Back to School: 2010

[Kelandon]

Originally Posted By: Randomizer

BoA doesn't need the money

Blades of Avernum totally needs the money! Wait...

[ĐªгŦĦ Єяŋϊε]

yeah...thats why there is no BoG

[Triumph]

Originally Posted By: Darth Ernie

yeah...thats why there is no BoG

It got swamped by the financial quagmire of BoA and sank into a morass of technical issues?

[Dantius]

I'd be willing to bet if a mysterious benefactor offered Jeff a quarter million dollars if he made a Blades of Geneforge with some way of guaranteeing payment, it would get made.

 

Great, now all we'll need is to get Warren Buffet hooked on Blades and Geneforge!

 

[Skwish-E]

I'd rather it be 10% of everything for everybody, but That wiould cause a lot of people to scream about unfairly burdening the poor. Of course, it doesn't matter how good of a new idea we come up with anyway. The feds are not going to let a little thing like the people change their ways.

[Karoka]

That's why there's a little thing called revolution.

[Callie]

I would imagine the US would be able to quickly stamp out any revolutions that might arise.

[Kelandon]

Originally Posted By: Skwish-E

I'd rather it be 10% of everything for everybody, but That wiould cause a lot of people to scream about unfairly burdening the poor.

Actually, that wouldn't be my objection. My objection is that isn't anywhere near enough. The government in the U.S. (and here I mean at all three levels) needs considerably more than that to function (i.e. have Social Security, Medicare, etc.).

Now, if you then tried to fix the problem by figuring out how much is actually enough so that we don't run a deficit and then imposing a flat tax to collect that much, that's when I'd start screaming about unfairly burdening the poor. I think we'd be talking about roughly 20%. Now, 10% may or may not be excessive, but 20% certainly is, at least for most people. Right now, if I just did a back of the envelope calculation correctly, married people filing jointly have to make in the neighborhood of $200,000 per year in order to have an average tax rate of 20%.

(Jeez, really? I'm running the numbers again and not seeing errors. Check my math. Bear in mind the different between marginal tax rates, or "tax brackets," and average tax rate, the idea being that if you made $200,000, you'd have to pay about $40,000 in taxes, which is about 20%. The graph for 2008 does seem to support this, or at least nearly.)

Since taxes are at a historic low in the U.S. right now, I'd go so far as to guess that a 20% tax rate on families making under, say, $50,000 would be devastatingly high. That's why we need tax brackets in the first place. You can't get enough money to pay for necessary government functions that benefit everyone without taxes that are at least moderately high for at least some people. A flat tax would make them unaffordably high for the poor and even much of the middle class but laughably low for the rich. A progressive tax fixes that problem.

I say this with minimal background in econ, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

[Slawbug]

It is sort of interesting that the time the U.S. was most dramatically bent on opposing communism, was also the time that it had its highest tax rates. Go back 60 years and the highest tax bracket was something like 80-90%.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Skwish-E

It is a fair tax, because those who make more, pay more. It would be unfair to tax a person a higher percentage because they make more money.

keep in mind the economic law of diminishing marginal utility. as you accumulate more of a good (including money), each unit of the good has reduced value to you. as a result someone who earns $1,000,000 and pays $100,000 in taxes is really paying less, in terms of its value to them, than someone who earns $10,000 and pays $1,000 in taxes. the person with a higher income may pay more in dollar terms, but their ability to maintain a given standard of living is less severely affected

even if you don't agree, can you at least understand why somebody would think that a tax with an equal effect on everybody's lifestyle would be fairer than one that simply takes an equal percentage of everyone's income with no regard for their circumstances? if not, how do you justify a percentage-based tax being fairer than a capitation tax: that is, why not demand $10,000 in taxes from every citizen regardless of income? that would be equal, in one sense of the word.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S

It is sort of interesting that the time the U.S. was most dramatically bent on opposing communism, was also the time that it had its highest tax rates. Go back 60 years and the highest tax bracket was something like 80-90%.

That's also because US politics have shifted drastically to the right since Reagan. There's no way Eisenhower would be considered anything other than a centrist Democrat today, for instance.

It's mainly because the realists in the GOP has been hijacked by evangelical voters and supply-side psuedoeconomists more bent on ideological purity than anything else, which as I have said before is one of the greatest US political travesties of the century.

[Student of Trinity]

I admit I haven't really done any research on this, but my naive guess about American politics is that the low tax, small government scenario that many Americans profess to want really would be viable. It would simply be stepping back to the 19th century. No pensions, no medicare, small military except in time of war. The country did survive in those years.

