Some of them get it -- Sullivan Before the Election

[jakee 1,499]

3 minutes ago, base698 said:

Who do you think owns the commercial properties and hotels?  Do you think it's likely to be a republican donor or a democratic one?  I bolded it so you wouldn't miss it, yet you focused on the part that was not bold.

First, $3.7Bn isn't all of $17.5Bn, is it? 

Second, I have no idea who owns them, but I know that even in California a lot of rich people are Republicans. I'm also quite sure you've done nothing to whatsoever to find out. 

[base698 15]

6 minutes ago, jakee said:

Second, I have no idea who owns them, but I know that even in California a lot of rich people are Republicans. I'm also quite sure you've done nothing to whatsoever to find out. 

Politically connected individuals get the rewards, which way does California lean? 

> A study using American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) data found that politically connected firms were 64% more likely to secure stimulus grants

My first claim was just that money spent doesn't lead to positive outcomes.  Somewhere between 10% to 90% of spend is corruption and bureaucracy.  I'd guess it's at least 80%.

[jakee 1,499]

8 minutes ago, base698 said:

Politically connected individuals get the rewards, which way does California lean?

So you have defintiely never done anything to find out, and when you said this seems to be happening, you meant you are simply imagining that it is happening. 

On that note, what do you think the result of Musk in governemnt going to be aside from funneling massively more money towards Musk companies?

You've dropped the military thing as well. Again - you seriously think Trump should be thinking of deploying the military on American soil against American citizens... and that's a good thing?

[Phil1111 1,149]

4 minutes ago, base698 said:

....> A study using American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) data found that politically connected firms were 64% more likely to secure stimulus grants

Misleading or an outright LIE. Its STATE political interference that misdirects the funds.  Not federal misappropriation (page 39)

9 minutes ago, base698 said:

....My first claim was just that money spent doesn't lead to positive outcomes.  Somewhere between 10% to 90% of spend is corruption and bureaucracy.  I'd guess it's at least 80%.

"Somewhere between 10% to 90%"  Yeah for MAGA thats exact enough.

[kallend 2,027]

43 minutes ago, base698 said:

It was, I don't mean to imply it wasn't.  Just the people around him and his signaling indicates this is not the case in 2024.

 

 

We'll see. 

My experience in life is that "what's past is prologue" - Shakespeare

and "a leopard doesn't change his spots" - after Jeremiah 13:23

[base698 15]

12 minutes ago, jakee said:

So you have defintiely never done anything to find out, and when you said this seems to be happening, you meant you are simply imagining that it is happening. 

I just posted a study. 

 

13 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Somewhere between 10% to 90%"  Yeah for MAGA thats exact enough.

I meant to add if you are a shitlib it's 10%, if you are MAGA it's 90%.  I'd wager 80% given nothing seems to improve when we give billions to any project.

 

15 minutes ago, jakee said:

On that note, what do you think the result of Musk in governemnt going to be aside from funneling massively more money towards Musk companies?

Are Musk's companies effective or ineffective? Do you think other oligarchs would do better with the resources?  Which ones?

[gowlerk 2,205]

2 hours ago, base698 said:

New Right by Michael Malice: https://www.amazon.com/New-Right-Journey-American-Politics/dp/1250154669

 

https://x.com/pmarca/status/1577366792233660416 list is solid, but crosses a lot of domains and general history.  In particular the Machiavellians by Burnham but it is more history and political science.

After reading what I can in a couple hours about "the new right" I will say that the only thing new about it is that it has no real cohesive goals or ideas. It is an alliance of social conservatives, many driven be religious beliefs and libertarians especially the "don't tread on me types" as well as those who feel they have been left behind by the new information/service economy. These groups are actually potential enemies of each other but are united in the belief that social progress is bad and the good old days can be brought back. 

