quote:Why is so much political diatribe so... black and white?
I don't know:
quote:Seems to me like trickle down is just a lame excuse folks use to give themselves a whopping tax cut. Then they will say, this will really benefit you, the middle class... And, it may not... I think it would be more logical to cut taxes for the middle class and lower class so that THEY can have more money to invest and spend instead of, say, a corporation that has a great deal of tax loopholes and resources or very wealthy..
posted
Considering that the notion of supply side economics is the source of considerable skepticism among serious economists, that isn't exactly the same thing.
quote:In the early 80s, the influential and multi-partisan American Economics Association had 18,000 members. Only 12 called themselves supply-side economists. In American universities, there is no major department that could be called "supply-side," and there is no supply-side economist at any major department. This is significant, because academia in the 70s was dominated by conservative economic theory, and conservative economists normally welcome any ideas that make the case against government intervention.
There are plenty of economists out there who think paying attention to the supply side is important. No serious economic theory in decades has said it isn't, and most generally favor lower taxes which include the highest payers. However, only supply side economics takes pride in ignoring half the picture, the "demand side".
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a difference between saying someone is wrong about a subject in a complicated field in which experts disagree and saying one theory is simply a lame excuse. At worst, one implies error; the other, fraud.
posted
Read the article. Supply side economics has been used, at least at one point, fraudulently (specifically, during the Reagan era), in pretty much exactly the way Syn talked about.
Second, I think considering tax cuts without corresponding spending restriction the only sane response to the entire gamut of economic conditions we've had for the past five years (yeah, during the campaign, too) suggests some fraudulent motives right there.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I could point to a hundred posts on this forum that are easily as bad as the linked articles in the original post. I don't like the articles; I don't like the posts like them.
If people want to accuse others of holding beliefs for mere convenience's sake, or grossly twist and simplify religious dogma and their opponent's position, I can't stop them.
But I can register my annoyance at this continued angst. I think the Here's-Why-Bush-Sucks-Today threads are the perfect place to do it.
posted
*deep breath* I said, "seems to me" It is a product of my limited narrow observation... Then I followed it with, "or it may not be." I was not being black and white in that case. It WOULD make sense to cut taxes for the middle class over the upper class, at least by my limited observation. I don't claim to be an economics expert... It just makes sense to me. Especially when I look at my paycheck... But, what does not make sense to me is would God really find a 10% tax oppressive? I don't understand anything... Not one thing...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that there are plenty of examples out there on the forum, I just don't think your choice was particularly good Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Syn, political discourse is not all black and white. There are examples of simple-minded stupidity on both (all) sides, and there are also examples of thoughtful discourse. If you’re tired of the simple-minded stuff, seek out the better stuff. But it does no one any good to post examples of crap just to rant about how awful they are. If you want to encourage rational discussion, why not post some? As long as the “diatribes” are what get the attention, people will continue to use them.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It just frustrates me... This sort of thing in particular because it's from some old stupid war I was involved in back in 1996 or 97 with people who kept insisting that there was a homosexual agenda, but there really isn't. When it doesn't even exist, but people fight for hours over things that don't exist... I need to simply stop reading about politics and drown myself in music, study Russian and just ignore everything until November 2nd. But it's driving me crazy. I keep focusing on the extreme stuff because it annoys me the most. No facts, no truth, just... the same stuff I've seen for ages..... *finishes lamely* I take this stuff way too personal.......
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not the difference in opinion on economic policies. It's the assumption that those holding differing opinions are essentially lying about their reasons for holding the differing opinions. It's fairly offensive to people holding those opinions, and it makes it seem like you don't believe anyone can legitimately hold the opposing view. Which seems like black and white thinking to me.
posted
I repeat, if the extreme stuff is driving you crazy, quit looking for it. Look for good stuff.
Here’s some you might like – a link to some evangelical Christians who disagree with your links.
quote: [Some] leaders of the Religious Right mistakenly claim that God has taken a side in this election, and that Christians should only vote for George W. Bush.
We believe that claims of divine appointment for the President, uncritical affirmation of his policies, and assertions that all Christians must vote for his re-election constitute bad theology and dangerous religion.
We believe that sincere Christians and other people of faith can choose to vote for President Bush or Senator Kerry - for reasons deeply rooted in their faith.
We believe all candidates should be examined by measuring their policies against the complete range of Christian ethics and values. We will measure the candidates by whether they enhance human life, human dignity, and human rights; whether they strengthen family life and protect children; whether they promote racial reconciliation and support gender equality; whether they serve peace and social justice; and whether they advance the common good rather than only individual, national, and special interests.
We are not single-issue voters.
