Double Exposure, Inc.
  • December 01, 2020, 06:08:31 AM
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Obama's Economic plan  (Read 14149 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Horace

  • Senior Staff
  • Senior Meeper
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 499
Re: Obama's Economic plan
« Reply #30 on: January 20, 2009, 09:28:10 PM »

If I understand your argument, it is:

1) That at some point in the past, the United States reached a peak in prosperity, and has been in a decline relative to that point ever since.

No.
There was a time when a smaller percentage of our population counted on the gov't for their essentials. Instead they turned to family or local charities or other such resources. Or found other ways to get by.

2) That preceding this peak, societal values in the United States were much more in line with your personal biases.

Probably true.

3) That at about the time of this peak a shift away from these values occurred.

Well, I dont think there was such a peak. "Prosperity" is  really quite relative and based in opinion. Prosperity in this country has gone up and down. Right now for example, with the recession and debt, it is going down.
Although there has been such a shift. Isnt the quote from JFK "ask not what your country can do for you"? Now all that many people seem to consider is "what can the country do for me."

4) That as a result of this shift prosperity has since been in relative decline.
5) That a shift back to these values will cause a reversal of this decline.
 I hope you realize how crazy that sounds.

As we have both said before, I dont think that there is any one magical cure.
However, having fewer people looking for handouts from the gov't certainly wouldnt hurt.

I'd like to note that I don't see people being relatively self-sufficient, and being able to solve most of their problems without outside intervention, as a problem. I think that's a fine goal. Certainly, central authority dictating how people must do things is problematic at best.
However, simply reducing the degree to which such involvement occurs does not make the problems which caused people to seek that involvement go away, and reducing assistance without providing an alternative is... problematic, at best.

And I do not believe that the gov't has NO role to play.
Just not as big a role as some people seem to want.
I think I said before, if someone is a victim of bona fide predatory lending, then once the predator has been caught and punished, and if necessary forced to use its assets to correct the harm they did, I dont have a problem with the gov't helping those who those assets couldnt help enough.
But if someone through no act of predatory lending or other misconduct on the part of the lender, took out more of a loan than they could afford, or is having problems as a result of some other effect of choices they have made, then the gov't shouldnt be involved, other than to regulate how foreclosures and bankruptcies can be done.
It sucks, its cold hearted, and its happened to friends of mine.

I'd also like to know what you consider, in the case of automobiles or any other of your choice, an exmaple of a necessary regulation and an example of one that is overstepping. This'd give me a baseline to understand what you mean, if nothing else.

I dont know if I can give a quantitative answer to this question.
But consider, why have SUV's become so popular? Because of safety concerns. Those who can afford the more solidly built SUVs that their families are safer in, are willing to pay for a little more gas. The answer is not to ban the SUV or tax it to unaffordability, but to inspire the makers to find ways to make them more efficient without sacrificing the safety they provide.

Having responded to more traffic accidents than I care to count, I have seen many accidents that were extremely similar except for the type of vehicle.
In one several years ago, a compact car hit a patch of ice doing about 30 mph. (witness estimate) the driver door hit a utility pole. Took us almost an hour to get the body out. (we did slow down a bit after the paramedics declared her.)
Another time, a pick up, again doing an estimated 30 mph did the exact same thing (I think it was actually only 2 poles away). Hit on the drivers door. Driver had a minor concussion and some scrapes and bruises.
Which would you prefer to be in?
Should that choice be taken away from you? I dont believe it should.

Again, I was having a little trouble finding the numbers about this... where do you draw this conclusion from?

Nothing I can quickly link to.
I do remember having a discussion on this in a class I took during my last attempt at college.
But from enough sources that I can see no reason to doubt it.
Logged
I'm not really as scary as some people think I am. (re something Julie said to me at reg one night)

Having seen a video (Thanks dave and CAH) I now understand why she said that.

Horace

  • Senior Staff
  • Senior Meeper
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 499
Re: Obama's Economic plan
« Reply #31 on: January 20, 2009, 09:36:12 PM »

** - A more realistic reason as to why private schools may have better test scores is not because of a decrease in governmental involvement, but rather the fact that children who go to public schools do so because their parent have the means to pay for said public school (economic level is one of the main predictors of success in school)

What of those kids who get scholarships to private schools?
Why did people flock to try to get some of the experimental vouchers?

