DIY Electric Car Forums banner

The "new normal"? Hurricane Sandy, science, politics, and religion

6K views 46 replies 10 participants last post by  PStechPaul 
Very disappointed by Brinn's site. Read and enjoyed much of his science fiction years ago, but his books were all about extolling more or less Libertarian government, not big socialist lefty government - yet he seems to confuse "Conservative" (e.g. those who wish to conserve the principles of the Constitution) with its near-polar opposite, Fascist Totalitarianism - when it is in fact the rise of Progressiveness which usurped power for the Government from We the People that makes such a concept even possible.

As for equating Bush "the Potato Head" Jr. with Conservatives - that's just damned foolish, using one bad Progressive as a rationalization to promote even more progressiveness.

As for "talking about science" - Obama may mention it in every speech he makes, yet he wouldn't know it if it hit him in the backside. Too, the claim that 95% of Scientists are "liberals" is ridiculous. They are more likely 50% Libertarian (pro small government, the antithesis of Liberalism). If they reject the GOP, it is more because they are afraid of the vocal evangelicals who make up only a small portion of Republican voters.

Well, that's why he writes Science Fiction...

Here's the $16 trillion dollar question for all of you lefties:

You say that "the rich" are all evil, etc., yet I never hear any single argument which explains how it is that these same types of humans, once in Government (which can force you to give them their money without option to simply leave the store, force you to use their products, etc.) are going to be all benevolent? Because, there is no difference between people who seek power through business and those who seek power through government, save that those who seek the latter are authorized the use of police to compel obedience.
 
Please provide references for any assertions you make. A huge problem with Romney is that he constantly flip-flops and dodges questions about important points, so the only thing you can be sure of is that he will say and do anything in order to defame Obama and try to secure the election.
Yep, unlike Obama, about whom we can discover nothing of his past and who has never clearly articulated a plan that could thus be critiqued. Fascinating that the so-called "watchdogs of the press" can find out everything about every affair Tiger Woods had within hours, but cannot seem to find Obama's transcripts; any people who knew him in high school or college; Michelle's thesis, etc. yet they swear up and down that he is a great American.

And that has been the stated goal of the GOP in the House and Senate. Romney has been identified as a bully in High School, and such traits run deep and he has proven that with his actions at Bain, and he will continue to pursue a similar course if he is elected.
No matter how often you repeat a lie, it is still a lie. The family of the alleged victim has come forth and stated publicly that the accusation of the single incident in his entire life that MIGHT have been interpreted that way was absolutely false. Why do you feel it necessary to continue to spread falsehoods to smear a person who has created jobs and spent nearly 20 years of his life doing charity work, as contrasted with Obama who clearly demonstrated his bullying by holding closed-door Democrat only negotiations and then telling Republicans, "You lost the election" <implying- shut up and suck it up>??? And why is it that you have a problem with the fact that Romney has been successful working across the aisle, while Obama's only claim to generating "bi-partisan cooperation" is the 100% vote against his proposed budget?

Here is what I found about the Delphi pensions:
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=310415
http://www.pbgc.gov/wr/large/delphi/delphifaq.html

The first document is authored by Chairman Dave Camp, who is (duh) a Republican. Because of the many well documented lies and denial of scientific or logical fact expressed by the right wing, I have little confidence in the accuracy of the allegations. The other references I found all seem to be from right wing sources, so I doubt their veracity. ;)
Articles about opinions are irrelevant - what matters is that Obama, through illegal executive fiat (more bullying) circumvented the legal requirements of a Bankruptcy proceeding - and the result is that it "just happened" to negate the legal preferred interests of lenders in favor of lavish pensions which are unsustainable.

