The door is open.

Thanks.

Anyway, I think it is foolish for anyone to say that god does not exist and they know it. But, god could mean so many things. All I know is that a bunch of dudes wrote the Bible based on older stories. It is man made, there may be some truth to it but there is some truth to everything. The kind of fascism hypocricy that today's extremist republican christians exhibit disgusts me. They would let rich, corrupt motherfuckers, manipulate them for their own gain and throw them from a plane. Their perception of reality is so completely bent by right wing think tanks and corporatism that they live in some sort of Christian inspired DaDa universe while the rich send their zombie minds to the polls to vote with their manipulated hearts and steal every last penny from their coffers as they self willingly turn a blind eye.

Well, in this context God means the being that created the Universe. The scripture claims to be revelation from this God, in the person of Jesus Christ. God says we have all sinned and are accountable to Him for our sins, but He sent a Savior who paid the price for our sins so we could be forgiven and have eternal life with Him. Jesus says everyone who comes to God must go through Him:

John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

So, God could be many things, but there is only one way to know God according to Jesus. So, it's not something you can just pick and choose from. If Jesus wasn't raised from the dead, none of it is true. I have found His claims to be true.

I can't speak for your impressions of Christians as seen through the lens of our current culture, but seen through the lens of society at large Christians have been a force for good. Before the welfare system was created, the church in America was providing the social safety net, and still does in a number of ways. They're the ones running the charities, food banks, youth centers, blood drives, homeless shelters, etc. Look in any community, you will undoubtedly find Christians taking care of the poor and doing good works. I'm not saying there are no secular charities, food banks, etc, but this is something the church is well noted for.

There is some truth to what you say. Christians are not perfect, and unfortunately in the western church this sometimes becomes very apparent. You do not usually see this kind of behavior from Christians in countries where there is some cost to becoming a Christian. When there is no cost to following Christ, the church becomes lazy and apostate, as you see today in America. A good percentage of American Christians probably are not saved. This isn't though a reason to reject Jesus. He in fact predicted this behavior from Christians in Matthew 24. It is simply that we are not following His ways that you see this kind of behavior.

Question: Do you have any church background or were you raised in a secular home?

I agree with quite a bit of what you said, and I should have been more clear. Democrats for the most part do not acknowledge that Affirmative Action is not improving racial tensions. I haven't seen any credible reports that demonstrate it is helping. But they generally insist it is.

And it is a fact that the US military capability is significantly reduced when funding is cut by significant amounts. That may be an acceptable outcome for you, and if so, we can agree to disagree about differing opinions. I'm talking about the Democrats who often say to do it, and then pretend it won't have an impact on military capability. Cutting defense funding for example would have very likely precluded the US from taking Bin Laden out because it took a lot of resources that likely wouldn't have been available. Good chance we wouldn't have had the intelligence, the Seals personnel available to pull it off, basing rights necessary, etc. etc. That stuff gets conveniently forgotten. I'm fine with a disagreement about if more of an isolationist policy would be beneficial for the US, that kind of thing. But some liberals pretend they can have it both ways. We can have just as robust and capable military/intelligence unit with significantly less funding if it's cut too much.

