Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 02-13-2012, 05:41 PM
Fear Itself Fear Itself is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 34,324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishman View Post
I think he meant Obama. I don't think anyone characterized GW as "the messiah".
I agree, his statement was muddled, as Bush is who led us down the drain.
  #102  
Old 02-13-2012, 11:41 PM
66Scorpio 66Scorpio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
The kind you were talking about here:If you didn't mean to imply that your brand of conservatives were against borrowing and spending, I apologize.I made no such assumption; I was just pointing why such rare conservatives won't make much headway here.I don't know why you assume I supported George W. Bush.
Ok, you got me there. It's simply not good policy to spend money you don't have on a consistent basis. The last phrase of my quote was to imply that Republicans don't want to take a leadership position to convince the electorate of how dangerous this is. Those who do show some leadership can headway, but most simply take the path of least resistance and give the people what they want rather than what they need.

Did I connect you to Dubya in one of my posts?
  #103  
Old 02-13-2012, 11:42 PM
66Scorpio 66Scorpio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
I agree, his statement was muddled, as Bush is who led us down the drain.
It wasn't Bush who created more debt in a few years than all previous administrations combined.
  #104  
Old 02-13-2012, 11:45 PM
66Scorpio 66Scorpio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
This presumes that all college degrees are equal, when enrollment at private religious colleges that deny science (global warming, evolution) are overwhelmingly conservative. So to say those graduates who are willfully ignorant are as smart as liberals who attended public universities is not a fair comparison.
Well it aint conservatives taking degrees in conflict studies, women's issue, basket weaving and such.
  #105  
Old 02-14-2012, 01:40 AM
rogerbox rogerbox is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by 66Scorpio View Post
Well it aint conservatives taking degrees in conflict studies, women's issue, basket weaving and such.
Interesting claim you have there...
  #106  
Old 02-14-2012, 06:18 AM
66Scorpio 66Scorpio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 47
A claim well-founded, apparently. See page 6.

http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/Fac...ege_Voting.pdf

Quote:
Vote choice varies by college major: Support for Kerry was the highest among those majoring in arts and humanities (66%) and the social sciences (63%). Support for Bush was highest among those majoring in education (51%), the sciences (46%), and business (46%).
Keep in mind that Bush won, but 55% of students supported Kerry. That education majors supported Bush is a surprise, but the rest is exactly what I said. You get more lefties in the soft disciplines and fewer in science and business.
  #107  
Old 02-14-2012, 06:31 AM
gamerunknown gamerunknown is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,291
Quote:
we are doing a hockey sock better than anyone in Europe
I counted 18 European countries that had a better infant mortality rate and 4 that had a higher life expectancy.

Quote:
as in how to interact with other humans
That's a non sequitur. It doesn't follow that because felons support Democrats that Democrats support crime. Wanting to reduce crime does not dictate that Republicans are more likely to feel empathetic to the victim nor the felon, it could be done in order for the Republican to be less likely to be a victim of crime. It's not that it isn't a valid reason, it just doesn't support your premise that Republicans have greater or equivalent emotional intelligence. I'd say that the theoretical framework of the "Just World Hypothesis" is the more likely cause felons support Democrats: as Democrats are less likely to believe that bad things happen to bad people, they'd focus on the situational causes of crime, rather than holding a dispositional view of criminals.

Quote:
I read a study once that tried to peg the typical IQs of professionals
The methodological flaws of such studies are exposed in "The Mismeasure of Man" by Gould.

Quote:
Fox network
A poll by Farleigh Dickinson University was the latest in a series that determined that Fox News viewers were less informed about independently verifiable facts than viewers of any other news network. As far as I'm aware, they're the only news network that has been taken to court over their right to lie and misinform viewers.

That said, do you have a cite of someone saying that Sun News ought to be shut down? What, precisely, is wrong with Al-Jazeera?

Quote:
Fiscally, Christians believe in private charity over government tax and spend.
Christ in the Gospels gives fairly unambiguous, consistent, repeat instructions to give all possessions to the poor. He also claims that a poor individual putting all of their wealth in the coffers gave more than a rich individual giving more wealth, but a lower proportion of their total wealth.
  #108  
Old 02-14-2012, 06:36 AM
gamerunknown gamerunknown is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,291
Quote:
It wasn't Bush who created more debt in a few years than all previous administrations combined.
Statement is dubious.

Not to mention one good way to reduce debt is by paying taxes.

I forgot to address your ACLU claim. Here are instances of the ACLU defending free expression of religion. I can't determine if there is equivalence, though it would be a fallacy of equivocation to expect one any way (something that you accused Yog of actually).

