|
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 July 01 2017 08:46 Buckyman wrote:
As far as I can tell from actions, the Democratic party's standard operating procedure is:
* Publicly and visibly do things that look like they help disadvantaged people
* At every possible opportunity, subtly fuck over all the disadvantaged people as hard as they can
It's not like the Republicans decreed that I must severely overpay for health insurance by virtue of being under 60.
Or that states with limited financial means must match the entire medicaid expansion dollar for dollar or lose all of it.
Or that people who can't obtain insurance for some reason deserve to pay a penalty.
Or that health care must be so expensive that people without insurance generally can't afford it (see previous post on basic economics).
Or that the medicaid expansion should be partly funded by special taxes on health insurance and health care.
Or that I can't get a more affordable insurance policy that covers a relevant subset of possible health issues.
Of course, I don't think the Democrats ordered the exchange to kick me out for no explained reason either. That's just bureaucracy being awful because it can.
I actually agree with all of this post.
On July 01 2017 09:09 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 09:05 zlefin wrote:
it's a claim clearly based on hate and bias, rather than a careful study. the way you phrase it is filled with venom. it's easy to see hwat you want to see; it's far harder to carefully assess whether it's actually correct or not.
the actual motivations are better in most of the cases, and fairly understandable. (and at any rate, the republicans are clearly no better)
and you've still got no real case for blaming the dems over the republicans. I blame the Democrats on health care and health insurance only because the Republicans had no say in the matter until this year. I'm not thrilled with how the Republicans have handled it either. Judging the Republicans by the same standard, they're apathetic rather than malicious.
Two for two. The GOP's fumble turnover was just to fumble it again. I'd put more cowardice than apathy in their actions, but judging the two congressional actions by the same standard really turns up the same result.
|
On July 01 2017 10:58 Introvert wrote:States really don't like it when the feds try to oversee or interfere in any way with their election process. edit: of course the liberal states go with "omg voter suppression," the usual ratcheting up to 11, but used to that from them by now.
I'm pretty much in favor with States going "Fuck You" to the feds when they want shit like this done. The national election is simply a term of art, it's really 50 (51) separate elections and the States have control.
|
On July 01 2017 13:26 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 08:33 Plansix wrote:On July 01 2017 07:41 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 07:22 Plansix wrote:
Why does entitlement reform always come with cutting entitlements and the taxes that fund them? It would be like if I was going balance my budget, but also not buy cloths any more because I have enough for the rest of my life. They bankrupt the country and you get no money to spend on anything if left untouched. One hundred trillion in unfunded liabilities is where these stand; that's a whole lotta rich people you don't have sitting around to fleece. And you accuse people of hysterical language and partisan dialog. The federal debt is a real and persistent threat as long as money doesn't grow on trees. It's pretty anti-science to want attention to global warming and ignore the costs associated with growth in entitlement spending.
You act like these are problems that other nations have not figured out. The problem with conservative thinking is that they want watch other nations surpass us, will calling size greatness. Their dream is a Hobbesian wasteland where the scraps are America are to be fought over. Maybe some real tax reform a modern healthcare system would be a good place to start. But that isn't what our right wing wants. They want to demonize government to get elected and then enrich themselves the wealthy.
|
On July 01 2017 13:36 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 13:26 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 08:33 Plansix wrote:On July 01 2017 07:41 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 07:22 Plansix wrote:
Why does entitlement reform always come with cutting entitlements and the taxes that fund them? It would be like if I was going balance my budget, but also not buy cloths any more because I have enough for the rest of my life. They bankrupt the country and you get no money to spend on anything if left untouched. One hundred trillion in unfunded liabilities is where these stand; that's a whole lotta rich people you don't have sitting around to fleece. And you accuse people of hysterical language and partisan dialog. The federal debt is a real and persistent threat as long as money doesn't grow on trees. It's pretty anti-science to want attention to global warming and ignore the costs associated with growth in entitlement spending. You act like these are problems that other nations have not figured out. The problem with conservative thinking is that they want watch other nations surpass us, will calling size greatness. Their dream is a Hobbesian wasteland where the scraps are America are to be fought over. Maybe some real tax reform a modern healthcare system would be a good place to start. But that isn't what our right wing wants. They want to demonize government to get elected and then enrich themselves the wealthy.
