The Debate Hall Social Thread

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

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.

Yeah, I agree entirely, mass bureaucracy is a joke. I love it how there are thousands of bureaucrats working in offices paid to write memos to each other. I don't know who thought up that idea, but we need to sack these guys, or privatise, and let the business' sole customer be the government.

This will save lots of money and make everything much more efficient.

 

[blazedaces]

Yeah, I agree entirely, mass bureaucracy is a joke. I love it how there are thousands of bureaucrats working in offices paid to write memos to each other. I don't know who thought up that idea, but we need to sack these guys, or privatise, and let the business' sole customer be the government.

This will save lots of money and make everything much more efficient.

Yeah... because businesses NEVER have bureaucracy...

What course in economics have you taken to justify that statement? I mean seriously... a business to run the government? As if we aren't corrupt enough as it is...

-blazed

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Yeah... because businesses NEVER have bureaucracy...

What course in economics have you taken to justify that statement? I mean seriously... a business to run the government? As if we aren't corrupt enough as it is...

-blazed

It'd work like this, the government contracts the services out to the business. Say, if you wanted to build a road, the government would contract to a business to do so. The project would be entirely publicly funded, but it'd be a business doing the job. Then again, this does bring it's own problems.

 

[blazedaces]

It'd work like this, the government contracts the services out to the business. Say, if you wanted to build a road, the government would contract to a business to do so. The project would be entirely publicly funded, but it'd be a business doing the job. Then again, this does bring it's own problems.

You mean like if a business decides to cut corners in order to save more of the money for themselves? Sorry mate, but I'd much rather have someone building my road whose goal is not just MAKE AS MUCH MONEY AS POSSIBLE...

When was the last time in the united states that a major highway finished only yesterday just collapsed while you were driving on it? I don't even mean you personally, anyone in the united states? Go ahead and try and find an example

You have to remember, the only reason people even consider business to be efficient is because of "the free market". The idea is that if you had infinite companies all trying to do things, with consumers making all the perfectly logical choices, the best company (most efficient in your eyes, even those this is bologna, it's not that the most efficient would "win", it's that the ones who makes the most profit would).

When you contract out a certain project to one company this does not happen. The government is not a plethora of consumers, and the major companies able to supply the government with enough resources to do these projects do not represent an infinite number of competing firms in an "ideal free market".

-blazed

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

You mean like if a business decides to cut corners in order to save more of the money for themselves? Sorry mate, but I'd much rather have someone building my road whose goal is not just MAKE AS MUCH MONEY AS POSSIBLE...

When was the last time in the united states that a major highway finished only yesterday just collapsed while you were driving on it? I don't even mean you personally, anyone in the united states? Go ahead and try and find an example

You have to remember, the only reason people even consider business to be efficient is because of "the free market". The idea is that if you had infinite companies all trying to do things, with consumers making all the perfectly logical choices, the best company (most efficient in your eyes, even those this is bologna, it's not that the most efficient would "win", it's that the ones who makes the most profit would).

When you contract out a certain project to one company this does not happen. The government is not a plethora of consumers, and the major companies able to supply the government with enough resources to do these projects do not represent an infinite number of competing firms in an "ideal free market".

-blazed

Yeah, but, you could just have extremely stringent quality control methods. Also, this does reduce bureaucracy, because now the department has an incentive to do so. But yes, the system isn't perfect, businesses do cut corners and so forth, but the massive bureaucracy of the public service is just a joke.

 

[Aesir]

There are some services that are just to vital to leave up to business. I know in America that sounds socialist but it's the truth.

The fact is when you get people in government who think government can't do anything right social programs end up becoming under funded and bloated. Departments become a place where nothing gets done, look at the Reagan Administration do you honestly think the Department of Environmental protection was doing it's job with a business CEO heading it? Really now?

You need people in government who want to make government work, not anti-government politicians who just want their childish fantasy's to become reality.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

There are some services that are just to vital to leave up to business. I know in America that sounds socialist but it's the truth.

