|
100,000,000 federal tax paying citizens * 1,000,000 dollars = 100,000,000,000,000 dollars. 100 trillion dollars. Brilliant. United States GDP: 14 trillion United States National Debt: 14 trillion This yokel's economic stimulus cost: 100 trillion You don't need much more than that.
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 19:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 19:07 |
|
|
Wouldn't that just cause hyper-inflation? I'd rather not have to buy a pick-up to haul the cash I need to buy a pack of cigs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 19:15
|
|
|
GodlessCommie posted:Wouldn't that just cause hyper-inflation? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 19:23
|
|
|
Godless Commie posted:Wouldn't that just cause hyper-inflation? I'd rather not have to buy a pick-up to haul the cash I need to buy a pack of cigs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 19:25
|
|
|
GodlessCommie posted:Wouldn't that just cause hyper-inflation? I'd rather not have to buy a pick-up to haul the cash I need to buy a pack of cigs. Use the Duck Tales episode as a reference where the nephews are able to duplicate Scrooge's money. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUlRUn6UiSk Holds just as true today as it did when duplicating rays existed during the late 80s.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 20:11
|
|
|
With a more reasonable number (i.e., not a million dollars), his idea amounts to basic Keynesian economics. I'm surprised there's so much hostility to it in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 20:29
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:In response to a well-meaning post urging congressmen to try going without their salaries before they think of cutting off wages from the men and women in the military Dude, inflation. If everyone has a million dollars then a million dollars isn't worth that much anymore.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 20:43
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:With a more reasonable number (i.e., not a million dollars), his idea amounts to basic Keynesian economics. I'm surprised there's so much hostility to it in this thread. Yeah, if they'd give every taxpayer 10,000, that'd pick the economy right up and it'd only cost a trillion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 22:35
|
|
|
Friend of a Friend on Facebook about Glenn Beck posted:I can't believe you have enough trust in the govt to not think that even a minutiae of his words might be credible. Fiat currency, weather underground, George soros toppling currencies, the left wanting to control population- they are all inconvenient realities that do exist in our society. quote:Why are the words Marxist and socialist so taboo among the left? Let's call a spade a spade. Obama has been associated with Marxists and socialists in college and even during his campaign. His policies and ideologies are socialist--which tells me he is a socialist whether or not he says he is. And really what is the difference between a socialist and a marxist. I really didn't know what to do with the first one. How do you debate with someone who thinks Glenn Beck is a truthmonger and not a clearly insane person?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 22:38
|
|
|
Brennanite posted:I really didn't know what to do with the first one. How do you debate with someone who thinks Glenn Beck is a truthmonger and not a clearly insane person? Just tell him: [Citation needed]. He needs to provide a LEGITIMATE source for these conspiracies. I mean, is he the Fox Mulder of government conspiracies or something? He's the poor sap shouting from the rooftops while everyone else just lives their lives oblivious? (He probably actually believes this, but whatever).
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 22:45
|
|
|
the posted:Just tell him: [Citation needed]. He needs to provide a LEGITIMATE source for these conspiracies. All legitimate source have a liberal bias. Ask him what his definition of socialism is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 22:54
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Yeah, if they'd give every taxpayer 10,000, that'd pick the economy right up and it'd only cost a trillion. I actually ran the math for the hell of it. You could give each taxpayer nearly 10 grand for the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to date.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 22:59
|
|
|
TerminalSaint posted:I actually ran the math for the hell of it. You could give each taxpayer nearly 10 grand for the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to date. This seems appropriate: Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. -Eisenhower
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 23:02
|
|
|
On Monday I was loading up Huffington Post when this ad splashed up: 2012 BARACKOBAMA.COM [DONATE NOW] I'm sure there was a little more to the ad that either didn't load or I'm forgetting. It just took me by surprise with how minimal, yet antagonistic it was. Barack Obama is running again so give us your money now. It reminded me of the midterms and how they self righteous they got, all but demanding their base do whatever it takes to keep them in power.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 23:11
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:With a more reasonable number (i.e., not a million dollars), his idea amounts to basic Keynesian economics. I'm surprised there's so much hostility to it in this thread. Yeah, I got the same impression. I've actually seen some semi-reasonable Facebook petitions lately. Usually, the down-home solution petitions are just ridiculous, but asking the president and Congress to take a pay-cut during this recession is not an outrageous idea. I don't think there's any congressman who's actually not super-rich (I believe Biden used to be the poorest Senator?), and Obama himself is a millionaire.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 23:43
