Here's how we deal with nihilists: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1M6oW6a0iAwOriginally Posted by Zefelius
Even though I'm the nihilist, and you're typically the kind-hearted, sympathetic liberal sort of guy, I have the weird feeling that if we ever met, had a few drinks in a bar, and discussed politics, you would at some point pound me into mush and beat the crap out of me!!
Of course you wouldn't remember any leadership coming from someone you don't like. The President met with Boehner on numerous occasions to try to hash out a deal. This got a lot of press at the time.
Pointing out the Democrats control the Presidency and the Senate is another way of saying you don't know how it works. Budget matters come from the house. Until the house passes a bill, nothing happens. This is how our government works (or fails to work, if you prefer).
Okay, we can invent conspiracy theories or just do some reading. The rules for cloture changed in the 1970s, first to allow "tracking" of legislation so that when cloture motions failed, the Senate would move onto another bill rather than be stuck. Then in 1975, the number of votes required for cloture was reduced from 67 to 60. Thus cloture goes up, cloture goes down.
Seriously, Eisenhower? Most Democrats have a favorable view of him.
The operative fact here is that Reagan himself subsequently raised taxes again.
None of these things are objective facts. If lower taxes always means higher growth, why don't we set taxes to 0.0001%? Imagine all the growth we'd have. Yes, there is a point at which lowering taxes will increase the flow of money in the economy. There's also a point at which taxes can be so low that it actually stifles the economy. High marginal tax rates provide an incentive to invest. Furthermore it really matters whose taxes we are talking about here. Is it somebody who will turn around and put that money back into the economy or is it someone who is going to squirrel it away in the Cayman Islands? Because giving that guy a tax break does not do any good at all for the economy.
What kind of crazy talk is this? Bush inherited a roaring economy. Everybody was making money in the 90s. The justification for the Bush tax rate was we were doing so well we didn't have to tax people as much.
We had never before had a tax cut during wartime. World War II was paid off in less time than it's even taken to complete these wars. I'm not opposed to debt. I'm opposed to any plan for dealing with it.
It doubled under Reagan.
Again you ignore inflation. Wages for most workers has stagnated and stayed more or less even with inflation while the 1% have become more and more wealthy.
Yes, that's what he did. The wars were handled as "special appropriations" and never included in Bush's budgets. The government merely borrowed money to pay for them.
I have to disagree, Presidents can do alot. It is true they have to work with others, but Presidents generally exert a huge amount of control over the Federal Reserve and monetary policy. Reagan worked with Volker to institute a tight money policy to lower inflation, and it worked. Obama has worked with Bernake to increase the money supply, which has increased inflation. The cost of Gold has doubled under his watch. The President can also influnce government policy. Remember that in Obama's first two years Democrats had control of the house and a filibuster proof senate. That's right, even if every single republican in the senate tried to enforce a filibuster, the Democrats could do anything they wanted for a whole two years. When Reagan was president, Democrats controlled the House his entire term, and Republicans never had a filibuster proof senate. Yet Reagan was able to influence the economy greatly.
Reagan didn't go around blaming his predecessor for all of the problems, he led. He cut taxes, cut government regulations and had the fed institute a tight money policy, and by this time in his first term, economic prosperity returned. Obama has been led around by Pelosi and Reed. He's increased government regulations (Dodd-Frank and Obamacare), He's instituted a loose money policy (printing money to hide federal debt), and has been asking for tax increases. (Even Bill Clinton said taxes shouldn't be raised in a recession and admitted his initial tax increases were too much). Many Democrats have talked about top tax levels in the 70%-91% as if thery are a good idea. He also wants to double the Capital gain tax from 15% to 30%. Most capital gains come from business investments, and the business tax rate in the US is 35%, the highest in the world. Why is this important, because this "under taxed" income is being taxed at the 35% corperate rate, then its hit with another 15% capital gains rate. This all happens before it even gets to state and local taxes, excise taxes, tarlffs or governmental fees (like liscence plate fees and the such). Obama says that this increase in capital gains will pay off the budget deficits, it won't even make a dent. The estimated yearly revenue for the increase, 4-5 Billion dollors, the average debt put on by Obama in his three years $2,374 Billion. Lets do the math, if a 15% capital gain tax rate increse will creat $5 billion in new revenue (They high estimate) it would take a 7122% increase to cover the debt, that would leave those greedy rich bastards paying a "fair" capital gains tax of 7137%. That means every dollar they make in capital gains the would only have to pay $71.37 in taxes, and why shouldn't they, its only thier "fair share" after all and the can "afford it". The budget estimate also assumes capital gains won't go down at a higher rate, history shows a different story. The graph in the link shows that higher rates encourage less capital investement and thus less taxes collected.
link http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/C...ainsTaxes.html
Direct quote from the Article:
The historical evidence suggests that when the capital gains tax is reduced, locked-in capital is liberated and, at least temporarily, the revenues from the tax rise. For example, after the 1981 capital gains tax was cut from 28 to 20 percent, real (all figures in this section are 2004 dollars) federal capital gains tax revenues leapt from $29.4 billion in 1981 to $36.6 billion by 1983—a 24 percent increase. After the capital gains tax was cut in 1997, the receipts from capital gains taxes rose from $66.9 billion in 1996 to $114.7 billion by 1999, an increase of more than 71 percent.
Why did he have to "invest" in government spending? I had to highlight invest, because the government don't spend money anymore it invests money. Atleast you said "government spending", these words are usually replaced by "invest".
