The Iraqi Elections

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

More on the faith-based initiative issue:

 

"In the last few years, a few studies have looked at both faith-based and secular social service providers, and they have particularly tried to replicate the incredible results boasted by the model Texas programs. The verdict? There is no evidence that faith-based organizations work better than their secular counterparts; and, in some cases, they are actually less effective. In one study funded by the Ford Foundation, investigators found that faith-based job training programs placed only 31 percent of their clients in full-time employment while the number for secular organizations was 53 percent. "

 

Source: Washington Monthly

[Guest MikeSC]

More on the faith-based initiative issue:

 

"In the last few years, a few studies have looked at both faith-based and secular social service providers, and they have particularly tried to replicate the incredible results boasted by the model Texas programs. The verdict? There is no evidence that faith-based organizations work better than their secular counterparts; and, in some cases, they are actually less effective. In one study funded by the Ford Foundation, investigators found that faith-based job training programs placed only 31 percent of their clients in full-time employment while the number for secular organizations was 53 percent. "

 

Source: Washington Monthly

However, we're dealing with the issue of money here --- and the gov't can always hire people if they so choose to.

 

If faith-based isn't the best way to go, so be it. Gov't programs clearly don't do the trick,

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

A MikeSC, you never responded to this post...I guess you didn't see it. I was interested in seeing what you thought so I decided to bump it up.

 

And the progressive income tax is a terrible idea that simply inspires people to not pay their "fair share". A flat tax is suitable. The rich will still pay a lot more than the poor.

 

 

Lots of working poor people can barely afford food and a place to live. It would be nearly impossible for some to spare even a small part of their income for taxes. If you imposed a flat tax, you would have to raise the minimum wage or find some way to make sure people don't starve. Poverty in the US in real.

 

 

And the rich not buying luxuries kills jobs, knocking more people into economic distress.

 

Also, keep in mind, allowing the rich to keep more of their money inspires investment --- which tends to be the catalyst in creating jobs.

 

 

We have to find some kind of balance between economic growth and quality of life. Is it more important to make sure people have as high an income as possible or access to all of life's necessities?

 

 

Nobody does --- but the programs are never efficient. Which is why Bush's faith-based initiative was a great idea. Allow faith-based charities to handle charity, as they are infinitely better at it than the gov't.

 

 

Why do they have to be inefficient? I don't mean to be corny, but WE are the government...you and me. And personally, I would rather my money go to the government than Sun Myung Moon (sorry for the sarcasm but I guess this message board is rubbing off on me).

 

Sarcasm-the tool of the weak

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Also, keep in mind, allowing the rich to keep more of their money inspires investment --- which tends to be the catalyst in creating jobs.

 

This is an article that would seem to refute that statement and some of your other statements about the fairness of the Bush tax cuts. I pulled some pertinent quotes:

(sorry my cutting and pasting was pretty shitty but I'm sure you can get the gist)

 

-"Recent data show that, even before the current tax cut was put into effect, the top 400 wealthiest taxpayers paid less taxes in 2000 than in both 1995 and in 1992. In the past nine years, the incomes of the “top 400 tax payers increased 15 times the rate of the bottom 90 percent of Americans.”2 And it is important to point out in this context that the top 1 percent of income earners in America have a 26 percent share of the tax burden while their share of the Bush tax cuts is over 50 percent.3

 

However we may view the rhetoric of the tax cuts, what is becoming ever more apparent is a gradual destruction of the public sector and the expansion of the market to more domains of society. In this sense, the Bush tax cuts are not merely an expression of fiscal policy. They also fundamentally serve a larger project of redirecting the way that American democracy has functioned throughout the post-war era. This redirection involves a wholesale transformation in the way that government can act to soften the harsh impacts of the capitalist economy whether it is in the form of economic inequality or environmental degradation. "

 

-"The Bush administration’s economic argument that the tax cuts will somehow stimulate a dragging economy and increase employment has little support in theory and no support empirically. The tax cuts are proposed as part of a stimulus package, one that will promote economic growth. But, as James K. Galbraith has recently pointed out, these cuts are not a growth policy for two crucial reasons: “They are targeted to the wealthy, and they are back-loaded so as to conceal their true long-term impact on budget deficits.”8 The extent of the tax cuts is therefore structured so that the real effects on the budget will not show up for another ten years or so since tax cuts on the wealthy will continue to diminish tax revenues and therefore increasingly bankrupt the state. Of course, this is not obvious when one examines the tax plan since such easily perceived hardship would cause at least a small degree of backlash. "

