Talk-Polywell.org

When I was in high school during the Carter years, my school library brought in the science fiction magazine "Galaxy." The science columnist was Jerry Pournells who talk about how the Progressives were basically trying to recreate a fuedal hell using resource shortages as an excuse, the "Limits To Growth" scenario, backed by an elaborate, but wrong, computer model created by the Club of Rome. I'm not sure why, but the Progressive are still trying to send us to the dark ages using "global climate change" and elaborate, but wrong computer models.:
http://jerrypournelle.com/chaosmanor/?p=1739
Frankly the Progressive's models are basically used to propel their agewnda without any connection to reality and no matter how many people get kiled or impoverished.

the only good thing about your post is the title which reminds me of a good song by Bruce Dickinson.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vceY27HUAK4

of course, I suppose conservatives also have good intentions, in their own ways, so the road to hell is also a plausible scenario for all the good intentions of conservatives.

I like how all the engineers in this forum think they are specialists in economy and planetary climatology.

Jccarlton wrote:Frankly the Progressive's models are basically used to propel their agewnda without any connection to reality

Another black pot moment...The leaders of the tea party gain prominence by saying kooky things that appeal to the raw emotions of the rank and file without any regard to logic, facts or reason. And the bible thumping masses in their ranks lap it up. I can not understand how an engineer can abide this nonsense.

For example, not too long ago Bachmann promised to keep gas under $2 a gallon during her administration.

"Under President Bachmann you will see gasoline come down below $2 a gallon again," Bachmann told a crowd Tuesday in South Carolina

Perry wants to replace science with religious doctrine (his type) and disdains scientists as atheistic charlatans.

The tea party is taking the Republicans down the rabbit hole. I can not understand how the big money backers in the Republican party both on Wall Street and in the board rooms far and wide can cede power to the kooks on the street ... how can they let this disaster happen. How can they let the rank and file wackos take over.

In the turbulent political history of America, populism has had as many incarnations as it has had provocations, but its constant ingredient has been resentment, and hence whininess. Populism does not wax in tranquil times; it is a cathartic response to serious problems. But it always wanes because it never seems serious as a solution.

Political nature abhors a vacuum, which is what often exists for a year or two in a party after it loses a presidential election. But today's saturation journalism, mesmerized by presidential politics and ravenous for material, requires a steady stream of political novelties. The tea party fills this need in abundance. Phineas Taylor (P.T.) Barnum has shown that Americans have always loved a freak show. I just hope America has enough strength left to get through this mess.

P. T. Barnum:
"There's a Sucker Born Every Minute"

Axil wrote:

Jccarlton wrote:Frankly the Progressive's models are basically used to propel their agewnda without any connection to reality

Another black pot moment...The leaders of the tea party gain prominence by saying kooky things that appeal to the raw emotions of the rank and file without any regard to logic, facts or reason. And the bible thumping masses in their ranks lap it up. I can not understand how an engineer can abide this nonsense.

For example, not too long ago Bachmann promised to keep gas under $2 a gallon during her administration.

"Under President Bachmann you will see gasoline come down below $2 a gallon again," Bachmann told a crowd Tuesday in South Carolina

Perry wants to replace science with religious doctrine (his type) and disdains scientists as atheistic charlatans.

The tea party is taking the Republicans down the rabbit hole. I can not understand how the big money backers in the Republican party both on Wall Street and in the board rooms far and wide can cede power to the kooks on the street ... how can they let this disaster happen. How can they let the rank and file wackos take over.

In the turbulent political history of America, populism has had as many incarnations as it has had provocations, but its constant ingredient has been resentment, and hence whininess. Populism does not wax in tranquil times; it is a cathartic response to serious problems. But it always wanes because it never seems serious as a solution.

Political nature abhors a vacuum, which is what often exists for a year or two in a party after it loses a presidential election. But today's saturation journalism, mesmerized by presidential politics and ravenous for material, requires a steady stream of political novelties. The tea party fills this need in abundance. Phineas Taylor (P.T.) Barnum has shown that Americans have always loved a freak show. I just hope America has enough strength left to get through this mess.

P. T. Barnum:
"There's a Sucker Born Every Minute"

As far as I know, Jerry is not a tea party person. The issues he's talking about date back decades, long before the teal party even existed. thge fact that our elites have been ignoring the fiscal problems for all those decades is why the tea party came into being. Most of us saw the continuing screwups and patronage politics and finally said, ENOUGH!!!

Yes, but because you didn't complain THEN, you have absolutely no right to complain NOW.

Or some foolishness like that.

If you're looking for those essays, A Step Further Out is about $3 for the Kindle.

