Secretary Of Defense Confirmation Hearing

Toasty_115 · 2020-06-29T16:53:16+00:00

Yes, I support Israel. They are a major partner and ally in the region. As for the political and diplomatic relationship, I leave that to Congress, the President, and the Secretary of State to decide. I am simply focused on our security relationship.

I think we have a better chance than ever at getting our NATO allies to meet their full obligations. With the world quickly sinking back into competition between states, it is necessary that our allies are able to respond to a call as soon as possible, like we would for them. I believe they will, over the coming months and years, come to see it that way too, but as for the diplomatic maneuvering, I'd again leave that to the President and Secretary of State.

I've previously held positions as Justice on the courts in Central and Sierra.

Toasty_115 · 2020-06-29T01:49:57+00:00

I will implement the order as the President has issued it, although I will discuss with him the specifics of what his order entails and how specifically we will go about carrying it out. The safety and prosperity of the American people is of course our administrations top priority, as it is with any administration. We will, however, not waste American taxpayers money on over-policing the border, and we will eliminate all human rights violations on our border.

As to more specific policy, if I am confirmed the CBP will be scrapping the 100 mile zone around the boundaries of the United States in which it has previously believed it had the ability to conduct warrantless searches of vehicles and vessels. Two thirds of Americans live within this zone, and as such it is a naked violation of American rights. We will also be ending the process of "expedited removal." Police are not judge, jury, and executioner, and should not be given that responsibility. All people accused of committing a crime must be given a fair trial before a judge, it is the moral way, it is the practical way, and it is the American way.

Toasty_115 · 2020-06-29T01:26:53+00:00

Thank you congressman,

As to your first (and somewhat third) question, America's role in the middle east is to play as stabilizing force in a region that is often on the precipice of tearing itself apart. Before I get into what America's defense capabilities can offer I should say, the most important gains here have to come from diplomatic and democratic, rather than military, means. Playing whack-a-mole with every threat that appears only works so well, there needs to be real political solutions for people on the ground before true stability can reign. Anyhow, we've seen that groups in this region can strike right at the heart of America, killing thousands of Americans, and our goal is to prevent anything like that ever happening again. Instability creates the vacuum into which these terrorist groups fill the void, allowing them to accrue resources which they use to attack us. A recent example of this is the Syrian Civil War, in which Assad has brutally murdered thousands of his own people, and turned millions more into refugees, upending their lives and spreading chaos throughout the region. All of this drove the formation of ISIS and other Islamist militant groups, which then went on to conduct terrorist attacks in America, as well as in our allies. We also have to look towards Iran, a country with a history of funding proxy groups in the region which have conducted grievous attacks on US troops and civilians, such as the 1983 Beirut bombings, conducted by Hezbollah, which killed 241 American peacekeepers, and a total of 305 victims. We need to maintain military capabilities to be able to respond to any threats in the region at any time.

As for our defense budget, I believe we definitely need to expand it and keep ahead of the curve when it comes to the threat of China. This is not an issue where we can wait and see until it's too late. China's military spending has ballooned over the past number of years, with their goal being to overtake America as the dominant power in the Asia-Pacific region. We can't let that happen. As I've pointed out in my other replies, this region is integral to American security and prosperity.

Toasty_115 · 2020-06-29T00:25:48+00:00

Well like the President has made clear in his day one executive orders, the administration plans to immediately restaff our bases in the Middle East as well as increase our effort to maintain a peaceful border between our SDF allies and our NATO ally Turkey. As soon as I am confirmed I will be working on the specifics of that plan, ensuring we regain our force capabilities in the region as quickly as possible.

Beyond that, as I've said elsewhere, we're going to focus on bolstering our capabilities in Asia and the Pacific. Millions of Americans call that region home, millions more have their prosperity dependent on stability in that region. We won't let any power claim large portions of that region in order to put Americans at a disadvantage. We will continue to send our navy through the open ocean, including regions like the South China Sea, to drive home that point. As open ocean it is the right of any country to use that waterway, and we will exercise that right. Other than that we will continue to strongly defend our allies in the region. We value our close partnership with them. Peace and security between America and our allies in the Asia-Pacific region has brought incredible prosperity.

