Except that the facts don't bear you out. Yes, but most of them are selfish and unhelpful and uncharitable because they have been convinced that helping people is the governments job. In those States in the US that do less to "help" the poor, the "tiny" band of charitable souls more than make up the difference. I don't believe in the "goodness" of mankind, but since government is made up of people, why would you think that it would do any more to help people than the individuals who it is made up of would? One of the things you overlook is that the "tiny" band of people actually gives a S*** about the poor, while those in the government often are those selfish, unhelpful people wou complain about.
The original poster said that the problem with health care in the U.S. is a product of the government. He then goes on to list a whole bunch of events which he says make his point. You may disagree with his point and think that other facts show why he is wrong, but several people say that he is selfish because he doesn't want to take their money to help the poor. Studies have repeatedly shown that those who don't believe that the government should be involved in helping the poor, give much more of their own money to helping the poor directly. While those who call for the government to have more programs to "help" the poor give less. So who is more selfish, those who want to help the poor with someone else's money, or those who want to help the poor with their own money?
Actually, the stock market was not one of the things I considered. I was considering employment numbers, increases in salary verses the bottom of the recession. In this cycle of the economy, the recession started in October or November of 2000 (during the election year). During the previous cycle the recovery started in May of 1992 (during the election year, I may be mistakenly recalling the month, but it was early in the election year). I know that the Democrats spent all of 1992 telling us how bad the economy was, but the recovery had already begun.
At the same point in the economic cycle (years from the start of the recession/start of the recovery), the economy is doing marginally better under Bush than it did under Clinton. The thing people forget is that Bill Clinton took office with the economy a year into recovery, G.W. Bush too office with the economy several months into the start of a recession.
Not the Thai people, the Thai drug company that is selling the drugs. What you didn't know that the Thai government "licensed" these drugs to a local company to manufacture and sell?
If it is evolution, why do the moths revert to the lighter coloration being the predominant color before the trees revert to lighter color? I thought the idea was that the moths evolved to darker coloration because of darker trees?
Actually, those moths don't "evolve" darker coloration. As soon as the pollution that leads to the rise in proportion of darker colored moths is eliminated the ratio of dark to light moths reverts to its original distribution. The moths in question do not under ordinary circumstances rest on tree trunks, the pictures of the moths on trees that are used in many textbooks are actually staged. In addition, the color distribution of the moths reverts to its pre-pollution ratio, before the coloration of the trees changes as a result of declining pollution.
If you get rid of the electoral college, then your vote will mean even less. Instead of being one out of however many votes there are in your state it will be one out of however many there are in a country. The more voters in a pool of votes, the less significant each one is.
If you want to make a difference pay attention to local politics (where your one vote is a significant portion of the total) and encourage those you know to pay attention to local politics. In local politics (township, county, etc) one person can make a difference.
Bush 41 didn't "have" to raise taxes. He made the foolish mistake of thinking that Congress would keep their side of the bargain and cut spending. Under both Reagan and Bush 43 federal spending went up even faster than federal revenues. In addition, when Kennedy cut taxes in the early 60's federal revenue went up then too. I have seen the numbers, but don't have the references available. However, I am sure if you looked you could find the federal revenue figures for 1980 through 1985, which would show a sudden increase following the tax cuts.
They can argue it, but the facts don't bear them out. When the current tax cuts went into effect, Federal revenue went up. Unfortunately, Federal spending went up faster, but nevertheless, the tax cut led to increased revenue. Based on what I have seen of tax rates around the world, I am confident that a lower tax rate would lead to a better economy and thus greater federal tax revenues.
I can't find the article I originally got it from. Said article had link to either a Congressional Budget Office or General Accounting Office website that supported this. I think it was the Congressional Budget Office but I'm not sure.
I am not sure you are correct, however, do you really mean that you would prefer to increase government revenue by paying a greater percentage of your income in taxes to increasing government revenue by decreasing the percentage you earn and earning more?
Also, it is worth noting that in the 1930's the year after they introduced progressive income tax rates instead of the same for everyone, the number of people earning over $1 million dollars a year was less than 10% of the number from the year before.
