bugleyman's page

A completely free market is a bad idea.

A completely planned market is a bad idea.

Any reasonable debate is about where the best balance lies. Anyone who doesn't realize that is best ignored.

bugleyman wrote:

Not completely open borders.

I said "every" person, but let me walk that back

I liked the first answer better.

My preferred solution would be to simply remove the racist quota system which limits the number of people who can gain entry to the U.S. (either for citizenship or temporary work) from Mexico (and other countries).

Tada! 'Illegal immigration' solved... everyone who wants to immigrate can now go through the process to do so legally and be accepted if they aren't a criminal.

Tada! 'Border security' solved... with people able to legally immigrate the only people who would need to sneak across the border would be actual criminals. The much lower illicit border traffic would also make the business of being a border smuggler financially unviable. No more money for cross border tunnels. No more bribes to officials to look the other way. No more industry dedicated to that purpose. Much easier to catch a handful of lone criminals with no support infrastructure than trying to pick them out of all the desperate people sneaking across. Greater border security at lower cost. No wall required.

For over a hundred years now we've been shooting ourselves in the foot with bigoted immigration policies that achieve no beneficial purpose and cause a host of massive problems. We need only stop doing that.

I think we largely agree, given that my major condition was "not a criminal."

As for Congress: I don't care if the savings were trivial. As for the revolving door, I'd make anyone who wants to serve sign an agreement to not lobby upon leaving office for a period of not less than twice the years served.

No and Hell no!

High income now is no guarantee of having money in retirement. Sure, people with high income are more likely to be ok, but the whole point of social security is as a safety net if things go wrong. Switch to somehow phasing it out for people who have retired with large savings and we can talk. Though... the potential savings from such a small population would likely not be worth the hassle of implementation.

Agreed...I definitely meant something along the lines of "if you have sufficient wealth," but it may well not be worth bothering.

Not completely open borders.

I said "every" person, but let me walk that back: Anyone under, say, 30, that is healthy and has no criminal record should be able to get a work visa. That work visa should then offer a path to citizenship, but a felony should result in deportation and cancellation of the visa.

We NEED healthy young people for our workforce. Let's make them legitimate, tax (and serve) them, and treat them like what 99% of them are: Good people.

And to be perfectly clear: If I had total power, I'd focus on increasing revenue as well. However, I don't, and we're never going to get both. We're lucky to fill the potholes in the current climate.

bugleyman wrote:

Inflation is a possible side effect of economic stimulation, but I don't believe we've been trying to cause inflation, per se.

The FED has an official inflation target of 2%.

Some inflation is good for the economy. Encourages investment rather than hoarding.

I am aware.

There is no mechanism for the national debt to suddenly come crashing down and plunge us in to hyperinflation... so no, that isn't a 'more complete' analogy.

Of COURSE there is -- it's called perception. If the world decides we're no longer a good investment, even servicing our existing debt level would do it.

We desperately need higher inflation. We should be borrowing (yes, that's right, INCREASING the national debt) to pay for infrastructure improvements at the currently low rates... rather than waiting until we have to pay more for the same work. We should be doing everything we can to generate economic growth and the higher inflation which comes with it. Once we get up to a decent inflation rate THEN we can start to look at reigning in the economy, but doing so before then is every bit as harmful as allowing inflation to run amok.

You're right...we should be investing in infrastructure. But it doesn't necessarily follow that we need to borrow to do it.

Lets do ourselves a favor:

If you suggest spending cuts list out where you think those cuts should come from. If not specific programs then at minimum the departments you think can take the cuts (break it out more if you want, for example military hardware as opposed to military pay and training if you like).

Simply calling for "cuts" by itself is basically useless.

Sure. For starters:

Defense spending is ludicrously high. I'm not an isolationist, but we need to quit playing world cop. I'd cut this to 50% within ten years. The potential savings from defense contracts alone are astronomical.

