"We've got bridges and roads in need of repair and thousands of people in need of work. Why aren't we rebuilding America? Our competitors are putting
people to work, building a future. China invests 9% of its GDP in infrastructure. America? We're at just 2.4%. We can do better. We can build a foundation
for a strong new economy and get people in MA to work right now. I'm Elizabeth Warren and I approve this message. Let's go to work."
China isn't communist. But of course the term alone is probably enough to deter most "patriots" from even considering this. Even socialism is used like an insult.
Considering public opinion, it would seem to be more likely that the US privatises all roads and bridges. After all, if the state rebuilds them with tax money, that would make it a "nanny state", no? For some reason, I have a feeling it would seem more acceptable to people to pay a "road subscription fee" to a private company rather than paying evil taxes to the socialist government, even though it's basically the same thing.
Phanatik wrote:"We've got bridges and roads in need of repair and thousands of people in need of work. Why aren't we rebuilding America? Our competitors are putting
people to work, building a future. China invests 9% of its GDP in infrastructure. America? We're at just 2.4%. We can do better. We can build a foundation
for a strong new economy and get people in MA to work right now. I'm Elizabeth Warren and I approve this message. Let's go to work."
Frazzled wrote:I think its the comparison to China thing.
I don't see the problem. China is a country, the US is a country. Idiots think comparing the two, despite the obvious fact that they're comparable, is bad whenever the comparison isn't favorable; which leads to heads being placed squarely in the sand.
Frazzled wrote:I think its the comparison to China thing.
I don't see the problem. China is a country, the US is a country. Idiots think comparing the two, despite the obvious fact that they're comparable, is bad.
Other than the comment is utterly inanely stupid, I don't see a problem either. Strangely comparing the US to a country that still jails political prisoners gets some peope's gander up.
Frazzled wrote:
Other than the comment is utterly inanely stupid, I don't see a problem either. Strangely comparing the US to a country that still jails political prisoners gets some peope's gander up.
How is it stupid? China spends more on infrastructure, per anum, than we do. A lot more. We're worse at building roads than a country that jails political prisoners (which we also do).
Frazzled wrote:
Other than the comment is utterly inanely stupid, I don't see a problem either. Strangely comparing the US to a country that still jails political prisoners gets some peope's gander up.
How is it stupid? China spends more on infrastructure, per anum, than we do. A lot more. We're worse at building roads than a country that jails political prisoners (which we also do).
And they also have a slew of government expenses they don't cover, and wipe out entire villages that get in the way of the latest government move. You can't compare just one bit. Its a stupid comment. As another poster noted. Her statement was bad and she should feel bad.
having said that I agree on the infrastructure spend part.
Frazzled wrote:
And they also have a slew of government expenses they don't cover, and wipe out entire villages that get in the way of the latest government move. You can't compare just one bit. Its a stupid comment. As another poster noted. Her statement was bad and she should feel bad.
Right, so reminding Americans that they're comparable to a totalitarian regime is bad, because Americans want to feel good; and not ever confront the real world.
Frazzled wrote:
And they also have a slew of government expenses they don't cover, and wipe out entire villages that get in the way of the latest government move. You can't compare just one bit. Its a stupid comment. As another poster noted. Her statement was bad and she should feel bad.
Right, so reminding Americans that they're comparable to a totalitarian regime is bad, because Americans want to feel good; and not ever confront the real world.
How much of that expenditure is the "Big Ass Dam" project. (I can't be arsed to google the name)
There's a gak-ton of money going into that one.
I have no problem comparing the US to another country, but how much of that is also China modernizing an incredibly rural and non-existent infrastructure? Something we did from 1930s to 1950?
It's an apples and oranges comparison, I would think.
Either way, it doesn't even rank a 1.0 on my give-a-gak meter.
Steve steveson wrote:Country with lots of roads spends less on building new roads than bigger country with less roads that wants more. In other news dog bites man.
I think you just said what I was trying to say with my second point better than I did.
Lynata wrote:China isn't communist. But of course the term alone is probably enough to deter most "patriots" from even considering this. Even socialism is used like an insult.
Considering public opinion, it would seem to be more likely that the US privatises all roads and bridges. After all, if the state rebuilds them with tax money, that would make it a "nanny state", no? For some reason, I have a feeling it would seem more acceptable to people to pay a "road subscription fee" to a private company rather than paying evil taxes to the socialist government, even though it's basically the same thing.
America is a step away from saying traffic lights are for a nanny state because it doesnt expect us to drive safely.
All in all i agree with her, but i hate it when they fix roads, it sucks, you have to go around the work.
Jihadin wrote:So....is she or isn't she a native american?
According to her wiki, it sounds like her great-grandparents onwards thought that they were...
"While Christopher Child at the New England Historic Genealogical Society said he had found that everyone in Warren's family, through her great-grandparents' generation, has been listed or classified as white in records, he has noted that documenting Native American ancestry earlier than the last 150 years can be difficult.[46][57][58][59] Warren said that she had heard family stories about her Cherokee ancestors her entire life, and her family talked of links through her maternal grandparents' lines to the Cherokee and Delaware peoples in Oklahoma.[55] [60]"
Kilkrazy wrote:I think the USA should take decisions about infrastructure investment based on facts rather than because of political positions.
That's boring. I'd rather decide on what road to fix based on the number of times a football player was caught for a DUI while driving on it instead of facts like "It's falling apart" or "It's held together with wishes and termite spit!"
Well, given that just over one third of all your roads are unpaved, I'd say you still have quite a lot of room to invest in your road infrastructure. And while you are doing that, why not lay some high speed internet cables as well?
What are you Silver? A thrice damned commie? Cant you see thay doing anything that China does is the worst thing ever? Clearly even suggesting that we should create jobs and fix our crumbling infrastructure is pure democratic pandering! Our roads ans bridges are perfect because they are good old CAPITALISM!
You love China so much why don't you move there Commie McCommunist!
The way I see investing in infrastructure employs people and helps to provide a framework for growth across the board. I mean obviously that's a bit of an oversimplification but you're generally not going to find me disagreeing with someone who wants to invest in infrastructure, it's certainly one of the more productive things the government can spend its money on.
LoneLictor wrote:Phanatik's flawless logic is as follows.
1. China does something.
2. China is bad.
3. Therefore anything China did is bad.
In China you aren't allowed to kill people. WE CANT BE LIKE COMMUNIST CHINA! We need to legalize murder!
Thanks, my logic IS flawless.
It's odd though. I didn't mention 1, 2, or 3. But don't let that stop you.
I posted it though, because like many lefties, including many in the Obama administration, she seems to admire/prefer communism/communists.
And yet she is running for the U.S. Senate.
And anyone that pays attention to U.S. politics knows that when lefties talk about spending money on the infrastructure, what they really mean is funneling money to the unions, which than donate the money back to the democrats. It's a tax-payer funded money laundering scheme.
Phanatik wrote:
And anyone that pays attention to U.S. politics knows that when lefties talk about spending money on the infrastructure, what they really mean is funneling money to the unions, which than donate the money back to the democrats. It's a tax-payer funded money laundering scheme.
Have a nice day!
So, if not by investing in infrastructure how would you suggest we going around patching things like gakky section I-90 that shakes up my car every time I drop my girlfriend off at South Station? (just name a easy, trivial issue!).
Phanatik wrote:
It's odd though. I didn't mention 1, 2, or 3. But don't let that stop you.
Funny, I didn't read the word "Communist" in your quote. Didn't read the word "cue" either. However, I did read this:
Phanatik wrote:I posted it though, because like many lefties, including many in the Obama administration, she seems to admire/prefer communism/communists.
I'm wondering where the admiration is sourced, perhaps you're interpreting?
Phanatik wrote:I posted it though, because like many lefties, including many in the Obama administration, she seems to admire/prefer communism/communists.
Sooo... because someone thinks something that is being done by a "communist" country might be a good idea, that makes them communist and therefore ineligible to be in any way shape or form involved with the American government?
I'd also like to point out that what you call the "left", most of the rest of the world calls "the centre right", if not "the right".
Phanatik wrote:I posted it though, because like many lefties, including many in the Obama administration, she seems to admire/prefer communism/communists.
Sooo... because someone thinks something that is being done by a "communist" country might be a good idea, that makes them communist and therefore ineligible to be in any way shape or form involved with the American government?
I'd also like to point out that what you call the "left", most of the rest of the world calls "the centre right", if not "the right".
Did I say she is a communist? Anywhere in my post?
What I care about what the rest of the world thinks about the U.S. can fall into the Marianas Trench.
Cheers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chongara wrote:
Phanatik wrote:
And anyone that pays attention to U.S. politics knows that when lefties talk about spending money on the infrastructure, what they really mean is funneling money to the unions, which than donate the money back to the democrats. It's a tax-payer funded money laundering scheme.
Have a nice day!
So, if not by investing in infrastructure how would you suggest we going around patching things like gakky section I-90 that shakes up my car every time I drop my girlfriend off at South Station? (just name a easy, trivial issue!).
I'd suggest outsourcing the work to India. It would probably cost less, taking it out of the hands of U.S. politicians, and probably get done quicker.
Unless there's something in this thread I've missed no one's pointed out the obvious - America doesn't have the money to invest in infrastructure. No one does.
Jihadin wrote:So....is she or isn't she a native american?
There are no "Native Americans". Their ancestors came here from somewhere else just like everybody else. Science says they came from Asia, and they say they were put here by ant-people from space. I don't know which one is right, but it doesn't really matter. Europeans came and kicked their butts and now they are getting rich running casinos, so everybody can just shut up and be happy, damnit!
Testify wrote:Unless there's something in this thread I've missed no one's pointed out the obvious - America doesn't have the money to invest in infrastructure. No one does.
Phanatik wrote:I posted it though, because like many lefties, including many in the Obama administration, she seems to admire/prefer communism/communists.
Sooo... because someone thinks something that is being done by a "communist" country might be a good idea, that makes them communist and therefore ineligible to be in any way shape or form involved with the American government?
I'd also like to point out that what you call the "left", most of the rest of the world calls "the centre right", if not "the right".
Did I say she is a communist? Anywhere in my post?
What I care about what the rest of the world thinks about the U.S. can fall into the Marianas Trench.
.
You seem very concerned about what the US thinks about the rest of the world.
This is the current absolute worst excuse for a political trolling thread in the history of the Dakka OT. Never has such an insipid point been made so feebly.
Ouze wrote:This is the current absolute worst excuse for a political trolling thread in the history of the Dakka OT. Never has such an insipid point been made so feebly.
