|
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 February 12 2018 11:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2018 11:32 zlefin wrote:
ok, so you refused to clarify the point that would explain your case, when I specifically asked for it. I asked for what changed, you said conditions weren't right, and now they are. you ignored my query for what changed, and now you assert a change and refuse to explain it. inevitable is a very strong claim, which you've no got a basis for; nor do you have enough credibility for your assessment on its own to be worth anything. So since you've got nothing, and are changing your story and arguing in bad form (not bad faith, just very sloppy form), I clearly won't get anything useful out of your points, if there even is any underlying merit to them, which is also doubtful. You do you. That IgnE got it (and I don't think insulted me) makes me feel that I did fine making my point.
I see no post from igne subsequent to the point where I entered which would establish that, therefore I question your conclusion. but like you say, you do you, even if it means completely ignoring the sound point I made to feel that you're correct.
|
|
|
Ugh, thanks for that mental image CNN. Now I wanna poke out my mind's eye....
|
 
What a horrifying thing to visualize.
|
Inspiring choice in friends, shine Flynn is batshit.
|
On February 12 2018 11:46 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2018 11:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 12 2018 11:32 zlefin wrote:
ok, so you refused to clarify the point that would explain your case, when I specifically asked for it. I asked for what changed, you said conditions weren't right, and now they are. you ignored my query for what changed, and now you assert a change and refuse to explain it. inevitable is a very strong claim, which you've no got a basis for; nor do you have enough credibility for your assessment on its own to be worth anything. So since you've got nothing, and are changing your story and arguing in bad form (not bad faith, just very sloppy form), I clearly won't get anything useful out of your points, if there even is any underlying merit to them, which is also doubtful. You do you. That IgnE got it (and I don't think insulted me) makes me feel that I did fine making my point. I see no post from igne subsequent to the point where I entered which would establish that, therefore I question your conclusion. but like you say, you do you, even if it means completely ignoring the sound point I made to feel that you're correct.
I'm honestly not sure why you choose to engage sometimes as it usually ends with you sending personal attacks through PM and saying you're going to ignore me.
But since you did the post I was referring to was the one pointing out that there is systemic corruption that existed under Obama (not that it started then) that I can only dream of liberals being so hyper focused on. Had they, there wouldn't have been a President Trump able to grift the presidency into the ground.
|
On February 12 2018 18:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2018 11:46 zlefin wrote:On February 12 2018 11:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 12 2018 11:32 zlefin wrote:
ok, so you refused to clarify the point that would explain your case, when I specifically asked for it. I asked for what changed, you said conditions weren't right, and now they are. you ignored my query for what changed, and now you assert a change and refuse to explain it. inevitable is a very strong claim, which you've no got a basis for; nor do you have enough credibility for your assessment on its own to be worth anything. So since you've got nothing, and are changing your story and arguing in bad form (not bad faith, just very sloppy form), I clearly won't get anything useful out of your points, if there even is any underlying merit to them, which is also doubtful. You do you. That IgnE got it (and I don't think insulted me) makes me feel that I did fine making my point. I see no post from igne subsequent to the point where I entered which would establish that, therefore I question your conclusion. but like you say, you do you, even if it means completely ignoring the sound point I made to feel that you're correct. I'm honestly not sure why you choose to engage sometimes as it usually ends with you sending personal attacks through PM and saying you're going to ignore me. But since you did the post I was referring to was the one pointing out that there is systemic corruption that existed under Obama (not that it started then) that I can only dream of liberals being so hyper focused on. Had they, there wouldn't have been a President Trump able to grift the presidency into the ground.
You seem to have a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc.
And as to your greater point, I mostly agree with you.
it kinda depends on how bad corruption is, how strictly you have to combat it. I have lived and worked in. The Netherlands, and Brazil. In one of those countries, it is completely fine to send business contacts a Christmas gift, in the other it is against the law. Yet the country where it is against the law has far larger problems with corruption than the one where you can have a friendly relationship with business partners.
