Rank the Republican contenders by order of craziness.

[Argus]

Actually, it's not true.

Okay then. Let's have a list of countries with lower taxes than the US.

Actually, Germany doesn't have such a powerful economy. It's barely growing.

It's doing a hell of a lot better than the U.S., despite having FAR more generous social programs than the U.S. ever dreamed about.

Oh yes, the fifties. When it was America vs Europe, and nobody else. My how the times have changed, and the number of competing economies has risen.

I'm not sure what you think is relevant about that. Please explain how you think higher taxes on citizens makes the U.S. somehow less competitive in the world. Also explain why much of Europe is doing better than the U.S. despite having higher taxes. For that matter, why Canada is doing better than the U.S. despite higher taxes.

[Argus]

Had the US government not meddled with US healthcare like Nixon "I'm a keynesian now" did, they would not be in this sort of mess as healthcare costs would have been inflated in the first place. Try again

So it's the effort of the American government to provide health care which has caused the mess. And here I thought it was unrestrained greed and incompetence by Wall Street along with corruption by Washington. Please explain why every industralized nation on Earth has far more government paid health care than the U.S. and yet hasn't seen their economies nearly wrecked like the U.S. has. Why is it the Swiss and Swedes and Germans don't have an issue with paying for their far more extensive 'entitlements' but the U.S. is on the verge of bankruptcy because of their miserly social programs.

Hmm, 35% and not all businesses can apply for all the loopholes.

Ostensibly, the U.S. federal tax code requires corporations to pay 35 percent of their profits in income taxes.

But of the 275 Fortune 500 companies that made a profit each year from 2001 to 2003 and for which adequate information to draw conclusions is publicly available, only a small proportion paid federal income taxes anywhere near that statutory 35 percent tax rate. The vast majority paid considerably less.

In fact, in 2002 and 2003, the average effective tax rate for all of these 275 companies was less than half the statutory 35 percent rate.

The Real Corporate Tax Rate

Poor people have been freezing before government spending, during government spending, and will after government spending. All that was accomplished was that the USA is now poorer as a whole because of it.

So let them die, is that it? Not your problem. Funny how the governments of places like Norway and Sweden and Switzerland and Germany can do so much to alleviate poverty and yet not destroy their economies or run into bankruptcy. Is it that they're just so much smarter and more efficient than Americans?

As for the fifties being the most prosporous time ever, well thats easy when Europe was devastated by the war and we had the USSR and China under Mao. The US was the only game in town and wages reflected that. Also the stupidity of gov't spending and high taxes caught up to them in the 1970's, stagflation anyone???

The US did well in the sixties too. In fact, it's only been the last twenty years that it's debt load has really begun to run up to unmanageable levels, and that coincides with a period of constant lowering of taxes and implementation of tax loopholes for business. Return taxes to their 1970s levels and they'll be fine.

[maple_leafs182]

So let them die, is that it? Not your problem.

[/Quote]

Why don't you help them? Helping poor sick people should be the moral responsibility of the people, not the government.

If governments never got involved in health care you would see the costs for health care fall and the quality of health care increase.

[Argus]

Why don't you help them? Helping poor sick people should be the moral responsibility of the people, not the government.

If governments never got involved in health care you would see the costs for health care fall and the quality of health care increase.

It would be interesting to see what the cost of health care would fall to without government or insurance companies (the other huge driving force behind the ability of health care providers to keep jacking up prices). Certainly doctors and nurses would not be able to command the prices they do now. And drug companies could not sell their products at outrageous profits. Then again, without government funding, most of the worthwhile drugs would not have been invented.

It's interesting to note that the cost of medical services is lower in Europe, where government is heavily involved in every aspect of health care, than in the United States, where the government only services a portion of the public.

[kimmy]

I don't have buses where I'm from, so I'm not too familiar with how bus advertising works, only what i hear in the media..

Of course. The media talks about "the controversial atheist ads" because they're "controversial! offensive! An attack on people of faith!!!" and because in some instances transit authorities have refused the advertising.

Religious advertising doesn't merit media attention because it's commonplace and accepted.

And with no frame of reference to judge for yourself, you're left with the impression that atheist groups are the only ones buying advertising, when if you could judge for yourself you'd probably be struck by the double standard of what causes "controversy."

