Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

by **pacino** » Thu Dec 04, 2014 12:52:28

I know I have a different view of the federal government than most on this board. I am just surprised when I s

oh shit, the scientific free goodies cabal got werthless

by **td11** » Thu Dec 04, 2014 12:53:14

by **Werthless** » Thu Dec 04, 2014 12:54:20

CalvinBall wrote:jefferson and the shittass government gave lewis and clark 50 gs.

Don't get me started on Jefferson.

by **Werthless** » Thu Dec 04, 2014 12:54:59

pacino wrote:
I know I have a different view of the federal government than most on this board. I am just surprised when I s

oh shit, the scientific free goodies cabal got werthless

I forgot I started another paragraph. Don't worry, I completed the thought.

by **RichmondPhilsFan** » Thu Dec 04, 2014 12:57:20

Werthless wrote:
RichmondPhilsFan wrote:
Werthless wrote:
CalvinBall wrote:
Werthless wrote:For the same reason that many cities are starting to rebel against hosting the Olympics. Hosting the Olympics, and having a program where we fly to the moon or to other planets, is not an effective use of public tax dollars. If rich people want to pay for it, be my guest.

dont think science and a bunch of sports provide the same value but go ahead.

Would you be in favor of the US spending $5 trillion dollars to set up a space station on Mars? I would not, and I suspect that you would not, either. Where we draw the line on legitimate and illegitimate/wasteful space spending is probably different, but we likely agree that there is a limit. I don't think we can simply say that all NASA spending is good, since NASA=science.

Maybe. $5 trillion over what period?

I hate when Libertarians throw out space achievements as being government boondoggles. It's not just that the things that we learn about our universe are incredibly important, it's what we learn/develop in getting to those discoveries as well. Very rarely is that type of scientific investment an utter waste of money. Something as scientifically progressive as establishing a base on Mars would involve incredible scientific advancement that would improve life on Earth as well. For example, it would likely involve enormous leaps in energy efficiency.

$5T over 5 years.

How much would you want to privately donate to space travel? I mean, take away from whatever charity you would have given money to (eg Red Cross) or spent money on (a new XBox) and give it to "science research" or space travel? For me, the answer is $0, because there are more worthy things to spend money on, and we have a limit on what I spend money on. I fully expect ambitious and conceited billionaires will pursue these investments as they search for some way to impart their legacy on history, in much the same way that the monarchs of Europe sent explorers across the Atlantic to name lands after them.

I know I have a different view of the federal government than most on this board. I am just surprised when people reflexively support government spending, and then complain when actual good programs -- ones that prevent people from dying -- lose funding. I mean, aren't there subsidies for oil companies given in the name of science?

So saying "maybe" and asking about the timeframe (BTW, 5 years would be a laughably short period for a project of that nature), then pointing out the substantial societal benefits for scientific investment/achievement is "reflexively support[ing]" government spending.

Cool.

BTW, nice strawman with the private charity donations.

by **Werthless** » Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:04:37

Strawman? I was describing myself and my own decision making. I was hoping your reaction would be "No way would I donate money to space travel, that is insane!" If that is your reaction, well, you are donating money on space travel through our taxes!

If I don't think it's worth spending money on, and if it's not a public good, and it doesn't help the poor, then I probably oppose the federal government doing it. I would encourage others to think similarly, and we may have more money for the projects that are most important to you.

by **drsmooth** » Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:05:02

Werthless wrote:
CalvinBall wrote:really wish those european explorers did not decide to sail their boats across oceans and around the globe. really, what did it matter?

Can't put a price on having your name immortalized in a new land!

(You do know that many of the earlyexpeditions and settlements were privately funded, right?)

Yea, anyone knows Ferdinand & Isabella Inc took on serious risk in the Columbus venture; or was it really the Pope pulling strings all along?

Outfits like the Dutch East India Company were arguably gov't subcontractors; they weren't going anywhere, or getting funding for anything, without that charter.

