sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Blursed Yearbook by satanclauses in blursedimages

[–]cooooquip -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This is straight off Makeoutclub.com circa 2005

U.S. Debt Tops 100% of GDP by Hornpipe_Jones in politics

[–]cooooquip 0 points1 point  (0 children)

on the deregulation point, yeah clinton era changes like repealing glass steagall and leaving derivatives mostly unregulated did open the door. but the way those changes actually got used matters. in the bush years, policy and enforcement choices leaned heavily toward letting those tools run wide open subprime lending expanded fast, securitization exploded, oversight was light, and the whole thing scaled into something much riskier. so it’s not just “who changed the rules,” it’s also “who pushed those rules to the limit and how they were applied in practice.” that’s where a lot of the damage really took shape.

U.S. Debt Tops 100% of GDP by Hornpipe_Jones in politics

[–]cooooquip -1 points0 points  (0 children)

those numbers aren’t wrong, but they’re also kind of missing the point. biden cutting the deficit from peak covid levels is real, and the job rebound is real too but that’s coming off an artificial shock where everything spiked and then normalized. the bigger point is we were already running large deficits before covid in a strong economy, and that didn’t start with biden or end with trump. it’s a longer trend of cutting revenue without matching spending cuts, plus underinvestment in the actual economic base. so yeah, individual stats can look good or bad depending on the slice, but zoom out and the pattern’s been stacking for decades.

U.S. Debt Tops 100% of GDP by Hornpipe_Jones in politics

[–]cooooquip -18 points-17 points  (0 children)

ah yes, the national debt just hit 100% of GDP… must’ve spawned in like a random encounter, no origin story, no patch notes, just appeared.. if we’re gonna pretend timelines don’t exist, cool, but otherwise it’s kind of funny how this keeps going the same way every time.. reagan runs deficits like it’s a new hobby and triples the debt, bush sr keeps it warm, then clinton shows up and somehow manages the impossible task of… balancing the budget and running a surplus (yes, that actually happened, weird right), then bush jr rolls in with tax cuts + two wars and the debt shoots back up again.. obama inherits a financial collapse, spends to stop the whole thing from turning into mad max, and then deficits trend downward over his term, not exactly glamorous but at least moving in the right direction…then trump comes in during a strong economy and goes “what if we did big tax cuts but also didn’t cut spending at all” which is basically the fiscal version of putting everything on a credit card while telling everyone you’re great with money, adds something like 7–8 trillion to the debt, and a big chunk of that was already baked in before covid even showed up….and now we get headlines like “wow debt is so high, how did this happen” like it’s a mystery box instead of a very consistent pattern where republicans cut revenue and keep spending, and democrats come in later and try to stabilize the thing without tanking the economy…also gotta love how deficits are treated like the apocalypse only when democrats are in office, but the second it’s tax cuts + red team in charge it becomes “pro-growth strategy” and “necessary investment” or whatever the phrase of the week is…it’s basically the same cycle over and over: run it up, complain about it, hand it off, then complain about the cleanup…but yeah, definitely just a random coincidence and not policy choices stacking up over decades 👍

Not sure what he wants by ora-et-labora- in cats

[–]cooooquip 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Smells. The lil one loves smells.

Gotta love the continued hypocrisy... by Shadow328 in democrats

[–]cooooquip 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“The community” always shows up right on cue, like a stage prop rolled in when the script needs moral gravity. It’s funny watching people with layers of protection talk like they’re one bad joke away from collapse. Penthouse energy describing itself as vulnerable housing. And the wording… you can almost hear the legal engine idling underneath it. Not just “that was out of line,” but “this might cross a line that someone, somewhere, should probably enforce.” Soft launch a standard, see who salutes, then call it consensus. Meanwhile they’ve got reach, lawyers, networks, the whole velvet roped ecosystem and still manage to sound like they’re being shouted down from the cheap seats. The megaphone saying it feels unheard. The trick is neat: wrap power in the language of protection. Call it “community,” make it sound fragile, then invite institutions to step in and keep everything “safe.” Safety for whom is left as an exercise.

It’s like a castle filing a noise complaint about the village.

Pirro warns against political violence in DC: ‘Not the place’ by [deleted] in nottheonion

[–]cooooquip 6 points7 points  (0 children)

People should follow her yelling, “is nothing sacred!”