Edit: Ah, I meant that the rich individual is giving a lower proportion of their total wealth.

Double Edit: There is an overwhelming scientific consensus about global warming, with the dissent mostly coming from economic rather than scientific sources (though economists such as Stern have compiled a report in its favour). The wiki I linked has several scientific papers you may want to peruse.

Last edited by gamerunknown; 02-14-2012 at 06:41 AM.
  #109  
Old 02-14-2012, 04:03 PM
ABraut ABraut is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by gamerunknown View Post
Edit: Ah, I meant that the rich individual is giving a lower proportion of their total wealth.
Effective tax rates and share of tax load 2007:

All Federal Taxes (A)
Individual Income Taxes (I)

Average Tax Rate
Quintile:
1: A 4% I -6.8%
2: A 10.6% I -0.4%
3: A 14.3% I 3.3%
4: A 17.4% I 6.2%
5: A 25.1% I 14.4%%
Top 1%: A 29.5% I 19%

Share of Tax Liabilities
1: A 0.8% I -3%
2: A 4.4% I -0.3%
3: A 9.2% I 4.6%
4: A 16.5% I 12.7%
5: A 68.9% I 86%
Top 1%: A 28.1% I 39.5%
  #110  
Old 02-14-2012, 04:56 PM
ABraut ABraut is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by 66Scorpio View Post
A claim well-founded, apparently.
That's just not fair, quoting actual statistics. You didn't even misquote or better yet, misquote an already deceptive study from Harvard. Liberals are far too smart to fall for statistics that prove their isolated, incomplete anecdotal evidence mean nothing. They just know things, because they feel it.

But seriously and back on topic:
The race factor has been brought up. Often, when a conservative brings up IQ or Bell Curve (even when they simply mean "normal distribution"), liberals are the first to start screaming "RACIST!" Did the people who conduct these studies forget that, forget the racial makeup of different states, or were they counting on both to skew the results the direction they wanted from the start?

SAT Scores 2011:

1 Illinois 1807 5%
2 Minnesota 1778 7%
3 Iowa 1777 3%
4 Wisconsin 1767 5%
5 Missouri 1764 5%
----------
46 Florida 1447 64%
47 Texas 1446 58%
48 Georgia 1445 80%
49 South Carolina 1436 70%
50 Maine 1391 93%
51 District of Columbia 1385 79%
(I have to keep reminding myself that 1300/1600=1950/2400)

Well, that certainly appears to prove something, unless you have a clue. Clue: See those percentages in bold. They are the participation rate. Five percent of students in Illinois scored considerably better than ninety three percent of students in Maine. I'd be willing to bet that five percent of students in Maine scored considerably better than the other eighty eight percent of students in Maine. Again, how could the researchers not know that?
  #111  
Old 02-15-2012, 08:42 AM
gamerunknown gamerunknown is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,291
Quote:
Ah, I meant that the rich individual is giving a lower proportion of their total wealth.
I was referring specifically to the scripture (Mark 12:41-44). That said, the top tax bracket is probably sacrificing less when considering things like quality of life indicators. The top tax bracket also doesn't begin to approach the levels of the Eisenhower administration where there was GDP growth.
  #112  
Old 02-15-2012, 11:15 AM
ABraut ABraut is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 108
Quote:
The top tax bracket also doesn't begin to approach the levels of the Eisenhower administration where there was GDP growth.
From 1953 to 1961, the total US GDP increased 8.22%, and per capita GDP 12.86%.
From 2001 to 2008, the total US GDP increased 8.32%, and per capita GDP 20.72%.
  #113  
Old 02-15-2012, 12:04 PM
ABraut ABraut is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 108
Clarification: The above numbers are in constant 2005 dollars.
Total growth not adjusting for inflation or population growth:

Eisenhower 43.6%
Bush 39.7%
  #114  
Old 02-15-2012, 12:37 PM
ABraut ABraut is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 108
(I thought there was supposed to be an "edit" button)
I apologize
Another correction:
From 1953 to 1961, the per capita in constant 2005$ GDP 8.22%, and whatever's in column 2 12.86%.
From 2001 to 2008, the per capita in constant 2005$ GDP 8.32%, and whatever's in column 2 20.72%.

I have no idea what column 2 in the .csv I downloaded from here is. They're labelled: 1:"GDP-US $ billion" and 2:"Total Spending-total $2005 per cap"? The list on the site only has numbers in one column.

Edit:Now this one has an "edit" button. The others still don't?

