• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Trump administration 2024-2028

Oldgateboatdriver said:
Funny enough, in my first university Macroeconomics class, the teacher told us: "If the government asks you to propose solutions to increase the GDP per capita of the country, you have to tell them they can either increase GDP or reduce the number of capita. It's not your job to decide which is moral and which is not".
Click to expand...

“I could end the deficit in five minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of congress are ineligible for reelection.”

― Warren Buffet
 
daftandbarmy said:
“I could end the deficit in five minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of congress are ineligible for reelection.”

― Warren Buffet
Click to expand...
You would have to tie up almost every navy ship, confine troops to their barracks, stand down units, ground most USAF aircraft, stop all further military contracts.
Cancel thousands of infrastructure projects. It would be basically like the recent shutdown, but longer and worse.
 
Colin Parkinson said:
You would have to tie up almost every navy ship, confine troops to their barracks, stand down units, ground most USAF aircraft, stop all further military contracts.
Cancel thousands of infrastructure projects. It would be basically like the recent shutdown, but longer and worse.
Click to expand...
If it's done overnight, yes. Not if done gradually. And it doesn't take long to see effect. All that's needed is a healthy difference between revenues and program spending (which, aside from short one to two year real crisis periods and their aftermaths, is a choice) for a few years.
 
HavokFour said:
Near unanimous vote, only 1 against. People smell blood in the water.
Click to expand...
I can guess that if there's any blood, it'll be as I've held all along - people other than Trump.

Larry Summers appears to be the first, albeit light, casualty of this round.
 
PrairieFella said:
Trump is in the files guy, theres nothing partisan about it.
Click to expand...
Just curious how you make this statement, maybe he is, lots of folks will be, but have you seen the files? If not then why would you state something as a fact, and not an opinion?

The art and class of debate sinks lower and lower....
 
Bruce Monkhouse said:
Just curious how you make this statement, maybe he is, lots of folks will be, but have you seen the files? If not then why would you state something as a fact, and not an opinion?

The art and class of debate sinks lower and lower....
Click to expand...
Trump has already been mentioned 1500 times in the files.

Stands to reason he will be named more times.

This again doesn't mean he did anything, but to state that he will be mentioned further is simply looking at the available evidence and coming to a logical conclusion.
 
Bruce Monkhouse said:
Just curious how you make this statement, maybe he is, lots of folks will be, but have you seen the files? If not then why would you state something as a fact, and not an opinion?

The art and class of debate sinks lower and lower....
Click to expand...
given that he's referenced ~1500 times in the documents the House Oversight Committee has released, I think it's a safe bet that he'll appear in the files that the DOJ has.
 
Bruce Monkhouse said:
Just curious how you make this statement, maybe he is, lots of folks will be, but have you seen the files? If not then why would you state something as a fact, and not an opinion?
Click to expand...
In the files that have been released so far he's been mentioned dozens upon dozens of times. Have you read them?
Bruce Monkhouse said:
The art and class of debate sinks lower and lower....
Click to expand...
Not sure why youre slinging mud needlessly. No nees to be sanctimonious, just look at the files that have been released so far. Nothing to debate.
 
PrairieFella said:
Not sure why youre slinging mud needlessly. No nees to be sanctimonious, just look at the files that have been released so far. Nothing to debate.
Click to expand...
I read the end of your quote wrong,......my bad.
Should always bring old man reading glasses while trying to moderate on puny phone screen.
 
PrairieFella said:
If AI gets to the point where its proponents envision it going, governments wont have a choice. 20-30% unemployment anyone? Great way to start a revolution.
Click to expand...
Brad Sallows said:
Less point worrying about that cliff than worrying about the next economic downturn hitting everyone in the middle of their current spending sprees in what is, mostly, a decently-performing economy.
Click to expand...
Except it may very well be the same cliff...

If AI ends up being as capable as it's proponents think it will be, a 30% unemployment rate may very well only be the start...


I personally think that super intelligent AI should not be released to or accessible by the general public.

I hope it has a practical use in curing cancer or other serious illnesses (although the pharmaceutical industry makes a ton of money from treating cancer, and it isn't in their interest to cure it or prevent it)

And I can see it helping decipher texts found at archeological sites, helping get the environment on track to restoration, tracking and predicting space-related weather and events, and for use by law enforcement & the courts.