Back to my point, a major trigger point for the recession was too much spending we couldn't afford, both public and private. I may not be a genius, but if too much debt caused the crisis, how is more debt going to fix it? The reason these "investments" don't work is that government money doesn't come out of thin air. It has to come out of one of three places.
taxes It can take the money from one person and hand it to another. In other words, money can be taken out of the economy, and then put right back into it. If this is done efficiently the net gain is zero. It's like taking money out of your right pocket and putting it in your left pocket and expecting it to cause an increase. If you figure out how to do these please let me know! The problem with this is that every dollar in government spending doesn't add a dollor to GDP, it only adds about $0.80. The following article explains how government spending is unefficient: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123258618204604599.html
Loans yes the government can borrow money, but for every dollar it borrows it adds a dollar plus interest to it's liabilities. That's a net decrease to future growth.
Printing Money The only way the government actual makes money is to actually make money like a counterfitter. The problem is that when the government prints more money, it devalues every dollar in existence. Printing money is just a way of taxing people without thier permission. No net economic growth.
This is true, also coming out of World War II the US had a huge productive advantage. The economies of Europe, the United Kingdom and Japan were wrecked. (Remember there weren't any planes bombing US factories). There was also alot of money and pent up demand from two other factors. Americans bought very little in the 1930s, because they were poor. The government instituted rations during World war II, this meant over 15 years of people not buying things like new cars, appliances and many other "non-essentials" goods. After World War II, people had alot of money, and alot of worn out stuff. This combined with very little international competition led to large economic growth. You also have to remember from 1949 until the mid 70s, the US didn't trade at all with China, which is now one of its biggest trade partners. How could the US expect to have the same economic growth rates with higher levels of competition and no extraneous factors like WWII and the Great depression?
I agree with you that the president can do a lot, but it takes a while for the effect to be felt. There's also a lot that is beyond the ability of the president to directly influence.
No, this isn't true. Al Franken wasn't seated until well into the term due to a lasting challenge and recount effort by his opponent. By then Ted Kennedy's health was failing. There were only a couple of times that the Democrats actually had all 60 members of their caucus together.
Governing was quite simply a more collaborative effort back then.
This ignores the fact that the taxpayer might, instead of paying taxes, squirrel away his money in the Caymans or buy a vacation house on the French Riviera. If he does that, it's a 100% loss. This is why, from a purely macroeconomic standpoint, it makes a lot of sense to have higher taxes on higher earners. A guy making $25,000 per year is going to spend his tax cut right here in the USA. A guy making $25 million can do all manner of things with his tax cut. Some of them will help our economy and some quite simply will not.
In the quote of mine to which you're responding I actually included EQ along with IQ. I was and am quite open to the idea that intelligence can be measured in different ways. That's why, in my actual quote, I stated that Bush might well be in the top 10% of intelligence however you want to measure it. I also alluded to cultural opportunities that may have been available to Bush. So I do think I was very broad and open-minded in my definition.
I would add, and I think you would agree, that emotional and social intelligence requires a certain level of IQ to be best utilized. Feelings and intuitions by themselves, when not properly understood or contextualized, are often times misleading.
Don't forget that ideas aren't necessarily biased simply because they are either positive or negative. Hence the percentages prove absolutely nothing in and of themselves.
Great movie of course!
It always seemed to me that the Republicans were the main obstacle... although at one point I became nearly as disappointed with Obama when I learned that he "moved the goal posts" at the last moment as Boehner described.
You know that's a strawman, Sir SDU!
I said the president isn't the one who is mainly responsible for economic conditions and developments. You responded by saying that presidents are indeed quite influential, that they "can do alot [sic]." It's clear that your version of my argument is not the same one that I myself put forth.
In any case, no matter how much influence the president has, it should be clear to anyone that his role is merely one important factor among many. To what extent, e.g., can the president influence what's going on in Europe right now? He's sent Geithner to offer up some advice on how to aid places like Greece and Spain, but it's out of our hands and the Europeans haven't been in much of a mood to listen to us. And what happens in Europe may very well have a negative impact on Obama's reelection chances. Nor do we control how the Chinese grow their own economy. Their actions have a clear impact on the global economy. Thus it's clear that there are several competing factors across the world which influence our domestic economic conditions perhaps as much as any decision made by the president. And congress famously controls the purse. So even within our own borders the president must work with others in shaping our economic environment. Moreover, that's only considering the political realm. Millions of decisions are made every day by consumers, manufacturers, business owners, investors, farmers, and so forth---and these decisions certainly have a cumulative effect. Overall it's difficult to say to what exent the president influences our economic climate, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were lower than 1-3% when all variables are added up together.
Last edited by Zefelius; 04-29-2012 at 08:55 AM.
As an observant bystander any times I happen to turn on the news or comedy central newsI see a strong liberal bias. Whether that is because republicans do a lot of stupid things or because they are trying to make it look that way I don't know... But most media is strongly biased for liberals at least from what I've seen, and I'm not into politics AT ALL... and they do it in the funniest ways to so that most people wouldn't even pick up on it... I can't give any examples because I can't remember exactly when I saw it or what I saw specifically, I'm sure I could pull up plenty but I don't really care. All I know is I remember watching the news a few times and thinking "they are calling republicans retards and they don't even know it..." I thought it was freakin hilarious...
I wouldn't be surprised if there is a bias. So I don't necessarily disagree with your assessment or conclusion---or even SDUs ultimate conclusion. I was only pointing out to him that the argument he used to support his conclusion was invalid since he said there was an obvious bias insofar as coverage for Obama was more positive than that for McCain. It's invalid since it's always possible that positive coverage is deserved, and if that possibility hasn't been negated in the argument then it can't be assumed that bias is the only explanation. In other words, it may well have been that Obama ran a better campaign than McCain, in which case his positive coverage wasn't biased but reflected what was happening in 2007.As an observant bystander any times I happen to turn on the news or comedy central news
Very true... McCain was a terrible candidate anyways no wonder the Republicans couldn't win. Obama could have just as easily been a Republican if it wasn't for his socialistic like policies. If I voted I suppose I would vote for Obama but he is far from the best possible president... He is trying to divert a lot of power from the senate to the presidency, and I'm pretty sure we all know what will eventually happen if he does... FDR made the presidency way stronger than our founders would've wanted, not saying that it wasn't necessary but it is a slippery slope. If Obama adds even more we will practically be a monarchy... or a dictatorship...
