8 ms·

== I still can’t believe we spent $7T on the global war on terror and no one is asking questions.== Everyone who asked before we started that “war” was called

== I still can’t believe we spent $7T on the global war on terror and no one is asking questions.== Everyone who asked before we started that “war” was called a traitor.

daniel-cussen 4y ago
jti107 4y ago
dont forget the tax cuts and bailouts for big business that is added to the US national debt. currently at 31 trillion...but investing in education and healthcare for normal people is socialism ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- exq 4y ago
  Student load forgiveness is socialism, but hundreds of billions in PPP loans with no obligation to repay is "stimulating the economy" Classy.
  - _-david-_ 4y ago
    The government shut down businesses so it makes sense to compensate them. The government didn't force people to go the college or take out loans to pay for it.
    - hackyhacky 4y ago
      The government has an interest in educating its citizens. Just like how every other Western country subsidizes education.
      - refurb 4y ago
        The government in the US does subsidize education. Nobody was forced to take on debt they can repay because their were no job prospects.
      - _-david-_ 4y ago
        Has nothing to do with my point. The government required some businesses to shut down. They didn't force you to take out college loans. If you want to say there shouldn't be loans for college or whatever that is fine. The fact is, the US is not in that situation.
        hackyhacky 4y ago
        The government didn't force businesses to take out loans either. Complying with the law doesn't automatically mean you deserve compensation. Nevertheless, the government allowed businesses to take out loans, and in many cases forgave those loans, because it benefits the country. The government allowed students to take out loans, and in many cases forgave those loans, because it benefits the country. I'm not saying there shouldn't be college loans. I am saying the job of the government is to help people, and both kinds of loans, an both kinds of loan forgiveness, fall into that category.
    - hashin 4y ago
      Actually government does. It makes sense to nudge people towards acquiring more skills and they routinely do that. Also, the economy is punishing for those who don't have a college degree (it always was, but perhaps not at this level.) And how did we reach here? Government policies. I am not saying that these policies were bad. But there can be no denying that government is the major reason why more and more people are going to college. And definitely, if college is not free or subsidised, they will be forced to take loans. Again, because economy is punishing for those who don't have a college education.
      - _-david-_ 4y ago
        I agree the government does nudge people to go to college. The problem is there is a difference between nudging people and arresting people. Nobody is putting a gun to your head requiring you to go to college. I agree the economy is set up against non college educated people. We should work to change that. Promoting trade schools as legitimate alternatives to college might help. I am not sold that would solve much though. A lot of young people don't want to get into the trades. How many 18 year olds who just graduated high school want to be a plumber? One thing I will say is that I don't think it is solely the government to blame. Companies require degrees for jobs that don't need it. They probably do it since there is a massive amount of people with degrees so they may as well get one of them to work for the company. We need companies to step up and stop requiring degrees. At the company I work at there are people with degrees who are working in data entry.
    - sure_about_that 4y ago
      == The government shut down businesses so it makes sense to compensate them.== Not all loans went to businesses that were forced to shut down.
      - _-david-_ 4y ago
        Correct. The subsidies were supposed to go for retrofitting builds, covering employment costs due to lower demand, and to cover costs due to being shut down. All of which were due to government policies.
        sure_about_that 4y ago
        ==covering employment costs due to lower demand, and to cover costs due to being shut down.== Except that there wasn't lower demand across the whole economy, only very specific industries. Most businesses were not shut down. Lots of businesses continued running, and had increased demand. They still got forgivable loans. Perhaps the perception it has more to do with who signed the legislation (a Republican President and Senate) than whether it was actually "socialist" (it was)?