Last edited by ABraut; 02-15-2012 at 12:40 PM.
  #115  
Old 02-15-2012, 01:00 PM
rogerbox rogerbox is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,281
ABraut you can only edit for a few minutes after making a post in certain forums.
  #116  
Old 02-15-2012, 01:37 PM
gamerunknown gamerunknown is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,291
Sorry, my post wasn't very clear: I didn't mean to imply that high taxation and government expenditure stimulates domestic growth, I meant that high taxation isn't necessarily the sole factor in causing economic decline (though perhaps the consequences of Eisenhower's policies were only felt in later administrations). Thus if debt is an issue it may not be necessary to reduce social services: just increase the rate of taxation above the rate of growth of social services (or reduce the rate of growth of social services) and disincentivise tax avoidance or evasion.

There may be a Utilitarian argument that tipping onto the wrong side of the Laffer curve is justifiable, where growth is slowed and less revenue is collected... Under the condition that social services still receive a greater proportion of funds than otherwise. The two premises are that one holds roughly Utilitarian principles (both Nozick and Marx criticised them) and that there is a commensurate increase in measurable quality of life on average.
  #117  
Old 02-15-2012, 01:58 PM
gamerunknown gamerunknown is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,291
Akh, overlooked this, sorry:

Quote:
A homosexual union was never a "marriage". It's simply not the same thing. Cite me chapter and verse where gays were "married" rather than "joined" or whatever, and I will back off. Otherwise, marriage has been a distinctly heterosexual institution from time immemorial.
I don't understand the requirements I'm afraid. The Judeo-Christian tradition of marriage is largely a patriarchal event where stewardship of the woman is transferred from the father to a husband. There are many other expressions of love between couples that resemble lifelong contracts that developed independently and do not share the same nomenclature. For example, Biblical "marriage" did not use the term "marriage" since it is derived from Latin. I don't think the semantic difference invalidates the marriage between Rebekah and Isaac for instance.
  #118  
Old 02-15-2012, 03:18 PM
66Scorpio 66Scorpio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by gamerunknown View Post
I counted 18 European countries that had a better infant mortality rate and 4 that had a higher life expectancy.
According to who, and are you sure it isn't just a methodological discrepancy, at least with respect to infant mortality rates? Heck, we are at one tenth the world average and in the same ball-park as the others as listed so we are all doing pretty good as listed. The same cannot be said about the respective economies.

As far as life expectancy is concerned, my guess would be industrial accidents (we are a resource based economy) and heart disease (we don't eat as many greese burgers as Americans, but probably more crap than other OECD countries).

Quote:
That's a non sequitur. It doesn't follow that because felons support Democrats that Democrats support crime.
I didn't say they support crime, but it's a reasonable hypothesis that they enable it.

Quote:
Wanting to reduce crime does not dictate that Republicans are more likely to feel empathetic to the victim nor the felon, it could be done in order for the Republican to be less likely to be a victim of crime.
Granted.

Quote:
It's not that it isn't a valid reason, it just doesn't support your premise that Republicans have greater or equivalent emotional intelligence.
But go back to my original point:
Felons have low EI
Felons are Democrats
Democrats have lower EI (ceteris paribus)

Damn near a straight syllogism that Aristotle himself could have come up with.

Quote:
I'd say that the theoretical framework of the "Just World Hypothesis" is the more likely cause felons support Democrats: as Democrats are less likely to believe that bad things happen to bad people, they'd focus on the situational causes of crime, rather than holding a dispositional view of criminals.
Yes, yes, and they invent grandiose terms like "fundamental attribution error" which, ultimately, strip people of personal responsibility.

Quote:
The methodological flaws of such studies are exposed in "The Mismeasure of Man" by Gould.
I know of it, but have not read it yet. It's cited in other books I've read on IQ but maybe there is a section that goes into other areas that you are referring to.

It's late here so I will have to get back to you about Fox viewers and so-called "independently verifiable facts". The one such study I looked at some time ago was nothing of the sort; it simply compared Fox viewers' opinions with other opinons of specifically selected pundits. No facts were involved in that study; I'm not sure if you are trying to cite the same one now.

Quote:
That said, do you have a cite of someone saying that Sun News ought to be shut down? What, precisely, is wrong with Al-Jazeera?
I will find it (only because I assume you are American and were not paying attention), but there was even some organization funded by George Soros trying to block their broadcast license.

You don't think maybe Al-Jazeera is just a bit biased towards Islam and it's proponents and against it's various enemies in the west?