Not quite sure what a nihilist is, looked it up and it seems to have several complicated meanings...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism
Actually this assesment is FALSE. Increased government spending, increased taxes and more government regulations didn't end the great depression. After 8 years of FDRs economic programs, and four years of Hoover (they both did pretty much the same thing) unemployment was still 15% in 1940. When Hoover entered office unemployment was around 4%.
Funny thing about Austerity, it worked in the 1920s. Harding inherited a terrible economy when he took office in 1921. What did he do? He cut taxes and cut spending. He also didn't "invest" in a "stimulus" plan. What happened, the economy turned around and was great until Hoover took office.
Statistics and a large article you can read through or just skim for the stats:http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/smiley.1920s.final
Hoover an Austerity guy? If only! Any honest look at the data shows the exact opposite. Hoover was basically FDR lite. The two links below show tax rates and spending. Hoover took office in 1929, right when spending started going up, income tax rates went up dramatically for 1930.
Hoover also did the following
1) Created the Federal Farm Board-Created to keep surplus crops off of the market, it inevitably led to more surplus crops the next year.
2) Smoot-Hawley Tariff-Raised tariffs an average of 59%, other countries retaliated against the US with high tariffs of their own. You have to remember the US was an exporter nation in the 20s
3)Vastly increase spending on public works projects Transulation, he invested in economic stimulus packages.
4) Created the Reconstruction Finance Corperation
5) Encouraged Business leaders to not cut wages in a time when prices were dropping, they cut workers instead.
Sure sounds like a do nothing, pro austerity president to me.
Historic Tax Rates: http://ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of...ividual-1.html
Historic Government spending: http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n2-2.html
If you cut taxes across the board, of course the people making more money are going to see a bigger benefit in actual dollars. Actually tax rates went down more steeply at the bottom than the top. The bottom rate was cut by 1/3, the top rate by 1/8. Plus if the Bush tax cuts were so horrible, how come the Democrats didn't get rid of the in Obama's first two years when the Republicans could do nothing about it? Even Bill Clinton said it would be a mistake to raise taxes in a recession.
My original statement was as follows: I can find no time that a President raised taxes during a recession and the economy got better
Lets take a close look at your answers
1) FDR raised taxes and the economy got better
I actually already answered this above, but to reiterate, after 8 years of FDR, which followed 4 years of Hoover, unemployment was still 15% in 1940. FDRs economic program of higher taxes, higher spending and increased government involvement in the economy failed. In fact it most likely legthend the depression.
2) Reagan cut taxes and we got a small recession. Then he raised taxes and things improved.
I answered the whole tax issue with ShowtekGER alkready, but I'll do it again. Reagan greatly cut taxes in 1981. The tax increase in 1982 wasn't Reagan "admitting" he lowered them too much, as you have suggested, it was part of a budget deal with Democrats. He was supossed to get $3 in budget cuts, for every $1 increase in taxes. (Sounds familiar to what the Democrats are offering today, doesn't it). Reagan signed the compromise bill, but he never got the promised cuts. (could be why people are skeptical of making a similar deal) But even after the increase, it still left 2/3 of the cuts in place. That means between the two bills there was a net tax cut. Plus Reagan cut again for 1987. Plus the recession started under Carter, before the original tax cuts. Your statement makes it sould like the recession started after the cuts.
Clinton raised taxes. We had a decade of growth and prosperity.
The statement is true, but Clinton cut taxes in a good economy, not a recession. He also later cut taxes, and the economy grew at a greater rate. So it didn't answer my question.
Bush cut taxes. We got a recession.
Technically true, but misleading. Bush inherited a recession in 2001, He cut taxes in 2002, and the economy recovered. In 2008 the economy went into a recession, but it had nothing to do with the tax cuts. It was because of government interference in the housing market through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
My guess is that you can't find a president who raised taxes in a recession and it fixed the economy, because one don't exist.
This is false. My guess is that you heard something like...
"I think [the war in Iraq] is the first time we've ever been taken to war and had a president who wouldn't pay for it."
--Hillary Clinton, Democratic debate in Pennsylvania, April 17, 2008.
...and assumed this meant the war wasn't on the books. What this was refering to was that Bush didn't raise taxes to pay for the war. It could also just be that the current costs of the war are being counted against Obama rather than Bush.
Good article to read for further info: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fac..._iraq_war.html
Actually Clinton didn't leave us with a budget surplus, it was just creative accounting. The last time the US federal debt went down was when Eisenhower was president. This is how I judge deficits and surpluses. So if the surplus never actually existed, I doubt that the total paying off of the debt would have existed either.
A good site that shows historical debt: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...t/histdebt.htm
I recently read an article in money magazine that shows the Ryan budget will cost less money than the democrat one. I think I'll trust Money magazine over the people who wrote the other budget.
The CBO states that the Obama budget would add debt over the next ten years, not eliminate it.
Maybe you don't know how it works, but most Presidents send a budget to the house for approval, that's where things usually start. I don't remember the leadership, because Obama largely sat on the sidelines through most of the debate. He did come in late and try to make a deal with Boehner, but that was after several months. Plus the Republicans did send a budget to the Senate.
