Proposal to eliminate some taxes on overseas profits

[AZ_Value]

Mixing and matching is what is bankrupting this country. Left works quite well (see Sweden), right may work well though I cant think of a place with right leaning ideals, and middle of the road looks something like Austrialia. Having the benefits without paying for them or the worst of both worlds wont work. Its why I prefer a liberal or a conservative, vs a guy who is whatever you want him to be.

 

In a relative sense, I'd guess that the prime example of that would be your country, the most successful country in the history of the world. At least historically.

 

As for the perceived over-stubborness of the republicans in congress, that story seems extremely biased to me. Shouldn't their parliamentary strength translate to a much better negotiatory position? The opinion that sacrifices should be made in an equal amount from both sides doesn't seem prudent if adhering to the democratic process is an end in itself. As a foreigner with libertarian leanings (no emotional stake in either party), that argument reeks of smugness to me.

 

For many in the Tea / Republican party the new deal which has been intake for greater than 50 years is too liberal. They seek to dismantle it. I cant think of any modern nation without at least the new deal. Most are farther to the right.

 

I cant think of a country that is based on Libertarian principles. The US has some basic bits of the well fare state which are essentially unpaid for. The right simple wants to dismantle these bits. As I said I cant think of any modern countries without these bits, that I would want to live in. Perhaps you can. We have been quite successful with low taxes and middle of the road benefits, but we can no longer grow our way out of the benefits and nor can we continue to put them on the charge card. We either have to pay via taxation for them or remove them inmo. Americans have to collectively make a choice inmo.

 

The dems should have changed the rules when they had the chance especially regarding the fillibuster. I think the right has a right to abstain from governing. The left should frame it properly and take the case to the people. They have failed at that. I think the differences are too large, and things will be decided in the next election or they wont and this will continue. Personally I think thats a good thing, a definitive choice needs to be made.

 

I really like this post.

 

In my opinion if we could get the extremists and the crazies from both side (but mostly one side to be frank) away from the table some of these answers are actually not that hard to answer.

The country needs to make a choice about what it needs, what it wants, and finally what is feasible.

 

But unfortunately in this new age media society we live in, the emphasis is put on those that drive ratings and they're usually the most incendiary ones which leads to a veritable crisis in misinformation that is threatening the country. Statements like "Keep your government hands out of my Medicare" that are uttered at Tea Party rallies show you that they don't really understand what they're fighting for or against, they like their Medicare but don't like the government, somebody please help me square this circle.

The best quote I have read so far about the whole debt ceiling craziness we witnessed was from my favorite republican, Charlie Munger:

"This raises the question of why the U.S. even has a debt ceiling. No other major nation has one. The popular argument is that a debt ceiling prevents the Treasury from engaging in out-of-control spending. But this is short on logic: The Treasury doesn't spend money. It simply pays the bills Congress racks up."

And this ties back into my point that the level of misinformation out there is insane and starting to get dangerous. The simple fact of understanding that the Administration through Tim Geithner and the Treasury Department doesn't go around spending money that Congress hasn't authorized them to spend is long gone. That is why a Budget is passed by Congress every year, it's just a basic fact of our Democracy but it has been lost for years now, if you stop and ask anyone in the Street they'll tell you that Obama is spending.

 

Just like Myth said, I can't see myself opting to live in a society where zero social safety net is offered to its population even though it is a rich and advanced society. Give me Sweden anytime before you give me whatever the opposite is.

 

One of the things that attracted me to Buffett when I started reading about him is just how everything about him is about common sense. I remember hearing him once answer questions about social security and the need to eliminate it altogether and in his own respectful and witty way he pretty much answered "@$#% No!!" and he went on to give his reason which was just so full of common sense it was beautiful in my eyes. He said and I'm paraphrasing (a lot) but the gist is there

the two most important things for him that came out of the severe Depression that we went through in the thirties were the securities act that gave us things like the FDIC and the social security act and the two of them served the purpose of settling down our society so that everybody could contribute. The first ensured us that the average American with less than $100K in cash and savings in banks doesn't wake up scared every week and runs to pull out his money from our financial system, we take it for granted 80 years now after it was passed but it is as essential as anything we have going on in the country.

