|
Might not help that much, but as many as 1 in 3 women in the military are raped. Ask them if everyone should have to be raped to advance economically. Might shock them a little. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3444927
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 18:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 04:04 |
|
|
I've heard a lot of arguments saying that welfare tends to lead to the "welfare mother" phenomenon that Reagan made up. Are there any good studies that apply to that concept? I'd also be interested in studies that look at straight up welfare fraud.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 19:11
|
|
|
Grifter posted:I've heard a lot of arguments saying that welfare tends to lead to the "welfare mother" phenomenon that Reagan made up. Are there any good studies that apply to that concept? I'd also be interested in studies that look at straight up welfare fraud. Although pretty outdatted read the poverty and welfare section of the Liberal FAQ linked in the OP.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 19:23
|
|
|
Ridonkulous posted:Although pretty outdatted read the poverty and welfare section of the Liberal FAQ linked in the OP. It's extremely outdated, all of the sources there pre-date the 1996 welfare reform, which corrected many of the alleged abuses.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 19:38
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Essentially never, or vanishingly close to it. As has been pointed out on this board many times, you're generally trying to convince people on the fence who are listening. If you're in a debate, people have a personal "ego" stake in things, and will almost never admit they've made a mistake, even if you absolutely crush them with proof(the Cefte Effect). Maybe I'm the exception that proves the rule but one of your posts (and ReindeerF's IIRC) convinced me to become a socialist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 20:06
|
|
|
There is no such thing as a free market.quote:The free market doesn’t exist. Every market has some rules and boundaries that restrict freedom of choice. A market looks free only because we so unconditionally accept its underlying restrictions that we fail to see them. How "free" a market is cannot be objectively defined. It is a political definition. The usual claim by free-market economists that they are trying to defend the market from politically motivated interference by the government is false. Government is always involved and those free-marketeers are as politically motivated as anyone. Overcoming the myth that there is such a thing as an objectively defined "free market" is the first step towards understanding capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 20:40
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:There is no such thing as a free market. And you'll have libertarians and neoliberals claiming that's exactly the problem - the markets aren't free enouugh.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 20:46
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:And you'll have libertarians and neoliberals claiming that's exactly the problem - the markets aren't free enouugh. That's okay to begin with. Then you can lead them on a tour of how distorting very large corporations can be to the free market, due to market power. Then you can propose a solution: have the government carefully regulate them and prevent firms from gaining too much market power. Government interference, done correctly, actually would make markets more "free." Then you can ask what exactly makes a market "free" to begin with. Bam, you've turned a neoliberal talking point on its head.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 21:14
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:And you'll have libertarians and neoliberals claiming that's exactly the problem - the markets aren't free enouugh. quote:Thus seen, the "freedom" of a market is, like beauty, in the eyes of the beholder. If you believe that the right of children not to have to work is more important than the right of factory owners to be able to hire whoever they find most profitable, you will not see a ban on child labor as an infringement on the freedom of the labor market. If you believe the opposite, you will see an "unfree" market, shackled by a misguided government regulation. (edit): also good point above. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Oct 25, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 21:17
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:That's okay to begin with. Then you can lead them on a tour of how distorting very large corporations can be to the free market, due to market power. Then you can propose a solution: have the government carefully regulate them and prevent firms from gaining too much market power. But the market fundamentalist sees free markets as self regulating, so an excess of market power would be corrected in the long term* via competition. For example, a company that priced gouged would, via higher profits, create incentive for other companies to compete against them with lower prices, which would destroy the pricer gouger unless they lowered their own prices in turn. Better avenues of attack might be that market forces don't necessarily reflect human need (use value vs exchange value), or that companies themselves are corrupt institutions since the concept of ownership prevents market actors without means of production from entering into competition. *we're all dead
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 22:59
|
|
|
edit: I'm dumb, he linked it in his earlier post and quoted from it in the second.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 01:44
|
|
|
The Anarchist FAQ http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html This is an extremely well researched and complete document outlining the theory of Anarchism, as well as very clearly explaining why anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism or part of the tradition. Its a go-to primary document when investigating this school of ideas. http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/conquest/toc.html Kropotkins "The conquest of bread". duck monster fucked around with this message at 12:39 on Oct 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 12:31
