• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread |OT2| This thread title is now under military control

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pre

Member
thezerofire said:
why?
Click to expand...

Because I believe spending at our current rate and continuing to amass debt at this rate is an unsustainable path. I don't think that cutting defense spending merely to let programs like Medicare avoid insolvency just a little bit longer is a good idea.

pigeon said:
I read a post recently that suggested that a hundred square miles of solar panels in, say, the Arizona desert could power the whole country. Obviously this completely ignores the complexities of electricity storage and transformers and whatnot, but it's still an impressive example of what we could be doing in terms of infrastructure. (Envelope calculation at an exorbitant $500 per square foot of solar panel puts the cost of such a project at just shy of $150 billion. Which is obviously a lot of money, but not so much that we couldn't halve the defense budget and build two of these every year.)
Click to expand...

The stimulus money would have been much better spent if it financed projects like this.
 
C

ClassyPenguin

Banned
pigeon said:
I read a post recently that suggested that a hundred square miles of solar panels in, say, the Arizona desert could power the whole country. Obviously this completely ignores the complexities of electricity storage and transformers and whatnot, but it's still an impressive example of what we could be doing in terms of infrastructure. (Envelope calculation at an exorbitant $500 per square foot of solar panel puts the cost of such a project at just shy of $150 billion. Which is obviously a lot of money, but not so much that we couldn't halve the defense budget and build two of these every year.)
Click to expand...

A few nuclear plants could be be of help.

Pre said:
Because I believe spending at our current rate and continuing to amass debt at this rate is an unsustainable path. I don't think that cutting defense spending merely to let programs like Medicare avoid insolvency just a little bit longer is a good idea.
Click to expand...
govt price control of health care would.
 
M

Manmademan

Member
Pre said:
I think liberals have the same hard-on regarding defense spending. I think both liberals and conservatives are too fervent about cutting those respective things.

As a conservative, I don't hate PBS, NPR, etc. but I don't think the government should be funding those things, even though it is a very, very small part of our overall spending. If they are popular enough, they can survive without government funding. But ultimately I'm not too concerned if that money isn't freed up.
Click to expand...

The amount of money isn't the point, especially since Government funding is a minority of the funds public radio and tv require to operate. The point of funding PBS and NPR is that there is clearly a need for a public information source that isn't totally beholden to corporate interests, advertisers, and ratings.

The need for this in the age of media consolidation should be more apparent than ever- in 1983 about 50 companies controlled 90% of media, today that number has dropped to 6. Commercial radio in particular in egregiously bad, with about 4 firms controlling 70% of commercial radio in any given market. You may or may not like Fox news, but the potential negatives of one firm (news corp) abusing it's position in the market to push the agenda and talking points that benefit it uniformly across the radio, tv stations, and newspapers that it owns should be obvious. And that's just News Corp- at least their misinformation is obvious and easy to spot.

Clearly, the free market has been a failure or dangerously close to it if you consider the job of media to actually inform the public. Over the last several decades the public has gotten only less points of view from fewer sources.
 
N

NullPointer

Member
doitlive said:
because deficits are evil and immoral in their eyes.
Click to expand...
Except when they don't matter (ie. there are Republicans in the White House.)

60 Minutes said:
The president had promised to cut taxes, and he did. Within six months of taking office, he pushed a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts through Congress.
But O'Neill thought it should have been the end. After 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, the budget deficit was growing. So at a meeting with the vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, Suskind writes that O'Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts.

"Cheney, at this moment, shows his hand," says Suskind. "He says, 'You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.' … O'Neill is speechless."

"It was not just about not wanting the tax cut. It was about how to use the nation's resources to improve the condition of our society," says O'Neill. "And I thought the weight of working on Social Security and fundamental tax reform was a lot more important than a tax reduction."

Did he think it was irresponsible? "Well, it's for sure not what I would have done," says O'Neill.