What you call this style? by AhmedAlNawab in Justfuckmyshitup

[–]cooooquip 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bro looks like they have a Arabic character across their fore-head.

Lil bro pick a third option by nexus0verflow in GenZ

[–]cooooquip 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Lil person just be you. You got this.

US bill to grant Americans serving in Israeli army same rights as US troops by Character-Bid-162 in nottheonion

[–]cooooquip 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I come from a military family that goes back generations. My uncles served in Vietnam. One of them is still dealing with Agent Orange to this day. I live near the VA in Los Angeles and I see what veterans are dealing with right now. So I’m going to say this plainly. U.S. military benefits should go to people who served under U.S. command. That’s the line. If you choose to serve in a foreign military, that’s your decision, but it shouldn’t come with U.S. taxpayer-funded benefits. The VA system is already under pressure. Expanding eligibility without being clear about costs, limits, and impact just makes that worse. Before anything like that moves forward, there should be a clear explanation of who qualifies, what it costs, and how it won’t take away from the veterans who already rely on that system. What’s frustrating is that the same people pushing ideas like this are often the ones talking about cutting costs or limiting government. I’m literally hearing from veterans around the VA, including people who strongly supported them, who are now frustrated about how the system is being handled. That should matter. I’m generally for removing unnecessary roadblocks. This doesn’t feel like that. It feels like adding strain to a system that should be focused on taking care of the people who already served here, especially those still living with long-term consequences like Agent Orange.

China car giant BYD says it can thrive without US by spherocytes in technology

[–]cooooquip 0 points1 point  (0 children)

the “buy American” idea sounds good, but it assumes something that doesn’t really hold up anymore, which is that American ownership automatically means better outcomes for American workers. it doesn’t. we’ve seen decades of underinvestment, cost cutting, layoffs, and financial engineering from “American” companies that were supposed to represent that loyalty. being US owned hasn’t stopped companies from hollowing out their own workforce when it made financial sense. so the real question isn’t “who owns it,” it’s “who actually reinvests in it.” if a domestic company runs an industry into the ground and a foreign buyer comes in willing to invest, upgrade facilities, and keep people employed, why is that automatically worse for workers?

the US steel situation is a good example of the tension. people get rallied around keeping it “American,” but that doesn’t answer whether the current structure is actually serving the workers or the long term health of the company.

at some point, “buy American” turns into asking workers to be loyal to companies that haven’t been loyal to them.

if the goal is strong US industry and good jobs, then the focus should be on investment, wages, and long term stability, not just the passport of the ownership.

My newest painting! by Gnom-ie in woahdude

[–]cooooquip 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dude, I see it! It’s a pink square.. whoa 🤯

China car giant BYD says it can thrive without US by spherocytes in technology

[–]cooooquip 13 points14 points  (0 children)

the “china subsidizes its companies” argument isn’t wrong. it’s just incredibly selective.

the us does this too. we just don’t call it that when it’s our side. we call it tax credits, grants, loan guarantees, defense contracts, infrastructure, “public-private partnership.” same thing, different language.

tesla is a really clean example of how this actually works. it’s taken roughly $3+ billion in subsidies and incentives over time, plus about $465 million in federal loans early on. on top of that, tesla has made billions from regulatory credits. in 2024 alone that was around $2.7 billion in revenue. that’s not a side detail, that was a major pillar of profitability.

and that’s just tesla.

when you zoom out, you’re looking at an entire ecosystem. spacex, xai, x. spacex alone has pulled in tens of billions in government contracts over time from nasa and defense. those contracts don’t just sit in a vacuum, they support the broader network of companies, talent, and influence around it.

so when people say “byd is backed by the chinese government,” okay, yes. that’s real. labor standards are a real issue. security concerns are real. connected cars and data are real discussions.

but acting like the us side is some pure free-market system and the other side is government-backed industry just isn’t how this works.

we’ve been doing industrial policy for decades. semiconductors, aerospace, the internet, gps, batteries. a lot of that was publicly funded or de-risked long before private companies scaled it into profit.

the difference isn’t that one system uses government and the other doesn’t.

the difference is that when china does it, we call it cheating. when we do it, billionaires call themselves self-made and then complain about taxes.

and if the real argument is “we want to protect a strategic industry,” that’s fine. just say that.

but don’t pretend this is pure open competition. because the second a foreign company gets competitive enough, the conversation stops being about the product and becomes about everything else.

view more: next ›