The problem is that most people who are happily married aren't very vocal about it. BUT, those that aren't happy, or are divorced, are VERY vocal.
For example: I have been happily married for 5 years now, and we dated for 5 before that step. I get my wife flowers every week, because she puts up with me peeing on the toilet seat, breaking things to see how they work, and generally bitching when I've had a bad day.
No one knows. Well, I've only told you folks about it - my family knows, but that's because they come over to my house.
My supervisor has been divorced for nine years, and complains every day. Let me repeat - N...I...N...E......Y...E...A...R...S... and still complains every day. Who is the better model? Me. Who do people know more about? Her.
It's simple logic - more exposure = more proof, right?
Here's a little advice, for free - when arguing your point, don't advocate for exterminating populations. . . . . It doesn't generally draw that many supporters.
Exactly - you catch the little fellas and ladies while they're young, that way they don't turn into black-hats later. This is called investing in the future, and there needs to be shitloads more of it. I don't care if they don't catch anything major, just investing in them and showing that older folks value their insight goes a long way, ask any teacher.
While I agree with your arguments, mostly, there is one place that I just don't get.
This is why this case should be an indicator to the US public that their system is going to the dogs
Do you really believe that the US is falling apart? It seems to me that around 99% of the problems we see today are mostly manufactured by various news agencies/websites to drum up viewers (or, rather, pointed out in grand fashion and made to seem much, much worse than they are – what’s the word? Oh, yeah, sensationalism). It seems to me that this alarmist “THE PRESIDENT IS A TYRANT”/”CONGRESS IS EVIL”/”HOLLYWOOD IS KILLING INNOVATION”/”OCCUPY PROTESTERS RAPED 10000 PEOPLE” arguments are just varying degrees of ‘get off my lawn’.
It just seems that this panicked running around is a bit much? Or maybe I’m off the mark on this.
While our congress may be bought and paid for, don't we have a long history of crooked politicians being led around by their purse strings? The president may be grasping power for some aim, but don't they all? And haven't young people always hated what the generation before them loved?
That's my biggest bitch point. If you're going to make a competition that pits human endurance against devious minds and obstacles, leave it that way. I can understand adding trials to get there - too many people would show up and you have to be able to cull the herd. After that, though, I don't care who has the fastest time. I don't care if Joe is better than John. I want to see Joe and John both bust their asses to get to the end. AND putting money up for grabs?
Bullshit.
It's bullshit. It takes the spirit of the competition and completely changes it. Leave it the fuck alone. Life is already too full of competition against other idiot monkeys. Why can't we have one thing that pits all of us against one thing? Teams, and what-not.
Fans of the original simply should not have gotten their hopes up.
Fans of the original never had hopes for this version - as you said, the core group that loved the original knew from the start that the american version would be an abortion. Late comers, God bless them, might like the new, watered down version, because ignorance is bliss.
I find it absolutely entertaining to see how poorly a marketer or television guru can do when given enough time and money. Hell, I could rip off a show from another country and do it terribly. Where's my paycheck?
And I LOVED the "most extreme elimination challenge" version of Takeshi's Castle. I don't care how far off it was. I fucking loved that show. Guy LeDouche was my favorite 'character' of any show, ever.
All they need is some developers who know to focus on the FUN factor of games. I'm tired of the industry rating games on graphics and realism. I want games that are fun, with a high replayability factor. I have enough realism from 8-5. I don't need to see individual hairs on the back of my character's neck stand up when he gets shot in the face.
I agree, but what are our options? They are working in someone's best interests. They are doing the work that some US citizen wants done. Is it the majority? No, but somewhere, they can point to someone and say, see, he agrees with me.
Remember, that to most politicians, $1 = 1 voice. Are they wrong for being disconnected? Sure, but also remember that they've been conditioned to be that way. Our system is set up so that he with the most money has the most voice. What I find sad is that it makes complete sense that many politicians could be confused about why the general public doesn't approve of what they're doing. They see the money coming in, and money must mean support, so what's wrong?
So what are our options? Really, that's an honest question, because I'm out of ideas. You can say, HANG THE BASTARDS, but really, how do you prove that they weren't working in someone's best interests without being bribed? And how do we decide that the person investigating the bribery isn't crooked in turn? Do we assume that anyone working for some end that is counter to our own is a shill? Or what, what do we do? Seriously, I'm at a loss at this point, and I'm taking suggestions on a new world-view/political belief.
the new Diablo III favorite "Get a real internet connection, looser[sic]!"