The former treasury secretary accuses Vice President Dick Cheney of not being an honest broker, but, with a handful of others, part of "a praetorian guard that encircled the president" to block out contrary views. "This is the way Dick likes it," says O'Neill.
Click to expand...
[source]
 
M

Manos: The Hans of Fate

Banned
Manmademan said:
The amount of money isn't the point, especially since Government funding is a minority of the funds public radio and tv require to operate. The point of funding PBS and NPR is that there is clearly a need for a public information source that isn't totally beholden to corporate interests, advertisers, and ratings.

The need for this in the age of media consolidation should be more apparent than ever- in 1983 about 50 companies controlled 90% of media, today that number has dropped to 6. Commercial radio in particular in egregiously bad, with about 4 firms controlling 70% of commercial radio in any given market. You may or may not like Fox news, but the potential negatives of one firm (news corp) abusing it's position in the market to push the agenda and talking points that benefit it uniformly across the radio, tv stations, and newspapers that it owns should be obvious. And that's just News Corp- at least their misinformation is obvious and easy to spot.

Clearly, the free market has been a failure or dangerously close to it if you consider the job of media to actually inform the public. Over the last several decades the public has gotten only less points of view from fewer sources.
Click to expand...
Actually that's closer to the founding of the country and the media. If anything impartial news sources is more an aberration than the norm.
 
D

Drek

Member
KingGondo said:
To be fair, it would have a significant effect on the economy. They don't call it the Military Industrial Complex for nothing.
Click to expand...

But if you integrate intelligently you can kill two birds with one stone.

One idea I've had for a while:

Get rid of federal subsidies for farmers to not grow on good acreage. Instead pay the farmers to grow as much shit as possible, take that crop, have private companies turn it into non-perishable foods. Load those non-perishable foods onto navy vessels. The navy sails 'em over to third world countries that need food. Have the marines hand them out.

Subsidizes military expenses and farm expenses through foreign aid. Ends the cash handouts to 3rd world countries that almost always gets misappropriated.
 
T

TacticalFox88

Banned
Dax01 said:
We spend more on defense than the next 25 nations (or something like that) combined.

Let's take a $100 billion out of defense and give it to NASA. Let's go to the moon or Mars.
Click to expand...

Even in a hypothetical, giving $100 billion dollars to NASA is fucking ludicrously stupid. They'd end up wasting it after a certain point due to how small the organization is, relative to every other department in the executive branch of the federal government. I'd say $30-40 billion at the max.

Most of the cuts from the military should go to Education, HealthCare coverage, and other miscellaneous scientific research independent of NASA, such as alternative energies, expanding fiber-optic broadband internet, and maybe a decent start at public transportation system that's worth a damn
 
M

Manmademan

Member
Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
Actually that's closer to the founding of the country and the media. If anything impartial news sources is more an aberration than the norm.
Click to expand...

There's no such thing as an "impartial" news source. Even NPR and PBS have some kind of bias.

The problem comes from when a news outlet refuses to comment on news that might be inconvenient for a corporate parent company, or when misinformation is flooded across multiple outlets simultaneously to give it the illusion of truth. Both of these happen with alarming regularity lately.

And that's BEFORE we take into account that commercial news outlets have been Terrible at informing the public across the board.

Whether that's because of blatant misinformation, or a tendency to push "fluff" ratings friendly news stories instead of actual news I couldn't say, but that's not the first time that study has been done with those results.
 
P

platypotamus

Member
eznark said:
If having to go to a place to get the card is voter suppression then so is having to go to a place to vote. It's a poor argument.
Click to expand...

I agree with your first sentence but not your second. Like I said before, everywhere should do voting entirely by mail, like we do here.

B-Dubs said:
That depends, do they mail drivers licences to people? If they do, then yes this is bullshit.
Click to expand...

eznark said:
Not anywhere I've lived they don't.
Click to expand...

They mailed me mine in California, Nevada, and Washington.