It is true that there is an income cap on Social Security, but did you ever wonder why? It's because social security and Medicare are meant to be government forced retirement plans, not income taxes. The income is capped, because the benefits are capped. The idea is that you pay about 7.5% of your income, and your employer matches it (until the payroll tax "vacations") to social security & medicare, and you get that money back when you reach the appropriate age. One of the big reason's social security and medicare are running out of money is that the government takes money out of them to pay for other things. (like medicade and welfare) It also doesn't help that these "payroll tax vacations" have decreased contributions by 50%.
So what do you think ended the depression? It was government spending, first in the form of the WPA and then WWII (which was a massive government spending program). After that we kept the economy humming by building the Eisenhower Interstate system, the Hoover Dam and similar projects.
It is intellectually dishonest to suggest that a 15% unemployment rate in 1940 meant Roosevelt's policies weren't working when unemployment had been over 20%.
You need to check your information about Hoover. Taxes were increased during his last year in the presidency, but it was not by his initiative. By then of course it was too late to have any positive growth during his administration.
The 1920s were a period of stock market games that didn't include any actual growth. Yes, people made money and then the lost it all. It was not a sustainable model and not something that should be held up as an example of good economic policy.
Democrats didn't get rid of the tax cuts because they made a deal to extend them in exchange for the payroll tax cut and for support in the stimulus package.
Obama wanted to keep the tax cuts for lower earners and allow the cut to expire for top earners on the theory that you shouldn't raise taxes on people who are struggling in a recession. However there are those who can afford to pay.
First, answer how we got out of the depression. We certainly didn't change course in the 1940s and 1950s.
But this response really shows a lack of understanding of economies. How else would we have recovered? The right-wing expectation is that some entrepreneur comes up with a business idea and starts hiring people because he has some kind of tax incentive to do so. The reality is you don't hire someone until you've got a job to do. If you made a fat salary and lived in a high-rise would you hire a lawn service on the theory that one day you might live in a house with a lawn? No, you wait until you have that house, then consider a lawn service.
When things get really bad, the only employer that will step in and hire people is the government. We had people out there building roads and public buildings that are still in use today. They became contributors to society and this in turn fueled growth in other areas.
The recession started as Reagan was coming into office. Then he cut taxes and it got worse. His popularity dropped to a 35% approval rating. If he'd stayed on that course we might be talking about the economic policies of President Mondale, as absurd as that sounds. Reagan raised taxes and we got through the recession and his numbers went back up.
You absolutely cannot deny that Reagan raised taxes and the economy improved. QED.
Your typo is funny here. You can't put "raised taxes" and "good economy" together. Very Freudian.
There was no 2001 recession in the United States. The Fannie/Freddie thing is just a canard. Yes, the government was promoting home ownership, but at no time were the ridiculous practices of AIG ever condoned. Fannie and Freddie were also bad actors, but they are quasi-private entities and lacked sufficient oversight.
Gah, Roosevelt and Reagan for the Nth time.
No, he actually didn't include the wars in the budgets he submitted to Congress. He would submit a budget ("I need $2 trillion.") and they would plan out how all the agencies and programs would be paid. Then Congress would have another completely separate session to have a completely separate appropriation bill to pay for the wars, as though it was a complete surprise each year that we were still fighting wars. When Obama came into office, he just put the wars into the budget.
Your chart doesn't show whether or not we had a budget surplus. It shows whether debt increased. Public debt can increase in a time of budget surpluses as surely as you can charge something to your credit card even though you've got money in the bank.
So what? It's not about costing less money. It's about running the kind of government we want to run. Of course austerity costs less money!
The budget I linked is not Obama's and deals with the debt faster than any other. Both Obama and Ryan keep piling on debt for a while. The difference is that Ryan slashes social spending in favor of huge tax cuts for the wealthy.
But I don't need to argue about Ryan's budget with you. It's DOA. The Republicans can ride that jalopy to historic defeats in November if they want. My guess is they won't be so stupid.
Oh I know very well how my government works. Obama has submitted several budgets. The House even voted on one that he hadn't submitted just to try to embarrass him!
No, I know very well why we have the caps. It's important to raise them to keep these programs healthy. I know that some people think it would be okay if they fell by the wayside, but the fact is that if people have less money in their retirements, they will spend less and that leads to recession.
I agree a big part of the problem is that the program trusts have been raided to pay for other things. Legislation has been introduced to make doing that illegal, but unfortunately it hasn't gained traction. This is the kind of problem we will continue to have going forward regardless of which party is in control. They will try to make the books look better than they really are by moving money around. Ryan in particular makes optimistic predictions about a future Congress making difficult cuts when in fact even if his budget is adopted, a future Congress would have no requirement to stick to the plan. This is why in terms of deficit control, the Congressional Progressive Caucus has the best plan. They tackle all of these issues now.
I didn't expect you to answer the questions based on my knowledge of your behavior in these forums when asked simple but revealing questions but if you believe that the political & theological leaders of Islam & the followers of Islam bear no responsibility for their lack of public & concerted action against the terrorists in their midst which as a result has created a fertile environment for such ideations to be nurtured, etc..., then we will simply have to agree to disagree.
To attempt to answer your question, personally, I expect more than what I see currently. I think the data is clear that there is a unique issue on this topic (terrorism) within Islam that does not exist within other major religions/cultures world-wide in similar proportions. This data dissonance has never been addressed satisfactorily & I've already distributed the academic paper that showed that poverty doesn't cause terrorism.
