m00t wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 16:38:
Certainly cuts should be made, but they should be made not because of the debt or deficit, they should be made because they're just downright wasteful. Bloated military programs that continue for years or decades without any progress, for example. Subsidies to businesses that are reaping record profits (and have been for decades). But we need to spend more in other areas also in order to keep up growth long term. We have to improve our education system and that costs money no matter which way you look at it. Certainly lots of things we're doing now aren't effective, but they don't change by having less money available in the system as a whole. Likewise expanding infrastructure spending saves money and generates revenues in the long term. We need a high-speed transit system that is affordable and efficient. Maintaining the highways is extremely expensive and has a lot of secondary costs that go with it. (real) High speed rail with dedicated right-of-ways would benefit freight and personal transit. It doesn't have to be like Amtrak which is a dying relic. It can be faster, cheaper, and easier, but we have to invest now. And finally we need to fix our power infrastructure. Dependence on oil and coal is crippling us and will be the weight around our neck that sinks us. We need to stop funding them and make sure functional alternatives are in place. Solar (PV and thermal) is viable, even at current efficiencies. (Current technology) Nuclear is safer and ultimately cheaper as a provider for base-loads, but we have to get rid of the NIMBY attitude and approach it rationally, not as a favor to industry pals.

More and better health care reform would have a significant effect as the cost of it is far too high and the ACA doesn't actually deal with that in a meaningful way. The key problem is the insurance companies have every incentive for prices to go up and such make no effort at controlling them. This forces people into a Faustian bargain where they must take insurance to avoid paying the rate-sheet prices but are still being charged 10x - 100x more than the services actually cost to provide. On top of that the insurance industry adds a "moving money around, but mostly into our pocket" tax for facilitating the transaction. A single payer public system would be able to control prices and would cost *substantially* less than both what we're paying now in total as a society AND less than just what we pay into Medicare now. To cover everyone in the country. This means a lot more money to spend on real goods and services instead of invented schemes that add zero value. Providers would compete on service and people would have real, open choices as to who to visit for their care.

But a lot of this doesn't really mean much or have a chance of happening if wages aren't raised to match the increase in productivity over the last 30 - 40 years. For decades wage levels followed closely to productivity increases, and then in the 70's "magically" stopped. Productivity increased greatly but wages stagnated. If wages were closer to what they should be relative to productivity the tax base would increase immensely and we'd almost certainly have a surplus even at current tax and spending levels. But as it is now, the majority of people (in the "developed" world and the US) have less and less money to spend each year which means businesses have fewer customers and are more likely to go out of business. This ultimately shrinks the economy and puts on a path of ruin. When most people have no money to spend on anything but food and shelter, any business that doesn't go directly to that will be unsustainable. When most people start having to choose between food and shelter, I suspect we'll start seeing a lot more riots and violence which does good for no one.

/rant

Beamer wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 16:01:

RollinThundr wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 15:47:

m00t wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 14:55:
Certainly the debt is a concern, but it's not an immediate one. As in, it won't kill us tomorrow, or the next day, or even the next year. After WWII, we had a debt ratio of over 110% and paid it down over the course of 30 years, so the current level of ~75% is clearly not "life threatening", as it were. Now if we use the debt as an excuse to cut services and enact austerity measures, then yes, that's a problem as it will contract the economy significantly. The real issue that will cause significant long term damage is the vast inequality in the economy. People with significant sums of money simply spend less of it as a total percentage than people with more "middle" amounts. They tend to hoard it in various ways. The poor (but not utterly broke who obviously have *no* money) and middle classes have to spend a large % of their income or holdings to survive and spending goes up as their net worth and income go up (to a point) keeping money in the system and increasing fluidity, causing the economy to grow (and in the long run, reducing our debt / gdp ratio). Everyone benefits. Even the rich, it's just not as immediate or direct as they'd like. Think of it as a trickle-up economy... The current distribution will ultimately harm them, too.

We won't last another 30 years going the way we're going. We'll be lucky to last another 10 without it all collapsing on itself. The smarter move would be to start addressing the problem now before we pass the point of no return.

This isn't about rich vs poor like the democrats want you to believe. What we're doing is not sustainable and a total collapse is coming whether anyone likes it or not if we keep spending the way we are. Taxes isn't going to help as much as you think either. Tax the 1% 100% and you're still not even making a dent.

