• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!
The Old Hack

Political Discussion Thread (READ FIRST POST)

Recommended Posts

I don't remember a government takeover of healthcare ever being popular.

I don't remember a government takeover of healthcare ever being on the table, let alone enacted into law.

The apparent lack of compromise on healthcare is laughable considering they started with the compromise plan - essentially the Republican counteroffer from the 1990s health care debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Scotty said:

There's also the belief that such a ban would fuel ISIS's propaganda machine. I recall discussing this back when other countries in Europe weren't allowing refugees in, or giving them poor treatment, because of fear that any one of them could be a terrorist, that when you have people who desperately need help being refused that help, it increase the chance of them turning to criminal acts and even joining the ones they were running from because "well I guess ISIS was right, these people don't deserve what they have". Even if Yates didn't have any legal grounds to do what she did, I don't see anything wrong with opposing something that you believe could potentially do more harm than goods, especially when the ban cherry picks specific countries while it's been proven that ISIS members aren't always from those countries, what's to stop people from England, Spain, even Canada who might have joined ISIS from entering the US and causing trouble? If Trump really wants to keep terrorists out, then he might as well lock the entire world out, and I know that wouldn't go over well with anyone.

I don't put much stock in "fueling the enemy propaganda machine" as a reason not to do anything.  Radical Islam is never going to run out of angry young men who want to kill infidels in the name of Allah.  The conditions they grow up in are why they're angry and that's far more under the control of their local governments, who in turn ally with Islamic clergy to put out propaganda deflecting the anger at easy scapegoats: Israel, the US and western civilization in general.  It doesn't matter what we do or don't do.  Kids raised in crappy circumstances are still going to grow up angry and get a mindful of violent jihad from clergy and government.

In short, we're going to get blamed no matter what we do or even if we do nothing.  We may as well be blamed for doing the things we need to do to defend ourselves.

I agree with you about Yates.  There's nothing wrong with having ideological (she might say "moral") issues with Trump's order.  That's fine, even expected.  She is under no compulsion to serve a Presidency that she so strongly disagrees with.  The question from there is how to handle the situation with class and professionalism.  The traditional answer is to resign in protest.  Yates' chosen method was was as unprofessional as it was public.  That's why it looks like a propaganda exercise disguised as a solemn protest to me.

RE the details of Trump's order, I completely agree.  I think Trump targeted too narrowly.  You'd think at least Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (to say nothing of Iran) would be on his shortlist of countries.  A broad interpretation of Trump's order would still bar a Syrian refugee from the UK, but not a Syriuan who had naturalized to be a UK citizen.  The counterpoint is this is just a stopgap.  It's not intended as a permanent solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

In short, we're going to get blamed no matter what we do or even if we do nothing.  We may as well be blamed for doing the things we need to do to defend ourselves.

I didn't say the US should do nothing, I'm just saying that banning people from specific countries is a knee jerk reaction to a global issue.

11 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

The conditions they grow up in are why they're angry and that's far more under the control of their local governments, who in turn aly with islamic clergy to put out propaganda deflecting the anger at easy scapegoats: Israel, the US and western civilization in general.  It doesn't matter what we do or don't do.  Kids raised in crappy circumstances are still going to grow up angry and get a mindful of violent jihad from clergy and government.

This is what the focus should be, trying to change the conditions so they people don't feel they need to join extremist groups. People need to work together, not against each other. the problem is, too many people on both sides believe they're more superior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Scotty said:

I didn't say the US should do nothing, I'm just saying that banning people from specific countries is a knee jerk reaction to a global issue.

Agreed, you didn't.  "Doing nothing" was a part of my refuting your "feed the enemy propaganda machine" argument.  We can do nothing.  We can be nice, cute and cuddly as can be--And arab islamic kids will still grow up in crappy conditions and they'll still told Israel and the US are why.