        _-david-_ 4y ago
        >Except that there wasn't lower demand across the whole economy, only very specific industries Obviously some industries weren't impacted. Many were though. The GDP also declined. You can probably say the same about every recession. >Most businesses were not shut down I never said they were. I've seen some estimates at 200,000 businesses. A huge number of businesses went out of business as well. >Lots of businesses continued running, and had increased demand. And lots of businesses who continued running had decreased demand. Even if the demand remained the same or increased they might not be able to meet the requirements like outside eating or distancing which would limit their revenues. >Perhaps the perception it has more to do with who signed the legislation (a Republican President and Senate) than whether it was actually "socialist" (it was)? It is not socialist. Socialist can mean either state controlled or worker controlled. This is corporate welfare. Just to be clear. I am not defending this policy. I am strictly saying that this is more justifiable then paying off student loans since the government literally shut many businesses and put other rules on businesses.
  - User23 4y ago
    Both are direct expansions of the M1 money supply, which generally speaking will increase demand. Although sustainably stimulating the economy requires sustained investment on the supply side of the demand equation.
faeriechangling 4y ago
Not to put a fine point on it, but if you want to know what it was like back then, just say something like "I don't think we should finance the war in Ukraine. What is happening in Eastern Europe isn't our problem. Neutrality is the best policy" and see the rhetoric you'll hear. Usually blind allegations of shilling, being a Russian stooge, being a sock puppet, and so on. It was several times worse in the early days of the GWOT. Sikh's were getting killed for looking too Muslim. The stuff you see now where people want to include mandatory "Fact checks" in internet searches sort of paled to the crap we saw in the GWOT of Extraordinary rendition, enhanced interrogation, the Bush doctrine, destroying privacy laws in the name of patriotism, and so on. We've already started forgetting what happened.
- qubex 4y ago
  I often find myself wondering what latter-day “common sense” will be viewed uncharitably as jingoism in a few years hence.
- petersellers 4y ago
  > Not to put a fine point on it, but if you want to know what it was like back then, just say something like "I don't think we should finance the war in Ukraine. What is happening in Eastern Europe isn't our problem. Neutrality is the best policy" and see the rhetoric you'll hear What's happening now is not remotely comparable to what the US did in response to 9/11 - if anything, it's the opposite (we are defending a country from being invaded for BS reasons vs invading another country for BS reasons)
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - somenameforme 4y ago
    At the beginning of the Iraq War, and for sometime thereafter, we were led to believe that Iraq was actively developing WMD. We weren't invading a country, but saving the world from imminent catastrophe at the hands of an unhinged and crazy dictator. The proof included claims by dozens of different intelligence agencies, testimony from high level insiders in the Iraq government, surveillance photos of mobile biological weapons laboratories, definitive proof of purchase of Uranium for nuclear weapons purposes, under oath testimony, and of course endless propaganda: --- Washington Post - "Irrefutable" : https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2003/02/06/irrefutable/e598b1be-a78a-4a42-8e1a-c336f7a217f4/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2003/02/06/i... NYTimes - "Irrefutable and Undeniable" : https://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/06/opinion/irrefutable-and-undeniable.html https://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/06/opinion/irrefutable-and-u... --- To imagine all of this was fabricated or based on lies would make even the most enthusiastic conspiracy theorist look at you a bit funny. These events played a major role in shaping my worldview. And what we're going through today is even more extreme. The one bright side of this is that if we can manage to avoid nuclear annihilation, I expect an even larger chunk of the population will join the jaded and cynical asshole family. It's not a pleasant worldview, but probably necessary for the survival of humanity in the age of mass media and mass weapons.

