Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped? Bernie Sanders wants to know who owns America?
#1221
Posted 2016-April-24, 20:20
Now if you want to claim it was delusion/ a lie that is a different subject.
In any event we are clearly more secular in 2016 and that is one reason we are at war with radical Islam.
#1222
Posted 2016-April-24, 21:15
I have known many very religious people who see religion as a guide to how to live. Exact theological truth often is not a priority for them.
Actually, I think of this as one of the major problems of our times. Can we keep the general moral and spiritual outlook without the support of theological structures that do not really (my opinion of course) hold up well to close examination. I think the jury is still out on this.
#1223
Posted 2016-April-24, 23:01
mike777, on 2016-April-24, 16:55, said:
Mike, I think it is quite evident from these words: " "We hold these truths to be self-evident .." that it is an expression of at best an opinion, and more likely simply a statement in keeping with of the language of the times.
#1224
Posted 2016-April-24, 23:05
mike777, on 2016-April-24, 20:20, said:
Now if you want to claim it was delusion/ a lie that is a different subject.
In any event we are clearly more secular in 2016 and that is one reason we are at war with radical Islam.
The solution is to rid ourselves of inane beliefs on all sides instead of continually trying to prove one inane belief system superior to another.
#1225
Posted 2016-April-25, 09:21
PassedOut, on 2016-April-24, 17:34, said:
FYI: Jefferson's Religious Beliefs. Summary: He was a deist, but didn't believe that the Christian Trinity was the Creator. He didn't think Jesus was divine, but his teachings were "outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man.". And he played a leading role in the separation of Church and State.
So I think when he makes religious references in the DoI, he's writing to the audience. And even people who are not very religious use religious metaphors, like when Einstein said "God does not play dice with the universe."
#1226
Posted 2016-April-25, 09:58
barmar, on 2016-April-25, 09:21, said:
So I think when he makes religious references in the DoI, he's writing to the audience. And even people who are not very religious use religious metaphors, like when Einstein said "God does not play dice with the universe."
True. I believe that he created his own version of the bible, cutting out parts that are foolish nonsense. But as a politician, he knew how to appeal to his audience.
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists that is why they invented hell. Bertrand Russell
#1227
Posted 2016-April-25, 10:54
barmar, on 2016-April-25, 09:21, said:
So I think when he makes religious references in the DoI, he's writing to the audience. And even people who are not very religious use religious metaphors, like when Einstein said "God does not play dice with the universe."
This is my general understanding of Jefferson, I have not particularly looked into it. I have found that most mature religious people are really not interested in debating the exact truth of Biblical assertions. Did it really rain for forty days and forty nights, did Eve really tempt Adam with an apple, was there really handwriting on the wall, etc etc.
My wife, who is not particularly religious but maybe more so than I am, once explained that she figures if there really is a God then He probably confined her to hell long ago so she isn't going to worry about it.
#1228
Posted 2016-April-25, 13:23
mike777, on 2016-April-24, 20:20, said:
Now if you want to claim it was delusion/ a lie that is a different subject.
In any event we are clearly more secular in 2016 and that is one reason we are at war with radical Islam.
The idea that the U.S. was established as a "Christian" nation is a myth from what I can tell. Here are a few things I discovered that I did not know:
Quote
Conservative pastors continued whining well into the nineteenth century. In 1811, the Reverend Samuel Austin thundered that the Constitution “is entirely disconnected from Christianity. [This] one capital defect [will lead] inevitably to its destruction.”
In 1845, the Reverend D. X. Junkin wrote, “[The Constitution] is negatively atheistical, for no God is appealed to at all. In framing many of our public formularies, greater care seems to have been taken to adapt them to the prejudices of the INFIDEL FEW, than to the consciences of the Christian millions."
And, of course, there was this group during the Civil Was era that recognized that the U.S. was not a Christian nation and tried to have that changed.
Fortunately, a secular government won out which allowed both Christians and Muslims to have religious freedoms.
