Creston wrote on Nov 10, 2016, 18:03:

Rigs wrote on Nov 10, 2016, 14:10:
Whoa, whoa, whoa...I know the F-35 was a money sink (err, blackhole?) but what was wrong with the Zumwalt destroyers? That's a new one for me, I was under the impression the R+D for it was actually underbudget. Was I hallucinating? (which, given the last couple weeks, is definitely a possibility )


=-Rigs-=

Oh, let's see:

They have a cannon which costs $800,000 to fire which they can't afford.

Experts feel it has a good chance of just flipping over if the right wave hits it.

They cost four BILLION dollars per fucking ship.

It can't really defend itself from missile attacks. (in fact, I've seen articles say that it basically has NO air defenses at all, and thus can only function as part of a battlegroup along with several MUCH cheaper Arleigh Burke class destroyers. You know, the thing it was supposed to replace.)

In short, it's a typical military fucking boondoggle. Just throw more and more and more and more and more and more fucking money against it. Meanwhile, our entire road infrastructure is collapsing and the majority of it will be undriveable by 2045 because there is no money to spend on it, all of America is bankrupted by the cost of healthcare and we have no single dime to spend on teachers, so class sizes now routinely surpass 35 or even 40 children per class.

But yeah, let's give the fucking military EVEN MORE MONEY.

Yeah, but a lot of that wasn't during the R&D phase of the program...not that it really matters, money is money regardless of what 'phase' the project is in. I totally agree with you, though, I just wasn't that much aware that the destroyers were in the same boat as the F-35's. I haven't had much chance to keep track of the history, I'll have to do some reading this weekend on it and get up to speed. Blagodaryu and Dasvidaniya, Comrade Creston!


=-Rigs-=

This comment was edited on Nov 10, 2016, 18:48.

Beamer wrote on Nov 10, 2016, 18:10:
Did someone just brag by saying "whitelashed?"

Did someone just imply "real America" is white? Unironically?

=-Rigs-=

Did someone just brag by saying "whitelashed?"

Did someone just imply "real America" is white? Unironically?

Creston wrote on Nov 10, 2016, 18:03:

Rigs wrote on Nov 10, 2016, 14:10:
Whoa, whoa, whoa...I know the F-35 was a money sink (err, blackhole?) but what was wrong with the Zumwalt destroyers? That's a new one for me, I was under the impression the R+D for it was actually underbudget. Was I hallucinating? (which, given the last couple weeks, is definitely a possibility )

Oh, let's see:

They have a cannon which costs $800,000 to fire which they can't afford.

Experts feel it has a good chance of just flipping over if the right wave hits it.

They cost four BILLION dollars per fucking ship.

It can't really defend itself from missile attacks. (in fact, I've seen articles say that it basically has NO air defenses at all, and thus can only function as part of a battlegroup along with several MUCH cheaper Arleigh Burke class destroyers. You know, the thing it was supposed to replace.)

In short, it's a typical military fucking boondoggle. Just throw more and more and more and more and more and more fucking money against it. Meanwhile, our entire road infrastructure is collapsing and the majority of it will be undriveable by 2045 because there is no money to spend on it, all of America is bankrupted by the cost of healthcare and we have no single dime to spend on teachers, so class sizes now routinely surpass 35 or even 40 children per class.

But yeah, let's give the fucking military EVEN MORE MONEY.

you were saying, Military Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961 http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

BobBob wrote on Nov 10, 2016, 17:39:

JoeCool wrote on Nov 10, 2016, 17:37:

Scottish Martial Arts wrote on Nov 9, 2016, 21:49:

DangerDog wrote on Nov 9, 2016, 21:20:
Move to Colorado, they just voted in assisted suicide.

Fortunately, as a Trump supporter, you don't need the government's permission: alcohol poisoning and opioid overdoses will see things through for you on their own. Rising death rates due to suicide and drug overdose among middle-aged whites can't increase fast enough.

I derped

You mean all those votes were cast by Native Americans?

Thanks BobBob, we may have our disagreements, but this just made up for them.

Rigs wrote on Nov 10, 2016, 14:10:
Whoa, whoa, whoa...I know the F-35 was a money sink (err, blackhole?) but what was wrong with the Zumwalt destroyers? That's a new one for me, I was under the impression the R+D for it was actually underbudget. Was I hallucinating? (which, given the last couple weeks, is definitely a possibility )


=-Rigs-=

Oh, let's see:

They have a cannon which costs $800,000 to fire which they can't afford.

Experts feel it has a good chance of just flipping over if the right wave hits it.

They cost four BILLION dollars per fucking ship.

It can't really defend itself from missile attacks. (in fact, I've seen articles say that it basically has NO air defenses at all, and thus can only function as part of a battlegroup along with several MUCH cheaper Arleigh Burke class destroyers. You know, the thing it was supposed to replace.)

In short, it's a typical military fucking boondoggle. Just throw more and more and more and more and more and more fucking money against it. Meanwhile, our entire road infrastructure is collapsing and the majority of it will be undriveable by 2045 because there is no money to spend on it, all of America is bankrupted by the cost of healthcare and we have no single dime to spend on teachers, so class sizes now routinely surpass 35 or even 40 children per class.

