The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Originally posted by Geronimo
If Iraq collapses into total civil war after we and our allies pull out, sure it will have huge economic consequences...
What do you mean by this? We're not getting a whole lot of oil out of Iraq right now as it is. Besides, there's supply elsewhere. The political fallout might lead to rampant speculation in oil prices...
Well, I'd rather have the federal government go into debt then pass on higher fuel costs to the individual and business sector if that's what it takes.
Originally posted by Harry Tuttle
Well, I'd rather have the federal government go into debt then pass on higher fuel costs to the individual and business sector if that's what it takes.
why? we don't have to bury our government in debt but we do have to wean ourselves off of oil. Oil scarcity is inevitable and we are acting slowly to address it. This would just speed up the effort to respond to oil scarcity rather than incurring a real long term cost like government defaulting on (or somehow making the public pay for) the debt would entail.
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Where did I say that the Republicans have had small budgets under Bush?
All I am comparing is Hillary's and Obama's budgets to Huckabee, Romney and McCain.
The difference is an order of magnitude difference, which is unbelievable.
Think about it for a moment. You say the budgets now are too huge, Hillary and Obama want to add another hundred and 50 billion on top of that. During peacetime!
That's a mountain of pork.
Here's the difference, Obama and Clinton want to retire the Bush tax cuts, leading to the money to pay for those social programs.
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
Originally posted by Geronimo
why? we don't have to bury our government in debt but we do have to wean ourselves off of oil. Oil scarcity is inevitable and we are acting slowly to address it. This would just speed up the effort to respond to oil scarcity rather than incurring a real long term cost like government defaulting on (or somehow making the public pay for) the debt would entail.
Purposefully creating an event just to dramatically increase oil prices is a poor way of driving technological advance. It would help to drive the economy down by not only impacting every type of business but every consumer as well.
Purposefully creating an event just to dramatically increase oil prices is a poor way of driving technological advance. It would help to drive the economy down by not only impacting every type of business but every consumer as well.
purposely leaving an event to stop justifying pouring trillions of dollars into it which also immediately allows an event to happen sooner that will otherwise happen eventually anyway is quite different from purposely inflating oil prices.
So what if it drives the economy down if it makes it more resilient in the long term and avoids massive borrowing in the short and near long term? Besides no matter how long we stay how are we going to avoid the **** hitting the fan when we leave? stay forever? How long would it have taken for the situation in vietnam to stabilize?
Here's the difference, Obama and Clinton want to retire the Bush tax cuts, leading to the money to pay for those social programs.
That is 150 billion NET, not GROSS.
Both want to preside over a huge NET increase in program spending.
Scouse Git (2)La Fayette Adam SmithSolomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
"Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!
I don't particularly give a **** what the candidates budget proposals are, for several reasons:
1) What they say now and what they will do in office are probably two different things.
2) Neither party has a leg to stand on if they claim to be fiscally responsible. I'm especially pissed off with the Republicans in this regard, as that is supposed to be a cornerstone of their platform.
3) Congress matters a whole lot in the budget process. The President plays an important role, but it's Congress' job in the end.
We need to cut military spending, but the right military spending. Fancy new fighter jets, submarines, and other new weapons systems really should be put on hold. The ongoing conflicts (Afganistan & Iraq) should be funded properly. You don't send your troops halfway 'round the world to fight and then not fund the operation. Of course, knowing when to end our involvement in such conflicts is also important.
We need to cut other spending as well, of course. If I were proposing budgets, there would be cuts all over the place. Guns, butter, you name it.
Further, the utterly irresponsible Bush tax cuts should be allowed to lapse. Cutting taxes is all well and good, when you properly plan for it by also reducing spending. Step one: reduce spending bit by bit until you're running a surplus. Step two: pay down debt. Step three: cut taxes. This is something like a fifty year plan, and will never happen. Not a snowball's chance in hell. No matter which party is in power. The Dems will spend everything they can get their hands on for healthcare, education and the like, raising taxes to pay for it. The Republicans will spend everything they can on the military, while cutting taxes for the richest segment of the population and borrowing money to cover the shortfall.
Both want to preside over a huge NET increase in program spending.
Spending is going to increase anyway. I didn't know that there were people left who thought otherwise. The issue is what that spending will be on and whether it will be paid for with taxes or debt.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
spending might aways increase but it sure as hell can't always increase as a percentage of the national economy. Who would the government be able to borrow from when spending starts to approach the entire national GDP? Hell, I'd expect the borrowing to be nearly impossible even before that unless it were funding something the lenders were sure was temporary in nature like a conventional winnable war. Spending has kept increasing as a percentage of the total economy but that can't go on indefinitely.
The difference is an order of magnitude difference, which is unbelievable.
Think about it for a moment. You say the budgets now are too huge, Hillary and Obama want to add another hundred and 50 billion on top of that. During peacetime!
Do you know what an order of magnitude is?
It means, "10x as much".
$150 billion is not nearly 10x as much as $3 trillion. It's not even a tenth as much.
Obama and Clinton want to increase spending in certain areas, and decrease spending in others. You can't meaningfully compare a single program and say that their desire to increase spending there is a global desire to increase spending.
<Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.
$150 billion is not nearly 10x as much as $3 trillion. It's not even a tenth as much.
Obama and Clinton want to increase spending in certain areas, and decrease spending in others. You can't meaningfully compare a single program and say that their desire to increase spending there is a global desire to increase spending.
I believe he was talking about an order of magnitude difference in net change to the deficit. ie an increase of 150 billion planned vs planning an increase of 15 billion.
Bush has increased our total spending by how much again? The deficit is how much higher than Clinton's, er, 'deficits' that were actually NOT DEFICITS?
Sorry, 'deficit' by itself is not a useful term, and if you consider it to be such, Bush has done more harm than either of them plan on doing...
<Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.
Originally posted by snoopy369
Bush has increased our total spending by how much again? The deficit is how much higher than Clinton's, er, 'deficits' that were actually NOT DEFICITS?
Sorry, 'deficit' by itself is not a useful term, and if you consider it to be such, Bush has done more harm than either of them plan on doing...
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
DanS:
The difference is an order of magnitude on spending. The worst Republican promises to spend a tenth of what the best Democrat will.
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Where did I say that the Republicans have had small budgets under Bush?
All I am comparing is Hillary's and Obama's budgets to Huckabee, Romney and McCain.
The difference is an order of magnitude difference, which is unbelievable.
Think about it for a moment. You say the budgets now are too huge, Hillary and Obama want to add another hundred and 50 billion on top of that. During peacetime!
That's a mountain of pork.
Ben wasn't commenting on Bush at all. IIUC, he was comparing the spending increases proposed by obama and hillary on the campaign to the republican candidates proposed increases. It is indeed an odd comparison since if the dems promised to increase spending by 10,000 bucks and the worst republican said they'd increase by 1 cent it would be several orders of magnitude difference in proposed spending increases but a negligible difference in comparison to the actual deficit problem.
I just thought you were talking past each other when you starting lecturing him about the meaning of orders of magnitude.
Tweet
Comment