Support NeoGAF

[Uzzy]

This is a good policy though.

 

[*Splinter]

So, two worlds.

World 1:

State pays Alan Sugar £300. State taxes Alan Sugar £600.
State pays poor pensioner £300. State taxes poor pensioner nothing.

World 2:

State pays Alan Sugar nothing. State taxes Alan Sugar £300.
State pays poor pensioner £250. State taxes poor pensioner nothing.
State pays bureaucrats £50 to administer the system.

Which is the better world?

Or, put another way, a strongly progressive income tax is already means-testing. It doesn't matter if we pay you more if we're taking that back plus more in tax. What's the point of individually testing everything on top of that? There is none.

Means-testing is a bad policy. Always is, always will be.

Do you think pension credits should be means-tested?

Or more generally, are there any exceptions where you think means testing makes sense? (And if so, why?)

 

[Huw_Dawson]

So my questions to that are:

1. Why are you supposing winter fuel payments would be cut in value? That would absolutely be wrong and isn't what I would support.
2. The only way you get an extra £300 back from Alan Sugar by paying him £300 is if you are taxing him at a rate of 100%. Which, as left as Labour is right now, is not their party policy.

What I am going to do is read up on if other means tested money for pensioners has caused problems and make my own mind up.

 

[Camp Freddie]

I think the winter fuel payments have always been a trivial and daft bonus that was more about making posturing "Look at how much we support OAPs!" headlines.
If it's universal, just give a boost to the pension. If it's means-tested, just put boost the tax credits or whatever. Adding a separate category, potentially with separate assessment criteria, for a couple hundred quid, is needlessly bureaucratic.

The double-lock pension is still too generous, but it's suicidal to 'single'-lock it to average earnings, despite that being the obvious and only sustainable solution. Paying in all your life doesn't mean you can ignore the burden of inflation (especially since every generation will be paying more than the previous anyway, due to life expectancy increases).

Supporting end-of-life care is probably the biggest social problem that all the world will have to deal with. I feel that this needs a strong universal healthcare arrangement, but funding it will be tough. I think an inheritance tax would be the way to go, BUT any tax on inheritance is hugely vulnerable to tax avoidance via gifts, trusts or some other hidden asset transfer. I think elderly care probably needs to be funded though general taxation, since we'll all face the dementia/cancer lottery at some point in our lives.

Lastly, that Tory manifesto has some crazy Orwellian gaslighting about their historic support of disabled people. Shameless.

 

[Mr. Sam]

I mean, she's not even being honest about why she's calling the election but being annoyed at a stupid Mail headline is like getting annoyed the sky is blue at this point.

In a way, it's like the workers' rights May is promising. It's a nice fancy promise, but nobody has the means to enforce it, so in the end, you're just left with vulnerable people getting fucked.

I think you're being very cynical. They're also pledging to provide combs for the bald.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Do you think pension credits should be means-tested?

Or more generally, are there any exceptions where you think means testing makes sense? (And if so, why?)

I don't think it should be, no. I mean, more broadly, I think we ought to be moving towards something like a universal basic income system, which is like... non-means-tested pension credit for everyone.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

So my questions to that are:

1. Why are you supposing winter fuel payments would be cut in value? That would absolutely be wrong and isn't what I would support.

Because in the latter scheme you have to pay for bureaucrats. That comes from somewhere.

2. The only way you get an extra £300 back from Alan Sugar by paying him £300 is if you are taxing him at a rate of 100%. Which, as left as Labour is right now, is not their party policy.

No. I'm suggesting that in the first world, taxes are overall £300 higher, but despite that, Alan Sugar isn't any worse off because he gets paid £300 more, and the poor pensioner is better off, because you can give more to them and less to bureaucrats.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I think the winter fuel payments have always been a trivial and daft bonus that was more about making posturing "Look at how much we support OAPs!" headlines.
If it's universal, just give a boost to the pension. If it's means-tested, just put boost the tax credits or whatever. Adding a separate category, potentially with separate assessment criteria, for a couple hundred quid, is needlessly bureaucratic.

This, I agree with. It ought to be merged with the state pension.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

So the logic is 'raise taxes *and* throw money at people who don't need it'?

You're advocating state waste as a more morally pure policy.

