|
On September 27 2011 01:39 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2011 01:36 Signet wrote:On September 27 2011 00:49 xDaunt wrote:On September 27 2011 00:43 jmac28 wrote:
Jobs and the economy should be the central issue in my book. I just graduated from college in May and I can’t tell you how many friends I have who don't have jobs. I went to a US News top 50 university so I may have not gone to Harvard but it wasn’t midwestern middle of nowhere community college.
For those of you who are younger and haven’t been hit by the harsh reality of a college degree and no job, teenage unemployment is at its highest since they started keeping record.
Half of my friends couldn't go on spring break because they couldn't find jobs and their parents are underemployed and can’t help them out with anything more then tuition (if that).
I am from one of the top 15 richest counties in the country so this is a place where money is supposed to not be an issue. I can't see how many people have issues higher on their list then jobs and the economy.
I don’t agree with many of the republican stances on social issues, but to me their economic policies outweigh the social policies.
What issues are most important to everyone else?
All things being equal, this is why I am a republican. National security and economic policy trump every other issue. I consider "social policy" issues to be luxury issues. If we don't get our national security (foreign strength) and economic policy (domestic strength) right, then everything else is moot. Democrats simply are demonstrably weaker than republicans on both issues. Don't get me wrong, republicans don't always do the right thing either (see Bush), but they are more likely to adopt the right policies on these important issues. How do Republicans have a demonstrably better record on national security? Sure they want to give the DOD and defense contractors a blank check, but their "assertive" foreign policies get American troops killed unnecessarily and foster global resentment of our country. We were far safer when entire regions of the world didn't view us as a symbol of imperialism/oppression. Democrats are guilty of these things themselves; there seems to be more of a difference in perception/brand image than actual substance. Here are a few things that come to mind: - Republicans generally aren't looking to gut the military (this one is obvious); - Republicans don't piss on our allies (to be fair, this may be something unique to Obama);- Republicans are more likely to unapologetically pursue American interests rather than sacrifice American interests to appease other countries (like the ballistic missile shield).
The bolded is the only point of interest to me here, but precisely which of your allies is less happy with Obama as your president than Bush?
Edit: Also, what does it mean to 'unapologetically pursue American interests' in a foreign policy context? Is this not quite possibly incompatible with your second point?
|
On September 27 2011 01:39 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2011 01:36 Signet wrote:On September 27 2011 00:49 xDaunt wrote:On September 27 2011 00:43 jmac28 wrote:
Jobs and the economy should be the central issue in my book. I just graduated from college in May and I can’t tell you how many friends I have who don't have jobs. I went to a US News top 50 university so I may have not gone to Harvard but it wasn’t midwestern middle of nowhere community college.
For those of you who are younger and haven’t been hit by the harsh reality of a college degree and no job, teenage unemployment is at its highest since they started keeping record.
Half of my friends couldn't go on spring break because they couldn't find jobs and their parents are underemployed and can’t help them out with anything more then tuition (if that).
I am from one of the top 15 richest counties in the country so this is a place where money is supposed to not be an issue. I can't see how many people have issues higher on their list then jobs and the economy.
I don’t agree with many of the republican stances on social issues, but to me their economic policies outweigh the social policies.
What issues are most important to everyone else?
All things being equal, this is why I am a republican. National security and economic policy trump every other issue. I consider "social policy" issues to be luxury issues. If we don't get our national security (foreign strength) and economic policy (domestic strength) right, then everything else is moot. Democrats simply are demonstrably weaker than republicans on both issues. Don't get me wrong, republicans don't always do the right thing either (see Bush), but they are more likely to adopt the right policies on these important issues. How do Republicans have a demonstrably better record on national security? Sure they want to give the DOD and defense contractors a blank check, but their "assertive" foreign policies get American troops killed unnecessarily and foster global resentment of our country. We were far safer when entire regions of the world didn't view us as a symbol of imperialism/oppression. Democrats are guilty of these things themselves; there seems to be more of a difference in perception/brand image than actual substance. Here are a few things that come to mind: - Republicans generally aren't looking to gut the military (this one is obvious); - Republicans don't piss on our allies (to be fair, this may be something unique to Obama); - Republicans are more likely to unapologetically pursue American interests rather than sacrifice American interests to appease other countries (like the ballistic missile shield).
Just a few questions here, and I don't want to seem ranting. Your first point is very true, but isn't it anti-conservative, or in other words very pro-big-government when they protect and increase military spending? What about the whole france debaucle(freedom fries baby!)? Canada's military was heavily criticized by right wingers as well as their politicians especially when compared to the wars the US fought and CA didn't. Why do republicans seem to love getting religion mixed in with government, when that is quite easily a bad thing? I know they are unapologetic about it, but this new(is it new?) move towards zealotry is not only disturbing but endangering to the fabric of the country. (again I can't say the dems haven't or won't do this, but I'm taking you up on your argument)
|
On September 27 2011 01:39 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2011 01:36 Signet wrote:
How do Republicans have a demonstrably better record on national security? Sure they want to give the DOD and defense contractors a blank check, but their "assertive" foreign policies get American troops killed unnecessarily and foster global resentment of our country. We were far safer when entire regions of the world didn't view us as a symbol of imperialism/oppression.
Democrats are guilty of these things themselves; there seems to be more of a difference in perception/brand image than actual substance. Here are a few things that come to mind: - Republicans generally aren't looking to gut the military (this one is obvious); - Republicans don't piss on our allies (to be fair, this may be something unique to Obama); - Republicans are more likely to unapologetically pursue American interests rather than sacrifice American interests to appease other countries (like the ballistic missile shield).
- Neither party is looking to gut the military. The US currently spends almost as much on it's military as the rest of the world combined (~43% of global military expenditures according to Wikipedia). The difference seems to be whether we are safe spending only (say) 4-5x as much as China, or whether we actually need to spend more than everyone else combined.
- What do you mean by "pissing on our allies"? To me that defines Republican foreign policy for the last decade at least. I don't see how not pissing on our allies and simultaneously pursuing our own interests (a lot of which I don't think is really in our interests, but that's another topic) regardless of what our allies think are even consistent goals.
|
United States7483 Posts
On September 27 2011 01:55 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2011 01:49 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 01:44 TheGlassface wrote:On September 27 2011 01:32 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 01:29 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 01:20 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 00:58 jmac28 wrote:
Couldn't agree more, Daunt.
It's nice to see a like-minded person after reading through the last 106 pages of republican bashing. I follow the same opinion. I in fact despite the Republicans on social issues, but at the moment I prefer their economic policies. Minus defense spending. On September 27 2011 01:01 jon arbuckle wrote:On September 26 2011 23:55 xDaunt wrote:
The central issue in this election is jobs and the economy. The candidates know that new green or other emissions-cutting regulations will harm the economy and job creation, so they will avoid the issue (at least for the time being).
That's the perception, but green initiatives would actually create jobs and help the economy. On September 27 2011 00:43 jmac28 wrote:
Jobs and the economy should be the central issue in my book. I just graduated from college in May and I can’t tell you how many friends I have who don't have jobs. I went to a US News top 50 university so I may have not gone to Harvard but it wasn’t midwestern middle of nowhere community college.
For those of you who are younger and haven’t been hit by the harsh reality of a college degree and no job, teenage unemployment is at its highest since they started keeping record.
Half of my friends couldn't go on spring break because they couldn't find jobs and their parents are underemployed and can’t help them out with anything more then tuition (if that).
I am from one of the top 15 richest counties in the country so this is a place where money is supposed to not be an issue. I can't see how many people have issues higher on their list then jobs and the economy.
I don’t agree with many of the republican stances on social issues, but to me their economic policies outweigh the social policies.
I have a lot of sympathy for you, and I think these are real problems, but what every left-leaning poster in this thread, American or otherwise, finds flabbergasting is that you would vote Republican and therefore vote against your best interests. Nobody needed Warren Buffet to know that Republicans policies coddle the rich at the expense of everyone else, and it's horrifying to speculate that the Republicans will take the White House in 2012 because almost evil attempts at sabotage and refusal to compromise inappropriate for any sane political system have gone unpunished. Obama is blamed for the GOP House that was prepared to shut down the government to preserve the Bush tax cuts and pass Paul Ryan's draconian budget and for that same House that wanted to lead the United States to default rather than raise taxes. You would be voting for Bond villains. Green jobs don't help the economy. I hate that argument. Why would it help the economy? By no means do I think having "green" jobs is a bad thing, but I'm not buying the argument it helps the economy. What? There's a market for green products, just like there's a market for everything else. People don't buy a Prius because it's the most powerful, flashy automobile on the market. If there's a market for green products then shouldn't it emerge via the private market? Why is heavy gov't intervention needed? And if heavy gov't intervention is needed, then it's probably not helping the economy whatsoever in the short term, which is what's crucial. They tried to remove the oil subsidies though...and failed...the market is already being skewed, ya know? Who's to say that green jobs aren't out there but simply can not compete when government is aiming to keep the other competition inflated? I'm also a fan of all subsidies ending so... Because I believe the green subsidies are even larger, but don't quote me on it. Regardless I think we should get rid of most subsidies overall. On September 27 2011 01:45 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 01:32 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 01:29 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 01:20 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 00:58 jmac28 wrote:
Couldn't agree more, Daunt.
It's nice to see a like-minded person after reading through the last 106 pages of republican bashing. I follow the same opinion. I in fact despite the Republicans on social issues, but at the moment I prefer their economic policies. Minus defense spending. On September 27 2011 01:01 jon arbuckle wrote:On September 26 2011 23:55 xDaunt wrote:
The central issue in this election is jobs and the economy. The candidates know that new green or other emissions-cutting regulations will harm the economy and job creation, so they will avoid the issue (at least for the time being).
