Newest Sift Talk Posts
comment listing type:
Top New Worldaffairs Videos by Vote
Subscribe
Top 15 Sifters of All Time
VideoSift Links
Newest Sift Talk Posts comment listing type: Top New Worldaffairs Videos by Vote Subscribe Top 15 Sifters of All Time VideoSift Links |
What if there were no stop signs?
I'm gonna say *politics on this too, since I think this makes a nice parable about the dangers of privatization.
McCain's Press Conference in Front of a Cheese Case
Obama Inspires Unity In Berlin
Iraq Banned from Olympics
Federal Income Tax And What You Get Back From It!
Okay, countries with some form of economic regulation: All EU nations, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, China, Japan.
There are no cost/benefit analyses I know of for entire departments of the government. There are, however, cost/benefit analyses that those departments create for each and every policy they enact.
They too, need to put a dollar value on human life arbitrarily. Unfortunately, they also can sometimes fudge that to get a desired result. Bush did this recently, lowering the value from the $8 million that was used just a few years ago, to $6.9 million, so he could claim that the EPA limiting carbon emissions would fail the cost/benefit analysis (barely).
When it's government, at least there's some level of transparency, so diligent citizens can catch them when they cook the books.
If you let the corporations self-regulate, who would make sure they don't cook the books like that?
Unless you'd regulate the industry by requiring transparency. Though then you'd need a division of government to investigate and enforce that regulation...oh, the horror.
The cry for fully-written studies though is a bit silly, we're not Senators, we're two dickheads arguing in an internet forum. I don't see how you could have a cost/benefit analysis for something like the FDA, without there being some private organization that does that for an entire country's drug industry to compare it to. If you want to compare it to "do nothing" that's easy, it's a lot better than that, and they have studies to prove that.
Ron Paul on Homeschooling
You're both wrong. The problem with the public education system in the U.S. is not monetary. It's jurisdictional.
Interesting idea. I agree with it in principle, but it'd be a political nightmare to get people to agree on it. Conservatives and creationists would fight a national curriculum tooth and nail.
I'm not sure it's the only thing wrong. There's a shortage of good teachers out there, and I've read a few stories about schools that are canceling music & art programs due to lack of funding.
@blankfist:
Here's a study. It's partisan though, because school teachers wrote it, and you know you can't trust the Big School Lobby.
It also mentions the countries with better funded national education programs, and the better results they're getting from it. It's the usual suspects, essentially all of Europe, the wealthier portions of Asia, oh, and Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
I'm more interested in the comment about the military-industrial complex though. If we entirely eliminate national defense spending, don't we lose our standing army?
Obama the Neo-Conservative
Who do you think we should hand Iraq over to?
Remeber when people cared for Ron Paul? (Blog Entry by blankfist)
The better question is why LibertarianSift hasn't embraced Barr. My handful of Barr videos have all pqueued.
Really, I've noticed a very sharp decline in interest in Presidential politics videos after the Democratic primary ended.
Pro-Obama stuff doesn't get votes, but anti-McCain stuff sifts sometimes, but it's anemic compared to the way it used to be.
I think a lot of people have tuned out the election08 channel for the time being, since a lot of people seem to have already made up their minds.
Universal Health Care? Illegal aliens get it, why not us?
No. I never said we need to abolish all government programs. The federal government has a role, albeit a small one protecting life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and no law shall be passed that obstructs the governing law of the Constitution. What kills me is why you are so against the ideas of the Constitution. Why do you fight it so much? oh, please, please, please say it's a living document so I can rip you a new one!
Securing the borders is an important role. But, let's not get this twisted and say this is about racism, because it's not. I also think allowing people to migrate here (LEGALLY!!!!) is as important to the foundation of this country as anything else. This is a country of immigrants, and we need to keep that tradition alive, I think!
I'm not letting you off the hook so easily, however, Mr. NetRunner. You must answer my question about taxes, which was: "Why is it fair for people who choose not to get married (or are unable to get married) be penalized with higher taxes? Why is it fair you have to pay for this war in Iraq, NetRunner? Are you enjoying the nation-building your money is paying for over there? Probably not, right?"
I was mostly trying to seek the common ground, not get sidetracked onto other issues we usually butt heads over.
The Constitution supports my viewpoint. It also supports my viewpoint that it's a living document. If it was meant to be carved in stone for all eternity, there wouldn't be a process for changing it, and the Supreme Court wouldn't have the power to interpret it. I don't think we should change it too often, and that we should stay true to the philosophies and concepts it expresses, but it was meant to evolve and adapt to the times.
As for your comments on taxes, I don't think those things are fair. I haven't paid much attention to the "marriage penalty" comments since I'm married, but that was supposedly eliminated by part of Bush's tax cuts, and Obama is in favor of maintaining that aspect of it. For what it's worth, I'm in favor of keeping it eliminated too.
