Dunning–Kruger Effect
My favorite:Quote:
They won Ig Nobel Prizes in Psychology in 2000 with their report, "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments".
Printable View
Dunning–Kruger Effect
My favorite:Quote:
They won Ig Nobel Prizes in Psychology in 2000 with their report, "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments".
LOL ....Sarah Dunning-Kruger Palin....what a novel way of approaching this phenomena....
sarah to Obama stop lecturing...translation: ...you are using to big of words for me....
sarah on Terrorism:I would have nuked the middle east by now...I love the neocons...and they will use..ummm I mean love me tooo...
That describes the teabaggers well. I hope they mobilize, go after the moderate Repubs, take over the party and they along with the religious fanatics running the party will give you the change you want to believe in
The fly in the ointment of all of this neat descriptivism is that the "tea party" bunch do not OWN every jot and tittle of the opposition they espouse.
There are many democrats and indies who share the so-called "tea party" crowds concerns and opposition, many of whom may not interested in being specifically identified as being part of a group that has been walled off to simply be "right-winged" kooks.
This apposing dem and indie crowd and their message and voting response therein is less dismissible as they are more diffused within the larger voting politic. Thus less ascribe to a neat box and canonization like the "baggers".
Quote:
Originally Posted by firstandten
...you can pick things that even ultra-nationalists love and have a grain of truth...the real problem is collectively...their [[tea baggers) anger is at taxes, government and values ...while assailing areas that need reform..their approach borders on destroying civil debate and their methods reflect hate of anything government or liberal [[these guys were the folks that don't want to pay their fair of taxes yet want government to protect them)...while promoting a new government take-over...
You have to ask yourself do you want these people representing real change and reform...
she is promoting the neocon agenda and I think she would cave under scrutiny of things she rallies against....
she didn't do one thing for people with disabilities while in office [[where was initiatives to hire the disabled ) or doesn't she know that the cutbacks she and those fiscally responsible teabaggers propose would cut services for her very own child ... that is the one thing that stands out most as hypocrisy to me....we have yet to find out the truth about her home and builder gate...
I find her psychologically a dangerous person...it is very evident in here mannerism and here lack of comprehension of others views...she is a panderer....personally I could care less about her -she is no different than Beck or Rush or even Imus...but she has captured the anger and hate of people who can't think through issues and is a 'populist"...problem is real conservatives with values and a goal for healthy debate with liberals are being drowned out...and moderate republicans are being intimidated and forced on this crazy train ...with a bridge to no where..when we need them to help shape our future...with liberals.
I should add that I do not believe that the teabaggers are the only ones who suffer from the Dunning–Kruger effect. I will go so far as to assert that the only teabaggers who do not suffer from the Dunning–Kruger effect do not exist. :D
I think that what they have is actually Stockholm Syndrome.
Actually, one could argue that they are simply frightened and overwhelmed people who fear they may lose their standard of living and health insurance. Their beliefs and wishes can be described as: "I got mine, screw you!" to those less fortunate than they are.
Or, their beliefs and wishes might just be that they've worked very hard to earn what they have, and now they see there is a group of politicians that want to take away what they've earned and give it to another group who, for whatever reason, hasn't been as successful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobl
Or it could be that they're petulant children who want the benefits of a first-world society for the price of third-world infrastructure.Quote:
Originally Posted by jiminnm
What is this "group" of politicians threatening to take from you? Your home? Your job? Your family? Your car? Your degrees? Your gold kruggerands?Quote:
Originally Posted by jiminnm
As for people who think the teabaggers are just a bit crazy...
...their beliefs and wishes might just be that they've worked very hard to earn a first-class nation, and now they see there is a group of petulant brats that want to take away what they've created and give it to another group who, for whatever reason, hasn't been as successful.
Quote:
There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning.
-Warren Buffett, in the New York Times, November 26, 2006.
Quote:
Friends and neighbors complain that taxes are indeed very heavy, and if those laid on by the government were the only ones we had to pay, we might the more easily discharge them; but we have many others, and much more grievous to some of us. We are taxed twice as much by our idleness, three times as much by our pride, and four times as much by our folly. ~Benjamin Franklin
What group of politicians want to take away anything from anyone?Quote:
Originally Posted by jiminnm
What kind of deep thinker applauds a speaker who criticises an opponent for using a teleprompter, while reading notes written on her hand, both at the speech and at the Q & A afterward, where the questions have been preselected?
