OP/ED "The Trouble With Socialism Is That Eventually You Run Out Of Other People's Money." (4/22/22 21:05PST) (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

Frankly I don't see how anyone can think otherwise. Republicans have steadfastly refused to renew the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and their voters have supported that refusal.

Hard to imagine more concrete proof of "wanting to go back to the 1950s" than literally rolling back one of the laws passed shortly thereafter that moved the country forward.

The conservative position is that because civil rights have advanced so much, the Voting Rights Act is no longer necessary. 
 

Mind you, I strongly disagree with this position. But it’s a far cry from wanting to return to segregation. Not the same thing at all. 

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

Apologies, everyone. I assumed we were talking about the NINETEEN fifties.  But then I saw the story about all the anti-democracy texts to and from Mark Meadows, and now I'm wondering if maybe we're talking about the 1750s?

If that's the case, I would like to revise my answer.  I would guess that only about 30-40% of conservative voters support getting rid of democracy and going back to a monarchical system. I fear it may be much higher, but I guess I'm an optimist.

 

[timschochet]

Thanks. I can see that. But also thought it was incredibly discouraging / insulting to hear toby say "I think it's fair to assume that virtually all conservatives want to return to the 1955 civil right law status for black people when it comes to voting, considering the conservative movement has undertaken a massive effort to do exactly that."

I don't guess we can know for sure but I hope you're way more accurate.

Toby is IMO, misunderstanding conservatives. But at the same time, I think YOU are misunderstanding Toby. He’s making his argument based on his interpretation of conservative rejection of a single law. He’s not saying “all conservatives are racist!” Neither he nor anyone believes that. 
 

We need to find a way to get past this “the other side hates us!” It’s really hurting us. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

Apologies, everyone. I assumed we were talking about the NINETEEN fifties.  But then I saw the story about all the anti-democracy texts to and from Mark Meadows, and now I'm wondering if maybe we're talking about the 1750s?

If that's the case, I would like to revise my answer.  I would guess that only about 30-40% of conservative voters support getting rid of democracy and going back to a monarchical system. I fear it may be much higher, but I guess I'm an optimist.

No. We're talking about the 1950s. 

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

The conservative position is that because civil rights have advanced so much, the Voting Rights Act is no longer necessary. 
 

Mind you, I strongly disagree with this position. But it’s a far cry from wanting to return to segregation. Not the same thing at all. 

You don't have to believe everything people say, you know.

Like say for example if they unanimously vote for the VRA in 2006 and then they oppose it in 2022. And in the middle they repeatedly got caught red-handed trying to minimize black people's participation in democracy and nominating an obvious racist for president.

if someone does that, you don't have to buy the nonsensical excuse they came up with to explain their "change of heart" from 2006 to 2022. What happened was very obvious and clear to literally every observer:  they realized that their base won't punish them for this stuff, so they acted in their own best interest to roll back minority voting protections.

 

[timschochet]

You don't have to believe everything people say, you know.

Like say for example if they unanimously vote for the VRA in 2006 and then they oppose it in 2022. And in the middle they repeatedly got caught red-handed trying to minimize black people's participation in democracy and nominating an obvious racist for president.

if someone does that, you don't have to buy the nonsensical excuse they came up with to explain their "change of heart" from 2006 to 2022. What happened was very obvious and clear to literally every observer:  they realized that their base won't punish them for this stuff, so they acted in their own best interest to roll back minority voting protections.

Sure but in this case I’ve talked to enough conservatives to believe they are genuine about this. 
And it falls in line with the whole conservative position about race, which essentially is: things are equal now- whatever happened before is not our problem; things are equal now. So we don’t need any kind of affirmative action or identity politics or voting protection: it’s no longer necessary. 
If you study conservative responses to all issues involving race, it always comes back to that. 

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

Sure but in this case I’ve talked to enough conservatives to believe they are genuine about this. 
And it falls in line with the whole conservative position about race, which essentially is: things are equal now- whatever happened before is not our problem; things are equal now. So we don’t need any kind of affirmative action or identity politics or voting protection: it’s no longer necessary. 
If you study conservative responses to all issues involving race, it always comes back to that. 