 

And for social security which is one of the things the Tea Party and anti government movement are going after, for him it was quite simple we have a rich market society and we all enjoy what it gives us, but a market system doesn't reward everybody the same, and yet we need everybody to contribute, so for the teachers that prepare our future, the people that build the roads we drive on etc... and yet don't get rewarded like the CEO's are we just going to tell them that we're going to enjoy their contribution for 40+ years and when they've passed their productive years we throw them aside and tell them they're on their own. The 1930's taught us that it doesn't work and we did what a smart and progressive society does, we learned and adapted and put in the necessary safety nets to adapt. As usual he gave stats to back up his point, we've recently been averaging something like 4-5% of GDP spending on Social Security and the projections we have it goes up to like 6%, so can we as a society seriously say that spending 6% of our GDP on our elders that have spent their productive years building our nation, and raising those that we will succeed us, is too much to ask from a rich society like America? That is just the best way to get everybody to stop contributing and not even spend a dime of their money as no one will care for them when they can no longer do it for themselves and you could say goodbye to our rich economy.

 

Of course everything needs rework and tweaking and that's fine with me and conservatives like Munger who keep us in check are perfect for our society I think.

For instance Buffett said in his recent Charlie Rose interview that out of his roughly $40M pretax income there was some $30K from social security benefits and he couldn't understand why that money was being sent to him year after year. So I frankly don't understand why things like means testing are not already part of the system, it's crazy. It's just common sense. But the problem is that when extremists dominate the conversation, common sense usually takes the back seat.

Somethings just defy any notion of logic and yet we find people fighting for them, how can a congressman go back to his district and explain to teachers, cab drivers, doctors etc. in his community that it makes sense that hedge fund managers get to call income from their labor "carried interest" and it gets taxed at 15% while the teachers and doctors can't do the same on the money they earn from their own labor. How come we can't just come together as a country and agree that it makes no sense at all and get rid of it? And yet when Obama or Buffett talk about this they get called tax and spend socialists.

 

So I definitely agree with Myth, let's agree on what we need, and in my opinion that includes sensible safety nets for our population and then find a way to pay for it without whining and crying murder, I for instance as a young single man making good money and even earning some money from investing don't mind paying more (meaning a higher percentage) than the lady that serves me lunch at a local restaurant in Phoenix who is raising 3 kids alone on $30K a year, the money she pays in payroll taxes is more than enough if you ask me, I don't even know how she does it. And I'm also Ok to looking to cut unnecessary spending, but a line needs to be drawn, we can make food cheaper but eliminating meat inspectors, but is that what we want? If so then I'll start importing my meat from Canada.

But unfortunately I don't see how it'll happen as long as crazies, in my opinion, like Bachman and Palin continue to be the voice of the conservative side instead of people like Munger.

[alwaysinvert]

Not surprisingly, I found that article incredibly smug and condescending. I'm not an economist but I've studied economics and history of economics, so I know for example that the popular myth that the Hoover administration was laissez-faire and staunchly non-interventionist is completely false. I also cannot find all the data points that would suggest Keynesian counter-measures being indisputably efficient in tackling The Great Depression, or our latest downturn for that matter.

 

This uncritical belief in topdown tinkering with the economy just seems awfully dangerous to me (and republicans are just as guilty of it in most respects). Unintended consequences is a completely alien concept and the authoritarian belief in politics as a tool to solve everything from jobs to the environment is as dangerously religious as the creationist talk from my perspective.

[bargainman]

I am not concerned with whose fault it is (it really deosn't matter).  He has shown he cannot work with the opposition.  I think his approach is not correct.  When you negotiate with someone you sit down with them (after having developed a relationship with them - which is missing here (look at what Regean did, he called every Democrat in Congress and developed a rapour with them - Obama on the other hand developed a relationship with one senator so he could get 60 votes in the Senate.  No outreach to anyone in the opposition until he was forced to with Boener and then only the minimal effort to appear to be working with him.  I would guess if he had a choice he would not work with them at all by his attitude.), they put thier demands down and you do the same and negotiate.  You keep the details quiet to help both sides keep face. You as leader try to enforce this.  You do not call the opposition your enemy as by your leadership you are condoning much worse action by your colleages.  Finally, you sincerely give every one credit and move on.  Can you see Obama doing this?  I cannot.  His approach of putting what he thinks they want in a proposal and call it his own is another thing you don't do.  You give credit to everybody and don't worry that you won't get credit because people won't remember who got credit or who should have they will remember whether something got done or not.