EDIT: Yes, I absolutely think it should be merged with the pension or some other pension benefit. That would solve the problem entirely. Woo, we agree on something.

 

[*Splinter]

So the logic is 'raise taxes *and* throw money at people who don't need it'?

You're advocating state waste as a more morally pure policy.

Could be wrong but
-benefits are paid for by taxes
-taxes are (effectively) means tested
Seems logical to me? I guess you're moving larger amounts of money back and forth (in Alan Sugar's case) but that seems less wasteful than introducing a new set of costs by creating some system to do the means testing.

 

[Maledict]

Farron made the point last night that it is mad to scrap free school lunches for infants when primary schools have invested in what was needed to provide for it. In addition, Clegg noted that the free school lunch policy guaranteed all infants got one decent meal a day - that does not happen with free breakfasts.

It's another bonkers cut by a government that has already won the election.

I'm sorry but no. Breakfasts are more important than lunches, and the evidence shows that kids skipping breakfast has a huge impact on their ability to learn. That's why their are charities set up solely to provide disadvantaged kids with breakfast.

If we could do both, that would be best. But ultimately, if we're looking to make an impact, breakfast is more important than lunch in my view.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

So the logic is 'raise taxes *and* throw money at people who don't need it'?

You're advocating state waste as a more morally pure policy.

Huw, with respect, you have no idea what you're talking about. There is *less* state waste, because you're not spending money on means-testing the system. This is not rocket science.

Let's try again:

We want to ensure our poor pensioner gets paid £300. We want to ensure that this is revenue neutral.

There are two ways we can do this.

Option 1: We pay £300 to our poor pensioner only. This means-testing costs £50. We therefore need to tax our wealthy person £350, and their net loss is £350.
Option 2: We pay £300 to our wealthy pensioner and our poor pensioner. There is no means-testing and associated costs. We therefore need to tax our wealthy person £600, but they got a £300 payment, so their net loss is £300.

Even though option 2 has higher taxes, it is clearly more efficient with less wastage and actually better for people with higher incomes.

 

[TimmmV]

So the logic is 'raise taxes *and* throw money at people who don't need it'?

You're advocating state waste as a more morally pure policy.

EDIT: Yes, I absolutely think it should be merged with the pension or some other pension benefit. That would solve the problem entirely. Woo, we agree on something.

State waste is an inevitable consequence of the state existing. That's reality and unarguable.

Crab is advocating minimising waste by essentially not doing the same work twice (administering multiple universal benefits as separate things, not means testing stuff multiple times)

So the waste of giving Alan Sugar money he doesn't need is recouped by the taxes he pays, and less overall money is lost because the means testing didn't need to happen

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Huw, with respect, you have no idea what you're talking about. There is *less* state waste, because you're not spending money on means-testing the system. This is not rocket science.

That depends entirely on the actual numbers. Which is why it's concerning when I talk to Labour people at the moment as it always seems to be principle over policy.

Say you have one hundred Mr Sugars and one hundred thousand Mr Churchmice.

The cost of telling the difference between the Mr Sugars and the Mr Churchmices is 10p per person.

In that instance, you get:
100*300 in saved income - 30,000.
You spend .1*100,100 determining who is who - 1,001.
You have thus saved 28,900 in this scenario.

But these are numbers plucked from thin air! I need statistics, dammit!

So instead suppose you discover that of this this circa 100k populace, some great number - three quarters - do not actually need this money delivered in this way.

If there is a decent chunk of money left of savings less admin costs, and that is an if not an assurance, surely that money could be better spent targeting the people Labour want to help most?

Targeted investment at those who are in trouble can be better than shotgun investment in the entire populace.

So to be convinced on this I have to see a study or other proof. I am unwilling to switch my assessment away from this without such proof.

To argue against this is to me to throw the entire concept of opportunity cost under a bus. And Crab at least has talked economics before, right, so I know he understands. But my entire thesis is based on "let's take a look at the social and economic opportunity cost".

 

[Spuck-uk]

IPSOS poll (which generally shows lower for labour than the others), currently has man like J.Corbyn polling a voting % within margin of error of Blairs last election win.


Therefore obviously showing that centrism is the future and the way forward and people will never vote for a left wing candidate..