And the left wants to act like America is similar in size and diversity to all these other countries. If we had the French civil service or like the scandinavians you got a bridge instead of a boondoggle, I'd be a little more enthusiastic about the possibilities and scope of what can reasonably be accomplished. But we've shown American exceptionalism in the failure of our administrative state like our educational system, such that continued throwing money at the system or pretending we have one instead of two stupid parties is the marker of a braindead voter.
|
On July 01 2017 13:26 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 08:33 Plansix wrote:On July 01 2017 07:41 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 07:22 Plansix wrote:
Why does entitlement reform always come with cutting entitlements and the taxes that fund them? It would be like if I was going balance my budget, but also not buy cloths any more because I have enough for the rest of my life. They bankrupt the country and you get no money to spend on anything if left untouched. One hundred trillion in unfunded liabilities is where these stand; that's a whole lotta rich people you don't have sitting around to fleece. And you accuse people of hysterical language and partisan dialog. The federal debt is a real and persistent threat as long as money doesn't grow on trees. It's pretty anti-science to want attention to global warming and ignore the costs associated with growth in entitlement spending.
And now you're just hopping from one attack on dems to the other. Maybe instead of blaming the dems if the republicans bothered showing some fiscal and social responsibility we could actually make government actually work for the people.
|
On July 01 2017 13:26 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 08:33 Plansix wrote:On July 01 2017 07:41 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 07:22 Plansix wrote:
Why does entitlement reform always come with cutting entitlements and the taxes that fund them? It would be like if I was going balance my budget, but also not buy cloths any more because I have enough for the rest of my life. They bankrupt the country and you get no money to spend on anything if left untouched. One hundred trillion in unfunded liabilities is where these stand; that's a whole lotta rich people you don't have sitting around to fleece. And you accuse people of hysterical language and partisan dialog. The federal debt is a real and persistent threat as long as money doesn't grow on trees. It's pretty anti-science to want attention to global warming and ignore the costs associated with growth in entitlement spending.
The problem here is that global warming is a real subject. It doesn't matter if you're republican or democrat, it's very real. The same with health insurance, both very real subjects. And I feel that part of the government is choosing to ignore what's in their faces for personal pride, and it will get millions killed. As a Floridian, I definitely notice it getting hotter every year. This year it's just been unbearable to go outside of your house for more than 30 minutes.
The point is, stop ignoring shit. Everything cost money, but if you don't invest, you don't ever grow.
|
Sooooooo, according to Alex Jones, there is a conspiracy to abduct children that serve as sex slaves on motherfucking Mars.
Remember folks. Jones is amazing and the NYT is fake news.
|
Trump also reestablished the National Space Council just last night. Dunno what will come of it but I can say quite confidently that I was really quite unhappy with how Obama dealt with space and it's one of the few things that Republicans tend to care more about.
|
On July 01 2017 22:36 LegalLord wrote:
Trump also reestablished the National Space Council just last night. Dunno what will come of it but I can say quite confidently that I was really quite unhappy with how Obama dealt with space and it's one of the few things that Republicans tend to care more about.
But during fiscal years 2011 through 2014, Congress approved less than requested. NASA’s funding decreased to a low of $16.9 billion in fiscal 2013 before increasing to $19.3 billion in fiscal 2016.
Republican held. You can't really blame Obama for how he handled "space" (although he did cut funding a bit, it was nowhere near the numbers that were approved) if congress approves considerably less than proposed by him.
edit: you should also be very careful in regards to what you wish for. Trump made it clear that he wants NASA to run like a for profit company. Which nullifies any chance of greatness happening, considering that everything great that the NASA accomplished (Apollo, Shuttle etc) were all horrendous achievements from a business point of view.
edit2: not to mention that rushing people to Mars is quite stupid if you cut climate science and education in the progress. Which is exactly what is proposed.
|
On July 01 2017 22:36 LegalLord wrote:
Trump also reestablished the National Space Council just last night. Dunno what will come of it but I can say quite confidently that I was really quite unhappy with how Obama dealt with space and it's one of the few things that Republicans tend to care more about.
"We're going to put a military base on the moon. It'll be Yuge."
|
On July 01 2017 23:24 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 22:36 LegalLord wrote:
Trump also reestablished the National Space Council just last night. Dunno what will come of it but I can say quite confidently that I was really quite unhappy with how Obama dealt with space and it's one of the few things that Republicans tend to care more about. "We're going to put a military base on the moon. It'll be Yuge."
Pretty sure that there's some sane advisers left that would break to him that an announcement like that most likely would lead to WW3.
edit: at least i hope there are. Somewhere, maybe.
|
I'm not a fan of the Mars plans; I think it makes more sense to do more Moon based work. developing tech for harvesting local minerals to build components.
(a military base on the moon is infeasible, also pointless, and a violation of the space weaponization treaty)
|
On July 01 2017 17:32 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 13:26 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 08:33 Plansix wrote:On July 01 2017 07:41 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 07:22 Plansix wrote:
Why does entitlement reform always come with cutting entitlements and the taxes that fund them? It would be like if I was going balance my budget, but also not buy cloths any more because I have enough for the rest of my life. They bankrupt the country and you get no money to spend on anything if left untouched. One hundred trillion in unfunded liabilities is where these stand; that's a whole lotta rich people you don't have sitting around to fleece. And you accuse people of hysterical language and partisan dialog. The federal debt is a real and persistent threat as long as money doesn't grow on trees. It's pretty anti-science to want attention to global warming and ignore the costs associated with growth in entitlement spending. The problem here is that global warming is a real subject. It doesn't matter if you're republican or democrat, it's very real. The same with health insurance, both very real subjects. And I feel that part of the government is choosing to ignore what's in their faces for personal pride, and it will get millions killed. As a Floridian, I definitely notice it getting hotter every year. This year it's just been unbearable to go outside of your house for more than 30 minutes. The point is, stop ignoring shit. Everything cost money, but if you don't invest, you don't ever grow.
Careful, you're pulling an Imhoff : )
|
On July 01 2017 23:30 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 23:24 Gahlo wrote:On July 01 2017 22:36 LegalLord wrote:
Trump also reestablished the National Space Council just last night. Dunno what will come of it but I can say quite confidently that I was really quite unhappy with how Obama dealt with space and it's one of the few things that Republicans tend to care more about. "We're going to put a military base on the moon. It'll be Yuge." Pretty sure that there's some sane advisers left that would break to him that an announcement like that most likely would lead to WW3. edit: at least i hope there are. Somewhere, maybe.
If history has told me anything, he'd disregard them. Then they'd leak it to the media. Then it will simultaneously be decried as fake news AND partisan hackery for leaking. As the tiny bow at the end, it will somehow end up back to Hillary's emails.
|
On July 01 2017 23:19 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 22:36 LegalLord wrote:
Trump also reestablished the National Space Council just last night. Dunno what will come of it but I can say quite confidently that I was really quite unhappy with how Obama dealt with space and it's one of the few things that Republicans tend to care more about. Show nested quote +But during fiscal years 2011 through 2014, Congress approved less than requested. NASA’s funding decreased to a low of $16.9 billion in fiscal 2013 before increasing to $19.3 billion in fiscal 2016. You can't really blame Obama for how he handled "space" (although he did cut funding a bit, it was nowhere near the numbers that were approved) if congress approves considerably less than proposed by him.
Congress deserves its own amount of flak for how badly it handled space - and I'm not all that confident that Trump could do it better (he tends to fuck up everything he touches; my "hope" is more of a whimsical sort of "I hope things go better than before" than a realistic hope for a better tomorrow) - but don't give Obama more credit than he deserves. His space policy was completely and utterly short-sighted.
For one, he basically gutted NASA in terms of useful contributions towards the future. He ended the Shuttle, an understandable choice given the fact that its retirement was at least two decades overdue by 2011. He cancelled Constellation, which although kind of understandable given how expensive it was, was done in quite a shitty way that left NASA without any real plan for the future. The Space Launch System is a rocket designed by politicians rather than engineers and while it could work eventually, its complete and utter lack of hype is well-deserved. NASA still does good work but does so without any direction.
Obama's big strides forward would be in the "New Space" industry, where his support for commercial endeavors helped build up SpaceX. I guess there are benefits to that, although people tend to be blind to the fact that it's probably more trouble than it's worth as a company. But the cost-based focus that it helped introduce to spacing is certainly a good thing. I can't say I think that Commercial Crew achieved what it hoped to, given that the retirement of the Shuttle was expected to lead to a 7 year gap under Constellation, four years under CC, and we're coming up on seven years and we're probably still not on track to have it done on the time schedule assigned.
Obama with the help of Congress played the "balance the budget" game on NASA and in the process sort of left it without a direction. If you think Trump's idea for a direction for NASA is wrong, I would not disagree. But the trajectory NASA is heading on is lamentable, the private industry won't have much success if NASA takes another plunge, and honestly we need to sit down and reassess the direction NASA is heading. Because right now we are just boldly going nowhere. I could hope, at least, that such a discussion would yield some fruitful pushes towards a better future.
|
Also, Obama redirected hundreds of millions of dollars from NASA's already cramped budget to study climate change. I get that he thought climate change was important, but most of that is outside the scope of NASA's mission (space) and more appropriate for NOAA.
|
On July 01 2017 23:51 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 23:19 m4ini wrote:On July 01 2017 22:36 LegalLord wrote:
Trump also reestablished the National Space Council just last night. Dunno what will come of it but I can say quite confidently that I was really quite unhappy with how Obama dealt with space and it's one of the few things that Republicans tend to care more about. But during fiscal years 2011 through 2014, Congress approved less than requested. NASA’s funding decreased to a low of $16.9 billion in fiscal 2013 before increasing to $19.3 billion in fiscal 2016. You can't really blame Obama for how he handled "space" (although he did cut funding a bit, it was nowhere near the numbers that were approved) if congress approves considerably less than proposed by him. Congress deserves its own amount of flak for how badly it handled space - and I'm not all that confident that Trump could do it better (he tends to fuck up everything he touches; my "hope" is more of a whimsical sort of "I hope things go better than before" than a realistic hope for a better tomorrow) - but don't give Obama more credit than he deserves. His space policy was completely and utterly short-sighted.
