The Librarian
Banned
We would only be so lucky.
-
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 2013 |OT2| Worth 77% of OT1
- Thread starter The Librarian
- Start date
- Status
I thought it was going to be about the hydrogen bomb that nearly blew up North Carolina in the 60s.
Tax cuts for the wealthy absolutely slaughtered revenues and helped get us into the mess we're in. On principal alone the wealthiest Americans should have at least a 40-50% tax rate.
Didn't the CBO say like 70 something percent of the causation for a lack of revenues was legislated tax cuts thanks to the GOP? Not to mention, after which we were thrusted into two wars with no plan for properly paying for them? Why would anyone still want to advocate against raising taxes on the wealthy? Are we not learning from the past? It took Obama over four years just to raise taxes on the wealthiest and even then it had to go up to $450,000+ for Clinton-era tax rates, so it is a bit half-assed. We need to go higher. It's not just a matter of 'punishing' the wealthy. It's like people don't remember what the Bush years meant.
One could argue the Internet/technology is part of the reason why society is so ho-hum. We're kind of forgetting how to interact with one another without the aid of a computer or smartphone. Pros and cons to that.
Yeah the 30's were tough times but the resolve seen from not only our government but the people is astounding. I wouldn't have liked fighting through a war as I sit here today, but who knows how I would have felt living in that time.
The Librarian
Banned
That's not funny.
No, it's absolutely terrifying. Just a dinky little switch saved us all. Who knows what the country would have gone through had the bomb detonated...
You figure if it short-circuited by hitting water, hitting the ground too hard, debris falling up against it, anything... it could have triggered the explosion. In-fucking-sane.
Yeah, tax cuts for the rich are a pretty bad policy, but I'm still not sure why are you worried about the size of the public debt.
Fuck that, I remember the world before the internet, and no, just no (also for real, The Red Scare, Jim Crow, duck and cover? the 50s suuuuuuuucked hard).
I think it's pretty funny.
Joking aside, I read Command and Control and I have two things to say -
1. FFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
2. Damn, it's good those things don't blow up easily
The mere fact of how much there is compared to even 10-15 years ago and when you consider how sluggish economic progress has been, it is very concerning. I don't disagree with GOPers, for example, when they say they are worried about it. I disagree with anything and everything they suggest for addressing the issue; they're only making it worse (if they get their way, and by obstructing pretty much everything up to the point of complete collapse, they are halfway there), and it has made me go from questioning their motives to simply realizing they are, in laymen's terms, economic terrorists.
The best way to deal with them is for a grassroots progressive effort in every state that harbor policies and ideas that go right after the very people who are responsible for holding back so much needed progress in this country. Higher taxes, heavy-handed regulations on banks and corporations (especially in regards to how they treat working class individuals), comprehensive election finance reform, single-payer healthcare, ending gerrymandering as we know it... more representatives would probably help, as it (the House) is not currently proportionate to the US population. Yet, nothing ever happens. Can you think of a better way of dealing with them? I sure as hell can't. With the way they've basically hijacked the House and state legislatures, there's only so many options you have. In a non-violent way, you almost have to be... radical about it, much like Republicans were in pushing their agenda in the early 90's. It sucks, but can you honestly think of any better way to deal with these criminal neanderthals?
And we really do need to change the constitution, but not in the way GOPers want. Things like addressing the rules of Congress and the Second Amendment, updated to reflect the times, appointing Senators to places like DC... on and on.
So you're worried about the public debt because the number is bigger than it was before?
Come on man.
You're buying into the scare narrative that the idiots who put the national debt clock want you to.
The debt is not really worrisome, moreover, there is nothing you can do about it (I mean you can default on it if you want, but everyone this side of Michelle Bachmann realize it's probably not a great idea).
Now we can talk about the deficit if you want, but I don't know, looking at the economy I don't think we need more austerity right now.
Not just the public debt but the fact that we are doing nothing in relation to it. Democrats can't get their agenda through thanks to the House obviously, and the Republicans are so crazy they have nothing to come up with as a suitable alternative other than slash and burn (with a side of Entitled Jesusland for the social stuff). We need more revenues and we need a serious jobs push with help from Washington. We don't need "bullshit jobs" peddled around to make the UE rate look the same while so many people are forgotten about. You cannot tell me this is sustainable in the long-term. The GOP is pissing everything away while they keep attempting to move the goalposts and the American people suffer. What's scary is Democrats could take the blame if another collapse happens in the next few years because a lot of people don't understand how badly the House GOP is holding the country hostage. GOPers know this, that's probably half the reason why they think the can get away with it (the other half being willful ignorance/only caring about one group of people).
And what do you think going to happen if we're going to do nothing in relation to it?
No wait, let the CBO answer that for you -
It going to go down for the next 4-5 years and then it'll start rising, slowly.
