|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 11 2016 09:44 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 09:07 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On May 11 2016 09:04 Mohdoo wrote:On May 11 2016 08:59 SK.Testie wrote:Thanks for the answers. I don't have the best grasp on America's social welfare net so I figured I was oversimplifying things there. On May 11 2016 08:26 travis wrote:
That said, I am not sure about his stances on social programs... is anyone? The assumption thus far is that he's decently socially liberal and believes in social security & welfare and lower taxes for the poor. He's been adamant that, "we're not going to have people dying on the streets. We're going to take care of people." I assume he'll leave it unchanged until he brings it up. His big things he talks about most are trade & the border. The wording that Trump uses makes it seem like he intends to expand social programs. Historically, Trump has always been in favor of single payer. Can you really expand social programs when you intend to cut taxes though? There is always the print more money plan I guess ^_^ There's always issues of the government wasting money though which is a huge thing that's not a sexy topic to talk about because you have to go after each individual issue. Right now I think the government is extremely wasteful... I think you'd be hard pressed to find any governments that aren't either wasteful or outright corrupt. And the oversimplified version of it is basically that the government isn't spending their own money, so they are far less careful with it and care far less. There's a tonne of instances that governments, municipal, state, federal etc have either dropped the ball or outright stolen public funds. And it happens not just at every level, but in every industry imaginable. Transit, tourism, military, medical, education, etc. It's not a sexy issue though so it doesn't get a lot of screen time unless it's a really, really big scandal. Then again Obama's foreign policy of training fighters who basically just went and joined ISIS or Al-Nusra could be considered a pretty massive blunder but that's not even getting at all the domestic funds being wasted. The government needs to be reigned in a little and I don't see a vote for Clinton doing that.
Sure we could reduce government waste, but how do we actually do that? Is that going to be enough to offset all the tax cuts Trump is proposing? The populist feel good answer doesn't do anything for me without a plan to back it up.
On May 11 2016 09:21 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 09:07 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On May 11 2016 09:04 Mohdoo wrote:On May 11 2016 08:59 SK.Testie wrote:Thanks for the answers. I don't have the best grasp on America's social welfare net so I figured I was oversimplifying things there. On May 11 2016 08:26 travis wrote:
That said, I am not sure about his stances on social programs... is anyone? The assumption thus far is that he's decently socially liberal and believes in social security & welfare and lower taxes for the poor. He's been adamant that, "we're not going to have people dying on the streets. We're going to take care of people." I assume he'll leave it unchanged until he brings it up. His big things he talks about most are trade & the border. The wording that Trump uses makes it seem like he intends to expand social programs. Historically, Trump has always been in favor of single payer. Can you really expand social programs when you intend to cut taxes though? There is always the print more money plan I guess ^_^ Its really simple; you cut programs. You cut taxes, bringing revenue down X You cut social programs, reducing spending by Y This means we have (X1 - X2) - (Y1 - Y2) to spend on other programs. So long as the expanded/added programs (Z) is at least equal to the new X - Y, then you're fine.
But what programs are you actually cutting? So it's possible in theory, but without even some vague idea of what policy cuts Trump intends to make the whole thing seems like we're back to voodoo economics. With Trump suggesting things like printing money he isn't going to get the benefit of the doubt in this realm from me.
|
On May 11 2016 09:59 oneofthem wrote:
lol just lol
You can't fault Sanders supporters. They are under constant assault of far superior memes. Hillary supporters aren't nearly as in tune with the internet and the superior meme culture.
On May 11 2016 10:03 ragz_gt wrote:
Government wasting money is more of a meme than an actual thing that is studied. Sure, there are a lot of anecdotal things but any corporate has them, like my friend at insurance company built a 6k gaming rig with company money, and the amount usually trivial in the grand scheme of things. Is the government more or less efficient than private sector? Is local government more or less efficient than national level? I just don't know, and it's not like either party is all that enthusiastic in finding out.