This is my favorite, because it is very suburban/urban centered, and is easily argued against by pointing out that not everyone lives in urban areas. It is my favorite, because that line of conversation invariably leads to my second favorite pearl of wisdom, "WELL, if you don't like crappy internet, move out of the country."
It's as if people don't understand where food comes from, that the people who make that food also enjoy/have a use for technology, and that the countryside isn't actually full of castles, serfs and fucking mud farms.
I'm not certain it's hypocrisy, as much as acknowledging DRM done well (not right, just well). -- at least this way I can trade a game or play offline if I want to!
As a side note, I'm not excited that this is the way the world is going, because I live in BFE, and my internet connection is T.E.R.R.I.B.L.E. at best, and suicide inducing at worst.
$2000/mo? How about we shoot for the actual poor folks, and not just the ones who can't afford new shoes every month? Try $500-$800/mo. That would give them a better view of it. Teach them how to decide who in the family gets to eat a full meal today, or how to decide between food and medicine. Try poverty, not just lower-middle class.
Or, if you don't want to be that extreme, how about a seasonal salary like farm folks? Give them a balance of negative $100,000 in March, and then teach them how to pray that it's not too hot/wet/dry/anything, so that the crop can help them pay back what they owe with enough left over after taxes and interest to eat for another year.
When I received your reply, I was surprised that my brain was working in the same manner as Einstein. As such, I've been thinking about this for a while now. The conclusion that I've come to isn't the obvious one that most people would have (that I have heard this quote before, and it somehow made its way into my subconscious). Nope. My conclusion is that I AM AS SMART AS ALBERT EINSTEIN.
It's actually interesting to see how we've come full circle - war starts = sticks and rocks, continues = swords and shields, more = catapulting dead bodies over sieged walls, continues = guns and bullets and traditional bombs, continues = atom bomb bitches, more = the MOAB, smart missles and bombs, and big ass machine guns to tear buildings to pieces - or, a step back to conventional bombs, now = bio-engineered weapons, or the cheaters version of lobbing bodies over walls.
I'm predicting a run on big sticks and bigger rocks at around the year 2026 or so.
We are arguing the exact same thing, but from different angles. Your belief is that the free-market is the cure, not a perfect one, but better than government. Mine is the polar opposite. I do understand what freedom is. My freedom is to choose to not let the free-market make my decisions, based on what would be profitable this month. I choose to be altruistic and not say fuck the rest of you people. I choose to think for myself and not just consume. I choose to get involved in government, because believe it or not, you can impact it if you want to. I understand the accumulation of wealth and power, economics, production, money and freedom. believe it or not, my views are just different from yours. Am I wrong? Maybe. Are you? Also, maybe. There are advanced degrees sitting on my wall. That doesn't necessarily mean I know everything, or that I'm right. It just means that I have done my homework.
Realistically, we are hashing out the chicken versus the egg argument. Did business screw up the government, or did government pervert the businesses? My opinion is that government started regulating business, it was less profitable, so businesses put their money where they could have the most impact - fucking up the system.
My argument is that MONEY and business have corrupted what we have here in the US. My morals tell me that the law is in place for two reasons: To make sure the government doesn't step over the line - absolutely; and to make sure that businesses leave me alone, don't screw up too much, and do good by the public.
What you call greed, I call basic desire of humans for better life. Individuals address that by working, that's what they do absent gov't. Gov't destroys the ability of people to be self-sustainable, self-respecting individuals, breaks their legs, hands them crutches and says: see, without me you wouldn't be able to walk. Vote for me.
And NOPE. Government exists to make sure that itself, you, and everyone around can't fuck me into the ground. It exists to make sure that Joe Billionaire isn't employing children because they're cheaper. Is it always good? No, absolutely not. Is it better than letting profit figure out what's best for me? Yes, absolutely.