Damn. I couldn't resist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0
Interesting view from Black Agenda Report. There take is that the teabaggers is just the latest way of saying White Nationalist. There have always been white nationalist in their view in some form or another and there's really nothing to circle the wagons over since in their view they see the teabaggers as more of a threat to the Republican party. BAR is way left and have little love for Obama.
http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=...ure-and-simple
There's the latest sick cult mantra: "THEY are going to take something from you!!!! "Quote:
Or, their beliefs and wishes might just be that they've worked very hard to earn what they have, and now they see there is a group of politicians that want to take away what they've earned and give it to another group who, for whatever reason, hasn't been as successful.
Translation: The priorities might have gone back to fixing our own country after 8 years of putting a failed war based on lies on a giant imaginary credit card.
Too bad the lives lost can't be paid back.
Of course, it's possible that we are rushing to conclusions and Jim is referring to the Bush and Cheney gang funding Blackwater and the government of Pervez Musharraf [[Urdu: پرویز مشرف) Or maybe he is referring to the Reagan-Bush Admin funding General Rios Mont, Roberto D'Abussion and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar?
The teabag movement is changing. What started out as a rebellion against out of control government spending and even tolerated anti-war sentiment is rapidly being brought under the control of the dominant neo-con wing of the Republican Party. Republican Senators who voted for Bush's bailout were being jeered off the stages of tea parties. I don't see that happening anymore. The press ignored those early tea parties. Now that tea parties are often Republican orchestrated events even at swanky hotels with some neocon speakers, the press hovers to catch Sarah's every last word.Quote:
Originally Posted by barnesfoto
The wars go on and are being expanded with or without the tea parties or even Republicans. Now we are even supporting the unpopular government in Yemen. If anything, Sarah and her tea bag constituency, are supportive of these Obama efforts.
{sarcasm}Ha ha funny{/sarcasm}Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimaz
I was going to say the same for all of those who voted for "Hope & Change" in '08.
BTW, how's that Hope & Change working for you now?
The unions are pissed off at Pres. B.O. for not passing their issues fast enough.
The looters are pissed off at him over health care going tango uniform.
And the "Free money, Obama money" crowd are wondering where their next handout is.
Yeah, that'll fit the definition above.
BINGO! of course, that is the aim. ronnie's team even admitted they were seeking the Brazilification of America [[and yes, that term was used)Quote:
Originally Posted by Bearinabox
That was painful to read.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MCP-001
Well, let's see:
The economy has not gone into a full-blown Depression.
The jobs of thousands of teachers and public safety officers were saved.
Congress is getting the closest it ever has to achieving health insurance for all Americans.
We're starting design and construction on the first stages of a high speed rail network.
And taxes were cut for most Americans.
I'd say the Hopey-Changey stuff is going pretty well for me.
Hey there a tea party searching for a leader? maybe when Texas and Alaska secede maybe they will crown [[ummm ) elect Sarah and Perry their leaders..until then lets get back to serious business, such and getting the stimulus working fo rus...remember jobs =buying things =taxes=climbingout of the holes...
And after Texas and Alaska secede, we can enact a jobs stimulus program, paying the unemployed to construct a large, impenetrable wall around both Texas and Alaska so we can keep them damn illegals from flowing into the United States.Quote:
Originally Posted by gibran
The economy?Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
Well, the jury is still out on that one.
With Pres. B.O. racking up massive amounts of debt that would make G.W.B. blush with envy, that amount of spending by our governments, and others governments as well, is unsustainable.
Teachers not getting laid off? I guess that they didn't get that memo.
Neither did these people [[this link was a real pain to find).
Police?
Remember those from the MSP?
Granted most, but not all, eventually were returned to work. I'd love to see how Gov. Speedbump intends to deal with that in this year's budget negotiations.
Health care?
Did you miss the Senate democrat hissy fit last week?
Pres. B.O.'s epiphany regarding this issue?
