Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
PRESIDENT TRUMP
Posts
Solitayre
View playlists
Close
Shinan
4314
Trumps wants to spend more on everything while lowering taxes. Seems perfectly doable.
At least our left's "shadow budget" had a massive amounts of loans in it to support the public spending. (and not very much in the tax breaks department)
At least our left's "shadow budget" had a massive amounts of loans in it to support the public spending. (and not very much in the tax breaks department)
BadLuck
2270
I'll just point out that none of us have any earthly idea what Trump actually wants. We know what he's said.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
Assuming you don't believe Politico is part of this giant media conspiracy that Trump has convinced people exists (which I'm sure had nothing to do with the present CEO of Breitbart news), Politico has researched 333 of Donald Trump's statements and found that only 15% could be rated as true or mostly true.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/
Incidentally, Hillary Clinton is at 51%, which is higher than Barack Obama or Bernie Sanders.
So, yes, we know what Donald Trump has said, but we don't know what it means when he says it. He said he wanted to build a giant wall out of concrete and rebar, but now says he doesn't. He said he wanted to deport 11 million illegal immigrants, but now says he doesn't. He said he wanted to not allow Muslims into the country (temporarily or not) but now says he doesn't. He said he wanted to drain the swamp but has surrounded himself with Republican insiders, CEOs, lobbyists. He said the election was rigged against him, when he won by losing the popular vote.
So... I mean, I don't know what him saying he wants to work on infrastructure means. He's changed his mind so much and been dishonest so often that I honestly see little reason to even care what he says because there's such a huge chance it'll turn out to be not true.
Maybe that was just campaign Trump lying for the campaign and now that he's president, he'll stop being that guy. I'll believe it when I see it (and when I see it, I will be skeptical).
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
Assuming you don't believe Politico is part of this giant media conspiracy that Trump has convinced people exists (which I'm sure had nothing to do with the present CEO of Breitbart news), Politico has researched 333 of Donald Trump's statements and found that only 15% could be rated as true or mostly true.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/
Incidentally, Hillary Clinton is at 51%, which is higher than Barack Obama or Bernie Sanders.
So, yes, we know what Donald Trump has said, but we don't know what it means when he says it. He said he wanted to build a giant wall out of concrete and rebar, but now says he doesn't. He said he wanted to deport 11 million illegal immigrants, but now says he doesn't. He said he wanted to not allow Muslims into the country (temporarily or not) but now says he doesn't. He said he wanted to drain the swamp but has surrounded himself with Republican insiders, CEOs, lobbyists. He said the election was rigged against him, when he won by losing the popular vote.
So... I mean, I don't know what him saying he wants to work on infrastructure means. He's changed his mind so much and been dishonest so often that I honestly see little reason to even care what he says because there's such a huge chance it'll turn out to be not true.
Maybe that was just campaign Trump lying for the campaign and now that he's president, he'll stop being that guy. I'll believe it when I see it (and when I see it, I will be skeptical).
There's a lot to criticize about our military spending, but...
This is absolutely false. Do you know how many people are employed and industries kept afloat by military spending and infrastructure? Entire cities and states are held on the shoulders of military spending.
author=piano
Our military is bleeding our economy to death.
This is absolutely false. Do you know how many people are employed and industries kept afloat by military spending and infrastructure? Entire cities and states are held on the shoulders of military spending.
Feldschlacht IV
There's a lot to criticize about our military spending, but...
piano
Our military is bleeding our economy to death.
This is absolutely false. Do you know how many people are employed and industries kept afloat by military spending and infrastructure? Entire cities and states are held on the shoulders of military spending.
So, this money wouldn't be better spent on infrastructure, or the ailing school system, or healthcare, or just about anything else? What good are the jobs that the military creates if there's no benefit for the rest of the economy? Money is being specifically taken away from these areas. There have been bills that have specifically cut education to increase military spending. Our education system has been in dire straights for years, but all anyone wants to do is institute idiotic programs like No Child Left Behind that instead of actually pumping lifeblood into the school system, do nothing but rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. Nice to know that the military is creating jobs that fewer and fewer people are qualified for.
author=pianto
So, this money wouldn't be better spent on infrastructure, or the ailing school system, or healthcare, or just about anything else? What good are the jobs that the military creates if there's no benefit for the rest of the economy? Money is being specifically taken away from these areas. There have been bills that have specifically cut education to increase military spending. Our education system has been in dire straights for years, but all anyone wants to do is institute idiotic programs like No Child Left Behind that instead of actually pumping lifeblood into the school system, do nothing but rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. Nice to know that the military is creating jobs that fewer and fewer people are qualified for.
