heart beat of the interior of the country.

Not liking something isn't the same as not needing something.
 
2020-12-02 10:53:12 AM  

Khellendros: Ok guys, we said it when the tax cut was passed - THAT WAS THE POINT.

Cut taxes to create a huge deficit hole, then a few years later claim that the "only" way to fix the issue is to cut Medicare, Medicaid, a dozen provisions from the ACA, and divert Social Security funds to fill the gap.

The second Biden is in office, the GOP gets to go back to their deficit-hawking BS.  Cut all spending, cut social programs, and "stimulate" the economy with more tax cuts.  Rinse and repeat, just like ever election cycle since 1980.


Also we're in dire economic straits due to COVID. Restricting spending and shutting down services will deepen and prolong our economic problems, which is what the GOP wants when a Democrat is President.
 
2020-12-02 10:53:37 AM  

fortheloveof: Sophont: NewportBarGuy: We need to cut defense spending by half, but we also have to realize that will have a HUGE negative economic impact.

If we'd just shunt that money into 21st century infrastructure, it wouldn't.

I would even suggest that shunting that money into our infrastructure (including updating and upgrading the online control components) can be legitimately postured as defense spending.


You're both right, but there is lag time of years to get those projects up and running. Planning, approval, budgeting... it all takes time.
 
2020-12-02 10:55:17 AM  

NewportBarGuy: I'm not arguing against targeted higher taxes. Not at all. But we have done so much damage that taxes alone won't do it. We need to cut defense spending by half, but we also have to realize that will have a HUGE negative economic impact. At least in the short term. So, the moves we make are going to have to be very carefully done.


Or, rather than merely cutting spending, we instead spend it on things that create more value in the mid to long term.

I don't know what the ROI is for parking billions of dollars worth of military hardware in the desert, but it's probably not as good an investment as actual infrastructure, alternative energy, education, high tech manufacturing, etc. Hell even welfare programs have positive ROI; turns out people spend more and produce more when they're not living hand-to-mouth on a weekly basis.
=Smidge=
 
2020-12-02 10:55:46 AM  

abb3w: bloobeary: Paying down the debt becomes easier if we start taxing the hyper-rich at 1950s levels again.

Including corporations.

bloobeary: Close the loopholes and institute a wealth tax on everything above a million dollars.

A federal wealth tax seems likely unconstitutional without a new Amendment. There's no chance of such Amendment, microscopic chance such a law would pass the current or impending Senate, sub-microscopic chance such a law would be upheld in any Circuit, and probably wouldn't ever get certiori to be laughed out of the SCOTUS.


Taxing it directly like that may be problematic but you could certainly add a income tax penalty based upon held wealth. You have above $x million dollars you get a income tax penalty equal to a percentage of that wealth. If that happens to be more than you earn in the year then so be it. Nothing says you cannot tax income above 100%
 
2020-12-02 10:57:29 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Rozotorical: Porkbelly: OdradekRex: bloobeary: Paying down the debt becomes easier if we start taxing the hyper-rich at 1950s levels again.

Close the loopholes and institute a wealth tax on everything above a million dollars.

We don't have a spending problem - we have a revenue problem. The GOP tax cut insanity needs to be reversed, and adjusted to reality.

Can we sell Alaska to China and Texas to Mexico?

Texas is the 10th largest economy in the world. How the hell are you going to be successful without Texas?

Texas has 9% of the world's COVID cases.

How is Texas going to be successful without TEXAS under control?

// maybe some kind of, I dunno, pooling of funds to achieve a common end
// subject to some guidelines all can agree on (or enough of them)
// and they'll need administrators and bylaws and such, to make it all work
// but at least they won't have THE BIG BAD GOVERNMENT around, right?


Texas is totally into big government. I think you misunderstand Texas politics, if you think otherwise.

There are exactly no states with the Coronavirus under control. 0.

In fact Texas is fifth in current cases of Coronavirus, California, Illinois, Florida, Arizona have more active cases.

If you rank cases by population Texas drops to 27th.
 
2020-12-02 10:58:07 AM  
Yeah, but we knew that.  Just ask the president:

The Trump Depression: The Economy Does Better Under the Democrats
Youtube fn3cTT6O1I4
 
2020-12-02 10:58:37 AM  
Can't we all just take a moment to appreciate the Dentyne joke? That was immensely satisfying.
 
2020-12-02 10:58:37 AM  

abb3w: bloobeary: Paying down the debt becomes easier if we start taxing the hyper-rich at 1950s levels again.

Including corporations.

bloobeary: Close the loopholes and institute a wealth tax on everything above a million dollars.

A federal wealth tax seems likely unconstitutional without a new Amendment. There's no chance of such Amendment, microscopic chance such a law would pass the current or impending Senate, sub-microscopic chance such a law would be upheld in any Circuit, and probably wouldn't ever get certiori to be laughed out of the SCOTUS.


Let's still try it.
 
2020-12-02 11:00:09 AM  
Flat tax,
Tax earned and unearned income at same rate.
No gimmicks, write-offs, or deductions.
Tax the nonprofits. You too, Jesus.
Eliminate maximum earnings cap on social security contributions.

And you're well on your way.
 
2020-12-02 11:00:26 AM  
They are absolutely right. There is no reason the US should be paying off debt when we borrow at negative interest rates.
 
2020-12-02 11:01:36 AM  

abb3w: A federal wealth tax seems likely unconstitutional without a new Amendment.


I know (or I think?) you're a lawyer, but "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States", and the shiatload of case law* since, seems to suggest it's not.

I'm all ears on why I'm wrong, though.

* plus The Federalist Papers, but we've adjudicated a whole lot since then
 
2020-12-02 11:04:10 AM  
Tax the 1%.  Its the only way out of this mess.

While I would agree that there is no problem with deficit spending with interest rates so ridiculously low, we have to be prepared to shut that nozzle off the moment things change. We could actually see a very quick turnaround in the economy when the vaccines start rolling out.  And in that case, you could see an over-heated economy start to brew, which will require a hike in interest rates.  At that point, it will be necessary to increase revenue.

But look.  The bottom line is that the wealthiest people in America got ticked off with paying taxes to support wars and public social services.  They elected Reagan, who got everyone to accept "supply side economics" as a real thing, and here we are.  We dont have to go back to the 50s tax rate on the wealthy.  If we just went back to the 70s we would increase revenue substantially, and we wouldn't have to make cuts on defense or social programs.
 
2020-12-02 11:06:22 AM  

NewportBarGuy: bloobeary: NewportBarGuy: If this Twinkie represents a normal budget from 60 years ago, according to our current budget situation the Twinkie would be 190 feet long and weigh 30,000 metric tons.

A bigger bite is therefore exactly what is required.

In this case, a tax bite.

There's plenty of money out there to run the economy. It just needs to be drained out of the private holding tanks of a select few, and poured back into the hands of the general public.

I'm not arguing against targeted higher taxes. Not at all. But we have done so much damage that taxes alone won't do it. We need to cut defense spending by half, but we also have to realize that will have a HUGE negative economic impact. At least in the short term. So, the moves we make are going to have to be very carefully done. Step one to save SS is absolutely remove the income threshold. That fixes SS for a few decades and we can focus on other stuff.


The problem on the military side is that the things we should cut are, politically, the hardest to cut, and the things we need to seriously invest in are the easiest.

When I was in high school I had a summer job working as a technician doing wiring for missiles that were more than two decades obsolete *then* - and that was in the late 90s. I once asked my boss why we kept making missiles that were never shot at anything and was told to STFU. They are still making those missiles today. They have warehouses full of them.