Cut, cut, cut the amount we spend to imprison our own people. I'd release the vast majority of non-violent offenders, drug and otherwise. We'd need fewer prosecutors, prisons, prison guards, etc.

Social security should phase out if you have excessive income. Yup, I went there. They also need to raise the full retirement age to reflect longer lifespans.

Corporate welfare in the form of subsidies and tax loopholes needs to go.

Stop wasting money deporting people and militarizing our border. Let every healthy person of working age that wants to work her do so.

Socialized medicine. Wait, you say...that's spending. Only it really isn't by the time you take the profit out of healthcare (which is a morally repugnant idea, anyway).

Dramatically cut the salary and benefits of elected officials, especially Congress.

To be fair, I'd make other changes on the revenue side, and I'd actually spend *more* on some things (education, infrastructure), but those things are really beyond the scope of your question.

Now when I look at them I wonder if they're just going to decide to antagonize then murder me or my son or my wife too for that matter. For no good reason. Because thats's what they're doing. It only seems worse because there's video of everything now. And people like Nenkota Moon would be defending them unilaterally saying that we had it coming because...REASONS.

But how dare you suggest the actual reason: You're black.

The sad truth is that would have gone down very differently if it had been a white girl.

bugleyman, how about this... would it be reasonable to not worry about hyperinflation until the inflation rate is at least close to what we have been trying to raise it to for the past decade?

Put another way... yes, it is possible for people to drown, but when you are dying of dehydration in a barren desert it shouldn't be your primary concern.

*No! No! Keep that glass of water away! I don't want to drown!*

Inflation is a possible side effect of economic stimulation, but I don't believe we've been trying to cause inflation, per se.

Semantics aside, your analogy would be more complete if you mentioned the fifty-million gallon tank of water we have hanging over our heads in the form of the national debt.

What you're referring to is the end of US Dollars as the world's reserve currency (many observers tend to think that is a matter of when, rather than if -- but that's another thread).

In effect, it is in everyone's best interest to prop our currency up...but should it become too painful, make no mistake: They'll cut their losses. Our currency is not special, and we can absolutely devalue it if we're too lax with the money supply. I frankly don't understand what appears to be magical thinking to the contrary.

But again, agree to disagree. There are any number of professional economists on either side of this issue. Which reminds me of an old joke: If you laid all of the world's economists end to end, what would you never reach? A conclusion.

Yes, you're correct. IF that happens, it'll be bad.

The question is: Are we anywhere near that point? I see no evidence of it.

It's actually likely that a policy of balancing the budget would hurt the economy sufficiently that our debt to GDP ratio would actually grow - even if we stopped adding to debt. Which would be hard, since the falling economy would cut revenues, forcing further cuts, and so on into a downward spiral.
I believe our deficit, both as a ratio of GDP and even in real dollars, is less than it was a few years ago. That's what economic recovery does, sluggish though it might be.

If you really want to cut the deficit, forget cutting spending, deal with the trade deficit. Economy = public deficit + private deficit + trade. Kill the public deficit with a negative trade balance and the only way to keep the economy going is for private debt to grow.

I don't know if we're near that point, but I do know that I don't want to find out the hard way. :)

I will say that things seem to go from "nowhere near that point" to "past that point" frightening quickly. We are, after all, talking about a matter of perception.

The main factor of difference is the currency in which the debt is denominated. The most famous example is the German debt after WWI, which was set by treaty at 132 billion gold marks. (The gold standard is a bad idea for any number of reasons, this is one.) Germany didn't have the specie reserves to pay it off and couldn't print gold. Similarly,

The US doesn't run a specie currency and can print enough dollars to meet any demand.

Most of the other examples you'll find (e.g. Zimbabwe) involve kleptocrats destroying the economy. In this case, the hyperinflation is a result instead of a cause of economic chaos. (I also think most of the Zimbabwe debt was owed in US dollars as well...)

