Vote Today?

Discussion in 'All Discussions' started by zach619, Nov 4, 2014.

Did you Vote today (Nov 4)

Poll closed Nov 6, 2014.
  1. Yes I voted

    34 vote(s)
    59.6%
  2. No I didn't

    23 vote(s)
    40.4%
  1. zach619

    zach619 Well-Known Member

    Jan 21, 2009
    I appreciate the appropriate response. Let me be clear here. This isn't an issue of race. I am aware that there are far more "white" people living off the welfare system. That makes sense just off general population. But there are other factors that are not mentioned. Prison. Incarceration. The cost of all this. School being shut down because parents don't send their kids to school. Truancy officers scooping kids up once a semester and forcing them into class for attendance purposes so schools don't completely lose their funding. My issues aren't with the kids. Its with irresponsible adults and parents.

    Here is a simple concept: If you have a child over the age of 4 and under the age of 16, and they don't attend school 95% of the time, you don't get ANY welfare. There are not enough checks and balances, and people, white or black get trapped in a system that isn't designed to let them out. If they go work at McDonaldss for 9$ per hour they might make JUST enough money to disqualify them from all these programs, and then they will be belly up, not being able to support their families.

    And you hit the nail on the head with "The Rich".... But just like everyone else in this country, if you look UP, waiting for a trickle down, you are going to die with a sore neck. All I ask for is what I am worth. I want what my efforts and my services are worth, like any other person.....

    And again, while I agree that a billionare should pay the same 30% I do, I also don't agree with penalize people for success. So, I would be fine with a flat tax rate.

    Again, my example here has always been health care. This utopian society with universal health care will never happen. It just needs to stay the way it was. If you are in labor and show up at a hospital with no insurance, they WILL deliver your baby. You show up to the ER with a gunshot wound and no way to pay, they WILL fix you up. That is the way it has always been. What is so wrong with that? Forcing 21 year olds to pay hundreds of dollars in penalties, or buy into a system they don't want, I have a BIG problem with that.... This is supposed to be a free country, and if you want to take that gamble, and live the rest of your life in medical debt because you choose to do so, that is on you. The president of the united states should not force a socialized system on anyone.
     
  2. HARDCORESHARTHUFFER-RI

    HARDCORESHARTHUFFER-RI Well-Known Member

    Sep 17, 2013
    What I belief is irrelevant, factual support would point to corruptible
     

  3. juliaep

    juliaep Well-Known Member

    279
    Aug 18, 2011
    Does anyone else find it ironic that libertarians are on a surf forecasting site that relies heavily on federal government funded buoys to predict their waves, storms etc. The first way to get government out of your life is to shut down the buoys. Then where would the "macho pull yourself up by your bootstraps anti-big government" libertarians be? Probably texting the sup crowd for surf updates.
     
  4. HARDCORESHARTHUFFER-RI

    HARDCORESHARTHUFFER-RI Well-Known Member

    Sep 17, 2013
    someone would put buoys in and charge for the data, old data would be free as its time:value relationship are direct

    people who pay for better data (subscription sites) get better product

    thanks for coming though
     
  5. zach619

    zach619 Well-Known Member

    Jan 21, 2009
    You do realized that Buoys aren't installed for "surfers" right? It's kind of a big deal for people to know if they are about to get wiped out by surges from the ocean... Surfers just utilize this free information to our benefit. Do you understand the impact on coastal communities, fisheries, shipping and everything else without them?

    That was a nice example, but I don't think you are seeing the big picture.
     
  6. zach619

    zach619 Well-Known Member

    Jan 21, 2009
    Crashflow: You seem well versed enough in politics, much more so than I am... So riddle me this: In your opinion, which group of these bastards would actually look after our best interests the most effectively?
     
  7. metard

    metard Well-Known Member

    Mar 11, 2014

    from another thread

    discuss
     
  8. zach619

    zach619 Well-Known Member

    Jan 21, 2009
    Not bad Metard. Not bad at all.
     
  9. crashflow

    crashflow Member

    8
    Nov 10, 2009
    Hey, MakeItStop - you are incorrect. Even in ancient times, aids to navigation were almost exclusively public works funded and created either through volunteers, conscription, bonds, or taxes. Most projects are not economically feasible not to mention profitable, as anyone with a spreadsheet can tell you.