What do you mean by "this"?  

Anyway, if you are right, I'm frankly not sure that's really any better. Rolling back the Voting Rights Act because you think racism is solved is like rolling back Medicare because you think Miracle Max from Princess Bride is real. You don't get a pass on cruelty just because it's the product of stupidity.

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

Also note that they voted 98-0 to reauthorize the VRA in 2006. There were 17 members who voted for it in 2006 and against it in 2022. Is the argument that we solved racism some time between 2006 and 2022? That's awfully convenient. And quick!

 

[tommyGunZ]

@Joe Bryant, what do you think Trump means when he says he wants to MAGA like the 1950s?  

 

[Amused to Death]

@Joe Bryant, what do you think Trump means when he says he wants to MAGA like the 1950s?  

If Donald Trump wants to make America great again, as his oft-repeated slogan promises, then that leads to the question: When was the last time America was actually great?

Trump has an answer. In an interview with The New York Times published Saturday, the real estate mogul was asked when the country last reached the GOP front-runner’s lofty ideal – as a reporter asked, when do “you think the United States last had the right balance, either in terms of defense footprint or in terms of trade?”

The answer, Trump explained, was during periods of military and industrial expansion at the onset of the 20th century and again in the years after World War II.

“If you look back, it really was, there was a period of time when we were developing at the turn of the century which was a pretty wild time for this country and pretty wild in terms of building that machine, that machine was really based on entrepreneurship,” he told the Times.

Trump also pointed to the “late ’40s and ‘50s,” a time when, he said, “we were not pushed around, we were respected by everybody, we had just won a war, we were pretty much doing what we had to do.”

Not on his list: The Reagan Era.

“As much as I liked Ronald Reagan, he started NAFTA,” Trump said. “Now Clinton really was the one that — NAFTA has been a disaster for our country, O.K., and Clinton is the one as you know that got it done, but it was conceived even before Clinton, but you could say that maybe those people didn’t want done what was ultimately signed because it was changed a lot by the time it got finalized. But NAFTA has been a disaster for our country.”

Link

 

[Joe Bryant]

@Joe Bryant, what do you think Trump means when he says he wants to MAGA like the 1950s?  

My guess is when he and other people talk positively about the 50's, they are talking about good things like leading the world in manufacturing. Like being seen as the country that innovates and makes things. A country that pulled together in a World War and made sacrifices for the good of the country and the world. 

I do not think he, nor any Conservatives I know mean let's go back to Segregation and treating black people like sub citizens. 

But it's discouraging that some apparently do think that's what is meant. 

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

If Donald Trump wants to make America great again, as his oft-repeated slogan promises, then that leads to the question: When was the last time America was actually great?

Trump has an answer. In an interview with The New York Times published Saturday, the real estate mogul was asked when the country last reached the GOP front-runner’s lofty ideal – as a reporter asked, when do “you think the United States last had the right balance, either in terms of defense footprint or in terms of trade?”

The answer, Trump explained, was during periods of military and industrial expansion at the onset of the 20th century and again in the years after World War II.

“If you look back, it really was, there was a period of time when we were developing at the turn of the century which was a pretty wild time for this country and pretty wild in terms of building that machine, that machine was really based on entrepreneurship,” he told the Times.

Trump also pointed to the “late ’40s and ‘50s,” a time when, he said, “we were not pushed around, we were respected by everybody, we had just won a war, we were pretty much doing what we had to do.”

Not on his list: The Reagan Era.

“As much as I liked Ronald Reagan, he started NAFTA,” Trump said. “Now Clinton really was the one that — NAFTA has been a disaster for our country, O.K., and Clinton is the one as you know that got it done, but it was conceived even before Clinton, but you could say that maybe those people didn’t want done what was ultimately signed because it was changed a lot by the time it got finalized. But NAFTA has been a disaster for our country.”

Link

How many times do conservatives have to say the same things before people start believing them?