(my favorite news item about this "controversy" was that a billboard advertising company put one of the "I can be good without god" ads on a billboard that happens to be on land rented from a church. The church demanded it be removed. The county auditor caught wind of the controversy, noticed that the church was using tax-exempt land for commercial purposes, and sent them a big back-tax notice. While the Christian spin on the story was "Ohio Church Under Attack by Atheists", I think the more accurate headline would be "Ohio church commits tax fraud, gets caught, blames atheists." heehee.)

I think your atheist message is controversial because its like the jerk kid who goes and tells a younger kid that there's no Santa.

(let the record show that I was not the one who compared Jesus to Santa. )

[...] be the jerk and take that away from them by saying its all a hoax and your dumb for believing in it. I'm pretty sure those atheist bus ads were a shot back at the christians for their church slogans on advertising wherever, to me that's petty.

I don't think it's "revenge" or "payback" at all. If atheists stay quiet then they're letting people like Newt and the Pope and evangelical megachurch pastors and Fox News define them as some kind of bogeyman. Newt would never have made such bigoted statements toward Muslims or Jews or Hindus or Buddhists, but atheists are larger than all of those groups put together. So why not act like it? Why not try to form some kind of a public presence to tell somebody like Newt that you can't say stuff like that without consequences? That's the idea behind the ads. Get atheists to not be afraid to identify themselves to each other and express common interests in the public sphere.

I'm in agreement with you in the banning of prayer in the schools, they either have to have none or let them all in and letting them all in would eat up school's time. I do think there is more and more as time goes on a situation regarding the PC of Christmas time and people getting in a tizzy one way or another. I don't think its fair that Christians have to keep a muzzle on at Christmas time in the media.

I think that the alleged "War On Christmas" is for the most part a fiction invented by Fox News and Christians who want to portray themselves as persecuted victims.

I think we both have different lines in how a public figure can display his belief system. I think the public figure should be able to proudly idneftify that he believes in such and such and that should be the end of it. If he/she idenfitifes with a belief system and says mine is better than yours because such and such and you should become like me, then I think that's a problem. I don't know where your line is and I'll let you fill that blank in.

I have no objection at all to them identifying themselves as religious. But if they want to go around proclaiming all the great things they're going to do for their religious fans when they're president, they have to accept that it won't necessarily be that big of a hit with non-religious voters. When Michele Bachmann goes around telling people that "separation of church and state is a myth", people have every right to talk about that and saying it's not open for discussion because faith is a private affair doesn't cut it.

[...]follows mormonism. Yah mormonism might be a little out there, but lets look at how Romney's judgement really is; he's worth almost 100 million bucks, runs companies, ran the olympics, and was elected governor in a liberal state; I think that says he has pretty good judgement, and why should I care that he believes Joseph Smith's story?

Yeah. I agree with what you're saying. He's clearly a capable guy.

Personally I have a hard time comprehending that any grown-ups could actually believe in the Joseph Smith story, but no more so than I have a hard time comprehending that grown-ups actually believe that magic cookies transform into human flesh when you eat them in church. Clearly there's some things I'll just never figure out, and I have to leave it at that.

Now we have Newt Gingrich making that statement, I think he made that statement because he's a fool, not because of his religion.

Does anybody here really think Newt is a fool?

He expressed something he believes, something that he knew would be popular with a lot of other Christians, something Christian leaders have been telling their followers for ages. I find the attempt to disentangle that comment from religious bigotry a little disingenuous.

I meant to say that shouldn't the religious people get input on who becomes president? These people have a right to vote in the primaries, and if someone wants a shot at president, they have to accommodate these people.

I misinterpreted your comment. I thought you were arguing that since a majority of Americans are Christians they should have a say on things like prayer in schools.

Clearly religious Americans are allowed to vote for whoever they want.

-k

[blueblood]

So it's the effort of the American government to provide health care which has caused the mess. And here I thought it was unrestrained greed and incompetence by Wall Street along with corruption by Washington. Please explain why every industralized nation on Earth has far more government paid health care than the U.S. and yet hasn't seen their economies nearly wrecked like the U.S. has. Why is it the Swiss and Swedes and Germans don't have an issue with paying for their far more extensive 'entitlements' but the U.S. is on the verge of bankruptcy because of their miserly

So let them die, is that it? Not your problem. Funny how the governments of places like Norway and Sweden and Switzerland and Germany can do so much to alleviate poverty and yet not destroy their economies or run into bankruptcy. Is it that they're just so much smarter and more efficient than Americans?