Islamic terrorism is indeed a global problem, but in tending to self-defense the US is largely on its own.  Our borders, our nation, our responsibility.  Other nations can act like Germany and open the floodgates.  That's fine for them.  We're doing what makes sense to us, which with the Trump Admin, means shutting the gates till we figure out a good way to filter out the bad guys.

As questionable as Trump's actions are, they're still far better than playing "global citizen" and ignoring the problem as Obama did.
 

11 minutes ago, Scotty said:

This is what the focus should be, trying to change the conditions so they people don't feel they need to join extremist groups. People need to work together, not against each other. the problem is, too many people on both sides believe they're more superior.

That's a long term solution that's going to take generations to really see fruit.  People are trying to kill us now and we need to deal with that now.  In the ideal world we do both.  We defend ourselves AND we do what we can to change the causes.

The problem with changing the causes for terrorism is they are under the control of sovereign nations that see a poorly-educated and easily manipulated populace as a good way to maintain power.  What do we do when they don't want to change?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

That's a long term solution that's going to take generations to really see fruit.  People are trying to kill us now and we need to deal with that now.  In the ideal world we do both.  We defend ourselves AND we do what we can to change the causes.

Yeah, it will take a while, but it can't just take the back burner either, I'm worried about the US getting itself stuck in constant turtle mode and unable to actually do anything to improve it's own conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Scotty said:

Yeah, it will take a while, but it can't just take the back burner either, I'm worried about the US getting itself stuck in constant turtle mode and unable to actually do anything to improve it's own conditions.

"Turtle mode" is a concern.  Obama, operating under the common belief among the US Left that the US is always the problem has pulled back off the world stage quite a bit, and the world is not better for it.  I doubt Trump will pull further back.  But Trump also is not likely to allow himself to be guided by the UN or the globalists in Europe either.  We're going to choose, and if necessary construct from nothing, our own path.  It will likely shake some status quos but will be better than what's been on offer.

I'm guarded but optimistic about the US improving its own condition.  The US economic outlook is brighter now than it's been in over 8 years.  Trump has already approved pipelines Obama opposed or let languish, and that should help you gals and guys in Canada out as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-02-01 at 0:35 AM, BurntAsh said:

 A system complicated enough, that ideologies are a terrible way to set economic policy for a nation as big as this one.

This is simply wrong. There is no other way to set economic, or really any political policy than by ideology. Politicians today like to claim that their policies is beyond ideology and solely informed by pragmatical concerns. Their policy is "whatever works", as Tony Blair liked to say.

The problem with this is that a political policy can only be said to work if it achieves a result you want. And what results you want of course depends on your ideology, the values and principles that you hold. Denying that you have an ideology when you are a political actor is merely obscuring the values that underlie your actions. Conservatives, liberals and socialists all have different value systems and therefore want different results. 

Politics always raises questions and they need answers. These questions range from foundational and general, like "what is a good society?" and "how shall we achieve that society", to specific matters of policy. Answering them in a coherent and (nota bene) consistent way requires a system of values, an ideology. Philosophically, you can't consider each issue separately from the rest. Political action requires reasonable justification, and that justification must rest on a rational, coherent and consistent philosophical worldview,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Drachefly said:

I don't remember a government takeover of healthcare ever being popular.

I don't remember a government takeover of healthcare ever being on the table, let alone enacted into law.

The apparent lack of compromise on healthcare is laughable considering they started with the compromise plan - essentially the Republican counteroffer from the 1990s health care debate.

Government takeover of a service is rarely popular until well after it occurs and it becomes unquestionably obvious that the "free market" was the problem for that service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, PSadlon said:

Government takeover of a service is rarely popular until well after it occurs and it becomes unquestionably obvious that the "free market" was the problem for that service.

Which rarely happens except when the government has so over-regulated and otherwise distorted the "free" market that proper function is impossible.

As is currently (and has been for a few decades) the case in the US for medical care and higher education.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, what is the alternative to government involvement in healthcare and education?

