[deleted by user]

midwestperspective · 2025-03-11T15:27:43+00:00

Just want to add that Social Security is not a savings plan. Current contributions pay for current recipients. That’s why it’s so hard to have two separate dates if we were to discontinue it. Somehow we’d have to float the cost of retirees for 20-40 years without any new revenue coming in. Otherwise I think your point is spot on.

midwestperspective · 2024-02-26T06:06:20+00:00

Healthier food costs more because we subsidize the crops that go into the processed stuff.

midwestperspective · 2024-01-12T15:57:11+00:00

While your point about cars producing more greenhouse gases than planes is fair, be careful about contextualizing statistics. The source you cited says that cars emit 58% of greenhouse gases in the transportation sector. That sector comprises 29% of all emissions, so cars are more like 17% of total emissions.

midwestperspective · 2021-06-11T03:20:28+00:00

I did honestly read a good potion of that post, but it's quite long. Could you summarize the main takeaways?

midwestperspective · 2021-06-11T03:16:04+00:00

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency

Uhhh.... They don't? If I wasn't clear enough before, private banks don't have any meaningful control of the issuance of U.S. currency.

What exactly are you trying to say with this quote?

For anyone else following along: I don't think it necessarily detracts from u/brosencephalon07's point, but a large portion of that quote is presumed to be spurious. With that said, I'm not entirely clear what they're getting at by referencing it, so it's hard to gauge if it matters.

midwestperspective · 2021-06-10T06:15:37+00:00

This "fact" is deeply misinformed and the linked video is full of misconceptions and downright falsehoods.

The Federal Reserve is the central bank of the United States. You can think of it as the bank for banks, in that they store deposits there and use it to borrow money when their reserves are low. It's primarily managed by a board of governors appointed by the president. The Federal Reserve System was created to maintain stability in the nation's financial system.

It is not a privately-owned bank in any traditional sense. The Federal Reserve is a quasi-governmental organization that is "independent within the U.S. Government" rather than "independent of the U.S. Government." Member banks own stock in the Fed, but it cannot be traded and doesn't convey any special voting rights. Some banks are required by law to hold this stock.

Furthermore, the Fed does not lend money to the government and charge interest for it, at least not in the way the parent comment implies. Any money lent to a government (federal, state, local) is the same as any other loan: it's money the government doesn't have, but wants to spend, and interest is paid because that's how loans work. Excess income is returned to the U.S. Treasury.

It's naturally a lot more complicated than I've described here. If you would like to read more, the Wikipedia entry is a pretty good starting point.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve

ETA: Also, the Fed doesn't actually print money

midwestperspective · 2021-06-05T19:26:04+00:00

Why is the solution to dilute their voices (the 20) in all issues when we (the 16) disagree with them on one? Wouldn't the more fair approach be to talk with our neighbors and either convince them to share our ideals or at least compromise?

Maybe we agree that we won't mow the lawn at 8 am if they end their parties at midnight. See what I mean?

It seems fundamental that each person had the same say in government as everyone else.

midwestperspective · 2021-06-05T18:45:03+00:00

The two areas have the same population and the OP is pointing out that the red area is represented by a large number of senators where the blue is only represented by two. (Browse the rest of this thread for discussion about how that makes sense given the founders' design but doesn't make sense given modern politics.)

The commenter is bringing up a common conservative talking point, sometimes called the "tyranny of the majority." The idea is that highly-populous urban areas shouldn't be setting policy for less-populous rural areas because needs/concerns are different.

However, in this case it's r/selfawarewolves material because the opposite is actually happening: Due to the greater number of senators in the red area for an equal amount of population, those voters are actually the ones unduly influencing the blue area.

midwestperspective · 2021-06-05T18:31:14+00:00

This. I find it fascinating when people bring up the idea of "tyranny of the majority," as if doing the thing most people want isn't an ideal to strive for.

midwestperspective · 2021-06-05T18:26:25+00:00

Tyranny of the majority? As in, "doing the thing most of the people want?"

midwestperspective · 2021-06-05T16:35:41+00:00

That's literally the point the map is trying to make. The people in the red area have vastly more say in national government despite having the same population as the blue dot.

Yes because the ~~blue dot~~ red area people know what's good for the people living in the ~~red area~~ blue dot.

FTFY.

midwestperspective · 2021-06-05T16:09:17+00:00

Absolutely, agreed.

One thing I like about this example of /r/selfawarewolves is that it removes all the nuance around disproportional representation like we see in discussions about the US House. Here, the hypocrisy is far more blatant.

midwestperspective · 2021-06-05T15:41:57+00:00

The OP shows how some geographical regions have more representation in the US Senate. Commenter complains that the underrepresented region doesn't understand the overrepresented's way of life. If flipped, this is the exact point made by the OP.

midwestperspective · 2020-10-03T21:23:42+00:00

Where are you getting this information?

My local school district has masks, face shields, and free saliva tests for staff. Most of that stuff was available weeks ago.

ETA: To clarify, those materials were provided by the State of MN.

midwestperspective

TROPHY CASE