What's your point, fuckhead? What is the "contention of the article" that I ignored? Spit it out. You started this thread. Normally the OP tries to defend himself. You've done nothing. You can't even explain your link or why you posted it. You know you are completely out of your depth in any discussion of economics. That's why you didn't even add a comment when you started this thread.The only thing that has boomeranged is gay rey's little pecker and it's coming right for your ass.
To repeat what I said in my last post:
THERE'S NOTHING IN YOUR LINK THAT SHOWS CARSON HAS AN "OBVIOUS LACK OF KNOWLEDGE" ON THE ECONOMY.
Your inability to state or explain otherwise proves YOU are the dipshit with zero understanding of the economy. Your thread has boomeranged on you, moron. Stick to gloryholes (what you know best) and stop embarrassing yourself, sperm burper.
. Originally Posted by lustylad
There are several things in the article that show he lacks a basic grasp of how our economy works. Since you're too goddamn dumb to find them and point them out, here goes:
His first comment is about how he will simply stop spending and over time we will have a balanced budget. He mentions nothing about which areas will be receiving these cuts. He also fails to understand that some costs are destined rise over time, such as SS, Medicaire and other factors that depend on the growth of our population, which will not stop, unless he wants to place a cap on children like China. Not to mention the changing value of the dollar.
So, it's not as easy as what he posits, 'If we simply refuse to extend the budget by one penny for three to four years, you got a balanced budget. Just like that.'
You and I both know it won't happen 'just like that'. There are MANY other factors at play. He presents an overly simplistic version of things that demonstrate a general lack of understanding.
Next:
He then proclaims that department heads need to find 3-4 percent in their budgets to cut. That reduction would not balance our budget, not even close.
And let's read this little gem of an exchange;
Ryssdal: All right, so let's talk about debt then and the budget. As you know, Treasury Secretary Lew has come out in the last couple of days and said, "We're gonna run out of money, we're gonna run out of borrowing authority, on the 5th of November." Should the Congress then and the president not raise the debt limit? Should we default on our debt?
Carson: Let me put it this way: If I were the president, I would not sign an increased budget. Absolutely would not do it. They would have to find a place to cut.
Ryssdal: To be clear, it's increasing the debt limit, not the budget, but I want to make sure I understand you. You'd let the United States default rather than raise the debt limit.
Carson: No, I would provide the kind of leadership that says, "Get on the stick, guys, and stop messing around, and cut where you need to cut, because we're not raising any spending limits, period."
He doesn't even understand that this is money already outlayed to departments. The reporter continues to interject that he is referencing the debt limit and not the budget. Carson then doubles down when finishes by saying he wouldn't raise spending limits, which again, is not what the reporter was even talking about. He was talking about the debt ceiling. Spending limits are in reference to the budget. Again, he is not even sure what subject he's talking about at any given time.
Do you get it now, Lusty Tard? Even your retarded bottom, gay rey, could get this shit.