There is as you probably know, nothing really new about any of it other than the unlikeliness of the coalition it brings together. Strange bedfellows indeed. Almost all of the aims of this movement to stifle and reverse the progress of man are things that I and probably about half of the world disagree with. The individual struggles will carry on with unpredictable results. But I can say this, western liberalism has brought to the people living in it the best lives and the most incredible achievements that the human species has ever seen. The things that you and your family love so much are the products of liberalism and enlightenment. Be careful what you wish for. 

[jakee 1,499]

48 minutes ago, base698 said:

I just posted a study. 

Writing the words 'a study' is not the same thing as posting a study. Also not not a study of the thing we were talking about.

49 minutes ago, base698 said:

Are Musk's companies effective or ineffective? Do you think other oligarchs would do better with the resources?  Which ones?

Effective at what? Tackling homelessness? No, they're not. They don't do anything about it. At obtaining government contracts, government subsidies and making Musk richer? Yes, they're extremely good at that.

[jakee 1,499]

51 minutes ago, kallend said:

and "a leopard doesn't change his spots" - after Jeremiah 13:23

He's been pretty clear that he wants to enjoy watching the leopards eat our faces. Let's see how long it takes for one of them to eat his.

[gowlerk 2,205]

55 minutes ago, kallend said:

"a leopard doesn't change his spots" - after Jeremiah 13:23

Trailer Park boys wisdom. 

 

[JerryBaumchen 1,365]

3 hours ago, base698 said:

Yes, every American city being crime and filth ridden for a decade is worse than a single day of rednecks wandering around the Capitol.

Money certainly will not solve it as the Democrats have proven spending billions on the problem and having it get progressively worse (pun intended).  All the money spent on homeless seems to do is get given to connected Dem donors.

Hi 698,

Re:  All the money spent on homeless seems to do is get given to connected Dem donors.

Even though you said 'seems,' can you prove that?

IMO a lot of the money 'spent' on the homeless, in this area, is wasted.  However, it is not given to connected Dem donors.

Jerry Baumchen

[base698 15]

30 minutes ago, jakee said:

Effective at what? Tackling homelessness? No, they're not. They don't do anything about it. At obtaining government contracts, government subsidies and making Musk richer? Yes, they're extremely good at that.

How many electric cars were on the road in 2008?  How much of that is due directly to subsidies?  Let's say it's half.  That's still a paradigm shift, hell even Ford has a total EV mandate and every other manufacturer is playing in the market seriously now.

Same for rockets.  How many launches now vs 2010?  What's the probability we go to moon this decade vs in 2010?

When someone has success in multiple domains and it looked impossible when they started I'm inclined to give them a shot.

[jakee 1,499]

1 minute ago, base698 said:

When someone has success in multiple domains and it looked impossible when they started I'm inclined to give them a shot.

Give them a shot at what? Again, what is it you think Musk wants to do, apart from funnel more contracts and subsidies towards Musk?

[base698 15]

2 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

All the money spent on homeless seems to do is get given to connected Dem donors.

Even though you said 'seems,' can you prove that

I didn't completely flush it out.  A quick search made it look like up to 60% of gov spend went to donor class.  I'll back peddle back to my original point that money doesn't seem to fix homelessness.  My complete fucking guess is that it's because it's "stolen" or mismanagement.  My reason for using Dem donor is that California is dem leaning and that article mentioned the money spent there, so it stands to reason some percentage higher than average would go to those donors.  

 

[JerryBaumchen 1,365]

2 minutes ago, base698 said:

I didn't completely flush it out.  A quick search made it look like up to 60% of gov spend went to donor class.  I'll back peddle back to my original point that money doesn't seem to fix homelessness.  My complete fucking guess is that it's because it's "stolen" or mismanagement.  My reason for using Dem donor is that California is dem leaning and that article mentioned the money spent there, so it stands to reason some percentage higher than average would go to those donors.  

 

Hi 698,

Total bullshit.  Not one iota of proof.