 

If the US returned to being a 19th century society, it might possibly be an easier society in which to grow rich. With fewer regulations and low taxes, maybe a few more talented, industrious, and above all lucky people could get rich than do now. In this way the US might still attract immigrants eager to make it big.

 

A "21st-century-minus-two" America would be a miserable place in which to be poor, though in a sense it might possibly be less miserable than it is today, simply because being poor probably wouldn't last as long. The poor would die faster. But in the 19th century, nowhere on Earth offered the poor a much better deal than that. "Get rich, or die in the street" was pretty fairly written in block capitals at the top of the social contract, and everyone had signed on the dotted line. So move along; nothing to see here; they knew the odds. In this sense, the 19th century system worked for everyone.

 

My point is that I think the critics of radical American conservatives aren't giving their devil his due. I'm not sure the American conservatives are really intending the same 21st century society that the liberals are, but stupidly failing to see that much higher taxes will be needed to sustain it. I think they may really be aiming at a much cheaper 19th century model, which really could be afforded at the low tax rates they champion.

 

On this model, the conservatives aren't stupid at all. They're disingenuous, in that they aren't exactly trumpeting their intention to abolish essentially all public pensions and medical benefits, but are rather content to give the impression that they will somehow eliminate the US federal deficit by firing a few Washington bureaucrats. But the liberals are disingenuous, too. That's maybe the only real tragedy about current American politics, that both sides are so steeped in spin, straight talk has become almost impossible to imagine.

 

Here's a straight talk figure about American government finances, a very simple figure that I have not heard clearly emphasized from any side of the political spectrum, even though it is the single really critical figure: 50%.

 

As of 2010, using pretty simple figures from whitehouse.gov, that is roughly the size of the US federal deficit, as a percentage of US federal income. We hear about billions, and we hear about trillions, we hear that it's bad, we hear that the sky is falling. But nowhere have I seen the stark fact, that the US government currently spends about half again as much as it takes in.

 

And the figures also clearly show that social security, pensions, medicare, and the military are the only big things in the federal budget. The US budget is not a rec room full of clutter; it's a living room with four big couches and a mantelpiece with knick-nacks. To eliminate a 50% deficit, you need to either raise taxes a lot or throw out a couple of couches.

 

I think the conservatives are serious about throwing out the couches. So they're not going to see the arithmetical light at any point, and come onboard for some bipartisan tax increases. There are two radically different visions about what the United States should be like. It's a gap of two centuries. The fight will be bitter, and will probably only end when one group dies of old age.

[Lilith]

your thesis about what American conservatives really want doesn't hold up very well unless you specify which American conservatives you're talking about, considering that government spending as a percentage of GDP increased under all of the past few Republican administrations

[Student of Trinity]

What recent Republican administrations have actually done is another question, because no administration can really do what it wants. The US presidency is just not really as powerful an office as it is hyped up to be. Even a president whose party controls both houses of Congress can rarely fulfill their campaign promises, because the House and Senate jealously guard their status as independent powers, and because the two big American parties are really both fractious coalitions. Elections are fought over competing visions of how things should be, and then laws are passed by compromise among incompatible views.

 

Also, GDP isn't a good yardstick, because governments can't control it. Deficit-wise, it's counting birds in the bush. It makes things look better, because the American GDP is huge. That's an example of how everyone is being disingenuous, making the problem seem less severe than it is. Okay, it's true, the USA isn't a poor country. That's not the problem. The problem is political, and it is severe. Deficit as a fraction of GDP gives the impression that the country could solve all its fiscal problems easily, if it really had to, by just coughing up a bit more of that huge GDP. But that means taxes, and the taxes won't be there if people don't vote for them.

[Randomizer]

Pre-1930s, the US government also collected huge tariffs on imported goods as a means to raise revenues. It was only after the Great Depression that most countries lowered their tariff rates.

 

The income tax was first used to finance the Civil War and it was brought back for the later ones.

[Skwish-E]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

even if you don't agree, can you at least understand why somebody would think that a tax with an equal effect on everybody's lifestyle would be fairer than one that simply takes an equal percentage of everyone's income with no regard for their circumstances?

Yes, I can understand that, even though I don't agree. If this were an easy thing, we would certainly have fixed it by now.

There is a lot of talk these days about how bad "They" are, with "They" being Democrats, Republicans, Tea Partiers, Socialists, Fill-In-The-Blank. I think that, as a society, the United States is more fractured now than it has been in a long, long time. I hear people saying that So-and-So hates America, or wants to destroy America. I truly believe that this is not the case. We just have different ideas about what America is, and should be. For example, I think Michael Moore loves America. His America just isn't the same as mine.

Until we can learn to actually work together, things are just going to get more broken. If working together means paying higher taxes, I will do it. If working together means giving up something that you think should be given to everyone by the government, will you?