You see, it is simply the case that many who are poor, unemployed, sick or disabled will simply die or live horrible lives without a strong welfare state to assist them. Some conservatives believe that private charity will be a adequate replacement for social safety net, but that is a view that is lacking in historical understanding. History shows that private charity was wholly unable to care adequately for the unfortunate. It was the kind of horrors Dickens wrote about.

I have no pretensions of objectivity in this. I have myself received a public education, uses government funded healthcare, visits the library weekly and has even lived on a disability benefits for a few years. My life would probably have ended rather quickly if I lived in a libertarian country. This experience informs my political views, an important part of which is the principle that society has a responsibility to care for the unfortunate and that taxation is acceptable to fulfil that responsibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sweveham said:

disabled will simply die or live horrible lives without a strong welfare state to assist them.

Depends on how you define "strong welfare state".  If you mean getting your Social Security payments and Medicare early, sure. Otherwise, not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sweveham said:

Well, what is the alternative to government involvement in healthcare and education?

You see, it is simply the case that many who are poor, unemployed, sick or disabled will simply die or live horrible lives without a strong welfare state to assist them. Some conservatives believe that private charity will be a adequate replacement for social safety net, but that is a view that is lacking in historical understanding. History shows that private charity was wholly unable to care adequately for the unfortunate. It was the kind of horrors Dickens wrote about.

I have no pretensions of objectivity in this. I have myself received a public education, uses government funded healthcare, visits the library weekly and has even lived on a disability benefits for a few years. My life would probably have ended rather quickly if I lived in a libertarian country. This experience informs my political views, an important part of which is the principle that society has a responsibility to care for the unfortunate and that taxation is acceptable to fulfil that responsibility.

The problem with a strong welfare state is government largesse is addicting both to its recipients and politicians controlling it.  It destroys recipient drive and self-esteem about proportional to how dependent the recipient is on government.

This is before we talk about how people are expensive and government money is money that is removed from the economy, weakening and slowing it.  Talk of a guaranteed minimum income only makes these issues worse.

The question of what to do with people who honestly cannot afford the care they need is a very thorny one considering the serious negatives attached to government intervention.  I have no answer, but the best you'll ever get me to say of the welfare state is some aspects of it may be a necessary evil. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sweveham said:

Well, what is the alternative to government involvement in healthcare and education?

You see, it is simply the case that many who are poor, unemployed, sick or disabled will simply die or live horrible lives without a strong welfare state to assist them. Some conservatives believe that private charity will be a adequate replacement for social safety net, but that is a view that is lacking in historical understanding. History shows that private charity was wholly unable to care adequately for the unfortunate. It was the kind of horrors Dickens wrote about.

I have no pretensions of objectivity in this. I have myself received a public education, uses government funded healthcare, visits the library weekly and has even lived on a disability benefits for a few years. My life would probably have ended rather quickly if I lived in a libertarian country. This experience informs my political views, an important part of which is the principle that society has a responsibility to care for the unfortunate and that taxation is acceptable to fulfil that responsibility.

The alternative to absurd and destructive levels of government involvement in healthcare and education may be complete government uninvolvement... or it could be lower, sensible levels of government involvement.

The problem with reforming health care and insurance is that it's hard to realize just how deeply government-induced distortions are embedded in the system. Does it make sense to you that if your employer hands you a dollar and you use it to buy health insurance that dollar is subject to income and social security taxes, but if your employer uses the dollar to buy health insurance for you then it isn't taxable to either you or the employer? That absurdity is a relic of the World War II wage freeze. It was a major factor in creating a system where you don't care what your medical care actually costs, and can't find out how much you'll personally have to pay until a month after you receive care - and, further, you probably don't know or care how much your health insurance costs either. The consequences of that are making it impossible to sensibly manage your own health care if things get at all complicated, and impossible to sensibly manage a government program to assist the poor with health care. So there's a movement afoot to have the government abandon selective attempts to assist the poor, and instead take over health care entirely... meaning that the demand for health care will be completely unconstrained by cost, while the supply will be completely controlled by cost and politics without regard for need, with nothing to mediate between the two.