 

[Amused to Death]

If Donald Trump wants to make America great again, as his oft-repeated slogan promises, then that leads to the question: When was the last time America was actually great?

Trump has an answer. In an interview with The New York Times published Saturday, the real estate mogul was asked when the country last reached the GOP front-runner’s lofty ideal – as a reporter asked, when do “you think the United States last had the right balance, either in terms of defense footprint or in terms of trade?”

The answer, Trump explained, was during periods of military and industrial expansion at the onset of the 20th century and again in the years after World War II.

“If you look back, it really was, there was a period of time when we were developing at the turn of the century which was a pretty wild time for this country and pretty wild in terms of building that machine, that machine was really based on entrepreneurship,” he told the Times.

Trump also pointed to the “late ’40s and ‘50s,” a time when, he said, “we were not pushed around, we were respected by everybody, we had just won a war, we were pretty much doing what we had to do.”

Not on his list: The Reagan Era.

“As much as I liked Ronald Reagan, he started NAFTA,” Trump said. “Now Clinton really was the one that — NAFTA has been a disaster for our country, O.K., and Clinton is the one as you know that got it done, but it was conceived even before Clinton, but you could say that maybe those people didn’t want done what was ultimately signed because it was changed a lot by the time it got finalized. But NAFTA has been a disaster for our country.”

Link

Worth noting, the top marginal tax rate during those periods of growth and entrepreneurship ranged from the low 70s to mid 90s. Tax the rich.

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

My guess is when he and other people talk positively about the 50's, they are talking about good things like leading the world in manufacturing. Like being seen as the country that innovates and makes things. A country that pulled together in a World War and made sacrifices for the good of the country and the world. 

I do not think he, nor any Conservatives I know mean let's go back to Segregation and treating black people like sub citizens. 

But it's discouraging that some apparently do think that's what is meant. 

It's not like he gave this quote about the 1950s in isolation. He also did this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and on and on and on.

I'm curious- what exactly have Trump and his supporters said that makes you believe this isn't what they want? Because I can obviously give you examples suggesting that it is what they want for as long as you want me to give them.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

My guess is when he and other people talk positively about the 50's, they are talking about good things like leading the world in manufacturing. Like being seen as the country that innovates and makes things. A country that pulled together in a World War and made sacrifices for the good of the country and the world. 

I do not think he, nor any Conservatives I know mean let's go back to Segregation and treating black people like sub citizens. 

But it's discouraging that some apparently do think that's what is meant. 

This has been a weird conversation to follow.  I never knew that I was supposed to support segregation and the return of monarchy.

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

This has been a weird conversation to follow.  I never knew that I was supposed to support segregation and the return of monarchy.

FWIW I pointed out that these people are not actually conservatives, they are reactionaries.  I would refer to you (or at least the person I thought I was friendly with a couple years ago) as a conservative.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I'm curious- what exactly have Trump and his supporters said that makes you believe this isn't what they want? 

Exactly actual life experience from the past 25+ years with a lot of people who voted for Trump.

None of them are remotely close to wanting to go back to Segregation and treating black people like sub citizens. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

This has been a weird conversation to follow.  I never knew that I was supposed to support segregation and the return of monarchy.

With you, GB.

It's been helpful I guess in the sense I now better understand folks here. But it's been an odd one to follow and pretty discouraging. It is what it is. 

 

[Ghost Rider]

Exactly actual life experience from the past 25+ years with a lot of people who voted for Trump.

None of them are remotely close to wanting to go back to Segregation and treating black people like sub citizens. 

Life experiences do not matter, Joe, didn't you get the memo? 

Only demonizing large portions of the country and pointing to polls matter. 

Forgive my sarcasm, but there are quite a few conservatives in my family, and none of them want this bull crap that some here are spewing.  Of course, I am sure they really do, and they just aren't saying it because most conservatives are obviously racist and hateful peeps. 

 

[Shula-holic]

This has been a weird conversation to follow.  I never knew that I was supposed to support segregation and the return of monarchy.