The fact is when you get people in government who think government can't do anything right social programs end up becoming under funded and bloated. Departments become a place where nothing gets done, look at the Reagan Administration do you honestly think the Department of Environmental protection was doing it's job with a business CEO heading it? Really now?

You need people in government who want to make government work, not anti-government politicians who just want their childish fantasy's to become reality.

I know that is the case. There's a fine line between government services that need to stay that way, and ones that could/should be privatised.

It seems that our politicians don't really seem to do much good for the world these days. Even worse, is that these good-for-nothings get re-elected by the public, it kinda legitimises their right to rule, when their just incompetent and self-serving. It's sad really.

 

[Aesir]

I know that is the case. There's a fine line between government services that need to stay that way, and ones that could/should be privatised.

Like?

It seems that our politicians don't really seem to do much good for the world these days. Even worse, is that these good-for-nothings get re-elected by the public, it kinda legitimises their right to rule, when their just incompetent and self-serving. It's sad really.

We have a conservative party and a crazy party, I'm sorry but if you're expecting anything "good" to get done in a timely manner then you're living in a dream world.

 

[blazedaces]

We have a conservative party and a crazy party, I'm sorry but if you're expecting anything "good" to get done in a timely manner then you're living in a dream world.

And the newest movement is the tea party... sorry but it's going to take a very long time for things to change.

I don't think they will until this generation who's lived through reagan's propaganda quite literally dies off... a hundred years of idiocy to look forward to... great.

-blazed

 

[Aesir]

And the newest movement is the tea party... sorry but it's going to take a very long time for things to change.

I don't think they will until this generation who's lived through reagan's propaganda quite literally dies off... a hundred years of idiocy to look forward to... great.

-blazed

Well our generation is the most liberal along with the liberals we already have. Reaganism will probably die a lot sooner.

I mean look how Liberal Barack Obama ran and he was able to land slide the election, that's pretty promising.

The Tea Party is not that big and they lost a lot of steam after the health care reform loss they suffered everyone saw for what they really are. I just look forward to the day when we don't have to add useless spending just to get renegade democrats to vote for something they should already support.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Well our generation is the most liberal along with the liberals we already have. Reaganism will probably die a lot sooner.

I mean look how Liberal Barack Obama ran and he was able to land slide the election, that's pretty promising.

You have to keep in mind though that people tend to get more conservative as they get older. The flower children were the ones who eventually put Ronald Reagan into office.

 

[Aesir]

You have to keep in mind though that people tend to get more conservative as they get older. The flower children were the ones who eventually put Ronald Reagan into office.

There's a whole slew of things why that may be true. You have to keep in mind that Reagan could sell coal mine to an environmentalist that's how charismatic he was. At the end of the day it really doesn't matter how smart you are, if you don't have Charisma and the personality to govern a nation you'll never make it very far in the federal government.


I don't really think you're going to see a huge regression of liberals in our generation though, unless the Republican party starts moving toward social moderate. I mean look at Ronald Reagans kids, they were raised as Conservatives yet they're some of the most liberal people. Patty Davis is liberal feminist and Ron Reagan Jr. is a liberal democrat.

I mean I see what you're saying but our generation is a tad bit different as we have more people going to college, and there is a correlation between college education and liberalism.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Like?

Well, lets say things like education, healthcare, defence, environment should stay in government hands. Things like prisons, roads, transport can be privatised to some extent

 

[blazedaces]

Well our generation is the most liberal along with the liberals we already have. Reaganism will probably die a lot sooner.

I mean look how Liberal Barack Obama ran and he was able to land slide the election, that's pretty promising.

The Tea Party is not that big and they lost a lot of steam after the health care reform loss they suffered everyone saw for what they really are. I just look forward to the day when we don't have to add useless spending just to get renegade democrats to vote for something they should already support.

Can you elaborate on the Tea Party? I'm curious as to what you mean. What happened?