The US did well in the sixties too. In fact, it's only been the last twenty years that it's debt load has really begun to run up to unmanageable levels, and that coincides with a period of constant lowering of taxes and implementation of tax loopholes for business. Return taxes to their 1970s levels and they'll be fine.

It's a big part of it. That debt is about 14 trillion and we have 1 trillion deficits. That big war in Iraq didn't even go over a trillion. If you look at the USA budget entitlements make up the bulk of it. Then there was the gov't being mr. Do gooder and providing cheap money to anyone who would take it to blow on trinkets. Europes economy is broken. They are in massive debt and on the verge of a financial crisis because tax and spend has caught up to them. Europe has essentially a stagnant economy and comparing Norway to Italy is like comparing Alberta and Quebec. Those countries you named decided to spend on consumption, but are watching how they spend, unfortunately there is an opportunity cost at play on private investment in production as that is eaten up in taxes. It's why Asia has sky high GDP growth and we and Europe don't.

You seem to forget that rich people during that time also enjoyed loopholes and according to Peter schiff in his OWS video, they enjoyed more loopholes in the 50s and 60s than they do today even with the higher rate. It's always been a spending problem, that's why people go broke is because they spend more than they earn. Cut the spending and even though you have less, you won't be broke. Yet in the 1970s we had stagflation and gas lineups. Good thing volcker ran the fed reserve to crank up interest rates and allow the private sector to get the USA out of that mess in the 1980s.

Simply put there is not enough wealth created to allow for the gov't programs you want. Jacking up taxes cuts into output and leaves everyone poorer.

No the Europeans are not smarter than the americans, their economy of massive tax and spend has them closer to the cliff than the USA is. The Americans of post civil war USA were smarter than any gov't today. Asia is undergoing rapid growth and extremely disciplined gov't spending and as a result is winning the GDP growth race. They did that by letting their private sector flourish without hindering them.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Simply put there is not enough wealth created to allow for the gov't programs you want. Jacking up taxes cuts into output and leaves everyone poorer.

Agreed...there are not enough "rich people" to tax our way out of the problem. The spending is relentless and must be curbed, and yes, that includes defense.

No the Europeans are not smarter than the americans, their economy of massive tax and spend has them closer to the cliff than the USA is. The Americans of post civil war USA were smarter than any gov't today. Asia is undergoing rapid growth and extremely disciplined gov't spending and as a result is winning the GDP growth race. They did that by letting their private sector flourish without hindering them.

The Eurozone is nothing to brag about right now....it hasn't quite solved a very serious problem that threatens the EU's very existence. The Americans took a big blow in 2008-2009 and survived it better because it is a unified republic that can act unilaterally. If more of the IMF is needed for the EU, it will be the Americans shouldering the most burden, as usual.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm not sure if this was posted already:

Herman Cain campaign ad on Youtube

Cain's campaign is not ready for prime time, clearly.

[bush_cheney2004]

Cain's campaign is not ready for prime time, clearly.

That's part of his charm! Too much polish need not apply.

[blueblood]

(let the record show that I was not the one who compared Jesus to Santa. )

I have no objection at all to them identifying themselves as religious. But if they want to go around proclaiming all the great things they're going to do for their religious fans when they're president, they have to accept that it won't necessarily be that big of a hit with non-religious voters. When Michele Bachmann goes around telling people that "separation of church and state is a myth", people have every right to talk about that and saying it's not open for discussion because faith is a private affair doesn't cut it.

Does anybody here really think Newt is a fool?

He expressed something he believes, something that he knew would be popular with a lot of other Christians, something Christian leaders have been telling their followers for ages. I find the attempt to disentangle that comment from religious bigotry a little disingenuous

-k

Jesus and santa were used as people that other people believe in.

I think your right in that people should talk about bachmanns apparent nuttiness, but I don't think it's fair they bring up her faith in doing so, I'm sure there are many evangelical Christians who don't behave like she does. I think most rational people will look at Bachmann when she says those things and think she herself is a buffoon. However, unfortunately some people will tie what her religion is and how it "influences" her and in the end it makes rational evangelicals look bad. I don't think what she believes in influences her. If she really believes that she's a bigger fool than you think, I think whatever idea comes out of her head influences her.

