I pit the republican party for incredibly hypocrisy regarding taxes

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Bricker

In what way, specifically, is the analogy flawed?

A more fitting analogy would be that the wife stabbed him in non-vital places, and then he died… as a result of taking a cyanide pill. Our downgrade had virtually nothing to do with our debt or deficit, but rather with the fact that we couldn’t raise the damn debt ceiling. And this isn’t just me saying that, either. Don’t take my word for it? Read what S&P actually said about it.

[elucidator]

@Rekd

…Do you see a problem here? I see a potential for about 90% reduction on bullshit government entities. What do you see?

A guy trying to substitute a wall of text for insight and probity.

[Rekd]

@elucidator

A guy trying to substitute a wall of text for insight and probity.

So you don’t find any, wait, make that most, of those government agencies to be just a little bit in excess?

Really? :eek:

[Rekd]

@Bricker

True.

And unfortunately the Balanced Budget Amendment is too much of a poison pill risk; we do need to be able to run a deficit in an emergency.

Completely true.

But that’s not the norm.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Rekd

Completely true.

But that’s not the norm.

Okay, word me a clear bill that allows for deficit spending in the most critical cases and does not allow for the politicizing of critical financial decisions.

[Rekd]

Um, ok. Let me just jot down a bill for you. Hang on a few…:rolleyes:

Deflect from the point much?

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Rekd

Um, ok. Let me just jot down a bill for you. Hang on a few…:rolleyes:

Deflect from the point much?

What point? Oh, wasteful govenment. Do me a favor, look up what each of those organizations does, and how much money they get. And then explain why NPR and Planned Parenthood are popular targets, despite getting very little funding, relatively?

And it’s not without a point that I ask you for such a bill. An “emergency” is not the norm. However, it is impossible to make a cut and dry bill that allows for emergency spending without partisan bickering and politicizing of critical financial institutions. It just can’t work. If you don’t define the disasters, you’ll have the debt ceiling crisis all over again every time. If you do, you leave yourself with a bill which is either too wimpy to be effective or that doesn’t cover everything in a satisfactory manner.

[Rekd]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

What point? Oh, wasteful govenment.

You acknowledge it, yet you refuse to reply to it…?

Don’t be afraid. You’re among friends here.

:edit:

I see you made an edit to add some validity to your drivel. Yes, it is difficult to define an emergency. That doesn’t excuse the list of 500+ government agencies in Ca that are, for the most part, bleeding the state dry.

No relation to the federal level, so don’t you worry.

[YogSothoth]

@Starving_Artist

You have got to be kidding me! So after decades of our country spending more than it takes in and maxing out the credit cards year after year, the solution to the problems which this has created now is simply to borrow more money! And so on and so on, ad infinitum! Further, anyone who objects and suggests reduced spending instead is simply being irresponsible!

@Bricker

You don’t see any flaw in this reasoning?

Right now the economy needs money. People in a recession aren’t going to automatically start spending more. Right now is the best time to borrow and spend at a deficit. Once the economy gets better, we can draw down the extra cash infusion

@Starving_Artist

I’d bet at some time in your life you’ve been heard to say “I can’t be overdrawn; I still have checks left!”

@Bricker

A relative of mine worked for a metro police department, and officers of that department arrested a woman for stabbing her husband. When the husband died in the hospital, they went to jail to arrest her again, this time for murder. When she heard that her husband had died, the woman exploded. “Motherfucker! That asshole! I stabbed him twice before and he didn’t die!”

And Reps like you two keep making the mistake and thinking the US government should be comparable to a household. By your logic, the US government should have defaulted long ago. When did the US default, by the way? How long has this country been non-existent? Oh right, it HASN’T. The US is a multi-trillion dollar economy whose very existence as a stable first-world country is its own collateral. We can operate at a deficit, and have, for decades if necessary. Our existence is proof of that. Don’t ever compare the country to a person or a household or a business ever again.

@Bricker

1. The kind of spending the Democrats seem to favor are not, in my opinion, the kinds of things that will stimulate the economy and help industry create jobs.

And you favor what? Tax cuts?

@Bricker

2. Even if they were, both Democrats and Republicans have, in the past, shown remarkably little concern for the debt and the deficit when we were not in a recession. So capitulating now, without some guarantee of responsibility when the crisis ends, isn’t the right answer either.