Are you aware that following every cut in Federal Income Tax, revenues received by the federal government from income taxes has gone up? When tax rates are lower economic activity is greater. At some point, this increase in revenue from decreased taxes stops, but we don't know where that point is. I am confident it is at a lower tax rate than our current one. Oh yes, when the taxes were cut the last time, the percentage of income tax collected from the top quintile of earners went up. That is, the people who earn in the top 20% of incomes in this country pay a greater share of the money collected from income tax now than they did before the last round of tax cuts were passed.
When you do a study of average wages, adjust for average hours worked and adjust for work experience and education, you discover that the wage gap is 6.2% (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3678/is_2 00010/ai_n8912803). I have seen some articles that suggest that even this is high, but I can't find those articles at the moment. Please note that this article points out that this does not adjust for career choice. Studies have repeatedly shown that women are less likely than men to choose jobs that are extremely physically demanding and/or highly dangerous (this doesn't mean that women can't or don't do those jobs, just that they choose to do so at a much lower rate than men do).
You are asking two questions. One about whether God requires women to wear a head covering to pray and a second about whether they should be forced to wear one or have their head shaved. The first question is outside of our discussion about the Bible promoting violence against women. The answer to the second question is, Paul seems to be saying that women should wear a head covering or have short hair (a better translation of the greek than shaved). He does not say that someone should force them to this behavior. In addition as another poster points out a little bit further on in the same passage, Paul seems to say that this is not the practice of the Church.
It is important to remember that Paul is the man who said that Christians are neither male nor female (from context, men are not superior to women and women are not superior to men). This is at a time and place where women have little or no right to property.
As for the Enlightenment, where do you think the ideas of the Enlightenment came from? We have already wondered far afield from the original topic, suffice it to say that on the whole the Bible calls for treating all people with greater honor and respect than the society around it when it was written, and, I believe that the New Testament calls for treating all people with greater honor and respect than that practiced by any society today.
I don't know how you would know if it it was "Ok with the people". The current government of Venezuela is a dictatorship. Not a "dictatorship" like in the US where President Bush will surrender power in just under 2 years, but a real, true to the meaning of the word Dictatorship, where Hugo Chavez has twice (maybe three times) changed the constitution to allow him to continue serving. I believe that the last change means he will serve the rest of his life or until he chooses to retire(although maybe that change has only been proposed, not actually implemented yet).
You obviously have been living under a rock for your whole life. Haven't you heard of Hugo Chavez's (President for life of Venezuela) hero, Fidel Castro. Fidel has been running a totalitarian government in Cuba for over 40 years now. And of course there is always China. If I spent a little more time I could probably come up with a few more obvious totalitarian governments.
It doesn't say that YOU should shave the head of a woman that goes to church without a head covering. It says that a woman who goes to church without a head covering might as well shave her head. If it tells anyone to do anything it tells the woman to shave her own head. There are several alternative interpretations of what the original greek means, however, the most likely interpretations I have seen fall somewhere between the two I mentioned. None of the interpretations of the original greek that I have heard can be taken to mean that someone else should shave the woman's head.
Where do you think modern sensibilities derived from. Do you think they just appeared whole cloth from societies that thought that that prescription was excessively lenient?
I think you are very sheltered if that is what you consider violence. However, there is a passage in the book of Judges where a woman is raped to death. Of course, the rest of the Israelites banded together and killed the perpetrators and all of those who defended them. But I guess that is not what you are looking for (although I think it would likely run afoul of this proposed Canadian law), you want where the Bible promotes violence against women. Well, there are some passages that can be taken that way, but when you compare the writings to the practices of the surrounding societies of the same time, you will see that the Bible promotes a far superior treatment of women than those societies did.
By the time the USA collapses, the EU will be under sharia law. Of course even without this demographic result, the EU wouldn't be around when the USA collapses, since the EU is way ahead of the USA on the road it is following to economic collapse.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that the facts don't bear you out. Yes, but most of them are selfish and unhelpful and uncharitable because they have been convinced that helping people is the governments job. In those States in the US that do less to "help" the poor, the "tiny" band of charitable souls more than make up the difference. I don't believe in the "goodness" of mankind, but since government is made up of people, why would you think that it would do any more to help people than the individuals who it is made up of would? One of the things you overlook is that the "tiny" band of people actually gives a S*** about the poor, while those in the government often are those selfish, unhelpful people wou complain about.
