Liberal free for all coming to an end

[randolph]

Posted on a political forum.

Your political orientation says more about you than about the state of society. Your political orientation does not correlate with your intelligence - your ability to analyze and solve problems, it has to do with your values, and values are not rational. Evolution produced liberals and conservatives, which means each have a claim to the validity of their values. If not, evolution would have gotten rid of them. Every ideology has a dark side and a light side. Liberals and socialists are dead on when they attack robber barons and anybody else who amasses wealth by organized theft. But at some point, they become parasitic on people who earn their wealth honestly, because they cannot take the ideological blinders off. Conservatives are dead on when they perceive and respond to external threats and protect the property of people who earn their wealth honestly, but at some point they try to create a permanent hereditary wealthy class, because they cannot take the ideological blinders off. Does any one try, really try, to understand their political opponents? Rarely. Its so much more comforting to call them idiots, or sadists, or masochists, or the embodiment of evil. Its too scary to try to really understand your political opponents - it feels too much like agreeing with them. Anyone who does not wish to trancend the blinders of their own ideology is just another dog howling at the moon, like the original poster. Trancending your own ideology is not the same as discarding your ideology, or adopting that of your opponent. It just makes you sound like less of a fool.

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

Posted on a political forum.

"Evolution produced liberals and conservatives ..."

What a steaming crock of shit!

[TeslaDante]

rarely does a political forum or discussion bring extreem laughter but that did.

SMC, I couldn't agree more. and so simply said.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by smc

"Evolution produced liberals and conservatives ..."

What a steaming crock of shit!

Have you ever tried to reason with someone who politically disagrees with you? I have spent days arguing with a Libertarian to no avail. And the Ayn Rand bunch are like religious fanatics locked into their internal paradigms.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by randolph

Have you ever tried to reason with someone who politically disagrees with you? I have spent days arguing with a Libertarian to no avail. And the Ayn Rand bunch are like religious fanatics locked into their internal paradigms.

I've always fancied calling such religious/authoritarian strains, "insulated." Nothing gets in.

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

Have you ever tried to reason with someone who politically disagrees with you? I have spent days arguing with a Libertarian to no avail. And the Ayn Rand bunch are like religious fanatics locked into their internal paradigms.

Of course, I have. I do so every day. Remember, I teach at a university, where open discourse is a regular part of each day. And, notably, where the kind of arguing that is practiced by some members of this Forum, in this thread, would quickly get someone put on academic probation -- not for the positions taken, but the manner in which the discussion is carried out.

[TeslaDante]

and on the outside of academia, life goes on.
amazing!

[smc]

Originally Posted by TeslaDante

and on the outside of academia, life goes on.
amazing!

The implicit anti-intellectualism aside, there's a reason people are trained for discourse in school, whether it's in kindergarten or a PhD program. It's about the "civil" in "civilization."

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by smc

Of course, I have. I do so every day. Remember, I teach at a university, where open discourse is a regular part of each day. And, notably, where the kind of arguing that is practiced by some members of this Forum, in this thread, would quickly get someone put on academic probation -- not for the positions taken, but the manner in which the discussion is carried out.

Perhaps a similar system should be put into place here on this forum. It would certainly curtail Tracy's juvenile diversionary tactics.

[smc]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Perhaps a similar system should be put into place here on this forum. It would certainly curtail Tracy's juvenile diversionary tactics.

I would like to point out that I did not mention any posters in particular.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by smc

I would like to point out that I did not mention any posters in particular.

That's fine. But I would like to point out that I did.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Perhaps a similar system should be put into place here on this forum. It would certainly curtail Tracy's juvenile diversionary tactics.

Hey, If Tracy wasn't around here to ruffle feathers, what would happen to the thread?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by randolph

Hey, If Tracy wasn't around here to ruffle feathers, what would happen to the thread?

It would be filled with posts containing actual information and this information would be presented without tricks and without the condescension Tracy is so good at. Like the Middle East thread which is blessedly devoid of Tracy's poison.

I am rather fond of the idea of not having to listen to any more of Tracy's--or anyone else's--vapid, entitled, self-satisfied garbage.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

And the Ayn Rand bunch are like religious fanatics locked into their internal paradigms.

They are atheists, yet paradoxically, you are correct. I tried to argue with some of them that free will is an illusion using scientific observations. They pride themselves on being rational, so they should have considered the scientific evidence. Yet they also pride themselves on having free will. They couldn't get beyond the assertion that they have free will because well... they just do. Even though they acknowledged everything else non-living in the universe does not have free will. So evidently these atheists believed there was something supernatural going in within our brains.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by smc

"Evolution produced liberals and conservatives ..."