Your problem is twofold: one, that you see it as capitulation, and two, that you picked the absolute worst time to try and cut back.

1. Your Tea Bagging psychos have gotten it in their tiny brains that any compromise is bad. Witness the recent insanity where a hypothetical was raise where they’d get a 10 to 1 ratio of cuts to taxes. Not one raised their hand, even the sensible one, Huntsman. Crap like that proves that Reps aren’t interested in the deficit at all.

2. A recession is not a time for the government to be stingy. The economy needs an infusion of money, quickly, and as much as possible. People aren’t going to be able to come back to their past spending habits if there are no jobs, layoffs, and corporations being stingy about their investing. At this point, only the government is big enough and has the borrowing capability to stimulate the economy

[YogSothoth]

@Rekd

Math is easy.

Research seems to be your weak point. Find out how much we budget for our military (all of it, not just one illegal war that you’re getting all uppity about) and how much we budget for entitlements then get back to me.

Here, I’ll get you started in California alone with what we’re spending that “Student Loans and Welfare for the Disabled” on and you tell me if you see a problem…

…

Do you see a problem here? I see a potential for about 90% reduction on bullshit government entities. What do you see?

Tell you what. You list the 90% of the programs you want to reduce from your list, along with a short explanation of why it needs to be cut, along with how much money it’ll save us in the long run by firing these government workers, and I’ll take you seriously

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Rekd

You acknowledge it, yet you refuse to reply to it…?

@Budget_Player_Cadet

What point? Oh, wasteful govenment. Do me a favor, look up what each of those organizations does, and how much money they get. And then explain why NPR and Planned Parenthood are popular targets, despite getting very little funding, relatively?

How the hell did you see my post and ignore all but the first two sentences? Look, you think these programs are unnecessary and wasteful? Okay, prove it. Show me why. It’s not enough to say “they just are”; you have to show why they are useless, and why we should stop wasting money on them. Hell, I bet you can’t do it for more than three.

[Starving_Artist]

@elucidator

Oh, it means quite a bit more than nothing. Efforts to rein in the power of contribution from the wealthy have met with stiff resistance over the years. For a cookie, which political party is most prominently featured in that history of resistance? And for another cookie, why do you think that is?

They do it for political power, don’t they? And that extra political power derives simply from their economic status. Now, if you were to recommend that extra political power should be the privilege of the exceptionally smart and good-looking, you might have a case.

But as it stands, you are effectively stating that someone with more money than you deserves more political power and a louder voice in the public fora. Why would I believe that, why would I find that acceptable? I don’t accept that persons of a different gender have less rights than I, nor people of a different religious persuasion, nor skin coloration, etc. etc. Why, then, should I accept extra political privilege for the amount of money a person has?

Even if we were to assume what you presuppose (which, thinkingly, we don’t) , the fact is that we have laws on books ensuring racial and gender equality, freedom of religion, etc. So it doesn’t seem that all that money is doing them much good on the power front, now, does it?

Still, the complaint one always hears about the wealthy isn’t that they wield undue power, but simply that they have so much more than everyone else. This is usually said in the sort of plaintive tone which suggests the speaker believes that if only the wealthy weren’t sucking up all the wealth, it would somehow be distributed more or less evenly among everyone else and life for all would be peachy and fair.

Of course, I (and most likely even you) know that in reality if the wealthy had not created that wealth it simply never would have existed in the first place, so no one would have it! And they also wouldn’t be working in the businesses which that wealth created, or living in the homes and apartments it built and financed, or driving the cars and using the computers and cable, satellite television, and cell phones that virtually everyone has today. It is the wealthy who create and provide the jobs and homes and the technology and the incredible range of products we have available today, and without them we would either be living 1880s farm and ranch lifestyles or suffering under a government-run economy which would have us all living in bland 750 sq. ft. apartments and eating bananas for three months because the government underestimated production or overestimated demand.

So two baseline points remain: One, you wouldn’t have any more even if every millionaire lost everything tomorrow; and two, if the wealthy had never gotten that way to begin with, you’d be living with far, far less than you have now, even if you’re currently living in poverty.