 

How would you feel if your negotating partner did the things the Obama has done to the Republicans (call them enemies and unreasonable every chance he gets because he doesn't have the skills/willingness to really negotiate and share credit) to you regardless of who is "right" or "wrong".  You can argue that Republicans are unfair to Obama but what President did not have to deal with that from the opposition?  Presidents need to rise above the unfair issue and take one for the country and he/she will be rewarded.  Obama is not willing to take one for the country and is mired in the fairness argument.

 

I think the result has as much to do with the style Obama pursues as his substance.  Why else would he not be able to get the opposition to agree to someting 80 to 90% of the public agrees to (increasing taxes on the rich).  If he spent half as much time on being concerned on how the his opposition can save face versus world dicatators, we would be fine.  I think a major defect is his style which I do not see changing so anyone else with a halfway decent style should be able to defeat him.  Just another take.

 

 

Packer

 

Packer,

 

This is interesting.  But I think that what you are saying in effect is that the standards that the president should be held to higher than the standards each and every congressperson should be held to.  I guess I agree in principle that that higher office should have an exceedingly high standard wrt leadership ability.  However there are 2 sides to each negotiation.  Obama IMO has tried harder than the republicans to strike deals including more Republican principles.  Now with regards to his effectiveness.  What is frustrating is what you pointed out..  that clearly something 80%+ of the population is in favor of can not be passed.  Why is that?  Well you can either attribute that to Obama's ineffectiveness, or you can attribute it to the effectiveness of a small minority to control the agenda through tactics like fillibusters etc. 

 

I'm not sure if this is accurate:

 

"Obama on the other hand developed a relationship with one senator so he could get 60 votes in the Senate.  No outreach to anyone in the opposition until he was forced to with Boener and then only the minimal effort to appear to be working with him."

 

I assume you've researched this more than I have though.  I guess I don't keep up on the details of washington relationships, but given Obama's youth and inexperience, what you wrote would not surprise me.

 

The thing that strikes me is that the climate seems very different than from the Reagan era.  There was a great speech or write up a few months or a year ago by a long time congressman or senator.  (I can't remember his name, but someone did post it here).  He talked about how much things have changed since the Reagan era.  He said back then that congressmen moved to DC and worked with eachother, and worked hard to govern, whereas now since the Newt(?)/Clinton time, all freshmen congressmen are forced to work the polls back home all the time to keep the party in power, the heck with governing!  The speech had a lot of eye opening comments.  Does anyone remember the link/speech I'm referring to?

 

The other thing I found frustrating was the recent 'debate' where every candidate said they would not accept an increase in taxes even if it came bundled with a 10x or 12x decrease in spending.  (I don't remember the exact ratio).  I find that incredibly frustrating.  I mean how is that fiscally conservative at all? It's frustrating that neither party is fiscally responsible.  Even Reagan raised taxes. 

 

Anyway all I can say is that I hope things improve.  It's hard to watch this circus over and over again...  I must say I'm happy that we can discuss politics on this board with respect and a calm demeanor, something one can not say about the media in general and a lot of the internet.  It says a lot about the quality of people on the board.  Thanks to all of you, and Sanjeev of course!

 

[Myth465]

Not surprisingly, I found that article incredibly smug and condescending. I'm not an economist but I've studied economics and history of economics, so I know for example that the popular myth that the Hoover administration was laissez-faire and staunchly non-interventionist is completely false. I also cannot find all the data points that would suggest Keynesian counter-measures being indisputably efficient in tackling The Great Depression, or our latest downturn for that matter.

 

This uncritical belief in topdown tinkering with the economy just seems awfully dangerous to me (and republicans are just as guilty of it in most respects). Unintended consequences is a completely alien concept and the authoritarian belief in politics as a tool to solve everything from jobs to the environment is as dangerously religious as the creationist talk from my perspective.

