Rule of Unintended Consequences

[DamnYankee]

Some not none, Topdoper. Why can't you read? Or is it your memory failing due to all the dope?

 

[WinterBorn]

TopDope I win most if not all my debates, and have plenty of friends, enough to be selective.

When have you been in a debate? What you usually do on here is certainly not "debate".

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

If you think cutting aid to Germany and Japan would have ZERO consequence, you are wrong. Sorry. You haven't considered all the consequences, maybe you aren't aware of them, or maybe you haven't heard of them? But as I said, every penny of foreign aid we give, is given for a reason.. we have some interest which is being served, that's why we do it. Of course, with the Rule of Unintended Consequences, you can make these kind of statements and do whatever you want... it doesn't matter what happens as a result, you can always claim you didn't know THAT would happen.

Ditzie... there is NOTHING that we can do, either proactive or reactive that will have ZERO consequences. It is simply moronic for you to continue using absolutes.

We most certainly could pull our bases out of Germany and the rest of Europe. We do not need them there. They served their purpose, but are not necessary as a whole. Does this mean we eliminate ALL bases in Europe? No. But we most certainly can cut costs there.

Hell, we could cut defense by a third and I would bet we could do it by cutting wasteful admin and weapons projects that we don't need. When the military leaders say 'We don't need this' and the politicians say 'we are building it anyway'.... we have a problem.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

OMG, this is too funny! You pinheads are having a cow because I said euros instead of deutsche marks? The money is currently in euros, and has been for a long time...seems like it was about 10 years ago when they switched over, I don't remember for sure. In any event, when I was explaining what I was explaining, it just came out like it did because I did not presume I needed to say I was first paid in deutsche marks which were then converted to euros, it seems like a lot of words for an insignificant point that had nothing to do with the point I was making. This is word parsing at its finest! If you are telling someone about your vacation trip, do you mention every rest area visited along the way? If you forget to mention you stopped to take a piss in Georgia, does it have any bearing on your story? Does it mean you are lying about your vacation? ...Oooo.... he forgot to mention he stopped to piss in Georgiaaaa! GOTCHYA!

Okay fuckwits... forget everything I've told you, none of it is factual, in fact, I am not even a real person, I am a BOT! Programmed by Karl Rove to wander around the interwebs looking for obscure message boards to attach myself to, where I generate pre-written and well-articulated conservative talking points! My programmer is getting a laugh out of the fact that his BOT is completely pwning liberals on a daily basis, and they just keep coming back for more. There! You feel better about things now?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

It doesn't take much imagination to realize consequences are the result of our actions. There is no action we can take on anything, that is without consequence. There is no "apocalyptic scenario" in the fact that if you cut military spending by 40%, people would lose their jobs, and it would effect the economies of a lot of communities which depend on that military spending. That's just straight up common sense... something you apparently lack.

Actually, it is the above line of thinking that lacks common sense. The old line of 'if you cut funding from 'x' people will lose jobs so we can't cut from 'x' umkay?'.... THAT is the friggin problem. With that line of thinking, we should still be driving horse drawn carriages.

YES, people will lose jobs. IF those jobs are not NECESSARY, THEY SHOULD BE CUT. We have to get out of this ignorant mentality of 'job cut=bad'. Cut the waste. Those that lose their jobs as a result will either find similar work with another employer or they will need to retrain to a new field. THAT is how you progress.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"There is no "apocalyptic scenario" in the fact that if you cut military spending by 40%, people would lose their jobs, and it would effect the economies of a lot of communities which depend on that military spending."

Here we go, again, supporting a government make-work project. If communities are worried about losing military bases keep the bases and have the personnel doing work HERE.

You support big government and One World Government and you don't even realize it.

It is truly comical how both parties have their pet sectors that cannot be touched that must be maintained at the status quo or 'dire consequences will follow'.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

But we do know "what happens when" government medical is implemented. Medical care costs 1/3 less and people live as long or longer than in the US.

Yes, we spend more in the US. Then again, we also subsidize more than many other countries. As for life expectancy.... until everyone calculates it in the same manner, that stat is irrelevant.