I have never seen complete state control, but I honestly don't believe that we are anywhere near that right now. Anyone who would argue that is just fear-mongering. BUT, you are right, I have made up my mind --- I've seen what privatization and profit motivation can do. Granted, it was briefly, but I was present for the dismantling of the public sector that took place in South America (I got the F out before SHTF). As you said in your post, I will never, ever see that happen again. Ever. My family won't suffer like that, and I won't go through it again. YOUR profit doesn't allow you to starve my family.
Constitutional. It doesn't mean what you think it means. To you it is a barrier against getting something you believe you are entitled to from others.
No, it means exactly what I think it means. Allowed by the constitution. Is there another definition? And no, the constitution is not a barrier for my entitlement. It is a barrier that keeps businesses, churches, cults, and yes, the government, from living my life for me. It has nothing to do with entitlement. It has everything to do with you throwing out an off-topic response that still seems out of place, thanks.
Either way, you say tomato (short 'a'), I say tomato (long 'a'). We see the same problem, but from vastly different angles. There really is no convincing either of us to the other's belief system, but it's a beautiful country whose government allows this rational discourse, correct?
How about now? Can you provide sources now? I'm quite interested, so I'm following you. I tried searching for "strong AI" --- it's all philosophical stuff in the results. I tried searching ERIC databases for "strong AI" - again, philosophical discussions.
Sources, please. Make outlandish claims, that's fine. But provide sources, don't just say, "can mostly be verified by a sufficiently intelligent and dedicated researcher." That's a BS thing to do. It's calling us dumb and lazy before we even try.
Okay? I'm not arguing that income tax is constitutional or not. . . I'm arguing that the public sector, even with all of its faults, is better at long-range planning and looking out for our general health and well-being than the private side. I'm arguing that greed is a terrible motivator and that your arguments are terrible as well. I'm arguing that Standard Oil was evil (and you know it), and that the pipeline you used is an awful example. I'm arguing that the only reason that you are educated enough to argue is because of the laws in place to protect people that came about because businesses abused the system and got caught. I'm arguing that I DO NOT need businessmen and women to decide what's best for me, and that corporations NEVER have our best intentions in mind, unless they can grab a quick buck out of it. I'm arguing that what I need is for government to tell businesses to leave me the fuck alone. I need the government to regulate what shit businesses can spew into my water, air and land. I'm arguing that free-market doesn't work, because the assholes in power have no checks and balances, and it becomes what we have in our world right now, and what has happened countless times in the past: Accumulation of wealth by the few, fuck the many and a slow-slide into anarchy.
Why would you derail the argument like that? What purpose does that serve?
I don't care if it's unconstitutional. I care that idiots want to privatize everything at the expense of the lowest common denominator in the world, because fuck poor people, right? If they were any good, they wouldn't be poor - just pull your bootstraps a little harder you lazy poor people.
That's less a problem with the power company, and more a problem with tree selection. Plant some damned trees, but make sure they grow>10ft. A little education on the part of the community organization could go along way. We have a friends of the canopy group here in the middle of the country who advocates successfully for that old-timey main street scene. What is their number one way? Education for the public that 10ft is what we're regulated to here, and that a tree listed to grow 30-80 feet has no business on a city street or near power lines. It seems to work (except for when tornadoes show up - those assholes ruin the party). Now the only problem we have is that maintenance is so low that the local power company cut nearly all of its maintenance workers. You're welcome, Mr. CEO, for your yearly bonus at our expense.
The productive USA was built without income taxes, without corporate taxes, without payroll taxes, without FDIC, Fed, IRS, FDA, FHA, EPA, CIA, FBI, SS, Medicare, EI, Medicaid, welfare, without dep't of energy, education, agriculture, small business, commerce, interior, HUD, etc.
Do you know why those things exist? To protect citizens. You can say what you want about the Gub'ment being out to get you, but it's true. Private enterprise in the 19th and early 20th century proved one thing, over-and-over, it will cut costs to the point of being dangerous to its workers, just to increase short-term profits. What choice do we have? Are you telling me that we can trust corporations to do what's in our best interests? If you say yes, please google anything with large businesses and the start of the labor movement.
But how does a country become a productive exporter, creditor without gov't building infrastructure? Because it's not true that gov't is needed to build any of it, what IS true is that WEALTH is needed to build infrastructure.There has to be a REASON to build infrastructure, there has to be wealth first, there has to be a promise of making a return - the profit motive is the driver, nothing else.