Yes, the families economic status does contribute. But it is not the only factor.
Smaller classes.
Often stricter discipline.
Teacher qualification. (what could the unions possibly have against 'merit pay'?)
I'm sure there are many other factors as well.
Logged
I'm not really as scary as some people think I am. (re something Julie said to me at reg one night)

Having seen a video (Thanks dave and CAH) I now understand why she said that.

Horace

  • Senior Staff
  • Senior Meeper
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 499
Re: Obama's Economic plan
« Reply #32 on: January 20, 2009, 10:24:55 PM »

The more I learn of Obama, the more he scares me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwaAVJITx1Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVf8b0JSGsE

First it was truth squads.
Now its something resembling nazi youth.
MANDATORY nazi youth.

But hey, people wanted change, right?

Hopefully this will go the same way as Clintons "mandatory volunteerism" idea.
Logged
I'm not really as scary as some people think I am. (re something Julie said to me at reg one night)

Having seen a video (Thanks dave and CAH) I now understand why she said that.

Alf Cunha

  • Super Meeper
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 545
Re: Obama's Economic plan
« Reply #33 on: January 20, 2009, 10:57:39 PM »


Quote
What of those kids who get scholarships to private schools?
Why did people flock to try to get some of the experimental vouchers?

**  Goes back to what I said about parental involvement.  Those parents who make the effort to obtain these scholarships are more involved in their children's lives and thus those children are more likely to succeed in general.  Why did people flock? For the same reason that my many of my Trenton parents make sure that their district continues to keep their child at my school - so they are not forced to attend a school like Trenton High (I support the idea of school privatization and competition).

Quote
First it was truth squads.
Now its something resembling nazi youth.
MANDATORY nazi youth.

** - Between the ages of 18 and 25? Not exactly the brainwashing of the youth here.  I enlisted in the army at age 17 after graduation and believe that citizens SHOULD serve their country in some capacity in order to earn their citizenship.  Honestly, being lucky enough to be born in the right geographic coordinates should not be a qualification for citizenship (I'm not saying military service should be the only choice, but SOME sort of civil service and maybe even a test of competence - just like those who are naturalized to this country must take).
Logged
Alf Cunha
Item GM

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Obama's Economic plan
« Reply #34 on: January 20, 2009, 11:50:32 PM »

The more I learn of Obama, the more he scares me. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwaAVJITx1Y

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_obama_planning_a_gestapo-like_civilian_national.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVf8b0JSGsE

So, dude who does a weekly podcast supporting a daily blog at an NYC tabloid manages to score a half hour spot with Rahm Emanuel during his book tour, and in the course of that interview badgers Emanuel about part of the book he co-wrote (ie: the book his name is on that he had nothing to do with writing beyond the basic conceptual bits), and makes Emanuel looks a little stupid, at worst.

Then, nutjobs cut out a tiny piece of this interview and ad "scary" graphics, and post it to youtube?

And this is cause for alarm?

First it was truth squads. Now its something resembling nazi youth. MANDATORY nazi youth. But hey, people wanted change, right?

I know that accusing leftists of being facists is de rigeur on the right side of the aisle, and that sometimes remembering historical facts is difficulty, but isn't it a bit of a stretch to accuse Rahm fucking Emanuel of promoting the formation of a new Hitler Youth?

Hopefully this will go the same way as Clintons "mandatory volunteerism" idea.

This one? http://clinton6.nara.gov/1997/04/1997-04-05-radio-address-on-citizen-service.html

That's the transcript of the radio address which produced the quote most widely used by folks who decry this idea. Read it, or go find the audio and listen. What the fuck is wrong with what he's saying here?

Emmanuel goes a but further by proposing mandatory service for adults (children, with legal standing little better than property in many cases, can be compelled to do all sorts of things by the state, with little hand-wringing), but it's 3 months. Easy enough to do sometime between graduating high school and earning the law degree/PhD/wev.
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Obama's Economic plan
« Reply #35 on: January 21, 2009, 10:48:03 AM »

Smaller classes. Often stricter discipline. Teacher qualification. (what could the unions possibly have against 'merit pay'?). I'm sure there are many other factors as well.

Smaller classes means more teachers. More teachers means more $$$. More $$$ means higher taxes (or tuition, for private schools). You pay, or you pay.