That is because a culture in which rampant abuse of the rules is acceptable means that the rules get stricter while abuse gets worse (and the rules are essentially worthless). If a Christmas gift is never conceived of as a bribe, then it really doesn't matter. If however, a Christmas gift is implicitly a bribe, then you should try to stop that custom. Unfortunately it goes far deeper than that: if you've reached the point that Christmas gifts are bribes, then bribery is so ingrained in the culture that no rules will affect it, and the only way to reduce corruption systematically is through a change of culture. Rules only help vs a (small) minority of abusers. If everyone is in on it, then you can make the rules as strict as you like, but they are being ignored anyway (there's always a jeitinho).
Now I'm not sure where exactly the US falls and how systemic corruption is. If in general people reject corruption, they need to make that an issue in the ballot box. If people in general are open to a little bit of greasing one another's palms, then you need to change that before any action in the ballot box will help: how can you fault Donald Trump for his self-enrichment if not only everybody else you might vote for would do the same, but so would average Joe if he were the president...
|
On February 12 2018 18:34 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2018 18:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 12 2018 11:46 zlefin wrote:On February 12 2018 11:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 12 2018 11:32 zlefin wrote:
ok, so you refused to clarify the point that would explain your case, when I specifically asked for it. I asked for what changed, you said conditions weren't right, and now they are. you ignored my query for what changed, and now you assert a change and refuse to explain it. inevitable is a very strong claim, which you've no got a basis for; nor do you have enough credibility for your assessment on its own to be worth anything. So since you've got nothing, and are changing your story and arguing in bad form (not bad faith, just very sloppy form), I clearly won't get anything useful out of your points, if there even is any underlying merit to them, which is also doubtful. You do you. That IgnE got it (and I don't think insulted me) makes me feel that I did fine making my point. I see no post from igne subsequent to the point where I entered which would establish that, therefore I question your conclusion. but like you say, you do you, even if it means completely ignoring the sound point I made to feel that you're correct. I'm honestly not sure why you choose to engage sometimes as it usually ends with you sending personal attacks through PM and saying you're going to ignore me. But since you did the post I was referring to was the one pointing out that there is systemic corruption that existed under Obama (not that it started then) that I can only dream of liberals being so hyper focused on. Had they, there wouldn't have been a President Trump able to grift the presidency into the ground. You seem to have a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc. And as to your greater point, I mostly agree with you. it kinda depends on how bad corruption is, how strictly you have to combat it. I have lived and worked in. The Netherlands, and Brazil. In one of those countries, it is completely fine to send business contacts a Christmas gift, in the other it is against the law. Yet the country where it is against the law has far larger problems with corruption than the one where you can have a friendly relationship with business partners. That is because a culture in which rampant abuse of the rules is acceptable means that the rules get stricter while abuse gets worse (and the rules are essentially worthless). If a Christmas gift is never conceived of as a bribe, then it really doesn't matter. If however, a Christmas gift is implicitly a bribe, then you should try to stop that custom. Unfortunately it goes far deeper than that: if you've reached the point that Christmas gifts are bribes, then bribery is so ingrained in the culture that no rules will affect it, and the only way to reduce corruption systematically is through a change of culture. Rules only help vs a (small) minority of abusers. If everyone is in on it, then you can make the rules as strict as you like, but they are being ignored anyway (there's always a jeitinho). Now I'm not sure where exactly the US falls and how systemic corruption is. If in general people reject corruption, they need to make that an issue in the ballot box. If people in general are open to a little bit of greasing one another's palms, then you need to change that before any action in the ballot box will help: how can you fault Donald Trump for his self-enrichment if not only everybody else you might vote for would do the same, but so would average Joe if he were the president...
I think we mostly agree. Basically from my perspective it's the culture thing. The worship of a false meritocracy, the willful blindness to privilege, the rationalizations of bribery and corruption, and so on. People were looking for either Hillary or Trump to be the solution to a problem they are the pinnacle personification of. The problem isn't our politicians, it's us.