Okay, what about us who live where it wouldn't be profitable to run power, water or any other essential service? I guess we're just screwed. And Profit as the driver is an incredibly fine line. Today's attitude of bar-the-door short-term profits at the expense of all else doesn't exactly lend itself to developing long-term strategy. You know what does? Slow-moving government.
Infrastructure? How about the Keystone pipeline - the actual PRODUCTIVE infrastructure that private companies want to build, because they believe it's going to be profitable, it's going to make money. Is that the wrong thing today somehow - making money? USA was built by business, not by any government. USA was built by ABSENCE of gov't, people came to USA for freedoms from their totalitarian governments.
Keystone pipeline = 250,000 jobs is what we're told. NO, Keystone pipeline = 250,000 MOSTLY TEMPORARY man-year jobs. So, if it creates 20,000 jobs that last for 6 months, that's 10,000 jobs, correct? Nope. A job is a stable, long-term position. A temporary employment opportunity is what they're counting. It has nothing to do with long-term solutions. Granted, it's better than nothing, but change the discussion from how many jobs it will create by hyperbole, and actually give us a realistic number. I haven't been able to find one. And I'm not willing to trust someone who is driven by PROFIT to do what is in my best interest. No thank you.
The countries today that do the best are those that removed the most government controls from their economy over time, and USA is moving in a completely wrong direction.
Citation please? Are you talking about third world hell-holes? Or the pseudo-socialist Europeans?
You want infrastructure? You can't have infrastructure, there is nothing to build it for, and if there is something to build it for (like an oil pipeline) you are arguing against it, and it's not even a government project. You are not going to have infrastructure, because you don't have production. You are not going to have education and science, because you don't have manufacturing and engineering.
Wat? Are you saying that infrastructure necessarily equals profits and oil? Infrastructure means fixi
Remember - government spending is bad. REGARDLESS of the outcome for us. Government spending = taxes, and as everyone knows, this country was founded on three principles:
1.God is in heaven, satan is in hell, and we are a Christian nation.
2. I have the right to own any firearm I wish, up to and including napalm.
3. TAXATION??? This country isn't designed to have taxes. Why should I have to pay for YOUR roads and YOUR power and YOUR schools? Socialist pig.
Seriously, though, it seems to me that infrastructure spending is one of those no-brainer things that shouldn't even be a question.
People like to talk about "free" cab rides available for those who are intoxicated, but these programs come and go so frequently, they can't be relied-on by anyone.
Or, even better, in my area, the free cab rides are shut down by city council because the man who serves as the driver every night is a recovered alcoholic of 5 years ---- and there is a fear that he may relapse.
If that's not the definition of fucked up, I don't know what is.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that most people who are happily married aren't very vocal about it. BUT, those that aren't happy, or are divorced, are VERY vocal.
For example: I have been happily married for 5 years now, and we dated for 5 before that step. I get my wife flowers every week, because she puts up with me peeing on the toilet seat, breaking things to see how they work, and generally bitching when I've had a bad day.
No one knows. Well, I've only told you folks about it - my family knows, but that's because they come over to my house.
My supervisor has been divorced for nine years, and complains every day. Let me repeat - N...I...N...E......Y...E...A...R...S... and still complains every day. Who is the better model? Me. Who do people know more about? Her.
It's simple logic - more exposure = more proof, right?
Here's a little advice, for free - when arguing your point, don't advocate for exterminating populations. . . . . It doesn't generally draw that many supporters.
Exactly - you catch the little fellas and ladies while they're young, that way they don't turn into black-hats later. This is called investing in the future, and there needs to be shitloads more of it. I don't care if they don't catch anything major, just investing in them and showing that older folks value their insight goes a long way, ask any teacher.
Advertisements on slashdot aren't supposed to terrify me, Google.
While I agree with your arguments, mostly, there is one place that I just don't get.
This is why this case should be an indicator to the US public that their system is going to the dogs
Do you really believe that the US is falling apart? It seems to me that around 99% of the problems we see today are mostly manufactured by various news agencies/websites to drum up viewers (or, rather, pointed out in grand fashion and made to seem much, much worse than they are – what’s the word? Oh, yeah, sensationalism). It seems to me that this alarmist “THE PRESIDENT IS A TYRANT”/”CONGRESS IS EVIL”/”HOLLYWOOD IS KILLING INNOVATION”/”OCCUPY PROTESTERS RAPED 10000 PEOPLE” arguments are just varying degrees of ‘get off my lawn’.
