The Good Post Gallery

[Napoleon]

To justify having the less positive post dumps, we ought to have one where we can show off solid, well reasoned posts that are worth having everyone read. I will start us off with a thoughtful post from a hot topic. Informative posts that forumites shouldn't miss go here.

 

One thing I find somewhat frustrating about Eastern Orthodoxy is that it does not fall into some of the same stupid 'natural law' traps as Catholic theology, yet retains many of the same conclusions on other, often oddly fideistic, bases; whereas there are groups like the Old Catholics and some of the Malabar churches that come to a different stance on the basis of much the same general theological practice as Rome. This to me indicates that these debates are cultural because there doesn't seem to be a whole hell of a lot of correlation between general attitude towards or way of doing theology and specific beliefs developed on a lot of these subjects.


(It is worth noting that dissent appears to exist in Orthodoxy, at somewhat higher levels than in Catholicism and carrying with it rather less danger of being sh**tcanned and reassigned to Partenia, but there's still not all that much of it.)

The method that mainline Protestants tend to practice in the tradition of Richard Hooker and John Wesley is that we as Christians believe most of what we believe because tradition tells us that scripture says to believe it. If experience or reason contradict what tradition tells us scripture says, then it's time to modify or reject parts of that tradition and approach scripture independently again, taking the experience and reason into account, to start a new tradition. I'm sure we can all think of examples where this process failed and the traditional interpretation was reaffirmed, and I'm sure we can also all think of examples where it succeeded and the received interpretation changed; or where it only dubiously failed or succeeded and resulted in ideological division within the Body of the Church.

[Napoleon]

Is this really necessary?  We're gonna end up having all these perma-threads taking up the first page.

(And before anybody goes all pissy on me, no I'm not going to lock it - I'm just asking if it's worth it.)

But we already have the comedy goldmine, post a picture, sulfur mine, deluge, signature thread.

I think a positive thread for informative posts might be more valuable than some of those you listed. I don't care to see pictures of anyone, for example.

[Napoleon]

Zirconium!

[Napoleon]

Zirconium!

Cubic?

Yes, but it is usually found present with silicon, and I was filling in the z-word for Torie.

[Napoleon]

I understand your point (and agree with it), but who would own them if not corporations?  A hippy commune?

(and there are at least 2 TV news sources, the only 2 I ever watch, that are owned by governments....so I suppose that's an option as well)

Something like the BBC, if properly implemented, would be great, but I really don't trust the US government to manage something like that appropriately (on a related note, though, I do love some NPR).

The problem I have with the ownership of the news channels isn't that they're corporate entities, it's that they're all, in some form or another, just subsidiaries of various giant media/entertainment/electronics conglomerates. I wouldn't have an issue if they were managed by independent companies or whatever, like they used to be. CNN being the cable news component of Turner Broadcasting, for example, was completely fine. But when they're owned by a company that also owns amusement parks, sports teams, record labels, video game developers, internet service providers, movie studios, publishing companies, etc etc etc... things start carrying a bit of a burden of suspicion.

[Napoleon]

Any post ending in "I think I know how, but will not say that much at this time," belongs in the Deluge, not the Gallery.

[Napoleon]

This is one of those great perspective questions. I comment here not on your situation with your professor, or on angus's assertion, but in general, because this is an assertion that libertarians make a lot, isn't it? I can see why a libertarian might ignore the entire weight of historical evidence to posit a relationship. The libertarian sees everything from the lens of the singular variable that libertarian-ism deems important. The orange and the pear may be different fruits, but they are both un-banana-like, and in that sense very similar to one another. They are similar in their un-banana-ism. After all, the stars in the constellations look close to each other.

[Napoleon]

My impression is social conservatives are generally more traditionalist and authoritarian than most people, and those who are left-of-centre on economic issues are especially more willing compared to other groups when it comes to codifying their stringent interpretations of morality. However, the normatively conformist folks in an economically centrist or right-of-centre society are not going to vocally advocate for left-wing goals unless they become convinced such an agenda is legitimized by an urgent higher calling or a serious religious mandate (e.g., liberation theology in Latin America).