Actually, it would make a dent. The deficit in 2012 was approximately 1,100 billion.
According to the IRS, the top 1% earned 1,300 billion in 2009.

So, that's a dent. But also ludicrous. Obviously no one wants them paying 100%, and it ignores the fact that tax is paid on a marginal rate basis, something too many people discussing taxes don't understand, plus taxes are important for a health of spending power perspective and this is the stronger argument for a raised marginal tax rate.

m00t wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 14:55:
Certainly the debt is a concern, but it's not an immediate one. As in, it won't kill us tomorrow, or the next day, or even the next year. After WWII, we had a debt ratio of over 110% and paid it down over the course of 30 years, so the current level of ~75% is clearly not "life threatening", as it were. Now if we use the debt as an excuse to cut services and enact austerity measures, then yes, that's a problem as it will contract the economy significantly. The real issue that will cause significant long term damage is the vast inequality in the economy. People with significant sums of money simply spend less of it as a total percentage than people with more "middle" amounts. They tend to hoard it in various ways. The poor (but not utterly broke who obviously have *no* money) and middle classes have to spend a large % of their income or holdings to survive and spending goes up as their net worth and income go up (to a point) keeping money in the system and increasing fluidity, causing the economy to grow (and in the long run, reducing our debt / gdp ratio). Everyone benefits. Even the rich, it's just not as immediate or direct as they'd like. Think of it as a trickle-up economy... The current distribution will ultimately harm them, too.

nin wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 14:45:

m00t wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 14:39:
US Debt ~$16.8 trillion according to wikipedia

Depending on when you asked you might get slightly different numbers
$1.2 trillion (~8%) - US GovInfo.about.com
$1.1 trillion (~6.5%) - wikipedia
$~1 trillion (~7.5%) - Forbes

Which is also about as much as Japan holds.

China holds 26% of all *foreign held* debt. Not 26% of ALL US Debt.

So... all of their asses seem to be in the realm of 8% (or less, generally).

dunderdunderderpa!

m00t wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 14:39:
US Debt ~$16.8 trillion according to wikipedia

Depending on when you asked you might get slightly different numbers
$1.2 trillion (~8%) - US GovInfo.about.com
$1.1 trillion (~6.5%) - wikipedia
$~1 trillion (~7.5%) - Forbes

Which is also about as much as Japan holds.

China holds 26% of all *foreign held* debt. Not 26% of ALL US Debt.

So... all of their asses seem to be in the realm of 8% (or less, generally).

Beamer wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 11:24:

LittleMe wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 11:22:

Beamer wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 11:09:
Yes, the market supports prices being through the roof and athletes being paid extreme salaries.
Much like the market supports the goods you buy being manufactured in China and the US-based CEOs being paid extreme salaries.

Well a big contributor to our manufacturing base moving to China is, imo, due to Fed (reserve) policy and our Federal debt. The Chinese and many other countries own a huge amount of our debt. Yes, it's a market force, but it's centrally planned and managed. So this isn't free-market economics at work in this case. It's anti free-market economics at work.

8%. China has 8% of our debt.

Your analysis of the cause is incorrect.

Creston wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 11:20:

Beamer wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 11:09:
So, don't like it - don't buy it?

More like: Don't want to pay 200 - 450 dollars? How about you spend 50? Seriously, 450 bucks? Do you get lapdances while watching the game? I've been to 8 different ballparks, have never spent more than 25-35 bucks on a ticket, and have always had great seats. Yes, you can spend that much if you want to, but don't act like a family has no other choice BUT to pay that much if it wants to see a ballgame. (admittedly this is MLB only. I don't think the NBA has any such deals, nor does the NFL.)

Can't we turn that around to why we're saddled with tons of shitty microtransaction based games? Because the market supports it?

I think EA and its ilk are at least smart enough to realize that microtransactions are a source of income. You are perfectly free to buy the games without MTs in them.

Of course, sometimes it doesn't work out quite right. See: the Yankees 2012 playoff home games and all the empty seats.

Which is actually a perfect example of what I said. Ballparks charge what the market will bear. The Yankees believed their market would bear $2500 seats. The market proved them (largely) wrong, leading to them lowering their prices for most of their season tickets and single-seats this year.

Creston

killer_roach wrote on Apr 20, 2013, 22:06:

TurdFergasun wrote on Apr 20, 2013, 21:24:
doesn't help when governments vilify science, continually slash education budgets, and lower the standards along with them.