EDIT: I forgot this thread would move on so quickly, since I started this reply a few hours ago and then got distracted by work, sorry.
 
T

TacticalFox88

Banned
Manmademan said:
There's no such thing as an "impartial" news source. Even NPR and PBS have some kind of bias.

The problem comes from when a news outlet refuses to comment on news that might be inconvenient for a corporate parent company, or when misinformation is flooded across multiple outlets simultaneously to give it the illusion of truth. Both of these happen with alarming regularity lately.

And that's BEFORE we take into account that commercial news outlets have been Terrible at informing the public across the board.

Whether that's because of blatant misinformation, or a tendency to push "fluff" ratings friendly news stories instead of actual news I couldn't say, but that's not the first time that study has been done with those results.
Click to expand...
I wonder if any of these news media corporations will figure out that having the reputation of *actually* being a news organization with integrity that calls out political BS and misinformation and the like would earn them a healthy dose of profits AND the rep to back it up. But nope, gotta keep that spin.

I swear corporate exces are fucking morons with no common sense or long term thinking.
 
P

Piecake

Member
DeathbyVolcano said:
A conservatives best presidents list.

http://www.humanevents.com/2011/02/20/top-10-greatest-conservative-presidents/

Fucking lol
Click to expand...

Coolidge? good god...

cartoon_soldier said:
Brewer signs Executive Order denying any state benefits or ID for immigrants affected by Obama's immigration order

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/arizona-gov-bars-state-benefits-for-dreamers-aided

This shit is fucking ridiculous.

And Koch groups are now up with a minute long ad showing Obama voters who don't plan to vote for him. Dem donors still sleeping :(
Click to expand...

Is this even constitutional?
 
P

Paches

Member
Thequietone said:
That list sucks because they put Bush on there, but not Teddy. I mean it sucks period but no Teddy makes the list a bad list.
Click to expand...

He certainly has a mixed record by allowing spending to soar, but conservatives can applaud the Bush tax cuts, Supreme Court nominees, and strong response to 9/11.
Click to expand...

Unfunded tax cuts and two unfunded wars. Conservatism!
 
A

AntoneM

Member
Pre said:
I think liberals have the same hard-on regarding defense spending. I think both liberals and conservatives are too fervent about cutting those respective things.

As a conservative, I don't hate PBS, NPR, etc. but I don't think the government should be funding those things, even though it is a very, very small part of our overall spending. If they are popular enough, they can survive without government funding. But ultimately I'm not too concerned if that money isn't freed up.

The Department of Education goes back to the larger issue of education in general and I also support eliminating it because I feel it has been ineffective in improving education in the United States and is largely a waste of money. It's been a while, but the last data I read showed that test scores have at the very least stagnated since the creation of the department, and when we're spending more money per pupil than any nation other than Luxembourg I doubt very seriously if throwing more money at the situation is smart. I don't necessarily think we should gut education spending, but we need to look at being more efficient with it.

Which leads us to defense spending. I'm not against making cuts in defense spending, but I think it needs to be done in a way that doesn't compromise our military strength. We should look to eliminate waste. Just as with education, we should look to do more with less money.
Click to expand...

They pretty much do, but, the fact is, they do not. And while federal funding in the aggregate is less that 20 percent of either PBS's or NPR's budget, there are individual station where the federal dollars are upwards of 50 percent of the funding. There is no way that those stations would survive without PBS and NPR changing to a profit model with advertising breaks and then advertisers threatening to pull funding if they don't like what is said. So, I disagree, as popular as they are, they could not survive as they now are. If they cannot survive as they now are, then, they aren't really surviving are they?

Personally, I like that there are public outlets for unbiased information and their demise would make me sad.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
C

Cloudy

Banned
cartoon_soldier said:
Brewer signs Executive Order denying any state benefits or ID for immigrants affected by Obama's immigration order

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/arizona-gov-bars-state-benefits-for-dreamers-aided

This shit is fucking ridiculous.