Quote:
Christ in the Gospels gives fairly unambiguous, consistent, repeat instructions to give all possessions to the poor. He also claims that a poor individual putting all of their wealth in the coffers gave more than a rich individual giving more wealth, but a lower proportion of their total wealth.
I believe in the principle of progressive taxation, so you can lay off quacking that duck for a bit.

The fact is that conservatives and religions people in particular are more generous with their disposable income than secularists, despite being under the same tax regime. Jesus emphasized personal charity rather than government-controlled, forced redistributions of wealth.
  #119  
Old 02-15-2012, 03:28 PM
66Scorpio 66Scorpio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by gamerunknown View Post
Akh, overlooked this, sorry:



I don't understand the requirements I'm afraid. The Judeo-Christian tradition of marriage is largely a patriarchal event where stewardship of the woman is transferred from the father to a husband. There are many other expressions of love between couples that resemble lifelong contracts that developed independently and do not share the same nomenclature. For example, Biblical "marriage" did not use the term "marriage" since it is derived from Latin. I don't think the semantic difference invalidates the marriage between Rebekah and Isaac for instance.
That's the thing: it's not a mere matter of semantics but a conceptual difference between heterosexual and homosexual pair bonding.

Etymologically, "marriage" goes back to Old French and ultimately back to Latin. As an English word it has only been around since about the 13th or 14th century. But the concept has been around, and it was always different, conceptually, for homosexuals to pair-bond.

However, the nature of law is that words should match concepts and the trick is to say bibbity-bobbity-boo and make homosexual unions the same as marriage. At best, it is a legal fiction in the way that a corporation is a person. Sure, for most legal purposes it is treated as a person, but a corporation most certainly is not the same thing as a person, which is why a new term had to develop: natural person.
  #120  
Old 02-15-2012, 03:36 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 32,893
It doesn't matter what the concept of marriage was limited to throughout human history. What matters is that we as a society no longer consider it just to adhere to those limitations in the face of same sex couples who wish the same civil status.

We do the same with other issues of equality -- slavery was once accepted, debtors prison was once accepted, denying the franchise to all but landed white men was once accepted, segregation was once accepted, state religion is still accepted in many parts of the world.

Part of the character of America is whenever someone steps up and says that "traditional" restrictions are unjustifiably limiting his or her life, we look at it rationally and say, "You know what? Screw tradition. Justice is more important."
  #121  
Old 02-15-2012, 03:50 PM
66Scorpio 66Scorpio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by gamerunknown View Post
Politifact has a bit of a problem is distinguishing facts and opinions, as well as manipulating any ambiguitities to come out with whatever they politically favour at the time.

Quote:
Not to mention one good way to reduce debt is by paying taxes.
Then why don't the 50% of Americans who don't pay any "pay their fair share"?

Quote:
Edit: Ah, I meant that the rich individual is giving a lower proportion of their total wealth.
"Wealth" is different than "income". For normal people, the wealthiest have the lowest incomes. They are known as retirees.

Otherwise, the fact is that the truely rich make their money from dividends and capital gains. This is actually a debate worth engaging in . Dividends and stock gains have already been taxed at the corporate level. The most recent thing I read was that it actually works out to a total of over a 50% tax rate when you combine the corporate and personal taxes. It's the same profits being taxed again for no other reason than it is changing hands. I think there should be a premium to reflect that corporate stock (as opposed to owning a proprietorship or partnership interest) is a limited liability investment. It's a weird sort of insurance policy that people should pay for.

[QUTOE]Double Edit: There is an overwhelming scientific consensus about global warming, with the dissent mostly coming from economic rather than scientific sources (though economists such as Stern have compiled a report in its favour). The wiki I linked has several scientific papers you may want to peruse.[/QUOTE]

Wikipedia and Politifact simply don't cut it here. More recently there have been geoscientists and solar researchers telling us what we have known all along: the sun and the earth matter.

Plus, that is beside the fact that we have not seen any warming in 15 years.

Global warming ceased to be a scientific question years ago; it is now a political debate. The number of useful idiots one side or the other can muster doesn't mean squat.
  #122  
Old 02-15-2012, 04:24 PM
66Scorpio 66Scorpio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
It doesn't matter what the concept of marriage was limited to throughout human history. What matters is that we as a society no longer consider it just to adhere to those limitations in the face of same sex couples who wish the same civil status.
Dude, "society" had it's say but millions of citizens have been dictated to by a few robed wizards in the courts.

Not that I concede the point, but just to give you the chance to agree with the present dictatorship.

That particular issue will go to the Supreme Court and if the citizenry lose, then don't start complaining when someone like Rick Santorum takes the Presidency, stacks the courts with his ideological peers, and then rams a federal consitutional amendment through.