[Harehunter]

Originally Posted By: Skwish-E

There is a lot of talk these days about how bad "They" are, with "They" being Democrats, Republicans, Tea Partiers, Socialists, Fill-In-The-Blank. I think that, as a society, the United States is more fractured now than it has been in a long, long time. I hear people saying that So-and-So hates America, or wants to destroy America. I truly believe that this is not the case. We just have different ideas about what America is, and should be. For example, I think Michael Moore loves America. His America just isn't the same as mine.

Until we can learn to actually work together, things are just going to get more broken. If working together means paying higher taxes, I will do it. If working together means giving up something that you think should be given to everyone by the government, will you?

You have hit the head on the nail. It is unfortunate that since we have finally elected a black man as the President, and we would finally be a post-racial country, it has become even more racially divided than before. It has become standard fare to accuse a fiscal conservatives 'racist', not that race has anything to do with economic policy. You ask why the national debt, built up over a couple of centuries (yea,yea, I know that most of it has been done in recent years), has doubled in only a couple of years, and you are accused of being a racist. Where does this non-sequitur come from?

And then we get to the issue of the RINO's (Republican In Name Only). They appeal to their constituency as social conservatives, but turn out to be fiscally irresponsible. I don't mean just liberal, I mean irresponsible. It's easy to say 'Throw more money at the problem' when it isn't your own money. Democrats like to 'increase revenues'. To some who works to earn a living, that translates directly into 'The government is taking more of the money I worked to earn'. The main focus of the Tea Party is to remove the RINO's and replace them with more fiscally conservative representatives, people who have first-hand knowledge of working for a paycheck like the majority of us do.

And just to be clear, there is no direct correlation between fiscally conservative and socially conservative, just as there is no correlation on the liberal side of these terms. The hispanic population has a very high percentage of being Catholic, considered a very socially conservative denomination, yet they predominately vote for the liberal Democrat candidate. The jewish demographic is predominantly Democrat, but the muslims are all over the place. OK, go figure. I know that you would be surprised at the wide diversity of the Tea Party with regard to social issues.

The GDP is the internationally accepted standard measure of a nation's prosperity. From this baseline a few questions come to mind.
1) What percentage do government jobs contribute to the GDP?
2) What is the impact of big government on the spending power of the ordinary taxpayer? What is their source of revenue?
3) If you tax corporations more, what does that do to their plans of expanding their production facilities? To the jobs related to building those facilities? To the communities where those workers reside?
4) If you prohibit or restrict oil companies from off-shore production, what is the impact on the supply of oil? On its price? On the jobs that are dependent on that drilling? On the communities where they live and raise their families?
5) What has been the effect of greater government spending on the credit rating of the U.S.? Pretty much what would happen to an ordinary citizen who racks up more debt than his credit limit allows. How does that affect the stock market, not only the U.S. markets, but around the world? What impact does that have on the retirement accounts of millions of people?
6) And by what logic are people who disagree with the current administration on the answers to these questions being considered racist. How does this imply that the Tea Party, or some members of it, want to start lynch mobs?

At the time this country needs to repair its economic problems, it is difficult to trust an administration with such little experience in how businesses are run

BTW, what defines a 'social conservative' or a 'social liberal' anyway? Fiscal conservative/liberal is easy; big government & high taxes vs small government & lower taxes. Yes there is more to it than that, but this is what it distills down to. On the other hand, the term 'social conservative/liberal' is far more slippery. A person can be 'liberal' on one issue and be 'conservative' on another issue. By what yardstick do we make the judgment that he is 'conservative'?

[Kelandon]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

It has become standard fare to accuse a fiscal conservatives 'racist', not that race has anything to do with economic policy.

Well, if you advocate for policies that will disproportionately disadvantage certain ethnic minorities, you're pretty well opening yourself up for that one. And most "fiscal conservatives" do.

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

What has been the effect of greater government spending on the credit rating of the U.S.? Pretty much what would happen to an ordinary citizen who racks up more debt than his credit limit allows.

Uh, wait, no. You could make the argument — and it might even be sustainable — that deficits were the primary contributor to S&P's downgrading of U.S. debt (while Moody's and Fitch sat there pointing and laughing at S&P). But a deficit isn't the result of spending alone. A deficit is the result of spending exceeding income. That is, you have to consider both whatever spending there has been in the recent past (*cough* two wars, a prescription drug benefit, and a host of other things *cough*) together with whatever the tax plan has been in the recent past (*cough* Bush tax cuts *cough*) in order to come to what the deficit has been in the recent past. And then, from there, you have to be able to argue that S&P's downgrading was the result of deficits, not the result of political dysfunction (*cough* Republican intransigence over closing tax loopholes *cough*), which would have to emphasize certain aspects of their report (namely, the second bullet point) over others (namely, the third and fourth).