Agree to disagree. "Print enough dollars to meet any demand" is exactly what would cause hyper-inflation: More and more dollars chasing the same amount of goods.

I think it makes sense to question whether we're anywhere near that point -- as thejeff does -- but in my opinion it's pretty clear that such a point exists.

... or solves it. Remember that the Fed has been unable to get inflation up to its goal for the past seven years or so. Low inflation is actually a problem right now.

Please understand: I'm not stuffing gold doubloons into my pillowcase just yet. ;-)

But many an economy has collapsed due to hyper-inflation brought on by bad monetary policy decisions...decisions often made in an (ill-fated) attempt to alleviate an untenable level of debt. I have yet to see a coherent argument why our economy would be any different.

You fail macroeconomics forever. You don't run a nation's budget the way you do a households. Because the first is not simply a scaled up version of the latter.

So I keep hearing. But I never we should. And I actually got in A in Macro. :P

Here's the problem: If our debt-to-GDP becomes high enough that the world loses confidence in our ability to repay our debts, then we're stuck with a bunch of maturing bonds that we can only pay by taking our new debt a drastically inflated -- and ruinous -- rates. "Printing" money to address the problem merely speeds the cycle.

bugleyman --

I am not trying to justify a Trump vote, nor comment upon the specifics of economic necessity. This is simply a "reporting" effort.

I do not think that this individual's secondhand opinion merits a response that insinuates mental/cognitive instability, eh?

I didn't mean to insinuate mental or cognitive instability. I meant to state that his criteria for the selection of a candidate -- as you have reported it -- appears to be lacking.

I also acknowledged that he was being sincere in reporting his motivations, which I thought was the point of your post, no?

Frankly, my take on the situation would let's not cut anyone's taxes just yet. Instead, let's cut spending until we balance the budget, then use any surplus we might realize to pay down the debt. Because I do not believe that we as a nation so exceptional that NO amount of debt is problematic.

Particularly as Trump is not going to cut our taxes, in all plausibility.

My "e" is broked, so I'm trying to minimize using it for now. Can you tell?

No, but I'm duly impressed. And I also kinda want to buy you a new keyboard. :P

There's clearly more to sound economic policy than cutting taxes. So if his position is really as simple as "vote for the guy who says he is going to cut my taxes," then I would question his judgement, not his motivation. YMMV.

Guys can we please not threadlock this thread? Either take it to another thread or just don't reply, or flag it and move on.

Good advice. As usual, I've let my frustration get the better of me. My apologies.

Of course, of course, I'm a big giant racist for believing in dissenting thought. I should just agree with you on all on topics. I'm just a big racist because it fits the narrative you make in your head. I'm the one that needs to see a psych, I have the problem. Only liberals have opinion that matters.

Get over yourself.

We all believe in your right to hold and express an opinion. Just as we have a right to respond to that opinion. No one is going to arrest you for being wrong, but you can be damn sure they're going to tell you you're wrong. That's the entire point of free speech.

You're not the victim. That would be the girl on the bike.

I'm not really into calling people racist, regardless of whether or not I think they are. I call their positions racist. I ignore them. I flag them. But directly calling someone racist doesn't do much to elevate discussion. They start to see it as an insult, instead of a descriptor.

You're right, of course.

My post was immature and I have removed it.

bugleyman wrote:

Some positions are simply unworthy of respect, and deserve to be treated as such.

Note that I'm not advocating using force to shut prevent the expression of such opinions...after all, we're not talking about a fifteen year old girl on a bike here (Oops...my bad).

So any dissenting opinion you just call it racist and it goes away.

1. I'm clearly still here. You can tell, because we're exchanging messages.

Some positions are simply unworthy of respect, and deserve to be treated as such.

Note that I'm not advocating using force to shut prevent the expression of such opinions...after all, we're not talking about a fifteen year old girl on a bike here (Oops...my bad).