== I still can’t believe we spent $7T on the global war on terror and no one is asking questions.== Everyone who asked before we started that “war” was called a traitor.

daniel-cussen 4y ago

jti107 4y ago

dont forget the tax cuts and bailouts for big business that is added to the US national debt. currently at 31 trillion...but investing in education and healthcare for normal people is socialism ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

exq 4y ago
Student load forgiveness is socialism, but hundreds of billions in PPP loans with no obligation to repay is "stimulating the economy" Classy.
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  The government shut down businesses so it makes sense to compensate them. The government didn't force people to go the college or take out loans to pay for it.
  - hackyhacky 4y ago
    The government has an interest in educating its citizens. Just like how every other Western country subsidizes education.
    - refurb 4y ago
      The government in the US does subsidize education. Nobody was forced to take on debt they can repay because their were no job prospects.
    - _-david-_ 4y ago
      Has nothing to do with my point. The government required some businesses to shut down. They didn't force you to take out college loans. If you want to say there shouldn't be loans for college or whatever that is fine. The fact is, the US is not in that situation.
      - hackyhacky 4y ago
        The government didn't force businesses to take out loans either. Complying with the law doesn't automatically mean you deserve compensation. Nevertheless, the government allowed businesses to take out loans, and in many cases forgave those loans, because it benefits the country. The government allowed students to take out loans, and in many cases forgave those loans, because it benefits the country. I'm not saying there shouldn't be college loans. I am saying the job of the government is to help people, and both kinds of loans, an both kinds of loan forgiveness, fall into that category.
  - hashin 4y ago
    Actually government does. It makes sense to nudge people towards acquiring more skills and they routinely do that. Also, the economy is punishing for those who don't have a college degree (it always was, but perhaps not at this level.) And how did we reach here? Government policies. I am not saying that these policies were bad. But there can be no denying that government is the major reason why more and more people are going to college. And definitely, if college is not free or subsidised, they will be forced to take loans. Again, because economy is punishing for those who don't have a college education.
    - _-david-_ 4y ago
      I agree the government does nudge people to go to college. The problem is there is a difference between nudging people and arresting people. Nobody is putting a gun to your head requiring you to go to college. I agree the economy is set up against non college educated people. We should work to change that. Promoting trade schools as legitimate alternatives to college might help. I am not sold that would solve much though. A lot of young people don't want to get into the trades. How many 18 year olds who just graduated high school want to be a plumber? One thing I will say is that I don't think it is solely the government to blame. Companies require degrees for jobs that don't need it. They probably do it since there is a massive amount of people with degrees so they may as well get one of them to work for the company. We need companies to step up and stop requiring degrees. At the company I work at there are people with degrees who are working in data entry.
  - sure_about_that 4y ago
    == The government shut down businesses so it makes sense to compensate them.== Not all loans went to businesses that were forced to shut down.
    - _-david-_ 4y ago
      Correct. The subsidies were supposed to go for retrofitting builds, covering employment costs due to lower demand, and to cover costs due to being shut down. All of which were due to government policies.
      - sure_about_that 4y ago
        ==covering employment costs due to lower demand, and to cover costs due to being shut down.== Except that there wasn't lower demand across the whole economy, only very specific industries. Most businesses were not shut down. Lots of businesses continued running, and had increased demand. They still got forgivable loans. Perhaps the perception it has more to do with who signed the legislation (a Republican President and Senate) than whether it was actually "socialist" (it was)?
        _-david-_ 4y ago
        >Except that there wasn't lower demand across the whole economy, only very specific industries Obviously some industries weren't impacted. Many were though. The GDP also declined. You can probably say the same about every recession. >Most businesses were not shut down I never said they were. I've seen some estimates at 200,000 businesses. A huge number of businesses went out of business as well. >Lots of businesses continued running, and had increased demand. And lots of businesses who continued running had decreased demand. Even if the demand remained the same or increased they might not be able to meet the requirements like outside eating or distancing which would limit their revenues. >Perhaps the perception it has more to do with who signed the legislation (a Republican President and Senate) than whether it was actually "socialist" (it was)? It is not socialist. Socialist can mean either state controlled or worker controlled. This is corporate welfare. Just to be clear. I am not defending this policy. I am strictly saying that this is more justifiable then paying off student loans since the government literally shut many businesses and put other rules on businesses.
- User23 4y ago
  Both are direct expansions of the M1 money supply, which generally speaking will increase demand. Although sustainably stimulating the economy requires sustained investment on the supply side of the demand equation.

faeriechangling 4y ago

Not to put a fine point on it, but if you want to know what it was like back then, just say something like "I don't think we should finance the war in Ukraine. What is happening in Eastern Europe isn't our problem. Neutrality is the best policy" and see the rhetoric you'll hear. Usually blind allegations of shilling, being a Russian stooge, being a sock puppet, and so on. It was several times worse in the early days of the GWOT. Sikh's were getting killed for looking too Muslim. The stuff you see now where people want to include mandatory "Fact checks" in internet searches sort of paled to the crap we saw in the GWOT of Extraordinary rendition, enhanced interrogation, the Bush doctrine, destroying privacy laws in the name of patriotism, and so on. We've already started forgetting what happened.

qubex 4y ago
I often find myself wondering what latter-day “common sense” will be viewed uncharitably as jingoism in a few years hence.
petersellers 4y ago
> Not to put a fine point on it, but if you want to know what it was like back then, just say something like "I don't think we should finance the war in Ukraine. What is happening in Eastern Europe isn't our problem. Neutrality is the best policy" and see the rhetoric you'll hear What's happening now is not remotely comparable to what the US did in response to 9/11 - if anything, it's the opposite (we are defending a country from being invaded for BS reasons vs invading another country for BS reasons)
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- somenameforme 4y ago
  At the beginning of the Iraq War, and for sometime thereafter, we were led to believe that Iraq was actively developing WMD. We weren't invading a country, but saving the world from imminent catastrophe at the hands of an unhinged and crazy dictator. The proof included claims by dozens of different intelligence agencies, testimony from high level insiders in the Iraq government, surveillance photos of mobile biological weapons laboratories, definitive proof of purchase of Uranium for nuclear weapons purposes, under oath testimony, and of course endless propaganda: --- Washington Post - "Irrefutable" : https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2003/02/06/irrefutable/e598b1be-a78a-4a42-8e1a-c336f7a217f4/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2003/02/06/i... NYTimes - "Irrefutable and Undeniable" : https://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/06/opinion/irrefutable-and-undeniable.html https://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/06/opinion/irrefutable-and-u... --- To imagine all of this was fabricated or based on lies would make even the most enthusiastic conspiracy theorist look at you a bit funny. These events played a major role in shaping my worldview. And what we're going through today is even more extreme. The one bright side of this is that if we can manage to avoid nuclear annihilation, I expect an even larger chunk of the population will join the jaded and cynical asshole family. It's not a pleasant worldview, but probably necessary for the survival of humanity in the age of mass media and mass weapons.