|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,483 Year: 3,740/9,624 Month: 611/974 Week: 224/276 Day: 64/34 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Dominant Force in West Today According to Dennis Prager is Fear of Left | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
This is an interesting topic. Agreed.
When it comes to securing voting machines - which should be far less controversial - the Right tend to vote the measures down. Moscow Mitch is not interested in protecting our democracy from Russian, Saudi Arabia, China, etc from hacking voting machines or using other methods to disrupt our elections, even after showing that high school kids can hack the machines in less than 1/2 hour.
The Right are quick to call for voter ID checks, which would make it harder to vote. But the evidence that such restrictions are justified seems to be absent. Especially when you see what IDs are permitted and which aren't -- NRA yes, College no. If the purpose is to prevent someone from voting twice, any photo ID should work. But more to the point, any state instigating such a law should fall over itself to provide such IDs at no cost to the individual (no "poll tax"), even including at the voting stations. They should also be able to do it when a person reaches voting age -- they were able to issue draft cards after all. But they are against any measure to make it easier to vote. Or to get a correct count of the votes. Election fraud occurs when the reported tally does not match the actual vote count, and if the vote tally is affected by hacking the tally machines while there is no paper trail or means to recount the votes then you are wide open to election fraud. Then there is gerrymandering. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Thugpreacha writes: Oh gosh, I guess we aren't allowed to talk about all that at EvC are we? Nope, can't use the word "Leftist" or anything that identifies the Left as the evil force it is in today's world. Nope. I think just engaging in discussion instead of excoriation would be nice. I had to look that word up. Do we tend to pick at each others skin? The meaning of excoriation in this context is "to severely criticize." I was expressing my preference for an on-topic discussion over off-topic and sarcastic excoriation about moderation. A proclivity for this type of diversion, sometimes directed at individuals, sometimes at everyone, will of course bring one into conflict with board moderation, but that's not the topic of this thread. Faith never really responded to any of the substance of my Message 86, merely questioning the trustworthiness of The Guardian. Whatever criteria she's applying in determining what news sources to trust, she's not saying. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
I think he means, and I would agree, that what it does to nation states is problematic to their survival. Japan is having a rough go of it and it doesn't take an economist to see how an inverted pyramid with a declining working class can realistically sustain a growing aging population. Only for an unchecked capitalistic system where the only motive for doing something is profit coupled with the idea that the economy has to grow instead of stabilize. And we don't need the economy we currently have, where most of it is composed of paper smoke -- stocks and bonds. The "growth" of the economy in the last 4 years, for example, has only benefited those with stocks and bonds selling them back and forth, much of it done with tax give-aways to the rich and companies buying up their stocks to increase their value and make the companies artificially "profitable."
China has tried to right the ship by lifting their one-child (male, only) policy. Except there's now a generation of males who have no suitors of the same age because they were systematically exterminated. China still has an overpopulation problem, which is what the one child policy was meant to address. The unintended consequences of this was families selecting a male child.
This has become very popular among Western societies. In terms of overall population it certainly could be problematic for ecological reasons to not diminish the population. ... I disagree, I think it would be good specifically for ecological reasons. Habitat destruction, species extinctions, mono-cultures for increasingly toxic food supplies as pesticides/herbicides are (over)used. Silent Spring by Rachel Carson was an early warning regarding toxic ecologies that is being ignored, again. Could you name some benefits of increasing these? Do you know of any species that benefits from increasing population above the carrying capacity of their ecology/habitat?
... In the shorter term (50 year periods) the decline in population could be bad. ... How? Give me some examples, not mere assertions.
... The US has been able to buffer against it through immigration. Japan has remained insular and isolationist, to a fault. There is little doubt that immigration boosts the $ economy, the question is whether the society as a whole benefits: are american workers better off? Curiously, I'll bet that you agree that they aren't, and that this is one of the big reasons for the vocal objections to immigration: they use social resources that people feel should be reserved for citizens. Because they are on the losing side of the $ economy and they are on the losing side of the personal/public welfare economy. They're unhappy because income inequality is increasing and they are virtually standing still and inflation is eating whatever gains they get: costs keep rising but their paycheck is static. And let's be honest: the cost of living increase is not a percentage -- a gallon of milk costs the same for a billionaire as it does for someone on food stamps -- it is the inflation of costs for basic needs and should be the same amount for everyone. Using a percentage just siphons more off the top to the higher salaries ... the already rich.
quote: bold/italic for emphasis What is the "public Welfare?" ... let's take a stab at it:
quote: And we can look at:
quote: Japan btw ranks 58th. Now I would include income inequality as a factor, something that unchecked capitalism increases, as the unspoken goal of unchecked capitalism is to create the fewest possible rich people and the most possible poor people and nobody in between. This is what is behind income inequality.