And yet you made it to this point!
Thanks for showing up, and contributing your troll to the collection.
I love how America has a fit every time the government tries to get us to do something for the common good, and yet lets corporations shove their dangerous products (alchohol, tobacco, name your choice of drug with severe side effects, not to mention the ever-popular industrial pollution) down our throats and nobody blinks an eye over it.
I think it's really funny that this is Elizabeth "the-original-You-Didn't-Build-That" Warren talking about the need to re-invest in infrastructure.
C'mon, Liz, just harvest the money fruit from the mythical Government Revenues Tree! Government is responsible for all that is good and solvent in this world, right? Let government save the roads and bridges!
I would happily see entitlement programs cut to get some roads re-built. All for it.
Vulcan wrote:I love how America has a fit every time the government tries to get us to do something for the common good, and yet lets corporations shove their dangerous products (alchohol, tobacco, name your choice of drug with severe side effects, not to mention the ever-popular industrial pollution) down our throats and nobody blinks an eye over it.
This country sucks.
If its a real issue for you, you can always start walking north and south and stop when you hit water.
Vulcan wrote:I love how America has a fit every time the government tries to get us to do something for the common good, and yet lets corporations shove their dangerous products (alchohol, tobacco, name your choice of drug with severe side effects, not to mention the ever-popular industrial pollution) down our throats and nobody blinks an eye over it.
This country sucks.
If its a real issue for you, you can always start walking north and south and stop when you hit water.
North and South??? conclusion Frazz is from R'lyeh
Vulcan wrote:I love how America has a fit every time the government tries to get us to do something for the common good, and yet lets corporations shove their dangerous products (alchohol, tobacco, name your choice of drug with severe side effects, not to mention the ever-popular industrial pollution) down our throats and nobody blinks an eye over it.
This country sucks.
If its a real issue for you, you can always start walking north and south and stop when you hit water.
Well, I walked north a mile or so, then hit the North Shore Channel. This didn't seem to help at all, so I then walked south several miles before hitting the North Branch of the Chicago River.
At first, I was a little confused as to how this was meant to help. But, then, I realized that Frazzled had led me to the Goose Island Brewery! Beer is the answer!
At first, I was a little confused as to how this was meant to help. But, then, I realized that Frazzled had led me to the Goose Island Brewery! Beer is the answer!
This thread is drivel... Lets privatize the socialist, state owned body we call 'The Armed Forces of The United States' and instead hire in private peace keeping forces to do our fighting! China has a government controlled military, we can't be like them!!!
This thread is drivel... Lets privatize the socialist, state owned body we call 'The Armed Forces of The United States' and instead hire in private peace keeping forces to do our fighting! China has a government controlled military, we can't be like them!!!
Beeeerrrrr MGS...bbbeeeerrrrrr...calm down...dddeeeeeeppppp breathes in....out...in...out...put down the weapon...thats good...bbbrreeeeaattthhhh
Vulcan wrote:I love how America has a fit every time the government tries to get us to do something for the common good, and yet lets corporations shove their dangerous products (alchohol, tobacco, name your choice of drug with severe side effects, not to mention the ever-popular industrial pollution) down our throats and nobody blinks an eye over it.
This country sucks.
If its a real issue for you, you can always start walking north and south and stop when you hit water.
North and South??? conclusion Frazz is from R'lyeh
Or I just want you to shut up and split.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grakmar wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Vulcan wrote:I love how America has a fit every time the government tries to get us to do something for the common good, and yet lets corporations shove their dangerous products (alchohol, tobacco, name your choice of drug with severe side effects, not to mention the ever-popular industrial pollution) down our throats and nobody blinks an eye over it.
This country sucks.
If its a real issue for you, you can always start walking north and south and stop when you hit water.
Well, I walked north a mile or so, then hit the North Shore Channel. This didn't seem to help at all, so I then walked south several miles before hitting the North Branch of the Chicago River.
At first, I was a little confused as to how this was meant to help. But, then, I realized that Frazzled had led me to the Goose Island Brewery! Beer is the answer!
Exactly. SOmetimes the best path is the one that meanders.
..... Send work to india? Are you joking me? And corrode american industry even further? Hell, the whole reason china got out of its rut is because it received all of the outsourced work from the US.
And really, if you have a problem with money being stolen and handed over to these "unions" you should probably acknowledge the fact that all politicians are crooks trying their darndest to pilfer your tax dollars. Just because you have an investment with the company receiving the stolen money doesn't give you the right to be complacent about it. More to the point, with ongoing tax cuts, the less money there is, the less of it goes to programs. So what are the few tax dollars paid going toward--senators? to do what? Sit on their ass and deliberate about nothing all day because everything was privatised and taken out of their hands?
Has it also occurred to you that china is better at following the free market than the united states? Sure, china is plan driven. Let's say there's a demand for "X". Somone decides we shall make "X", then it's put into implementation and then its on the market. In the states, you wait for someone to decide "X" would be nice, and how it will be satisfied. Then they have to convince the bank to get a loan, and make repeated trial and error attempts to get somewhere, before they get sued or bought out by a corporation.... The process ends up being much longer in the states with far more obstacles in the way, and much more costly, and in the end, the work gets outsourced to some asian country, because god forbid, we shouldn't pay wages to honest americans, because hott damn, they might be illegal immigrants. Best for everyone if we just employ someone from india. And hey, we get the benefit of suppressing the 12% of the unionized labor force and stop their filthy social behavior from infecting america. Dear god, can you imagine, people conducting themselves morally and looking out after eachotehr!? THE HORROR!
sourclams wrote:Pensions, Health Care, and Welfare make up a combined 56% of the Federal budget, forecasted to rise to 61% within 5 years.
yes. Assuming further cuts and accusations of communism aren't put forward which might harm that projection.
I can't stand commentary about government in north america. If some moron isn't accusing the government of being communist, then they are accusing it of being fascist. The only time the government seems to have anything good going for it is when it does absolutely nothing.
Breakdown how money is spent in the US military. Out of date being its 2010
see? there seems to be no problem with the american government investing money it doesn't have in blowing up infrastructure in countries it occupies, so I don't see why it can't invest money it doesn't have in building local infrastructure and industry. I know the US tried to recover part of the cost from whatever military spending by using Iraqi oil to pay for the restoration, but what leaves me uncomfortable about those numbers you posted is the silence regarding private security spending, which may be hidden into the defense budget, or not a part of it. I remember reading some traumatically large number, but can't source it correctly, so I abstain from mentioning anything further on that note. That said, it makes more sense to spend on building your own country's industry up, and keeping the money on the home turf than sending money elsewhere to build up industry there. It's not as likely that those funds will return.
I find that the same people that whinge about cheap labor coming in from south of the border are all for paying the same wages to workers in india...
poda_t wrote:so..... essentially you are supporting my complaint because most of them are somehow tied or involved with those institutions anyway
Yep.
sourclams wrote:Pensions, Health Care, and Welfare
That too, but I'd say that this at least serves a much more beneficial purpose. Where exactly does the public profit from billions of dollars being funneled into a banking sector that hasn't learned gak from the last crisis and happily continues speculating with other people's money? I recall some politicians calling for stricter laws about regulating this kind of activity, but that seems to have died down because regulation = communism or something.
poda_t wrote:but what leaves me uncomfortable about those numbers you posted is the silence regarding private security spending, which may be hidden into the defense budget, or not a part of it
And apparently, up to 90 cents of each dollar invested in actual reconstruction efforts gets lost "on the way" to contractor overhead and administration or corruption on-site.
poda_t wrote:That said, it makes more sense to spend on building your own country's industry up, and keeping the money on the home turf than sending money elsewhere to build up industry there. It's not as likely that those funds will return.
That depends... For one, it makes a nation look better to the rest of the world, especially if you're trying to score with the population of the occupied zone. Also, look at what the Marshall plan made of Germany after WW2. The potential is there - it's just likely that these funds do not return directly to the state itself but rather to US companies, which will naturally export more goods, services and know-how to a country that actually has a working economy rather than a wasteland where everybody is poor. The companies themselves would then hire US citizens and give them work, in turn allowing the citizens to pay taxes.
This thread is drivel... Lets privatize the socialist, state owned body we call 'The Armed Forces of The United States' and instead hire in private peace keeping forces to do our fighting! China has a government controlled military, we can't be like them!!!
Beeeerrrrr MGS...bbbeeeerrrrrr...calm down...dddeeeeeeppppp breathes in....out...in...out...put down the weapon...thats good...bbbrreeeeaattthhhh
I appear to have drunk half a bottle of gin last night and have a bit of a sore head.
Lynata wrote:Where exactly does the public profit from billions of dollars being funneled into a banking sector that hasn't learned gak from the last crisis and happily continues speculating with other people's money?
Well, the big banks paid back the loans with interest. So the public literally profits by the interest on the loans. Most of the remaining, outstanding loans are actually to much, much smaller facilities.
I recall some politicians calling for stricter laws about regulating this kind of activity, but that seems to have died down because regulation = communism or something.
Are you referring to Dodd-Frank? It's a monstrous piece of legislature and those in the financial sector are not quite sure exactly what it does yet. Clarification and regulation take quite a bit of time to implement for big, industry-spanning changes. I think it was about 4-5 weeks ago that the CFTC finally worked through the definition of what 'Swaps' would be.
sourclams wrote:Well, the big banks paid back the loans with interest. So the public literally profits by the interest on the loans. Most of the remaining, outstanding loans are actually to much, much smaller facilities.
Oh yeah, I forgot Phanatik existed. Well it all comes back to me.
Meanwhile, China has large government surpluses, and exports more than it imports. I would suggest the USA should attempt the same, but that'd be saying the USA should be more like China.
Also, China is winning lots of gold medals in London. I would suggest the USA should attempt the same, but that'd be saying the USA should be more like China.
This is just so fething stupid.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:having said that I agree on the infrastructure spend part.
That's the only thing she said. For feth's sake.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:I think the USA should take decisions about infrastructure investment based on facts rather than because of political positions.
Well, the fact is that there's an immense amount of productivity potential available in improved infrastructure. And the political reality is that the money isn't spent on that infrastructure because political realities make the tax increase needed to fund it impossible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Testify wrote:Unless there's something in this thread I've missed no one's pointed out the obvious - America doesn't have the money to invest in infrastructure. No one does.
Of course they do. You're among the richest countries in the world.