We do know "what happens when" the wealthy are taxed and social programs are implemented. Surveys consistently show citizens in such countries are generally happier and more content with their lives.

It's the Cons who claim they either don't know or continually misrepresent the facts. That, we also know.

Both sides continually spin 'facts' to suit their positions. It is relatively easy to manipulate data to have the data tell you what you want.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

To be fair to ditzie.... it IS rather friggin retarded to be harping on his stating Euro's originally. Especially given the value of the dollar decline vs. the Euro in the past five years. He would have made the bulk of his return in Euros. That said, I think he is either full of shit on his portfolio size or his is a friggin idiot when it comes to investing.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Ditzie... there is NOTHING that we can do, either proactive or reactive that will have ZERO consequences. It is simply moronic for you to continue using absolutes.

LOL... It's simply moronic for me to be pointing out something that is absolutely true by your own admission? WOW!

"Dixie, your point is absolutely correct and spot on, you are such a fucking idiot!" --Superfreak

We most certainly could pull our bases out of Germany and the rest of Europe. We do not need them there. They served their purpose, but are not necessary as a whole. Does this mean we eliminate ALL bases in Europe? No. But we most certainly can cut costs there.

Again, if you have read my previous statements on making military cuts, I acknowledge there are things we can cut, but we need to be sensible about it, and take careful consideration of the consequences. I actually called for a complete evaluation of the DoD to find waste and redundancy to cut. Let me ask you, why NOT eliminate all the bases there, if they aren't needed? You contradict yourself... first you say we could pull our bases out of Germany and the rest of Europe, that we don't need them there... then you go on to say it doesn't mean we eliminate them all? Why not, if they aren't needed there? Apparently, something inside your pinhead brain tells you that it might be a little stupid to pull ALL our bases out of Europe... obviously, you must deep down believe that those bases DO serve some sort of purpose...otherwise, why leave ANY?

Hell, we could cut defense by a third and I would bet we could do it by cutting wasteful admin and weapons projects that we don't need. When the military leaders say 'We don't need this' and the politicians say 'we are building it anyway'.... we have a problem.

Again... read my previous posts on the matter, I am in complete and total agreement with you, which means you must be a "Ditzie" too, huh? We are saying essentially the same exact thing, and making the same exact point, but somehow... since it's coming from ME, you feel inclined to disagree and bash me, even though I am saying the same thing you are saying! It's pretty stunning.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Actually, it is the above line of thinking that lacks common sense. The old line of 'if you cut funding from 'x' people will lose jobs so we can't cut from 'x' umkay?'.... THAT is the friggin problem. With that line of thinking, we should still be driving horse drawn carriages.

YES, people will lose jobs. IF those jobs are not NECESSARY, THEY SHOULD BE CUT. We have to get out of this ignorant mentality of 'job cut=bad'. Cut the waste. Those that lose their jobs as a result will either find similar work with another employer or they will need to retrain to a new field. THAT is how you progress.

Again, I am not disagreeing with what you are saying! The POINT (which you seem to miss) is that we don't need to proclaim some arbitrary percentage which has to be cut, without evaluating the ramifications and consequences of the particulars. It's just plain stupid! I agree, many of those jobs are not necessary and should be cut, but the reality of what will happen needs to be faced as well. You start willy-nilly closing military bases because you're by god gonna cut 40%... well, people are going to lose their jobs, businesses and entire towns are going under... those are realities associated with your action, and it's FOOLISH to take such actions without at least considering the consequences. Perhaps you (and I) are correct, and those un-needed jobs need to go... that doesn't change the fact that we're putting those people in the unemployment line, where we'll have to take care of them until they somehow assimilate into the workforce, which is producing absolutely ZERO jobs at present.