That is to say, in a place like the States a lot of social and classical liberalists, social democrats, and democratic socialists seem to be relatively non-conforming - not caring enough about traditions and social norms to enforce them all using state coercion, whereas the socons and some of them pseudo-libertarian types really do care enough to make many tenets of their respective cultures into law. The ones with leftist sympathies on economic matters are conservative on most issues - not just "social" ones - hence they go along with a mixed economic agenda and perhaps utilize community service and charitable donations (which are culturally approved of) rather than politics (which would be a deviant break from old, tried-and-true methods) as their outlet for compassion?

It would be the socons with right-of-centre views who would usually not have their own parties in a world where socialist policies are the well-established norm. The capitalists amongst socons, in their conservative political mindset, would ally with mainstream factions rather than break off on their own to form some kind of radical alternative. The changes to society they want have to stay within the bounds of traditional norms and policy goals. Likewise, in a sufficiently secular society, socons would be anti-religious even as they treat their views with reverence and tend to think of folks as fitting into hierarchies of superior and inferior positions. Or is there a better explanation?

Edit: This would also account for Pingvin's observation. In Russia some conservatives and many reactionaries adhere to Marxist-Leninish or Stalinish views on the economy - their yearning for tradition and restoration of the good 'ole days involves a throwback to aspects of Soviet rule as opposed to what the paleoconservatives here conjure up in their minds about the States' past.

[Napoleon]

Why people like Antonio, or Belgiansocialist are so much in love with the EU when the union has done more than any other single institution or organisation to prevent and roll back Socialist policies in Europe.

I'm not some kind of utopist living in dreamland, SC. I'm well aware on EU's flaws, which are enormous and disgusting. I hate the way the Commission works without any actual mandate from the European People, I hate the fact they enact failed neoliberal policies, the fact selfish countries always refuse any progress in common solidarity, the fact Germans have imposed their retarded austerity dogma and are ready to ruin every country to maintain it. However, I also realize that without the EU, European countries are even more screwed. As weak as European integration is, the little bit we have is still indispensable and we'll need more in the following years. In the word's globalized economy, countries which represent 1% of the world population and face a massive demographic ageing won't be remain competitive for long, and especially won't be able to sustain comprehensive welfare states as multinational corporations grow stronger. European federalism is the only way for Europe to survive as one of the world's power, to escape the natural decline we are starting to experience. Not the European Federalism as we know it, but real European federalism : with a democratic federal government, elected by the European people and which has an effective power over national government. Why is it so hard to understand ? Why do you Euroskeptics systematically take commitment to the europeist ideal as a support to EU as it currently exists ? Why the possibility to reform EU and correct its flaws rather than outright disbanding it is always discarded ? This is what I don't understand.

[Napoleon]

Unemployment Rate Dips 0.1%, But Workforce Participation Rate Falls 0.2%
 
By Gregory Gwyn-Williams, Jr.
May 4, 2012

The April jobs report showed employers added fewer workers than expected with nonfarm payrolls rising by only 115,000.

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/unemployment-rate-dips-01-workforce-participation-rate-falls-02

-----

All the need to do is keep reducing the alleged labor force!

To simplify this for Obama supporters:

I agree that the pace of growth could be greatly improved, but your analysis here doesn't really tell the whole picture and makes things appear unnecessarily negative by excluding some key details.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

180,000 new people 16 and over in the United States. Presumably, 180k = (# of people turning 16 - # of adult deaths) + net migration.

