What does the U.S. Republican party stand for?

[Robert_S]

Actually, defense spending has had a couple of nice outcomes in the US. The Internet and the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways come to mind.

[drl2]

What social issues? What accounts for social issues? WTF are family values?

"Social issues" and "family values" are right-wing-speak for "stopping everyone else from doing what we're secretly doing but have to pretend to be against".

Ethics? In what sense?

"Ethics" in politics, regardless of party, refers to a) accusing your political opponents of wrongdoing, and b) coming up with reasons why your side is the victim when it gets caught doing the same things.

Personal responsibility, for what?

We all have a personal responsibility to make sure the wealthiest 1% continue to have their taxes lowered, of course.

Free markets? Free how? Where?

Free to do whatever they damn well please. Everywhere.


See? It's easy!

[Seth]

Actually, defense spending has had a couple of nice outcomes in the US. The Internet and the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways come to mind.

The Internet would have come to pass without government involvement, and the Interstate highway system is a huge financial tar-pit that would have been better funded by private enterprise as development pressures dictated.

The Interstate highway system is in fact responsible for most of the urban sprawl we are experiencing, and we'd have been better off without it. It would have been much, much better to improve the RAILROADS to provide for high-speed express transcontinental freight, passenger, and PASSENGER VEHICLE transport, which would have saved trillions of dollars in energy costs.

There is nothing quite as wasteful of fuel as driving across the country in a passenger car. It's a waste of time and resources better dedicated to hauling the vehicle to a train stop somewhere in reasonable proximity to the destination and then using local, locally-paid for surface streets for the remainder of the journey.

They could accomplish much savings by putting high-speed passenger vehicle railroads where the present Interstates run, with parallel tracks in each direction, with a second set of parallel tracks for freight trains. Highly automated rail car systems would be set up at select stations near population centers so vehicles could be efficiently loaded and unloaded.

Like most every federal program, it's some bureaucrat's silly idea, usually put forward to get either votes or pork money for some politician's district, and they are always wasteful, inefficient, expensive and unnecessary.

[sandinista]

Thanks for clearing that up drl2. What a pile of shit.

[Warren Dew]

So, by killing the deficit and fiscal discipline that must mean cutting the "defense" budget by at least half. Is this what the republicans will run with?

I'm kind of hoping they'll start with getting rid of the medicare bloat that Bush put in.

[sandinista]

So, by killing the deficit and fiscal discipline that must mean cutting the "defense" budget by at least half. Is this what the republicans will run with?

I'm kind of hoping they'll start with getting rid of the medicare bloat that Bush put in.

Stopping the war on "drugs" would also be fiscally responsible.

[Robert_S]

Actually, defense spending has had a couple of nice outcomes in the US. The Internet and the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways come to mind.

The Internet would have come to pass without government involvement, and the Interstate highway system is a huge financial tar-pit that would have been better funded by private enterprise as development pressures dictated.

The Interstate highway system is in fact responsible for most of the urban sprawl we are experiencing, and we'd have been better off without it. It would have been much, much better to improve the RAILROADS to provide for high-speed express transcontinental freight, passenger, and PASSENGER VEHICLE transport, which would have saved trillions of dollars in energy costs.

There is nothing quite as wasteful of fuel as driving across the country in a passenger car. It's a waste of time and resources better dedicated to hauling the vehicle to a train stop somewhere in reasonable proximity to the destination and then using local, locally-paid for surface streets for the remainder of the journey.

They could accomplish much savings by putting high-speed passenger vehicle railroads where the present Interstates run, with parallel tracks in each direction, with a second set of parallel tracks for freight trains. Highly automated rail car systems would be set up at select stations near population centers so vehicles could be efficiently loaded and unloaded.

Like most every federal program, it's some bureaucrat's silly idea, usually put forward to get either votes or pork money for some politician's district, and they are always wasteful, inefficient, expensive and unnecessary.

Railroads would have been nicer, but there are buses for more fuel efficient public transport.

I suppose something like the internet would have come about, but I like the spirit of this one. It came about because we thought it would be a great idea to hook all out universities together so researchers could share information more easily and the US would keep on top of the tech world. That, and being the child of the government of a nation that has freedom of expression in the first amendment to its constitution probably account for a great deal of the openness of the net.

So, by killing the deficit and fiscal discipline that must mean cutting the "defense" budget by at least half. Is this what the republicans will run with?

I'm kind of hoping they'll start with getting rid of the medicare bloat that Bush put in.

Stopping the war on "drugs" would also be fiscally responsible.

