User Controls
To all you idiots with AOC in your avatar...
-
2019-04-07 at 9:59 AM UTCAldra that does nothing to prove the point. You people are beneath me, intellectually. I belong on a forum with higher brain power available
-
2019-04-07 at 10:14 AM UTC
Originally posted by aldra it's not about intelligence or common sense; she's just far too idealistic and her ideas and policies are often based on those ideals, not reality. she seems to lack pragmatism and actually believes in things like 'truth', 'freedom', 'morality' and the like, while still participating in the political system… the upcoming election is going to be brutal on her psyche, lol.
Yeah that's kind of what I was saying. It should be common sense to realize that you can't, for instance- offer free college education to everyone that's interested- without enormous cost and unintended consequences. She's got roughly as much sense of what it takes, logistically, to put any of her plans into action as does one of those miss universe contestants whose "platform" is "Africa...and...literary...as well as?" -
2019-04-07 at 10:14 AM UTCwell, it's got more supporting evidence than you of all people calling others retards on the internet
-
2019-04-07 at 10:15 AM UTCBingo bango
-
2019-04-07 at 10:20 AM UTC
Originally posted by CASPER Yeah that's kind of what I was saying. It should be common sense to realize that you can't, for instance- offer free college education to everyone that's interested- without enormous cost and unintended consequences.
there's really no reason it can't be done; I think she mostly just underestimates the power of vested interests and old sources of power. If the 'defence' budget could be cleaned up and large companies were forced to comply with existing taxes (amazon literally paid negative tax last year - they paid zero tax and took a huge number of state and federal payments and subsidies), the US would actually have a chance at reinvigorating it's infrastructure and industry -
2019-04-07 at 10:44 AM UTCThat's not to say that military spending isn't bloated in a lot of ways and inefficient. But unless other countries started pulling their weight in a massive way- which they've often been reluctant to do- the US is going to be the fulcrum of international security for years to come. But introducing legislation that would create another 600 billion in annual spending may not be the way to go. I'd be one of the people that would benefit from something like that. It's be amazing to be able to enroll in law school next semester somewhere and not have to worry about the heavy financial burden. However, it also means that a lot of people will not be working full time anymore. It would likely mean less focus on trades. A lot of people who don't have the aptitude would end up in classrooms, and employers would likely raise educational requirements even further than they have currently.
It's a good idea in theory, there's just a lot of unforseeable consequences to even our most well intentioned ideas.
At the very least though, student loans should have a lower interest rate. We shouldn't be making money on people trying to get an education. Then again who am I to say that? I'm not an economist. Maybe the high interest rates are the only reason people pay off those debts at all. Idk. -
2019-04-07 at 10:47 AM UTC
Originally posted by CASPER That's not to say that military spending isn't bloated in a lot of ways and inefficient. But unless other countries started pulling their weight in a massive way- which they've often been reluctant to do- the US is going to be the fulcrum of international security for years to come.
in what way? the world at large would be more stable if the US didn't deploy internationally. -
2019-04-07 at 10:57 AM UTCIt's not so much about deploying. Separate issue. Certainly the interventionist mindset has bred a lot of problems, but there's also a ton we don't see. The US accounts for 70%+ of NATO spending. Do you foresee an end to paramilitary groups and conflict in Africa? Isreali- Arab tension? Jihadist sects all over the world?
I don't doubt that the spending is bloated, but I do doubt the "conventional" wisdom that says that you can keep those kinds of issues in check just as well with 300 billion dollars as you can with 850 billion dollars. Then again- I suppose it's POSSIBLE that 60% of that is sweetheart deal defense contract spending, but I'm not a military strategist or analyst. -
2019-04-07 at 11:07 AM UTC
Originally posted by CASPER It's not so much about deploying. Separate issue. Certainly the interventionist mindset has bred a lot of problems, but there's also a ton we don't see. 70%+ of NATO spending. Do you foresee an end to paramilitary groups and conflict in Africa? Isreali- Arab tension? Jihadist sects all over the world?
1. NATO has no reason to exist since both the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact have been dissolved.
2. Africa is largely fucked (aside from general niggertry of course) by the west simultaneously ripping it apart for natural resources and suppressing infrastructure development to keep extraction costs low. There is no military solution here.
3. israel got itself into that mess by creating an artificial state where literally nobody wanted them. US efforts only prolong the inevitable - the only long-term solution that doesn't involve a real holocaust is negotiation with its neighbours. A good parable is Camp Bondsteel - once that US base ceases to exist, so will Kosovo.
4. The US military literally created Islamic terrorism as a weapon to use against the Soviet Union (Afghanistan) and later Russia (Chechnya), and have been completely ineffective at fighting it, largely by design. For all Trump's bluster of 'defeating ISIS in Syria', even wikipedia states the US and allies took part in less than 10% of the fighting with similar ratios in kills and casualities. If you want some even more graphic examples, have a look into how the US stopped Iraqi gunships from destroying ISIS convoys in the second battle of Fallujah, or how a Chechen ISIS unit was allowed to leave the country... and now serves as the Ukrainian Kiev-2 Volunteer Battalion. -
2019-04-07 at 11:24 AM UTCI desperately need the sleep, so I'll just say that for the US to step back, it will mean individual states needing to step up. Direct boots on the ground intervention should not be our place in most situations, but the funding, training and logistical support often are vital.
The end of #4 is actually kind of Interesting.ill have to google that. I know we've had an interesting history using jihadist groups to fight proxy wars, but I feel like Islamist violence is probably going to continue to be the norm in many places for the foreseeable future. And I wonder how effective (or motivated) those carrying out the 90% of the offensives would be if they weren't using things we'd manufactured- i.e. Munitions, vehicles, optics, etc.