I think we've located those handful of people who actually tune in to Joy Reid nightly.

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

Exactly actual life experience from the past 25+ years with a lot of people who voted for Trump.

None of them are remotely close to wanting to go back to Segregation and treating black people like sub citizens. 

No offense, but evaluating a political movement based on what your friends tell you seems like the worst way to evaluate a political movement. People are always inclined to see those that are close to them in the best possible light, and people are generally not inclined to tell their friends and neighbors about their least popular positions. 

I don't mean to say that your Trump voter friends want segregation. I doubt they do, simply because I don't think many people do. Which is why I estimated support for that aspect of "turning back the clock" at 2% when I was first asked. 

But support for turning back the clock to the 1950s when it comes to other things, including voting, is another matter. Your friends support a political party that removed one of the main protections against racism in American government, after the same party voted to retain those same protections unanimously and without controversy just 15 years earlier. That's a fact, one that can't be changed by anyone's conversations with their buddies. They also support the candidacy of the man who did all those things I linked in my last post. Those things happened, and your friends were OK with them and voted for the man anyway, no matter what they tell you about their attitudes towards racism.

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

With you, GB.

It's been helpful I guess in the sense I now better understand folks here. But it's been an odd one to follow and pretty discouraging. It is what it is. 

This is one of those deals where people are discussing the conversation they imagine they're having with me instead of what I actually said. I don't think many people are openly pro-segregation, and have said that.

Voting, however, is another matter. You can say it's weird or discouraging or whatever.  But the fact is that I brought up the specific example of the rollback of the Voting Rights Act 5 hours ago as an obvious example of the movement very clearly wanting to go back to the 1950s in terms of protections for black people, and not one person has said a word to contradict that since then.

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

Life experiences do not matter, Joe, didn't you get the memo? 

Only demonizing large portions of the country and pointing to polls matter. 

Forgive my sarcasm, but there are quite a few conservatives in my family, and none of them want this bull crap that some here are spewing.  Of course, I am sure they really do, and they just aren't saying it because most conservatives are obviously racist and hateful peeps. 

None of them wanted the rollback of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the resulting limitations on voting that targeted black communities?

If that's true you might wanna do them a favor and point out that they've been voting for the wrong party!

 

[Joe Bryant]

No offense, but evaluating a political movement based on what your friends tell you seems like the worst way to evaluate a political movement.

Thanks. I appreciate and understand your insight. But we'll just disagree there. 

I said I don't think his supporters want to "go back to Segregation and treating black people like sub citizens."

You asked, "What exactly have Trump and his supporters said that makes you believe this isn't what they want?"

My answer, exactly, is 25+ years of actual life experience with a bunch of those people. 

Again, I appreciate and understand you think that's the "worst" way to evaluate something. 

I disagree. I put a high value on actual practical life experience with people through a wide spectrum of events both good and bad. 

 

[Ghost Rider]

None of them wanted the rollback of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the resulting limitations on voting that targeted black communities?

If that's true you might wanna do them a favor and point out that they've been voting for the wrong party!

Oh, so when you vote for a candidate, or a party, that means you agree with every single issue they support? 

My gosh, thank you so much for enlightening all of us. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

See, if people want to talk about the Voting Rights Act, that makes sense.  I've read a handful of articles written by conservatives arguing that preclearance should be done away with, for example.  

Does that mean "Let's go back to the 1950s?"  If your answer is "Yes, that's what that means," would you say the same thing about a person who argued for a return to Eisenhower-level top marginal tax rates?  No?  I wonder why not.

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

Oh, so when you vote for a candidate, or a party, that means you agree with every single issue they support? 

My gosh, thank you so much for enlightening all of us. 

Of course not, I'd never say that.  But that has been pretty central to the conservative mission over the last few years. Have any of your family members voiced any objections to it? Any tinges of regret about having to support the political party that rolled back  black voting rights to the 1950s?

I will point out again that I made the argument 5 hours ago, have answered countless questions about it since, and in all that time not one conservative has indicated in any way that they think the push to roll back the 1965 Voting Rights Act was a bad thing. Not one.

