Bob Jane T-Mart
Smash Ace
Okay, I'll do the first one then, sooner or later.
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
The Debate Hall Social Thread
- Thread starter Crimson King
- Start date
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
For population, you realize that if it wasn't for immigration, our population would be falling?
Post industrial nations have sharp decreases in population growth, and once all nations reach that stage, increasing population should no longer be a problem.
CRASHiC
Smash Hero
I for one find the gallups change from "unemployment" to "underemployed" as unemployment started to drop hilarious, especially since "underemployed" is far more subjective and subject to manipulation.
Aesir
Smash Master
I'm liking how after this bill was signed it's approval rating flared up.
Bob Jane T-Mart
Smash Ace
I'm talking about world population. So, that point is null.
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
I figured as much, but what look at the second line, basically I'm saying is the solution is the make other nations post industrial and the problem deals with itself.
Bob Jane T-Mart
Smash Ace
Well, that's looking pretty hard at the moment... Brining 6 Billion people to our standard of living would destroy the environment; we just wouldn't have enough resources to go around at the moment.
And declining populations brings its own set of problems, especially for developed nations.
CRASHiC
Smash Hero
That makes the horribly silly assumption that we have capped out. Are you aware of how many untapped resources this world has left to offer? Last time I checked, solar power was only running at 5 percent efficiency. Imagine the effects it will have once we reach a percent for it to replace our fossil fuels on a practical basis. This is one, rather easy, example of untapped potential that will not destroy the enviroment as well as help support 6 billion.
All throughout Africa are LOADS of untapped metals and minerals. These are not on reserves, nor are they on much sought after land, or even land where people live. The only reason this has not been exploited to the governments potential is because of the large disfunction of their governments, and these countries are still (very poor) agriculture countries, that don't export much of anything.
This is the same mistake economist made back when the industrial revolution first happened, they assumed that what we had now would be max, and that we could never increase the size of our reasonless to the level they are today. There is still much room for improvment, and we can do it in a way that doesn't destroy this world. We have a long way to go, and with the discovery of a jellyfish with the ability to unage itself, an animal able to undergo photosythesis, and the rapid increase in "free energies," the world's current problems could be solved within our life time, should the exponential growth of our scientific fields continue at the ever increasing rate they have been since the dawn of human kind. As progress continues to telescope time, as vast global changes continue to occur on an ever increasing speed, we could very easily support our increasing population, all without lowering anyone's standard of living or destroying the world in the progress.
I know the world seems hopless at times, but be glad you were alive in this time, because the man kind has never experienced such an exciting time. The problems and the solutions have never been so grand as they are today.
Aesir
Smash Master
So anyone else reading that "this is how liberty dies" blog or whatever?
I'm loling a lot and I see quite a few of you posting. (Jam and Crashic)
I'm loling a lot and I see quite a few of you posting. (Jam and Crashic)
Haha, I'm this close to locking that thread, so enjoy it while it lasts. It is pretty lultastic.
Aesir
Smash Master
So in recent news, Republicans in the senate are offering the Public Option to the reconciliation bill. This is either to do one of two things. Troll the Democrats to vote against it, which will make them look really bad. Or vote for it and delay the reconciliation bill. There's also the third option; There's some Republicans who are getting sick of blind opposition and want to actually be bi-partisan and help. (a public option would save 100 billion dollars.)
A "public option" is going to end up costing a lot more than that.
Aesir
Smash Master
Not if it's self funded though.
It absolutely will not be self-funded. That's a pipe dream. Governments and people always underestimate the costs of projects like this.
Aesir
Smash Master
Well yeah because realistically having a strong public option won't happen, it would get numbed down during the legislative process.
That's the biggest problem with a lot of these social welfare programs, especially for health care. They get numbed down to being very ineffective.
That's the biggest problem with a lot of these social welfare programs, especially for health care. They get numbed down to being very ineffective.
CRASHiC
Smash Hero
I do so hope they can pick apart something in this republican public option as to avoid falling into a bitter trap. ****it republicans, stop being so **** good as this game.
Aesir
Smash Master
They're just pissed because Democrats distracted them with the Deem and pass procedure so they could get enough votes to pass the bill.
blazedaces
Smash Lord
Don't you guys love how GoldShadow ALWAYS backs up his claims with good, hard scientific evidence?
-blazed
Edit: I didn't even know that such a blog existed... this thing is hi-****en-larious....