You're arguing apples and oranges, like I said, there's plenty to criticize about our military spending. I agree that it should be rethought with more emphasis on education and other things. But economically it's a different argument.
Like I said, it is absolutely not true that it's 'killing our economy'. The military is a massive, massive economy by itself. Dude, hundreds of millions of contractors, businesses (large and small), support staff, civilians, auxiliary personnel, military personnel, and others around the world are employed and being paid as a direct result of our military industrial complex.
Cities fight over who gets to have an aircraft carrier stationed in their port. Cities also die when they leave (I was in the Navy, and I've seen this firsthand) and revive when they return. Millions of people gain skills and in turn other skills are gainfully employed as a direct result of the hundreds of skillsets needed for our military force. The money going into and out of the military and the people who are employed (either directly or indirectly) by the military doesn't just vanish or is stuffed into bombs or whatever. It goes into other shit. People spend it.
Like, what are you even talking about, dude?
author=piano
Nice to know that the military is creating jobs that fewer and fewer people are qualified for.
This is dumb, too. The military teaches a ton of skillsets applicable to both civilian, technical, and (of course) military applications. So let's say someone learns cryptography in the military, does his time, and gets out. Does he suddenly forget how to do that? Does he vanish into thin air? No, he goes into the civilian sector, or even becomes an instructor to teach those skills to others, *gasp*, broadening skillsets in general and enabling more people to be qualified for jobs!
You can replace 'cryptology' with 'electrician', 'barber', 'nurse', or 'accountant'. All of these, and hundreds more, are occupations, (or more specifically, MOS' or 'rates') that are taught and offered in the military. Do you think the military just teaches people to march in circles and shoot shit? It's one of the largest sources to learn a trade in the country.
author=piano
Our education system has been in dire straights for years
also it's dire straits fam
Davenport
5200
I agree with PianoTM's previous statement.
Trump is no doubt a rational man.
I will hope he will be wise president like Bill Clinton.
Trump is no doubt a rational man.
I will hope he will be wise president like Bill Clinton.
author=Shinan
Trumps wants to spend more on everything while lowering taxes. Seems perfectly doable.
I have the strangest feeling that suddenly Republicans are going to not care one whit about the deficit or the national debt.
author=Solitayre
I have the strangest feeling that suddenly Republicans are going to not care one whit about the deficit or the national debt.
Just like I had the strangest feeling Democrats stopped caring about supporting Wall Street, International Banks, big insurance, and unjust foreign wars since Obama took over. They suddenly stopped being against those things after Bush left office.
Just like I had the strangest feeling Democrats stopped caring about the winner of the election peacefully accepting the results of the election, when back when they thought they'd easily win, that was their issue du jour. Funny how that works out.
Meet the new boss same as the old boss. "He may be a bastard, but he's our bastard."
Though I'll give you that Republicans somehow ignore Reagan's huge national debt increase. I really never figured out why they deify him, other than his positive effect on repairing American cultural unity.
BadLuck
2270
author=Harmonic
Just like I had the strangest feeling Democrats stopped caring about the winner of the election peacefully accepting the results of the election, when back when they thought they'd easily win, that was their issue du jour.
Nobody (that I know of) was complaining about Trump supporters protesting. The concern was how often they were talk about protesting violently. I'm sure there are lots of people on the left talking about violence, but you don't see literally tens of thousands of people picking up guns and marching on Washington, which is exactly what a significant number of Trump backers were suggesting.
Furthermore, the concern was that Trump himself was threatening to not accept the results of the election with no evidence that it was rigged. This is insanely irresponsible, completely dishonest, and something that could start an honest to god civil war.
You are absolutely comparing apples to oranges here. Democrats being pissed off that a guy that is projected to lose the popular vote by like 1.5 million votes and (mostly) peacefully protesting is not the same as Trump encouraging his supporters not to accept the result, and literally thousands of them threatening violence.
And further still, no matter which way you slice it, Donald Trump is the least honest candidate ever in American politics, and the person that sounds closest to an actual fascist. And that's not hyperbole either. Those are good reasons to protest.
