>> ^Spacedog79:

I seem to have been downvoted quite hard for that one, I guess people didn't get the point I was trying to make is where do you get that money for government spending? This is the fundamental problem with our current system, it can only come from the government borrowing, thereby ultimately increacing our debt and inevitably leading to bankruptcy. The idea that we can continue to grow ourselves out of this economic hole is ludicrous and has caused enough environmental and social destruction as it is.
The ONLY solution it for government to STOP borrowing and start issuing money in the public interest without debt. Usury as a means of financing a nation must be sent back to the history books where it belongs.
>> ^sigmel:
>> ^Spacedog79:
Was going so well till he hit #4, spend more before paying down the debt? Nice one genius, how do you spend more under the current system without the goverment borrowing it and creating even more debt than they borrowed. Epic Keynesian fail.
Who's paying this guy, and what interest do they have in the debt based money system?

The idea is that you spend money to create growth (like an investment). Say the government spends $50k to fund a project that will create jobs that result in $10k in taxes a year. In five years you break even, and after that you start making money (ie, a good investment).



To be fair, I wasn't one of the ones who downvoted; I was just trying to explain as I understood it. You get the money for government spending by creating more money. Our interest rates on our bonds are very low right now, so there is no immediate inflation concern. This would have the effect of devaluing our money, but that could help us in terms of making our exports more competitive. If you borrow to create growth, then you should be creating enough in order to cover the initial cost and interest in due time.

Considering that we have such high unemployment, then I feel that using growth to get us out of this is very valid. If unemployment were a lot lower, then obviously we wouldn't have much in the way of ability to grow. But considering we need employment and increased tax revenue, I think creating jobs would be a good move to solve both problems. I also think it is possible to do this in a way that isn't detrimental in an environmental or social way.

I seem to have been downvoted quite hard for that one, I guess people didn't get the point I was trying to make is where do you get that money for government spending? This is the fundamental problem with our current system, it can only come from the government borrowing, thereby ultimately increacing our debt and inevitably leading to bankruptcy. The idea that we can continue to grow ourselves out of this economic hole is ludicrous and has caused enough environmental and social destruction as it is.

The ONLY solution it for government to STOP borrowing and start issuing money in the public interest without debt. Usury as a means of financing a nation must be sent back to the history books where it belongs.

>> ^sigmel:

>> ^Spacedog79:
Was going so well till he hit #4, spend more before paying down the debt? Nice one genius, how do you spend more under the current system without the goverment borrowing it and creating even more debt than they borrowed. Epic Keynesian fail.
Who's paying this guy, and what interest do they have in the debt based money system?

The idea is that you spend money to create growth (like an investment). Say the government spends $50k to fund a project that will create jobs that result in $10k in taxes a year. In five years you break even, and after that you start making money (ie, a good investment).

>> ^Spacedog79:

Was going so well till he hit #4, spend more before paying down the debt? Nice one genius, how do you spend more under the current system without the goverment borrowing it and creating even more debt than they borrowed. Epic Keynesian fail.
Who's paying this guy, and what interest do they have in the debt based money system?


The idea is that you spend money to create growth (like an investment). Say the government spends $50k to fund a project that will create jobs that result in $10k in taxes a year. In five years you break even, and after that you start making money (ie, a good investment).

I assume you do software or networking Wax. What is your cert in?

I dropped out of HS too, got a GED. My 2 yr college (electronics) cost me less than $10k. I have worked in software ever since.

Sorry your healthcare provider thinks you living for 6 more months isnt worth the 10k it'll cost. But have you seen this frickin awesome plane!?

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

And doctors--which as a doctor he noted he ALWAYS did take care of. And another thing, churches around here raise 10K for a man who needed a lung transplant. It was enough for his medications to have the surgery done. Would it be enough for everyone? No. But Paul's view is not wrong--it just relies on people like you and me, your friends and family to work

well said. Also, people can't afford or can't get health care period. Maybe when the middle class goes away and 90% of people won't be able to afford health insurance; maybe then the British health system (NHS) will start looking appealing!

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^bcglorf:
Me wonder's what Ron Paul's most radical proponents think of his response here. I'd imagine much cheering when he stood his ground on people choosing their own consequences, and then a little hesitation at insisting the government shouldn't spend it's own money to save that life. Still, I do believe his Libertarian supporters were still in good agreement. Then he went and said that is something we should let the churches take care of... How does something like that sit with the radical left freedom not of but from religion Libertarian crowd?

And doctors--which as a doctor he noted he ALWAYS did take care of. And another thing, churches around here raise 10K for a man who needed a lung transplant. It was enough for his medications to have the surgery done. Would it be enough for everyone? No. But Paul's view is not wrong--it just relies on people like you and me, your friends and family to work
Btw: That wasn't an insult to you. I am actually agreeing with you but for different reasons. My main point is "When you vote for someone who tells the truth you might not get anything you want. But when you vote a liar, you get what you deserve."