Oh, and what would happen to a private citizen who racked up more debt than his credit limit allows would be more than one of three ratings agencies downgrading his debt from AAA to AA+. His rating would go in the toilet. That didn't happen here, because (despite a lot of ridiculous statements making such comparisons) U.S. federal government debt is not at all like credit card debt.

[Dantius]

My thoughts on a few definitions:

 

Today, the phrase "social conservative" is edging closer and closer in meaning to, essentially, "Dominionist". The very fact that we can have people like Bachmann and Palin and Perry running for President and somehow being considered candidates that are more viable than Huntsman and Romney and, to a lesser extent, Pawlenty, speaks volumes of this

 

RINO is a term that is now used almost exclusively as a yardstick of ideological purity wielded by far-right ideologues to make compromise impossible. If you are a Republican that thought that universal healthcare for the only industrialized power in the world that lacked it was a good idea, you're a RINO. If you're a Republican who thinks that the Establishment Clause actually means that you can't do things like host "nondenominational worship services" that pray exclusively to the Christian God and Jesus when you're the sitting governor of a state, you're a RINO. If you're a fiscal conservative who also happens to support raising taxes on the wealthy as one of several tools to be used to balance the budget, congratulation, you're a RINO and a class warrior. It's even reaching the point where not questioning science gets you labeled a RINO. You think humans evolved? Hell no we didn't, you must be a RINO.

 

Oh and one more thing.

 

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

5) What has been the effect of greater government spending on the credit rating of the U.S.? Pretty much what would happen to an ordinary citizen who racks up more debt than his credit limit allows. How does that affect the stock market, not only the U.S. markets, but around the world? What impact does that have on the retirement accounts of millions of people?

 

The following needs to be printed on gigantic posters in huge letters and help aloft at every campaign rally and political debate the 2012 election season:

 

IT IS ERRONEOUS TO COMPARE GOVERNMENT FINANCES TO HOUSEHOLD FINANCES AS IF THEY WERE IDENTICAL CONCEPTS. THE SIMILARITIES ARE SUPERFICIAL ONLY AND TO PRETEND OTHERWISE IS EITHER A LOGICAL FALLACY AT BEST AND DELIBERATE IGNORANCE AND/OR OBFUSCATION IN PURSUIT OF A POLITICAL AGENDA AT WORST.

[Skwish-E]

meh... politics... I'm leaving now. Have fun.

[Harehunter]

Originally Posted By: Kelandon

Well, if you advocate for policies that will disproportionately disadvantage certain ethnic minorities, you're pretty well opening yourself up for that one. And most "fiscal conservatives" do.

In the game of politics, it is not important that such an accusation be true, it is only important that the accusation be made.

It has always been assumed that when an elected official makes such a statement that he must have some intelligence into the matter. Ergo, it must be OK to repeat that argument as evidence of truth. Add to that the bias of mainstream media that perpetuates it as reported by The UCLA Newsroom. Believe it or not, but according to a recent poll FOX news ranks slightly ahead of CNN as the most trusted medium in the US. I like the BBC's analysis of the U.S. attitude toward the media.

Originally Posted By: Kelandon

Uh, wait, no. You could make the argument — and it might even be sustainable — that deficits were the primary contributor to S&P's downgrading of U.S. debt (while Moody's and Fitch sat there pointing and laughing at S&P). But a deficit isn't the result of spending alone. A deficit is the result of spending exceeding income. That is, you have to consider both whatever spending there has been in the recent past (*cough* two wars, a prescription drug benefit, and a host of other things *cough*) together with whatever the tax plan has been in the recent past (*cough* Bush tax cuts *cough*) in order to come to what the deficit has been in the recent past. And then, from there, you have to be able to argue that S&P's downgrading was the result of deficits, not the result of political dysfunction (*cough* Republican intransigence over closing tax loopholes *cough*), which would have to emphasize certain aspects of their report (namely, the second bullet point) over others (namely, the third and fourth).

Oh, and what would happen to a private citizen who racked up more debt than his credit limit allows would be more than one of three ratings agencies downgrading his debt from AAA to AA+. His rating would go in the toilet. That didn't happen here, because (despite a lot of ridiculous statements making such comparisons) U.S. federal government debt is not at all like credit card debt.

