EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 551
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
KwarK
United States43213 Posts
| ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
On July 28 2018 14:39 KwarK wrote: Liberalism doesn't actually have a stance on forest fires, as far as I know. Liberals in Oregon sure as hell do. And they are demanding our representatives to ask Uncle Sam for increased funding. Maybe it's that liberalism places a higher priority on personal property? | ||
BlueBird.
United States3889 Posts
I find majority of people in this country love their personal property regardless of their affiliation with any political ideology. At least our policy on fire suppression isn't all fires are bad anymore like back in 1910. We've made some progress :D. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On July 28 2018 14:42 screamingpalm wrote: Liberals in Oregon sure as hell do. And they are demanding our representatives to ask Uncle Sam for increased funding. Maybe it's that liberalism places a higher priority on personal property? Just guessing here, but you're a libertarian? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21952 Posts
| ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On July 28 2018 04:45 JimmiC wrote: Exactly dealing with Germany Pre world war 2 only looks awful in hindsight. Honestly? No, it doesn't. If you look at it in context, Hitler was a world leader who had taken a broken country and made it proud again. There was no reason not to deal with Hitler Germany at that time. What looks awful in hindsight is choosing to stay out of the war forever even when it was clear what was going on to all involved, then rampaging in at the end for a victory lap and recasting it as American heroism, carefully editing out the contributions of basically everyone else to that war in media etc. If Japan hadn't decided to attack Pearl Harbour there's a reasonable chance Britain would have fallen. We were on the brink. | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
On July 28 2018 15:25 BlueBird. wrote: I mean I'm very liberal in Oregon but i also have some understanding of ecological succession and disturbance. I find majority of people in this country love their personal property regardless of their affiliation with any political ideology. At least our policy on fire suppression isn't all fires are bad anymore like back in 1910. We've made some progress :D. Yes, definitely. So let me ask you then- what is your opinion on increasing funds for fire suppression? Do you think it is a better idea to continue in this direction or use those funds to refit with appropriate materials in these areas and demand better standards? On July 28 2018 17:14 Gorsameth wrote: America is big, have you considered not building into forests that burn down every year? Yes, exactly lol. But if we must, some building regulations should be required. On July 28 2018 17:06 WolfintheSheep wrote: Just guessing here, but you're a libertarian? Depending on the meaning- not in the typical sense/use. I consider myself to be far-left/progressive. I once took a silly political quiz that uses the grid and ended up with 'left-libertarian' (bottom left corner of the grid- top area was 'authoritarian'). Facebook deems that I am "Very Liberal" (not sure I agree lol). | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9716 Posts
On July 28 2018 14:39 KwarK wrote: Liberalism doesn't actually have a stance on forest fires, as far as I know. I'm at least partly liberal and I would like to say now that I am absolutely against forest fires. If I was in charge I would definitely try to avoid forest fires. The worst thing about Trump for me is all the forest fires. (I have no context for this discussion this comment was just at the top of the current page) | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
On July 28 2018 18:18 Jockmcplop wrote: I'm at least partly liberal and I would like to say now that I am absolutely against forest fires. If I was in charge I would definitely try to avoid forest fires. The worst thing about Trump for me is all the forest fires. (I have no context for this discussion this comment was just at the top of the current page) Ironically, that is part of the problem. Long term effects of fire suppression have left our great Sequoias unable to reproduce. The estimate is that we are missing 2 or 3 generations of them. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9716 Posts
On July 28 2018 18:24 screamingpalm wrote: Ironically, that is part of the problem. Long term effects of fire suppression have left our great Sequoias unable to reproduce. The estimate is that we are missing 2 or 3 generations of them. This is why I shouldn't speak on stuff I have absolutely no idea about. It seems like an interesting topic though I might go read about it, thanks. | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
On July 28 2018 18:25 Jockmcplop wrote: This is why I shouldn't speak on stuff I have absolutely no idea about. It seems like an interesting topic though I might go read about it, thanks. I thought this was a well written article, except the end where they talk about "taxpayer dollars". But the point being made was still relevant and they are ecologists and not economists heh. http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/eij/article/the_war_against_wildfire/ | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On July 28 2018 14:39 KwarK wrote: Liberalism doesn't actually have a stance on forest fires, as far as I know. Gotta admit, fire is pretty liberal; it'll burn all comers without prejudice. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4733 Posts
| ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
On July 28 2018 21:25 iamthedave wrote: Gotta admit, fire is pretty liberal; it'll burn all comers without prejudice. Which is the problem with liberals. They need to adopt a patchwork quilt pattern of burns to be effective.  | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9135 Posts
