Broken
Toys
Random comments about
games and tractors
Veterans Kick Ass
I have to agree with the title of this post.
(BTW the 89th’s site has the final word on the whole kerfluffle.)
| Print article |
Broken
Toys
Random comments about
games and tractors
I have to agree with the title of this post.
(BTW the 89th’s site has the final word on the whole kerfluffle.)
| Print article |
about 2 years ago
I’m pretty sure there wasn’t a better reply to that question.
about 2 years ago
My father a veteran of the 5th RCT in Korea would proudly claim to be of any political persuasion to defend one of his brothers in arms.
Obviously something happened post Vietnam to change this brotherhood of veterans, but all wars before that, there’s not a chance in Hell you’d turn these guys on one another.
I love the USA.
about 2 years ago
Some people on the right are idiots. Fortunately, not all of us are. The man had a couple of facts wrong, but it’s pretty obvious he wasn’t trying to make himself look better with the story anyways, unlike saying he was under sniper fire or something. Demeaning the accomplishments of the 89th in WWII just shows who’s too biased to be trusted.
about 2 years ago
Although long passed fighting age, the greatest generation shows again why they have that title.
about 2 years ago
Harrumph. Wars not make one great.
about 2 years ago
Especially not wars fought by one’s uncle.
Whatever stat bonus Obama might receive due to his uncle’s soldiering in WW2, it doesn’t seem like liberating one camp over another would change it from a +1 to a +5 anyway.
I like guys that have been to war, because they hate war more than anyone else.
There’s little evidence that having any other person in one’s life go to war has that same result. Sometimes it feels as though just the opposite is the case.
about 2 years ago
“any other person in one’s life”
Thinking more about that, I’ll disagree with myself. My son just turned 18. I hope to hell he doesn’t enlist while we’re in Iraq or Afghanistan or Iran or Valenzuela or anywhere else.
I didn’t hate the thought of going to war myself anywhere near as much as I hate the idea of him doing it.
It’s just going the other way in the family tree that doesn’t seem to work. My pop’s service in Vietnam didn’t have an impact on me at all, though it sure did on him.
about 2 years ago
Obama has said so many unbelievable things, its reasonable to check up on him. C.T. Payne no doubt served honorably, but he has a slimeball for a grandnephew.
about 2 years ago
Obama will lose.
You can just hear the GoP and the McCain camp sharpening their knives for their general election. You KNOW they will be saving their best salvos for when it counts most – just not now. Anyone who thinks that this campaign will not go negative is naive at best – there is just too much money and influence at stake for the entrenched powers to risk losing.
I expect some new variations on “Swift Boat” or “Willie Horton” to sink Obama. Most probably some new revelation on his pastor Wright, who seems to be an all too willing shill to torpedo Obama.
about 2 years ago
Actually Jeff I disagree, I do think having parents who are veterans does affect you. But in the same way your parents shape you. They inculcate their values in us, which were shaped by their service.
But.. yeah it doesn’t make me a better person to have my father serve, though his service might have changed him in ways that caused him to make me into a better person.
Re: your son, during peacetime my dad was excited that I applied to ROTC, though I eventually withdrew my application. But then later during the first Gulf War he said if there was a draft he’d help me go to Canada, to which I replied I’d go if called. Funny how that works.
about 2 years ago
Obama might have a slip in memory, that is fine. The thing that really worries me about him is his proposal to raise tax on gas. That idea is just idiotic.
Instead of saying “cut all subsidies”, he want to raise a windfall tax. They should just refund the windfall profit the government are making on gas tax to us.
about 2 years ago
Obama is going to win in November. The majority of Americans will not vote for McCain. Nothing will change this.
about 2 years ago
The majority of working Americans wouldn’t vote for Obama even if he is the only choice. Those of us who work for a living would even go so far as to vote for the idiot McCain to avoid a 50% tax.