With regards to Anders, he was apprehended immediately & is now on trial & will likely go to jail for the rest of his life. He has been portrayed as the monster he is in every western media outlet I'm aware of. I believe Anders was responsible for the deaths of 77-79 people. Osama Bin Laden was responsible for close to 3000 (actually measurably more since 9/11 was not his only terrorist action + we are ignoring the Middle-Eastern people he killed). Do you think Osama Bin Laden could have been dealt with similarly if the leaders and/or Islamic culture in which he resided universally viewed him as a criminal/monster & acted accordingly instead of harboring & hiding him all these years since September 11, 2001? Of course it could have but the reality is he is viewed as a folk-hero on the order of Hitler, who also thought he was doing good, by a meaningful & measurable percentage of the Middle-East population. As a result, we had to search for 10 years, violate Pakistan airspace & sovereignty, & kill him by force. It doesn't make sense if the principles of sacredness of life involved are equally implemented & pursued in Western & Middle-Eastern cultures. The rational conclusion is they aren't, although we can argue why all day long, that part seems obvious & beyond debate.
Anyhow, those are the answers I choose to provide although they were not necessary for you to provide your own.
Keep in mind that absence of answers to questions does not invalidate the questions & the majority of your post has no relevance whatsoever to my original questions. I'm certain if I had responded as such, I would have had to endure a lecture in logic 101. My conclusion is you don't agree in the principle you were espousing as applied to the topic I inquired about, at least not enough to say so publicly. So be it. I think the principle is reasonable & can be applied in a great many instances of which this specific matter of data dissonance as applied to global terrorism is one such reasonable instance.
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
Last edited by Pedal2Metal; 04-30-2012 at 12:58 PM.
I know & that's not my issue really so perhaps this will help.
In my view, you haven't proved your underlying assumption, so that means I can't necessarily agree with your conclusion that it would be largely superior, which even if you could prove your underlying assumption, I'm not sure I would agree with. So the argument seems especially weak, regardless of how egalitarian you might have stated the non-essential aspects.
You're hiding this assumption & I'm simply trying to shed some light on it. What evidence can you provide that leaders who rank in the top-10% do a signficantly poorer job than those in the top-1% or vice-versa? Can we even define accurately such percentages? etc....
I understand it's merely an opinion but in my view, if we take a simple mathematical approach, anyone who makes POTUS is conservatively 1 out of 100 million which puts him in the top 0.000001%. Even if I say only the top 1 out of 1000000, it's the top 0.0001%. Even if one says that's too kind, even 1 out of 1000 is top 0.1%. Surely we can all agree that anyone who makes the POTUS is in the top 0.1% of the general population?
Anyhow, it's your opinion so it's probably pointless to even discuss since obviously that's not measurable in any objective manner but any simply objective measurement seems to indicate that to become the POTUS requires a great deal more than the average individual & will easily be in the top 1%, however you define it.
So it seems to me that some of what you are saying is more an indication of your own personal disappointment, not really an objective analysis of the odds, percentages, probabilities, etc.... I could be wrong but that's how I interpreted your statements due to all the gaping holes in the assessment & underlying assumptions.
I think you might be right.
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
Last edited by Pedal2Metal; 04-30-2012 at 01:01 PM.
Hmmmmmm..... You're right. I don't have actual evidence supporting my claim that leaders in the top 1% will do better than those in the top 10%. That would be awfully hard to verify, wouldn't it? But I still stand behind my claims since generally speaking individuals with higher IQ and EQ levels tend to be more successful in life as compared to others. If this is generally valid, with exceptions here and there, then it's at least plausible to assume that these kinds of trends would also apply to the POTUS. No certainties, of course, but plausible assumptions nonetheless.
Oh, the pomposity!
Starting with the knowledge that Islam is the most populous religion in the history of humanity, what do you expect Muslims in Dearborn, MI to do about it? What do you expect powerless peasants in Afghanistan to do about it? Sudanese refugees should step up to the plate? Saudi oil barons should give a crap what you think? What about Indonesian shopkeepers? What action should they take against al-Qaeda?
That's not an answer. What do you think these people can do? We have Muslims come to America to get away from violence and terror. What more can they do than try to become productive members of a (kind of) peaceful nation?
Are you on a first name basis with him? Just kidding.
And actually, you may be wrong. He might just do a couple of decades. The Norwegian penal system seems a little soft, even to me.
I don't really think it's an even comparison. Norway is a modern democracy while Afghanistan and Pakistan are unstable messes, riddled with corruption. You basically have the corrupt ruling class, the army (only refuge from poverty) and peasants. The peasants are by definition powerless. They struggle daily for survival. What would your priority be? Putting food on the table for your family or apprehending a criminal who killed people far away?
I think if Afghanistan and Pakistan were stable democracies, bin Laden would not have been tolerated. I'm against theocracy, be it Islamic, Christian or FSM.
Godwin violation!
Here's what I think: We should welcome people of all faiths who want to live peacefully. The middle-east is a mess and it will be a mess until people there sort things out. We keep meddling. We should stop because we aren't making it any better. Almost all of the leaders that we have come to hate so were at one time backed by either some western or some Soviet power. Some of them got backing on both sides.