I suppose not since you think that health care has any chance after the Brown election last month.
High speed rail? Just what will that do [[besides spend more money we don't have)?
And my personal fav: Pres. B.O. cutting taxes.
I guess that you missed this blurb this am?
Yet, another lie by Pres. B.O [[go to 0:35).
Great Shades of G.H.W.B!
My apologies, MCP. I didn't mean to jostle you back there in the 19th Century.
What I read in your post is a lot of hysterics and anger. Calm down a second and breathe.
I'm interested in knowing, from your perspective:
1. What specific goals you have for our nation.
2. What problems and obstacles lie in the way of those goals
3. How those problems and obstacles can be overcome to reach the stated goals.
I'm not angry or hysterical about anything right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
Actually I've had a pretty relaxed day off.
So, I'll quickly answer your questions:
1.) To see our nation go back to the principles that allowed it go grow and prosper. Government spending only what it needs to spend [[see Art 1, Sec 8). People allowed to keep what they earn and spend it as they see fit.
2.) Progressives [[or whatever they prefer to call themselves this week) attempting to shoehorn the "From each according to their ability need, to each according to their need" mindset onto our republic. I have absolutely no objection to people freely giving whatever they feel is appropriate to anyone else. I do have an objection to people using government to take from others to give to whomever/whatever they feel is more "deserving".
3.) See #1
That is so simplistic. The U.S. is a very complex country and it is located on a very complex world. Everything that we take for granted is regulated by local, state and the federal government. The only places that are not are countries like Somalia. That every man for themselves BS is just a fairy tale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MCP-001
And which principles are those? A stable economy? A military capable of providing for our national defense? An infrastructure that allows our market economy to function profitably? Equal opportunity for all?Quote:
Originally Posted by MCP-001
I'm sure you're well aware that the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia was smart enough to realize that they could never anticipate what our 21st century society would be like, so they intentionally left the Constitution flexible enough to accommodate us. If we took your literal interpretation, airplanes and computers would be illegal, since they're not mentioned in the Constitution. You right-wingers need to stop confusing the framework of our government with actual codified law.
gp, A stable economy might be an option if the federal government and its private bank sidekick ,the Fed, would refrain from screwing the economy up with massive deficits and ridiculous unconstitutional wars. Not all of us are as content with 10% official unemployment, expanding wars, and massive deficits that failed to create jobs that were promised to keep unemployment below 8%.
The flexibility you suggest should be the ability to modify the Constitutions by amending it rather than by ignoring it. The Constitution does not forbid things. It does the opposite. It promotes the progress of science and useful arts. You are confusing 'things' with 'federal powers'. Time for review. The Tenth Amendment forbids the federal government from exercizing powers not given to it but it does not forbid new products such as airplanes and computers. Also, you confuse right wingers with libertarians. Think of right wing neocons as wanting bigger government just like liberals.
Think of right wing neocons as wanting bigger government just like liberals.[/quote]
Neocns want a bigger world order..and that came with a price tag...so spot on Ola.
Wait a second. You lost me. I missed the part where you described what the federal government and the Federal Reserve did to create this recession.Quote:
Originally Posted by oladub
We're in a period of depression economics--the normal rules don't apply. As I've stated on another thread, the stimulus package was too small [[Thanks, Obstructionist Republicans!) to have the needed impact on GDP in order to boost employment.
From macroeconomics:
GDP = C + I + G + EX - IM
Where:
C = consumption spending
I = investments in capital
G = government expenditure
EX = exports
IM = imports
So let's see. We had a condition where:
1. Consumption spending by consumers decreased and the rate of savings rose.
2. Investments decreased, as banks stopped lending money.
3. [[EX-IM) is a negative number, since we apparently believe that we don't actually need to produce goods in this country.
So you tell me--how the hell are we supposed to get out of recession without temporarily increasing government spending???
Quote: "how the hell are we supposed to get out of recession without temporarily increasing government spending???"
Spending our way out of this is quasar stupid. Throwing money at a poor model without changing the conditions that put it there, is simply inviting continuance and more debt.
Tariffs on imported goods would be where I would start. It is simple, they can sell their goods here, but not undermine domestic manufacturing in the process. This can be fixed without spending a dime.