That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. But I do agree with you - the definition of a conservative is narrowing to absurd proportions, and they're broadening the definitions of liberal, socialist, and communist. Obamacare isn't socialism, or communism. It's a few ticks to the left of what we currently have.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^heropsycho:
The only thing that proves is the Democratic party is more splintered, and the GOP is more disciplined. There are plenty of facts the Democrats flat out reject. One issue for example I'm against the Democrats on is Affirmative Action. I think it was a necessary instrument to force racial integration in the beginning, but now it's doing more harm than good. Affirmative Action doesn't seem to be doing a much good, and the cost is having whites constantly assuming a minority only got the job because of a quota, even when it's not true. Yes, there's still racism in the workplace and hiring, but Affirmative Action isn't the way to combat that any longer.
I think most in the Democratic Party are against cutting social safety net spending in the long run even though it is necessary. The cuts in military that would be necessary to prevent having to do that would result in a military that both the Democrats and Republicans would find unacceptable whenever the crap hits the fan. The Democratic Party does also seem to gloss over how bad social programs get gamed by those who don't truly need it.
Both sides are guilty of choosing the facts that suit them.
But, I will agree it's significantly worse on the GOP side. That's why I feel like they're pushing me to vote Democrat. You can call me a lot of things, but it's disingenuous to label me a liberal or conservative. But it seems that the definition of conservative is narrowing as it's pushed farther to the extreme right, and what is labelled liberal is ever expanding.
Obamacare as a perfect example - it's deemed to be an extremely liberal/Socialist policy, and I for the life of me can't see how. It's a very mild liberal reform. It's not the gov't option, or single payer. It's a few clicks to the left on the dial from where we were. Raising the top income tax bracket rate a few percentage points makes this country socialist? Please.
>> ^NetRunner:
At least you recognize there's some asymmetry, but "both sides" aren't guilty of the same thing.
It's sorta like saying punching someone in a bar, and committing murder are the same thing. Technically they are a breach of the same moral edict (don't harm people), but the difference of intensity is so large it puts them into qualitatively different criminal categories.
For example, can you name anything that's the left's equivalent to global warming denial?
Keep in mind, it has to truly be equivalent -- it has to be a belief contrary to an overwhelming majority of experts, and has to be believed (or denied) by virtually everyone who calls themself a liberal. Furthermore, it needs to be a core belief of the liberal movement. It needs to be an issue where saying the (heretical) truth about an issue could get you drummed out of the Democratic party and the broader political movement.
I can't name any issue like that. Can you?
>> ^heropsycho:
I'll agree it's more so on the right, but both sides are guilty of this.
>> ^NetRunner:
It's this kind of behavior from the right that really has me worried. It's one thing for people to be skeptical about information from a particular source, but what we're seeing from the right today is a blanket rejection of all information that comes from outside their own partisan network of sources.



Your two examples of "facts" liberals reject are actually opinions.
This is a statement of fact: "Hiring quotas are illegal in the U.S."
This is a statement of opinion: "I think it was a necessary instrument to force racial integration in the beginning, but now it's doing more harm than good."
And of course, some liberals agree with you. Possibly even several Democrats with seats in Congress.
My point is, conservatives frequently deny verifiable factual information, which is different from spin. Everyone "spins" for sure, but that's minimizing and rationalizing facts that seem to contradict a larger political argument. Conservatives are fond of simply denying the facts themselves.
Conservatives spinning global warming would sound like "Global warming won't be so bad, think of the boom in agriculture when you can grow bananas in Ohio!" Liberals denying the facts on Affirmative action would sound like "Affirmative action doesn't negatively affect any white people, and anyone who says otherwise is part of the vast right-wing conspiracy to reinstate slavery!"
And to your point about cohesiveness, some liberal somewhere saying something like that doesn't mean that liberals and conservatives should be considered equally guilty. Most liberals don't feel that way, whereas the cohesiveness of the conservatives means it's hard for me to find one who doesn't think global warming is some sort of hoax perpetrated for liberal political gain.
A big frustration for me as a self-proclaimed liberal is that I'm already a moderate in the middle. I'm not the left pole in hardly any political debate. And yet there are a ton of people (more in media than around here) who self-consciously try to position themselves "in the middle" by staking out positions to the right of me, and to the left of the Republicans. But doing that doesn't land you in the middle, it lands you way out on the right...because these days "liberal" just means "not a conservative", not that you're some sort of real left-wing ideologue.

>> ^heropsycho:

The only thing that proves is the Democratic party is more splintered, and the GOP is more disciplined. There are plenty of facts the Democrats flat out reject. One issue for example I'm against the Democrats on is Affirmative Action. I think it was a necessary instrument to force racial integration in the beginning, but now it's doing more harm than good. Affirmative Action doesn't seem to be doing a much good, and the cost is having whites constantly assuming a minority only got the job because of a quota, even when it's not true. Yes, there's still racism in the workplace and hiring, but Affirmative Action isn't the way to combat that any longer.
I think most in the Democratic Party are against cutting social safety net spending in the long run even though it is necessary. The cuts in military that would be necessary to prevent having to do that would result in a military that both the Democrats and Republicans would find unacceptable whenever the crap hits the fan. The Democratic Party does also seem to gloss over how bad social programs get gamed by those who don't truly need it.
Both sides are guilty of choosing the facts that suit them.
But, I will agree it's significantly worse on the GOP side. That's why I feel like they're pushing me to vote Democrat. You can call me a lot of things, but it's disingenuous to label me a liberal or conservative. But it seems that the definition of conservative is narrowing as it's pushed farther to the extreme right, and what is labelled liberal is ever expanding.
Obamacare as a perfect example - it's deemed to be an extremely liberal/Socialist policy, and I for the life of me can't see how. It's a very mild liberal reform. It's not the gov't option, or single payer. It's a few clicks to the left on the dial from where we were. Raising the top income tax bracket rate a few percentage points makes this country socialist? Please.
>> ^NetRunner:
At least you recognize there's some asymmetry, but "both sides" aren't guilty of the same thing.
It's sorta like saying punching someone in a bar, and committing murder are the same thing. Technically they are a breach of the same moral edict (don't harm people), but the difference of intensity is so large it puts them into qualitatively different criminal categories.
For example, can you name anything that's the left's equivalent to global warming denial?
Keep in mind, it has to truly be equivalent -- it has to be a belief contrary to an overwhelming majority of experts, and has to be believed (or denied) by virtually everyone who calls themself a liberal. Furthermore, it needs to be a core belief of the liberal movement. It needs to be an issue where saying the (heretical) truth about an issue could get you drummed out of the Democratic party and the broader political movement.
I can't name any issue like that. Can you?
>> ^heropsycho:
I'll agree it's more so on the right, but both sides are guilty of this.
>> ^NetRunner:
It's this kind of behavior from the right that really has me worried. It's one thing for people to be skeptical about information from a particular source, but what we're seeing from the right today is a blanket rejection of all information that comes from outside their own partisan network of sources.