Teacher qualification? Like they let any yahoo off the street teach classes in public schools?

Merit pay (though I'm pretty sure most supporters of this are more about tenure elimination that actual performance-based incentives) is... of questionable value. I don't think many would disagree that there are occasionally burned out or less than great teachers who it is problematic for schools to replace due to the current system. The NEA has very clearly voiced its opinions on this subject - no need to wonder "what could they have against it", when they will tell you - go read. RIF!
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Obama's Economic plan
« Reply #36 on: January 21, 2009, 12:23:41 PM »

No. There was a time when a smaller percentage of our population counted on the gov't for their essentials. Instead they turned to family or local charities or other such resources. Or found other ways to get by.

So... what percentage does count on the government for their essentials? At what point in time was this reliance less than present?

Also, why are charities, families, or "other means" (what... theft? lowered quality of life/diminished expectations?) necessarily preferable?

Probably true.

And what makes you so sure of this?

Well, I dont think there was such a peak. "Prosperity" is  really quite relative and based in opinion. Prosperity in this country has gone up and down. Right now for example, with the recession and debt, it is going down.

You say things would be better if more people embraced your ideology, essentially. If there is no tie between prosperity and your ideology, then how would things be better?

Although there has been such a shift. Isnt the quote from JFK "ask not what your country can do for you"? Now all that many people seem to consider is "what can the country do for me."

I would actually point to this as better evidence of my point than yours: JFK had to make a nationalistic plea for unity and sacrifice. If people were already inclined to do this at the time, why would he bother?

Also, which people are you talking about when you say that that "many" think only of what the country can do for them?

However, having fewer people looking for handouts from the gov't certainly wouldnt hurt.

But would it help? Also, I'd say that it's lack of harm depends on a few other factors.

Just not as big a role as some people seem to want.

Which people, how big do "they" want it, and where do you personally draw the line?

I think I said before, if someone is a victim of bona fide predatory lending, then once the predator has been caught and punished, and if necessary forced to use its assets to correct the harm they did, I dont have a problem with the gov't helping those who those assets couldnt help enough.

What counts as bona fide predatory lending, in your mind?

But if someone through no act of predatory lending or other misconduct on the part of the lender, took out more of a loan than they could afford, or is having problems as a result of some other effect of choices they have made, then the gov't shouldnt be involved, other than to regulate how foreclosures and bankruptcies can be done. It sucks, its cold hearted, and its happened to friends of mine.

So, for these friends of yours who are homeless and bankrupt, would you say it was a result of their low moral character? Sheer greed and/or stupidity? What?

I dont know if I can give a quantitative answer to this question.

To say there must be less of a thing, and only say "less than there is", without providing any kind of target to achieve... isn't that kinda unproductive and whiny?

But consider, why have SUV's become so popular? Because of safety concerns. Those who can afford the more solidly built SUVs that their families are safer in, are willing to pay for a little more gas. The answer is not to ban the SUV or tax it to unaffordability, but to inspire the makers to find ways to make them more efficient without sacrificing the safety they provide.

If this were true, it would make more sense. Unfortunately, your argument is based on a false premise (SUVs are safer). On average, SUVs are not safer - they are roughly equivalent in terms of driver safety, and generally pose a higher risk to others than a car does. They consistently underperform against cars for roll-over risk, and the only area they really outperform cars in is that when you hit a truck with a truck, it comes out a little better than a car hit by a truck does.

Now, SUV drivers tend to PERCEIVE greater safety, which does greatly influence purchasing decisions. You are correct that people buy big cars to make themselves FEEL safer. It's just that they aren't actually safer. Except from other people with big cars. Which is actually better solved by banning big cars than it is by allowing a market-driven car size arms race. So that kind of undermines your point.

Having responded to more traffic accidents than I care to count, I have seen many accidents that were extremely similar except for the type of vehicle. In one several years ago, a compact car hit a patch of ice doing about 30 mph. (witness estimate) the driver door hit a utility pole. Took us almost an hour to get the body out. (we did slow down a bit after the paramedics declared her.) Another time, a pick up, again doing an estimated 30 mph did the exact same thing (I think it was actually only 2 poles away). Hit on the drivers door. Driver had a minor concussion and some scrapes and bruises.