It's not fair that I have to pay for this war in Iraq, but it's also not fair that Bush became president through election fraud, in both terms. I don't think the solution to the problem with the war is to abolish taxation, the same way I don't think the solution to election fraud is to stop voting. Instead I'd like to adjust the way they both work, so we don't run into these kinds of pitfalls.
None of the above has anything to do with immigration, unless you're suggesting that without taxation, without publicly funded programs, and without labor laws, immigration wouldn't be viewed as a problem anymore.
That's why I asked if it was fair to characterize your position that way; I thought that was what you were suggesting.
Universal Health Care? Illegal aliens get it, why not us?
It's unfortunate that the system is difficult. That's life. Since when is anything that you really want, easy? And there is a method for unskilled workers to come here. You acknowledged it yourself by stating it was in place, but difficult. But, just because it's difficult, does not exclude it, especially if it is the law and required. Why should immigrants be allowed to "cheat"? Because it's hard? Because they're unskilled? Fine, then I could use Appeals to Pity and other logical fallacies and start complaining that I'm not a CEO and make $300,000/yr.
Nope. There is absolutely no reason why they can't follow the rules.
Ahh, but they're not following the rules. Given that, what do we do? Spend lots of money enforcing them, or reexamine the validity of the rule?
In this situation, I propose the latter. What would be the harm in making it easier? If we get them paying taxes, and earning minimum wage, doesn't that solve the problem without much cost, and with possible benefits to us?
When talking about politics, the point is to examine policies -- saying "the rules are the rules" is what police forces and military officers should say, but politicians should be examining the issue, and deciding if the rules should change, or just the budget for enforcement.
blankfist
In reply to this comment by blankfist:
By the way, you never upvoted this gem: http://www.videosift.com/video/Challenge-of-the-SUPER-DUPER-FRIENDS-Dems-v-Repubs
Federal Income Tax And What You Get Back From It!
As for my analogy, it seems like you missed my point. Government exists to enact and enforce laws, yes? Can we agree on that definition? Assuming we can agree on that, why should you put someone in charge of a Government that's averse to enacting and enforcing laws?
We're not talking about a repeal of the laws forbidding murder, but we are talking about the repeal of laws that forbid the use of substances with health risks, or the repeal of laws that might have safeguarded us from some of this credit silliness, and the absolute opposition to laws that might have encouraged the free market to proactively seek alternatives to oil.
Maybe it's not like a president of GM who's philosophically opposed to the existence of cars, maybe it's more like a president of GM who thinks cars shouldn't have doors, or seatbelts, or airbags, because this will encourage people to drive more safely.
You're right, Reagan won the election -- I never said tapping into people's dissatisfaction with government wouldn't be popular. Winning the election isn't proof that Reagan's philosophy was right, though. That's just silly.
Universal Health Care? Illegal aliens get it, why not us?
Would it be fair then to characterize your position as not having a specific desire to tighten enforcement of immigration law, but instead a general desire to abolish all government programs?
@QM:
We're doing a pretty good job of assimilating the world, in countries much farther away than Mexico. Do you really believe that Mexicans who're here now, refusing to assimilate, won't end up assimilating in the long run? On the really long scale, don't you think their kids will assimilate?
We've assimilated several different minority communities that were initially resistant, I don't see what makes Mexicans more threatening. We are the precursor to the Borg after all.
@videosiftbannedme:
That system is painfully difficult, even for well-educated Europeans who follow the process to the letter. My wife is from Finland, and it took years to get all the paperwork done, and that was before 9/11...these days it's nearly impossible to legally immigrate to the U.S.
Also, there's no method available at all to unskilled Mexicans who want to come here to work. The only avenue for them to come here at all is through winning a spot in the "ethnic diversity lottery", which hands out something like 1200 visas for entering the country, out of hundreds of thousands of applications.
Illegal entry is the only way for them to get here, and given our lack of enforcement on companies who hire them, there's still plenty of incentive for them to come.
HYPE - The Obama Effect Movie Trailer
Federal Income Tax And What You Get Back From It!
You read it as a tautology, and I disagree. If we elected the president of GM, and I ran on a platform of "I don't like cars, I think they're bad for everyone, so put me in charge of the largest maker of cars in the world", I'd get what, 1% of the vote?
Same sort of silliness comes from people like Reagan saying "Government isn't the solution to the problem, government is the problem"...so vote for me so I can run the government and prove myself right by making government a problem!
It's okay to say "I think government influence should be reduced", but this outright declaration that all government does is fuck things up should disqualify the person from government service, because it'll be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
As to me having to justify the existence of the government programs, personally I think the burden of proof lies with you -- name a country without those types of institutions where private organizations successfully self-regulate themselves more effectively than what's being done in the U.S.
I have quite a few countries to back up my side of the argument...name one that can back up yours.