 

What about the none Econ stuff. EPA, Scopes Trial, Medicare, Medicaid, ect. I think he ruined his article with the econ stuff, because that is and will always be highly debated but what are your thoughts on the other items relating to science, and social issues.

 

 

AZ_Value - I agree and feel like the framing is off. Asking the American people what they want and what they are willing to pay for is a far better method. Like it or not I think people want their benefits, as a fiscal conservative I think we should make them pay for them. The issue is one party will always promise the world for free to win power. Its crazy, but I used to call myself a Conservative, and now that just feels like a dirty word. Munger inmo is just a wise old man and has nothing to do with the modern conservative party. The right has been dramatically redefined inmo. Basically Charles Barkley is correct regarding the Republican party....

 

bargainman I remember that post, and it was interesting, I too dont remember the name. The Republicans are the party of tax cuts, unfunded tax cuts inmo. The dems have a messaging problem and need to higher a Frank Lutz or something. They have lost the flag, defense, patriotism, and now fiscal conservatism to people who arent much better than them on any of these issues.

[txlaw]

The thing that strikes me is that the climate seems very different than from the Reagan era.  There was a great speech or write up a few months or a year ago by a long time congressman or senator.  (I can't remember his name, but someone did post it here).  He talked about how much things have changed since the Reagan era.  He said back then that congressmen moved to DC and worked with eachother, and worked hard to govern, whereas now since the Newt(?)/Clinton time, all freshmen congressmen are forced to work the polls back home all the time to keep the party in power, the heck with governing!  The speech had a lot of eye opening comments.  Does anyone remember the link/speech I'm referring to?

 

I think you might be referring to Congressman Jim Cooper's presentation at Harvard entitled "Fixing Congress":

 

http://cooper.house.gov/images/stories/here.pdf

 

 

[alwaysinvert]

Not surprisingly, I found that article incredibly smug and condescending. I'm not an economist but I've studied economics and history of economics, so I know for example that the popular myth that the Hoover administration was laissez-faire and staunchly non-interventionist is completely false. I also cannot find all the data points that would suggest Keynesian counter-measures being indisputably efficient in tackling The Great Depression, or our latest downturn for that matter.

 

This uncritical belief in topdown tinkering with the economy just seems awfully dangerous to me (and republicans are just as guilty of it in most respects). Unintended consequences is a completely alien concept and the authoritarian belief in politics as a tool to solve everything from jobs to the environment is as dangerously religious as the creationist talk from my perspective.

 

What about the none Econ stuff. EPA, Scopes Trial, Medicare, Medicaid, ect. I think he ruined his article with the econ stuff, because that is and will always be highly debated but what are your thoughts on the other items relating to science, and social issues.

I don't think that I am the man to comment on your government programmes because I'm not very familiar with how they are structured. Morally, I'm instinctively opposed to just about everything and generally they always seem to end up wasteful. Given that they exist they can of course be everything from pretty benign to god awful, but I just dont't have the competence to comment on your domestic issues. I wouldn't call them non-econ, though. Government programmes are always a tradeoff with the functionality of market forces.

[beerbaron]

I don't think that I am the man to comment on your government programmes because I'm not very familiar with how they are structured. Morally, I'm instinctively opposed to just about everything and generally they always seem to end up wasteful. Given that they exist they can of course be everything from pretty benign to god awful, but I just dont't have the competence to comment on your domestic issues. I wouldn't call them non-econ, though. Government programmes are always a tradeoff with the functionality of market forces.

 

Actually, some would argue that a private healthcare system is malfunctionning because of the market forces. In a private market, the buyer of insurance has an informational advantage to the seller. Which means that the buyers that thinks he is sick will get insurance while the others will not, therefore only the most expensive customers would get insured. Raising the cost of insurance for the non sick people and deferring them of buying a policy and so on... Empirical data seems to prove quite well this theory as the USA is the only country with a private system and it's the most expensive.

 

Sometimes the market is not adequate. We need to avoid the man with the hammer syndrome.

 

BeerBaron

[Myth465]

Not surprisingly, I found that article incredibly smug and condescending. I'm not an economist but I've studied economics and history of economics, so I know for example that the popular myth that the Hoover administration was laissez-faire and staunchly non-interventionist is completely false. I also cannot find all the data points that would suggest Keynesian counter-measures being indisputably efficient in tackling The Great Depression, or our latest downturn for that matter.