Your two examples of "facts" liberals reject are actually opinions.

This is a statement of fact: "Hiring quotas are illegal in the U.S."

This is a statement of opinion: "I think it was a necessary instrument to force racial integration in the beginning, but now it's doing more harm than good."

And of course, some liberals agree with you. Possibly even several Democrats with seats in Congress.

My point is, conservatives frequently deny verifiable factual information, which is different from spin. Everyone "spins" for sure, but that's minimizing and rationalizing facts that seem to contradict a larger political argument. Conservatives are fond of simply denying the facts themselves.

Conservatives spinning global warming would sound like "Global warming won't be so bad, think of the boom in agriculture when you can grow bananas in Ohio!" Liberals denying the facts on Affirmative action would sound like "Affirmative action doesn't negatively affect any white people, and anyone who says otherwise is part of the vast right-wing conspiracy to reinstate slavery!"

And to your point about cohesiveness, some liberal somewhere saying something like that doesn't mean that liberals and conservatives should be considered equally guilty. Most liberals don't feel that way, whereas the cohesiveness of the conservatives means it's hard for me to find one who doesn't think global warming is some sort of hoax perpetrated for liberal political gain.

A big frustration for me as a self-proclaimed liberal is that I'm already a moderate in the middle. I'm not the left pole in hardly any political debate. And yet there are a ton of people (more in media than around here) who self-consciously try to position themselves "in the middle" by staking out positions to the right of me, and to the left of the Republicans. But doing that doesn't land you in the middle, it lands you way out on the right...because these days "liberal" just means "not a conservative", not that you're some sort of real left-wing ideologue.

The only thing that proves is the Democratic party is more splintered, and the GOP is more disciplined. There are plenty of facts the Democrats flat out reject. One issue for example I'm against the Democrats on is Affirmative Action. I think it was a necessary instrument to force racial integration in the beginning, but now it's doing more harm than good. Affirmative Action doesn't seem to be doing a much good, and the cost is having whites constantly assuming a minority only got the job because of a quota, even when it's not true. Yes, there's still racism in the workplace and hiring, but Affirmative Action isn't the way to combat that any longer.

I think most in the Democratic Party are against cutting social safety net spending in the long run even though it is necessary. The cuts in military that would be necessary to prevent having to do that would result in a military that both the Democrats and Republicans would find unacceptable whenever the crap hits the fan. The Democratic Party does also seem to gloss over how bad social programs get gamed by those who don't truly need it.

Both sides are guilty of choosing the facts that suit them.

But, I will agree it's significantly worse on the GOP side. That's why I feel like they're pushing me to vote Democrat. You can call me a lot of things, but it's disingenuous to label me a liberal or conservative. But it seems that the definition of conservative is narrowing as it's pushed farther to the extreme right, and what is labelled liberal is ever expanding.

Obamacare as a perfect example - it's deemed to be an extremely liberal/Socialist policy, and I for the life of me can't see how. It's a very mild liberal reform. It's not the gov't option, or single payer. It's a few clicks to the left on the dial from where we were. Raising the top income tax bracket rate a few percentage points makes this country socialist? Please.