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However we may view the rhetoric of the tax cuts, what is becoming ever more apparent is a gradual destruction of the public sector and the expansion of the market to more domains of society. In this sense, the Bush tax cuts are not merely an expression of fiscal policy. They also fundamentally serve a larger project of redirecting the way that American democracy has functioned throughout the post-war era. This redirection involves a wholesale transformation in the way that government can act to soften the harsh impacts of the capitalist economy whether it is in the form of economic inequality or environmental degradation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Redefining and Restructuring American Democracy

In 1843, the German economist Wilhelm Roscher wrote that political economy is not merely the “art of acquiring wealth; it is a political science based on evaluating and governing people.”6 Economics is therefore a field that is fundamentally concerned with the very idea of the public good, it is far from being a value-free science. This is something that has been lost in recent debates on the politics of the Bush tax cut. The assumption—or even the outright belief—remains that there are legitimate economic reasons that can justify the various tax cuts which, and this is usually openly admitted, explicitly favor the wealthy. Inequalities that are generated from the tax cuts are considered “justifiable” first on supposedly economic grounds (i.e., promoting growth and employment) and, at times, on ethical grounds, in the sense that everyone deserves to keep whatever they “earn.” But neither of these contentions actually make sense. No empirical evidence links tax cuts on wealthier income earners and employment, nor is there any reliable evidence that supports a link between tax cuts on individual income and economic growth, even if there is evidence, as was discussed above, that corporate tax rates do affect growth rates. Economic policy is being done for political ends and the actual content and intention of this politics needs to be seen for what it is: a reconfiguration of American democracy. This reconfiguration means a retreat from the idea that the state ought to meliorate class differences, the acceptance of the idea that political democracy is somehow indifferent to economic and social inequality, and toward a situation where the market extends to almost every aspect of public life.

 

It is interesting to note that the Bush administration openly admits that its tax cuts favor the wealthy. This is a marked change from even twenty years ago when the political theorist Philip Green could write that “pecial advantages for economic élites, as in the United States tax code, are introduced sub rosa, never proclaimed out loud. No one defends legislation by suggesting that the better class should be rewarded more and the inferior class less.”7 Today, there has been a shift in the political sensitivity to social inequality and class division.

 

 

 

"It is well-known economic logic that growth could be stimulated by new and increased government spending, something that has not even been publicly debated by the Bush administration’s economic policy advisors. This is because it would put the United States back in a Keynesian policy state of mind; and this means that there would be legitimacy in refunding the state and this would give some weight to political interests that want to expand the welfare state, government programs, regulatory agencies and other things which would be antithetical to the pro-business mentality and interests of the neoconservative agenda. In other words, once the state becomes more active in the economy, there is more likelihood that that state will also be used for expanding social programs. This runs directly counter to the current trend of shrinking the state and its influence in both economy and society.

 

There is also the question of economic growth and job creation. This issue has been at the core of the Bush administration’s arguments for the tax cuts as well as a broad conservative wave of support. Heritage Foundation economist Mark Wilson claimed in a recent study that if the tax cuts were made retroactive to the beginning of 2003, 1.6 million jobs would be added to the economy by 2011 and expand economic output by another $248 billion.9 But there have been no academic economists who have been able to verify these findings in a single peer reviewed professional journal, and it is little surprise why. The rationale is classic “supply-side” economic thinking: the more money that is poured into the economy by letting people keep what they earn—so the supply-siders argue, in theory of course—the more society as a whole will benefit since people—especially the wealthy—will be more likely to invest in the economy and start new enterprises. A “free” market liberated from any type of restraint, regulation and public accountability is therefore the optimal arrangement for liberty and democracy.10 This is the essential view that informs neoconservative political and social thought, but it is not a fact of economic science. Recall 1993 when there was an increase in the top income tax rate from 33 percent to 39.6 percent and still there was an increase in capital investment and a flourishing economy throughout the remainder of the 1990s. From the point of view of empirical evidence, the conservative argument quite simply makes no sense. "

[Guest MikeSC]

And the progressive income tax is a terrible idea that simply inspires people to not pay their "fair share". A flat tax is suitable. The rich will still pay a lot more than the poor.

Lots of working poor people can barely afford food and a place to live. It would be nearly impossible for some to spare even a small part of their income for taxes.