I will see your sloppy anecdotal evidence and raise you one National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. You are simply not correct on this issue. Driver characteristics and and engineering quality have much greater impacts on safety than size variation (which has little if any predictive effect on safety).

Which would you prefer to be in?

I much prefer small - mid-size cars. I like the way they feel when I drive them. Fuel economy is a bonus, but given the choice I go for comfort, and I like my cars big enough that my fat ass fits, but not much bigger than that. I imagine that if I regularly needed more cargo or passenger space, I would make some comfort sacrifices in the name of utility and find something big enough to do the job. If one class of cars ever definitively outclasses others in terms of safety, I may take that into more consideration.

Should that choice be taken away from you? I dont believe it should.

1) It's not really a fair choice you present, and your example is not based on reality.
2) No one has been forced by the government to make this choice.

Nothing I can quickly link to. I do remember having a discussion on this in a class I took during my last attempt at college. But from enough sources that I can see no reason to doubt it.

I'm willing to wait. I may get around to doing the numbers myself, but it could be a bit. Given that your other example of widely-known-fact-backed-up-by-your-own-life-experience was completely wrong, I DO have reason to doubt.
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot

Frigemall

  • Da Pope!
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 821
  • Living on a bomb and a prayer
Re: Obama's Economic plan
« Reply #37 on: January 22, 2009, 08:42:57 AM »

Emmanuel goes a but further by proposing mandatory service for adults (children, with legal standing little better than property in many cases, can be compelled to do all sorts of things by the state, with little hand-wringing), but it's 3 months. Easy enough to do sometime between graduating high school and earning the law degree/PhD/wev.
I do not agree with mandatory service. One: it is a serious violation of freedoms. If you do not wish to serve your country, you should not have to unless there is a National emergency like a World War. Service should be voluntary. You can give incentives such as greater access to College grants and loans, tax breaks, etc. However if someone chooses to sit on their butts and play XBox all summer before going to college, or work to earn money for college, they should be allowed. Two: who determines which projects the government sponsers. What if one of those projects is morally repugnant to someone, or against their religious beliefs. What if it is simply something they do not support. Three: this is open for much corruption. Free labor is worth money. Who determines these projects will set an adjenda that can be coopted if they have enough money or influence thrown at them.
 This could be a great idea as a concept, however it is not very practical and will cause no end of problems. In a perfect world, it could be great, however this is far from a perfect world.
Logged

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Obama's Economic plan
« Reply #38 on: January 22, 2009, 09:39:01 AM »

I do not agree with mandatory service. One: it is a serious violation of freedoms. If you do not wish to serve your country, you should not have to unless there is a National emergency like a World War. Service should be voluntary.

I actually don't disagree with you on most of those points, though if you allow that it is sometimes allowable to compel people to serve, I wonder where the lines get drawn. Better to just make it not allowed. But there's a fair bit of difference between suggesting a period of public service, and mobilizing a private army in pursuit of fascistic ends.
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot

Frigemall

  • Da Pope!
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 821
  • Living on a bomb and a prayer
Re: Obama's Economic plan
« Reply #39 on: January 24, 2009, 08:39:02 AM »

I actually don't disagree with you on most of those points, though if you allow that it is sometimes allowable to compel people to serve, I wonder where the lines get drawn. Better to just make it not allowed. But there's a fair bit of difference between suggesting a period of public service, and mobilizing a private army in pursuit of fascistic ends.
That much is true. I do believe in times of absolute emergency, there is a need for a draft. This is an emergency only situation. By outlawing that you cripple our response time in an emergency. I do agree with giving incentives for public service. The types of public service should be rather broad and should include faith based initiatives as an option, as long as these are towards things like drug and alcohol programs, food banks, community centers, etc, that have a tangible benefit to the community as a whole. For their voluntary service, the volunteers should receive greater consideration for grants, loans, etc. They incentives should be similar to those that Veterans recieve if they put in an equal amount of time. All this I can back, however it is a difficult program to initiate because it will take a whole new department of government to supervise it. It will pay for itself somewhat if it makes it so we do not have to have as many people on the payroll in the jobs these volunteers would be doing. The problem would be the initial cost and the potential for corruption.
Logged

Horace

  • Senior Staff
  • Senior Meeper
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 499
Re: Obama's Economic plan
« Reply #40 on: January 24, 2009, 06:46:12 PM »

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_obama_planning_a_gestapo-like_civilian_national.html

So, dude who does a weekly podcast supporting a daily blog at an NYC tabloid manages to score a half hour spot with Rahm Emanuel during his book tour,

As to its editing, I'll admit I dont know what they might have cut out.
It is the idea of mandatory servitude that bothers me. Was Emmanuel misquoted or talking about some other idea when he said it would be mandatory?