Using the estimated CIA World Factbook net nigration rate and population for the US in 2012 to figure out expected migration for the year, and dividing it by 12, that give us an estimated net migration of roughly 95k for the month. Using these CDC statistical tables for death by age group, I estimate that 195k deaths 16+ occurred in April. So, with the 180k increase, that means 280k kids reached age 16 last month. (As an aside, I did estimate a 325k total for this number using census records for 1996 births and the infant/juvenile death rate, but that number's the most likely to be inaccurate of my three estimates because there's a much bigger month to month variation in births than in deaths or migration).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First off, given the estimated 10,000 baby boomers that retire every day, around 310k people left the labor force last month via retirements alone. In addition, the BLS's April report shows a participation rate of 72% in the 16-64 group and and 23% for 65+; estimating from the CDC chart linked above that roughly 52k deaths occurred in the 16-64 age group and 146k deaths 65+. This means that about 71k people exited the labor force last month through death (37.5k in the former age group, 33.5k in the latter age group). Therefore, about 381k of the 411k drop can be attributed to deaths and retirements alone.

Furthermore, regarding the gap here with the increase you note in your first point, note that most of the population growth can be attributed to teenagers who turned 16 in last month. Even discounting the fact that teenage participation in the labor force in incredibly low, very few 16 year olds will be looking for a job in April- they'll wait until they're out of school for the summer to start looking for a job and entering the labor force (The BLS notes that this is a very consistent trend among youth). With these newly work-age (and almost entirely non-job seeking) teenagers actually outnumbering the overall work-age population increase by a hundred thousand, and the above explanation for the decline in the total civilian labor force, the disparity you note between your first two points here can't really be construed to mean anything.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Noting my findings above, the ~310k new retirements and ~280k new 16 year olds who almost universally aren't looking for work pretty much entirely explain this number.


You seem to be suggesting that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is somehow cooking the books to show a reduction in unemployment by reclassifying unemployed job-seekers as discouraged and/or marginally attached workers. If this was true, we'd see increases in U-4 and U-5 that mirror decreases in U-3, the official unemployment rate. However, that demonstrably isn't so. According to the seasonally adjusted numbers, last month's 0.1% decline in the unemployment rate was accompanied by a 0.1% decline in U-5 to 9.5%, while U-4 remained steady at 8.7%. Furthermore, the decline in unemployment since December from 8.5% to 8.1% has been accompanied by a reduction in U-4, from 9.1% to 8.7%, as well as U-5, from 10.0% to 9.5% (for the record, U-6, which also includes underemployment, also declined from 15.2% to 14.5% over those four months). Therefore, there is nobody "reducing the alleged labor force"; unemployment numbers are genuinely improving, even among those not counted in the official unemployment rate. Reductions in labor force participation are mostly due to the fact that the baby boomers have started retiring in massive numbers, and because of this you should expect a slow-but-steady decline in participation over the next decade or two, regardless of how the economy is doing.

Also, since you seem to appreciate prefer using the numbers that aren't seasonally adjusted, I think here at the end I should include for you the BLS's unadjusted unemployment rate changes between March and April

U-3 (Official Unemployment Rate): 8.4% to 7.7%
U-4: 8.9% to 8.3%
U-5: 9.7% to 9.1%
U-6: 14.8% to 14.1%

[Napoleon]

I never said Mitt Romney wasn't a phony, but he actually has a shot of winning. He's not blowing his chances out of proportion. I understand the minor parties run candidates for President to get their names out there, but when they actually believe they're going to win? Nuh uh.

The point I was making about Hospers was that he won an electoral vote in '72. Johnson won't win an electoral vote.

If you're going to sell out, be my guest. But don't act indignant and self-righteous just because Johnson wants to boost some (well-needed) morale for the LP.

You really think that Johnson thinks that he'll win?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

citation

Nobody runs a campaign saying they're going to lose (especially not with fleeting bedfellows such as yourself.)

Besides, John Hospers got like, 3000 votes and his one electoral vote was astroturf. If anything, Johnson would actually be in okay shape to get an electoral vote since Paulites are taking over State Conventions (which, in some states, choose electors.)

For the sake of argument, I'll cede that Johnson's candidacy (and support) is predicated on the fact that he can "get votes." Romney's entire existence has been about getting votes, principles and results be damned. What's your beef?

But hey, if you're content to stay on the GOPlantation and vote for nominees that have literally nothing in common with you, then go ahead.

... just to serve in politics.

