Current Events

TOPICS:

1/19/09
1/19/09

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48

 ... 487

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next

FreakPirate

FreakPirate

Canada
November 2002

JAN 13, 2009 09:33 AM

atomicant said:

i'll take the loser.



I think my girlfriend would be less pissed if I married you.

ARRR!!!

Bill_the_Cat

Bill_the_Cat

Vanier, ON
May 2005

JAN 13, 2009 09:54 AM

atomicant said:

Necia said:

atomicant said:

d20 said:

Katieesq said:
Is that an offer of citizenship? Because I could be down once grad school is over...



You'll have to marry one of us. If we have to duel for it, that's a price I'm willing to pay.



i'll take the loser.



Seriously. I didn't know the Canucks on the site were auctioning themselves off for citizenship marriages.

No one tells me anything.

frown



back off, i'll cut you. one of them is mine.



Ooo!
*raises hand*

atomicant

atomicant

Portland, OR
June 2003

JAN 13, 2009 10:19 AM

FreakPirate said:

atomicant said:

i'll take the loser.



I think my girlfriend would be less pissed if I married you.

ARRR!!!



ditto.

d20

d20

San Francisco, CA
September 2003

JAN 13, 2009 01:03 PM

atomicant said:

FreakPirate said:

atomicant said:

i'll take the loser.



I think my girlfriend would be less pissed if I married you.

ARRR!!!



ditto.



less pissed? hell, we could sell them tickets to the honeymoon.

ok actual on-topic comment:

i watched it all the way through, and though he presents some interesting points, it reeks through and through of the old "social spending too big! no way to afford it at all, ever! baabbbyy boooomeerrss!" bit.

it costs a lot of money to provide for the health and welfare of the citizens of a large first-world nation.

but, imo, if the rest of your budget isn't ruined by pork, wars and tax-cuts-uber-alles it's actually pretty doable. you just need to have a population that accepts taxation as something that helps provide for them and a government that actually makes it happen.

and katie: i think the delay caused by boomers losing their savings will just give us time to dig ourselves a deeper hole for them to bury us in.

FellOnEarth

FellOnEarth

Temecula, CA
April 2006

JAN 13, 2009 02:09 PM

^^^Eh, pork spending really isn't that all that much, it's just a favorite whipping boy of politicians to make an opponents look bad before getting some of their own... I guess it's symbolic of crooked politics, so there's no reason it shouldn't go (although some projects actually are worthy). Entitlements are going to go through the roof, but part of that is the rising cost of health care (and the fact that there is going to be a significant increase in the volume of recipients over the next several years will compound the issue). Alas, it is not the boomers fault for getting older, rather it's that of the government which has failed to plan effectively or properly regulate the economy. You're spot on with the wars and tax-cuts, enough! (Although a stimulus for those in need isn't such a bad idea right now, though I do think those who made out like bandits through capital gains should be taxed doubly...)

DJForce

DJForce

Summerville, SC
November 2008

JAN 14, 2009 08:31 AM

Personally, I think anyone who is in favor of higher taxes can lead the way by donating to the IRS.

Toku666

Toku666

Columbus, OH
May 2004

JAN 14, 2009 08:47 AM

DJForce said:
Personally, I think anyone who is in favor of higher taxes can lead the way by donating to the IRS.



Can you at least try to make a logical argument? It's not like most of us don't already know your position, but "donating" to the IRS? That doesn't even make sense. You'd probably get fined for it, actually, with the overage being returned to you or held in limbo.

If you think you're cleverly illustrating some great point, you weren't.

FellOnEarth

FellOnEarth

Temecula, CA
April 2006

JAN 14, 2009 09:06 AM

DJForce said:
Personally, I think anyone who is in favor of higher taxes can lead the way by donating to the IRS.


That's the American attitude, let someone else worry about it! Oh wait, isn't that what got us into this mess in the first place? surreal

DJForce

DJForce

Summerville, SC
November 2008

JAN 14, 2009 01:18 PM

Toku666 said:

DJForce said:
Personally, I think anyone who is in favor of higher taxes can lead the way by donating to the IRS.



Can you at least try to make a logical argument? It's not like most of us don't already know your position, but "donating" to the IRS? That doesn't even make sense. You'd probably get fined for it, actually, with the overage being returned to you or held in limbo.

If you think you're cleverly illustrating some great point, you weren't.




from TreasuryDirect.gov

How do you make a contribution to reduce the debt?
Make your check payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and in the memo section, notate that it is a Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public. Mail your check to:

Attn Dept G
Bureau Of the Public Debt
P. O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188

OhSoOrdinary

OhSoOrdinary

New York, NY
July 2006

JAN 14, 2009 04:54 PM

West Virginia? Why is it in west Virginia of all places.

abbazappa

abbazappa

Sacramento, CA
June 2006

JAN 14, 2009 05:21 PM

I am guessing that most Government Agency's are in Virginia due to the fact that A. Virginia acted as our capital before Washington DC was designated so they have a history of being the place for Federal Government and B. it is very close to Washington DC.

silversoul7

silversoul7

Portland, OR
January 2008

JAN 14, 2009 09:11 PM

A frightening prospect, if true. However, here is an alternative view:

DEFICIT REDUCTION COSTS JOB

Each $10 billion of deficit reduction means 100,000 more unemployed.

