Senator Ted Cruz for US President?

Anything else you want to talk about.
Post Reply
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 819
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Senator Ted Cruz for US President?

Post by Byron Angel » Mon Apr 06, 2015 11:16 am

Steve Crandell wrote:
Byron Angel wrote:"You can read your Horowitz and Marx and Plato and whatever, but these are books only, and as every ancient book, outdated very quickly ... "

This assertion reminds me of that acerbic and true French adage - "The more things change, the more they stay the same." It has been many decades since I studied Plato's Republic, but I can confidently promise that his fundamental wisdom regarding the relationship between citizen and state will never suffer from a shelf life problem.

B
Plato lived in a democracy. We live in a Plutocracy.

..... Not trying to sound deprecating or demeaning in any way, but that has nothing to do with anything. In fact, Plato's observations relating to the peculiar nature of democracies (which is what we, nominally speaking, live under) remain compellingly relevant to this day. I would suggest that you pay another visit to Plato.

As far as my own current relationship to my government goes, I consider myself to be living in a crypto-socialist kleptocracy.

B

northcape
Senior Member
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: Senator Ted Cruz for US President?

Post by northcape » Mon Apr 06, 2015 11:48 am

Byron,

maybe my phrasing was not optimal. I of course I realize that certain mechanisms and observations in societal matters stay valid an applicable for very long time, just like some fundamental laws of physics. I don't disrespect or disregard this collected wisdom.
My point is, what do we do with this knowledge? Is it sufficient to say - "Oh, already Plato so many years ago described this very clearly in some way and so many years ago, so I don't really care about your wrong thinking, have a nice day." Or should we go one step ahead, and adapt and develop different schools of thinking, so that nowadays challenges can be met better?
Additionally, most of the philosophers and society thinkers we like to cite come from and relate to our western hemisphere - to the modern, white men, if you want to call it like that. We must be aware that the eastern world is on the rise now, simply in sheer numbers of their population. And we like to forget that their cultural background is very different to our individual-centered, liberal view of the world. So we should not be too arrogant and consider our culture as the very top and best applicable model to the world - we will see in the future. Churchill and the Admiralty made the same mistake when he sent the PoW and Repulse to fight the Japanese - a main reason for the disaster was the underestimation of the japanse capabilities, mainly born out of an outdated colonialist view of the western man.

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2983
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Senator Ted Cruz for US President?

Post by Dave Saxton » Mon Apr 06, 2015 2:21 pm

northcape wrote:Byron,

So we should not be too arrogant and consider our culture as the very top and best applicable model to the world - we will see in the future. Churchill and the Admiralty made the same mistake when he sent the PoW and Repulse to fight the Japanese - a main reason for the disaster was the underestimation of the japanse capabilities, mainly born out of an outdated colonialist view of the western man.
Agreed and very true. However, appeasement, and not standing up against obvious threats, and the avoidance of taking any military preemptive actions, also played a role. A German hilfskruezer captured a ship carrying a diplomatic mail pouch. It contained secret mail that explained why the Royal Navy could/would not a send fleet to Singapore. Instead it revealed the plans to rely on American B-17s and to only send a a token battle group to Singapore instead. The Germans passed this Intel on to the Japanese, and the Japanese became more serious about their plans.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7531
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Senator Ted Cruz for US President?

Post by RF » Mon Apr 06, 2015 5:18 pm

Garyt wrote: Really?? These make someone dangerous?? How dare someone think that global warming is real and that man infuences it!
''Global warming'' is now exposed as a complete falsehood.

If you believe otherwise, then please produce the scientific evidence that constitutes the proof. I have been waiting to see such evidence for years.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

Garyt
Senior Member
Posts: 273
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2014 9:31 pm

Re: Senator Ted Cruz for US President?

Post by Garyt » Mon Apr 06, 2015 8:00 pm

''Global warming'' is now exposed as a complete falsehood.
That's almost funny, TF. To take such a stand on a hotly contested topic is what I find humorous. That is it is hotly contested is in itself humorous to a point as well. Really RF, there is indeed news in the world besides Fox.

What we do know:
1) The earth's temperature is rising rapidly, faster than any in recorded history.
2) CO2 In the atmosphere is also increasing. And from what I have read, it's higher than what they have seen in ice core samples.
3) Man produces much C02, and the production of C02 from man has increased.

All circumstantial, yes. But it very much points the finger at man increasing the C02 in the atmosphere.