The thing about this that most sticks in my craw is that the law-and-order, she-had-it-coming types are the very same people who scream about how everything the government does is tyranny. Can you say cognitive dissonance?

If Had plenty of experience with kids whom pull crap like this on a daily basis.

Notice as well lightly say that I am racist in my defense of the officers when I haven't spoken a word of the race of the girl.

That you apparently believe that serves as evidence that your position isn't racist is rather telling.

But yeah, Fergie. I'm done here.

They didnt assault her at all. How about this, when a cop questions you next time, you tell him to f@#$ off and walk away.

What is wrong with you? THEY PERPPER-SPRAYED A CHILD FOR CONVENIENCE AND/OR AMUSEMENT!

I strongly suspect you'd feel differently if that child was yours. Or even simply had the good sense to NOT BE BLACK. >:(

Saying "f#@$ you" to the police is your absolute Constitutional right (First Amendment). Walking away from a cop is also your absolute right unless the cops have reasonable suspicion that you are involved in criminal activity.

Neither are grounds for police to assault you.

Don't forget it was a child, for god's sake. But then those hood rats aren't really children, right Nenkota?

Pardon me while I go vomit.

Of course, of course, should have not brought my hopes up. You'd rather defend someone who'd say f#@$ you to the police and walk away when they are trying to question them.

I'm delighted to disappoint you.

Wow, never thought I'd thought we'd agree on something Bugley

She was resisting. They asked her nicely, she got hostile and attempted to leave the scene on bike.

My bad. I was being sarcastic, but apparently that wasn't obvious.

That was a child. Who had apparently collided with a car on her bike. The police escalated the conflict (the opposite of what they're supposed to) for no apparent reason. Then they PEPPER-SPRAYED a child who was zero threat to anyone, which was completely unnecessary. Or maybe you think she's lucky they didn't just shoot her? Is that clear enough sarcasm for you?

She likely had very good reasons to fear the police going in...now she has one more.

The one where the child is sitting alone in the back of the police car and the officer walks over and pepper sprays her?

Yup, saw it.

It's her fault for not cooperating.

Dang, I missed the free-speech debate. Too bad; that s~!+ can be complicated.

If you're nine.

Personally, I'm done with the gun derail. I was curious only in regards to the terrorist list connection.

I suggest others drop it as well. It's one of the fastest ways to get a thread locked around here.

But...what about THESE GUNS? *flexes*

For lack of a better term, it's pretty much a "no go" for me, for a few reasons. For one, I'm vehemently against the idea of the government at any level being able to take away constitutionally protected rights without the scrutinized person being able to defend themselves in a court of law. I would say the same thing if it was suggested that "suspected terrorists" shouldn't be able to speak publicly. Not only is this an issue of defending currently protected rights, but also one of not opening the floodgates to thought police (it's not a big leap to go from arbitrarily suspending one right to another). I don't say that from under a tin-foil hat thinking that big brother is out to get me, but rather from an observation of similar progressions in other western countries.

Agree about not abridging rights without due process. The obvious answer is to amend the Constitution. After all, much of the rest of the developed world seems to get along just fine without guns (and it wasn't lost on me that your example didn't deal with firearms).

Sadly, we can't agree on something like funding Zika virus prevention, let alone a controversial Constitutional amendment.

Trump's insurgence is the triumph of emotion over reason, and feelings over fact.

The triumph of Truthiness.

Donald Trump is evil. Supporting Trump doesn't make one evil.

It makes one complicit.

BlackOuroboros wrote:

Because the best way to change my mind is with petty vandalism and destruction of private property.

I mean...do you really feel as though there aren't enough reasons to not support Trump?

That's kinda beside the point, Scott. Which is that vandalism, aside from being totally unacceptable, is unlikely to change anyone's mind.

And then Trump and Hilary and the party leaders are gonna be like "What have we done?" and impeach themselves.