 

This uncritical belief in topdown tinkering with the economy just seems awfully dangerous to me (and republicans are just as guilty of it in most respects). Unintended consequences is a completely alien concept and the authoritarian belief in politics as a tool to solve everything from jobs to the environment is as dangerously religious as the creationist talk from my perspective.

 

What about the none Econ stuff. EPA, Scopes Trial, Medicare, Medicaid, ect. I think he ruined his article with the econ stuff, because that is and will always be highly debated but what are your thoughts on the other items relating to science, and social issues.

I don't think that I am the man to comment on your government programmes because I'm not very familiar with how they are structured. Morally, I'm instinctively opposed to just about everything and generally they always seem to end up wasteful. Given that they exist they can of course be everything from pretty benign to god awful, but I just dont't have the competence to comment on your domestic issues. I wouldn't call them non-econ, though. Government programmes are always a tradeoff with the functionality of market forces.

 

I really can respect and admire your ability to say I dont know or I dont have enough info. Its something I wish I could do more often, and something I plan on working on.

 

When I said none econ I meant the aside from the Keynesian related stuff, that also generates a roaring debate which is neverending and will turn alot of people off about the article.

 

 

[alwaysinvert]

I don't think that I am the man to comment on your government programmes because I'm not very familiar with how they are structured. Morally, I'm instinctively opposed to just about everything and generally they always seem to end up wasteful. Given that they exist they can of course be everything from pretty benign to god awful, but I just dont't have the competence to comment on your domestic issues. I wouldn't call them non-econ, though. Government programmes are always a tradeoff with the functionality of market forces.

 

Actually, some would argue that a private healthcare system is malfunctionning because of the market forces. In a private market, the buyer of insurance has an informational advantage to the seller. Which means that the buyers that thinks he is sick will get insurance while the others will not, therefore only the most expensive customers would get insured. Raising the cost of insurance for the non sick people and deferring them of buying a policy and so on... Empirical data seems to prove quite well this theory as the USA is the only country with a private system and it's the most expensive.

 

Sometimes the market is not adequate. We need to avoid the man with the hammer syndrome.

 

BeerBaron

US healthcare system is not free-market but a corporatist one that has come about from rent-seeking behaviour, from what I understand. I'm not going to enter into that discussion, though (the reason being my relative ignorance).

 

My point was merely that all government programmes have economic consequences and to think otherwise is pretty short-sighted, no matter if you find the tradeoff good or not. For example here in Sweden where we have universal healthcare with private alternatives outlawed in many areas. The result of this is that yes, everybody has equal 'rights' to healthcare, but instead of paying with money directly, you pay with your time, waiting for appointments and procedures.

 

Under those circumstances, it's pretty easy to keep down the immediate monetary costs, but obviously there are secondary costs in human suffering and life. And then of course there's the people clogging up at the emergency wards with people who have colds. It's free and they are hypocondriacs who cannot get regular doctor's appointments, so of course they are incentivized to act in this way (hello, negative externalities for the seriously ill!). There are tradeoffs to everything.

 

edit: I didn't see your last post before posting this, Myth, so disregard the econ vs non-econ stuff. I also saw that this post was pretty poorly written. Sorry for that, I hope you can understand it anyway.

[beerbaron]

Over here in Quebec you can wait 12 hours in the emergency rooms. Some claim that it's because it's free and people with cold go to the doctor. Which is completely true, some proponents have been claiming to put a small fee on every doctor's visit to deter people from abusing it. I kinda agree with it but if you think about it waiting 12 hours will also deter me from abusing the free healthcare :)

 

BeerBaron

[ubuy2wron]

Over here in Quebec you can wait 12 hours in the emergency rooms. Some claim that it's because it's free and people with cold go to the doctor. Which is completely true, some proponents have been claiming to put a small fee on every doctor's visit to deter people from abusing it. I kinda agree with it but if you think about it waiting 12 hours will also deter me from abusing the free healthcare :)

 

BeerBaron

If I was king for a day, I would augment Medicare with manditory lifetime Health savings accounts. Which would be structured much like RRSP's the problem with health care under any insurance based system wether it is a govt run monopoly or mkt based competitive scheme you are always spending some one elses dough and there is little incentive for the consumer to choose.  Perhaps I will not choose to have a triple by pass at age 80 if I am spending my own dough. 