Government interference in K-12 schools and an attempt to impose a universal system (which the rich have always been able to escape from) are even older and for a worse purpose. Seriously, the intent was to destroy families and to make sure that blacks could not be as well-educated on average as whites. (Definite success at the latter goal, even today.) Today a restaurant that is failing to provide a good and safe dining experience shuts down, due to either the health department (government involvement!) or lack of customers and money; but a public school that is failing to provide a good and safe educational experience gets more money, while any attempt to get students out of it into a better school is an attempt to destroy education.

So how about making a sane health-care system that doesn't penalize people for paying for their own health care and insurance, and then selectively assisting POOR people as needed?

And how about if we stop funding a selected monopoly group of schools, and instead fund students at any school - or substitute-for-school - that successfully delivers a safe educational experience of reasonable quality?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

The problem with a strong welfare state is government largesse is addicting both to its recipients and politicians controlling it.  It destroys recipient drive and self-esteem about proportional to how dependent the recipient is on government.

I must admit that I come to expect to live in a society in which I can loan books from a library without paying or get healthcare without it figuratively costing an arm and a leg.  In that sense I'm "addicted the government". But that isn't really what you mean, is it?

If you're talking about people on unemployment benefits, it is true that people can sadly come to rely on them for years. But in my experience this is in most cases due to a lack of jobs than any laziness on their part. For decades work has been hard to come by. We should also remember that living on benefits is far from a comfortable existence and working is often preferable.

I must admit that as a disabled person, my need of outside help both from the government and others was something I struggled with and it did hurt my self-esteem.  But eventually I came to accept that dependence is an unavoidable fact of life and nothing to be ashamed of. The myth of the "rugged individual" is just that, a myth. No matter how capable you are, you are always dependent on someone, will always need someone's help. "No man is an island" and all that. I am a individualist, but society is necessary in order for the individual to flourish.

We should keep in mind when people are not dependent on the state, they tend to become dependent on family, charities and church. And they as institutions can be just as oppressive and hostile to the individual as the state. When I applied for disability benefits, I could do so without being asked to cut my hair or believe in a certain God. With a church, that isn't always the case.

15 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

This is before we talk about how people are expensive and government money is money that is removed from the economy, weakening and slowing it.

This is simply wrong. Government money isn't removed from the economy. The money from your taxes isn't thrown into a black hole, never to be seen again. When I received disability benefits, I used that money to pay for food, rent, clothes and books. In that way the money comes back into the economy. Same thing when for example a teacher receives his salary from the state. This could even be argued to stimulate the economy, as Keynes did.

When tax money is invested in infrastructure, education and healthcare, that helps the economy. I probably don't need to argue for how a good infrastructure and a healthy, educated workforce helps the economy.

And yes, people are expensive, but in my view the point of the economy is to provide for the needs of the people. We should reject economistic thinking, when we judge people and things solely on how much money they make, making money the measure of all things. Some things are worth paying for even if we don't gain any monetary profit from them. They provide value in other ways. Libraries are a good example. Human beings are valuable and worth caring for, even if they are disabled and will never make money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Malcolm Turnbull continues to stand behind Tony Abbott's plan to deliver/delay (depending on who you ask) marriage equality: spending millions on a non-binding plebiscite that multiple coalition MPs have already admitted they're going to ignore. And he continues to blame the ALP for delaying marriage equality by blocking the plebiscite, when he could just grant a conscience vote on the issue, like he said he wanted to years ago.

http://gaynewsnetwork.com.au/news/national/pm-says-australians-could-have-had-marriage-equality-if-plebiscite-had-moved-ahead-22763.html

 

Also, it looks like the deal he struck with Obama regarding the refugees on Manus and Nauru has already collapsed, since Trump is openly mocking it on Twitter. I can't say I'm totally shocked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/2/2017 at 10:46 AM, Vorlonagent said:

I don't put much stock in "fueling the enemy propaganda machine" as a reason not to do anything.  Radical Islam is never going to run out of angry young men who want to kill infidels in the name of Allah.  The conditions they grow up in are why they're angry and that's far more under the control of their local governments, who in turn ally with Islamic clergy to put out propaganda deflecting the anger at easy scapegoats: Israel, the US and western civilization in general.  It doesn't matter what we do or don't do.  Kids raised in crappy circumstances are still going to grow up angry and get a mindful of violent jihad from clergy and government.