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:Yeah, I got the same impression. I've actually seen some semi-reasonable Facebook petitions lately. Usually, the down-home solution petitions are just ridiculous, but asking the president and Congress to take a pay-cut during this recession is not an outrageous idea. I don't think there's any congressman who's actually not super-rich (I believe Biden used to be the poorest Senator?), and Obama himself is a millionaire. How about we make their salaries commensurate with the state of the economy?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2011 00:10
|
|
|
loving with congressional and presidential salaries is meaningless: the sole purpose is to make yourself feel better and it has absolutely no impact on the budget in any real sense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2011 00:36
|
|
|
Habibi posted:How about we make their salaries commensurate with the state of the economy? This comes up pretty often in regards to how ridiculously easy it is to bribe US Congressmen. Unfortunately paying them gobs of money would solve one problem but create another - when money equals speech rich incumbents mean permanent incumbents.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2011 00:48
|
|
|
Habibi posted:How about we make their salaries commensurate with the state of the economy? Pointless. They are all completely aware that the economy is the most significant factor in them keeping their job.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2011 00:51
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Pointless. They are all completely aware that the economy is the most significant factor in them keeping their job. Jeez, Mr. Cynical, OK - how about the amount of lashes each congressman receives in the morning is inversely proportional to the health of the economy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2011 01:37
|
|
|
Habibi posted:Jeez, Mr. Cynical, OK - how about the amount of lashes each congressman receives in the morning is inversely proportional to the health of the economy. His point isn't "our Rich Overlords will not be disturbed by our puny pay cuts, so we should instead sit calmly and beg their favors". It's simply that making politicians give up their pay will make people think something was accomplished (thus making them less likely to care about other reforms), without actually doing anything useful.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2011 03:07
|
|
|
It's a matter of fairness. If, for example, the troops down range have to go without pay while sitting in a combat zone, it's not unreasonable to ask Congress to do the same while sitting in DC.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2011 05:01
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:It's a matter of fairness. If, for example, the troops down range have to go without pay while sitting in a combat zone, it's not unreasonable to ask Congress to do the same while sitting in DC.  This is exactly what evilweasel said. Missing two weeks pay makes no difference to the wealthy upper-middle-class and millionaire congressmen. This kind of "fairness" is entirely subjective and will have no real impact on anything. It will just make you feel better, when arguably you shouldn't because suspending congressional pay won't make any difference. It's not unreasonable, but it is meaningless.Armyman25 posted:I don't care if it has an impact or not  Suspending their pay is fine, but it will make people feel better somehow, when they should not feel better, because they will have accomplished nothing. Not paying Congressmen will not help the millions of people who will be hurt by a government shutdown. A congressional pay freeze would be a meaningless distraction from the actual issue, which is that services will stop, millions will be worse off, and some people may even die. This is analogous to witnessing a rape and filing a complaint about indecent exposure because you saw the dude's junk. You're getting indignant about the wrong thing.
Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 06:42 on Apr 9, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2011 05:25
|
|
|
I don't care if it has an impact or not, it's horse poo poo that they continue to collect a check when the rest of the Federal workers can't. If they're so well off, they shouldn't be opposed to the idea.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2011 06:24
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:I don't care if it has an impact or not, it's horse poo poo that they continue to collect a check when the rest of the Federal workers can't. If they're so well off, they shouldn't be opposed to the idea. Nobody is saying that it's not horse poo poo, or that they have any right to be opposed to the idea. The problem is that forcing the issue is a bad idea, for the same reason why slapping bandaids on a gaping wound is a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2011 06:30
|
|
|
What the hell is wrong? quote:What the hell is wrong? I apologize for the strong language.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2011 09:28
|
|
|
loving with politician's salaries has the negative effect that it only affects those who primarily live off that salary, not the corrupt bastards who use their power to generate millions of income to their primary job and don't really care about the additional 150k they're going to lose. The second group rid us into this shithole and they would be the ones least hit by any pay freeze.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2011 09:47
|
|
|
I'm getting half a pay check April 15, and all the Federal Technicians I know are going on an unpaid furlough. It's not easy for me or anyone else who's getting a cut and those that control the purse strings shouldn't be able to exempt themselves.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2011 13:56
|
|
|
You're missing the point, their salaries are hardly how they make money and it wouldn't be much but symbolic. It's probably better that they exempt themselves, as it makes the public more upset about the lack of budget. Edit: why did I waste the text...? nsaP fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Apr 9, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2011 19:48
|
|
|
Kubrick posted:What the hell is wrong? This actually doesn't seem crazy, just uninformed. He's not screeching about the need for private companies to step in and handle all our problems; he's just identifying legitimate problems (although his solutions are wrong).