We are continually making all sorts of defense hardware that even the military says they do not need or want. Whether it be unnecessary tanks and trucks, missiles made for wartime conditions that haven't happened since Korea, or whatever. That's on top of the stuff we DO use (and a lot of that we use unnecessarily because we're involved in countries we shouldn't be, but now have to be or the region goes to shiat). The problem is the unnecessary stuff involves billion-dollar programs that have highly influential defense contractors that make sure to put the jobs all across the country (even when it's less efficient to do so) because it makes it damn hard for Congress to actually cut them. And yes it'll be hard to cut those things because they do involve millions of jobs.

But China is eating our lunch on R&D for next generation, cyber, and asymmetric warfare. They invest lavishly to fight the next war, trying multiple avenues and picking the best ones to move forward. Our government (and our corporations), however, often finds that the easiest thing to cut is R&D, because it doesn't have giant lobbyists behind it. Even when that R&D is done by the same contractors, it's small potatoes compared to the billion dollar boondoggles so they don't try to save it when it's on the chopping block (the ones they do try to save are themselves disasters, like the F35). But R&D is the thing we likely need more than ever. We are also terrible at keeping the cutting edge technologies we do invent, secret - foreign spying means they don't have to invests much, while our networks aren't what they used to be.

We definitely need to cut military spending. My worry is that whenever we do, we're again going to cut what we need the most, so that we can continue to add to the warehouses full of missiles and deserts with tanks that were obsolete ages ago and will never see use. They use up the fruit of labor while adding nothing to the standard of living.
 
2020-12-02 11:06:28 AM  
you don't have to go back to the 50's, just to the Last Known acceptable conditions - The Clinton tax structure produced a surplus and there was fear of a financial "system" having to  operating without Federal Reserve Debt.
 
2020-12-02 11:08:03 AM  

bloobeary: NewportBarGuy: If this Twinkie represents a normal budget from 60 years ago, according to our current budget situation the Twinkie would be 190 feet long and weigh 30,000 metric tons.

A bigger bite is therefore exactly what is required.

In this case, a tax bite.

There's plenty of money out there to run the economy. It just needs to be drained out of the private holding tanks of a select few, and poured back into the hands of the general public.


Here's the problem. The people that have all that money control the people that make the rules. We should've never allowed dark money to be put into politics. Unfortunately, our government is reaching a breaking point. The rules have been tweaked for the last 50 years ever so slightly here and there to culminate into this moment. We are no longer a government of the people or for the people.
 
2020-12-02 11:09:49 AM  

Rozotorical: fortheloveof: Rozotorical: Porkbelly: OdradekRex: bloobeary: Paying down the debt becomes easier if we start taxing the hyper-rich at 1950s levels again.

Close the loopholes and institute a wealth tax on everything above a million dollars.

We don't have a spending problem - we have a revenue problem. The GOP tax cut insanity needs to be reversed, and adjusted to reality.

Can we sell Alaska to China and Texas to Mexico?

Texas is the 10th largest economy in the world. How the hell are you going to be successful without Texas?

We still have California, New York, Illinois, Florida, Ohio, and so on.

Losing Texas might hurt a little but it wouldn't be the end of the USA's economic might.

No selling off Texas would cripple the economy. I think you misunderstand the role of Texas in the heart beat of the interior of the country.

Not liking something isn't the same as not needing something.


If by center you mean the border and by cripple you mean slightly inconvenience then sure.

What will be really funny is how quickly Texas ranking as 10 would plummet from the lack of federal dollars holding it up. Now it won't be zero of course because we still have NAFTA and it would be attached to Mexico, so businesses will still be able to sell in the USA. The stickiest points would be if we close the bases or have some OCONUS stations right on our border.

But it won't happen. Returning land to its rightful owner after it was stole by illegal immigrants might set a precedent that the USA can ill afford.
 
2020-12-02 11:10:05 AM  
The national debt is far less important than inflation and productive capacity (AND HUMAN LIVES).

Inflation is (mostly) very low, and has been skidding near deflation for 12 years. The exceptions are (mostly) housing (restricted supply), healthcare (19th century, rube goldberg, oligopolist bullshiat), and higher education (forever loans).

Productive capacity has shrunk with spiking unemployment. Even before the rona, productivity growth has been puny. There isn't much risk of spiking inflation, as long as the money doesn't go straight to the top.

TL/DR - fark the debt. Give the bottom 80% straight cash to revive the economy and save lives.
 
2020-12-02 11:10:14 AM  

edmo: Flat tax,
Tax earned and unearned income at same rate.
No gimmicks, write-offs, or deductions.
Tax the nonprofits. You too, Jesus.
Eliminate maximum earnings cap on social security contributions.

And you're well on your way.


So, you want to increase taxes on poor people and cause significant hardship on charities that poor people need to survive.
 
2020-12-02 11:10:54 AM  

Ham Sandvich: The national debt is far less important than inflation and productive capacity (AND HUMAN LIVES).

Inflation is (mostly) very low, and has been skidding near deflation for 12 years. The exceptions are (mostly) housing (restricted supply), healthcare (19th century, rube goldberg, oligopolist bullshiat), and higher education (forever loans).

Productive capacity has shrunk with spiking unemployment. Even before the rona, productivity growth has been puny. There isn't much risk of spiking inflation, as long as the money doesn't go straight to the top.

TL/DR - fark the debt. Give the bottom 80% straight cash to revive the economy and save lives.


This, this, this, this.
 
2020-12-02 11:11:40 AM  

Smidge204: NewportBarGuy: I'm not arguing against targeted higher taxes. Not at all. But we have done so much damage that taxes alone won't do it. We need to cut defense spending by half, but we also have to realize that will have a HUGE negative economic impact. At least in the short term. So, the moves we make are going to have to be very carefully done.

Or, rather than merely cutting spending, we instead spend it on things that create more value in the mid to long term.

I don't know what the ROI is for parking billions of dollars worth of military hardware in the desert, but it's probably not as good an investment as actual infrastructure, alternative energy, education, high tech manufacturing, etc. Hell even welfare programs have positive ROI; turns out people spend more and produce more when they're not living hand-to-mouth on a weekly basis.
=Smidge=


Putting Soldiers on 3-6 month shifts of working those infrastructure projects would probably help readiness too.

Also help with accountability of the work.
 
2020-12-02 11:13:15 AM  

Hey Nurse!: bloobeary: NewportBarGuy: If this Twinkie represents a normal budget from 60 years ago, according to our current budget situation the Twinkie would be 190 feet long and weigh 30,000 metric tons.

A bigger bite is therefore exactly what is required.

In this case, a tax bite.

There's plenty of money out there to run the economy. It just needs to be drained out of the private holding tanks of a select few, and poured back into the hands of the general public.

Here's the problem. The people that have all that money control the people that make the rules. We should've never allowed dark money to be put into politics. Unfortunately, our government is reaching a breaking point. The rules have been tweaked for the last 50 years ever so slightly here and there to culminate into this moment. We are no longer a government of the people or for the people.


Until Citizens United can be overturned, we need to use it against itself.  Im not sure how to do that, but certainly declaring that corporations have rights as individuals for purposes of donations in political campaigns should have some sort of further implication for liability, or taxation, or something.
 
2020-12-02 11:14:45 AM  

Sophont: NewportBarGuy: We need to cut defense spending by half, but we also have to realize that will have a HUGE negative economic impact.

If we'd just shunt that money into 21st century infrastructure, it wouldn't.


Yeah it would. Defense contractors are spread out all over the country and are designed to inflict maximum economic pain when they go down. Sure some jobs could be transferred but a lot would just go away.
 
2020-12-02 11:16:22 AM  

bloobeary: NewportBarGuy: If this Twinkie represents a normal budget from 60 years ago, according to our current budget situation the Twinkie would be 190 feet long and weigh 30,000 metric tons.

A bigger bite is therefore exactly what is required.

In this case, a tax bite.