There is no good reason to protest Obama, not even if the worst you assume about him is true, save his birthplace (which was quite possibly the most idiotic part of Trump's legacy).
author=Harmonic
Funny how that works out.
No, it isn't.
Dyhalto
7536
KEKEKE! Chaos in the Republican Party. Since nobody in the world expected Trump to win, the whole process of cabinet applications being sent in and appointments being made is happening in a frenzy of clusterfucks. Different GOP ideologies are clashing in bids for the top positions and the whole party seems knee deep in a brawl. The best part is, rumors suggest Bannon and Reince Priebus may be given roles equal in stature, so neither is the boss of the other. The Washington administration could be divided from the word GO on Jan 20th. Couldn't happen to nicer guys.
I think my worries over a concerted Republican attack on the American system (and western way of life) were hasty.
In lighter news, somebody should have told Trump that, as President, he has to live in the White House. Maybe he'll get some missile batteries installed on top of Trump Tower.
I think my worries over a concerted Republican attack on the American system (and western way of life) were hasty.
In lighter news, somebody should have told Trump that, as President, he has to live in the White House. Maybe he'll get some missile batteries installed on top of Trump Tower.
Dyhalto
In lighter news, somebody should have told Trump that, as President, he has to live in the White House. Maybe he'll get some missile batteries installed on top of Trump Tower.
Oh, did you read the other one where President Obama agreed to give Trump extra coaching because Trump has absolutely no idea what goes into being President?
Kaempfer
1932
author=harmonicWhile I agree that the F35 contract was a complete shambles and it produced a not very good jack-of-all-trades, the F35 is significantly cheaper than the F22 (a plane I love). Like, to the tune of $200 million per plane, give or take. The problem was that they doubled down on super techno-planes, when the cheap-ass, old-ass A10 is already brrrrrttting the air war against anyone we're likely to go to war with.
... F35 when we already have a superior, albeit less flexible fighter in the F22...
@MOG:
There's no denying that military spending leads to jobs growth and economic growth under the right circumstances. WW2 saved the US economy. The cold war existed to keep military spending up.
But, like, come on dude. The US spent $600 billion on military spending last year. They spent $30 billion on science. THAT IS NOT A GOOD RATIO. The major problem lies in two places. The first is that military spending doesn't provide equal growth to the investment. While it's true that returning soldiers have gained numerous useful skills, those skills would have been acquired at a much lower cost to the government if they had just outright paid for their education (also the added benefit of nobody being shot at... mostly). The industries that grow due to this funding are extremely niche- the assembly plants for military vehicles require extremely specific training which doesn't translate to other, even related vehicles manufacturing jobs. I read an interesting report about this which I sadly can't find. If I do, I'll post it! These are great jobs- high paying, local, unionized, but this leads to problem number 2, which you brought up in your defense of military spending: cities live and die based on the shifting reality of military spending. An aircraft carrier might bring jobs to a city while it's in the harbour, but while it's on deployment/maneuvers it's still costing a lot of money to run and does nothing for any economy (the major exception being: paying for the sailors, and military servicemen and women have proven they are good things in an economy!). Industries that can uproot overnight, taking a town's livelihood with them, are not a sound investment.
The third problem, which is something of a broader issue, is that military spending is concentrated on a very small number of corporations. You have a handful of powerful lobbyists demanding money be spent on defense, even when it serves absolutely no purpose. As mentioned earlier, F35s cost AT LEAST $100 million a piece (without engines!), whereas A10s cost $18 million each and fulfill the ground strike (100% of worldwide air missions currently) role better. Money keeps piling into useless projects, and most of it is funneled into corporate coffers, who move it offshore and don't pay taxes on it. das not rite
edit: this is an aside which I feel will rustle your jimmies- the average cost of the Iraq War, per day, was somewhere between $230-$770 million dollars. If we average out to $500 million, that's enough to pay the yearly tuition for 25000 students going to a private college. Per day! PER DAY MAN
hey more edits why not: If a warplane costs $100 million or if it costs $10 million, the people manufacturing them are being paid almost the same. You might have a few more technical staff, whose combined salaries would be under $5 million. So where does that $85 million go? Not back into the economy, my friend!
