|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,793 Year: 4,050/9,624 Month: 921/974 Week: 248/286 Day: 9/46 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Tribute Thread For the Recently Raptured Faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9509 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Phat writes: Under socialism, that same middle class, as I understand it, would eventually blend in with the masses below them...leaving the small oligarchy at the top to contend with. You have a really screwed up, extremist idea of what socialism is. This seems a common thing with Yanks for some reason. The European version of social democracy is a progressive pluralist economic model that has a more equal spread of wealth berween its citizens with a relatively high safety net. It works and it creates the happiest societies we've so far managed as a species.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22493 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Phat writes: Under socialism, that same middle class, as I understand it, would eventually blend in with the masses below them...leaving the small oligarchy at the top to contend with. To build on what Tangle just said, you do realize that social security, Medicare and Medicaid are socialist programs. As are welfare and unemployment.
ringo may claim that the "lie" that I believe is that my "cushy" life would get worse under socialism, whereas he thinks it would improve...somehow. Depends upon what happens to you and whether you need to draw upon a social safety net or not. If you live out your life healthy and employed and with hefty retirement funds then improved social programs would not make your life any better. But if you experience any catastrophic health problems you wouldn't risk destitution. If you become unemployed for a couple years you wouldn't use up your savings (specifics differ greatly by country). And if you're unable to save enough for retirement the European equivalent of social security wouldn't have you end up living like a pauper or with your children. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Specifically, what do you think would get worse? ringo may claim that the "lie" that I believe is that my "cushy" life would get worse under socialism, whereas he thinks it would improve...somehow.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2422 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
Phat said:
quote: Tangle said:
quote: The way the American public sees things, it would take massive tax increases to get a ONLY A tiny percentage of what is required to fund really big ("socialistic") programs that could make any difference. Obama kept beating the tax increases for "the wealthy" ("raise your hand if you make over $250,000") idea, and gave the impression that it would pay for a whole range of programs, from health care to education, plus reduce the deficit significantly. He would always laugh when (essentially) nobody put their hand up when he asked the $250,000 question. Like you could just tap a few rich folks a little more (35% tax rate would be upped to 39.6%), and all problems could be magically solved. He got elected on the idea of tax increases for those making over $250,000 a year and sworn in January 2009. That ended up being too painful for the "middle class", so the 4.6% increase was limited to those making over $450,000, and it took till January of 2013 for that to happen. It amounted to just $60 billion a year (would have been $80 billion a year if those making over $250,000 were taxed the extra 4.6% too). Republicans seem to have won (for now?) this argument that centers around the idea that big programs are too expensive, and there is no room in any potential budget for more programs. Look at the numbers. The economy will be hurt too badly, if $500 billion in extra revenue a year is sought under the current tax increasing conventions.$500 billion a year is not a lot, it is actually about what is left of the ongoing Bush tax cuts, and less than the roughly $700 billion a year in Bush+Trump tax cuts. But, in getting $500 billion a year, a tax increase ONLY on those making $450,000 a year, would require a 65% tax rate for that group. So it does seem to be something that could be more hurtful to the economy than what the potential "socialistic" benefits might be worth. Look at the Republican arguments: Jimmy Carter left office when taxes were 70%, and people don't have fond memories of that period. It was a period when there were a ton of tax loopholes too. The loophole issue would make the $500 billion a year revenue increaser be more like $250-$300 billion a year. Then you have the economic drag factoring in which could easily put the revenue under $200 billion a year despite a 65% marginal tax rate on "the wealthy". (though the "socialistic" programs could very well end up being a powerful counter to the economic drag, since they will be seen as helpful to the economy to whatever extent the Democrats can argue) Democrats are allergic to any sort of tax increases on anybody other than the super-wealthy. All of their arguments center around avoiding any sort of pain for 98% (those making over $250,000 a year) if not the 99% (those making over $450,000 a year). Republicans simply say, "you want a $4 trillion dollar health care program, but raising marginal tax rates all the way to '100%' wont bring in $800 billion a year even under the most rosy economic circumstances". And, when one looks at the spending front for revenue, Democrats have written off military budget cuts as well. Democrats need to come to grips with the revenue problem, but they have built a foundation on top of the total taboo which makes it an abomination to even consider returning to the way things were before the Bush-era. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I don't know how this thread got onto socialism, but I want to take it back to the book reading program I mentioned earlier when the book being read was The Coming Pagan Utopia edited by Peter Jones.