To be fair compared to 2005 the centrist party are doing err, down from 20+% to well under 10%... Oh dear.


The only good thing to come out of the last few horrible years in politics is the purging of Neoliberalism.

 

[Spuck-uk]

State waste is an inevitable consequence of the state existing. That's reality and unarguable.

Worth noting 'State waste' is money going in salaries to civil servants, thus keeping more people in jobs, and more money in communities.

 

[Rodelero]

Well they have fund that care and with the UK leaving a huge market of potential nurses, doctors and carers...

I don't see why they shouldn't pay for their own treatment and care. I get that people are sympathetic to the plight of old people, but a lot of these fuckers went out of their way to screw over the country. Not to mention, fuck over the mentally ill and the disabled by throwing their lot in with the Tories and their promises of a triple lock and other benefits that meant taking away from the genuinely needy of society.

Fuck 'em.

Even if you do want some kind of revenge against the old, surely you can recognise how unequitable this policy is? This isn't going to hit old people in general, it's going to hit the lower-middle class old, who might own a home but don't have much beyond that.

 

[Spuck-uk]

The Conservatives' social care policy is a punch in the gut. It's just an awful policy. I can't get over how viscerally disappointed I am.

This is a despicable policy and the Conservatives have completely lost my trust and confidence.

The conservatives have been gutting social care since the second they stepped into office. Why on earth would you think they would do anything else?

It's putting your head in a lions mouth and being amazed it bit you.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

The only good thing to come out of the last few horrible years in politics is the purging of Neoliberalism.

Your thesis is that the Lib Dems doing badly is a good thing... Yet to compare it to 2005 would suggest that the Lib Dems doing badly lets in a Tory government?

I thought you didn't want a Tory government?

Without a strong Liberal party to be able to provide a good centrist voice, what happens is that those centrists get sucked into the Tory sphere, and you get polarised debate that allows a shonky Labour Party to squat in opposition. A strong Liberal party demonstrates the value of the centre ground, drags the other parties to the table and improves the country.

All of Blair's majorities were in a period of three-party politics. Two party politics stifles debate and has caused the Labour party to stop listening to anyone it disagrees with.

We need more Lib Dems standing up in parliament, not less.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

That depends entirely on the actual numbers.

I mean, just no. It doesn't. It is a universally true statement that means-testing something is less economically efficient than not doing so. It's literally one of the first things you cover in undergraduate economics - it stems from the First Fundamental Theorem of Welfare Economics.

snip

Okay, so where you're going wrong is this. You are acting like there is a fixed tax budget, from which we have to assign all spendings. But that's not how real economies work. Suppose that I taxed everyone 100% of their income, but then spent absolutely all of that on a benefit that paid out exactly in proportion to how much income everyone had beforehand. Taxes are 100%... but there's no wastage. In fact, there's exactly no effect, because everyone has exactly the same amount of money at the start and at the end of the process. Economies are not like households! This is an exaggerated case, but it gets the point across.

Wastage doesn't happen because taxes are high. It happens because taxes get spent less efficiently than what they would have been spent on if they weren't taxed, and the government is quite good at being inefficient, which is normally why we don't raise taxes (and also because they change people's incentives). But in this case... we're taxing Sugar an extra £300 in order to pay him back £300. So there's no inefficiency there, because he starts and ends with the same amount of money - the state isn't 'spending' it, per se. And his incentives to do things are unchanged.

The inefficiency in the process is the bureaucracy - it's the cost of identifying and administering the payment. When you remove means-testing, you remove that inefficiency.

So to be convinced on this I have to see a study or other proof. I am unwilling to switch my assessment away from this without such proof.

http://www.lboro.ac.uk/media/wwwlbo...ersal approaches to poverty_Working Paper.pdf

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2554085?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/1136/

You might need a university account for some of these.

The trouble is your way of thinking is the second most most frustrating fallacy in public perception of economic policy (the first is how debt works when talking about governments). The above idea is total economic orthodoxy. It's accepted from very rightwing economist like Friedman to the very left - the Negative Income Tax is the entire rightwing answer to the problem of "hey, means-testing doesn't work".

 

[*Splinter]

IPSOS poll (which generally shows lower for labour than the others), currently has man like J.Corbyn polling a voting % within margin of error of Blairs last election win.