And, while that is a sad thing, the whole "Pay what you can afford" mentality is horrible. If you make very little, than a percentage of very little will still be very little.

If you imposed a flat tax, you would have to raise the minimum wage or find some way to make sure people don't starve. Poverty in the US in real.

Actually, no it isn't. We don't know poverty. Poverty in India is poverty. Poverty in the US usually still involves color TV's, cars, and cable.

 

And I have a real problem with raising the minimum wage. If a job is not WORTH the minimum wage, the minimum wage shouldn't be paid for it.

And the rich not buying luxuries kills jobs, knocking more people into economic distress.

 

Also, keep in mind, allowing the rich to keep more of their money inspires investment --- which tends to be the catalyst in creating jobs.

We have to find some kind of balance between economic growth and quality of life. Is it more important to make sure people have as high an income as possible or access to all of life's necessities?

Making sure people can afford all necessities, while nice, is not the government's job. Punishing others in pursuit of that goal is something we should not be doing.

 

Remember, there is always somebody less well of than you. I'm likely less wealthy than you. I do not expect you to give me one red dime, as my well-being is not your concern. Your well-being is your concern.

Nobody does --- but the programs are never efficient. Which is why Bush's faith-based initiative was a great idea. Allow faith-based charities to handle charity, as they are infinitely better at it than the gov't.

Why do they have to be inefficient? I don't mean to be corny, but WE are the government...you and me. And personally, I would rather my money go to the government than Sun Myung Moon (sorry for the sarcasm but I guess this message board is rubbing off on me).

Why? Because Congress controls the pursestrings, and I do not expect their desire to micromanage it so horrendously that it's a money drain to stop.

 

Interest groups will want their concerns addressed, and that'll cost money. The gov't employee union will, inevitably, get involved and that'll absolutely obliterate any hope for keeping costs in line.

-=Mike

...BTW, that was better sarcasm than most...

[Guest MikeSC]

I had to cut your post as, well, it was hella-long.

 

However, a few things:

 

1) I'm not sure how the figures from 2000 demonstrate any problems with the Bush tax cuts.

 

2) The reason their incomes skyrocketed, largely, was due to the massive stock market bubble. When that popped, their incomces likely plateaued as the economy went into a recession.

 

3) The economic recession, which should have been rather horrific considering that a recession was occurring BEFORE 9/11 and the corporate accounting scandals became public, was kept short and considerably less harsh than it otherwise would have been. People stopped investing money because they lacked any faith in any company actually giving them accurate numbers.

 

The theory behind the cuts is that economic movement will increase enough to make up for the "loss" --- which is why static evaluations of tax policy seldom work, as they do not take into consideration such things as economic growth.

 

4) Gov't has never shown an ability to handle the economy. The New Deal did very little to ease the Depression. The Great Society did nothing to curb poverty. The government had its chance and it, frankly, fumbled the ball.

 

5) The article misstated what happened in the 1990's. What powered the economy was a combination of the total lack of taxation on the internet and an irrational burst of investment capital from an economy that was already in recovery in 1992. You cannot pass any policies in the hopes of another bubble occurring.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

If you make very little, than a percentage of very little will still be very little.

 

But it might be the difference between eating or not.

 

Actually, no it isn't. We don't know poverty.

 

Some of the kids I work with would probably argue with you on that one.

 

And I have a real problem with raising the minimum wage. If a job is not WORTH the minimum wage, the minimum wage shouldn't be paid for it.

 

But someone working on minimum wage salary can't afford a decent quality of life. With a flat tax you would be taking money from someone who already can't afford this very minimal standard of living.

 

Making sure people can afford all necessities, while nice, is not the government's job.

 

Some governments have made this their goal and quality of life in some of these countries is high. Again, it's a question of higher incomes vs. higher quality of life.

 

I'm likely less wealthy than you.

If you are then I pity you =).

 

I do not expect you to give me one red dime, as my well-being is not your concern.

I am concerned for the well-being of others and I would bet, because you are obviously intelligent and probably aspire to a somewhat "noble" way of life, that you are too.

 

Why? Because Congress controls the pursestrings, and I do not expect their desire to micromanage it so horrendously that it's a money drain to stop.

 

Interest groups will want their concerns addressed, and that'll cost money. The gov't employee union will, inevitably, get involved and that'll absolutely obliterate any hope for keeping costs in line.