There's plenty of money out there to run the economy. It just needs to be drained out of the private holding tanks of a select few, and poured back into the hands of the general public.


Notice how the criticism of this kind of thinking is called redistribution of wealth.

It wasn't redistribution of wealth when they had their hats in hand with their other hand sticking out for a big bail out.

It wasn't redistribution when the wealthy have gotten even more wealthy during this pandemic as small service businesses were shut down.

It wasn't a redistribution of wealth when we have 30-40 million people about to be homeless, 300,000 of us dead, millions of us infected, and zero response from the private sector to do anything but keep asking for more bail outs.

It's not a redistribution of wealth when the top 1% gained 10% of all wealth and the bottom 90% lost 10% of all wealth.

It's time to attack these people's wealth and take back what they have manipulated in taking from us.
 
2020-12-02 11:24:29 AM  

Rapmaster2000: The other "economist" was Peter Navarro.


The other Harvard academic fraud everyone forgets in favor of Kushner.
 
2020-12-02 11:25:37 AM  

Rozotorical: There are exactly no states with the Coronavirus under control. 0.

In fact Texas is fifth in current cases of Coronavirus, California, Illinois, Florida, Arizona have more active cases.

If you rank cases by population Texas drops to 27th.


Texas is #1 in the US, according to the NYT - 1,275,499 cases. (And I was mistaken, citing uncritically a Texan friend I spoke to last night. Texas has 9% of the US' COVID cases, not the world's. 1.2M cases is 9% of the world's 1.5M fatalities, but that's apples/oranges.)

// talking raw numbers, not per capita
// and no one has it "under control", but some states (and municipalities within the pro-life State of Texas) are trying to do more than sacrifice old people for the economy
 
2020-12-02 11:26:37 AM  

Dr Dreidel: 1.2M cases is 9% of the world's 1.5M fatalities, but that's apples/oranges.


I need a better editor...

// strike that, would you please?
 
2020-12-02 11:27:29 AM  

keldaria: Taxing it directly like that may be problematic but you could certainly add a income tax penalty based upon held wealth.


I don't think that's certain to survive court muster, but that proposal sounds like it has a better chance of passing court muster than anything else I've heard so far.

Still seems to have next to no chance at getting past the current or impending Senate, though.

bluejeansonfire: Let's still try it.


As long as you're not fooling yourself on the prospects of success, and don't mind the eventual shifting of more wealth to tax lawyers.

Fark user imageView Full Size


Dr Dreidel: I know (or I think?) you're a lawyer


No.

I've just spent a couple decades arguing with them on the internet, and paid attention when they explained how I'm an ignorant imbecile, and occasionally reading things at Google Scholar and at Cornell's on-line Legal Information Institute. Although perhaps somewhat less ignorant than most, I'm still a layman.

Dr Dreidel: but "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States", and the shiatload of case law* since, seems to suggest it's not


See Pollock v Farmers Loan & Trust Co (1895); the federal government may impose some direct uniform per-capita tax under the Article I "rule of Apportionment" ("Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers") under its original taxation power (or uniform duties/imposts/excises, indirectly imposed on import transactions), but may not directly impose taxes that are not uniform per-capita.

The passage of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913 added the "power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration"... but "wealth" is not "incomes".

Dr Dreidel: * plus The Federalist Papers, but we've adjudicated a whole lot since then


Pollock cites 36 and 54 in support of its view, by the way.
 
2020-12-02 11:27:56 AM  

Night Train to Wakanda: bloobeary: NewportBarGuy: If this Twinkie represents a normal budget from 60 years ago, according to our current budget situation the Twinkie would be 190 feet long and weigh 30,000 metric tons.

A bigger bite is therefore exactly what is required.

In this case, a tax bite.

There's plenty of money out there to run the economy. It just needs to be drained out of the private holding tanks of a select few, and poured back into the hands of the general public.

Notice how the criticism of this kind of thinking is called redistribution of wealth.

It wasn't redistribution of wealth when they had their hats in hand with their other hand sticking out for a big bail out.

It wasn't redistribution when the wealthy have gotten even more wealthy during this pandemic as small service businesses were shut down.

It wasn't a redistribution of wealth when we have 30-40 million people about to be homeless, 300,000 of us dead, millions of us infected, and zero response from the private sector to do anything but keep asking for more bail outs.

It's not a redistribution of wealth when the top 1% gained 10% of all wealth and the bottom 90% lost 10% of all wealth.

It's time to attack these people's wealth and take back what they have manipulated in taking from us.


Yes.  And welfare isn't just for the poor.  Corporate welfare in terms of subsidies for petroleum companies and other corporations need to be eliminated.  If they cant operate a sustainable business otherwise, then they should fall apart like every other business...and in their place other sources of energy might actually become more reasonable.

If we actually charged corporations for the cost of polluting the Pacific ocean with all that plastic from freighters, it might become more economical to do manufacturing here in the US.  By not doing so those companies are effectively profiting because they are not paying for the cost of manufacturing. Again, welfare.

And if we actually invested in education to retool our population accordingly, all those people who voted for Trump because he said he would bring back coal mining would say "why the fark would i want to go into a coal mine?"  I dont know what they would do...and i dont know how feasible it is.  But the whole point of moving jobs overseas was that wages were lower over there, and people here were supposed to benefit from having better jobs that were not as menial.  Didnt work that way, primarily because the 1% didnt want it to.
 
2020-12-02 11:29:00 AM  

Night Train to Wakanda: bloobeary: NewportBarGuy: If this Twinkie represents a normal budget from 60 years ago, according to our current budget situation the Twinkie would be 190 feet long and weigh 30,000 metric tons.

A bigger bite is therefore exactly what is required.

In this case, a tax bite.

There's plenty of money out there to run the economy. It just needs to be drained out of the private holding tanks of a select few, and poured back into the hands of the general public.

Notice how the criticism of this kind of thinking is called redistribution of wealth.

It wasn't redistribution of wealth when they had their hats in hand with their other hand sticking out for a big bail out.

It wasn't redistribution when the wealthy have gotten even more wealthy during this pandemic as small service businesses were shut down.

It wasn't a redistribution of wealth when we have 30-40 million people about to be homeless, 300,000 of us dead, millions of us infected, and zero response from the private sector to do anything but keep asking for more bail outs.

It's not a redistribution of wealth when the top 1% gained 10% of all wealth and the bottom 90% lost 10% of all wealth.

It's time to attack these people's wealth and take back what they have manipulated in taking from us.


Well past time. They are showing they do not share and are not capable of helping when the nation needs them to. They are taking advantage of the situation to cause more harm. In short, they treat the rest of us like disposable workers.
 
2020-12-02 11:29:03 AM  

fortheloveof: Rozotorical: fortheloveof: Rozotorical: Porkbelly: OdradekRex: bloobeary: Paying down the debt becomes easier if we start taxing the hyper-rich at 1950s levels again.

Close the loopholes and institute a wealth tax on everything above a million dollars.

We don't have a spending problem - we have a revenue problem. The GOP tax cut insanity needs to be reversed, and adjusted to reality.

Can we sell Alaska to China and Texas to Mexico?

Texas is the 10th largest economy in the world. How the hell are you going to be successful without Texas?

We still have California, New York, Illinois, Florida, Ohio, and so on.

Losing Texas might hurt a little but it wouldn't be the end of the USA's economic might.

No selling off Texas would cripple the economy. I think you misunderstand the role of Texas in the heart beat of the interior of the country.

Not liking something isn't the same as not needing something.

If by center you mean the border and by cripple you mean slightly inconvenience then sure.

What will be really funny is how quickly Texas ranking as 10 would plummet from the lack of federal dollars holding it up. Now it won't be zero of course because we still have NAFTA and it would be attached to Mexico, so businesses will still be able to sell in the USA. The stickiest points would be if we close the bases or have some OCONUS stations right on our border.