    There are many, many instances of capital projects where the cost of creation (not to mention maintenance) far exceeds the economic value that can be extracted by the immediate beneficiaries within any business-realistic time frame (usually 30 years). As a result, only those projects that are small enough to be funded by individual businesses or consortium would ever get built.

    If you could somehow extract capital and maintenance costs in micro-payments from everyone who does or will benefit from the effort, then perhaps you might be successful. Crowd funding approaches this model on an infinitesimal scale, however the only micro-payment system that has so far been successful in funding capital projects on the state or nation scale is the tax system and the bond system.

    Our tax systems funds or has funded most of the infrastructure on which modern life (and business) depends. You might argue that GPS, highways, medical breakthroughs both in trauma treatment and extension of life, civic hygiene, not to mention the internet, etc. are all unnecessary and never should have been funded by taxes extracted by force from an unwilling populace, but I don't think many people would agree with you. I don't even think they agree with you about the unwilling part.

    To paraphrase Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., taxes are the price we pay for civilization. If you don't like taxes, you have to extract yourself from civilization. It isn't easy to do, but it can be done.

    If on the other hand, you just don't like paying taxes for X and you think you pay too much...well I don't like paying taxes for Y and I think you pay too little. Now we're just talking politics.

    Back to your example though. If all of the buoys disappeared tomorrow, you have to believe me when I say that there is no company on earth that would be able to extract enough economic value in the form of payments from a navigation and weather, current, and wave data collection system from the individuals and companies that would directly benefit from the system. If you really believe that, then I challenge you to imagine both the capital and maintenance costs, the customers and how much the service is worth, how you might build an infrastructure capable of delivering the service (offices, advertising, sales people, computers, IT people, CEO, CTO, COO, field workers, HR, engineers, maintenance people, boats, dockage) and balance the expenses and income out so that the business delivers a reasonable return for investors (at least 10% per year - and quite honestly no one would invest in a business that risky with that little return).

    I highly doubt you could even make it work on paper, much less convince a bunch of investors that it was worth doing. People forget - government does stuff that no one else can do or wants to do. Business by necessity of capital, time constraints, and human tendency to risk aversion has to cherry pick the good stuff.

    MakeitStop - seriously you just created a fantasy world by proposing that a private company could or would create our national buoy system. I dare say most of the times you say "well someone could just..." you haven't really thought through what it would actually take to do that thing - and what a massive (unsung) accomplishment it is that it even exists, and all you had to do was go to work, do your job, and pay your taxes.
     
  10. zach619

    zach619 Well-Known Member

    Jan 21, 2009
    Crashflow: I must say, for only 4 posts, you are kind of killing it right now. Where you been for these 5 years my dude? Nothing like some real knowledge getting kicked on a surf forum. You certainly have me thinking.
     
  11. brewengineer

    brewengineer Well-Known Member

    Jun 22, 2011
    Can you prove this with data? In our state, it is the Republican Party pushing off shore drilling. Sorry to hear about your healthcare cost increases. I don't share your issues there. My healthcare has cost the same for the last 4 years. Sure, it went up just before that, thanks to the recession. I was unaffected by the passing of Obamacare.

    The group pushing offshore drilling the most for the east coast is API: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Petroleum_Institute
    This group has strong ties to the Republican Party, and many members are ex Republican politicians. Maybe the Obama admin didn't outright fight against drilling, but they still aren't pro drilling advocates like the GOP.
     
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2014
  12. crashflow

    crashflow Member

    8
    Nov 10, 2009
    "Crashflow: You seem well versed enough in politics, much more so than I am... So riddle me this: In your opinion, which group of these bastards would actually look after our best interests the most effectively?"

    Sadly, niether. Both parties have been co-opted by the massive amounts of money it takes to run a modern campaign. You guys do realize that EVERY Senator and congressman spends around 70-80% of his or her time raising money. Where do you think they get that money from?

    I have come to believe, reluctantly and against my better instincts, that our representative republic really is a sham and a shill for corporate and monied interests. It doesn't take a scholar to connect the money and the policy that the money creates.

    I also don't see a way out right now - and I'm usually a very optimistic person. When the blue collar guys I hang out with are convinced that lazy poor people are THE problem facing us economically, I know the propaganda machine has truly won. Someone here had it right - picking between red and blue is just picking the color of the lube.