Spastic Puma:

I hereby notify you that owe me a new keyboard, as mine has been destroyed by a nasal spray of Coke Zero.

My accountants will be in touch.

That seems to be some far-out metal gymnastics.

Wealthy elites give money to politicians, who do things that favor the wealthy elites. But that is just some kind of coincidence? I have never heard that idea before.

Yeah, it seems highly likely to me that we're looking at causation, not simply correlation as Scott seems to be suggesting.

To clarify my earlier comment, I don't feel marginalized in the presidential election because of Donald and Hillary. I feel marginalized because the electoral college gerrymanders my vote into irrelevance. If I want my vote to have even the chance of an effect, I would need to move to a different state. That is a piss poor example of democracy. Also, I'm not proud of any of this, but it is reality.

Agreed on the electoral college. It needs to go.

I'm more than willing to acknowledge that democratic compromise isn't running our government - the majority party of our legislature literally has the publicly stated goal of not allowing any legislation supported by the other side to become law. But I don't agree that our government is bought. That's a reductionist view that isn't particularly helpful in developing a meaningful understanding of the problems we face.

It may not be bought, but it is for sale. :-(

Low turn-out is viewed as voter apathy. And yes, it is exactly what "they" want.

bugleyman wrote:

I'm sorry, but are you seriously suggesting that abstaining from voting in the hope that we'll end up with sham elections is a viable strategy?

If it's that one the one hand, or vote for an increasing wealth gap, more foreign wars, more mass imprisonment domestically on the other? Yes, it would be preferable. If our elections are shams anyway, we might as well be honest about it.

Dude, I get that you're frustrated -- many people are -- but sabotage rarely ends well. You alluded to several more productive ways to channel your frustration just a few posts ago.

Besides, NOT voting looks just like apathy, which plays right into the hands of those corporate masters you mentioned...

You know what happens to countries that have a voter turnout so low as to be meaningless? The elections are considered a scam, and the rest of the world takes notice.

And what, pray tell, does the rest of the world DO about it, besides noticing? And do we really want to find ourselves in that position?

I'm sorry, but are you seriously suggesting that abstaining from voting in the hope that we'll end up with sham elections is a viable strategy?

I KNOW I'm stuck with Clinton or Trump this time. It's next time, and the time after, that I'm looking at. And in my estimation action needs to start before the 2020 primaries. It needs to start now, with unprecedented numbers of people saying, "Look, give us someone we can vote for, mkay?" And you don't do that by agreeably voting for whomever you're given.

Wonderful! Have at it! I'm even willing to help. I'm just tired of people who somehow want to not vote, but then refuse to accept responsibility for the outcome. You don't vote, you have no credibility if you don't like what you get.

Some of us maybe just aren't that resigned to the fate our corporate masters have decreed.

If you have a viable alternative, I'm all ears.

And for the record, I'm probably the last person that would be accused of being pro-corporation. I'm just tired of people who somehow want to not vote, but then refuse to accept responsibility for the outcome. You don't vote, you have no credibility if you don't like what you get.

Of course, because silencing any dissent is the only good thing to do.

...said no one in this thread. But we've been having the same argument for pages and page.

Your dislike of the choice we face -- Clinton vs. Trump -- is irrelevant. On November 8th, one or the other of these people will be elected president. That may suck, but that's how it is.

Are we still having this debate?

The next president is going to be Clinton or Trump. Period. You can abstain, or vote third-party, but make no mistake: Doing either is in no way noble or heroic. It is simply you taking your ball and going home because your game didn't get picked.

If given the choice between a person who pushed to remove their jobs and factories, and someone telling them they are going to bring the factories back, who do you think they will pick? Is anyone really surprised?

Since Trump is a poster boy for the lassiez-faire capitalist class -- you know, the people who actually shipped the jobs away -- yes, I'm surprised. Anyone paying any attention at should know that Trump is part of the problem, not the solution.

Someone please tell me we aren't actually this stupid.