On July 28 2018 18:38 screamingpalm wrote: I thought this was a well written article, except the end where they talk about "taxpayer dollars". But the point being made was still relevant and they are ecologists and not economists heh. http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/eij/article/the_war_against_wildfire/ You're still on with this pedantry, referring to government spending as 'taxpayer dollars' is perfectly fine even though it's only indirectly true from an operational point of view. Economists use it as well when writing op-eds for example, because colloquially is how we collectively agreed to communicate with eachother in day to day life in order for non-technical discussion to not be a drag. This is akin to feeling smug when correcting someone for using poisonous instead of venomous, even though the former is also true despite being less precise. | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
On July 28 2018 22:15 Dan HH wrote: You're still on with this pedantry, referring to government spending as 'taxpayer dollars' is perfectly fine even though it's only indirectly true from an operational point of view. Economists use it as well when writing op-eds for example, because colloquially is how we collectively agreed to communicate with eachother in day to day life in order for non-technical discussion to not be a drag. This is akin to feeling smug when correcting someone for using poisonous instead of venomous, even though the former is also true despite being less precise. Yes. Because that type of rhetoric is cancerous and creates a lot of unnecessary problems. It also promotes bigotry and xenophobia, as we all know what a "taxpayer" is supposed to look like. It is an inaccurate description that misleads people into thinking that "their money" is being used for things that they don't appreciate. Or, conversely, think that it is used for programs they feel entitled to- such as Social Security. People do not understand that FICA is a tax, and that SS payments are newly created dollars. "Taxpayer dollars" is not fine whatsoever- not even in an indirect method, because operationally, taxation has nothing to do with federal spending. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18838 Posts
| ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9135 Posts
On July 28 2018 22:24 screamingpalm wrote: Yes. Because that type of rhetoric is cancerous and creates a lot of unnecessary problems. It also promotes bigotry and xenophobia, as we all know what a "taxpayer" is supposed to look like. It is an inaccurate description that misleads people into thinking that "their money" is being used for things that they don't appreciate. Or, conversely, think that it is used for programs they feel entitled to- such as Social Security. People do not understand that FICA is a tax, and that SS payments are newly created dollars. "Taxpayer dollars" is not fine whatsoever- not even in an indirect method, because operationally, taxation has nothing to do with federal spending. Newly created dollars have to amount to ideally a small percentage more than the money removed from the economy though tax in order to avoid you having to spend 100$ on a pack of gum next year. It's not 'their money' per se, as in a bill that passed from their hand to the government, but spending is still inextricably tied to tax in a working economy, regardless of the operational mechanism behind it. Even though taxes in the US are more like an MMO's gold sink than how it works in other countries, government's spending is still 'taxpayer's money' in an indirect way because printing significantly more than it deletes becomes inflation. That some people don't want the government to use their money to assist others, that's a whole other discussion. I don't think telling them it's not their money would change that view, it's more likely to make them say well don't don't delete my money then, let me keep it. | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
On July 28 2018 22:53 Dan HH wrote: Newly created dollars have to amount to ideally a small percentage more than the money removed from the economy though tax in order to avoid you having to spend 100$ on a pack of gum next year. It's not 'their money' per se, as in a bill that passed from their hand to the government, but spending is still inextricably tied to tax in a working economy, regardless of the operational mechanism behind it. Even though taxes in the US are more like an MMO's gold sink than how it works in other countries, government's spending is still 'taxpayer's money' in an indirect way because printing significantly more than it deletes becomes inflation. That some people don't want the government to use their money to assist others, that's a whole other discussion. I don't think telling them it's not their money would change that view, it's more likely to make them say well don't don't delete my money then, let me keep it. No this is all wrong as far as the US (and other monetary sovereign nations) is concerned. A $100 dollar pack of gum has nothing to do with the amount of money in circulation, but the availability of the gum itself. I've gone over this many times already in this thread, you can look up Greenspan talking to Paul Ryan about this- it is the amount of real resources available that determines hyperinflation, not currency. Look up Japan for another example. They try very hard to get inflation and fail- much higher debt to GDP than the US. Taxes are deleted from the system, the government's money (which they alone create) are not "taxpayer dollars" in any way shape or form. Taxes like FICA, are sort of like war bonds in the US during WW2. They take money out of circulation, while at the same time let people feel like they have "skin in the game". A form of Calvinism if you will. | ||
| ||