EDIT: Which is one reason why the obsession with Trump (and especially the Russia part) is so problematic to me. Not only is this feeble attempt at holding him accountable failing going to undermine the potential to stop this type of stuff (presumably on a more meticulous level) in the future, its laser like focus on Trump and his associates, rather than the game they are playing like drunk college students, means that the people who need to stay vigilant will go back to brunch as soon as it's a Democrat in office.
|
Once upon a time, not too long ago Zlefin made a series of posts about how you could cut military spending by 50% without causing problems. When asked how he could do it, he responded with this:
On January 13 2018 01:29 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2018 01:16 bo1b wrote:On January 13 2018 01:07 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2018 00:59 bo1b wrote:
Just to be clear, are you advocating that both the spending on military during peace time is welfare, and that a massive reduction in welfare would be better? it's not exactly welfare, but it's not necessarily dissimilar (though it's not well-aimed as a welfare program, other programs do a far better job of being welfare programs). It's not economically productive activity, so it's loss would not result in horrible economic consequences; not sure it should even effect gdp at all. it's not a very good welfare program, so if the only point of it is welfare spending it'd be FAR better spent in other ways, or simply not spent at all to reduce debt. remember - this is ultimately all from me disputing your claim of disastrous economic consequences from cutting US military spending. That's fair, to be honest we don't have a particularly good way of predicting the outcome of such an event so we're both shooting in the dark a little bit aren't we? I'd personally say the economic benefits (or not) of the military spending are a side effect of the greater goal of maintaining a military. As nice as it is having NASA be funded by the defense force, the ultimate goal is to maintain a level of discipline and up keep on the military itself, I think. It just has the side effect of putting a lot of young men and women through college, providing a decent enough income, providing a way of gaining a green card, and just generally being a pretty decent way of moving up socioeconomically. While I personally believe the damage to the global economy would be fairly dramatic if Russia was able to fulfill it's colonial plans, and China too, I have no way of quantifying that. Just like I have no way of quantifying what changing the spending direction of 540 billion dollars or so would do to the world. It is just conjecture at this point  the greater goal of the military is unnecessary, at least unnecessary at the current highly wasteful spending levels. the goals could easily be achieved at far lower cost. the spending is mostly a result of politics rather than actual need. the side effect doesn't mean much when there's other far cheaper ways to get those effects. while we can't perfectly predict it, there's enough data to make some fairly clear conclusions on it, so we're not just shooting in the dark (or at leas ti'm not, dunno about you, but I'm assuming you have similar knowledge). and as I said, a 90% cut would be a bit much, but 50% would be fine. @stratos not sure who you're arguing against; as a vague "progressives" could refer to anyone or nearly noone. i'll assume you're not arguing against me unless you provide a clear signal to the contrary; and that you're just instead ranting at random people who aren't here.
On January 13 2018 01:47 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2018 01:41 bo1b wrote:On January 13 2018 01:38 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2018 01:36 bo1b wrote:
It seems American government spending as a whole has this problem though, how do you suggest cutting through it? Could dramatically improve U.S health care per dollar spent if you solve it. that's a tricky one; I'm only good at figuring out and identifying good/bad policy. i'm very bad at the politics of convincing people and getting it implemented (some of which depends on catering to and abusing the irrationalities of voters). I'm not sure how to combat government waste at that size, which to me seems a bit of an intractable problem. it is hard indeed; the problem is it's an outgrowth of misleading voters and/or other aggregate effects of human behavior. it's hard to get leaders focused on actually sensible thoughtful policy. and i'm certainly not gonna manage to win any elections. some of it is an unfortunate but inevitable outcome of democracy.
For a person who lauds himself on fantastic arguing, and frequently tells other people what the problems with their arguments are, you would think that after positing an argument they would be able to provide some pretty solid evidence, or really, any at all.