In short, we're going to get blamed no matter what we do or even if we do nothing.  We may as well be blamed for doing the things we need to do to defend ourselves.

Well how about things that don't protect us, and in fact are counterproductive to our anti-terrorism efforts? Like, for example, a blanket ban on travel from countries that the president happens to dislike, none of whose citizens have been responsible for any terror attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11?

If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe a bipartisan group of some of the highest-ranking national security officials of the past few decades, who released this statement to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Here's an excerpt:

Quote

 

3. We all agree that the United States faces real threats from terrorist networks and must take all prudent and effective steps to combat them, including the appropriate vetting of travelers to the United States. We all are nevertheless unaware of any specific threat that would justify the travel ban established by the Executive Order issued on January 27, 2017. We view the Order as one that ultimately undermines the national security of the United States, rather than making us safer. In our professional opinion, this Order cannot be justified on national security or foreign policy grounds. It does not perform its declared task of “protecting the nation from foreign terrorist entry into the United States.” To the contrary, the Order disrupts thousands of lives, including those of refugees and visa holders all previously vetted by standing procedures that the Administration has not shown to be inadequate. It could do long-term damage to our national security and foreign policy interests, endangering U.S. troops in the field and disrupting counterterrorism and national security partnerships. It will aid ISIL’s propaganda effort and serve its recruitment message by feeding into the narrative that the United States is at war with Islam. It will hinder relationships with the very communities that law enforcement professionals need to address the threat. It will have a damaging humanitarian and economic impact on the lives and jobs of American citizens and residents. And apart from all of these concerns, the Order offends our nation’s laws and values

4. There is no national security purpose for a total bar on entry for aliens from the seven named countries. Since September 11, 2001, not a single terrorist attack in the United States has been perpetrated by aliens from the countries named in the Order. Very few attacks on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001 have been traced to foreign nationals at all. The overwhelming majority of attacks have been committed by U.S. citizens. The Administration has identified no information or basis for believing there is now a heightened or particularized future threat from the seven named countries. Nor is there any rational basis for exempting from the ban particular religious minorities (e.g., Christians), suggesting that the real target of the ban remains one religious group (Muslims). In short, the Administration offers no reason why it abruptly shifted to group-based bans when we have a tested individualized vetting system developed and implemented by national security professionals across the government to guard the homeland, which is continually re-evaluated to ensure that it is effective.

 

This goes on for about three more pages explaining why a Muslim ban is nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I strongly suspect that President Trump did not honestly expect the ban to work.

He just wanted to do what he promised the fanatic electorate who voted for him.

Then, when the DOJ, Courts, and career bureaucrats get in the way of enforcing the ban, Trump can tell his base that he did what he promised, but the political establishment got in the way.  Re-elect me, and elect people I want to congress, and we will get this straightened out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/4/2017 at 5:03 AM, Sweveham said:

I must admit that I come to expect to live in a society in which I can loan books from a library without paying or get healthcare without it figuratively costing an arm and a leg.  In that sense I'm "addicted the government". But that isn't really what you mean, is it?

No it isn't.  Once you start talking about a "strong Welfare state", you go far beyond just talking about ACA to Euro-style cradle-to-grave entitlements.

On 2/4/2017 at 5:03 AM, Sweveham said:

If you're talking about people on unemployment benefits, it is true that people can sadly come to rely on them for years. But in my experience this is in most cases due to a lack of jobs than any laziness on their part. For decades work has been hard to come by. We should also remember that living on benefits is far from a comfortable existence and working is often preferable.

