The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

[Bob Gray]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

I'm going to give an assist to Bob on Giordano Bruno. The church's problem with him was he was actually too much of a zealot.

OTOH, giving religion credit for the accomplishments of Medieval proto-scientists is a little like giving the city of Los Angeles credit for the discoveries at Cal Tech. The Church was where you had to be to be anything during that time. It's a complicated story, but just dismissing out of hand the reactionary aspects of religion when scripture is threatened is ignoring history. I assume Bob knows this and that he's just annoyed at the simplistic contrary narrative that has arisen after the fact. Am I right, Bob?

I honestly don't know what Scooby's point was, as that's a very diverse list of folks who fall all over the board. But he did mention Galileo, so I was merely pointing out that many of those great scientists of yore were both great scientists and deeply religious. But, that doesn't fit modern worldviews, so somehow we have to discount such a confluence, it would seem. But, I know better than to expect people to even concede something so blindingly obvious. That's what passes for trying to "win" a discussion in today's society.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Kepler may need to read The Pontifical Decrees against the Earth's Movement before he gets too excited about the other side of the Galileo story.

Kind of. The question isn't really whether a political institution like the Catholic Church wanted to silence Galileo because he was pointing out inconvenient truths. The first casualty of any institution, no matter whether the abstraction it claims to speak for is God, The People, or The Nation, is the truth.

Spirituality and organized religion are more often at odds than in accord.

 

[unofan]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

I honestly don't know what Scooby's point was, as that's a very diverse list of folks who fall all over the board. But he did mention Galileo, so I was merely pointing out that many of those great scientists of yore were both great scientists and deeply religious. But, that doesn't fit modern worldviews, so somehow we have to discount such a confluence, it would seem. But, I know better than to expect people to even concede something so blindingly obvious. That's what passes for trying to "win" a discussion in today's society.

But their spirituality clearly wasn't one of "Science is bad..durr." - The Jesuits as a whole are strong academics and devoutly religious. Modern day evangelicals...well...

If your point is that religious people can be scientists too, then great. I agree. But when faith asked them to believe something that their own scientific observations told them was false...it wasn't the science that gave way.

People who believe the Earth is only 6000 years old have nothing in common with Galileo or Newton.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

I honestly don't know what Scooby's point was, as that's a very diverse list of folks who fall all over the board. But he did mention Galileo, so I was merely pointing out that many of those great scientists of yore were both great scientists and deeply religious. But, that doesn't fit modern worldviews, so somehow we have to discount such a confluence, it would seem. But, I know better than to expect people to even concede something so blindingly obvious. That's what passes for trying to "win" a discussion in today's society.

I'll let Scooby rephrase his point -- I will say it was obvious to me, which doesn't mean I agree with it entirely.

We will never really capture the religious mindset of the Medieval period in today's world. Trying to transpose arguments between today's believers and non-believers to that period is a fool's errand. The closest there is may be a comparison with the so-called "Neo-Platonists" of the Church fathers, from where after a long strange trip we derive modern theology, and the "Pagan" pre-Socratic philosophies of the Greeks and some of the echoes in Aristotle, from where after a long strange trip we derive modern science. That pitched battle really is between irreconcilables (sorry, Thomists), and it's been going on in every century of intellectual work ever since.

That friction is the story of the West, and the battle is far more interesting -- and fecund -- than either side's rather self-important view of itself.

As with all great dualities, liberal/conservative, pacifist/warrior, dreamer/pragmatist, etc., we need both to be fully human.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

At least someone got it. That's good enough for me.

 

[Handyman]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

That's the problem. LAZINESS! So many people expect to be given handouts while other reach for the brass ring. That's where the divide exists.

But no one is arguing that people arent lazy. The point is just because you try hard and put in your best does not mean you are automatically going to be successful like Plante talks about. And the converse is true as well...just because you are lazy doesnt mean you wont succeed. People fail upwards all the time. Opportunity to succeed is just as important (not more, not less but equal) as how much effort you put in and how much you want it.

Unless you think everyone who lives East of Nicollet Avenue in Minneapolis just doesnt care and never tries at anything

 

[Plante26]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

How has a law that's meant to drive savings through attrtition but has only been in place for what - 4 months? - show anything? Is this like ObamaCare creating the massive federal deficit even though most of its provisions haven't even taken effect, yet?