The fact that you happen to like spending loads of money on luxury items, and happen to think that's the way life ought to be, doesn't mean the money doesn't exist. It just means you'd rather let the existing infrastructure dwindle away so you can buy GTA VIII or whatever the hell they're up to.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phanatik wrote:What I care about what the rest of the world thinks about the U.S. can fall into the Marianas Trench.
China is highly nationalistic, and defiantly ignorant about the rest of the world.
Kilkrazy wrote:I think the USA should take decisions about infrastructure investment based on facts rather than because of political positions.
Well, the fact is that there's an immense amount of productivity potential available in improved infrastructure. And the political reality is that the money isn't spent on that infrastructure because political realities make the tax increase needed to fund it impossible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Testify wrote:Unless there's something in this thread I've missed no one's pointed out the obvious - America doesn't have the money to invest in infrastructure. No one does.
Of course they do. You're among the richest countries in the world.
The fact that you happen to like spending loads of money on luxury items, and happen to think that's the way life ought to be, doesn't mean the money doesn't exist. It just means you'd rather let the existing infrastructure dwindle away so you can buy GTA VIII or whatever the hell they're up to.
To add to this: The US currently spends 102.6 Billion on transportation, 65.3 of that is specifically on ground transportation. That's grown from 93.0 and 60.9 last year.
Now granted there is A LOT of road in America, and it's in the constitution that roads are sapposed to come from public funds.
Like you said, the right won't raise taxation to pay for these absolutuely warrented spend, at the same time the left won't ruduce social program to float the capitol for these works. Both sides have political problems that will not allow them to this work. Grid lock is a bitch.
I agree with you, in that manufacturing is focussed on because people find it easier to conceptualise tangible goods moving between countries, and therefor discount the value of services. And also because ultimately that export more than you import kind of mentality, basically a throw back to a mercantilist idea of trying to 'win' at economics basically doesn't work, and basically destabilised the world economy and generally reduces the living standards of people in your own countries.
But, of course, the perception of Chinese power comes largely from doing just that, and the concern about America's declining power comes from them failing to do the same. To someone like Phanatik that kind of thinking is central. So it becomes a pretty good example of why 'anyone who wants to do anything that China does is admiring China' is so fething stupid.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
broodstar wrote:Like you said, the right won't raise taxation to pay for these absolutuely warrented spend, at the same time the left won't ruduce social program to float the capitol for these works. Both sides have political problems that will not allow them to this work. Grid lock is a bitch.
I should have included an unwillingness on the left to reduce spending on any of their sacred cows, as well as the unwillingness of the right to pay any more tax. Thanks for picking up on that.
Ultimately, both sides have an entitlement complex about how much wealth they ought to have, and in order to keep all that they're willing to borrow money, and simultaneously neglect developing infrastructure that would benefit future generations.
sebster wrote:Of course they do. You're among the richest countries in the world.
Therefore Phanatik is just like China.
Very lame, and won't earn you a medal. I would have thought Australia could do better.
What you, and most lefties can't grasp (or simply ignore) is that the wealth of America doesn't belong to the government. It belongs to individual entities.
As it would have been his birthday yesterday:
“If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there'd be a shortage of sand.”
― Milton Friedman
“Most of the energy of political work is devoted to correcting the effects of mismanagement of government.”
― Milton Friedman
Vulcan wrote:I love how America has a fit every time the government tries to get us to do something for the common good, and yet lets corporations shove their dangerous products (alchohol, tobacco, name your choice of drug with severe side effects, not to mention the ever-popular industrial pollution) down our throats and nobody blinks an eye over it.
This country sucks.
If its a real issue for you, you can always start walking north and south and stop when you hit water.
I'm assuming you mean something along the lines of 'leave my country if you think it sucks?'
I would... If I had the resources for an international move. Germany and the Scandinavian nations seem to understand that neither unbridled capitolism nor totalitarian socialism work, and have managed to do what America believes is impossible: strike a compromise between the two for the benefit of the people, not for the benefit of the rich or the government.
Vulcan wrote:I love how America has a fit every time the government tries to get us to do something for the common good, and yet lets corporations shove their dangerous products (alchohol, tobacco, name your choice of drug with severe side effects, not to mention the ever-popular industrial pollution) down our throats and nobody blinks an eye over it.
This country sucks.
If its a real issue for you, you can always start walking north and south and stop when you hit water.
I'm assuming you mean something along the lines of 'leave my country if you think it sucks?'
I would... If I had the resources for an international move. Germany and the Scandinavian nations seem to understand that neither unbridled capitolism nor totalitarian socialism work, and have managed to do what America believes is impossible: strike a compromise between the two for the benefit of the people, not for the benefit of the rich or the government.
Don't be a nattering nancy boy. We have a 2,000 mile border just waiting for you. All the countries of Central and South America await. You just need shoes. What? You're not man enough unlike the 20mm who crossed north, including women and children? I guess there's always mom's basement then.
Phanatik wrote:
What you, and most lefties can't grasp (or simply ignore) is that the wealth of America doesn't belong to the government. It belongs to individual entities.
and by wealth, you do of course mean debt, because private entities have been eroding the industrial base of the united states and clap-trapping the government into not interfering. Only a small handful have any wealth to speak of, and too many of those entities are non-living and non-breathing beings.
Phanatik wrote:
What you, and most lefties can't grasp (or simply ignore) is that the wealth of America doesn't belong to the government. It belongs to individual entities.
Most of it belongs to individuals (or collectives of individuals that we pretend are individuals), but lots of it also belongs to the government. If you disagree with me, I recommend you go attempt to claim "your" share of tanks from the nearest army base.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vulcan wrote:
I would... If I had the resources for an international move. Germany and the Scandinavian nations seem to understand that neither unbridled capitolism nor totalitarian socialism work, and have managed to do what America believes is impossible: strike a compromise between the two for the benefit of the people, not for the benefit of the rich or the government.
I have the resources. The resources aren't the problem, its immigration.
Melissia wrote:All this debate reminds me of the utter nutjobs who think Agenda 21 is some sort of New World Order conspiracy.
The late George Carlin talks about how the term “conspiracy theorist” is a label used by the establishment to dismiss the idea that powerful people might get together and actually plan anything.
Vulcan wrote:I love how America has a fit every time the government tries to get us to do something for the common good, and yet lets corporations shove their dangerous products (alchohol, tobacco, name your choice of drug with severe side effects, not to mention the ever-popular industrial pollution) down our throats and nobody blinks an eye over it.
This country sucks.
If its a real issue for you, you can always start walking north and south and stop when you hit water.
I'm assuming you mean something along the lines of 'leave my country if you think it sucks?'
I would... If I had the resources for an international move. Germany and the Scandinavian nations seem to understand that neither unbridled capitolism nor totalitarian socialism work, and have managed to do what America believes is impossible: strike a compromise between the two for the benefit of the people, not for the benefit of the rich or the government.
Don't be a nattering nancy boy. We have a 2,000 mile border just waiting for you. All the countries of Central and South America await. You just need shoes. What? You're not man enough unlike the 20mm who crossed north, including women and children? I guess there's always mom's basement then.
Frazzled, if you don't like liberals in the US then maybe you should leave! You don't live too far from Mexico, and that place is a capitalist paradise (in that the government is a crumbling, corrupt entity with barely any power, but that's okay because the free market regulates itself)!
Vulcan wrote:I love how America has a fit every time the government tries to get us to do something for the common good, and yet lets corporations shove their dangerous products (alchohol, tobacco, name your choice of drug with severe side effects, not to mention the ever-popular industrial pollution) down our throats and nobody blinks an eye over it.
This country sucks.
If its a real issue for you, you can always start walking north and south and stop when you hit water.
I'm assuming you mean something along the lines of 'leave my country if you think it sucks?'
I would... If I had the resources for an international move. Germany and the Scandinavian nations seem to understand that neither unbridled capitolism nor totalitarian socialism work, and have managed to do what America believes is impossible: strike a compromise between the two for the benefit of the people, not for the benefit of the rich or the government.
Don't be a nattering nancy boy. We have a 2,000 mile border just waiting for you. All the countries of Central and South America await. You just need shoes. What? You're not man enough unlike the 20mm who crossed north, including women and children? I guess there's always mom's basement then.
You mean, countries to the south not 'officially' part of the U.S. but held firmly under the thumb of American corporations? No thanks. If I want to live in a third-world nation I'll stay right here and watch the oncoming collapse brought on by corporate greed. First they destroy us, making a ridiculous profit by moving jobs to other countries. then once we've been stomped flat economically they can make even more money by shipping jobs BACK here because those other countries have become 'first world' and the workers actually want a decent paycheck...
Nancy boy? Mom's basement. Seriously? That's the best you could come up with? Try exercising your grey matter and come up with something original next time you want to go into personal attacks.
Vulcan wrote:
You mean, countries to the south not 'officially' part of the U.S. but held firmly under the thumb of American corporations? No thanks. If I want to live in a third-world nation I'll stay right here and watch the oncoming collapse brought on by corporate greed.
I would recommend Finland or Sweden. They are both third world countries.
sebster wrote:Of course they do. You're among the richest countries in the world.
Therefore Phanatik is just like China.
Very lame, and won't earn you a medal. I would have thought Australia could do better.
What you, and most lefties can't grasp (or simply ignore) is that the wealth of America doesn't belong to the government. It belongs to individual entities.
So you respond to me pointing out the large logic gaps in the ridiculous claim in your OP by calling me a leftie and giving vague generalisations about government. Basically you appear intent on delivering the same pointless noise to dakka that you did previously.
And in other news, what you and other noisy ideologues of the unthinking section of the right wing cannot understand is that wealth isn't, and can't ever be a purely individual thing. Go look at how much smart and hard work will net you in Somalia. Think about how many hours you'd have to put in to build your own Audi, brew your own Guiness, and raise your own Kobe beef. Or you can go and get a specialisation, then work with the rest of society to trade your specific skill for the high quality goods produced by other skilled individuals.
And all of that is possible because there exists a government framework underneath - to enforce property laws and contractual arrangements, and to provide infrastructure that everyone can use for greater productivity.
So, it looks like this is actually a real "thing" now. I just saw the derpiest article on RCP, link here.
It's a whole panoply of strawmen and ludicrousness. It first asserts that because "Communist China" spends 9%, that Mrs. Warren also proposed we match that number (she didn't!) and explains how totally expensive it would be to do so and we'd need tax hikes to cover it, while then saying "Communist China" spends so much because they're playing catch up to us (so presumably it would cost us less!!) goes on to state lots of people are displaced by building projects in Communist China (like we don't do the same thing here!) and capping it by saying, and this is a quote, "Free-market fans tend to like the eminent domain suits".