Look... If we cut $10 million in subsidies to ACORN or Planned Parenthood... what are the consequences, both immediate and long term? Are entire towns going to dry up and blow away because of it? Are hundreds, if not, thousands, going to be out of a job? That's the reality when you make the exact same $10 million cut by closing a military base. Which is more prudent? Which effects people's lives less? Shouldn't we be focused on making cuts which have the LEAST effect on people and livelihoods? If this was the old family budget... would it make sense to save a few hundred dollars a month by disconnecting your electricity and cable, as opposed to cancelling that beach trip you planned? I mean, this isn't rocket science, and what I am saying is not that difficult to comprehend, but for some reason, I keep getting this blowback... like you just don't get the point!

 

[The Dude]

not retarded at all
I only have 1/7th of what dixtard does

I would certainly have said Doutche Marks instead of a currencey that didn't exist.

 

[apple0154]

It is truly comical how both parties have their pet sectors that cannot be touched that must be maintained at the status quo or 'dire consequences will follow'.

I agree but the main cause of that kind of thinking on the part of politicians is due to the lack of government programs to deal with people affected by the change. It's understandable their constituents don't want change because they will be "hung out to dry". No job. No medical. No alternative skill training....

In this day and age when things change quickly, when jobs are temporary and family are spread across the country, there has never been a greater need to improve social programs. A perfect example is medicare and medicaid. They talk about needed reform and is it any wonder? The bureaucracy required to navigate the rules and regulations and who's entitled to what and who isn't is insanity. What's needed is a simple, all-inclusive medical plan for all.

To talk about cuts resulting in people losing their job along with cuts in social programs is ludicrous. If they cut 10,000 jobs the savings would more than cover any skill training, temporary medical coverage and living allowance.

The petty squabbles would diminish if people knew the government was going to help them get re-established. Can we really blame them for fighting when they know they'll just be tossed aside and no one will give a damn?

 

[apple0154]

To be fair to ditzie.... it IS rather friggin retarded to be harping on his stating Euro's originally. Especially given the value of the dollar decline vs. the Euro in the past five years. He would have made the bulk of his return in Euros. That said, I think he is either full of shit on his portfolio size or his is a friggin idiot when it comes to investing.

That's just it. The whole story is a convoluted mess, one crazy thing after another. Nothing makes sense.

 

[apple0154]

Again, I am not disagreeing with what you are saying! The POINT (which you seem to miss) is that we don't need to proclaim some arbitrary percentage which has to be cut, without evaluating the ramifications and consequences of the particulars. It's just plain stupid! I agree, many of those jobs are not necessary and should be cut, but the reality of what will happen needs to be faced as well. You start willy-nilly closing military bases because you're by god gonna cut 40%... well, people are going to lose their jobs, businesses and entire towns are going under... those are realities associated with your action, and it's FOOLISH to take such actions without at least considering the consequences. Perhaps you (and I) are correct, and those un-needed jobs need to go... that doesn't change the fact that we're putting those people in the unemployment line, where we'll have to take care of them until they somehow assimilate into the workforce, which is producing absolutely ZERO jobs at present.

Look... If we cut $10 million in subsidies to ACORN or Planned Parenthood... what are the consequences, both immediate and long term? Are entire towns going to dry up and blow away because of it? Are hundreds, if not, thousands, going to be out of a job? That's the reality when you make the exact same $10 million cut by closing a military base. Which is more prudent? Which effects people's lives less? Shouldn't we be focused on making cuts which have the LEAST effect on people and livelihoods? If this was the old family budget... would it make sense to save a few hundred dollars a month by disconnecting your electricity and cable, as opposed to cancelling that beach trip you planned? I mean, this isn't rocket science, and what I am saying is not that difficult to comprehend, but for some reason, I keep getting this blowback... like you just don't get the point!

You still don't get the point, Dixie. As almost everyone agrees the government's primary purpose is not to provide jobs. To keep people employed so a town doesn't fold up is nothing more than a make work project.

The roll of government should be to help people find jobs, not supply jobs. That involves retraining and a living allowance so they don't lose everything during the transition. The problem is some people can't get over folks receiving money when not working, ie: government help. They would rather the government pay people to do an unnecessary job rather than receiving considerably less money to attend training. Greed and jealousy replace logic.

As Superfreak noted in msg. #85,

Those that lose their jobs as a result will either find similar work with another employer or they will need to retrain to a new field. THAT is how you progress.