But yeah, let's give the fucking military EVEN MORE MONEY.

* REMOVED *
This comment was deleted on Nov 10, 2016, 17:46.

JoeCool wrote on Nov 10, 2016, 17:37:

Scottish Martial Arts wrote on Nov 9, 2016, 21:49:

DangerDog wrote on Nov 9, 2016, 21:20:
Move to Colorado, they just voted in assisted suicide.

Fortunately, as a Trump supporter, you don't need the government's permission: alcohol poisoning and opioid overdoses will see things through for you on their own. Rising death rates due to suicide and drug overdose among middle-aged whites can't increase fast enough.

This is why you lefist morons lost. You're not real americans, you don't represent real america and real american whitelashed against your pathetic world view.

You mean all those votes were cast by Native Americans?

Scottish Martial Arts wrote on Nov 9, 2016, 21:49:

DangerDog wrote on Nov 9, 2016, 21:20:
Move to Colorado, they just voted in assisted suicide.

Fortunately, as a Trump supporter, you don't need the government's permission: alcohol poisoning and opioid overdoses will see things through for you on their own. Rising death rates due to suicide and drug overdose among middle-aged whites can't increase fast enough.

This is why you lefist morons lost. You're not real americans, you don't represent real america and real american whitelashed against your pathetic world view.

BobBob wrote on Nov 10, 2016, 09:29:
Take a very deep breath and hold it for 4 years.

the alarmism isn't' based on proven science.

jdreyer wrote on Nov 10, 2016, 13:59:

Verno wrote on Nov 10, 2016, 11:14:
Trump's 100 day plan, from the man himself:

If he can accomplish just the lobbying reform alone it would be an incredible achievement.

His environmental derailment efforts are of course a disaster but that's a whole other ball of wax.

There's a lot of good there, and there's a lot of scary stuff. I appreciate how he's going after sacred cows.

GOOD:
1. The lobby reform is long, long overdue. Jesus fuck is it overdue. I'll bet the SCOTUS overturns it though. "Money = free speech" case is still on the books.

2. I've been in favor of congressional term limits forever. LOL @ McConnell, who is not in favor.

3. If he can change defense spending to stop projects from having parts built in 40 states, I'd support that.

4. Rebuilding our infrastructure is sorely needed.

BAD:
1. He's expanding the war on drugs. It has already failed, let's try something new.

2. Reducing regulations simply "because there are too many" is bad. Each regulation should be changed or eliminated based on analysis. We saw what happened after Glass-Steagall was repealed.

3. The environmental changes, pro fossil fuel stance, and withdrawing from climate change agreements.

4. The wall. LOL.

WAIT AND SEE:
1. Withdrawing from NAFTA and TPP. NAFTA has pretty much been a wash, and trade btw Canada, Mexico, and the USA has increased a 3x since it's introduction. Jobs have been both lost and created as a result. The rust belt was already rusting before it was passed. I oppose the TPP, but if it turned out like NAFTA, it wouldn't have had much of an effect either way.

2. Going after countries for currency manipulation. On the one hand, long overdue. On the other hand, a trade war could really hurt us.

3. I hope that by reducing government employees, they're not planning on replacing them with private contractors.

4. Rebuilding the military. We already have the largest most powerful military in the world. I'm hoping he means to change weapons procurement methodologies so we don't end up with over-expensive, troubled weapons systems like the F-35 or Zumwalt.

5. Tax reform. Depends on how he does it, but if he wants to rebuild both the nation's infrastructure and the military, how will he pay for it?

You missed the fine print.

Everything proposed is subject to change on a whim. The Supreme Ruler reserves the right to make spontaneous decisions, and to enact revenge upon anyone who he feels insults him or disagrees with his policies.

jdreyer wrote on Nov 10, 2016, 14:05:
Why let them make a profit at all? WHat's the purpose?

Profit is essential to a capitalist economy like ours because it's the only incentive for new players to innovate in a stagnant industry.

Profits generally aren't a problem unless barriers to entry (i.e. monopolies, patents, etc...) prevent competitors from entering the marketplace and lowering costs. Drug patents certainly qualify here.

jdreyer wrote on Nov 10, 2016, 14:05:

The Pyro wrote on Nov 10, 2016, 13:33:

The main problem IMO is using a bunch of private insurers. Profit is always a motive.

I hear that a lot, but the evidence doesn't seem to support it. Private health insurance companies in the US have been performing terribly. They're pulling out of entire states because they're losing money. Somebody's making a profit here, but I'm not convinced it's the insurance guys.

EDIT: A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation based on public data makes me think that UHC (the largest insurer in the US) is making less than 5% profit on the premiums they charge. Feel free to fact check me, as I'm not confident about this number.

I should also note that in some places (like Texas) insurers are required by law to refund any profits above 10%. There's a cap on how greedy they can be.

