Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wierd]

RPG:

I would say taking real action to solve the underlying problem as soon as possible is the correct solution.

Waiting, and treating only the easy parts does not work on:

Paying taxes
Resolving debts
Medical issues
Marital affairs
Legal matters

Why should it be different here? Because fixing it is hard?

[Max™]

So I have a question for you folks.

In government policy, is it more important to try and improve lives now, even if it means that in the future it will be harder to, or communities won't be able to develop as effectively/quickly, or to make sure the community will grow and thrive in the future, even if it means suffering for people now?

And if you think it depends on timescale, around what time differential does the flip happen?

Prevent suffering now, but it isn't a zero-sum game, you can do things which have some short-term benefit and long-term increases in general quality of life. Education investments improve the skillset and knowledge base now, and have knock-on effects for their children and lifestyle. The dollar multiplier effects of certain types of welfare lead to direct infusions of liquid cash locally, while improved nutrition leads to better health, reduction in crime rates (you stop caring so much whether something is legal when you're hungry enough), and general upward economical mobility down the road. Investments in infrastructure mean local jobs, resource transport and processing, and long term utility (GODDAMMIT WHY IS THIS NOT OBVIOUS, FUCK) for the local communities and/or those linked by it.

[wierd]

Everyone agrees roads and bridges are good things.

The problem is that people in place A, don't want to pay for infrastructure in place B, because "don't live in B!"

Never mind that the economy in place A uses goods and services from place B, and helping B build and retain that infrastructure means better living and more jobs in A.

No, "Don't live in B!!" Kills it, every fucking time.

Ipsil:

Really? I keep expecting a trademark violation charge from insane clown posse, stating that trump is trying to steal their brand.

[smjjames]

Looking at Trump's cabinet, I have this to say: to those who call this the Second Gilded Age, give it time. We might even surpass the first.

Remember, they still have to get through the Senate. And yeah, so many of the rumored choices, especially economy wise, are all big business CEOs and stuff.

[Neonivek]

Looking at Trump's cabinet, I have this to say: to those who call this the Second Gilded Age, give it time. We might even surpass the first.

Remember, they still have to get through the Senate. And yeah, so many of the rumored choices, especially economy wise, are all big business CEOs and stuff.

As they should be. America SHOULD be controlled by big business.

Ohh I just realized. You know all those media protection laws that weren't passed because they allow the entertainment industry to control the internet? Expect them.

[wierd]

Regulatory capture!? What's that!?

You mean people who have close ties to industries they are supposed to regulate are a BAD thing!?

/sarcasm

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Oh shit no, we don't need another America. Especially not another oldAmerica.

That gave me an idea about an alternate world thing where they find there's another identical Earth parallel to this one, and Earth-1 America ends up at war with Earth-2 America. Basically both Americas decide the last thing they need is another country equally powerful as themselves to exist, so they both start plotting to nuke each other through the wormholes.

Oh fuck yes. I will steal that idea, thank you very much. I've been wanting to write something, but I never thought up a good-enough prompt. That problem is no longer a problem, heh. Although I wonder if it could be improved by:

1. Having them in different time periods, like my original thought?
2. Having slight historical differences that result in a different America?

[DERAIL_INTENSIFIES]

You'll know once he starts building new highways. And an Atlantic Wall.

A highway and a wall aren't much different in construction. One just sticks up out of the ground more. Trump can promise to build 3000 miles of new highway then use the mats for his wall instead. The only risk is that the builders will be standing on the Mexican side of the wall when they place the last block and won't be able to pathfind back into America.

Just build another wall at the last square, but suspend it. Although that does require sufficient resources for the designation, so he'd have to either borrow more money or make Mexico pay for the phantomwall.

Looking at Trump's cabinet, I have this to say: to those who call this the Second Gilded Age, give it time. We might even surpass the first.

Remember, they still have to get through the Senate. And yeah, so many of the rumored choices, especially economy wise, are all big business CEOs and stuff.

As they should be. America SHOULD be controlled by big business.

Ohh I just realized. You know all those media protection laws that weren't passed because they allow the entertainment industry to control the internet? Expect them.

You missed a /s or there, Neo. Right? Right?!

[wierd]

No, with the picks Herr Trump has been making, there is no joke there.