Most corporate efficiencies anymore are veiled externality swindles, abetted by accounting "conventions" (shenanigans)

by **pacino** » Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:06:13

we are 'the government'. our general welfare matters, and using the government to improve our society is a completely valid approach.

by **Werthless** » Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:10:19

pacino wrote:we are 'the government'. our general welfare matters, and using the government to improve our society is a completely valid approach.

I think we are just using "general welfare" differently. I mean general welfare in the way that legislatures use it... when they can't think of a good reason for a law/investment, then they'll say it contributes to the general welfare. It's a very low hurdle, to the point that I consider it meaningless.

If the government gave all 300MM of us an apple a day for 1 year, then the government would argue that it contributes to the general welfare, since apples are healthy. Ummm, I'm going to need more than that to support your stupid law.

by **dajafi** » Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:11:05

Hope we can at least agree he's 100 percent right about the Olympics.

by **pacino** » Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:12:29

Werthless wrote:
pacino wrote:we are 'the government'. our general welfare matters, and using the government to improve our society is a completely valid approach.

I think we are just using "general welfare" differently. I mean general welfare in the way that legislatures use it... when they can't think of a good reason for a law/investment, then they'll say it contributes to the general welfare. It's a very low hurdle, to the point that I consider it meaningless.

If the government gave all 300MM of us an apple a day for 1 year, then the government would argue that it contributes to the general welfare, since apples are healthy. Ummm, I'm going to need more than that to support your stupid law.

that's utterly different than providing loans to companies in burgeoning industries with high sunken costs. it's a useless comparison.

by **CalvinBall** » Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:13:58

werthless you have the most selfish fucking worldview. how do you do it?

by **Werthless** » Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:22:22

CalvinBall wrote:werthless you have the most selfish fucking worldview. how do you do it?

It's more about federalism. It's easier to move to another state than it is to move countries. I take a minimalist approach to the federal government... It's very important that the federal government protect us from foreign threats, and protect the poor. Government spending that detracts from either mission is something that I could do without.

I don't think I'm unusual, in that most people want the government to focus on the important things. We may just disagree what is important and what is not (space travel, olympics, oil subsidies, agricultural subsidies, etc).

by **pacino** » Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:24:23

medicare, medicaid, social security, VA, etc

by **Werthless** » Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25:35

dajafi wrote:Hope we can at least agree he's 100 percent right about the Olympics.

Not sure you understand how politics works... it is not kosher to agree with a loathsome person on an issue, because then it suggests that you like everything about this person. I still can't get over Bill Clinton's support of Charles Murray!

by **Werthless** » Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:26:32

pacino wrote:medicare, medicaid, social security, VA, etc

That is a very powerful sentence fragment, pacino. I like where you're going with this thought.

by **pacino** » Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:26:40

Werthless wrote:
dajafi wrote:Hope we can at least agree he's 100 percent right about the Olympics.

Not sure you understand how politics works... it is not kosher to agree with a loathsome person on an issue, because then it suggests that you like everything about this person. I still can't get over Bill Clinton's support of Charles Murray!

i didn't see anyone even mention the olympics except you.

most of this board is pretty much on record being against subsidizing sports teams.

by **pacino** » Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:27:27

Werthless wrote:
pacino wrote:medicare, medicaid, social security, VA, etc

That is a very powerful sentence fragment, pacino. I like where you're going with this thought.

i was finishing your sentence on things libertarians find as unnecessary government spending

by **Werthless** » Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:32:04

pacino wrote:
Werthless wrote:
pacino wrote:medicare, medicaid, social security, VA, etc

That is a very powerful sentence fragment, pacino. I like where you're going with this thought.

i was finishing your sentence on things libertarians find as unnecessary government spending

If I were a poster on this board like some of the liberals in this thread, this would be my post:

"OMG, I can't believe you are comparing Medicare to NASA. What a joke. Medicare saves lives. You're such an insensitive ignoramus."

Instead, I will simply point out that I have not made any argument against the inclusion of the above programs, and explicitly mentioned in multiple posts that it is justifiable spending even from my most selfish fucking worldview (TM pending).

by **pacino** » Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:34:48

i guess you aren't a true libertarian.

Archived

Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.