I am speaking based on my personal experience on unemployment, yes.  And I agree one need not be lazy to run out their unemployment benefits as most statistically do before finding another job.  I was on unemployment twice in the 2000s and I ran it out both times and then ran up debt to survive.  I have never gotten the hang of changing jobs and don't think I ever will.

On 2/4/2017 at 5:03 AM, Sweveham said:

I must admit that as a disabled person, my need of outside help both from the government and others was something I struggled with and it did hurt my self-esteem.  But eventually I came to accept that dependence is an unavoidable fact of life and nothing to be ashamed of. The myth of the "rugged individual" is just that, a myth. No matter how capable you are, you are always dependent on someone, will always need someone's help. "No man is an island" and all that. I am a individualist, but society is necessary in order for the individual to flourish.

But at the same time, humans tend do the best when we are paying our own way.  When we are capable of taking responsibility for ourselves and caring for ourselves.  Being disabled, you have no choice but accept some degree of dependency.  Even in your case, you still pursue a career.  You still take as much responsibility for your life as you realistically can.

What has become clearer to me is one thing society needs to do and doesn't do enough to let the individual flourish, is get out of the damned way.  Our government-driven permitized, over-taxed, over-regulated world makes it hardest first on people with good ideas who want to try to make something of them. 

On 2/4/2017 at 5:03 AM, Sweveham said:

We should keep in mind when people are not dependent on the state, they tend to become dependent on family, charities and church. And they as institutions can be just as oppressive and hostile to the individual as the state. When I applied for disability benefits, I could do so without being asked to cut my hair or believe in a certain God. With a church, that isn't always the case.

With churches there's often plenty to choose from.  Don't like one, you can usually find another you like better.  Government is a monopoly.  You can jump from state to state but there are usually long waiting periods before the state regards you as a "citizen" and eligible for services.  It's even harder to trade national governments.  Canadian entitlement law is structured to *discourage* Americans from moving from the US to Canada.  People are expensive.  Canada can't afford a huge wave of dependents coming up through its southern border.

My main point is dependency is a very soul-corrosive position to be in.  Its destructiveness is proportional to the degree of dependency.  What light does your own experience shed on this? 

If in some fantasy world where you were suddenly not disabled tomorrow, would you still accept dependency on others that your disability forces you to accept now?  Set aside US "rugged individualism" and the social pressure it exerts on you to say "no".  How comfortable would you be with people doing things for you that you could now do for yourself?

On 2/4/2017 at 5:03 AM, Sweveham said:

This is simply wrong. Government money isn't removed from the economy. The money from your taxes isn't thrown into a black hole, never to be seen again. When I received disability benefits, I used that money to pay for food, rent, clothes and books. In that way the money comes back into the economy. Same thing when for example a teacher receives his salary from the state. This could even be argued to stimulate the economy, as Keynes did.

When tax money is invested in infrastructure, education and healthcare, that helps the economy. I probably don't need to argue for how a good infrastructure and a healthy, educated workforce helps the economy.

Agreed, at least in cases of traditional government responsibilities. Some money does need to be pulled out of the economy for those things only government can do.  I'd argue that taxation for such purposes be considered a necessary evil.

I thought about the "it's not really 'taking money out of the economy' if it gets spent again" argument.  On the surface it sounded very compelling.  I decided it didn't hold up under scrutiny.  See what you think.

Thought experiment: I own a business where "only" 60% of every dollar I earn goes back out as non-tax expenses.  I have 40% profit I can invest in growing the business, my personal enrichment, whatever.  Now add taxes that work out to 20% of my business' income, which cuts my profits by 50%.  Even if government turns around and invests every dime of the money it collected from me back into buying goods or services from my business, 80% of my income generated by government spending evaporates into expenses and taxes, so my profits still drop from 40% to 24%.  Sure I'm doing more business, but I'm still making less than if government never taxed my business to begin with.  With less money to invest on my business, the slower my business grows.  Do this economy-wide, the slower the economy grows. 

