|
Post by Pharozonk on Jan 11, 2019 20:31:32 GMT -5
Stouts and porters are the worst kinds of beer. Apparently you live in opposite land. They are, in fact, the best kinds of beers. Give me an IPA, hefeweizen, or Belgian ale and I'll be happy.
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Jan 11, 2019 18:58:05 GMT -5
Stouts and porters are the worst kinds of beer.
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Jan 11, 2019 18:57:13 GMT -5
I'm back on the job hunt for the first time in over a year. Hoping to land something in Austin or LA. What kind of job are you looking for? We have people in a lot of fields here; someone might be able to help. A Business Analyst role primarily. Been working in benefits for a little over a year, but I want to jump to something more strategy oriented.
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Jan 11, 2019 18:52:19 GMT -5
Lowering taxes for the rich (starting under Reagan) has not brought equal economic development. Oh, sure, it helped many people become gazillionaires; but the middle class has seen its buying power drop and drop, and the difference in income between the richest and the poorest is increasing. Many don't see that as a problem, because wages as a whole have increased; but we are witnessing the birth of a new aristocracy, one not based on birth nor even necessarily on personal merit, but rather based on huge fortunes inherited from enterprising forebears. Even overlooking the dubious moral aspect of the situation (because I don't think morality has much to do with economics when it comes to "does it work or not" issues), this is a recipe for growing resentment from the disenfranchised part of the population that still has to work for a living, and that never seems to make ends meet. This leads to social unrest, criminality, and is not to be desired. Then again, Low Taxes vs High Taxes is a debate that distinguished economists have held for a very long time, and I am in no position to do more than give a dilettante's opinion. Yeah... That's a bit disingenuous coming from a leader of any of the big parties. Perhaps she could give more weight to her statement by suggesting a system similar to what we have here in Quebec: only individuals can give money to political parties, there is a very low cap on contributions, it is strictly forbidden for lobbies or companies to channel money through phony individual contributions, and partisan spending is strictly controlled. So it is forbidden, during an election period, for Union ABC to have negative ads against candidate XYZ, or for The Concerned Citizens of Chibougameau to invite voters to boycott the Neil Gaiman party. "Wait, what about freedom of speech?" some might say; well, you can still contribute to your candidate,s campaign... by volunteering, by shouting from a soapbox, by going door to door... but not by buying a five million dollars spot during a hockey game broadcast. Taxes aren't really the issue here. By and large, tax brackets are fine where they are, and as The Captain pointed, most of the people AOC and her wing of the Democrats want to target have their wealth in capital they won't be taxed as income anyway. What we should be focusing on is spending and budget balancing, but neither party is all that interested in that unfortunately. People say that debt isn't something to worry about, but that assumption only holds as long as foreign faith in the dollar makes it worth more than other nation's currencies. But as a country like China becomes a trade juggernaut and is also our largest foreign creditor, well that's not a guarantee forever... As to "buying out politicians", trying to stop that is a pipe dream as long as PACs and contributions are legal. Ban those and you might have a chance, but what politician of any stripe is going to ban free money for themselves?
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Jan 11, 2019 18:43:06 GMT -5
I'm back on the job hunt for the first time in over a year. Hoping to land something in Austin or LA.
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Dec 30, 2018 12:32:04 GMT -5
I firmly believe the Democrats will once again lose the battleground states and make zero inroads into the true Midwest if they pick a more liberal candidate, because the moderates (whether Democrat, Republican, or Independent, like my wife and me, who are fed up with the hardcore conservative shift in the Republican party) will not vote for someone they see as pushing a strong progressive agenda. If they pick someone like O'Rourke (and I'm not saying it has to be him, just someone more moderate), they may have a chance in the battleground states, as well as should still win the West Coast/Northeastern Corridor states, because the progressives there will hold their noses but still vote Democrat regardless, if only to be rid of Trump. That's the thing that the more vocal (online at least) progressive Democrats fail to account for. The vast majority of Democrat voters are moderates/slightly left of center.
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Dec 29, 2018 21:41:37 GMT -5
What is crap about it? O'Rourke consistently votes significantly to the right of the rest of the Democrats in Congress. People are too caught up on purity than someone who realistically can win and will work with people on the other side of the aisle.
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Dec 26, 2018 19:22:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Nov 16, 2018 11:45:28 GMT -5
You'd think so, but hop on Twitter or the like and you'll see a bunch of people clinging to those philosophies well into their 30s. There will always be some small number believing anything, but I would suspect not a huge number of people in major positions surely. That's the point I was making earlier. They're not in power, so I don't worry about them. I just find them obnoxious and self righteous.