Axil:

For example, not too long ago Bachmann promised to keep gas under $2 a gallon during her administration.

"Under President Bachmann you will see gasoline come down below $2 a gallon again," Bachmann told a crowd Tuesday in South Carolina

Perry wants to replace science with religious doctrine (his type) and disdains scientists as atheistic charlatans.

First - give me a link to where Perry says he wants to replace science with doctrine. I'm getting a bit weary of the "Well, someone told me that (Insert Hated Candidate Here) wants to take us back to the Stone Age, and believed that dinosaurs would be a viable mode of mass transit!" crap that passes for critical thought. No interpretation, no "Well, he thinks X so from that I interpolate X, Y, Z, and AA" - just show me where he says what you quote.

Second - as far as oil goes... does it really make sense to you to send billions of dollars overseas to countries that (a) hate us, and (b) oppress their people and (c) we wouldn't give a darn about if we were tapping our own supplies?

AcesHigh -

of course, I suppose conservatives also have good intentions, in their own ways, so the road to hell is also a plausible scenario for all the good intentions of conservatives.

I like how all the engineers in this forum think they are specialists in economy and planetary climatology.

Engineers usually have to work within a budgetary framework that constrains their real-world decisions. The results HAVE to have at least some semblance of matching up to the money spent. Business owners HAVE to pay attention to money spent vs value received - if they don't they won't stay in business long.

Politicians don't have to worry about either of those things. (Well, currently. If you don't pass a budget, you never have to worry about going over your budget, do you?) Politicians have the ability to 'stretch' that framework... or just ignore it completely. All they're concerned with is that the unexpected consequences don't come back to bite 'em in the results until they're well out of office and off the radar.

(It might be interesting to have an amendment making politicians liable for the results of their legislative efforts - both good and bad. If it's good for the economy overall, they get a reward. If a particular bit crashes and burns, and they're responsible, then they have a percentage of their assets seized. If they REALLY fubar an issue, then they lose everything except a minimum-wage stipend. I think that'd probably slow the passage of bills 'you have to pass to see what's in it'. They'd have skin in the game, so to speak.)

As far as AGW goes - I first started doubting their claims when they insisted that the sun had no bearing on Earth's climate. Then, when SurfaceStations.Org started showing that the majority of reporting stations in the US were badly sited (worst case examples, in the middle of a large blacktop parking lot or on top of asphalt roofs, or at ends of airport runways ... think that might show some warming trends?) and poorly maintained leading to up to 5c errors - the response was 'Oh, we have adjustments in the computer models to even those out.'

Hello? Garbage in - garbage out. Bad data cannot be reliably adjusted into good data.

Add in that the sea level is not increasing as forecast and it's pretty clear at this point that Al Gore's pushing of the whole AGW frenzy wasn't out of any real nobility of purpose, but a great way to get business for his carbon-trading company. Add in that he didn't practice what he preached - it became pretty clear he's this generation's PT Barnum. Whole lot of suckers bought what he was selling...

(I do believe in AGW, however - review Ruddiman's work on methane's shifting of the Earth's temperature starting about 8000 years ago with the invention of agriculture. If the warm-cold curve had held steady, we'd be in the midst of a glacial period right now.)

There's a distinct difference between AGW and climate change and that's what I've grown to accept after much valuable data being posted. I leave the possibility of acute irradicate climate change, but find it specifically unlikely. I do believe that climate change and shifts are occuring though. Whether we'll be able to acclimate or effect these changes, I do not know.

As per the actual topic, I believe Carter inherited a terrible situation and tried to make the best of it. I think Obama has inherited a terrible situation and tried his best with what he believed, much the same as Bush did during his term. Certainly we can cite liberal screw ups, but I can do the same with conservative screw ups. For example, Bush lowered taxes and committed to two wars we couldn't afford. Reagan's war on drugs is another example. Going over seas for a moment, Margaret Thatcher and her decrease of direct taxes and increase of indirect taxes in the middle of a recession which resulted in increased unemployment and civil turmoil.

There's enough blame to go around. We need financial conservatives to sound the warning bells when we go spend happy. We need the liberals to sound the warning bells when we fail to show empathy and provide for our own (gainful employment WITH benefits).

What I don't understand from those who vote conservative is why they aren't hopping on the Huntsman wagon. I mean Perry got a D- in economics in college, he clearly isn't qualified. The job growth in his state is tied to stimulus funding, which I'd add his state received the 2nd largest amount of stimulus funding. Huntsman on the other hand was able to lower taxes within his state while maintaining a budget surplus. He speaks Chinese which is impressive in and of its self. He's a fairly accomplished guitarist as well while not relevant to politics, shows a sign of careful study to achieve proficiency.