@Dyhalto: Reince Priebus might sound like a dyslexic person trying to insult you, but Bannon is a fucking nightmare. I'd rather Priebus have more power.
I LOVE ME THE EDIT BUTTON: I've seen this a few times throughout this thread, but we need to stop calling illegal immigrants "illegals". "Illegal" isn't a noun. Dehumanizing language is dangerous in a very real way. People can't be illegal; their citizenship status can certainly be illegal, but they themselves are still humans who are deserving of their rights and respect.
author=Kaem
a lot of stuff! (i read it all)
Yes, absolutely! I'm not defending military spending as it exists; absolutely an argument can be made, should be made, of our military spending vice education (and other investments), however, the argument I was refuting was that military spending was 'killing our economy', or in other words, a consistent net loss; that is not the case.
Nobody has to convince me that we should invest more into education! However at this point it would have to be done very carefully, a lot of economies depend on the military just like any other industry; what would San Diego or Norfolk have to say if the military just packed up and left?
The reality is that the America military industrial complex is one of the pillars of the economy, worldwide even. I'm not arguing whether it should be. I'm just saying it is.
EDIT: Obviously the existence of the giant American military complex isn't just economics. Most of it boils down to 'the mission'. Great post on this!
author=Kaem
The first is that military spending doesn't provide equal growth to the investment. While it's true that returning soldiers have gained numerous useful skills, those skills would have been acquired at a much lower cost to the government if they had just outright paid for their education (also the added benefit of nobody being shot at... mostly).
Two caveats to this, and perhaps I'm mistaken
1. The return of investment is on the military member being paid by the federal government and thus spending it within the economy. It's not like servicemembers do it for free, they're paid just like any other worker, and thus reinvest, or rather spend, their money just like anyone else. Speaking purely economically, what's the difference between a military member and any other federal employee?
2. All veterans who do their time get their college (generally) completely subsidized through the G.I. Bill. I am currently paying 0.00 dollars to attend one of the best universities in the country. Actually, they pay us while we're in school! I'm contributing to the economy and I'm learning new skills in addition to my skills gained in the military!
The argument of where educational spending should go is a complex one, I think. College is astronomically expensive, and I really do think we should at least subsidize state schools. However, academia itself is also bloated and flooded with tons of people who have no business being there and filled with basket weaving degrees and other shit that costs tens of thousands of dollars that contributes nothing to society, financially or otherwise.
You know what really needs a boost? K-12 education. That's where our dolares should go.
author=Solitayre
I have the strangest feeling that suddenly Republicans are going to not care one whit about the deficit or the national debt.
sure they'll care, how else are you going to justify reducing public spending
austerity for everyone
Housekeeping
3571
Ooooh, education; our education budget should be so goddamn bloated. Things I'd want from education:
-Free Pre-K.
-Higher standards for incoming teachers. Master's in applicable fields for high school is preferable--general education degrees less so when classes get specialized. I want teachers that exhibit a love and deep understanding for their fields.
-Higher pay to accommodate the increase in education level.
-Higher pay incentives in schools in lower income areas.
-Music departments encouraging a wider range of instrumentation and not being tied to the marching band.
-Higher standards for students.
-The addition of logic, psychology, anatomy, and philosophy courses into the core curriculum.
-Expanding the Federal Pell Grant system so that incoming college Freshman get free tuition in state schools with a 3.0 GPA (on a four-point scale), and they keep that status as long as their GPA in college also doesn't drop below 3.0.
Please let my utopia exist one day. Also, in my magical fairy tale, the intelligent design debate is just a laughable relic of an ignorant era. I'd also prefer more of a focus on world history than U.S. history because, you know, there's just way more THERE (and quelling isolationist paranoia seems kind of important lately).
-Free Pre-K.
-Higher standards for incoming teachers. Master's in applicable fields for high school is preferable--general education degrees less so when classes get specialized. I want teachers that exhibit a love and deep understanding for their fields.
-Higher pay to accommodate the increase in education level.
-Higher pay incentives in schools in lower income areas.
-Music departments encouraging a wider range of instrumentation and not being tied to the marching band.
-Higher standards for students.
-The addition of logic, psychology, anatomy, and philosophy courses into the core curriculum.
-Expanding the Federal Pell Grant system so that incoming college Freshman get free tuition in state schools with a 3.0 GPA (on a four-point scale), and they keep that status as long as their GPA in college also doesn't drop below 3.0.
