|
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. |
Actually, unreal politics on the metaphysical, theological legalistic and generally abstract level is the kind of politics which would naturally accrue to a kind of centralised entity which oneofthem advocates. TL.net is a rather obvious object lesson in that.
Out there, "real politics" is the argument I have with my sister about where to go for dinner, or how to persuade our uncle to attend rehab. As I move outward from the domestic into the municipal, regional, national, and international, I move to a politics which must address a greater variety of issues dependent on the opinions of a greater collective, and since no one possesses sufficient memory, intelligence, or erudition to observe these problems in their tangible realities, they must convert them into easily-disposed abstractions. The greater the sphere encompassed by such a political system, the greater the abstraction in collective thinking, until we reach the level of tl.net, where the most vague speculations intothe First Principles of the universe is our "real" politics.
That is, it becomes the lowest common denominator in our collective reality.
|
|
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
didn't want to write too much so i said real politics. in the legal realist sense of real i guess. not that arcane
|
Helping each other "against" a Natural Disaster is basically the same thing as "defending" each other in times of war.
Or would you also say: "Who cares about Mexico taking over the East Coast by force. I don't live there, they should have taken care of their defenses!"?
By that reasoning there should be no states or any organization that goes beyond your immediate surroundings.
|
On January 16 2013 19:01 Velr wrote:
Helping each other "against" a Natural Disaster is basically the same thing as "defending" each other in times of war.
Or would you also say: "Who cares about Mexico taking over the East Coast by force. I don't live there, they should have taken care of their defenses!"?
By that reasoning there should be no states or any organization that goes beyond your immediate surroundings.
Well, two things. First, that's military, and clearly agreed to. Second, that would also fall into my unforeseeable category. I mean, seirously, an amphibian Mexican invasion? Nobody could foresee that...
My point is that living on a coast without hurricane insurance coverage is risky behavior. It's akin to a bank investing in a bubble stock only to see it pop. You are taking a stupid risk, and then asking the government to bail you out of your dumb decision.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On January 16 2013 19:05 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 19:01 Velr wrote:
Helping each other "against" a Natural Disaster is basically the same thing as "defending" each other in times of war.
Or would you also say: "Who cares about Mexico taking over the East Coast by force. I don't live there, they should have taken care of their defenses!"?
By that reasoning there should be no states or any organization that goes beyond your immediate surroundings.
My point is that living on a coast without hurricane insurance coverage is risky behavior. It's akin to a bank investing in a bubble stock only to see it pop. You are taking a stupid risk, and then asking the government to bail you out of your dumb decision.
would tend to agree with this, esp for some jersey people. but this is not a federalism issue.
|
On January 16 2013 19:05 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 19:01 Velr wrote:
Helping each other "against" a Natural Disaster is basically the same thing as "defending" each other in times of war.
Or would you also say: "Who cares about Mexico taking over the East Coast by force. I don't live there, they should have taken care of their defenses!"?
By that reasoning there should be no states or any organization that goes beyond your immediate surroundings.
Well, two things. First, that's military, and clearly agreed to. Second, that would also fall into my unforeseeable category. I mean, seirously, an amphibian Mexican invasion? Nobody could foresee that... My point is that living on a coast without hurricane insurance coverage is risky behavior. It's akin to a bank investing in a bubble stock only to see it pop. You are taking a stupid risk, and then asking the government to bail you out of your dumb decision.
What about people who can't afford hurricane insurance? Are you suggesting they just move out (if they have the money to of course).
I think you need to realize that NY is a place with a lot of young people trying to find their way in life. The city is incredibly expensive, and unless you have a really nice paying job, a lot of times, your money will be going into your rent and food alone. Some people just won't have the luxury of buying all the insurance necessary to cover against disasters, not to mention New York can be hit by more than just hurricanes (there was an earthquake recently).
|
These people should probably not live at the coast or any place which could be hit by a natural disaster (lol).
Ridiculous I know, but I can't see another way the argument against this "help" can lead to any other conclusion...
|
On January 16 2013 19:05 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 19:01 Velr wrote:
Helping each other "against" a Natural Disaster is basically the same thing as "defending" each other in times of war.