Government, therefore, has a responsibility to tax the least it can get away with and still do the things we need it to do.  And to keep the list of things it does short and concise as possible.  I'm not saying you should or shouldn't have gotten disability.  What I am saying is the redistribution is not zero-sum.  There is a net economic cost to taxing and spending. 

It should also be noted that high business profits are not an absolute good above all other things.  We still need an economy people can live with, not just one that generates maximum profits at any given moment.  We want to be sure that the business treats its employees and its world decently.  Therefore government regulation, like taxes, are also an at-times necessary evil, but as with taxes you want government's interference to be as minimal as needed (but no less), and for the same reason.  Reduced profitability means reduced economy.  You don't do it lightly and must do it when needed.

I would strongly disagree with, say, using the EPA as a club to beat businesses over the head with in order to try to bring about some imagined utopian transformation of the US economy.   That doesn't work out well for anybody.

...All of this is the long way around saying that when money is taken out of the economy for social services, we want to look at the expenditure really hard.  As giving and compassionate as we would all love to be, government compassion always carries the steepest cost, both in terms recipient initiative and collective wealth.  Pointing this out is one of the many ways why economics is called "the dismal science"  Holes in Keynes are best explained with this rap battle from the early 2000s
 

 

On 2/4/2017 at 5:03 AM, Sweveham said:

And yes, people are expensive, but in my view the point of the economy is to provide for the needs of the people. We should reject economistic thinking, when we judge people and things solely on how much money they make, making money the measure of all things. Some things are worth paying for even if we don't gain any monetary profit from them. They provide value in other ways. Libraries are a good example. Human beings are valuable and worth caring for, even if they are disabled and will never make money.

Some things are worth paying for, but we are under obligation to carefully consider which ones we choose government to fulfill since government spend, especially government spend, comes at a cost.

The economy is also about ambition and fulfillment.  I want to fulfill my dreams and get paid for it.  The economy is not just a money-printing service for the have-nots.  It's about reaching for the stars.  Too much taxation, too much government regulation destroys the magic. 

There's a story I heard years ago about a reporter n Cuba whose taxi driver was a doctor.  When asked why he was driving a cab, the driver replied, "If driving a cab pays the same as being a doctor, I might as well drive a cab."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Troacctid said:

This goes on for about three more pages explaining why a Muslim ban is nonsense.

Well, the latter bit is absolutely correct. Calling something that allows Muslims to come to the US from around 40 Muslim-majority countries and any number of other countries a "Muslim ban" is, indeed, nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Don Edwards said:

Well, the latter bit is absolutely correct. Calling something that allows Muslims to come to the US from around 40 Muslim-majority countries and any number of other countries a "Muslim ban" is, indeed, nonsense.

So you agree that the ban is actually harmful to national security, not helpful?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Troacctid said:

Well how about things that don't protect us, and in fact are counterproductive to our anti-terrorism efforts? Like, for example, a blanket ban on travel from countries that the president happens to dislike, none of whose citizens have been responsible for any terror attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11?

If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe a bipartisan group of some of the highest-ranking national security officials of the past few decades, who released this statement to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Here's an excerpt:

This goes on for about three more pages explaining why a Muslim ban is nonsense.

I look at the statement and I just see the Democrat Party line dressed up in some credentials.  Who are the republicans on this list?  The only names I recognize are all Democrats whose opposition to Trump's EO is expected and thus dismissable as partisanship, plus maybe one Republican elite who don't like Trump or getting a RINO to sign on.

I find the assertion that " The overwhelming majority of attacks have been committed by U.S. citizens " to be highly disingenuous, as if it was a white Christian shouting "Allah ackbar" while shooting US soldiers at Fort Hood or it was a couple of truckers who objected to the last "national Draw Mohammed Day" with guns.  You can dilute the few true terrorist attacks by finessing what one defines as a "terrorist attack" to make islamic groups the minority.

Edit:

Look at it from my POV: If I quoted a bunch of Conservative luminaries at you to prove a point against a Democrat, you'd rightly rolleye back at me and say "come on.  One Democrat and a bunch of Republicans are supposed to change my mind?  Really?"  And you'd be right.  I'm saying the same thing.