You have to keep in mind though that people tend to get more conservative as they get older. The flower children were the ones who eventually put Ronald Reagan into office.

You also have to remember that the term "Republican" changes over time. The republicans of today do not hold the same ideals as Republicans a hundred years ago. Many of those "flower children" lived through the cold war and were alive during the witch hunts of the Mcarthy era.

But our generation has lived through a bull **** war on Iraq, healthcare reform now, and our biggest problem has been the headache that is the republican party. Even if we all become republican, this ******** anti-government, anti-helping anyone besides rich, white people, will not be included...

That's my prediction anyway.

-blazed

 

[CRASHiC]

You have to keep in mind though that people tend to get more conservative as they get older. The flower children were the ones who eventually put Ronald Reagan into office.

So? The seniors before them were HEAVILY democratic, mostly because they grew up during the Great Depression, and then had Mr. Kennedy. Doesn't matter anyway, Regan was a democrat. He viewed government as the solution to people's and the economies problems, as seen in his instant government takeover of Air Traffic controllers, just as one example. The democratic party got lost in the 70s, and many people like him went to the republican party to escape the image of, for lack of a better word, a tree hugger.

Well, lets say things like education, healthcare, defence, environment should stay in government hands. Things like prisons, roads, transport can be privatised to some extent

Prisons? Roads? Transport? I disagree with these examples. I agree with what you are saying, but I find all of these to be horrible examples. Prisons shouldn't be a profit business, doesn't the very nature of that bother you? The issue with roads is that then we will only get roads where it is beneficial for a private investor to place on there. You see the country roads getting left apart. Public transport is more a service to be provided for those who can't afford a car than something that should be left to a private market.

I think a better example would be postage. Yes, the constitution requires the Federal government to provide a postage service, however, back then, it was better left to the government. Now the industry runs on near perfect competition, and the Post office is losing out because of this.

 

[Aesir]

Can you elaborate on the Tea Party? I'm curious as to what you mean. What happened?

Calling Civil rights leaders ******s and gay congressmen ***ots is how you lose support in this country.

Not only that threatening the lives of congressmen and shooting at their office windows is another way you lose support.

A gallup poll showed them as popular as socialists lol?

 

[CRASHiC]

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

Just saw this, and as I said, it was a bad example for how to fix the problem, but it IS however a good example of what can be done with the proper funding and research. You simply can't deny that's a very easy problem to fix. With all of the untapped and underdeveloped free energy markets out there, and a LARGE amount of waist within the system, its very easy to fix. The link I provided was not to show a way out, but how when we WANT to do something, we can easily accomplish it. Solar power has a LOOOONG way to go, its NO WHERE NEAR a decent efficiency yet. There are many, many other alternatives such as wind power that are yet to be exploited. Nearly every state with ocean property can place unnoticeable, cheap, wind turbines on the edge of their legal bindings and cut down their energy cost. Cities can, as mayor Bloomberg proposed, put solar and wind power on top of sky scrapers to save money on energy as well. The only REAL trouble with peak oil is the startup cost it and the time it will take to change our current energy and transportation systems.

 

[Jam Stunna]

So? The seniors before them were HEAVILY democratic, mostly because they grew up during the Great Depression, and then had Mr. Kennedy. Doesn't matter anyway, Regan was a democrat. He viewed government as the solution to people's and the economies problems, as seen in his instant government takeover of Air Traffic controllers, just as one example. The democratic party got lost in the 70s, and many people like him went to the republican party to escape the image of, for lack of a better word, a tree hugger.

That's almost totally wrong.

You skipped Eisenhower, who was a Republican and who probably would have won a third term as president if he'd been able to run (side note: the irony there is that it's the Republicans who pushed the two term limit because of FDR, and the two presidents who most likely would have won third terms since then have both been Republicans).

Reagan FIRED the air traffic controllers because they were on strike. Air traffic controllers were already federal employees. Reagan basically busted the air traffic controller's union.