Or would you also say: "Who cares about Mexico taking over the East Coast by force. I don't live there, they should have taken care of their defenses!"?
By that reasoning there should be no states or any organization that goes beyond your immediate surroundings.
Well, two things. First, that's military, and clearly agreed to. Second, that would also fall into my unforeseeable category. I mean, seirously, an amphibian Mexican invasion? Nobody could foresee that... My point is that living on a coast without hurricane insurance coverage is risky behavior. It's akin to a bank investing in a bubble stock only to see it pop. You are taking a stupid risk, and then asking the government to bail you out of your dumb decision.
People live in risky places all the time. It's not something you can reasonably avoid as there are very few places to live on this planet that aren't subject to some kind of disaster or ill fortune. Now, naturally you can prepare for the most common - it would be silly, for example, for me not to have some kind of plan in place in case of an earthquake, since I live in Japan. But I'm a native of New Jersey, and I can tell you that strong hurricane-storm-whatevers like Sandy that completely tear up the NJ coast are actually not that common, as in the entirety of my life that I lived there we didn't have any that I can remember. Sure, we have flood insurance and the like because we get storms and floods, but this kind of storm damage is far beyond the norm.
I'll be honest; I'm almost infuriated with the bullshit about disaster relief that's been going on in the Republican House. And it's honestly really disappointing to see the same things being said here. I don't usually post on this thread (read, yes; post, no, because most of the time you guys are way over my head) but reading the comments has really kind of irked me. Full disclosure: My family still lives in New Jersey, and yes they managed to make it out okay, but I'll freely admit that the personal connection to my hometown means I have a more personal stake in the matter and thus I'm far less rational than most of you guys usually are. Seriously, though, I didn't bat a friggin' eyelid when money went to Katrina disaster relief, or Gulf disaster relief, or anything else disaster relief, and pretty much no one else did as well. Yet now when the disaster happens to a place I care about we have to penny-pinch a few billions to make some kind of political point? I'm sorry, but it's complete bullshit.
When shit happens, aren't we supposed to be in this together? Not some 1780s-esque "Well, it's not MY state, so tough cookies" attitude? What happens when the dice come up snake eyes for you and some tornado or earthquake or whatever tears through wherever you come from? That's really what galls me about this whole exercise, the borderline hypocrisy of some of those members of Congress who don't bat an eyelid voting dollars for their own districts but insist it's time to tighten the purse strings and make sacrifices when it's someone else's problem. I'm not even going to bring up the issue of which states pay in more money and receive less back in federal funding because I'm sure it's been done to death at some point anyway. I disagreed with a lot of Chris Christie's policies and I continue to do so, but the man has gained a lot of respect (even if I still disagree) by calling bullshit when he sees it.
On re-reading this post is pretty rambly and somewhat emotional, but I'll just let it go as is. A final note: no "you"s in the post were directed at BluePanther in particular or meant to single him out, it's meant in the collective 'you' sense of people who nitpick at the relief bill.
|
On January 16 2013 14:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 14:08 Zergneedsfood wrote:On January 16 2013 14:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 16 2013 14:02 Zergneedsfood wrote:On January 16 2013 13:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 16 2013 11:11 Adreme wrote:
So it seems the House today finally voted for the additional 50 billion dollars in aid for Sandy relief 241-180 with 49 Republicans joining 192 Democrats to pass it. I dont really understand why you would want to be on record voting against hurricane relief efforts but I guess some districts are really really conservative but even then you would think relief effort would be something everyone supports. There's issues with the bill. Some items are questionable - they look pretty pork-ish - I have no idea if any or how many of those items have been removed or modified. Last I checked the bill also wasn't paid for. A lot of people voted against it for those issues - not because they don't support disaster relief. Wasn't it just one page? And besides, I think it's fine to be opposed to pork, but there are a plenty people who voted against Sandy relief bills but will and were die hard begging the government for relief for their own states (Katrina is an example) during crises. Wasn't what just one page? Also the hypocrisy argument doesn't fly - it's a different bill and a different situation. The proposed bill for relief, as in here. Also, how is it different? Both examples are a case of people getting devastated by a natural disaster (in this case, the same kind of disaster). Both are people who are citizens of the country. Why should we neglect federal aid to one but give freely to another? Yeah, there should be an actual budget to go along with that. As for how its different - the big issue right now at the federal level is how do we lower the deficit. The issue with the bill specifically is not "do we or do we not help disaster areas" - the issue is "are there items in this bill that are excessive" and "how do we pay for this".