[ERICOPOLY]

Over here in Quebec you can wait 12 hours in the emergency rooms. Some claim that it's because it's free and people with cold go to the doctor. Which is completely true, some proponents have been claiming to put a small fee on every doctor's visit to deter people from abusing it. I kinda agree with it but if you think about it waiting 12 hours will also deter me from abusing the free healthcare :)

 

BeerBaron

 

The people with the cold wait 12 hours or the person in the motorcycle accident waits 12 hours?

 

I guess what I'm asking is, is that 12 hours just a statistic as to how far a non-emergency gets bumped when the real casualties just keep pouring in through the front door?

 

Or is there a shift of guys with mops cleaning up the blood in the waiting room?

 

I think I know the answer.

 

[Packer16]

Bargainman,

 

I think you bring up good points about Obama's effectiveness but I have hard time believing that there are not a majority of Republicans that would be with Obama on this issue (raising taxes on the rich) and they are being held hostage by extremists.  There would have to be incredable discipline in the Republican ranks (which I don't think there is) and all the moderates would have to say it is OK (which I do not think they would).  I believe this is an excuse to explain the behavior that admin did not want or expect.  Given that no relationships were built to these folks or even moderate Republicans for that matter (or even an attempt to validate some of their grievances), the admin has little objectivity in my mind when it comes to assessing who is being held hostage as they see these folks as the enemy not just the opposition. 

 

I personally agree with the filibuster.  If you can't get 60% of the senators behind a bill/idea, you should not pass it.  That way only the ideas that everone can agree on will get passed. 

 

As to including Republican principles, the President needs to make the Republicans feel that they were the ones responsible for these changes and given the corresponding credit.  If the preception is that it is your plan and not thiers also, it does no good (the goal is not to develop a proposal with Republican principles but to get the Republicans on board).  Clinton did this with Gingrich in the 1990s and he eventually got credit for the whole thing. 

 

The climate may be different but people are just people and will react positively if approach in a respectful manner and not as enemies.  There are some changes that can be made but I think they will be the result of an attitude that your opposition is not your enemy but folks that have different views.  I do hold the President to the standard of setting the example with this if not who should do this?  From my persepctive, Boehner is acting more Presidential than the President.  He has never declared Obama or the Democrats his enemies.

 

I think the 10-1 and 12-1 question was structured as gotcha question.  I think you need to put the question into context to get a better answer.  Huntsman said as much after the debate about his response.  Would you want accept 10-1 ratio if the spending were on something you thought was wasteful in the first place? 

 

At this point I see the most promising contender as Romney even though my views are probably closer to Perry's.  What Perry has to do is show he can work with moderate Dems then he will be a contender also.

 

Packer

[Guest Hester]

 

What about the none Econ stuff. EPA, Scopes Trial, Medicare, Medicaid, ect. I think he ruined his article with the econ stuff, because that is and will always be highly debated but what are your thoughts on the other items relating to science, and social issues.

 

I would also like to hear people's thoughts on this. I'm surprised more academic, or just reasonable, conservatives aren't being more vocal about the fact that to get their fiscal conservative ideas represented in government, they have to elect politicians that also oppose science, and/or want to take environmental policy back to the time when we could light our rivers on fire. To get fiscal conservative ideas into the White House you might have to elect someone who also organizes massive public prayers to Jesus for some rain in central Texas, or has a husband who's a professional gay-healer. Again if I was just a fiscal conservative I would be very angry about this.

[ERICOPOLY]

I'm surprised more academic, or just reasonable, conservatives aren't being more vocal about the fact that to get their fiscal conservative ideas represented in government, they have to elect politicians that also oppose science, and/or want to take environmental policy back to the time when we could light our rivers on fire. To get fiscal conservative ideas into the White House you might have to elect someone who also organizes massive public prayers to Jesus for some rain in central Texas, or has a husband who's a professional gay-healer. Again if I was just a fiscal conservative I would be very angry about this.

