in which livejournal is livejournal

[majorshipper]

And continues to screw over their userbase with vagueness and a lack of communication. Seriously, it feels like they're trying to attract new users without giving a damn about those of us who are actual users right now(or what they might tell prospective users). I'm also extremely worried about this whole "getting rid of ads" business. I don't see how they can just do away with that method of revenue, especially since people are leaving in droves and taking their money and content with them. It makes me worry about what they're gonna replace it with.

It's titled State of the Goat 2012. Does kinda remind me of the last State of the Union address; full of contradictory platitudes and some truly terrifying proposed ideas mixed with happy buzz-words.

Comments

[yappichick]

I'm still a little like, "Huh?" with the ads thing. They must have something up their sleeve. Higher paid account fees? IDK

Does kinda remind me of the last State of the Union address; full of contradictory platitudes and some truly terrifying proposed ideas mixed with happy buzz-words.

I love you for this sentence. ♥

[majorshipper]

I don't think higher paid fees would work, for two reasons; a lot of people have paid accounts to edit comments and no have to see ads. Now that anyone can edit comments, if they do away with ads, the number of people who have paid accounts is already gonna drop. And the ones who remain aren't gonna want to pay more for fewer privileges. Which is why we're so worried about what they plan on doing to offset the massive loss of revenue. A lot of people are worried they're gonna go to Facebook's method of selling information out to advertisers. Which would utterly remove any remaining anonymity some of us have managed to maintain.

Hahaha, thanks. It's true, though. It's almost like they looked at the State of the Union speech and just wrote their own slightly edited version.

[hmsharmony.livejournal.com]

Feel free to ignore this question if you find it too nosy/don't want to answer, but just out of curiosity, which proposals did you find terrifying? I only ask because, since I'm on the opposite political spectrum, I spent most of the speech going, "Equal access to education! Yes! Equal rights for women! FUCK YES. DREAM ACT!!!" ^^ The only part that made me go "..." was when he started talking about our country's moral superiority and how we're not on a decline.

[majorshipper]

I really liked the first bits, because I'm totally behind reform and making America a world power again. and because I'm patriotic as hell, listening to it without analyzing it was really awesome. He painted a pretty picture, and I do love me a good speech that just makes you wanna go "YEAH!". But, the underlying substance beneath the words is what bothered me.
I didn't like the whole tax breaks for companies that stay and government help for them, because while it sounds nice, tax breaks and giving companies a helping hand aren't gonna help the economy in the long run(my opinion), especially with the massive deficit and the social programs that are going through and have been put in place in the past few years. I'm all for raising taxes on multinational companies, but a large tax break for companies who stay in America doesn't sound solid to me. I mean, I like a nice happy future, but, paying for it all is gonna be hell on the already over-taxed system. I also like the idea of the whole helping subsidize tuition, but I'm worried that the education system would then go the way of the medical system, with outrageous costs that they can get away with because somebody else is paying for it. He talks a good talk with the tax hikes for the rich, which I think is a good idea, but I'd like to see it take effect before everyone touts it as the way to reduce deficit.
And, I'm naturally wary of any time any administration talks about executive orders and more and more regulations on private businesses(even if they're enacted for a good reason) and all the removal of "red tape". Basically, the stuff that worried me is the stuff that always worries people like me; bigger government, bigger deficit, and too much control.

[hmsharmony.livejournal.com]

I'm all for raising taxes on multinational companies, but a large tax break for companies who stay in America doesn't sound solid to me.

Maybe I need to go back and rewatch, but I thought what he was proposing was a trade-off -- instead of granting tax breaks to the companies that outsource, we take those tax breaks away (perhaps even increase taxes as you said) and instead grant them to those companies that stay in the US and employ citizens, thus helping to reduce unemployment. So it's not an extra cost, it's transferring the cost so there's an incentive to stay here, which will help in the reviving of our economy. Maybe this comes down to a difference of opinion on whether it will help improve the economy? (Creation of American jobs is what got us out of the Depression, so that's why I feel it's worth it to grant tax breaks to companies that will do just that.)

paying for it all is gonna be hell on the already over-taxed system.

Which could be partially addressed by getting rid of the Bush tax cuts (which, as of last summer, was responsible for $3.2 trillion of our deficit) and making sure that people like Romney aren't paying the same tax rate as a teacher. Also decreased defense funding, especially as we're no longer fighting two wars. (The point being here that there is a way to offset the costs, and just because the way things stand now it doesn't seem feasible doesn't mean we shouldn't push for a change in both regards.)

but I'm worried that the education system would then go the way of the medical system, with outrageous costs that they can get away with because somebody else is paying for it

Wait, I'm confused. Those costs still exist, the difference is that in this case the government would be paying for them rather than the American people. In both scenarios, someone else is footing the bill -- it's just a matter of how much the individual pays vs how much the government covers. Why would it increase what universities etc. spend (and how exactly has that played out in the medical system, which as it stands remains highly privatized) if they're still dealing with the same budget? Just having a hard time following. ^^

Yeah, the last point is just a "we'll have to agree to disagree" issue. =P I'm usually not for executive orders because we have a balance of power and three-branched system for a reason, but sometimes exceptions have to be made, and that's how I feel right now. The Congressional Republicans refuse to budge on anything and have made it their mission (they've outright said this) to block everything Obama and the Congressional Democrats do. When you're faced with a lawmaking body that refuses to make laws when laws need to be made -- when one branch is failing -- executive order is really all that's left. Otherwise nothing will get done on a federal level and we'll keep falling further and further behind (see: loss of AAA rating). We're obviously never going to see eye to eye re: regulations (I'm definitely a "big government for businesses, small government for people" person), but as it stands now, lack of regulation seems to be what's causing much of our financial burdens (see: housing crisis and Bush tax cuts). =\

[majorshipper]

IDK. I can see what you're saying, and that's also possible, but it doesn't really remove any of my worries. I'm no government expert or political historian, but it all still strikes me as pushing a little more off balance. *shrugs* But like you said, we're always gonna disagree about most politics, except maybe a couple things.

[hmsharmony.livejournal.com]

Completely understandable. I just wasn't sure what you were getting at re: the education and medical system going on a spending spree if the government started to foot the bill, and having tax breaks for companies that stay here instead of going abroad, because knowing otherwise could affect where I stand on the issue.

pushing a little more off balance.

Makes sense, since I felt we were way off balance four years ago and now we're starting to find our way back. =P

[ohmiya-sg.livejournal.com]

Funny, I really liked the last State of the Union address. There were parts when I argued with the TV screen, but I liked what he had to say overall.

[majorshipper]

Parts I liked, and I like the sentiment behind it, but, like I told hmsharmony, what really bothered me is what always bothers me; bigger government, bigger deficit, and too much control.

[ohmiya-sg.livejournal.com]

I think the biggest potential for increasing the deficit is war, so I was uneasy with his statement about not taking anything off the table with Iran.

[majorshipper]

I think the odds of a war with Iran are really, really low. Nobody wants America and Iran, two very, very influential powers in the world, at war right now. That's why there hasn't been a war already. And I don't think anyone in America wants to go back to war so soon. But I do agree; as strongly as I feel about maintaining a military, war would be a huge problem.

[ohmiya-sg.livejournal.com]

Ending wars we were already in, though, stopped contributing to the deficit, I'm sure.

[majorshipper]

Yeah, and when we finally leave Afghanistan, that'll cut out more expenses.