Jump to content

Official Republicans In Congress Are Idiots Thread


Recommended Posts

I looked at a handful of recently started threads in here.People with more than 5 posts in them:LEFT---------------------RIGHTAll_In--------------------akoffBaseJester--------------Balloon guyCaneBrain--------------brvheartdigitalmonkey----------colonel FeathersFCP Bob-----------------El GuapoJubilantLankyLad------hblaskLongLiveYorke----------Pot Odds RACMercury69--------------ShakeZumamk------------------------Skeleton JellymrdannygRoll the BonesSilentSnow timwakefieldvbnautilusTotal posts by lefties - 291Total posts by righties - 401The righties post count is inflated because Balloon guy has over 150 by himself and hblask has almost 100 (they're the two biggest bubbles).Graphically:ip1ruo.jpg
Well, I'd say that proves it. hblask and BG are Bubbleheads.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 574
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Why the Debt Crisis Is Even Worse Than You ThinkReally good balanced article on how screwed the situation is long term.
Why the Debt Crisis Is Even Worse Than You ThinkIf Washington is deadlocked now, how will it deal with the much bigger debt problems that lurk in the decades to come?By Peter CoyThe U.S. is in danger of reaching a generational tipping point at which older Americans have the clout to vote themselves benefits that sap the strength of the younger generation—benefits that can never be repeated. Kotlikoff argues that we may have reached that point already. He worries that the U.S. could become Argentina, which went from one of the world’s richest to lower-middle income in a century of chronic mismanagement. Senior citizens are being told by their own lobbyists, repeatedly, that any attempt to rein in the cost of Social Security and Medicare is an unjust attack on earned benefits. “Stop the liberals from raiding the Social Security Trust Fund once and for all!” says a recent mailing from the National Retirement Security Task Force. Similar messages aimed at Democratic voters make the same charge against Republicans. No wonder Obama and Boehner were rebuffed by their own parties for putting entitlements on the table. In the end neither the House nor the Senate debt-ceiling proposals touched Social Security or Medicare. Not pretty......If America’s long-term budget problems were small, they could be fixed entirely by the Republicans’ preferred method, which is spending cuts, or entirely by the Democrats’ favored fix, tax increases. The challenge is not small, however. That’s why nearly every bipartisan group that’s looked at the problem—including the Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin commissions—has concluded that some mix of the two will be required. The precise mixture is a political matter, but one would have to place an exceptionally high priority on the well-being of upper-income taxpayers to conclude that none of the adjustment burden should fall on themRepublicans in Congress, not wanting to appear to defend the rich, have attempted to block any deal that includes higher taxes on the grounds that tax hikes are “job-killing.” But experience shows that in a period of slack demand like the present, tax hikes are no more job-killing than spending cuts, and probably less so. Cutting spending—say, by firing federal employees or canceling procurement—removes demand from the economy dollar-for-dollar. A dollar tax hike, on the other hand, especially one aimed at upper incomes, cuts demand by less than a dollar. Those who pay the tax cover part of it from their savings and only part by reducing their spending. If lawmakers insist on using the phrase “job-killing,” Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution-Urban Institute Tax Policy Center, wrote in a recent blog post, “they should apply it equally to both tax increases and spending cuts.” ....The good news is that this speeding vehicle does have brakes—if Washington would only use them. Eliminating deductions would broaden the base of income that’s subject to taxation and increase revenue. On the spending side, it’s crucial to change the incentives that lead to overconsumption and inefficiency in health care. At the same time, cuts in benefit formulas for Medicare and Social Security are painful but necessary. And they should apply at least in part to current beneficiaries. Given how hard-pressed young workers are, it’s unfair to put all the adjustment on them while completely insulating today’s elderly. Sure, it’s hard to imagine a real deal now, as Washington boils over with anger and partisan differences harden. But from this bitter experience may come a realization that the only way out is cooperation and compromise in the public interest. Meanwhile, that rooster we put on our cover in April? He’s having a heart attack. Let’s not do this again soon.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I'd say that proves it. hblask and BG are Bubbleheads.
I think it proves:I've got the biggest Balls of them all!Oh I've got big balls...You've got big balls...But I've got the biggest... Balls of them all!
Link to post
Share on other sites
the thing is, if you're separating political beliefs between social and fiscal, then we really only need to concentrate on the fiscal part. pretty much everybody here, even our resident fundamentalist christian brvheart, is pretty much socially liberal, so that really shouldn't be part of the calculation. but regardless, the graph still serves the purpose of showing that there are more jerkings going on inside the leftern circle than the right.
Yeah, the graph pretty much shows the opposite of the comment that sparked this, that this forum is somehow a bastion of right-wing opinions.
Link to post
Share on other sites