To cut any slack with me, you'd need an "Only Nixon could go to China" sort of Republican.  If, for example, John Bolton's name were on the list of signatories, that'd make me sit up and take notice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vorlonagent said:

Edit:

Look at it from my POV: If I quoted a bunch of Conservative luminaries at you to prove a point against a Democrat, you'd rightly rolleye back at me and say "come on.  One Democrat and a bunch of Republicans are supposed to change my mind?  Really?"  And you'd be right.  I'm saying the same thing.

To cut any slack with me, you'd need an "Only Nixon could go to China" sort of Republican.  If, for example, John Bolton's name were on the list of signatories, that'd make me sit up and take notice.

Are they conservative luminaries with considerable experience and expertise in the fields in question? Are their claims backed up by evidence? Because that would certainly make me take notice.

Okay, whatever, you don't trust these various high-ranking national security people. How about John McCain and Lindsey Graham, notable Republican members of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, who issued a joint statement saying basically the same thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Troacctid said:

Are they conservative luminaries with considerable experience and expertise in the fields in question? Are their claims backed up by evidence? Because that would certainly make me take notice.

I'd say yes.  John Bolton is an exceptional thinker...in my opinion.  And just as you might take issue with the 'evidence" my people might cite so might I might find fault with your group's.  Fair's fair after all.

This is not to say Trump's EO is perfect,.  It isn't.  Just that I'm unconvinced by the usual suspects saying usual-suspect sorts of things. 

The last time the Usual Suspects were this down on a conservative's action, it was Iraq in 2006.  From the Left we got a nonstop and endless-repeat about how there nothing could save Iraq and it was all hopeless and we should just get out.  As with now they had very good, very organized reasons for thinking so and plenty of evidence.  The usual Suspects loved the Vietnam metaphor for Iraq.  Then GW Bush implemented The Surge to great catcalling and predictions of failure.  But it succeeded and succeeded so well that al Queda in Iraq was forced to flee the country for the Taliban-held parts of Pakistan. 

So forgive me for not putting much stock in the signatories of the Statement you quoted, when they're just parroting the Party Line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

I'd say yes.  John Bolton is an exceptional thinker...in my opinion.  And just as you might take issue with the 'evidence" my people might cite so might I might find fault with your group's.  Fair's fair after all.

This is not to say Trump's EO is perfect,.  It isn't.  Just that I'm unconvinced by the usual suspects saying usual-suspect sorts of things. 

The last time the Usual Suspects were this down on a conservative's action, it was Iraq in 2006.  From the Left we got a nonstop and endless-repeat about how there nothing could save Iraq and it was all hopeless and we should just get out.  As with now they had very good, very organized reasons for thinking so and plenty of evidence.  The usual Suspects loved the Vietnam metaphor for Iraq.  Then GW Bush implemented The Surge to great catcalling and predictions of failure.  But it succeeded and succeeded so well that al Queda in Iraq was forced to flee the country for the Taliban-held parts of Pakistan. 

So forgive me for not putting much stock in the signatories of the Statement you quoted, when they're just parroting the Party Line.

So far you don't seem to have actually taken issue with any particular point of evidence. For example—people are already going through intense vetting in order to enter the United States. The process for vetting refugees, for instance, is long, rigorous, and extremely arduous, and typically takes years to complete. Is there any part of that process that you can single out as being ineffective or insufficient? To my knowledge, the Trump administration has not offered any examples of deficiencies in the current standards.

I don't think you've presented any evidence of your own, either.

And do you not consider John McCain and Lindsey Graham to be sufficiently conservative?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Troacctid said:

So you agree that the ban is actually harmful to national security, not helpful?

I agree that it's a complex situation, and there's no reason to think it's more harmful now than when Obama did pretty much the same thing for twice as long.

Also no more illegal than it was then.

Just how harmful or illegal it is now and was then... that's arguable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now