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Basically, his point is that the adjective "free" in "free market" has really just turned into a general positive term like "good." A rather elegant synopsis, this. Words like liberty and freedom are mostly used for their connontations and emotional resonance rather than any rigorous definition. It's a clever bit of political framing - if you're against free markets, does that mean you want shackled markets?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 14:20
|
|
|
Does anyone have any links to studies discussing whether homosexuality is a choice? I know they exist, but google searching brings me (oddly enough) to conservapedia and a bunch of news articles, not the studies themselves.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 15:48
|
|
|
Dirty Job posted:Does anyone have any links to studies discussing whether homosexuality is a choice? I know they exist, but google searching brings me (oddly enough) to conservapedia and a bunch of news articles, not the studies themselves. quote:. To
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 18:35
|
|
|
Can someone tell me about the U.S. post office? Is it profitable or not?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 04:14
|
|
|
Dirty Job posted:Does anyone have any links to studies discussing whether homosexuality is a choice? I know they exist, but google searching brings me (oddly enough) to conservapedia and a bunch of news articles, not the studies themselves. Might be kind of unrelated, but if they say homosexuality is unnatural, show them this. I get the biggest kick out of visualizing Satan, Eternal Lord of Evil for All Creation, making penguins buttfuck each other as part of his master plan.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 05:09
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:But the market fundamentalist sees free markets as self regulating, so an excess of market power would be corrected in the long term* via competition. For example, a company that priced gouged would, via higher profits, create incentive for other companies to compete against them with lower prices, which would destroy the pricer gouger unless they lowered their own prices in turn. Better avenues of attack might be that market forces don't necessarily reflect human need (use value vs exchange value), or that companies themselves are corrupt institutions since the concept of ownership prevents market actors without means of production from entering into competition. Ron Paul was a guest on The Daily Show a few weeks back and he was a perfect example of this market fundamentalist perspective you cite here. He literally said that there are stricter and better regulations in a free market than when the government intervenes and regulates businesses. Jon Stewart did a pretty lovely job in challenging Paul on his assertions, though he did make a few weak attempts and you could easily tell that he wanted to say more but held back. I think Jon is really just hung up by how uncivil, unproductive, and annoying vigorous debates are on other news shows that he holds back so that things don't devolve into shouting matches or arguments. I really wish Stewart would have called him on this assertion about there being stricter regulations in a free market. There are numerous historical examples of how unregulated markets led to corruption, unethical behavior, and numerous other problems. There are also examples of how government regulation cleaned up many of these problems, like the Pure Food and Drug Act regulating the quality of food and drugs, including requiring ingredient labeling, causing "patent medicines" (unregulated snake oil medications which usually had some undisclosed quantity of opiates) to disappear virtually overnight. More importantly, if the market would have stricter regulations if the government wasn't involved, then why would businesses object to the supposedly lower standards from government mandates? If they were going to clean up their acts and regulate themselves anyway, then why does it matter if the government helps out with administering and enforcing regulations? Dirty Job posted:Does anyone have any links to studies discussing whether homosexuality is a choice? I know they exist, but google searching brings me (oddly enough) to conservapedia and a bunch of news articles, not the studies themselves. I'll have to go find my old links, but as Grifter points out, a major piece of evidence demonstrating that homosexuality (and sexuality in general) is not a choice is the collection of studies showing that so-called "reparative therapy" doesn't work. Even in the studies conducted by "ex-gay" organizations who promote and/or offer reparative therapy, all that is ever demonstrated is abstention from homosexual sexual activity, which is pretty much the same as anyone, irrespective of orientation, abstaining from sex. In these studies which are actually biased in favor of reparative therapy, they specifically note that there was not a statistically significant change in the thoughts, feelings, attractions, and fantasies of the subjects, i.e. these people were still thinking about gay sex, still attracted to people of the same sex, still fantasizing about having gay sex, etc. So, even this biased sample that would be most prone to accept reparative therapy could not stop actually feeling and thinking as homosexual people even if they changed their behavior by abstaining from gay sex. http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/did-pat-robertsons-regent-u-undercut-beliefs-ex-gay-reparative-therapy http://christianpsych.org/wp_scp/wp-content/uploads/edification_4_2.pdf (The actual study begins on page 41) This^^^ isn't the study I was thinking of but it covers similar ground, in that it's a research study from conservative Christian Regent University (founded by Pat Robertson) and published in a "Christian psychology" journal, which found that people can change their active behaviors but not their actual orientation. It's not specifically about reparative therapy but rather a survey of people in "mixed orientation couples" where one person is heterosexual and the other is a "sexual minority," e.g. homosexual, bisexual, bi-curious, etc. That said, all of this stuff about homosexuality being a choice is actually a red herring because you also have to remember that sexuality is not a binary quality. It's a continuum ranging from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality with degrees of both between the extremes. Most people are somewhere between the extremes, but there is such a heteronormative bias that people think it's like the old one-drop rule for race, e.g. "if you ever have absolutely any homosexual feelings or attractions, it automatically makes you completely gay."