Both parties and their candidates have been shown to be less than truthful at times, but from what I have seen from the fact checkers, Obama seems more trustworthy than Romney, and he actually remains consistent in his intentions.
Not surprising since you seem to use The Daily Beast as your only fact checker that you would undoubtedly come to that false conclusion. It's true that Obama hardly ever actually makes a statement that can be fact-checked, speaking from his teleprompter or making vague generalizations. His actions, however, show his complete willingness to disregard the law (executive order stipulating that the Justice Department cease enforcing particular laws - an illegal order; circumventing bankruptcy court for political backers; etc.).

The nature of politics unfortunately involves some fast and loose play with the facts, but my gut feeling is approval for Obama and distrust of Romney. :(
Your gut is right - Romney will steer us back towards fiscal responsibility, which will undoubtedly hurt the non-productive of our society in their taxpayer-funded lifestyle. Never mind that the alternative is to go the way of Greece under Obama...

I was never a fan of G "Dubya" Bush, but I think much of his poor performance was a result of his own ditziness and reliance on advice from politically motivated advisors. With all his faults, he remains a rather likeable guy, while Romney appears cold and menacing, like an evil sociopathic genius. And GWB is now conspicuous by his absense during the campaign. :rolleyes:
Gotta agree with you about G.W. Romney only appears "evil" to you because you want us to become like Europe, abandoning our Constitution and the liberty your betters bequeathed you.

Here is an analysis of the psychological profiles of the candidates, and it pegs Romney as a more self-centered, "king of the hill" guy who would rather use intimidation and force to get his way and be #1, while Obama is more prone to discussion and negotiation.
And you are skeptical when anyone posts anything from Fox - you DO realize that "The Daily Beast" is Left of Marx???

In foreign policy, at least, we need someone who can communicate with the leaders of other superpowers, such as China, and maintain good relations with our allies, such as Great Britain. We don't need someone who makes stupid statements and shows disrespect, as Romney has done. :mad:
Let's see how effective Obama has been in his "communications" - oh, that's right, first Ambassador murdered in 30 years; claiming to have withdrawn us from war while tripling the number of attacks and assasinations-by-drone on foreign soil using drones as compared to Bush; waiting until the last minute to assist in the overthrow of the Egyptian tyrant, then jumping in without any plan to support groups who would ally with us thus leaving the power vacuum into which the Muslim Brotherhood has quickly moved. From personal experience, I know that the Ambassador in Iceland (a friendly Scandinavian country where the greatest danger to the Ambassador was falling on the ice when too drunk) had 24 Marines housed with him. This Ambassador had 2 on 9/11. Hmmm.....

Yes, we need a President who communicates clearly - that if they attack Americans or if they manipulate their currency and try to cheat us with protectionist policies and tariffs there will be severe consequences. This President has done neither, and has made it plain that his policies moving forward will be more of the same.
 
You can join the Amish and eliminate Social Security taxes on your income.
http://amishamerica.com/do-amish-pay-taxes/

And if you live in a close-knit self-sustaining community you may be able to live a comfortable life on income that is below the poverty level so you might not have to pay Federal or State taxes. If you grow your own food and use organic farming techniques you can avoid taxable purchases for commercial fertilizer and pesticides, and also help the environment.

But if you choose to buy into the "American Dream" that was possible only when resources and energy were plentiful and cheap, you will soon need to downsize your expectations. Unless you have already built up your own stockpiles of wealth, you will find that you cannot squeeze any more blood out of the middle class turnip, and you will have a hard time setting up businesses without financially secure customers.
You are misinformed. Energy is cheaper today than it was in 1960 in this country, as are most other "durable goods" (which in most cases are superior to their equivalents at that time, and many of them were simply unavailable). If you are willing to live outside of the megacities, housing is both superior and cheaper, too.

The only reason that some things seem more expensive is that ridiculous laws, taxes, and regulations have pushed up their prices, and that more services are available than ever before in history. People on welfare have big screen tvs, cell phones, and cable television. There is no possible comparison between the "average lifestyle" in 1960 and today (50 years ago), yet here you are whining that things are "overpriced" and that the "American dream is dead."