Hopefully this is not a representative sample of conservatives, and your family's forceful condemnation of that effort can stand as an effective counterpoint and restore a tiny bit of my faith in the American conservative movement. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Also, I was born in 1972.  I wasn't alive in 1950s.  I have no first-hand memories of that era whatsoever.  I don't even know what it means to want to return to a time period that I never experienced.

Most conservatives are younger than me.  They didn't experience the 1950s either.  They don't remember Reagan. 

It's really weird that you guys think that this is something that we sit around to talk to one another about.  There are definitely people my age who look back on the Reagan era with nostalgia, but none of us want to re-start the cold war or sell more arms to the Contras.  

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

See, if people want to talk about the Voting Rights Act, that makes sense.  I've read a handful of articles written by conservatives arguing that preclearance should be done away with, for example.  

Does that mean "Let's go back to the 1950s?"  If your answer is "Yes, that's what that means," would you say the same thing about a person who argued for a return to Eisenhower-level top marginal tax rates?  No?  I wonder why not.

What if they said "let's go back to the 1950s," and then they supported a lifelong advocate of massive tax increases for president while dedicating an inordinate amount of time and money to a successful effort to increase the top marginal tax rate.

Would someone be justified in making an assumption about what they meant by "let's go back to the 1950s" after that?

 

[Joe Bryant]

Also, I was born in 1972.  I wasn't alive in 1950s.  I have no first-hand memories of that era whatsoever.  I don't even know what it means to want to return to a time period that I never experienced.

Most conservatives are younger than me.  They didn't experience the 1950s either.  They don't remember Reagan. 

It's really weird that you guys think that this is something that we sit around to talk to one another about.  There are definitely people my age who look back on the Reagan era with nostalgia, but none of us want to re-start the cold war or sell more arms to the Contras.  

The most common thing I hear from people wishing for the 50's is the old timers wanting more Chuck Berry music. 

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Of course not, I'd never say that.  But that has been pretty central to the conservative mission over the last few years. Have any of your family members voiced any objections to it? Any tinges of regret about having to support the political party that rolled back  black voting rights to the 1950s?

I will point out again that I made the argument 5 hours ago, have answered countless questions about it since, and in all that time not one conservative has indicated in any way that they think the push to roll back the 1965 Voting Rights Act was a bad thing. Not one.

Hopefully this is not a representative sample of conservatives, and your family's forceful condemnation of that effort can stand as an effective counterpoint and restore a tiny bit of my faith in the American conservative movement. 

I think we can all acknowledge that - perhaps for obvious reasons - the Republican party decided many years ago that its interests are best served by restricting voting rights as much as legally possible and making it as inconvenient and difficult as possible for people to vote.  At the same time, the Democrats decided the opposite - that its interests are best served by making elections as free and open as possible, even at the cost of reducing or eliminating common and simple safeguards to ensure election integrity. The Republican efforts are often seen as racist because they can have a disproportionate effect on minorities, but I think for many Republican voters its really just about supporting their party. They don't view voter ID laws as racist, whereas for Democrats this is the common refrain.  I think this might be part of the disconnect in this discussion. These lines are hard-drawn in the sand and for Republicans its about preventing voter fraud. Things like stringent voter id requirements, restricting polling places and hours, rolling back voter rights controls, eliminating early voting or convenient forms of voting like mail and drop boxes - I think Democrats view these efforts and fundamentally racist, while Republicans view them as just good old politicking.

 

[BladeRunner]

I think we can all acknowledge that - perhaps for obvious reasons - the Republican party decided many years ago that its interests are best served by restricting voting rights as much as legally possible and making it as inconvenient and difficult as possible for people to vote.  At the same time, the Democrats decided the opposite - that its interests are best served by making elections as free and open as possible, even at the cost of reducing or eliminating common and simple safeguards to ensure election integrity. The Republican efforts are often seen as racist because they can have a disproportionate effect on minorities, but I think for many Republican voters its really just about supporting their party. They don't view voter ID laws as racist, whereas for Democrats this is the common refrain.  I think this might be part of the disconnect in this discussion. These lines are hard-drawn in the sand and for Republicans its about preventing voter fraud. Things like stringent voter id requirements, restricting polling places and hours, rolling back voter rights controls, eliminating early voting or convenient forms of voting like mail and drop boxes - I think Democrats view these efforts and fundamentally racist, while Republicans view them as just good old politicking.