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 10:55
|
|
|
Let's get fabulous! Homosexuality and Mental Health - summarizes some of the history of homosexuality and psychology, including its former classification as a mental illness. Psychiatry: Homosexuals Can Be Cured - From 1965, an interesting look at the attitudes of the time. Facts About Changing Sexual Orientation The History of the DSM and Gender Identity Disorder Depathologizing Trans* Individuals - Regarding the DSM-V and how the more things change the more they stay the same I know these aren't quite in the same category as many of the sources posted so far but background perspective on these issues can be helpful and maybe someone can get some use from this stuff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 11:12
|
|
|
Econosaurus posted:Can someone tell me about the U.S. post office? Is it profitable or not? It's not "profitable" in the strict sense of economics in that it can't legally take profits, but it used to generally operate "in the black," having income greater than its liabilities. The postal service is also prevented from competing with other carriers like UPS and Fedex as a private business could, which hurts its ability to bring in larger revenues. The problems it currently faces are mainly caused by two issues, (1) failure to modernize with the advance of the internet and (2) healthcare/benefits costs. The former is a problem because the postal service relied on letter-type mail as a big chunk of its bottom line, but the internet caused much of this to dry up with the popularization of email and social networking sites, among other things. This developed into an even greater problem for the postal service because it didn't reduce the number of post offices and postal employees even though demand for delivery sharply decreased. With this glut of offices and employees, the postal service is racking up costs it can't handle and, frankly, doesn't need. This is a major source of the postal service's financial problems and is kind of their own fault for not seeing the writing on the wall and adapting to changing times. The latter problem is not of the postal service's making, but rather Congress'. In 2006, Congress passed the "Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act," which included a number of changes including the requirement that the postal service has to make a series of payments over 10 years to prepay the healthcare and retirement benefits for all employees for the next 75 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Regulatory_Commission#Changes_under_the_Postal_Accountability_and_Enhancement_Act_of_2006_-_H.R._6407 Now, the postal service has previously never had a problem paying out these benefits and already has a pretty big trust fund set up just to account for them, so it doesn't really make sense to have this absurd requirement to cover 75 years of costs ahead of time. Making these payments is the most immediate threat to the postal service and is largely what's preventing it from operating with little to no debt. Short answer: The US postal service can't legally profit, but it has and could operate in the black if it modernized a bit and if Congress reversed an illogical mandate. Bruce Leroy fucked around with this message at 11:51 on Oct 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 11:13
|
|
|
Dirty Job posted:Does anyone have any links to studies discussing whether homosexuality is a choice? I know they exist, but google searching brings me (oddly enough) to conservapedia and a bunch of news articles, not the studies themselves. Here's the largest study on the topic: Genetics and environment determine sexual orientation. PDF This study of all the twins in Sweden found that somewhere around 30% of genetic factors contribute to same-sex preference and the rest is contributed by the environment. Note "environment" is not the same thing as "choice". You can't choose how your environment (social and biological) affects you. People who think homosexuality is a choice are the least likely to be swayed by evidence in my opinion. It's very obvious even if you aren't homosexual. At what point did the person you're debating with "choose" to be heterosexual or to like feet or the huge myriad of other sexual preferences unique to each individual. It's the same as asking when someone chose to like the taste of tomatoes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 04:39
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:Jon Stewart did a pretty lovely job in challenging Paul on his assertions, though he did make a few weak attempts and you could easily tell that he wanted to say more but held back. I think Jon is really just hung up by how uncivil, unproductive, and annoying vigorous debates are on other news shows that he holds back so that things don't devolve into shouting matches or arguments. This is what Jon Stewart is, and why he's a comedian. He once had the brutal then-dictator of Pakistan Pervez Musharraf on his show with nothing but good words for him, that's how politically vacuous the show is. The fact that a lot of people look up to him as some kind of political person is a huge tell about the state of American civil debate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 09:32
