ViperMan

Guard, now. After a long time on AD. Yeah, I've also heard the "I don't vote" thing from officers based on that same line of reasoning. Don't agree with that one. Just think it's awkward for a member of congress to be taking orders from someone in the military. Gets a little weird with "who's in charge of this thing" (for me).

Probably the same reason I have an issue with boys in girls' bathrooms, even if they're just wearing different skirts at different times. There's something fundamental about military service, and there is something fundamental about congressional service. The differences don't vanish when you're done with your duty day - in either case. One of those positions requires you to publicly buck the system when necessary. The other requires you to shut up and take orders from your masters. These values are good in the broader system that is America, but when you co-locate things like this which are inherently conflicting, things just get icky. There are other differences as well, but it just feels to me like you should go serve in congress once you separate or retire. Representation is good and sorely needed, but for the same reason we don't need government contractors running the defense department, we don't need the military running congress or vice versa.

When I really stop and think about this, I do have a problem with someone currently wearing the uniform being in congress. Just feels incongruent to me.

I don't disagree with anything you're pointing out. I'm only saying that the inflation that we're experiencing is artificial, and if we left the economy to its own devices (i.e. natural forces), we'd be experiencing deflation.

Most "natural" forces in operation right now are deflationary. Technology, aging populations (people past the age of "peak spending"), globalization, etc. Why things seem inflationary right now is because governments around the world are doing everything in their power to counteract those natural forces - i.e. printing money. I'm not saying inflation isn't going to happen, just saying that if we left things alone, deflation would likely be a force to be reckoned with.

A way to answer your question is to compare death rates of vaxxers vs anti-vaxxers. That said, I don't think there are data points out there that capture that metric.

FOX 3, CLOSE!!!

Good question.

i'm having a hard time with this post. Did you get red-pilled? Or am I confusing you with someone else on this board?

What handle does your wife post under on this board?

I'd be interested to see more complete data, but I think our (American) average waistlines have increased by a similar proportion. Expect the cost of healthcare to continue to increase in proportion to how unhealthy we continue to become: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-29220000

Your perspective is interesting, because I think the incentives are there. The incentives and consequences are showing up in our massive and mounting student debt crisis. That *is* the signal. It's a signal our government is sending by virtue of providing effectively unlimited student loan debt for degrees that provide no meaningful ability to receive a higher standard of living. Individuals who attain degrees that provide massive remuneration (CS, engineering, etc) are not having a hard time paying off their student loans. The solution is to get the government out of distorting the market for these other worthless degrees. There is that there is no market for much of what colleges produce. The *only* reason these colleges get away with it is because the government provides a funding stream for what is otherwise valueless. So you're right, while the government can't *mandate* a school produce more engineers, they can certainly shape the incentive structure that these schools inherit.

Yeah, I didn't go into it in enough detail really. My point re: distortion in the system is that many people believe that there is a simple fix to the "pay your fair share" meme that has taken over our (financial) political discourse. Pointing towards the distorting effect that prop 13 has on individuals' relative property tax rates is a way to point at something that is, direct, real, and present which results in a massive differential tax rate between neighbors, but that few people see or understand. I think with as complex as our tax code is, that there are other instances like this that are replete throughout the system. Point being, I don't think it's as simple as just increasing the upper end of the tax rates to compensate for budget shortfalls and shitty planning. It's fine if that doesn't resonate with you. It does with me. My fundamental belief is that our government is the "thing" that we ALL share and participate in which helps to direct and guide our mutual lives. The problem now, is that there are massive and increasing numbers of people who only take. i.e. they participate in it, but they don't share in it. They have no skin in the game, and their only votes are for more stuff for themselves. That is not a path to a sustainable system - I don't care what philosophy says that it is - it just ain't. Plus, if we really believed that these social programs were working, why not just blanket increase taxes across the board, and then would it even matter? I mean they're paying more, but they're getting more, right? Something tells me there's more to it than that, though... Eventually, I'm concerned we will reach a breaking point, where the value of your dollar becomes so diminished that it motivates "capital" to find a different system to participate in - why do you think crypto is such a thing all of a sudden? We need to be very concerned about unwittingly destroying the thing that keeps this whole train rollin'.

You write a lot of words, and have some decent ideas. The core problem with your argument is that it doesn't effectively address people without skin in the game. No matter how much money we print, we will never be able to print enough to deal with a never ending stream of handouts. re: the "wealth" issues you address - the value of labor has declined tremendously over the past number of decades. Or perhaps a better way to couch it is the value of different labor has become wickedly differentiated. Reasons include - globalization, technology, and women entering the work force. No one wants people suffering, but there's also the reality that our country has created plenty of industries and jobs that were never designed to be able to push someone's standard of living beyond the boundaries of their parents' basements (i.e. fast food, Walmart greeter, etc). These jobs are important because they provide avenues to join the labor force that certain groups otherwise would not have. Pour onto that a massive increase in the number of people who can compete for jobs, and what you get is a decrease in the value of the commodity you provide (i.e. labor). That has nothing to do with communism, socialism, or capitalism - it is pure, uncontaminated, economic fact. Note: I don't have a great solution to this problem. There is already widespread agreement about the rich paying more than the poor - it's baked into the core of our system. See, 10% of more is greater than 10% of less. The "graduated" rates we pay as we move up are only incentives to corrupt the system. And I think we can all agree that is what we have. Forcing people to pay their actual "fair" share is a way to ensure no one is getting a free ride. And when we look at the fact that the bottom 50% of "taxpayers" in this country pay about 3% of the taxes that is where the unfairness lies and that is where the distortion is. It ain't fair that there are this many people in the country who extract vastly more than they contribute. As my favorite example of distortion, take a look at the effects of California's prop 13 - the law enacted that protects people's original tax rates back in the 1970s. It has created a class of gilded land owners who can pass their 'heritance down to their heirs. It's fucked up, no matter how you look at it (https://www.officialdata.org/ca-property-tax/#37.43748019180391,-122.1928891539574,19). There's a zoom on a random neighbor hood of SF for you. Some people pay upwards of $90,000/yr in property taxes, while their neighbors pay less than $100/yr. I'm pretty right-leaning, but I think even people on the left would think this is wildly unjust. The left's notion that all the "extraction" of value is happening at the top is complete and total bullshit. But hey, I'm sure it'll all get better as we rush to collapse our monetary system - I know of many historical precedents wherein global powers have decided to just print their way to prosperity, eat the rich, and destroy their middle class. Works every time, really.