Except they aren't slashing education budgets. They're still expanding at rates well in excess of inflation. The only "cuts" have been in the rate of growth.

That being said, the amount of that money that actually goes to teaching isn't expanding much - most of that added money goes to facilities and administration.

nin wrote on Apr 19, 2013, 11:49:

These [Windows 8] stories are so full of it. When Vista was released, all the nerds fell all over themselves on the internet bitching about how terrible it was. So, Microsoft reboxes it and sells it as Windows 7, and all of a sudden everyone loves it.

I bought Vista - thought it was a little clunky at first, but it was OK. I bought Windows 7 and thought "this is the exact same thing. It's just as clunky."

Quite the revisionist history. If you can't tell the difference between vista and 7, you might want to get your eyes checked.

killer_roach wrote on Apr 19, 2013, 12:26:

Creston wrote on Apr 19, 2013, 12:20:
EA bought the Homeworld IP and is going to turn it into a 3rd person shooter with QTE Microtransactions.

Creston

I highly doubt EA is the buyer. They've been reasonably quiet on the acquisition front lately, the IP doesn't really hold much value with their development studios, and it'd be just as easy for them to create a similar game from scratch without paying for the name. Seeing as their new CEO seems allergic to spending money, after all...

Fantaz wrote on Apr 18, 2013, 19:39:

Cutter wrote on Apr 18, 2013, 19:05:

Jivaro wrote on Apr 18, 2013, 12:25:
Devil May Cry: Emo Edition

Lol!

Don't laugh, you've offended the emo crowd.

Mr. Tact wrote on Apr 18, 2013, 17:33:

RollinThundr wrote on Apr 18, 2013, 17:12:
while republicans are more concerned with turning the economy around over social issues.

Tell that to all the states with R legislatures passing new abortion laws.

For the record I'm for gay marriage, If two people love each other regardless of gender what's the issue there? It doesn't personally bother or offend me, and really the only people on the right that it does offend are generally bible thumpers anyway and they certainly don't speak for every republican or conservative.

No, but they speak loudly enough to put fear into most of the Rs. Personally, I more annoyed at the tax advantage to have dependents. Why should the guy sitting next to me doing the same job for the same pay, be charged fewer taxes because he decided to propagate?

I'm right with you on SS btw, it'll be long gone by the time I'm 67 and I doubt I'll ever see one red cent of what I've paid into it over the years.

Yeah, my only hope is the economy doesn't collaspe within the next 10-15 years or so. Need my 401k and IRAs to grow enough to allow me to retire...

Mr. Tact wrote on Apr 18, 2013, 16:45:

RollinThundr wrote on Apr 18, 2013, 16:23:
So how does one answer to people who consistently either topic twist, or twists one's words?
...
I do however truly believe that continuing to go the route we are regardless of who's the current president, is going to be a disastrous financial nightmare.

Surely you don't believe that only people on the left play word games?

I agree with that -- we've been on the road to fiscal problems for decades. The retirement of baby boomers isn't exactly a surprise. My friends and I have been trying to guess the date for SS to go under as a passtime for around 15 years or so.

Frankly, I don't think either the Rs or the Ds have said anything remotely close to common sense. The sequester nonsense pretty much proved they are all a joke. The sequester was a reduction to the increase of spending. Spending was still going up, but not as fast as had been previously planned. Both sides were calling it the end of the world as we know it. The Right saying it would be the end of the military, the Left saying it would mean the death of the poor. Funny, no one was saying that last year when we were spending less money.

Redmask wrote on Apr 18, 2013, 16:04:

Redmask wrote on Apr 18, 2013, 15:24:
So it's fine for beamer to play the race card everytime he comes across something he doesn't feel like debating, but calling the liberal democrats how I perceive them, and really anyone with half a brain knows it's all about the feels with democrats, is trolling. Ok sure thing cupcake. Act better? What is this finishing school? Sorry cupcake, like I said, I'm not going to play the PC route, nor do I wish to. Please however be offended all you like by a few words on a screen.

I don't know what you're referring to there but given what you posted earlier, I have no problem suspecting you did post something racist on purpose as you admitted to trolling on purpose already. A good example of why doing something like that isn't good, it's now eroded your credibility with a complete stranger. If words on a screen didn't mean anything then you wouldn't be so upset about 'Beamer'. The 'PC' stuff is you dodging responsibility for your actions and words, as if mindlessly insulting people somehow makes you brave or original.