I’m thinking though that it might just be easier to vote in Obama so we can speed up the decay of the country and bring about an apocolypse quicker. Just end the world already if our only choices are liars and thieving liars.
about 2 years ago
Have to agree with BugHunter. The problem is I don’t like McCain at all, he is just the lesser evil. I want to vote for Bob Barr, the libertarian candidate, but I am afraid it might just make Obama the winner.
The only good thing is, if Obama did speed up the decay of USA. Wise thing I am still a green card holder. You guys will have to suck the results, I don’t think you can run back to Europe or Africa any more.
about 2 years ago
Wow… People opposed to gas taxes?
Gas taxes shouldn’t be considered a “windfall” tax. They are, like tobacco or alcohol taxes, a moral tax. Your decision to waste non-renewable resources to driving cross town to pick up coffee rather than walking locally is being punished. Admittedly, it is all too often the case that you truly have no choice but to drive, thanks to pathetic public transit systems. This, however, is putting the cart before the horse. The lack of a public transit system is often justified by the ease and cheapness of driving.
The smart move would have been to raise gas taxes ten years ago so the spikes in gas prices could be buffered and smoothed out by selectively eating into the gas tax.
about 2 years ago
Free market will and have done the job of naturally raising the price of non-renewable ressources.
Taxes and any kind of state intervention is the kind of dumb economic move that should be heard from any rational candidate.
about 2 years ago
The guy in this picture looks like Scott.
http://ballertutorials.com/hillprotestor.jpg
Yeah?
http://sjennings.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/me1.jpg?w=184&h=275
Hope that fella behind him finally managed to find Hot Topic.
Heh.
about 2 years ago
I predict another result like 2000 – Obama wins popular vote (by, actually, a considerably larger margin k thx california) and McCain wins electoral college and the presidency.
And Hillary will be vindicated.
-Sutro
about 2 years ago
wow…i had a huge rant about the actual realities of ‘those of us who work for a living’ over the past 8 years, but i think it’s suffice to say that on the interwebs and in the street no matter how bad things are ‘democrats are worse!!!!’
about 2 years ago
Nothing could be worse than what we have right now.
about 2 years ago
@Brask Mumei just as Grinless said, let the free market take care of it. As both you and me know the gas tax will just give the government more money to waste on pork. Do you know some of tax money actually goes back to big oil as subsidies? The cycle of taking and giving gives politicians power.
@D-One, if you think this is bad, try one of the communist countries in the 60s or 70s. The government controls everything, all tax included. No matter what decision the top makes, the entire country must follow regardless you want or not. You have to wait long long lines for basic rations each day, and millions die of hunger.
And in this country, people are going “Please, tax us more, give us direction, take care of us”
about 2 years ago
Note to self: never again read what passes for political commentary on a gaming blog.
about 2 years ago
@jujutsu – what, it’s pretty much the party line and takling points you’ll find on just about any ‘conservative’ or ‘right wing’ blog right now.
pretty much verbatem.
It’s a wonderful study in groupthink and self-managed expectations and anyone interested in managing or developing a community should almost certanly be studying it.
from a PR perspective you want to generate this kind of blind unquestioning loyalty as it allows you to produce almost nothing after an initial investment and keep raking in the cash.
See: Palladium Books for an example of this.
about 2 years ago
This is what make this blog both fun and educational.
about 2 years ago
@pharniel – I notice you don’t point out that almost every major “progressive” website has all but banned any mention of Hillary’s continuing campaign. Any dissension from Obama’s messanic nomination will not be tolerated.
Of course, even though I don’t really consider myself of either party, I’ll be written off as part of the “right-wing hate group think” because I find Obama’s policies terrifying.
about 2 years ago
@Pharniel – Is accusing opposition of blind loyalty the only argument you’ve got? Play school weak sauce. Come on, there are a lot of “right wing” nutjobs who really hate the republicans right now (Iraq, TSA, border patrol, bailout after bailout, you name it). You could win some of them over if you could come up with something (anything) that has even a shred of common sense tied to it. Bring on your best. Voting in Obama instead of Snoopy/Mickey Mouse/Jon Stuart/etc. will accomplish what? What will I get from that extra 20% of my paycheck?
about 2 years ago
It’s discussions like these that make me wanna take up guns and religion. Wait – I’m conservative, I must’ve already done that.
See, there’s so much more better material to use, and that’s before you even get to his policies – why dwell on the great uncle-WWII thing?
about 2 years ago
The hole…it gets deeper…and there’s furries?!
http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/9628.html
about 2 years ago
There’s no refuge from this damned election anymore.
about 2 years ago
Having a gas tax pay for oil subsidies seems eminently reasonable to me. Certainly preferable to income tax going to oil subsidies.
“Free market” is cute and all, but the reality is that none of our markets are “free”. The government is already meddling in energy policy. Look at how the “free market” for cereals is turning out right now. A decision to keep gas taxes the lowest in the world *is* a decision that biases the market.
My support for a gas tax increase is precisely because I believe in market based solutions to problems. The simple fact is, if you want people to look for more fuel efficient cars, the best approach isn’t to try to educate or shame them. You have two approaches. First is to legislate what car efficiencies must be. This is tough as auto makers won’t have incentive to exceed your legislation, and you don’t know what numbers to set – the auto makers will no doubt convince you they are already as efficient as possible. The, IMHO, better approach is to raise the cost of fuel. This lets the market adjust to future energy prices *today*, before the crunch occurs, so when oil hits $200 a barrel we aren’t all WTF with a fleet of SUVs on the road.
Another nifty advantage of a high gas tax is if it should become necessary to lower the price of gasoline the government is actually able to do that. Thus, if oil does hit $200 a barrel quicker than the market gets ready, the tax could be reduced to give the economy a buffer so it doesn’t have to absorb the price increase all at once. I know, I know, you will now claim it is impossible for politicians to lower taxes, or some such.
We know oil doesn’t “run out”. Instead, the price per barrel keeps increasing. The hope of many free marketists is that when prices get high enough we suddenly invent technology that solves the problem. The problem is that you can’t suddenly invent technology. New car technology has a huge lead time – the Prius just got to 10 years old, right? So, by artificially raising prices today we can prep the market for future conditions.
One could argue that a gas tax is regressive because it harms the poor more than the rich. And it is true most working people commute by cars right now. However, that is exactly one of the things that has to change. Cars need to become luxury items rather than necessities.
Another argument is that the friction of a gas tax slows the whole economy. This is true. So does that of a sales tax, an income tax, business tax, etc. The advantage of a gas tax is *which* part of the economy it applies the friction to. One can undo the frictive nature by cutting some other tax to match the effective raise in gas taxes, and then have a system that strongly rewards businesses that reduce their gas usage. The free market can then find more gas-efficient ways of doing business.
about 2 years ago
The rich see little to no impact while the poor just keep getting poorer, and needing to force a change justifies this? No. I’m not buying it.
The government has been sitting on their asses for years letting big oil and the auto industry drag their feet, ignoring potential solutions, and making excuses for delays while still raking in millions and billions in profit (Oil) and now those who can’t afford it have to pay the price?
I don’t have any solutions but that idea just doesn’t work for me at all. It’s past time we stopped making decisions that do so little to impact the rich and so much to negatively impact the poor.
I don’t believe in Obama. I don’t think the American people will believe in him either, but I don’t think they’ll vote for Hillary, so my prediction is we’ll be stuck with McCain and will continue our downward slide.
about 2 years ago
I think the government should tax EVERYTHING and use the money to make themselves rich… oh wait…
about 2 years ago
If your concern is that the poor keep getting poorer, create an income rebate proportional to the gas tax levied. This is commonly done with other flat-rate taxes that are regressive, such as sales taxes.