It just seems that this panicked running around is a bit much? Or maybe I’m off the mark on this.
While our congress may be bought and paid for, don't we have a long history of crooked politicians being led around by their purse strings? The president may be grasping power for some aim, but don't they all? And haven't young people always hated what the generation before them loved?
b. . . but. . . .BUT MY RAGE!!! MY ALL-ENCOMPASSING RAGE???!!!???!!!
Well, shit. I guess it's back to politics for rage-time.
That's my biggest bitch point. If you're going to make a competition that pits human endurance against devious minds and obstacles, leave it that way. I can understand adding trials to get there - too many people would show up and you have to be able to cull the herd. After that, though, I don't care who has the fastest time. I don't care if Joe is better than John. I want to see Joe and John both bust their asses to get to the end. AND putting money up for grabs?
Bullshit.
It's bullshit. It takes the spirit of the competition and completely changes it. Leave it the fuck alone. Life is already too full of competition against other idiot monkeys. Why can't we have one thing that pits all of us against one thing? Teams, and what-not.
Fans of the original simply should not have gotten their hopes up.
Fans of the original never had hopes for this version - as you said, the core group that loved the original knew from the start that the american version would be an abortion. Late comers, God bless them, might like the new, watered down version, because ignorance is bliss.
I find it absolutely entertaining to see how poorly a marketer or television guru can do when given enough time and money. Hell, I could rip off a show from another country and do it terribly. Where's my paycheck?
And I LOVED the "most extreme elimination challenge" version of Takeshi's Castle. I don't care how far off it was. I fucking loved that show. Guy LeDouche was my favorite 'character' of any show, ever.
All they need is some developers who know to focus on the FUN factor of games. I'm tired of the industry rating games on graphics and realism. I want games that are fun, with a high replayability factor. I have enough realism from 8-5. I don't need to see individual hairs on the back of my character's neck stand up when he gets shot in the face.
Why shouldn't we try for both?
I agree, but what are our options? They are working in someone's best interests. They are doing the work that some US citizen wants done. Is it the majority? No, but somewhere, they can point to someone and say, see, he agrees with me.
Remember, that to most politicians, $1 = 1 voice. Are they wrong for being disconnected? Sure, but also remember that they've been conditioned to be that way. Our system is set up so that he with the most money has the most voice. What I find sad is that it makes complete sense that many politicians could be confused about why the general public doesn't approve of what they're doing. They see the money coming in, and money must mean support, so what's wrong?
So what are our options? Really, that's an honest question, because I'm out of ideas. You can say, HANG THE BASTARDS, but really, how do you prove that they weren't working in someone's best interests without being bribed? And how do we decide that the person investigating the bribery isn't crooked in turn? Do we assume that anyone working for some end that is counter to our own is a shill? Or what, what do we do? Seriously, I'm at a loss at this point, and I'm taking suggestions on a new world-view/political belief.
the new Diablo III favorite "Get a real internet connection, looser[sic]!"
This is my favorite, because it is very suburban/urban centered, and is easily argued against by pointing out that not everyone lives in urban areas. It is my favorite, because that line of conversation invariably leads to my second favorite pearl of wisdom, "WELL, if you don't like crappy internet, move out of the country."
It's as if people don't understand where food comes from, that the people who make that food also enjoy/have a use for technology, and that the countryside isn't actually full of castles, serfs and fucking mud farms.
I'm not certain it's hypocrisy, as much as acknowledging DRM done well (not right, just well). -- at least this way I can trade a game or play offline if I want to!
As a side note, I'm not excited that this is the way the world is going, because I live in BFE, and my internet connection is T.E.R.R.I.B.L.E. at best, and suicide inducing at worst.
$2000/mo? How about we shoot for the actual poor folks, and not just the ones who can't afford new shoes every month? Try $500-$800/mo. That would give them a better view of it. Teach them how to decide who in the family gets to eat a full meal today, or how to decide between food and medicine. Try poverty, not just lower-middle class.
