Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Investors Business Daily)   How come there's no pressure on Dems to cough up spending cuts in the "fiscal cliff" talks?   ( divider line
    More: Strange, no pressure, D-Ill, Boehner, George Stephanopoulos, Party leaders of the United States Senate, Nancy Pelosi  
•       •       •

1889 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Nov 2012 at 10:31 AM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

Voting Results (Funniest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2012-11-27 09:33:58 AM  
4 votes:
It is an even numbered year. Last year's manufactured economic apocalypse was resolved with all cuts and no revenue because it was an odd year. That means this time it is all revenue and no cuts.
2012-11-27 11:14:57 AM  
3 votes:
caglecartoons.comView Full Size
2012-11-27 10:56:17 AM  
3 votes:

SunsetLament: I would start to believe the media

don't bother, just keep getting info from right wing sources. Now that Romney has won in a landslide he'll be able to turn around anything these democrats screw up during Obama's time as a lame duck.
2012-11-27 10:20:35 AM  
3 votes:
"People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless." [IBD, Atlanta J-C, Ezra Klein]
2012-11-27 12:09:22 PM  
2 votes:

Gaseous Anomaly: jigger: mrshowrules: Well it is constitutional so anyone who thought it wasn't was clearly wrong.

Says 5 people in black dresses.

Who happen to be the designated arbiters of what's constitutional.

Are you saying we need a Supremer Court?

There is a check on the Supreme Court, the justices can be impeached. If their ruling is plainly blatantly contrary to the Constitution then impeaching them should be easy, right?

The SCOTUS gets its authority from the Constitution. The Constitution comes directly from God. I think they should take their appeal right to the big guy. If Jesus finds out that Obama is been trying to get health care for more people, He's going to be pissed. The last guy who pulled that shiat on God was Romney, and you saw what happened there. He shoved a hurricane right up his ass to give the election to Obama.
2012-11-27 11:51:35 AM  
2 votes:

jigger: Tigger: If the Constitution clearly bans us from providing something that every single other Western Civilization operating today can do without much fuss then the farking problem is the Constitution.

Propose an amendment.

You didn't so much as miss the point as you let it wee on you.
2012-11-27 10:45:20 AM  
2 votes:
Because you touch yourself at night.
2012-11-27 10:38:55 AM  
2 votes:
Daily reminder: The GOP's backing of the tax plan pushed by the loser of the presidential election is not a concession.

- Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) November 27, 2012
2012-11-27 10:36:02 AM  
2 votes:
Because they didn't get their asses handed to them back on November 6?

Because they've been conceding them all along even though they won't work on their own?

Because they never made a pinkie-swear to an unelected megalomaniac to never ever cut spending, cross our hearts and hope to die?

because fark you, that's why?
2012-11-27 04:02:40 PM  
1 vote:

o5iiawah: Philip Francis Queeg: The word "military" is not used in the Constitution. It only refers to Armies and Navies specifically. I'm sure a strict constitutionalists like you will agree that the Air Force as it is now established is wholly unconstitutional and should be abolished. You wouldn't want to see the Founders clear specific words interpreted to include other things.

With the stroke of a pen, the air force could be absorbed into the Army Air Corps and Naval Air command. One could argue also that the air force supports the Army and Navy and is thus constitutional.

the "General welfare" on its own doesn't exist. it is defined by the enumerated powers. If General welfare was supposed to be an overarching, open-ended power, why did Madison bother to enumerate 18 powers of congress?

Nope, even then the Air Force is Unconstitutional.

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces

Congress can only make rules and regulations for land and naval forces. As a strict Constitutionalists, you must agree that Congress has greatly overstepped it's bounds for over a century for allowing any sort of an Air Force. The language of the Constitution is precise and clear.
2012-11-27 02:59:35 PM  
1 vote:

MattStafford: , if we continue on our current path it is going to stop being an option and simply become reality.

Our current path is sequestration.

Oops, someone hasn't been paying attention to the news because he's been too busy reading Ayn Rand and masturbating.
2012-11-27 02:55:42 PM  
1 vote:

hasty ambush: Philip Francis Queeg: Please show me where the US Constitution enumerates that the federal Government has the power to create an Air Force. Please also indicate where it enumerates that they may maintain an Air Traffic Control system.

Air traffic control comes in two parts. First it is part of treaties ratified by the US which then have the same power as the Constitution itself and tow to regulate commerce between the states as the does the FCC etc.

The USAF comes under the enumerated powers to raise , fund and regulate (all enumerated not general) the military it can also define organizational structure hence the department of the Air Force. You might argue it says nothing about airplanes but it also says nothing about horses, bayonets or Johnny cakes.