Roughly 210 Billion tons are released per year into the atmosphere by natural means. The amount the atmosphere absorbs sucessfully? A little more than that, maybe 215-220 billion tons.

Man releases about 30 billion tons per year. Not a lot compared to what is released naturally, but enough to throw off the balance and start accumulating in the atmosphere.

Most of Europe, even the conservatives looks at the US as stupid or stubborn. A clip from an article from Salon:
No doubt Inhofe’s appearance will embarrass the Obama administration and irritate environmentalists, just as the eccentric Oklahoman intends. But nobody will be more frustrated and perplexed than the European conservatives who are hosting the conference in Denmark and whose governments in Germany, Sweden and France have made the most sustained progress toward the energy and carbon reduction goals set out in the original Kyoto agreement. Those leaders cannot understand why their ideological comrades in the United States refuse to acknowledge the gravity of the problem — and insist that “conservatism” is synonymous with freedom to pollute and ruin.
Another clip
Bush is sticking to the line about there still being a debate over the causes of global warming (as is Sen. James Inhofe), but, of course, nobody can find a scientist who’s not in the pay of oil-company-supported front groups, or a single published scholarly article, that gives any legitimacy to this claim.
At least some conservatives acknowledge the fact.

It's funny, Tea partiers are by far the most likely to think that global warming is a farce.

http://politix.topix.com/story/8713-pol ... al-warming

More than twice the percentage of tea partiers compared to the average republican think that climate science is a farce.

My guess is these are similar to those that believe evolution is a farce and that the more is less than a million years old. It's kind of funny - if the academics don't agree with you opinion, then they are just wrong. No logical reason behind it, they are just wrong. Very closed minded and xenophobic.

Garyt
Senior Member
Posts: 273
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2014 9:31 pm

Re: Senator Ted Cruz for US President?

Post by Garyt » Mon Apr 06, 2015 8:05 pm

Plato lived in a democracy. We live in a Plutocracy.
Hey! Take that back. We have the best Healthcare and Justice system in the world that money can buy :D

I think we have the best freedom that money can buy too. Not to mention the best politicians that money can buy :D

Garyt
Senior Member
Posts: 273
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2014 9:31 pm

Re: Senator Ted Cruz for US President?

Post by Garyt » Mon Apr 06, 2015 8:11 pm

I wrote:
Dave, Let me ask you a question -Do you think we should have the following:

1) Workers Compensation
2) Overtime pay
3) Children's Work restrictions
4) Minimum wage at it's current level
5) Social Security

I'm really interested here, I might give me a better idea of where you are coming from.
Dave Saxton wrote:
I don't understand the relevance of these minor side issues to the discussion.
Oh, it indeed is relative.

But I understand why you will refuse to answer the question.

If you agree that some of these are necessary, you are agreeing that some forms of socialism are needed/good, and you really, really don't want to admit that.

If you state that none of these are needed, you look very unreasonable, also perhaps making your position appear unreasonable. And you don't which to do this either.

So your choice is to not answer the question. Bravo, a good way to handle the above dilemma.

But I still would like to see you answer the question, even though you will refuse to. But really Dave, it's not a personal question or anything like that, just curious of you thought as to whether the above programs are needed or good. :D

northcape
Senior Member
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: Senator Ted Cruz for US President?

Post by northcape » Mon Apr 06, 2015 11:11 pm

RF wrote:
Garyt wrote: Really?? These make someone dangerous?? How dare someone think that global warming is real and that man infuences it!
''Global warming'' is now exposed as a complete falsehood.

If you believe otherwise, then please produce the scientific evidence that constitutes the proof. I have been waiting to see such evidence for years.
'Global warming'' is now accepted as a truth (through thorough and consistent measurements).

If you believe otherwise, then please produce the scientific evidence that disproves this fact. I have been waiting to see such evidence for years.

Garyt
Senior Member
Posts: 273
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2014 9:31 pm

Re: Senator Ted Cruz for US President?

Post by Garyt » Mon Apr 06, 2015 11:47 pm

I am really not sure what "evidence" RF is looking for. Actually RF, I am indeed curious. What do you define as evidence? What would qualify as such?

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2983
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Senator Ted Cruz for US President?

Post by Dave Saxton » Tue Apr 07, 2015 12:47 am

Garyt wrote:
I don't understand the relevance of these minor side issues to the discussion.
Oh, it indeed is relative.