 

But can't these problems be fixed my driven, reform-minded people like you and me?

[Guest MikeSC]

If you make very little, than a percentage of very little will still be very little.

But it might be the difference between eating or not.

And every tax policy has levels of income that would not be subject to taxation.

Actually, no it isn't. We don't know poverty.

Some of the kids I work with would probably argue with you on that one.

And the poor in other parts of the world would happily switch places with them. We are unable to fully appreciate the desperate poverty people abroad live in.

And I have a real problem with raising the minimum wage. If a job is not WORTH the minimum wage, the minimum wage shouldn't be paid for it.

But someone working on minimum wage salary can't afford a decent quality of life. With a flat tax you would be taking money from someone who already can't afford this very minimal standard of living.

A minimum wage job isn't supposed to deliver a decent quality of life. It's supposed to be the starting point from where you get a job that will deliver the decent quality of life. Nobody was intended to make ends meet off a McDonald's cashier salary.

 

And every flat tax proposal has a limit of salary than can be taxed.

Making sure people can afford all necessities, while nice, is not the government's job.

Some governments have made this their goal and quality of life in some of these countries is high. Again, it's a question of higher incomes vs. higher quality of life.

Actually, by and large, they do not. Europe has staggering unemployment, economic stagnation, and the gov't will eventually have a problem actually honoring its commitments.

 

And we won't even mention the misery inhabitants of Communist countries reside in.

I do not expect you to give me one red dime, as my well-being is not your concern.

I am concerned for the well-being of others and I would bet, because you are obviously intelligent and probably aspire to a somewhat "noble" way of life, that you are too.

I do not wish to see others suffer, but the only person I am able to help is me. The rich tend to do a lot for the poor.

 

I can feel bad for the poor all day long --- I do not have the money to help them out.

Why? Because Congress controls the pursestrings, and I do not expect their desire to micromanage it so horrendously that it's a money drain to stop.

 

Interest groups will want their concerns addressed, and that'll cost money. The gov't employee union will, inevitably, get involved and that'll absolutely obliterate any hope for keeping costs in line.

But can't these problems be fixed my driven, reform-minded people like you and me?

No, because equally clever demagogues will make it impossible.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

1) I'm not sure how the figures from 2000 demonstrate any problems with the Bush tax cuts.

 

I think the author was just trying to show that the rich were already paying less taxes than they had been almost a decade earlier.

 

2) The reason their incomes skyrocketed, largely, was due to the massive stock market bubble. When that popped, their incomces likely plateaued as the economy went into a recession.

 

Perhaps. Good speculation.

 

The economic recession, which should have been rather horrific considering that a recession was occurring BEFORE 9/11 and the corporate accounting scandals became public, was kept short and considerably less harsh than it otherwise would have been.

 

Have you read anything that empirically links the softening of the recession with the tax cuts?

 

The theory behind the cuts is that economic movement will increase enough to make up for the "loss"

 

"The Bush administration’s economic argument that the tax cuts will somehow stimulate a dragging economy and increase employment has little support in theory and no support empirically. "

 

I think we should govern based on concrete evidence rather than theory.

 

The New Deal did very little to ease the Depression. The Great Society did nothing to curb poverty.

 

These statements are both very debatable. (Try to state your opinions AS opinions rather than as facts--I'm not trying to be a jerk--this is just a pet peeve of mine. There's a whacko liberal dude in one my classes who always states his opinions as if they were facts and I want to strangle him.) But I would be very interested in reading articles or books that support them.

[Guest MikeSC]

1) I'm not sure how the figures from 2000 demonstrate any problems with the Bush tax cuts.

I think the author was just trying to show that the rich were already paying less taxes than they had been almost a decade earlier.

It's still hard to say that the rich don't pay their "fair share" when the top 1% pays 1/4 of all taxes.

The economic recession, which should have been rather horrific considering that a recession was occurring BEFORE 9/11 and the corporate accounting scandals became public, was kept short and considerably less harsh than it otherwise would have been.

Have you read anything that empirically links the softening of the recession with the tax cuts?

I've read squat about the recession. This is simply basic logic, in my opinion. The economic situation we were facing was uniquely bad, and the problems were relatively mild, moreso than even in the early 90's.

 

We could ask Stephen Joseph for some input on this.