You're joking right? GoldShadow is probably the best poster here for supporting his posts with evidence.
Besides, his point should be self evident: can anyone name a gov't program (or any program, public or private) that has hit its budget projections? That's not a knock, but the reality of these kinds of things.
blazedaces
Smash Lord
... I know... but he didn't do it in those two posts... and that's why I said it.
I'm just not buying that it will cost much more than proposed "because Goldshadow" said so...
And are you actually asking me to name ONE project/program in existence that hit its budget projections?
THE PANAMA CANAL WAS 23 MILLION DOLLARS UNDER BUDGET
-blazed
How dare you prove me wrong!
CRASHiC
Smash Hero
Aesir, you said that in the past that the Fed HAS required people to purchase a good or service, can I get some examples of this?
blazedaces
Smash Lord
Can you define good or service?
Schools? Infrastructure? USPS? Social Security? Medicare? Medicaid? Fire Departments? Police Departments? Everything in the entire world that has EVER received money from our taxes? Public projects? Research? The ARMY that defends us? All branches of government? Investments made by the US government, which include payments to other countries, in which case they would use our "heard-earned" money to pay for god-knows what, like communism, socialism, rastafarianism?
I'm sure a neo-con would have a talking point for everyone of these examples, showing how they are NOT goods/services, yet healthcare indeed is... and therefore it's unconstitutional... but hey, whatever...
-blazed
Bob Jane T-Mart
Smash Ace
CRASHiC
Smash Hero
The only one that is of concern is Peak Food, peak Oil and Coal we can adapt too easily, as there are many, many other natural resources, free clean energy or not, that we can exploit. The only issue there is doing so, and having something universal. Brazil has already shown how easily it can be done.
blazedaces
Smash Lord
Can you elaborate on this or tell me specifically what to search to read/find out more? I'm rather curious (and ignorant) about the subject.
-blazed
CRASHiC
Smash Hero
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8262015/
that basically, even with biofuels being a rather bad source for an energy replacement, its still a good example of what can be done, considering how early on Brazil had started this program and their research into it.
that basically, even with biofuels being a rather bad source for an energy replacement, its still a good example of what can be done, considering how early on Brazil had started this program and their research into it.
Aesir
Smash Master
The second congress of the united states. Lol
Militia Act of 1792, signed by President Washington.
Keep in mind this law was written by congressmen who many were the actual framers of the constitution. So I think they have a pretty good insight what was constitutional and what was not.
Just saying.
blazedaces
Smash Lord
Bob Jane T-Mart
Smash Ace
See, the problem with biofuels, is they're ridiculously inefficient, destroy forests, deplete food resources and ruin arable land. Biofuels, require lots of oil to produce, almost a 1:1 ratio or worse. Biofuel, is not a solution to anything, basically, you put one litre of diesel in, you get 1 litre of diesel out, if that, as well as a whole lot of wasted food production, soil damage, and forest destruction. Way to solve the Peak Oil problem!
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/Pimentel-Tadzek.pdf
Sorry to backtrack a bit but I want to address this:
Anyway, you mentioned the Panama canal, but I don't really see how that's relevant. It's a single instance that's almost a century old.
How about more recent and germane examples of wasteful government spending? In other words, the following bloated, underfunded, and inefficient government-run projects and programs: Medicare, Medicaid, social security, the VA, the US-Mexico border fence, the war on drugs...
I think you get my point.
A simple "could you back that up?" or "prove it" would have sufficed
Anyway, you mentioned the Panama canal, but I don't really see how that's relevant. It's a single instance that's almost a century old.
How about more recent and germane examples of wasteful government spending? In other words, the following bloated, underfunded, and inefficient government-run projects and programs: Medicare, Medicaid, social security, the VA, the US-Mexico border fence, the war on drugs...
I think you get my point.
blazedaces
Smash Lord
I apologize Goldshadow. I did not intend to insult. I understand on the forums usually people are cynical, sarcastic, and just plain jerks to each other even when they slightly disagree. I really do know you almost always back up your claims and have extremely sound scientific knowledge.Sorry to backtrack a bit but I want to address this:
A simple "could you back that up?" or "prove it" would have sufficed
Anyway, you mentioned the Panama canal, but I don't really see how that's relevant. It's a single instance that's almost a century old.
How about more recent and germane examples of wasteful government spending? In other words, the following bloated, underfunded, and inefficient government-run projects and programs: Medicare, Medicaid, social security, the VA, the US-Mexico border fence, the war on drugs...