 

They are a party of faith-healers talking in tongues practically.  Not really of course, but that's what it looks like given the people they push to the top of the party to represent them.

[Myth465]

Of course the private sector will take care of this sort of thing. Who needs food inspectors. Im trying to figure out how all of these things got tied together politically. Some relate of course but ....

 

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-turkey-recall-20110912,0,2926101.story

 

The voluntary recall, announced Sunday by Cargill Inc., comes in the wake of one of the largest meat recalls in U.S. history: As of mid-August, health officials had linked a strain of salmonella found in contaminated turkey products to 111 people falling ill in 31 states and at least one death in California.

 

Google Finance pulls up stories at very interesting times.

[AZ_Value]

 

What about the none Econ stuff. EPA, Scopes Trial, Medicare, Medicaid, ect. I think he ruined his article with the econ stuff, because that is and will always be highly debated but what are your thoughts on the other items relating to science, and social issues.

 

I would also like to hear people's thoughts on this. I'm surprised more academic, or just reasonable, conservatives aren't being more vocal about the fact that to get their fiscal conservative ideas represented in government, they have to elect politicians that also oppose science, and/or want to take environmental policy back to the time when we could light our rivers on fire. To get fiscal conservative ideas into the White House you might have to elect someone who also organizes massive public prayers to Jesus for some rain in central Texas, or has a husband who's a professional gay-healer. Again if I was just a fiscal conservative I would be very angry about this.

 

I completely back this. Some of the stuff that we've been witnessing is sheer insanity at best and destructive madness at worst.

I really fault conservatives, the reasonable ones, for letting their party be taken over by the crazies. I really cannot wrap my mind around why you need to be far out there to be relevant on the conservative side. I know plenty of fiscal conservatives that would never consider a Palin or Bachman and yet they stay in the ranks and don't speak out to take their party back, those that I know were actually driven to vote for Obama because of the thought of Palin being in the white house.

 

Some things that used to be left to common sense and science are now blatantly and openly disregarded by the far right movement and for some reason those that should keep them in check stay quiet (aside from Charlie Munger of course, nothing can keep him quiet). Since when is it a political position to say I am anti global warming, rather than a looney bin position? I will never forget the day I watched Bachman stand on the Congress floor, the United States F'n Congress Floor, and give a speech for some 30-40 minutes about how CO2 wasn't harmful because it was already naturally found in nature... all along I couldn't help but think, Uranium  is also a natural element, how about we lock you up in a room with all the uranium and carbon dioxide we can find and then you'll tell us how you're doing... It used to be that crazy statements like these would get you dismissed but now we reward you by naming you one of the leading candidates to lead the country. It's insane and needs to stop. We really need to find a way to bring common sense back to our politics, unfortunately I don't know how to get from here to there, if those that are voting these people in are fighting to keep "Government out of their Medicare". I guess it starts with fighting for better education and hope that it gets better overtime, but then again half of the Republican vying for the nomination want to eliminate the Department of Education... Oh Boy...

 

I can't remember who the comic was that said that the left had moved to the center, the center to the right, and the right to the looney bin; but I unfortunately feel like he was spot on.

[Packer16]

I am suprised that how many of you buy the seperation of science and faith hook line and sinker.  Do you not know anyone who combines their faith and reason/science?  If you study history most sceintists did this (Pascal, Newton) and many of great men/women of culutral movements (abolution, women' sufferage, etc.) had devote faith that they were not afraid to show to others.  Were these men crazy and we are more enlightened today?  We may be more vain and self-centered but not more wise and intelligent. 

 

When you look at each of these issues how crazy are they?  Evolution is called a thoery because it is not a fact and it has many large assumptions in it that cannot be proven.  You need to ask the question are you equating evolution to science if you are it is stretch.  In my mind, science is can be proven by repeatable experiment.  Evolution is not in that league.  Therefore, what is wrong with exploring other plausable alternatives and letting each person make up their mind based upon the facts rather than labeling one side as extremists.

