Does the GOP Want the States to Default?

In a way, they were right.

The Great Depression never should have lasted as long as it did in a natural economy.

"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."

Umm, Tom, it's been mentioned before how Social Security pays for itself and will continue to do so, meaning it's pointless to include it in those budget calculations. Where are you getting this 65% from?

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

So what I'm getting is that we should have more anti-trust complaints and more busting of businesses?

K.

I assume bad mixing of data. Either that, or counting the military as part of welfare spending.

edited 27th Jun '11 4:20:35 PM by blueharp

Lumping SS, Medicare, interest on the debt, and most of the discretionary spending (that is, the "bad" spending) gets you close to that figure.

Personally, I agree with the people who say it's just brinkmanship to get other stuff done, which is either reckless and irresponsible or bold and decisive depending on your point of view.

Other than that I don't have much to say, other than my usual public service announcement:

This is a public service announcement:

Welfare does not prevent starvation. It prevents discomfort and inconvenience. Cutting it would not heartlessly abandon people to miserable deaths. It would merely cause them to have less luxury than Americans are accustomed to.

edited 27th Jun '11 4:34:26 PM by EdwardsGrizzly

<><

@Tom: Natural economies only exist in sunshine and rainbow lands where all customers are educated and rational, and all businesses are running solely on the merits of their products and not advertising absolute lies and bullshit to make extra sales.

In other words, a pipe dream.

Not to mention, the article doesnt seem to much pay attention to little details like that antitrust enforcement was also part and parcel of the recovery.

edited 27th Jun '11 4:37:29 PM by Midgetsnowman

Also you need the market power of employers and employees to be perfectly balanced. Basically impossible.

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

Yeah, Clegg's doing a fine job of killing the Liberal Democrats on his own.

@Edward: It depends on the case, you know. Some people live entirely from their welfare.

People actually have an easier time living off of welfare than they do working. This is not because welfare is too generous.

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

Welfare in america is practically unlivable on. But at least its less likely to kill you from sheer overwork at a factory job.

edited 27th Jun '11 4:43:11 PM by Midgetsnowman

@Major Tom: But the New Deal prevented this crash or any other from ever turinging into a depression. And, besides, that is one panel of people.

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.

^ One panel of people at a very reputable source. When they talk, people listen.

"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."

@Tom: it still doesnt exactly factor in that natural economies simply do not exist and never will because they require the same conditions as communism. people to not be greedy and manipulative of the system.

edited 27th Jun '11 5:00:25 PM by Midgetsnowman

At this moment in time, if I didn't know it would lead to one of the worst disasters in history, I would actually WANT the bank system to fail in the US. Because I want to see people try to argue how it is a good thing that they can't afford to eat anything but pieces of metal and wood.

Does every generation need a wall street crash just to teach people how big of a screw up it was and not to demonise the people who managed to get a nation out of it?

edited 27th Jun '11 5:07:53 PM by JosefBugman

Cole and Ohanian's research has a variety of problems. First, their analysis relies on hypotheticals and relies on the assumption of incredibly high growth rate. The study also does not take into account the millions employed in New Deal programs or the infrastructure built as a result.

I could go in more detail, but I am afraid I would not be able to articulate it as well as others. Their findings have been disputed by numerous individuals, both economists and not. Instead, here are some other sources discussing the study.

• [1]
• [2]

Not exactly neutral, but they work I guess.

edited 27th Jun '11 5:11:42 PM by Pentadragon

This is the Republicans' theory now:

1. Obama is to blame for the bad ecnomy.

No he isn't. If you are you gonna blame a President (which is already short sighted) then pick Bush.

2. Taxes should be lower.

No, taxes should stay, and for the rich they should go up. Also, corporations need to actually pay their taxes.

3. Cut spending.

Yes, but not the parts you want. Defence could be cut, how about that? Or maybe, don't repeal the health care reforms that saved money.

The right was going off on TARP years ago, but now, when it ends up costing the government nothing and definitely saved some corps from going down.

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.

^ The CBO advocates doing away with the health care insurance mandate. That was the part that supposedly "saves everyone money".

"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."

Actually, their memorandum covers BOTH sides. Which is their job, being ostensibly neutral, they should present both views on it.

This is not a conclusion though.

edited 27th Jun '11 5:15:28 PM by blueharp

^^^ I often hear that whenever the Prez butts heads with the military, the generals invariably win.

So who is wagging who? Does the President control the military in terms of deployment, but has no control over its spending?

edited 27th Jun '11 6:21:56 PM by johnnyfog

I'm a skeptical squirrel

More or less. Budgets are strictly a hands-off topic for Presidents. They do not have constitutional authority to alter or mess with any Congressionally approved (and non-vetoed/overridden veto) budget in any department.

Meaning the President might make a general he doesn't like be Reassigned to Antarctica but he can't tell him how much his branch can spend.

"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."

Tom, quick question.

Do you support the bush tax cuts?

Because they are a major source of our debt.

T Minus twenty seconds till Tom posts how all our debt problems will be solved once we cut every "liberal" program.

EDIT: Ignore this. I was really tired and doing something I should not have been.

Mea cupla

edited 27th Jun '11 9:18:45 PM by Pentadragon

Tom supports a flat tax, but acknowledged that it wouldn't be equitable without major (i.e. politically impossible) tax reforms.

I'm a skeptical squirrel

^^^ No, Tom will probably just argue that the Bush tax cuts increased revenue.

edited 27th Jun '11 9:26:46 PM by storyyeller

Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play

Oh, they increased revenue. For a small part of the population who, by in an incredible coincidence, is exactly the part who also pays the GOP members.

Come to Europe, guys: our food is better, fuel is slightly more expensive, but real train networks compensate for that, you can choose the language you speak, we don't have tornadoes or hurricanes, our politicians are more funny than scary, weapons are only in the hands of police and military (and a few hunters with hunting (and not warfare) weapons), and we're really in need of entrepreneurs to create companies that'll use our techs.

And, if you call before midnight, you'll be eligible for a free Blue Card (once such a thing is created, if it ever happens) to work and live in Europe! Imagine. You, yes, you, could live the European dream, enjoy weird accents, berets, strange looking buildings more than 500 years old in every city, English awful weather, German efficiency, European elections that, like in the U.S., give you the illusion of having a power on things, but which won't leave you wondering if you just voted for the madman who'll destroy the world, since the Parliament is really useless (not like in the rethorical sense used for the Congress), save thousands on your tourist travels!

Call now!

As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of solving approaches zero.