This is completely fogging up the real issues. The real way we lower the deficit is by tackling entitlement reform, cutting massive spending in health care, social security, and the military to ensure both sustainability in costs as well as retaining its efficiency, and by reforming a 70,000+ page tax code that is a nightmare for everyone who goes through and reads it.
These amount to more than $50bn dollars (which is like a penny out of the government's checkbook anyway) and amount to hundreds of billions of dollars in their respective budgets and in the case of things like health care, over a trillion a year.
People who say "Oh let's just cut here and there and we'll have ourselves a real deficit plan!" are just fooling themselves. If that was the optimal way to do things, government would have done it by now because the one thing they don't want to do is touch taxes or entitlements, which are the real deficit problems.
And no, there no items in the bill that are excessive because it's one page. The item is we give the Federal Emergency Management Agency more borrowing power so they can use the money to help Hurricane Sandy disaster relief. I don't understand how you can see that as pork unless you specifically bring up some kind of budget that somehow offers farmers and their cows free lunch for a week in California to...pay for this?
And as for how we pay? Simple. The spending cuts and tax increases that were agreed to offset the budget debacle until two months later, not to mention most of the pork was cut out already: see Washington Post. We pay these kind of things all the time. Even back during Katrina we spent over a hundred billion on relief, and if I'm not mistaken, Bush had already wasted all of our budget surpluses by then anyway and was accumulating a deficit. Unless you're consistent with your philosophy of needing to pay for something with actual money instead of issuing debt, there should be no differences in this case.
|
On January 16 2013 23:31 Zergneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 14:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 16 2013 14:08 Zergneedsfood wrote:On January 16 2013 14:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 16 2013 14:02 Zergneedsfood wrote:On January 16 2013 13:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 16 2013 11:11 Adreme wrote:
So it seems the House today finally voted for the additional 50 billion dollars in aid for Sandy relief 241-180 with 49 Republicans joining 192 Democrats to pass it. I dont really understand why you would want to be on record voting against hurricane relief efforts but I guess some districts are really really conservative but even then you would think relief effort would be something everyone supports. There's issues with the bill. Some items are questionable - they look pretty pork-ish - I have no idea if any or how many of those items have been removed or modified. Last I checked the bill also wasn't paid for. A lot of people voted against it for those issues - not because they don't support disaster relief. Wasn't it just one page? And besides, I think it's fine to be opposed to pork, but there are a plenty people who voted against Sandy relief bills but will and were die hard begging the government for relief for their own states (Katrina is an example) during crises. Wasn't what just one page? Also the hypocrisy argument doesn't fly - it's a different bill and a different situation. The proposed bill for relief, as in here. Also, how is it different? Both examples are a case of people getting devastated by a natural disaster (in this case, the same kind of disaster). Both are people who are citizens of the country. Why should we neglect federal aid to one but give freely to another? Yeah, there should be an actual budget to go along with that. As for how its different - the big issue right now at the federal level is how do we lower the deficit. The issue with the bill specifically is not "do we or do we not help disaster areas" - the issue is "are there items in this bill that are excessive" and "how do we pay for this". This is completely fogging up the real issues. The real way we lower the deficit is by tackling entitlement reform, cutting massive spending in health care, social security, and the military to ensure both sustainability in costs as well as retaining its efficiency, and by reforming a 70,000+ page tax code that is a nightmare for everyone who goes through and reads it. These amount to more than $50bn dollars (which is like a penny out of the government's checkbook anyway) and amount to hundreds of billions of dollars in their respective budgets and in the case of things like health care, over a trillion a year. People who say "Oh let's just cut here and there and we'll have ourselves a real deficit plan!" are just fooling themselves. If that was the optimal way to do things, government would have done it by now because the one thing they don't want to do is touch taxes or entitlements, which are the real deficit problems. And no, there no items in the bill that are excessive because it's one page. The item is we give the Federal Emergency Management Agency more borrowing power so they can use the money to help Hurricane Sandy disaster relief. I don't understand how you can see that as pork unless you specifically bring up some kind of budget that somehow offers farmers and their cows free lunch for a week in California to...pay for this? And as for how we pay? Simple. The spending cuts and tax increases that were agreed to offset the budget debacle until two months later, not to mention most of the pork was cut out already: see Washington Post. We pay these kind of things all the time. Even back during Katrina we spent over a hundred billion on relief, and if I'm not mistaken, Bush had already wasted all of our budget surpluses by then anyway and was accumulating a deficit. Unless you're consistent with your philosophy of needing to pay for something with actual money instead of issuing debt, there should be no differences in this case.