'Cause hey, in your world, principles are second to politics. Historical truths are mere inconveniences, right?
  #123  
Old 02-15-2012, 04:27 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 32,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by 66Scorpio View Post
Not that I concede the point, but just to give you the chance to agree with the present dictatorship.
Denying a majority the ability to oppress a minority isn't much like a dictatorship in my book, especially when there is absolutely zero real stakes for the majority in maintaining its oppression. In fact, that's basically one of the basic premises of the constitution.
  #124  
Old 02-15-2012, 04:39 PM
66Scorpio 66Scorpio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 47
In any event, this is some significant thread drift. Hey, let's try to prove whether abortion supporters are smarter than pro-lifers. We've already hit on AGW and gay marriage indirectly.

The conclusion in the post that swing states are actually the smartest ones is illuminating.

I still stick to my own contention that Democrats have a bifurcated support among the best and worst minds. Overall, the average intelligence is the same for Democrats and Republicans.
  #125  
Old 02-15-2012, 04:42 PM
66Scorpio 66Scorpio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Denying a majority the ability to oppress a minority isn't much like a dictatorship in my book, especially when there is absolutely zero real stakes for the majority in maintaining its oppression. In fact, that's basically one of the basic premises of the constitution.
Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean you are being oppressed. But that is the rhetoric that you need to score your points.

Falung Gong in China, is oppressed
Women in Saudi Arabia, are oppressed.
Gays have parades in California.

Figure it out.
  #126  
Old 02-15-2012, 04:57 PM
Fear Itself Fear Itself is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 34,324
Quote:
Originally Posted by 66Scorpio View Post
Then why don't the 50% of Americans who don't pay any "pay their fair share"?
They do, just not the income tax. As a group, they receive such a minuscule fraction of GDP, our representative democracy has determined they are not subject to the income tax, though that does not excuse them from all the other taxes that provide revenue for government services.
  #127  
Old 02-15-2012, 04:58 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 32,893
So if I hold you up for the cash that's on you, you aren't getting robbed because other people are getting carjacked?
  #128  
Old 02-15-2012, 05:08 PM
66Scorpio 66Scorpio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 47
I will be back at it next week, but my carpul tunnel syndrome is going wild to respond to so much nonsense. :-)

So, what is the total tax burden, by income level, on all Americans?
  #129  
Old 02-15-2012, 05:15 PM
rogerbox rogerbox is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by 66Scorpio View Post
Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean you are being oppressed. But that is the rhetoric that you need to score your points.

Falung Gong in China, is oppressed
Women in Saudi Arabia, are oppressed.
Gays have parades in California.

Figure it out.
It's interesting Falun Gong is oppressed, but they have it better than gays in a majority of this country since they can marry freely. Do you think they would choose parades over the ability to marry? You just defeated your own argument.
  #130  
Old 02-15-2012, 06:22 PM
ABraut ABraut is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 108
Quote:
though that does not excuse them from all the other taxes that provide revenue for government services.
They still pay a lower percentage of all federal taxes. See #109
If you have an issue with the regressive nature of state and local taxes, take it up with your state and local tax entities. Don't try to make up for it on the federal level.
i.e. Don't complain to the electric company about your water bill.
  #131  
Old 02-15-2012, 06:25 PM
Fear Itself Fear Itself is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 34,324
Quote:
Originally Posted by ABraut View Post
They still pay a lower percentage of all federal taxes.
Entirely fair, because they earn a smaller percentage of GDP.
  #132  
Old 02-15-2012, 06:43 PM
ABraut ABraut is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 108
I'm for gay marriage. I think it should be dealt with on the state level, because it will take less time for gay marriage to be nationwide. If it was a federal issue it would take longer and no gays could get married in the meantime. I've written a thorough explanation here.

Homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals, when it comes to marriage. Anyone can marry anyone of the opposite sex, with a few reasonable limits on age and relatives. What they want, and I want for them, is a new or different right. I'm sure someone is screaming "They want to marry the person they love! That's not different!" at their screen as they read this. It is different. Rephrasing 'someone of the same sex' to 'the person they love' only changes the phrase, not reality. Dogs and cats are pets, but calling a dog a 'pet' doesn't make it the same as a cat.
  #133  
Old 02-15-2012, 06:46 PM
ABraut ABraut is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 108
Quote:
Entirely fair, because they earn a smaller percentage of GDP.
I didn't say it wasn't fair. Why do you assume I did?
  #134  
Old 02-15-2012, 06:53 PM
Fear Itself Fear Itself is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 34,324
Quote:
Originally Posted by ABraut View Post
I didn't say it wasn't fair. Why do you assume I did?
Because you responded to my discussion with 66Scorpio, which was debating the fairness of low income households paying no tax.
  #135  
Old 02-15-2012, 06:59 PM
ABraut ABraut is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 108
And to be clear, they pay a lower percentage of their income not just a lower share of the tax load, on the federal level. I'm sick of all the lies about that. Sound fiscal policy is not based on envy and lies. If you want to convince a rational person that taxes on higher incomes should be raised, talk about revenue and finding the top of the Laffer Curve. If you absolutely cannot make a rational argument based on facts and reason, talk about how they can afford to pay more. Do not whine about a lie.
  #136  
Old 02-15-2012, 07:01 PM
ABraut ABraut is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 108
I'm not 66Scorpio. I replied to what you wrote in your post. And the above 'you' is general, not personal.

Last edited by ABraut; 02-15-2012 at 07:02 PM.
  #137  
Old 02-15-2012, 07:03 PM
Fear Itself Fear Itself is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 34,324
Quote:
Originally Posted by ABraut View Post
If you want to convince a rational person that taxes on higher incomes should be raised, talk about revenue and finding the top of the Laffer Curve.
I have yet to find a rational person who places any confidence in the Laffer Curve.
  #138  
Old 02-15-2012, 07:08 PM
Fear Itself Fear Itself is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 34,324
Quote:
Originally Posted by ABraut View Post
I'm not 66Scorpio.
I don't care. I was having a discussion with 66Scorpio about fairness. You responded to one of my comments to 66Scorpio about fairness. If you don't want to talk about fairness, or you don't want others to mistakenly conclude you are talking about fairness, then kindly refrain from hijacking other's conversations.
  #139  
Old 02-15-2012, 07:12 PM
ABraut ABraut is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 108
Quote:
I have yet to find a rational person who places any confidence in the Laffer Curve.
I've yet to find an actual rational person who didn't realize that it's a concept based on a curve. I've found plenty of irrational people who're convinced they're rational for rejecting something they misunderstand. The Laffer Curve is not a line that shows less taxes always equals more revenue and higher taxes always equals less revenue. It is a general idea that states that tax rates that are too high or too low reduce revenue and that there is a 'sweet spot' for maximum revenue.

Do these so-called rational people believe that a 100% tax rate would maximize revenue, or do they misunderstand the idea of the Laffer Curve?

Last edited by ABraut; 02-15-2012 at 07:16 PM.
  #140  
Old 02-15-2012, 07:15 PM
ABraut ABraut is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 108
Fear Itself-
I didn't realize this was a private chat-room. I thought it was a public forum.
  #141  
Old 02-15-2012, 07:28 PM
Fear Itself Fear Itself is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 34,324
Quote:
Originally Posted by ABraut View Post
Fear Itself-
I didn't realize this was a private chat-room. I thought it was a public forum.
I was talking about fairness. You responded to my argument about fairness. It is not unreasonable to conclude you were talking about fairness. Then you come back with, "I didn't say it wasn't fair. Why do you assume I did?".

Post whatever you like, wherever you like. I won't be paying much attention.
  #142  
Old 02-15-2012, 09:54 PM
Randvek Randvek is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Eugene, OR
Posts: 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by 66Scorpio View Post
Dude, "society" had it's say but millions of citizens have been dictated to by a few robed wizards in the courts.
Whoa! Did I actually spot a conservative talk bad about Bush v. Gore? Or does the whole "wizards contradicting the will of the people" schtick only work when you disagree with the wizards?
  #143  
Old 02-15-2012, 11:33 PM
ABraut ABraut is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 108
I'm reasonably certain that Bush v Gore was about the Florida Supreme Court's attempt to legislate election law and whether or not the recounts could be completed before the constitutional deadline, required by Florida law. I'm reasonably certain that gay marriage had nothing to do with it, which was the context of what you quoted, Randvek.

I've been recently informed that my factual reply to a statement about the progressive/regressive nature of federal taxes was so egregious that I shall be ignored from here on. Apparently, I didn't take the context of "fairness" (from what the statement was in reply to) in consideration when I replied to the statement, that said nothing about fairness. I expect you shall be severely reprimanded, shortly, for your deliberate and gross context change.

I, on the other hand, am not nearly so petty. I simply want to point out the irrelevance of your intentionally drastic change of context.
  #144  
Old 02-16-2012, 05:04 AM
gamerunknown gamerunknown is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,291
Quote:
The same cannot be said about the respective economies.
Amartya Sen's research is fantastic because it exposes how a nation's wealth may not be in the interests of its citizens. How much would you reduce your lifespan or health for a pay increase?