That is where cuts belong, not to social programs.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I agree but the main cause of that kind of thinking on the part of politicians is due to the lack of government programs to deal with people affected by the change. It's understandable their constituents don't want change because they will be "hung out to dry". No job. No medical. No alternative skill training....

Oh my god... let me ask you something... how do you manage to go take a shit without someone from the government there to wipe your ass? Do you just wear a diaper? If so, how do you manage to get it changed regularly, without a government bureaucrat there to change it for you? It is stunning to me, how you think the government is supposed to be there to take care of everyone's every need... except rich people, of course... they can fend for themselves, hell, they don't even need their money!

And you continue on and on and on and on and on about socialized medicine, even though America has resoundingly REJECTED the idea, and voted nearly all the idiots who supported it out of office... but here you are, still yammering and whining about it! Let's apply your boneheaded logic to something else, to show you what a stupid clueless jerk you are...

Medical bills are something that most Americans don't have to deal with in their everyday lives, I've been to the doctor once in three years, and some people probably haven't been in a decade or more, it's not something we do on a daily basis, but gasoline is something we all have to use on a daily basis, it effects our everyday life, and the price of gas has gone higher and higher, making it harder and harder for Americans to make ends meet. Now let's take your same approach and apply it to THIS problem... Government will pass a law that they will provide everyone with free gas! Problems solved! We no longer have to worry about the cost of gas, the government is going to buy it for us, and we can have the freedom to go and do whatever we want at any time, all paid for and taken care of by our government! Do you suppose we would use the same amount of gas? Would we use less gas? Or would we use considerably MORE gas? And what do you suppose would happen to the price of gas... more specifically, the price of oil? Would it cost less? More? The same? You see, your 'solution' didn't fix the problem of high gas prices, it made the problem worse, and it would bankrupt the country trying to pay for everyone's gas, with no restrictions or limitations. WE can't do that.... maybe some small group of people like the Branch Davidians in Waco, could pool their resources and buy everyone's gas in their group? Maybe that works for them? That's the "example" you keep throwing out with the talk of "other countries" ...they are countries MUCH MUCH smaller than the US... small isolated groups of people, whom pooling their resources is a benefit to the overall... Socialism works in those situations, it does NOT work in large population countries. What eventually happens to your beloved Socialist model when it's applied to a large population like the US, is corruption and graft sets in, power shifts to those who control the source, and away from those who don't... and eventually it collapses in chaos. This has happened over and over and over again in history, the Socialist model simply does not work for large countries, it never has and it never will.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The roll of government should be to help people find jobs, not supply jobs....

No sir... the ROLE of government (not roll) is to protect us from foreign enemies with an army, and protect our individual rights under the Constitution. That's about it! The rest is up to WE THE PEOPLE to decide!

 

[USFREEDOM911]

"And again... regardless of where you are on thinking we need to cut military spending, whenever we do make those cuts, it will mean people lose their jobs and bases close."

No, it does not have to mean that. Take the 30,000 soldiers coming back from Afghanistan and have them build roads and schools HERE! Train them to police the crime-ridden areas of inner cities. If they can drive a HumVee they can drive a mini-bus and take seniors to hospital appointments. Freeze hiring except for those trained in specialized areas such as computer technology and other select areas.

Less armed service personnel will result in less need for equipment. Retool some of the factories that are currently making everything from boots to bullets.

No one has to lose their job.

"Train them to police the crime-ridden areas of inner cities."

Sorry; but this isn't Canada and we don't have soldiers patrolling our streets, unless it's a major disaster like hurricans or such.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

So how can a mom-and-pop diner afford to hire a dishwasher?

Sometimes they can't or they have their kids work there.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

"Train them to police the crime-ridden areas of inner cities."

Sorry; but this isn't Canada and we don't have soldiers patrolling our streets, unless it's a major disaster like hurricans or such.