Yeah, $50B is a lot of money. It may not be a lot as a percent of the overall budget, but arguing that it is an insignificant amount is ridiculous.
What do you mean "there's no pork because its one page"? You think they came up with $50B by pulling numbers out of a hat? There's a budget and for months people have been saying that there's pork in it (money to Alaska for example). If it has been stripped out - great - but it's unclear if the waste has been stripped out or not. Your WP article is extremely short on information.
Your answer on how we pay for this is nonsense - this is new spending. The tax hikes and yet to be agreed upon spending cuts don't take this into account.
|
Yeah, $50B is a lot of money. It may not be a lot as a percent of the overall budget, but arguing that it is an insignificant amount is ridiculous.
No it's not, relatively speaking. $100 bn for Katrina. Hundreds more for financial institution bailouts. It's a small amount, $50bn, and anyone who has talked budgeting issues knows that it's not that large an amount. We couldn't even agree on a few billion for 9/11 first responders, so I already know this isn't about money. Stop making it seem big.
Maybe it's a lot to you, and it's a lot to me if we had that money, but government? Please. If we could cut $50bn here and there (and we probably could) we could've done it already. And then you realize that it makes up only a slight fraction, but it is insignificant to say otherwise then is for you to neglect the hundreds of billions we've spent on more frivolous measures.
What do you mean "there's no pork because its one page"? You think they came up with $50B by pulling numbers out of a hat? There's a budget and for months people have been saying that there's pork in it (money to Alaska for example). If it has been stripped out - great - but it's unclear if the waste has been stripped out or not. Your WP article is extremely short on information.
.....That's not what pork is. And if you can't read the entire bill and see that there's no pork in it, there's really nothing else to say, lol
|
Obama speach now about the gun control.
Laying down the law, hes such a boss lol.
Texas already say they not going to go with it, got to love cnn.
|
On January 17 2013 01:31 Zergneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +
Yeah, $50B is a lot of money. It may not be a lot as a percent of the overall budget, but arguing that it is an insignificant amount is ridiculous.
No it's not, relatively speaking. $100 bn for Katrina. Hundreds more for financial institution bailouts. It's a small amount, $50bn, and anyone who has talked budgeting issues knows that it's not that large an amount. We couldn't even agree on a few billion for 9/11 first responders, so I already know this isn't about money. Stop making it seem big. Maybe it's a lot to you, and it's a lot to me if we had that money, but government? Please. If we could cut $50bn here and there (and we probably could) we could've done it already. And then you realize that it makes up only a slight fraction, but it is insignificant to say otherwise then is for you to neglect the hundreds of billions we've spent on more frivolous measures.
I've already said that its not big relative to the size of the federal budget. $50B is still an absolutely large sum and Congress, the government body tasked with spending the nation's treasure, should scrutinize it. This is a core function of the organization.
Show nested quote +
What do you mean "there's no pork because its one page"? You think they came up with $50B by pulling numbers out of a hat? There's a budget and for months people have been saying that there's pork in it (money to Alaska for example). If it has been stripped out - great - but it's unclear if the waste has been stripped out or not. Your WP article is extremely short on information.
.....That's not what pork is. And if you can't read the entire bill and see that there's no pork in it, there's really nothing else to say, lol
I don't think you get it. The one page authorization bill is not the issue. We're talking $50B here... how many thousands of line items is that? Do you have a link to the budgets for the bill?