From the factcheck link you posted;  "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set."

Prior to this, he was talking about community service. Then he talks about "national security objectives" and our military.
I dont think it is too outrageous to consider working in a food bank and "national security objectives" to be two completely separate and unrelated issues. If Obama did not mean what so many interpereted his statements as, then perhaps this great speaker should have been more clear.

I know that accusing leftists of being facists is de rigeur on the right side of the aisle,

And is something I dont usually engage in. When Clinton proposed national service, I had no problem with it. Reason? It wasnt mandatory for everyone between the ages of 18-25'

This one? http://clinton6.nara.gov/1997/04/1997-04-05-radio-address-on-citizen-service.html

No. This link is to clintons proposal in 1997.
Are you saying that the current proposal is one and the same?

That's the transcript of the radio address which produced the quote most widely used by folks who decry this idea. Read it, or go find the audio and listen. What the fuck is wrong with what he's saying here?

Sorry, but that transcript is from Clintons service plan idea.
And by the way, no, there is nothing wrong with service. Just the idea of making it mandatory.

Emmanuel goes a but further by proposing mandatory service for adults (children, with legal standing little better than property in many cases, can be compelled to do all sorts of things by the state, with little hand-wringing), but it's 3 months. Easy enough to do sometime between graduating high school and earning the law degree/PhD/wev.

And you dont have a problem with mandatory servitude?
Any kind of mandatory servitude is wrong except in the most extreme situations. Whether for adults or children.
You remember some old saying about "life LIBERTY and the pursuit of happiness" right?
The nazi comparison may be a bit extreme, but take that as an indicator as to my feelings about mandatory servitude aka slavery.

As you and Mark have both said, there is nothing wrong with serving ones community.
I'd even accept that in times of emergency it is sometimes necessary to make it mandatory.
But, if people like Mark and I were in that age group, do you want us to be forced to work in a clinic that provides abortions?

Take the "mandatory" out of it and I have no problem with it.
Logged
I'm not really as scary as some people think I am. (re something Julie said to me at reg one night)

Having seen a video (Thanks dave and CAH) I now understand why she said that.

Horace

  • Senior Staff
  • Senior Meeper
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 499
Re: Obama's Economic plan
« Reply #41 on: January 24, 2009, 07:59:42 PM »

So... what percentage does count on the government for their essentials? At what point in time was this reliance less than present?

The last few times I saw anything on this from the census beureau, it showed a higher percentage of people living under the poverty line today. (no, I dont have specific numbers. They arent the point. "More" and "less" are the point.)

Also, why are charities, families, or "other means" (what... theft? lowered quality of life/diminished expectations?) necessarily preferable?

Other means such as knocking on doors and offering to clean someones yard for some money. The possibilities are many.

You say things would be better if more people embraced your ideology, essentially. If there is no tie between prosperity and your ideology, then how would things be better?

Again, less dependance on the gov't. This means the gov't giving away less of my money. Or spending it on things they actually have the Constitutinal authority to be involved in.

Also, which people are you talking about when you say that that "many" think only of what the country can do for them?

Look at all the people who voted for Obama because they think he is going to bail them out of trouble with their mortgages. Or provide them free health care.

But would it help? Also, I'd say that it's lack of harm depends on a few other factors.

Yes. See above-->"Again, less dependance on gov't......"

Which people, how big do "they" want it, and where do you personally draw the line?

Democrats mostly, tho the current republicans arent a whole lot better.
I'd draw the line at what the Constitution gives the federal gov't the authority to be involved in, with some other programs that would be just too unfeasable for the states to do individually. NASA for example.

What counts as bona fide predatory lending, in your mind?

Unethical behavior by the lender, such as misrepresenting facts of the loan.

So, for these friends of yours who are homeless and bankrupt, would you say it was a result of their low moral character? Sheer greed and/or stupidity? What?