The theory behind the cuts is that economic movement will increase enough to make up for the "loss"

 

"The Bush administration’s economic argument that the tax cuts will somehow stimulate a dragging economy and increase employment has little support in theory and no support empirically. "

 

I think we should govern based on concrete evidence rather than theory.

There is considerable evidence behind it.

 

Tax revenues doubled under Reagan. Doubled.

 

Tax revenues went up in the 60's when JFK cut taxes.

 

There is actually less evidence about tax hikes generating considerably more revenue over a stretch of time.

 

Can we compare the revenues pre-Reagan tax slash to today's --- with our still-dramatically lower tax rate --- with inflation-corrected dollars?

The New Deal did very little to ease the Depression. The Great Society did nothing to curb poverty.

 

These statements are both very debatable. (Try to state your opinions AS opinions rather than as facts--I'm not trying to be a jerk--this is just a pet peeve of mine. There's a whacko liberal dude in one my classes who always states his opinions as if they were facts and I want to strangle him.) But I would be very interested in reading articles or books that support them.

I'll actually say there is evidence.

 

The economy at no point left the Depression under FDR (World War II saved the economy, as did rebuilding Europe and Japan). In fact, take away FDIC and the amount he did to help anybody seems EXTREMELY suspicious (FDIC basically saved the banking system from a total collapse). And if you look at poverty numbers pre-Great Society and poverty numbers now, there is almost no drop-off, which is odd considering the money spent on it.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

The economy at no point left the Depression under FDR (World War II saved the economy, as did rebuilding Europe and Japan). In fact, take away FDIC and the amount he did to help anybody seems EXTREMELY suspicious

 

Yes, but the New Deal did end a lot of the suffering brought on by the depression and public work projects and government employment suggested that Keynesian economic policy was at least somewhat valid. Unemployment dropped by 2 million by 1935. It is impossible to say whether the New Deal would have ended the Depression because it was interrupted by WWII.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

And if you look at poverty numbers pre-Great Society and poverty numbers now, there is almost no drop-off, which is odd considering the money spent on it.

 

The Great Society was never fully funded because of the Vietnam War, which drained available resources. And it was partially overturned by Reagan's first budget.

[Guest MikeSC]

The economy at no point left the Depression under FDR (World War II saved the economy, as did rebuilding Europe and Japan). In fact, take away FDIC and the amount he did to help anybody seems EXTREMELY suspicious

 

Yes, but the New Deal did end a lot of the suffering brought on by the depression and public work projects and government employment suggested that Keynesian economic policy was at least somewhat valid. Unemployment dropped by 2 million by 1935. It is impossible to say whether the New Deal would have ended the Depression because it was interrupted by WWII.

FDR actually attempted to scale back some New Deal programs in 1939, and things got bad quickly, so he quickly aborted the attempt.

The Great Society was never fully funded because of the Vietnam War, which drained available resources. And it was partially overturned by Reagan's first budget.

We spent billions and nobody can point to any benefit from the program.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

There is considerable evidence behind it.

 

Tax revenues doubled under Reagan. Doubled.

 

Tax revenues went up in the 60's when JFK cut taxes.

 

There is actually less evidence about tax hikes generating considerably more revenue over a stretch of time.

 

This article suggests otherwise:

 

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxcollections.htm

[Guest MikeSC]

There is considerable evidence behind it.

 

Tax revenues doubled under Reagan. Doubled.

 

Tax revenues went up in the 60's when JFK cut taxes.

 

There is actually less evidence about tax hikes generating considerably more revenue over a stretch of time.

 

This article suggests otherwise:

 

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxcollections.htm

I'll wait for an impartial study.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I'll wait for an impartial study.

 

*sigh*

 

I'm not saying that this study is right OR that I believe it. And it's obviously not unbiased. I read it, though, and the argument seemed sound. If you are so confident in your ideology then refute it.

 

You don't have to be a smartass about everything. You seem to take everything personally...I'm just trying to make sense of complex issues, chief. Not everybody is all-knowing and all-wise.

[Guest MikeSC]

I'll wait for an impartial study.

 

*sigh*

 

I'm not saying that this study is right OR that I believe it. And it's obviously not unbiased. I read it, though, and the argument seemed sound. If you are so confident in your ideology then refute it.

 

You don't have to be a smartass about everything. You seem to take everything personally...I'm just trying to make sense of complex issues, chief. Not everybody is all-knowing and all-wise.

I'm not an economist, nor do I have access to the same data.