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Nov 16, 2018 9:47:29 GMT -5
No, I'm talking about actual Marxist-Leninists. Lots of millennials are into it for some reason. I definitely knew more than a few publicly open communists in college. In my experience, that's the kind of thing that gets left behind in college. It's all the rage during late night, dorm room philosophy sessions but once you're out in the real world it fades away real fast. You'd think so, but hop on Twitter or the like and you'll see a bunch of people clinging to those philosophies well into their 30s.
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Nov 16, 2018 9:46:25 GMT -5
Communism is ultimately evil to me, if that's unfashionable I don't care, you only have to look and learn the fates of a lot of the true believers in it, the ones that aren't simply thugs and crooks. No, I'm talking about actual Marxist-Leninists. Lots of millennials are into it for some reason. I definitely knew more than a few publicly open communists in college. For what it's worth (and remember that us Brits are generally much more left-leaning than you Yanks), I'm a left-wing Socialist Labour voter who is, let's say, "romanced by Communism." By that I mean that I find an awful lot of the Communist manifesto by Marx and Engels reasonates with my own politics. I also have a modest collection of Russian and Chinese Communist memorabilia...mostly medals and other militaria. I really love the iconography of Communist Russia, with its stirring depictions of proletariat workers. Heh, you know, I just remembered that back in the late '90s, I sometimes used to wear a black Mao suit (the ladies loved it! ). Of course, in spite of my romantic notions about Communism, I know that it doesn't really work in the real world. But then I'd also say that pure Communism has never really been tried. Nevertheless, as a theoretical ideology, I think it's pretty sound. Paging the corpse of Joe McCarthy!
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Nov 15, 2018 17:03:49 GMT -5
I'm an ardent anti-communist as well, but even though its strangely gaining popularity again among my generation, I don't see it as a bigger threat to our nation than Trump's nationalist/facist tide. Now, hold on a second. Are you talking about the social democrat stuff like Bernie Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez, or do you mean you are seeing people actually advocate for actual communism? I want to be sure I understand you and that you're not conflating the two because they are MASSIVELY different things and not remotely comparable at all. I have not seen literally a single person AT ALL from ANY generation advocating for actual communism. Like, at all. None. Not saying it can't be happening at all, and it's not like my experience is universal, but that seems pretty fringe if it's a thing at all. No, I'm talking about actual Marxist-Leninists. Lots of millennials are into it for some reason. I definitely knew more than a few publicly open communists in college.
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Nov 15, 2018 15:56:55 GMT -5
As for Nixon opening trade with china... biggest mistake for the west ever in my view. You know how many millions of their own people starved and died and turned each other in under Mao right? These people would've probably collapsed and been gone if only we'd stuck to our principles and isolated them as with Russia. Instead they practically own half the world and now have a new president for life. What they did in Tibet and Tienanmen Square made me outraged and sick and I won't be letting up on that non-manufactured nor faux outrage ever. Communism is ultimately evil to me, if that's unfashionable I don't care, you only have to look and learn the fates of a lot of the true believers in it, the ones that aren't simply thugs and crooks. So in a choice I'd accept pro-Trump people as at least partially relatable over the excusers of tyrants (of which I do count Trumpo himself at least half the time, yikes). I do find a lot of pro-Trump folks tend to share my worry about communist China at least. Just watch for a move by them to grab Taiwan in the next few years if the west seems weak enough to allow it. I'm an ardent anti-communist as well, but even though its strangely gaining popularity again among my generation, I don't see it as a bigger threat to our nation than Trump's nationalist/facist tide.
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Nov 15, 2018 13:12:40 GMT -5
Eh, Clinton kinda got lucky with the 90s tech boom. I don't think too many of his policies can be directly linked to the boom the economy saw during the decade. Yes, that is true, he was lucky to be there at the same time we enjoyed a technology boom and at a time oil was so cheap that it was almost viewed as a problem. Nevertheless, it wasn't all luck: his policies did favour global economic development, which contributed to the economy's health. He also managed to balance budgets at the end of his mandate. He did not start a useless war on bogus grounds, nor destabilized an entire region, nor gave unnecessary huge tax cuts that end up being paid for by increasing public debt; under his leadership you guys stopped Serbia from performing what looked more and more like a genocide, acted like a honest broker between Israel and Palestine, and were really seen as "the leaders of the free world". That should certainly, I think, be to Clinton's credit. I preferred Obama as an individual, but Clinton really delivered. The balanced budget was due in large part to co-operation between Congressional Democrats and Republicans (under Newt Gingrich of all people!). Sadly, that was probably the last time bi-partisanship was seen in our federal government.
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Nov 15, 2018 11:17:58 GMT -5
I hate this cold. I want it to be summer again.
|
|