What's the "poor model"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sstashmoo
Okay, let's take your suggestion and impose tariffs on imports. Let's impose tariffs high enough such that imports match the level of exports. Then the equation becomes:
GDP = C + I + G
You would still have drops in consumption spending and investment, and thus, a shrinking GDP.
Politics aside, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a fascinating phenomenon. It highlights an epistemological asymmetry [[masquerading as a symmetry) between those who know that they know and those who don't know that they don't know. Each feels certain that they're correct but one certainty comes from meta-knowledge and the other from meta-ignorance. The emotional certainty may be equal but the epistemological certainty is not.
gp, Any family or individual or government can easily learn from experience that overspending leads to problems. Formulas aren't necessary. If you spend too much, you will suffer. The Fed has a long history of creating cheap credit which always leads to economic bubble. Bubbles eventually burst and produce consequent economic downturns until the market corrects itself. Our federal government complicates things with deficit spending, foolish spendthrift programs like Fannie and Freddie that encourage unwise behaviour. If something is subsidized, we get more of it. So we have businesses using cheap money to construct houses we don't need and people who are not credit worthy being put into them - and that is just the housing sector. Everyone from these purchasers to the producers are out on a limb and get shook off the first time the wind blows. It blew. They started falling off. Then the idiot Bush and Obama administrations started borrowing more money from China, printing counterfeit money, and messing with statistics to do more of what caused the mess in the first place as a remedy to the mess they created. This never works. The only way to correct problems in the market is let them go away instead of feeding them. That is what Volker did under Carter although his action had a lot to do with Carter being defeated.
You are contradicting your illustrious leader when you say the money wasn't enough. It was the Dear One's own administrative spokesperson who said that Porkulus was necessary to prevent umemployment from climbing over 8, or was it 8.5%.
It is mathematically impossible for the federal government to pay off its debt. I assume that our government will have to either get into a World War or devalue our currency. If we get to the other side of that, the federal government should cut its spending significantly, issue commodity based money to replace our federal reserve debt notes, and otherwise behave in a way that will allow Americans to live at the reduced standard of living necessary to pay off the Bush/Obama debts. The government needs to comprehend its own incompetence
Economic Black Hole: 20 Reasons Why The U.S. Economy Is Dying And Is Simply Not Going To Recover
Oladub, I agree with [[some of) your rationale for the cause of the recession. Yes, there were a lot of people encouraged into buying As Much House As Possible, without much regard for ability to repay loans once the low introductory interest-only payments were over. We can't forget the unregulated complex derivatives market on Wall Street, which most traders don't even fully understand. From what I've read, it was a combination of these two factors that greatly destabilized the financial system.
Once the TARP money arrived, though, the banks hoarded it away instead of lending it. Thus, you have companies who can't make payroll or capital investments, those businesses lay people off, tax revenues decrease, state and local governments start to suffer, until you get to our current situation. The hoarding is a result of bad lawmaking on the part of Congress, and President Bush, for not insisting that TARP money be for lending purposes only.
Obama may have believed that his stimulus package was enough to keep unemployment below 8.5%. He was obviously misinformed if that's the case. The level of spending passed was insufficient to boost GDP to where unemployment would be stemmed to acceptable levels. Still, the package passed, at about 5% of GDP, was better than nothing. The worst part about it is that it makes a new Jobs package very politically unpalatable, when it could have been undertaken in a larger version of the previous package.
I think the biggest misunderstanding is that using government spending in order to lift the economy out of recession is only intended as a temporary measure, as it was used during the New Deal and World War II. We were fortunate after World War II, though, in that our manufacturing economy took off and our exports increased, giving a "permanent" boost to GDP. It's noteworthy, though, that much of that growth in manufacturing and exports would not have happened without 1) the construction of the Interstate Highway System and 2) the need to rebuild Europe and Japan after the war.
We will NEVER be able to reduce our deficits or debt until we get our GDP growing again. For the time being, that means temporary deficit spending until Consumption, Investment, and Exports get some influx of capital so they can rise. Once the GDP starts growing, though, we do need to rectify our trade imbalance [[which is a subject I won't touch on at this time) and start reworking the federal budget [[another subject beyond the scope of this post).