His whole entire rant is FULL of liberal socialist stupidity. We're supposed to have our trained soldiers out there building roads? What about the people who already have jobs (or are looking for jobs) building roads? And somehow, we are "cutting spending" by still paying contractors to build appliances, after converting their facilities from building fighter jets and night vision systems. I'm not seeing where any of his ideas are going to SAVE money or CUT costs. It sounds like he just wants to dismantle the military...at ANY cost!

 

[apple0154]

Oh my god... let me ask you something... how do you manage to go take a shit without someone from the government there to wipe your ass? Do you just wear a diaper? If so, how do you manage to get it changed regularly, without a government bureaucrat there to change it for you? It is stunning to me, how you think the government is supposed to be there to take care of everyone's every need... except rich people, of course... they can fend for themselves, hell, they don't even need their money!

Now, now, Dixie. Make nice.

If truth be told I did use a government notice as a "tissue" on one occasion.

And you continue on and on and on and on and on about socialized medicine, even though America has resoundingly REJECTED the idea, and voted nearly all the idiots who supported it out of office... but here you are, still yammering and whining about it! Let's apply your boneheaded logic to something else, to show you what a stupid clueless jerk you are...

The rejection is due to the misinformation and lies that were and are propagated. Again, evidence shows that not ONE country has reverted to a "pay or suffer" system. Not ONE country in the entire world.

Medical bills are something that most Americans don't have to deal with in their everyday lives, I've been to the doctor once in three years, and some people probably haven't been in a decade or more, it's not something we do on a daily basis, but gasoline is something we all have to use on a daily basis, it effects our everyday life, and the price of gas has gone higher and higher, making it harder and harder for Americans to make ends meet. Now let's take your same approach and apply it to THIS problem... Government will pass a law that they will provide everyone with free gas! Problems solved! We no longer have to worry about the cost of gas, the government is going to buy it for us, and we can have the freedom to go and do whatever we want at any time, all paid for and taken care of by our government! Do you suppose we would use the same amount of gas? Would we use less gas? Or would we use considerably MORE gas? And what do you suppose would happen to the price of gas... more specifically, the price of oil? Would it cost less? More? The same? You see, your 'solution' didn't fix the problem of high gas prices, it made the problem worse, and it would bankrupt the country trying to pay for everyone's gas, with no restrictions or limitations. WE can't do that

So, are you saying people would intentionally break their arm or go out in the middle of winter without a coat hoping to get frostbite or deliberately eat contaminated food so they could get poisoned or wait until someone sneezes and go give them a hug hoping to catch something so they could visit a doctor? Is that the gist of your argument?

.... maybe some small group of people like the Branch Davidians in Waco, could pool their resources and buy everyone's gas in their group? Maybe that works for them? That's the "example" you keep throwing out with the talk of "other countries" ...they are countries MUCH MUCH smaller than the US... small isolated groups of people, whom pooling their resources is a benefit to the overall... Socialism works in those situations, it does NOT work in large population countries. What eventually happens to your beloved Socialist model when it's applied to a large population like the US, is corruption and graft sets in, power shifts to those who control the source, and away from those who don't... and eventually it collapses in chaos. This has happened over and over and over again in history, the Socialist model simply does not work for large countries, it never has and it never will.

So large families don’t function like small families?

The large countries you’re referring to were not democracies so there was nothing to prevent corruption.

Social policies can work for large countries. Let’s compare Brazil to the US.

Land area:
Brazil: 3,286,470
US: 3,718,691

Population:
Brazil: 198,739,269
US: 307,212,123

Public health care is provided to all Brazilian permanent residents and is free at the point of need (being paid for from general taxation).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_in_Brazil

And then we have such diverse countries such as Canada with a land area of 3,855,081 sq.mi. and a population of 33,487,208 to countries such as the United Kingdom with a 94,525 sq. mi, with a population of 61,113,205.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004379.html

You see, Dixie, land-wise or population-wise, it makes no difference. Whether big, small or in between government health care is doable and it’s been proven over time. There is no excuse.

There are no death panels. The citizens are not revolting and don’t forget that not ONE country has reverted to a “pay or suffer” system. Not ONE, Dixie. Why do you ignore such powerful evidence?