|
|
|
Svartvit posted:This is what Jon Stewart is, and why he's a comedian. He once had the brutal then-dictator of Pakistan Pervez Musharraf on his show with nothing but good words for him, that's how politically vacuous the show is. The fact that a lot of people look up to him as some kind of political person is a huge tell about the state of American civil debate. I don't think that's entirely fair to Jon. If you separate The Daily Show between the interview and the rest of the show, you get two very different programs. The former is a kind of weak, but entertaining chat show and the latter is this pretty biting and acerbic socio-political commentary. The Jon in the interview segment is very different from the Jon in the rest of the program. He's very critical and passionate while remaining very funny and entertaining when he's by himself or with one of the correspondents, but the instant a guest sits down, he loses his balls and at best gives them questions which he frequently fails to follow up on and doesn't call people on their bullshit. There have been a handful of interviews where this hasn't happened and Jon let his persona from the first segments bleed over into the interviews and he became very combative and tough on the guests. The two that I remember off-hand are (1) the lady who started all the "Death Panel" bullshit and came to the desk with a giant binder supposedly filled with half of the healthcare reform bill and (2) a guy representing Liz Cheney's "Keep America Safe" group after they questioned the loyalty of DOJ lawyers who previously represented Gitmo detainees. Jon basically took the kid gloves off when he interviewed these two and didn't let them get away with poo poo. Of course, it is possible to strike a balance, which Jon really only seems to get right when he interviews Bill Kristol. Jon is very friendly and amiable with Kristol but still politely calls him on his poo poo, though this may be because they know each other so well that Jon is comfortable doing this when he wouldn't be with first time guests. Overall, the Daily Show is great and very informative, but it's pretty unbalanced.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 11:28
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:There have been a handful of interviews where this hasn't happened and Jon let his persona from the first segments bleed over into the interviews and he became very combative and tough on the guests. The two that I remember off-hand are (1) the lady who started all the "Death Panel" bullshit and came to the desk with a giant binder supposedly filled with half of the healthcare reform bill and (2) a guy representing Liz Cheney's "Keep America Safe" group after they questioned the loyalty of DOJ lawyers who previously represented Gitmo detainees. Jon basically took the kid gloves off when he interviewed these two and didn't let them get away with poo poo. His best was with Jim "Mad Money" Cramer IMO. His first (2nd?) interview with Huckabee, where he called him out on homosexuality being a choice, was really well done as well. But, as has already been mentioned, at the end of the day he's a comedian anchoring a comedy newscast, so that's what they aim for. It might be a weak facade to hide behind but the show does air on Comedy Central, so I find it hard to criticize it for not being serious enough. If you watch his interviews outside of TDS, he's actually more than happy to get serious and call people on their bullshit. Tucker Carlson hates his guts for calling out how bullshit CNN's crossfire was. He's also done some pretty good interviews with O'Reilly and Chris Wallace. Personally I enjoy his show along with Colbert for taking some of the serious issues that get my blood pressure up and giving them a sarcastic spin that allows me to laugh at the end of the day. I don't look at the show as a news source, I get the news elsewhere. Sorry for the derail, this thread is an excellent resource but I figured I'd toss those links out there for anyone who hasn't seen them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 14:29
|
|
|
Here's a scholarly article I found interesting: Not Saint Darwin. It may be useful in creating a calmer environment for dialogue with people who reject evolution. It elucidates the development of evolutionary thought, and in so doing it deflates a lot of the irrelavant hagiography around Darwin. It's an insightful article in that it shows that modern evolutionary thought was sired by many individuals, the same as any other scientific paradigm. In truth, I can see how some people are suspicious of evolution - not only is it counterintuitive, but people talk about The Origion of Species as though it were a sacred text. From the outside, it can look a lot like venerating the man with the impressive beard. People might even think that the term Darwinism has similar legitimacy to ideological positions like Stalinism or Calvinism. We should strive for language that makes it clear that evolution is about science, not discipleship, personality, or ideology.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 15:30
|
|
|
