Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs - Page 252

Sidd Finch · 12-10-2010, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder

Yet more evidence, from Sister Bachmann, that some on ther far right live in a reality-free zone.

*Maybe she thinks they will be raptured before it matters.

Bachmann is retarded. But it's nice to know that she's figured out how to eliminate the deficit through cutting spending. When is she planning on revealing her plan?

Adder · 12-10-2010, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Bachmann is retarded. But it's nice to know that she's figured out how to eliminate the deficit through cutting spending. When is she planning on revealing her plan?

To her mild credit, she didn't go full-Laffer with it, and the opporunity was there. Which to me is evidence of insanity rather than retardation. Or maybe the other way around. Does it matter?

sgtclub · 12-10-2010, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder

To her mild credit, she didn't go full-Laffer with it, and the opporunity was there. Which to me is evidence of insanity rather than retardation. Or maybe the other way around. Does it matter?

I agree with her 100%.

Adder · 12-10-2010, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtclub

I agree with her 100%.

Do you care to explain why? It doesn't seem to fit your persona to believe that all tax cuts always pay for themselves or assume that there is some magic source of future money that isn't the people.

So perhaps you are in favor a future default on government debt? That's the only scenario I can think of where tax-cuts aren't a deficit to "the people." Am I missing something?

Gattigap · 12-10-2010, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder

Do you care to explain why? It doesn't seem to fit your persona to believe that all tax cuts always pay for themselves or assume that there is some magic source of future money that isn't the people.

So perhaps you are in favor a future default on government debt? That's the only scenario I can think of where tax-cuts aren't a deficit to "the people." Am I missing something?

I think what club is trying to say is that he agrees with Bachmann's underlying, thematic, squint-and-it's-there point, which is fundamentally, it's my fucking money, not the government's. And, you know, we should cut spending, which is also a valid point.

Which is all fine, but it kinda gets lost in the nonsense of Bachmann's argument about tax cuts not being a deficit to the government, or something.

Cletus Miller · 12-10-2010, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder

Do you care to explain why? It doesn't seem to fit your persona to believe that all tax cuts always pay for themselves or assume that there is some magic source of future money that isn't the people.

So perhaps you are in favor a future default on government debt? That's the only scenario I can think of where tax-cuts aren't a deficit to "the people." Am I missing something?

If we cut spending enough, it inverts and begins to produce income to service the debt.

Or, it's being pedantic about "deficit". Can anyone claim (with a straight face) that the tax cuts will not result in an increase in the debt?

Replaced_Texan · 12-10-2010, 05:42 PM

Still going. Bernie Sanders is 7 hours into his filibuster of the tax deal.

I don't think it's going to do much, but I admire him for actually filibustering instead of lobbing threats to do so.

ETA fix the word "lobbing". He was talking about lobbyists at the time.

ETA2: I read that the last actual filibuster was in 1992. All the others were threats. Huh.

Adder · 12-10-2010, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gattigap

I think what club is trying to say is that he agrees with Bachmann's underlying, thematic, squint-and-it's-there point, which is fundamentally, it's my fucking money, not the government's. And, you know, we should cut spending, which is also a valid point.

Which is all fine, but it kinda gets lost in the nonsense of Bachmann's argument about tax cuts not being a deficit to the government, or something.

I think very few people think we shouldn't be cutting spending (that they don't like) and that it's their money and not the governments (although I've said before that I think it's pretty silly to assume that wages don't adjust to tax rates in the mid-to-long term).

But I don't that makes her comment any less vapid.

Adder · 12-10-2010, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

If we cut spending enough, it inverts and begins to produce income to service the debt.

Sorry. What inverts? And how are you using "income?" Don't you mean surplus?

Cletus Miller · 12-10-2010, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder

Sorry. What inverts? And how are you using "income?" Don't you mean surplus?

If you cut spending to below zero (and, obviously, if the government spends zero, then taxes would be zero) then you suddenly have money to pay down the debt. The spending inverts, and becomes income for debt service. And somehow still have a military and medicare. And Congressional pensions. You clearly aren't as smart as Michele if you don't understand how that works.

Adder · 12-10-2010, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

If you cut spending to below zero (and, obviously, if the government spends zero, then taxes would be zero) then you suddenly have money to pay down the debt. The spending inverts, and becomes income for debt service. And somehow still have a military and medicare. And Congressional pensions. You clearly aren't as smart as Michele if you don't understand how that works.

Ah, I see. Negative spending. My bad, I should have grasped.

ETA: Of course, negative spending is typically called "taxing."

Replaced_Texan · 12-10-2010, 06:01 PM

More on "sex by surprise" and the evils of radical feminism.

Cletus Miller · 12-10-2010, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder

Ah, I see. Negative spending. My bad, I should have grasped.

ETA: Of course, negative spending is typically called "taxing."

No, negative spending is "investment" and "letting people keep what they earn". But you call it what you want, just so long as you keep the government out of Medicare.

sgtclub · 12-10-2010, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gattigap

I think what club is trying to say is that he agrees with Bachmann's underlying, thematic, squint-and-it's-there point, which is fundamentally, it's my fucking money, not the government's. And, you know, we should cut spending, which is also a valid point.

Which is all fine, but it kinda gets lost in the nonsense of Bachmann's argument about tax cuts not being a deficit to the government, or something.

Gatti speaks fluent Club.

ETA: And the "costs" of tax cuts are not as high as suggested because the CBO does not use dynamic scoring.

Sidd Finch · 12-10-2010, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Gatti speaks fluent Club.

ETA: And the "costs" of tax cuts are not as high as suggested because the CBO does not use dynamic scoring.

Let me know when Bachmann proposes spending cuts that even begin to approach the size of the Bush tax cuts.

NB: The federal government does not spend several hundred billion dollars -- or anything -- to finance abortions, so that proposed cut doesn't really help her.