I predict that even if Trump doesn't run, the democrats will still frame whoever does as Trump 2.0. We won't be done hearing about Trump for a long time. It's too convenient and powerful a motivator for the left's base to let go of.

Yeah, go back in time and don't sell your house.

An excuse to take it away from you later.

Oh, right. I know every time I draw a line from the US to Ecuador, it crosses through Russia. Someone get me a map. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Everything has a justification, reason, and excuse. "Oh, see, I was on my way to Ecuador, then the big bad US revoked my passport. Darn. Guess I'll just have to spend the next forever hangin' with my boy Putin." We, as military pilots, have a lot of power. That doesn't mean we get to go hog wild. You know there are multiple checks and balances at multiple levels, and in addition to that, people can and are held accountable. Surely you have the imagination necessary to understand that those same checks and balances exist inside the intel community, right? BTW, that system helps protect us. Or do you honestly think its main function is to keep you, Joe The Taxpayer, down?

Eventually (and soon probably, because they are literally almost there), we'll come full circle and recognize that anytime groups of people behave differently (i.e. culture), there are going to be different outcomes. Then, we'll have the left further satirizing itself when it advocates for doling out punishments/requirements/etc based on how a group is behaving. Won't that be fun to watch? Their philosophy is the logical equivalent of dividing by zero. It gives you the power make anything mean anything.

Perhaps my previous post was incomplete. That said, I did say "death penalty" which presupposes due process and a trial IMO. If I had said "hellfired" I'd be on board with you. I don't advocate that he is summarily executed without due process. Of course he should be tried. But let's also not stretch the case either and hold any pretense about what Snowden did. He publicly admits to doing everything. I don't think you need any over-wrought A -> B -> C -> Death for Snowden logic to get there. Doing what he did amounts to treason in and of itself: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter115&edition=prelim Did Bradley Manning deserve the death penalty - certainly not. He's an idiot, and what he did was foolish and I believe came from a place of honest concern. What Snowden did was calculated and executed in precisely such a manner as to undermine our belief in institutions. It was done with the exact purpose to cause people who don't know any better to draw a moral equivalence between the United States and our adversaries. Citizens who think that being a superpower means we don't ever have to get our hands dirty. It's design was to exploit the average American's naiveté about the world, and it continues to do so. Also, the damage was and IS orders of magnitude greater.

"Do we have any examples that worked?" I don't know, but to answer your question with a question: would we? How would you know if there have been successful challenges to things which are otherwise classified to which they have had a moral objection to? If it resulted in a policy change or more restrictive measures put in place does that automatically de-classify what was going on? Nope. But this is a rhetorical exercise. Your question doesn't get us anywhere. To more directly answer your question, though, you address your supervisors, Congress, and perhaps someone on the outside with "generics". What you certainly don't do is take your unrestricted access, download everything you can get your hands on, flee the US, and then give a data dump to a news reporter while then taking refuge with our #1 or #2 adversary. Let me ask you this: do you really think Russia is the only place on Earth Snowden could be taking "refuge"? Really? Where does the dude in charge of Wikileaks hide out? There are numerous other nations out there that have non-extradition policies where he could hide out without perma-access to the Kremlin. Pffft. Scoff those who think he's some national hero. Look at the facts. Access to highly classified info. Stole said info. Released said info. Absconded to Russia with said info. He's playing to people's emotions and feelings that Americans shouldn't be spied on. He's using our system against us, thereby having a two-pronged effect.

Snowden is a traitor and should be given the death penalty. If it walks like a traitor, talks like a traitor, and gives secrets to the Russians like a traitor...wait for it...it's a traitor. That it was so seductive a play that it has obviously duped patriots in the military into thinking he's some sort of national hero speaks to how powerful various elements of the information war are. He played Glenn Greenwald like a fiddle, and if you don't think there is a connection between what we've witnessed happen on the world stage over the last 7-8 years and what he did, you need to get your head checked. And if you're in the military and you think that was the "proper" way to voice a concern, you shouldn't be in a position of any responsibility.

Am I the only one who is as taken aback with his statement his to Chinese counterpart that he would let him know if we were coming? WTFO? What happened to surprise and initiative???

Annoying, yes. Consistent, sure. Coherent, nope.

No way they'll give him wings! Are you high? It doesn't matter that he'll have completed all the pilot training "requirements." He'll not be an officer in good standing, and that's a major, perhaps more fundamental component.