But it won't happen. Returning land to its rightful owner after it was stole by illegal immigrants might set a precedent that the USA can ill afford.


No Texas shipping and transport route is crucial to civilization in the center of the country.

Also what do you think makes up the Texas's economy if if you think it is held up by federal spending outside of Military spending, which Texas still pays more into the system than it takes out.

Also you couldn't exactly afford to replace the massive amount of land and infrastructure the Military needs and uses in Texas. It's not like you can just move everything with no costs, it would take Trillions and decades.

Who do you think the rightful owner of Texas is? If you want to start that argument I am all for it, I would love to get mayo eaters out of our continent. But something tells me that is a pipe dream as y'all are here to stay.
 
2020-12-02 11:29:10 AM  

Ham Sandvich: The national debt is far less important than inflation and productive capacity (AND HUMAN LIVES).

Inflation is (mostly) very low, and has been skidding near deflation for 12 years. The exceptions are (mostly) housing (restricted supply), healthcare (19th century, rube goldberg, oligopolist bullshiat), and higher education (forever loans).

Productive capacity has shrunk with spiking unemployment. Even before the rona, productivity growth has been puny. There isn't much risk of spiking inflation, as long as the money doesn't go straight to the top.

TL/DR - fark the debt. Give the bottom 80% straight cash to revive the economy and save lives.


Up until the 1980's running a deficit was thought to lead to hyper inflation.  but once reagan popped that theory the GOP has only cared about inflation when they are the minority party.

i'd love to hear why the debt is a concern from this next batch of GOP congressmen.  They can no longer say its for the benefit of future generations.  the last 12 years has shown the hate young people.
 
2020-12-02 11:34:07 AM  

severedtoe: Ham Sandvich: The national debt is far less important than inflation and productive capacity (AND HUMAN LIVES).

Inflation is (mostly) very low, and has been skidding near deflation for 12 years. The exceptions are (mostly) housing (restricted supply), healthcare (19th century, rube goldberg, oligopolist bullshiat), and higher education (forever loans).

Productive capacity has shrunk with spiking unemployment. Even before the rona, productivity growth has been puny. There isn't much risk of spiking inflation, as long as the money doesn't go straight to the top.

TL/DR - fark the debt. Give the bottom 80% straight cash to revive the economy and save lives.

Up until the 1980's running a deficit was thought to lead to hyper inflation.  but once reagan popped that theory the GOP has only cared about inflation when they are the minority party.

i'd love to hear why the debt is a concern from this next batch of GOP congressmen.  They can no longer say its for the benefit of future generations.  the last 12 years has shown the hate young people.


It was also around that time that individual states enacted legislation such that they had to have balanced budgets.  Not necessarily a problem, per se, in a perfect situation, but when states are confronted with a pandemic for which they are unprepared AND the federal government is not willing to help them, what the hell else are they supposed to do?  For as much as people attack Krugman, the one thing he was right about in 2008 was that the real impact of the crisis was going to be felt in local government, where federal infusions were cut off for police, roads, hospitals...oh wait.

In addition to the crap about supply side economics, the other line that hit home with idiots was that the federal budget is like your home checkbook.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  It simply doesnt operate that way, and to think otherwise is willingly being stupid.
 
2020-12-02 11:35:20 AM  

Hey Nurse!: bloobeary: NewportBarGuy: If this Twinkie represents a normal budget from 60 years ago, according to our current budget situation the Twinkie would be 190 feet long and weigh 30,000 metric tons.

A bigger bite is therefore exactly what is required.

In this case, a tax bite.

There's plenty of money out there to run the economy. It just needs to be drained out of the private holding tanks of a select few, and poured back into the hands of the general public.

Here's the problem. The people that have all that money control the people that make the rules. We should've never allowed dark money to be put into politics. Unfortunately, our government is reaching a breaking point. The rules have been tweaked for the last 50 years ever so slightly here and there to culminate into this moment. We are no longer a government of the people or for the people.


Correct. "Consent of the governed" is a thing of the past.

There is no middle class anymore. The window for correcting the system from within the system has slid out of our reach.
 
2020-12-02 11:37:30 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Texas is #1 in the US, according to the NYT - 1,275,499 cases. (And I was mistaken, citing uncritically a Texan friend I spoke to last night. Texas has 9% of the US' COVID cases, not the world's. 1.2M cases is 9% of the world's 1.5M fatalities, but that's apples/oranges.)


I would say current cases are more interesting when we talk about what is happening currently. Which by your argument we should sell off the entire country and all of us go live in Barbados or some shiat.
 
2020-12-02 11:41:05 AM  

abb3w: the federal government may impose some direct uniform per-capita tax under the Article I "rule of Apportionment" ("Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers") under its original taxation power (or uniform duties/imposts/excises, indirectly imposed on import transactions), but may not directly impose taxes that are not uniform per-capita.


1. Isn't a tax on held wealth a tax on property? Or are we saying only states can tax real estate or vehicles (which I guess is a decent argument)?
2. So long as it's based on a calculable rate, how isn't it uniform (same as income taxes)?
3. Pollock, to my reading, was specifically about income taxes, and was mooted by the 16th Amendment. The Article I power of taxation seems pretty broad.
4. NFIB v Sibelius: if not everyone would be required to pay it (in that case, everyone who gets or declines health insurance; in this one, only people with wealth above a certain threshhold), it's not a capitation.
 
2020-12-02 11:43:08 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Dr Dreidel: 1.2M cases is 9% of the world's 1.5M fatalities, but that's apples/oranges.

I need a better editor...

// strike that, would you please?


I got what you are saying. And you are right Coronavirus is out of control, just not at the same rate as half of the country.

I mean the Dakotas have 1 in 10 people with the Corona Virus at the moment.  1 in 800 have died. Two weeks ago it was 1 in 1000 people having died, things are only getting worse.

With the border cases in Texas slowing, California will pass Texas again in total cases, but neither will hit the top 10 in adjusted for population.
 
2020-12-02 11:43:29 AM  

edmo: Flat tax,


No.
 
2020-12-02 11:48:42 AM  

AAAAGGGGHHHH: It's simple. We, uh, kill Grover Norquist.

[i.ytimg.com image 850x478]


I say we drown him in a tub.
 
2020-12-02 11:48:59 AM  

thehobbes: edmo: Flat tax,

No.


Federal VAT?
 
2020-12-02 11:52:55 AM  

severedtoe: Ham Sandvich: The national debt is far less important than inflation and productive capacity (AND HUMAN LIVES).

Inflation is (mostly) very low, and has been skidding near deflation for 12 years. The exceptions are (mostly) housing (restricted supply), healthcare (19th century, rube goldberg, oligopolist bullshiat), and higher education (forever loans).

Productive capacity has shrunk with spiking unemployment. Even before the rona, productivity growth has been puny. There isn't much risk of spiking inflation, as long as the money doesn't go straight to the top.

TL/DR - fark the debt. Give the bottom 80% straight cash to revive the economy and save lives.

Up until the 1980's running a deficit was thought to lead to hyper inflation.  but once reagan popped that theory the GOP has only cared about inflation when they are the minority party.

i'd love to hear why the debt is a concern from this next batch of GOP congressmen.  They can no longer say its for the benefit of future generations.  the last 12 years has shown the hate young people.



Volcker did what he thought he needed to do to curb stagflation. I'm not aware of any credible, monday-morning-qb takes showing an alternative path, either.

But, the gold standard is long dead. Japan is running something like 200% debt versus GDP. People have been betting on inflation over there for decades now and those bets have been roasted. National debt is informative, but not always a crisis. HOW the money supply is distributed is more important.