User was warned for this post
|
On February 12 2018 19:01 bo1b wrote:Once upon a time, not too long ago Zlefin made a series of posts about how you could cut military spending by 50% without causing problems. When asked how he could do it, he responded with this: Show nested quote +On January 13 2018 01:29 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2018 01:16 bo1b wrote:On January 13 2018 01:07 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2018 00:59 bo1b wrote:
Just to be clear, are you advocating that both the spending on military during peace time is welfare, and that a massive reduction in welfare would be better? it's not exactly welfare, but it's not necessarily dissimilar (though it's not well-aimed as a welfare program, other programs do a far better job of being welfare programs). It's not economically productive activity, so it's loss would not result in horrible economic consequences; not sure it should even effect gdp at all. it's not a very good welfare program, so if the only point of it is welfare spending it'd be FAR better spent in other ways, or simply not spent at all to reduce debt. remember - this is ultimately all from me disputing your claim of disastrous economic consequences from cutting US military spending. That's fair, to be honest we don't have a particularly good way of predicting the outcome of such an event so we're both shooting in the dark a little bit aren't we? I'd personally say the economic benefits (or not) of the military spending are a side effect of the greater goal of maintaining a military. As nice as it is having NASA be funded by the defense force, the ultimate goal is to maintain a level of discipline and up keep on the military itself, I think. It just has the side effect of putting a lot of young men and women through college, providing a decent enough income, providing a way of gaining a green card, and just generally being a pretty decent way of moving up socioeconomically. While I personally believe the damage to the global economy would be fairly dramatic if Russia was able to fulfill it's colonial plans, and China too, I have no way of quantifying that. Just like I have no way of quantifying what changing the spending direction of 540 billion dollars or so would do to the world. It is just conjecture at this point the greater goal of the military is unnecessary, at least unnecessary at the current highly wasteful spending levels. the goals could easily be achieved at far lower cost. the spending is mostly a result of politics rather than actual need. the side effect doesn't mean much when there's other far cheaper ways to get those effects. while we can't perfectly predict it, there's enough data to make some fairly clear conclusions on it, so we're not just shooting in the dark (or at leas ti'm not, dunno about you, but I'm assuming you have similar knowledge). and as I said, a 90% cut would be a bit much, but 50% would be fine. @stratos not sure who you're arguing against; as a vague "progressives" could refer to anyone or nearly noone. i'll assume you're not arguing against me unless you provide a clear signal to the contrary; and that you're just instead ranting at random people who aren't here. Show nested quote +On January 13 2018 01:47 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2018 01:41 bo1b wrote:On January 13 2018 01:38 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2018 01:36 bo1b wrote:
It seems American government spending as a whole has this problem though, how do you suggest cutting through it? Could dramatically improve U.S health care per dollar spent if you solve it. that's a tricky one; I'm only good at figuring out and identifying good/bad policy. i'm very bad at the politics of convincing people and getting it implemented (some of which depends on catering to and abusing the irrationalities of voters). I'm not sure how to combat government waste at that size, which to me seems a bit of an intractable problem. it is hard indeed; the problem is it's an outgrowth of misleading voters and/or other aggregate effects of human behavior. it's hard to get leaders focused on actually sensible thoughtful policy. and i'm certainly not gonna manage to win any elections. some of it is an unfortunate but inevitable outcome of democracy. For a person who lauds himself on fantastic arguing, and frequently tells other people what the problems with their arguments are, you would think that after positing an argument they would be able to provide some pretty solid evidence, or really, any at all.