>> ^NetRunner:

At least you recognize there's some asymmetry, but "both sides" aren't guilty of the same thing.
It's sorta like saying punching someone in a bar, and committing murder are the same thing. Technically they are a breach of the same moral edict (don't harm people), but the difference of intensity is so large it puts them into qualitatively different criminal categories.
For example, can you name anything that's the left's equivalent to global warming denial?
Keep in mind, it has to truly be equivalent -- it has to be a belief contrary to an overwhelming majority of experts, and has to be believed (or denied) by virtually everyone who calls themself a liberal. Furthermore, it needs to be a core belief of the liberal movement. It needs to be an issue where saying the (heretical) truth about an issue could get you drummed out of the Democratic party and the broader political movement.
I can't name any issue like that. Can you?
>> ^heropsycho:
I'll agree it's more so on the right, but both sides are guilty of this.
>> ^NetRunner:
It's this kind of behavior from the right that really has me worried. It's one thing for people to be skeptical about information from a particular source, but what we're seeing from the right today is a blanket rejection of all information that comes from outside their own partisan network of sources.

In America, the word "libertarian" has come to mean conservative libertarian (lower right quadrant) and the word "liberal" means left libertarian (lower left quadrant). This is why Neo Conservatives, Neo Liberals, Anti War Capitalists, Anti Capitalist Anarchists and Social Democrats can all consider themselves libertarian. Everyone has their own idea of what liberty means and how to achieve it, be it war, capitalism or democracy.

Also, you can have liberty FROM something (negative liberty) and liberty TO DO something (positive liberty). Both are important. Left libertarianism is more about the positive (equality, civil rights, healthcare, education, social safety net), right libertarianism is more about negative liberty ("individual liberty" -a loaded term imo, lower taxes, less regulation, smaller government, austerity).

I don't think this test is run by libertarians, though I could be wrong. I believe this is the quiz they give at the American Libertarian Party boothf, which is far more dubious and leading: http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz

i mostly agree with you, but i would say there are some pretty important difference between the typical lifestyle in the us and the typical lifestyle in other western nations.

for example, people in other western nations tend to walk more and depend on their cars less. even if it's walking to the nearest train or bus station, they still walked 200 steps farther than their american counterparts. this becomes more apparent when you look at the fattest cities in the US and at their public transportation method. houston used to be at the top of the list (it might still be, it's been a while since i've checked).. i grew up in houston, my husband still lives there. public transportation is a BAD. it's weird too because it's such a massive, populous city and every time they've planned a rail system, it gets shelved. it's super hot and super humid and super unsafe, so noone walks. houstonians. drive. everywhere. and. they. are. fat.

i can think of a lot more slight lifestyle difference that i think add up, but i just go too tired to elaborate on all of them. here's the bullet points.
-cultural attitude towards meals (europeans tend to spend more time and eat slower, which is proven to help you eat less)
-other western nations outrank the us in education (use your imagination to come up with the benefits of that)
-social safety net (an american with a $4/day food stamp budget is destined to be a bargain shopper-which means cheap, fatty, unhealthy foods)
blah blah blah >> ^packo:

>> ^spoco2:
Yeah, he may be schooled, but he didn't believe it did he? That's the problem with so many of these incorrect beliefs... you can't change their mind because they just don't believe what you're saying because it happens to be in line with the government.
Therefore must be wrong somehow.
Frustrating as hell to watch

i wouldn't call this schooling, because FRIST could barely string together a coherent point (partly due to Bill)...
what I find frustrating is Frist trying to say FOR PROFIT HEALTHCARE isn't the problem... and he goes on to describe lifestyle and diet as the main cause of all the poor rankings the US receives in regards to healthcare
what it completely ignores is how the lifestyle/diet he's pointing out... isn't singular to the US... but is QUITE common in WESTERN NATIONS... the point of difference is the availability/cost of healthcare... because all it takes is quick glance at those 20 WESTERN NATIONS, that outperform the US at a much cheaper cost.... and you realize, while they ALL have similar lifestyles/diets... the US is the only nation without universal healthcare
that's not to say WESTERN MEDICINE as a whole doesn't fail at emphasizing prevention as opposed to treating conditions after they occur....
just pointing out the fact that the US diet/lifestyle... isn't exactly EXOTIC in WESTERN NATIONS
while UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE is EXOTIC ("scary") in the US

@bmacs27 I've been wanting to come back and reply for a couple days now, but didn't have the time. Now I hesitate to messing with the good conversation that followed, so I'll just touch on the points I'm interested in from the whole conversation. If I skip something you really wanted me to answer, let me know!