I mostly agree. I just know there is a large base of Ron Paul supporters whose extreme views on Libertarianism are matched with equally extreme views against any and all religion. Here, Ron Paul points to churches as one of the biggest examples of where the support to implement his idea would come from. I remain very curious what that base feels and thinks on hearing that. Is it glad to let the religious waste their dollars? Is it horror that the church would selectively help only those it approves of? Is it just suppressed and internalized for later?

>> ^bcglorf:

Me wonder's what Ron Paul's most radical proponents think of his response here. I'd imagine much cheering when he stood his ground on people choosing their own consequences, and then a little hesitation at insisting the government shouldn't spend it's own money to save that life. Still, I do believe his Libertarian supporters were still in good agreement. Then he went and said that is something we should let the churches take care of... How does something like that sit with the radical left freedom not of but from religion Libertarian crowd?


And doctors--which as a doctor he noted he ALWAYS did take care of. And another thing, churches around here raise 10K for a man who needed a lung transplant. It was enough for his medications to have the surgery done. Would it be enough for everyone? No. But Paul's view is not wrong--it just relies on people like you and me, your friends and family to work

Btw: That wasn't an insult to you. I am actually agreeing with you but for different reasons. My main point is "When you vote for someone who tells the truth you might not get anything you want. But when you vote a liar, you get what you deserve."

Great Product. I would love to try it even though I'm not exactly the sporty type. But 10k(Aus I suppose) ?? No thanks. Absurd price. You can practically buy a car for that price. Lower it to the price of a scooter, and you'll be selling it through the roof.

This has a lot to do with what is happening in this country. It's a charade, on one hand you have these bizarre christian fundamentalists who say they want "small government" when actually they want to control the lives of Americans through their own personal agendas. Then you have corporations who seek to control the masses through lobbyists so you keep buying their products.

It's relevant because in many public schools they eat subsidized corporate garbage. Some schools have corporate advertising. The school's have PTO's run by a bunch of garbage eating, fundamentalist christians and everyone wants control of some personal agenda & crusade and enforce it on everyone else. Teachers are supposed to be knowledgeable about their topics, fuck your stupid standard curriculum syllabus and let them teach kids the best way they can. Stop making America sterile!

What the hell happened to this country, why does everything have to be controlled and why can't we just listen to one another, argue if need be. Maybe, just maybe I am wrong, maybe you're wrong but hopefully one of us fucking learns something. And if I am wrong I'll admit it, I won't go on some anti-intellectual crusade and try to obscure FACTS. This country needs to relearn what is necessary/unnecessary to control.

Teachers should be paid well. The irony is I went to a private school for Junior High & some high school. All the kids were rich spoiled brats, some of them had lambos & Vipers... the teachers were the best I ever had. But, I could make as much as those teachers working at fucking Kinkos. It's hilarious to think that that really is the way America works. My parents spent 10k a year & those teachers were paid less than 30k/yr. Sure, it was a "better" environment than a public school for those teachers - but their whole objective was to get these brats into Princeton. Oh, but we don't want democratic laws & regulations to tell us how we should run businesses & schools... please.

Due to entropy, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, etc, we know that there isn't such a thing as a perpetual motion machine. Everything which begins to exist does appear to end, including the Universe. For instance, the expansion of the Universe into heat death. A record player will wear out, a DVD player will break down. I believe that the temporal is temporary because it was created with a specific purpose which will end. After that, only that which is perfected and can co-exist with God eternally will remain.

Yes, talk of the eternal is intelligible. It doesn't mean we can't grasp a few concepts about it. One, it lasts forever, always has been, always will be. It never began to exist and it will never end. Two, it is essentially perfect, because it doesn't break down. It has no real flaw or weakness. It is self-contained and nothing could be added to it to make it better than it is in this sense.

Yes, you can doubt anything, but reality is orderly. It has a way which works and makes sense. I'm not sure why you believe time is only in the mind, because we can do very precise experiments on forces which show time as an emergent conception. What we perceive of time may be faulty, but clearly everything isn't happening at once; there is a logical progression to events which suggests time is more than in our minds.

As far as astronomical history you're talking about a history which is completely speculative and not based on observation, ie the origin of the moon, dinosaurs etc. If you doubt so much, why do you accept the secular narrative as truth? There are certain things such as the existence of the short period comets that proves a young earth. IE, if they're still here it means the Earth can't be that old. The secular narrative inserts the illusive and unobservable "Oort cloud" which supposedly replenishes all the comets.