There's some common ground between most of us here I think.

[Warren Dew]

Stopping the war on "drugs" would also be fiscally responsible.

From the Republican standpoint, the "war on drugs" is probably part of the "social issues" category that scored so low, so there's some hope there. I don't think it would save much money, but it's something that was always pointless anyway.

On the other hand, I believe Obama promised Calderon to try to cut down on drug consumption in the U.S., so we'll have to see how that works out too.

[sandinista]

Stopping the war on "drugs" would also be fiscally responsible.

From the Republican standpoint, the "war on drugs" is probably part of the "social issues" category that scored so low, so there's some hope there. I don't think it would save much money, but it's something that was always pointless anyway.

On the other hand, I believe Obama promised Calderon to try to cut down on drug consumption in the U.S., so we'll have to see how that works out too.

Wouldn't save much money? You're joking. Besides the savings on policing, courts, and prisons, the overseas military anti-drug operations could also cease. Also, could be a mass increase in cash flowing TO the government by taxing and selling drugs.

[Tero]

This is all to complicated. One of them cowboy philosophers:
The Republicans are a party for people who do not have to work, and the Democrats are for those who do not want to work.

[Warren Dew]

Wouldn't save much money? You're joking. Besides the savings on policing, courts, and prisons, the overseas military anti-drug operations could also cease. Also, could be a mass increase in cash flowing TO the government by taxing and selling drugs.

Well, if you count pulling out of Afghanistan, yes, that would be significant. Still not large compared to the real budget busters, Medicaid and Medicare, but not negligible either.

[Robert_S]

Stopping the war on "drugs" would also be fiscally responsible.

From the Republican standpoint, the "war on drugs" is probably part of the "social issues" category that scored so low, so there's some hope there. I don't think it would save much money, but it's something that was always pointless anyway.

On the other hand, I believe Obama promised Calderon to try to cut down on drug consumption in the U.S., so we'll have to see how that works out too.

Wouldn't save much money? You're joking. Besides the savings on policing, courts, and prisons, the overseas military anti-drug operations could also cease. Also, could be a mass increase in cash flowing TO the government by taxing and selling drugs.

Not to mention the lost productivity of people in prisons and the smart kids who could be working on some interesting innovations but can't because they got caught being reckless and now have criminal records.

[Seth]

Actually, defense spending has had a couple of nice outcomes in the US. The Internet and the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways come to mind.

The Internet would have come to pass without government involvement, and the Interstate highway system is a huge financial tar-pit that would have been better funded by private enterprise as development pressures dictated.

The Interstate highway system is in fact responsible for most of the urban sprawl we are experiencing, and we'd have been better off without it. It would have been much, much better to improve the RAILROADS to provide for high-speed express transcontinental freight, passenger, and PASSENGER VEHICLE transport, which would have saved trillions of dollars in energy costs.

There is nothing quite as wasteful of fuel as driving across the country in a passenger car. It's a waste of time and resources better dedicated to hauling the vehicle to a train stop somewhere in reasonable proximity to the destination and then using local, locally-paid for surface streets for the remainder of the journey.

They could accomplish much savings by putting high-speed passenger vehicle railroads where the present Interstates run, with parallel tracks in each direction, with a second set of parallel tracks for freight trains. Highly automated rail car systems would be set up at select stations near population centers so vehicles could be efficiently loaded and unloaded.

Like most every federal program, it's some bureaucrat's silly idea, usually put forward to get either votes or pork money for some politician's district, and they are always wasteful, inefficient, expensive and unnecessary.

Railroads would have been nicer, but there are buses for more fuel efficient public transport.

Busses are only useful in urban areas for people who don't have a car and don't need to go far from a bus stop. They are not useful to people who have kids, have to drive long distances, live in the country, or need a car for any of the many needs people have for a personal vehicle. This is the flaw in public transportation propaganda. It works if you're going from your home near a bus stop to your work near a bus stop. Otherwise it doesn't work, particularly for long-distance, cross-country travel. If I want to go to Oregon and take a vacation there, I want my own vehicle with my camping gear in it when I get there. I don't want to take a bus, and I don't want to rent a car when I get there. Someone who travels to LA is going to need a car, and most people cannot afford to rent one, so they will drive across the entire western United States just so that they can have their car, and the freedom to travel, that it provides.

The idiocy of the federal transportation administration is epic. How great would it be to drive your car onto a train in New York, go to the dining car, have dinner, then go to your compartment and sleep the trip away, arriving in LA a couple of days later, refreshed and having enjoyed the scenery, and drive your car off the train and go about your business?

