Rank the Republican contenders by order of craziness.

[Guest American Woman]

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

You're wrong either way. There are "religious people" who realize that not everyone shares their beliefs and don't insist that everyone should.

But regarding scientific proof - do you believe science has already proven all that it can? Do you not believe that science will continue to prove things through the ages as it has in the past? Do you think we, during our lifetimes, have reached the ceiling, and we know all that there is to know scientifically?

We believe in things that science cannot "prove." We believe in "love." One cannot scientifically prove that it exists; it's a feeling, an emotion. Yet we don't say that love doesn't exist because it can't be scientifically proven to exist. At least most people don't. We maintain faith. At least some people do. Does faith exist - or is it non-existent because it can't be scientifically proven?

We possess a lot of knowledge, a lot more than people did thousands of years ago, but I'd wager we possess but a small fraction of what there is to know - and people's knowledge will continue to grow as time goes on for another thousands of years.

[blueblood]

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.

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.

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.

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?

And look how entitlement spending turned out, it's an unsustainable freight train heading for a derailment.

Yes I did explain, they threw growth out the window and those countries are part of a giant collective that is on the verge of collapse. Europe is a bigger mess than the USA. Now let's look at opportunity cost. Where would Europe be without those entitlement programs and all that red tape and regulation? Judging by Asia's success, Europe would be far better off than it is today. Europe is a house of cards and it's falling down as we speak.

Except the gov't doesn't earn money, it forcibly takes it from people that do and hurts growth prospects when they do so. Americans didnt feel poor because there was nobody to compete with. Do you suggest the USA nuke the rest of the world so you can go back to the glory days? There were problems with old people in the poor without entitlements and society managed then. It was economic growth that improved their condition, not your robin hood wet dream. If throwing government money at a problem is the best way to fix something, just take a look at our first nation disaster, new Zealand spends a fraction of it's tax dollars we do on their indigenous population and they have much better living conditions then we do. If anything our first nation disaster is why gov't shouldn't be meddling so heavily in people's affairs to begin with. You also forget that rich people aren't affected by borders, the world is a richer place and they will set up shop elsewhere.

Your wanting to keep racking up the credit card and going to the boss for a raise. Here's the problem, the company can't afford to pay that raise so now what, time to chop up e credit card. Your style of tax and spend has been proven time and again it's unsustainable and kills growth. Why do people think they can tweak a failed system? The market has been the best allocator of resources, always has and always will be.

[blueblood]

You're wrong either way. There are "religious people" who realize that not everyone shares their beliefs and don't insist that everyone should.

But regarding scientific proof - do you believe science has already proven all that it can? Do you not believe that science will continue to prove things through the ages as it has in the past? Do you think we, during our lifetimes, have reached the ceiling, and we know all that there is to know scientifically?

We believe in things that science cannot "prove." We believe in "love." One cannot scientifically prove that it exists; it's a feeling, an emotion. Yet we don't say that love doesn't exist because it can't be scientifically proven to exist. At least most people don't. We maintain faith. At least some people do. Does faith exist - or is it non-existent because it can't be scientifically proven?

We possess a lot of knowledge, a lot more than people did thousands of years ago, but I'd wager we possess but a small fraction of what there is to know - and people's knowledge will continue to grow as time goes on for another thousands of years.

All right if we're nit picking, a hypothetical stereotypical religious person and a hypothetical stereotypical science person get into the god debate. I say it's pointless because the religious person gets to move the goal posts based on the supernatural trump card and that's as far as that debate can go.

As for the rest of your post, no argument there.

[Guest American Woman]

All right if we're nit picking, a hypothetical stereotypical religious person and a hypothetical stereotypical science person get into the god debate. I say it's pointless because the religious person gets to move the goal posts based on the supernatural trump card and that's as far as that debate can go.

Who's nit picking? I'm just expanding on your observation, and as such, I say if it's pointless to have such a discussion, as you claim, it's pointless because the stereotypical science person doesn't know all that there is to scientifically know too.

You say it's pointless because of where the religious person is coming from, but it's also pointless because of the scientific person's lack of complete knowledge; ie: where they are coming from.

If it's pointless, it's a two-way street.

And I agree that it is pointless, unless both people involved have open minds - and then it can be a really interesting discussion. But having a conversation with anyone who believes their way is The Truth - either religious or scientific - is what's pointless.

[Argus]

And look how entitlement spending turned out, it's an unsustainable freight train heading for a derailment.

Absolute nonsense.

Yes I did explain, they threw growth out the window and those countries are part of a giant collective that is on the verge of collapse. Europe is a bigger mess than the USA.