    By the way, I actually buy the heart and soul of the libertarian viewpoint. I just don't think it is practical on a planet of 7 Billion, and I also think it is too easy to co-opt and twist into just another ideological wedge by the monied classes to keep us calling each other names.

    George Carlin had it right when he said, "They call it the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it."
     
  13. HARDCORESHARTHUFFER-RI

    HARDCORESHARTHUFFER-RI Well-Known Member

    Sep 17, 2013
    you are making it more complicated than it is. the shipping industry would make it happen, especially now. Look at things like meshnets and other decentralized networks for distribution and information dissemination, and direct distribution of goods (3d printers). Also, there are worldwide buoys, not just national, but hey, whos counting.

    essentially you are saying without gvt to force us into servitude/slavery, sh1t wouldn't get done
    that is patently false and words like that are the antithesis of freedom and people who advocate this statist thinking are the enemies of mankind.

    we are entering a brand new world we we dont need masters or thinkers like yourself.

    its doesn't take a state/taxes/slavery to have a society
    its not fantasy, its the inevitable future.

    and my taxes paid to kill a bunch of brown kids too, so you got that going for your arguments too, congrats, you are advocating child slaughter in your 'just pay your taxes' mentality
     
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2014
  14. zach619

    zach619 Well-Known Member

    Jan 21, 2009
    It all started in 2010. In 2012, it looks like there was some intervention.... But it all most certainly came from his camp: Just google "Obama offshore drilling" and you will see about 100 links. Here is one.

    www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/science/earth/31energy.html?_r=0

    And my healthcare situation really came to fruition when I changed jobs and moved. When I came here, my investor offered no healthcare benefits package, so I was forced to hit the market as a private buyer and that is when my eyes were opened. With my new position, I will have full coverage, but I will have to add my family... at what cost? Not sure, but I will keep you posted.

    Again, I would like to revisit my initial statement, one that is in the middle. I am not a fan, nor have I been of either party. My brother has a poli sci BA and a law degree on top of that. He was wearing "Ross Perot" T-shirts to school in the 90s. While I agree with a lot of his beliefs, I feel like those are false hopes and hopes that will never actually turn into a reality in our lifetime....

    So again, the political machine has made me selfish, so my ear is turned so the one that makes the most sense for ME and my family. The problem is, the infomation presented to us is so often false, I think a lot of us, me included are actually voting AGAINST our best interests. But since we are forced to choose sides if we want to at least attempt to be a part of the political machine, I am hearing more from one side that makes sense, and a lot from the other that means nothing to me. I try not to point fingers at anyone, but I see the abuse of a decent system every day of my life. From neighbors, to friends, to strangers. And at a certain point, I have just bought into the fact that in the past 6 years, it has become a rarity to hear ANYTHING that sounds like it will benefit me at all..... I know we are all supposed to buy into the "greater good" and all that, but I am not seeing the benefits, or any positive movement coming from all these "Ideas".

    I am just as confused as the rest of us. But all it takes is one person, one voice to provide a little clarity, because the media filters are brain washing us all. So, I appreciate what is happening in this thread. Most of us are probably more mis-informed than we are informed and sometimes it takes hashing things out, even on a surf forum to make sense of things.

    I am liberal in many ways, I am conservative in just as many. I am no one. I am everyone. I am just Zach.
     
  15. brewengineer

    brewengineer Well-Known Member

    Jun 22, 2011
    From your article:
    "The proposal — a compromise that will please oil companies and domestic drilling advocates but anger some residents of affected states and many environmental organizations — would end a longstanding moratorium on oil exploration along the East Coast from the northern tip of Delaware to the central coast of Florida, covering 167 million acres of ocean."

    This wasn't the Obama admins master plan. Even in your article, they discuss republicans being for it. See the link I posted above. The groups that lobby for this are mostly linked to the Republican Party. I have always said Obama was a moderate, and this is more proof. Too many people are just trying to find fault with his leadership. I am not a fan of him, but he is exactly what most republicans should want. Even Obamacare was a moderate way to do things. Instead of full state run health care, we have something half assed in the middle. I don't think you have lived in SC long enough, or you would feel differently about the GOP. Get to know our politicians better, and you will find old southern money and Jesus.
     