None of them are homeless, and tho they did in most cases file bankruptcy, the way you word it seems to be trying to demonize them.
Some of them borrowed more than they should have. Some did not adequately plan ahead for when the ARM lock in period ended. Some got sick, and tho they had plenty of medical insurance, they had no income to pay their monthly mortgage payment. Only one was the result of alleged predatory lending, and that case is pending.

To say there must be less of a thing, and only say "less than there is", without providing any kind of target to achieve... isn't that kinda unproductive and whiny?

I view it as more of an admission that I am not the worlds greatest expert on such things.
I know that the Federal Government is much bigger than it was meant to be, and much bigger than is needed.
Where exactly to draw the line is something I will leave to those more educated and expert in this subject to decide.

If this were true, it would make more sense. Unfortunately, your argument is based on a false premise (SUVs are safer). On average, SUVs are not safer - they are roughly equivalent in terms of driver safety, and generally pose a higher risk to others than a car does. They consistently underperform against cars for roll-over risk, and the only area they really outperform cars in is that when you hit a truck with a truck, it comes out a little better than a car hit by a truck does.

Is it false? So if a pick up and an econobox both hit a pole travelling at the same speed, the people in the pick up are at the same risk as those in the econobox? No, they arent. Its not even a reasonable suggestion.
"pose a higher risk to others " (emphasis mine)

Here is that cold heartedness again.
If I am to be in a collision with another vehicle, and setting aside for a moment cause/fault, I'm not worried about the other persons safety. I'm solely worried about my/my passengers safety. Once that is taken care of, I'll start worrying about the people in the other vehicle.

I will see your sloppy anecdotal evidence ....safety than size variation (which has little if any predictive effect on safety).

Mustangs have been around for a long time. They are still about the same size. Care to hear some anecdotal evidence comparing similar accidents involving Mustangs of different decades? It will bring the same conclusion. In a similar accident, you are safer in the older heavier car than you are in the newer lighter one.

You know, this started as a conversation on how much of a role gov't should have in 'fixing' the economy, and in peoples every day lives. Which of us is right about which vehicle is safer has nothing to do with that.
Peoples attitudes are getting greener. Build a feul efficient car that people want and can afford, and they will buy it.
Logged
I'm not really as scary as some people think I am. (re something Julie said to me at reg one night)

Having seen a video (Thanks dave and CAH) I now understand why she said that.

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Obama's Economic plan
« Reply #42 on: January 26, 2009, 03:09:28 PM »

As to its editing, I'll admit I dont know what they might have cut out.

About 20 minutes of conversation, and it's not like they isolated a relevant section, they cut in little bits and pieces. It took me 5 minutes to find the original interview. I'm sure you can find it, too. Also, why the scare-graphics? The interview is audio, so they could've stuck up a test pattern and let the listener listen, but they wanted to scare, so they added "scary" graphics. It's maliciously dishonest.

I have to doubt your seriousness when you uncritically present heavily edited propaganda pieces to justify your points of view.

It is the idea of mandatory servitude that bothers me. Was Emmanuel misquoted or talking about some other idea when he said it would be mandatory?

To make it simple for you - no. He did say he thought a 3 month period of mandatory service was a good idea, and though I haven't read his book myself from what I can tell he favors certain possible implementations of this program over others, but does not say the nation can only benefit from one sort of service program or another. Obviously, Obama favors beefing up Americorps and the Peace Corps, though Obama does not go so far as to say he prefers mandatory service.

From the factcheck link you posted;  "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set." Prior to this, he was talking about community service. Then he talks about "national security objectives" and our military. I dont think it is too outrageous to consider working in a food bank and "national security objectives" to be two completely separate and unrelated issues. If Obama did not mean what so many interpereted his statements as, then perhaps this great speaker should have been more clear.

The concept that domestic economic and social issues are tied to national security is not a new one, and is also not a particularly partisan idea. Economically weak and socially divided countries are not as secure against ANY kind of threat, be it posed by internal problems, external military encroachment, or even natural disaster. Prosperity and tranquility are vital to national security. You will note that the preamble to the Constitution speaks in these terms, and I think it is clear from context that Pres. Obama (legal scholar, among other things) is doing the same here.


