Controversial Opinions (For Everything Other Than DC Comics)

[Kirby101]

It says we will need 4,6 trillion and Trump offers 200 billion.

"it’s clear that $200 billion and a shrug to state and local governments is not nearly enough to get the job done."

I interpret this as a laughable plan.

Private management of airports has little to do with our crumbling bridges and roads

[Moon Ronin]

It says we will need 4,6 trillion and Trump offers 200 billion.

"it’s clear that $200 billion and a shrug to state and local governments is not nearly enough to get the job done."

It also calls it a "starting point" and that the federal government should not foot the entire bill.

Private management of airports has little to do with our crumbling bridges and roads

From the article "Even mid-sized cities could make more than $500 million each by leasing their airports and ports, which adds up when you consider that there are hundreds of major airports across the country." that money could then be re-invested in crumbling bridges and roads. He seems to be speaking from experience as he said that he did such as mayor of Indianapolis.

[Kirby101]

It also calls it a "starting point" and that the federal government should not foot the entire bill.

Not footing the entire bill, which no one is saying they should, and offering to fund only 5% are two different things. The GOP has chosen for decades to put tax cuts for the wealthy as a priority over spending on urgent things like infrastructure. And that is the central issue here. These tax cuts have shown over and over again to have little effect on growth while exploding the deficit. Trump's tax cut alone will cost the US over 2 trillion dollars. The positive results of spending that on infrastructure should be apparent.

[jetengine]

Also if they didnt kick the can down the road and promote tax cuts it wouldnt be 4 trillion.

[Moon Ronin]

Not footing the entire bill, which no one is saying they should, and offering to fund only 5% are two different things. The GOP has chosen for decades to put tax cuts for the wealthy as a priority over spending on urgent things like infrastructure. And that is the central issue here. These tax cuts have shown over and over again to have little effect on growth while exploding the deficit. Trump's tax cut alone will cost the US over 2 trillion dollars. The positive results of spending that on infrastructure should be apparent.

The budget proposal that I found on that came form the White House site for 1 trillion dollars in infrastructure spending over 10 years (It think it came out this week). House Democrats proposed a $760 billion infrastructure spending over 5 years bill last month. Either of which or a compromise between the two will have to get through McConnell's Senate blockade which is highly unlikely as he has signaled that the spending levels won’t be approved and will be DOA. Though the Senate did approve $287 billion in federal government spending over five years on surface transportation needs last July a 27% jump.. or a "starting point".

Oddly enough infrastructure investment seems to be the only thing that House Dem's and the president have in common.

[Jack Dracula]

It seems to me that if the common people see that the instruments of democracy fail to effect change when change is wanted, then they will lose faith in the democratic system. If government isn't going to help them, and it's a case of survival, then people will take direct action to get what they need to survive.

In 1848, there were revolutions all across Europe. After that, governments instituted changes to give the people a greater voice and better support. Democracy isn't something that the rich give to the poor out of Christian charity. It's something that rightly needs to exist or else the only alternative is open rebellion. If you give people what they need to survive, then they're less likely to riot, steal and murder.

So it's in the self-interest of the rich to support a functioning democracy--it saves them money. They don't need to spend as much on security. The workforce is strong and healthy. There are less diseases (rich people can't safeguard themselves against all communicable diseases, unless they help prevent diseases among the poor). Environmental disasters shouldn't pose a threat to the economy, so long as everyone takes care of the Earth.

They just need to present a semblance of a functioning democracy. Invest enough in campaign contributions to certain people to slant legislation in their favor and let the taxpayers foot the bill for the actual heavy lifting.

[DrNewGod]

It seems to me that if the common people see that the instruments of democracy fail to effect change when change is wanted, then they will lose faith in the democratic system. If government isn't going to help them, and it's a case of survival, then people will take direct action to get what they need to survive.

In 1848, there were revolutions all across Europe. After that, governments instituted changes to give the people a greater voice and better support. Democracy isn't something that the rich give to the poor out of Christian charity. It's something that rightly needs to exist or else the only alternative is open rebellion. If you give people what they need to survive, then they're less likely to riot, steal and murder.

So it's in the self-interest of the rich to support a functioning democracy--it saves them money. They don't need to spend as much on security. The workforce is strong and healthy. There are less diseases (rich people can't safeguard themselves against all communicable diseases, unless they help prevent diseases among the poor). Environmental disasters shouldn't pose a threat to the economy, so long as everyone takes care of the Earth.

They just need to present a semblance of a functioning democracy. Invest enough in campaign contributions to certain people to slant legislation in their favor and let the taxpayers foot the bill for the actual heavy lifting.

Might robots change this calculus?

[Zauriel]

I wonder if the filter masks are effective protection against the corona virus?

[Jack Dracula]

Might robots change this calculus?

Not sure what you're getting at here.

[Zauriel]

Does anyone here support legalization of marijuana, either medical or recreational, in their state or country?

Marijuana is legal in some states including Washington and Colorado. Most of the blue states have made marijuana legal. Even a red state like Alaska legalized marijuana

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legali...._jurisdiction

[Kirby101]

I support the complete, but regulated legalization of pot.

[Steel Inquisitor]

I support the complete, but regulated legalization of pot.

Is this controversial?

[Zauriel]

Is this controversial?

It is controversial to the conservatives. That is why most red states ban marijuana. Trump, Pence and Sessions are against marijuana. Marijuana is also illegal on the federal level.

Most of the democratic presidential candidates including Bloomberg and even Tulsi Gabbard support the legalization of pot on the federal level.

[Kirby101]

It is controversial to the conservatives. That is why most red states ban marijuana. Trump, Pence and Sessions are against marijuana. Marijuana is also illegal on the federal level.

Most of the democratic presidential candidates including Bloomberg and even Tulsi Gabbard support the legalization of pot on the federal level.

Bloomberg wants decriminalization, not legalization.

[numberthirty]

Bloomberg wants decriminalization, not legalization.

One more reason not to support him...