That's the perception, but green initiatives would actually create jobs and help the economy. On September 27 2011 00:43 jmac28 wrote:
Jobs and the economy should be the central issue in my book. I just graduated from college in May and I can’t tell you how many friends I have who don't have jobs. I went to a US News top 50 university so I may have not gone to Harvard but it wasn’t midwestern middle of nowhere community college.
For those of you who are younger and haven’t been hit by the harsh reality of a college degree and no job, teenage unemployment is at its highest since they started keeping record.
Half of my friends couldn't go on spring break because they couldn't find jobs and their parents are underemployed and can’t help them out with anything more then tuition (if that).
I am from one of the top 15 richest counties in the country so this is a place where money is supposed to not be an issue. I can't see how many people have issues higher on their list then jobs and the economy.
I don’t agree with many of the republican stances on social issues, but to me their economic policies outweigh the social policies.
I have a lot of sympathy for you, and I think these are real problems, but what every left-leaning poster in this thread, American or otherwise, finds flabbergasting is that you would vote Republican and therefore vote against your best interests. Nobody needed Warren Buffet to know that Republicans policies coddle the rich at the expense of everyone else, and it's horrifying to speculate that the Republicans will take the White House in 2012 because almost evil attempts at sabotage and refusal to compromise inappropriate for any sane political system have gone unpunished. Obama is blamed for the GOP House that was prepared to shut down the government to preserve the Bush tax cuts and pass Paul Ryan's draconian budget and for that same House that wanted to lead the United States to default rather than raise taxes. You would be voting for Bond villains. Green jobs don't help the economy. I hate that argument. Why would it help the economy? By no means do I think having "green" jobs is a bad thing, but I'm not buying the argument it helps the economy. What? There's a market for green products, just like there's a market for everything else. People don't buy a Prius because it's the most powerful, flashy automobile on the market. If there's a market for green products then shouldn't it emerge via the private market? Why is heavy gov't intervention needed? And if heavy gov't intervention is needed, then it's probably not helping the economy whatsoever in the short term, which is what's crucial. Last I checked, the government isn't fully paying off every hybrid vehicle and handing them out to anyone who wants to 'save the planet'. The companies researching them, and the people buying them, get a few tax breaks here and there, sure. But, like pretty much every debate we've had so far on the economy in this thread, hell this entire website, we're arguing over frigging pocket-change. Oh no, some green companies went bankrupt despite government assistance! Big deal. Loans always go out with the expectation that some of them are going to default. This is part of the reason why we've come to have a fiat money system. It allows money to evaporate through everyday human mistakes with nary a hiccup in the economy. If not, we'd see a good old-fashioned rebellion every time someone lost their job. Solyndra going under is no big deal. At all. It's normal. Conservatives have turned it into a big deal because, to the uneducated, it's a big story and further 'evidence' of this administration's incompetence - therefore ammunition in order to get the Republicans elected and on a personal basis, further their own desires (whether it's social control, or economic control). In the end, it's a long-term investment, because there is LITERALLY (not the figurative usage of the word literally) no way we're going to maintain our current trend of oil production and consumption forever. The US economy WILL need something else in the future to maintain its energy needs, or it will crumble the moment word gets out that all of the oil is gone. The way I see it, the Republicans want to further jeopardize the country's future to make short-term political gains by pissing and moaning about pocket-change from the bottom of the sofa to try and make the Democrats look bad. I think you're going on an entirely different topic than I was originally mentioning. I never said green jobs were intrinsically bad nor did I say there is no demand for green products. Rather, in the current state of the economy, I'm advocating that investing heavily into the green market should not be a priority on the agenda. Why not? Again, it's pocket change. Even amidst this current jobs market, people should still have the common sense to save away money into their 401k, even if it is only a small amount. Renewable energy funding is merely the government doing the same thing. What, because we're spending umpteen fucking bajillions on a military that has nobody left to kill, and continuing tax breaks for the 'job creators' who STILL aren't creating jobs despite those tax breaks being held in place for another year, we should drop all of these mini projects to make up the numbers? Fuck that shit. Nobody in politics has the cajones to talk about the elephants in the room (the big bills, which also includes other things like Social Security and Medicare) while we sit here fighting, bickering and arguing over that tiny fraction of money we're saving for our kid's college fund every week.
I could not agree more with this.
|
On September 27 2011 01:55 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2011 01:49 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 01:44 TheGlassface wrote:On September 27 2011 01:32 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 01:29 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 01:20 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 00:58 jmac28 wrote:
Couldn't agree more, Daunt.
It's nice to see a like-minded person after reading through the last 106 pages of republican bashing. I follow the same opinion. I in fact despite the Republicans on social issues, but at the moment I prefer their economic policies. Minus defense spending. On September 27 2011 01:01 jon arbuckle wrote:On September 26 2011 23:55 xDaunt wrote:
The central issue in this election is jobs and the economy. The candidates know that new green or other emissions-cutting regulations will harm the economy and job creation, so they will avoid the issue (at least for the time being).
That's the perception, but green initiatives would actually create jobs and help the economy. On September 27 2011 00:43 jmac28 wrote:
Jobs and the economy should be the central issue in my book. I just graduated from college in May and I can’t tell you how many friends I have who don't have jobs. I went to a US News top 50 university so I may have not gone to Harvard but it wasn’t midwestern middle of nowhere community college.
For those of you who are younger and haven’t been hit by the harsh reality of a college degree and no job, teenage unemployment is at its highest since they started keeping record.
Half of my friends couldn't go on spring break because they couldn't find jobs and their parents are underemployed and can’t help them out with anything more then tuition (if that).
I am from one of the top 15 richest counties in the country so this is a place where money is supposed to not be an issue. I can't see how many people have issues higher on their list then jobs and the economy.
I don’t agree with many of the republican stances on social issues, but to me their economic policies outweigh the social policies.
I have a lot of sympathy for you, and I think these are real problems, but what every left-leaning poster in this thread, American or otherwise, finds flabbergasting is that you would vote Republican and therefore vote against your best interests. Nobody needed Warren Buffet to know that Republicans policies coddle the rich at the expense of everyone else, and it's horrifying to speculate that the Republicans will take the White House in 2012 because almost evil attempts at sabotage and refusal to compromise inappropriate for any sane political system have gone unpunished. Obama is blamed for the GOP House that was prepared to shut down the government to preserve the Bush tax cuts and pass Paul Ryan's draconian budget and for that same House that wanted to lead the United States to default rather than raise taxes. You would be voting for Bond villains. Green jobs don't help the economy. I hate that argument. Why would it help the economy? By no means do I think having "green" jobs is a bad thing, but I'm not buying the argument it helps the economy. What? There's a market for green products, just like there's a market for everything else. People don't buy a Prius because it's the most powerful, flashy automobile on the market. If there's a market for green products then shouldn't it emerge via the private market? Why is heavy gov't intervention needed? And if heavy gov't intervention is needed, then it's probably not helping the economy whatsoever in the short term, which is what's crucial. They tried to remove the oil subsidies though...and failed...the market is already being skewed, ya know? Who's to say that green jobs aren't out there but simply can not compete when government is aiming to keep the other competition inflated? I'm also a fan of all subsidies ending so... Because I believe the green subsidies are even larger, but don't quote me on it. Regardless I think we should get rid of most subsidies overall. On September 27 2011 01:45 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 01:32 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 01:29 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 01:20 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 00:58 jmac28 wrote:
Couldn't agree more, Daunt.
It's nice to see a like-minded person after reading through the last 106 pages of republican bashing. I follow the same opinion. I in fact despite the Republicans on social issues, but at the moment I prefer their economic policies. Minus defense spending. On September 27 2011 01:01 jon arbuckle wrote:On September 26 2011 23:55 xDaunt wrote:
The central issue in this election is jobs and the economy. The candidates know that new green or other emissions-cutting regulations will harm the economy and job creation, so they will avoid the issue (at least for the time being).
That's the perception, but green initiatives would actually create jobs and help the economy. On September 27 2011 00:43 jmac28 wrote:
Jobs and the economy should be the central issue in my book. I just graduated from college in May and I can’t tell you how many friends I have who don't have jobs. I went to a US News top 50 university so I may have not gone to Harvard but it wasn’t midwestern middle of nowhere community college.
For those of you who are younger and haven’t been hit by the harsh reality of a college degree and no job, teenage unemployment is at its highest since they started keeping record.
Half of my friends couldn't go on spring break because they couldn't find jobs and their parents are underemployed and can’t help them out with anything more then tuition (if that).
I am from one of the top 15 richest counties in the country so this is a place where money is supposed to not be an issue. I can't see how many people have issues higher on their list then jobs and the economy.
I don’t agree with many of the republican stances on social issues, but to me their economic policies outweigh the social policies.