I like your reference to S&P report; I am forwarding it. The debate revolves not about the size of the debt, but that the drastic rise in deficit spending that has doubled that debt is unsustainable given the percentage of debt-incurement vs GDP growth. In this scenario, with rampant deficit spending, there are four choices:
1) Raise taxes. I know the Dems call it revenue, but let's call it what it is at the level of the average wage-earner. Raising taxes reduces consumer spending, reduces demand for goods and services, which drives down the need for employees, raising the unemployment rate, while at the same time lowering national GDP, increasing the proportion of debt to GDP. I think your S&P report points at this being a 'negative indicator'.
2) Borrow more money. Let's cut out the middle processes and go straight to increasing the proportion of debt to GDP. BTW, this is important because as this proportion rises, it means that more of the GDP is going to payments on the INTEREST of that debt, and less of it is going to payments on the PRINCIPLE of that debt, and more importantly, less money is available for things like, ooooh, EDUCATION, INFRASTRUCTURE, FEMA, and other services that the federal government is expected, by law, to provide.
3) Print more money. Do I really need to go into the effects of Supply and Demand on currency? I'll sum up in one word: INFLATION.
4) Cut spending. Not Reduce it; that only prolongs the situation we are in.

You're right, government debt is not like private citizens debt. They have, or can legislate, options that we cannot. But Congress must consider the effects of any legislation they enact, not just on the surface, but the chain of cause and effect that results.

One other factor is how do we increase the GDP? If we can grow the GDP, then a greater debt limit could be sustainable. Let me ask you this; Which entity contributes the most to the GDP, the government or the private sector? Since the only source of 'revenue' the government has is in the form of taxes on the private sector, it should be apparent that the private sector is the source of revenue in this country. Policies that burden the private sector drive down profits that would have been used for growth. Net effect, lower growth in the GDP. It is interesting that the current administration has the least experience in how businesses actually operate (Forbes Business Blind Spot). This makes it questionable that they have an understanding of economics as practiced in a free market society.

This is the basis of what all the 'bickering' is about in the U.S. congress. And, no, the blame is not on Dems only, but on Reps who have checked their 'conservative' platform at the Beltway and happily joined the spending spree. And contrary to most peoples perception of 'Red Staters' aka 'Tea Parties', the predominant opinion RE George Bush re Iraq is that it was unnecessary, un-called for, and far, far more expensive than justified. However, once in there, we shouldered our responsibility to rebuild a nation we had destroyed. We can discuss political ideology later.

Afghanistan, was another problem. 9-11-01 was not the first Al-Qaeda attack on the World Trade Center, but the second. Bill Clinton chose to respond with remote strikes on Al-Qaeda training camps. On 9-11-01 it became apparent that Al-Qaeda had meant what it said about declaring war on the U.S. Our response is what any nation would do had war been declared against them. However, too late, it has become apparent that there is no nation to build in Afghanistan, and all the expensive efforts to build one have been a tremendous waste.

[Harehunter]

Since you have taken us down the path of the 1st Amendment, let me address your concerns in that regard.

 

Which would you consider a more conservative religion, Christianity, or Islam as practiced under Sharia law? Which nation is more religiously tolerant, the United States or Iran? Is this a fair comparison? No, not at all. There is a huge diversity among the many denominations of Christianity, just as there are many sects of Islam, or Judaism. Here we run into the problem of stereotyping a large diverse population on the basis of the most controversial, and therefore most visible, aberration of a minority of that population.

 

The main complaint that Christians have is that of encroaching restrictions on religious freedom, a liberty that has been written into the law of the land. They don't understand why it is so denigrated by the liberals that a sitting governor should practice that freedom. Did he lose his rights as a citizen just because he took office?

 

The Establishment Clause forbids the establishment of a state religion, such as the Church of England, that required all citizens to be a member of it. It also prohibits laws that would restrict or prevent the free expression of religion, such as the display of a creche or a menorah, or the wearing of a hijab. That's it, That's all.

 

Nowhere does is say that a person abrogates those rights once in office. These rights are being encroached upon, little by little.

 

The freedoms of speech and of religion do carry with them the right not to listen, the right to ignore a visible emblem that does not represent your faith. Does the display of your faith compel you to convert to that faith? Not in this country. But the restriction on displaying your faith is not constitutional.

 

As to your comments on national debt, see previous post.

[Harehunter]

Originally Posted By: Skwish-E

meh... politics... I'm leaving now. Have fun.

It ain't pretty, is it?

[Slawbug]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

Originally Posted By: Kelandon

Well, if you advocate for policies that will disproportionately disadvantage certain ethnic minorities, you're pretty well opening yourself up for that one. And most "fiscal conservatives" do.

In the game of politics, it is not important that such an accusation be true, it is only important that the accusation be made.

Whether or not these policies are designed with the deliberate intent to be racist is hard to show, although I am inclined to think that is not the case.