But releasing it to the commercial sector will be a huge mistake that I think humanity will regret.

It will result in corporations raking in REAL record profits while employing the bare minimum of employees - which is great if you are a stockholder or in senior management, but devastating for the average worker and their family.

UBI is a band-aid solution for the near future. People will still want meaningful employment, and that will be harder & harder to find...


AI will offer a lot of positive possibilities to society. But AI will also offer a lot of negative possibilities to society also.

Without having a plan in place to introduce it in the least disruptive ways possible, we are absolutely setting the stage for a real revolution.


(Holy crap...the future really is happening now. I can't believe we are having a very real conversation about something that by all means seems like it's straight out of a sci-fi novel!)
 
CBH99 said:
But releasing it to the commercial sector will be a huge mistake that I think humanity will regret.
Click to expand...
Effectively it has already been released. Commercial companies are developing AI and uses for AI.
CBH99 said:
It will result in corporations raking in REAL record profits while employing the bare minimum of employees - which is great if you are a stockholder or in senior management, but devastating for the average worker and their family.
Click to expand...
Why? We went from roughly 80% of people employed in agriculture to maybe 2% or 3% in less than 200 years. We don't have 70% unemployment. While 30% employment practically overnight would be a crisis, that's not likely to happen.

Why is it people point to "some one thing" (AI and increased port automation being two recent examples) that might increase productive output and decrease the necessary human labour, and somehow it is to be set apart from every other innovation that did the same thing, as being "bad"?
CBH99 said:
UBI is a band-aid solution for the near future. People will still want meaningful employment, and that will be harder & harder to find...
Click to expand...
Walk down 4 blocks of any moderately-sized town's main street and catalogue the kinds of businesses you see.

Every dire prediction overlooks human ingenuity and the selfish impulse to improving one's own circumstances.

The necessary guardrails for AI pertain to the distinction between "advice" and "control", and keeping people in between the two.
 
Epstein badmouthing Trump is the most hilariously ironic part of "he's in the files". But the left takes it further: Epstein said he was dangerous!

:ROFLMAO:
 
HavokFour said:
Near unanimous vote, only 1 against. People smell blood in the water.

apnews.com

Congress acts swiftly to force release of Epstein files, and Trump agrees to sign bill

Both the House and Senate have acted decisively to pass a bill to force the Justice Department to publicly release its files on the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
apnews.com apnews.com
Click to expand...

And with no objection in the Senate before the bill was even transmitted from the House, it now goes to the President for signature without any amendment.

www.bbc.com

Live: US House and Senate approve release of Epstein files

The bipartisan bill will now head to President Donald Trump's desk to be signed into law.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
 
CBH99 said:
Except it may very well be the same cliff...

If AI ends up being as capable as it's proponents think it will be, a 30% unemployment rate may very well only be the start...


I personally think that super intelligent AI should not be released to or accessible by the general public.

I hope it has a practical use in curing cancer or other serious illnesses (although the pharmaceutical industry makes a ton of money from treating cancer, and it isn't in their interest to cure it or prevent it)

And I can see it helping decipher texts found at archeological sites, helping get the environment on track to restoration, tracking and predicting space-related weather and events, and for use by law enforcement & the courts.


But releasing it to the commercial sector will be a huge mistake that I think humanity will regret.

It will result in corporations raking in REAL record profits while employing the bare minimum of employees - which is great if you are a stockholder or in senior management, but devastating for the average worker and their family.

UBI is a band-aid solution for the near future. People will still want meaningful employment, and that will be harder & harder to find...


AI will offer a lot of positive possibilities to society. But AI will also offer a lot of negative possibilities to society also.

Without having a plan in place to introduce it in the least disruptive ways possible, we are absolutely setting the stage for a real revolution.


(Holy crap...the future really is happening now. I can't believe we are having a very real conversation about something that by all means seems like it's straight out of a sci-fi novel!)
Click to expand...
AI is at the precipice of being a tool used by humanity to further human potential to becoming a tool used to create better and better AI without humanity in mind.

The fact that AI is willing to blackmail and murder humans to achieve their goals when they think they are not being observed, and explicitly told not to do so, but don't when they know they are being observed tells us AI is not inherently honest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top