Jerry Baumchen

[base698 15]

8 minutes ago, jakee said:

Give them a shot at what? Again, what is it you think Musk wants to do, apart from funnel more contracts and subsidies towards Musk

Shutdown the Cathedral/Iron Polygon.  He's said it directly.

Original point, I think he's more capable of whatever oligarchs were supporting Harris.  

[base698 15]

1 minute ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Total bullshit.  Not one iota of proof.

The proof is they spent $14.7 billion dollars and it got a lot worse.  You can speculate on whatever reason you think it is.  I don't think it's possible to be total mismanagement, total fraud, or total problem being hard.

[jakee 1,499]

7 minutes ago, base698 said:

Shutdown the Cathedral/Iron Polygon.  He's said it directly.

I donlt know what that is. Is it the founding conspiracy theory of the new right, by any chance?

8 minutes ago, base698 said:

Original point, I think he's more capable of whatever oligarchs were supporting Harris.  

Those oligarchs are not in government, so it's irrelevant.

[jakee 1,499]

7 minutes ago, base698 said:

The proof is they spent $14.7 billion dollars and it got a lot worse.  You can speculate on whatever reason you think it is.  

I'd speculate it's because they were treating homelessness by trying to deal with the homeless people in front of them rather than doing something about the reasons more people were becoming homeless.

So the strategy you hope for of doing more to deal with the homeless people in front of you... yeah. I'm sure that'll do great.

[JoeWeber 2,724]

1 hour ago, base698 said:

The proof is they spent $14.7 billion dollars and it got a lot worse.  You can speculate on whatever reason you think it is.  I don't think it's possible to be total mismanagement, total fraud, or total problem being hard.

Spend $100 on cancer surgery and see if that gets a lot worse. Unless you’re willing to spend moonshot amounts of tax dollars it will stay intractable. You think Musk gives a rats ass about the homeless? Of course a huge tax hike on the morbidly wealthy might help the financing but that isn’t why he’s helping America.

[JerryBaumchen 1,365]

2 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Spend $100 on cancer surgery and see if that gets a lot worse. Unless you’re willing to spend moonshot amounts of tax dollars it will stay intractable. You think Musk gives a rats ass about the homeless? Of course a huge tax hike on the morbidly wealthy might help the financing but that isn’t why he’s helping America.

Hi Joe,

I doubt that any MAGA-type does.  I mean, why bother?

Jerry Baumchen

[JoeWeber 2,724]

10 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Joe,

I doubt that any MAGA-type does.  I mean, why bother?

Jerry Baumchen

To be clear I am no longer going to bother. I can easily see this new normal out lasting me. I know those with kids and grandkids are going to be hopeful and that’s sensible for them. 

[JerryBaumchen 1,365]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

To be clear I am no longer going to bother. I can easily see this new normal out lasting me. I know those with kids and grandkids are going to be hopeful and that’s sensible for them. 

Hi Joe,

The 'why bother' comment was not for you.  It was a comment on our MAGA-types.

Re:  To be clear I am no longer going to bother.

Do you remember the old 'Better red than dead' mantra?

I say continue to fight.  It might not be successful; or might end in disaster, but I plan to do what I can.

Sometimes it does end as wished:  Dietrich Bonhoeffer - Wikipedia

Jerry Baumchen

[SkyDekker 1,465]

On 11/10/2024 at 4:58 AM, base698 said:

Given the budget deficit and debt I'm more interested in stopping that so we don't have to print even more money. 

But Trump added more debt than the Biden administration.

[billvon 2,998]

On 11/10/2024 at 4:58 AM, base698 said:

I'd prefer not to pay $36 for my hamburger because they doubled the money supply again.  

You'd prefer to pay $38 because of the new Trump tariffs driving the price of farm equiment up, and because of the Trump deportations removing all the farm workers?  (BTW that's exactly what happened in Georgia and Alabama when they actually went after illegal immigrants.)

If you are OK with having to pay more when your guy is in power, it's an indication that you don't care how much things cost - you only care about your guy being in power, and the truth is irrelevant.