Seriously, WTF? How do people think like this? It's breathtaking.
Ouze wrote:So, it looks like this is actually a real "thing" now. I just saw the derpiest article on RCP, link here.
It's a whole panoply of strawmen and ludicrousness. It first asserts that because "Communist China" spends 9%, that Mrs. Warren also proposed we match that number (she didn't!) and explains how totally expensive it would be to do so and we'd need tax hikes to cover it, while then saying "Communist China" spends so much because they're playing catch up to us (so presumably it would cost us less!!) goes on to state lots of people are displaced by building projects in Communist China (like we don't do the same thing here!) and capping it by saying, and this is a quote, "Free-market fans tend to like the eminent domain suits".
Seriously, WTF? How do people think like this? It's breathtaking.
SHUT UP YOU COMMIE FASCIST DICTATIORIAL FREEMASON gakker! NOBODY CARES!
The first problem is mathematical. U.S. gross domestic product is about $15 trillion a year. Increasing infrastructure “investment” to the 9% Chinese level that Warren cites would mean an additional $1 trillion a year in government spending.
And the Chinese GDP is a bit over 7 trillion. And I don't really know why the problem is mathematical; to me it seems rhetorical. What with the Chinese spending ~66% more (in gross terms) than us on infrastructure.
Give us time. We have have unleashed Wiener Legions II - XXXIV to help persuade Arkansas to join Greater Texas. Tennessee will be next. Unfortunately the legions move somewhat slowly (you would too if you had 6in legs) and tend to get distracted by squirrels, cats, any molecule of food within a square mile, and naturally holes of any shape or size.
Give us time. We have have unleashed Wiener Legions II - XXXIV to help persuade Arkansas to join Greater Texas. Tennessee will be next. Unfortunately the legions move somewhat slowly (you would too if you had 6in legs) and tend to get distracted by squirrels, cats, any molecule of food within a square mile, and naturally holes of any shape or size.
I think I saw a special about this on the Discovery Channel. Scientists have no clue what makes Army Wieners move from place to place like they do.
Vulcan wrote:
You mean, countries to the south not 'officially' part of the U.S. but held firmly under the thumb of American corporations? No thanks. If I want to live in a third-world nation I'll stay right here and watch the oncoming collapse brought on by corporate greed.
I would recommend Finland or Sweden. They are both third world countries.
Well, what do you know? I've been using the term 'third world nation' entirely incorrectly.
From various context, I had been under the mistake belief that the 'third world' refered to undeveloped nations, where severe poverty was pretty much the norm and the middle class simply does not exist. Dogma's note inspired me to actually look up the definition, so that I could argue with him... only to find that he is correct. Finland and Sweeden ARE third world nations in the proper use of the term i.e. they were not aligned to the Soviets (the second world) or the Americans (the first world - how horribly arrogant of us! ).
So, here I'll reword my earlier post that dogma quotes to say what I actually meant, and managed to screw up with my ignorance of the proper definition of 'third world nation.'
"You mean, countries to the south not 'officially' part of the U.S but held firmly under the thumb of American corporations? No thanks, if I want to live in an undeveloped nation I'll stay right here and watch the oncoming collapse brought on by corporate greed."
Frazzled wrote:
And they also have a slew of government expenses they don't cover, and wipe out entire villages that get in the way of the latest government move. You can't compare just one bit. Its a stupid comment. As another poster noted. Her statement was bad and she should feel bad.
I like the part where they bill your family for the cost of your execution.
And, Fraz, how is that different from the US?
Frazzled wrote:
...having said that I agree on the infrastructure spend part.
You socialist! Next thing you'll say is we need to get the rail systems working again and raise tariffs on foreign goods.
Japan has a pretty awesome rail system in my (admittedly limited) understanding. Also, most of Europe I believe uses rail for the majority of long distance travel; whereas we usually drive or fly.
Having a strong economy is not the same as being developed.
OK, sure whatever.
It isn't. It really isn't. While having a strong economy is more or less mandatory for a nation to be considered "developed", it's far from the only measure.
We can't compare ourselves to china, we can't copy them, but we can have them take a bunch of our jobs and make a bunch of the stuff we sell to each other?
Having a strong economy is not the same as being developed.
OK, sure whatever.
It isn't. It really isn't. While having a strong economy is more or less mandatory for a nation to be considered "developed", it's far from the only measure.
You must also consider GDP/capita and living standards. While Brazil has a large economy, they have lots of social problems that France/UK dont
streamdragon wrote:Japan has a pretty awesome rail system in my (admittedly limited) understanding. Also, most of Europe I believe uses rail for the majority of long distance travel; whereas we usually drive or fly.
They also have superb healthcare and standards of living.
Unfortunately they also don't have enough kids being born (I can fix that...).
Contrary to what Fox News thinks however, they are NOT going to go extinct.
I'll chime in and say japans railway systems are a big reason why they are doing well, with people not needing to drive and can simply get on the train, it saves them money which they can spend on goods and services, which in turn provides growth to the economy...
I hate it when I'm right, 110% right and people still try to shoot me down...
The biggest problem for the US is the size of the country, it makes railways only able to solve some of the problems, not all of them.
Lynata wrote:China isn't communist. But of course the term alone is probably enough to deter most "patriots" from even considering this. Even socialism is used like an insult.
Considering public opinion, it would seem to be more likely that the US privatises all roads and bridges. After all, if the state rebuilds them with tax money, that would make it a "nanny state", no? For some reason, I have a feeling it would seem more acceptable to people to pay a "road subscription fee" to a private company rather than paying evil taxes to the socialist government, even though it's basically the same thing.
Many Communist countries claim to be socialist, such as the now-separated U.S.S.R., and China may well be one of them. But I agree, if the government publicizes roads and bridges, communistophobes (not a real word, I know) will throw a hissy fit, despite the fact that the government is run (at least in part) by fairly elected individuals, whereas corporations can be run by anyone with a lot of money.
Roads and bridges are already public. They are one of the main ways our government supports the economy, because the vast majority of us have to commute to work, and literally all of us are dependent on goods hauled over long distances in trucks. The interstate system in particular is enormously important.
For most of my adult life I've had commutes of 20-40 minutes via freeway to and from work. Without regular care and maintenance of those freeways, my work options would be a lot more limited.
We have a lot of crumbling bridges and infrastructure in this country, which NEEDS attention. Spending on it helps everyone, and creates jobs. This should be a no brainer.
Warren was making an attempt at evoking some classic Cold War-era competitive spirit in American voters. We used to want to be better and more successful than the Soviets. One would think modern Americans, especially ones concerned about America losing its position of economic and political primacy in the world to China, might be stirred by such a sentiment. We're letting the Chinese out-build us! But no, instead the exact anti-China people who should be stirred by that are instead angry at Warren, because they care more about the fact that they consider her their ideological opponent than they do about competing with China, or about getting important stuff done in our country.
Mannahnin wrote:We have a lot of crumbling bridges and infrastructure in this country, which NEEDS attention. Spending on it helps everyone, and creates jobs. This should be a no brainer.
juraigamer wrote:
The biggest problem for the US is the size of the country, it makes railways only able to solve some of the problems, not all of them.
Indeed. Japan is less than 170 miles long correct? Thats literally less than my trip home on the weekend.
Phanatik wrote:"We've got bridges and roads in need of repair and thousands of people in need of work. Why aren't we rebuilding America? Our competitors are putting
people to work, building a future. China invests 9% of its GDP in infrastructure. America? We're at just 2.4%. We can do better. We can build a foundation
for a strong new economy and get people in MA to work right now. I'm Elizabeth Warren and I approve this message. Let's go to work."
Just because you don't like something, does not mean that it has some good ideas.
Let me give an example. I dislike the government of the US state of Georgia. I lived their for 17 years, and I moved my family away because of the lack of investment they make into their schools. To make matters worse, one of my kids has cerebal palsy, and the special needs program in Georgia is little more than a handshake an a brochure of physical theorpy.
But....they have an excellent DMV system. Every other state would do well to follow the examples of the Georgia DMV.
See? You can dislike something but acknowledge that they do some things right!
Likewise, we should look at China and follow their good examples. China is beating the tar out of us production wise. Perhaps investing more into infrastructure would help us to compete.
Phanatik wrote:I posted it though, because like many lefties, including many in the Obama administration, she seems to admire/prefer communism/communists.
And yet she is running for the U.S. Senate.
And anyone that pays attention to U.S. politics knows that when lefties talk about spending money on the infrastructure, what they really mean is funneling money to the unions, which than donate the money back to the democrats. It's a tax-payer funded money laundering scheme.
Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership and cooperative management of the means of production.
News flash. You live in a state that practices socialist policies. When did you last pay your 'firefighter' bill, or your 'police bill'?
When have you had to ask around to find the best price on tap water?
Every government has socialist policies. The question is what goods/services should be socialized and which privatized.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sourclams wrote:
labmouse42 wrote: China is beating the tar out of us industry wise.
By what metric?
How about the first one that was googled? Seriously, how many of our jobs have been outsourced from china to america?
Growth rate is a pretty ridiculous measure for a comparison between the largest economy in the world and pretty much any other economy given that #2 is less than 1/2 the size of the US, which is roughly as big as the top 3 combined.
#1 on that list, for example, is the Republic of the Congo. Are you suggesting that the Congo is some sort of global economic power house that the US should emulate? How about Qatar, (3), Uzbekistan (9), or Mozambique (15)?
China makes that list by virtue of being a G20 economy, but also being relatively underdeveloped versus its population pool. That's how they can sustain 7%+ growth for many years, while the US will struggle to ever hit 5%. Once you're very large, sustaining incremental growth becomes increasingly difficult.
If you make $5/hour and I make $105, and I magnanimously give you a 10% raise (which is DOUBLE my 5% raise), then would you be pleased that you now make 5.50/hour compared to my paltry 105.53?
sourclams wrote:China makes that list by virtue of being a G20 economy, but also being relatively underdeveloped versus its population pool. That's how they can sustain 7%+ growth for many years, while the US will struggle to ever hit 5%. Once you're very large, sustaining incremental growth becomes increasingly difficult.
So you disagree with my assmenet that China is not producing more than the US. Why are production jobs being exported to China? Why do we not make iphones here in the United States? Why is it that you walk through a walmart and see more goods made in China than the US?
The US has a much greater GDP, but it does not come from production of goods. It comes from services.
If you can prove me wrong, then please do so. I would love to be wrong.
sourclams wrote:If you make $5/hour and I make $105, and I magnanimously give you a 10% raise (which is DOUBLE my 5% raise), then would you be pleased that you now make 5.50/hour compared to my paltry 105.53?
