Stupid Committee Failing Because Dems Want Tax Increases & A Promise To Cut Spending

[Cuyo]

Well lookit, let me play devil's advocate here. What is the result of a significant cut in spending? Doesn't matter, military, education, SSI, or the Department of Pinstripe Shirt Symmetry - They all employ people. Those people they employ all pull a paycheck and spend it in the private sector. Every dollar of spending 'Cut' comes directly off of our GDP once, and probably many times over due to the multiplier effect.

I don't know exactly how far you want to go on the slash and burn scale, but my impression is that it's pretty far, and I'm sure you feel that by cutting taxes further you could stimulate the economy therefore more receipts yada yada... Ok. Assuming the economy is unharmed by the cuts, we have to cut over a trillion a year, to be consrvative let's say that you're shaving around 7% of GDP - And that's before you've considered the loss of a single job, or had the ability to cut a single tax.

This is why economists roll their eyes at the concept of cutting our way out of this deficit. It ain't gonna happen.

They "employ people" at what costs to whom?

Do you think the money to pay all the moochers and bureaucrats comes from Lucky the goddamn leprechaun, and his pot of gold at the end of the rainbow?

What's your point? How does that, in any way whatsoever, address my post?

 

[Oddball]

Are you really this obtuse?

Where does the money come from to pay for the moochers and bureaucrats?

 

[Cuyo]

Well lookit, let me play devil's advocate here. What is the result of a significant cut in spending? Doesn't matter, military, education, SSI, or the Department of Pinstripe Shirt Symmetry - They all employ people. Those people they employ all pull a paycheck and spend it in the private sector. Every dollar of spending 'Cut' comes directly off of our GDP once, and probably many times over due to the multiplier effect.

I don't know exactly how far you want to go on the slash and burn scale, but my impression is that it's pretty far, and I'm sure you feel that by cutting taxes further you could stimulate the economy therefore more receipts yada yada... Ok. Assuming the economy is unharmed by the cuts, we have to cut over a trillion a year, to be consrvative let's say that you're shaving around 7% of GDP - And that's before you've considered the loss of a single job, or had the ability to cut a single tax.

This is why economists roll their eyes at the concept of cutting our way out of this deficit. It ain't gonna happen.

Yiou haven't posted anything that makes the eyes of any genuine economist roll. Government spending doesn't "stimulate" jack without also depressing elsewhere by an equal or greater amount. Furthermore, when government spending is increased, money that used to go to productive enterprises is now being flushed down the toilet and produces nothing of any value to anyone.

And like most Republican dogma that rant is false and based on nothing, and like most posts here by Republicans it doesn't address mine.

You're arguing that giving more spending power to the people who are already hoarding and not creating jobs, will somehow create jobs.

It's quite asinine, actually.

 

[Cuyo]

Are you really this obtuse?

Where does the money come from to pay for the moochers and bureaucrats?

If you're of the inclination that 'money' really exists, it comes from taxpayers. But how does that address what I've said?

Does that rant somehow amount to anything I've said being false?

 

[Oddball]

And like most Republican dogma that rant is false and based on nothing, and like most posts here by Republicans it doesn't address mine.

You're arguing that giving more spending power to the people who are already hoarding and not creating jobs, will somehow create jobs.

It's quite asinine, actually.

What's asinine is the notion that picking pockets to pay for the moocher class brings about more employment than leaving those resources with those who have earned them, to circulate in the economy in ways that they see fit.

 

[Cuyo]

And like most Republican dogma that rant is false and based on nothing, and like most posts here by Republicans it doesn't address mine.

You're arguing that giving more spending power to the people who are already hoarding and not creating jobs, will somehow create jobs.

It's quite asinine, actually.

What's asinine is the notion that picking pockets to pay for the moocher class brings about more employment than leaving those resources with those who have earned them, to circulate in the economy in ways that they see fit.

Let me address this in a manner with which you might be more comfortable.

When 'Moocher' government employees shop at the grocery store and the grocery store hires people to serve them, where does the money to hire them come from?

 

[Oddball]

Are you really this obtuse?

Where does the money come from to pay for the moochers and bureaucrats?

If you're of the inclination that 'money' really exists, it comes from taxpayers. But how does that address what I've said?

Does that rant somehow amount to anything I've said being false?