What a steaming crock of shit!

More evidence that its not a "steaming crock of shit"

Political Orientations Are Correlated with Brain Structure in Young Adults


Ryota Kanai1, , , Tom Feilden2, Colin Firth2 and Geraint Rees1, 3
1 University College London Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17 Queen Square, London WC1N 3AR, UK
2 BBC Radio 4, Television Centre, Wood Lane, London W12 7RJ, UK
3 Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, University College London, 12 Queen Square, London WC1N 3BG, UK


Received 11 January 2011;
revised 10 February 2011;
accepted 4 March 2011.
Published online: April 7, 2011.
Available online 7 April 2011.

Summary

Substantial differences exist in the cognitive styles of liberals and conservatives on psychological measures [1]. Variability in political attitudes reflects genetic influences and their interaction with environmental factors [[2] and [3]]. Recent work has shown a correlation between liberalism and conflict-related activity measured by event-related potentials originating in the anterior cingulate cortex [4]. Here we show that this functional correlate of political attitudes has a counterpart in brain structure. In a large sample of young adults, we related self-reported political attitudes to gray matter volume using structural MRI. We found that greater liberalism was associated with increased gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate cortex, whereas greater conservatism was associated with increased volume of the right amygdala. These results were replicated in an independent sample of additional participants. Our findings extend previous observations that political attitudes reflect differences in self-regulatory conflict monitoring [4] and recognition of emotional faces [5] by showing that such attitudes are reflected in human brain structure. Although our data do not determine whether these regions play a causal role in the formation of political attitudes, they converge with previous work [[4] and [6]] to suggest a possible link between brain structure and psychological mechanisms that mediate political attitudes.


Highlights

► Political liberalism and conservatism were correlated with brain structure ► Liberalism was associated with the gray matter volume of anterior cingulate cortex ► Conservatism was associated with increased right amygdala size ► Results offer possible accounts for cognitive styles of liberals and conservatives

[TeslaDante]

Originally Posted by randolph

Posted on a political forum.

More likely on the men's room wall at Berkley.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TeslaDante

More likely on the men's room wall at Berkley.

... by someone who doesn't know what the word "evolution" means.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Posted on a political forum.

Ok, let's see if there are any empirical truths. Possibly this: It's never good practice to routinely run a deficit unless it's a national emergency."

No matter what your party, is this ever false?

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Ok, let's see if there are any empirical truths. Possibly this: It's never good practice to routinely run a deficit unless it's a national emergency."

No matter what your party, is this ever false?

Attention all: this is a trap. Tracy Coxx wants you to believe that a national deficit, and borrowing, is the same as household debt and borrowing. In fact, the differences are profound.

Oh, and just to preempt it, Tracy Coxx will likely write: "Where did I write that?"

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Ok, let's see if there are any empirical truths. Possibly this: It's never good practice to routinely run a deficit unless it's a national emergency."

No matter what your party, is this ever false?

The TLB staff can place words in my mouth and change the meaning of what I wrote, then state the obvious that I would say didn't say it. It is obvious so I won't.

So anyway, is the statement above in quotes an empirical statement, or does it depend on one's point of view? If it does depend on a viewpoint, can someone please explain what viewpoint, and within that viewpoint how it's rational to continuously operate in a deficit?

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

The TLB staff can place words in my mouth and change the meaning of what I wrote, then state the obvious that I would say didn't say it. It is obvious so I won't.

So anyway, is the statement above in quotes an empirical statement, or does it depend on one's point of view? If it does depend on a viewpoint, can someone please explain what viewpoint, and within that viewpoint how it's rational to continuously operate in a deficit?

Well, I agree, the government deficit is different from private debt for one simple reason, the government can print money! By printing money the government inflates the value of the money and thus reduces the actual debt. The government can get away with this for extended periods of time as long as the inflation does not become excessive (ie late 1970s). By printing money and borrowing more money the government can provide the populace with the services it desires and conduct the wars it desires.
Sooner or later there is a day of reckoning and the government either has to cut expenses or raise taxes or both. The Clinton administration succeeded in balancing the budget and the deficit could have been reduced to reasonable levels. Then Bush came along and went on a wild spending spree and irresponsible tax cuts, The deficit soared as the economy collapsed. Obama inherited a massive financial mess.
According to Keynsian theory, the way to recover from an economic downturn is for the government to spend lots of money, which is what Obama did. Did it work? Well, not very well because much of the money went into the stock market instead of into the economy.

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

According to Keynsian theory, the way to recover from an economic downturn is for the government to spend lots of money, which is what Obama did. Did it work? Well, not very well because much of the money went into the stock market instead of into the economy.