Go ahead and Google "WEA Trust, savings". You'll see exactly how much money is wasted due to public sector collective bargaining, and early indications only include savings on health insurance for workers.

Corruption: It costs money.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Go ahead and Google "WEA Trust, savings". You'll see exactly how much money is wasted due to public sector collective bargaining, and early indications only include savings on health insurance for workers.

Corruption: It costs money.

From what I see in looking it up savings was found two ways.

One was shopping for insurance instead of just going to the WEA Trust for the healthcare benefits. That did save money.

The other large chunk was having the workers help pay for their benefits. All that did was take money from middle class workers and put it in the pockets of upper class workers. You being against the government stealing money from taxpayers should be against this part of the plan.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

But their spirituality clearly wasn't one of "Science is bad..durr." - The Jesuits as a whole are strong academics and devoutly religious. Modern day evangelicals...well...

If your point is that religious people can be scientists too, then great. I agree. But when faith asked them to believe something that their own scientific observations told them was false...it wasn't the science that gave way.

People who believe the Earth is only 6000 years old have nothing in common with Galileo or Newton.

You, like many, think that science and religious beliefs are inherently in conflict. I disagree. And of course I don't agree with a lot of what's thrown out there by religious folks, and I'll of course also concede that some of it doesn't sound very solid to me. But, I understand that that kind of stuff is inherent in the dehumanization of the opposition.

Now excuse me, I must get back to my cave. The wife's got some barbecue pterodactyl wings over the fire that are almost ready.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

You, like many, think that science and religious beliefs are inherently in conflict. I disagree. And of course I don't agree with a lot of what's thrown out there by religious folks, and I'll of course also concede that some of it doesn't sound very solid to me. But, I understand that that kind of stuff is inherent in the dehumanization of the opposition.

Now excuse me, I must get back to my cave. The wife's got some barbecue pterodactyl wings over the fire that are almost ready.

That's great, Bob. But we weren't talking about you. You mentioned social conservatives specifically. And unlike you they believe with fervor that science and religious beliefs ARE in conflict. So much so that they want something taught in science class that isn't science. Just because.

 

[Craig P.]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

The point is just because you try hard and put in your best does not mean you are automatically going to be successful like Plante talks about. And the converse is true as well...just because you are lazy doesnt mean you wont succeed.

Which is to say, the ascendance of neo-Social-Darwinism is just as much bunk as the original Social Darwinism was eventually determined to be.

It seems to be driving an awful lot of the political thought in the GOP these days, at least from my outside perspective. And I can understand why it's an attractive world-view for both the haves and the have-nots. It lets the haves bask in the delusion that they've earned everything they have, and the have-nots can take a positive view that if they only work a little harder and do a little better, they too can get ahead in the world.

As with anything, the real truth is that there are few absolutes. Most people who succeed have not done so entirely through the sweat of their on brow, but it's also true that most of their success does derive from effort and talent. Similarly, while many people who fail don't have the same opportunities as people who succeed, their own failures also owe partly to bad decisions or lack of talent.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

That's great, Bob. But we weren't talking about you. You mentioned social conservatives specifically. And unlike you they believe with fervor that science and religious beliefs ARE in conflict. So much so that they want something taught in science class that isn't science. Just because.

Generally, no they don't think they are in conflict. There are a few hot button areas where there are fights, and I can understand that different folks can come to different perspectives on those issues. But to paint social conservatives in general as having issues with science is way, way off the mark. You're using a broad brush a mile wide to do detail work.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Generally, no they don't think they are in conflict. There are a few hot button areas where there are fights, and I can understand that different folks can come to different perspectives on those issues. But to paint social conservatives in general as having issues with science is way, way off the mark. You're using a broad brush a mile wide to do detail work.

No, no I'm not. The leader for the race to the GOP nomination believes that they are in conflict. His largest voting block is social conservatives. I'm not using a broad brush, I'm using what everyone can see in the daily newspaper every day.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

No, no I'm not. The leader for the race to the GOP nomination believes that they are in conflict. His largest voting block is social conservatives. I'm not using a broad brush, I'm using what everyone can see in the daily newspaper every day.

And the leader in the GOP race has discussed how many science issues? One? Two? Three? My point stands. There's a lot more to things than you get from your daily newspaper. You are showing a fundamental misunderstanding of social conservatives.