Well, I must admit that campaigning in a Republican primary on a platform to legalize gay marriage and marijuana is generally the mark of a shrewd politician.

[Napoleon]

I never meant to imply that all gay marriage opponents are gay, I was merely referencing a study that suggests homophobia is psychologically connected to unexpressed homosexual feelings, so it wouldn't be unreasonable to suspect that a supporter of the Amendment has some gay tendencies.

The resulting misinterpretations and flame wars led to my closing of it.

Scott, as much as I consider you a thoughtful and intelligent poster in general, you should tone down your rhetoric towards those who for some reasons do not support gay marriage.
Constantly implying that people who are against gay marrage are gay themselves, calling them all "bigots" or making equations such as being against gay marriage = being against interracial marriage or pro-slavery does not help your cause. Well, it may help you on this forum because that's the general attitude here, but I think you are intellectually able to argue for your point of view by using more respectful and more appropriate words.

Well given what we know about the spectrum of human sexuality; knowing both what it is and most importantly what it isn't denying us the right to marry; the right to financial security with the people we love and the inheritance, next of kin, property, seperation and other such rights that straights can get through signing a bit of paper is to me bigoted.

It pains me to think all I want to do is to be able to have the right to marry, yet flick through newspapers and see divorces, forced marriages, passport scam marriages, moral preachers marrying for the 6th time and some two penny tart getting married yet again just so she can appear in the front page of magazine. Gays aren't responsible for running marriage into the ground, so what other 'damage' do you think we can do to something thats already been cheapened?

[Napoleon]

Why the hell do people think cloning animals is immoral? The other things I can understand why someone might consider them immoral(even if I disagree with them), but I can't wrap my head around the thought process that says animal cloning is immoral. , we can cram chickens in uncomfortable crates and eat them, but we can't clone them?

So you have about ten times as many people who believe medical testing on animals is wrong as believe eating animals is wrong, even though a rational justification is arguably much stronger for the former practice.

A great many moral beliefs don't make logical sense.  Why, for example, is it perfectly legal and even generally considered honorable to euthanize a dying pet, yet a crime and highly controversial (as shown in this poll) to do the same for human beings, even when the humans specifically request that someone help them die--something that animals, for obvious reasons, can never do? 

It should be noted that many, if not most, people don't base their moral beliefs on logic because they largely rely on religion in forming them.  Religion is basically the opposite of logic, one just accepts things on faith without asking if they make sense or not.

[Napoleon]

As someone is liberal NY Democrat, I don't know what some of the complaints about Cuomo are really about.  He has done an excellent job as Governor.  The Pension reform thing was no big deal, and well this isn't Wisconsin in going after teachers making $40-$50K. 

Casing point my current county legislator (Republican Joe Belesi) is a retired Nassau County Cop, rakes in a six figure pension, and got a pay out of $432,000 when he retired from the force (though that was more due to a screwed up county system than state system, put in place by former county exec Republican Tom Gullotta)

[Napoleon]

Still doesn't change the fact that he's just the equivalent of a standard European conservative.

Someone has no clue about New York or Cuomo!

He didn't mention anything about the political spectrum in New York or Cuomo's place in it.

So what? He is wrong.

I care more about aid to homeless children than the right to smoke a joint. He's a socially liberal Chris Christie.

for a lot of people being arrested for marijuana has been a de-facto death sentence. what about all the people that have been sent to prison and subsequently got aids from being raped or were otherwise fatally assaulted by in mates? or all the people whose homes have been wrongly targeted by drug enforcement and subsequently shot by them? or people killed in the crossfire? this isn't just some issue that effects stoners, if it was i wouldn't really give a sh**t.

[Napoleon]

This guy really is a textbook New Democrat, isn't he? Continually sell out left-wing economic principles and get American liberals by being on the forefront on social issues. He's very impressive.

that's a very strange revisionist take on the DLC wing of the party...

Yeah, their main schtick was supporting the death penalty and being "tough on crime."  Bizarre forum caricature of Cuomo is more like the Gary Hart/Jerry Brown "New Democrats."  Of course I fail to see how a minor tax cut while raising rates for high-income individuals in the highest-tax state in the country makes one a "conservative."

[Napoleon]

No, Bill Clinton is a leader and a man of integrity.  There should be no comparison.

"A man of integrity"? The guy had an affair while in office and then lied about it under oath and Mitt Romney can't compare to him because of his integrity?  

Integrity is a wide term, not limited for private affairs.

Yeah, it means adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty. And this is used to describe... Bill Clinton of all people. Really? Really?

What goes on in a politician's personal life bears no relevance to me.  And besides, Ken Starr's investigation of the scandal was far more unethical and deceptive than anything Clinton's ever said.

It may not matter to you, but it does to most Americans.  This isn't France.  What most foreigners (and quite a few American liberals, apparently) don't understand, is that in America, when you become a public official (especially as a Congressman or as the President of the United States) your life instantly comes under greater scrutiny.  You bear a greater responsibility to uphold your office in every aspect including your private life because we as citizens have higher expectations of you since you are representing us.  How you conduct your private affairs reflect on your public role.  There no line of separation between the two.  When you fall short, the consequences are that much greater.  

No it doesn't.  It only matters to right-wing media pundits who are still trying to turn it into the next Watergate.  It didn't work then, it isn't working now, and public opinion polls indicate that the public has apparently forgiven the incident.  When you're elected to public office, your responsibilities are merely to represent and govern efficiently.  Being a faithful husband is completely independent and irrelevant to those.

[Napoleon]

2004 is quite interesting from a historical perspective.

In many ways it can be considered the last "old school" election.  Traditional media basically controlled the stream of information to the voter during this election cycle; there was no Facebook, no Twitter, no YouTube and very little in terms of online citizen journalism.  In only four short year, 2008 would transform how voters expect to gain their information forever.  In that respect, I think that 2004 will be interesting to study from a historical perspective--as it could be said to the culmination of social and political trends that had been set in the days just after WWII.

And what do you mean that 2004 was “2000 without the closeness”?  Comparing 2004 to its predecessor (while convenient because of their historical proximity) neglects the fact that, of-and-to-itself, 2004 was an extremely close election where the expected outcome was not already known when the polls opened that Tuesday morning--considering that that is the norm in most elections.

Also note that 2004 produced  a starkly polarized electoral map, and the implications of the “blue state/red state” divide that were discussed following this election helped to frame “culture war” of the late 20th/early 21st century in a new, partisan political context.

[Napoleon]

While a forum where a good 30% of the members have never so much as kissed a girl and need The Professor to give them dating tips might not be the obvious place to look for help on this, but Lief's advice is more or less the way to go, yeah.

Remember, if you do follow Lief's advice and dump your current girlfriend, there'll be some people who say it's wrong, or even cowardly to do so and then avoid confrontation. That's not true at all - there's nothing wrong with running away from your problems as long as they don't catch up to you.

PS: It's not a lie if you believe it.

[Napoleon]

What krazen is to the left wing- there are 5 liberals on this board who are the same to us

Is Krazen is to the right-wing what certain liberals are to the left-wing (Is he the Beck or Maher of his respective wing; is he the person who you really want to say "Okay, that's nice, now go draw on your chalkboard so we can argue rationally")? Or is he just of the sort who's tolerated (probably like a few of those liberals) because he annoys the rightists/leftists?

Hell, I'd even say Krazen is more moderate and cvil then many of his left wing counterparts on this forum.

This is the guy who stopped just short of calling a member of Congress insane for being gay and constantly uses the phrase 'of course' like some sort of talismanic charm to repel his own repressed sense of humility.

Of course, I consider the probability that you characterized his statement accurately at about 0.1%. Why don't you share the alleged quote?

The entirety of his argument and demeanor in the thread for the most recent Rasmussen poll on the Wisconsin Senate race. You can find it where you'd expect to find threads on that. I think it's really sweet that you're defending your special friend and all but I haven't slept in a calendar day and I'm not going to go hunting for the link for your benefit.

What krazen is to the left wing- there are 5 liberals on this board who are the same to us

After most elections there are folks whom are happy if the Democrat wins, and there are folks whom are happy when the Republican wins. I would put Krazen1211 strongly in the second camp, and numerous posters here in the first camp. Surely, I strongly suspect that he took as much pleasure in the victory of Scott Walker as I did. That said, I have not noted him as being a particularly strong conservative ideologue. There seems to be a strong streak of prejuidice in this forum that equates being Republican with being "right-wing" and "extremist."

You haven't noticed him being a 'particularly strong conservative ideologue' for the same reason that I don't notice people being 'big into early modern Japanese literature'.

All this being said, it's difficult to argue for banning the guy under the terms of service. It just ought to be equally difficult to actually defend the content of what he posts, at least without extreme shame.

[Napoleon]

Excuse me for interjecting. I attend a Catholic school, and throughout middle school and early high school, the ideas of evolution were clearly explained and whatnot. Hell, they were probably accepted as fact or close to it by the teaching, and probably as fact by the teachers. And that was in a Catholic school. The job of a science class is to teach theories as theories, not to get into a huge debate. The fact that almost no one in my school today believes in the religion is much more the fault of bad religion teachers than anything else. Point is, you want religion, you send your kid home and talk to them at the dinner table, or you send them to a religious school. Evolution is the dominating scientific theory on the creation of life and should be taught as such.

[Napoleon]

My apologies for the late response - I didn't initially see the post where you posed the question.

It is possible that we have reached the "most perfect" arrangement possible, yes, but it is closely-held conviction of mine that the world is in a state of constant change and, likewise, cultures and civilizations are never holding still, either. I believe the state and its policies must adapt to these changes to continue being optimally useful to the public, and it is because of these stances that I look down somewhat on the Left in Western civilization. Many of its goals, principles, and methods almost fully mirror those of people who lived and dreamed over seventy years ago.

Plans need to be reevaluated for effectiveness and recalibrated to suit the environs we all are thrust into together as a people. There is no hope of eternally preserving old ways, or even tweaking the current order in perpetuity so as to cope with other transformations in society. Just as it is a challenge today to get Americans to realize our constitution should be changing with the times rather than preserved and worshiped like some kind of a holy relic, in some other places it is just as much of a challenge to get socialists to realize that nationalization, unionism, neo-corporatism, and top-down expansion of the public sector - given past experiences - may not be the best of ways to go.

Then again, this is all relative to ones tastes in values, goals, and in traits of culture. For me, the overarching goal in politics to is to establish and then defend an order in which people are equally granted unconditional love, compassion, and privileges that will help them determine through their own efforts - to the greatest extent feasibly possible - how their lives will unfold, preferably to the ends of maximizing the number of folk who are generally satisfied with life while minimizing the number who generally feel miserable.

So when I look at the Nordic model, for instance, I wonder how we may enjoy generous economic benefits without those benefits being widely abused at the taxpayers’ expense, or figure out how we can have the labor-business teamwork fostered by neo-corporatism while still managing to institutionalize our vibrant individualism and competitive spirit of ingenuity in the realm of business. Can we have cradle-to-grave welfare sans a sprawling maze of costly, government bureaucracy? Can we discover a set of roles for the state that make the people feel free in their daily lives but still empower government to the ends of helping us as needed (but still simply getting out of our way when it isn’t) along the way?

I think so.

In broader terms, the Left is by its very nature concerned with finding problems with the existing order and wanting to tinker with ideas to make things run a bit better. It is about innovation, taking risks, and learning from mistakes to adjust ones plans and do better in the future. So although in theory there comes a point at which the government has done all that it can, leaving the rest is all up to private interests, in practice what I see is a game of sorts with no established time for an end. There are always more moves to make, more strategies to experiment with, and experiences to gain. An immense, unexplored frontier of “what if” lies in wait out there. Rather than sticking with what feels safe and familiar, folks on the Left (e.g. me) like to rush out there with confidence and a sense of wonder to explore.

