Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Just look at this so-called "debate" we're having. The problem ostensibly on the table is the deficit. But, without any context, the raw deficit number is meaningless. If the country's debt were, say, $50 million, that wouldn't be a big deal. If some average American suddenly found himself $50 million in debt, well, that would be a big deal. And that's because the country's GDP is a lot bigger than the average person's income. So what we're talking about is really the debt-to-GDP ratio.
Yet the debate is concentrated almost entirely on the debt side of the equation and barely at all on ways to increase the GDP side. How has the playing field of what is acceptable in this debate been so shrunken that the only two competing proposals still allowed on the field are the president's cuts and the House GOP's draconian cuts?
Arianna Huffington: The Incredible Shrinking Budget Debate: Why the Only Choice We're Being Offered Is Between Bad and Worse
Yeah, were pretty much fucked up politically.Just look at this so-called "debate" we're having. The problem ostensibly on the table is the deficit. But, without any context, the raw deficit number is meaningless. If the country's debt were, say, $50 million, that wouldn't be a big deal. If some average American suddenly found himself $50 million in debt, well, that would be a big deal. And that's because the country's GDP is a lot bigger than the average person's income. So what we're talking about is really the debt-to-GDP ratio.
Yet the debate is concentrated almost entirely on the debt side of the equation and barely at all on ways to increase the GDP side. How has the playing field of what is acceptable in this debate been so shrunken that the only two competing proposals still allowed on the field are the president's cuts and the House GOP's draconian cuts?
Arianna Huffington: The Incredible Shrinking Budget Debate: Why the Only Choice We're Being Offered Is Between Bad and Worse
Just look at this so-called "debate" we're having. The problem ostensibly on the table is the deficit. But, without any context, the raw deficit number is meaningless. If the country's debt were, say, $50 million, that wouldn't be a big deal. If some average American suddenly found himself $50 million in debt, well, that would be a big deal. And that's because the country's GDP is a lot bigger than the average person's income. So what we're talking about is really the debt-to-GDP ratio.
Yet the debate is concentrated almost entirely on the debt side of the equation and barely at all on ways to increase the GDP side. How has the playing field of what is acceptable in this debate been so shrunken that the only two competing proposals still allowed on the field are the president's cuts and the House GOP's draconian cuts?
Yeah, were pretty much fucked up politically.
It's only a Hobsian choice for the moocher class and their pimps.Hobsian choices are one of the hallmarks of authoritarians goverments that PRETEND to be something other than what they are.
You know..like this nation become?
How is cutting spending a bad thing? Or a worse thing?
Those "draconian cuts" amount to about 3¢ in $1,000.
But I never presume that any kind of intellectual honesty will emanate from HRPuffinstuffPo.
How is cutting spending a bad thing? Or a worse thing?
Arianna Huffington: The Incredible Shrinking Budget Debate: Why the Only Choice We're Being Offered Is Between Bad and Worse
Just look at this so-called "debate" we're having. The problem ostensibly on the table is the deficit. But, without any context, the raw deficit number is meaningless. If the country's debt were, say, $50 million, that wouldn't be a big deal. If some average American suddenly found himself $50 million in debt, well, that would be a big deal. And that's because the country's GDP is a lot bigger than the average person's income. So what we're talking about is really the debt-to-GDP ratio.
Yet the debate is concentrated almost entirely on the debt side of the equation and barely at all on ways to increase the GDP side. How has the playing field of what is acceptable in this debate been so shrunken that the only two competing proposals still allowed on the field are the president's cuts and the House GOP's draconian cuts?
Yeah, were pretty much fucked up politically.
Fuck off, dickweed.Those "draconian cuts" amount to about 3¢ in $1,000.
But I never presume that any kind of intellectual honesty will emanate from HRPuffinstuffPo.
Dude seriously, you need to shut the fuck up and quit acting like a little whining bitch about Huffington Post, its not like you're the most unbiased person in the world.
Arianna Huffington: The Incredible Shrinking Budget Debate: Why the Only Choice We're Being Offered Is Between Bad and Worse
Just look at this so-called "debate" we're having. The problem ostensibly on the table is the deficit. But, without any context, the raw deficit number is meaningless. If the country's debt were, say, $50 million, that wouldn't be a big deal. If some average American suddenly found himself $50 million in debt, well, that would be a big deal. And that's because the country's GDP is a lot bigger than the average person's income. So what we're talking about is really the debt-to-GDP ratio.
Yet the debate is concentrated almost entirely on the debt side of the equation and barely at all on ways to increase the GDP side. How has the playing field of what is acceptable in this debate been so shrunken that the only two competing proposals still allowed on the field are the president's cuts and the House GOP's draconian cuts?
Yeah, were pretty much fucked up politically.
Sometimes, when times are tough, people only have a bad and a worse option and have to take the best one they have. If you're waiting for someone to give you a perfect solution that fixes everything, you're going to be waiting a long time.
If you're looking at trying to increase GDP, that debate has already been done, dramatically, over the last two years. We got the stimulus from Obama that was supposed to cause growth. And we got the extension of Bush's tax cuts from the Republicans which were supposed to cause growth. In spite of all this, growth is still slow. I think it's pretty immature to think we can just keep spending more and more money and going deeper and deeper into debt as a means of reducing the deficit. A part of the equation definitely has to be spending cuts, and that's what Congress is talking about now.
How is cutting spending a bad thing? Or a worse thing?
If spending is going to be cut tax cuts for the rich have to be a part of it because tax cuts are a form of spending since tax cuts must be fucking paid for. It takes away from the budget, it doesn't add you dipshit.
I think its immature and fucking dumb to keep giving taxcuts to the rich and cutting social programs during these tough times, why make one segment of the population who numerically the majority suffer while making the minority fatter and richer?
How is cutting spending a bad thing? Or a worse thing?
If spending is going to be cut tax cuts for the rich have to be a part of it because tax cuts are a form of spending since tax cuts must be fucking paid for. It takes away from the budget, it doesn't add you dipshit.
how is cutting taxes spending of any sort?
Are tax cuts for the richer going to reduce the deficit, yes or fucking no? Have they ever reduced the deficit? Yes or no? A combination of reduced spending and elimination of tax cuts for the rich will better balanced the budget and reduce debt, since increased money will be coming in and less money will be going out, its makes perfect fucking sense.