I wouldn't say it's that much of a meme. It's just something people have to actually parse through and read in detail and then take action on which is a lot less sexy than liberals jumping from new sexy issue to sexy issue. It's very easy to get political points and defend, "hey why can't these two people get married?!?" than "wow the city council pissed away millions of dollars and could have gotten this job done cheaper and more efficiently."
|
On May 11 2016 10:03 ragz_gt wrote:
Government wasting money is more of a meme than an actual thing that is studied. Sure, there are a lot of anecdotal things but any corporate has them, like my friend at insurance company built a 6k gaming rig with company money, and the amount usually trivial in the grand scheme of things. Is the government more or less efficient than private sector? Is local government more or less efficient than national level? I just don't know, and it's not like either party is all that enthusiastic in finding out.
Now imagine your friend is the US government and he built a $20 trillion gaming rig. Do you not think the national debt is an indicator the government might be mismanaging? It's not like we even have anything to show for it. Why does the US owe more than its GDP? Why can't the government spend just what it brings in?
|
Yes, the 20 trillion gaming rig called "iraq war"
But no, the fact they spend more than take in is not "waste", it's called biting off more than they can chew, or not taking in enough. Nether makes Trump's "plan" easier to come true.
|
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan together account for like $2 trillion of spending.
|
No shit! It's just to illustrate how pointless this is:
On May 11 2016 10:17 oBlade wrote:
Now imagine your friend is the US government and he built a $20 trillion gaming rig.
|
Money well spent accomplishing very little. But I'm sure Chaney is happy.
|
On May 11 2016 10:19 ragz_gt wrote:
Yes, the 20 trillion gaming rig called "iraq war"
Of all the candidates left though, Hillary would take the most blame for the Iraq war. And there's a chance she knew what a sham it was to begin with back when Colin Powell was holding up the vial of anthrax.
|
On May 11 2016 10:26 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 10:19 ragz_gt wrote:
Yes, the 20 trillion gaming rig called "iraq war"
Of all the candidates left though, Hillary would take the most blame for the Iraq war. And there's a chance she knew what a sham it was to begin with back when Colin Powell was holding up the vial of anthrax.
I agree, but the whole convo is stupid because what oBlade said has nothing to do with wasteful government spending at all
"Trump's plan doesn't make financial sense because it will drive up debt"
"We can remove waste to pay for it"
"We don't know how much waste there really is"
"But the fact we have debt shows there is waste!"
???
|
Miami Beach is one of the nation's cities most vulnerable to climate change — and its leaders are doing something about it. The city, a national leader in addressing climate, has begun to make improvements aimed at protecting residents from rising sea levels.
In South Florida, the rate of sea-level rise has tripled over the last decade, according to a new study from the University of Miami. The rising seas raise questions for many about whether the resort community has a future. Officials there say the answer is emphatically yes and they're moving ahead with plans for a resilient city.
The small city on a barrier island, just 7 miles long and 1 mile wide, is getting a makeover. Major thoroughfares are being rebuilt, new storm sewers and pumps are being installed. Miami Beach Mayor Philip Levine likes to show off work recently completed in the Sunset Harbor neighborhood on the western edge of the island, "the lowest area of our city," he says, "which of course was developed on muck."
Over the last decade, flooding during high tide in this and other neighborhoods along Miami Beach's western edge has become a regular occurrence. The University of Miami study confirms that the main reason for the increased flood events is sea-level rise. While some elected officials, including Florida's Republican Gov. Rick Scott, aren't ready to acknowledge the threat posed by climate change, here in Miami Beach, it was an issue that helped get Levine elected. "I think I did a campaign commercial in a kayak," he says.
Levine took office on a pledge to build a resilient Miami Beach, one that would recognize and adapt to climate change. He holds up Sunset Harbor neighborhood as a model. The patio outside a restaurant and cafe is a cozy spot that's now more than 3 feet below street level. The street was "literally rebuilt, raised and built higher," he says. "And of course major pumps were installed as well. So now you have certain buildings that are lying lower, but the streets are higher." This neighborhood, perennially wet during seasonal high tides, now is dry.
To combat flooding, Miami Beach has launched a $400 million project that's begun installing as many as 80 pump stations throughout the city. In addition, more roads on the island's low-lying western edge will be rebuilt higher.