I think you get my point.
With that being said I was only intending to add some light humor.
I realize the Panama canal is about a century old, but I was not challenged to find a recent example, not even challenged to find a US specific example, just one in all of time.
That being said, now I have been issued such a challenge, and I'll take a quick crack at it.
First good thing I could fine (for some reason I have a feeling it's a bad example. I recall hearing about how our prescription drug program is really bad, but whatever, here it is): PBM Tools Help Part D Come in 30% Under Budget Estimates.
For some reason GoldShadow I wouldn't be surprised to easily find that businesses have this same problem with going over budget. It happens all the time. It happens everywhere. Everyone wishes we had more money to spend on .... whatever. Even in my college, where I was working under a PhD student for research, we were plenty under budget at the end of it, so we used the rest of the money to spend it on extra equipment that might possibly be used next year by the lab (and could possibly be justified for the budget). This is common. If you actually go under budget, you might get less money next year (because the argument can be made you don't need that much).
Every time I searched this topic tons of neo-cons would be yelling about how there's no such example in the government, yet every time I probe deeper, I find one. I'm sure I could find more, but it just doesn't matter. Instead of arguing about past examples of systems going overbudget why don't you go the congressional budget office website and explain to me step-by-step why their budget analysis is wrong... I'd be more convinced because of that, than some blanket claim.
-blazed
Haha wow
blazedaces
Smash Lord
Now... I'm not entirely sure what you're implying. But from now on instead of saying "neo-cons" I will say "Americans"... (I am American FYI)
-blazed
When you said, "this topic," I thought you were referring specifically to this social thread. I was implying that there's hardly anyone here that could be characterized as a neo-con.
But that's not what you meant, so chalk it up to my inability to read.
But that's not what you meant, so chalk it up to my inability to read.
blazedaces
Smash Lord
Aesir
Smash Master
I love how you didn't mention the military budget which is the most expensive, defense budget is actually higher than most of the other powers combined.Sorry to backtrack a bit but I want to address this:
A simple "could you back that up?" or "prove it" would have sufficed
Anyway, you mentioned the Panama canal, but I don't really see how that's relevant. It's a single instance that's almost a century old.
How about more recent and germane examples of wasteful government spending? In other words, the following bloated, underfunded, and inefficient government-run projects and programs: Medicare, Medicaid, social security, the VA, the US-Mexico border fence, the war on drugs...
I think you get my point.
Then again you could argue why those programs are so ineffective and underfunded is because the military budget is so bloated full of waste that it's impossible to put any money into anything because of how much of a funding vacuum the military is.
It seems like neither party is really concerned with fixing these programs because it would be an expansion of big government which doesn't poll very well.
I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at though, are you saying we should slowly cut those programs till they don't exist? or saying we need to make them more efficient? When it comes to economics it's really hard to see what side of the spectrum you're on sometimes.
I'm not saying we should cut these, because some of them do provide useful services (to some extent), like Medicare and Medicaid. I'm saying we need to get rid of the bureaucracy, fat, and inefficiencies.
In other cases, like the war on drugs, some things do need to be cut entirely. Not all of it, but parts of it. For example, the government could be making revenue from marijuana by regulating it; instead, they spend millions, perhaps billions, each year prosecuting people for it. Neither republicans nor democrats (on the whole) are willing to make the suggestion to legalize it, though.
In other cases, like the war on drugs, some things do need to be cut entirely. Not all of it, but parts of it. For example, the government could be making revenue from marijuana by regulating it; instead, they spend millions, perhaps billions, each year prosecuting people for it. Neither republicans nor democrats (on the whole) are willing to make the suggestion to legalize it, though.
Aesir
Smash Master
I agree 100%, we should be making those services more efficient. Then again even if we did it can all be regressed because when the people who make the decisions are people who think government can't do anything right their attitudes are reflected in the government it's self.
That's a big reason why I think a lot of our social welfare programs are so bloated and wasteful is because we get a lot of those people who think that and govern in a way to make it true.
It's hard to sell that to the voters, if you say lets legalize it then you're soft on drugs. Not saying this is true because that's just stupid to say, but that's how you'll be viewed once the right wing gets a hold of that. No one wants to deal with that so they don't bother with it. This is why you see a lot of politicians who old liberal views governing from the center. I'm actually impressed at how Liberal Barack Obama has been, makes me think he wasn't joking when he said "I'd rather be a great one term president than a mediocre two term president."