If your going to argue food stamps comes under general welfare you as well argue that the Patriot Act or unlimited detention comes under the common defense

The word "military" is not used in the Constitution. It only refers to Armies and Navies specifically. I'm sure a strict constitutionalists like you will agree that the Air Force as it is now established is wholly unconstitutional and should be abolished. You wouldn't want to see the Founders clear specific words interpreted to include other things.
2012-11-27 02:14:39 PM  
1 vote:
Why is people who feel taxing the rich to the tune of several billion dollars a year is a waste of time because it doesn't completely eliminate the deficit in one fell swoop feel that eliminating PBS to the tune of $150 million a year is a good first step and well worth doing?
2012-11-27 01:06:41 PM  
1 vote:

Zasteva: Good, then lets stop spending on the booze (unproductive military) and raise taxes on highly excess income (above $250,000 year) to pay for the hookers (retired elderly, welfare). Oh, and pay our bills (interest on the debt).

You might be on to something. Hookers who are retired, elderly, and on welfare will be relatively cheap.
2012-11-27 01:04:09 PM  
1 vote:

mcwehrle: MattStafford:
The elderly produce very little, and the vast majority of money is spent on their final, completely unproductive years.)
Well, we're spending it on keeping our unproductive, retired elderly alive, maintaining an unproductive military, servicing interest on the debt, and as welfare to the poor. I'm not arguing that these aren't important things for a country to spend money on


Tell ya what. Fark you and any elderly in your family, let's go with that. YOU FIRST.

And I'll even volunteer to drive your sorry ass into the wildnerness and drop you off when you hit 70.

farkyoufarkyoufarkyou and the horse you rode in on, and welcome to ignore, you ignorant fark.

I think he's about as much of a prick as anyone else, but shiat, this is just the internet. Calm down killer.
2012-11-27 12:50:50 PM  
1 vote:
Large cuts to everything are unavoidable even with tax increases.

"If you took every single penny that Warren Buffett has, it'd pay for 4-1/2 days of the US government. This tax-the-rich won't work. The problem here is the government is way bigger than even the capacity of the rich to sustain it."

"According to the Congressional Budget Office "the Buffett Rule" will raise $3.2 billion per year. Or what the United States government currently borrows every 17 hours. So in 514 years it will have raised enough additional revenue to pay off the 2011 federal budget deficit.

"There is only one Warren Buffett. He is the third-wealthiest person on the planet. The first is a Mexican, and beyond the reach of the U.S. Treasury. Mr. Buffett is worth $44 billion. If he donated the entire lot to the Government of the United States, they would blow through it within four-and-a-half days. OK, so who's the fourth-richest guy? He's French. And the fifth guy's a Spaniard. No. 6 six is Larry Ellison. He's American, but that loser is only worth $36 billion. So he and Buffett between them could keep the United States Government going for a week. The next-richest American is Christy Walton of Wal-Mart, and she's barely a semi-Buffett. So her $25 billion will see you through a couple of days of the second week. There aren't a lot of other semi-Buffetts, but, if you scrounge around, you can rustle up some hemi-demi-semi-Buffetts: If you confiscate the total wealth of the Forbes 400 richest Americans it comes to $1.5 trillion, which is just a little less than the Obama budget deficit for year."

2012-11-27 12:49:14 PM  
1 vote:

Zasteva: Good, then lets stop spending on the booze (unproductive military) and raise taxes on highly excess income (above $250,000 year) to pay for the hookers (retired elderly, welfare). Oh, and pay our bills (interest on the debt).

Which is pretty much what the Dems evil socialists want to do, and what the GOP Baby Jesus is resisting.

Come on. Let's be real here.
2012-11-27 12:42:54 PM  
1 vote:

thurstonxhowell: MattStafford: Just so everyone is aware, the argument you guys are making is: if the individual spends at least some money on education and investing in himself, it is perfectly fine to continue spending the vast majority of his money on booze and hookers. Which is a farking dumb argument.

Congratulations. You wrote that. Good job.

i2.cdn.turner.comView Full Size

You didn't write that!

2012-11-27 12:35:34 PM  
1 vote:

MattStafford: Philip Francis Queeg: That's right folks, keeping grandma from starving to death is exactly the same as spending on booze and hookers.

In terms of how much it helps the economy? Yeah, they are rather similar. How does keeping grandma alive in a nursing home from when she is 70 to when she is 80 help the economy?

And if you argue it creates a health care industry...well guess the fark what. Once we are forced to stop spending money on grandma, that health care industry dies along with it. There is no long term gain to keeping grandma alive.

So I assume you have urged your unproductive grandparents to off themselves for the greater good, rather than continuing to consume resources, right? You will of course blow your own brains out if you ever cease to work.
2012-11-27 12:34:22 PM  
1 vote:

MattStafford: Just so everyone is aware, the argument you guys are making is:

I really appreciate you coming in here and summarizing everyone's argument. I had no idea what I, or everyone else, was arguing about. Thanks!
2012-11-27 12:21:12 PM  
1 vote:

tony41454: Because Dems are idiots who want to break America's bank. It's not the Republicans that have gotten us into this mess, it's the liberal spendthrifts.

Only President Romney can save us tony!

Palin 2016.
2012-11-27 12:20:47 PM  
1 vote:

Rain-Monkey: Because they have said all along they would be willing to cut spending programs as a part of a balanced package?

Also, probably because they never signed a pledge to a lobbyist to never ever cut spending no matter what.
2012-11-27 12:18:10 PM  
1 vote:

Dusk-You-n-Me: MattStafford: Do you think it would be financially prudent for that individual to borrow as much money as humanly possible and spend it on booze and hookers?