It's more than theory; it has, to use Tracy Coxx's word, been proven empirically. You can't use the Obama stimulus plan as a measure precisely because not that much was actually spent. A massive public works program, like that during the Great Depression, would do exactly what Keynes "theorized," and put the United States in a better competitive position with respect to the emerging economies that are dealing with twenty-first century problems (while this country argues over Planned Parenthood).

[randolph]

Originally Posted by smc

It's more than theory; it has, to use Tracy Coxx's word, been proven empirically. You can't use the Obama stimulus plan as a measure precisely because not that much was actually spent. A massive public works program, like that during the Great Depression, would do exactly what Keynes "theorized," and put the United States in a better competitive position with respect to the emerging economies that are dealing with twenty-first century problems (while this country argues over Planned Parenthood).

Today, our corporate masters don't want to invest in creating jobs here when they can get the work done in China for a fraction of the cost. Instead of pouring billions into the banks, what if we had invested in energy efficient infrastructure and companies here in the US that make solar panels, wind machines and hydrothermal. Instead, China is taking over the solar panel industry and little Denmark is making the wind machines.
Oh well, our problems will be solved when Donald Trump is President.

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

Today, our corporate masters don't want to invest in creating jobs here when they can get the work done in China for a fraction of the cost. Instead of pouring billions into the banks, what if we had invested in energy efficient infrastructure and companies here in the US that make solar panels, wind machines and hydrothermal. Instead, China is taking over the solar panel industry and little Denmark is making the wind machines.
Oh well, our problems will be solved when Donald Trump is President.

Donald Trump isn't running for president. It's a publicity stunt to build ratings for his asinine show on NBC.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

the government can print money! By printing money the government inflates the value of the money and thus reduces the actual debt.

Printing money deflates the value of our money, and the dollar amount of the debt goes up. But regardless, the debt to other countries in non-funnymoney values remains the same.

Originally Posted by randolph

The Clinton administration [and republican congress] succeeded in balancing the budget and the deficit could have been reduced to reasonable levels.

fixed it for you.

Originally Posted by randolph

Then Bush came along and went on a wild spending spree and irresponsible tax cuts, The deficit soared as the economy collapsed.

The tax cuts should have been followed by spending cuts, so you're making my point. Whether by over spending or undertaxing, it is not rational to operate in a deficit.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

The tax cuts should have been followed by spending cuts, so you're making my point. Whether by over spending or undertaxing, it is not rational to operate in a deficit.

A couple of days ago, I posted the following:

"So, Tracy Coxx, as you've been asked before: Let's assume the United States ceases all deficit spending. List here what you're willing to see disappear. National defense? Federal highway maintenance? Air traffic control? What? Or will you list the teensy little ideological budget cuts like the Republicans in Congress like to pretend really make a difference in the overall level of spending?"

We're still waiting for your answer.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by randolph
the government can print money! By printing money the government inflates the value of the money and thus reduces the actual debt.

The debt can be paid back in cheaper dollars.

Tracy,

Printing money deflates the value of our money, and the dollar amount of the debt goes up. But regardless, the debt to other countries in non-funnymoney values remains the same.

The dollar amount of the debt does not go up, the "value" of the debt goes down by printing more money.

"Deflates the value of our money" True, what I meant to say is that printing more money can cause inflation. That is, a rise in the price of goods, which is happening right now while we are still in a recession. All the money poured into the economy is being negated by rising prices. Here in California, gas is over four dollars a gallon.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

The TLB staff can place words in my mouth and change the meaning of what I wrote, then state the obvious that I would say didn't say it. It is obvious so I won't.

So anyway, is the statement above in quotes an empirical statement, or does it depend on one's point of view? If it does depend on a viewpoint, can someone please explain what viewpoint, and within that viewpoint how it's rational to continuously operate in a deficit?

Were the United States never to incur debt as a nation except during a "national emergency," nearly everything -- including things Tracy Coxx probably would like to continue to have provided -- would disappear, unless:

a. "national emergency" were defined to include all those things
b. taxes were raised to their highest levels ever

Even the founders expected the United States to run a deficit. Read Alexander Hamilton. Countries operate this way; the argument that seeks to make it equivalent to continuing to use your personal credit care, whether that argument is stated explicitly or ghosted, is a diversion from the real discussion.

So, Tracy Coxx, as you've been asked before: Let's assume the United States ceases all deficit spending. List here what you're willing to see disappear. National defense? Federal highway maintenance? Air traffic control? What? Or will you list the teensy little ideological budget cuts like the Republicans in Congress like to pretend really make a difference in the overall level of spending?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Ok, let's see if there are any empirical truths. Possibly this: It's never good practice to routinely run a deficit unless it's a national emergency."