Also, while it's true that Reagan was a Democrat at one point, he'd switched parties and been a conservative Republican since at least the 1960's. He pretty much delivered the conservative's call to arms in support of Barry Goldwater, the man that most people credit as the father of modern conservatism.

 

[CRASHiC]

That's almost totally wrong.

You skipped Eisenhower, who was a Republican and who probably would have won a third term as president if he'd been able to run (side note: the irony there is that it's the Republicans who pushed the two term limit because of FDR, and the two presidents who most likely would have won third terms since then have both been Republicans).

I was refering to their voting records. The previous generation, (according to CNN during the 2008 election coverage), had voted more democratically, and people pointed to the reason I listed as to why. Parties will always dip back and forth, that's no surprise, its just how politics works.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Prisons? Roads? Transport? I disagree with these examples. I agree with what you are saying, but I find all of these to be horrible examples. Prisons shouldn't be a profit business, doesn't the very nature of that bother you? The issue with roads is that then we will only get roads where it is beneficial for a private investor to place on there. You see the country roads getting left apart. Public transport is more a service to be provided for those who can't afford a car than something that should be left to a private market.

I think a better example would be postage. Yes, the constitution requires the Federal government to provide a postage service, however, back then, it was better left to the government. Now the industry runs on near perfect competition, and the Post office is losing out because of this.

Hmm, well, you contract the services out to the companies. Basically, the government pays for them entirely, so the government could just put up for tender a country road. This is payed for by government spending as opposed to private investment and the public will not have to pay a cent to use the road, outside of their taxes of course.

So, instead of the government employing the workers, requiring bureaucrats to manage them, you let the private sector do it (and I'll bet they do it better than the government), and at the end of the day, the same road is built.

 

[Aesir]

Hmm, well, you contract the services out to the companies. Basically, the government pays for them entirely, so the government could just put up for tender a country road. This is payed for by government spending as opposed to private investment and the public will not have to pay a cent to use the road, outside of their taxes of course.

So, instead of the government employing the workers, requiring bureaucrats to manage them, you let the private sector do it (and I'll bet they do it better than the government), and at the end of the day, the same road is built.

Why not just employ the workers directly? Less administrative cost that way, it's probably cheaper too since the government isn't out to make a profit like the private company is. Sounds like an unnecessary middle man to me.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Why not just employ the workers directly? Less administrative cost that way, it's probably cheaper too since the government isn't out to make a profit like the private company is. Sounds like an unnecessary middle man to me.

Yeah, but government departments have a tendency to employ hundreds of bureaucrats in offices not really doing anything, apart from managing each other. I would imagine that this sort of thing wouldn't occur, in a private company.

 

[Aesir]

Yeah, but government departments have a tendency to employ hundreds of bureaucrats in offices not really doing anything, apart from managing each other. I would imagine that this sort of thing wouldn't occur, in a private company.

You clearly don't know private companies very well, if it's profitable to have bureaucracy then they'll likely do it.

Like I've been saying the reason why government behaves the way it does is because we have people in government who don't know what it means to do a good job anymore. When you get people in Government who think government can't do anything right guess what? government doesn't do anything right. When you have people who actually want to make Government work it starts working properly. It's not like government is this disaster that can't do things right, look at the DMV in West Virginia it takes 5 minutes tops, in ct it takes 5 minutes to get into the door.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

You clearly don't know private companies very well, if it's profitable to have bureaucracy then they'll likely do it.

Well, I'm not sure there are many circumstances that that would occur right? Furthermore, unions aren't anywhere near as powerful in private companies, as in bureaucracies, at least in Australia.

Like I've been saying the reason why government behaves the way it does is because we have people in government who don't know what it means to do a good job anymore. When you get people in Government who think government can't do anything right guess what? government doesn't do anything right. When you have people who actually want to make Government work it starts working properly. It's not like government is this disaster that can't do things right, look at the DMV in West Virginia it takes 5 minutes tops, in ct it takes 5 minutes to get into the door.