Yes, we should borrow while rates are zero or near zero. We should not spend it on booze and hookers.

I don't have any graphs to back it up, but spending on booze and hookers would probably help rural, Southern and urban areas, areas that need lots of help.

Why do hate...? Nevermind,.
2012-11-27 12:14:11 PM  
1 vote:

Dr Dreidel: What other SCOTUS decisions shall we ignore because their ceremonial robes are silly? Wickard/Filburn? Kelo/New London? Roe/Wade? Miranda/Arizona? Marbury/Madison (which would be HILARIOUS)? Brown/Board of Ed? Dover/Kitzmiller? Flynt/Falwell?

Ask him about Bush v Gore.
2012-11-27 12:02:44 PM  
1 vote:

Dusk-You-n-Me: jst3p: If we only had some real world example that shows that austerity measures can make "bad" into "worse"

Ayup. We should fix our stubbornly high unemployment problem and extraordinary income inequality. Fix those, you'll fix revenues, you'll fix the deficit and the debt. Not the other way around.

2012-11-27 11:52:02 AM  
1 vote:

MattStafford: Has anyone around here come out in favor of the fiscal cliff?

Only ignorant people who don't understand the economic consenquences at all.

MattStafford: I'm entirely for it!

Oh, I see.

MattStafford: Any attempt to push it off is just going to make the next cliff we run into even more precipitous.

And here is the verification that you don't know much about economics and shouldn't be commenting on it.

MattStafford: we are going to be forced to both raise taxes and cut spending, there is no way around that. The fiscal cliff both raises taxes and cuts spending. It is better for us to do it now than a year from now.

Because those are our only two options, a bunch of radical changes now, or the same radical changes in the future. It is impossible, in your world, to gradually raise taxes and cut spending in a manner that doesn't knock us into recession.
2012-11-27 11:35:25 AM  
1 vote:

Carth: The Romney/Ryan plan of fixing the budget through closing loopholes and getting rid of reductions was overwhelming rejected by voters in favor of Obama's plan of raising marginal tax rates on incomes over 250k. In response to this defeat republics decide their position should be to fix the budget they will only get rid of loop holes and deductions.

It makes sense if you don't think about it.
2012-11-27 11:34:33 AM  
1 vote:

Fart_Machine: In other words it's Judicial Activism when I don't agree with the ruling.

I wouldn't use the term "activism" but when you look at a written law, like the constitution, and it says something like 1+1=2 and the court comes back with a ruling that says now 1+1 = 1.5 to 2.5 everyone can see they stretched things beyond what the law says.
2012-11-27 11:21:09 AM  
1 vote: Full Size
2012-11-27 11:06:12 AM  
1 vote:

SunsetLament: derp


Can you post a cartoon?
2012-11-27 11:04:17 AM  
1 vote:
What was it that Republicans said in 2010? Oh yeah . . . Elections have consequences.
2012-11-27 11:04:17 AM  
1 vote:
Because you're a farking moron, whoever wrote this article.
2012-11-27 11:01:16 AM  
1 vote:

CPT Ethanolic: As anyone who's studied the federal budget knows, the problem isn't too little taxes. Even if we kept all the Bush tax cuts in place, federal revenues as a share of GDP will soon exceed historic averages.

Uhmm... HUH?? Do these historical averages include the time before income taxes or something?

If you average it out from today back to the time that the continents split apart (going back any farther would just be silly because we weren't a separate country then), the average rate starts to approach 0. Therefore, we are being greatly over taxed. It's simple math, really.
2012-11-27 11:00:28 AM  
1 vote:

jigger: mrshowrules: Because he knew Obamacare would be deemed unconstitutional.

Anyone who thought that it was a forgone conclusion that the mandate would be overturned severely underestimates the Supreme Court's ability to twist the constitution and previous case law.

In other words it's Judicial Activism when I don't agree with the ruling.
2012-11-27 10:51:53 AM  
1 vote:

tenpoundsofcheese: because for the dems, improving the budget overages by 10% via taxes is a bigger class warfare win than dealing with the other 90% of the budget overages

Say, did you ever get around to issuing an apology for all that confident boasting you were doing about an impending Romney victory?

So, tell us again why we should take you seriously?
2012-11-27 10:42:22 AM  
1 vote:

FlashHarry: Rain-Monkey: Because they have said all along they would be willing to cut spending programs as a part of a balanced package?

done in one.


Well technically, it's 98% the fault of Republicans but with commonly excepted rounding procedures I'm willing to let your number stand.
2012-11-27 10:36:19 AM  
1 vote:
SCOREBOARD: 303 to 206. That's how come, biatch.
2012-11-27 10:02:56 AM  
1 vote:
The Dems are not the ones steadfastly refusing any sort of compromise. The GOP is the one going all "Thelma and Louise" on us.
2012-11-27 09:50:41 AM  
1 vote:
When you lose you're expected to make concessions.  Republicans lost.
Displayed 39 of 39 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  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.