Liberalism and the impact on human nature

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

Looters are looters. They don't wear suits, assemble committees or T-off with the Big Boys at the country club.
They loot. They may be degenerates, but at least they iz what they says they iz.....Looters.

Dave

I beg to disagree, the looters on Wall Street all wear suits, the only difference is that Cameron and his ilk won't send the police after them.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by merrylander

I beg to disagree, the looters on Wall Street all wear suits, the only difference is that Cameron and his ilk won't send the police after them.

Point taken.

Dave

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by flacaltenn

It's not control.. It's voluntary participation. You personally chose to resist participation.

Voluntary, or not the operating principle is the same. And, some children, (Or former children.) of religious zealots would like to argue the "voluntary" point, regardless.

Dave

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

The left isn't afraid of religion. We are intellectually capable of separating our personal choice of religious faith from the need for a secular government that accommodates people of all religious backgrounds. We are able to distinguish the duties and purposes of government from the religious principles of the faith we practice. We know that the government can properly take action to provide clean water, but not to dictate the most private choices a person makes. One need not buy into the ravings of Pat Robertson, Michelle Bachman, or Rick Perry to be a Christian.

It is ludicrous to suggest that people who purport to be people of faith do not engage in violence on behalf of their beliefs. Think about the anti-abortion extremists. How about the devout Klan members with their burning cross. Islam is a very structured religious system - plenty of discipline. Yet people who stop what they are doing to pray at a prescribed time, include among their number those who purport to be acting in it's name while engqging in mass killings.

Regards,

D-Ray

Yeah. What Don said!

Dave

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Truth be told, good/competent governance trumps ideology IMHO. Dubya and Obama seem to be proving that in spades.

I don't agree. I think you can be a screw-up and still succeed. Clinton proved this. Say what you will about Bush, but economic growth was greater during most of Bush's 2 terms, and Bush inherited the impact of the tech bubble burst. When compared to recent and projected growth trends under Obama, Bush looks like an economic genius.

I think what's more important is having a long - term plan and sticking to it. Texas seems to be an on-going example of this:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...710070472.html

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

I don't agree. I think you can be a screw-up and still succeed. Clinton proved this. Say what you will about Bush, but economic growth was greater during most of Bush's 2 terms, and Bush inherited the impact of the tech bubble burst. When compared to recent and projected growth trends under Obama, Bush looks like an economic genius.

I think what's more important is having a long - term plan and sticking to it. Texas seems to be an on-going example of this:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...710070472.html

As for Bush looking like an economic genius, increasing economic growth through a formula of two wars coupled with a large tax cut may look good in the short term, but not so good in the long term (i.e., now).

There may be more to the Texas numbers than meet the eye:

This is a great-sounding statistic, and likely will form the core of Perry’s campaign against a presidency that thus far has negative job creation.

But, as always, there needs to be some context. The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas has especially promoted this figure, and even it acknowledges that the number comes out differently depending on whether one compares Texas to all states or just to states that are adding jobs. Since Texas is adding jobs, and many other states are losing jobs, Texas’s gains become out-sized in a general national survey.

Texas, as a state rich in oil and national gas, has also benefited from increases in energy prices that have slowed the economy elsewhere in the country. Higher energy prices have meant more jobs in Texas. Though Perry proudly claims the job growth is the result of a low-tax, anti-regulatory environment, others have pointed to a big investment in education in the 1980s that, yes, was the result of a tax increase.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...baFJ_blog.html

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Texas, as a state rich in oil and national gas, has also benefited from increases in energy prices that have slowed the economy elsewhere in the country. Higher energy prices have meant more jobs in Texas. Though Perry proudly claims the job growth is the result of a low-tax, anti-regulatory environment, others have pointed to a big investment in education in the 1980s that, yes, was the result of a tax increase.[/I]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...baFJ_blog.html

So our stilted - liberal - energy policies have benefited Texas? Meanwhile, we're still a huge imported of oil because we've failed to allow other states to joining in on profitably capitalizing on their own energy resources. Only now that energy prices are artificially high will there potentially be some ability to pursue these resources.

Michigan has historically spent lavishly on education, yet our business taxes are some of the highest in the nation historically. Why are Michigan's results not the same as Texas?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Michigan has historically spent lavishly on education, yet our business taxes are some of the highest in the nation historically. Why are Michigan's results not the same as Texas?

Because people have to buy oil. They don't have to buy American cars, particularly if they perceive them to be inferior to Honda or Toyota (whether they really are or not is a separate issue).

Back to Perry and Texas for a moment: I suppose you're aware that Texas faces a $27 Billion dollar shortfall this FY. One would think that the increased employment in Texas would result in greater tax receipts and a balanced budget (isn't that part of GOP dogma?). Maybe burger flippers don't really pay that much in taxes.

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-ta...ortfall/about/

[finnbow]

Here's a counterpoint to the WSJ article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/op...unmiracle.html

Who to believe? Murdoch or Krugman?

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Because people have to buy oil. They don't have to buy American cars, particularly if they perceive them to be inferior to Honda or Toyota (whether they really are or not is a separate issue).

Not the issue, really. Michigan has been struggling to diversify its economy, and move away from an economy that is largely supported by the auto industry. They've offered incentives targeted at various industries, including media, "green energy, and biotech, to drop roots in the state. This effort has been going on for years. Yet, the efforts lack significant results. Why is this?

Originally Posted by finnbow

Back to Perry and Texas for a moment: I suppose you're aware that Texas faces a $27 Billion dollar shortfall this FY. One would think that the increased employment in Texas would result in greater tax receipts and a balanced budget (isn't that part of GOP dogma?). Maybe burger flippers don't really pay that much in taxes.

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-ta...ortfall/about/

Old news:

http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/19/news...icit/index.htm