Quote:
I didn't say they support crime, but it's a reasonable hypothesis that they enable it.
Feel free to post correlations of crime rates in countries with high and low social expenditure or a majority Social Democratic government and authoritarian governments. It's one way of developing a falsifiable hypothesis.

Quote:
No facts were involved in that study; I'm not sure if you are trying to cite the same one now.
I'm referring to the one conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson, though I don't think a single poll has shown Fox News viewers to be more informed.

Quote:
You don't think maybe Al-Jazeera is just a bit biased towards Islam and it's proponents and against it's various enemies in the west?
I haven't watched it, I think the onus is on the individual making the claim.

As for gay marriage, I'm a proponent of it, but I think that the majority decision should hold. I believe in the absolute power of democracy: the judiciary (like corporations) operate under a system indistinguishable from feudalism. The favoured are chosen from within the ranks, rather than elected for the people in their interests. I'd hold that view consistently: in Alabama 40% of the citizens voted to keep a law against racial miscegenation on the books. If it had been a majority, I think that decision should have held, despite being highly repressive.

Quote:
Anyone can marry anyone of the opposite sex, with a few reasonable limits on age and relatives. What they want, and I want for them, is a new or different right
No, they want to marry the consenting adult that they love (hopefully). This sort of argument has no judicial precedence since the ruling of Loving vs. Virginia. I don't think all arguments in support of gay marriage are equal though: saying that God must love homosexuals because He created them that way is a terrible argument. Psychopaths were also most likely born without empathy, or predisposed to not having empathy which was activated by some environmental factor. Is murder and rape part of God's plan?
  #145  
Old 02-16-2012, 07:21 AM
66Scorpio 66Scorpio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogerbox View Post
It's interesting Falun Gong is oppressed, but they have it better than gays in a majority of this country since they can marry freely. Do you think they would choose parades over the ability to marry? You just defeated your own argument.
So it is preferable to be married and then marched off to re-education camps and worse?
  #146  
Old 02-16-2012, 07:38 AM
66Scorpio 66Scorpio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
I have yet to find a rational person who places any confidence in the Laffer Curve.
Those who don't look much, don't find. It's sound in theory and probably has some decent but not compelling statistical evidence in it's favour. Although not intuitive, it is just as rational as lowering prices when facing an elastic demand curve. Similarly, there is also a number of studies that suggest there is a "sweet spot" in terms of the size of government to maximize economic growth.

The Laffer Curve is somewhat simplistic as each individual has their own curve of this nature so trying to generalize personal preferences for millions of people becomes a bit of a mugs game. Not all taxes are created equal, and that includes things like user fees and targetted tax exemptions or credits.
  #147  
Old 02-16-2012, 07:45 AM
66Scorpio 66Scorpio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randvek View Post
Whoa! Did I actually spot a conservative talk bad about Bush v. Gore? Or does the whole "wizards contradicting the will of the people" schtick only work when you disagree with the wizards?
It was Gore v. Bush, by the way, because it was initiated by the lliberal who wanted the robed wizards to override the decision of the elected administration in Florida as to how the will of the people, federally, would be expressed. So the answer is neither: I was not talking bad about Gore v. Bush in the result because it never should have gone to the courts in the first place.
  #148  
Old 02-16-2012, 08:47 AM
66Scorpio 66Scorpio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by gamerunknown View Post
Amartya Sen's research is fantastic because it exposes how a nation's wealth may not be in the interests of its citizens. How much would you reduce your lifespan or health for a pay increase?
Well, if you use the Human Development Index (which Sen helped create), Canada was number one for a good number of years. Only two countries had a meaningfully higher index: Norway and Australia. Canada, at 0.908, is tied with New Zealand and Ireland, while the USA and the Netherlands are two parts in a thousand ahead.

I'd have to look at the breakdown of the components of the HDI to comment further, but in the USA's case, the higher rating is probably based on it's GDP rather than the other factors.

However, it isn't just GDP that defines "wealth" because you have to also look at the fundamentals.

Quote:
Feel free to post correlations of crime rates in countries with high and low social expenditure or a majority Social Democratic government and authoritarian governments. It's one way of developing a falsifiable hypothesis.
What hypothesis would that be? Authoritarian governments have lower crime rates while those with a "freedom fetish" (America being the best example) have higher rates. Those are just observations.