Somebody please remind the president about how oversight works, m'kay? Pretty please?

[Neonivek]

Look we all have to give Trump a chance!

Just because he is doing things that are phenomenally suspect that we wouldn't allow any other politician to get away with it... only means we need to give Trump even more of a chance.

Stop being so democrat! You lost! stop trying to circumvent democracy by actually paying attention to him!

[smjjames]

No, with the picks Herr Trump has been making, there is no joke there.

Somebody please remind the president about how oversight works, m'kay? Pretty please?

I think he does, why do you think he hasn't released his tax returns? Not sure how much of the senate needs to vote yea on an appointee to confirm it, but considering how much the Republicans have been blockading Obamas appointees, I'd say more than half.

At this point, my biggest fear is Trump decides the presidency is too hard and decides to relinquish more power to his advisors/cabinet.

With Pence having Cheney as his role model, looks like we're headed for a similar 'idiot/fool head of state, but powerful PM/VP' type situation. Though Bush looks like a genius compared to Trump.

Also, yet another republican (Marco Rubio) says to the effect of 'no comment and no opinion' on Bannon. I swear they're just covering their asses so as to not get the wrath of Trump. Is there no Republican that will stand up to the likes of Bannon?

[MrRoboto75]

It is written, only Link can defeat Bannon

[Frumple]

Publicly, no, not many GOP politicians are going to stand up to bannon. If they come out for, too hard, people are going to remember and -- as noted earlier -- bannon is the sort of critter that even a lot of the republican base isn't entirely comfortable acknowledging. If they denounce, well, you just affronted someone that's now close to the oval office and has the support of a smaller but louder (and notably more likely to shoot you, for what that's worth) chunk of your base, too. There's basically not really a win condition for closer to center (if in nothing but demeanor) GOP politicians when it comes to folks like bannon, particularly when they're in a position with much power. So they're probably going to stay pretty mellow on that front, if I had to take a guess.

Now, the GOP being weaselly little shits they are, there's all sorts of things that could turn that guess on its head. Trump screws up enough and public opinion turns on him hard, you're more likely to see some noise towards the alt-right & co shitheels. It actually turns out he's not a disaster and somehow or another what he's been saying he wants to do works, or he manages to 180 on it hard enough without the base revolting on him, and sentiment actually starts rising, then you're probably going to see politicians warm up to the guys in question. Somewhere in between, where things go as expected but folks aren't as quick to get pissed about it, things'll stay about the same. Tbh, so far as the US right goes, that second one is probably our worst outcome. Further normalization of that sort of conservative and more expressing of their voice and messages is a distinct loss for just about anyone approaching sane in this country.

[McTraveller]

It's not just the "I don't live in B, why should I pay for a bridge there?" that stops public works projects. Public works projects in B also don't get funded in B - because usually public works projects have a very high upfront cost with a very diffuse, long-term payback period.

Consider even non-publics works projects for an example: consider what it would take to convert your house to off-grid solar. This is probably going to take on the order of $20,000 to go wholly off-grid. That's a massive up-front cost and a payback period of 10 to 20 years, and that's assuming you use it that entire time and don't include maintenance costs (it's unlikely that you'd get the full residual value of the installation back as increased sale price on your home).

If you finance, you're going to be looking at more than $1-$2k per year of payback (due to interest) so really you're hedging against power cost inflation to be higher than your financing cost to make it make any kind of financial sense.

Now expand that to publics works projects: just how much do you gain for your $100 a year in property tax increases to have that road in your area paved? Maybe you save the cost of one flat tire or suspension repair in direct costs over your stay in the area. Hardly worth $100 a year.  But how do you account for the other hard-to-attribute benefits, like increased property value? Is spending that $100 a year (or whatever) going to give you more than a $100 per year incremental increase in your property value? Essentially, "nobody knows" is the answer (especially considering you might have some completely unrelated event that causes property values to spike or crash).

THAT is the reason why even "obvious" public works projects are controversial.  And that doesn't even get into nonsense like corruption, contract award processes, or any of that kind of stuff.

[smjjames]

I know the Republicans want to keep their political hides intact, but the reason for speaking out against Bannon goes beyond politics.

[Frumple]

Sure, but most of the GOP displayed pretty clearly this last year they don't really care about anything else :V