question for somebody who's better at googling/less lazy than me: when was the latest budget passed? I remember it was put on hold right before the latest elections but don't recall it being brought up and passed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
question for somebody who's better at googling/less lazy than me: when was the latest budget passed? I remember it was put on hold right before the latest elections but don't recall it being brought up and passed.
I don't think a full budget has been passed since 2009.http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, the graph pretty much shows the opposite of the comment that sparked this, that this forum is somehow a bastion of right-wing opinions.
I mean, I enjoy SJ's graphical prowess as much as anyone, but it doesn't really show that at all. It's just a raw score which doesn't include a weighting for actual partisan content contribution per post. The content of most of LLY's posts e.g. is witty, non-partisan asides. The content of most of your and BG's zillion posts is dogmatic, hysterically ideological rants.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think I know how I feel about a person who is a functioning adult who is just now understanding that politicians are self serving idiots.It's kind of like someone who writes an article that says Bruce Willis might have been dead during the ENTIRE movie the Sixth Sense.Blah blah the right are better than the left blah Obama was born in Kenya blah blah Bush was right.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Apple holding more cash than USAhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14340470"Apple now has more cash to spend than the United States government.Latest figures from the US Treasury Department show that the country has an operating cash balance of $73.7bn (£45.3bn).Apple's most recent financial results put its reserves at $76.4bn (£46.9bn)."

Link to post
Share on other sites
pcgraphpng.png
Heh, I even pm'd Shake about you. I believe it said:BaseJester - L?Why does Apple have so much cash?Edit: I guess I could've read the article."Industry watchers believe that it is building up a war chest to be used for strategic acquisitions of other businesses, and to secure technology patents."
Link to post
Share on other sites