I think newt is a fool for saying that. If he thinks saying that is going to win him the republican primary, he's done. Romney keeps a disciplined message, and his issue is the healthcare plan he put in place in a very liberal state.

[Bonam]

I think your atheist message is controversial because its like the jerk kid who goes and tells a younger kid that there's no Santa. That's obviously the case, but why take a person's belief system and shatter it.

Because truth is better than a lie? Because living in a fantasy world doesn't help anyone? Because sooner or later everyone has to come to terms with the realization that there is no Santa? Just like there is no god.

I'm pretty sure those atheist bus ads were a shot back at the christians for their church slogans on advertising wherever, to me that's petty.

Or maybe they were simply trying to bring a bit of awareness about atheists to the general population? Atheists are the most hated and mistrusted minority group in the US.

I think we both have different lines in how a public figure can display his belief system. I think the public figure should be able to proudly idneftify that he believes in such and such and that should be the end of it.

Sure, and we can base our appraisal of the candidate's worthiness for the role he/she is running for based on their public statements, including those about their belief system.

I meant to say that shouldn't the religious people get input on who becomes president? These people have a right to vote in the primaries, and if someone wants a shot at president, they have to accommodate these people.

Yep, and if they "accommodate" religious people too much, they will put off those of us that are not religious.

Edited October 30, 2011 by Bonam

[Guest American Woman]

Because truth is better than a lie? Because living in a fantasy world doesn't help anyone? Because sooner or later everyone has to come to terms with the realization that there is no Santa? Just like there is no god.

"There is no god" is your opinion, no more, no less.

This claim of yours as The Truth is what makes you exactly the same at the religious people who believe their beliefs are The Truth "that sooner or later everyone must come to [realize/believe]." Not all religious people think that everyone must 'believe what they believe' just as not all atheists think everyone must 'realize that there is no god.' But those of you who do insist that your beliefs are The Truth, and everyone must believe/realize that, are no different at all - whether you believe there is a god or not.

Or maybe they were simply trying to bring a bit of awareness about atheists to the general population? Atheists are the most hated and mistrusted minority group in the US.

I'd appreciate hearing what information that statement is based on.

Sure, and we can base our appraisal of the candidate's worthiness for the role he/she is running for based on their public statements, including those about their belief system.

Absolutely. Everyone can - and does - base their appraisal of candidates' worthiness for the role on whatever they deem (most) important.

Yep, and if they "accommodate" religious people too much, they will put off those of us that are not religious.

Isn't that always the way of it, whether we are speaking of religion or whatever? - Ultimately, the candidate who "accommodates" the most people generally wins, which I'm sure the candidates are very aware of.

Edited October 30, 2011 by American Woman

[Bonam]

"There is no god" is your opinion, no more, no less.

Only to the same extent that "there is no Santa" is just my opinion. Both are silly imaginary constructs invented by people.

[Guest American Woman]

Only to the same extent that "there is no Santa" is just my opinion. Both are silly imaginary constructs invented by people.

Once again, that is your opinion, no more, no less - and makes you no different from the religious people who keep insisting that their beliefs are The Truth. The more you keep comparing the possibility of a god to Santa Claus, the more you become just like the fundamentalists in your belief.

[Bonam]

Once again, that is your opinion, no more, no less - and makes you no different from the religious people who keep insisting that their beliefs are The Truth. The more you keep comparing the possibility of a god to Santa Claus, the more you become just like the fundamentalists in your belief.

Nope, that's your "opinion". Unless you can provide some reasoning why the existence of a god is somehow more likely than the existence of Santa.

[Guest American Woman]

Nope, that's your "opinion". Unless you can provide some reasoning why the existence of a god is somehow more likely than the existence of Santa.

I'm not saying there is or isn't a god - I'm speaking those who believe their beliefs are The Truth. It stands to reason that everyone who believes their beliefs are The Truth that 'all must realize/believe' are the same. You are all fundamentalists in your beliefs. Believe what you want, and it's a personal belief. Insist that you are right, that your belief that there is no god is The Truth that all must realize, and you join the ranks of the fundamentalist Christians who believe that their beliefs are The Truth and all must believe as they do. You are the same in your insistence that all must believe as you do.