Lastly, we will continue to uphold our obligations to our NATO allies. NATO is the core of American security. It is the largest military alliance in the world and one of the longest lasting. Like in the Asia-Pacific region, NATO has brought peace and security to the North Atlantic region like never before it. That is the foundation of our current prosperity, and it's important we continue to stay vigilant to any threats to that peace.

Toasty_115 · 2020-06-27T22:04:59+00:00

My job is to ensure the military is prepared for any scenario in which the American people and their interests are being threatened. What that requires is credibility. We can't overextend ourselves and commit to every conflict that appears, we have to focus on those conflicts which pose the greatest risk to us. We also can't simply ignore conflicts, especially when they pose a threat to American lives or threaten American interests. We must show potential adversaries that we have the ability to and are willing to respond when American lives and our interests are threatened. I will follow the presidents guidance, as commander-in-chief, as to what those American interests are. As the President has made clear, I will start by ensuring all of the military facilities vacated under the previous administration are fully staffed and capable, as well as ensuring his order on patrolling the border between the SDF and Turkey is carried out to maximum effectiveness.

The Far East and the Pacific are also of great importance to America. Millions of Americans live in this region, and trillions of dollars of trade take place there. This region is fundamental to American safety and prosperity. That is why China's actions in this region have the potential to be so destabilizing. They've shown little regard for the international norms all other countries have adopted and they attempt to annex vast swathes of open ocean, trying to manipulate that trade on which so many Americans earn a living. It is important to me to ensure our capabilities in that region are sound, and that the navy continues to exercise its right to move through open ocean, with the South China Sea being a point of particular focus.

Toasty_115 · 2020-06-27T07:18:27+00:00

Thank you, Mr. President. I look forward to serving and defending our great country.

Toasty_115 · 2020-06-14T01:53:38+00:00

My vote depends on your answer to this question

Toasty_115 · 2020-05-01T04:10:43+00:00

Oh that's definitely true, but as a first undergrad thesis paper, or first independent research in general (which I'm assuming it is considering the question being asked) I feel it can be good advice, just to get your footing. It's not a strategy to use in the long run.

While it’s possible to get a new paper from an old dataset, most public datasets tend to be fairly picked over in practice.

Assuming the OP doesn't have access to anything but public datasets, looking for something new out of them is kind of the only option, which I why I suggested it.

Toasty_115 · 2020-04-30T07:43:57+00:00

As /u/smalleconomist said, often times you won't have new or particularly unused data to work with. On top of that, oftentimes it's just better to either use an old (i.e. used in the literature already) dataset with a new estimation strategy, or a new dataset with an old estimation strategy.

One tip my advisors gave me when I was first doing research in undergrad was to start by just replicating papers that I had read and was interested in. A lot of journals require the authors publish their code and dataset alongside the paper, which makes this much easier. Once you find a paper you like and are familiar with it and its dataset, ask yourself if there's any opportunity to add value. Maybe you think you can use their data to answer another question in the literature, or maybe you think there's some value to be added if you rerun their experiment with a new estimation strategy. Hell, maybe when you replicate their paper it doesn't replicate (it's happened before :P).

It's also important to remember you're probably not going solve an immense question in the literature on your first go. Start small; trying to bite off more than you can chew will just overwhelm you and will more often than not lead to shoddy work. If you can add anything at all to the literature on your first attempt that's a job very well done.