I wouldn't call it short-sighted.
For one, he basically gutted NASA in terms of useful contributions towards the future. He ended the Shuttle, an understandable choice given the fact that its retirement was at least two decades overdue by 2011. He cancelled Constellation, which although kind of understandable given how expensive it was, was done in quite a shitty way that left NASA without any real plan for the future. The Space Launch System is a rocket designed by politicians rather than engineers and while it could work eventually, its complete and utter lack of hype is well-deserved. NASA still does good work but does so without any direction.
So you're saying he gutted NASA by finally retiring the Shuttle. As you rightfully said, way overdue. So that's really not a negative thing to do, in fact it should've been done already 20 years ago. He also didn't just stop Constellation on a whim, but based on results of the Augustine Commission. Granted, he could've doubled NASAs budget and give constellation a go, but i don't really think that'd be a smart thing to do.
The SLS is worthless in its current state, and it'll be very hard to give it even a reason to even exist. The SLS is not designed by "politicians", but "republicans". It's the same shit like the shuttle all over again. It's WAY too expensive to be useful. Don't get me wrong, i think the shuttle is cool, but objectively it was a monumental failure regardless of the accomplishments. The SLS is the same minus accomplishments: the money would've been spent better elsewhere.
Obama with the help of Congress played the "balance the budget" game on NASA and in the process sort of left it without a direction. If you think Trump's idea for a direction for NASA is wrong, I would not disagree. But the trajectory NASA is heading on is lamentable, the private industry won't have much success if NASA takes another plunge, and honestly we need to sit down and reassess the direction NASA is heading. Because right now we are just boldly going nowhere. I could hope, at least, that such a discussion would yield some fruitful pushes towards a better future.
If you look at what Obama actually tried to do, i would say that, at least in our current timeframe, was a really smart thing to do. Not as flashy as riding an explosion to the moon, but for "the future", it would be by far one of the best options. People need to get rid of the image of the Space Shuttle/Saturn V when they think "NASA". That's not all the NASA is.
I personally don't think that neither Mars nor Moon would be of any benefit to humanity currently. While i do love space and space exploration, there's far more pressing matters currently where the NASA could be the solution, or at least a big player - sadly, that would require people in power who don't think the earth is flat, 6000 years old or similar.
Also, Obama redirected hundreds of millions of dollars from NASA's already cramped budget to study climate change. I get that he thought climate change was important, but most of that is outside the scope of NASA's mission (space) and more appropriate for NOAA.
There we go. NASAs mission is NOT "space". It's as much "space" as it is aeronautics and aerospace research. In fact, google NASA ESE.
|
On July 01 2017 15:22 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 13:26 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 08:33 Plansix wrote:On July 01 2017 07:41 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 07:22 Plansix wrote:
Why does entitlement reform always come with cutting entitlements and the taxes that fund them? It would be like if I was going balance my budget, but also not buy cloths any more because I have enough for the rest of my life. They bankrupt the country and you get no money to spend on anything if left untouched. One hundred trillion in unfunded liabilities is where these stand; that's a whole lotta rich people you don't have sitting around to fleece. And you accuse people of hysterical language and partisan dialog. The federal debt is a real and persistent threat as long as money doesn't grow on trees. It's pretty anti-science to want attention to global warming and ignore the costs associated with growth in entitlement spending. And now you're just hopping from one attack on dems to the other. Maybe instead of blaming the dems if the republicans bothered showing some fiscal and social responsibility we could actually make government actually work for the people.
It's an apt comparison. You want pity for your apocalypse scenario, but won't admit any budgetary disaster-in-waiting? I'm very sorry, I'm running out of tolerance for double standard.
Also, nice pivot to Dems when I didn't even mention party names.
|
Genuine question, did some googling but couldn't find anything even close to non partisan and with some statistics.
Are there actual statistic on the amount of bombing performed by the U.S government trough each term? Ideally with some breakdown on who issued them, and what current plans are?
I'm particularly interested on Trump's future plans regarding the agressive bombing policy by Obama. As it stands now, I'm a firm believer that one should not bomb countries (duh) but def not bomb them and take refugees from them at the same time, for what would seem an obvious reasoning to me.
|
Are there actual statistic on the amount of bombing performed by the U.S government trough each term? Ideally with some breakdown on who issued them, and what current plans are?
Considering what i've read so far about Obamas dronestrikes etc, i'm pretty sure it's next to impossible to get any accurate numbers for that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
