Warning: file_get_contents(/home/www/settings/mirror_forum_db_enable_sql): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /var/www/html/content/Forum/functions.php on line 8
"People at home, if they're not watching me, they don't know this!" Same as it ever was: Step 1: get them upset/engaged. Step 2: remind them that if they don't watch, they won't have the insider information. Step 3: Sell them some soap or beer.
"People at home, if they're not watching me, they don't know this!" Same as it ever was: Step 1: get them upset/engaged. Step 2: remind them that if they don't watch, they won't have the insider information. Step 3: Sell them some soap or beer.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
I know how pretty much everyone here feels about this guy... try to hang on to the end.
It's only 9 minutes long.
After all... I listen to a lot of everyone's sides around here.
um, couple of things. First the background:
Back in the 1980's NZ had a massive economic crisis. Our sovereign debt was ballooning, we had lost our export market (yes, we had just one for all intents and purposes) as the UK had joined the EEC in 1972, the oil crisis had inflated our import prices and we were between a rock and a hard place.
At the time we had a first past the post voting system and, like the US today, just two main parties, Labour and National. Ironically, it was the National Party (= Republicans) that was in power as it tried to get out of the situation by deficit spending - hence the ballooning sovereign debt.
In 1984 the government flipped and it was the Labour Party (= Democrats) who installed a neoliberal program, changed the voting system to mixed-member proportional representation and stripped government spending. It was a really tough time but nevertheless lauded by most economists the world over. Inappropriately, as it turns out.
The neoliberal program stopped the debt crisis, but it also gutted NZ for decades to come. Business diversified, looked for other markets and was generally very successful. Unfortunately, due to its remoteness and small size, all the winners then left the country and set up overseas. Bummer. And later governments quickly realised the damage being done to the social infrastructure and reversed course where they could.
So, yeah, there is something to be said for paring back government spending and raising government efficiency.
But there is also something to be said for balancing the budget, which is not just a question of cutting spending, but also increasing government revenue (taxation). You really can't see one without the other. Particularly in such a rich country as the US. There is no excuse not to raise taxes where it makes sense. And, no, tariffs do not make sense, but are poisonous to global trade.
Historically, the US government has actually fared quite well under Democrat governments, which generally take on debt in the first term, get the economy going, then pare back the deficit in the second term by raising taxes, until a Republican government comes in, reverses the procedure and so on. I know this will probably make you gag, but look back at the numbers. Ballooning debt levels is not just a Democratic era thing but in fact just as bad, or even worse, under recent Republican governments. Why? Mainly because the Republicans cut taxes and, as it turns out, are pretty good at overspending too.
Finally, O'Reilly seems to be whitewashing DOGE here. If they are so toothless as he makes out, then how do you explain Musk sending out blanket terminations to practically all federal workers?
And terminating probationary air traffic controllers will automatically short-staff your traffic control as natural attrition takes its toll. It is not harmless. Likewise, the freeze on government funding did lead to clinical trials getting abruptly terminated which is about the most wasteful use of resources I can think of. O'Reilly is guilty of the same propaganda here that he is accusing all the others of. Musk is in fact barging in, not with a scalpel, but an axe and intervening in government departments without any clear authority being established. O'Reilly says only congress has it. Oh, really? That's not what is happening on the ground.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
I know how pretty much everyone here feels about this guy... try to hang on to the end.
It's only 9 minutes long.
After all... I listen to a lot of everyone's sides around here.
I did watch it and the "No Spin Zone" guy is still spinning like a top. He really doesn't see anything wrong? He really thinks DOGE is identifying waste? Pshht.
Location: Really deep in the heart of South California Gender:
Posted:
Feb 23, 2025 - 4:33pm
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
I know how pretty much everyone here feels about this guy... try to hang on to the end.
It's only 9 minutes long.
After all... I listen to a lot of everyone's sides around here.
So... let's see what the hyper-evangelicals have to say about "stem cells" being listed here...
And, coincidentally, my final paper in biochemistry (got my degree in it) was a paper on the dangers of consuming large amounts of peptides, which can be falsely read by the body as chemical signals (i.e., distracting noise). I guess things have changed....
What's amazing about that list is the majority of it I'd associate with liberals. Of course, he throws in the ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine dog whistles for the MAGAverse... but he's not a conservative. What he does have is the ability to agitate the left, which along with a willingness to blow smoke up Trump's ass are the only requirements for a cabinet position. We have the weakest elected government, in terms of ability and intelligence, anywhere in the world now. Kennedy is a nut, but he's the least of our problems.