That's highly debatable. But if so it's the result of bad government, not entitlements, same as in the US, which has suffered under the economic mismanagement of the Republicans for the last quarter century. Greece is the most indebted nation in Europe, and the US is in worse shape than Greece.

Now let's look at opportunity cost. Where would Europe be without those entitlement programs and all that red tape and regulation? Judging by Asia's success, Europe would be far better off than it is today.

You're once again ignoring the fact that a number of European countries are doing just fine. And yet again, you shy away from even attempting to address why they are successful despite entitlement programs that make the U.S. seem like a piker. As for Asia, who says they're doing so well? You know, if you have a dollar, and make another dollar. Then you're 100% better off. A great success story! But if you earn $100 and get another dollar, you're only 1% better off. How horrible! By your way of thinking, you'd rather be making the dollar.

Except the gov't doesn't earn money, it forcibly takes it from people that do and hurts growth prospects when they do so.

I'm not interested in theory. I'm interested in the reality. The reality is the people in Scandinavian countries are better off, healthier, happier, without the poverty and crime and hard times the people of the U.S. are forced to endure. They have more holidays, work fewer hours, have lower unemployment rates and overall nicer lives, despite not having enormous homes, big fat gas guzzling SUVs and pickup trucks, and stuffing themselves with super sized meals every other day. Yet by the way you talk, they ought to be in rags, standing in bread lines.

Edited October 30, 2011 by Argus

[bush_cheney2004]

...I'm not interested in theory. I'm interested in the reality. The reality is the people in Scandinavian countries are better off, healthier, happier, without the poverty and crime and hard times the people of the U.S. are forced to endure.

LOL....they are better off than living in Canada too...oh my!

[blueblood]

Absolute nonsense

That's highly debatable. But if so it's the result of bad government, not entitlements, same as in the US, which has suffered under the economic mismanagement of the Republicans for the last quarter century. Greece is the most indebted nation in Europe, and the US is in worse shape than Greece.

You're once again ignoring the fact that a number of European countries are doing just fine. And yet again, you shy away from even attempting to address why they are successful despite entitlement programs that make the U.S. seem like a piker. As for Asia, who says they're doing so well? You know, if you have a dollar, and make another dollar. Then you're 100% better off. A great success story! But if you earn $100 and get another dollar, you're only 1% better off. How horrible! By your way of thinking, you'd rather be making the dollar.

I'm not interested in theory. I'm interested in the reality. The reality is the people in Scandinavian countries are better off, healthier, happier, without the poverty and crime and hard times the people of the U.S. are forced to endure. They have more holidays, work fewer hours, have lower unemployment rates and overall nicer lives, despite not having enormous homes, big fat gas guzzling SUVs and pickup trucks, and stuffing themselves with super sized meals every other day. Yet by the way you talk, they ought to be in rags, standing in bread lines.

Absolute nonsense??? That's it Score one for team blue.

Your right it is bad governments. Bad governments institute ridiculous expensive entitlement programs that make everyone poorer and encourage consumption instead of savings. How is the US worse than Greece, ask the Chinese which country they'd rather invest in?

By your metrics just fine is all we should strive for, what's wrong with being better. THe USA and England did that in the 17 and 1800s and became extraordinarily wealthy. What's wrong with that? The reality is people in Scandinavia live in a bubble and will never have the opportunity to enjoy the weatlh a person in Canada in the USA has the opportunity to get. Sad. Have you looked at commodity prices? Have you seen Asia these days, they are becoming rapidly wealthy and are able to enjoy an increasing standard of living. If they did things your way they'd still be in the poor house, since they don't like being poor they have embraced low tax capitalism and are enjoying the benefits of it. That's reality.

If being lazy and copping out for comfort is your idea of a good life then maybe the scandinavian model is for you. However many people prefer a model of where they get what they put in. For some its an obscene amount of money and for others its getting by. That's why the low tax model is most fair, and according to the immigration problems we have in North America, quite a lot of people agree with mine and bc2004's way of doing things, they vote with their feet.

[blueblood]

LOL....they are better off than living in Canada too...oh my!

No kidding, i'd like to see how a person in Scandinavia has a better living standard than the low tax jurisdictions of Western Canada, I want to see this.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... That's why the low tax model is most fair, and according to the immigration problems we have in North America, quite a lot of people agree with mine and bc2004's way of doing things, they vote with their feet.

Yes, that's the bottom line in such discussions. Why aren't they all going to Scandinavia?

The biggest per-capita recipient of the USA's Marshall Plan after WW2 was......Norway.