When Clinton proposed national service, I had no problem with it. Reason? It wasnt mandatory for everyone between the ages of 18-25'. No. This link is to clintons proposal in 1997. Are you saying that the current proposal is one and the same? Sorry, but that transcript is from Clintons service plan idea.  And by the way, no, there is nothing wrong with service. Just the idea of making it mandatory.

In part of your critique of Emmanuel's proposal you made rather dismissive reference to Clinton's proposal (calling it "mandatory volunteerism", as it is commonly referred to by a variety of mouthpieces for certain Libertarian groups, especially those heavily influenced by Objectivist thought). The address I linked to is the one from which the quote that most who call it "mandatory volunteerism" draw on to create that label. I wanted to know what, exactly, you thought was wrong with Clinton's ideas, and provided the original address for context.

You now say you have no problem with Clinton's thinking, which goes against your previous statement, but perhaps you were less than clear in your original reply?

And you dont have a problem with mandatory servitude? Any kind of mandatory servitude is wrong except in the most extreme situations. Whether for adults or children. You remember some old saying about "life LIBERTY and the pursuit of happiness" right?

I have a reflexive aversion to authoritarian mandates of all kinds, as I'm sure most folks do. I can certainly see the dangers in allowing centralized authority to compel individual action, on a small or large scale. But a certain degree of risk in the area is necessary when creating centralized government, or even any sort of official ruling body. You acknowledge this necessity as well. You have a driver's licence? You have a social security card? You pay your taxes? Your home is in line with the relevant building code mandates? All encroachments on individual liberty, and somewhat expensive ones at that, in many cases.

Why does this one, in particular, bother you so? I mean, why is this particular case so different?

The nazi comparison may be a bit extreme, but take that as an indicator as to my feelings about mandatory servitude aka slavery. As you and Mark have both said, there is nothing wrong with serving ones community. I'd even accept that in times of emergency it is sometimes necessary to make it mandatory. But, if people like Mark and I were in that age group, do you want us to be forced to work in a clinic that provides abortions? Take the "mandatory" out of it and I have no problem with it.

1) Your reference to Nazi-era Germany was not only "extreme", it was a poor example, evidence of a certain intellectual laziness on your part and in-apt as well.

2) Again, I have not read the book in which this proposal was made, but I have a feeling allowances were made for individuals to have plenty of options to satisfy their service obligation. I'm sure that pacifists have no more interest in spending three months doing inventory counts at the local NG armory than you do in repaving the sidewalk outside a Planned Parenthood, so all have a shared interest in allowing some degree of flexibility in the requirements.

3) Service is not currently mandatory. Do you feel that the level of volunteerism and social engagement by folks in the US is at appropriate levels? Would such a measure improve that level of engagement? Would it have a net beneficial impact on quality of life in the US? Emmanuel thinks it would. I don't have the numbers, but supposing his analysis is correct, then I don't see a huge problem with it.

4) Let's say service is not mandatory. However, instead let's suppose that incentives are create such that it becomes effectively impossible to compete economically in the US unless you have gone through this service period. Would that be acceptable, in your view?
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Obama's Economic plan
« Reply #43 on: January 26, 2009, 04:25:26 PM »

The last few times I saw anything on this from the census beureau, it showed a higher percentage of people living under the poverty line today. (no, I dont have specific numbers. They arent the point. "More" and "less" are the point.)

Than when? I've attached (no host for it, so can't provide handy hotlinked insertion here) a graph of % of population living in poverty in the US from 1959 through 2007. There may indeed be a jump if you included 2008, but otherwise the rate seems damn near stuck in the 11-13% range for decades. From 1959 through 1969 there was a 10+ point drop in the rate, and the total range for the rate since 1969 is less than five percentage points. We were at the middle of that range in 2007.

Other means such as knocking on doors and offering to clean someones yard for some money. The possibilities are many.

I would've filed that example under "charity". This comes uncomfortably close to suggesting that the poor are poor because they are lazy...

Again, less dependance on the gov't. This means the gov't giving away less of my money. Or spending it on things they actually have the Constitutinal authority to be involved in.

The underlying point behind most of your others is that being dependent upon the government is bad. We are all dependent on the government for a variety of things. However, I think you generally mean economically dependent, or directly economically dependent? In which case I wonder whether you include government employees or employees of companies who subsist primarily on funds from government contracts in that category -- they are no less directly dependent on the government for economic well-being than a TANF recipient.