No matter what your party, is this ever false?

Ok, not seeing any objection to this (and we're talking non-emergency times here), does that imply that everyone here, libs, conservatives, libertarians, independants, etc, are for the balanced budget amendment? btw, the balanced budget amendment also has provisions for limited circumstances, such as during a time of war, where congress can waive the balanced budget requirement with a 3/5 majority. And given that both dems and repubs seem to have a very hard time with this, a balanced budget amendment seems to be required right?

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Ok, not seeing any objection to this (and we're talking non-emergency times here), does that imply that everyone here, libs, conservatives, libertarians, independants, etc, are for the balanced budget amendment? btw, the balanced budget amendment also has provisions for limited circumstances, such as during a time of war, where congress can waive the balanced budget requirement with a 3/5 majority. And given that both dems and repubs seem to have a very hard time with this, a balanced budget amendment seems to be required right?

Tracy Coxx, your refusal to state what YOU would cut from the budget reveals that your position is one of political cowardice. Only here, where you don't have to face anyone, can you be asked a question in a political discussion, over and over, and simply ignore it.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by smc

Tracy Coxx, your refusal to state what YOU would cut from the budget reveals that your position is one of political cowardice. Only here, where you don't have to face anyone, can you be asked a question in a political discussion, over and over, and simply ignore it.

I presume this thread is an informal political discussion. Ideas, statements, opinions are readily accepted for discussion. Positions are bounced back and forth without much expectation of converting conservatives into liberals or vice versa. The arguments can get heated, however, the management frowns on name calling. Posters, at their option, can respond to challenges or not, at their discretion. Accusing someone of "political cowardice" may not be considered name calling but it's getting pretty close.

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

I presume this thread is an informal political discussion. Ideas, statements, opinions are readily accepted for discussion. Positions are bounced back and forth without much expectation of converting conservatives into liberals or vice versa. The arguments can get heated, however, the management frowns on name calling. Posters, at their option, can respond to challenges or not, at their discretion. Accusing someone of "political cowardice" may not be considered name calling but it's getting pretty close.

Name-calling would be calling Tracy Coxx a "political coward," but referring to the posture one adopts in which one is unwilling to defend one's position, but rather hides behind the anonymity of the Internet, and even now continues to do so rather than answer the reasonable, legitimate guestion that has been raised, is a "position ... of political cowardice." That is NOT name-calling.

But the most important point here is the smokescreen. My question is not about "converting conservative into a liberal or vice versa," but rather to reveal the hypocrisy of the position Tracy Coxx posits with the continual asking of the question about budget deficits and national emergencies. It's a fine position to take in the abstract, but Tracy Coxx refuses, over and over again, to take it in the concrete, i.e., to state what is and is not covered by a "national emergency" and to state what Tracy Coxx would cut from the budget.

[transjen]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Ok, not seeing any objection to this (and we're talking non-emergency times here), does that imply that everyone here, libs, conservatives, libertarians, independants, etc, are for the balanced budget amendment? btw, the balanced budget amendment also has provisions for limited circumstances, such as during a time of war, where congress can waive the balanced budget requirement with a 3/5 majority. And given that both dems and repubs seem to have a very hard time with this, a balanced budget amendment seems to be required right?

I believe most sain rashional people will aggree that a balanced budget is a most reguardless if they are to the left or the right or in the middle
But the idea of how to reach it is where everyone disagrees
Jerseygirl Jen

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

I believe most sain rashional people will aggree that a balanced budget is a most reguardless if they are to the left or the right or in the middle
But the idea of how to reach it is where everyone disagrees
Jerseygirl Jen

Granted, the method of balancing the budget is where it gets tricky. There's nothing empirical there and that's where ideologies come in. We'll see how many sane, rational people are in congress when the vote comes up for the balanced budget amendment. I'm not holding my breath...

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Granted, the method of balancing the budget is where it gets tricky. There's nothing empirical there and that's where ideologies come in. We'll see how many sane, rational people are in congress when the vote comes up for the balanced budget amendment. I'm not holding my breath...

What would you CUT, Tracy Coxx? Are you willing to take a position? I am.