Crazy right? Just imagine what a competent opposition would be polling against May.

 

[Spuck-uk]

Your thesis is that the Lib Dems doing badly is a good thing... Yet to compare it to 2005 would suggest that the Lib Dems doing badly lets in a Tory government?

I thought you didn't want a Tory government?

Without a strong Liberal party to be able to provide a good centrist voice, what happens is that those centrists get sucked into the Tory sphere, and you get polarised debate that allows a shonky Labour Party to squat in opposition.

All of Blair's majorities were in a period of three-party politics. Two party politics stifles debate and has caused the Labour party to stop listening to anyone it disagrees with.

We need more Lib Dems standing up in parliament, not less.

No, I'm making two points.

One, that the Libs are unpopular, and being pro-remain has turned out to not be a vote winner, despite my own very strong views on remaining. Again, the Libs put the Tories into power in 2005.

Two, that fighting for the center, even with the party pulling behind it as one, has been LESS popular for Labour than a divided Labour putting out a left wing manifesto even with a leader who's viewed as being innefective.

I think it's great that voters actually have a choice between parties now that you can see there IS a choice in policy, instead of everyone playing follow the leader like the PLP were doing in 2015.


(still vote tactically kids, it's pretty inevitable, but the next few years are going to be horrible with a huge Tory majority).

 

[Spuck-uk]

Crazy right? Just imagine what a competent opposition would be polling against May.

I know, it's almost like they're actually competent but they can't be because Jeremy Corbyn /Left wing policies bad and furthermore

 

[Spuck-uk]

Snip.

This is informative stuff, thanks.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

I don't think it should be, no. I mean, more broadly, I think we ought to be moving towards something like a universal basic income system, which is like... non-means-tested pension credit for everyone.

I knew that's where this was going

 

[HazySaiyan]

What fucking reality are they living in? She isn't even being honest 99 times out of 100.

 

[*Splinter]

Ok I'll drop the snark.

IPSOS poll (which generally shows lower for labour than the others), currently has man like J.Corbyn polling a voting % within margin of error of Blairs last election win.


Therefore obviously showing that centrism is the future and the way forward and people will never vote for a left wing candidate..

To be fair compared to 2005 the centrist party are doing err, down from 20+% to well under 10%... Oh dear.


The only good thing to come out of the last few horrible years in politics is the purging of Neoliberalism.

You're suggesting Labour are polling higher because people prefer their current policies (further left).

I wish I could believe that, but I don't. May offers nothing to anybody. UKIP and the Lib Dems have each collapsed for their own reasons, Greens are as irrelevant as ever. Labour should be clear favourites by now no matter what their manifesto looked like.

 

[CCS]

So apparently the Tory manifesto, in addition to saying that they want more control over what's posted and accessible on social media, says that they want search engines to not link to porn, "even unintentionally". Not sure whether to laugh or be scared.

 

[Daffy Duck]

Can someone answer me this:

With the free school breakfasts when are kids supposed to eat these breakfasts?

 

[Snowman]

Can someone answer me this:

With the free school breakfasts when are kids supposed to eat these breakfasts?

Probably in the morning

 

[Dirtyshubb]

Just watching question time and it's both reassuring and infuriating.

I am So pleased at labour and the green parties reps, they did really well and managed to make the issues relatable to the audience.

I'm pissed at the tories rep, she is just despicable.

I also hated the presenter, there were quite a few times he would position the tories to have the final say and press Labour more. He also left out the greens a lot which was terrible, he has given hardly any time.

Vince cable was bullshit too, he wanted to come across as the alternative option but did it by trying to be a mix of both tories and labour while throwing them under the bus.

Thatchers biographer was terrible too, especially with that climate change sceptic bullshit.

Also a shout out to that young posh arsehole in the audience, what the he'll?

Overall I think the tories came out horribly so hopefully it has had an effect.

 

[Oldest_Ancient]

Huw, with respect, you have no idea what you're talking about. There is *less* state waste, because you're not spending money on means-testing the system. This is not rocket science.

Let's try again:

We want to ensure our poor pensioner gets paid £300. We want to ensure that this is revenue neutral.

There are two ways we can do this.