And Koch groups are now up with a minute long ad showing Obama voters who don't plan to vote for him. Dem donors still sleeping :(
Click to expand...

How is this constitutional when the "dreamers" will be paying taxes? And how will it even be enforceable. I doubt those who qualify will get a work permit that looks different from all the others out there.

Finally, does Brewer think forcing Romney to weigh in on something like this is helpful?
 
S

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
Chumly said:
Calvin fucking coolidge? Are they for real?
Click to expand...

We named our son Calvin and every single time I see my teabagger uncle he makes some comment about Calvin Coolidge. He asks me if I named him after him usually, I have told him no 5000 times.

Calvin Coolidge is like uber regan to them. Everything was great until FDR started the great depression!!
 
D

DeathbyVolcano

Banned
sc0la said:
We named our son Calvin and every single time I see my teabagger uncle he makes some comment about Calvin Coolidge. He asks me if I named him after him usually, I have told him no 5000 times.

Calvin Coolidge is like uber regan to them. Everything was great until FDR started the great depression!!
Click to expand...

Jesus nipplesucking christ
 
R

reilo

learning some important life lessons from magical Negroes
4. Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929): “Silent Cal” presided over a booming economy as he slashed income and corporate taxes, limited regulations on private business, and retired a major part of the national debt. He once astutely said, “Nothing is easier than spending the public money. It doesn’t appear to belong to anybody,” and his presidency was a testimony to that philosophy of government thrift.
Click to expand...

lawd
 
E

eznark

Banned
I'll never understand how someone can like two such opposing presidents like the great Coolidge and the abominable Bush. Party affiliation!
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
I don't think Romney will lose Arizona, but I do think we'll get a preview of the short term future there. The Hispanic turnout could be enormous
 
G

Ghost_Protocol

Member
I live in AZ. There are a lot of conservatives here, but there's a HUGE hispanic population that hates Arpaio, Brewer, Pearce, and republicans as a whole. I can't see Romney winning this state by 8-10 point margins in the end. If he does win, it'll be within 5 I say.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Plus polls basically predict what percentage of the vote will be white, Hispanic, black, etc. If Hispanics show up in truly record numbers it could turn a 5 point election into a toss up.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
Ghost_Protocol said:
I live in AZ. There are a lot of conservatives here, but there's a HUGE hispanic population that hates Arpaio, Brewer, Pearce, and republicans as a whole. I can't see Romney winning this state by 8-10 point margins in the end. If he does win, it'll be within 5 I say.
Click to expand...

The Dems need to get them to the polls. The cranky old retired white people will all go vote. It is like religion for them. That is the biggest thing the GOP have going for them.
 
C

Clevinger

Member
Ghost_Protocol said:
I live in AZ. There are a lot of conservatives here, but there's a HUGE hispanic population that hates Arpaio, Brewer, Pearce, and republicans as a whole. I can't see Romney winning this state by 8-10 point margins in the end. If he does win, it'll be within 5 I say.
Click to expand...

Have you ever heard of Somos Republicans? They're a Hispanic Republican group in AZ and one of their main leaders basically writes nothing but criticisms of Arpaio, Brewer, Kyl etc., of all the constant shitty things the AZ GOP does, but at the same time she is completely dedicated to getting Hispanics registered as Republicans and voting red.

I don't have any point. I just think it's sort of depressing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Frostpunk 2 | Review Thread
Review
12
1K
geary replied
Has the internet regressed reporting of news?
Clickbait
30
2K
StueyDuck replied
Exposing German Hops
2 3
115
8K
Dr.Morris79 replied
Star Wars Outlaws | Review Thread
Analysis Review 8 9 10 11 12
571
40K
Gamer_By_Proxy replied
Reynatis (PS4, PS5, Switch, and PC) | Review Thread + Discussion thread
News Review 2
81
9K
drganon replied
Top Bottom