There is no crisis, there is no reason to panic and there is no reason to believe that the debt is going to lead to another collapse any time soon.
Listen, there are many many things that need to be fixed about the US federal budget, but there really no urgency to deal with the debt.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Welp, sounds like Cruz's game won't even get started.
York is the definition of an old school republican establishment type, and the anger/delusion in the comments section is reaching 9000 levels.
I can see an average House republican being unfamiliar with senate rules, especially one that arrived in 2011. But Boehner knew this all along, as did the rest of leadership. Their next step will be to add something "less" extreme to the CR, like a delay or popular legislation fix, but even that will be DOA if Reid only needs 51 senators.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/actua...ilibuster-to-defund-obamacare/article/2536120
York is the definition of an old school republican establishment type, and the anger/delusion in the comments section is reaching 9000 levels.
I can see an average House republican being unfamiliar with senate rules, especially one that arrived in 2011. But Boehner knew this all along, as did the rest of leadership. Their next step will be to add something "less" extreme to the CR, like a delay or popular legislation fix, but even that will be DOA if Reid only needs 51 senators.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
She'd the best of the establishment. Obama isn't going to nominate an activist which seeks to actually change things. Yellen would do the best within the framework that exists.
She's supported deregulation and chained cpi, and while she did harp against the housing crisis I remember reading something about her backing away from that closer to the actual crisis. Saying the data was reassuring.
I do think she's well aware of the changes and she seems more open to learning from mistakes. But I don't think we should just be content with not repeating the mistakes of the past but with fixing the problems of today.
Edit: here's her right before the collapse of Lehman Brothers saying inflation a worry and economy is gonna pick up. She was right about housing but often blind to the larger problems. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/economy/2008-07-10-yellen-inflation_N.htm
empty vessel
Member
There isn't any need to do anything in relation to it. Why do you want to reduce the debt? The rest of your post did not explain anything having to do with the debt. The debt is a distraction. The US could pay it off today without problem. As well, tax revenues don't fund the government. Government spending, which is ex nihilo, funds tax revenues. High tax rates on high incomes should be advocated because it is good social policy, not because the government needs revenue.
I agree that it is arbitrary for the government to run a program that sells risk-free debt instruments in an amount that annually matches the amount by which its spending exceeds taxes. For that reason alone, it is bad policy. But the only thing making the government do that is a law that says it has to. If the government running such an arbitrary program bothers you, just advocate for changing it by law. In short, the government can continue to spend money in excess of its revenue without selling bonds.
The funny thing is that we actually are doing a ton of things about the national debt and that's why the country is suffering. Reducing the debt is the whole point of sequestration.
Even if you don't go quite to the MMT extremes, there's really no evidence that a high national debt is a problem. All of the academic evidence in favor of debt hawkery has collapsed at this point in the face of the overwhelming immediate results of debt hawkery on an international level. We don't even need to point to Great Britain's age-old national debt at this point because we can just refer to Abenomics. The debt is a tool, basically nothing else.
shadowsdarknes
Member
I keep seeing a lot of criticisms that we need to pass a Federal budget and what not.
Is that actually important? Republicans seem to want to see a budget proposal so they can whine about how much spending is in it.
But I'm not actually seeing a reason as to why we actually need a federal budget. The government should spend as it sees fit, no?
Is that actually important? Republicans seem to want to see a budget proposal so they can whine about how much spending is in it.
But I'm not actually seeing a reason as to why we actually need a federal budget. The government should spend as it sees fit, no?
shadowsdarknes
Member
The yearly deficit is shrinking. But the debt itself is still growing. Is he upset about yearly deficits (which are shrinking) or that we aren't paying down the federal debt owed?
If someone cares about the deficit shrinking, then they certainly must be pleased.
Is he one of those people who thinks the 16 trillion dollar debt/ 300 million citizens = 53,00 dollars per citizen owed?
No (I'm right here thanks).
Yeah. Seems like it's just another dumb formality to me.
zero shift
Banned
I'm tempted to go into the Venezuela thread but I figure why bother.
I still don't understand why people think the government is evil because a toilet paper factor is hoarding their supplies to sell to the black market.
I still don't understand why people think the government is evil because a toilet paper factor is hoarding their supplies to sell to the black market.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Imagine if the US government decided to create a nation of self driving cars as the next moon landing type project, creating a ton of jobs for people to work on infrastructure and eventually leading to a huge bump in GDP thanks to less time wasted in traffic jams and more time spent able to work without paying attention to the road, and a good bump in our export-import balance by having American engineers and manufacturers getting a head start in self driving technology.
It'd even have the added benefit of basically curing the "disease" that causes the most deaths of those aged 2-40. That alone is probably a better accomplishment than even finding a cure to Alzheimer's Disease or diabetes or the flu. Maybe even better than a cure for cancer or cardiovascular disease depending on how you scale the death of a kid to the death of an adult.