[Argus]

Your right it is bad governments. Bad governments institute ridiculous expensive entitlement programs

Blah, blah-blah, blah blah blah-blah. Reading straight from your Republican handbook.

How is the US worse than Greece, ask the Chinese which country they'd rather invest in?

The U.S. has a lot more of a debt load than the obvious, like massive unfunded pension programs, which add another $50 trillion to the debt.

By your metrics just fine is all we should strive for, what's wrong with being better

.

Because in order to have 10% of the U.S. doing 'better' than the Scandinavians, the other 90% are doing worse, in some ways far worse.

THe USA and England did that in the 17 and 1800s and became extraordinarily wealthy. What's wrong with that?

They became extremely wealthy be exploiting poorer, weaker nations.

The reality is people in Scandinavia live in a bubble and will never have the opportunity to enjoy the weatlh a person in Canada in the USA has the opportunity to get.

The reality is 90% of the people of Canada and the United States will never get the opportunity to enjoy this mythical wealth you speak of.

Have you looked at commodity prices? Have you seen Asia these days, they are becoming rapidly wealthy and are able to enjoy an increasing standard of living.

The reality is the vast majority of people in Asia live lives of such miserable poverty no one in Harlem would trade places with them.

However many people prefer a model of where they get what they put in.

You're living off myths. In point of fact, how wealthy you become in the United States is mostly correlated with how much money your father had, not how industrious and hard working you are. Most wealth is inherited or built upon. Sure, there are stories of people who grow up poor and become wealthy, but those are the exceptions. Income mobility in the US has been declining for decades, and is lower than it is in Europe.

That's why the low tax model is most fair, and according to the immigration problems we have in North America, quite a lot of people agree with mine and bc2004's way of doing things, they vote with their feet.

You don't see a lot of immigrants from western Europe, do you? Canada gets tons of immigrants because it has the lowest standards on the planet. Anyone can immigrate here, regardless of lack of skills, education or ability, and live their lives on welfare. The US is simply the mecca for all the world's poor people, but most of them, when they arrive, will continue to live in poverty.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... The US is simply the mecca for all the world's poor people, but most of them, when they arrive, will continue to live in poverty.

But many won't....some will become very wealthy compared to humble beginnings. That what America was all about....opportunity...not state support from cradle to grave.

[Smallc]

Canada doesn't accept just anyone. Even when you're on a roll, you can say such BS.

[blueblood]

Blah, blah-blah, blah blah blah-blah. Reading straight from your Republican handbook.

The U.S. has a lot more of a debt load than the obvious, like massive unfunded pension programs, which add another $50 trillion to the debt.

.

Because in order to have 10% of the U.S. doing 'better' than the Scandinavians, the other 90% are doing worse, in some ways far worse.

They became extremely wealthy be exploiting poorer, weaker nations.

The reality is 90% of the people of Canada and the United States will never get the opportunity to enjoy this mythical wealth you speak of.

The reality is the vast majority of people in Asia live lives of such miserable poverty no one in Harlem would trade places with them.

You're living off myths. In point of fact, how wealthy you become in the United States is mostly correlated with how much money your father had, not how industrious and hard working you are. Most wealth is inherited or built upon. Sure, there are stories of people who grow up poor and become wealthy, but those are the exceptions. Income mobility in the US has been declining for decades, and is lower than it is in Europe.

You don't see a lot of immigrants from western Europe, do you? Canada gets tons of immigrants because it has the lowest standards on the planet. Anyone can immigrate here, regardless of lack of skills, education or ability, and live their lives on welfare. The US is simply the mecca for all the world's poor people, but most of them, when they arrive, will continue to live in poverty.

It's quite sad that the republican handbook is closer to reality than the kool aid that you drink.

50 trillion is too much to be spending on old people's consumption, time to swing the axe. And you say gov't spending is a good thing...

And those Scandinavians are doing worse than the 10% of American's, way worse. Free to succeed, free to fail.

Sure England and the USA did, they made countries richer, take it up with the countries that pissed their investments away.

Except that people in Canada and the USA do have that opportunity to hit the jackpot, that's why so many people come here. Where else can someone with 20 bucks in their pocket become a multi millionaire?

Except that less and less people are living in extreme poverty every year and are rapidly getting to enjoy things we enjoy here. Those pig barns in china aren't going up as a petting zoo...

People also have to be smart with wealth they inherited, easy come easy go. Perhaps if there wasn't so much govt spending on entitlements that encourage consumption and less savings there would be more wealth mobility in the USA and Canada. As for Europe, its a lift out of poverty into comfortable, ooohh!!! Funny how income mobility is dropping in correlation to an increase in gov't spending...