 

[Bill]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

I gave Friedman as an example of a real economist that wasn't a Keynsian (in answer to your follow-up question). Frankly, I don't know what his flat tax rate was or would be today if he were still with us. In any case, his best work always dealt with the monetary side of things (ie, the Fed), not the fiscal stuff (the government).

You said that most real economists would say that flat/fair tax proposals grossly understate what the true rate would have to be, and when I asked who these economists were, you gave Friedman as an example. Kepler has provided a link that Friedman estimated a flat tax rate of about 23% would be needed which is right in line with flat or fair tax proposals.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

You said that most real economists would say that flat/fair tax proposals grossly understate what the true rate would have to be, and when I asked who these economists were, you gave Friedman as an example. Kepler has provided a link that Friedman estimated a flat tax rate of about 23% would be needed which is right in line with flat or fair tax proposals.

And 8% more than most rich folks pay on their income.

 

[Foxton]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

You, like many, think that science and religious beliefs are inherently in conflict. I disagree. And of course I don't agree with a lot of what's thrown out there by religious folks, and I'll of course also concede that some of it doesn't sound very solid to me. But, I understand that that kind of stuff is inherent in the dehumanization of the opposition.

Now excuse me, I must get back to my cave. The wife's got some barbecue pterodactyl wings over the fire that are almost ready.

BECAUSE THEY ARE! The only time they aren't is if you just pick and chose what you like because funnily enough no religious text ever matches up with the real world. I can at least respect the hard line fundies because they are at least honest about this.

You are grossly ignorant bob on the level of this *******.
<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/rloKJU6Ajc4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[unofan]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

and when I asked who these economists were.

I interpreted that question as who are real economists that are not Keynsians, since you had asked, in the interim, if a real economist must be a Keynsian and I responded no, that Chicago Schoolers count, but Austrian Schoolers do not.

That said, let's go ahead use Friedman's 23% income tax as a baseline for what is realistic.

The most recent flat tax proposition that gained any widespread national appeal was Steve Forbes' in the '96 and 2000 election cycles, and he suggested a rate of 17%. A few senators floated a plan about a half dozen years ago or so, and I think that was around 15% for its base rate. Both would have exempted everything but wages from the tax, meaning capital gains, dividends, and interest would be taken tax free. Both would have exempted a certain amount of money from any taxation.

A 2010 piece from US News and World Report shows that the Cato Institute likewise still uses the 17% figure. I have not seen a modern flat tax proposal of any significance that uses Friedman's 23%.

Therefore, I think it's fair to say that even Friedman would find those plans unrealistic.

The so-called Fair Tax is understated in so much as proponents call it a 23% tax instead of the 30% that it actually is. To that extent, I suppose they have a realistic number (30%) that they're trying to sell as being smaller than it really is to try to make it more palatable.

However, since not all income is spent, to be revenue neutral the sales tax would have to be a higher rate than the associated income rate. Since Friedman supported a 23% income tax rate, the comparable sales tax rate would have to be at least somewhat higher than that. Indeed, at least one political watchdog, FactCheck.org, says that the 23% inclusive figure is still not high enough. It's not grossly understated (FactCheck, citing the President's Advisory Panel on Tax Reform, figures it'd take a rate of 25% inclusive or 34% when treated as a traditional sales tax), but understated nonetheless.

 

[Plante26]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

From what I see in looking it up savings was found two ways.

One was shopping for insurance instead of just going to the WEA Trust for the healthcare benefits. That did save money.

The other large chunk was having the workers help pay for their benefits. All that did was take money from middle class workers and put it in the pockets of upper class workers. You being against the government stealing money from taxpayers should be against this part of the plan.

Not quite. Workers paying more for their own benefits and pensions doesn't equate to "stealing money from taxpayers". Expecting the ever-rising health care and pension tab to be picked entirely by the taxpaying public? That is more like stealing from the taxpayers.

 

[unofan]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Not quite. Workers paying more for their own benefits and pensions doesn't equate to "stealing money from taxpayers". Expecting the ever-rising health care and pension tab to be picked entirely by the taxpaying public? That is more like stealing from the taxpayers.

More to the point, what does that have to do with the stripping of the collective bargaining power? The unions had already agreed to pay more for their benefits, so what financial gain was made by stripping the bargaining power?