Yes, I believe knowledge is certain and true, but I think you must see how limited beings with limited perceptions and knowledge take quite a bit on faith. Just in your normal life, you must see past your senses to navigate and interact with reality. You don't know everything that is going to happen, or even what you do know is even reliable, but you make the best of it. I don't see how anything could pass the "certainty" test.

I said what is spiritual couldn't be empircally proven, but I believe God has material evidence because He is a part of history. Where the rubber meets the road is the resurrection of Christ. God did interact with this world; He redeemed it. God isn't beholden to the world though, as if He needs anything..it is by Grace that He interacts with us. I will also tell you that God proves Himself. He promised to reveal Himself to those who come to Him in repentance of sin, who believe in Him and His resurrection and confess Him as Lord. To those He reveals Himself and grants eternal life. God can change a skeptic to a believer in a nanosecond, but He isn't going to show Himself to the world until the right time. What He wants is a heart willing to change, a broken and contrite heart coming to Him in total humility.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
@shinyblurry
There is no logical necessity for time to have an ending only because it had a beginning. A record player spinning with no end comes to mind. There is no reason to assume the end is necessarily destruction. A comparable analogy would be would be when a DVD is over; the fact that it has ended has nothing to do with its eradication. Either is plausible. There is also no reason to assume that something eternal will arise from temporal. It isn't impossible either, mind you, just not necessarily or shown to be the case.
I don't think it is possible to think about what is more plausible about eternity. We have no idea how to predicate eternity. We don't know "Being" is a consistent idea with "Eternal". Any type of talk about eternal is unintelligible. I don't mean that in a rude way, what I mean is I have no reason to believe anything that is said. If 2 things are logically possible, and I have no understanding of what it means to be eternal, then any talk about what is the more "likely" mode of an eternal metaphysics is a fruitless debate, rife with personal bias and little else.
And once again, this whole line of thought revolves around the very subjective idea of time. I have had no compelling argument to show time to be anything more than an experience of minds any more than the color blue. I have no reason to accept time as anything more than the way in which minds alter the information of the universe to make us more successful creatures.
I don't understand, beyond bias, why you would accept data about a young earth vs an old one with any less skepticism. Assuming they are using the same dating methods, why trust 10k year old earth and not 13 billion? The detective work that goes into the methods of age aren't perfect, prone to mis-calibration, and lack true modes to calibrate with, but it never claimed to be exact, just a rough cut. When they talk about the ages of dinosaurs, it usually has 50ish million year give or takes. Even our own solar history, and the history of our moon, and of Mars speak far more about a much older universe than a 10k year old one. I also can't see the Grand Canyon being made in 10k years. But isn't is a debate on the Christion bible, but on a more basic idea.
I am not an empiricist. I believe my classification is either a existential phenomenologist, or perhaps an transcendental idealist...most likely a combination of the two great schools of rationalism and empiricism. For me, knowledge is the same as Descartes put it. It is certain, and it is true. By certain, that means it passes Cartesian doubt. More to the point, it means that it has the right stuff to have an answer to every criticism. It is the opposite of doubt, it is certain. In that, religious evidence fails the certainty test, as the main element of all the great religions isn't knowledge, but faith. So to your point, prove that it can be known, with certainty and without any doubt any of the claims you have made, you would be the first in history to do so, to my knowledge. And to say that God can not be empirically proven seems rather lonely, for it means that God does not interact with this world; as empirical study is the world as it is beholden to man. If God is not beholden to the world which man exists, then he isn't really our God.

@shinyblurry

There is no logical necessity for time to have an ending only because it had a beginning. A record player spinning with no end comes to mind. There is no reason to assume the end is necessarily destruction. A comparable analogy would be would be when a DVD is over; the fact that it has ended has nothing to do with its eradication. Either is plausible. There is also no reason to assume that something eternal will arise from temporal. It isn't impossible either, mind you, just not necessarily or shown to be the case.

I don't think it is possible to think about what is more plausible about eternity. We have no idea how to predicate eternity. We don't know "Being" is a consistent idea with "Eternal". Any type of talk about eternal is unintelligible. I don't mean that in a rude way, what I mean is I have no reason to believe anything that is said. If 2 things are logically possible, and I have no understanding of what it means to be eternal, then any talk about what is the more "likely" mode of an eternal metaphysics is a fruitless debate, rife with personal bias and little else.

And once again, this whole line of thought revolves around the very subjective idea of time. I have had no compelling argument to show time to be anything more than an experience of minds any more than the color blue. I have no reason to accept time as anything more than the way in which minds alter the information of the universe to make us more successful creatures.