ScottL wrote: As per the actual topic, I believe Carter inherited a terrible situation and tried to make the best of it. I think Obama has inherited a terrible situation and tried his best with what he believed, much the same as Bush did during his term. Certainly we can cite liberal screw ups, but I can do the same with conservative screw ups. For example, Bush lowered taxes and committed to two wars we couldn't afford. Reagan's war on drugs is another example. Going over seas for a moment, Margaret Thatcher and her decrease of direct taxes and increase of indirect taxes in the middle of a recession which resulted in increased unemployment and civil turmoil.

There's enough blame to go around.

One wonders why you claim being a centrist but are in fact a liberal. For example, saying that we can cite screw ups on both sides but only actually citing "conservative screw ups" yourself. You are a liberal. Just go with it.

ScottL wrote: We need financial conservatives to sound the warning bells when we go spend happy.

Warning bells sounded. No one is listening. Now what?

Are we allowed to try to take action or is ringing bells the limit of the contribution you will accept? Money and bells. That's it?

seedload wrote:

ScottL wrote: As per the actual topic, I believe Carter inherited a terrible situation and tried to make the best of it. I think Obama has inherited a terrible situation and tried his best with what he believed, much the same as Bush did during his term. Certainly we can cite liberal screw ups, but I can do the same with conservative screw ups. For example, Bush lowered taxes and committed to two wars we couldn't afford. Reagan's war on drugs is another example. Going over seas for a moment, Margaret Thatcher and her decrease of direct taxes and increase of indirect taxes in the middle of a recession which resulted in increased unemployment and civil turmoil.

There's enough blame to go around.

One wonders why you claim being a centrist but are in fact a liberal. For example, saying that we can cite screw ups on both sides but only actually citing "conservative screw ups" yourself. You are a liberal. Just go with it.

ScottL wrote: We need financial conservatives to sound the warning bells when we go spend happy.

Warning bells sounded. No one is listening. Now what?

Are we allowed to try to take action or is ringing bells the limit of the contribution you will accept? Money and bells. That's it?

I view my self personally as financially centrist, however; since I'm discussing these issues with far-right individuals, I feel the need to lean a little bit. As for liberal screw ups, I think you guys have done the work for me in listing them, I don't need to add.

My questions would be, what social programs do you cut, which do you reform and how, and how come we weren't in a conservative utopia from 2000-2002 or til 2004? Also, do you believe there is a point when government should increase taxes versus lower them?

ScottL wrote:I view my self personally as financially centrist, however; since I'm discussing these issues with far-right individuals, I feel the need to lean a little bit. As for liberal screw ups, I think you guys have done the work for me in listing them, I don't need to add.

My questions would be, what social programs do you cut, which do you reform and how, and how come we weren't in a conservative utopia from 2000-2002 or til 2004? Also, do you believe there is a point when government should increase taxes versus lower them?

I'm thinking a top-down look is warranted - if there's two programs with the same function, merge them and combine budgets, then reduce the total by a third.

If the function is something that can be better handled at a state level instead of a federal level, and it's duplicated already (for example Department of Education vs state-county boards) then eliminate the federal level except for the most basic of functions. (For the Department of Education, insure that reading, writing, math, science and history are standardized - at a high level. All else should be left to the state.)

How come we weren't in a conservative utopia... let's see - wasn't there a recession just as Bush was coming in? And then there was something 10 years back in September... can't quite remember what it was, but it kicked the economy in the nuts hard.

And up to the point where the media convinced the gullible that we were in such horrible shape (with 5% unemployment! OMG! Teh HorroRs!) that the Democrats took control of the House and Senate (since they actually write the bills and budget...) we weren't doing badly. If the trend as shown through the forecast chart here had continued, we'd have been in positive territory re the deficit in 2008-2009, possibly as early as late 2007.

(Of course, that chart now would show previous deficit spending under Bush as just a minor blip. The Democrats have taken deficit spending to an extreme.)

We can sustain massive spending for a short time, for an overwhelming reason (IE WW2 or the like) - but we can't accept it as a chronic condition.

As far as raising taxes goes - If we had the budget under control (and we don't, since we don't even HAVE a budget) and deficit spending under control, and the increased revenue went to paying down the debt instead of out to someone's pet project (as always seems to happen) - I probably wouldn't have much trouble with it.

But fiscal sanity just doesn't exist inside the Beltway.