For one, I do tend to have an odd mix of pro-market and anti-market beliefs. On unemployment, my answer is that in an ideal world, I would want people entitled to some sort of minimum guaranteed income, no matter whether what they do. I like unemployment insurance because it's kinda like that, only with pragmatic real-world strings attached (it's limited in duration, and you've gotta be looking for work and not finding anything, and it stops when you get a new job...).

heropsycho already gave the more economics-minded answer I would've given about unemployment benefits helping prop up demand, and keep the economy from shedding even more jobs. I'd go along with your "you get unemployment, but we're going to make it contingent on you attending free job retraining", but I'd also go along with a WPA-style "we won't pay you unemployment, we'll just directly hire you" sort of arrangement, especially in a jobs market full of laid off construction workers.

heropsycho also gave the succinct answer I was going to give about hoarding labor -- worker salaries and benefits are always on the "cost" side of the company's ledger, and people often get fired long before they become an outright loss to the business. Usually it's because you've become less profitable than what they think they could make by replacing you with someone else (or by just by making other workers work more hours).

And no, I'm not a protectionist who wants to see unions and/or government forcing companies to employ people who're losing them money, I'm in favor of having a social safety net so there's no moral issue with companies laying people off (that's why I like the idea of a minimum guaranteed income).

On the topic of whose economic theories we've followed post-Volcker, for the most part, it's been Monetarist-style monetary policy, coupled with ideological right-wing fiscal policy. Namely, a targeted package of policies aimed at redistributing wealth from the poor and middle classes to the rich. That still leaves things a bit blurry, because the only economic justifications for debt-fueled tax cuts are Keynesian, and modern (New) Keynesians have largely adopted monetarist notions of monetary policy.

But the big disagreement between modern Monetarists and modern Keynesians is about fiscal policy -- Monetarists say it can't work, Keynesians say it can. Part of what confuses people a bit, is that Republicans adopt whatever economic theory justifies what they started out wanting to do. Keynes is right when they want to borrow money to cut taxes, Monetarists are right when Obama wants to pass a stimulus program, and Austrians are right when the Fed tries to help the economy by printing money when a Democrat is in the White House.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
One thing that's never mentioned in these cases is that the majority of our taxes goes to militarism, nation-building, corporate welfare and wars.
I haven't actually read all the comments on this thread yet, but I already see you've repeated this line twice here, and recently aimed it at me elsewhere, so let me just step in and point out that it's "never mentioned" because it's utterly and completely false.
Here's a breakdown of what our taxes go to. You'll notice that the slice of the pie for defense (including the wars) is 20%. That's not a "majority".
If you add together Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and other safety net programs, you get 55%. That happens to actually be a majority.
Also keep in mind that the Republicans don't want the defense budget cut at all, while the Democrats are putting most of their proposed cuts in defense.

The great thing about statistics is they change depending on where you get them. Here's one that claims defense spending is 25%.
But then there's this piechart which not only accounts what they claim to be 36% current defense spending budget (based on 2009), but also the past military expenses plus interest on that debt. That brings the percentage up to a majority of money spent on militarism. As I said.


That's why you have to pay attention to what you're looking at. My link and your first link are pretty much doing the same thing -- looking at the actual budget, and rolling things up into broad categories, while still telling you how the categories are comprised. Both show military spending to be sizable, but far less than a "majority" of spending. They both show a majority of spending going to social saftety net programs, too.

Your second link does claim military spending is a majority of government spending, but to do that they have to really twist the numbers. For example, they refuse to count outlays from "Trust Fund" programs as spending. That means they don't include Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid in their pie chart at all. Add that back in, and even their doubled figure for military spending still falls short of 50% of all spending.

The majority of our taxes go towards social safety net programs, not the military.