I actually used to agree with you 100% but my views have changed after watching several documentaries on how the Nazis took power. It is relatively easy to do what the terrorists are doing with or without popular support. Add in the fact that most people are living in not so great conditions over there and you got a perfect recipe for an extremist regime... If things continue on the path in America we could easily see an "American" Hitler rise to power so to speak. If you take desperate and angry people, promise them change that will help make their lives easier, or better yet grant them "eternal peace", then that country can easily be taken over by extremist's. The documentary I watched on the rise of the Third Reich was very fascinating, I had no idea how easy it is to completely take over a country with crazy extremist views... Then install fear into the public and you have yourself a nice new extremist country...
nicely put. i think the central error in that kind of right-wing expectations of others is some sort of fundamental attribution bias. they do not take environmental considerations into account, assume that the other shares the same environment as oneself, and that it is therefore his personal, internal characteristics which are to blame for the failure (to more greatly criticize islamic terrorists in this case).
of course, when your primary activity is to protect against imminent threats to survival you won't get busy with information seeking, intellectual debates, reflection, and great action towards grievances in your society. you really have to have other stuff on your mind.
i probably agree with you that a position such as the president of a country requires incredible intelligence of all sorts and many other capabilities. a greater problem than us not being able to measure whether people capturing such positions actually possess these characteristics is that they are either extremely rare or do not exist. it would require personal perfection of a number of merits and such human perfection does not exist.
being the mightiest person in the world demands not only perfect intellect but also perfect morality as has been covered before in this thread. our system of hierarchies clearly overstates differences between individuals and therefore does not work, giving rise to corruption and social tragedies on national and global scales. i don't get how we could go through decades of monarchies and other absolutist systems but still established a system which put one guy at the top of all others, those others similarly engaging in a system of a rigorous hierarchy that makes impossible truly serving the people.
I think it's a combination of that and simply seeing things in black and white. There are Islamic leaders who are terrible people. To me that's not a reason to condemn the entire faith and all the people who follow it. To some people it is.
in germany, you pay less than an euro for a 330ml can of pepsi and about 5 for 20 cigarettes. in denmark, i suppose both is more expensive than in ireland. of course, this confirms what i said before about things being taxed to greater extents which accounts for these differences between the US and some or most western european countries. this, of course, says nothing about the percentage of poor people as long as all that tax money comes back as welfare.
at least in regard to food there is one more variable however. in denmark, for example, nicotine, alcohol, and junk food is very expensive because it's unhealthy and vegetables and ecological foods are subsidized. it wouldn't surprise me if it was actually less expensive to eat healthily in denmark than in the US where much of the meat industry, e.g., is subsidized instead, contributing to social health and environmental problems. i don't have a problem with taxing those lifestyles that are unhealthy, especially if this is indirectly used to promote healthy lifestyles even though i, too, enjoy alcohol and fatty foods. i find it morally justifiable as well as unhealthy people are costly for society. therefore, it's okay if they pay more in the first place as they will more often have to make use of their universal health care paid by society.
what are you talking about?As far as "free college" goes, the US helps those who need help, rather than helping poor and rich alike.
i know quite a few people who would disagree with that. zefelius, who is a university professor, and elthrasher have oftentimes lamented the american education system.Plus the product in the US is far better than the rest of the world. The US routinely dominates the World University Rankings. Link to the rankings here:
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.u...2/top-400.html
i can't tell you how often i've been confronted with that ranking by americans who think with it they prove the superiority of american education. i think what it probably proves is that a profit oriented education system can create gigantic centers of knowledge, attracting the most notable lecturers and most advanced technology. this method, though, may absorb all of this, leaving less rich facilities with less quality and creating a system of crude elitism where only the richest get access to that kind of education. just an idea. you may have a point if you can demonstrate that the average american scores highest on most measures of educational achievement.
i don't know why you would find it problematic that less unequal countries do so much better socially.EWe all know how wonderful the socialistic / communist paradises of Cuba, North Korea and the former Soviet Union are. Of course socialist states are less unequal, the whole idea of socialism is to divide things up equally. That doesn't mean they're better off.
cuba, north korea, and china, e.g., are terribly unequal countries. they are also tyrannies. i don't favor those. the united states, by the way, are about as unequal as cuba, china, and possibly north korea which is something that sets it apart from other industrialized nations.
and increasingly so. have you noticed how similar breivik's opinions are to pedal's? not only that, they are also similar to those of the leaders of the right-populist parties which are becoming more and more successful across western europe (third biggest parties in denmark, austria, the netherlands, france, amongst others). people who are famous for quotes such as "islam is a retarded religion" and people who want a full stop of all muslim immigration are voted into office. two years ago the people of switzerland banned the building of further minarets by a vote of over 57%. all these people are using the same argumentation as breivik and pedal and believe in conspiracies of islamists wanting to take over the west. of course, neither pedal nor these parties would resort to violence (at least for now) and this, in my opinion, is the last major characteristic than discerns them from the fascists we've seen in the 20th century.
truly frightening, especially since i think we haven't yet seen the end of this.
Your view, which I agree with, does not invalidate my point. It, in fact, underscores & illustrates it. The rise of Nazism is an excellent example. As the saying goes: He who is silent is understood to consent.
This is how any vocal & bold minority (~10-15%) is able to dominate the vast majority (85-90%). There are examples all over from every angle: Nazis, religions, politics, crime, etc.... It's the basic mechanism of how 1 guy with 6 bullets can control many more than 6 people & eventually kill them all one-by-one.
What this implies for the normative population is that we must be vocal & we must be willing to truly sacrifice to achieve normalcy because the extremists always are. In other words, we must be extremely committed to balance vs. being fooled into thinking that being "normal" requires accepting values implicitly by our silence which are clearly at odds with our own. When the normative population remains "silent" & is unwilling to sacrifice to proclaim their values, the natural result is that extremism wins. This is demonstrable in everything from everyday office politics to real-world politics, etc... all throughout human history. Extremism may win anyhow but doing nothing virtually guarantees it.
Here's a anecdotal example: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/wo...n-burning.html
They recommend that the government shouldn't allow such acts & that the perpetrator should be killed. As you can clearly see the value of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc... are vastly different between the culture of Iran & America. That we should be silent about such distinctions lest we be labeled as bigots, etc... furthers this dystopian view even further in a synergistic manner. So now you have a synergistic effect between the extremists who do not share our values & those within our own midst who say we must remain silent in order as to not offend the extremists or be mis-perceived as extremist ourselves. It's a interesting phenomenon that leads to good men remaining silent which is how evil propagates more quickly. It has worked this way for all of human history & will continue to do so, despite any notions of "progress" we might want to believe in to the contrary.