We believe that poverty - caring for the poor and vulnerable - is a religious issue. Do the candidates' budget and tax policies reward the rich or show compassion for poor families? Do their foreign policies include fair trade and debt cancellation for the poorest countries? (Matthew 25:35-40, Isaiah 10:1-2)
We believe that the environment - caring for God's earth - is a religious issue. Do the candidates' policies protect the creation or serve corporate interests that damage it? (Genesis 2:15, Psalm 24:1)
We believe that war - and our call to be peacemakers - is a religious issue. Do the candidates' policies pursue "wars of choice" or respect international law and cooperation in responding to real global threats? (Matthew 5:9)
We believe that truth-telling is a religious issue. Do the candidates tell the truth in justifying war and in other foreign and domestic policies? (John 8:32)
We believe that human rights - respecting the image of God in every person - is a religious issue. How do the candidates propose to change the attitudes and policies that led to the abuse and torture of Iraqi prisoners? (Genesis 1:27)
We believe that our response to terrorism is a religious issue. Do the candidates adopt the dangerous language of righteous empire in the war on terrorism and confuse the roles of God, church, and nation? Do the candidates see evil only in our enemies but never in our own policies? (Matthew 6:33, Proverbs 8:12-13)
We believe that a consistent ethic of human life is a religious issue. Do the candidates' positions on abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, weapons of mass destruction, HIV/AIDS-and other pandemics-and genocide around the world obey the biblical injunction to choose life? (Deuteronomy 30:19)
We also admonish both parties and candidates to avoid the exploitation of religion or our congregations for partisan political purposes.
By signing this statement, we call Christians and other people of faith to a more thoughtful involvement in this election, rather than claiming God's endorsement of any candidate.
This is the meaning of responsible Christian citizenship.
posted
Oh, goody! I liked that link! *lights up* I know, perhaps it isn't nice of me to state that, but, from my stupid point of view, it is a possibility... i just need to study more about it, *Really doesn't want to sound black and white* but at times it is difficult to avoid it...But it's still annoying when I do it. But, dang, do I hate trickle-down!
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems to me that Kerry's positions are much more consistent with Christ's views, at least. I mean he is the prince of "peace" and he did spend a whole lot of time trying to help the unfortunate rather than the well-off.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Syn, my problem is that you keep on making bold statements qualified by the fact that maybe you're wrong and then you essentially act stunned when someone disagrees with you.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like the intro and the conclusion on that link above, but the statement of policy issues is actually quite biased. It would be just as easy to recouch each of those in a way that sounds just as neutral but actually "suggests" Bush as much as those "suggest" Kerrey.
For example, "We believe that the environment - caring for God's earth - is a religious issue. Do the candidates' policies protect the creation or serve corporate interests that damage it?"
Could just as easily become, "We believe that the environment - caring for God's earth - is a religious issue. Do the candidate's policies protect the creation in such a way as to ensure its future preservation while providing the necessities of life for humanity today?" Or, to be even more slanted, "Do the candidate's policies promote the preservation of the creation without promoting the welfare of plants and animals above those of human beings?" Or even, "Do the candidate's policies utilize the full spectrum of human knowledge across all fields - bilology, chemistry, physics, economics, engineering, manufacturing, agriculture, and others - to protect the earth both for its own sake and for the sake of humanity which lives upon it?"
posted
I think I do... I shall have change that... but...In some cases if it seems something is illogical to me... I will have to call someone on it. I found it on someone's LJ...
posted
Dag, the statement was a direct response to statements from other religious leaders that voting for Bush was the only Christian response. (I changed the "these" refering to those particular people to "some" in the quote.) So of course they're giving the other side.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Words are colors that can be mixed in any way whatsoever to create whatever picture is wanted...propoganda is effective and blinds issues in smog.
quote:but...In some cases if it seems something is illogical to me... I will have to call someone on it.
While I appreciate the sentiment, I have to say, who are you calling here? I think it would be a great idea if you wrote the authors, but I doubt any of them post here.
posted
Fair enough, Dana, but frankly none of that stuff on the Religious Right site is why my faith is helping inform my decision for Bush (except the abortion stuff).
One thing that's always bothered me is when people pretend religion provides a fully-formed "how to guide." Not that your link did that, although I think the "corporate gain" was close to doing that.
We're supposed to feed the poor. We rely on farm experts to grow the food, and transportation experts to get to them. And management experts, politicians, and others can disagree with which tasks should be done by private industry, private charity, or government, all without one side being less dedicated to the principle, "Feed the poor."
We need to protect the environment. If using tradeable pollution credits will do that at the least cost to society, we should do it. If having strict per-facility output limits will do that at the least cost to society, we should do that.
I know many people oppose my ideal of giving room for as much leeway to conscience as possible, but it's that same principle that makes me support equal civil homosexual marriage rights and the right of a pharmacist to not dispense the pill. Both are practical policies based on a common religious principle, even though one of those practices at least is anathema to my religious beliefs.
It does make a lot of people disagree with me, though.
posted
I completely agree that if tradeable credits will solve the environmental problem, we should go with them. That's not the issue of my disagreement on the environment, but (among other things) that it is now impossible to measure the impact of those credits and other programs because the pertinent information is either no longer gathered, or gathered by the members of the industry themselves (which may as well not be gathered).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing about tradeable credits is that the nature of the program absolutely requires vigorous enforcement. At least triple the cost of the credits, and probably more. So people who try to pitch it as not requiring regulators are not pitching the true idea. In that respect I agree with you.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