Let's say, we did something completely stupid and gave the richest people in the country $1 trillion or so. Those people are effectively at their productive limits. All that wealth unlocks all kinds of resources, training, talented labor, sweetheart financing, etc. In that highly idiotic scenario, we would expect to see inflation among that group's buying habits, but not through the broader economy. Things like financial assets, real estate, yachts, art, etc.

But, that's just hypothetical, of course.
 
2020-12-02 11:54:04 AM  
As an economist (once, now a bum) I say yes, without a huge injection into the people that are really suffering, the US will become a fractured society where the rich live in locked off communities and the poor/majority live in wastelands.

Pretty sure this was a computer game and it wasn't fun.
 
2020-12-02 11:56:24 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-12-02 11:57:39 AM  

Rozotorical: Porkbelly: OdradekRex: bloobeary: Paying down the debt becomes easier if we start taxing the hyper-rich at 1950s levels again.

Close the loopholes and institute a wealth tax on everything above a million dollars.

We don't have a spending problem - we have a revenue problem. The GOP tax cut insanity needs to be reversed, and adjusted to reality.

Can we sell Alaska to China and Texas to Mexico?

Texas is the 10th largest economy in the world. How the hell are you going to be successful without Texas?


textbooks with ideas from the second half of the 20th century are a good start
 
2020-12-02 12:00:06 PM  

Thank You Black Jesus!: Rozotorical: Porkbelly: OdradekRex: bloobeary: Paying down the debt becomes easier if we start taxing the hyper-rich at 1950s levels again.

Close the loopholes and institute a wealth tax on everything above a million dollars.

We don't have a spending problem - we have a revenue problem. The GOP tax cut insanity needs to be reversed, and adjusted to reality.

Can we sell Alaska to China and Texas to Mexico?

Texas is the 10th largest economy in the world. How the hell are you going to be successful without Texas?

textbooks with ideas from the second half of the 20th century are a good start


What makes you think they wouldn't still just import them? Or buy them from someplace like Florida which is 10 times crazier.
 
2020-12-02 12:01:43 PM  

freakay: severedtoe: Ham Sandvich: The national debt is far less important than inflation and productive capacity (AND HUMAN LIVES).

Inflation is (mostly) very low, and has been skidding near deflation for 12 years. The exceptions are (mostly) housing (restricted supply), healthcare (19th century, rube goldberg, oligopolist bullshiat), and higher education (forever loans).

Productive capacity has shrunk with spiking unemployment. Even before the rona, productivity growth has been puny. There isn't much risk of spiking inflation, as long as the money doesn't go straight to the top.

TL/DR - fark the debt. Give the bottom 80% straight cash to revive the economy and save lives.

Up until the 1980's running a deficit was thought to lead to hyper inflation.  but once reagan popped that theory the GOP has only cared about inflation when they are the minority party.

i'd love to hear why the debt is a concern from this next batch of GOP congressmen.  They can no longer say its for the benefit of future generations.  the last 12 years has shown the hate young people.

It was also around that time that individual states enacted legislation such that they had to have balanced budgets.  Not necessarily a problem, per se, in a perfect situation, but when states are confronted with a pandemic for which they are unprepared AND the federal government is not willing to help them, what the hell else are they supposed to do?  For as much as people attack Krugman, the one thing he was right about in 2008 was that the real impact of the crisis was going to be felt in local government, where federal infusions were cut off for police, roads, hospitals...oh wait.

In addition to the crap about supply side economics, the other line that hit home with idiots was that the federal budget is like your home checkbook.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  It simply doesnt operate that way, and to think otherwise is willingly being stupid.


Exactly. States can't make the money printer go brrrrrrrr, or tax out excess cash from unproductive sectors, like the Hamptons, to higher ROI sectors, like almost anywhere else. States need the cash almost as badly as the rest of us right now. Massachusetts's budget was not exactly disciplined before this hit.

States will have to cut services, take on more debt (with higher interest now), or raise taxes while a lot of people are out of work. Debt might keep the lights on for a bit longer, but they'll have to pay it back.
 
2020-12-02 12:17:04 PM  

Ham Sandvich: severedtoe: Ham Sandvich: The national debt is far less important than inflation and productive capacity (AND HUMAN LIVES).

Inflation is (mostly) very low, and has been skidding near deflation for 12 years. The exceptions are (mostly) housing (restricted supply), healthcare (19th century, rube goldberg, oligopolist bullshiat), and higher education (forever loans).

Productive capacity has shrunk with spiking unemployment. Even before the rona, productivity growth has been puny. There isn't much risk of spiking inflation, as long as the money doesn't go straight to the top.

TL/DR - fark the debt. Give the bottom 80% straight cash to revive the economy and save lives.

Up until the 1980's running a deficit was thought to lead to hyper inflation.  but once reagan popped that theory the GOP has only cared about inflation when they are the minority party.

i'd love to hear why the debt is a concern from this next batch of GOP congressmen.  They can no longer say its for the benefit of future generations.  the last 12 years has shown the hate young people.


Volcker did what he thought he needed to do to curb stagflation. I'm not aware of any credible, monday-morning-qb takes showing an alternative path, either.

But, the gold standard is long dead. Japan is running something like 200% debt versus GDP. People have been betting on inflation over there for decades now and those bets have been roasted. National debt is informative, but not always a crisis. HOW the money supply is distributed is more important.

Let's say, we did something completely stupid and gave the richest people in the country $1 trillion or so. Those people are effectively at their productive limits. All that wealth unlocks all kinds of resources, training, talented labor, sweetheart financing, etc. In that highly idiotic scenario, we would expect to see inflation among that group's buying habits, but not through the broader economy. Things like financial assets, real estate, yachts, art, etc.

But, ...


This is where laffer curve has never lived up to its hype.  dollars given to the lower 90% of the population will flow through the economy and thus create wealth opportunities throughout.  dollars that flow to the asset class tend to pool in places where the only create wealth opportunities for the very few.

Milton freedman, advocated that the asset class be given all the spoils, and corporate governance has shifted away from benefiting the workers and owners equally to a updated form of pseudo feudalism.
 
2020-12-02 12:18:47 PM  

Rozotorical: Porkbelly: OdradekRex: bloobeary: Paying down the debt becomes easier if we start taxing the hyper-rich at 1950s levels again.

Close the loopholes and institute a wealth tax on everything above a million dollars.

We don't have a spending problem - we have a revenue problem. The GOP tax cut insanity needs to be reversed, and adjusted to reality.

Can we sell Alaska to China and Texas to Mexico?

Texas is the 10th largest economy in the world. How the hell are you going to be successful without Texas?


Tariffs (and I suppose I should have put an s/ but figured anyone with more than a room-temperature IQ would have figured out that this wasn't serious.
 
2020-12-02 12:21:42 PM  

Porkbelly: Rozotorical: Porkbelly: OdradekRex: bloobeary: Paying down the debt becomes easier if we start taxing the hyper-rich at 1950s levels again.

Close the loopholes and institute a wealth tax on everything above a million dollars.

We don't have a spending problem - we have a revenue problem. The GOP tax cut insanity needs to be reversed, and adjusted to reality.

Can we sell Alaska to China and Texas to Mexico?

Texas is the 10th largest economy in the world. How the hell are you going to be successful without Texas?

Tariffs (and I suppose I should have put an s/ but figured anyone with more than a room-temperature IQ would have figured out that this wasn't serious.


Tariffs are paid by your own countrymen, not foreign countries sellers ,Don, it's the reason you lost the trade war with Chiiiina.
 
2020-12-02 12:24:19 PM  

peterquince: Rozotorical: Porkbelly: OdradekRex: bloobeary: Paying down the debt becomes easier if we start taxing the hyper-rich at 1950s levels again.

Close the loopholes and institute a wealth tax on everything above a million dollars.

We don't have a spending problem - we have a revenue problem. The GOP tax cut insanity needs to be reversed, and adjusted to reality.