But I understand why you will refuse to answer the question.
None of those items are relative because they are not socialism.

Social Security is deducted from one's gross income up to 113,000 IRRC, as an insurance premium. It is not a redistribution from wealthy to poor. The wealthy pay the same amount as the poor up to a point and they don't pay on income above that level. If viewed as a tax, it is regressive because it probably takes up a disproportional amount of a poor family's gross income with very limited promise of any corresponding return to the persons it belongs to. Just because it's not socialism does not mean it is a good idea. If those moneys were invested in the private sector or in private retirement accounts then they would certainly give a far better return on investment to the people it is taken from.

likewise Workmen's Comp is an insurance deducted from the worker's pay check. Even the matching funds to be contributed by the employer really come from the worker, because if you really think that employers don't deduct these costs from amount they could pay their employers, then you are more naive than I thought. Actually in practice Workmen's Comp serves to to protect the employer from liabilities that could come back on the employer by replacing the employers responsibility to their injured employee by a pool, that pays little, that is actually funded by the employee. I know, I have been there. Neat trick huh?

Numerous studies indicate that minimum wage laws actually hurt the demographic they are intended to protect the most. They always reduce the availability of jobs in those sectors. In many cases free market principles would improve the situation better.

Child labor laws are not socialism and conservatives do not oppose them.

On edit: it is of course a % of income up to about 113,000 gross.
Last edited by Dave Saxton on Tue Apr 07, 2015 1:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2983
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Senator Ted Cruz for US President?

Post by Dave Saxton » Tue Apr 07, 2015 1:24 am

RF wrote:
Garyt wrote: Really?? These make someone dangerous?? How dare someone think that global warming is real and that man infuences it!
''Global warming'' is now exposed as a complete falsehood.

If you believe otherwise, then please produce the scientific evidence that constitutes the proof. I have been waiting to see such evidence for years.
Indeed, the most accurate method of measuring, by satellite, indicate there has been no global warming in the last 17 years. This is despite the fact that co2 emissions have increased during that time. The claimed cause and effect does not obtain. The alarmists models, or their evidence, are proven completely wrong therefore.

Even the models themselves have been called into question by scientific examination of their methodology. (See Climate Audit dot org) Among the many questionable methods to produce the hockey stick models, for example, is the reversal of the mathematical signs over some sections of the model's graph to help produce the so called hockey stick. A total no no in terms of sound science. The data is shown to have been cherry picked proxies relying upon tree ring examination or dendro chronology (which does not reliably record temperatures because humidity and rain fall as well as snow are mitigating factors) up to a certain date. After that date the hockey stick was obtained by grafting on cherry picked instrumental temperature data. Mixing incompatible data sets to obtain a pre-planned result is of course a big no no. Further tricks include ignoring the medieval warm period to hide obvious long term patterns. Emails between these scientists in an attempt to hide these questionable practices have been exposed resulting in climate gate. Of course the attempts to silence the skeptics have been reprehensible. Just ask Dr Soon of MIT.

There are plenty of places on the web where one can see the conflicting data that the media is hiding as well as better addressing the complexity of the issue.

Watts up with that.
Jonova,
Climate Audit,
Dr Roy Spencer..ect...
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

Garyt
Senior Member
Posts: 273
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2014 9:31 pm

Re: Senator Ted Cruz for US President?

Post by Garyt » Tue Apr 07, 2015 1:30 am

likewise Workmen's Comp is an insurance deducted from the worker's pay check. Even the matching funds to be contributed by the employer really come from the worker, because if you really think that employers don't deduct these costs from amount they could pay their employers, then you are more naive than I thought. Actually in practice Workmen's Comp serves to to protect the employer from liabilities that could come back on the employer by replacing the employers responsibility to their injured employee by a pool, that pays little, that is actually funded by the employee. I know, I have been there. Neat trick huh?
Well, it's not deducted from the paycheck. And it is not matching funds. It is an insurance policy paid by the employer. And again, it is not deducted from the employees paycheck.

If you are saying since the employer has to pay workers comp he pays the employee less, that could be said to be true about any employee related expense, such as health insurance, unemployment insurance, general liability, paid vacation, paid sick days, employer contributions to a 401k, etc.

The only time someone pays their own workers comp is if they are a sub contractor - and by definition, that is not an employee.

No, it is not be being naive about workers compensation, it's you painting with an incredibly broad brush that should thereby draw about any employee related expense into the picture.