Uhm...no, we can't.  Unless by "we can all" you mean just yourself and Toby?  If so, then go nuts.

 

[shadrap]

Exactly actual life experience from the past 25+ years with a lot of people who voted for Trump.

None of them are remotely close to wanting to go back to Segregation and treating black people like sub citizens. 

I've lived in ND for most of my life.  Probably top 5 in the nation as far as being "conservative".  what people say on this board is so far removed from the truth is painful.  painted with racist, uneducated, not informed.  all I've ever seen is in ND you want to work we have a job for you.   it is just so easy to lump people into a bin that you want to toss away.  from what I've seen & witnessed it is not true.

racist?  not where I come from.  show me you want to work-you have a job.

so frustrating with the labels.  conservatives main issues are people on the government dole & flooding the country with illegal immigrants to get on the government dole, thus getting their vote.  we have been reduced to paying for votes.  let that sink in.

it is what it is.  

happy trails.

 

[GordonGekko]

Sharing kills, helping raise and educate each other's children, preventing other people from hoarding or spoiling the shared resources, accepting "two spirit" tribe members as they existed, expecting everyone to contribute to the defense of the tribe.

Bat#### liberal stuff like that, probably.

CONGRESS GAVE THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT $250 MILLION TO BUILD BORDER WALLS IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA

Hundreds of millions 53 of foreign citizens, lawfully or not, cross the United States-Canada
and the United States-Mexico borders each year. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) and
the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) received $26 billion in Federal funding
in 2019, but all the while, year after year, our system remains in utter disarray.
Nonetheless, the Federal government feels that it is qualified enough to assist and aide
developing countries overseas with their border systems. In fact, $250 million of your
taxpayer dollars are going to building borders in Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia, and
Oman.

So, in the December 2020 blow-out appropriations bill, Congress spent $250 million on
“enhanced border security” in the Middle East and North Africa. Meanwhile, the United
States immigration system still has much work to be done. While we were busy funding
other countries’ immigration systems, in December 2020, the United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS) received a “flood” of new DACA applications, ultimately
resulting in a considerable backlog of over 81,000 applications, according to the agency.
While Americans may be divided on how to solve the crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border, we
should all agree that using our taxpayer money to fix someone else’s border is not the best
idea.

https://www.paul.senate.gov/sites/default/files/page-attachments/Festivus Report 2021_0.pdf

******

A tribe devoting resources for the betterment of it's OWN internal ranks is one thing.

For them to expend risk, labor, sweat, toil, time and sacrifice for an entirely different tribe raises the question on what is the practical return on that expenditure.

In a society of widespread scarcity, it's very hard to give up your own blood and hard work as an entitlement to someone else NOT inside your own tribe.

However when you are a modern elected official and it's someone else's money to burn and waste and throw around, then you see stupid decisions like sending truckloads of money to defend other countries and their borders when our own US borders are in complete chaos.

Make no mistake, if we are talking modern American politics, then the discussion is running out of "other people's money", those 'other people' are the average US taxpayers.

 

[GordonGekko]

I didn’t read but just assumed it was about how alpha and studish he is and how he won’t take away our free speech rights but will just dominate us with his overpowering greatness.  

UNITED STATES SPENT $549,000,000 ON PLANES FOR AFGHAN AIR FORCE THAT WERE SOLD AS SCRAP

Some say that one man’s trash is another man’s treasure. While this saying may bring to mind sifting through the aisles of your local thrift shop, looking for the best deal, it’s not too often when that “trash” is million-dollar military aircraft. A Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) investigation found that the United States Air Force decided to supply the Afghan Air Force with Italian aircraft that was ultimately re-sold for $548,959,743 less than the original value. How entrepreneurial.