The only things dead are our ambition, our willingness to live within our means, our willingness to live without a handout from the government, and our acceptance of the reality that some people are born with more talent and drive than we are and that they deserve to earn the fruits of their talent and ambition.
 
Energy may be cheaper in relation to average household income only because much of it is subsidized by such benefits as depletion allowances and the lack of real cost which includes environmental damage and the wars to maintain the flow of oil from the Persian gulf.

I am not a fan of unions and they deserve some of the blame for Ampad's dissolution as well as many other manufacturing companies in the US.

There is no magic that Romney can conjure up that will return our economy to the glory days of the 1950s to 1970s, and the brief bursts of growth from the PC phenomenon of 1982, the dot com bubble of 1996, and the housing bubble of 2006, which were the death throes of a doomed way of life that will never rise again. The prophesies of doom are becoming today's reality, and our only hope is to change our expectations and adjust to a more cooperative lifestyle.
What a confused position. Our country has had a worse economy than today - and it was turned around in just 2 years by cutting government (the end of the Great Depression).

Our government is far bigger today than back then, and has a LOT we could discard. Guess what? Put the profit back in business, and our economy will soar. Remove the Marxist Income tax and replace it with something like the FairTax, and even the Lefty economists predict a boom.

We are more productive per person today than at any time in history - the only reason we AREN'T prosperous is big government. When you make foolish statements that we can never have that standard of living again, it defies the facts - that there is absolutely no reason that within two years we could not have the most robust economy in history.
 
Bloody hell I agree with Phantom!
We are more productive per person today than at any time in history

I disagree with the next bit though
the only reason we AREN'T prosperous is big government.
The reason we aren't prosperous is that all of the profits from OUR increases in productivity have been siphoned off by the "Elite" - the CEO classes, the 1% - and most of the 1% have been well sorted by the 0.1%
Ok let's entertain your suggestion for a minute. I pride myself on basing my opinions on facts rather than rumors, so if the facts back up your assertion I'll revise my opinion.

So first off, how much wealth do the top 1% own, and how does it compare to the annual productivity of the planet? Well, according to the NYT (a rag far enough left you might actually agree to pay attention to it):

They controlled nearly a third of the nation’s financial assets (investment holdings) and about 28 percent of nonfinancial assets (the value of property, cars, jewelry, etc.). These measures will be particularly interesting to revisit when the new, post-recession data arrives.
Well, that's interesting, but what does it mean in terms of dollars? Turning to a recent article in the Communist Noise Network (CNN), we start getting some real numbers:


  • The Average net worth of the top 1% is about $16.5 million (2010, probably less now)
  • By definition, the top 1% is about 3 million people in America (out of 300 million people)
  • Multiplying the two, the total net worth of the top 1% is about $50 trillion or 3 times our annual GDP
Now, that sounds like an awful lot of money doesn't it? Hey, let's just take that and we'll all be rich! Well, it doesn't work that way. Most of that wealth is in the form of investments and land. A $50 trillion-dollar selloff would have the following effects:

  • The market would collapse, destroying the value of everyone's retirement funds and causing a Depression beyond anything we've ever seen
  • The rich, taking offense at having their wealth stolen, would destroy, hide, or move off-shore any remaining wealth
  • The crash in total wealth would leave virtually no one with money to buy the assets; many companies would simply collapse
  • While the government could use these assets as ways to pay people (giving people stock instead of cash, for instance), the rapidly declining value would result in exhaustion of those assets in just a few years
  • As another side effect, we would probably see a massive devaluation of our currency (inflation). While prices would come back up, it would be because wages also spiral up as the value in terms of people's labor would continue to decline
  • At the end of that period, the most successful people in our nation would all retire and hide their wealth to avoid having it stolen by the government
So, the net result might just barely pay off our debt, but the reality is that our politicians would go on a spending spree and piss it away - leaving us worse off than before.