I'd say it's technically pretty achievable, and since it's infrastructure based, even many libertarians would agree that it's something capitalism can't handle on it's own. Unfortunately it's probably not politically achievable. What happened in this country to change so much from the American pride of the moon landing to the stinginess of today?
It'd even have the added benefit of basically curing the "disease" that causes the most deaths of those aged 2-40. That alone is probably a better accomplishment than even finding a cure to Alzheimer's Disease or diabetes or the flu. Maybe even better than a cure for cancer or cardiovascular disease depending on how you scale the death of a kid to the death of an adult.
I'd say it's technically pretty achievable, and since it's infrastructure based, even many libertarians would agree that it's something capitalism can't handle on it's own. Unfortunately it's probably not politically achievable. What happened in this country to change so much from the American pride of the moon landing to the stinginess of today?
It's kind of the inevitable result of automation, really. It's been happening for the last couple hundred years. This is yet another example of the vital importance of social services. The purpose of technological development is to produce social wealth by reducing the cost of a good or service. Just as this can cause commoditization of goods by driving the price below the previous sustainable minimum, it can cause commoditization of services -- we're just much more used to seeing the former than the latter. In both cases, though, this will result in job losses for people who produced that good or service. In Silicon Valley this process is called "disruption."
Obviously job losses are bad, but just as obviously, slowing or preventing the production of social wealth is also a lousy idea. The solution is to find another way of ensuring the appropriate distribution of social wealth. Otherwise, wealth will accrete towards the people who have avoided disruption as long as possible, who can use that wealth to push back the pace of change and impoverish the rest of us. In this case, of course, that's the owners of capital.
jamesinclair
Banned
Its going to be a massacre.
Look around NYC. Yellow cabs as far as the eye can see....thousands (tens of thousands?) of jobs gone. These are entry level jobs that people use to built assets. Without it, theres no bootstraps.
Public buses will keep staff for fare collection and such.
Long distance trucks? Theres probably millions of drivers there....all gone.
UPS/fedex would keep staff for the foot delivery portion.
Self-driving cars WILL have massive negative impacts on our economic society, unless the drivers unionize and essentially mandate their position.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Sure eventually, but if total production is increased, it should be easier to provide for those people, not harder. If it creates a good economy, capitalism maybe even enough to provide for them. If the problem is a employment gap between skilled and unskilled labor, the solution is to use that additional economic income on education to make sure there is no such thing as an unskilled worker, or to just look further into something like a basic income.
The solution is not to hold back technological progress. Especially not when that technology will literally save more lives than pretty much anything else you could do.
You act like the switch is going to happen overnight.
jamesinclair
Banned
For the general public? No, itll take 20+ years.
For an industry like taxi cabs? Yup. Remember, the drivers don't own the cabs, some millionaire somewhere does. If they can cut out the middle-man and make all the fares themselves....they will.
So "overnight" as in 3-5 years after the technology has been commercialized.
It'll happen over the course of the next two decades. I guarantee it. And that's not going to be the only place where jobs will be destroyed very quickly, in huge numbers.
It really makes me wonder how the west is going to react to all this. Will we stick to our myths about "rugged individualism" when technology is going to hurt lower-class folks unselectively? Will the working class actually turn against the wealthy since it's hard to find a scapegoat for this? Will we see ludditism make a resurgence?
I hope not, but something tells me current cultural attitudes are a bit too ingrained for people to suddenly switch to being cool with socialism.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
The technology will enter our cars a little at a time not all at once. When you see those headlines promising self driving cars available for purchase in 5-10 years, those are the types that only work on highways. It's basically just cruise control with added sensors to keep speed and distance from the guy in front of you and to keep your car in your lane. It'll be a long time until it can actually go parking lot to parking lot, and I'm not sure if it can without an infrastructure change, particularly at stop lights, pedestrian crossings, and parking lots.
Even then, its very likely that the government would enforce a human "driver" in all cars while people get used to the very idea of self driving cars, and in that case there wouldn't be any problems like that at all until people feel comfortable enough with the technology to ask why we require drivers in cars that drive themselves, and the jobs/efficiency debate would probably happen then.
Rhomega Beta
Member
It doesn't matter if you're fighting enemies that are invisible until they fire at you or goose-stepping Nazis. War is war, and it's always been hell.
jamesinclair
Banned
Not in america.
Even in subway stations where the fare gates are automated theres always staff. This country is terrified that someone might get on without paying.
And while this country is content with a police-state....well, have you ever seen a cop on a bus, EVER?
Hell, think of BART and the DC Metro, both capable of running 100% by computer, like every airport train system.... and yet every train has a "driver".