Is this apropos to anything or are you just dredging up a month-old conversation to shit-stir?
|
Amazing. Even being fascist is tiring apparently.
|
On February 12 2018 20:04 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2018 19:01 bo1b wrote:Once upon a time, not too long ago Zlefin made a series of posts about how you could cut military spending by 50% without causing problems. When asked how he could do it, he responded with this: On January 13 2018 01:29 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2018 01:16 bo1b wrote:On January 13 2018 01:07 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2018 00:59 bo1b wrote:
Just to be clear, are you advocating that both the spending on military during peace time is welfare, and that a massive reduction in welfare would be better? it's not exactly welfare, but it's not necessarily dissimilar (though it's not well-aimed as a welfare program, other programs do a far better job of being welfare programs). It's not economically productive activity, so it's loss would not result in horrible economic consequences; not sure it should even effect gdp at all. it's not a very good welfare program, so if the only point of it is welfare spending it'd be FAR better spent in other ways, or simply not spent at all to reduce debt. remember - this is ultimately all from me disputing your claim of disastrous economic consequences from cutting US military spending. That's fair, to be honest we don't have a particularly good way of predicting the outcome of such an event so we're both shooting in the dark a little bit aren't we? I'd personally say the economic benefits (or not) of the military spending are a side effect of the greater goal of maintaining a military. As nice as it is having NASA be funded by the defense force, the ultimate goal is to maintain a level of discipline and up keep on the military itself, I think. It just has the side effect of putting a lot of young men and women through college, providing a decent enough income, providing a way of gaining a green card, and just generally being a pretty decent way of moving up socioeconomically. While I personally believe the damage to the global economy would be fairly dramatic if Russia was able to fulfill it's colonial plans, and China too, I have no way of quantifying that. Just like I have no way of quantifying what changing the spending direction of 540 billion dollars or so would do to the world. It is just conjecture at this point the greater goal of the military is unnecessary, at least unnecessary at the current highly wasteful spending levels. the goals could easily be achieved at far lower cost. the spending is mostly a result of politics rather than actual need. the side effect doesn't mean much when there's other far cheaper ways to get those effects. while we can't perfectly predict it, there's enough data to make some fairly clear conclusions on it, so we're not just shooting in the dark (or at leas ti'm not, dunno about you, but I'm assuming you have similar knowledge). and as I said, a 90% cut would be a bit much, but 50% would be fine. @stratos not sure who you're arguing against; as a vague "progressives" could refer to anyone or nearly noone. i'll assume you're not arguing against me unless you provide a clear signal to the contrary; and that you're just instead ranting at random people who aren't here. On January 13 2018 01:47 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2018 01:41 bo1b wrote:On January 13 2018 01:38 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2018 01:36 bo1b wrote:
It seems American government spending as a whole has this problem though, how do you suggest cutting through it? Could dramatically improve U.S health care per dollar spent if you solve it. that's a tricky one; I'm only good at figuring out and identifying good/bad policy. i'm very bad at the politics of convincing people and getting it implemented (some of which depends on catering to and abusing the irrationalities of voters). I'm not sure how to combat government waste at that size, which to me seems a bit of an intractable problem. it is hard indeed; the problem is it's an outgrowth of misleading voters and/or other aggregate effects of human behavior. it's hard to get leaders focused on actually sensible thoughtful policy. and i'm certainly not gonna manage to win any elections. some of it is an unfortunate but inevitable outcome of democracy. For a person who lauds himself on fantastic arguing, and frequently tells other people what the problems with their arguments are, you would think that after positing an argument they would be able to provide some pretty solid evidence, or really, any at all. Is this apropos to anything or are you just dredging up a month-old conversation to shit-stir?