Source
|
On May 11 2016 10:26 ragz_gt wrote:No shit! It's just to illustrate how pointless this is: Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 10:17 oBlade wrote:
Now imagine your friend is the US government and he built a $20 trillion gaming rig.
Excuse me, that was a response to your unconvincing presumption that the private and public sectors are probably equally (in)efficient because your friend embezzled $6,000 once.
On May 11 2016 10:19 ragz_gt wrote:
Yes, the 20 trillion gaming rig called "iraq war"
But no, the fact they spend more than take in is not "waste", it's called biting off more than they can chew, or not taking in enough. Nether makes Trump's "plan" easier to come true.
It's not the existence of an annual budget deficit, it's the fact that the total debt held by the government is higher than the country's GDP.
|
On May 11 2016 10:26 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 10:19 ragz_gt wrote:
Yes, the 20 trillion gaming rig called "iraq war"
Of all the candidates left though, Hillary would take the most blame for the Iraq war. And there's a chance she knew what a sham it was to begin with back when Colin Powell was holding up the vial of anthrax.
I do really dislike her comment to Sanders that "voting against Iraq 13 years ago isn't a plan to fix it today." On its face, it is true. However, it's not hard to connect it to an almost equivalent statement of, "I helped to fuck things up so therefore I'm the best qualified to fix it." Which is BS.
|
The original point was illustrating how pointless anecdotal ecidences are, and you missed it spetacularly by come back with some outlandish hyperbole. And how is debt amount related to gdp meaningful in anyway to government waste?
|
So now that Trump is the only Republican left standing, can someone explain to me why there are still primaries going on for them? Is there another option or is this just formality?
|
Forcing American workers to compete with workers from china and low cost countrys.
There will always be someone in the world who will and can do the job for next to nothing because it is still better then earning nothing at all.
The conditions of American workers will be dragged down till they are on equal footing with the worst conditions in the whole world,because only then they can be competitive with them. Its a race to the bottom.
How is that beneficial for the American people?
Trump printing money, well the American government has been printing money for 100 years now.
Its kinda pointless arguing this on this forum,people just don't have the knowledge about how things work so I will leave it at this and go back to the fun part,following the election
And sanders won I just see.
Go Clinton,you can do it
|
On May 11 2016 10:47 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 10:26 SK.Testie wrote:On May 11 2016 10:19 ragz_gt wrote:
Yes, the 20 trillion gaming rig called "iraq war"
Of all the candidates left though, Hillary would take the most blame for the Iraq war. And there's a chance she knew what a sham it was to begin with back when Colin Powell was holding up the vial of anthrax. I do really dislike her comment to Sanders that "voting against Iraq 13 years ago isn't a plan to fix it today." On its face, it is true. However, it's not hard to connect it to an almost equivalent statement of, "I helped to fuck things up so therefore I'm the best qualified to fix it." Which is BS.
I would argue your second statement is not at all what is implied by the comment. The message is not "I'm the best qualified to fix it" because "I helped to fuck things up", but "I'm the best qualified to fix it" because "I have a plan and know how to address the issue and you don't", regardless of how the votes went thirteen years ago.