Or, if you don't want to be that extreme, how about a seasonal salary like farm folks? Give them a balance of negative $100,000 in March, and then teach them how to pray that it's not too hot/wet/dry/anything, so that the crop can help them pay back what they owe with enough left over after taxes and interest to eat for another year.
When I received your reply, I was surprised that my brain was working in the same manner as Einstein. As such, I've been thinking about this for a while now. The conclusion that I've come to isn't the obvious one that most people would have (that I have heard this quote before, and it somehow made its way into my subconscious). Nope. My conclusion is that I AM AS SMART AS ALBERT EINSTEIN.
My reality is a wonderful reality, care to visit?
I'm predicting a run on big sticks and bigger rocks at around the year 2026 or so.
We are arguing the exact same thing, but from different angles. Your belief is that the free-market is the cure, not a perfect one, but better than government. Mine is the polar opposite. I do understand what freedom is. My freedom is to choose to not let the free-market make my decisions, based on what would be profitable this month. I choose to be altruistic and not say fuck the rest of you people. I choose to think for myself and not just consume. I choose to get involved in government, because believe it or not, you can impact it if you want to. I understand the accumulation of wealth and power, economics, production, money and freedom. believe it or not, my views are just different from yours. Am I wrong? Maybe. Are you? Also, maybe. There are advanced degrees sitting on my wall. That doesn't necessarily mean I know everything, or that I'm right. It just means that I have done my homework.
Realistically, we are hashing out the chicken versus the egg argument. Did business screw up the government, or did government pervert the businesses? My opinion is that government started regulating business, it was less profitable, so businesses put their money where they could have the most impact - fucking up the system.
My argument is that MONEY and business have corrupted what we have here in the US. My morals tell me that the law is in place for two reasons: To make sure the government doesn't step over the line - absolutely; and to make sure that businesses leave me alone, don't screw up too much, and do good by the public.
What you call greed, I call basic desire of humans for better life. Individuals address that by working, that's what they do absent gov't. Gov't destroys the ability of people to be self-sustainable, self-respecting individuals, breaks their legs, hands them crutches and says: see, without me you wouldn't be able to walk. Vote for me.
And NOPE. Government exists to make sure that itself, you, and everyone around can't fuck me into the ground. It exists to make sure that Joe Billionaire isn't employing children because they're cheaper. Is it always good? No, absolutely not. Is it better than letting profit figure out what's best for me? Yes, absolutely.
I have never seen complete state control, but I honestly don't believe that we are anywhere near that right now. Anyone who would argue that is just fear-mongering. BUT, you are right, I have made up my mind --- I've seen what privatization and profit motivation can do. Granted, it was briefly, but I was present for the dismantling of the public sector that took place in South America (I got the F out before SHTF). As you said in your post, I will never, ever see that happen again. Ever. My family won't suffer like that, and I won't go through it again. YOUR profit doesn't allow you to starve my family.
Constitutional. It doesn't mean what you think it means. To you it is a barrier against getting something you believe you are entitled to from others.
No, it means exactly what I think it means. Allowed by the constitution. Is there another definition? And no, the constitution is not a barrier for my entitlement. It is a barrier that keeps businesses, churches, cults, and yes, the government, from living my life for me. It has nothing to do with entitlement. It has everything to do with you throwing out an off-topic response that still seems out of place, thanks.
Either way, you say tomato (short 'a'), I say tomato (long 'a'). We see the same problem, but from vastly different angles. There really is no convincing either of us to the other's belief system, but it's a beautiful country whose government allows this rational discourse, correct?
Thanks for the debate!
I want your sources, please.
You say you have proof? Drop it on the world.
Can you provide sources yet?
Sources, please.
Give me sources.
Why would you derail the argument like that? What purpose does that serve?
I don't care if it's unconstitutional. I care that idiots want to privatize everything at the expense of the lowest common denominator in the world, because fuck poor people, right? If they were any good, they wouldn't be poor - just pull your bootstraps a little harder you lazy poor people.
