421–430 of 489 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> More accurately: there's more consensus around national security spending than social spending. Is there? Or is there just more consensus among the elite and Ivy League educated who dominate security discussion and policy?
I mean, these people are voted in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think that’s what was implied. In the abstract it seems much easier to get alignment on a national security question (especially one as cut and dry as this one, which is don’t let your nation’s semiconductor supply fall under the control of a hostile foreign country), than it is to get alignment on a much more ideological and philosophical question about how to solve poverty.
How is this a cut and dry question? By your definition is there any national security question that isn't cut and dry? Would adding three more carrier groups to the Pacific likewise be a cut and dry question? What about scuttling three carrier groups? What about another three hundred ICBMs to the nuclear arsenal? Hundred-year leases on seven new army bases in Poland? Another trillion or two on building a new fighter…
So, yeah, it really is that cut and dry. A "National Security Issue" doesn't always mean "weapon" or "air craft carrier". This is a rare moment when, even if it's for cynical and self-serving reasons, some money is going to be spent on something that actually matters and will help secure future prosperity. Do get mad about the MIC, though. I still am as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't wave the magic wand of national security and justify any inefficient or ineffective attempt at stealing from the future to goose the present. The short term goal should be to diversify critical US supply chains away from a country that is currently considered by the US to be an competitor. I'm sure you remember that US official policy since the 70s is the "One China Policy" which admits that Taiwan is a par…
One of the most pernicious myths about this situation out there is that there is a single "One China Policy" shared by everyone on earth. This is not the case. The One China Policy of the US is different to that of the PRC. And I quote: - The United States did not explicitly state the sovereign status of Taiwan in the three US-PRC Joint Communiques of 1972, 1979, and 1982. - The United States "acknowledged" the "One…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think that’s what was implied. In the abstract it seems much easier to get alignment on a national security question (especially one as cut and dry as this one, which is don’t let your nation’s semiconductor supply fall under the control of a hostile foreign country), than it is to get alignment on a much more ideological and philosophical question about how to solve poverty.
> In the abstract There is nothing abstract in politics and that's just plain old "begging the question". > especially one as cut and dry as this one, which is don’t let your nation’s semiconductor supply fall under the control of a hostile foreign country Cut and dry to whom? And were it so cut and dry why is a subsidy the solution rather than any number of other legislative actions? > than it is to get alignment on…
I think it's pretty cut and dry to people who pay attention to what fuels a modern economy: semiconductors. If you have a problem with the subsidies themselves that's a disagreement about implementation, and to an extent I would agree that some additional tariffs are in order - beyond the subsidies.
>Free lunch for students is hardly an attempt to "solve poverty".
Well sure, but any time someone disagrees with the policy of "free lunches" (as if there was such a thing) you get asked "what, do you hate poor people"? Which sends you down a spiral of debate on what the appropriate policy should be to solve a complex problem ... like poverty.
>the only difference you're asserting is that a nationalistic defense ideology should be taken for granted and perhaps that it is popular.
I'm asserting that semiconductors are what make things comfortable in modern society, which isn't really a contested point as far as I'm aware. I'm not really making any commentary on the wisdom of a "nationalistic defense ideology", which in my mind would be something quite different and go much further than "subsidies for building chips in the US".
I'm sensing that a lot of the hostility in this thread has to do with how we already spend so much money on the MIC, and while it's true that we do spend a lot of money on the MIC, semiconductors are markedly different, because military hardware and weapons aren't consumer products. Semiconductors go into everything. I feel like I'm repeating myself here, and it seems odd to me because I would've expected folks on this website to understand this.
Such a monumental scam and a gross theft from taxpayers. Companies making billions of dollars in profits don't need free money. I could be onboard with a subsidized loan, but handouts are not needed. FWIW, I work at a company that stands to benefit from this bill. Does the US need to secure reliable semiconductor supply chains free of China? Sure. This is not the most cost effective way to do it.
>This is not the most cost effective way to do it. What would you recommend?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> More accurately: there's more consensus around national security spending than social spending. Is there? Or is there just more consensus among the elite and Ivy League educated who dominate security discussion and policy?
What answer do you expect to get to your argumentative question?
That's the only acceptable answer to that question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not defunding education. It’s saying rather than waste money on something unnecessary over here (like free lunches for the wealthy) let’s spend it on something better (like teacher salaries).
How much higher would their salaries be?
Let’s say there is a 22 to 1 student to teacher ratio. And 20 don’t need the free lunch but you give it to them anyways. Let’s say you’re spending $5 per meal per kid. That’s $100/day. 180 days per school year. $18k per class.
It could be higher, it could be lower. Certainly it’s enough to be out to good use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are some examples of legislation that has broad support among the voters adjusted for voting power, and is ignored by our representatives?
* Public option: 68% support, 18% oppose. * Medicare for all: 55% support, 32% oppose. * Civil asset forfeiture: 16% support, 86% oppose.
[0]: https://morningconsult.com/2021/03/24/medicare-for-all-publi...
When will senate pass a technological test. Lets make these blokes take a MINIMAL entry level exam; * What is a data base * What is personal identifiable identification and why does it mattter * What does a walled garden mean So many functionally identifiable comms These fucking morons cant even state the above. De-Seat them all.
I don't mean to be rude, but your list of questions is a perfect example of why this type of test would be meaningless. * What is a data base - Are you asking what type of military base stores data? Or did you mean database? * What is personal identifiable identification and why does it matter? - Do you mean PII (personally identifiable information)? Or are you talking about a driver's license? * What does a walled g…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> because it was "too expensive" at $11B Schools meals are pure cost, they don't bring anything back. It's not like we have mass starvation going on at the moment either. Also, why "free meals" when parents can afford to pay for it? If you have parents who are under a certain threshold of revenues, give their kids free meals, but let's not do a one-size fits all policy, this is not 1950 anymore.
> Schools meals are pure cost, they don't bring anything back. It's not like we have mass starvation going on at the moment either. They are not a pure cost, they are an investment in your next generation of humans (or human resources if you are that way inclined). Poor nutrition leads to worse academic and social outcomes which limits opportunities for poorer kids. Good food can boost their quality of life, health a…
I don't buy it. People were given poor quality food right after WW2 pretty much everywhere and still had productive and fulfilling lives no matter what - they actually invented the world we currently live in. Nutrition science is also junk (look at the ever-changing recommendations from nutritionists on what should be given to people, it's a running joke at this stage since they keep contradicting what they were recommending before).
> Every time you add a condition to a benefit like this, you have to create a whole government department around it.
With digital reporting and tracking for everything the cost of customized tax-breaks or subsidies is going down year after year. And many other countries are already doing that (condition-based benefits), so not sure what the big problem is to do in the US as well. Unless there is rampant incompetence at play in the administration, which is another problem altogether.