Edit: A little perspective - the Federal government is expected to spend $136B on education and $114B on transportation this year. $50B is no small sum. Source
|
50 Billion dollars is a day or two of labor for every worker in the united states. I personally do not like congress dictating that I must go without pay the next couple of days, and I really don't like it when someone says its not a big deal when they do. Its as if I'm not only a slave, but a worthless one, whose productive efforts can be channeled with little consideration.
|
I've already said that its not big relative to the size of the federal budget. $50B is still an absolutely large sum and Congress, the government body tasked with spending the nation's treasure, should scrutinize it. This is a core function of the organization.
What's there to scrutinize? It's 50bn directed to hurricane aid. What kind of pork is that?
50 Billion dollars is a day or two of labor for every worker in the united states. I personally do not like congress dictating that I must go without pay the next couple of days, and I really don't like it when someone says its not a big deal when they do. Its as if I'm not only a slave, but a worthless one, whose productive efforts can be channeled with little consideration.
How are you going a day or two without pay?
|
On January 17 2013 02:02 Rassy wrote:
Obama speach now about the gun control.
Laying down the law, hes such a boss lol.
Texas already say they not going to go with it, got to love cnn.
You see the NRA's first ad in the media war about it?
+ Show Spoiler +http://nrastandandfight.com/
They're pulling out a new eagle logo for this fight. NRA is probably the strongest and best run lobby in the entire world. Its poor timing for obama now with the republicans stalling for a few months in the house with the budget hassles. I doubt he could even get much gun reform though the house with a few of the provisions hes proposing.
Whats funny is that the NRA only has to buy a little bit of air time for this or any other ads they want to produce and the media will give all the attention they could ever want for this campaign.
|
On January 17 2013 03:06 Zergneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +
I've already said that its not big relative to the size of the federal budget. $50B is still an absolutely large sum and Congress, the government body tasked with spending the nation's treasure, should scrutinize it. This is a core function of the organization.
What's there to scrutinize? It's 50bn directed to hurricane aid. What kind of pork is that? Show nested quote +50 Billion dollars is a day or two of labor for every worker in the united states. I personally do not like congress dictating that I must go without pay the next couple of days, and I really don't like it when someone says its not a big deal when they do. Its as if I'm not only a slave, but a worthless one, whose productive efforts can be channeled with little consideration. How are you going a day or two without pay?
Seriously? You do realize someone has to pay for this, right? Those people are called workers, and 50 billion dollars works out to about 1 to 2 days of labor for every worker in the U.S.
|
On January 17 2013 03:18 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 03:06 Zergneedsfood wrote:
I've already said that its not big relative to the size of the federal budget. $50B is still an absolutely large sum and Congress, the government body tasked with spending the nation's treasure, should scrutinize it. This is a core function of the organization.
What's there to scrutinize? It's 50bn directed to hurricane aid. What kind of pork is that? 50 Billion dollars is a day or two of labor for every worker in the united states. I personally do not like congress dictating that I must go without pay the next couple of days, and I really don't like it when someone says its not a big deal when they do. Its as if I'm not only a slave, but a worthless one, whose productive efforts can be channeled with little consideration. How are you going a day or two without pay? Seriously? You do realize someone has to pay for this, right? Those people are called workers, and 50 billion dollars works out to about 1 to 2 days of labor for every worker in the U.S.
Exactly, how are you going without pay? You're not giving up 100% of your paycheck for this. Stop making it seem all dire.
|
On January 17 2013 03:18 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 03:06 Zergneedsfood wrote:
I've already said that its not big relative to the size of the federal budget. $50B is still an absolutely large sum and Congress, the government body tasked with spending the nation's treasure, should scrutinize it. This is a core function of the organization.
What's there to scrutinize? It's 50bn directed to hurricane aid. What kind of pork is that? 50 Billion dollars is a day or two of labor for every worker in the united states. I personally do not like congress dictating that I must go without pay the next couple of days, and I really don't like it when someone says its not a big deal when they do. Its as if I'm not only a slave, but a worthless one, whose productive efforts can be channeled with little consideration. How are you going a day or two without pay? Seriously? You do realize someone has to pay for this, right? Those people are called workers, and 50 billion dollars works out to about 1 to 2 days of labor for every worker in the U.S.
By what mechanic is this cost carried over to workers? Explain it in detail please.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