Even with the drop in population among many nations, the Malthusian population curve is still increasing. Obviously there is a limit to what the Earth can sustain. Its tough. In either direction there will be existential problems. You probably mean the drop in reproductive rate, the population is still increasing because births/incoming still greater than deaths/departures. This gives a time delay until births/incoming = deaths/departures.
... In either direction there will be existential problems. Especially when we add climate change and the loss of human habitats. Population distribution is more the issue than population levels. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .. Edited by RAZD, : ...by our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
This post by AZPaul Message 62 was part of an off-topic discussion on the thread about how white skin and blue eyes evolved. It's a statement of the liberal or leftist point of view so I figure it fits here pretty well.
AZP writes: I just want a better life for people without hurting anyone. That means education and medical care and nutritional care and freedom from prejudice, religious and economic violence. And in this world today that means wealth redistribution and confiscatory taxes on the extremely wealthy and anti-discrimination laws and hate crime laws with zealous enforcement and real hard jail time. How else are we going to provide for the less fortunate in our society? Let them suffer? Let them die? To save a multibillionaire another $$ hundred billion? So Nazis can throw gays and jews off of buildings?Self control and Voluntary altruism are not working. It's time we try something else. Where are the christians in this country? Why do they only cry for jesus when invoking the prosperity gospel and social hatreds? So OK let's say your heart is in the right place. But what about your analysis of the situation? What's wrong with what Trump has done for the poor? Including blacks and Hispanics. I forget how many million, three, seven, eight? have gone off unemployement and food stamps and got jobs thanks to his policies, such as cutting taxes. Isn't that good for the poor? It's also good for the country. If you take money from the multi millionairs and the billionaires, by whatever means, they are just going to leave the country and take their jobs with them. What good is that going to do for anybody? And besides, the confiscatory taxes are then going to fall on the middle class who can't afford them. Small businesses won't be able to keep employees and may even go out of business. People won't be able to pay their mortgages and may lose their homes. So we'll be adding to the poor classes, maybe even to the tent cities. Eliminate the middle class and get back to the third world formula of rich and poor and nothing in between. That's what those policies would do. And they wouldn't help the poor you want to help, except maybe in the very first round when some money would be available. Hey and then the farmers will go and we'll all be standing in the proverbial bread lines for the last loaf of moldy bread. Also I just had a conversation about this with another conservative who said when taxes are cut as Trump has done it even benefits the government, they get MORE tax money because the economy improves so much that even a lower rate of taxation brings in more money. So there's more money for all the entitlement programs too. He said this was the case under Kennedy and Reagan and Bush and now Trump when they cut taxes. So why is the Left trying to change policies to something that is only going to grow the number of poor and wreck the economy? Capitalism is the reason America became so enormously prosperous that it was said even our poor classes were richer than any poor classes anywhere else. So here comes all the Leftist propaganda pretending to be facts. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 190 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
That's the old trickle down fantasy. No tax cut has ever paid for itself, including Trump’s. Instead it had zero effect on job growth and exploded the Federal deficit to almost a trillion dollars per year. That's the deficit Trump promised he would eliminate.
I know I'm wasting my time pointing out reality to you. But I couldn't let that whopper go
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
OK I find it hard to keep all this clearly in mind but there is something called "baseline budgeting" which has something to do with a Congreswsional Rule that goes back to the seventies that automatically adds to their entitlement programs some percentage every year so that that part of the budge keeps automatically growing and is guarded by the Democrat bulldogs so that there is essentially no way to cut any of that, and it amounts to something like 70% of the budget. That's the main cause of the huge deficit and woe be to any conservative who tries to cut it. But if they increase the military budget at all, which is about 20% pof the total, they get blamed for the whole huge deficit. So Trump might like to cut the budge but in reality it isn't possible, and since he wants a strong military it's going to keep growing no matter what he might prefer to cut.