Can we sell Alaska to China and Texas to Mexico?

Texas is the 10th largest economy in the world. How the hell are you going to be successful without Texas?

Real answer. Texas rich people are the biggest funder of republican bullshiat in the country. If we sacrifice their money now, we can avoid their running everything into the ground on an ongoing basis. Also, imagine the country without John Cornyn and Ted Cruz. Without Louis Gohmert and Dan Crenshaw.

The vileness of Texas more than outweighs it's oil money.


You have me reconsidering the satirical nature of my comment.
 
2020-12-02 12:29:39 PM  

edmo: Flat tax,
Tax earned and unearned income at same rate.
No gimmicks, write-offs, or deductions.
Tax the nonprofits. You too, Jesus.
Eliminate maximum earnings cap on social security contributions.

And you're well on your way.


Into regressive taxation I see, nope.  Reminder:  the rich get virtually all the benefits from the military, homeland security, the nation's transportation system, and a host of other things.

What might work though is a graduated tax with NO DEDUCTIONS of any kind, starting after the first, oh, $30 thousand or so of income.  Figure out what is needed and set the rates up to 90%.

ALSO AND MOST IMPORTANT:  tax un-earned income (interest, etc.) the same as EARNED income.

Finally, no cap on social security tax or medicare tax.
 
2020-12-02 1:06:49 PM  

Rozotorical: Porkbelly: Rozotorical: Porkbelly: OdradekRex: bloobeary: Paying down the debt becomes easier if we start taxing the hyper-rich at 1950s levels again.

Close the loopholes and institute a wealth tax on everything above a million dollars.

We don't have a spending problem - we have a revenue problem. The GOP tax cut insanity needs to be reversed, and adjusted to reality.

Can we sell Alaska to China and Texas to Mexico?

Texas is the 10th largest economy in the world. How the hell are you going to be successful without Texas?

Tariffs (and I suppose I should have put an s/ but figured anyone with more than a room-temperature IQ would have figured out that this wasn't serious.

Tariffs are paid by your own countrymen, not foreign countries sellers ,Don, it's the reason you lost the trade war with Chiiiina.


The tariff suggestion was another comment that I would have put a s/ after because I think that anyone with more than a room temperature IQ would have figured that out.

Let me explain a few basics about economics for your edification:

States balance their budgets because they capitalize their budgets

First, the US is not in debt.  If the federal government capitalized its budget the value of the stuff that WE THE PEOPLE own is worth vastly more than $20 trillion, more in the realm of $20 quadrillion.  Alaska alone is worth about $20 trillion, especially taking into consideration inflation.  (Think fishing rights, minerals, timber, people, all the other stuff in Alaska).

Second, the federal government can borrow money from itself, print money, and pay no interest on that money, if we so desire.

You probably also have a higher than room temperature IQ because you can form sentences and use a computer.  I said that mostly to get a rise out of you, congratulations for not taking the bait.

Lastly, republicans are just amazingly immoral and stupid and donald trump is the most amazingly immoral and stupid of the lot - although he is pretty sharp at grifting and scamming stupid people.

The problem with texas is that its governor, lieut. governor, and both senators are immoral, mean, lying sacks of . . .

well, I would say manure but manure has value and the shiatt word doesn't work on fark.

I'd go into an explanation of money further but you are obviously a Texan.  Serious question:  do you wear a mask out in public?
 
2020-12-02 1:17:10 PM  
i2.wp.comView Full Size
 
2020-12-02 1:35:14 PM  

severedtoe: Federal VAT?


That might be argued an "excise uniform throughout the United States", and have a decent shot at surviving the courts.
 
2020-12-02 1:37:29 PM  

Porkbelly: Rozotorical: Porkbelly: Rozotorical: Porkbelly: OdradekRex: bloobeary: Paying down the debt becomes easier if we start taxing the hyper-rich at 1950s levels again.

Close the loopholes and institute a wealth tax on everything above a million dollars.

We don't have a spending problem - we have a revenue problem. The GOP tax cut insanity needs to be reversed, and adjusted to reality.

Can we sell Alaska to China and Texas to Mexico?

Texas is the 10th largest economy in the world. How the hell are you going to be successful without Texas?

Tariffs (and I suppose I should have put an s/ but figured anyone with more than a room-temperature IQ would have figured out that this wasn't serious.

Tariffs are paid by your own countrymen, not foreign countries sellers ,Don, it's the reason you lost the trade war with Chiiiina.

The tariff suggestion was another comment that I would have put a s/ after because I think that anyone with more than a room temperature IQ would have figured that out.

Let me explain a few basics about economics for your edification:

States balance their budgets because they capitalize their budgets

First, the US is not in debt.  If the federal government capitalized its budget the value of the stuff that WE THE PEOPLE own is worth vastly more than $20 trillion, more in the realm of $20 quadrillion.  Alaska alone is worth about $20 trillion, especially taking into consideration inflation.  (Think fishing rights, minerals, timber, people, all the other stuff in Alaska).

Second, the federal government can borrow money from itself, print money, and pay no interest on that money, if we so desire.

You probably also have a higher than room temperature IQ because you can form sentences and use a computer.  I said that mostly to get a rise out of you, congratulations for not taking the bait.

Lastly, republicans are just amazingly immoral and stupid and donald trump is the most amazingly immoral and stupid of the lot - although he is pretty sharp at grif ...


I don't think you understand what in debt means.   You are confusing debt with assets and net worth, Mr Trump.

Your net worth is calculated by subtracting debt from assets. The speculative value in an asset is it's ability to generate wealth, either actively which is seen through the asset turnover ratio calculation and investment projections against the market gobbleygoo or through that assets return from being sold.

So your argument is that Texas is worth more selling the asset and getting the market price, than using the asset and generate wealth. Which is pants on the head dumb.  Clearly it isn't, a GDP just shy. of 2 Trillion a year is pretty farken sexy and there isn't a buyer willing to pay even a decades value if we just maintain status quo.

Printing money isn't a zero sum game I agree with that. I also think everyone on here except for you agrees that it is risky in the best of times, and super risky in the worst of times. Of course the American Dollar is a unique currency but the more times you play monkey shines with the value of the dollar the risker that valuation becomes, especially as the world looks to move on past American global dominance. So printing money should always be a last resort, we farked it up so bad we have to expand somehow choice.


I don't go out in public, I live with someone who is high risk.  shiat isn't bad, bad in Austin, but I minimize risky behavior for the sake of another.
 
2020-12-02 2:00:35 PM  

Rozotorical: Porkbelly: Rozotorical: Porkbelly: Rozotorical: Porkbelly: OdradekRex: bloobeary: Paying down the debt becomes easier if we start taxing the hyper-rich at 1950s levels again.

Close the loopholes and institute a wealth tax on everything above a million dollars.

We don't have a spending problem - we have a revenue problem. The GOP tax cut insanity needs to be reversed, and adjusted to reality.

Can we sell Alaska to China and Texas to Mexico?

Texas is the 10th largest economy in the world. How the hell are you going to be successful without Texas?

Tariffs (and I suppose I should have put an s/ but figured anyone with more than a room-temperature IQ would have figured out that this wasn't serious.

Tariffs are paid by your own countrymen, not foreign countries sellers ,Don, it's the reason you lost the trade war with Chiiiina.

The tariff suggestion was another comment that I would have put a s/ after because I think that anyone with more than a room temperature IQ would have figured that out.

Let me explain a few basics about economics for your edification:

States balance their budgets because they capitalize their budgets

First, the US is not in debt.  If the federal government capitalized its budget the value of the stuff that WE THE PEOPLE own is worth vastly more than $20 trillion, more in the realm of $20 quadrillion.  Alaska alone is worth about $20 trillion, especially taking into consideration inflation.  (Think fishing rights, minerals, timber, people, all the other stuff in Alaska).