I have a lot of sympathy for you, and I think these are real problems, but what every left-leaning poster in this thread, American or otherwise, finds flabbergasting is that you would vote Republican and therefore vote against your best interests. Nobody needed Warren Buffet to know that Republicans policies coddle the rich at the expense of everyone else, and it's horrifying to speculate that the Republicans will take the White House in 2012 because almost evil attempts at sabotage and refusal to compromise inappropriate for any sane political system have gone unpunished. Obama is blamed for the GOP House that was prepared to shut down the government to preserve the Bush tax cuts and pass Paul Ryan's draconian budget and for that same House that wanted to lead the United States to default rather than raise taxes. You would be voting for Bond villains. Green jobs don't help the economy. I hate that argument. Why would it help the economy? By no means do I think having "green" jobs is a bad thing, but I'm not buying the argument it helps the economy. What? There's a market for green products, just like there's a market for everything else. People don't buy a Prius because it's the most powerful, flashy automobile on the market. If there's a market for green products then shouldn't it emerge via the private market? Why is heavy gov't intervention needed? And if heavy gov't intervention is needed, then it's probably not helping the economy whatsoever in the short term, which is what's crucial. Last I checked, the government isn't fully paying off every hybrid vehicle and handing them out to anyone who wants to 'save the planet'. The companies researching them, and the people buying them, get a few tax breaks here and there, sure. But, like pretty much every debate we've had so far on the economy in this thread, hell this entire website, we're arguing over frigging pocket-change. Oh no, some green companies went bankrupt despite government assistance! Big deal. Loans always go out with the expectation that some of them are going to default. This is part of the reason why we've come to have a fiat money system. It allows money to evaporate through everyday human mistakes with nary a hiccup in the economy. If not, we'd see a good old-fashioned rebellion every time someone lost their job. Solyndra going under is no big deal. At all. It's normal. Conservatives have turned it into a big deal because, to the uneducated, it's a big story and further 'evidence' of this administration's incompetence - therefore ammunition in order to get the Republicans elected and on a personal basis, further their own desires (whether it's social control, or economic control). In the end, it's a long-term investment, because there is LITERALLY (not the figurative usage of the word literally) no way we're going to maintain our current trend of oil production and consumption forever. The US economy WILL need something else in the future to maintain its energy needs, or it will crumble the moment word gets out that all of the oil is gone. The way I see it, the Republicans want to further jeopardize the country's future to make short-term political gains by pissing and moaning about pocket-change from the bottom of the sofa to try and make the Democrats look bad. I think you're going on an entirely different topic than I was originally mentioning. I never said green jobs were intrinsically bad nor did I say there is no demand for green products. Rather, in the current state of the economy, I'm advocating that investing heavily into the green market should not be a priority on the agenda. Why not? Again, it's pocket change. Even amidst this current jobs market, people should still have the common sense to save away money into their 401k, even if it is only a small amount. Renewable energy funding is merely the government doing the same thing. What, because we're spending umpteen fucking bajillions on a military that has nobody left to kill, and continuing tax breaks for the 'job creators' who STILL aren't creating jobs despite those tax breaks being held in place for another year, we should drop all of these mini projects to make up the numbers? Fuck that shit. Nobody in politics has the cajones to talk about the elephants in the room (the big bills, which also includes other things like Social Security and Medicare) while we sit here fighting, bickering and arguing over that tiny fraction of money we're saving for our kid's college fund every week.
Investing heavily =! pocket change.
If you want pocket change invested, then fine. It's just your definition of it probably differs from mine. If it's pocket change then clearly it wouldn't be a major focus, and I'm merely saying it shouldn't be a major focus. And it absolutely dire economic times is one of the few times you should be using your safety net that you accumulated when you weren't in such a dire situation. It's always good to look to the future, but there are many situations where the short-term is far more important.
And I think the pocket change argument is stupid itself. Even if we are being retarded with the military, which I agree with you, it doesn't mean that we should be retarded or less cautious elsewhere.
|
Nobody in politics has the cajones to talk about the elephants in the room
Ron Paul does talk about cutting military spending, as bringing troops home will inevitably decrease expenses. Unfortunately the media and establishment don't allow him to gain visibility.
I don't mean to sound condescending, but I do feel really sorry that you guys are in such a pseudo-democratic mess 
|
On September 27 2011 02:09 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2011 01:55 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 01:49 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 01:44 TheGlassface wrote:On September 27 2011 01:32 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 01:29 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 01:20 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 00:58 jmac28 wrote:
Couldn't agree more, Daunt.
It's nice to see a like-minded person after reading through the last 106 pages of republican bashing. I follow the same opinion. I in fact despite the Republicans on social issues, but at the moment I prefer their economic policies. Minus defense spending. On September 27 2011 01:01 jon arbuckle wrote:On September 26 2011 23:55 xDaunt wrote:
The central issue in this election is jobs and the economy. The candidates know that new green or other emissions-cutting regulations will harm the economy and job creation, so they will avoid the issue (at least for the time being).
That's the perception, but green initiatives would actually create jobs and help the economy. On September 27 2011 00:43 jmac28 wrote:
Jobs and the economy should be the central issue in my book. I just graduated from college in May and I can’t tell you how many friends I have who don't have jobs. I went to a US News top 50 university so I may have not gone to Harvard but it wasn’t midwestern middle of nowhere community college.
For those of you who are younger and haven’t been hit by the harsh reality of a college degree and no job, teenage unemployment is at its highest since they started keeping record.
Half of my friends couldn't go on spring break because they couldn't find jobs and their parents are underemployed and can’t help them out with anything more then tuition (if that).
I am from one of the top 15 richest counties in the country so this is a place where money is supposed to not be an issue. I can't see how many people have issues higher on their list then jobs and the economy.
I don’t agree with many of the republican stances on social issues, but to me their economic policies outweigh the social policies.
I have a lot of sympathy for you, and I think these are real problems, but what every left-leaning poster in this thread, American or otherwise, finds flabbergasting is that you would vote Republican and therefore vote against your best interests. Nobody needed Warren Buffet to know that Republicans policies coddle the rich at the expense of everyone else, and it's horrifying to speculate that the Republicans will take the White House in 2012 because almost evil attempts at sabotage and refusal to compromise inappropriate for any sane political system have gone unpunished. Obama is blamed for the GOP House that was prepared to shut down the government to preserve the Bush tax cuts and pass Paul Ryan's draconian budget and for that same House that wanted to lead the United States to default rather than raise taxes. You would be voting for Bond villains. Green jobs don't help the economy. I hate that argument. Why would it help the economy? By no means do I think having "green" jobs is a bad thing, but I'm not buying the argument it helps the economy. What? There's a market for green products, just like there's a market for everything else. People don't buy a Prius because it's the most powerful, flashy automobile on the market. If there's a market for green products then shouldn't it emerge via the private market? Why is heavy gov't intervention needed? And if heavy gov't intervention is needed, then it's probably not helping the economy whatsoever in the short term, which is what's crucial. They tried to remove the oil subsidies though...and failed...the market is already being skewed, ya know? Who's to say that green jobs aren't out there but simply can not compete when government is aiming to keep the other competition inflated? I'm also a fan of all subsidies ending so... Because I believe the green subsidies are even larger, but don't quote me on it. Regardless I think we should get rid of most subsidies overall. On September 27 2011 01:45 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 01:32 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 01:29 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 01:20 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 00:58 jmac28 wrote:
Couldn't agree more, Daunt.
It's nice to see a like-minded person after reading through the last 106 pages of republican bashing. I follow the same opinion. I in fact despite the Republicans on social issues, but at the moment I prefer their economic policies. Minus defense spending. On September 27 2011 01:01 jon arbuckle wrote:On September 26 2011 23:55 xDaunt wrote:
The central issue in this election is jobs and the economy. The candidates know that new green or other emissions-cutting regulations will harm the economy and job creation, so they will avoid the issue (at least for the time being).
That's the perception, but green initiatives would actually create jobs and help the economy. On September 27 2011 00:43 jmac28 wrote:
Jobs and the economy should be the central issue in my book. I just graduated from college in May and I can’t tell you how many friends I have who don't have jobs. I went to a US News top 50 university so I may have not gone to Harvard but it wasn’t midwestern middle of nowhere community college.
For those of you who are younger and haven’t been hit by the harsh reality of a college degree and no job, teenage unemployment is at its highest since they started keeping record.
Half of my friends couldn't go on spring break because they couldn't find jobs and their parents are underemployed and can’t help them out with anything more then tuition (if that).
I am from one of the top 15 richest counties in the country so this is a place where money is supposed to not be an issue. I can't see how many people have issues higher on their list then jobs and the economy.
I don’t agree with many of the republican stances on social issues, but to me their economic policies outweigh the social policies.