That is true.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Warning: incoming rant.

Do you know what the problem with environmentalism and "going green" is? There's no way to do it. I was listening to a story on NPR today, and they're talking about the environmental impact of products we buy. Eventually they get to cars, and we all know that internal combustion engines are bad for the enviornment. But then the expert goes on to say that electric cars aren't necessarily better, because of the metals and toxins that go into producing the batteries for electric cars.

Another example: a woman who works in a school system switches from paper cups for her students (bad for the environment) to corn-based biodegradable cups (good for the environment?). Her problem is now that big agro-business grows the corn for those cups in un-green ways, and the cups themselves need to be composted in a special way. Not to mention all the poor people who are now having their staple foods funneled into industrial production instead of their stomachs.

Well **** me. No matter what car I drive or cup I buy, I'm doing something wrong! That's the problem- your average citizen doesn't think it's a good idea to pollute, or to pump tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, and they're definitely not malicious in destroying the environment. But eventually, people get tired of being told that they're bad and that they're doing bad things, especially when there doesn't seem to be any way to NOT do bad things. It's like environmentalism is a massive guilt trip that there's no escape from, unless you just stop giving a ****.

 

[GoldShadow]

There are some easy and surefire ways to be environmentally friendly, like cutting down on the amount of electricity and water we use.

As for those other things, I guess it's a matter of time as we research more efficient, more effective methods and techniques (developing hybrid electric engines in a way that neutralizes toxins, or agricultural technology that will allow us to make those cups in enviro-friendly ways).

 

[Jam Stunna]

But isn't that always the way? Aren't we always waiting for the "next great thing" that's going to solve all of the world's problems? "Hey look, these new lightbulbs use less energy, but if you accidentally drop one you need a HazMat suit to clean up the mess!" I have a son, and the last thing I want is a mercury spill in my house, but in a few years, regular lightbulbs will be illegal.

Like I said, this is a rant, and I honestly have no problem with protecting the environment. What gets to me is the overbearing moralizing of "going green." That was the message I took from that NPR piece, that this poor woman who's trying to do the right thing is made to feel bad no matter what she does. All these technologies have tradeoffs, and future ones will as well. But environmentalism has taken on the moral weight of a crusade, and lessening our impact is no longer good enough. Now it seems like the only way is to have no impact, which is of course impossible, and leaves people agonizing about what kind of cups a classroom should use.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

But isn't that always the way? Aren't we always waiting for the "next great thing" that's going to solve all of the world's problems? "Hey look, these new lightbulbs use less energy, but if you accidentally drop one you need a HazMat suit to clean up the mess!" I have a son, and the last thing I want is a mercury spill in my house, but in a few years, regular lightbulbs will be illegal.

Like I said, this is a rant, and I honestly have no problem with protecting the environment. What gets to me is the overbearing moralizing of "going green." That was the message I took from that NPR piece, that this poor woman who's trying to do the right thing is made to feel bad no matter what she does. All these technologies have tradeoffs, and future ones will as well. But environmentalism has taken on the moral weight of a crusade, and lessening our impact is no longer good enough. Now it seems like the only way is to have no impact, which is of course impossible, and leaves people agonizing about what kind of cups a classroom should use.

Fun Fact: Using an incandescent bulb will actually produce more mercury in its lifetime than a CFL! Why? Coal! it's got everything horrid, trace amounts of radioactive compounds, mercury, sulphur, not to mention good old CO2!

Also, LEDs are the way to go, when concerning lighting, efficient, tough, long-lasting, and non-toxic!

Also, instead of confronting people, we should confront the government, they have the power to change things at a national level, impose carbon taxes, etc.

 

[CRASHiC]

Not the US government, the people will never allow that as it would hurt business and force them to buy something. Make no mistake, the conservative talk radio show host would have a field day with that, despite it being a good thing.