I'll leave the last point to BC2004's response.

[blueblood]

Canada doesn't accept just anyone. Even when you're on a roll, you can say such BS.

Excellent point, when your a desired destination like Canada we get to pick and choose. Must be a pretty good continent we live on to have that kind of a demand for our way of life.

[Smallc]

I'm actually in favour of our way of life....I just prefer to have Canada's social safety net.

Edited October 31, 2011 by Smallc

[blueblood]

I'm actually in favour of our way of life....I just prefer Canada's social safety net.

I prefer it to europe's. We smartened up when the bond vultures said the party was over,

[maple_leafs182]

I'm actually in favour of our way of life....I just prefer to have Canada's social safety net.

I don't like that term social safety net, makes you sound like an asshole if you are against it. I think these welfare programs promote bad behavior, they make people become dependent. Not to mention they are often paid for using debt which ends up hurting the poor from the resulting inflation.

[kimmy]

Atheists are the most hated and mistrusted minority group in the US.

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

Lately in light of Romney's supposed "Mormon problem", there have been some polls asking "would you vote for a ____?" And atheists are by far the highest "nope" response-- 49% of Americans would not vote for an Atheist, even if nominated by their own party.

Muslims aren't listed in that poll, but a similar one from a few years ago showed that more people were resistant to voting for an atheist than voting for a Muslim; only Scientologists were behind atheists.

This University of Minnesota study (PDF) shows that in response to the questions "This Group Does Not At All Agree with My Vision of American Society" and "I Would Disapprove if My Child Wanted to Marry a Member of This Group" atheists generated by far the most negative responses, significantly worse than Muslims, who were second-last.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

Lately in light of Romney's supposed "Mormon problem", there have been some polls asking "would you vote for a ____?" And atheists are by far the highest "nope" response-- 49% of Americans would not vote for an Atheist, even if nominated by their own party.

Yep...that's true...atheists are lower than whale poop. They can't even say the complete pledge of allegiance!

Muslims aren't listed in that poll, but a similar one from a few years ago showed that more people were resistant to voting for an atheist than voting for a Muslim; only Scientologists were behind atheists.

In fact, two Muslims have been elected to the US Congress.

[kimmy]

In fact, two Muslims have been elected to the US Congress.

And a lot more atheists than that, although presently just one who'll admit it publicly.

-k

[Bonam]

They can't even say the complete pledge of allegiance!

Why not? Nothing would stop me from saying it. No more than I would be prevented from saying any other sentence which happens to include one meaningless word.

[bush_cheney2004]

Why not? Nothing would stop me from saying it. No more than I would be prevented from saying any other sentence which happens to include one meaningless word.

It's all about political context, including any swearing in ceremony. The late, great atheist Madalyn O'Hair would not consider such a sell out just for political gain.

[kimmy]

It's all about political context, including any swearing in ceremony. The late, great atheist Madalyn O'Hair would not consider such a sell out just for political gain.

In North Carolina, where the state constitution expressly says atheists may not hold office, atheist Cecil Bothwell was allowed to "solemnly affirm" rather than swear to god when he was elected in 2009.

-k

[Argus]

I don't like that term social safety net, makes you sound like an asshole if you are against it. I think these welfare programs promote bad behavior, they make people become dependent. Not to mention they are often paid for using debt which ends up hurting the poor from the resulting inflation.

I don't disagree this happens. There are too many people on welfare who are healthy and who could work. However, simply getting rid of the system, or instituting widespread, across-the-board cuts to the budget are certainly not the answer.

And in any event, the systems under attack in the US are pensions for the elderly and medical care for the old and indigent. Not quite the same thing as welfare abuse.

[Shady]

or instituting widespread, across-the-board cuts to the budget are certainly not the answer.[/quote\

Actually, it was the answer for us in Canada. Widespread across-the-board cuts (almost a 20% cut in federal spending) were instituted in the mid to late 90s when are debt to GDP was approaching dangerous levels. We're now in the best fiscal position of any of the Western countries. We also have lower unemployment them as well. So you're premise doesn't really hold up to history and actual facts.

And in any event, the systems under attack in the US are pensions for the elderly and medical care for the old and indigent. Not quite the same thing as welfare abuse.

More nonsense. The systems under so-called attack are unsustainable programs, like public sector pensions that are bankrupting states. Also, asking public employees to pay just 1.5% of their health care insurance is hardly an attack. It's fairness.

Edited November 2, 2011 by Shady