Going back to the spirit of the thread title, though, this is not as simple as "gimme my tax dollars back so I can spend 'em at Walmart". In my opinion, we really do need to embrace more modest standards of living, and we need to start giving a shit about the products on which we spend our hard-earned money.
Good question, I'd say it's like having a president that has one eye vs. a president that is blind...But as the old saying goes, in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.Quote:
BTW, how's that Hope & Change working for you now?
I disagree with about 60 percent of what the janitor is doing, [[see Ola's post on funding the dysfunctional government of Yemen) whereas I disagreed with 99 percent of what the chimp was doing. Of course, if I wanted to live in a land with leadership that I agreed with 99 percent of the time, I would go live on one of the uninhabited Northern Marianas Islands.
BTW, what has your party done to change anything lately? Since your party is basically one congressman and a bunch of guys on the internet, I'll take a wild guess and say "nothing". But your question sounds remarkably like the question posed by the sick cult's retard-savant, Ms Sarah Palin.
Are you excited that the retard queen has endorsed your candidates son? [[I'll hold off on the blindness references, as ironically, the guy's an ophthalmologist!)
There must be somewhere where a three party system is giving citizens more choices in leadership...A country with a real conservative party, a real wishy-washy centrist party and a real left wing party...Oh right, there's Mexico.
gp, I was agreeing with you more than normal too but am otherwise ok. Setting aside my concerns about the 10th. and sitting here in my Obama t-shirt to get into Obamathink, I would have preferred the President to have spent his Porkulus differently. When his administration first came out with the idea of Porkulus, they were going to do a lot of construction work with it just as Roosevelt had built dams and post offices. The Obama people were talking about rail lines, a wind power infrastruture, rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. Right away, their ideas were attacked because those were mostly male jobs. So much of the money wound up, instead, helping shore up local governments which wouldn't put themselves on a diet. Those governments did not have to tighten their belts and very little infrastructure got built.
I don't know how we can get people to spend but they everntually will. A lot of stuff just wear out. When the old heap becomes unreliable, people will start spending for new cars - or anything else. I think that it is necessity that forces people to start spending again. It was not only Europe that needed new everything after the war. Our GI's came home and needed everything to start up families. Eventually, whoever still has money will have to start spending again in this recession too. Meanwhile, [[remember I am still siting here watching Obama Girl videos and licking the screen a little to forget about the 10th Amendment) infrastucture is a great way too spend even printing press money because even if it doesn't dramatically increase national employment, at least would have something to show for the spending that would benefit and pay back Americans for decades.
"every man for themselves" is a gross over-simplification.Quote:
Originally Posted by ejames01
Yes, government loved to regulate everything.
But ask yourself; does it really need to?
Having government stick its nose into minutia details regarding what everyone does on a daily basis is a major contributing factor to life becomming more complex.
Having government stick its nose into the affairs of other nations is also a major contributing factor to the world being in the shape that it's currently in.
Ask yourself this: How would the world be if the US didn't engage in entangling alliances beginning in, say, the 1890's to today?
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
Where do you get that airplanes and computers are even remotely a function of government?
I don't recall ever making that claim.
I'll tell you what, if I had a party, then I can answer your question.Quote:
Originally Posted by barnesfoto
Political parties are a distraction to to voters to divert them from researching the candidates and knowing where they really stand.
Case in point #1: Blue Dog democrats. What do the rest of the democrats fell about them [[especially after the failure of health care "reform")?
Case in point #2: Pro-Choice republicans. What do other rank and file republicans feel about them?
But, if you want to be a rubber stamp and follow someone just because of a letter after their name, be my guest.
And what "minutia" might those be? In many instances it may be a choice between an ultimately accountable government vs. a wholly unaccountable private-sector entity whose only objective is to make its masters rich at whatever cost. I'll pick the former every timeQuote:
Originally Posted by MCP-001
hmmm....Quote:
Having government stick its nose into the affairs of other nations is also a major contributing factor to the world being in the shape that it's currently in.
Ask yourself this: How would the world be if the US didn't engage in entangling alliances beginning in, say, the 1890's to today?