What does that have to do with industrial production?
The thing you linked is, literally, growth rate in industrial production (the basic unit of which is GDP). When a very large country starts at a very low number (like China), and posts big increases over an incrementally small amount, then that is a stupid example of comparison between a developed (US) and largely developing (China) economy.
Second, manufacturing has rarely (I'm willing to say "never") been the mainstay of US industry.In the 50s it was roughly 30% of the nonfarm labor sector, and it declined to roughly 10% in current times. Simultaneously services industries went from a little under 30% to more than 40%, representing the demographics shift towards suburban life and higher-skill job sectors (including manufacturing).
Even if we pulled Services from the US GDP calculation, we'd still have a larger economy than China, so this fixation on "industry", by which you seem to mean manufacturing, is both dated and silly.
sourclams wrote:Second, manufacturing has rarely (I'm willing to say "never") been the mainstay of US industry.In the 50s it was roughly 30% of the nonfarm labor sector, and it declined to roughly 10% in current times. Simultaneously services industries went from a little under 30% to more than 40%, representing the demographics shift towards suburban life and higher-skill job sectors (including manufacturing).
Even if we pulled Services from the US GDP calculation, we'd still have a larger economy than China, so this fixation on "industry", by which you seem to mean manufacturing, is both dated and silly.
I am curious to know what percentage of our GDP has been various industries over time.
While the US Bureau of Labor statistics website provides a snapshot of today, I have not discovered a historical trend of that data.
That kind of data would be fascinating to look through.
Edit :
For example, you can see that the US has 13,216,000 people in Goods-Producing Industries, and 114,901,000 people in Service-Providing Industries. What I am curious about is historical trending. When did the US start to change from a Goods-Producing industry to a Service-Providing industry.
It is pretty interesting. Transportation/utilities, gov't, and miscellaneous stuff have retained roughly the same percentage of labor pool makeup since the 50s. Ag and manufacturing have declined, and Services has gained. That's basically the shift to greater automation/technology, and also demographics (young people don't want to farm, don't want to work a "trade").
The really fascinating thing about recent history is how China has actually begun outsourcing--to Vietnam and Cambodia, but also parts of India. Reason being, China's labor is now better paid than those areas. As they gain per cap income, that trend will accelerate. Another interesting tidbit is how 'reverse outsourcing' has been occurring, as companies in the US realize that the loss in productivity of having to go through 3rd world nations and the high turnaround in transporation completely offsets the more expensive, but generally more productive US worker for certain higher skill or time-sensitive industries.
No, but it also does not mean Elizabeth Warren is suddenly a champion of Good Ol' American Capitalism.
By all means, redirect funding from entitlement programs to infrastructure. I'd happily see the Government Handout Line get smaller by those individuals having to build a road.
Ouze wrote:It's a whole panoply of strawmen and ludicrousness. It first asserts that because "Communist China" spends 9%, that Mrs. Warren also proposed we match that number (she didn't!) and explains how totally expensive it would be to do so and we'd need tax hikes to cover it
That part there really sums up the stupid noise put out by a decent portion of the fringe of the right wing. It doesn't matter what Warren actually said, all that matters to them is pretending she said something that would actually have been pretty bad, and then complaining about what they were pretending she had said.
It reminds me of this guy I gamed with back in highschool. He had mistakes all through his army lists, and got his army specific rules wrong all the time, and people were understanding, as he was a nice guy and wasn't that hard to beat anyway... except eventually people noticed that everything he got wrong always ended up in his favour. He never misread a rule in his army and thought it was less powerful than it really was, he never made a mistake in his army list that saw him bring too few points into a game.
Same thing with the idiot noise machine of the fringe of the right wing. They never make their fourth grade reading errors to make some left wing person sound more reasonable, and when it keeps happening time after time it becomes obvious that they really are doing it on purpose.
And yet despite there being a clear pattern of what is basically just lying, people like Phanatik will turn up for more, and they'll keep believing it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vulcan wrote:Well, what do you know? I've been using the term 'third world nation' entirely incorrectly.
Well, sort of. That was the original meaning of the term, but the Cold War ended and the concept of aligned and unaligned countries died with it.
But there remains a clear division between the have's and the have-not's, and while 'Third World' isn't probably the best way to describe it, it's what almost everyone means when they use the term.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Brazil's economy is stronger than every country in Europe outside of Germany. Methinks you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
A straight look at GDP figures, with no consideration of population is not how economics works. It matters not one fething bit to the average person whether his whole country generates more in a year than some other country. What matters to him is how much he personally gets to take home.
Also, you misunderstood Vulcan completely.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
purplefood wrote:Has the rail system worked properly for any country?
Yes. You can't have a modern economy and not have a rail network. It is simply not plausible to move the amount of goods shipped around by truck. For this reason rail is beaten only by shipping in the amount of freight transported each year. Its why the development and installation of rail networks is one of the primary drivers in industrialisation in every country that's ever managed a decent industrial base.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sourclams wrote:By what metric?
China recently (as in the last five years) overtook the USA as the largest producer of manufactured goods. Exactly how relevant this is is up for debate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
labmouse42 wrote:So you disagree with my assmenet that China is not producing more than the US. Why are production jobs being exported to China?
Because wages are lower in China. If you want to compete with China in the production of low end manufacturing goods, then you need to pay Chinese style wages.
That's what people largely miss in conversations about this kind of thing. What actually matters at the end of the day, really the only thing that really matters, is income/capita. If yours is high, then your economy is a better economy than one where income/capita is low.
Which is why despite all this noise about China's economy being successful, people continue to migrate out of China, not into it.
And for what its worth, as wages in China have grown in the last two decades they've began to lose the very low value added manufacturing, like textiles, to Vietnam and other Asian countries with even lower wages.
All investment requires Capital. The old 'need money to make money'.
How Warren intends to find that capital (likely by hiking taxes on some new sector) is the contentious bit. Especially given the deficit near-crisis that, at this point, is less than 6 months away. Reducing spending somewhere, to increase spending on infrastructure, is probably a good idea. Levying further taxes to "invest" in infrastructure (frankly we already have infrastructure; this is more about maintenance, keeping what we currently have, than creating all-new interstates thus the ROI will be small).
It's also ironic after her whole 'You didn't build that' dealio, which pretty much showed that she has no conceptualization of "the economy" beyond Government mandates and redistribution.
sourclams wrote:showed that she has no conceptualization of "the economy" beyond Government mandates and redistribution.
Careful, sourclams, your getting into strawman territory.
Warren taught law at several universities throughout the country, while researching bankruptcy and middle-class personal finance.
Warren has written several best-selling books on personal finance.
Warren has published studies on bankruptcies and medical bills.
Warren was the chair the five-member Congressional Oversight Panel created to oversee the implementation of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act.
Warren long advocated for the creation of a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency designed to "make basic financial practices such as taking out a mortgage or loan more clear and transparent while ferreting out unfair lending practices,"
The woman is not without flaws, but she is a very sharp lady. Painting a broad brush saying 'that she has no conceptualization of "the economy"' does not help your case.
Where is your evidence that the capital would be found by hiking taxes?
sourclams wrote:showed that she has no conceptualization of "the economy" beyond Government mandates and redistribution.
Careful, sourclams, your getting into strawman territory.
Warren taught law at several universities throughout the country, while researching bankruptcy and middle-class personal finance.
Warren has written several best-selling books on personal finance.
Warren has published studies on bankruptcies and medical bills.
Warren was the chair the five-member Congressional Oversight Panel created to oversee the implementation of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act.
Warren long advocated for the creation of a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency designed to "make basic financial practices such as taking out a mortgage or loan more clear and transparent while ferreting out unfair lending practices,"
The woman is not without flaws, but she is a very sharp lady. Painting a broad brush saying 'that she has no conceptualization of "the economy"' does not help your case.
Where is your evidence that the capital would be found by hiking taxes?
I take Republican deficit complaints seriously as soon as they are willing to cut defense spending and are willing to address the fact that people will have to pay more taxes. Pretty much the only reason I have respect for Oklahoma Senator Coburn.
If you really care about the deficit then you cannot have sacred cows.
d-usa wrote:I take Republican deficit complaints seriously as soon as they are willing to cut defense spending and are willing to address the fact that people will have to pay more taxes. Pretty much the only reason I have respect for Oklahoma Senator Coburn.
If you really care about the deficit then you cannot have sacred cows.
Cut the budget across until it matches revenues. Use 2010 as the baseline for revenues ( expenses can't surpass). CUT EVERYTHING.
How's that?
It's a start, but we will also have to raise some taxes. Or at least get rid of the many loopholes.
It's just stupid when people are yelling "YOU HAVE TO CUT SPENDING, except this, this, this, and that."
The left doesn't want to touch Medicare and Medicaid. The right doesn't want to touch defense.
They all will have to take a hit if we are serious about cutting spending. Raise the taxes a bit and the hit is less.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It's also stupid to talk about cutting taxes while complaining that we don't have enough money to cover our spending.
labmouse42 wrote:Warren taught law at several universities throughout the country, while researching bankruptcy and middle-class personal finance.
Warren has written several best-selling books on personal finance.
Warren has published studies on bankruptcies and medical bills.
Warren was the chair the five-member Congressional Oversight Panel created to oversee the implementation of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act.
Warren long advocated for the creation of a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency designed to "make basic financial practices such as taking out a mortgage or loan more clear and transparent while ferreting out unfair lending practices,"
This is what makes her an Academic. An ivory-tower type. She has an incredibly astute academic, theoretical background, like much of the Obama administration. She's an expert on bankruptcy law and public administration.
None of this makes her qualified to run a business, nor has she ever, nor does she actually have experience in managing a balance sheet. This doesn't mean she's stupid, but in a world where our #1 problem is the expansion of entitlement spending, the need for austerity, AND the need for intelligent tax hikes, finding yet another shiny thing to spend money on, even under the guise of 'investment', is stupid.
You say I'm borderline strawman, but listing relatively unrelated credentials and making the conclusion that she's competent within a field (like financial investment) is borderline Appeal to Authority.
d-usa wrote:It's a start, but we will also have to raise some taxes. Or at least get rid of the many loopholes.
No we don't have to raise taxes actually. CUT EVERYTHING. Now in the real world I am amenable to something called negotiation. However, like Greece, drastic cuts are needed.
FYI I'm down with letting the "falling off the cliff" event happen in December. Thats only 1/3 the deficit FYI.
sourclams wrote: finding yet another shiny thing to spend money on, even under the guise of 'investment', is stupid.