The original poster said that the problem with health care in the U.S. is a product of the government. He then goes on to list a whole bunch of events which he says make his point. You may disagree with his point and think that other facts show why he is wrong, but several people say that he is selfish because he doesn't want to take their money to help the poor. Studies have repeatedly shown that those who don't believe that the government should be involved in helping the poor, give much more of their own money to helping the poor directly. While those who call for the government to have more programs to "help" the poor give less. So who is more selfish, those who want to help the poor with someone else's money, or those who want to help the poor with their own money?
Actually, the stock market was not one of the things I considered. I was considering employment numbers, increases in salary verses the bottom of the recession. In this cycle of the economy, the recession started in October or November of 2000 (during the election year). During the previous cycle the recovery started in May of 1992 (during the election year, I may be mistakenly recalling the month, but it was early in the election year). I know that the Democrats spent all of 1992 telling us how bad the economy was, but the recovery had already begun.
At the same point in the economic cycle (years from the start of the recession/start of the recovery), the economy is doing marginally better under Bush than it did under Clinton. The thing people forget is that Bill Clinton took office with the economy a year into recovery, G.W. Bush too office with the economy several months into the start of a recession.
So, like I said, why shouldn't they make a profit off of the drugs developed by other people?
Not the Thai people, the Thai drug company that is selling the drugs. What you didn't know that the Thai government "licensed" these drugs to a local company to manufacture and sell?
Yea, why shouldn't they be able to profit from those drugs too?
If it is evolution, why do the moths revert to the lighter coloration being the predominant color before the trees revert to lighter color? I thought the idea was that the moths evolved to darker coloration because of darker trees?
Actually, those moths don't "evolve" darker coloration. As soon as the pollution that leads to the rise in proportion of darker colored moths is eliminated the ratio of dark to light moths reverts to its original distribution. The moths in question do not under ordinary circumstances rest on tree trunks, the pictures of the moths on trees that are used in many textbooks are actually staged. In addition, the color distribution of the moths reverts to its pre-pollution ratio, before the coloration of the trees changes as a result of declining pollution.
If you get rid of the electoral college, then your vote will mean even less. Instead of being one out of however many votes there are in your state it will be one out of however many there are in a country. The more voters in a pool of votes, the less significant each one is. If you want to make a difference pay attention to local politics (where your one vote is a significant portion of the total) and encourage those you know to pay attention to local politics. In local politics (township, county, etc) one person can make a difference.
Just because you got a tax cut in 2001 doesn't mean that is when the majority of the tax cuts went into effect.
The bulk of the Bush tax cuts went into effect in 2003, not 2001. Amazingly, tax revenues went up the following year, just like I said they did.
Bush 41 didn't "have" to raise taxes. He made the foolish mistake of thinking that Congress would keep their side of the bargain and cut spending. Under both Reagan and Bush 43 federal spending went up even faster than federal revenues. In addition, when Kennedy cut taxes in the early 60's federal revenue went up then too. I have seen the numbers, but don't have the references available. However, I am sure if you looked you could find the federal revenue figures for 1980 through 1985, which would show a sudden increase following the tax cuts.
They can argue it, but the facts don't bear them out. When the current tax cuts went into effect, Federal revenue went up. Unfortunately, Federal spending went up faster, but nevertheless, the tax cut led to increased revenue. Based on what I have seen of tax rates around the world, I am confident that a lower tax rate would lead to a better economy and thus greater federal tax revenues.
I can't find the article I originally got it from. Said article had link to either a Congressional Budget Office or General Accounting Office website that supported this. I think it was the Congressional Budget Office but I'm not sure.