Dirty Job posted:Does anyone have any links to studies discussing whether homosexuality is a choice? I know they exist, but google searching brings me (oddly enough) to conservapedia and a bunch of news articles, not the studies themselves. The existence of a "sexual dimorphic nucleus" is probably one of the better scientific explanations. Here's a study showing a correlation between endocrine signaling and sexual orientation that suggests at least a biological proclivity towards one orientation or another.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 15:42
|
|
|
This gem popped up on my Facebook:quote:those "53%" ain't got no time for such a business. They don't just pay taxes, they support the whole country. Working on a lengthy response, but I wouldn't mind some suggestions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 17:53
|
|
|
How about the reason that the bottom 51% pays no federal taxes is because they make so little due to the lion's share of the wages being lavished on the top? Could also approach the fact that just because they pay no federal tax, they're still paying Social Security, sales taxes, local/property taxes, etc. 10% aren't paying because they have no jobs. Then there's always retirees. That's some of the low hanging fruit there. I don't have any links to back it up, but there are plenty of places that do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 18:19
|
|
|
Yeah, I wouldn't bother with an in-depth response to that kind of thing, just something like a one-line "Of course the rich pay more of the overall tax burden. Nobody else has any income to tax, because nobody else has a job, because the wealthiest one percent have hoovered up so much money that there isn't any left for anyone else." Then link to something like that businessinsider story that had 15+ graphs on the economic breakdown. With discussions like that your target isn't the person you're arguing with, ti's everyone else who sees that facebook discussion. Your goal is to get all those other people to 1) realize that guy's full of poo poo, and 2) encourage those other people to research on their own. Point by point refutations just make everyone's eyes glaze over and they dismiss you both as political eggheads.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 18:43
|
|
|
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/just-how-progressive-is-the-tax-system/  Or, alternatively, just post Lucky Ducky comics.  The term "lucky duckies," of course, is the term coined by a Wall Street Journal editorial in 2002 to refer to the "non-53%". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky_duckies http://www.salon.com/2002/12/21/duckies/ quote:On Nov. 20, the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal began worrying that most Americans don’t pay enough in taxes. That was a shock — since the editorial page, a leading forum for conservative thought in America, has always led the charge to cut taxes. But in an editorial titled “The Non-Taxpaying Class,” editors agonized over the fact that the federal government gets most of its money from wealthy people. The top 5 percent of Americans — people who earn about $120,000 or more a year — “coughed up more than half” of tax revenue, the paper said, while poor people pay almost nothing. A worker who commands the kingly salary of $12,000 a year pays just 4 percent of his income in taxes. That tax burden, the editors conceded, “ain’t peanuts” — but it’s too small for that worker to feel any “rage” toward his wasteful government. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Oct 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 20:38
|
|
|
Dirty Job posted:Those folks at OWS are just an instrument in the hands of those who have been planning to "transform" this country for decades. Planning to "transform" the country for decades, eh? Sort of like this? http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/09/04/opinion/04reich-graphic/04reich-graphic-popup.jpg 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 20:47
|
|
|
I'm surprised there isn't an article how tax cuts for the wealthy don't actually create that many jobs, unless I missed it. It seems to be a fairly major talking point in the Republican primary. I read an article in Time talking about how tax cuts to "small" business don't do much since most of them don't have employees in the first place, but I can't find it on the Time website.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 20:55
|
|
|
MakaVillian posted:I'm surprised there isn't an article how tax cuts for the wealthy don't actually create that many jobs, unless I missed it. It seems to be a fairly major talking point in the Republican primary. It's a well accepted fact amongst economists that tax cuts for the wealthy don't create many jobs. People who argue otherwise have no factual basis for their claims so the simplest way to debate with them is to ask them provide their evidence (they have none). Per CBO estimates, extending tax cuts on the rich will reduce the unemployment rate by between 0% and 0.1%
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 21:12
|
|
|
There is a lack of welfare information in this thread. Anyone have study/argument for "Welfare was never intended as a career opportunity".