It's apropros to the fact that only 11 hours ago from this moment he was just going out of his way to tell people why their arguments were wrong, when he himself is hardly a pinnacle of sound argument making. Hypocrisy rankles.
|
On February 12 2018 22:49 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2018 20:04 Aquanim wrote:On February 12 2018 19:01 bo1b wrote:Once upon a time, not too long ago Zlefin made a series of posts about how you could cut military spending by 50% without causing problems. When asked how he could do it, he responded with this: On January 13 2018 01:29 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2018 01:16 bo1b wrote:On January 13 2018 01:07 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2018 00:59 bo1b wrote:
Just to be clear, are you advocating that both the spending on military during peace time is welfare, and that a massive reduction in welfare would be better? it's not exactly welfare, but it's not necessarily dissimilar (though it's not well-aimed as a welfare program, other programs do a far better job of being welfare programs). It's not economically productive activity, so it's loss would not result in horrible economic consequences; not sure it should even effect gdp at all. it's not a very good welfare program, so if the only point of it is welfare spending it'd be FAR better spent in other ways, or simply not spent at all to reduce debt. remember - this is ultimately all from me disputing your claim of disastrous economic consequences from cutting US military spending. That's fair, to be honest we don't have a particularly good way of predicting the outcome of such an event so we're both shooting in the dark a little bit aren't we? I'd personally say the economic benefits (or not) of the military spending are a side effect of the greater goal of maintaining a military. As nice as it is having NASA be funded by the defense force, the ultimate goal is to maintain a level of discipline and up keep on the military itself, I think. It just has the side effect of putting a lot of young men and women through college, providing a decent enough income, providing a way of gaining a green card, and just generally being a pretty decent way of moving up socioeconomically. While I personally believe the damage to the global economy would be fairly dramatic if Russia was able to fulfill it's colonial plans, and China too, I have no way of quantifying that. Just like I have no way of quantifying what changing the spending direction of 540 billion dollars or so would do to the world. It is just conjecture at this point the greater goal of the military is unnecessary, at least unnecessary at the current highly wasteful spending levels. the goals could easily be achieved at far lower cost. the spending is mostly a result of politics rather than actual need. the side effect doesn't mean much when there's other far cheaper ways to get those effects. while we can't perfectly predict it, there's enough data to make some fairly clear conclusions on it, so we're not just shooting in the dark (or at leas ti'm not, dunno about you, but I'm assuming you have similar knowledge). and as I said, a 90% cut would be a bit much, but 50% would be fine. @stratos not sure who you're arguing against; as a vague "progressives" could refer to anyone or nearly noone. i'll assume you're not arguing against me unless you provide a clear signal to the contrary; and that you're just instead ranting at random people who aren't here. On January 13 2018 01:47 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2018 01:41 bo1b wrote:On January 13 2018 01:38 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2018 01:36 bo1b wrote:
It seems American government spending as a whole has this problem though, how do you suggest cutting through it? Could dramatically improve U.S health care per dollar spent if you solve it. that's a tricky one; I'm only good at figuring out and identifying good/bad policy. i'm very bad at the politics of convincing people and getting it implemented (some of which depends on catering to and abusing the irrationalities of voters). I'm not sure how to combat government waste at that size, which to me seems a bit of an intractable problem. it is hard indeed; the problem is it's an outgrowth of misleading voters and/or other aggregate effects of human behavior. it's hard to get leaders focused on actually sensible thoughtful policy. and i'm certainly not gonna manage to win any elections. some of it is an unfortunate but inevitable outcome of democracy. For a person who lauds himself on fantastic arguing, and frequently tells other people what the problems with their arguments are, you would think that after positing an argument they would be able to provide some pretty solid evidence, or really, any at all. Is this apropos to anything or are you just dredging up a month-old conversation to shit-stir? It's apropros to the fact that only 11 hours ago from this moment he was just going out of his way to tell people why their arguments were wrong, when he himself is hardly a pinnacle of sound argument making. Hypocrisy rankles.
I'm not a hypocrite; and you're just being sloppy. I'm not making unsound arguments at all (or very rarely at least), what i'm making is incomplete arguments, which would need to be fleshed out further to establish the point. I'm correct, but not explained well. There's a heckuva big difference between that and making lots of basic argumentation errors.
also, you bring up some months old point, wherein I was correct, to prove some point which it doesn't even seem to establish.
and making false accusations of hypocrisy, as you are doing, is a total jerk move, and rightly rankles me.