On this fact we disagree. If one invests intelligently, even by through taking a debt, one can increase their overall future fortune.
An example on a personal level of this would be a student loan. While a $60,000 student loan may cause you to pay interest, the average college graduates yearly income is $26,000 higher than non-college graduates -- meaning that even with the debt the long term income will be greater.
Investing into education/research pays the same dividends for a country. Take NASA for example. How many inventions are owed to NASA thus far?
Frazzled wrote:Cut the budget across until it matches revenues. Use 2010 as the baseline for revenues ( expenses can't surpass). CUT EVERYTHING.
How's that?
To be perfectly frank it's pretty silly. Why pick out 2010 as the optimum level of taxation?
What is the deal with absolutely, 100% refusing to consider an increase in taxes as part of the move to sustainable government expenditure?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sourclams wrote:This is what makes her an Academic. An ivory-tower type. She has an incredibly astute academic, theoretical background, like much of the Obama administration. She's an expert on bankruptcy law and public administration.
None of this makes her qualified to run a business, nor has she ever, nor does she actually have experience in managing a balance sheet.
That's just empty populist rhetoric. This idea that can-do plucky practical experience somehow trumps academic knowledge is piffle.
The US expanded and developed an extremely highly skilled economy that can pay wages roughly equal to the richest in the world, and it did this in part because it had an education system equal to any in the world. What didn't help was the USA somehow having more plucky can-do street smart people, because that is not a thing.
This doesn't mean she's stupid, but in a world where our #1 problem is the expansion of entitlement spending, the need for austerity, AND the need for intelligent tax hikes, finding yet another shiny thing to spend money on, even under the guise of 'investment', is stupid.
Talking about entitlement spending and infrastructure spending as if they're somehow the same thing is kind of stupid, actually. Roads. Fornightly payments to single mums. Not the same thing.
You can have one, the other, or both. Totally independant of each other.
sourclams wrote:This is what makes her an Academic. An ivory-tower type. She has an incredibly astute academic, theoretical background, like much of the Obama administration. She's an expert on bankruptcy law and public administration.
None of this makes her qualified to run a business, nor has she ever, nor does she actually have experience in managing a balance sheet.
Emphasis above mine - sure, but she isn't trying to become the CEO of a business. She is running for the US Senate. I've never understood the meme that government is a business because while there are some shared elements, they simply are not the same thing and do not require the same qualifications.
sourclams wrote:
You say I'm borderline strawman, but listing relatively unrelated credentials and making the conclusion that she's competent within a field (like financial investment) is borderline Appeal to Authority.
No it isn't. Not all. Appeal to authority would require an appeal to Warren by way of her position.
Also, 'it is good for the long term of the country to invest in infrastructure' doesn't really need an economics degree to be a justifiable statement. It's one of those things that's just true, and that everyone accepted was really fething obviously true, until a Democrat said it.
sebster wrote:Also, 'it is good for the long term of the country to invest in infrastructure' doesn't really need an economics degree to be a justifiable statement..
Investing in infrastructure is more than just bridges and roads as well. Another example of infrastructure spending is laying more fiber, allowing for a faster internet connection between cities and to your house.
Take Netflix on demand. If you have been enjoying watching streaming movies, its because of the increased fiber infrastructure (and increased router technology). We do not know what business opportunities will be available in the future as we continue to build our infrastructure.
The question is "How much of our GDP should we spend on infrastructure development/maintenance?" If someone tells you 0%, they they are being silly. The US population is increasing and we need roads to those new homes/stores/jobs to support the growing population. Do we need to spend as much (percentage wise of GDP) as China? Probably not -- China still has much of their population who are still living in a 3rd world rural life.
dogma wrote:No it isn't. Not all. Appeal to authority would require an appeal to Warren by way of her position.
What labmouse quoted as Warren's credentials is pretty much textbook "Appeal to Inappropriate Authority"; she's an authority in an unrelated field.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:You can have one, the other, or both. Totally independant of each other.
You miss the broader point. Warren has continuously been in favor of more spending, bigger spending, larger government involvement, and more direct intervention for... ever.
Which is fine, except we're at the point where we've literally run out of the revenue to have even one, not to mention 'other', or 'both'.
Let's sideline this discussion for 6 months, when it'll become shockingly apparent just how big an issue this is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:Also, 'it is good for the long term of the country to invest in infrastructure' doesn't really need an economics degree to be a justifiable statement. It's one of those things that's just true, and that everyone accepted was really fething obviously true, until a Democrat said it.
Yeah you'd think that but it's very possible to invest in the completely wrong type of infrastructure. Rail for public transportation has failed in various parts of the country because outside of the most metropolitan areas, there's simply a preference for cars and the existing road infrastructure supports it. Largely subsidized by local government, and now a white elephant.
Or take Falcone's jaunt into Wireless infrastructure with Lightsquared; he lost a fantastic amount of money inappropriately investing into that. And this is a guy who was one of the more astute investors, globally.
If "investing in infrastructure" simply worked, there'd be more of it. That's the problem when broad-brush types try to paint very specific applications of capital with a broad brush; there's plenty of room to fall through the cracks and create waste.
sourclams wrote:
What labmouse quoted as Warren's credentials is pretty much textbook "Appeal to Inappropriate Authority"; she's an authority in an unrelated field.
An appeal to an inappropriate authority is not an "appeal to authority". An appeal to an inappropriate authority is "false attribution."
Though neither are relevant here as her fields are (arguably) relevant.
sourclams wrote:What labmouse quoted as Warren's credentials is pretty much textbook "Appeal to Inappropriate Authority"; she's an authority in an unrelated field..
Some of them there, I will grant you, others were not.
Your statement was this
sourclams wrote:showed that she has no conceptualization of "the economy" beyond Government mandates and redistribution.
Take these two examples from my list.
* Warren was the chair the five-member Congressional Oversight Panel created to oversee the implementation of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act.
* Warren long advocated for the creation of a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency designed to "make basic financial practices such as taking out a mortgage or loan more clear and transparent while ferreting out unfair lending practices,"
You then said this -- which has nothing to do with your strawman of 'no conceptualization of "the economy".'
sourclams wrote:None of this makes her qualified to run a business, nor has she ever, nor does she actually have experience in managing a balance sheet.
Where in your strawman post did you say 'running a business' or 'balance sheet'? Instead of acknowledging that you were pushing a strawman, you changed your statement to include 'running a business' or 'balance sheet'
If you persist on denying that you had a strawman and that the counter points were all "Appeal to Inappropriate Authority", your going to start looking like Harry Reed.
Your a smart guy, just quit when your ahead, and we can move on to other productive discussions instead of nit-picking logic and critical thinking
sebster wrote:What is the deal with absolutely, 100% refusing to consider an increase in taxes as part of the move to sustainable government expenditure?
A lack of grasp of mathematics, statistics, finances... a political grandstanding to gather votes... a lack of sanity...
All of the above?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: I've never understood the meme that government is a business
Not much to understand. Just a bunch of idiocy based off of an ignorance of how both businesses and government work.
Easy E wrote:Yeah, everyone know the govrnment has no business trying to build infrastructure. I mean, that's unprecedented in human history!
What an idiot this Warren lady is.
Also, is it possible that we could reshuffle financing priorities or create an infrastructure bonding bill instead of raising taxes?
You missed that whole $1.5TRILLION DEFICIT EVERY YER FOR THE NEXT TEN YEARS thing I take it?
And what happens to tax revenue when you can't ship anything anywhere and the whole economy collapses? What happens to tax revenue when the 70-year-old power grid collapses? What happens to tax revenue when the telecommunications networks collapse? Without maintenance, these are VERY REAL POSSIBILITIES!
Yes, we need to reduce the deficit. We ALSO need to manitain infrastructure, because the cost of NOT doing it is far higher.
It's like maintaining your car. Sure, you can save a thirty bucks NOW by not getting that oil change. It'll cost you three grand for a new engine down the road. Which one is more cost-effective?
The real problem in America (and I'm just as guilty as Frazz in my own way) is that nobody wants to work together anymore. It's always "my way or the highway', if I don't like your solution it's EVILBADWRONG! Whatever happened to compromise?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
d-usa wrote:I take Republican deficit complaints seriously as soon as they are willing to cut defense spending and are willing to address the fact that people will have to pay more taxes. Pretty much the only reason I have respect for Oklahoma Senator Coburn.
If you really care about the deficit then you cannot have sacred cows.
Cut the budget across until it matches revenues. Use 2010 as the baseline for revenues ( expenses can't surpass). CUT EVERYTHING.
How's that?
And watch yet another wave of economic collapse hits the country as billions of dollars are abruptly removed.
There are retired people out there that depend - UTTERLY DEPEND - on their Social Security checks. They cannot work for medical reasons, and even if they could their work skills are 20 years and more out of date. Your plan could well put many of them out on the street. Many of them also utterly depend on Medicare as well, and without it their medical conditions WILL kill them.
Want that on your conscience?
It's a drop in the bucket, but the FIRST thing that needs to go is Congressional benefits. They don't need the hefty retirement package they get. Once they leave office, let them have the same options the REST of us have to live with.
ALL the government agenices need a serious increase in personel efficiency, and much of the work can be done with a updating of agency computer systems. Do you have any idea how many times I've seen computers in government offices running DOS programs... painfully slowly?
The military needs a trim too. The paper-pushers need to be there, but right now the support tail is so big it wags the combat-arms dog! Procurement needs streamlining too; we study stuff to DEATH so it costs ten times as much as it needs to... and STILL basic flaws creep in (like the problems in the F-22 O2 system - how on earth did that get messed up? We've been putting O2 systems into aircraft since the B-17 at least!).
But if we get reckless with the cuts, we do more harm that good. What good is a balanced budget... if the country has collapsed?
Biggest waste of money the Air Force has ever done. Ever.
Billions of dollars spent, costing several hundreds of million per craft, for a mediocre craft that's average at everything, good at nothing, and cannot fulfill any combat roles better than any craft we already have- even vehicles designed in the 1970s are better designed and funciton better than the F-35.
Biggest waste of money the Air Force has ever done. Ever.
Billions of dollars spent, costing several hundreds of million per craft, for a mediocre craft that's average at everything, good at nothing, and cannot fulfill any combat roles better than any craft we already have- even vehicles designed in the 1970s are better designed and funciton better than the F-35.
Biggest waste of money the Air Force has ever done. Ever.