That's less a problem with the power company, and more a problem with tree selection. Plant some damned trees, but make sure they grow>10ft. A little education on the part of the community organization could go along way. We have a friends of the canopy group here in the middle of the country who advocates successfully for that old-timey main street scene. What is their number one way? Education for the public that 10ft is what we're regulated to here, and that a tree listed to grow 30-80 feet has no business on a city street or near power lines. It seems to work (except for when tornadoes show up - those assholes ruin the party). Now the only problem we have is that maintenance is so low that the local power company cut nearly all of its maintenance workers. You're welcome, Mr. CEO, for your yearly bonus at our expense.
Gov't spending IS bad regardless of outcome. ALL gov't spending is bad under ALL situations.
Sending First generation and low-income students through college is bad? I always assumed that more education = less money spent in the long run . . . . But I guess that decades of research (just google that) can be wrong. . . .
The productive USA was built without income taxes, without corporate taxes, without payroll taxes, without FDIC, Fed, IRS, FDA, FHA, EPA, CIA, FBI, SS, Medicare, EI, Medicaid, welfare, without dep't of energy, education, agriculture, small business, commerce, interior, HUD, etc.
Do you know why those things exist? To protect citizens. You can say what you want about the Gub'ment being out to get you, but it's true. Private enterprise in the 19th and early 20th century proved one thing, over-and-over, it will cut costs to the point of being dangerous to its workers, just to increase short-term profits. What choice do we have? Are you telling me that we can trust corporations to do what's in our best interests? If you say yes, please google anything with large businesses and the start of the labor movement.
But how does a country become a productive exporter, creditor without gov't building infrastructure? Because it's not true that gov't is needed to build any of it, what IS true is that WEALTH is needed to build infrastructure.There has to be a REASON to build infrastructure, there has to be wealth first, there has to be a promise of making a return - the profit motive is the driver, nothing else.
Okay, what about us who live where it wouldn't be profitable to run power, water or any other essential service? I guess we're just screwed. And Profit as the driver is an incredibly fine line. Today's attitude of bar-the-door short-term profits at the expense of all else doesn't exactly lend itself to developing long-term strategy. You know what does? Slow-moving government.
Infrastructure? How about the Keystone pipeline - the actual PRODUCTIVE infrastructure that private companies want to build, because they believe it's going to be profitable, it's going to make money. Is that the wrong thing today somehow - making money? USA was built by business, not by any government. USA was built by ABSENCE of gov't, people came to USA for freedoms from their totalitarian governments.
Keystone pipeline = 250,000 jobs is what we're told. NO, Keystone pipeline = 250,000 MOSTLY TEMPORARY man-year jobs. So, if it creates 20,000 jobs that last for 6 months, that's 10,000 jobs, correct? Nope. A job is a stable, long-term position. A temporary employment opportunity is what they're counting. It has nothing to do with long-term solutions. Granted, it's better than nothing, but change the discussion from how many jobs it will create by hyperbole, and actually give us a realistic number. I haven't been able to find one. And I'm not willing to trust someone who is driven by PROFIT to do what is in my best interest. No thank you.
The countries today that do the best are those that removed the most government controls from their economy over time, and USA is moving in a completely wrong direction.
Citation please? Are you talking about third world hell-holes? Or the pseudo-socialist Europeans?
You want infrastructure? You can't have infrastructure, there is nothing to build it for, and if there is something to build it for (like an oil pipeline) you are arguing against it, and it's not even a government project. You are not going to have infrastructure, because you don't have production. You are not going to have education and science, because you don't have manufacturing and engineering.
Wat? Are you saying that infrastructure necessarily equals profits and oil? Infrastructure means fixi
Remember - government spending is bad. REGARDLESS of the outcome for us. Government spending = taxes, and as everyone knows, this country was founded on three principles:
1.God is in heaven, satan is in hell, and we are a Christian nation.
2. I have the right to own any firearm I wish, up to and including napalm.
3. TAXATION??? This country isn't designed to have taxes. Why should I have to pay for YOUR roads and YOUR power and YOUR schools? Socialist pig.
Seriously, though, it seems to me that infrastructure spending is one of those no-brainer things that shouldn't even be a question.
People like to talk about "free" cab rides available for those who are intoxicated, but these programs come and go so frequently, they can't be relied-on by anyone.
Or, even better, in my area, the free cab rides are shut down by city council because the man who serves as the driver every night is a recovered alcoholic of 5 years ---- and there is a fear that he may relapse.
If that's not the definition of fucked up, I don't know what is.