Axil wrote:

Jccarlton wrote:Frankly the Progressive's models are basically used to propel their agewnda without any connection to reality

Another black pot moment...The leaders of the tea party gain prominence by saying kooky things that appeal to the raw emotions of the rank and file without any regard to logic, facts or reason. And the bible thumping masses in their ranks lap it up. I can not understand how an engineer can abide this nonsense.

For example, not too long ago Bachmann promised to keep gas under $2 a gallon during her administration.

"Under President Bachmann you will see gasoline come down below $2 a gallon again," Bachmann told a crowd Tuesday in South Carolina

Perry wants to replace science with religious doctrine (his type) and disdains scientists as atheistic charlatans.

The tea party is taking the Republicans down the rabbit hole. I can not understand how the big money backers in the Republican party both on Wall Street and in the board rooms far and wide can cede power to the kooks on the street ... how can they let this disaster happen. How can they let the rank and file wackos take over.

In the turbulent political history of America, populism has had as many incarnations as it has had provocations, but its constant ingredient has been resentment, and hence whininess. Populism does not wax in tranquil times; it is a cathartic response to serious problems. But it always wanes because it never seems serious as a solution.

Political nature abhors a vacuum, which is what often exists for a year or two in a party after it loses a presidential election. But today's saturation journalism, mesmerized by presidential politics and ravenous for material, requires a steady stream of political novelties. The tea party fills this need in abundance. Phineas Taylor (P.T.) Barnum has shown that Americans have always loved a freak show. I just hope America has enough strength left to get through this mess.

P. T. Barnum:
"There's a Sucker Born Every Minute"

It looks to me as if it's not Perry who's replacing science with doctrine:
http://technorati.com/politics/article/ ... nd-racism/

Al Gore hates CO2 and Bush the lesser hated Saddam Hussein, corporate oversight and banking regulation. Which is the lesser of the two evils?

Gore would have filled the country side with wind mills whereas Bush filled the land with amputees, the brain damaged, the unemployed, and the dispossessed.

Perry is just another hack Texas lapdog; a poor low class imitation of Bush who is all hat and no cattle.

So - do they send you an email each day, or is there some website you go to for your talking points?

Because I'm seeing a heck of a lot of emotion from you, Axil, but not a whole lot of reasoning behind what you're posting. Nothing wrong with that - but I'm getting pretty resistant any more to emo bumpersticker slogans.

In Axil's defense on a single point, we really didn't have justifiable evidence to enter Iraq. They were cooperating with the IAEA and stated they had no WMDs which they didn't. This particular war seems to have vastly different reasons that what was advertised to us.

ScottL wrote: I view my self personally as financially centrist, however; since I'm discussing these issues with far-right individuals, I feel the need to lean a little bit. As for liberal screw ups, I think you guys have done the work for me in listing them, I don't need to add.

My questions would be, what social programs do you cut, which do you reform and how, and how come we weren't in a conservative utopia from 2000-2002 or til 2004? Also, do you believe there is a point when government should increase taxes versus lower them?

OK, I will answer. But, open your mind please. This is a bit of a radical answer. Radical to you and to 'conservatives' alike. Radical like you may never have heard before. Let it soak.

Step One

Look. I believe in the enumerated powers of the Constitution. Go figure. So, to answer your question on what social programs to cut, cut 'em all.

I do not believe in government picking winners and losers. I do not believe in selective re-distributive policies. I do not believe in Government managing social programs because government is wasteful. I believe in a free market economy, not in social engineering. Government trying to balance our lives by confiscating our money and giving it back to us, if government decides we deserve it, will eventually be the downfall of this country. One, government is giving out more than it is taking. Two, government is playing games trying to figure out how best to re-distribute it to make us do what it wants. Three, government is bloated by the burden of re-distribution. It is wasteful. It is over budget. It will never change. Politics is about who wins and loses, not about what national politics should be about - our national issues - defense, trade, interstate commerce, etc.. The enumerated powers.

So, kill em all. All current social programs, dead. The Constitution says that it is not a federal power anyway.

Cut 'em all. Department of Education - gone. Welfare - gone. Social Security - gone. Medicaid - gone. Housing programs - gone. All of it - gone.

Get the Federal Government back to dealing with Federal issues.

Step Two

End all current income taxes. Income Tax, Social Security Tax, Medicare Tax. All gone.

Don't freak. There is more later. But...

If the Federal Government does only what the Federal Government should do - national stuff - enumerated powers stuff - then the Federal Government can function completely on Corporate Taxes and Trade related taxes alone. Take a look at the numbers. You might be surprised.

Step Three

I don't consider Steps One and Two radical. They are Constitutional. This last one is RADICAL! Here it goes.

New system of social equity.