Black Republican
Member
VIRGINIA President: Joe Biden (D) 35% / Chris Christie (R) 47% / Other, unsure 18% (Quinnipiac U., RV, 9/9-15)
Biden better not run, he'd get slaughtered
Biden better not run, he'd get slaughtered
I think the driver is basically there just in case. If something went wrong everyone would be wondering why there was no one there in case of shit going down, this preempts that.
Biden would crush Christie in a debate. Christie would blow his top if he had to debate Biden, all Biden would have to do is wear that smirk he had when he debated Ryan and it would drive Christie into a fit of rage.
Numbers like these are pointless until people actually start campaigning, Christie has the sort of personality that only plays in the NE. He's too much of a dick for the rest of the country.
I really think you're underestimating the start of the art here. The technology has been entering our cars slowly for the last ten years already. Parking assist, cruise control, lane assist, these are features that you can already buy on cars today. The first completely-self-driving concept cars are being produced now. It's not by any means a stretch to expect consumer-level self-driving cars by the end of the decade.
I agree that humans will be required in self-driving cars -- for consumers. But there will be sound economic reasons to provide waivers for corporations, who generally have to carry insurance and assume liability for all company-driven cars in any case, and once you start down that road, it's all over. As soon as Zipcar gets a permit to move their cars without drivers, there's really no reason to buy a car ever again. Get on your phone, order one, wait ten minutes. (In the Bay Area, at least -- this is yet another market penetration question, but it's only a matter of time.)
The Librarian
Banned
I probably shouldn't argue with Cruz's speechwriter on Twitter.
Did you make her look like a moron?
Or SHOULD you?
The Librarian
Banned
But they don't need 60 votes to strip the defunding thing from the bill, just a majority. You were just bringing her some TRUTH.
Chrsitie isn't a Dem though. Plus he has a rage problem, the guy is toxic outside of Jersey unless he gets it under control.
cooljeanius
Member
I was really surprised when she decided not to follow him on Syria; she's followed him on pretty much everything else.
This is late, but for anyone interested regarding Silicon Valley and Libertarianism--
I remember happening upon this topic months ago, with a nice hefty New Yorker article.
http://neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=593406
Lots of small interviews in it.
Here's the direct link to the article. As much as I don't think the libertarian ideology is all that serious in of itself, I fear for what headway it will make amongst the youth, yuppies, and in Silicon Valley as a movement.
Back to your regularly scheduled PoliGAF
I remember happening upon this topic months ago, with a nice hefty New Yorker article.
http://neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=593406
Lots of small interviews in it.
Here's the direct link to the article. As much as I don't think the libertarian ideology is all that serious in of itself, I fear for what headway it will make amongst the youth, yuppies, and in Silicon Valley as a movement.
Back to your regularly scheduled PoliGAF
Avon Barksdale
Member
If libertarianism is really on the rise, why the Libertarian candidate get less than 1% in the last election?
ClassyPenguin
Banned
They are shouting louder and on the internet which makes it seem that the movement is getting popular.
It's about that undercurrent becoming possibly more prevalent in Republican mainstream. Libertarian ideals are already popular in some way (see "South Park Republicans")
I mean, if they think poor people are lame and the Civil Rights Act caused "unnecessary friction" they aren't likely to vote Democrat anyway, but I least would rather they not vote Republican. Couple Libertarianism with the Rockefeller money muscle in Republican party, that's more movement than a right-wing party needs. I'm sure Republicans can pull off the acrobatics to keep the family values bloc in their camp---in any case, they don't have a choice.
The Libertarian Party itself is not going anywhere.
I mean, if they think poor people are lame and the Civil Rights Act caused "unnecessary friction" they aren't likely to vote Democrat anyway, but I least would rather they not vote Republican. Couple Libertarianism with the Rockefeller money muscle in Republican party, that's more movement than a right-wing party needs. I'm sure Republicans can pull off the acrobatics to keep the family values bloc in their camp---in any case, they don't have a choice.
The Libertarian Party itself is not going anywhere.
Green Party train is going full speed ahead =P
Avon Barksdale
Member
That's just them being anti-Obama because, Obama.
cooljeanius
Member
At least for most of them, but for others it definitely was because of the libertarianism though.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I don't understand the south park is libertarian idea. They make fun of everyone and I just think the fact they make fun of liberals is twisted to mean they disagree. I just think they are provocative.
Is that why it smells like French fries in here? *lame bio diesel joke*
As much as I wish it were true it's not
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/22/us/politics/reignited-battle-over-health-law.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes
No? Not the Alien & Sedition Act? It's Obamacare? Okay.
Tempted to make a new thread in the OP. I think any messaging about the new healthcare law and why people should sign up is a good thing.
No? Not the Alien & Sedition Act? It's Obamacare? Okay.
Tempted to make a new thread in the OP. I think any messaging about the new healthcare law and why people should sign up is a good thing.
- Status