I think debt is a bigger problem in Europe because they have much larger debts (per capita).
They do all have soverign currency still, don't they? I thought they all just added the euro, not replaced their currency. If you're right, YIKES!
I disagree that we have control of our currency since we left the gold standard, but that's a different discussion althogether. We certainly do have the control to devalue it, just maybe not re-value it.
You say 'at worst, inflation' as if that's just fine, but remember Germany after WW1, they 'just' had inflation to pay their crushing debt, it started with them needing a wheelbarrow full of deutchmarks to buy a loaf of bread, and ended with the creation of the Nazi's and WW2. I think they also defaulted in the end. Inflation can be a nation killer.
I have repeatedly said the same thing to you about ballance, but reversed. There's no need to focus solely on taxes either, it's a ballance thing. You seem to be focused solely on raising taxes as a way out of the problem, I'm saying that's only 1/2 the solution (that should not translate into 'I don't think low tax rates are a problem' or 'I think overspending is the only problem', it seems that's what you're incorrectly gleeming from my words). Maybe it's just that you don't like the WAY I said it, but you agree with my point? I don't get it.
We are NOT the rich and powerful country we claim to be, and have not been for a while...that's the issue. We need to consider ourselves a second world country and decide if we want to continue on the path of fiscal irresponsibility and become a third world country, or do we want to regain first world status. Our 'friends across the pond' will shortly not be supplying these programs to their citizens either, they bankrupted themselves with these kinds of programs and lack of revenue, and now their bankrupting their partners in the EU. That's why it doesn't make sense to compare our social programs to theirs and say 'they can, why can't we?'...theirs bankrupted them. If we had the money, I would be all for it, and 3 months paid vacation, guaranteed retirement benifits, low or no taxes, etc., as long as we never spend more than we have, I'm fine with it. It's just not fiscally possible without going into the hole even farther, and that leads to disaster. Right now, we are in debt more than the entire country produces in a year, and that only counts the debt on the books, and counts our GDP at 09 levels, which we no longer meet. That means if every person/corperation was taxed at 100%, it could not erase our debt in a year (assuming we also stop spending a dime on anything). That's a HUGE problem that should never have been allowed to happen, if you don't think it is, I think you aren't responsible with money. Living above your means on credit is irresponsible, and usually passes the bill on to others or leaves it unpaid. I have no children to worry about there, but I'm not the kind of a$$hole that plans on leaving YOUR children deep in debt in a third world country...and I don't want to end up there myself before I die.
>> ^NetRunner:
>>
The European debt situation is different, and seems to be a major cause of their current economic crisis, so is the whole credit default swap thing to a lesser extent, but they're far more removed from it.
Debt is a bigger problem in Europe because they have sovereign debt without having a sovereign currency, and don't have an established EU-wide fiscal policy.
In the US, we have control of our own currency, and have a federal fiscal policy, so a debt crisis for us would at worst lead to inflation, not to default.
Not to mention, there are two halves of a balanced budget, spending and revenue. One way to balance a budget is by cutting back on your social safety net, another way is to raise taxes. There's no reason to focus primarily or solely on cuts, if your overall goal is fiscal balance.
More broadly, I think paid maternity leave is a pretty good idea, and if we're really the rich and powerful country we claim to be, then we can afford the taxes to pay for it. If we can't afford it, then we need to think of ourselves as an impoverished 3rd world nation who aspires to one day be able to provide such a valuable benefit to our citizens. If we're simply unwilling to pay for it, then we're less humane than our European friends across the pond.

>> ^newtboy:

I completely agree, our economic crisis was caused by mismanagement and deregulation of the banking system/wallstreet, which is now made worse by the European crisis. Our debt crisis is a decades old issue that's suddenly in the forefront, but is also a huge and looming problem.

That there is pretty much what I meant in my original quip, and subsequent responses.

>> ^newtboy:
The European debt situation is different, and seems to be a major cause of their current economic crisis, so is the whole credit default swap thing to a lesser extent, but they're far more removed from it.

Debt is a bigger problem in Europe because they have sovereign debt without having a sovereign currency, and don't have an established EU-wide fiscal policy.

In the US, we have control of our own currency, and have a federal fiscal policy, so a debt crisis for us would at worst lead to inflation, not to default.

Not to mention, there are two halves of a balanced budget, spending and revenue. One way to balance a budget is by cutting back on your social safety net, another way is to raise taxes. There's no reason to focus primarily or solely on cuts, if your overall goal is fiscal balance.

More broadly, I think paid maternity leave is a pretty good idea, and if we're really the rich and powerful country we claim to be, then we can afford the taxes to pay for it. If we can't afford it, then we need to think of ourselves as an impoverished 3rd world nation who aspires to one day be able to provide such a valuable benefit to our citizens. If we're simply unwilling to pay for it, then we're less humane than our European friends across the pond.