I have a lot of sympathy for you, and I think these are real problems, but what every left-leaning poster in this thread, American or otherwise, finds flabbergasting is that you would vote Republican and therefore vote against your best interests. Nobody needed Warren Buffet to know that Republicans policies coddle the rich at the expense of everyone else, and it's horrifying to speculate that the Republicans will take the White House in 2012 because almost evil attempts at sabotage and refusal to compromise inappropriate for any sane political system have gone unpunished. Obama is blamed for the GOP House that was prepared to shut down the government to preserve the Bush tax cuts and pass Paul Ryan's draconian budget and for that same House that wanted to lead the United States to default rather than raise taxes. You would be voting for Bond villains. Green jobs don't help the economy. I hate that argument. Why would it help the economy? By no means do I think having "green" jobs is a bad thing, but I'm not buying the argument it helps the economy. What? There's a market for green products, just like there's a market for everything else. People don't buy a Prius because it's the most powerful, flashy automobile on the market. If there's a market for green products then shouldn't it emerge via the private market? Why is heavy gov't intervention needed? And if heavy gov't intervention is needed, then it's probably not helping the economy whatsoever in the short term, which is what's crucial. Last I checked, the government isn't fully paying off every hybrid vehicle and handing them out to anyone who wants to 'save the planet'. The companies researching them, and the people buying them, get a few tax breaks here and there, sure. But, like pretty much every debate we've had so far on the economy in this thread, hell this entire website, we're arguing over frigging pocket-change. Oh no, some green companies went bankrupt despite government assistance! Big deal. Loans always go out with the expectation that some of them are going to default. This is part of the reason why we've come to have a fiat money system. It allows money to evaporate through everyday human mistakes with nary a hiccup in the economy. If not, we'd see a good old-fashioned rebellion every time someone lost their job. Solyndra going under is no big deal. At all. It's normal. Conservatives have turned it into a big deal because, to the uneducated, it's a big story and further 'evidence' of this administration's incompetence - therefore ammunition in order to get the Republicans elected and on a personal basis, further their own desires (whether it's social control, or economic control). In the end, it's a long-term investment, because there is LITERALLY (not the figurative usage of the word literally) no way we're going to maintain our current trend of oil production and consumption forever. The US economy WILL need something else in the future to maintain its energy needs, or it will crumble the moment word gets out that all of the oil is gone. The way I see it, the Republicans want to further jeopardize the country's future to make short-term political gains by pissing and moaning about pocket-change from the bottom of the sofa to try and make the Democrats look bad. I think you're going on an entirely different topic than I was originally mentioning. I never said green jobs were intrinsically bad nor did I say there is no demand for green products. Rather, in the current state of the economy, I'm advocating that investing heavily into the green market should not be a priority on the agenda. Why not? Again, it's pocket change. Even amidst this current jobs market, people should still have the common sense to save away money into their 401k, even if it is only a small amount. Renewable energy funding is merely the government doing the same thing. What, because we're spending umpteen fucking bajillions on a military that has nobody left to kill, and continuing tax breaks for the 'job creators' who STILL aren't creating jobs despite those tax breaks being held in place for another year, we should drop all of these mini projects to make up the numbers? Fuck that shit. Nobody in politics has the cajones to talk about the elephants in the room (the big bills, which also includes other things like Social Security and Medicare) while we sit here fighting, bickering and arguing over that tiny fraction of money we're saving for our kid's college fund every week. Investing heavily =! pocket change. And I think the pocket change argument is stupid itself. Even if we are being retarded with the military, which I agree with you, it doesn't mean that we should be retarded or less cautious elsewhere.
It really is
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ce/Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg (direct link if it won't load)
2010 federal spending. Renewable energy research is a small percentage of the (reading clockwise) third red section of that pie chart - Department of Energy. The entire yearly funding for renewable energy research is down to the single digits of Billions, out of the tens of Billions the DoE gets, whereas our budget problems are in the thousands, if not tens of thousands, of Billions.
Our short term would be FINE if these fucking, so-called job-creators were doing their jobs by creating jobs!
So, what do you do, when these people aren't going to distribute that wealth for everyone's, including their OWN, benefit?
|
On September 27 2011 02:00 Signet wrote:
- What do you mean by "pissing on our allies"? To me that defines Republican foreign policy for the last decade at least. I don't see how not pissing on our allies and simultaneously pursuing our own interests (a lot of which I don't think is really in our interests, but that's another topic) regardless of what our allies think are even consistent goals.
Yeah, this is bewildering. The Nixon and Reagan administrations were ruled by playing both sides of various conflicts against each other or rectifying problems they had caused themselves. And so on and so on.
|
On September 27 2011 02:14 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2011 02:09 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 01:55 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 01:49 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 01:44 TheGlassface wrote:On September 27 2011 01:32 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 01:29 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 01:20 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 00:58 jmac28 wrote:
Couldn't agree more, Daunt.
It's nice to see a like-minded person after reading through the last 106 pages of republican bashing. I follow the same opinion. I in fact despite the Republicans on social issues, but at the moment I prefer their economic policies. Minus defense spending. On September 27 2011 01:01 jon arbuckle wrote:On September 26 2011 23:55 xDaunt wrote:
The central issue in this election is jobs and the economy. The candidates know that new green or other emissions-cutting regulations will harm the economy and job creation, so they will avoid the issue (at least for the time being).
That's the perception, but green initiatives would actually create jobs and help the economy. On September 27 2011 00:43 jmac28 wrote:
Jobs and the economy should be the central issue in my book. I just graduated from college in May and I can’t tell you how many friends I have who don't have jobs. I went to a US News top 50 university so I may have not gone to Harvard but it wasn’t midwestern middle of nowhere community college.
For those of you who are younger and haven’t been hit by the harsh reality of a college degree and no job, teenage unemployment is at its highest since they started keeping record.
Half of my friends couldn't go on spring break because they couldn't find jobs and their parents are underemployed and can’t help them out with anything more then tuition (if that).
I am from one of the top 15 richest counties in the country so this is a place where money is supposed to not be an issue. I can't see how many people have issues higher on their list then jobs and the economy.
I don’t agree with many of the republican stances on social issues, but to me their economic policies outweigh the social policies.
I have a lot of sympathy for you, and I think these are real problems, but what every left-leaning poster in this thread, American or otherwise, finds flabbergasting is that you would vote Republican and therefore vote against your best interests. Nobody needed Warren Buffet to know that Republicans policies coddle the rich at the expense of everyone else, and it's horrifying to speculate that the Republicans will take the White House in 2012 because almost evil attempts at sabotage and refusal to compromise inappropriate for any sane political system have gone unpunished. Obama is blamed for the GOP House that was prepared to shut down the government to preserve the Bush tax cuts and pass Paul Ryan's draconian budget and for that same House that wanted to lead the United States to default rather than raise taxes. You would be voting for Bond villains. Green jobs don't help the economy. I hate that argument. Why would it help the economy? By no means do I think having "green" jobs is a bad thing, but I'm not buying the argument it helps the economy. What? There's a market for green products, just like there's a market for everything else. People don't buy a Prius because it's the most powerful, flashy automobile on the market. If there's a market for green products then shouldn't it emerge via the private market? Why is heavy gov't intervention needed? And if heavy gov't intervention is needed, then it's probably not helping the economy whatsoever in the short term, which is what's crucial. They tried to remove the oil subsidies though...and failed...the market is already being skewed, ya know? Who's to say that green jobs aren't out there but simply can not compete when government is aiming to keep the other competition inflated? I'm also a fan of all subsidies ending so... Because I believe the green subsidies are even larger, but don't quote me on it. Regardless I think we should get rid of most subsidies overall. On September 27 2011 01:45 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 01:32 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 01:29 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 01:20 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 00:58 jmac28 wrote:
Couldn't agree more, Daunt.
It's nice to see a like-minded person after reading through the last 106 pages of republican bashing. I follow the same opinion. I in fact despite the Republicans on social issues, but at the moment I prefer their economic policies. Minus defense spending. On September 27 2011 01:01 jon arbuckle wrote:On September 26 2011 23:55 xDaunt wrote:
The central issue in this election is jobs and the economy. The candidates know that new green or other emissions-cutting regulations will harm the economy and job creation, so they will avoid the issue (at least for the time being).
That's the perception, but green initiatives would actually create jobs and help the economy. On September 27 2011 00:43 jmac28 wrote:
Jobs and the economy should be the central issue in my book. I just graduated from college in May and I can’t tell you how many friends I have who don't have jobs. I went to a US News top 50 university so I may have not gone to Harvard but it wasn’t midwestern middle of nowhere community college.
For those of you who are younger and haven’t been hit by the harsh reality of a college degree and no job, teenage unemployment is at its highest since they started keeping record.
Half of my friends couldn't go on spring break because they couldn't find jobs and their parents are underemployed and can’t help them out with anything more then tuition (if that).
I am from one of the top 15 richest counties in the country so this is a place where money is supposed to not be an issue. I can't see how many people have issues higher on their list then jobs and the economy.
I don’t agree with many of the republican stances on social issues, but to me their economic policies outweigh the social policies.
I have a lot of sympathy for you, and I think these are real problems, but what every left-leaning poster in this thread, American or otherwise, finds flabbergasting is that you would vote Republican and therefore vote against your best interests. Nobody needed Warren Buffet to know that Republicans policies coddle the rich at the expense of everyone else, and it's horrifying to speculate that the Republicans will take the White House in 2012 because almost evil attempts at sabotage and refusal to compromise inappropriate for any sane political system have gone unpunished. Obama is blamed for the GOP House that was prepared to shut down the government to preserve the Bush tax cuts and pass Paul Ryan's draconian budget and for that same House that wanted to lead the United States to default rather than raise taxes. You would be voting for Bond villains. Green jobs don't help the economy. I hate that argument. Why would it help the economy? By no means do I think having "green" jobs is a bad thing, but I'm not buying the argument it helps the economy. What? There's a market for green products, just like there's a market for everything else. People don't buy a Prius because it's the most powerful, flashy automobile on the market. If there's a market for green products then shouldn't it emerge via the private market? Why is heavy gov't intervention needed? And if heavy gov't intervention is needed, then it's probably not helping the economy whatsoever in the short term, which is what's crucial. Last I checked, the government isn't fully paying off every hybrid vehicle and handing them out to anyone who wants to 'save the planet'. The companies researching them, and the people buying them, get a few tax breaks here and there, sure. But, like pretty much every debate we've had so far on the economy in this thread, hell this entire website, we're arguing over frigging pocket-change. Oh no, some green companies went bankrupt despite government assistance! Big deal. Loans always go out with the expectation that some of them are going to default. This is part of the reason why we've come to have a fiat money system. It allows money to evaporate through everyday human mistakes with nary a hiccup in the economy. If not, we'd see a good old-fashioned rebellion every time someone lost their job. Solyndra going under is no big deal. At all. It's normal. Conservatives have turned it into a big deal because, to the uneducated, it's a big story and further 'evidence' of this administration's incompetence - therefore ammunition in order to get the Republicans elected and on a personal basis, further their own desires (whether it's social control, or economic control). In the end, it's a long-term investment, because there is LITERALLY (not the figurative usage of the word literally) no way we're going to maintain our current trend of oil production and consumption forever. The US economy WILL need something else in the future to maintain its energy needs, or it will crumble the moment word gets out that all of the oil is gone. The way I see it, the Republicans want to further jeopardize the country's future to make short-term political gains by pissing and moaning about pocket-change from the bottom of the sofa to try and make the Democrats look bad. I think you're going on an entirely different topic than I was originally mentioning. I never said green jobs were intrinsically bad nor did I say there is no demand for green products. Rather, in the current state of the economy, I'm advocating that investing heavily into the green market should not be a priority on the agenda. Why not? Again, it's pocket change. Even amidst this current jobs market, people should still have the common sense to save away money into their 401k, even if it is only a small amount. Renewable energy funding is merely the government doing the same thing. What, because we're spending umpteen fucking bajillions on a military that has nobody left to kill, and continuing tax breaks for the 'job creators' who STILL aren't creating jobs despite those tax breaks being held in place for another year, we should drop all of these mini projects to make up the numbers? Fuck that shit. Nobody in politics has the cajones to talk about the elephants in the room (the big bills, which also includes other things like Social Security and Medicare) while we sit here fighting, bickering and arguing over that tiny fraction of money we're saving for our kid's college fund every week. Investing heavily =! pocket change. And I think the pocket change argument is stupid itself. Even if we are being retarded with the military, which I agree with you, it doesn't mean that we should be retarded or less cautious elsewhere. It really is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg (direct link if it won't load) 2010 federal spending. Renewable energy research is a small percentage of the (reading clockwise) third red section of that pie chart - Department of Energy. Their entire yearly funding is down to the single digits of Billions, whereas our budget problems are in the thousands of billions.
How is this relevant whatsoever to what I said? You keep going on a different topic than I'm mentioning. What I'm saying is that we shouldn't focus on investing heavily into that market, in the current state of things. What that means is I'm saying we shouldn't increase spending into that category by pumping $10+ billion into it.
How in the world is the 2010 budget relevant to the debate on the future? If I'm saying we shouldn't pump a ton of money into an industry, your argument that "we're already not putting much in at all" is wholly irrelevant.
|
On September 27 2011 02:17 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2011 02:14 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 02:09 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 01:55 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 01:49 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 01:44 TheGlassface wrote:On September 27 2011 01:32 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 01:29 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 01:20 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 00:58 jmac28 wrote:
Couldn't agree more, Daunt.
It's nice to see a like-minded person after reading through the last 106 pages of republican bashing. I follow the same opinion. I in fact despite the Republicans on social issues, but at the moment I prefer their economic policies. Minus defense spending. On September 27 2011 01:01 jon arbuckle wrote:
[quote]
That's the perception, but green initiatives would actually create jobs and help the economy.
[quote]
I have a lot of sympathy for you, and I think these are real problems, but what every left-leaning poster in this thread, American or otherwise, finds flabbergasting is that you would vote Republican and therefore vote against your best interests.
Nobody needed Warren Buffet to know that Republicans policies coddle the rich at the expense of everyone else, and it's horrifying to speculate that the Republicans will take the White House in 2012 because almost evil attempts at sabotage and refusal to compromise inappropriate for any sane political system have gone unpunished. Obama is blamed for the GOP House that was prepared to shut down the government to preserve the Bush tax cuts and pass Paul Ryan's draconian budget and for that same House that wanted to lead the United States to default rather than raise taxes.
You would be voting for Bond villains. Green jobs don't help the economy. I hate that argument. Why would it help the economy? By no means do I think having "green" jobs is a bad thing, but I'm not buying the argument it helps the economy. What? There's a market for green products, just like there's a market for everything else. People don't buy a Prius because it's the most powerful, flashy automobile on the market. If there's a market for green products then shouldn't it emerge via the private market? Why is heavy gov't intervention needed? And if heavy gov't intervention is needed, then it's probably not helping the economy whatsoever in the short term, which is what's crucial. They tried to remove the oil subsidies though...and failed...the market is already being skewed, ya know? Who's to say that green jobs aren't out there but simply can not compete when government is aiming to keep the other competition inflated? I'm also a fan of all subsidies ending so... Because I believe the green subsidies are even larger, but don't quote me on it. Regardless I think we should get rid of most subsidies overall. On September 27 2011 01:45 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 01:32 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 01:29 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 01:20 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 00:58 jmac28 wrote:
Couldn't agree more, Daunt.
It's nice to see a like-minded person after reading through the last 106 pages of republican bashing. I follow the same opinion. I in fact despite the Republicans on social issues, but at the moment I prefer their economic policies. Minus defense spending. On September 27 2011 01:01 jon arbuckle wrote:
[quote]
That's the perception, but green initiatives would actually create jobs and help the economy.
[quote]
I have a lot of sympathy for you, and I think these are real problems, but what every left-leaning poster in this thread, American or otherwise, finds flabbergasting is that you would vote Republican and therefore vote against your best interests.
Nobody needed Warren Buffet to know that Republicans policies coddle the rich at the expense of everyone else, and it's horrifying to speculate that the Republicans will take the White House in 2012 because almost evil attempts at sabotage and refusal to compromise inappropriate for any sane political system have gone unpunished. Obama is blamed for the GOP House that was prepared to shut down the government to preserve the Bush tax cuts and pass Paul Ryan's draconian budget and for that same House that wanted to lead the United States to default rather than raise taxes.
You would be voting for Bond villains. Green jobs don't help the economy. I hate that argument. Why would it help the economy? By no means do I think having "green" jobs is a bad thing, but I'm not buying the argument it helps the economy. What? There's a market for green products, just like there's a market for everything else. People don't buy a Prius because it's the most powerful, flashy automobile on the market. If there's a market for green products then shouldn't it emerge via the private market? Why is heavy gov't intervention needed? And if heavy gov't intervention is needed, then it's probably not helping the economy whatsoever in the short term, which is what's crucial. Last I checked, the government isn't fully paying off every hybrid vehicle and handing them out to anyone who wants to 'save the planet'. The companies researching them, and the people buying them, get a few tax breaks here and there, sure. But, like pretty much every debate we've had so far on the economy in this thread, hell this entire website, we're arguing over frigging pocket-change. Oh no, some green companies went bankrupt despite government assistance! Big deal. Loans always go out with the expectation that some of them are going to default. This is part of the reason why we've come to have a fiat money system. It allows money to evaporate through everyday human mistakes with nary a hiccup in the economy. If not, we'd see a good old-fashioned rebellion every time someone lost their job. Solyndra going under is no big deal. At all. It's normal. Conservatives have turned it into a big deal because, to the uneducated, it's a big story and further 'evidence' of this administration's incompetence - therefore ammunition in order to get the Republicans elected and on a personal basis, further their own desires (whether it's social control, or economic control). In the end, it's a long-term investment, because there is LITERALLY (not the figurative usage of the word literally) no way we're going to maintain our current trend of oil production and consumption forever. The US economy WILL need something else in the future to maintain its energy needs, or it will crumble the moment word gets out that all of the oil is gone. The way I see it, the Republicans want to further jeopardize the country's future to make short-term political gains by pissing and moaning about pocket-change from the bottom of the sofa to try and make the Democrats look bad. I think you're going on an entirely different topic than I was originally mentioning. I never said green jobs were intrinsically bad nor did I say there is no demand for green products. Rather, in the current state of the economy, I'm advocating that investing heavily into the green market should not be a priority on the agenda. Why not? Again, it's pocket change. Even amidst this current jobs market, people should still have the common sense to save away money into their 401k, even if it is only a small amount. Renewable energy funding is merely the government doing the same thing. What, because we're spending umpteen fucking bajillions on a military that has nobody left to kill, and continuing tax breaks for the 'job creators' who STILL aren't creating jobs despite those tax breaks being held in place for another year, we should drop all of these mini projects to make up the numbers? Fuck that shit. Nobody in politics has the cajones to talk about the elephants in the room (the big bills, which also includes other things like Social Security and Medicare) while we sit here fighting, bickering and arguing over that tiny fraction of money we're saving for our kid's college fund every week. Investing heavily =! pocket change. And I think the pocket change argument is stupid itself. Even if we are being retarded with the military, which I agree with you, it doesn't mean that we should be retarded or less cautious elsewhere. It really is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg (direct link if it won't load) 2010 federal spending. Renewable energy research is a small percentage of the (reading clockwise) third red section of that pie chart - Department of Energy. Their entire yearly funding is down to the single digits of Billions, whereas our budget problems are in the thousands of billions. How is this relevant whatsoever to what I said? You keep going on a different topic than I'm mentioning. What I'm saying is that we shouldn't focus on investing heavily into that market, in the current state of things. What that means is I'm saying we shouldn't increase spending into that category by pumping $10+ billion into it. How in the world is the 2010 budget relevant to the debate on the future? If I'm saying we shouldn't pump a ton of money into an industry, your argument that "we're already not putting much in at all" is wholly irrelevant.
I editted my last post, so I'll put it here, too.
Our short term would be FINE if these fucking, so-called job-creators were doing their jobs by creating jobs!
So, what do you do, when these people aren't going to distribute that wealth for everyone's, including their OWN, benefit?
FYI, we've tried the tax incentive route for several years now, and still nothing.
And I think your perception of what constitutes a 'heavy investment' is skewed. Renewable energy costs went from $8B to $13B from 2010 to 2011. That's about 50% increase. That seems like a lot, until you look at it relative to the 5-10% increase in Department of Defense spending year-by-year.
|
On September 27 2011 01:58 Roe wrote:
Just a few questions here, and I don't want to seem ranting. Your first point is very true, but isn't it anti-conservative, or in other words very pro-big-government when they protect and increase military spending? What about the whole france debaucle(freedom fries baby!)? Canada's military was heavily criticized by right wingers as well as their politicians especially when compared to the wars the US fought and CA didn't. Why do republicans seem to love getting religion mixed in with government, when that is quite easily a bad thing? I know they are unapologetic about it, but this new(is it new?) move towards zealotry is not only disturbing but endangering to the fabric of the country. (again I can't say the dems haven't or won't do this, but I'm taking you up on your argument)
Conservatives (NOT libertarians) see military spending as being different from other government spending. They see it as an essential function of the federal government, and they also are more willing to use the military to accomplish American ends.
On September 27 2011 01:57 ikl2 wrote:Show nested quote +Here are a few things that come to mind:
- Republicans generally aren't looking to gut the military (this one is obvious);
- Republicans don't piss on our allies (to be fair, this may be something unique to Obama);
- Republicans are more likely to unapologetically pursue American interests rather than sacrifice American interests to appease other countries (like the ballistic missile shield).
The bolded is the only point of interest to me here, but precisely which of your allies is less happy with Obama as your president than Bush? Edit: Also, what does it mean to 'unapologetically pursue American interests' in a foreign policy context? Is this not quite possibly incompatible with your second point?
UK, Israel, and Taiwan all immediately come to mind as allies that Obama has pissed on. I'm sure that there are others, but I can't recall offhand. Hell, Obama even returned Winston Churchill's bust, which had been sitting in the oval office for decades, to the UK.
As for the "unapologetic pursuit of American interests," I don't have time to give an in depth description of what I mean, but I will say this: the general feeling among of conservatives/republicans is that democrats spend more time apologizing for America's actions abroad and/or seeking to please other countries than they should. Yes, multilateralism has its place, but democrats take it too far. We're a superpower and we should act like one when it suits us.
|
There are pretty good reasons for a Kenyan to return a bust of Churchill, all things considered. That's hardly 'pissing' on Britain. Obama also basically blocked the Palestinian resolution for statehood at the UN. It's worth noting that, internationally, Obama is much, much more popular than your average American president - you may have noticed that even on these forums. Given countries such as Canada, the UK, and the Nordic countries are all also American allies...
|
On September 27 2011 02:19 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2011 02:17 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 02:14 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 02:09 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 01:55 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 01:49 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 01:44 TheGlassface wrote:On September 27 2011 01:32 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 01:29 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 01:20 FabledIntegral wrote:
[quote]
I follow the same opinion. I in fact despite the Republicans on social issues, but at the moment I prefer their economic policies. Minus defense spending.
[quote]
Green jobs don't help the economy. I hate that argument. Why would it help the economy? By no means do I think having "green" jobs is a bad thing, but I'm not buying the argument it helps the economy. What? There's a market for green products, just like there's a market for everything else. People don't buy a Prius because it's the most powerful, flashy automobile on the market. If there's a market for green products then shouldn't it emerge via the private market? Why is heavy gov't intervention needed? And if heavy gov't intervention is needed, then it's probably not helping the economy whatsoever in the short term, which is what's crucial. They tried to remove the oil subsidies though...and failed...the market is already being skewed, ya know? Who's to say that green jobs aren't out there but simply can not compete when government is aiming to keep the other competition inflated? I'm also a fan of all subsidies ending so... Because I believe the green subsidies are even larger, but don't quote me on it. Regardless I think we should get rid of most subsidies overall. On September 27 2011 01:45 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 01:32 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 01:29 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 01:20 FabledIntegral wrote:
[quote]
I follow the same opinion. I in fact despite the Republicans on social issues, but at the moment I prefer their economic policies. Minus defense spending.
[quote]
Green jobs don't help the economy. I hate that argument. Why would it help the economy? By no means do I think having "green" jobs is a bad thing, but I'm not buying the argument it helps the economy. What? There's a market for green products, just like there's a market for everything else. People don't buy a Prius because it's the most powerful, flashy automobile on the market. If there's a market for green products then shouldn't it emerge via the private market? Why is heavy gov't intervention needed? And if heavy gov't intervention is needed, then it's probably not helping the economy whatsoever in the short term, which is what's crucial. Last I checked, the government isn't fully paying off every hybrid vehicle and handing them out to anyone who wants to 'save the planet'. The companies researching them, and the people buying them, get a few tax breaks here and there, sure. But, like pretty much every debate we've had so far on the economy in this thread, hell this entire website, we're arguing over frigging pocket-change. Oh no, some green companies went bankrupt despite government assistance! Big deal. Loans always go out with the expectation that some of them are going to default. This is part of the reason why we've come to have a fiat money system. It allows money to evaporate through everyday human mistakes with nary a hiccup in the economy. If not, we'd see a good old-fashioned rebellion every time someone lost their job. Solyndra going under is no big deal. At all. It's normal. Conservatives have turned it into a big deal because, to the uneducated, it's a big story and further 'evidence' of this administration's incompetence - therefore ammunition in order to get the Republicans elected and on a personal basis, further their own desires (whether it's social control, or economic control). In the end, it's a long-term investment, because there is LITERALLY (not the figurative usage of the word literally) no way we're going to maintain our current trend of oil production and consumption forever. The US economy WILL need something else in the future to maintain its energy needs, or it will crumble the moment word gets out that all of the oil is gone. The way I see it, the Republicans want to further jeopardize the country's future to make short-term political gains by pissing and moaning about pocket-change from the bottom of the sofa to try and make the Democrats look bad. I think you're going on an entirely different topic than I was originally mentioning. I never said green jobs were intrinsically bad nor did I say there is no demand for green products. Rather, in the current state of the economy, I'm advocating that investing heavily into the green market should not be a priority on the agenda. Why not? Again, it's pocket change. Even amidst this current jobs market, people should still have the common sense to save away money into their 401k, even if it is only a small amount. Renewable energy funding is merely the government doing the same thing. What, because we're spending umpteen fucking bajillions on a military that has nobody left to kill, and continuing tax breaks for the 'job creators' who STILL aren't creating jobs despite those tax breaks being held in place for another year, we should drop all of these mini projects to make up the numbers? Fuck that shit. Nobody in politics has the cajones to talk about the elephants in the room (the big bills, which also includes other things like Social Security and Medicare) while we sit here fighting, bickering and arguing over that tiny fraction of money we're saving for our kid's college fund every week. Investing heavily =! pocket change. And I think the pocket change argument is stupid itself. Even if we are being retarded with the military, which I agree with you, it doesn't mean that we should be retarded or less cautious elsewhere. It really is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg (direct link if it won't load) 2010 federal spending. Renewable energy research is a small percentage of the (reading clockwise) third red section of that pie chart - Department of Energy. Their entire yearly funding is down to the single digits of Billions, whereas our budget problems are in the thousands of billions. How is this relevant whatsoever to what I said? You keep going on a different topic than I'm mentioning. What I'm saying is that we shouldn't focus on investing heavily into that market, in the current state of things. What that means is I'm saying we shouldn't increase spending into that category by pumping $10+ billion into it. How in the world is the 2010 budget relevant to the debate on the future? If I'm saying we shouldn't pump a ton of money into an industry, your argument that "we're already not putting much in at all" is wholly irrelevant. I editted my last post, so I'll put it here, too. Our short term would be FINE if these fucking, so-called job-creators were doing their jobs by creating jobs! So, what do you do, when these people aren't going to distribute that wealth for everyone's, including their OWN, benefit? FYI, we've tried the tax incentive route for several years now, and still nothing. And I think your perception of what constitutes a 'heavy investment' is skewed. Renewable energy costs went from $8B to $13B from 2010 to 2011. That's about 50% increase. That seems like a lot, until you look at it relative to the 5-10% increase in Department of Defense spending year-by-year.
I don't find that as a viable argument, nor do I find it relevant, but I recognize that I'm in the minority.
|
On September 27 2011 02:19 Bibdy wrote:
And I think your perception of what constitutes a 'heavy investment' is skewed. Renewable energy costs went from $8B to $13B from 2010 to 2011. That's about 50% increase. That seems like a lot, until you look at it relative to the 5-10% increase in Department of Defense spending year-by-year.
What seems to be missing from this discussion is any appreciation for the fact that it's somebody else's money that polkiticians are spending. I have no problem with someone using their own money to invest in renewable energy research. What bothers me is when the government tells me that it's going to take my money and use it on renewable energy research.
I understand that they spend a lot more on defence. But at least this is for the purpose of keeping people safe. I understand that the government will take some of my money and use it to do things that keep me safe (army, police, etc). It still frustrates me that they waste so much of it but at least in principle I accept that this is a legitimate purpose for government to pursue.
But when I see tax money going to green research, or funding for the arts, or to bail out a car company ... I mean WTF? This is money that is forcibly taken from me. If I don't pay my taxes I go to jail. And they go and spend it on this stuff? I find it very aggravating.
|
On September 27 2011 03:31 ikl2 wrote:
There are pretty good reasons for a Kenyan to return a bust of Churchill, all things considered. That's hardly 'pissing' on Britain. Obama also basically blocked the Palestinian resolution for statehood at the UN. It's worth noting that, internationally, Obama is much, much more popular than your average American president - you may have noticed that even on these forums. Given countries such as Canada, the UK, and the Nordic countries are all also American allies...