I don't understand, beyond bias, why you would accept data about a young earth vs an old one with any less skepticism. Assuming they are using the same dating methods, why trust 10k year old earth and not 13 billion? The detective work that goes into the methods of age aren't perfect, prone to mis-calibration, and lack true modes to calibrate with, but it never claimed to be exact, just a rough cut. When they talk about the ages of dinosaurs, it usually has 50ish million year give or takes. Even our own solar history, and the history of our moon, and of Mars speak far more about a much older universe than a 10k year old one. I also can't see the Grand Canyon being made in 10k years. But isn't is a debate on the Christion bible, but on a more basic idea.

I am not an empiricist. I believe my classification is either a existential phenomenologist, or perhaps an transcendental idealist...most likely a combination of the two great schools of rationalism and empiricism. For me, knowledge is the same as Descartes put it. It is certain, and it is true. By certain, that means it passes Cartesian doubt. More to the point, it means that it has the right stuff to have an answer to every criticism. It is the opposite of doubt, it is certain. In that, religious evidence fails the certainty test, as the main element of all the great religions isn't knowledge, but faith. So to your point, prove that it can be known, with certainty and without any doubt any of the claims you have made, you would be the first in history to do so, to my knowledge. And to say that God can not be empirically proven seems rather lonely, for it means that God does not interact with this world; as empirical study is the world as it is beholden to man. If God is not beholden to the world which man exists, then he isn't really our God.

I am assuming that time is somewhat meaningless, actually. I assume that time had a beginning when the Universe was created and will have an end when the Universe is destroyed, and after that existence will be eternal. I think a Creator is far more plausible than an arbitrary process that mimics one. For one, there is no impetus for anything to happen in eternity. It wasn't caused so there is no inertia for anything to happen; it is infinitely stable. Why should a well ordered temporal Universe that creates beings that ask these questions spontaneously arise from an eternal continuim?

Our dating methods are far from infallable. Scientists have dated rocks they knew the age of (within decades) and yielded ages of millions and billions of years. Archaelogists have found human fossils and tools in rocks that were supposedely hundreds of millions of years old. Fossils don't have date tags on them, and there is this circular logic of using the rocks to date the fossils and the fossils to date the rocks. I could give you hundreds of examples of flaws with dating methodology. There is quite a bit of evidence supporting a young earth and a young Universe.

I think you're assuming that the truth cannot be known, or if it could, it isn't accessible. In my experience, it can be known, and absolutely at that. Empirical proof for a spiritual creation does not or could not technically exist. God can never be empirically proven because He is a Spirit, and more than that, exists outside of space and time. That doesn't mean there isn't any evidence, it just means that you can't put God in a testtube and derive a result.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
@shinyblurry
Your assuming time is a real element of existence and not an element of minds. In addition, a "Being" is not the only logical necessary/essential element of the starting point of existence. If anything, a "Being" has more baggage to explain than an arbitrary set of meta rules governing all things that exist. Hawking had an explanation close to this, though, like most scientists, his philosophy missed the mark ever so slightly (100% claims to materialistic causes don't have concrete foundation).
The big bang, however, has certain problematic elements to most religions creation explanations, mainly the element of their self contained explanations of the passage of set amounts of time. A 14 billion (or so, it keeps changing!) year old universe is way off the mark for most of the creation events we have from the larger religions. Even if the big bang isn't entirely accurate, if the time window for the universe is even marginally accurate, the 10k year old earth proposition seems highly dubious. There is some wiggle room, but it mostly seems like an equivocation of the actual text of Genesis.
In closing, it isn't any more certain that the cause of all things is an "eternal being" anymore than it is an "eternal formula". It also isn't certain that; time is a real thing, events are causally linked, or that a human can making any intelligible claims to the way "Noumenon" MUST exist. </lunch break rant>

@shinyblurry

Your assuming time is a real element of existence and not an element of minds. In addition, a "Being" is not the only logical necessary/essential element of the starting point of existence. If anything, a "Being" has more baggage to explain than an arbitrary set of meta rules governing all things that exist. Hawking had an explanation close to this, though, like most scientists, his philosophy missed the mark ever so slightly (100% claims to materialistic causes don't have concrete foundation).

The big bang, however, has certain problematic elements to most religions creation explanations, mainly the element of their self contained explanations of the passage of set amounts of time. A 14 billion (or so, it keeps changing!) year old universe is way off the mark for most of the creation events we have from the larger religions. Even if the big bang isn't entirely accurate, if the time window for the universe is even marginally accurate, the 10k year old earth proposition seems highly dubious. There is some wiggle room, but it mostly seems like an equivocation of the actual text of Genesis.

In closing, it isn't any more certain that the cause of all things is an "eternal being" anymore than it is an "eternal formula". It also isn't certain that; time is a real thing, events are causally linked, or that a human can making any intelligible claims to the way "Noumenon" MUST exist. </lunch break rant>