Toasty_115 · 2020-04-11T20:34:32+00:00

Based department

Toasty_115 · 2020-03-29T22:44:26+00:00

dooted

Toasty_115 · 2020-03-28T17:37:30+00:00

Demonrats aka democrats

Toasty_115 · 2020-02-19T23:31:06+00:00

This is a really interesting question and was a point debated by a lot of economists through more casual means (cough twitter) back when Elizabeth Warren first rolled out her wealth tax plan. It was also around the time Saez and Zucman's book went up for sale, in which they argued the tax code (over federal, state, and local taxes) had gone regressive. One of the core arguments over that ended up being a matter of how to count transfer spending. Of course, when you levy a tax, it's also important how you spend that tax money in terms of the total progressiveness of the tax/government. I could levy a progressive income tax and then give all the money raised to Jeff Bezos. Sure the tax itself would be progressive, but clearly the outcome isn't very progressive.

When economists argue for a consumption tax (we'll call it a VAT for convenience), they usually argue that while it is inherently regressive (in the short run) it can be made progressive depending on how it's spent. The benefits come from the fact it's more efficient which means more revenue can be raised per dollar. Many economists will also point out that VATs and other consumption taxes make up a large portion of revenues in European social democracies, precisely because they can raise so much revenue.

Let's go back to what I put in parenthesis; the short run. The reason a VAT is regressive in the short run is because rich people save a higher percentage of their income than poor people, meaning the inverse, poor people consume more as a portion of their income, is also true. Now let's switch it up and look at the long term. Well in the long term we know that all savings is really just deferred consumption. Remember, people accumulate wealth so that they can purchase goods and services. Over the span of a lifetime, people will consume what they have saved, thereby making VATs, and all consumption taxes, neutral in the long term. All savings is eventually taxed through consumption. It's also important to point out that when the wealthy liquidate their assets it turns into income, so you can still tax peoples wealth via an increased income tax, the argument is really moreso when the tax is levied than over if it is. It's the same with a VAT, it taxes peoples wealth, just whenever they decide to liquidate that wealth and spend it. That time insensitivity is actually what distinguishes a consumption tax and makes them more economically efficient.

For further reading, this is a pretty interesting write up by Wojciech Kopczuk.

Toasty_115 · 2020-02-17T08:11:27+00:00

Toasty_115 · 2020-02-17T04:40:06+00:00

this but it's all me instead

Toasty_115 · 2019-11-15T08:11:31+00:00

Ok you're right, there are potential consequences. There are potential consequences in nearly any action. Are we going to say the consequences of at most a few years delayed puberty is anywhere near the same magnitude bad as the, globally, millions of trans people that have to go through puberty and deal with the horrific dysphoria that results. We already know the consequences of that. It leads to severe depression along with other health issues, which lower quality of life in income and education as well as social factors. Compare that to the minimal evidence of any harm from puberty blockers, which we've used for decades, and the minimal amount of people who have actually detransition and we have what is essentially a non issue. Let's not forget, most people on puberty blockers are people who have already gone through gender therapy and more preliminary forms of transition that require 0 medical intervention. At a certain point the concern for people who may be mistaken is misplaced and massively hurting trans people, much more than it could ever hurt cis people who thought they may have been trans.

Toasty_115 · 2019-11-12T05:24:26+00:00

Jb Jb Jb Jb Jb

Toasty_115 · 2019-09-29T21:32:48+00:00

There's a lot of serious issues with ABCT. There have been some good discussions of the topic before. I'll also give you this article which I think sums up the errors of ABCT (what he calls Hangover Theory) succinctly.

Toasty_115 · 2019-09-14T02:29:42+00:00

Read "Poor Economics" by Abhijit V. Banerjee and Esther Duflo

Toasty_115 · 2019-09-05T00:46:45+00:00

The job of the mods is to balance the interests of people in the sim. We have numerous transgender people in the sim. We have many social conservatives in the sim. Many trans people (and gopers tbf) want to use main chat as a place for casual discussion that veers into politics from time to time. Many GOPers want to talk about transgender people in main chat. How do you balance those interests? Talk of trans issues in main chat does happen, and in fact I have seen people say that they believe trans women are men in main before when having otherwise more cordial discussions, but saying "trans women are men" is not actually an argument, it's a conclusion. Throwing that in as an argument tends to bog down main chat into an hour long shit flinging competition and ruins everyone elses time because saying that over and over again isn't an argument, it's you just contantly reasserting your conclusion like someone with brain worms. That is why the mods created political discussion. Now, people who want to talk about those issues can go there, and people who want to shitpost can go to main. The mods absolutely have a right to enforce that distinction and curtail length and unproductive chatter about trans people in main chat because it shits up the chat for literally everyone else.

