Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Discuss.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,773|4106|949

Don't forget the California government allowing Nestle to continue to draw water out of our aquifers so they can sell bottled water.  A very good policy decision during a 5 year drought.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,959|2832|London, England

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Don't forget the California government allowing Nestle to continue to draw water out of our aquifers so they can sell bottled water.  A very good policy decision during a 5 year drought.
The balls on that CEO are gargantuan. I mean possibly the size of Mars. His balls generate their own gravitational field.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
uziq
Member
+138|926
ayn rand winner 4/20 jus blaze xXx
SuperJail Warden
Member
+166|1194
What does everyone think of Jill Stein? The Green party is as close to socialism as you are going to get in the U.S. I voted for them once for governor. Along with 0.39% of other voters in that election.

Most of Jill's ideas are just like Bernie's. The difference between both of them is that Jill can talk about her plans in detail without yelling about "millionaires and billionaires". She seems like a more intelligent and trustworthy person than Bernie. Sanders is pretty opportunistic. Her idea of a Green New Deal sounds interesting.
Referring to President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal approach to the Great Depression, Jill Stein advocated a "Green New Deal",[47] in which renewable energy jobs would be created to address climate change and environmental issues; the objective would be to employ "every American willing and able to work".[47] Stein noted the successful economic effects of the 1930s' New Deal projects, and said she would fund the start-up costs of the plan with a 30% reduction in the U.S. military budget, returning US troops home, and increasing taxes on areas such as speculation in stock markets, offshore tax havens, and multimillion-dollar real estate. She says, based on the research of Phillip Harvey, Professor of Law & Economics at Rutgers University, that the multiplier economic effects of this Green New Deal would later recoup most of the start-up costs.[47]
She also wants to hold Israel accountable for their war crimes. Unfortunately she also wants to stop arm sales to oppressive regimes. She also has zero chance of winning anything like every other Green party candidate.
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,268|4191
lol israel war crimes hahgahahahah
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
SuperJail Warden
Member
+166|1194
the deaths of 3000 Palestinian men, women and children in response to the kidnapping of 3 Israeli men is a crime.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,959|2832|London, England
We killed over 100,000 people in Iraq and Afghanistan in response to 3,000 dying in the wtc but you're still not satisfied and want to keep bombing. 3000 for 3 is a crime though. Way to be consistent there mr confused liberal neocon
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
SuperJail Warden
Member
+166|1194
I didn't support the Iraq war.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,773|4106|949

I've strictly voted green party in gubernatorial and presidential elections (so far).  A few of the tenets I strongly support is the decentralization of government and focus on grass roots democracy.

here's their 10 key values if anyone is interested.

Mac why are you against arms sales to oppressive regimes?
SuperJail Warden
Member
+166|1194
Oppression is relative. And as long as those "oppressive" regimes keep the peace with us and our allies, I don't support ruining our relationships by taking away their ability to defend themselves. And those arm sales provide good paying American jobs.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,773|4106|949

ah, you take the "arm them now, worry about them later" approach.  History is not on your side, friend.
SuperJail Warden
Member
+166|1194
It works most of the time. You just never hear about all the success stories only the disasters.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,773|4106|949

you will never convince me that selling weapons to anyone is a success, but I'd love to hear what your "success" stories are.
SuperJail Warden
Member
+166|1194
Japan, Korea, Philippines, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Germany, Poland, Spain and many others.

Can we talk about socialism again? What do you think of the Green New Deal?
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,773|4106|949

Hahaha you should have mentioned you are joking. 

I'm not going to pretend to understand the numbers behind what she is saying without having both the time and access to information to compare to.  However, I am a strong advocate of government work fare.  I also advocate a huge redistribution of government spending from military to infrastructure.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,959|2832|London, England
I love when lefties insist that there is some sort of multiplier that magically makes government spending into an investment. If that's the case, we should confiscate all the money, have the government spend it all, and we'll become infinitely rich. That there are very strong and persuasive arguments that the original New Deal prolonged the Depression... well... more is better, right? I fucking hate stupid. I'm not surprised you like her policies.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
SuperJail Warden
Member
+166|1194

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Hahaha you should have mentioned you are joking. 

I'm not going to pretend to understand the numbers behind what she is saying without having both the time and access to information to compare to.  However, I am a strong advocate of government work fare.  I also advocate a huge redistribution of government spending from military to infrastructure.
I like workfare programs also. Keeping people busy enough to not get into trouble is just as important as providing income. Crime in the inner city would probably go down if there were programs where non-college track kids could go after school and work a min or sub-min wage job instead of hanging out all day bored and resentful.

Perhaps we could give them temporary jobs producing guns for us to sell to Saudi Arabia who can transfer them to Al-Qaeda to use on Assad.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,592|3580|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

The government already sets the price of water. It's a utility.
The price should be set by the market, if the poor can't pay bad luck

The government determined water rights at the end of the 1800s and early 1900s. Rights were divided up and way oversubscribed. Now, with LA, Las Vegas and Phoenix all big cities, there's too many people drawing from the same watershed.
Bad luck for those people in LA, Las Vegas and Phoenix - they should have done their research on water rights before they moved there.
Govt can't take away peoples rights.