Second, the federal government can borrow money from itself, print money, and pay no interest on that money, if we so desire.

You probably also have a higher than room temperature IQ because you can form sentences and use a computer.  I said that mostly to get a rise out of you, congratulations for not taking the bait.

Lastly, republicans are just amazingly immoral and stupid and donald trump is the most amazingly immoral and stupid of the lot - although he is pretty sh ...


I was wrong, you do have a room temperature IQ - and also zero reading comprehension.
 
2020-12-02 2:06:25 PM  

Porkbelly: Rozotorical: Porkbelly: Rozotorical: Porkbelly: Rozotorical: Porkbelly: OdradekRex: bloobeary: Paying down the debt becomes easier if we start taxing the hyper-rich at 1950s levels again.

Close the loopholes and institute a wealth tax on everything above a million dollars.

We don't have a spending problem - we have a revenue problem. The GOP tax cut insanity needs to be reversed, and adjusted to reality.

Can we sell Alaska to China and Texas to Mexico?

Texas is the 10th largest economy in the world. How the hell are you going to be successful without Texas?

Tariffs (and I suppose I should have put an s/ but figured anyone with more than a room-temperature IQ would have figured out that this wasn't serious.

Tariffs are paid by your own countrymen, not foreign countries sellers ,Don, it's the reason you lost the trade war with Chiiiina.

The tariff suggestion was another comment that I would have put a s/ after because I think that anyone with more than a room temperature IQ would have figured that out.

Let me explain a few basics about economics for your edification:

States balance their budgets because they capitalize their budgets

First, the US is not in debt.  If the federal government capitalized its budget the value of the stuff that WE THE PEOPLE own is worth vastly more than $20 trillion, more in the realm of $20 quadrillion.  Alaska alone is worth about $20 trillion, especially taking into consideration inflation.  (Think fishing rights, minerals, timber, people, all the other stuff in Alaska).

Second, the federal government can borrow money from itself, print money, and pay no interest on that money, if we so desire.

You probably also have a higher than room temperature IQ because you can form sentences and use a computer.  I said that mostly to get a rise out of you, congratulations for not taking the bait.

Lastly, republicans are just amazingly immoral and stupid and donald trump is the most amazingly immoral and stupid of the lot - although he ...


I don't think you understand. The Federal government borrows and is in debt. It's not a bad thing. It's just facts.

I think you are trying to say that we have a positive net worth, which I don't think anyone disagrees with you.

I guess that is what is bothering you? Facts? I get it Don, Facts have never been kind to you.
 
2020-12-02 3:48:58 PM  
You are an idiot to think I'm a trumper, which means you can't understand basic English.  Also, if you own a house worth $200,000 and have a $20,000 mortgage you are not in debt.  You apparently are less than a room temperature IQ, probably senile from what I can gather.

Also, you fail at Economics 100.

Also soon to be invisible.

Typical Texan - 6 inches short of manhood.
 
2020-12-02 3:55:05 PM  

fortheloveof: Sophont: NewportBarGuy: We need to cut defense spending by half, but we also have to realize that will have a HUGE negative economic impact.

If we'd just shunt that money into 21st century infrastructure, it wouldn't.

I would even suggest that shunting that money into our infrastructure (including updating and upgrading the online control components) can be legitimately postured as defense spending.


Eisenhower's interstate highway system was built in part for defense purposes, but it of course had a massive positive economic impact.
 
2020-12-02 4:12:50 PM  

Porkbelly: You are an idiot to think I'm a trumper, which means you can't understand basic English.  Also, if you own a house worth $200,000 and have a $20,000 mortgage you are not in debt.  You apparently are less than a room temperature IQ, probably senile from what I can gather.

Also, you fail at Economics 100.

Also soon to be invisible.

Typical Texan - 6 inches short of manhood.


I don't think you understand what debt is, Donald.  It really isn't hard

Maybe instead of freaking out you just spend some time googling.

You are trying to say you have a positive net worth, Net worth is the value of the asset a person or corporation owns, minus the liabilities they owe.

A home loan is a type of liability, or financial obligation, for a borrower. The bank lends you money to purchase a home in the form of a home loan, also called a mortgage. This is a form of debt. By signing the loan agreement, you accepted liability for the debt and its repayment. If you owe 20k that is the amount of debt to the lender you owe.

The value of the property has shiat all to do with the debt you have with the mortgage company, but may factor into your net worth calculations.

I don't know why finance isn't taught in school. But guy this is basic, basic, basic, basic business shiat.
 
2020-12-02 4:19:01 PM  

Rozotorical: Porkbelly: You are an idiot to think I'm a trumper, which means you can't understand basic English.  Also, if you own a house worth $200,000 and have a $20,000 mortgage you are not in debt.  You apparently are less than a room temperature IQ, probably senile from what I can gather.

Also, you fail at Economics 100.

Also soon to be invisible.

Typical Texan - 6 inches short of manhood.

I don't think you understand what debt is, Donald.  It really isn't hard

Maybe instead of freaking out you just spend some time googling.

You are trying to say you have a positive net worth, Net worth is the value of the asset a person or corporation owns, minus the liabilities they owe.

A home loan is a type of liability, or financial obligation, for a borrower. The bank lends you money to purchase a home in the form of a home loan, also called a mortgage. This is a form of debt. By signing the loan agreement, you accepted liability for the debt and its repayment. If you owe 20k that is the amount of debt to the lender you owe.

The value of the property has shiat all to do with the debt you have with the mortgage company, but may factor into your net worth calculations.

I don't know why finance isn't taught in school. But guy this is basic, basic, basic, basic business shiat.


No, stupid, it's a $180,000 asset, the opposite of a debt.  Adios Moe (as in stooge).
 
2020-12-02 5:01:37 PM  

bloobeary: Paying down the debt becomes easier if we start taxing the hyper-rich at 1950s levels again.

Close the loopholes and institute a wealth tax on everything above a million dollars.

The 1950s loopholes were the point. It was less about raising revenue than it was about incentive to the hyper-rich not to hoard all the gains from the post-war economy (when we were pretty much the only major economic power still fully functioning, so we had no competition to speak of, and the oh-so-benevolent Marshal Plan made our former competitors into our customers for our steel and such to rebuild from the war, while we were protected by two huge oceans [that will never happen again: if there is another world war, modern missile and sub technology renders those oceans into much less effective shields, and we'll be devastated as badly as other nations ― the 1950s economy was a one-time thing and nobody can bring it back]) and instead invest it back into the economy by providing deductions and exemptions for business expenses such as building factories and offices and hiring more workers. That's why we had a Middle Class that for pretty much the first time in history outnumbered the poor (peasants and serfs in the feudal age).

Bring back those loopholes. 1950s tax rates of 91% for the top margin would be too high since we're not in that one-time-only windfall economy anymore, but JFK-era rates (about 70% for the top margin instead of 91% ― still about double today's) would be workable (that's what AOC is aiming for).
 
2020-12-02 5:20:12 PM  

AlHarris31: fortheloveof: Sophont: NewportBarGuy: We need to cut defense spending by half, but we also have to realize that will have a HUGE negative economic impact.

If we'd just shunt that money into 21st century infrastructure, it wouldn't.

I would even suggest that shunting that money into our infrastructure (including updating and upgrading the online control components) can be legitimately postured as defense spending.

Eisenhower's interstate highway system was built in part for defense purposes, but it of course had a massive positive economic impact.


In fact it was "in part" it was TOTALLY a defense project.
 
2020-12-02 5:20:47 PM  

Porkbelly: AlHarris31: fortheloveof: Sophont: NewportBarGuy: We need to cut defense spending by half, but we also have to realize that will have a HUGE negative economic impact.