It addresses what you said to point out your utter and complete economic ignorance.

Every dollar you loot from the productive to pay the moocher class produces exactly zero increased value for the economy....Therefore, your claim that paring back the bureaucracy "costs jobs" is pure ignoramus pap.

 

[Cuyo]

Are you really this obtuse?

Where does the money come from to pay for the moochers and bureaucrats?

If you're of the inclination that 'money' really exists, it comes from taxpayers. But how does that address what I've said?

Does that rant somehow amount to anything I've said being false?

It addresses what you said to point out your utter and complete economic ignorance.

Every dollar you loot from the productive to pay the moocher class produces exactly zero increased value for the economy....Therefore, your claim that paring back the bureaucracy "costs jobs" is pure ignoramus pap.

Mmm-hmm. So cutting the budget will not cost jobs. That's an interesting take. False and retarded, but interesting.

 

[Oddball]

And like most Republican dogma that rant is false and based on nothing, and like most posts here by Republicans it doesn't address mine.

You're arguing that giving more spending power to the people who are already hoarding and not creating jobs, will somehow create jobs.

It's quite asinine, actually.

What's asinine is the notion that picking pockets to pay for the moocher class brings about more employment than leaving those resources with those who have earned them, to circulate in the economy in ways that they see fit.

Let me address this in a manner with which you might be more comfortable.

When 'Moocher' government employees shop at the grocery store and the grocery store hires people to serve them, where does the money to hire them come from?

Irrelevant to the fact that the bureaucratic parasite class produces nothing of value for the economy, and only exists by the course of expropriation from the real producers in society.

Economics for Beginners: The broken window theory

 

[Cuyo]

What's asinine is the notion that picking pockets to pay for the moocher class brings about more employment than leaving those resources with those who have earned them, to circulate in the economy in ways that they see fit.

Let me address this in a manner with which you might be more comfortable.

When 'Moocher' government employees shop at the grocery store and the grocery store hires people to serve them, where does the money to hire them come from?

Irrelevant to the fact that the bureaucratic parasite class produces nothing of value for the economy, and only exists by the course of expropriation from the real producers in society.

Economics for Beginners: The broken window theory

I'm familiar with the broken window parable. But it doesn't really address a shop keeper who borrowed the money to fix the window; Money he otherwise wouldn't have borrowed or spent.

 

[Flopper]

Obama's threat to veto any legislation that seeks to block the automatic spending cuts means he plans to make this a campaign issue and will attempt to hang the whole failed deficit reduction plan around the neck of Republicans.

 

[dilloduck]

Let me address this in a manner with which you might be more comfortable.

When 'Moocher' government employees shop at the grocery store and the grocery store hires people to serve them, where does the money to hire them come from?

Irrelevant to the fact that the bureaucratic parasite class produces nothing of value for the economy, and only exists by the course of expropriation from the real producers in society.

Economics for Beginners: The broken window theory

I'm familiar with the broken window parable. But it doesn't really address a shop keeper who borrowed the money to fix the window; Money he otherwise wouldn't have borrowed or spent.

and borrowed money that doesn't even exist. Do we intend to pretend forever ?

 

[Oddball]

Irrelevant to the fact that the bureaucratic parasite class produces nothing of value for the economy, and only exists by the course of expropriation from the real producers in society.

Economics for Beginners: The broken window theory

I'm familiar with the broken window parable. But it doesn't really address a shop keeper who borrowed the money to fix the window; Money he otherwise wouldn't have borrowed or spent.

and borrowed money that doesn't even exist. Do we intend to pretend forever ?

^^^^^
This.

 

[Cuyo]

Irrelevant to the fact that the bureaucratic parasite class produces nothing of value for the economy, and only exists by the course of expropriation from the real producers in society.

Economics for Beginners: The broken window theory

I'm familiar with the broken window parable. But it doesn't really address a shop keeper who borrowed the money to fix the window; Money he otherwise wouldn't have borrowed or spent.

and borrowed money that doesn't even exist. Do we intend to pretend forever ?

I agree, we are behind the eight ball big time. If we continue down this path a day will come when we go to sell treasury bonds like we do every day and nobody's going to show up to buy them. What do you think the reaction will be if and when that day arrives?