I don't laud myself on being fantastic at arguing; but at being correct and careful. I've acknowledged many times that i'm very unconvincing. nor do I claim to be a stellar poster.
and as to why arguments may be/seem incomplete: steps are often skipped in colloquial discussions of a proof/evidence. If you want more background/justification for them it's assumed it will be asked for.
|
This is like, the epitome of gossip.
"Josh told Jake that Steve said Donnie was a big baby. O EM GEEE!!!"
|
On February 12 2018 22:49 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2018 20:04 Aquanim wrote:On February 12 2018 19:01 bo1b wrote:Once upon a time, not too long ago Zlefin made a series of posts about how you could cut military spending by 50% without causing problems. When asked how he could do it, he responded with this: On January 13 2018 01:29 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2018 01:16 bo1b wrote:On January 13 2018 01:07 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2018 00:59 bo1b wrote:
Just to be clear, are you advocating that both the spending on military during peace time is welfare, and that a massive reduction in welfare would be better? it's not exactly welfare, but it's not necessarily dissimilar (though it's not well-aimed as a welfare program, other programs do a far better job of being welfare programs). It's not economically productive activity, so it's loss would not result in horrible economic consequences; not sure it should even effect gdp at all. it's not a very good welfare program, so if the only point of it is welfare spending it'd be FAR better spent in other ways, or simply not spent at all to reduce debt. remember - this is ultimately all from me disputing your claim of disastrous economic consequences from cutting US military spending. That's fair, to be honest we don't have a particularly good way of predicting the outcome of such an event so we're both shooting in the dark a little bit aren't we? I'd personally say the economic benefits (or not) of the military spending are a side effect of the greater goal of maintaining a military. As nice as it is having NASA be funded by the defense force, the ultimate goal is to maintain a level of discipline and up keep on the military itself, I think. It just has the side effect of putting a lot of young men and women through college, providing a decent enough income, providing a way of gaining a green card, and just generally being a pretty decent way of moving up socioeconomically. While I personally believe the damage to the global economy would be fairly dramatic if Russia was able to fulfill it's colonial plans, and China too, I have no way of quantifying that. Just like I have no way of quantifying what changing the spending direction of 540 billion dollars or so would do to the world. It is just conjecture at this point the greater goal of the military is unnecessary, at least unnecessary at the current highly wasteful spending levels. the goals could easily be achieved at far lower cost. the spending is mostly a result of politics rather than actual need. the side effect doesn't mean much when there's other far cheaper ways to get those effects. while we can't perfectly predict it, there's enough data to make some fairly clear conclusions on it, so we're not just shooting in the dark (or at leas ti'm not, dunno about you, but I'm assuming you have similar knowledge). and as I said, a 90% cut would be a bit much, but 50% would be fine. @stratos not sure who you're arguing against; as a vague "progressives" could refer to anyone or nearly noone. i'll assume you're not arguing against me unless you provide a clear signal to the contrary; and that you're just instead ranting at random people who aren't here. On January 13 2018 01:47 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2018 01:41 bo1b wrote:On January 13 2018 01:38 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2018 01:36 bo1b wrote:
It seems American government spending as a whole has this problem though, how do you suggest cutting through it? Could dramatically improve U.S health care per dollar spent if you solve it. that's a tricky one; I'm only good at figuring out and identifying good/bad policy. i'm very bad at the politics of convincing people and getting it implemented (some of which depends on catering to and abusing the irrationalities of voters). I'm not sure how to combat government waste at that size, which to me seems a bit of an intractable problem. it is hard indeed; the problem is it's an outgrowth of misleading voters and/or other aggregate effects of human behavior. it's hard to get leaders focused on actually sensible thoughtful policy. and i'm certainly not gonna manage to win any elections. some of it is an unfortunate but inevitable outcome of democracy. For a person who lauds himself on fantastic arguing, and frequently tells other people what the problems with their arguments are, you would think that after positing an argument they would be able to provide some pretty solid evidence, or really, any at all. Is this apropos to anything or are you just dredging up a month-old conversation to shit-stir? It's apropros to the fact that only 11 hours ago from this moment he was just going out of his way to tell people why their arguments were wrong, when he himself is hardly a pinnacle of sound argument making. Hypocrisy rankles.