I would cut the $5.274 billion the United States gave to other countries in "foreign military financing" in 2010, of which Israel got $2.775 billion and Egypt got $1.3 billion. I would cut the $2.341 the United States gave to "International Financial Institutions funding" in 2010, enabling the World Bank and IMF to destroy local economies while seeking to convert agriculture and industry in the developing world to produce for export rather than to take care of the people in their own countries. I would eliminate the $1.947 billion from 2010 used for "International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement funding." I would cut the Homeland Security Department's budget by at least 80 percent, from $42 billion to, say $10 billion, and I bet no one would notice that security has changed (except perhaps the most useless and asinine programs that the public sees). I would eliminate the overwhelming majority of the $671 billion that goes to the "Defense" Department (I put it in quotes because the name is a misnomer; when it was called the Department of War it was more accurate, and perhaps the "Offense" Department would be more appropriate today). And I would simply march out of Iraq and Afghanistan and stop the spending of $110 billion in the latter and $16 billion in the former.

There, budget crisis averted ... and not a single person, our American brothers and sisters, thrown into the streets in abject poverty, or having their school breakfasts taken away, or no longer getting the medical attention they need, or ... well, I think I've made my point.

You see, when the social safety net is dismantled, that really will be a "national emergency."

The idea of balancing the budget on the backs of working people rather than, say, General Electric -- which paid no taxes last year, or rather than raising taxes on the richest in the land, is an abomination, an indefensible abomination, of which a civilized country should be ashamed, and for which its apologists should be made to rot in hell.

[randolph]

SMC

I would cut the $5.274 billion the United States gave to other countries in "foreign military financing" in 2010, of which Israel got $2.775 billion and Egypt got $1.3 billion. I would cut the $2.341 the United States gave to "International Financial Institutions funding" in 2010, enabling the World Bank and IMF to destroy local economies while seeking to convert agriculture and industry in the developing world to produce for export rather than to take care of the people in their own countries. I would eliminate the $1.947 billion from 2010 used for "International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement funding." I would cut the Homeland Security Department's budget by at least 80 percent, from $42 billion to, say $10 billion, and I bet no one would notice that security has changed (except perhaps the most useless and asinine programs that the public sees). I would eliminate the overwhelming majority of the $671 billion that goes to the "Defense" Department (I put it in quotes because the name is a misnomer; when it was called the Department of War it was more accurate, and perhaps the "Offense" Department would be more appropriate today). And I would simply march out of Iraq and Afghanistan and stop the spending of $110 billion in the latter and $16 billion in the former.

There, budget crisis averted ... and not a single person, our American brothers and sisters, thrown into the streets in abject poverty, or having their school breakfasts taken away, or no longer getting the medical attention they need, or ... well, I think I've made my point.

You see, when the social safety net is dismantled, that really will be a "national emergency."

The idea of balancing the budget on the backs of working people rather than, say, General Electric -- which paid no taxes last year, or rather than raising taxes on the richest in the land, is an abomination, an indefensible abomination, of which a civilized country should be ashamed, and for which its apologists should be made to rot in hell.

Very well said SMC.
I believe the country is beginning to wake up to the ongoing outrage of how conservatives want to spend our money and control our lives.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by smc

What would you CUT, Tracy Coxx? Are you willing to take a position? I am.

I would cut the $5.274 billion the United States gave to other countries in "foreign military financing" in 2010, of which Israel got $2.775 billion and Egypt got $1.3 billion. I would cut the $2.341 the United States gave to "International Financial Institutions funding" in 2010, enabling the World Bank and IMF to destroy local economies while seeking to convert agriculture and industry in the developing world to produce for export rather than to take care of the people in their own countries. I would eliminate the $1.947 billion from 2010 used for "International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement funding." I would cut the Homeland Security Department's budget by at least 80 percent, from $42 billion to, say $10 billion, and I bet no one would notice that security has changed (except perhaps the most useless and asinine programs that the public sees). I would eliminate the overwhelming majority of the $671 billion that goes to the "Defense" Department (I put it in quotes because the name is a misnomer; when it was called the Department of War it was more accurate, and perhaps the "Offense" Department would be more appropriate today). And I would simply march out of Iraq and Afghanistan and stop the spending of $110 billion in the latter and $16 billion in the former.

There, budget crisis averted ... and not a single person, our American brothers and sisters, thrown into the streets in abject poverty, or having their school breakfasts taken away, or no longer getting the medical attention they need, or ... well, I think I've made my point.

You see, when the social safety net is dismantled, that really will be a "national emergency."

The idea of balancing the budget on the backs of working people rather than, say, General Electric -- which paid no taxes last year, or rather than raising taxes on the richest in the land, is an abomination, an indefensible abomination, of which a civilized country should be ashamed, and for which its apologists should be made to rot in hell.

I'm glad someone wrote something like this, finally. Where Tracy and her ilk chip away at my faith in humanity as they go about destroying lives, this post from you smc accomplishes the reverse. Yet the question remains: how many others in the US believe as you do? How many are not selfish monsters who begrudge a good life and real freedom to their brothers?