The other thing is that it is a fact that those millions are off unemployment and food stamps and have jobs, which can't be explained by anything but the tax cuts which stimiulated the economy so that there are more jobs, and apparently trickle-down really does work. I know you don't want to believe it but Obama had all those millions on food stamps and Trump got them off and put them to work. I know the Left doesn't want you to think so because that ideology benefits the governing class at the expense of evyerbody else. Buying into all that is a big mistake. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18310 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
ringo always tells me that ganging up on the rich won't work and that Jesus commands us to give to the least of these no matter what...thus the middle class will get poorer so the poor can get fed. Which then leaves us with a few very wealthy people and everyone else lumped in one group. Which I disagree with.
Apparently he thinks that if I have enough of a nest egg to retire on, (which does not make me wealthy, by the way) I am as bad as the rich young ruler and that scripture clearly tells *all of us* to give everything we have. Which I'm not sure I like. There is a fine line between having too much and having enough. 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 " ~"We, humans, are engaged in an ongoing war of ideologies. I see it in this microcosm of EvC Forum just as I see it in the governments and attitudes of people throughout the world. Take your pick: Oppression or Seduction . "~Thugpreacha You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.? R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 190 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Nothing approaches even 50% of the total budget.
The only thing that takes nearly 50% of the discretionary spending budget is the military. Nothing else is larger.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18310 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
I think what she means is health 28%+Social Security 25.3% which combined equal 53.3%, as if we even should be allowed to mess with those! They better not touch either one of them or they will awaken an angry sleeping giant within the US middle class.
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 " ~"We, humans, are engaged in an ongoing war of ideologies. I see it in this microcosm of EvC Forum just as I see it in the governments and attitudes of people throughout the world. Take your pick: Oppression or Seduction . "~Thugpreacha You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.? R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Lumping everything together hides some important facts.
I took this graphic of the 2018 Federal Budbget from the Wikipedia page, United States Federal Budget:
So we have mandatory spending and discretionary spending as you kind of broke out with your second graphic. From mine we have these groupings:
Outlays $4.1 trillion
But where are the revenues coming from that pay for that? This is the part the gets obscured:
Revenues $3.3 trillion
So any discussion of the deficit requires that we define specifically where the deficit comes from, namely what specific revenues and specific outlays go into calculating the deficit. That must be known in order to figure out which factors cause the deficit and therefore which factors could be adjusted to reduce or eliminate the deficit. Both Social Security and Medicare Part A (Parts B, C, & D are insurance programs, two of them private insurance, funded by premiums paid by recipients) are funded by payroll taxes levied specially for them and which cannot be used for any other purpose. As such, they cannot and do no play any part in the deficit. Since they are not factors contributing to the deficit, adjusting them would have no effect on the deficit. Also, these figures are for the 2018 Budget. We need to see the figures for the 2019 Budget, which I believe was the first one based on the GOP's tax scam and which greatly increased defense spending from $623 billion to something like $800 billion (as I recall). And when we crunch those numbers, we will need to keep straight where specific sources of revenue are going (eg, payroll taxes going to Social Security and to Medicare A). Also keep in mind that Fiscal Year 2019 ended a couple weeks ago and that we are currently in FY 2020 and hence under the 2020 Budget.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'm not sure which parts are untouchable but what I heard was that it amounts to about 70% of the budget and has an automatic yearly increase so that even if nothing at all was added in a given year the deficit would keep growing anyway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9146 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
but what I heard
No one cares what you "heard". Provide data and sources. What you heard is irrelevant and when what you herd is looked at it is usually shown to be incorrect or extremely misleading.So how about providing actual figures and sources? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Phat writes: I think what she means is health 28%+Social Security 25.3% which combined equal 53.3%, as if we even should be allowed to mess with those! She is talking about the deficit Phat; and Social Security and Medicare do NOT, by law and reality, contribute to the deficit. Reality Phat, not fantasies. Both Social Security and Medicare can only dispense moneys that are already in their Trusts. They cannot, by law, run as a deficit. BUT, those Trusts are a desirable target that the Wealthy would love to raid to pay for their special privileges.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined:
|
Very simple solution: Don't read my postsw.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
but what I heard
No one cares what you "heard". Provide data and sources. What you heard is irrelevant and when what you herd is looked at it is usually shown to be incorrect or extremely misleading.So how about providing actual figures and sources? There are different ways of looking at the numbers, but I think the total cost of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and miscellaneous other welfare programs represents about 48% of government spending. Here's a chart I found at US Government Entitlement Spending History with Charts - a www.usgovernmentspending.com briefing:
--Percy Edited by Percy, : Improve clarity.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024