#1229
Posted 2016-April-25, 13:43
A graphical assault on supply-side tax cuts
Quote
I and many others have spent years debunking this unfortunate yet highly influential theory, but lets begin by noting that reasonable people make the reasonable argument that, under certain conditions, a tax cut that raises the after-tax wage or lowers the after-tax cost of capital could boost the supply of these critical variables, increase growth, and spin off some revenues. That said, such reasonable people stop far short of claiming tax cuts will come anywhere close to offsetting the revenue losses they cause.
In real life, there are just too many slips between that cup and the lip. My testimony, to which Ill provide a link later, explains how and why the conditions alluded to above rarely exist. Here, Id like to barrage you with scatterplots showing the pervasive lack of evidence for any of the links in the supply side chain.
How tax falsehoods flourish
Quote
The cuts in Kansas that took effect in 2013, for example, have now blown a $400 million hole in the states budget. When [Art] helped design these cuts, he predicted (along with Stephen Moore of the Heritage Foundation) that they would provide an immediate and lasting boost to the Kansas economy. Yet not only have the cuts caused serious underfunding of the states education system, theyve also coincided with weak job and GDP growth. The Kansas Legislative Research Departments projections suggest that the economy will remain weaker than the overall US economy for the foreseeable future.
How can it be that these ideas remain as strong as ever, showing up, for example, in the tax plan of almost every Republican running for president in recent years, including George W. and Jeb Bush (the former pushed through aggressive tax cuts early in his term, yet GDP, job and wage growth in the 2000s was uniquely weak), Mitt Romney, Ted Cruz and Donald Trump?
Of course, a big piece of whats going on here is that Art and others are telling politicians exactly what they long to hear: that they can cut taxes and not worry about the budget. Thats like telling them they can eat all they want and not gain weight, especially if they ignore the scale.
But the other problem is that theres no mechanism to evaluate such claims in political settings. Art and I disagreed, shook hands, went our separate ways, and no one was the wiser.
Considering the stakes, we must do better. Heres a thought: When, in a congressional hearing, theres a clear, testable, factual disagreement about the economic record, the chair or ranking member should be able to refer the matter to one of our statistical agencies, such as the Congressional Budget Office or the Bureau of Labor Statistics. They would then adjudicate the factual dispute and, if a witness were found to be wrong, after giving her a chance to defend her claim (with the possibility of overturning the agencys ruling), the public record would reflect the correction.
I dont know whether that is practicable, but its all I can think of. If anyones got a better idea, let me know. Somehow, weve got to find the way back to Factville.
Bernstein's suggestion seems like a good one to me, regardless of one's political orientation.
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists that is why they invented hell. Bertrand Russell
#1230
Posted 2016-April-25, 15:44
Winstonm, on 2016-April-24, 23:05, said:
Now you sound like an Objectivist.
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#1231
Posted 2016-April-25, 15:52
![:(](http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#1232
Posted 2016-April-25, 16:02
blackshoe, on 2016-April-25, 15:44, said:
No, but I accept objectivity as valid.
#1233
Posted 2016-April-25, 16:07
blackshoe, on 2016-April-25, 15:52, said:
![:(](http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)
Why do you think deficit spending is a negative for the U.S.? Is it possible that the relationship between a country and its debt is different from a person or family and his/their debt?
You speak of a solution - what is the problem? It sounds as if your view is that gross amount of debt is the problem. Does the GDP/debt ratio factor in? What do you see as the end result of carrying the debt you wish to reduce?
#1234
Posted 2016-April-25, 17:41
PassedOut, on 2016-April-25, 13:43, said:
A graphical assault on supply-side tax cuts
How tax falsehoods flourish
Bernstein's suggestion seems like a good one to me, regardless of one's political orientation.
Yes but. The but is that I would say more. Much of their testimony is hardly unexpected. Laffer was not going to come in and support raising taxes, and while I don't know anything about Bernstein I imagine everyone at the hearing expected him to disagree with Laffer.
So yes, having data put in front of them would be good. They don't do this? A witness should be treated with respect, but you can show full respect and still ask them how they reconcile what they say with data. This should not be Republicans expressing skepticism of Bernstein and Democrats expressing skepticism of Laffer, it should be members of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress expressing a joint interest in understanding and evaluating expert testimony.