Please let my utopia exist one day. Also, in my magical fairy tale, the intelligent design debate is just a laughable relic of an ignorant era. I'd also prefer more of a focus on world history than U.S. history because, you know, there's just way more THERE (and quelling isolationist paranoia seems kind of important lately).
Kaempfer
1932
author=HousekeepingIt does! Unfortunately, it's very cold and swampy there, and you'd probably need to learn Finnish (although I'm pretty sure everyone there speaks English as well).
Please let my utopia exist one day.
author=Feldschlacht IVThose who actually serve in the military aren't (generally?) a drain on the economy (just the opposite!). Especially when you consider things like the Army Corps of Engineers, who bring their excellent skills to bear on domestic construction projects, which is a sneaky way the US government gets around being labelled socialist for hiring federally-paid employees to work on infrastructure.
1. The return of investment is on the military member being paid by the federal government and thus spending it within the economy. It's not like servicemembers do it for free, they're paid just like any other worker, and thus reinvest, or rather spend, their money just like anyone else. Speaking purely economically, what's the difference between a military member and any other federal employee?
The problem is that in order to keep so many people employed you have to incur other costs that well outstrip what other, similarly paid federal employees make. It costs between $815k (extreme low end) and $1.4m (extreme high end) to keep a soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan per year. Somewhere between $30k-$100k (depending on rank and qualifications and role) of that go to the actual serviceman. If we assume that (generously) another $100k is going to support and noncombat staff (not their total salaries, but one guy in the mess provides food for a lot of soldiers), that still leaves between $600k-$1.2m, which is going to paying private contractors (who make up a large bulk of noncombat personnel), renting land for the bases from the corrupt local governments, paying for fuel and logistics supports (which generally means private companies) et cetera. The secondary costs for running an overseas military mount up real quick, and a lot of that money never makes its way back to the US.
author=Feldschlacht IVThis is a good thing! I think an active military is a good thing. Generally, soldiers come up better people than they went in. Like I said earlier, it's secondary costs that sour it for me. The individual men and women who make their living in the military are a benefit to the economy, but graft and corporate greed are having serious, huge ramifications on the overall picture.
2. All veterans who do their time get their college (generally) completely subsidized through the G.I. Bill. I am currently paying 0.00 dollars to attend one of the best universities in the country. Actually, they pay us while we're in school! I'm contributing to the economy and I'm learning new skills in addition to my skills gained in the military!
I read that piece about the carrier groups. The problem with the idea that a carrier group is deployed to "deter" China is that China has a $1m cruise missile that can accurately destroy a carrier in a single strike, and the US Navy has zero counter-measures against top-down cruise missiles. The range of the Chinese missile extends far beyond the sea of Japan. That carrier isn't deterring China in any way. It's only a matter of time until Russia has one, as well. The US Navy has had one role since the Vietnam War: droppin' bombs on brown people. I'm not saying the mission isn't important, but eventually the realities of modern warfare have to take precedence.
AND re: basket weaving- you can't only fund the applied sciences. Sparta was all about its practicalities; training soldiers, showing Spartan children how to whip the helots correctly, but Athens loved their basket weaving and pottery classes. Who outlasted whom? Culture is a greater weapon than any rifle (although maybe not nuclear weapons).
edit: I was wrong about the cost of the Chinese missile, but here is a link: DF-21D
author=Sated
The way "austerity" has been used as an excuse for cutting services here in the UK is a fucking joke, so watch out for that if the word starts getting thrown around a lot in the US.
The most frustrating part of it was our previous Chancellor constantly repeating the idea that, "We have to live within our means". Yes, that is true, BUT YOU SET THE FUCKING MEANS BY SETTING TAXES AND YOU CHOSE TO REDUCE THEM (ESPECIALLY FOR RICH PEOPLE BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY) AND THEN COMPLAIN ABOUT NOT HAVING AS MUCH MONEY ARGH~
Tory logic makes me angry.
The US (and Canada) aren't strangers to that sort of austerity talk. There's a distressing number of idiots who compare government budgets and sovereign debt to household budget and credit card debt and start trying to apply 'common sense' solutions. Here's a fun window into how Republicans acted during the thousand years of liberal darkness under Obama and handling deficits, you can extrapolate the nature of US talk about austerity from there with your own UK experience.