 

[Aesir]

I think a case could be made for Cap and Dividend, which in a nut shell is basically targeting the producers of fossil fuel rather than business and then giving a check every month to Americans.

It's basically saying; energy prices are going up here's a 1000 bucks, you're probably thinking whats the point in that? It would help low income families and give an incentive to people to move toward more environmentally friendly life styles. Plus it would create a bigger demand for green energy alternatives, sorry to say but we'll never see any reasonable alternative energy policy that'll work unless energy prices go up.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I think a case could be made for Cap and Dividend, which in a nut shell is basically targeting the producers of fossil fuel rather than business and then giving a check every month to Americans.

It's basically saying; energy prices are going up here's a 1000 bucks, you're probably thinking whats the point in that? It would help low income families and give an incentive to people to move toward more environmentally friendly life styles. Plus it would create a bigger demand for green energy alternatives, sorry to say but we'll never see any reasonable alternative energy policy that'll work unless energy prices go up.

Yeah, we need to put a carbon tax in place. It'd work much better than a cap and trade scheme, which is basically an extremely complicated scheme that'll put tonnes of money in speculator pockets, and do little.

In response to Crashic, yeah, the public is extremely conservative, and big-business can lobby really well, unlike scientists. That's sad actually. I guess this the main drawback of Democracy - complete idiots get the power to decide on what happens to the country, to some extent. It's either that, a crazed mad-man decides everything...

 

[Aesir]

We should have a higher capital gains tax, discuss.

 

[adumbrodeus]

So... who's interested in me becoming a Neo-con for the sake of creating some good debate?

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

We should have a higher capital gains tax, discuss.

In what sense? Raise the rate for poor, rich, what? Also, tax rises would lower economic growth... But it would lower the deficit. It really depends on how the tax is implemented. Also, it would be very hard for a government to implement such a tax, because it would be rather unpopular.

As for becoming a neo-con for the purpose of good debate, I'm not quite sure. It sounds really hard to argue in their favour, after them taking us to Iraq and Afghanistan. Both of which aren't looking too good at the moment.

 

[blazedaces]

So... who's interested in me becoming a Neo-con for the sake of creating some good debate?

I vote yes... anything to spur on good debate.

-blazed

 

[Aesir]

In what sense? Raise the rate for poor, rich, what? Also, tax rises would lower economic growth... But it would lower the deficit. It really depends on how the tax is implemented. Also, it would be very hard for a government to implement such a tax, because it would be rather unpopular.

As for becoming a neo-con for the purpose of good debate, I'm not quite sure. It sounds really hard to argue in their favour, after them taking us to Iraq and Afghanistan. Both of which aren't looking too good at the moment.

Look up what capital gains means first, then we'll talk.

I'll become a neo-con with you adumbrodeus it sounds like a fun idea.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Look up what capital gains means first, then we'll talk.

I'll become a neo-con with you adumbrodeus it sounds like a fun idea.

I did research capital gains. Basically, tax on the non-monetary benefits ones receives. This includes things like shares, cars, computers ect. Am I right? I don't live in the USA, and I'm not all too familiar with tax law.

 

[Aesir]

basically correct, the reason I ask if we should have a higher capital gains tax is because hedge fund managers get taxed at 15% of their income because they don't pay the income tax they pay the capital gains tax which is federally at 15%. Where as their secretary's who are making much less then they are are being taxed at 25% percent of their income.

Just seems to me you would want to tax that before actually taxing income of workers. Then again I'm just filthy socialist. /sarcasm.

 

[CRASHiC]

THANK YOU REPUBLICANS FOR BEING ANTI-MICROCHIP IN THE ******L-RECTUM AREA!

http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insi...s-the-legislature-and-an-implanted-microchip/

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

THANK YOU REPUBLICANS FOR BEING ANTI-MICROCHIP IN THE ******L-RECTUM AREA!

http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insi...s-the-legislature-and-an-implanted-microchip/

Tis rather entertaining. I get the general feeling that the woman is mentally unstable, to say the least.