Why let them make a profit at all? WHat's the purpose? Make them all be nonprofits.

The biggest profiteers in the health care industry is big pharma, all 10 of which see profits consistently over 20%, and in some cases as high as 42%.

jdreyer wrote on Nov 10, 2016, 13:59:
4. Rebuilding the military. We already have the largest most powerful military in the world. I'm hoping he means to change weapons procurement methodologies so we don't end up with over-expensive, troubled weapons systems like the F-35 or Zumwalt.

Whoa, whoa, whoa...I know the F-35 was a money sink (err, blackhole?) but what was wrong with the Zumwalt destroyers? That's a new one for me, I was under the impression the R+D for it was actually underbudget. Was I hallucinating? (which, given the last couple weeks, is definitely a possibility )


=-Rigs-=

The Pyro wrote on Nov 10, 2016, 13:33:

The main problem IMO is using a bunch of private insurers. Profit is always a motive.

I hear that a lot, but the evidence doesn't seem to support it. Private health insurance companies in the US have been performing terribly. They're pulling out of entire states because they're losing money. Somebody's making a profit here, but I'm not convinced it's the insurance guys.

EDIT: A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation based on public data makes me think that UHC (the largest insurer in the US) is making less than 5% profit on the premiums they charge. Feel free to fact check me, as I'm not confident about this number.

I should also note that in some places (like Texas) insurers are required by law to refund any profits above 10%. There's a cap on how greedy they can be.

Why let them make a profit at all? WHat's the purpose? Make them all be nonprofits.

BobBob wrote on Nov 10, 2016, 12:30:
Very different scenario. This time, he will be one of their own, Let's not underestimate the ability of an extremist to manipulate sycophants against each in order to obtain an uncontested outcome. See history. ...

Trump isn't really a Republican. He is certainly not a movement conservative. It will be interesting to see how he plays with congress. Some of the things he's proposing like term limits and lobbying bans are things they oppose.

RedEye9 wrote on Nov 10, 2016, 12:22:
PS
Congress refusal to approve the SCOTUS nomination was a national disgrace.

Yeah, it sets an awful precedent.

Verno wrote on Nov 10, 2016, 11:14:
Trump's 100 day plan, from the man himself:

If he can accomplish just the lobbying reform alone it would be an incredible achievement.

His environmental derailment efforts are of course a disaster but that's a whole other ball of wax.

There's a lot of good there, and there's a lot of scary stuff. I appreciate how he's going after sacred cows.

GOOD:
1. The lobby reform is long, long overdue. Jesus fuck is it overdue. I'll bet the SCOTUS overturns it though. "Money = free speech" case is still on the books.

2. I've been in favor of congressional term limits forever. LOL @ McConnell, who is not in favor.

3. If he can change defense spending to stop projects from having parts built in 40 states, I'd support that.

4. Rebuilding our infrastructure is sorely needed.

BAD:
1. He's expanding the war on drugs. It has already failed, let's try something new.

2. Reducing regulations simply "because there are too many" is bad. Each regulation should be changed or eliminated based on analysis. We saw what happened after Glass-Steagall was repealed.

3. The environmental changes, pro fossil fuel stance, and withdrawing from climate change agreements.

4. The wall. LOL.

WAIT AND SEE:
1. Withdrawing from NAFTA and TPP. NAFTA has pretty much been a wash, and trade btw Canada, Mexico, and the USA has increased a 3x since it's introduction. Jobs have been both lost and created as a result. The rust belt was already rusting before it was passed. I oppose the TPP, but if it turned out like NAFTA, it wouldn't have had much of an effect either way.

2. Going after countries for currency manipulation. On the one hand, long overdue. On the other hand, a trade war could really hurt us.

3. I hope that by reducing government employees, they're not planning on replacing them with private contractors.

4. Rebuilding the military. We already have the largest most powerful military in the world. I'm hoping he means to change weapons procurement methodologies so we don't end up with over-expensive, troubled weapons systems like the F-35 or Zumwalt.

5. Tax reform. Depends on how he does it, but if he wants to rebuild both the nation's infrastructure and the military, how will he pay for it?

RedEye9 wrote on Nov 10, 2016, 13:29:
HRC won the DNC nomination fair and square. That horse has been kicked to death, move along. just sayin

That's why a bunch of people in the DNC "quit" when the email leaks came out right? No guilt, no problem. They even went directly to Hillary's PoTUS campaign.

The main problem IMO is using a bunch of private insurers. Profit is always a motive.

I hear that a lot, but the evidence doesn't seem to support it. Private health insurance companies in the US have been performing terribly. They're pulling out of entire states because they're losing money. Somebody's making a profit here, but I'm not convinced it's the insurance guys.

EDIT: A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation based on public data makes me think that UHC (the largest insurer in the US) is making less than 5% profit on the premiums they charge. Feel free to fact check me, as I'm not confident about this number.

I should also note that in some places (like Texas) insurers are required by law to refund any profits above 10%. There's a cap on how greedy they can be.

This comment was edited on Nov 10, 2016, 13:43.