Take total money acquired via gas tax, divide by taxpayers, multiply by a constant that slides to zero over multiple years, and pay that back as tax-free rebate. If you then consume the average amount of gas, you end up net-zero. Those who switch to public transit (whose own gas purchases are likely rebated directly by the government, so as to avoid bus fares rising with the gas tax) can see a net earnings. I’m sure this isn’t what Obama is proposing – I bring it up to underline my claim that gas taxes are useful tools, not any particular use of them. Of course a gas tax raised merely to build bridges to nowhere isn’t a good thing. But increased gas taxes can be a sensible part of an energy policy designed to get people off fossil fuels.
The advantage over using a gas tax to raise gas prices rather than waiting for the next edict from OPEC is that with the former the government *has* money to help the poor who are affected. In the latter, the poor merely get poorer and the rich don’t notice, matching what has happened over the previous series of gas price hikes. And, unless something very surprising happens, the *next* set of gas price hikes.
about 2 years ago
National Sales tax that replaces the income tax, social security tax, and medicare taxes.
http://tinyurl.com/35c5vk
Thank me later.
about 2 years ago
Oil isnt high because of demand, although it will be if things continue as they are. Oil (and agri produce) is high because of rampant speculation at huge margin by people who have no final interest in the commodities (they do not take final delivery of the contract). IE the same parasitic paragons of humanity that run hedge funds and the like. This sort of speculation literally kills people and they dont care.
Also, carrot and stick only works if theres a carrot. Bashing people over the head with the tax stick for having the “affrontery” to drive places (sit in your house and never set foot outside again you ungrateful enviroment destroying bastards) only generates animosity when there is no VIABLE alternative. You may as well tax breathing and you may laugh but seeing as that generates CO2 with all the current hysterical unfounded fuss over AGW its not beyond the realms of possiblity even though in a rational society it ought to be.
about 2 years ago
@darury
what? you mean all the websites with posting about how hillary is the victim of chauvanistic sexism, and how everything anyone says is an idictment of the socio-political structure and evident of the rampent sexism which is what’s keeping a woman down?
Or maybe you’re just regurgitating those talking points that i was talking about, instead of actualy, y’know, going to various ‘progressive’ blogs.
@bughunter
no. no you won’t. no matter what the person with (D) after the name will immediatly be identified as ‘the enemy’ in the same way that there are people out there that will instantly assume that anything put out by koster or smedly is instantly and irredimably crap.
Unlike MMO fanbois though, they get PAID either by being so vitrolic or to be that vitrolic against ‘the other side’. It’s a pretty sweet gig if you can get it.
To keep this focused on MMORPGs the blog-o-net and the reactions to certian names and memes is arguably excellent viewing for how to handle name association and channel then from negative to positive.
@Brask mumei
too late for all that.
the US is pretty boned.
a war that drained our treasure, tax cuts that further drained it, and rising costs and falling dollar combined with capitol investment that was almost exclusivly in housing instead of productive capitol means that we are well and truely fucked.
the rest of the world built roads, light rail, nuclear power stations, industry and other things that continue to produce.
we spent 5 years building mcmansions.
4 banks have folded this year, the FDIC thinks the number is going to be between 150-300 over the next few years, and at least one municipality has gone chapter 7.
the only question is how many more?
There is no easy ( and thus politically viable) way out of this mess.
to fix it would require more than 70% capitol gains (as the wage stagnation of the past 8 years means that the middle class cannot support any more taxs without stopping being middle class) and other WWII and depression era tyranical taxes.
IMHO given the unprecidented growth of the actual wealth of the people we are talking about, I fail to see how they could rightly complain about paying enough to keep the republic from falling in to chaos, but they will. and they will spend every dime to enusre it, along with the corporations who also do not wish to pay any penny.
of course, the job of corporations is to not pay any penny they can, so i don’t really get angry, that’s like getting angry at a mob for aggroing on you when you get close to it.
about 2 years ago
Turns out the rising oil prices were driven by failing banks speculating in the oil futures market… Seems they could buy oil futures at 1/6th of the bid price… The Stock Exchanges had a similar system in the 1920′s.
http://tinyurl.com/eqnpj
http://tinyurl.com/5e3nxn
When oil pops and it will, a metric-fuck-ton of banks are going to fold.