What workers comp does - it is a program that pays injured workers salaries when injured on the job. That is indeed a socialistic program, money going from the employer and being re distributed to those that are not earning wages. While not traditionally considered a "socialist" program, it matches the definition.

I'm not sure if you are up on labor issues around the early 1900's, but a few things came into play. Employer Liability was initiated at this time. Problem was it was difficult to be sucessful with in a suit, and most workers did not have the money to afford an attorney out of pocket. Employers had as you can guess as large of a legal as they needed. Workers Comp laws turned this into a no-fault situation, where employer negligence did not have to be shown for the worker to receive compensation.

It allowed the poorer worker to be on even footing when fighting the wealthy corporation.

If you need a little more proof worker's comp is a socialistic program:
Bismarck was not known as a socially-conscious ruler; the working conditions of the common man were not necessarily foremost in his mind. History teaches that the unification and growth of Germany (Prussia) and the protection of his position were his main concerns. But Bismarck’s main political rivals were Marxist with socialist agendas – a feigned concern for the plight of the common man. On the top of this agenda was the creation of a social program for the protection of workers injured on the job, a workers’ compensation program.

The “Iron Chancellor” eventually outlawed Marxist and other socialist-leaning parties, securing his rule. However, he did borrow some of their ideas to keep peace among the people. Workers’ Accident Insurance became the first compulsory workers compensation program enacted in a modern, industrialized Europe.
It was an idea Bismarck borrowed from his Marxist opposition.

I could also explain why Social Security is a socialistic program, but I am not just speaking of the retirement aspect of the program.

Child Labor Laws I'll grant you are not socialistic - but they are the government telling business what they can and cannot do. So it's government control, which is always viewed as a negative by conservatives.

So by agreeing to some of these programs, you are at a minimum agreeing that some government control over business is good. And I'd stronlgy argue a few of these programs are definitely socialistic in nature.

Garyt
Senior Member
Posts: 273
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2014 9:31 pm

Re: Senator Ted Cruz for US President?

Post by Garyt » Tue Apr 07, 2015 1:47 am

Social Security is deducted from one's gross income up to 113,000 IRRC, as an insurance premium. It is not a redistribution from wealthy to poor. The wealthy pay the same amount as the poor up to a point and they don't pay on income above that level. If viewed as a tax, it is regressive because it probably takes up a disproportional amount of a poor family's gross income with very limited promise of any corresponding return to the persons it belongs to. Just because it's not socialism does not mean it is a good idea. If those moneys were invested in the private sector or in private retirement accounts then they would certainly give a far better return on investment to the people it is taken from.
Issue here is that although the workers pay a portion of social security, so does the employer by matching. The redistribution of wealth comes in here - The "corporation" has an owner, very very likely wealthier than about any of the employees. Money is being taken from the owner to fund the employees retirement - although they are matching as well. But the employer contribution clearly indicates a socialistic program.

I agree though actually with you as to how well this money is used, but for perhaps different reasons.

The reason Social Security is underfunded now is the fact that the funds are put into a trust fund that are redeemable when the government borrows this money, as opposed to truly stockpiling the cash in one form or another. This in turn IMO violates the tenets of a progressive tax system, as Social Security becomes underfunded, with revenue that could have gone in the "bank" per se being used as general revenue. So it is a middle class tax, someone who makes 75k pays far less in taxes than someone who makes 750k as a percentage of their income, and a portion of this works to fund general revenue, thereby placing the general revenue burden far more on the middle class.

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2983
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Senator Ted Cruz for US President?

Post by Dave Saxton » Tue Apr 07, 2015 3:11 am

Guess you missed this:
Dave Saxton wrote: because if you really think that employers don't deduct these costs from amounts they could pay their employees, then you are more naive than I thought..
Employers and "evil corporations" pass on "externalities" costs to their employees and to their customers. They do not pay these costs from their own wealth. ultimately the average Joe pays.

This all basic economics 101.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2983
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Senator Ted Cruz for US President?

Post by Dave Saxton » Tue Apr 07, 2015 3:53 am

Garyt wrote: The reason Social Security .. with revenue that could have gone in the "bank" per se being used as general revenue. So it is a middle class tax, ... thereby placing the general revenue burden far more on the middle class.
Yup, its rotten to the core and unsustainable. Bush proposed reforming it once, but was crucified by the Democrats, AARP, and the media for it.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

Post Reply