Yes, Obama is generally popular among the populations of other countries. They still buy into his soaring, yet hollow, rhetoric. Americans, who have had a close look at him for most of three years now, no longer do.
Returning the bust of Churchill was openly antagonistic and petty. The motivations were clearly personal and do not trump the importance of US/UK relations. I don't remember when it was (last year I think), but there was a slew of articles that came out from the UK questioning whether the "special relationship" between the UK and the US still exists. That shouldn't have happened.
As for Israel, blocking Palestine at the UN is the first good thing that Obama has done for Israel. Many suspect that he did it for purely political reasons, because it's inconsistent with how he otherwise has been treating Israel.
|
On September 27 2011 03:31 ikl2 wrote:
There are pretty good reasons for a Kenyan to return a bust of Churchill, all things considered. That's hardly 'pissing' on Britain. Obama also basically blocked the Palestinian resolution for statehood at the UN. It's worth noting that, internationally, Obama is much, much more popular than your average American president - you may have noticed that even on these forums. Given countries such as Canada, the UK, and the Nordic countries are all also American allies...
This is true but it's kind of meaningless. That "popularity" doesn't get Obama anywhere when he asks other countries to contribute troops to UN missions, for example. What difference does it make to Americans if Obama is popular in Europe?
|
United States7483 Posts
On September 27 2011 03:39 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2011 02:19 Bibdy wrote:
And I think your perception of what constitutes a 'heavy investment' is skewed. Renewable energy costs went from $8B to $13B from 2010 to 2011. That's about 50% increase. That seems like a lot, until you look at it relative to the 5-10% increase in Department of Defense spending year-by-year. What seems to be missing from this discussion is any appreciation for the fact that it's somebody else's money that polkiticians are spending. I have no problem with someone using their own money to invest in renewable energy research. What bothers me is when the government tells me that it's going to take my money and use it on renewable energy research. I understand that they spend a lot more on defence. But at least this is for the purpose of keeping people safe. I understand that the government will take some of my money and use it to do things that keep me safe (army, police, etc). It still frustrates me that they waste so much of it but at least in principle I accept that this is a legitimate purpose for government to pursue. But when I see tax money going to green research, or funding for the arts, or to bail out a car company ... I mean WTF? This is money that is forcibly taken from me. If I don't pay my taxes I go to jail. And they go and spend it on this stuff? I find it very aggravating.
How is it that people haven't figured out yet the fact that an enormous amount of our defense spending is completely unnecessary and wasteful, and we could probably cut our defense spending in half and still be just as safe as we are now, not to mention that we'd still have one of the highest amounts of military spending on the planet?
EDIT: We still have a ton of overseas military bases that aren't accomplishing anything really, in locations that haven't been relevant in a long time (since the cold war ended). Closing those down, I would think, would be a top priority for everyone, including diehard republicans. Can we all agree that although defense spending is important, that wasteful defense spending should be eliminated? There's no reason we can't increase the efficiency of our military spending and reduce the costs.
|
On September 27 2011 02:19 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2011 02:17 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 02:14 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 02:09 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 01:55 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 01:49 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 01:44 TheGlassface wrote:On September 27 2011 01:32 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 01:29 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 01:20 FabledIntegral wrote:
[quote]
I follow the same opinion. I in fact despite the Republicans on social issues, but at the moment I prefer their economic policies. Minus defense spending.
[quote]
Green jobs don't help the economy. I hate that argument. Why would it help the economy? By no means do I think having "green" jobs is a bad thing, but I'm not buying the argument it helps the economy. What? There's a market for green products, just like there's a market for everything else. People don't buy a Prius because it's the most powerful, flashy automobile on the market. If there's a market for green products then shouldn't it emerge via the private market? Why is heavy gov't intervention needed? And if heavy gov't intervention is needed, then it's probably not helping the economy whatsoever in the short term, which is what's crucial. They tried to remove the oil subsidies though...and failed...the market is already being skewed, ya know? Who's to say that green jobs aren't out there but simply can not compete when government is aiming to keep the other competition inflated? I'm also a fan of all subsidies ending so... Because I believe the green subsidies are even larger, but don't quote me on it. Regardless I think we should get rid of most subsidies overall. On September 27 2011 01:45 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 01:32 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 01:29 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 01:20 FabledIntegral wrote:
[quote]
I follow the same opinion. I in fact despite the Republicans on social issues, but at the moment I prefer their economic policies. Minus defense spending.
[quote]
Green jobs don't help the economy. I hate that argument. Why would it help the economy? By no means do I think having "green" jobs is a bad thing, but I'm not buying the argument it helps the economy. What? There's a market for green products, just like there's a market for everything else. People don't buy a Prius because it's the most powerful, flashy automobile on the market. If there's a market for green products then shouldn't it emerge via the private market? Why is heavy gov't intervention needed? And if heavy gov't intervention is needed, then it's probably not helping the economy whatsoever in the short term, which is what's crucial. Last I checked, the government isn't fully paying off every hybrid vehicle and handing them out to anyone who wants to 'save the planet'. The companies researching them, and the people buying them, get a few tax breaks here and there, sure. But, like pretty much every debate we've had so far on the economy in this thread, hell this entire website, we're arguing over frigging pocket-change. Oh no, some green companies went bankrupt despite government assistance! Big deal. Loans always go out with the expectation that some of them are going to default. This is part of the reason why we've come to have a fiat money system. It allows money to evaporate through everyday human mistakes with nary a hiccup in the economy. If not, we'd see a good old-fashioned rebellion every time someone lost their job. Solyndra going under is no big deal. At all. It's normal. Conservatives have turned it into a big deal because, to the uneducated, it's a big story and further 'evidence' of this administration's incompetence - therefore ammunition in order to get the Republicans elected and on a personal basis, further their own desires (whether it's social control, or economic control). In the end, it's a long-term investment, because there is LITERALLY (not the figurative usage of the word literally) no way we're going to maintain our current trend of oil production and consumption forever. The US economy WILL need something else in the future to maintain its energy needs, or it will crumble the moment word gets out that all of the oil is gone. The way I see it, the Republicans want to further jeopardize the country's future to make short-term political gains by pissing and moaning about pocket-change from the bottom of the sofa to try and make the Democrats look bad. I think you're going on an entirely different topic than I was originally mentioning. I never said green jobs were intrinsically bad nor did I say there is no demand for green products. Rather, in the current state of the economy, I'm advocating that investing heavily into the green market should not be a priority on the agenda. Why not? Again, it's pocket change. Even amidst this current jobs market, people should still have the common sense to save away money into their 401k, even if it is only a small amount. Renewable energy funding is merely the government doing the same thing. What, because we're spending umpteen fucking bajillions on a military that has nobody left to kill, and continuing tax breaks for the 'job creators' who STILL aren't creating jobs despite those tax breaks being held in place for another year, we should drop all of these mini projects to make up the numbers? Fuck that shit. Nobody in politics has the cajones to talk about the elephants in the room (the big bills, which also includes other things like Social Security and Medicare) while we sit here fighting, bickering and arguing over that tiny fraction of money we're saving for our kid's college fund every week. Investing heavily =! pocket change. And I think the pocket change argument is stupid itself. Even if we are being retarded with the military, which I agree with you, it doesn't mean that we should be retarded or less cautious elsewhere. It really is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg (direct link if it won't load) 2010 federal spending. Renewable energy research is a small percentage of the (reading clockwise) third red section of that pie chart - Department of Energy. Their entire yearly funding is down to the single digits of Billions, whereas our budget problems are in the thousands of billions. How is this relevant whatsoever to what I said? You keep going on a different topic than I'm mentioning. What I'm saying is that we shouldn't focus on investing heavily into that market, in the current state of things. What that means is I'm saying we shouldn't increase spending into that category by pumping $10+ billion into it. How in the world is the 2010 budget relevant to the debate on the future? If I'm saying we shouldn't pump a ton of money into an industry, your argument that "we're already not putting much in at all" is wholly irrelevant. I editted my last post, so I'll put it here, too. Our short term would be FINE if these fucking, so-called job-creators were doing their jobs by creating jobs! So, what do you do, when these people aren't going to distribute that wealth for everyone's, including their OWN, benefit? FYI, we've tried the tax incentive route for several years now, and still nothing. And I think your perception of what constitutes a 'heavy investment' is skewed. Renewable energy costs went from $8B to $13B from 2010 to 2011. That's about 50% increase. That seems like a lot, until you look at it relative to the 5-10% increase in Department of Defense spending year-by-year.
are you really that ignorant? if it was in their interest to create jobs... they would, but it's not, because the cost of labor is too high, and the current interest rates are unsustainably low...
you and whitewing both understand economics so poorly, that it's almost futile to argue with you because you think that bad is good.
|
Canada11377 Posts
On September 27 2011 03:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2011 01:58 Roe wrote:
Just a few questions here, and I don't want to seem ranting. Your first point is very true, but isn't it anti-conservative, or in other words very pro-big-government when they protect and increase military spending? What about the whole france debaucle(freedom fries baby!)? Canada's military was heavily criticized by right wingers as well as their politicians especially when compared to the wars the US fought and CA didn't. Why do republicans seem to love getting religion mixed in with government, when that is quite easily a bad thing? I know they are unapologetic about it, but this new(is it new?) move towards zealotry is not only disturbing but endangering to the fabric of the country. (again I can't say the dems haven't or won't do this, but I'm taking you up on your argument) Conservatives (NOT libertarians) see military spending as being different from other government spending. They see it as an essential function of the federal government, and they also are more willing to use the military to accomplish American ends. Show nested quote +On September 27 2011 01:57 ikl2 wrote:Here are a few things that come to mind:
- Republicans generally aren't looking to gut the military (this one is obvious);
- Republicans don't piss on our allies (to be fair, this may be something unique to Obama);
- Republicans are more likely to unapologetically pursue American interests rather than sacrifice American interests to appease other countries (like the ballistic missile shield).