The problem is always the same - there is no free money. This is why I detest the ultra-liberals like Obama who keep telling us we CAN, in fact, "borrow our way into prosperity" or that Welfare payments are "investments." If they said these things in connection with selling stock on Wall Street, they would be in jail for Fraud - and in fact I personally believe that a case can be made for Treason.

As I always have said, it is possible for the richest nation on earth to provide a safety net for those who truly cannot provide for themselves - but the best way to do that is to maximize prosperity and opportunity for everyone. But, you cannot lift someone up by tearing others down - you can only bring everyone into the mud - and you cannot accomplish good through evil.

At the end of the day, we have two choices: Reduce the costs of our Entitlement programs across the board so that we can balance our budget, or go the way of Greece.

And worst of all, I fully realize that there are a LOT of people, even here on this board, who would rather see us go the way of Greece as a way of "hurting the rich" - rather like Lemmings rushing to the sea - than to allow our country to prosper if it means up giving up even a small percentage of the wasteful Entitlement spending.

If you want to target the rich, go with an inheritance tax with some amount exempted for "normal folks." Income tax only hurts the poor and the middle class.
 
Because they dumped the money at the top of the pyramid where it stayed..
It really doesn't matter where they dump it.

Government cannot create wealth, it can only move it around. So, when they say, "We're going to increase spending to stimulate the economy!" what they are really saying is, we're going to send a bunch of men with buckets (tax collectors) to the deep end of the pool (the economy), pull out buckets of water (money), move around to the other end of the pool and naturally spilling some (waste, fraud, and abuse), and then pour the water back into the pool. Net effect? Waste.
 
Pholly makes the same lame argument as other knee-jerk right-wingers about the government being unable to create wealth, but the same principles are at work for the private sector. Ultimately, wealth is based on resources that you own or control, which is mostly supported by natural resources needed for survival or production of things we desire. Wealth may also be in the form of human resources (productive people), energy, and intellectual excellence. But most people estimate wealth by inherently unstable assets, such as cash, stocks, and bonds. These have zero intrinsic value as they are just numbers on paper or on a computer somewhere.
PStechPaul makes the same lame argument as all pie-in-the-sky, Perpetual Motion believing left-wingers, suggesting that "wealth" is simply the sum of resources sitting about. It is not - "Wealth" or "Value" are the result of turning these resources (materials and /or labor) into products and services which other human beings find valuable and are willing to exchange something of value for in return.

As long as you don't understand what money and wealth are, you cannot ever hope to understand the economy.

The fact is that the Government, which is "we the people", own a lot of inherently valuable wealth in the form of natural resouces, but corrupt lawmakers sucking on the teats of Big Business have crafted laws or failed to enforce others, that are depleting these true resources for the gain of the wealthy, while the average American pays the price.
Wrong, again. Government does in fact own a lot of natural resources - which are valueless so long as they are not developed. The part you have right is that a lot of the big government crony-capitalists have conspired with their selected favorite crony capitalists to dole out favoritism, which generally results in no real value added to the society at the expense of depleted / wasted resources. A government functioning as the Founders intended would not tolerate such crass favoritism and protectionism.

Money and wealth are very fragile when they are backed up only by artificially generated value, which is exemplified by the crash of home values.
Actually, home value is one of the most stable yardsticks throughout history - which is why it is criminal that the Democrats under Clinton urged our banking and financial groups to play Craps with our mortgage market in exchange for short-term gains. Attempting to "make homes affordable," the Clinton Community Reinvestment Act (an ironic name if ever their was one) forced lending institutions to lend to risky borrowers; lend over 90% of a home's current market price which was in turn blown out of proportion by artificially low interest rates.

If you ever want to be afraid of something, be afraid of the Government "making things more affordable..."

A house has a certain intrinsic base value,
...once again demonstrating that you have no fundamental understanding of economics.

The rest of your post is pure gibberish.

Recommendation: Read "Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell. It can help even people who have had a public school education understand the cause-and-effect principles of prices and wages.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top