Happy unregulated futures market everyone!
about 2 years ago
@D-One Banks and other should be able to play whatever as long as they want. The key thing here is there should not be government bail outs, like the Bear Stine thing. Government bail outs will just embolden them and they will be even more reckless. Just for once let the rich guys loss money and they will learn.
And for taxes on gas. It will be excellent if the government is smart and caring, in that case let the government lead us! But the reality is, government consists of people just like you and me (actually now they are mostly veteran politicians who knows how to keep their job, which make things even worse), and they are more likely to make bad decisions and waste money.
I will bet 90% of that tax on gas is spent to things you don’t like, i.e porks, war (not to soldiers, but to rich contractors), bail outs, failed schools.
So instead of rest all powers to government and take a bigger chance of fail, just leave the money to ordinary people and give them the choice of where to spend them.
If you really think government + taxing is the answer, look at the old communist countries, and how they failed.
about 2 years ago
@pharniel tax will only make things worse, you need to lower taxes, drop regulations to let small business grow. US is still a great place for small businesses, Microsoft/Google/Cisco all grow from nothing to the giants of today. Where our taxes go? porks, bailouts. our working class tax is used to bail out big investment bankers. Why can’t people keep their own hard own money? If the banks makes mistakes, let them fold. Others will take their place. It is still a free market.
about 2 years ago
@wowpanda – whenver we drop regulations, historically, has been a boom for small buisness for a short while, followed by consolidation and then near monopoly.
all how low are you goign to lower taxes? how are lower taxes going to increase revenues when please are unable to meet the basic neccesities of life?
as for banks paying ‘whatever they want’: regulation comes about after people have proven they cannot handle a freedom. If people didn’t steal there’d be no laws against theft. If people didn’t kill each other there’d be no laws against murder, because it wouldn’t be a problem.
The laws about banks, specifically, and others purchasing on margin over a certian amount or unsecured credit (which is why you have to play the lotto with real money, and why you are in violation of your card memeber agreement if you buy stock with it) is to stop the very problem which greatly exaserbated the economic downturn which was the Great Depression. The prior 50 years of american history were full of similar boom and busts, but only the seriousness and strain on the nation caused there to be enough backlash that it was determined that this could not stand to happen again.
The reason banks get bailed out is because they ARE to big to fail.
Imaginge over 50% of the people of the united state’s bank accounts ceasing to exist as the largest banks collapse and the fdic goes broke.
I guarentee you that is a re-occuring nightmare for just about every regulatory agency right now. If it’s not then they are not paying attention, or are trying to figure out how to cash out and fly before the roof caves in.
The laffer curve is a joke, and lowering taxes in this scenario is certianly not going to allivate the failing infrastructure or massive debts owed. The maintinence costs have skyrocketed and there’s not anything you can do about it.
Government or private industry, you’re going to pay either way.
Combined with wealthiest americans have experinced record growth in relative worth, now it’s time to pay the piper.
The only thing we agree on is to stop the bailouts.
about 2 years ago
@pharniel correct, you drop regulations, small business boom, then they got bought out, but the owners then got cash and they will starts things bigger and better. Big companies can provide services cheaper, but they are slow to go around. Just take a look at the big steel, big car companies, all in trouble now. The newer generations of rich people will take over, new blood make the system healthier. In US 90% of people who are milliners made them selfs, not from government or inheritance.
And no the banks are not too big to fall. That is what FDIC are for. The great depression was there because people’s life savings went with the banks, it is not the case now. What good does raise taxes do? It will increase the size of the government even bigger, and we all know government does not create wealth, people do. You increase tax, which penalize the people who create wealth, and you will be in a even bigger depression.