However, when the practical impact of the policies is significantly more negative on certain ethnic minorities, you can argue that the policies are racist in practice, even if race is not involved in theory. When we're in a country that has an extensive, documented and analyzed history of deliberate economic oppression of said minority, the case for recognizing potential racism gets stronger.

Quote:

Believe it or not, but according to a recent poll FOX news ranks slightly ahead of CNN as the most trusted medium in the US. I like the BBC's analysis of the U.S. attitude toward the media.

Harehunter, the more often I encounter a situation where you are manipulating words to make your case sound better, the less I trust you. Maybe this wasn't intentional, but you are misquoting the report to make your case. The report says:

"The most trusted specific news sources mentioned without prompting by Americans include FOX News (mentioned by 11%), CNN (11%), ABC (4%), NBC (4%), National Public Radio (3%), CBS (3%), Microsoft/MSN (2%), USA Today (2%), New York Times (2%), CNN.com (1%), Time Magazine (1%), and friends/family (1%)."

The report does not pretend to draw conclusions about which news sources are actually the most trusted. In particular, the "mentioned without prompting" clause means that the numbers you see reflect the percent of the population that really does strongly trust and often think about a given news source -- not how well it is trusted by the population in general. This is a relevant factor: if you listed those sources and asked everyone how much they trusted them, I think it would be a safe bet that the New York Times, for example, would get low to middling marks from conservatives, while Fox News would get straight zeroes from liberals.

It is also interesting to note that only one news source shows up that is generally seen as having a conservative bias, whereas several liberal bias sources showed up (NYT, NPR, MSN(BC)) each with less chance of being mentioned. This makes some sense: Fox has been very aggressive about cornering the conservative market, and while its liberal counterparts may have similarly strong ideological committments, none of them have used those sorts of tactics.

Quote:

Raising taxes reduces consumer spending, reduces demand for goods and services, which drives down the need for employees, raising the unemployment rate, while at the same time lowering national GDP, increasing the proportion of debt to GDP. I think your S&P report points at this being a 'negative indicator'.

Raising taxes on lower and middle classed consumers does this, yes. Raising taxes on the super-rich does not appreciably reduce consumer spending.

Quote:

You're right, government debt is not like private citizens debt. They have, or can legislate, options that we cannot.

I think you're completely missing the point about how government debt is different. But somebody else will be able to explain this better than I can.

[Slawbug]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

Which would you consider a more conservative religion, Christianity, or Islam as practiced under Sharia law?

What does this quesiton have to do with anything? Also, what does this question even mean? How are you using "conservative" here?

EDIT: And also, why are you comparing vanilla Christianity to a particularly extreme form of Islam? Let's compare vanilla to vanilla and extreme to extreme.

Quote:

They don't understand why it is so denigrated by the liberals that a sitting governor should practice that freedom. Did he lose his rights as a citizen just because he took office?

No. However, when he is acting in his capacity as governer, he is not just a private citizen, but is an appendage of the government. Nobody complains about governors going to whatever religious services they want, or even holding them, so long as it is on their own time and is totally separate from their duties as governor.

Quote:

The Establishment Clause forbids the establishment of a state religion, such as the Church of England, that required all citizens to be a member of it. It also prohibits laws that would restrict or prevent the free expression of religion, such as the display of a creche or a menorah, or the wearing of a hijab. That's it, That's all.

Actually, the second part is the Free Exercise Clause, not the Establishment Clause. And it's not as simple as you suggest: as with everything in the Constitution, there is disagreement even among the most studied legal scholars about how it ought to be interpreted. It's fine to say that's your opinion, but it's awfully misleading to present your opinion is if that is just what it says and it's that simple. Check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_clause

Quote:

But the restriction on displaying your faith is not constitutional.

There is no restriction on displaying your faith. The restriction is on the government displaying faith, and elected officials are part of the government when they are acting in their capacity as an elected official.

[Sarachim]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

The Establishment Clause forbids the establishment of a state religion, such as the Church of England, that required all citizens to be a member of it.

The Church of England did not require all British subjects to be members, except insofar as "your taxes support it" counts as membership. The issue wasn't that free exercise was directly restricted law, but that nonmembers were required to support the CoE. So when Rick Perry spends the state's money to attend a religious event, it's actually quite similar to the kind of policy that the Establishment Clause was a response to.