A Nazi-run europe for one thing
blue dogs are kowtowed to by the dems, giving them inordinate power. Big difference between reps and dems -- the dems margianalize the progressives [[even trying to oust one of their own) while the reps flock to the curry the favor of their most extreme groupsQuote:
Originally Posted by MCP-001
The founding fathers were frowned on some 235 years ago.
Some people called them warmongers, radicals, neocons, ect.
Truth is, if a group is supporting real change, ie: fair taxes, smaller government, more freedom,
they may be closer to America's pulse than we give them credit for.
A couple of examples:Quote:
Originally Posted by rb336
How about requiring that Americans go through the yearly ritual to prove exactly what they have earned [[and thereby waving their Fourth & Fifth Amendment Rights in the process) and then submit a copy to the federal government?
Or, how about the federal governments sticking its nose into the banking industry [[i.e. CRA) and almost cause the collapse of the entire industry?
Or even how about the federal laws put in place to prohibit competition among insurance companies [[i.e. purchasing health insurance across state lines).
Get the point?
As for the Nazi Germany thing [[I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and not invoke Godwin's Law here) remember, if we didn't get involved in WWI, Adolph Hitler wouldn't have risen to power.
All that needed to be done here was to have Wilson keep his campaign pledge and keep us out.
The European powers didn't have a grudge against us before we got ourselves involved.
Basic History 101 here...
So explain the current flap over the governor's race?Quote:
Originally Posted by rb336
Airports, the FAA, ARPAnet--none of those things are in the Constitution. So I guess they're illegal, huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by MCP-001
what flap?Quote:
Originally Posted by MCP-001
now that is just about the goofiest argument I have heard on that subjectQuote:
Originally Posted by MCP-001
actually, it is the exact oppositeQuote:
Or, how about the federal governments sticking its nose into the banking industry [[i.e. CRA) and almost cause the collapse of the entire industry?
now that is one I agree withQuote:
Or even how about the federal laws put in place to prohibit competition among insurance companies [[i.e. purchasing health insurance across state lines).
Godwin's law doesn't apply, no one or thing is being compared to Nazis. as to the supposition, that is unknowableQuote:
As for the Nazi Germany thing [[I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and not invoke Godwin's Law here) remember, if we didn't get involved in WWI, Adolph Hitler wouldn't have risen to power.
and they didn't after, either. don't know how great it would have been for the US to have the Kaiser running Europe and most of the middle-eastQuote:
The European powers didn't have a grudge against us before we got ourselves involved.
Everything you learned in History 101 is wrong [[Yes, I think there actually was a book in that series)Quote:
Basic History 101 here...
I'll tell you what. You find the section citing its authorization, and then well talk about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
As for your "examples".
Neither were the Wright Brothers. Bill Gates. Steve Jobs. Or even Al Gore!
Quote:
Originally Posted by rb336
Have you been living under a rock?
The United Stated functioned quite well for about 150 years before the current imposition of the income tax.Quote:
Originally Posted by rb336
So explain, how is this "goofy"?
Making banks give mortgages to people who could not afford them helped the banking industry?Quote:
Originally Posted by rb336
This should be good. Explain this one as well? Don't forget to mention the efforts on the federal government part promoting securitization?
Huzzah! Let's go to Cheli's and celebrate...Quote:
Originally Posted by rb336
Any historian will tell you that if it wasn't for the Treaty of Versailles, Germany's economy wouldn't have been ruined after WWI leading the way for people like Hitler to come into power.Quote:
Originally Posted by rb336
Everyone's favorite whipping boy, G.W.B. used a similar analogy when we went into Iraq.Quote:
Originally Posted by rb336
Looking for boogey men around the world for us to fight is an inefficient use of our nation's resources. Would you rather we had American's take care of Americans? Or us start some fight every other week with some piss ant dictator in a country that most people haven't heard of [[or even cared)?
Even George Washington warned us about "entangling alliances" when he left office over 200 years ago.
Don't forget George Santayana's warning!