In short, the idea that I need to take a back seat to someone else's values simply because they are more vocal naturally & more willing to sacrifice to achieve them (or any other criteria you can imagine), is absolute nonsense. However, that's the gist of what the PC crowd would have us to believe that somehow being silent in the face of a value conflict is more "noble" & "enlightened". It's not, it's an insidious mechanism that extremists count on to achieve their ends: normal people like to appear "normal". Just like aggressive salesmen for condominium timeshares who know most people don't like to give a strong "No" & they exploit that natural character attribute in the average person to sell them a condo they don't really need and won't want much longer once the first year has passed. It's a subtle but very common tactic used by those much smarter than the average bear. Few people who essentially peddle evil want to do battle on a level intellectual battlefield. They would prefer to have the battlefield slant slightly in their favor & preferably based on the precepts of their enemy so as to be able to attack from 2 fronts: outside & within. You use an opponent's strength against him as a weakness from within while continuing to pound away from without. It's actually quite clever so I have to respect the genius of it.
thanks & best regards,
Pedal2Metal
Last edited by Pedal2Metal; 04-30-2012 at 05:49 PM.
So how would you rank the success of someone who achieves POTUS as compared to the rest of the US population, %-wise?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori..._United_States
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h980.html
Given the data, I can't imagine any rational conclusion other than any POTUS has been in the top 0.0...% statistically in all cases.
So again, I think you're expressing some personal disappointment in the process, the results, the POTUS, etc... rather than some objective measure that can be rationally/statistically defended. I can empathize as I have my own political fantasies but I do recognize them as fantasy, not reality.
I think it's safe to say that anyone who has achieved POTUS is measurably & significantly more successful than anyone discussing the topic on these forums.
thanks & best regards,
Pedal2Metal
Last edited by Pedal2Metal; 04-30-2012 at 05:51 PM.
I wouldn't find it very useful to notice something like that out loud. The opinions he is expressing here can be attacked directly without comparing him to an insane mass-murderer.
Again ignoring the Breivik comparison, yeah Europe is falling fast. I used to think that Europe was just going through some growing pains like America did in the 1960s (and emerged all the stronger for it) but I think it's much worse than that. Of course it was less than a century ago that things got really crazy over there. Could it be that Europe isn't as sophisticated as it likes to believe it is? If Europe succumbs to chaos again, it will be much, much worse than any threat that could arise in the mid-east.
but the breivik comparison is relevant, especially in regard to said european xenophobes. it shows that the beliefs of an insane mass-murderer are in many ways mainstream.
i don't see that danger yet. for now it has only been this new populist anti-immigrant right which has been broadly successful, not actual nazi parties which promote violence, deny the holocaust and directly argue for white genetic superiority, and the like. this right-wing is very careful not to be associated with that kind of politics because they know that they wouldn't be voted. any kind of political violence is still frowned upon. as soon as that changes, i will be more afraid.If Europe succumbs to chaos again, it will be much, much worse than any threat that could arise in the mid-east.
perhaps we're lucky and this is just some normal extremist reaction to economic downturn. but i'm not so sure. if we're less lucky the shift to the right in the "free world" might be part of the decline of the west.
you may both be wrong. the judicial process is mainly about whether breivik is insane or not. if he is finally declared insane and not capable of being guilty, he will never serve time in prison but be submitted to psychiatric care instead. he will remain there until considered rehabilitated which could theoretically be any amount of time.
if 27 years of maximum sentence are soft then you should not take a look at actual norwegian prisons which must seem like a holiday camp to an american. of course, i don't think neither is soft as the only purpose of criminal procedures ought to be rehabilitation. not to mention that anyone doing what breivik has done is insane in my opinion. but we'll see.
It is quite genius I have to admit that, doesn't mean it is good. You have to take into account that not everyone is as smart as we think or claim to be... Also over 90% people are happy living there lives without conflict as long as they think they won't have to fight... But by the time they realize that a fight/war is inevitable it is to late and the extremists have achieved what they sought out to... Smart people would rise up against extremist but as history teaches us, when the Nazis rose whoever opposed them were quickly killed... Could Islamic people do more to help us get rid of Al queda and other terrorist groups? Absolutely. But I can't really blame them for trying to avoid conflict and protect there families. But on the other hand what people don't realize is that a lot of people in those countries do support terrorist organizations... I would roughly estimate between 40-50% off people in those regions are actively aiding terrorists or have in the past... This isn't like the KKK or the tea party in America where the percentage of people that support it are incredibly small. It is like the Republican or Democratic party which is a huge portion...
Actually in 1933 the Nazis received 37% of the popular vote, they still lost but that is a lot...
that doesn't sound very realistic. if you had said that a large number of muslims sometimes unconsciously or cognitively support islamic terrorism i wouldn't be able to negate that but active aid is something wholly different. i've seen statistics about self-reported support of terrorist acts in the name of islam and most muslims asked are against it. i suppose your estimation is highly influenced by the media.
Strawman after strawman. Nobody is saying you must be silent about differences. Such a view has never once been entertained on this forum. It's when you point to a difference and then conclude that that difference means the other is inferior that you are a bigot.
How many people do you think actually ask suspected terrorists if they are terrorists? Even then, most of them would not say they were... Actually the media shows more Muslims who are peaceful rather than than the majority... I'm making these estimates from what soldiers in the field have said and not to mention the videos of cities across the middle east celebrating on 9/11 and burning American flags... You telling me all of those people are pacifists? Really??? I can guarantee you if you went through the cities soldiers have gone through and picked out random people half of them have supported terrorists or are supporting them currently... People in there own families are terrorists and they don't even know it. There have been parents who were completely unaware that there son was an active terrorist.... You are more influenced by the media than me...