They shouldn't be limited but will instead limit themselves.
Because people always limit themselves for the greater good. Maybe you should eat less so there's more to go around.

I am already rational, I just recognize that there are limits and absolutely despise technocrats.
Nope, you think other people should be limited, you're selfish and hypocritical.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2016-03-30 01:37:44)

Your virus system is infected with windows. Please to be giving me your credit card details urgently
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,592|3580|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

I love when lefties insist that there is some sort of multiplier that magically makes government spending into an investment. If that's the case, we should confiscate all the money, have the government spend it all, and we'll become infinitely rich. That there are very strong and persuasive arguments that the original New Deal prolonged the Depression... well... more is better, right? I fucking hate stupid. I'm not surprised you like her policies.
You know what would be great? If there were no government at all, no laws, no police, no society, no money even. Everyone could just have a gun and when they wanted something they could threaten or shoot whoever had something they wanted and take it from them. Its the perfect logical extension of libertarianism and free market theory. Everyone would be happy and rich, no-one would have to do any work except reloading their guns.

Your bipolar reductio ad absurdam arguments are becoming steadily more retarded.

To address your argument though:

The key is to spend money on productive enterprises.

Which do you think was the more productive enterprise

A Spending about U$1Bn in today's money building the Hoover Dam - which employed thousands of people and has delivered almost free electricity for nearly 100 years

B Spending $1Bn to burn useful jet fuel to ferry you and your tubby Army friends to the Middle East and back for no reason anyone can really fathom.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2016-03-30 03:11:01)

Your virus system is infected with windows. Please to be giving me your credit card details urgently
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,773|4106|949

Jay wrote:

I love when lefties insist that there is some sort of multiplier that magically makes government spending into an investment. If that's the case, we should confiscate all the money, have the government spend it all, and we'll become infinitely rich. That there are very strong and persuasive arguments that the original New Deal prolonged the Depression... well... more is better, right? I fucking hate stupid. I'm not surprised you like her policies.
Did you read the Law and Economics professor's research?  How do you know he is a leftie?  I doubt you read all 29 pages, but here is his research paper if you'd like.  I think a good start for you would be around page 18.

Or are you just assuming Jill Stein is making shit up and you're smarter than teh dum leftie?

Just kidding, I know you're shooting from the side of your hip without looking into any of this.  But what does he know? He's a professor of economics and you're an armchair economist, so your knowledge clearly trumps his.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,959|2832|London, England

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

I love when lefties insist that there is some sort of multiplier that magically makes government spending into an investment. If that's the case, we should confiscate all the money, have the government spend it all, and we'll become infinitely rich. That there are very strong and persuasive arguments that the original New Deal prolonged the Depression... well... more is better, right? I fucking hate stupid. I'm not surprised you like her policies.
Did you read the Law and Economics professor's research?  How do you know he is a leftie?  I doubt you read all 29 pages, but here is his research paper if you'd like.  I think a good start for you would be around page 18.

Or are you just assuming Jill Stein is making shit up and you're smarter than teh dum leftie?

Just kidding, I know you're shooting from the side of your hip without looking into any of this.  But what does he know? He's a professor of economics and you're an armchair economist, so your knowledge clearly trumps his.
There's an economist that will tell you that everyone should be put into prison because prison labor is cheap and we'd produce more stuff and have a higher GDP if there was someone that would pay him to fund his research.

I don't have to look into his particular research. Anyone who says that there is a multiplier for government spending has flawed research or dreams of utopia. They've done legitimate research and the highest they've ever found was like .78, meaning that for every dollar the government spent, seventy-eight cents of wealth was created. Twenty-two cents was lost in the void of mismanagement, theft, etc. Positive multipliers were trotted out by the Democrats when they pushed the stimulus bill that rewarded their cronies and it was debunked then.

It was also debunked like two months ago when Bernie's campaign was touting some economist up in Massachusetts that had a nice hockey stick chart for growth by government spending because he didn't remove the government input at the end of the year.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,592|3580|eXtreme to the maX
They probably included the military spending in the calculation.
Cost - A lot
Return - Zero
Zero/A lot comes out as zero

As its such a large proportion of spending it really skews the figures.

https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/discretionary_spending_pie%2C_2015_enacted_large.png
Your virus system is infected with windows. Please to be giving me your credit card details urgently
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,959|2832|London, England
That's just discretionary spending
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|2653|Sydney
It must feel good to be so flippant about others' arguments whilst remaining so secure in your own.
SuperJail Warden
Member
+166|1194
We need to cut spending. We should start by taking away the $65 billion handout we give to veterans every year.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2017 Jeff Minard