|
On May 11 2016 10:09 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 09:44 SK.Testie wrote:On May 11 2016 09:07 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On May 11 2016 09:04 Mohdoo wrote:On May 11 2016 08:59 SK.Testie wrote:Thanks for the answers. I don't have the best grasp on America's social welfare net so I figured I was oversimplifying things there. On May 11 2016 08:26 travis wrote:
That said, I am not sure about his stances on social programs... is anyone? The assumption thus far is that he's decently socially liberal and believes in social security & welfare and lower taxes for the poor. He's been adamant that, "we're not going to have people dying on the streets. We're going to take care of people." I assume he'll leave it unchanged until he brings it up. His big things he talks about most are trade & the border. The wording that Trump uses makes it seem like he intends to expand social programs. Historically, Trump has always been in favor of single payer. Can you really expand social programs when you intend to cut taxes though? There is always the print more money plan I guess ^_^ There's always issues of the government wasting money though which is a huge thing that's not a sexy topic to talk about because you have to go after each individual issue. Right now I think the government is extremely wasteful... I think you'd be hard pressed to find any governments that aren't either wasteful or outright corrupt. And the oversimplified version of it is basically that the government isn't spending their own money, so they are far less careful with it and care far less. There's a tonne of instances that governments, municipal, state, federal etc have either dropped the ball or outright stolen public funds. And it happens not just at every level, but in every industry imaginable. Transit, tourism, military, medical, education, etc. It's not a sexy issue though so it doesn't get a lot of screen time unless it's a really, really big scandal. Then again Obama's foreign policy of training fighters who basically just went and joined ISIS or Al-Nusra could be considered a pretty massive blunder but that's not even getting at all the domestic funds being wasted. The government needs to be reigned in a little and I don't see a vote for Clinton doing that. Sure we could reduce government waste, but how do we actually do that? Is that going to be enough to offset all the tax cuts Trump is proposing? The populist feel good answer doesn't do anything for me without a plan to back it up. Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 09:21 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 11 2016 09:07 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On May 11 2016 09:04 Mohdoo wrote:On May 11 2016 08:59 SK.Testie wrote:Thanks for the answers. I don't have the best grasp on America's social welfare net so I figured I was oversimplifying things there. On May 11 2016 08:26 travis wrote:
That said, I am not sure about his stances on social programs... is anyone? The assumption thus far is that he's decently socially liberal and believes in social security & welfare and lower taxes for the poor. He's been adamant that, "we're not going to have people dying on the streets. We're going to take care of people." I assume he'll leave it unchanged until he brings it up. His big things he talks about most are trade & the border. The wording that Trump uses makes it seem like he intends to expand social programs. Historically, Trump has always been in favor of single payer. Can you really expand social programs when you intend to cut taxes though? There is always the print more money plan I guess ^_^ Its really simple; you cut programs. You cut taxes, bringing revenue down X You cut social programs, reducing spending by Y This means we have (X1 - X2) - (Y1 - Y2) to spend on other programs. So long as the expanded/added programs (Z) is at least equal to the new X - Y, then you're fine. But what programs are you actually cutting? So it's possible in theory, but without even some vague idea of what policy cuts Trump intends to make the whole thing seems like we're back to voodoo economics. With Trump suggesting things like printing money he isn't going to get the benefit of the doubt in this realm from me.
To your first question, despite left's wishful thinking that finally this time they will "get it right", governments are wasteful by nature because the incentives simply are not there for them to be efficient.
You make governments less wasteful by making the government smaller.
|
On May 11 2016 10:48 ragz_gt wrote:
The original point was illustrating how pointless anecdotal ecidences are, and you missed it spetacularly by come back with some outlandish hyperbole. And how is debt amount related to gdp meaningful in anyway to government waste?
It's an alarm bell, do you understand? Total debt exceeds GDP levels -> Reevaluate government's competence.
|
Well thank god we solved that one with that easy trick. Why didn't I think of that? Smaller government. Of course.
Just small enough to fit in the bathroom.
On May 11 2016 11:12 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 10:48 ragz_gt wrote:
The original point was illustrating how pointless anecdotal ecidences are, and you missed it spetacularly by come back with some outlandish hyperbole. And how is debt amount related to gdp meaningful in anyway to government waste? It's an alarm bell, do you understand? Total debt exceeds GDP levels -> Reevaluate government's competence.
Sure, lets get ride of the party in control of congress. All for it.
|
On May 11 2016 11:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 11:12 oBlade wrote:On May 11 2016 10:48 ragz_gt wrote:
The original point was illustrating how pointless anecdotal ecidences are, and you missed it spetacularly by come back with some outlandish hyperbole. And how is debt amount related to gdp meaningful in anyway to government waste? It's an alarm bell, do you understand? Total debt exceeds GDP levels -> Reevaluate government's competence. Sure, lets get ride of the party in control of congress. All for it. Well thank god we solved that one with that easy trick.
I've rearranged your post to maximize the irony, what do you think?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