I'm gonna file that under "shit-stirring" and move on.
|
On February 12 2018 10:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2018 10:27 zlefin wrote:
I don't see how that argument follows gh; two things can both be bad while one is still clearly far worse than the other.
nor do I see a basis for the claim that THAT's how we got here as opposed to the many many other factors that have been pointed to. I'm not sure that one is far worse than the other, and I'm not sure they are the ones you think they are. Why is using a political fundraising event for self-enrichment obviously far worse than using it as a way to exchange favors among elites toward a goal of self-enrichment? As to the why, I don't mean to imply the sole reason for Trump is whatever you extracted from my argument, but that it speaks to a pervasive mentality that gave room to his rise.
It's an interesting argument you have, but Trump did promise that he's the only one who would NOT be corrupt; that he's a special case. And smart people bought that promise. He is actually a special case, just not in a good way. And I don't think it's any ordinary political corruption in this country - it's a businessman linking up his own businesses. I think any argument that Trump's rise was catalyzed by prior conditions in the country glosses over the fact that he's uniquely bad, in a foreseeable way.
|
I have no problem with politicians making money off of their time in office as long as they are done running for office(AKA, like Obama, Bush 2 and so on). In the case of Trump, I feel it is worse than the shadiness created by the Clinton foundation, because there is no attempt to even hide it. The erosion that was started by the Clintons and other congress members after the 1990s has reached its peak with Trump just using public office to enrich himself while in office. There is no point is separating Trump from the rest of DC.
|
On February 13 2018 01:32 Plansix wrote:
I have no problem with politicians making money off of their time in office as long as they are done running for office(AKA, like Obama, Bush 2 and so on). In the case of Trump, I feel it is worse than the shadiness created by the Clinton foundation, because there is no attempt to even hide it. The erosion that was started by the Clintons and other congress members after the 1990s has reached its peak with Trump just using public office to enrich himself while in office. There is no point is separating Trump from the rest of DC.
seriously? you have no problem with it? this thread has discussed the revolving door between government and private industry plenty of times, including at the SEC, and more recently at the FCC. dont you think ajit pai is going to go work somewhere for milllions and millions after doing his best to trash net neutrality?
|
I think what he meant was, "I am no longer in office, and it is okay for me to make money talking about my time in office, or via the prestige of having been in office."
Not, "I'm not going for reelection time to screw the plebs so I can parachute into a cushy consultant/board position."
|
On February 13 2018 01:43 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 01:32 Plansix wrote:
I have no problem with politicians making money off of their time in office as long as they are done running for office(AKA, like Obama, Bush 2 and so on). In the case of Trump, I feel it is worse than the shadiness created by the Clinton foundation, because there is no attempt to even hide it. The erosion that was started by the Clintons and other congress members after the 1990s has reached its peak with Trump just using public office to enrich himself while in office. There is no point is separating Trump from the rest of DC. seriously? you have no problem with it? this thread has discussed the revolving door between government and private industry plenty of times, including at the SEC, and more recently at the FCC. dont you think ajit pai is going to go work somewhere for milllions and millions after doing his best to trash net neutrality?
I will amend my statement to say I have no problem with elected officials making money after they leave office. When it comes to agencies, it is a harder problem to solve. But I agree that the problem exists in the regulatory agencies specifically.
What would be the solution, that a person can only work at the higher levels of the FCC(for example) once? I have no idea if that would be viable. Or do we just restrict the pay of people once they leave the agency? Do people give up the right to ask for whatever pay they they can get take these jobs, and if so, how do we enforce that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