Yes, act better 'cupcake'. Maybe you should attend a finishing school, they might help you with your alarming inability to interact in civil discussions. I don't see any value in further interactions with you so you can post your parting shot by inaccurately calling me a liberal pc whatever now

Redmask wrote on Apr 18, 2013, 15:24:

RollinThundr wrote on Apr 18, 2013, 15:09:
No it's really not a strawman. Liberals care far more about gays being able to marry then they do fixing the economy, everything is based off of feelings with liberals, that's the whole liberal ideology in a nutshell. It's the old saying putting the cart before the horse in real life form.

No, it was a strawman and this is exactly the sort of ignorant flame bait I'm referring to, you have no concept of how to conduct yourself rationally as an adult and resort to childish behavior when challenged. I'm not a liberal, you can keep repeating this stuff as much as you like but it doesn't faze me, just tells me you are not a person with a credible opinion to offer.

When you act better, people will treat you better.

Redmask wrote on Apr 18, 2013, 14:59:

RollinThundr wrote on Apr 18, 2013, 14:51:
Tossing a word or phrase in to get someone a little riled doesn't eliminate the entire message one is trying to put across. I understand that in today's world of people being over sensitive to just about everything, it might feel that way to you.

You can keep trying to walk that back (how PC of you to attempt to spin it) but everyone saw it already, no one is being over sensitive, you admitted to trolling on purpose.

I'm not going to walk on eggshells and hop on the bandwagon when people troll publishers for example, I'm also not going to be afraid to say what I think about things or people just because someone might get butthurt over it. This whole ideology of deciding everything on MUH FEELINGS is so god damn ridiculous to begin with yet that's what democrats do.

This is a strawman, the issue with your posts isn't your opinions or some paranoia infused, perceived PC culture that is somehow attacking you personally. If you had actual opinions to offer without the accompanying antagonism and were willing to discuss things in depth instead of robotic repetition of tv talking points then you would be more well received regardless of where you land politically. It's not 'PC' to conduct yourself like an adult, that's just common sense.

When you act better, people will treat you better. It's not a message problem, it's the messenger.

Redmask wrote on Apr 18, 2013, 14:14:

RollinThundr wrote on Apr 18, 2013, 13:47:
Translation: I don't agree with your views so I'll label everything you say trolling. Sure you aren't a lefty red? heh

You already openly admitted to trolling on purpose. No one is accusing you of anything you haven't already said you do. The idea that only people on the left side of the political spectrum would find your trolling small minded and pointless shows how little you know about people and the subject material itself. Why would I or anyone else listen to someone who is purposely trying to incense the discussion with childish insults of public figures and beratement of entire political ideals? That's a kid watching wrestling, not an adult discussing politics.

When you act better, people will treat you better, until then you're getting exactly what you're giving which isn't much.

Redmask wrote on Apr 18, 2013, 12:59:

RollinThundr wrote on Apr 18, 2013, 12:07:
Oh get the fuck over yourself already.

I would need to be on myself to get over myself and I'm not sure you're someone who should be talking to others about self-important posturing. A bunch of vague talking points (way to fit North Korea in there, race to the bottom) you gleaned from the tv does not change the fact that you admitted to trolling on purpose. I can't say I blame other posters for personally attacking you either, maybe they're just tired of the trolling you admit to doing on purpose.

As for where our country stands and where we're headed, someone who trolls on purpose is about the last person I would ever seriously listen to about it, particularly when they try to encapsulate it in less than a paragraph.

Redmask wrote on Apr 18, 2013, 08:56:

RollinThundr wrote on Apr 18, 2013, 08:11:
Difference is I use actual links to back things up, it's not particularly for the sake of trolling. Meanwhile when you say something or prove something a liberal can't debate, out come the raciest remarks, or twisting of the subject. Please don't even start that shit, half the garbage you libs spew you don't back up either. Shit half of it makes no logical sense anyway.

No, you just admitted to trolling without evidence or provocation below. Right from the horses mouth. 'i just want our country to be good guys stop spending monies obamamessiah'. Indeed, clearly you have defeated the liberal hivemind with your cutting political insights. I'm not even a liberal and I find you simultaneously amusing and pitiable.

ASeven wrote on Apr 18, 2013, 09:13:
Publishers are falling to pieces left and right. People warned them that the path they took was financially unsustainable but they didn't listen. Now they are reaping what they sow and nobody will shed a tear if they all crash, as it seems that's now the path they're heading.