The "deficit" consists mainly of the excess of outlays that are disposable income to recipients over taxes and other payments out of disposable income.

$10 billion less of deficit means $10 billion less of disposable income, and $8 billion or more of a reduction in purchases and sales in the private sector.

$8 billion less of sales means ultimately $8 billion less in production and a loss of at least 100,000 jobs.

A balanced labor market, in which there are as many unfilled openings as there are unemployed seeking work, is far more important than a balance in some figures concocted in the Congressional Budget Office.

Achieving a balanced labor market would largely eliminate "welfare as we know it." Government would be downsized.

A balanced labor market need not entail exacerbated inflation, but even if it did, ten percent steady inflation with one percent unemployment would be a prosperous economy.

Unemployment as a prophylactic against inflation is a remedy far worse than the problematic disease.

Alexander Hamilton once wrote that a national debt, if it be not excessive, would be a national blessing. In today's demographic and technological circumstances, a debt growing in proportion to, or slightly faster than, the GDP, so as to fill the growing gap between desired provision for retirement and the ability of the private sector to supply assets, is not merely a blessing but a prerequisite for a prosperous economy. With full employment, reduced needs for welfare payments and increased tax revenues, meeting debt service would be no problem.

When can we be weaned from the mindless devout pursuit of the Holy Grail of the balanced budget, a quest urged most assiduously by those in little danger of suffering from the proposed austerity?

William Vickrey
Columbia University
October 5, 1996

silversoul7

silversoul7

Portland, OR
January 2008

JAN 14, 2009 09:57 PM

I should also point out that credits and debits often get confused and put in the wrong column, mistaking investments for expenses. Education, for example, is an investment, but it gets counted as an expense.

abbazappa

abbazappa

Sacramento, CA
June 2006

JAN 15, 2009 03:43 AM

silversoul7 that only works for as long as other nations think we can pay back our debt. The problem now is that other nations and people are waking up to the fact that we can't pay back our debt and as such they don't want to loan us much more money nor buy dollars. So yes it is beneficial in the short term but its playing with fire in a fireworks shop... eventually its all going to blow up.

TheFuckOffKid

TheFuckOffKid

NEWSWIRE

Australia

JAN 15, 2009 03:54 AM

DJForce said:
Personally, I think anyone who is in favor of higher taxes can lead the way by donating to the IRS.


Let's break this down.

Question 1: Were you in favour of the Iraq War?

Question 2: How did you expect the costs of that war to be financed if not by higher taxes?

Question 3: Is it possible you lost some IQ points under your bed, and mightn't now be a good time to dig them out of there and make use of them?

TheFuckOffKid

TheFuckOffKid

NEWSWIRE

Australia

JAN 15, 2009 03:59 AM

silversoul7 said:
A frightening prospect, if true. However, here is an alternative view:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

DEFICIT REDUCTION COSTS JOB

Each $10 billion of deficit reduction means 100,000 more unemployed.

The "deficit" consists mainly of the excess of outlays that are disposable income to recipients over taxes and other payments out of disposable income.

$10 billion less of deficit means $10 billion less of disposable income, and $8 billion or more of a reduction in purchases and sales in the private sector.

$8 billion less of sales means ultimately $8 billion less in production and a loss of at least 100,000 jobs.

A balanced labor market, in which there are as many unfilled openings as there are unemployed seeking work, is far more important than a balance in some figures concocted in the Congressional Budget Office.

Achieving a balanced labor market would largely eliminate "welfare as we know it." Government would be downsized.

A balanced labor market need not entail exacerbated inflation, but even if it did, ten percent steady inflation with one percent unemployment would be a prosperous economy.

Unemployment as a prophylactic against inflation is a remedy far worse than the problematic disease.

Alexander Hamilton once wrote that a national debt, if it be not excessive, would be a national blessing. In today's demographic and technological circumstances, a debt growing in proportion to, or slightly faster than, the GDP, so as to fill the growing gap between desired provision for retirement and the ability of the private sector to supply assets, is not merely a blessing but a prerequisite for a prosperous economy. With full employment, reduced needs for welfare payments and increased tax revenues, meeting debt service would be no problem.

When can we be weaned from the mindless devout pursuit of the Holy Grail of the balanced budget, a quest urged most assiduously by those in little danger of suffering from the proposed austerity?

William Vickrey
Columbia University
October 5, 1996



Vickrey was writing in another context.

There's a tendency for some to take ANY sign of a deficit as a bad thing -- that budgets must always be balanced. I agree with Vickrey that this is wrongheaded.

But the US government finances are in a terrible shape. I've written about this here before.

SYH

SYH

Redford, MI
February 2003

JAN 15, 2009 06:41 AM

OhSoOrdinary said:
West Virginia? Why is it in west Virginia of all places.



abbazappa said:
I am guessing that most Government Agency's are in Virginia due to the fact that A. Virginia acted as our capital before Washington DC was designated so they have a history of being the place for Federal Government and B. it is very close to Washington DC.



West Virginia is on the opposite side of VA as DC. You might even say it's another state.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next