I can tell you that income inequality corelates with homicide rates. You can use Wikipedia to find both Gini Coefficients by country and homicide rates by country. You will have to do your own regression after you cut and paste the numbers in Excel or whatever. I've done it; the R2 is remarkable.

I suppose the logic gets interesting:
Income inequality creates crime
Criminals support Democrats
Democrats support reducing income inequality
(note: I'm not asserting those as linear, merely interestingly connected)

However, income inequality is not allieved by policies like mandating that home ownership must be available to people who can't afford it.

I could go on, but this is a thread on the IQ of Reds and Blues rather than an economic sociology lecture.


Quote:
I'm referring to the one conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson, though I don't think a single poll has shown Fox News viewers to be more informed.
I'd have to look closer at the poll from "Snookie U" but I wouldn't expect any academic to find in favour of Fox because they tend to actively or subconsciously construct studies that will "prove" their own, liberal beliefs. There seems to be some methodological problems, but I have to see the full poll and such to point them out.

Quote:
As for gay marriage, I'm a proponent of it, but I think that the majority decision should hold. I believe in the absolute power of democracy: the judiciary (like corporations) operate under a system indistinguishable from feudalism.
I don't see the comparison to feudalism.

[/QUOTE] The favoured are chosen from within the ranks, rather than elected for the people in their interests.[/QUOTE]

That certainly sounds like the way university professors get tenured, like the ones from Snookie U who lambasted Fox.

Quote:
I'd hold that view consistently: in Alabama 40% of the citizens voted to keep a law against racial miscegenation on the books. If it had been a majority, I think that decision should have held, despite being highly repressive.
What time frame are you talking here? Granted, Alabama is a bit behind the curve in that is is illegal to sell a dildo in the state.

Quote:
No, they want to marry the consenting adult that they love (hopefully). This sort of argument has no judicial precedence since the ruling of Loving vs. Virginia. I don't think all arguments in support of gay marriage are equal though: saying that God must love homosexuals because He created them that way is a terrible argument. Psychopaths were also most likely born without empathy, or predisposed to not having empathy which was activated by some environmental factor. Is murder and rape part of God's plan?
Again, Loving v. Virginia has nothing to do with gay marriage. It affirms a real civil rights principle that people should not be arbitrarily discriminated against on the basis of race. The court acknowledges that marriage is fundamental to our survival. A homosexual union obviously doesn't do that.

I can't comment much on "God's Plan" because I am not religious. I am not so daft as to be an atheist, but I certainly am not a Christian.
  #149  
Old 02-16-2012, 11:37 AM
Irishman Irishman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Houston, TX, USA
Posts: 12,210
Quote:
Originally Posted by 66Scorpio View Post
Again, Loving v. Virginia has nothing to do with gay marriage. It affirms a real civil rights principle ...
So you're saying homosexuality is not a real civil rights issue?
  #150  
Old 02-16-2012, 05:52 PM
gamerunknown gamerunknown is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,291
Quote:
The court acknowledges that marriage is fundamental to our survival. A homosexual union obviously doesn't do that.
Marriage is not fundamental to our survival, our survival is dependant on the means of subsistence. The survival of the species is likely to continue despite any governmental policy, barring nuclear annihilation or the disastrous effects of climate change (if one follows that line of reasoning). The important point is that they repudiate the notion that while marriage is a right, being able to choose whom one marries is a privilege.

Quote:
What time frame are you talking here?
This was in a 2000 referendum.

Quote:
Snookie U
Ad institution. Feel free to address the methodology. The feudalistic aspect is precisely that they aren't accountable to the people whom their policies affect.

Quote:
What hypothesis would that be?
That Liberals advocate crime and that a Liberal government would pursue policies that increase crime rates during their administration. I don't think an independent source would rate the US government as being liberal though: Barack Obama ranks as authoritarian right according to politifact. Looking at the list of countries by intentional homicide rate, there may be some evidence to support such a hypothesis (though the Nationalist party is in power in Honduras atm rather than the Liberal one and the Venezuelan government may be described as authoritarian progressive rather than social democratic).

Quote:
However, it isn't just GDP that defines "wealth" because you have to also look at the fundamentals.
I agree. I'd rate the fundamentals as being more important than PPP, in fact.

Oh, I neglected to mention that Jesus' conception was essentially pre-Capitalistic. Where individuals sold their labour due to lack of access to the means of production, it was usually to an individual that wasn't part of the redundant population but rather someone that produces their own means of subsistence and wished for assistance. Surplus labour usually took the form of slavery or prostitution, rather than the endemic form of rent and wage labour.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:00 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017