Billions of dollars spent, costing several hundreds of million per craft, for a mediocre craft that's average at everything, good at nothing, and cannot fulfill any combat roles better than any craft we already have- even vehicles designed in the 1970s are better designed and funciton better than the F-35.
Pah. No one beats the Navy when it comes to pointless, staggering, waste.
Supposedly 10 of them would equal one battleship. If the Advanced Gun System didn't explode when firing and it did not have some really alarming tendencies in rough seas. And they cost more individually then all three Iowa class battleships did collectively.
GAO found that the cost of upgrading existing battleships to modern standards would cost 500,000 each. As opposed to the 3billion + for each Zumwalt. (3 billion down, additional 4 billion over it's lifetime)
So we're spending billions to produce a weapons platform worse then one we already have which is, by the Navy's own admission, ten times better at a fraction of the cost.
BaronIveagh wrote:
GAO found that the cost of upgrading existing battleships to modern standards would cost 500,000 each.
I really doubt that number.
500,000 bars of gold
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for extending the life of effective, existing platforms. Its just that 500,000 dollars won't even by me a Ferrari Enzo, let alone bring a ~65 year old ship up to modern standards.
BaronIveagh wrote: GAO found that the cost of upgrading existing battleships to modern standards would cost 500,000 each.
I really doubt that number.
500,000 bars of gold
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for extending the life of effective, existing platforms. Its just that 500,000 dollars won't even by me a Ferrari Enzo, let alone bring a ~65 year old ship up to modern standards.
Yes but $15,000 will buy you a proper Ducati, with matching Italian girlfriend. Yes!
dogma wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for extending the life of effective, existing platforms. Its just that 500,000 dollars won't even by me a Ferrari Enzo, let alone bring a ~65 year old ship up to modern standards.
$500,000. Most existing battleships underwent overhauls already in the late 1980's/early 1990's (notice the Mo, for example, has modern CIWS and Tomahawk launchers), so you're not updating them from 1945, you're updating them from a generation ago. The primary thing that was needed to bring them up to date was that the crew quarters needed to be changed to have accommodations for both men and women. (I'm not gaking you)
The other item was minor electronics and fire fighting upgrades.
BaronIveagh wrote:
$500,000. Most existing battleships underwent overhauls already in the late 1980's/early 1990's (notice the Mo, for example, has modern CIWS and Tomahawk launchers), so you're not updating them from 1945, you're updating them from a generation ago. The primary thing that was needed to bring them up to date was that the crew quarters needed to be changed to have accommodations for both men and women. (I'm not gaking you)
The other item was minor electronics and fire fighting upgrades.
I'm aware that it isn't an upgrade from 1945, but you're still talking about a 20 year gap. You also have a history of getting things horribly wrong, so I will not believe you without a source.
dogma wrote: Don't get me wrong, I'm all for extending the life of effective, existing platforms. Its just that 500,000 dollars won't even by me a Ferrari Enzo, let alone bring a ~65 year old ship up to modern standards.
$500,000. Most existing battleships underwent overhauls already in the late 1980's/early 1990's (notice the Mo, for example, has modern CIWS and Tomahawk launchers), so you're not updating them from 1945, you're updating them from a generation ago. The primary thing that was needed to bring them up to date was that the crew quarters needed to be changed to have accommodations for both men and women. (I'm not gaking you)
The other item was minor electronics and fire fighting upgrades.
the evaluated cost may be $500'000, but when you involve the shoddy cheapskate laborforce that north america has bred, they will find a host of other problems that need fixing and fix them too, and cause a giant pile of damage in the process that will require fixing, making that a $1.5 million bill for each ship. Then add the over time on top of that and it keeps racking on. Or maybe you've forgotten what cost-plus did to the american economy back a few years ago?
We have some asshats replacing the swill in our community before finishing up work and handing us over to the city. Only two sections needed to be replaced, for a total of 4 meters of concrete. They tor our half of the swills in the area, for a total of 40 meters of concrete, property damage, and left a pile of other fatal hazards for us to deal with, like an electric fence, electric water, surprise broken saw blades and power tools left lying around. The estimated cost of work: Less than $5'000. Actual cost of work? well over $20k. That's private firms for you.
dogma wrote:
I'm aware that it isn't an upgrade from 1945, but you're still talking about a 20 year gap. You also have a history of getting things horribly wrong, so I will not believe you without a source.
Dug out the GAO report from the last time they did the survey. I found my $500k was from the report issued at the time of their mothballing. The most recent numbers I could find are as follows:
"The estimated cost cited for reactivating the U.S.S. Wisconsin was $209.4 million and for the U.S.S. Iowa, was $221.3 million, including repair of the damaged turret.
To accomplish the reactivation, the Navy estimated 14 months for industrial support and 3 to 6 months for modernization and training on and certification of newly installed equipment. The estimated cost of reactivating the U.S.S. Wisconsin was based on the actual cost to reactivate the U.S.S. New Jersey battleship in the 1980s, less the modernization costs that occurred during its reactivation, and escalating the figure to fiscal year 1999 dollars. The
estimated cost of reactivating the U.S.S. Iowa is the same as the U.S.S. Wisconsin plus $12 to $14 million to repair the damage to the number 2 turret" - GAO/NSIAD-99-62
So, yes, price has gone up, but is still no where near 3 billion dollars each plus another 4 as we go.
There was another report done in 2005 but no numbers were sited. It was, however where the Navy complained about berthing men and women on the same ship. (GAO-06-279R)
One of the more specific upgrades, and probably oen of the most expensive was updating the ships from analog to digital systems, which is probably the reason for the massive discrepancy. At the time the original report was issued, that was not in the cards yet, and would require the electronic systems of the ships be completely overhauled.
BaronIveagh wrote:
"The estimated cost cited for reactivating the U.S.S. Wisconsin was $209.4 million and for the U.S.S. Iowa, was $221.3 million, including repair of the damaged turret.
To accomplish the reactivation, the Navy estimated 14 months for industrial support and 3 to 6 months for modernization and training on and certification of newly installed equipment. The estimated cost of reactivating the U.S.S. Wisconsin was based on the actual cost to reactivate the U.S.S. New Jersey battleship in the 1980s, less the modernization costs that occurred during its reactivation, and escalating the figure to fiscal year 1999 dollars. The
estimated cost of reactivating the U.S.S. Iowa is the same as the U.S.S. Wisconsin plus $12 to $14 million to repair the damage to the number 2 turret" - GAO/NSIAD-99-62
So, yes, price has gone up, but is still no where near 3 billion dollars each plus another 4 as we go.
Sure, I acknowledge that, I was just very dubious of the 500k number.
I would have to do more research into the Zumwalt in order to really assess if its worth the price, though.
dogma wrote:
I'm aware that it isn't an upgrade from 1945, but you're still talking about a 20 year gap. You also have a history of getting things horribly wrong, so I will not believe you without a source.
Dug out the GAO report from the last time they did the survey. I found my $500k was from the report issued at the time of their mothballing. The most recent numbers I could find are as follows:
"The estimated cost cited for reactivating the U.S.S. Wisconsin was $209.4 million and for the U.S.S. Iowa, was $221.3 million, including repair of the damaged turret.
I just want to make clear here, to people who maybe are skimming this, or are just bad at math, just how poor your original numbers were, the order of magnitude we're talking.
It was the equivalent of going to a restaraunt and getting a steak that would be about $20. When presented with the actual bill, it is $8,800.
dogma wrote:
Sure, I acknowledge that, I was just very dubious of the 500k number.
I would have to do more research into the Zumwalt in order to really assess if its worth the price, though.
Personally I don't see it. The AGS is very nice, but it's only a 155, and the extended range munitions had an alarming tendency to make the guns explode during initial testing (A similar problem occrued when they tried to develop extended range munitions for the Burke). To deal with the whole gun explode issue, they reduced the range from 63 to 45 nautical miles and have been testing some new coatings. Comparitivly, they offer the same firepower as a 12 gun 155 battery and limited missile launch capability.
Other problems include potential capsizing in heavy weather, and the fact that she has to take on large amounts of water ballast and ride low in the water in order to fire accurately. Which means the very expensive lightly armored warship will be going much slower then usual, despite her impressive horsepower.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote:
I just want to make clear here, to people who maybe are skimming this, or are just bad at math, just how poor your original numbers were, the order of magnitude we're talking.
It was the equivalent of going to a restaraunt and getting a steak that would be about $20. When presented with the actual bill, it is $8,800.
You've never done business with the government, have you?
And those estimates were taken from two different reports done a decade apart. What you are seeing is the amount of upgrading that took place on all ships, but rather then done incrementally, you're seeing the difference in the bill all at once. Technology marches on.
Ouze wrote:It was the equivalent of going to a restaraunt and getting a steak that would be about $20. When presented with the actual bill, it is $8,800.
Well then why are we sitting around counting? Fething do something about it.
This is why we fail, because old people in D.C only ever know how to count numbers. They're useless!!! grrrrrrrrrr.
Ouze wrote:
I just want to make clear here, to people who maybe are skimming this, or are just bad at math, just how poor your original numbers were, the order of magnitude we're talking.
It was the equivalent of going to a restaraunt and getting a steak that would be about $20. When presented with the actual bill, it is $8,800.
You've never done business with the government, have you?
And those estimates were taken from two different reports done a decade apart. Technology marches on.
You are misdirecting. The point is you made a claim that we could upgrade battleships for $500K according the the GAO. This was your number, your unsolicited claim. When called on your utterly impossible number, which was immediately apparent, you did a moments research and discovered that of course your original claim was off by a factor of 430.
So, rather then take any responsibility for your bad estimation (or at least, the fact you're willing to throw out numbers without actually knowing the truth) now you're shrugging and going, "well, it's the goverment, bro, lol, right?". Arguing in this manner makes it very difficult to believe the value of anything you say going forward.
In any event, we've badly veered from the original post.
Ouze wrote:
You are misdirecting. The point is you made a claim that we could upgrade battleships for $500K according the the GAO. This was your number, your unsolicited claim. When called on your utterly impossible number, which was immediately apparent, you did a moments research and discovered that of course your original claim was off by a factor of 430.
So, rather then take any responsibility for your bad estimation (or at least, the fact you're willing to throw out numbers without actually knowing the truth) now you're shrugging and going, "well, it's the goverment, bro, lol, right?". Arguing in this manner makes it very difficult to believe the value of anything you say going forward.
No, what I said was that my number was not current. Therefor, yes, I was inaccurate. Notice, I admitted this. Not sure what your point was other then to irritate me.
Well, it's nothing against you, personally. I'm just hoping we can have a useful dialogue and part of that is at least some degree of precision in our statements.