I think it's more like this:
People live in a village somewhere in Afghanistan. The extremists come to town with guns and the people have a simple choice - support them or be shot, so they support them. Americans come and chase away the extremists and the people are grateful for a little peace and whatever assistance the Americans offer. The Americans leave and the extremists come back and now the villagers have no choice but to be pro-extremist once again.
This is the central struggle that American forces face, as I understand it. They can't be personal bodyguards for every citizen over there and as soon as they leave a village, what good they've done is quickly erased.
What is supposed to happen is we are supposed to train local security forces to continue to do this job once we leave, but that's another uphill battle as the top ranks and elite bureaucracy are riddled with corruption. Did you know that $12 billion has simply gone unaccounted for in Iraq? Probably stolen by corrupt officials.
I think you would find that this cycle continues even as groups that are at odds with one another exchange territory. In addition to foreign troops, you've got the Taliban, al-Qaeda and local warlords that may have tenuous ties to one or both groups. It's not like people are sitting in their cozy living rooms watching the news when they exclaim, "You know, I was thinking, my dear, why don't we become terrorists and cry 'Death to America!' Wouldn't that be a laugh?"
That makes sense... But there are still a large percent of people who do support them regardless if they are forced to or not. They didn't achieve such high numbers to force people to do what they want by getting "unwilling" soldiers. If people are willing to give their lives to kill innocent people don't you think they would've sacrificed themselves before it got to that point? In that case perhaps it is not as large as a percentage as I originally thought, but it is still a fairly large percentage though... When you get people who are so committed to such an insane cause any logical thought process you can try to put behind it is thrown out the window. Why do you think no one turned Osama Bin Laden in after 10 years? 27 million dollars and not one person came forward, if someone did their family and anyone else they wanted could've been set for life. You know why no one did? Because they truly and deeply believed in the cause they were fighting for which is disturbing...
Strong rebuttal. By definition, the POTUS is a success story compared to the rest of us. Even a failed presidency constitutes much, much, much more than what the vast majority of us will ever achieve in an entire lifetime. So what can I say in response?So how would you rank the success of someone who achieves POTUS as compared to the rest of the US population, %-wise?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori..._United_States
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h980.html
Given the data, I can't imagine any rational conclusion other than any POTUS has been in the top 0.0...% statistically in all cases.
So again, I think you're expressing some personal disappointment in the process, the results, the POTUS, etc... rather than some objective measure that can be rationally/statistically defended. I can empathize as I have my own political fantasies but I do recognize them as fantasy, not reality.
I think it's safe to say that anyone who has achieved POTUS is measurably & significantly more successful than anyone discussing the topic on these forums.
thanks & best regards,
Pedal2Metal
In my earlier comment I didn't define success. The reason I didn't do it is because it's such a nebulous category, inviting its own kind of debates. So I didn't want to digress too much in making my earlier claims. But at this point you've forced my hand and I have no choice. Although the lines are full of ambiguity, I think that most of us draw rough distinctions between objective and subjective forms of success. Subjective forms need not fulfill the actual requirements of one's duty---whether in academia, politics, science, manufacturing, and so forth---but instead rely upon mass appeal, social connections, corruption, attractiveness, bias, discrimination, etc.
At this point I must add an important caveat: objective criteria will sometimes include subjective criteria, as in beauty contests or positions of leaderships necessitating people skills. That's why earlier I stipulated that the POTUS should also be culturally aware and have a high EQ. But even in these cases the subjective criteria (which are included in the objective domain) can be tainted by other subjective forms of success. For example, social skills in leadership shouldn't be confused with either corruption or being popular. Indeed, being successful in the latter two will often times conflict with being successful in the former.
If that caveat is granted, then we can see how someone who is nominally succesful in terms of winning the presidency may still not be the best choice for that position. Corruption is an indisputable example. The more controversial one--and perhaps this is where we'll disagree--has to do with the popular vote. Winning it implies success of a subjective nature, but I would disagree that it guarantees success in a more objective fashion. In other words, the question for me boils down to the more reliable indicator of success as the POTUS: is it everything I listed above having to do with IQ, EQ, cultural awareness, and knowledge of world events, or is it more closely aligned with being able to convince the masses to vote one way rather than another? Since the latter has little to do with the objective requirements of the job (indeed, most voters are ignorant of those requirements), I think we should cross that off our list and opt for the traits which, generally speaking, are better indicators of objective success in life.
I highly recommend reading the recent Economist on how manufacturing is entering a 3rd revolution. The first was when work became centralized in factories, and the second when people like Ford utilized moving assembly lines. Now manufacturing is going digital. At first that sounds obvious and familiar, but what's being developed in fact is radical. One thing that stood out to me, for example, were 3D "printers" which create objects via additive layering. Not all objects can be created this way yet, but that's the direction this is taking. Here's one small quote:
"And at the most recent EuroMold fair, last November, another group of machines was on display: three-dimensional (3D) printers. Instead of bashing, bending and cutting material the way it always has been, 3D printers build things by depositing material, layer by layer. That is why the process is more properly described as additive manufacturing. An American firm, 3D Systems, used one of its 3D printers to print a hammer for your correspondent, complete with a natty wood-effect handle and a metallised head."
Reading the entire special section reveals a lot more. For instance, not only have we entered into an age of social media, but also social manufacturing, whereby any of us can potentially become manufacturers of these products. Probably the most interesting article I've read in the last year, although there was another good one in Discovery magazine last month about the development of telepathic helmets for soldiers in battle.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