OK, let me start by saying I was never incensed, irked, consternated, angered, or otherwise bothered. I always think it's funny to hear the assumptions people make about me, they are invariably wrong, I'm a wierdo and rarely take the path expected. I take joy in setting the record straight in the hopes of presenting a different point of view for consideration, I see no reason for revenge or anger over a misunderstanding and usually not schadenfreude either.
I didn't see it as consession to my arguement, I saw it as coming to agreement that we really meant the same thing. I guess to some people that might be the same thing, it's not to me.
The only apology needed is to Umption, you made an ass out of him. I'm not looking for one myself, I don't know why I might be due one except for the blankfist thing. You misunderstood me again.
It depends on which current financial crisis you mean. I completely agree, our economic crisis was caused by mismanagement and deregulation of the banking system/wallstreet, which is now made worse by the European crisis. Our debt crisis is a decades old issue that's suddenly in the forefront, but is also a huge and looming problem. The European debt situation is different, and seems to be a major cause of their current economic crisis, so is the whole credit default swap thing to a lesser extent, but they're far more removed from it.
The debt discussion stems from the discussion of the european crash, which I believe was caused mostly by the crushing debt of many union members, caused in large part by over spending on social programs like paid maternity (along with many others), and the worsening of that debt to the point their partners could no longer ignore it caused by the global market declines. It came to a head when Greece couldn't borrow more money to pay for the services they refused to curtail. I disagree with the contention that Spain and Ireland were in "good" shape simply because they were not collapsing yet. Greece has been spending like a teenager with daddy's credit card for far too long (probably decades), so long that it's people (and corperations most likely, don't misunderstnad) believe they are entitled to all their handouts because many have never known different, and they flatly refused to raise taxes to pay for those services and entitlements, forget paying their debts. Let's be clear, they are not us, they were even worse about entitlement programs and ignoring debt. That does not mean we should not use them as a cautionary tale of what to avoid, we don't want to be where they are now, and it's where we are heading.
Here in the USA, I think our debt stems from overspending (on defense and entitlement programs, stupid wastes, and needed services) AND under taxing. I'm not sure about your health care point, we haven't really paid for it yet, so it hasn't really effected the debt. Maybe I'm missing your point.
I disagree with your final point, that our debt is a made up problem. I also disagree with the contention that we must erase the debt completely and instantly, damn the consequences. Sadly, the big 'debt debate' that once again tarnished our reputation worldwide (and continues to) is really not about paying down our debt. As far as I know, no one seriously even floated a ballanced budget ammendment, forget actually paying down the debt. All the wrangling is over a small percentage of the insane increase they expect in the national debt over 10 years (I think I recall the number 24trillion). I fear the debt will crush us, and stagnate our economy if not dealt with quickly, but it must be done with reason and thoughfulness, not ignored OR myopicly focused on.>> ^NetRunner:
@newtboy the part that reminds me of blankfist is that you seem to be incensed at my terrible crime of misunderstanding an ambiguous statement, and then thinking I owe you something (a retraction, an apology, or a concession to your argument) because of that.
Let's wind this train of thought back a bit. My contention is that the present economic calamity started with a financial crisis, driven by mortgage-backed securities.
I didn't mention debt, you did.
I agree that debt plays a role in the unfolding of this crisis, especially in Europe, but it's not a cause of the crisis. Any kind of economic crisis throws a government's budget into deficit (or pushes it further into), because tax revenue goes down when GDP and employment go down, while at the same time, more people wind up needing to rely on the social safety net as they loose their jobs (or just get their hours or pay cut). Greece and Italy were in bad shape before the crisis, and got much worse. But Spain and Ireland were in good fiscal shape before the crisis, and wound up deep in debt as a consequence of the crisis.
I also disagree with your contention that the debts are caused by "people taking maternity leave along with other social programs to a ridiculous extent." I'm not intimately familiar with the specific fiscal details of the European countries, but basically the way government budgets work is that you need to make sure you have tax revenues that are higher than spending in normal times.
Here in the US, our debt issues are primarily a result of cutting taxes, overspending on defense, and a refusal to adopt a single-payer health care system for everyone.
But for the most part, debt is a made-up problem in the US. It's not that it's not a problem at all, it's just that it's not something we need to solve in 2011, it's something we need to solve by 2030 or so. It's important, but not urgent.

@newtboy the part that reminds me of blankfist is that you seem to be incensed at my terrible crime of misunderstanding an ambiguous statement, and then thinking I owe you something (a retraction, an apology, or a concession to your argument) because of that.

Let's wind this train of thought back a bit. My contention is that the present economic calamity started with a financial crisis, driven by mortgage-backed securities.

I didn't mention debt, you did.

I agree that debt plays a role in the unfolding of this crisis, especially in Europe, but it's not a cause of the crisis. Any kind of economic crisis throws a government's budget into deficit (or pushes it further into), because tax revenue goes down when GDP and employment go down, while at the same time, more people wind up needing to rely on the social safety net as they loose their jobs (or just get their hours or pay cut). Greece and Italy were in bad shape before the crisis, and got much worse. But Spain and Ireland were in good fiscal shape before the crisis, and wound up deep in debt as a consequence of the crisis.