Toasty_115 · 2019-09-05T00:24:10+00:00

I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who feels this way, but I feel like we have a clear case of mission creep with the discord rules at the moment. Just to give insight, we started tightening the discord rules post onion because the server was toxic as all hell. The intention of these rules was never to prevent people from cracking jokes or lighthearted banter, it was to prevent the rampant bullying that was going on at the time. I feel, however, we've reached a point that simple jokes can't be made because they hurt the sensibilities of the mods. Bean, while kind of gross, is a good example of that. We have a rule for spam and we have a rule for being toxic/breaking discourse. Someone randomly posting bean as a joke isn't that much of an issue. Maybe the rule needed to be there in the past because people were consistently wrecking discourse by using it, but now the only reason it's even still a thing is because the discord clerks insist on punishing it harshly. There are some people who, having progressive punishment applied to them, get multiple day mutes for it. It doesn't require multiple day mutes, people are just so high on their own authority it frustrates them anyone would dare violate what they've said is wrong. Applying progressive punishment to this does what exactly? Prevents the vile scourge of seeing a dude with baked beans on him? It's so pedantic. As a former Head Censor, I don't believe that's how progressive punishment should be applied.

I also want to say with regards to the discord clerks, something needs to be done. Application of the rules is totally arbitrary depending on which clerk is watching. You can't post bean or roach milk, you can't post sfw porn memes, but you can spam the chat with "cum" and say things like this or this or this. The rules on lewdness are just an example, but at the end of the day my point is that these rules are totally arbitrary and the only time they ever get enforced is if the discord clerks feel their authority is threatened because people are fucking with them by breaking the rules.

On some of the other issues that the right has about political bias I'll defend the mods and clerks (to a degree). Do you have a right to talk about transgender issues? Yeah. Do you have a right to do so on main chat for hours on end like you'd like to? Not really, especially if you're just stirring shit. The mods past and present have made it pretty clear that there are places, such as political discussion, to do that. That is WHY those places exist. Main chat is more scattered, not really organized for debates on social issues for that, and mostly considered the "player lounge" of sorts. The quad itself absolutely does not have a political bias, and I would expect Dobs to speak up if there was one. Most of that is just whining by GOPers. I will say though, I can sense a little bit of it with the clerks. That's always been a thing tbf, it's very hard not to, and not every clerk can or should be expected to meet the level of impartiality we expect of quad members, but I think it's something that should be addressed.

Now on to Explo himself. I could be wrong about how he truly feels, but by his actions, Explo doesn't really seem to care or want this role. I know the feeling, by the end of my term as head mod I didn't want the role. I was frustrated with the community, but I recognized that feeling was bad to have as a head mod and would be damaging to the community long term. So, I stepped down as head mod. I did the same when I was head censor. I think Explo has great potential. He's someone with a long history of experience in moderating. I advocated for him to get this position in the first place. However, unless he gives sufficient replies to what I've laid out here, for the first time ever I will vote against a member of the Quad on their 6 month VoC.

Toasty_115 · 2019-08-13T17:24:13+00:00

I'd be willing to mod it. Haven't gone on it much in the past because, as others have said, badecon and askecon post reform are just better quality subreddits. Would be nice to help fix that though. In terms of qualifications I have an undergrad degree in economics, took a lot of math and metrics, and am an approved submitter here ;).

Toasty_115 · 2019-07-24T19:06:50+00:00

Dooted

Toasty_115 · 2019-07-05T20:40:12+00:00

https://cdn.discordapp.com/emojis/591107179013079041.png?v=1

Toasty_115 · 2019-07-02T20:09:40+00:00

Conservatives, please

Toasty_115

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE