Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Down To The Wire 2012 >>POLITICS<<
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 76 of 143 (676847)
10-25-2012 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by New Cat's Eye
10-25-2012 1:00 PM


Do you see why someone might think that the bugetly neutral lowering of taxes and closing of loopholes could be worthwhile?
It could...but I don't think that lowering taxes is particularly appropriate anyway, even if closing loopholes would be worthwhile. If we're talking about lowering the deficit, we don't need budget-neutral, we need budget-positive.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-25-2012 1:00 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-25-2012 2:26 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(3)
Message 77 of 143 (676853)
10-25-2012 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by New Cat's Eye
10-25-2012 10:07 AM


Re: Higher taxes historically do not stifle business
Quote me saying that.
Was meant to be a rhetorical question. Sorry did not come across that way.
You still have given no evidence for your premise. All you have is assumptions and conventional wisdom.
Smaller businesses have it harder and relieving some of the taxes would help them.
Their taxes are at historical lows. How much more taxes are they to be relieved of? Who do we pass the burden on to? Lowering taxes on small businesses does not stimulate growth. Business expenses are completely removed form their income. The tax is on the business owners income. If they spend more investing in their business or paying their employees more they will show less income, therefore pay less in taxes. Ignorance of how the tax system works allows the right to manipulate the electorate with crap like this. Small business is actually doing quite well in this economy. Not fantastic but better than the average person. Also, we now get into a discussion of what constitutes a small business. None of the talk of raising taxes is going to affect the VAST MAJORITY of small business owners.
Yeah, I'm not talking about those kinds of companies.
But they are the only ones affected by any tax changes being contemplated, so your point is moot. Also, the argument about not paying taxes on money reinvested into the company is the same no matter the size of the company.
You really need to learn about US taxation policies and marginal tax rates if you want to have an intelligent argument about the subject.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-25-2012 10:07 AM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 78 of 143 (676855)
10-25-2012 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by New Cat's Eye
10-25-2012 12:45 PM


I'm saying that a reduction in these taxes could help small to medium sized business grow by reducing their cost to operate.
Amazing how evidence does not support you. Provide some evidence for this argument and I might consider it.
Income taxes are assessed after operating costs. Lower taxes are not going to give them more operating income. Spending more on operations will reduce their income taxes. reducing income taxes just puts more money into the owners pocket. It does not stimulate the business.
It is counter intuitive, but by reducing income tax you reduce the incentive to reinvest in and grow the business.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-25-2012 12:45 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 79 of 143 (676857)
10-25-2012 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Rahvin
10-25-2012 12:53 PM


Re: A House Divided
I'll definitely concede that there is a ways to go before convincing the majority on many issues such as homosexuality. I also agree that you can certainly point to other issues where the same is occuring. But lets give credit where it is due.
Civil rights have had to go through the court system against popular public opinion before becoming endorsed by the majority.
But it was endorced by the majority. In fact, those opposed to ending segregation were in the absolute minority. So much so that the military was sent into the south to take action against this small minority of racist that tried their best to hold on to their views.
Had it not been for a strong majority push the south may not have ended segregation for who knows how long, if ever at all.
The pattern is that the courts force the majority to bend knee...and the forced equal treatment, over a generation or two, causes a greater social integration whereby the newer generations have grown up thinking that equality is the natural order (which it should have been all along), and become the majority as their bigot elders die off.
You're only stating a natural human response to culture clashes. It wasn't just held for blacks or what you're calling "minorities". Many European cultures were not well received in the US when they first arrived. Forcing them to live together brought the worst in people, but then lead up to the eventual acceptance of those immigrants.
It's happened for everyone, "minorities" are not special in that sense.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Rahvin, posted 10-25-2012 12:53 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Rahvin, posted 10-25-2012 1:37 PM onifre has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


(5)
Message 80 of 143 (676858)
10-25-2012 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by New Cat's Eye
10-25-2012 9:38 AM


CS writes:
High taxes does stifle newer business development and if you can promote that kind of growth then you can get more jobs n'stuff.
That seems reasonable on its face, but the historical record does not support the assertion; quite the opposite.
No GOP electoral victory in modern times has ever led to a lower deficit. The deficit has been the GOP's favorite cudgel for cutting social safety nets and social/infrastructure investment. They have no authentic interest in losing that political weapon.
Bush ran as a fiscal conservative; the deficit exploded; ditto Reagan. The strong economies of Reagan's second term and Clinton's tenure both followed tax increases; Bush's enormous tax cuts for the wealthy preceded the greatest economic collapse since the Depression.
During Bush's tenure, conservatives explicitly argued that "the deficit doesn't matter." Once a Democrat takes office, the GOP argues that no major government initiatives are possible because of the deficit (see Clinton and Obama years).
"Fiscal conservatism" is one of the biggest of the American conservatives' big lies.
Edited by Omnivorous, : too many quites
Edited by Omnivorous, : typo: outta practice

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-25-2012 9:38 AM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 81 of 143 (676860)
10-25-2012 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by onifre
10-25-2012 1:28 PM


Re: A House Divided
But it was endorced by the majority. In fact, those opposed to ending segregation were in the absolute minority. So much so that the military was sent into the south to take action against this small minority of racist that tried their best to hold on to their views.
Was it? Do you have data to support that? I'm asking because this challenges my existing understanding of popular opinion at that time, and that keeping races segregated was not something the majority endorsed. Remember that sending in the National Guard was simply the result of enforcing the ruling of the court - you don't vote on where to send the Guard; they go to enforce the law, protect public order, and to reinforce the mainline military.
You're only stating a natural human response to culture clashes. It wasn't just held for blacks or what you're calling "minorities". Many European cultures were not well received in the US when they first arrived. Forcing them to live together brought the worst in people, but then lead up to the eventual acceptance of those immigrants.
It's happened for everyone, "minorities" are not special in that sense.
Apologies for any misunderstanding, but when I use the term "minorities," I am in fact referring to any subgroup distinct from the "majority," particularly when persecuted by the majority. This at various points in time would apply to the Irish, to Jews, to blacks, to Catholics, to Atheists, to Scientologists, and so on.
You're only stating a natural human response to culture clashes.
Indeed...but the fact that it is "natural" does not make it ethically acceptable. The pack will always instinctively try to identify and exclude the "other," but if establishing a just and fair society is actually as important to us as we collectively tend to say that it is, there is no place for acting upon that instinct.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by onifre, posted 10-25-2012 1:28 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by onifre, posted 10-25-2012 1:57 PM Rahvin has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 82 of 143 (676863)
10-25-2012 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Rahvin
10-25-2012 1:37 PM


Re: A House Divided
m asking because this challenges my existing understanding of popular opinion at that time, and that keeping races segregated was not something the majority endorsed.
I guess I'm having trouble with what you're calling a majority rule and what I'm thinking about.
I may be wrong but, if the Supreme Court of the US and the president of the US are in favor of integration, isn't that in the political democratic sense the majority?
I wasn't talking about each individual opinion, as widely different as that may be. I'm talking about court rulings and political majority rule. I think you're refering to majority opinion at the individual level.
Being that there is no one particular culture or ethnicity ever truly in charge of the whole US - Go to Miami and white people are not in the majority. Here in NY either, and I'm sure in many parts of the US latinos and blacks are the major majority - There's no point in distinguishing "majorities" by their color or ethnicity.
If we're talking about the overall government, I guess we can still says "whites" are the majority, but then once we start with sub-catagories as you've pointed out we don't really have a majority of any one particular white culture.
Indeed...but the fact that it is "natural" does not make it ethically acceptable. The pack will always instinctively try to identify and exclude the "other," but if establishing a just and fair society is actually as important to us as we collectively tend to say that it is, there is no place for acting upon that instinct.
There is no way to stop normal human behavior in the same sense as abstinance only programs don't stop teenagers from fucking.
Everyone segregates everyone for a while when the new culture is introduced to the old culture. I see it here in NY where white hipsters are moving into black neighborhoods. There is an initial culture clash, then an inevitable acceptance.
People seem to always behave the same as far as I've seen.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Rahvin, posted 10-25-2012 1:37 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Rahvin, posted 10-25-2012 3:58 PM onifre has not replied
 Message 88 by Taq, posted 10-25-2012 5:41 PM onifre has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 83 of 143 (676865)
10-25-2012 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by jar
10-25-2012 9:32 AM


Re: Do we need unity?
Unity is easy to achieve, all that is needed is a Monarch or Dictator. My way or the highway.
So whats the best option? Consensus? Is it possible?
Politically we have two different ideologies
and unity does not necessarily imply dictatorship. What about E Plurbis Unum?
Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by jar, posted 10-25-2012 9:32 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by jar, posted 10-25-2012 2:29 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 143 (676866)
10-25-2012 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Rahvin
10-25-2012 1:04 PM


Do you see why someone might think that the bugetly neutral lowering of taxes and closing of loopholes could be worthwhile?
It could...but I don't think that lowering taxes is particularly appropriate anyway, even if closing loopholes would be worthwhile. If we're talking about lowering the deficit, we don't need budget-neutral, we need budget-positive.
Well I didn't, and don't, intend to defend that the policy would actually work. You asked why it was proposed and I offered what I think is the reasoning behind it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Rahvin, posted 10-25-2012 1:04 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 85 of 143 (676868)
10-25-2012 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Phat
10-25-2012 2:14 PM


Re: Do we need unity?
E Pluribis Unum was replace as the motto or did you miss that.
Out of many one implies consensus which is NOT unity or total agreement; consensus says "I can live with that" not "I like that" or even "I agree with that".
We currently have consensus regarding the USA electoral and governmental system; the populus says "I can live with that."

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Phat, posted 10-25-2012 2:14 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(1)
Message 86 of 143 (676896)
10-25-2012 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by onifre
10-25-2012 1:57 PM


Re: A House Divided
I guess I'm having trouble with what you're calling a majority rule and what I'm thinking about.
I may be wrong but, if the Supreme Court of the US and the president of the US are in favor of integration, isn't that in the political democratic sense the majority?
...no.
The "majority" when we're talking about things like "majority rule" and "democracy" is popular opinion. Average guy on the street.
The President and Supreme Court go against popular opinion all the time.
I wasn't talking about each individual opinion, as widely different as that may be. I'm talking about court rulings and political majority rule. I think you're refering to majority opinion at the individual level.
In which case we may agree.
As I said in a previous post, this is why the US is not a pure democracy, or even a pure representative republic - because true "majority rule" results in tyranny.
Being that there is no one particular culture or ethnicity ever truly in charge of the whole US - Go to Miami and white people are not in the majority. Here in NY either, and I'm sure in many parts of the US latinos and blacks are the major majority - There's no point in distinguishing "majorities" by their color or ethnicity.
Indeed...but opinions can still define a majority or minority, and color/ethnicity is one of the possible targets of an unjust majority.
Minorities don't stay separate. They overlap. When enough people of groups x y and z get together and decide they don't like group c, we have a case of persecution of the minority, even if groups x y and z are themselves different minorities. Combined, they can still constitute a plurality or majority. That's what tends to happen in real life - popular opinion is a series of layers of Venn diagrams, and sometimes one group (which inevitably encompasses many smaller groups) gangs up on a single small group that's outside of their majority group.
There is no way to stop normal human behavior in the same sense as abstinance only programs don't stop teenagers from fucking.
That depends. Some base urges are easily curtailed - most people, for example, are not violent felons, rapists, thieves, etc. Racism and other forms of bigotry are diminishing, slowly - progress has been made on multiple civil rights fronts over the past several decades that would suggest that we can learn to accept the "other" as part of the greater whole.
Everyone segregates everyone for a while when the new culture is introduced to the old culture. I see it here in NY where white hipsters are moving into black neighborhoods. There is an initial culture clash, then an inevitable acceptance.
People seem to always behave the same as far as I've seen.
Not all of those clashes are the same. Nobody is suggesting that we all need to hold hands and sing under a rainbow, but modern "culture clashes" involve lynch mobs a lot less frequently than they did a few decades ago.
Edited by Rahvin, : Spelling...

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by onifre, posted 10-25-2012 1:57 PM onifre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by xongsmith, posted 10-25-2012 4:08 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


(1)
Message 87 of 143 (676898)
10-25-2012 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Rahvin
10-25-2012 3:58 PM


Re: A House Divided
Sorry...just an annoying nitpick....
Rahvin writes:
popular opinion is a series of layers of Zen diagrams
- I think you meant Venn diagrams?
Not sure how Zen diagrams would work here, as they may be more like a glass onion's layers. If that.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Rahvin, posted 10-25-2012 3:58 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-26-2012 2:07 AM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 88 of 143 (676912)
10-25-2012 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by onifre
10-25-2012 1:57 PM


Re: A House Divided
I may be wrong but, if the Supreme Court of the US and the president of the US are in favor of integration, isn't that in the political democratic sense the majority?
No, that would an exercise of sovereign powers given to those two branches as part of a federal republic.
Our national government is a democratically elected federal republic. The election of representatives is where democracy ends. After that, the elected officials are free to vote however they want even if it contradicts the majority opinion of the public.
State governments are more of a mish mash. There are laws that are enacted based on direct democratic votes (e.g. referendums) at the state level. This is not seen at the federal level outside of ammending the constitution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by onifre, posted 10-25-2012 1:57 PM onifre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by jar, posted 10-25-2012 6:04 PM Taq has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 89 of 143 (676918)
10-25-2012 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Taq
10-25-2012 5:41 PM


Re: A House Divided
Add Constitutional since that is also a limit.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Taq, posted 10-25-2012 5:41 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Taq, posted 10-25-2012 7:17 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 90 of 143 (676930)
10-25-2012 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by jar
10-25-2012 6:04 PM


Re: A House Divided
Add Constitutional since that is also a limit.
Very good point. In the US, elected officials are granted powers by the constitution which is addressable by democratic vote (but still split up into states).
I have been known to pick nits about these issues when I discuss politics with people. People tell me that surely the US is a democratic nation. I retort by asking them how they voted on Obamacare. That always gets them thinking.
I often wonder if a true democracy would even work. I think it would be a bit like asking a 5 year old what you should eat for dinner. Sometimes we need to be told to eat our veggies, if you know what I mean.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by jar, posted 10-25-2012 6:04 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Theodoric, posted 10-25-2012 8:30 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 140 by xongsmith, posted 11-10-2012 12:41 PM Taq has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024