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2011 20:07
|
|
|
YoungBuns posted:This actually doesn't seem crazy, just uninformed. He's not screeching about the need for private companies to step in and handle all our problems; he's just identifying legitimate problems (although his solutions are wrong). I stopped reading at quote:2- The Calif Supreme Court ruling that ILLEGALS can attend college and get benefits. But now that you point it out, the rest of the email isn't too terrible. Some wrong conclusions but real problems nonetheless. The "deport illegals!!" sentiment is deplorable, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2011 20:17
|
|
|
Ok folks, I need your help. My girlfriend came home with the Bad Opinion that welfare abuse is widespread. She seems to think that the vast majority of people on welfare/unemployment/disability sit on their asses all day, never even look for a job, and are content to milk the system for the rest of their lives because they have no incentive to find a job. Her basis for this opinion is 1. her parents, who also hold Bad Opinions and have a general ignorance of socio-economic forces, and 2. an apartment building her family owns, where 3 of the 4 tenants are on welfare. Her parents are rich conservatives in the rich suburbs of NJ, and when she goes home to do laundry or her taxes or whatever, their Bad Opinions rub off on her. She tends to agree with whatever the last person told her, if that makes sense. Obviously, the tenants represents flagrant confirmation bias. 3 out of 4 people in a building in Paterson, NJ appear to be abusing welfare, therefore 75% of the country is abusing welfare. The building's superintendent (Pablo) is on disability, yet he's able to shovel snow in the winter, therefore he's faking his disability. Basically, she makes a wild assumption with no proof, and uses this assumption to assert her position.  I shut her Bad Opinion down with "logic," crack a few bootstrap & John McCain jokes, and then our "debate" ends with her getting flustered and storming out of the room.When I explain to her that welfare abuse is statistically tiny, but blown out of proportion as a fearmongering tactic, generally by conservative politicians/media; Well she doesn't watch Fox News, and in fact reads Fark, so clearly she's unaffected by conservative media  Basically, I'm not a good enough source, despite having taken numerous sociology & economics courses at Rutgers. It's bullshit, because she takes her parents' position as the correct one with no evidence (probably because her father's a lawyer), and she wants me to cite sources and provide proof that she's wrong. And then gets pissed when I do. Anyway, I was wondering if you guys could provide me with links. I tried searching through GBS & D&D for a dedicated thread, but no dice so far. I need proof that unemployment abuse is not nearly as widespread as it's made out to be in the media. I could have sworn there was a post about it in this thread, but I don't have the search feature activated. I'll try working backwards through the thread as well. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2011 07:22
|
|
|
Using the flow chart for discussion earlier in this thread that conversation falls squarely in the "don't have this discussion" territory.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2011 09:09
|
|
|
Sounds like there are deeper problems in your relationship.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2011 09:15
|
|
|
I disabused my friend of that notion by proving to him mathematically that welfare fraud was less that peanuts when compared to the bottom line.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2011 09:41
|
|
|
Read about the changes Clinton made to welfare in 1996. Basically all of the conservative fears of permanent welfare queens were taken to heart by Clinton, and he made it impossible to really survive on welfare. Also, there is no evidence of widespread welfare abuse. Just none. Even the worst estimates put it at a few million total losses annually, which is nothing in a trillion dollar economy. Personal experience here: Do not have this conversation again if you value your relationship. Not for a while. If it incidentally comes up, express your disagreement and move on. Eventually, you can get through, but trying to prove she's wrong or her parents are wrong will quickly lead to a big fight and a breakup. Eventually, you can even get through to her parents! This just takes a long time of slow, polite disagreement.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2011 12:31
|
|
|
Lots of people don't care about "facts", but only what they think. I was arguing politics with some people the other night, and they were complaining about Planned Parenthood. I brought up the fact that 3% of all their services are abortion related, and nobody cared about that. They "felt" it was a lot more than that, and they googled the stats and found one that said 37% of their REVENUE came from abortions, and concluded that those two things meant the same, and that meant the 3% number is false. Also, they refused to believe that no federal dollars are used for abortions. It drives me nuts. They don't want babies being born into the system and using tax dollars, yet also want to cut funding for services that PREVENT that from happening. Facts don't matter. It's what you PERSONALLY FEEL that matters in a debate. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2011 15:48
|
|
|
red19fire posted:Ok folks, I need your help. Her parents are leeches that suck Section 8 money from the public teat and are helping Pablo to abuse the disability system. Also your girlfriend is leeching off her parents' laundry services. She should get a job and use her own resources to provide for herself, either at the laundromat or by upgrading her living situation to include a washer and dryer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2011 17:23
|
|
|
Today I got a letter, more of a postcard really, of a cartoon of Jesus being cruxified while being stomped on by an ostrich. The ostrich is looking at me saying "YOU MAY HAVE GOD ON YOUR SIDE, BUT WE HAVE JUDGES AND THE ACLU!!!" The card led me to this site, and holy moly: http://leftistliberal.com/
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2011 17:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 19:07 |
|
|
What was the point of drawing each panel twice with slightly different coloring?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2011 17:40
|
|