Most of today’s problems are caused by regulations and non-market economy, the case about one government country going bankrupt? It is caused by unions, they demand raises till the government can’t pay, and they can’t be fired. http://capoliticalnews.com/s/spip.php?breve4327
Why has “the maintinence costs have skyrocketed”? It is the government and the regulations. We pumped so much tax money into our school systems and they keep failing. The tax money is falling into a hole, because the system is so inefficient. The money will be much well spent if it is in the hands of individuals, let the bad banks bankrupt, the bad schools bankrupt, the bad governments bankrupt, stop increase taxes and bailing them out. It is free market Darwinism.
about 2 years ago
“pay the piper”??!?!? Who do they owe? You? What did you or anyone else do to deserve any kickback from those who pursued the American Dream with vigor? Corporations like Exxon are only making so much, because of the worthless regulations placed on drilling in the US in the first place. It was the big government that caused our current problems, and they won’t be fixed with more and more government.
about 2 years ago
@bughunter: the recent boom was based upon easy credit and speculation. Those who profitted upon it paid far less in taxes than they normally would, which further did fuel the boom. however, the bottom has now come out, there is war debt to pay down, and general debt overall. Or should the government not repay it’s debts?
@wowpanda
riiight…more than likely what you will get is a repeat of the late 1800′s and rockefeller buisness practices, where you ruine your rivals fianancially and drive them into the poor house, then pickupt he pieces for a paltry sum. IT’s the stated buisness plan of several patent troll corporations.
The FDIC only has so much money. after x # of banks fail insured individuals only get a sliding percentage of their savings. once enough banks fail the entire system crashes. It’s why it is referred to as ‘systemic failure’.
As to schools ‘fialing’ how are they failing, precisly? every credible study shows that american children are only slightly behind japan and europe in math and science and ahead of japan increative endevours, and even then, what is the other option? private schools? great, so i can deal with children who were raised thinking that the earth is but 6000 years old and that intellegent design is ‘sound science’? Or who’s idea of ‘discipline’ and thus thier approch to problem solving can be summed up as ‘beat it ’till it no longer cries or struggles”? That sounds like it will lead to a sound public body.
Y’know what sticks in my craw in mcuht he same way that the idea of taxes sticks in yours? people that have the audacity to avail themselves of the modern miricles of our age, and yet, at every oppertunity seek to undermine the foundations that got us here.
Science, progressive policies, community investment. WIthout them there’d be no internet, there’d be no united states.
Bughunter and WOwpanda, you both remind me of throwbacks to a prior age, where FYIGM-ism and Calvinism was king, and thus you knew a rightous man because they were the lucky 1 in a million who ‘availed themselves of the oppertunity to become upstanding citizens’. It used to be called ‘social darwinism’. THe world tried it before. It led to horrible conditions.
suck it.
it’s like dealing with vanguard fanbois pre-release.
“we need it to be more hardcore, that’s the solution to all problems!”
about 2 years ago
@wowpanda: maitnence costs have not skyrocketed thanks to government regulations.
maintence costs have skyrocketed since we’ve GOT THE SAME DAMEND ELECTRIAL NETWORK SINCE 1930.
there’s no reason for private industry to do anything other than ‘maintain’ the existing grid, at the cheapest cost.
that gets you blackout of ’03
as for why vallipraso went bankrupt: they coudl no longer afford the pension obligations due to falilng income.
oh, and all the quick and easy debt that they have to service.
about 2 years ago
@pharniel name calling won’t solve anything. You need facts. US schools are failing because the disproportion of spending and performance. No amount of money can get it better because you can’t fire bad teachers under unions.
And unlike early days of history, during this credit and speculation, most people who profited are homeowners who sold their houses during the boom, and people who bought houses and got foreclosed on didn’t loss the entire loan amount, they loss whatever they paid to already. The biggest losers are banks who prused profits aggressively, and most of them was able to absorb that. You keep hearing systematic failure because some of them want a bail out, and they did get that.
The hole point is, I am not arguing that private is the best (there could be the rare instance where one guy could own the entire country, and we already got laws in place to prevent that, so that is not a issue), I am arguing that raising tax at this time is bad practice. Raising tax will only transfer money from people who can create wealth to people who can’t, and slow the economy.