[Robert_S]

Actually, defense spending has had a couple of nice outcomes in the US. The Internet and the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways come to mind.

The Internet would have come to pass without government involvement, and the Interstate highway system is a huge financial tar-pit that would have been better funded by private enterprise as development pressures dictated.

The Interstate highway system is in fact responsible for most of the urban sprawl we are experiencing, and we'd have been better off without it. It would have been much, much better to improve the RAILROADS to provide for high-speed express transcontinental freight, passenger, and PASSENGER VEHICLE transport, which would have saved trillions of dollars in energy costs.

There is nothing quite as wasteful of fuel as driving across the country in a passenger car. It's a waste of time and resources better dedicated to hauling the vehicle to a train stop somewhere in reasonable proximity to the destination and then using local, locally-paid for surface streets for the remainder of the journey.

They could accomplish much savings by putting high-speed passenger vehicle railroads where the present Interstates run, with parallel tracks in each direction, with a second set of parallel tracks for freight trains. Highly automated rail car systems would be set up at select stations near population centers so vehicles could be efficiently loaded and unloaded.

Like most every federal program, it's some bureaucrat's silly idea, usually put forward to get either votes or pork money for some politician's district, and they are always wasteful, inefficient, expensive and unnecessary.

Railroads would have been nicer, but there are buses for more fuel efficient public transport.

Busses are only useful in urban areas for people who don't have a car and don't need to go far from a bus stop. They are not useful to people who have kids, have to drive long distances, live in the country, or need a car for any of the many needs people have for a personal vehicle. This is the flaw in public transportation propaganda. It works if you're going from your home near a bus stop to your work near a bus stop. Otherwise it doesn't work, particularly for long-distance, cross-country travel. If I want to go to Oregon and take a vacation there, I want my own vehicle with my camping gear in it when I get there. I don't want to take a bus, and I don't want to rent a car when I get there. Someone who travels to LA is going to need a car, and most people cannot afford to rent one, so they will drive across the entire western United States just so that they can have their car, and the freedom to travel, that it provides.

The idiocy of the federal transportation administration is epic. How great would it be to drive your car onto a train in New York, go to the dining car, have dinner, then go to your compartment and sleep the trip away, arriving in LA a couple of days later, refreshed and having enjoyed the scenery, and drive your car off the train and go about your business?

It would be nice to put my car on a train, but on the other hand, it seems like that would get expensive enough to make a rental car look good.

Seriously though, buses are great for traveling a few hundred miles. They're about as comfy as a train.

I'm interested to hear your thoughts on what a privately developed internet might have been like.

I think it would have been awful. Just look at what the profit motive did for Windows. When MS figured out that the internet was going to be a big deal, did they tighten up security on their OS, possibly even making changes to the basic structure to orient it to resisting viruses and hacks? No! They made IE just to drive Netscape off the market. We still pay the costs for that.

[Seth]

[quote="Robert_S"

It would be nice to put my car on a train, but on the other hand, it seems like that would get expensive enough to make a rental car look good.[/quote]

It depends on where you're going, with whom, and why. Shipping by rail can be incredibly cheap because of the economies of scale and the efficiencies of railroads. The reason Amtrak has to be subsidized is because it serves such a limited market. If the rail infrastructure had been built long ago, with multiple tracks and segregation of freight and passengers, as is the case in Europe for example, rail travel would be much more viable.

Seriously though, buses are great for traveling a few hundred miles. They're about as comfy as a train.

Sure, but again, not if you have to haul stuff around.

I'm interested to hear your thoughts on what a privately developed internet might have been like.

It would be better and faster than what we have right now. Certainly no worse. The Internet as we know it today has almost zero connection to DarpaNet. The commercial infrastructure has far surpassed anything the government created long ago.

I think it would have been awful. Just look at what the profit motive did for Windows. When MS figured out that the internet was going to be a big deal, did they tighten up security on their OS, possibly even making changes to the basic structure to orient it to resisting viruses and hacks? No! They made IE just to drive Netscape off the market. We still pay the costs for that.

I agree with you about Windows, which is why I use Mac. You have heard about Apple, right? The company that makes real computers.

But to say that the profit motive didn't serve the Windows community is just silly. In spite of it's security holes, it's still used by 98 percent of personal and business computers worldwide. The Internet as we know it responds to consumer demand with remarkable efficiency. Computer speeds and storage capacity per dollar double something like every 18 months, and the computer power available to Joe Average (in his smart phone) exceeds anything available to DARPA when the Net was created.

The government has only ever gotten in the way of technology.