  16. goosemagoo

    goosemagoo Well-Known Member

    899
    May 20, 2011
    Awesome quote! And, you're spot on with regards to the barriers to entry for anyone that wants to compete with the big boys.

    Here's what I wrote a while back but it applies to this thread:

    The middle class benefits when the $$$ stays local, not when its transferred to some corporate HQ in Chicago or squirreled away in a hedge fund where paper pushers move it around and extract a few percent from the sum each time they do it.

     
  17. zach619

    zach619 Well-Known Member

    Jan 21, 2009
    I am with you. We all know that the GOP isn't exactly opposed to finding more oil. I am just saying that the liberal side of things are not always the tree hugging environmentalists that they claim to be when you get down to brass taxes. It's six of one and half a dozen of the other. And for every religious nut in the GOP, there is an Al Gore trying to embezzle more money for a plan that will never work, all in the name of "the environment".... Crazy is Crazy, and it's spread equally throughout.
     
  18. brewengineer

    brewengineer Well-Known Member

    Jun 22, 2011
    As we have discussed before, there is more money to be made in pro oil climate change denial. I spent 3 years working with oil companies. They can and do buy our government. Luckily, even big oil is running out of ways to deny the science. Their new tactic is the "friend of the environment" approach (see BP and Shell). Just remember, if you voted majority republican in this state, you shouldn't be shocked if offshore drilling shows up in the near future.
     
  19. juliaep

    juliaep Well-Known Member

    279
    Aug 18, 2011
    Of course I know the buoys aren't for surfers, but thank goodness we have free access to the data. I'm not from the entitlement/libertarian generation that thinks everything should be for them and for free. o I appreciate that my tax dollars go to maintaining the buoys etc and that I have free access to the data. I also appreciate that the bay bridge is well maintained. Maybe I've traveled to too many developing countries and understand that this stuff isn't always automatic like the libertarians think. They're just spoiled and entitled. That's my point.
     
  20. crashflow

    crashflow Member

    8
    Nov 10, 2009
    Zach, to answer your question about health insurance. I'm with you on that. I'm not a constitutional scholar, so I'm in no position to judge the details of the supreme court decision that upheld Obamacare. I will say though that the coercion to buy insurance doesn't feel right to me either. I went without insurance for a long time when I was in my twenties. Nothing bad happened to me, so I got lucky.

    Here's the thing though. If something HAD happened to me, they would have patched me up (as cheaply as possible) and sent me a bill. I probably couldn't have paid it, and would have had to re-negotiate the bill, taken the credit hit and waited them (the hospital collection department) out, or declare bankruptcy. All of those other options are WAY more of a drain on the society (which is to say YOUR pocketbook) if I had just paid into insurance for 60 years or so. Not to mention if I ignore some real sickness and die (trust me, you'd miss me economically), or even worse become an even larger economic burden on my family, my state health system, and again your pocketbook (I'm sick so I'm not only scarfing up more money, I'm not even paying taxes).

    So basically, I get to accrue the benefits of my risk taking (by taking a trip to Indo with the money I would have spent on insurance) while I externalize (to you) any of the real economic risk and downside. Seems fair right? Well it is my choice.

    By the way - the concept of externalizing the costs while accruing benefits is a really efficient way to run a "free-market" business. It is a root of the concept I mentioned before of the tragedy of the commons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

    So that's why it makes much more sense for all of us to be insured together. It is the same EXACT reason that insurance is required to operate a motor vehicle. Together we can all spread the economic risk so that catastrophic events do not drain the society as little as possible.

    As far as the WAY Obamacare was done? That was purely political. It was the only way it would possibly have passed. The only way to get Dems to vote for it was to get insurance and pharma on board - remember the Dems are deeply in the pocket of both. If Obama had gone for Universal Healthcare, it would have drastically reduced profits at the insurance and pharma industries (and reduced costs for all of us - can't have that!). There's no way insura-pharma would let their puppets vote for that, so we're stuck with the law that we have.

    Universal coverage is really a low-cost, very efficient way to run health care, however Obamacare is just the most cynical possible way to have implemented it. But that is our money-twisted system. There's more unfettered capitalism going on than people realize.