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2011 00:18
|
|
|
I don't think I'm doing this right. Here's the response I received, with references to Karl Marx, hippies, praising Ayn Rand, and how redistributing the wealth is evil!quote:"First you say the 53% don't have time to think about OWS. But why? Why don't they have the time to know how and where their countries economy..." First of all you do not learn about the country's economy by wasting your time in zuccoti park, defecating on a police patrol car, waving "the jews control the world" and "behead the rich" signs - those things do enlighten you. Secondly "the 53" does not have a time for that 'cause they actually work for a living, not being on a "life support"(welfare etc) from the nation. Again you are mixing up the so called "99%ers" (self-procalaimed) and the 53% - the people who pay taxes. The 99-ers are the bunch of unemployed hippies on the Liberty Pl, claiming to represent the majority (falsely), the 53% - is an official percentage of those who support our system with their contributions. (Of which majority is payed by top 10% - people whose heads y'all calling for) " they control a tremendous portion of our wealth. " - lol Johnny, i've never laughed so hard. "our wealth"? Even Mr. Marx would not have had a courage to say that. We live in a free market capitalist society - the wealth they own is the wealth they have earned - NOT "OUR WEALTH". Take pysicians or surgeons for instance, they are in the TOP income tax bracket - therefore they have to pay more than 35% of their earned money. You can not and should not "SPREAD THE WEALTH". First it is IMMORAL, because it involves taking money away from group that earned them - READ AYN RAND ON that subject- she is a well known pihilosopher. 2nd - if you had known economics you would have never said that it works better for economy. Incentives affect people's behavior, high taxes will discourage people from working , welfare programs (i figure that's how you gonna "spread" people's money around) affect incentives as well. They discourage people from studying and finding jobs, let alone marrying or having children. Economy never "does better" when you increase taxes - CORPORATE and Capital gains taxes in particular. Increasing corporate taxes always leads businesses to start jobs lay offs (because their revenue decreases) => unemployment rises. Increasing capital gains and income taxes for the rich always leads to them cutting their investments - which are essential for entrepreneurs and non profiters I'm just going to call it quits. There's literally nothing I can say to her. Ayn Rand, for Christ's sake. She also responded to a political cartoon I put up and mentioned how climate change isn't something the government should worry about and scientists haven't come to a conclusion on whether it's real or not. She's literally an Earth Scientist, the daughter of another Earth Scientist. Who doesn't believe in climate change. Verisimilidude fucked around with this message at 15:13 on Oct 29, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2011 15:09
|
|
|
Sometimes you have to conserve your energy. I tend to get in useless fights, too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2011 18:49
|
|
|
Report her to your local cadre for thought reform.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2011 21:48
|
|
|
Dameius posted:Facts never win an argument.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2011 01:47
|
|
|
Dirty Job posted:I don't think I'm doing this right. Here's the response I received, with references to Karl Marx, hippies, praising Ayn Rand, and how redistributing the wealth is evil! The easiest refutation to that entire diatribe of bullshit is that there was substantial economic growth and prosperity from 1945 onward, when taxes were significantly higher (I believe the top tax bracket was 75% for a long while) and when the government was far more involved in the economy through social programs and regulation. She can't explain away these historical facts and neither can other conservative ideologues. I saw Grover Norquist on Bill Maher's show last night and he is just a despicable rear end in a top hat. He literally said that poor people are poor because of the government, which is loving insane. Maher pointedly asked him if there was any level of income inequality which is bad and Norquist responded, "Only when the government creates inequality." It's futile to bother arguing with these utterly callous people who ignore reality when it's inconvenient. She's obviously an ideologue who won't let facts come between her and the beliefs and biases she has before empiricism and science come into play.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2011 09:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 04:04 |
|
|
For the past couple days I've been debating with a friend about taxation and social safety nets. It all started when he casually mentioned that "I believe in a flat tax because it's fair" and that "I think anyone can succeed if they work hard enough." At first I was so flabbergasted at this claim, because he's generally quite intelligent and I thought he knew better than that. At first the debate got kinda heated, but after we took a week or so to cool down (we were also crazy busy with other things) we came back to the table to talk it out. Here's some basic arguments he and I tossed back and forth. I first asked him what he thought the wealth distribution was in the US, and provided him with these graphs:   "Okay I can believe that 1% of the US population owns 40% of the wealth... but did you know that 80% of today's millionaires are first-generation rich?" "While that might be true, how many people does that help exactly? If 1% of the United States middle class population was able to claw their way to the top from the middle or lower classes, then what about the remaining 99%? That's like saying 'We have an awesome cure for cancer that is 80% effective... so long as you're one of the 1% that can afford it.' In truth, income mobility in the US is getting worse, and when compared to other first-world nations it's pretty terrible."  "Well look, I just think that a flat income tax is fair because everyone pays the same rate." "Well what exactly is your criteria for 'fair'? That a taxation rate stays the same between individuals? How would you view a flat federal sales tax?" "Yeah, that's how I'd define fair. And oh, I actually think a flat sales tax would be even more fair than a flat income tax. This means that taxation is volitional." "What about the fact that the lower class spends most of its income on goods and services compared to the wealthy? A guy living hand-to-mouth might spend 90-100% of his income on paying for food, rent, and other necessities (and technically even more than that if it weren't for food stamps). A guy having a decent job might spend only 50% of his cash on these things and tuck the rest into a bank account, and a really really rich person might only pay 10% in consumer goods. A sales tax sounds 'fair' but it hits the lower class the hardest." "Oh... that's right..." "This is a slight tangent but it's related... What do you know about abstinence only education?" "That it was a colossal failure." "Why?" "It didn't actually stop anyone from having sex." "And why do social conservatives keep pushing for it then?" "Because they don't pay attention to the results, they just want to push their ideals." "You're exactly right. This sort of political policy failed because they focused more on ideology rather than actual impact. While it's nice to support virtues like 'chastity' and 'fairness,' at the end of the day political policy has concrete results, and political decisions have to be made taking into account the reality of the situation, the options, and the consequences. Otherwise you've just got your head in the clouds while your nation is turning to poo poo." "So you're saying that a flat tax isn't grounded in reality?" "Well it certainly doesn't take growing income disparities or stagnant social mobility into account. Overall because of crumbling socioeconomic infrastructure, fewer citizens are actually able to achieve the American Dream. The only argument you provided in support of it was that it was 'fair,' and I've yet to hear a coherent definition for realistic standards of what 'fair' means in this context." "Well I still think that your average American is still doing better off than most. Don't the poor in America have more access to health care and education than much of the world?" "Are you thinking first-world countries or are you also including shitholes like Nigeria? "No, all countries. It could be a lot worse... oh jeez I just realized that this sounds like that thing my parents would tell me, 'Eat your broccoli, because there are starving people in China.'" "Yeah that's... really far removed from the real factors that are more comparable. I mean, if someone was complaining that he's having trouble getting into a good school because of tuition hikes, and I tell him, 'Well look at all the luxury you have living in your slums. And you get to have food stamps! I mean you're just lucky you weren't born 100,000 years ago when you would've been chased down by lions and eaten. SHOW SOME APPRECIATION FOR YOUR LUXURIES JEEZ.' I'd be rightfully called a shithead." "I just think that if people work hard enough they can get through any sort of ordeal." "And I'm pointing out that while it might be true that anyone can work super duper hard to succeed, the vast majority of people just don't have the training, resources, opportunities, or sheer dumb luck to do that, and they do need some help. This is especially the case when people endure major economic hardship. Did you know that as of now 60% of bankruptcies are due to medical bills? In 2009 and 2010 combined there were 3 million bankruptcies filed... that's 1.8 million Americans that have had their credit ratings hosed over. Not only that, but 75% of those 1.8 million people... had health insurance." "That's... really unacceptable."  "I was discussing this very issue with a hard-line Republican a while back. I mentioned a hypothetical example of a dude's dad dying because he gets cancer and was uninsured, and this dude could no longer afford to go to college because of medical bills, when he had the potential to be a doctor or a scientist or something. Our society has essentially let this guy's potential lie stillborn because we defunded social safety nets. "The Republican replied with: 'Well what if the father's death help inspire the dude to make something better of himself?' "At first I didn't think much of this objection, until I realized how disturbing it was. The laissez-faire approach to our social safety nets would actually have us leave a human being to die... just so his son could build character. If we're going to let people die of cancer or suffer other forms of needless hardship to 'build character' or 'inspire them to work for a better life' why don't we just take a more proactive stance and break their legs? "Frankly I need something much more concrete than 'character building' if I'm going to let our social safety nets crumble, or take even more crucial money from the lower and middle classes so that America can get poo poo done." At this point the conversation broke off because he was gonna be hosting some guests. We'll be talking more later.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 01:24
|
|