Our military spent $549 million worth of your taxpayer dollars on aircraft for the Afghan Air Force, just for them to be junked a few years later at a “scrap” value of $40,257, according to the report. The Pentagon bought 20 G222 cargo aircraft from Alenia North America in 2008 but the planes proved unreliable, subsequently leading to problems such as long delays to secure the delivery of spare parts, maintenance problems, and safety complaints from Afghan pilots.

The program was suspended, the planes were destroyed, and turned into scrap metal in 2014,
which sold for $40,257: not even one-ten-thousandth of the value. Unfortunately, no one involved in the program was held accountable for this failure even though early alarm bells were raised. SIGAR found that several warnings from within the Air Force about Alenia North America and its lack of a plan to sustain the aircraft "were ignored."

https://www.paul.senate.gov/sites/default/files/page-attachments/Festivus Report 2021_0.pdf

******

The timeline of the decision making on the G222 aircraft discussed above was in 2013, during the Obama Administration.

Of course you didn't read.

If you want to come after me and make it count, then your only option is to be a high value poster and consistently raise the level of discussion. I do that. You don't. Until you start doing it, you'll never silence me.

 

[dkp993]

UNITED STATES SPENT $549,000,000 ON PLANES FOR AFGHAN AIR FORCE THAT WERE SOLD AS SCRAP

Some say that one man’s trash is another man’s treasure. While this saying may bring to mind sifting through the aisles of your local thrift shop, looking for the best deal, it’s not too often when that “trash” is million-dollar military aircraft. A Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) investigation found that the United States Air Force decided to supply the Afghan Air Force with Italian aircraft that was ultimately re-sold for $548,959,743 less than the original value. How entrepreneurial.

Our military spent $549 million worth of your taxpayer dollars on aircraft for the Afghan Air Force, just for them to be junked a few years later at a “scrap” value of $40,257, according to the report. The Pentagon bought 20 G222 cargo aircraft from Alenia North America in 2008 but the planes proved unreliable, subsequently leading to problems such as long delays to secure the delivery of spare parts, maintenance problems, and safety complaints from Afghan pilots.

The program was suspended, the planes were destroyed, and turned into scrap metal in 2014,
which sold for $40,257: not even one-ten-thousandth of the value. Unfortunately, no one involved in the program was held accountable for this failure even though early alarm bells were raised. SIGAR found that several warnings from within the Air Force about Alenia North America and its lack of a plan to sustain the aircraft "were ignored."

https://www.paul.senate.gov/sites/default/files/page-attachments/Festivus Report 2021_0.pdf

******

The timeline of the decision making on the G222 aircraft discussed above was in 2013, during the Obama Administration.

Of course you didn't read.

If you want to come after me and make it count, then your only option is to be a high value poster and consistently raise the level of discussion. I do that. You don't. Until you start doing it, you'll never silence me.

I’ve got no desire to silence you, post your ranting diatribes all you want. While you occasionally make some salient points I have no desire to wade through the detritus and read about how great you think you are or how much smarter and more capable you are. The shtick is tired and boring.  So please post away, I will continue to scroll past as I’ve already seen this movie and know how it ends.  

 

[GordonGekko]

I don’t understand this point. What would be an example of an insane progressive behavior in these societies? 

Progressives unveil 2021 agenda to pressure Biden

The policy platform is part of a strategy to push Biden to the left if he wins the presidency....Known as the Working Families Party’s “People’s Charter,” the 1,000-word proposal calls for universal free health care, a jobs program employing 16 million people, retroactive hazard pay for essential employees and the reallocation of resources from policing toward education and other services. It also promotes giving the public an ownership stake in firms that receive bailouts, as well as buying out gas and oil companies, among other policies.