The bolded is the only point of interest to me here, but precisely which of your allies is less happy with Obama as your president than Bush? Edit: Also, what does it mean to 'unapologetically pursue American interests' in a foreign policy context? Is this not quite possibly incompatible with your second point? UK, Israel, and Taiwan all immediately come to mind as allies that Obama has pissed on. I'm sure that there are others, but I can't recall offhand. Hell, Obama even returned Winston Churchill's bust, which had been sitting in the oval office for decades, to the UK. As for the "unapologetic pursuit of American interests," I don't have time to give an in depth description of what I mean, but I will say this: the general feeling among of conservatives/republicans is that democrats spend more time apologizing for America's actions abroad and/or seeking to please other countries than they should. Yes, multilateralism has its place, but democrats take it too far. We're a superpower and we should act like one when it suits us.
I can't believe in 3 short years the US is already going back to it's belligerent geopolitics attitude. That was exactly why the Bush admin was so reviled by the international community. He was demonstrably tone deaf to international discourse. US has the biggest stick, so they have the biggest influence. That's obvious unless you're an isolationist. But how you use the stick is an entirely other matter. I actually think Obama's handling of Libya was (while bumpy) a fairly reasonable approach to building consensus and pushing US allies to do more. Given the context of the Iraq (America's personal war) and the ongoing Afghanistan war, is delicate balancing act was helping topple a dictatorship, but not committing too much so as to repeat the Iraq mistake. (Which was, if you read Niall Ferguson, to try both the belligerent, we don't care about the UN- Rumsfield or Cheny at the same time as conciliatory we want to act within the UN- Colin Powell.)
The US could've gone in under the original UN mandate when opposition was limited to a few countries. Once they went back for a second, stronger mandate, then opposition was able to consolidate and US lost the PR battle.
If you want, you can flaunt your big stick and tell everyone to f-off. But you can use that same stick and manage international relations, building consensus and overall I think the result is better, though perhaps harder. Any empire runs into these sorts of things. The Boer War and the concentration camps blew up in the British's faces when word got out to the international community. An astute foreign policy is not tone deaf.
In addition, it seems like the US is still fighting the Cold War. I don't necessarily agree with Paul's isolationist tendencies, but he is right that the US could afford to roll back a whole bunch of their bases and remain secure. There is literally is no-one to challenge the US.
|
On September 27 2011 04:08 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2011 02:19 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 02:17 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 02:14 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 02:09 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 01:55 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 01:49 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 01:44 TheGlassface wrote:On September 27 2011 01:32 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 01:29 Bibdy wrote:
[quote]
What? There's a market for green products, just like there's a market for everything else. People don't buy a Prius because it's the most powerful, flashy automobile on the market. If there's a market for green products then shouldn't it emerge via the private market? Why is heavy gov't intervention needed? And if heavy gov't intervention is needed, then it's probably not helping the economy whatsoever in the short term, which is what's crucial. They tried to remove the oil subsidies though...and failed...the market is already being skewed, ya know? Who's to say that green jobs aren't out there but simply can not compete when government is aiming to keep the other competition inflated? I'm also a fan of all subsidies ending so... Because I believe the green subsidies are even larger, but don't quote me on it. Regardless I think we should get rid of most subsidies overall. On September 27 2011 01:45 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 01:32 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 01:29 Bibdy wrote:
[quote]
What? There's a market for green products, just like there's a market for everything else. People don't buy a Prius because it's the most powerful, flashy automobile on the market. If there's a market for green products then shouldn't it emerge via the private market? Why is heavy gov't intervention needed? And if heavy gov't intervention is needed, then it's probably not helping the economy whatsoever in the short term, which is what's crucial. Last I checked, the government isn't fully paying off every hybrid vehicle and handing them out to anyone who wants to 'save the planet'. The companies researching them, and the people buying them, get a few tax breaks here and there, sure. But, like pretty much every debate we've had so far on the economy in this thread, hell this entire website, we're arguing over frigging pocket-change. Oh no, some green companies went bankrupt despite government assistance! Big deal. Loans always go out with the expectation that some of them are going to default. This is part of the reason why we've come to have a fiat money system. It allows money to evaporate through everyday human mistakes with nary a hiccup in the economy. If not, we'd see a good old-fashioned rebellion every time someone lost their job. Solyndra going under is no big deal. At all. It's normal. Conservatives have turned it into a big deal because, to the uneducated, it's a big story and further 'evidence' of this administration's incompetence - therefore ammunition in order to get the Republicans elected and on a personal basis, further their own desires (whether it's social control, or economic control). In the end, it's a long-term investment, because there is LITERALLY (not the figurative usage of the word literally) no way we're going to maintain our current trend of oil production and consumption forever. The US economy WILL need something else in the future to maintain its energy needs, or it will crumble the moment word gets out that all of the oil is gone. The way I see it, the Republicans want to further jeopardize the country's future to make short-term political gains by pissing and moaning about pocket-change from the bottom of the sofa to try and make the Democrats look bad. I think you're going on an entirely different topic than I was originally mentioning. I never said green jobs were intrinsically bad nor did I say there is no demand for green products. Rather, in the current state of the economy, I'm advocating that investing heavily into the green market should not be a priority on the agenda. Why not? Again, it's pocket change. Even amidst this current jobs market, people should still have the common sense to save away money into their 401k, even if it is only a small amount. Renewable energy funding is merely the government doing the same thing. What, because we're spending umpteen fucking bajillions on a military that has nobody left to kill, and continuing tax breaks for the 'job creators' who STILL aren't creating jobs despite those tax breaks being held in place for another year, we should drop all of these mini projects to make up the numbers? Fuck that shit. Nobody in politics has the cajones to talk about the elephants in the room (the big bills, which also includes other things like Social Security and Medicare) while we sit here fighting, bickering and arguing over that tiny fraction of money we're saving for our kid's college fund every week. Investing heavily =! pocket change. And I think the pocket change argument is stupid itself. Even if we are being retarded with the military, which I agree with you, it doesn't mean that we should be retarded or less cautious elsewhere. It really is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg (direct link if it won't load) 2010 federal spending. Renewable energy research is a small percentage of the (reading clockwise) third red section of that pie chart - Department of Energy. Their entire yearly funding is down to the single digits of Billions, whereas our budget problems are in the thousands of billions. How is this relevant whatsoever to what I said? You keep going on a different topic than I'm mentioning. What I'm saying is that we shouldn't focus on investing heavily into that market, in the current state of things. What that means is I'm saying we shouldn't increase spending into that category by pumping $10+ billion into it. How in the world is the 2010 budget relevant to the debate on the future? If I'm saying we shouldn't pump a ton of money into an industry, your argument that "we're already not putting much in at all" is wholly irrelevant. I editted my last post, so I'll put it here, too. Our short term would be FINE if these fucking, so-called job-creators were doing their jobs by creating jobs! So, what do you do, when these people aren't going to distribute that wealth for everyone's, including their OWN, benefit? FYI, we've tried the tax incentive route for several years now, and still nothing. And I think your perception of what constitutes a 'heavy investment' is skewed. Renewable energy costs went from $8B to $13B from 2010 to 2011. That's about 50% increase. That seems like a lot, until you look at it relative to the 5-10% increase in Department of Defense spending year-by-year. are you really that ignorant? if it was in their interest to create jobs... they would, but it's not, because the cost of labor is too high, and the current interest rates are unsustainably low... you and whitewing both understand economics so poorly, that it's almost futile to argue with you because you think that bad is good.
Oh please, get off your high horse, you pretentious ass. I understand micro and macroeconomics perfectly fine. $8-$13 B in government spending barely makes a dent. Pretending otherwise is nothing short of the same kind of childish opportunism that Conservatives are using to try and make these policies look bad to further their own agenda. You could take all of the money out of these 'UTTERLY WASTEFUL GOVERNMENT PROJECTS', and still come woefully short of fixing the current budget.
Isn't that the EXACT same kind of thinking that leads these so-called economists to predict that letting the Bush tax cuts would ONLY make an $800 B a year dent...wait. $800 B? That sounds like an awful lot similar to the entire Congressional discretionary spending budget.
Yeah, you have it exactly right, there are no jobs because they're cowards. The business world is currently locked up in this stupid self-fulfilling prophecy of a double-dip recession. Let me paint a picture for you:
Investors the world over hear news that a double-dip recession COULD happen (only because it has happened in the past. Presently, zero evidence of it occurring)
Something happens in the global markets causes some mischief. Fairly minor in general (e.g. US credit rating drop by a trivial amount from some obscure agency nobody had ever heard of until now, more repetition of the 'fear' of Greece defaulting, some oil derrick explodes, some backwater country that doesn't have shit to do with anything has a democratic revolution).
Investors see this as a coming of the prophecy and start pulling money out to prevent them losing money.
More jobs are lost as a result of investors 'turtling up' for the coming apocalypse. Now there's plenty of evidence of a double-dip recession on the way, caused by the very same people who were terrified of it to begin with.
Repeat ad nauseum.
It's easy to predict the future when you create it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