 

I can, easily, say that numbers can be cooked to say whatever you want and the author of the piece has a definite political axe to grind.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

1) Cutting taxes at ANY point is not irresponsible. Economic growth is never irresponsible.

 

But resources in the world are finite. Unlimited growth can't occur because of this stipulation. It'd be great--but it can't happen. Supplies of certain resources such as seafood and arable land are already being stretched thin.

 

Many would suggest that a sustainable economy is the only option in the long run.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I'm not an economist, nor do I have access to the same data.

 

I can, easily, say that numbers can be cooked to say whatever you want and the author of the piece has a definite political axe to grind.

 

I'd like to see an unbiased study that shows your previous assertion about tax revenues increasing after tax cuts to be correct.

[Guest MikeSC]

1) Cutting taxes at ANY point is not irresponsible. Economic growth is never irresponsible.

 

But resources in the world are finite. Unlimited growth can't occur because of this stipulation. It'd be great--but it can't happen. Supplies of certain resources such as seafood and arable land are already being stretched thin.

 

Many would suggest that a sustainable economy is the only option in the long run.

That, honestly, has been proven wrong time and time again. For nearly 40 years, people have theorized that we'll run out of water, oil, etc. by this point. It's been a constant --- and it's never come close to passing.

 

Much as some on the left (bafflingly) dislike it, things like genetically modified food have been a God-send, as they permit us to grow more food than ever before.

 

Our resources are finite --- but we have so much room before we begin to max out, it's absurd.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

That, honestly, has been proven wrong time and time again. For nearly 40 years, people have theorized that we'll run out of water, oil, etc. by this point. It's been a constant --- and it's never come close to passing.

 

40 years isn't very long. And we are running out of some resources as I previously mentioned.

 

 

Much as some on the left (bafflingly) dislike it, things like genetically modified food have been a God-send, as they permit us to grow more food than ever before.

 

I think lots of studies have shown that there are negative health effects from genetically modified foods.

 

I think a sustainable economy just makes more sense. Do you really want to rely on technology to feed an exponentially increasing population? What the fuck are we gonna be eating when the population hits 20 billion?

 

Our resources are finite --- but we have so much room before we begin to max out, it's absurd.

 

According to whom? I think many scientists would suggest otherwise.

[Guest MikeSC]

That, honestly, has been proven wrong time and time again. For nearly 40 years, people have theorized that we'll run out of water, oil, etc. by this point. It's been a constant --- and it's never come close to passing.

40 years isn't very long. And we are running out of some resources as I previously mentioned.

 

 

There is actually no real evidence of that whatsoever.

Much as some on the left (bafflingly) dislike it, things like genetically modified food have been a God-send, as they permit us to grow more food than ever before.

I think lots of studies have shown that there are negative health effects from genetically modified foods.

Can you point to one, as I know of none?

 

Genetically engineered food can and does save untold millions of lives.

I think a sustainable economy just makes more sense.  Do you really want to rely on technology to feed an exponentially increasing population?  What the fuck are we gonna be eating when the population hits 20 billion?

The same question was asked when we hit 1B. Then 2. Then 3. And then 4. We'll find a way. We always do.

Our resources are finite --- but we have so much room before we begin to max out, it's absurd.

According to whom? I think many scientists would suggest otherwise.

Again, can you point to one, as I don't know of any.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Can you point to one, as I know of none?

 

Genetically engineered food can and does save untold millions of lives.

 

I was mistaken about the studies--my bad. But the scientific community is unsure about the risks of GMOs and not many studies have been done on their health effects. From what I understand, though, researchers definitely think there are risks because of genetic factors that I don't understand.

 

I eat GMOs. I wish I could afford organic stuff, though. I hope the fears of the researchers turn out to be unfounded. I hope you're right.

 

There is actually no real evidence of that whatsoever.

 

Lots of species of fish are threatened. Desertification and overgrazing are destroying arable lands. Those are two off the top of my head--I'm sure I can find others if you'd like.

 

The same question was asked when we hit 1B. Then 2. Then 3. And then 4. We'll find a way. We always do.

 

Again, I hope you're right. Seems like an article of faith rather than reason to me.

[Guest MikeSC]

Can you point to one, as I know of none?

 

Genetically engineered food can and does save untold millions of lives.

I was mistaken about the studies--my bad. But the scientific community is unsure about the risks of GMOs and not many studies have been done on their health effects. From what I understand, though, researchers definitely think there are risks because of genetic factors that I don't understand.

