Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Reelya]

It does though, because Social Security outlays and Medicare, which are both mainly aimed at seniors make up over 50% of the government spending already, and that is projected to increase as the Baby Boomers retire.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2014/03/07/how-much-do-federal-entitlement-programs-like-social-security-cost-as-a-percentage-of-gdp/

If current laws remained generally unchanged in the future, federal debt held by the public would decline slightly relative to GDP over the next few years, CBO projects. After that, however, growing budget deficits would push debt back to and above its current high level. Twenty-five years from now, in 2039, federal debt held by the public would exceed 100 percent of GDP, CBO projects. Moreover, debt would be on an upward path relative to the size of the economy, a trend that could not be sustained indefinitely.

From your own link. And the prokected increase is almost all from Social Security / Medicare outpayments.

[Darvi]

I wonder what that spike in non-interest spending back in '09 was.

[Reelya]

There wasn't really a spike, not according to any actual graphs.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_spending_chart

Revenues plummeted, that's what caused the deficit. Federal spending did increase in dollar terms during the Obama years, but it actually decreased once you adjust for inflation, one of only two presidencies (at least since the 20th century) for which that is true.

The graphs that show the "spike" are all scaled by "percentage of GDP" not actual dollars. What Obama actually did was to maintain spending levels rather than cut spending as the economy collapsed. That's the government's basic job in Keynesian economics: don't make the situation any worse by pulling money out of the economy when everyone else is going broke.

[GlyphGryph]

Government spending would still have to change. Even if a wealth tax was applied, it doesn't help much if spending habits don't change.

Err... no? That's not really true at all?

If government spending habits remain stable, but you increase the amount coming in, then... that fixes the problem. It helps a lot, in fact!

[mainiac]

I wonder what that spike in non-interest spending back in '09 was.

Stimulus+obligations to the unemployed (Medicaid, unemployment insurance, etc.)+lower GDP

[SalmonGod]

So Hobby Lobby case decision in favor of christian fundamentalism may backfire in the most deliciously ironic way I could imagine - by giving women a sound, practical reason to join the Church of Satan.

[Karlito]

I hate to nitpick, but the Satanic Temple(in the article), is different from the Church of Satan.

[SalmonGod]

I wasn't aware of that, actually, but it will be all the same to a fundie.

[FearfulJesuit]

[Descan]

I'm starting to think we could just replace FJ with generic stamping machine...

[Angle]

*Misses the joke completely*

[GavJ]

Thought experiment, while brainstorming other ways to use hobby lobby to ironically further Liberal agendas:

In the spirit of Hobby Lobby, couldn't I argue that if I owned a business, I could employ undocumented immigrants legally? Let's say I have a religious belief that sloth is morally wrong, and I believe that of all the applicants to some position, the undocumented immigrant had the strongest work ethic. Or whatever. Since you apparently don't have to actually show any record of consistent belief, fill in whatever you feel like that's convenient. It doesn't even have to be factually true, so if you prove somehow during the case that some other guy had a stronger work ethic, whatever, no biggie. I believed otherwise.

If so, then according to Hobby Lobby, the RFRA protects my corporation from the burden of having to hire a more slovenly individual which I believe would be morally evil. Unless the government can demonstrate that doing so is:

1) in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest AND
2) is the least possible restrictive means of furthering that interest.

Presumably the government interest is merely the danger of unpaid taxes, yes? As far as the company is concerned, that is. There may be other concerns about immigration, but they would all be stuff off the clock and thus not my concern. For the business side, all I can see is taxation issues.

Well, here's a possible, less restrictive means of furthering that interest: Allow me to go ahead and pay the employee's income tax FOR him (on top of and above at least a minimum wage), assuming the highest tax bracket, and then get a reimbursement check IF my employee files their income taxes (which you can do and many undocumented immigrants do, without retaliation)

That's less burdensome on my religious belief and still fully furthers the government interest, so they should be obligated to offer this service and also be disallowed from prosecuting me for employing said individuals.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The good news about Hobby Lobby is that it is definitely going to cause backlash on how well religious organizations are respected by society. I've seen more than one analysis to that effect already, and hopefully there will be some new polling data for it soon. This will, if nothing else, show people how they are affected when religious entities are allowed to dictate policy and their personal lives, and thus why they must be kept in the secular box.

[Lord Shonus]

In positive news, a Federal Court in Virginia has ruled that gays have an "inalienable right to marry", making it illegal to prohibit gay marriage in Virginia and the other states in the same court district (W. Virginia and the Carolinas, I think).

[Sirus]

Not what I expected from Virginia, for some reason.