[elucidator]

@Rekd

So you don’t find any, wait, make that most, of those government agencies to be just a little bit in excess?

Really? :eek:

Sure, but you did that deliberately. You didn’t need to list them, you could have just given us the number of different state agencies. Trouble is, you are trying to persuade a reasonable person with a visceral response.

California is bigger than a whole bunch of countries, with a complex culture and economy. I wouldn’t hazard a guess as to how many such agencies are necessary, you are welcome to if you insist, but you offer us no reason to defer to your judgment.

A wall of text dashed onto my screen is not an argument, nor an insight, nor is it informative. Also, it pisses off the hamsters. Do not annoy the hamsters, they are subtle, and quick to anger.

[psychobunny]

1. The kind of spending the Democrats seem to favor are not, in my opinion, the kinds of things that will stimulate the economy and help industry create jobs.

I gave you an independent analysis above in post #67 showing why the kind of plans the Democrats favor are EXACTLY the ones that stimulate the economy the most and create the most jobs. Until and unless you show me some support for what you are saying, my facts trump your opinion.

[elucidator]

@Starving_Artist

Even if we were to assume what you presuppose (which, thinkingly, we don’t) , the fact is that we have laws on books ensuring racial and gender equality, freedom of religion, etc. So it doesn’t seem that all that money is doing them much good on the power front, now, does it?..

As Eugene V. Debs is my witness, I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here. No kidding, no snark, no clue. Anybody here speak Starkish?

[Rekd]

@elucidator

California is bigger than a whole bunch of countries, with a complex culture and economy. I wouldn’t hazard a guess as to how many such agencies are necessary, you are welcome to if you insist, but you offer us no reason to defer to your judgment.

I put the list out there for you to look at and decide if there’s anything you see as wasteful. Sounds like you don’t. Or perhaps you just don’t want to look.

I bet if you look you won’t have to go more than 3 or 4 lines deep before you find yourself asking “WTF is that?”

[AlienVessels]

@Bricker

True.

And unfortunately the Balanced Budget Amendment is too much of a poison pill risk; we do need to be able to run a deficit in an emergency.

Thank you for saying that. Because no current Republican who wants to be elected or stay in office would support that idea. No deficit, no rainy day fund.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Rekd

I put the list out there for you to look at and decide if there’s anything you see as wasteful. Sounds like you don’t. Or perhaps you just don’t want to look.

I bet if you look you won’t have to go more than 3 or 4 lines deep before you find yourself asking “WTF is that?”

I started from the bottom, and I can see that you are clearly right. All those state universities are completely unnecessary, as are all the educational organizations you listed. Ditto for the California Superior Courts (and the rest of the judicial system), the air & water quality boards and the people who credential doctors and dentists. These are all totally unnecessary services, and probably not even what government ought to be involved in anyway. They could all be scuttled and I’m sure society wouldn’t miss them. How much money would that save the state, btw?

[Rekd]

California Commission on Aging … THE STUDY TO DEVELOP SOYLENT GREEN
California Department of Aging…THE STUDY TO DEVELOP SOYLENT BLACK, BROWN AND YELLOW

California Commission on Status of Women … THE STUDY TO MAKE WOMEN A FEMALE

California Assembly Democratic Caucus…FOR THE GROUP
California Democratic Caucus…FOR THE INDIVIDUAL

California Legislative Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Caucus…FOR THOSE WHO CANNOT MAKE UP THEIR MINDS

California Research Bureau…THEY WROTE THIS

Colorado River Board of California…WHY CONTAIN IT TO ONLY CALIFORNIA STATE RIVERS

Learn California…BUY A BOOK

Veterans Home of California…ONLY ONE HOME, LET THE VETERANS FIGHT OVER IT

California Naked American Heritage Commission…SIGN ME UP

California Office of Binational Border Health…STUDY ON THE EFFECTS OF MARIJUANA

Division of the State Antichrist…OBAMA FOR CALIFORNIA STATE GOVERNOR

California Commission on Proctology…THIS IS THE END

Yeah, no waste here… :twak:

[elucidator]

Clearly, this is the time to make soothing and conciliatory noises as I back away slowly towards the nearest exit. Yes, yes, quite take your point. Hadn’t looked at it that way…