The program finished that book and has now taken up one by the editors of World Magazine, a Christian publication that started up in 1986. The book is Prodigal Press which appears to be about how journalism in America went from a predominantly Christian focus to Christianity-bashing with an aggressively secular focus, at least since the nineteenth century but increasing in recent years, though I have to reread it to get a clearer sense of the time frame they are talking about. I missed part of it but heard this morning's reading of the 1988 Introduction and the Introduction to the revised 2013 edition. Already gives a lot of information that's new to me, about just how very Christian American journalism really was before whatever time it changed. Like the book on the coming Pagan Utopia this is probably one I should get too though reading remains difficult for me and finances aren't exactly abundant either. I'm quite sure nobody here has any idea of how Christian our news media were at one time either. I think he said there were 80 {correction: it was 52} newspapers in New York City alone with an overtly Christian point of view. Such a dramatic change also suggests that today's dominant opinions have been manufactured for you and I bet you don't know that either. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : Changed date of World Magazine to 1986 from 1988, and number of Christian publications in New York to 52 from 80.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1051 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
I'm quite sure nobody here has any idea of how Christian our news media were at one time either. I am somewhat confident that 100% of the members here are aware that 21st century America is more secular than 19th century America, which is the rather mundane fact that this book is sensationalising.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'm pretty sure nobody here has any real appreciation for just how Christian journalism was in earlier times, and the nation as a whole. Because over and over I keep hearing it argued that the nation was never really Christian. You should have objected to that and you didn't, nor did anyone else here who supposedly is aware of this as you claim. In any case I had no idea that newspapers were so explicitly Christian and I'm sure you didn't either.
ABE: AND, I'm really really sure that you and others here are not aware of the aggressive purging of our Christian past that has been done by this new secular media either. Since the effect would be that nobody has any appreciation any more of just HOW Christian we were the absence of such information wouldn't mean anything to anyone. The Protestant Reformation being completely left out of history texts? Changing "Thank God'" to "Thank goodness" in a direct quote? And a lot more than that. We aren't just more secular, there is a concerted effort to eradicate all traces of our former Christian identity. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1051 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
I'm pretty sure nobody here has any real appreciation for just how Christian journalism was in earlier times, and the nation as a whole. Because over and over I keep hearing it argued that the nation was never really Christian. You should have objected to that and you didn't, nor did anyone else here who supposedly is aware of this as you claim. In any case I had no idea that newspapers were so explicitly Christian and I'm sure you didn't either. I don't read every post on the forum nor respond to most that I disagree with. I'm quite a contrary type so I'd be here all day if I tried that! I'm not sure what specific posts you're referencing, but usually when people say the US was never a Christian nation I think they're talking about the constitutional basis of the state. This is not the same as the question of how religious the society was. That Western society was a lot more Christian in the past is hardly a secret. This applies to US society in particular, where the decline in religious belief is more recent and slower than it has been in most of the industrialised world. Obviously we don't have opinion polls from the 19th century, but the patterns pretty clear by comparing generations. The below shows reported religious affiliation of white British adults year on year. As you can see, the religiosity of each generation doesn't change so much over time, but each successive generation is less religious.
The US shows a similar but less dramatic pattern (though note the two are not directly comparable - the UK case is reported religious affiliaiton; the US survey is asking about church attendance)
This is all common knowledge. I'm unclear why you're pretending to be surprised.
quote: The decline of religious belief is openly discussed in the 'secular media' you distrust so much. Theres nothing hidden here. Incidentally, I've no idea what you're referencing, but replacing 'Thank God' with 'Thank goodness' looks much more like religious prudery than secularist manipulation. Of the same line with silly phrases like 'dang it all to heck'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes of course that is all well known. What is not so well known is how much of that was engineered, much of it by biased antiChristian media and lying textbooks, and just how very very Christian we were in the past. Anyway I'm going to read that book because I do expect to learn new things from it although everybody else here is probably content with the status quo, having no idea how their opinions have been intentionally manipulated.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18338 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
I read that preview. Prodigal Press: Confronting the Anti-Christian Bias of the American News Media (Revised and Updated Edition)
Caffeine does make a point: Caffeine writes: The journalists were biased towards a Christian worldview whereas today journalists are biased towards a secular worldview. Granted journalism by definition *should* be objective, but this book makes a case that there is really no such thing as absolute objectivity. The authors feel that we have thrown the baby out with the bathwater and I can see their point. ...when people say the US was never a Christian nation I think they're talking about the constitutional basis of the state. This is not the same as the question of how religious the society was. That Western society was a lot more Christian in the past is hardly a secret. This applies to US society in particular, where the decline in religious belief is more recent and slower than it has been in most of the industrialized world.The original book is available online here. The authors note in Chapter 3 quote: Edited by Phat, : No reason given.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
Let’s note that the authors are complaining that news stories are NOT used to promote Christianity. That isn’t anti-Christian bias, it’s an absence of pro-Christian bias.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18338 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Their basic point is that even so-called objective journalism promotes something.
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Actually they are complaining that news stories misrepresent the facts, and that they do this often in the direction of denigrating the Christian point of view. A history book left out the Protestant Reformation altogether. But I've ordered the revised edition and when I get it maybe I'll have more to say. Apart from the news media I notice all the time that entertainment, movies etc., are always misrepresenting and denigrating Christianity.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Maybe, but not supporting is different from active opposition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: Which might easily be more a product of their bias than anything else.
quote: I would be interested in knowing the truth about that one. (Of course I have a number if history books that don’t mention it - for the very good reason that they aren’t covering that period)
quote: Coming from someone who frequently complains about truthful criticism that is not exactly worth much.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024