 

I eat GMOs. I wish I could afford organic stuff, though. I hope the fears of the researchers turn out to be unfounded. I hope you're right.

I have no reason to doubt they'll be safe. These products do have to undergo some strenuous approval before they are allowed out to the market.

There is actually no real evidence of that whatsoever.

Lots of species of fish are threatened. Desertification and overgrazing are destroying arable lands. Those are two off the top of my head--I'm sure I can find others if you'd like.

If true, that is due to poor agricultural technique. So, the best thing to do is to further spread proper agricultural techniques.

The same question was asked when we hit 1B. Then 2. Then 3. And then 4. We'll find a way. We always do.

Again, I hope you're right. Seems like an article of faith rather than reason to me.

I feel it's going with a track record.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

The economy at no point left the Depression under FDR

 

The economy actually grew under several of FDR's years in office. Hoover's very conservative economic policy did nothing to alleviate the depression (or the subsequent suffering, for that matter).

 

The first countries to emerge from the depression were those that adopted Keynesian spending: Sweden, Germany, and Britain.

 

Also, since Keynesian economics has been incorporated in the post-depression era we have yet to see a similar depression. There had been multiple depressions in the prior era of laissez-faire Smith economics.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I have no reason to doubt they'll be safe. These products do have to undergo some strenuous approval before they are allowed out to the market.

 

The risks aren't even known. They're manipulating the genes of these organisms. What makes you so confident that they'll turn out to be safe?

 

If true, that is due to poor agricultural technique. So, the best thing to do is to further spread proper agricultural techniques.

 

Overgrazing is simply when there are too many animals and not enough pasture. This is largely responsible for desertification. In other words--too much demand for production, not enough resources.

 

I'll find some other examples of threatened resources when I have time later.

 

I feel it's going with a track record.

 

Drawing lessons from history doesn't always work. Times change. And population increases exponentially, not arithmetically--a J-curve. We're just now starting to get on the "stick" of the J so prior experience really isn't all that relevant. Technology to expand food production would have to also expand exponentially to coincide with this growth.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

We spent billions and nobody can point to any benefit from the program.  (The Great Society)

 

Percent of children below the poverty level

 

1970 14.9%

1975 16.8

1980 19.5

1985 20.1

1990 19.9

1992 21.1

 

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, P60-185.

 

When Reagan starting scaling back the programs look what happened.

[Justice 0]

We spent billions and nobody can point to any benefit from the program.  (The Great Society)

 

Percent of children below the poverty level

 

1970 14.9%

1975 16.8

1980 19.5

1985 20.1

1990 19.9

1992 21.1

 

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, P60-185.

 

When Reagan starting scaling back the programs look what happened.

Eh, that's not necessarily true. Don't ignore the massive stagnation of the late 70's. Notice that it levels out after Reagan takes office rather than increasing.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Don't ignore the massive stagnation of the late 70's.

 

Good point.

 

Notice that it levels out after Reagan takes office rather than increasing.

 

It sure as heck didn't decrease under Reagan, though. And it didn't return to Great Society "pre-cut" levels.

[Guest MikeSC]

We spent billions and nobody can point to any benefit from the program.  (The Great Society)

 

Percent of children below the poverty level

 

1970 14.9%

1975 16.8

1980 19.5

1985 20.1

1990 19.9

1992 21.1

 

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, P60-185.

 

When Reagan starting scaling back the programs look what happened.

The rate raised less than it did before, if my math is correct. The child poverty rate rose more between 1975 and 1980 than between 1980 and 1985. Actually, the child poverty rate was basically level during the Reagan years, after growth before he took office.

The risks aren't even known. They're manipulating the genes of these organisms. What makes you so confident that they'll turn out to be safe?

The fact that they are not approved QUICKLY. It takes many years --- if bad side effects were common, they'd be rejected.

Overgrazing is simply when there are too many animals and not enough pasture. This is largely responsible for desertification. In other words--too much demand for production, not enough resources.

 

I'll find some other examples of threatened resources when I have time later.

And that is caused by poor and primitive agricultural techniques. It isn't a problem in the US and we do not lack grazing animals.

It sure as heck didn't decrease under Reagan, though. And it didn't return to Great Society "pre-cut" levels.

Actually, it was stagnant, and that was after growth for years.

-=Mike