I also disagree with your contention that the debts are caused by "people taking maternity leave along with other social programs to a ridiculous extent." I'm not intimately familiar with the specific fiscal details of the European countries, but basically the way government budgets work is that you need to make sure you have tax revenues that are higher than spending in normal times.

Here in the US, our debt issues are primarily a result of cutting taxes, overspending on defense, and a refusal to adopt a single-payer health care system for everyone.

But for the most part, debt is a made-up problem in the US. It's not that it's not a problem at all, it's just that it's not something we need to solve in 2011, it's something we need to solve by 2030 or so. It's important, but not urgent.

>> ^blankfist:

Two comments in and you're back to your old games again. Where did I say "all" immigrants will be poor or "all" immigrants will refuse to pay taxes? Notice I mentioned US citizens as well. But you probably missed that while only listening to what you wanted to hear.

Seriously blankie, what's with the hostility? Forgive me for just this once talking like a normal person and saying "all" when I should've said "disproportionately."

I was mostly just asking about whether you thought immigrants were a special class of people with different demographics than the indigenous population, because I don't see the how you link immigration to the solvency of a social safety net unless you presuppose that immigrants are either going to be disproportionately poor, or disproportionately likely to commit some form of fraud (tax or entitlement).

>> ^blankfist:
It's not that "all" immigrants are poor, it's that if you were poor and you realized you could go somewhere and have access to things you'd not normally have access to, then what're the odds of you exploiting that?
It's a numbers game. The more you allow for exploits in a system, the more it'll be exploited. Etc. Same goes with citizenry and citizenry birth. But the real difference, I believe, is that if you are stable in your home country, you're probably less likely to migrate somewhere just for the entitlements. The opposite is probably more likely however if you're not stable. Is that not a reasonable assumption?


So here's the part where I walk on eggshells and gently point out that you do seem to be saying that immigrants will be disproportionately likely to be poor or commit fraud.

You're also tossing in that you think native born citizens will be that way too. If that's the case, then we're back to "so what does immigration have to do with anything?"


Let's say we turned America into a Finnish-style welfare state -- taxes are high, infrastructure is modern and in good repair, our public schools are the best in the world, our health care system is both cost effective and provides quality care, unemployment is low, our budget is in surplus, our unemployment benefits are generous (and have no time limit), and we have a growing private sector with a heavy technology focus.

If we then threw the gates wide open on immigration, I think you're right; most of the people coming here would be poorer than the average American, and at least in the short run, it'd be bad for the government's net fiscal situation -- more people on welfare, without a completely offsetting tax revenue increase.

But over the long run, I think the situation would reverse. The immigrants and their children would get a free, quality education. They'd get first class health care. They'd have access to public transportation, and a healthy jobs market. For the most part, they'd "exploit" the advantages offered to them to bootstrap themselves into a more productive, wealthier, tax-paying lifestyle. In the long run, the state's investments in the human capital of those immigrants would pay dividends that go beyond mere economic growth, it'd also diversify and enrich the culture of their nation, and bring new ideas and different ways of thinking into the shared project of their society.

Which is to say, I don't think immigration poses a fiscal problem for welfare states.

Bigotry on the other hand, that poses a problem for left-wing policies of all kinds. I don't really think that's a strike against the policies of the left though.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
The fear is that immigrants come over and are allowed access to certain entitlements. For instance, hospitals cannot turn anyone away, so some US citizens and immigrants use this loophole to receive free health care. When they don't pay their bills, the rest of us subsidize them.
I guess I'm still not sure why this would be a problem. Are you assuming all immigrants will be poor? That all immigrants will refuse to pay taxes?
I don't really see why population growth through immigration would be substantively different than population growth through birth. I can see why politically it would be viewed differently, but I don't think shrinking the social safety net would reduce anti-immigrant sentiment.


Two comments in and you're back to your old games again. Where did I say "all" immigrants will be poor or "all" immigrants will refuse to pay taxes? Notice I mentioned US citizens as well. But you probably missed that while only listening to what you wanted to hear.

It's not that "all" immigrants are poor, it's that if you were poor and you realized you could go somewhere and have access to things you'd not normally have access to, then what're the odds of you exploiting that?

It's a numbers game. The more you allow for exploits in a system, the more it'll be exploited. Etc. Same goes with citizenry and citizenry birth. But the real difference, I believe, is that if you are stable in your home country, you're probably less likely to migrate somewhere just for the entitlements. The opposite is probably more likely however if you're not stable. Is that not a reasonable assumption?