So latest word is that the R's have come up with a deal to raise the debt limit, with another raise in six months dependent on a balanced budget amendment being sent to the states.D's are immediately saying they will not sign on.Does this mean the D's are admitting, once and for all, that they have no intentions of ever balancing the budget?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think a full budget has been passed since 2009.http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/
well that's... odd. I was reading an article this morning on cnn, by that zakaria fellow or whatever I believe, and he was calling out the republicans for taking a stand now since the debt ceiling is really only ok'ing money to pay for the budget that they'd already ok'd. but but if we've been working without a real full budget for this long, then well, I guess he's wrong.
I mean, I enjoy SJ's graphical prowess as much as anyone, but it doesn't really show that at all. It's just a raw score which doesn't include a weighting for actual partisan content contribution per post. The content of most of LLY's posts e.g. is witty, non-partisan asides. The content of most of your and BG's zillion posts is dogmatic, hysterically ideological rants.
SCOREBOARD DOESN'T LIE
Why does Apple have so much cash?
and those greedy capitalist pigs aren't using that money to hire people!
Link to post
Share on other sites
well that's... odd. I was reading an article this morning on cnn, by that zakaria fellow or whatever I believe, and he was calling out the republicans for taking a stand now since the debt ceiling is really only ok'ing money to pay for the budget that they'd already ok'd. but but if we've been working without a real full budget for this long, then well, I guess he's wrong.
Don't confuse a budget with appropriations. The money was voted on and approved to be spent in the appropriations process, a budget being passed doesn't have to be in place for the spending to have been approved by Congress and signed by the President.http://appropriations.house.gov/
Link to post
Share on other sites
So latest word is that the R's have come up with a deal to raise the debt limit, with another raise in six months dependent on a balanced budget amendment being sent to the states.D's are immediately saying they will not sign on.Does this mean the D's are admitting, once and for all, that they have no intentions of ever balancing the budget?
As of yesterday, Boehner didn't have enough Republicans to support his plan and he's reworking it today. Does he have the votes now? If he were smart, he would add tax increases to the super rich via eliminating loopholes and it could get enough Democratic support to pass both houses. That would be the smart thing to: it would reduce the deficit further and would actually have a chance of passing.The balanced budget amendment is a pretty bad idea and will never pass anyway. It hinder's the government's ability to function. Having deficits isn't a bad thing as long as they're under control. We haven't really ever had a balanced budget in this century. If we ran into a crisis or a war where we needed to borrow a lot of money, such an amendment would handicap up, not to mention the fact that it would be incredibly damaging upon its initial implementation.Also, your last sentence is really dumb, so I won't really dignify it with any more of a response.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't confuse a budget with appropriations. The money was voted on and approved to be spent in the appropriations process, a budget being passed doesn't have to be in place for the spending to have been approved by Congress and signed by the President.http://appropriations.house.gov/
I'm pretty sure he said that they voted on the budget specifically, which was what I was talking about, but I'm far too lazy to go back and check. and you know I'm not going to read any of those links, right? I'm on vacation for christ's sakes.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm pretty sure he said that they voted on the budget specifically, which was what I was talking about, but I'm far too lazy to go back and check. and you know I'm not going to read any of those links, right? I'm on vacation for christ's sakes.
"And in the United States, Congress - including Republicans - voted for a budget in which expenditures exceeded tax revenues.The logical consequence of that budget - again, passed by Republicans and Democrats, is that the government has to make up the difference by borrowing.To come at it now after the budget has been passed is like getting your Visa bill and calling up the company to say, "Actually we don't want to buy all that stuff we bought."That's not how it works. First you pay the bill, then you can change your spending habits."link
Link to post
Share on other sites
So latest word is that the R's have come up with a deal to raise the debt limit, with another raise in six months dependent on a balanced budget amendment being sent to the states.D's are immediately saying they will not sign on.Does this mean the D's are admitting, once and for all, that they have no intentions of ever balancing the budget?
Cool storyexcept that the last politician to make balancing the budget a priority and actually see it through was one William Jefferson Clinton, who, as it happens, wears a jersey with a D on it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
"And in the United States, Congress - including Republicans - voted for a budget in which expenditures exceeded tax revenues.The logical consequence of that budget - again, passed by Republicans and Democrats, is that the government has to make up the difference by borrowing.To come at it now after the budget has been passed is like getting your Visa bill and calling up the company to say, "Actually we don't want to buy all that stuff we bought."That's not how it works. First you pay the bill, then you can change your spending habits."link
everybody should watch his commentary at the link, he's a smart man
Link to post
Share on other sites
"And in the United States, Congress - including Republicans - voted for a budget in which expenditures exceeded tax revenues.The logical consequence of that budget - again, passed by Republicans and Democrats, is that the government has to make up the difference by borrowing.To come at it now after the budget has been passed is like getting your Visa bill and calling up the company to say, "Actually we don't want to buy all that stuff we bought."That's not how it works. First you pay the bill, then you can change your spending habits."link
so wait, does that mean I was right? even if I'm not, can we just say I was right? you know, since I'm still on vacation?
Cool storyexcept that the last politician to make balancing the budget a priority and actually see it through was one William Jefferson Clinton, who, as it happens, wears a jersey with a D on it.
if you love him so much why don't you marry him
Link to post
Share on other sites
so wait, does that mean I was right? even if I'm not, can we just say I was right? you know, since I'm still on vacation?
Yes you're right that he used the word budget after he also talked about appropriations.The budget is really a series of appropriatiions bills on the spending side and tax bills on the revenue side and even if an entire budget hasn't been passed all of the individual appropriations and tax bills have to be passed or the money can't be spent in those areas.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...