I'm not familiar with that particular title, but I'll take your word on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by rb336
it is goofy because:Quote:
Originally Posted by MCP-001
a) income tax is allowed constitutionally, and has been from the start
b) since a is true, how else can an income tax be instituted?
ah, still falling for that bit of long-disproven right-wing BS?Quote:
Making banks give mortgages to people who could not afford them helped the banking industry?
yes, after the secuities, banking and insurance industries pumped literally billions into the coffers of "our" reps [[in the name of free speach, of course)Quote:
Don't forget to mention the efforts on the federal government part promoting securitization?
any historian would say that they could NEVER predict with any level of certaintyan outcome if events didn't happen. anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.Quote:
Any historian will tell you that if it wasn't for the Treaty of Versailles, Germany's economy wouldn't have been ruined after WWI leading the way for people like Hitler to come into power.
That fashion is barbarous?Quote:
Don't forget George Santayana's warning!
That private wealth deprives its owner of liberty?
Income taxes have been shot down repeatedly. During the Civil War is the most recent example that I can think of at the moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by rb336
And if it has been "allowed" from the start, then why the "need" for the 16th Amendment?
You didn't answer my question. Claiming that something has been disproven isn't an answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by rb336
How does making a bank provide a mortgage to someone who cannot afford one, helping a bank?
No argument, there.Quote:
Originally Posted by rb336
So according to your statement, an ill-conceived "treaty" that imposed crushing economic sanctions on a nation that they knew would never be fully repaid without causing a near economic collapse, had no bearing on Hitler's rise to power.Quote:
Originally Posted by rb336
Then why are we studying History, if we cannot learn anything or draw conclusions from it?
No, that other quote.Quote:
Originally Posted by rb336
In other words, you want our nation to return to the way it was in the early 19th Century. Maybe we can get in the mood by having the British invade, huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by MCP-001
Lump the 'airport' example in with your previous list of airplanes and computers. The Constitution never set about listing inventions. The Tenth Amendment constrains federal powers not technological advances. The development of the ARPAnet, which I understand to be the prototype internet, might well be covered by the promotion of science and useful arts clause found in Article 1, Section 8. The FAA is more difficult to address. I don't know how we would do without some of its funtions today based on how it was allowed to develop. Perhaps some of its administrative fuctions could be privatized. Otherwise, in support of the present FAA, interstate commerce can be regulated to a degree and Congress is tasked with providing 'postal roads'. Granted, planes hauling mail are not carts hauling mail down postal roads but neither airplanes nor carts were mentioned. The Air Force or some future space or computer force aren't mentioned either but we know the Army Air Corp was relabeled the Air Force. Which brings me to the obligation of Congress to provide for the national defense. It wouldn't have to be the FAA, but the FAA probably supports defense functions which would other wise have to be handled by some other agency.Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
Another possibility of limiting the breadth of the federal expansiveness of the FAA would be to allow states to do some of what the FAA is now doing. For instance, there are almost no federal driver, doctor, or lawyer licencing or recprical college agreements. Sometimes the states work these matters out among themselves. Sometimes, the federal government provides an umbrella. I am not advocating here but rather trying to address the one, of five, things you mentioned which has the greatest probable role for legitimate federal involvement.
Considering that Europe is on the verge of a financial collapse, whatever...Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
From my reading on this issue, it should fall strictly upon the states [[including licensing), who can then work out among themselves how they want to coordinate things.Quote:
Originally Posted by oladub
1st, they weren't "shot down" during the Civil war. they were in force until the Grant administration repealed themQuote:
Originally Posted by MCP-001
2nd, the 16th amendment allows them to lay income taxes without apportionment
it didn't happen. the idea that it happened is a flat-out falsehood. show me one bank that was forced to provide anyone a mortgage.Quote:
You didn't answer my question. Claiming that something has been disproven isn't an answer.
How does making a bank provide a mortgage to someone who cannot afford one, helping a bank?
that is not at all what I said. what i said was, you can't remove X from the historical equation, or change X in some way, and say that had you done so Y would never have happened. All you can say is things may have been differentQuote:
So according to your statement, an ill-conceived "treaty" that imposed crushing economic sanctions on a nation that they knew would never be fully repaid without causing a near economic collapse, had no bearing on Hitler's rise to power.
Then why are we studying History, if we cannot learn anything or draw conclusions from it?
which one? he was quite prolificQuote:
No, that other quote.