BaronIveagh wrote: Comparitivly, they offer the same firepower as a 12 gun 155 battery and limited missile launch capability.
Limited In the anti-ship role maybe.
BaronIveagh wrote:
Other problems include potential capsizing in heavy weather...
A problem all ships face.
BaronIveagh wrote:
...and the fact that she has to take on large amounts of water ballast and ride low in the water in order to fire accurately. Which means the very expensive lightly armored warship will be going much slower then usual, despite her impressive horsepower.
Armor means very little when it comes to ships, as does speed. Detection and interception are far more important.
on I-5 North in Washington there is a personally owned billboard. The guy is a pretty Republican based nutjob a lot of the time, but this month it says, "20 TRILLION in debt, are you embarrassed yet?"
seriously Umerica, our trade deficit needs to shift, A LOT
we seriously are like a heroin junky hooked on CHINA. We borrow countless dollars while they fuel our economy. It's like no one in power understands how to actually run anything. Rich get rich, poor get poorer or in jail. for feths sake we have private prisons now. Places with cages for PROFIT.
How much "life" does the main gun tubes have left on them? I highly doubt anyone manufacturing them anymore and the some of the spare tubes were made into "MOAB" for Iraq
Jihadin wrote:How much "life" does the main gun tubes have left on them? I highly doubt anyone manufacturing them anymore and the some of the spare tubes were made into "MOAB" for Iraq
Unknown. Originally 290 rounds, but that was back in World War II. Post War it jumped to 350 when the Navy went to Diphenylamine, higher again when they used Swedish Additive, and again when they went to polyurethane jackets and a chromium lining, at which point they stopped measuring it in shots fired and came up with 'Fatigue Equivalent Rounds' as it's measurement.
If you're thinking of the turret 2 explosion on the Iowa, that was caused by several factors, mostly the use of munitions that had been improperly stored. (which does call into question all the parts currently in storage, as if something as fundimental as ammo is being mishandled...)
More so then most. The tumblehome hull means that the ship is not self righting, unlike most modern hulls.
dogma wrote:
Armor means very little when it comes to ships, as does speed. Detection and interception are far more important.
Anti-ship missile speeds are climbing faster per generation then CIWS interception speeds. However, this is done at the cost of reduced warhead power. This does not affect their performance opposed to modern warships, as most navies currently think very much as you do, and only lightly armor new ships. However, it should be pointed out that battleships, unlike most other warships, are designed and armored against their own gun batteries (the idea being that they would have to engage ships equivalent to themselves).
As an (admittedly old, as it's hard to get modern aircraft v ship info for battleships) example would be that the 9 bomb hits to Yamato did fairly superficial damage to the ship, mostly obliterating unarmored deck emplacements. One did strike the radar room, another hit one of the secondary batteries, but this was not an irreparable situation.
Far, far more damaging was the 13 torpedo hits that finally beat it to death, overwhelming the Japanese DCT's attempts to counterflood and pump her out. (However, it should be pointed out that poor damage control was a recurring issue in the Japanese navy. While I doubt a US DCT could have saved her at the end either, the ship most likely would have lasted longer.)
Against missiles, there's even less. A Fritz X (which is considered the ancestor of the modern guided missile and smart bomb) hit the battleship Italia following the fall of Mussolini, but failed to penetrate it's armor. Two hit the nearby battleship Roma, which did sink due to the chain reaction of events inside the ship following the hits, particularly the magazine explosion of the number 2 turret, which was powerful enough to throw the turret off the ship.
The Iraqi's tried to engage the Mo with Russian silkworms, due to it's astonishing success rate at obliterating Iraqi coastal defenses, but these either missed or were intercepted. I did not know this before, but Mo fired over 800 16 inch rounds during Gulf War 1, but only 20 odd Tomahawks.
I'm sure many of you will point out the loss of the General Belgrano to British Mk 8 mod 4 torpedoes. It should be pointed out that the mod 4 is much more powerful then the Mk 8 used in WWII. The Belgrano was struck in two relatively unarmored locations past the anti-torpedo bulge, and probably would have remained afloat if the pumps had been working. The Bouchard was also struck, but the torpedo failed to detonate.
BaronIveagh wrote:
More so then most. The tumblehome hull means that the ship is not self righting, unlike most modern hulls.
And yet the people with the relevant data have supported the tumblehome design for a little over a decade, and statistical data that has been released indicates that its fine.
BaronIveagh wrote:
However, it should be pointed out that battleships, unlike most other warships, are designed and armored against their own gun batteries (the idea being that they would have to engage ships equivalent to themselves).
That's not how the Iowa class was designed. It focused on speed, not protection, and would not have survived a hit from its own main guns. We're also talking about ships that featured armored decks, and a torpedo belt. Anti-ship missiles fit neatly between the two.
BaronIveagh wrote:
A Fritz X...
The Fritz X was a glide bomb, not a missile.
BaronIveagh wrote:
I did not know this before, but Mo fired over 800 16 inch rounds during Gulf War 1, but only 20 odd Tomahawks.
sourclams wrote:You miss the broader point. Warren has continuously been in favor of more spending, bigger spending, larger government involvement, and more direct intervention for... ever.
So the broader point is that you don't like the sorts of things Warren generally says, so you're not going to like this either.
Which is fine, except we're at the point where we've literally run out of the revenue to have even one, not to mention 'other', or 'both'.
You literally haven't. Not at all. You can't just make this stuff up. There are real numbers out there, and you can go and look them up any time you want. The idea that the US doesn't have access to more money is complete fantasy.
Let's sideline this discussion for 6 months, when it'll become shockingly apparent just how big an issue this is.
This claim about the US being six months away from total economic meltdown is make up silliness. It's just completely devoid of any backing in financial figures.
Yeah you'd think that but it's very possible to invest in the completely wrong type of infrastructure.
Sure it is, and if Warren had given specifics of what infrastructure she wanted to invest in, and that sparked a debate on those specifics then this would be closer to a sensible conversation.
Instead the thread started with an idiotic complaint about being more like China, and then just had people complaining about infrastructure spending at all. Which doesn't make me think that any part of this is to do with the specifics of infrastructure spending.
If "investing in infrastructure" simply worked, there'd be more of it. That's the problem when broad-brush types try to paint very specific applications of capital with a broad brush; there's plenty of room to fall through the cracks and create waste.
That's an extremely dodgy assumption. Fact is infrastructure spending is primarily undertaken by government, and where its developed by the private sector it is almost always done with heavy government subsidy. Because that's how anything that derives most of its benefit from externalities works.
You simply cannot apply a free market assumption of 'if it works people will do it', and instead you have to understand that infrastructure spending is determined primarily by the political process, and in that instance there's a lot questions other than 'does it work'. Such as 'do people have the foresight to spend this money now for long term benefits?'
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:Don't get me wrong, I'm all for extending the life of effective, existing platforms. Its just that 500,000 dollars won't even by me a Ferrari Enzo, let alone bring a ~65 year old ship up to modern standards.
I'm not convinced the contract to estimate the cost of updating the battleships would come in at less than $500,000.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaronIveagh wrote:No, what I said was that my number was not current. Therefor, yes, I was inaccurate. Notice, I admitted this. Not sure what your point was other then to irritate me.
Thanks for checking your figure, and coming back with the correct number, and admitting your earlier mistake.
It's the kind of behaviour we don't get enough of on dakka, to be honest.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote:I thought St. Reagan taught us that deficits don't matter?
Reagan taught the Republicans that when takling about taxes on the rich you talk about the economic stimulus of low taxes, when talking about welfare you talk about how the deficit is going to crush us all any second now, and when talking about defence you talk about the absolute need for every military doodad anyone could possible imagine.
dogma wrote:
And yet the people with the relevant data have supported the tumblehome design for a little over a decade, and statistical data that has been released indicates that its fine.
It's an interesting article, though it points out my salient points against it, and that the Navy insists that it will work based on a successful run by a 1/4 scale model. It also points out the the poor seaworthiness of similar ships in the past is a matter of record. (And dances around that Tsushima, that battle they mention, was also the first real occasion where modern battleship designs absolutely crushed earlier tumblehome designed ships)
dogma wrote:
That's not how the Iowa class was designed. It focused on speed, not protection, and would not have survived a hit from its own main guns. We're also talking about ships that featured armored decks, and a torpedo belt. Anti-ship missiles fit neatly between the two.
The Iowa was designed as an upgrade to the South Dakota class, which was armored against the Mk 6 16" gun (which the South Dakota class had carried). Late in the design phase, the Navy opted to use the newer Mk 7 in the Iowas as a space saving measure, initially without increasing armor, as it had already been ordered. The armor was increased to 14" thick on the Missouri and Wisconsin as a later refinement of the design once combat data could be collected. The later Montana class was designed to withstand the Mk 7.
Above the surface, the internal armor belt is uniform 12" class A armor (an item you seem to have forgotten listing the Iowa class' armor). It's below the waterline that they switch to the steadily thinning class B. Granted, there may be such a thing, and I've just never heard of it, but I've never heard of a cruise missile that turns into a torpedo before. My understanding of anti-ship missiles is that the majority of them work on a delay, a smaller blast penetrating the hull allowing a larger explosive to enter and detonate. Against thin hulled modern warships, this is very effective. Against an Iowa class, with it's armor belt being internal rather than external, this would *probably* not work, the external hull metal acting in a similar manner to spaced armor or chobham on a tank, in theory.
dogma wrote:
Possibly because the Tomahawks are more accurate.
Actually this is why:
"TLAM performance in Desert Storm was well below the impression conveyed in DOD's report to the Congress, as well as in internal DOD estimates. During Desert Storm, a TLAM mission was loaded 307 times into a particular missile for launch from a Navy ship or submarine. Of those 307, 19 experienced prelaunch problems. Ten of the 19 problems were only temporary, thus these missile were either launched at a later time or returned to inventory. Of the 288 actual launches, 6 suffered boost failures and did not transition to cruise. Despite initial strong positive claims made for TLAM performance in Desert Storm, analysis of TLAM effectiveness was complicated by problematic bomb damage assessment data. The relatively flat, featureless, desert terrain in the theater made it difficult for the Defense Mapping Agency to produce usable TERCOM ingress routes, and TLAM demonstrated limitations in range, mission planning, lethality, and effectiveness against hard targets and targets capable of mobility." (emphasis mine) http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/bgm-109-operation.htm
A 16" Mark 7 has exceptional effectiveness against hard targets, it can penetrate concrete up to 30' thick.
).