Nobody likes the situation we're in but the truth is that we're not going to get out of it with spending cuts alone. Too much damage would result.

 

[Oddball]

Obama's threat to veto any legislation that seeks to block the automatic spending cuts means he plans to make this a campaign issue and will attempt to hang the whole failed deficit reduction plan around the neck of Republicans.

The whole charade was a campaign ploy, and you know it.

The good news is that it's so transparent that everyone but the most deluded Kool-Aid snorting Obammy fluffers can see right through the cynical ploy.

 

[Oddball]

I'm familiar with the broken window parable. But it doesn't really address a shop keeper who borrowed the money to fix the window; Money he otherwise wouldn't have borrowed or spent.

and borrowed money that doesn't even exist. Do we intend to pretend forever ?

I agree, we are behind the eight ball big time. If we continue down this path a day will come when we go to sell treasury bonds like we do every day and nobody's going to show up to buy them. What do you think the reaction will be if and when that day arrives?

Nobody likes the situation we're in but the truth is that we're not going to get out of it with spending cuts alone. Too much damage would result.

Bullshit.

There's no damage to me by pulling a tick off of my neck.

 

[Cuyo]

and borrowed money that doesn't even exist. Do we intend to pretend forever ?

I agree, we are behind the eight ball big time. If we continue down this path a day will come when we go to sell treasury bonds like we do every day and nobody's going to show up to buy them. What do you think the reaction will be if and when that day arrives?

Nobody likes the situation we're in but the truth is that we're not going to get out of it with spending cuts alone. Too much damage would result.

Bullshit.

There's no damage to me by pulling a tick off of my neck.

Mmm-hmm.

Now I know I might not be as brilliant and enlightened as you, but I'll try to explain this to you in the small words that I know.

When someone has a job, they are employed, even if they work for the government.

When you then take away that job, they become unemployed.

When you take employed people and make them unemployed, unemployment goes up.

Unemployment going up is bad for the economy.


I don't think you're stupid Oddball, but your judgment is so clouded by right wing dogma that you can only address what you think should be, and you are incapable to the nth degree of acknowledging and addressing what is.

 

[Mr Liberty]

Markets down 300 pts before lunch.

That's nothing. Give it a couple of months. It's going to be horrendous.

 

[Mr Liberty]

I agree, we are behind the eight ball big time. If we continue down this path a day will come when we go to sell treasury bonds like we do every day and nobody's going to show up to buy them. What do you think the reaction will be if and when that day arrives?

Nobody likes the situation we're in but the truth is that we're not going to get out of it with spending cuts alone. Too much damage would result.

Bullshit.

There's no damage to me by pulling a tick off of my neck.

Mmm-hmm.

Now I know I might not be as brilliant and enlightened as you, but I'll try to explain this to you in the small words that I know.

When someone has a job, they are employed, even if they work for the government.

When you then take away that job, they become unemployed.

When you take employed people and make them unemployed, unemployment goes up.

Unemployment going up is bad for the economy.


I don't think you're stupid Oddball, but your judgment is so clouded by right wing dogma that you can only address what you think should be, and you are incapable to the nth degree of acknowledging and addressing what is.

So, if we gave every unemployed person a government job, that would fix everything. Do you think that would increase revenue?
This is a debt crisis cause by too much spending. I think too many government jobs are bad for the economy.

 

[Oddball]

I agree, we are behind the eight ball big time. If we continue down this path a day will come when we go to sell treasury bonds like we do every day and nobody's going to show up to buy them. What do you think the reaction will be if and when that day arrives?

Nobody likes the situation we're in but the truth is that we're not going to get out of it with spending cuts alone. Too much damage would result.

Bullshit.

There's no damage to me by pulling a tick off of my neck.

Mmm-hmm.

Now I know I might not be as brilliant and enlightened as you, but I'll try to explain this to you in the small words that I know.

When someone has a job, they are employed, even if they work for the government.

When you then take away that job, they become unemployed.

When you take employed people and make them unemployed, unemployment goes up.

Unemployment going up is bad for the economy.


I don't think you're stupid Oddball, but your judgment is so clouded by right wing dogma that you can only address what you think should be, and you are incapable to the nth degree of acknowledging and addressing what is.

No, you don't understand the broken window fallacy at all....Either that or you just don't give a shit.

I'm betting it's the latter.