That is what happened to the former communist countries, where they give a 100% tax on the rich (basically confiscated their factories) and give to the government. The result is no productivity and massive amount of people died of hunger. There are no lower class anymore because even the richest are not as well feed as the poor people in US.
about 2 years ago
You can’t fire bad teachers without unions either. Bad teachers tend to optimize for keeping their job rather than for teaching (which is why they are bad teachers) so any widespread policy designed to “weed” them out is actually more likely to just knock out good teachers who don’t follow the latest fad in education. If you have another approach, the corporate world would kill to find such a system because it is endemic to any large corporation where one must replace direct control with bureaucracy.
Then again, you seem to think that shutting down factories leads to mass starvation. In the case of USSR (if Lum is still reading this, I’m sure I’ll be corrected if wrong), I thought Stalin’s mass starvations was triggered by shutting down farms in order to build factories.
Your choices, I will note, aren’t a binary “Communism or laissez faire Capitalism”. Any problem in the world has simple and easy solution that is wrong – both those extremes fail. The correct course is a lot more nuanced (Well, duh, you are talking about a policy affecting three hundred million INDIVIDUALS. There is no brush broad enough for them).
There is also, I will note, not a choice to do nothing. If the government does nothing, the people will form there own government like systems to do something. These systems are no different than governments in that they will use force and exact monetary taxes (perhaps under different names, of course). So you have not eliminated taxes by throwing away the police department, you have just left me to pay the local mafia my “taxes” for street security.
I also think anyone with sufficient foresight would applaud a decision to not fully exploit local oil reserves. In time of war (as opposed to foreign adventures) those are what you have to use. It is thus excellent strategy to keep one’s own oil in the ground (where incidentally, it is continually making money in a way the real estate market doesn’t) and concentrate on emptying everyone else’s reserves.
about 2 years ago
Exactly!! There is no one solution fits all, so you need to give the people the power to choose, tax them less so they can spent to where they want. If you just let government tax the hell out of us, the government will likely go with one solution, which is not necessary the best.
No matter the USSR or China, the problem is the government directed solutions. They take the greed out of the system, and people fighter for power instead. Where free market stimulates productivity, power constrains on it, the worst will show as starvation. (I am not talking about build more factories or farms, let the market decide that).
And last, lower taxes does not mean we need to drill for gas. People are different. I for one don’t want to drill, I want the gas price to raise (but not through taxation) so we can seek clean alternatives. Again let the market decide which alternative are better, not government subsidies. Government intervene will bring out the product with the best political power, not necessary the best for us.
about 2 years ago
“Let the free market decide!” is a simple, obvious, solution that does not work.
There is no such thing as a “free market”. I sometimes worry people are so paranoid about government interference that they happily sell their souls to their corporate overlords. If the government follows your wish of abdicating all responsibility, I’m sure there are many transnationals eager to fill the power vacuum.
We need a government and the government needs to raise funds via taxation. As such, if they can trade income tax for gas tax, why would you be opposed? We’re not talking government subsidies of one particular fuel tech here, we’re talking about the gas tax offsetting other existing taxes. This fulfills your wish of higher gas prices while also stimulating parts of the economy not reliant on gas prices. Is this not better than waiting a few years for higher gas prices and not having the corresponding stimulus?
about 2 years ago
I didn’t say abolish all tax, I said tax them less. US has the second highest corprate tax in the world, and the US market is not under regulated, it is over regulated.
Extreams are bad, no union is not good, but too much union is bad.
No checks and balances is bad, too much checkes are bad too.
“Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.”
— Thomas Paine
In the current state, I believe raise tax is bad. The government as a corporate is making more money on gas taxes than the oil companies on their profits, do you think that is normal?
If the US government is a efficient one, I would say go ahead. However with a lot of money wasted on pork, I would say let the people spend it where they want, instead of government waste it on pork projects and special interests. Don’t you agree?
about 2 years ago
I watched “Dr. Zhivago” over the weekend. It scared the hell out of me.
Democrats and Republicans are a little like a split in the Bolsheviks.