I am not sure you are correct, however, do you really mean that you would prefer to increase government revenue by paying a greater percentage of your income in taxes to increasing government revenue by decreasing the percentage you earn and earning more? Also, it is worth noting that in the 1930's the year after they introduced progressive income tax rates instead of the same for everyone, the number of people earning over $1 million dollars a year was less than 10% of the number from the year before.
Are you aware that following every cut in Federal Income Tax, revenues received by the federal government from income taxes has gone up? When tax rates are lower economic activity is greater. At some point, this increase in revenue from decreased taxes stops, but we don't know where that point is. I am confident it is at a lower tax rate than our current one. Oh yes, when the taxes were cut the last time, the percentage of income tax collected from the top quintile of earners went up. That is, the people who earn in the top 20% of incomes in this country pay a greater share of the money collected from income tax now than they did before the last round of tax cuts were passed.
When you do a study of average wages, adjust for average hours worked and adjust for work experience and education, you discover that the wage gap is 6.2% (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3678/is_2 00010/ai_n8912803). I have seen some articles that suggest that even this is high, but I can't find those articles at the moment. Please note that this article points out that this does not adjust for career choice. Studies have repeatedly shown that women are less likely than men to choose jobs that are extremely physically demanding and/or highly dangerous (this doesn't mean that women can't or don't do those jobs, just that they choose to do so at a much lower rate than men do).
You are asking two questions. One about whether God requires women to wear a head covering to pray and a second about whether they should be forced to wear one or have their head shaved. The first question is outside of our discussion about the Bible promoting violence against women. The answer to the second question is, Paul seems to be saying that women should wear a head covering or have short hair (a better translation of the greek than shaved). He does not say that someone should force them to this behavior. In addition as another poster points out a little bit further on in the same passage, Paul seems to say that this is not the practice of the Church. It is important to remember that Paul is the man who said that Christians are neither male nor female (from context, men are not superior to women and women are not superior to men). This is at a time and place where women have little or no right to property. As for the Enlightenment, where do you think the ideas of the Enlightenment came from? We have already wondered far afield from the original topic, suffice it to say that on the whole the Bible calls for treating all people with greater honor and respect than the society around it when it was written, and, I believe that the New Testament calls for treating all people with greater honor and respect than that practiced by any society today.
I don't know how you would know if it it was "Ok with the people". The current government of Venezuela is a dictatorship. Not a "dictatorship" like in the US where President Bush will surrender power in just under 2 years, but a real, true to the meaning of the word Dictatorship, where Hugo Chavez has twice (maybe three times) changed the constitution to allow him to continue serving. I believe that the last change means he will serve the rest of his life or until he chooses to retire(although maybe that change has only been proposed, not actually implemented yet).
You obviously have been living under a rock for your whole life. Haven't you heard of Hugo Chavez's (President for life of Venezuela) hero, Fidel Castro. Fidel has been running a totalitarian government in Cuba for over 40 years now. And of course there is always China. If I spent a little more time I could probably come up with a few more obvious totalitarian governments.
It doesn't say that YOU should shave the head of a woman that goes to church without a head covering. It says that a woman who goes to church without a head covering might as well shave her head. If it tells anyone to do anything it tells the woman to shave her own head. There are several alternative interpretations of what the original greek means, however, the most likely interpretations I have seen fall somewhere between the two I mentioned. None of the interpretations of the original greek that I have heard can be taken to mean that someone else should shave the woman's head.
Where do you think modern sensibilities derived from. Do you think they just appeared whole cloth from societies that thought that that prescription was excessively lenient?
I think you are very sheltered if that is what you consider violence. However, there is a passage in the book of Judges where a woman is raped to death. Of course, the rest of the Israelites banded together and killed the perpetrators and all of those who defended them. But I guess that is not what you are looking for (although I think it would likely run afoul of this proposed Canadian law), you want where the Bible promotes violence against women. Well, there are some passages that can be taken that way, but when you compare the writings to the practices of the surrounding societies of the same time, you will see that the Bible promotes a far superior treatment of women than those societies did.
By the time the USA collapses, the EU will be under sharia law. Of course even without this demographic result, the EU wouldn't be around when the USA collapses, since the EU is way ahead of the USA on the road it is following to economic collapse.