If we'd just shunt that money into 21st century infrastructure, it wouldn't.

I would even suggest that shunting that money into our infrastructure (including updating and upgrading the online control components) can be legitimately postured as defense spending.

Eisenhower's interstate highway system was built in part for defense purposes, but it of course had a massive positive economic impact.

In fact it was "in part" it was TOTALLY a defense project.


WASN"T "in part" damn it.
 
2020-12-02 5:21:54 PM  

Porkbelly: Rozotorical: Porkbelly: You are an idiot to think I'm a trumper, which means you can't understand basic English.  Also, if you own a house worth $200,000 and have a $20,000 mortgage you are not in debt.  You apparently are less than a room temperature IQ, probably senile from what I can gather.

Also, you fail at Economics 100.

Also soon to be invisible.

Typical Texan - 6 inches short of manhood.

I don't think you understand what debt is, Donald.  It really isn't hard

Maybe instead of freaking out you just spend some time googling.

You are trying to say you have a positive net worth, Net worth is the value of the asset a person or corporation owns, minus the liabilities they owe.

A home loan is a type of liability, or financial obligation, for a borrower. The bank lends you money to purchase a home in the form of a home loan, also called a mortgage. This is a form of debt. By signing the loan agreement, you accepted liability for the debt and its repayment. If you owe 20k that is the amount of debt to the lender you owe.

The value of the property has shiat all to do with the debt you have with the mortgage company, but may factor into your net worth calculations.

I don't know why finance isn't taught in school. But guy this is basic, basic, basic, basic business shiat.

No, stupid, it's a $180,000 asset, the opposite of a debt.  Adios Moe (as in stooge).


My bad Don, I tried to edumacatcha. But like all other attempts it just won't take.
 
2020-12-02 5:33:03 PM  

fortheloveof: Sophont: NewportBarGuy: We need to cut defense spending by half, but we also have to realize that will have a HUGE negative economic impact.

If we'd just shunt that money into 21st century infrastructure, it wouldn't.

I would even suggest that shunting that money into our infrastructure (including updating and upgrading the online control components) can be legitimately postured as defense spending.


That's how we got the Interstate Highway system
 
2020-12-02 5:37:28 PM  

Rozotorical: Porkbelly: OdradekRex: bloobeary: Paying down the debt becomes easier if we start taxing the hyper-rich at 1950s levels again.

Close the loopholes and institute a wealth tax on everything above a million dollars.

We don't have a spending problem - we have a revenue problem. The GOP tax cut insanity needs to be reversed, and adjusted to reality.

Can we sell Alaska to China and Texas to Mexico?

Texas is the 10th largest economy in the world. How the hell are you going to be successful without Texas?


A whole lot of that economy is oil, which is in the process of following coal down the garbage chute of history. It'll stick around for older / classic cars, plastics, and lubricants, but the days of oil as an energy source are numbered.

Gigafactory out front should'a told 'ya.
 
2020-12-02 7:12:56 PM  

Geotpf: There is little reason to even attempt to pare down the debt (as the article clearly states).  Interest rates are lower than inflation!  Now is the time (especially considering economic issues due to Covid) to borrow more, not less.


That's the thing. Issuing debt and inflating the monetary supply eventually forces rates to rise. As more currency units are printed into existence, debt buyers require a higher interest to at least outpace that. To stave that off, you have to print even more. It becomes a "circle the drain" scenario. Why would anyone want our debt paying <1% when they are going to add trillions to the system? (They dont. It is why the Fed is now the last buyer.) Net ownership of treasuries in countries with the largest holdings, on net, didnt add any when the US printed 3T worth. Fed bought those. Countries are walking away.
 
2020-12-02 7:17:17 PM  

Porkbelly: You are an idiot to think I'm a trumper, which means you can't understand basic English.  Also, if you own a house worth $200,000 and have a $20,000 mortgage you are not in debt.  You apparently are less than a room temperature IQ, probably senile from what I can gather.

Also, you fail at Economics 100.

Also soon to be invisible.

Typical Texan - 6 inches short of manhood.


You are in debt with just a higher valued asset. One way to know if you are in debt......ask yourself this. "If I stop paying this, will I lose the house?" (yes, yes you will)

If that is your only asset and your only debt, then you have a positive net worth.
 
2020-12-02 8:59:05 PM  

AsparagusFTW: Porkbelly: You are an idiot to think I'm a trumper, which means you can't understand basic English.  Also, if you own a house worth $200,000 and have a $20,000 mortgage you are not in debt.  You apparently are less than a room temperature IQ, probably senile from what I can gather.

Also, you fail at Economics 100.

Also soon to be invisible.

Typical Texan - 6 inches short of manhood.

You are in debt with just a higher valued asset. One way to know if you are in debt......ask yourself this. "If I stop paying this, will I lose the house?" (yes, yes you will)

If that is your only asset and your only debt, then you have a positive net worth.


When you can print your own money to pay the creditors it isn't debt.  The value of the federal government is so much more than most people can grok (I like that word).  The argument that the US is a debtor nation is just stupid.  Not going to entertain this discussion any further.  We are BY FAR the richest nation in the world BY FAR.
 
2020-12-03 6:53:57 AM  

centrifugal bumblepuppy: [i2.wp.com image 850x1269]


True but not funny.
 
2020-12-03 10:53:35 AM  

Dr Dreidel: 1. Isn't a tax on held wealth a tax on property? Or are we saying only states can tax real estate or vehicles (which I guess is a decent argument)?


My understanding is that the federal government may only tax real estate, vehicles, and other property in non-State federal territories, such as DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, and so forth. However, even there I'm not sure it's allowed to do so.

Dr Dreidel: 2. So long as it's based on a calculable rate, how isn't it uniform (same as income taxes)?


Per Article I, it's indirect taxes that must be uniform; (non-income) direct taxes must be not merely uniform, but "apportioned" in the same manner that federal Representatives are apportioned to Congress. To wit, "apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

See also License Tax Cases, 72 US 462: "It is true that the power of Congress to tax is a very extensive power. It is given in the Constitution, with only one exception and only two qualifications. Congress cannot tax exports, and it must impose direct taxes by the rule of apportionment, and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. Thus limited, and thus only, it reaches every subject, and may be exercised at discretion. But it reaches only existing subjects."

Dr Dreidel: 3. Pollock, to my reading, was specifically about income taxes, and was mooted by the 16th Amendment. The Article I power of taxation seems pretty broad.


Pollock was not entirely mooted. Pollock held (yet again) that only indirect taxes and uniform rule direct taxes were within the Article I power of the federal government, and that the income tax was not one of those. The Sixteenth Amendment added the power to tax on income. Therefore, the rule effective now is that only direct taxes (by rule of apportionment or by income) and indirect taxes and are within the Article I and Amendment XVI powers of the federal government.

See Eisner v Macomber (1920), emphasis added: "A proper regard for its genesis, as well as its very clear language, requires also that this Amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes upon property, real and personal. This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.""

Dr Dreidel: 4. NFIB v Sibelius: if not everyone would be required to pay it (in that case, everyone who gets or declines health insurance; in this one, only people with wealth above a certain threshhold), it's not a capitation.


Capitations are taxes paid by every person, "without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance."

If the wealth tax were a capitation, then it would be population apportioned and therefore Constitutional. It's not a capitation, and it's not an income tax. (Nor is it a licensing fee, which apparently per the License Tax cases the federal judiciary considers a uniform indirect tax; nor any other form of indirect tax.) The "wealth tax" is clearly a tax on held property, which is impermissible.

I've no idea what the fark kind of tax the insurance penalty is considered under Sibelius, or why the heck that one is considered Constitutional; you need to ask a real lawyer about that, and probably pay real money for the explanation.
 
Displayed 101 of 101 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  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.