One half wants everyone to be “equal”. Take the money from those who know how to use it, and starve everyone.
The other half wants more control over population movements, and silencing those who disagree with them.
about 2 years ago
@pharniel , who said, “private schools? great, so i can deal with children who were raised thinking that the earth is but 6000 years old and that intellegent design is ’sound science’? Or who’s idea of ‘discipline’ and thus thier approch to problem solving can be summed up as ‘beat it ’till it no longer cries or struggles”?”
It makes me sad that that is your only view of private schools. Please look up “Montessori” for for just one example of an alternate, and quite popular private school system (not endorsing them, just one off the top of my head).
I personally attended a private school and I guarentee you that I received a better science and history education than what I would have from the public schools in my area.
about 2 years ago
@Brask – My understanding of the USSR fammines is that they were a combination of malice and a perfect storm of incompetance.
removing farm land for factoreis, instituting giant ‘communial’ farms that were run by newbs after displacing (and gulaging) the previous tenant farmers combined with an unstated goal of starving ethnic ukranians and other ‘minorities’ who stalin did not approve of or who resisted the USSR.
@Mandalla – you are correct, there are plenty of good private schools. I am also aquanted with the montessori method, growing up in a montessori home (my mother was a teacher for 35 years and was montessori trained, and the last in her district to practice the technique for lower El).
You are correct, there are plenty of excellent private institutions in our country, especially in places you’d never suspect. However, most of the 90′s my state spent a ridiculous amount of money to ‘prove’ how bad the public school system was, with the intent of allowing private unregulated corporations and individuals to run their own ‘charter’ school.
To my mind subcontracting education to private industry to my mind is like subcontracting the army. it’s a bad plan.
about 2 years ago
@pharniel no body said anything about privatizing all schools. Instead of pumping money into failing schools (public or private), let them fail. Instead of bound parents to their local school system, give them a voucher so they can put that money and their kids into some good schools (Of course this idea will be objected by some rich guys who are in good areas).
Competition is good, once the failing schools realized that they can be closed, they will have to perform. I am sick and tired states wasting money on bad schools. I was asked once by a friend to pick the most expensive laptop and accessories to reach $3000, so the grant can be spent for his wife. His wife is a public school teacher, the grant is state money.
about 2 years ago
Why oh WHY did Scott have to bring politics into his blog? It’s up to him, obviously, but now instead of thinking “Scott Jennings = awesome MMO genius,” I’ll be thinking “Scott Jennings = Democrat party flak.”
@pharniel–please stop posting until you read something, *anything* about economics. I don’t even know where to begin. Oh! I know, with your assertion that “tax cuts further drained” the treasury. On the contrary, the treasury has received *more* money since the tax cuts were implemented. Why? Because if people are allowed to make more money, they (surprise) have to pay more taxes! If I have to pay 12% of my income to the government and I get a $15,000 raise, the government gets more money–even if it doesn’t raise taxes. I only get that raise if the company I work for can make money. Said company has a real tough time making money if the capital gains tax is increased (so less people buy its stock) or if it has to spend more to comply with new regulations and/or other taxes. Monopolies are bad, but creating an environment where businesses can’t make a profit is much worse.
about 2 years ago
If you can’t look beyond which football team someone supports, I think the problem is with you, not them. I think Lum’s political position is a heck of a lot more nuanced than “Democrat”.
about 2 years ago
Good point, Brask; everybody should look beyond the football team someone supports. Unless that team is the Minnesota Vikings.
No matter how nuanced Lum’s political positions may be, what I get out of this post is that Lum wants us to read about how this guy got b*tch-slapped for looking for dirt on Obama, and then read the pro-Obama, anti-conservative rants that make up the rest of the page. That smells rather strongly like flak for the Dems.
I’d still read someone’s blog if they supported a different football team–until the blog contained more posts about the (ugh) Chicago Bears than whatever it was that drew me to the blog in the first place. And all along I’d be wishing the writer wouldn’t talk about the Bears so damn much.
And, for the record… Go Packers!!