From the cited link:
Quote
"The cuts in Kansas that took effect in 2013, for example, have now blown a $400 million hole in the state's budget. When [Art] helped design these cuts, he predicted (along with Stephen Moore of the Heritage Foundation) that they would provide an 'immediate and lasting boost' to the Kansas economy. Yet not only have the cuts caused serious underfunding of the state's education system, they've also coincided with weak job and GDP growth. The Kansas Legislative Research Department's projections suggest that the economy will remain weaker than the overall US economy for the foreseeable future."
I imagine this view, from Bernstein, surprised no one.I also imagine that Laffer has views about this, and those views surprised no one. The committee needed to be prepared to explore this conflict beyond saying "We see you disagree, and of course we side with one or the other based on which party we represent". If the committee does not insist on detailed explanations about how to reconcile known history with known views, they are not doing their job and they need to be told so. There is [Oops, mea culpa, there are] data, there is history, there are known conflicting views, surely the expert witness can be asked to explain how his views hold up in light of the data. This is not disrespectful of their expertise, quite the opposite, and it is committee members doing their job.
Btw, did Laffer respond to the quoted comment above? I imagine that he did.
#1235
Posted 2016-April-26, 09:58
blackshoe, on 2016-April-25, 15:52, said:
Well, it's no coincidence that tax cuts are mainly favored by Republicans, who also believe that we should reduce government.
But the supply-siders actually seem to claim that you don't have to cut expenditures (or not as much as the tax cuts). The trickle-down theory claims that tax cuts at the top will be offset when the people at the bottom see the benefits, so they make more (and pay more income tax) and spend more (so pay more sales and/or property tax). And if it lifts some people out of poverty, government spending for entitlements will go down.
The problem is that the basic premise is wrong, and so are the conclusions drawn from it.
#1236
Posted 2016-April-26, 11:50
The demand for inventions that intrigue, interest, fascinate, make like easy, etc., is intrinsic to humankind. Apple's product did not create a demand; their products fulfilled an existing, intrinsic demand.
#1237
Posted 2016-April-26, 13:08
My recollection, for here and in the US, is that this conventional wisdom belies the actual GNP/deficit type economies where it is the Liberals (Democrats) that end up having to increase taxes to be "relatively" fiscally responsible because of their policies that increase the existing deficits caused by previous Conservative (Republican) regimes that have fewer taxes to pay for their increases in defense spending, etc.
#1238
Posted 2016-April-26, 19:23
Winstonm, on 2016-April-26, 11:50, said:
The demand for inventions that intrigue, interest, fascinate, make like easy, etc., is intrinsic to humankind. Apple's product did not create a demand; their products fulfilled an existing, intrinsic demand.
Quite an interesting question that has long puzzled those in marketing.
Did ESPN create a demand for 24 hour sport news or did they simple met a demand that everyone, everyone knew was there?
#1239
Posted 2016-April-26, 19:40
Winstonm, on 2016-April-25, 16:07, said:
It is possible that the idea that the relationship between a country and its debt is different from that between a person or family and his or their debt is a myth?
I read somewhere recently that Saudi Arabia threatened to cash in all their US debt if Congress passed some law or other the Saudis don't want. Something to do with prosecuting people who support terrorists. What do you think will happen to the US economy if the Saudis do that? Or if China does it?
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#1240
Posted 2016-April-26, 20:06
blackshoe, on 2016-April-26, 19:40, said:
I read somewhere recently that Saudi Arabia threatened to cash in all their US debt if Congress passed some law or other the Saudis don't want. Something to do with prosecuting people who support terrorists. What do you think will happen to the US economy if the Saudis do that? Or if China does it?
Speculation.....if both...I mean both did that....in the first moments...
CHOAS/PANIC/END OF THE WORLD
-----
as for the rest of us.....we would make millions and live the life....in the long run
assuming we are not killed in the food riots.
418 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 418 guests, 0 anonymous users
- Facebook,