[Smallc]

Blindly believing that something is despite the fact that there's no proof is not the same as believing that something isn't, because there's no evidence. Edited October 30, 2011 by Smallc

[Guest American Woman]

Blinding believing in something that there is no proof of is not the same as believing that something isn't because there's no evidence.

Insisting that one's belief is The Truth is the same regardless of what that belief is. I'm not comparing a belief in God to a belief that there is no god; I'm comparing those who believe that their beliefs are The Truth which all must believe/realize regardless of their beliefs - and they are exactly the same, whether they believe in a god or not.

Atheists who insist they are right and all must realize that there is no god are no different from fundamentalists who insist that they are right and all must believe as they do. That most definitely is "the same."

[Smallc]

No, there is a difference, as I've just pointed out.

[blueblood]

Nope, that's your "opinion". Unless you can provide some reasoning why the existence of a god is somehow more likely than the existence of Santa.

You cannot have a scientific argument with a religious person. It's impossible, why? They get the supernatural trump card which means they get to move the goal posts. In science arguments are based on what goes on that we observe and can provide evidence for. If we're bringing the supernatural in there is no way to prove it exists or doesn't because if it's supernatural it can change arbitrarily much to the great frustration of those on the science side of the debate.

If somebody wants to believe in the supernatural, what does it hurt?

[Guest American Woman]

No, there is a difference, as I've just pointed out.

You've pointed out absolutely nothing. You are comparing beliefs, I am comparing the people who hold the beliefs.

[Smallc]

Nevermind.

[Guest American Woman]

You cannot have a scientific argument with a religious person. It's impossible, why? They get the supernatural trump card which means they get to move the goal posts. In science arguments are based on what goes on that we observe and can provide evidence for. If we're bringing the supernatural in there is no way to prove it exists or doesn't because if it's supernatural it can change arbitrarily much to the great frustration of those on the science side of the debate.

If somebody wants to believe in the supernatural, what does it hurt?

Interesting that you would assume that I'm a "religious person."

Once again, I am not speaking of beliefs, but of the people who hold the beliefs. Anyone who insists that everyone must believe that there is no god is no different from people who insist that their belief in God is The Truth - and all must believe in their God/Allah/whatever.

[Argus]

It's a big part of it. That debt is about 14 trillion and we have 1 trillion deficits. That big war in Iraq didn't even go over a trillion. If you look at the USA budget entitlements make up the bulk of it.

Entitlements always make up the bulk of spending. Until you manage to transform society into one where the sick and old are on their own that's the way it's going to continue to be.

Europe has essentially a stagnant economy and comparing Norway to Italy is like comparing Alberta and Quebec. Those countries you named decided to spend on consumption, but are watching how they spend,

You still haven't explained why those countries which have 'watched what they spend' have managed to keep their economies running, their books balanced, and yet still afford 'entitlement programs' which are far and away more generous than anything the U.S. has ever contemplated.

. It's always been a spending problem, that's why people go broke is because they spend more than they earn.

That's simplistic. You could as well say it's always been an earning problem. Earn more money and you can continue to spend what you're spending. In other words, close all those tax loopholes that allow the well-off to accumulate ever vaster sums of money without taxation, and you can more easily balance the budget.

Simply put there is not enough wealth created to allow for the gov't programs you want. Jacking up taxes cuts into output and leaves everyone poorer.

Odd how the people in Scandinavia don't feel poor. Odd how Americans didn't feel poor in the fifties and sixties. Not enough wealth? Give me a break. How much do Americans spend on pets and beauty aids in a year? American houses are twice as big as they were in the seventies. Why? Would it be a national catastrophe if they had to build smaller houses again so that the old wouldn't freeze to death in their unheated apartments and the poor wouldn't die for lack of basic health care?

[blueblood]

Interesting that you would assume that I'm a "religious person."

Once again, I am not speaking of beliefs, but of the people who hold the beliefs. Anyone who insists that everyone must believe that there is no god is no different from people who insist that their belief in God is The Truth - and all must believe in their God/Allah/whatever.

Oops, my lack of articulation strikes again. I meant a religious person in general.