Look at all the people who voted for Obama because they think he is going to bail them out of trouble with their mortgages. Or provide them free health care.

Again "all the people" - which people? How many of them are there? If 100,000 voters voted for this reason, out of many millions, then they would have had relatively little influence on the outcome, so aren't particularly relevant. Who cares why some tiny fringe minority does what it idoes?

I'd draw the line at what the Constitution gives the federal gov't the authority to be involved in, with some other programs that would be just too unfeasable for the states to do individually. NASA for example.

The government has the authority to be involved in... just about everything it is involved in. What areas doesn't it?

So, we have the military, I suppose, and NASA... any other programs you think the government SHOULD be involved in? Or is the lsit of ones it shouldn't shorter? Either way, I'd love some more specifics.

None of them are homeless, and tho they did in most cases file bankruptcy, the way you word it seems to be trying to demonize them. Some of them borrowed more than they should have. Some did not adequately plan ahead for when the ARM lock in period ended. Some got sick, and tho they had plenty of medical insurance, they had no income to pay their monthly mortgage payment. Only one was the result of alleged predatory lending, and that case is pending.

You were saying that your principles require you to harden your heart against those who behave in an economically foolish fashion, and provided as example that hey, even some of your friends have suffered the negative consequences of their misguided economic decisions. From these further clarifications, I have to wonder just how you lump in someone who becomes gravely ill with someone who borrows "more than they should have".

I view it as more of an admission that I am not the worlds greatest expert on such things. I know that the Federal Government is much bigger than it was meant to be, and much bigger than is needed.

You think so. Knowing so implies it to be a decided fact, which this conjecture is far from. The government's initial form was reached through compromise between competing viewpoints with various concerns, as the solution that best met most concerns at the time. To say that it is bigger than it was "ever meant to be", is somewhat ridiculous - it was not "meant" to be a particular size, or it would have been specifically limited to that size. It was not.

As for bigger than is necessary, I would definitely like to know where you reach this conclusion from.

Is it false? So if a pick up and an econobox both hit a pole travelling at the same speed, the people in the pick up are at the same risk as those in the econobox? No, they arent.

Do you have numbers on that? Have you performed some crash testing experiments in your spare time? You SAY this is so, but I believe I have made clear that I do not consider you a reliable or sufficiently knowledgeable expert to take it on your word alone.

"pose a higher risk to others " (emphasis mine) Here is that cold heartedness again. If I am to be in a collision with another vehicle, and setting aside for a moment cause/fault, I'm not worried about the other persons safety. I'm solely worried about my/my passengers safety. Once that is taken care of, I'll start worrying about the people in the other vehicle.

That's because you're a selfish douchebag.

However, since the regulators are not in either car, even selfish douchebag regulators have no particular reason to care how one passenger fares over the other. Instead, they have to look at what does the best job of protecting the most people. If a 50/50 mix of trucks to cars is less safe on the whole than 90/10, of 30/70, they should be focusing on the safest mix possible. Thus is good policy achieved.

Mustangs have been around for a long time. They are still about the same size. Care to hear some anecdotal evidence comparing similar accidents involving Mustangs of different decades? It will bring the same conclusion. In a similar accident, you are safer in the older heavier car than you are in the newer lighter one.

That, again, is not borne out by the available evidence. In the aggregate, not controlling for crash type or other factor, newer cars are safer than older ones. If you want to say the numbers are wrong, that's fine, but if you want me to take you seriously you've gotta provide better numbers.

You know, this started as a conversation on how much of a role gov't should have in 'fixing' the economy, and in peoples every day lives. Which of us is right about which vehicle is safer has nothing to do with that.

Drifts are allowed. I see it as evidence of your unwillingness to argue from evidence, and preference to make categorical statements with no better evidence then your own limited experience or the bullshit statements of professional liars you enjoy listening to or reading because they make you feel good by pandering to your ego and pre-existing biases. It is my hope that by challenging you to do better, some good can come of this conversation.
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot

Frigemall

  • Da Pope!
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 821
  • Living on a bomb and a prayer
Re: Obama's Economic plan
« Reply #44 on: January 27, 2009, 11:02:30 AM »

Just out of Curiosity where did that chart come from Dave? Sorry I probably missed where you posted the source.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up