greg1647545532

You're asking if I want to get kicked in the left nut or the right? Trump can't shutter the VA by himself and if Republicans can't fulfill their life's destiny of repealing Obamacare, they certainly don't stand a chance in hell of getting a sweeping VA privatization plan through congress. I don't know anything about CVA or their privatization plan, and given the political reality right now, I don't see any need to go learn myself on it.

I don't really care about that, frankly large swaths of the VA probably could be privatized* and we'd all be better off. But of course, 1) congress would have to pass the legislation to allow that to happen, and 2) if that's the plan, then the secretary of VA should have ample experience privatizing government agencies. In any case, the asshat has withdrawn his nomination, so Trump will have to look around the room and nominate someone else within visual range. Maybe the white house executive chef. *Of course, I'd be for smart privatization, not political handouts to large donor corporations who will provide the same shitty service without any actual cost savings, as privatization often does.

President Trump has so few fucks to give about the military that he nominated the WH physician, someone who's only administrative "qualifications" seem to be that Trump knew the guy, to run the ailing and massive VA. Upon learning that he probably won't make it through confirmation due to allegations of drinking on the job and overprescribing painkillers, Trump announced that he's leaving the choice of whether or not to drop out up to Dr. Jackson, saying (paraphrased, but not much), "I told Ronnie, 'You don't need this,'" with "this" being the shitshow media circus that he's now brought on himself. Guess what fuckstick, leading the VA is a shit job. It's a massive, massive organization, for meager $150k a year plus maybe another $100k in bonuses, in one of the highest cost of living areas in the country. It's a job that would easily have a 7 figure salary with fewer headaches in any civilian counterpart. Nobody "needs" that bullshit, they do it because it's an important job that needs to be done for the country. It's a sacrifice, something Trump has never experienced. Go find a VA director who will turn that ship around. Find a highly qualified human being who wants to do right by his or her country, actually vet them this time so they can get through a fucking confirmation hearing, and then fight for them, give them the tools and support they need, and hold them to their duty. Don't nominate some assclown with no experience and then not care whether or not he takes the job. This should absolutely infuriate anyone who's ever worn the uniform.

"You must own the rights to the photo or have written permission to use the photo."

Any pattern on a wheel, no matter how subdued, is sufficiently unusual that it's going to scream "Look at these wheels!" If the wheels in question are 24s on a donk, or 20s on a SEMA M3, or 18s on a crazy kitted out drift car, then go ahead and scream. If they're stock BMW wheels on a DD, don't draw attention to them. You want a subtle improvement, and newer OEM wheels on a older model car is an improvement that most people can't quite put their finger on. It looks better but flies under the radar.

I think that's just called "paint."

I gotta say, I'm not big into classic cars but I've always preferred the mustang coupes to the fastbacks. I'm sure you've seen this car from Cincy, I just saw it for the first time today in my FB feed:

When teenagers paint their stock wheels, I never think "Oh, well it's an improvement at least." Usually the opposite.

Hydrodipped wheels look minimally acceptable on a SEMA show car, and that's about it.

I think these 6/7/8 year car loans for normal cars are absolutely ridiculous, but new cars are better than ever and last longer than ever, so I dunno. I mean the interest sucks but after 8 years of inflation maybe the time/value equation works out. Personally, anything I would need to finance for 8 years that my wife is just going to spill coffee all over and the kids are going to hide half-eaten lollipops in is a bad purchase. I can't stomach paying more than $15k for a car when there are so many good cars for under $15k. That said, as I've moved up the socioeconomic ladder I've financed more and more things that I didn't think I would. Interest rates are low and I'd rather have my money more liquid, and let a bank take on the risk of converting a bunch of cash into a non-liquid asset. I think when you go even higher up the ladder, the rules change. I just did some research on 20 year boat loans for a friend of mine, I had no idea 20 year boat loans were a thing. But if you're buying a boat that costs as much as a house, I guess it's worth a bit of interest payments to have a bank deal with the TCO and just write a check every month.

Republicans: "Democrats just want to give taxpayer money to poor people to trick them into continuing to vote for Democrats." Also Republicans: "Our only accomplishment since we've taken power is to jack up the annual deficit to unprecedented levels to give you all a big tax cut. Don't you like your tax cut? Keep voting for us!!" <Paul Ryan, having accomplished all he set out to do, retires>

The same person who posted this ignored my (what I think was a) thoughtful response to a direct question about manufacturing and trade imbalances, and proceeded to make some inane suggestion about how I should give away my house. How many internet points do I get for pointing out this irony?

Subscribed

Thick neck, strong jaw, small cranium, a true alpha:

Only if he has a thick neck and a strong jaw.

Oh Brandon, Brandon Brandon Brandon, sweetie... I've told you before, my deep desire to deride your very existence has nothing to do with your political views, and everything to do with the fact that you unironically call people "soyboy pussies." You're like the manbun of internet trolls and you don't even realize it.

There's a lot of things I'm not OK with that I understand we don't have the power to do anything about. For instance, you procreating scares the shit out of me, but what can we do?

Anyone else excited for a war in Syria?

If you have evidence that those measures would make a meaningful and efficient impact I'd support them 100%. Until then, I vote and contribute to charity in accordance with what I believe is the best way to help my fellow man.

Of course it's relevant, it's just barely a starting point. Do you know how many bad parents I see at my kids' school? Hardly any, because I live in fucking Upper Arlington where there's a whole lot of two parent families, because the divorce rate is low, because people have money and money troubles are a major factor in divorce. Kids want for nothing here, never worry about crime, and generally get the intervention they need as soon as possible, because our schools can afford it. So let's just cure poverty and parenting will get better, easy as pie. That's an undoubtedly true fact, right? Curing poverty would greatly improve parenting. I guess my issue is that blaming the parents is often used as a way to dodge responsibility. Maybe we should end the war on drugs and soften the war on crime so more of these inner city kids might actually grow up with fathers, but that would require a personal sacrifice or for people to actually lift a finger to help those outside of their immediate community. It's much easier to blame bad parenting and call it a day.

Not to be a dick (I'm about to be a dick), but that's like saying, "The problem in the world is that people do bad things. We just need to get people to stop doing bad things and everything will get better." There's literally nobody in the world who doesn't know that good parenting is an important facet of society. Your observation that kids with good parents do better on average than kids with bad parents is not groundbreaking or particularly useful. The rub, as they say, is how society can encourage good parenting, and considering 99% of it goes on in private, it's a tough not to crack. Also considering that we can't even agree on whether or not smacking the shit out of your kids is a good thing or a bad thing, I'm not sure how you even pick a direction.

Fake news.

I don't have a degree in macroeconomics, nor do I read the WSJ for fun, so all I can do is regurgitate what writers have said that makes sense to me. Are you asking me how we bring back the job that someone in China or Bangladesh or Cambodia is currently getting paid $3000 a year to do? It seems to me that that those jobs are gone forever, because if the US suddenly found itself in an position where it needed to start manufacturing most of the crap that we import, we'd get machines to do it. Automation is what kills manufacturing jobs, and it's going to kill those same jobs overseas if and when the Chinese and Bengalis and Cambodians can raise their standard of living to the point where they expect middle class pay for a full day's labor. Tariffs don't work, this isn't some ideological argument I have, it's just what economists tell me. Since steel tariffs have been in the news lately, I've heard interviews with several of Bush's former economic advisers who were involved the last time we tried them who regret their decision. There are going to be winners and losers in any trade deal, and tariffs seem to simply pick a few winners at the expense of a lot of losers. In this case, US consumers, otherwise known as taxpayers, all end up paying more for products in order to create a few jobs that we otherwise don't need done. Using taxpayer dollars for make-work jobs sounds a lot like socialism, eh? If you're willing to pay more for your necessities in order to create jobs, but unwilling to pay taxes for something like the CCC because socialism, I think you're putting ideology over practicality. (Not that I'm advocating for the CCC, but it's an apt example) On the bright side, this notion that the US doesn't manufacture anything is overblown. We make spacecraft, cars, airplanes, top notch robotics, machining, and medical equipment. High end stuff that other countries are willing to pay for. We just don't have a lot of jobs in those industries that are unskilled, meaning the future is an educated, skilled workforce. Eventually automation on a global scale will get to a point where it's cheaper to have robots make stuff in the US than robots making stuff in China, because it'll be the same robots either way. Improve or die, but low skilled manufacturing jobs are gone and aren't coming back. Beyond that, things get somewhat philosophical. If robots are doing everything, and we only need so many people designing, building, and maintaining those robots, then how do we keep everyone employed? And that's where people are starting to experiment with universal basic income. I don't think we're there yet, I work in IT where good jobs are easy to find, pay well, and generally staffed with dullards, so there's probably 20-30 years before we have to worry about hordes of people who can't find work because the robots have taken over. And if anyone proposes tariffs at that point, I don't imagine they'll get much traction.

Deep state getting desperate with this whole Cohen raid, according to Trump supporters.

Yeah, but that only helps GM shareholders, not the blokes who want to turn wrenches in shuttered Detroit factories. This is Trump's strange brand of nonsensical populism.