I am not blind to social issues, but the current systems are not working. They are based on the idea that someone/somewhere can decide what is right and what is wrong for how to take money from one person and give it to another. Politicians are directing where money goes and are doing it to get voting blocks of getters vs givers to vote for them. Politics is a game of figuring out how best to advertise that you are going to re-distribute to get the most votes, capturing the people who feel they will receive while not totally pissing off the people who will give (if they have enough numbers). The best way to do this for a politician is to take too little and give too much. It doesn't work. We need to end this game.

But, is it the re-distribution that is wrong, or the idea that we can decide who to re-distribute to that is wrong. I believe it is the latter. Re-distribution is not necessarily wrong. Especially if you consider the following.

I also believe that a nation succeeds because people at all levels of society contribute. Each person's earnings are decided by their own hard work but also by the contribution of the rest of the nation to their overall prosperity. Rich people have earned the right to their income, but some of that income comes because the nation is strong. It is hard to become successful in a country that is not strong. Everyone helped with your success. So, what you earn is mostly yours, yes, but some of it is everyone else's because of their contribution to giving you the platform for success.

So, if this is true, which I believe it is, then we should have some social program to make sure that nobody is left behind because everybody contributes to success. But, there needs to be some rules for this program.

1) Applies equally to everybody. No winners and losers based on subjective stuff.
2) Minimal government involvement. No politicians or government employees making decisions.
3) Must be simple.
4) Can't go over budget. Can't go under budget. No surplus for government to rape. No shortfall for added dept.

So, here it is, the Social Contract.

A) Enact a new Income Tax. Income is taxed at 30% of gross earnings. No deductions.
B) Income Tax is segregated money, not available for the rest of government.
C) Income from the tax is paid back to every Citizen of the United States eighteen or older in an equal amount (on a credit card).
D) Must be ratified via an Amendment to the Constitution, both enabling this tax and protecting this tax against government theft for other purposes.

This is the way this works. Say the equal amount is 25K.
* If you make 10K a year (poor) then you suddenly make 32K a year, not so very poor.
* If you make 100K a year (middle class) then you make 95K a year, better than you do now with current tax rates.
* If you make a million, you only make 775K, probably an increase in taxes.
* If you are turning college age, suddenly you have 25K of income to go to school on.
* If you are unemployed, you have a minimal standard of living.
* If you are retired, you have a suplimental income.
* etc.

You have to get your own insurance, save for your own retirement (above the min), etc, but no one is 'poor'. Government doesn't do this stuff any more. You have to. But, you have a minimum standard of living, equally distributed based on the social contract with everyone else.

Benefits
* No political dickering. It is what it is.
* Everyone has a minimum standard of living.
* States rights returned. Enumerated powers observed.
* Return to capitalism, if only on a percentage of the money.
* College supported for all.
* Immigration issues helped. Pay in but don't receive benefit.
* Work encouraged, even part time, because every dollar improves your situation without losing benefits.
* Equitably administered with very little administration costs.
* Equally taxed as percentage of income. Equally distributed. No picking of winners and losers.
* National politics can return to national issues.
* During down times, equity of re-distribution is automatically balanced.

Problems
* Everyone would hate the idea! Conservatives because they won't be able to admit it is just a simplification of what is already being done, with associated benefits. Liberals because they will hate not having a say in who should get the money.
* Potential for complete non-contributors increased? I don't think so. We have plenty of these already. Plus, the idea that you don't lose benefits by actually trying to get extra income, even part time, is probably going to decrease the non-contributors.

FINALLY

Obviously, we are in a hole right now. Obviously we have current programs that have current dependents to them. Obviously, we can't just snap our fingers and change to this. We would need to transition. How to transition is the biggest problem.

Because of the problem with transition and because of the negative reaction that the radical plan above would get from EVERYONE, this will never happen.

But, you did ask what I would do. That is it.

regards

EDIT - FYI, the number 25K is probably high. I think the real number is something like 20K if I remember when I went through this before. Also, a poor family with two parents does better than a poor single family. So there is an implied benefit to families as well.

Seedload, thanks for being honest and answering instead of following a political party line. I do have further questions with regard to your system that I'll post below this.

1. Disabled individuals - How do you handle contribution/distribution of funds?
2. Immigrants that pay in and don't get benefits seems counter-intuitive, why not allow ourselves to grow again? What I mean is make the process for citizenship easier/faster, allowing them to both contribute and benefit from.
3. In cases of recession (much like now) when individuals find themselves without a job, how do we temporarily help these people while they search for gainful employment?
4. With the redistribution based on income and contribution, most notedly college cost, how does the ever increasing college tuition effect the formula? Increased insurance costs?

Thanks again.