The changes sought are not necessary, per se. They are simply desired out of hunger for further development - for cultural evolution toward happier, more fulfilling ways of life. Even if we someday shape public policy to as near a state of perfection as is possible in the context of our people’s values and interests, it would be a real shame if they were to give up on the pursuit of new discoveries. Hypothetically, even if all of my positions in politics were to eventually become codified into law, I would still be disappointed if no adversarial political factions soon emerged to challenge that order, put it to the test, and propose meaningful alternatives. What peeves me in politics more than anything else is when people settle for an old set of ideas and lack courage, vision, and force of will enough to try to make them even better.

So I do not much like it when some bloke opts to laud a past or present system or public figure as having all the answers we as a people will ever need, whether they be on the right, left, or otherwise. I feel our representative democracy should be a process of peaceful, orderly evolution without an end. The Right is at an advantage, all the while, which is fortunate. I shudder at the thought of how disastrous it would be for society to try out every new idea.

. . .

tl;dr version: I don't know that a next step is out there but have enduring hope for a better future


Does that answer your question, or did I end up straying a bit far off topic? xD

[Napoleon]

Nathan is the Forum King of troll-killing.

Since the government is going to have to accept that there is a limit to revenue, it might as well be today's level of revenue.

Why?

Why not?

The basic choice is between biting the bullet and doing it now, and, putting it off to a latter date.

Sure, it is theoretically possible to either raise, or cut taxes, from their current level and freeze them forever at that level, but, that's not how humans operate. In practise, the decision to raise taxes will only result in a debate later in which the tax-raisers will claim the underlying facts are the same as they were in 2012.

I really don't think the argument will use 2012 as its touchstone.

The fact that you think taxes can or should be frozen forever at any given level says an awful lot about you, Bob.

The fact that you are incredulous about the notion of the electorate saying, "Enough, we are choosing not to pay higher taxes!," just means you are one of the people whom has to be politically defeated, else taxes will rise to the point that people can't pay them any more.

One of those two limits is going to be reached. It might as well be the electorate choosing not to pay higher taxes.

With respect, I don't think you understand which part of your argument it is that I'm incredulous about.

Again, my point seems to have completely eluded you. I'm fairly confident that if the electorate took the decision to prefer choosing not to pay any higher taxes rather than waiting until they are unable to pay any higher taxes many in the political class would take the attitude that this is just a phase that the electorate is going through and that they need merely wait them out before raising taxes yet again. The electorate has to take this into account.

Either taxes really reach a political limit, or it is subject to renegotiation.  If the electorate continues to renegotiate with the political class, taxes will inevitably rise to the point that the citizenry simply cannot pay more. Again, I am arguing that the electorate choosing a limit for the political class is the rational political choice. If the electorate doesn't stick that political limit then it simply isn't a limit.

Oh, I see what's going on here. You're positing a form of class struggle ('electorate' vs. 'political class' over taxes, which the former always wants as low[/flat?] as possible and the latter always wants as high[/progressive?] as possible) which doesn't actually bear much resemblance to reality at all, although to be absolutely fair it's somewhat more sensible than some other dialectics I've seen people come up with. You don't appear to view the dynamic as one in which taxes are raised and lowered according to real or perceived macroeconomic utility and such policies are argued to the public based upon either their merits or common rhetoric (you likewise don't seem to view taxation as a macroeconomic policy choice of any kind so much as some complicated form of embezzlement, which may explain your apparent inability to understand the import of the fact that income tax rates have been relatively low for several decades now).

Okay, I got your point and understand exactly what was so baffling to me about it. Thank you.

[Napoleon]

Beet's posts in this thread are f'ing fantastic: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=156803.msg3373766#new

Beet is really shining strong in that thread. Of course, it goes right over Politico's head.

and it begs the question, why does Beet feel the necessity to jostle with an obviously inferior interlocutor. 

Why not?

[Napoleon]

This thread is not meant to be used as an echo chamber.