 

As to the EPA,  I do not see anyone say lets abolish the EPA.  The enforcement just needs to be more balanced.  Again I think some of the science that EPA relies upon is based upon extrapolation (global warming) and falls somewhere closer to evolutionary thoery than real sceince.  Therefore, spending real money that effects real people today is not appropriate.  In addition, most of the fixes for global warming have high costs and uncertain benefits (read Cool It for a good details).  In addition, the admin has added a political dimention to this by stating they use the EPA to enforce thier views indepdent of Congress.

 

Medicare and Medicaid need to be changed.  I think everybody realizes this and it is a question of degree.  As to men/women of faith being leaders in the Republican party, what exactly most freightens you about them?  What I have heard is the spouse of one the candidates practices counseling of gays to deal with some of thier issues in a way they mutually want to and one candidate prays for rain in draughted region where most of the folks believe in Jesus.  Are these crazy positions or is proclaimer of these as crazy positions just as or more carzy?

 

Just a contrary view.

 

Packer   

[Rabbitisrich]

Packer16, you seem to be confusing the theory of evolution with the evolutionary explanation for the formation of man. Evolution is reconfirmed everytime you spray a bacterial growth and it returns. Science is a Bayesian process and while evolution does not "disprove" god/creator models, it renders those factors unnecessary.

[Packer16]

I think evolution as desribed is matter of degree.  It is one thing to observe adaptation (such as your bacteria example) which is science.  It is another to extrapolate to development of new species for which there is no observable evidence.  We have not observed a new species develop from another and the rationale for that is we have not had enough time to see it, kind of a circular unprovable concept (not science in my book and requires just as much faith as the alterntive of a creation so why not present it that way?) .

 

Packer

[Liberty]

I think evolution as desribed is matter of degree.  It is one thing to observe adaptation (such as your bacteria example) which is science.  It is another to extrapolate to development of new species for which there is no observable evidence.  We have not observed a new species develop from another and the rationale for that is we have not had enough time to see it, kind of a circular unprovable concept (not science in my book and requires just as much faith as the alterntive of a creation so why not present it that way?) .

 

Packer

 

That's absolutely ridiculous. There is a mountain of evidence for macro evolution, and just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't there. We can track species and their evolutions and where it split in time very clearly in DNA and in fossils and there are dozens (if not hundreds) of independents hypothesis that can be empirically tested that confirm it. Nothing at all makes any sense in biology without evolution, and you can't separate marco and micro, they're the same thing.

 

I suggest you read Adaptation and Natural Selection by George C. Williams, and then you can graduate to almost any textbook that is written by an actual biologist.

 

Or even this is a starting point http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Or even this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

 

Ever since we could sequence the whole genome of multiple species, arguing against our understanding of evolution is about the same as arguing about our understanding of the law of gravity.

[enoch01]

I respectfully request that conversations about the origins of life draw to a close.  There's lots of places on the web to discuss such topics.  Let's not make this site an also-ran in a subject that is both heated and unrelated to the site's mission.

[ERICOPOLY]

As to the EPA,  I do not see anyone say lets abolish the EPA.

 

 

Michele Bachmann said that if she becomes President, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Education will be shut down.

 

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-spokane/michele-bachmann-promises-to-close-epa-and-education-department

 

 

[Packer16]

As I remember Reagan said the same thing about the DoE.  But I think the appeal is the overreach of the current EPA and trying to impose rules by Presidential fiat without Congressional approval.  As for the origin of speices, we can save that for another day.

 

Packer

[Guest Hester]

Calling things like evolution a "theory" is just how scientific discourse is. Nobody dismisses the theory of gravity or germ theory saying "hey guys, germs are just a theory, it might be demons in the wrinkles of bed sheets making us sick after all, let's explore all angles."

 

Nobody's saying you can't have faith or be religious. But Palin, Bachmann, and maybe Perry although I'm not sure, are young earth creationists. They believe the Earth is sub 10 thousand years old. Forget evolution this contradicts pretty much all of modern science, biology, physics, cosmology, geology, chemistry, archaeology, etc...

 

No problem believing in god, but denying a milennia or two of scientific advancement is where I draw the line. I expect more out of the leader of the most powerful country.

 

This doesn't need to be a religious or scientific discussion, and didn't want to turn it that direction, I'm just curious if there are any fiscal conservatives out there that are angry that candidates they must elect that hold their reasonable fiscal beliefs also hold all this other baggage.