Option 1: We pay £300 to our poor pensioner only. This means-testing costs £50. We therefore need to tax our wealthy person £350, and their net loss is £350.
Option 2: We pay £300 to our wealthy pensioner and our poor pensioner. There is no means-testing and associated costs. We therefore need to tax our wealthy person £600, but they got a £300 payment, so their net loss is £300.

Even though option 2 has higher taxes, it is clearly more efficient with less wastage and actually better for people with higher incomes.

Surely this scenario only works out better for people with higher incomes if they also receive the winter fuel allowance? Unless you're advocating a pensioners tax equivalent to that of the winter fuel allowance every younger person with similar income would also incur the extra £300 tax?

 

[Daffy Duck]

Probably in the morning

Oh I get that part,

More of a case of when? As surely any time eating breakfast will just, pardon the pun, eat into time that should be spent teaching and not kids eating breakfast.

 

[TimmmV]

Worth noting 'State waste' is money going in salaries to civil servants, thus keeping more people in jobs, and more money in communities.

Yes, that is true - it is only waste in the sense of inefficiency, not that nothing is gained from it.

However, I don't think the state should be intentionally doubling up on programs just to create jobs, it should be either thinking of necessary new ones or adding to ones that are currently neglected and need more staff.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Surely this scenario only works out better for people with higher incomes if they also receive the winter fuel allowance?

That is the point, yes.

 

[Oldest_Ancient]

Oh I get that part,

More of a case of when? As surely any time eating breakfast will just, pardon the pun, eat into time that should be spent teaching and not kids eating breakfast.

We've had 'breakfast clubs' at my local school before and it was essentially just opening the dining hall before school. You would still start at 8:40 or whenever but there would be encouragement for parents to get the kids there 20 mins early for breakfast.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I knew that's where this was going

Fuck the Bishop of Llandaff, that's what I say.

 

[Pandy]

Means-testing is a bad policy. Always is, always will be.

Agreed.

 

[Daffy Duck]

We've had 'breakfast clubs' at my local school before and it was essentially just opening the dining hall before school. You would still start at 8:40 or whenever but there would be encouragement for parents to get the kids there 20 mins early for breakfast.

Yeah, my kids school has a breakfast club, I just wondered how this will work going forward for every child, as I was under the impression that spaces were not unlimited, this just seems like a really stupid idea.

 

[Mr. Sam]

We've had 'breakfast clubs' at my local school before and it was essentially just opening the dining hall before school. You would still start at 8:40 or whenever but there would be encouragement for parents to get the kids there 20 mins early for breakfast.

I've friends who are primary school teachers and friends who are, indeed, parents, and this is pretty typical.

The major cost with before school clubs and after school clubs is, you know, the wages for the staff who have to man them. Rice Krispies are pretty cheap in the grand scheme.

 

[Pandy]

Okay, it's hard to pick apart the manifesto because every page is filled with new forms of horror, but since the Independent picked up on it, and this is GAF, I thought I'd highlight this:

THERESA MAY TO CREATE NEW INTERNET THAT WOULD BE CONTROLLED AND REGULATED BY GOVERNMENT
The proposals come soon after the government won the right to collect everyone's browsing history.
Theresa May is planning to introduce huge regulations on the way the internet works, allowing the government to decide what is said online.

Senior Tories confirmed to BuzzFeed News that the phrasing indicates that the government intends to introduce huge restrictions on what people can post, share and publish online.

The plans will allow Britain to become "the global leader in the regulation of the use of personal data and the internet", the manifesto claims.

It comes just soon after the Investigatory Powers Act came into law. That legislation allowed the government to force internet companies to keep records on their customers' browsing histories, as well as giving ministers the power to break apps like WhatsApp so that messages can be read.

The manifesto makes reference to those increased powers, saying that the government will work even harder to ensure there is no "safe space for terrorists to be able to communicate online". That is apparently a reference in part to its work to encourage technology companies to build backdoors into their encrypted messaging services – which gives the government the ability to read terrorists' messages, but also weakens the security of everyone else's messages, technology companies have warned.

The new rules would include laws that make it harder than ever to access pornographic and other websites. The government will be able to place restrictions on seeing adult content and any exceptions would have to be justified to ministers, the manifesto suggests.