By Holly Otterbein 10/08/2020 06:01 AM EDT

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/08/progressive-agenda-2021-joe-biden-427673

https://www.peoplescharter.us/read-the-charter

*********

Hunter/gatherer tribes living a previous time/world reality of widespread scarcity and constant threat (enemy tribes, lack of food/starvation, disease, constant threat point against the consistent ability to regulate one's core temperature, etc, etc) could not sustain in a "Progressive" format.

As a group size grows, several predictable things tend to happen

1) How that community is organized and how leadership is deployed and operates must evolve with the growth. 

2) The type of leadership system must line up practically with the size of that community. Using a leadership model that is effective for a group of 20 is not the same as for a grouping of 500. A failure to match a practical leadership model to the increasing scale will trigger some kind of collapse.

3) There is always a threshold of population where there are too many people, too many different agendas, too many different priorities and there is an inevitable fracture point. Groups of different sizes will naturally begin to split off.

A group of 500 has the benefit of "scale" where mutual defense and shared labor can produce tremendous work output. However a group that large in a situation of wide spread scarcity is subject to increased risks like disease, infighting and lack of practical volume of resources.

A group of 20 has speed and flexibility and does not have to carry the weight of so many voices. But they don't have the benefit of being able to endure very much attrition and are often at the mercy of much larger groups around them.

Progressive modeling is built upon prioritizing social welfare. You can only achieve that in large societies. You need that kind of scaling to have an entitlement based protective shield around the weaker members who don't have a role and whom don't contribute to the overall resource base. I.E. the "Free Grazers".  It naturally infers a society of abundance and a hard limit on consistent threats to basic survival.

However a scenario of constant widespread scarcity culls the herd. Natural selection will make the decisions for you. Your resource management matrix cannot tolerate "Free Grazers" lest everyone dies period.  That base model is built around different complementary roles, not entitlement. When you have a world with a high mortality rate for newborns and you need so much labor to survive, children are your most valuable currency. They are not the beneficiaries of entitlement, they are the tribe's renewable "retirement plan"

Identity politics and intersectionality and arguing about pronouns and yelling about systematic racism is a luxury that most periods of recorded human history could not afford. Not from a survival resource management perspective.

As I said back in 2006, everything in life can be boiled down to a resource management problem to be solved.

But the problem solving can only occur when you accept the critical importance of scale.

 

[Joe Bryant]

They (Republicans) don't view voter ID laws as racist, whereas for Democrats this is the common refrain.  I think this might be part of the disconnect in this discussion.

I think you're right about this. This might be a good tangent discussion/thread/poll. 

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

I think we can all acknowledge that - perhaps for obvious reasons - the Republican party decided many years ago that its interests are best served by restricting voting rights as much as legally possible and making it as inconvenient and difficult as possible for people to vote.  At the same time, the Democrats decided the opposite - that its interests are best served by making elections as free and open as possible, even at the cost of reducing or eliminating common and simple safeguards to ensure election integrity. The Republican efforts are often seen as racist because they can have a disproportionate effect on minorities, but I think for many Republican voters its really just about supporting their party. They don't view voter ID laws as racist, whereas for Democrats this is the common refrain.  I think this might be part of the disconnect in this discussion. These lines are hard-drawn in the sand and for Republicans its about preventing voter fraud. Things like stringent voter id requirements, restricting polling places and hours, rolling back voter rights controls, eliminating early voting or convenient forms of voting like mail and drop boxes - I think Democrats view these efforts and fundamentally racist, while Republicans view them as just good old politicking.

They can be (and are) both. 

It's true that the GOP feigns concern for "voter fraud" as an excuse for restricting access to voting and representation. But you seem to be under the impression that their efforts are sincere, or at least not intentionally racist. I don't know why you'd think that, given that all available evidence indicates that voter fraud isn't a real problem but rather a fabricated excuse to restrict voting access. And even if they actually were sincere, I still don't think that's an excuse- you don't get a pass on keeping black people from voting just because it benefits you personally. 

But even if you do consider it a reasonable excuse, there is still pretty clear evidence that the GOP hasn't simply enacted a bunch of stuff that coincidentally impacts black voters negatively. They've been pretty explicitly racist during the effort.