[Alorael at Large]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

1) Raise taxes. I know the Dems call it revenue, but let's call it what it is at the level of the average wage-earner. Raising taxes reduces consumer spending, reduces demand for goods and services, which drives down the need for employees, raising the unemployment rate, while at the same time lowering national GDP, increasing the proportion of debt to GDP. I think your S&P report points at this being a 'negative indicator'.
2) Borrow more money. Let's cut out the middle processes and go straight to increasing the proportion of debt to GDP. BTW, this is important because as this proportion rises, it means that more of the GDP is going to payments on the INTEREST of that debt, and less of it is going to payments on the PRINCIPLE of that debt, and more importantly, less money is available for things like, ooooh, EDUCATION, INFRASTRUCTURE, FEMA, and other services that the federal government is expected, by law, to provide.
3) Print more money. Do I really need to go into the effects of Supply and Demand on currency? I'll sum up in one word: INFLATION.
4) Cut spending. Not Reduce it; that only prolongs the situation we are in.

1. This is commonly claimed, but the actual economic evidence isn't very good to support it. And it's basically nonexistent when you raise the taxes on the upper income brackets and leave them low on the lower brackets. Finally, all solutions to government overspending are bad, but the government does spend all of its money. Unlike businesses and citizens, it's not in the habit of sitting on cash, so revenue in is also spending that boosts the economy.
2. Yes, borrowing less is the point of the exercise.
3. Currently, inflation is so low that it actually might be depressing the economy. If there were more incentive for companies sitting on piles of cash to do something with that cash, it might be back in circulation and feeding the economy. And if inflation goes any lower, we're in deflation territory, and that's disastrous.
4. Cutting and reducing are synonyms. And for every dollar you don't spend, you have to not pay for a dollar's worth of services. Considering all government services employ people and most of them also do things for people, this is not ideal territory.

Consider: the economy is just money moving around. The government doesn't actually need to be efficient to boost the economy. It could pay for nothing in particular and it would still be helping by circulating currency.

—Alorael, who believes that a citizen has the right to any religious practices they want. But as public citizens with public duties, they also take on the responsibility to divorce their public and private personas. You are allowed to say whatever you want in privacy; you are not given that freedom as an official. The same is true of religion.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

Which would you consider a more conservative religion, Christianity, or Islam as practiced under Sharia law? Which nation is more religiously tolerant, the United States or Iran?

Iran has specially reserved seats in its parliament for Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians, to ensure that their voices are heard in the political dialogue. I don't see the United States reserving any seats in Congress for Muslims. So in one regard at least, Iran's government is more dedicated to protecting religious pluralism than the US.

[Alorael at Large]

Christianity's tolerance could be measured by, say, the Inquisition, but that's not actually relevant because we're mostly looking at historically Christian countries that are no longer explicit Christian or, at least, not very heavily Christian. Notably, all those Scandinavian liberal utopias are have Christian state religions.

 

The US is not Christian and never has been. Lack of Christian tolerance was at least recognized as a threat and carefully prevented in the Bill of Rights.

 

—Alorael, who finds it interesting that the country with separation of church and state has more religion in its affairs of state than many countries that have state religions. Perhaps the Founding Fathers were on to something. Perhaps they planted the seed of Christian persecution that has blossomed in American religious politics.

[Harehunter]

Sometimes actions speak louder than words. Reference Al Alarabiya News.

[Lilith]

a government arresting members of a minority religion for allegedly being members of a supposedly subversive group?

 

gee, i can't think of any case in which the US government has done that

[Harehunter]

Non sequiter.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

Non sequiter.

every country has anti-sedition laws, including the US. given that the US government and its allies openly aided rebel organisations in Libya both before and after the recent "revolution", can you blame Iran's government for trying to stop foreign-backed "missionaries" from gaining a foothold in their country?

[A less presumptuous name.]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

So in one regard at least, Iran's government is more dedicated to protecting religious pluralism than the US.

I won't deny you your claim. From that evidence, it is clear that Iran has more safeguards on religious pluralism in the government. The Establishment Clause of the USC, however, does not require the government to protect minority religions. In fact, one could argue that by placing quotes on religious presence in the government, the government would be favoring those religions. If 5% of our population follows a particular religion, for which 8% of the congressional seats are reserved, would the government not then be supporting a religion, and indeed giving it unfair influence in the policy-making of the nation?

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Master1

If 5% of our population follows a particular religion, for which 8% of the congressional seats are reserved, would the government not then be supporting a religion, and indeed giving it unfair influence in the policy-making of the nation?

Well, what amount of influence is "fair"? Even having 8% of the congressional seats wouldn't guarantee that you were responsible for 8% of the policymaking, since getting laws passed doesn't require unanimous approval. Unless a vote is already very close, the main effect of reserving seats for representatives of minority religions will be to give those religious groups a voice in politics and make sure their concerns are at least heard, even if they're not always respected. If it's true that there's been a history of intolerance and persecution of minority religions in Iran, then that seems like an admirable step to redress that injustice. Unless of course you're arguing that Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians do in fact have too much political influence in Iran, but that doesn't appear to be what Harehunter believes...