The manifesto even suggests that the government might stop search engines like Google from directing people to pornographic websites. "We will put a responsibility on industry not to direct users – even unintentionally – to hate speech, pornography, or other sources of harm," the Conservatives write.

More at the links:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/theresa-may-internet-conservatives-government-a7744176.html
https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/theresa-may-wants-to-regulate-the-internet?utm_term=.bfPmOLzPq#.ew01oDvP7

And from the manifesto, page 82:

A FRAMEWORK FOR DATA AND THE DIGITAL ECONOMY
Some people say that it is not for government to regulate when it comes to technology and the internet. We disagree. While we cannot create this framework alone, it is for government, not private companies, to protect the security of people and ensure the fairness of the rules by which people and businesses abide. Nor do we agree that the risks of such an approach outweigh the potential benefits. It is in the interests of stable markets that consumers are protected from abusive behaviour, that money is able to flow freely and securely, and that competition between businesses takes place on a level playing field. It is in no-one's interest for the foundations of strong societies and stable democracies – the rule of law, privacy and security – to be undermined.

So we will establish a regulatory framework in law to underpin our digital charter and to ensure that digital companies, social media platforms and content providers abide by these principles. We will introduce a sanctions regime to ensure compliance, giving regulators the ability to fine or prosecute those companies that fail in their legal duties, and to order the removal of content where it clearly breaches UK law. We will also create a power in law for government to introduce an industry-wide levy from social media companies and communication service providers to support awareness and preventative activity to counter internet harms, just as is already the case with the gambling industry.

Just as we led the world in regulating embryology thirty years ago, we know that if we create the right system of governance for the digital economy and use of data, we will attract the right businesses who want to become the global centre for data use and research.

This can only end well.

 

[Spuck-uk]

Ok I'll drop the snark.

You're suggesting Labour are polling higher because people prefer their current policies (further left).

I wish I could believe that, but I don't. May offers nothing to anybody. UKIP and the Lib Dems have each collapsed for their own reasons, Greens are as irrelevant as ever. Labour should be clear favourites by now no matter what their manifesto looked like.

I'm suggesting Labour are polling higher because the polls jumped up since they released their pretty left wing manifesto. Numbers support it.

 

[Spuck-uk]

Yes, that is true - it is only waste in the sense of inefficiency, not that nothing is gained from it.

However, I don't think the state should be intentionally doubling up on programs just to create jobs, it should be either thinking of necessary new ones or adding to ones that are currently neglected and need more staff.

I mean at this point fuck it, introduce bottle mines.

 

[D4Danger]

Tories delaying the NHS deficit figures until after the election

Can't think why...

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Fuck the Bishop of Llandaff, that's what I say.

Has he got some trenchant views on UBI or something?

I just don't get you Welsh.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Has he got some trenchant views on UBI or something?

I just don't get you Welsh.

Agrarian Justice, in which Paine set our a very early draft of the UBI in the late 1700s, was written in response to the Bishop suggesting poverty was part of God's plan.

 

[Dirtyshubb]

Okay, it's hard to pick apart the manifesto because every page is filled with new forms of horror, but since the Independent picked up on it, and this is GAF, I thought I'd highlight this:





More at the links:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/theresa-may-internet-conservatives-government-a7744176.html
https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/theresa-may-wants-to-regulate-the-internet?utm_term=.bfPmOLzPq#.ew01oDvP7

And from the manifesto, page 82:


This can only end well.

And here we go, May is getting exactly what she wants with more control.

New thread worthy?

 

[D4Danger]

And here we go, May is getting exactly what she wants with more control.

New thread worthy?

so we can get 50 pages of "things are looking pretty good" gif. what's the point.

although I will say the line "Some people say that it is not for government to regulate when it comes to technology and the internet. We disagree." is pretty chilling. who is even voting for her at this point?

 

[Dirtyshubb]

so we can get 50 pages of "things are looking pretty good" gif. what's the point.

I was gonna say awareness but I suppose your right

 

[7aged]

so we can get 50 pages of "things are looking pretty good" gif. what's the point.

although I will says the line "Some people say that it is not for government to regulate when it comes to technology and the internet. We disagree." is pretty chilling. who is even voting for her at this point?

Has echos of David Von Doom