[A less presumptuous name.]

I suppose my gripe only applies in the perfect world of 100% efficiency and zero wind resistance. If democratic republicanism actually worked, a minority making up 5% of the population would have 5% of the representation and thus have a "fair" share in all policy-making.

 

I'm still reconciling the fact that not everything is perfect in life. It's a rough phase. I do completely respect what Iran is doing. It's very admirable to try to ensure representation of all (significant) minorities. My point was that in placing quotas and strict figures on how many seats must go to certain groups, one runs into the problem that we have with the Electoral College in the first place - variance between the EC outcome and the popular vote.

[Harehunter]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

a government arresting members of a minority religion for allegedly being members of a supposedly subversive group?

gee, i can't think of any case in which the US government has done that

Lilith, Please explain to me how missionaries carrying bibles represents the same threat as this;
9.11.01
The detainees in Gitmo wouldn't be there except for this;
Al Qaeda declaration of war

It is good to remember the past.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

Lilith, Please explain to me how missionaries carrying bibles represents the same threat as this;

I've already mentioned the rebellion in Libya, which was largely organised and funded through religious groups with financial and logistical support from the US and UK. If a government actually being overthrown is not enough of a threat to national security for you, what would be? Missionary work in poorer countries has been used as a front for Western colonialism for as long as it's existed; it's no wonder that many governments are hostile to it.

[Harehunter]

It was in the U.S. interest to leave things alone. On the other hand another group has had an interest in the ouster.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

It was in the U.S. interest to leave things alone.

the us does a lot of things that aren't necessarily in its interests

[Harehunter]

You'll get no disagreement with me on that one.

[Callie]

The spring semester starts next monday for me, and I am taking the following courses:

 

CH 203: American Experience and Constitutional Change

ME 241: Statics

CHE 245: Computers in Chemical Engineering

ENGR 301: Engineering Communications

MATH 352: Probability and Statistics

EE 220: Circuits I

EE 220L: Circuits I Lab

[Actaeon]

ANTH 4110: Human Evolutionary Biology

ANTH 4180: Anthropological Perspectives: Himalayas

ANTH 4610: Medical Anthropology

ANTH 4730: Latin American Culture through Literature and Film

CAMW 4001: Seminar on the American West, Journalism and Literature

 

I have never taken so many of one major before, but as I intend to finish in May, it can't be helped. At least I am spared the computer and math classes which, while potentially enjoyable for Excalibur or my girlfriend, would be rather mind numbing for me. Still, a little astronomy or geology would sure have sweetened the pot.

[nikki.]

Mine starts on Tuesday. I'm kind of annoyed by the classes I'm doing this time; because the syllabus has changed to allow for 20-credit modules next semester, I'm having to do the classes I wanted to do in autumn, and have had to pick other modules for spring.

 

Still, the reading lists are still pretty awesome; I'm convinced (with the exception of Critical Theory) the English department at my school are unable to put on a bad class.

 

Anyway, I'm doing:

 

- Modernism.

- Romantic-period Poetry.

- The Art of Crime: Transgression in Literature and Film.

- Second Year Research Project (basically, a mini-dissertation of a few thousand words on a subject of my choice).

[The Ratt]

ES133: Racial Inequality

BY208: Ecology

CP222: Computer Science 2

CP275: Computer Organization

[Kelandon]

Criminal Law

Property

International Law: China

History of American Legal Education (a seminar — assuming I don't get into Negotiation, which I probably won't)

 

(And of course LRW, which doesn't really count.)

 

Looking forward to it. Will be hard but fun.

[Actaeon]

What does "Property" consist of?

[Dintiradan]

Quote:

THES 919 [Placeholder course to keep full-time status]
STRESS 301
PANIC 301

Also TA for CMPUT 114 ("Introduction to Computing Science") again.

[Kelandon]

Originally Posted By: Actaeon

What does "Property" consist of?

I don't really know, not having taken the class yet, but my impression from the casebook's table of contents is that there's some discussion of legal acquisition of property, types of estates, landlord-tenant law, land transfers, and various legal constraints on the use of land (zoning, eminent domain, that kind of thing). I don't know how much of that we'll actually cover.

[A less presumptuous name.]

Originally Posted By: Excalibur

The spring semester starts next monday for me, and I am taking the following courses:

CH 203: American Experience and Constitutional Change
ME 241: Statics
CHE 245: Computers in Chemical Engineering
ENGR 301: Engineering Communications
MATH 352: Probability and Statistics
EE 220: Circuits I
EE 220L: Circuits I Lab

Not counting the lab separately, that's 6 courses. How do you plan to manage that?