john5746

I guess that is true - 50% of Americans believe the Bible is inspired by God, while 30% believe it is literally true. However, I think that if we could survey those in the "inspired" group and get a line by line opinion on several verses, we might find that overall, the majority do agree on literal interpretations of certain passages that science can say is either wrong or very unlikely. http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/onethird-americans-believe-bible-literally-true.aspx

GDP != Wealth

yep, I agree. I wonder if it could be a little more like insurance - if you live in a certain place and have so much assets, you are likely to have more claims(use more resources), etc.

The devil uses weak souls to make facebook applications

Well, nothing like the Civil War has happened to America since then, but unfortunately, there seems to always be something like it or worse happening somewhere in the world.

fap fap fap... think? why would... fap fap fap I think? fap fap fap. I'm not advocating more welfare here. Two sides of the coin - spending and revenue. I am only talking about the revenue side. I also want people to be self sufficient and strive to improve themselves. I think a progressive tax is the best method. Tell a guy making $20,000/year that half of every dollar he earns more than that by digging ditches will be taken. He might decide not to dig any more ditches above the minimum. Tell a guy making a million that any dollar over that will be taxed at 50%. Does he still want to make the money? probably, because it isn't that hard for him to make the extra $. Actually, one of the arguments against progressive tax is that it might slow growth. Taking money from the wealthy that they might have invested into a company or buying a nice boat and spending it on a road or a teacher might not be pro-growth. If it does increase growth, though, at least more revenue is coming from the wealthy. But, if growth is slowed, that isn't bad either - we are running a marathon, not a sprint.

Government is all about redistribution of wealth, in fact, I would argue that a successful society is redistribution of wealth. The rich get their money, not by growing it, but by leveraging society - they have maximized all the benefits of their society. So any flat tax will result in the richer getting richer and the poorer getting poorer - unless there is some major revolt/catastrophe that results in the monopoly board being overturned. Having money that you don't need makes risk taking a game. So on the spare cash continuum, the opportunity costs for the middle class will include college money, improved housing, transportation, etc. We don't need to just be concerned about the floor - it is important that basic needs are met, but also we should realize that the closer we are to that line, the more important it is to save every penny of that dollar, both for the individual and for society. Unless we think it is better for people like Bill Gates to decide where most of the wealth of a society is spent as opposed to government. Sometimes, I'm not sure which is best.

I agree with Skeptic. If we measure wealth as a pyramid, with survival on the bottom and luxury towards the top, we will see that taxing a penny above the survival line at the same rate as a penny at the very top will burden the poor person much more. I would think that we would want to have more incentive for people in poverty to work and improve their station in life than for the very wealthy to make that extra stock profit. Also, one aspect of the flat tax is to make it simple, so trying to collect all that data and then manipulating will remove that as a plus. Maybe we should make a simple flat tax for everyone making above 1 million. No loopholes, deductions, etc. Just a simple flat tax that even they can do with their limited time. See how it goes for them.

I disagree, only Siths deal in absolutes. Don't confuse democracy with liberty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illiberal_democracy

The people who are trying to sell it to me.

Of course, no brainer. I hate pain. Eternal agony? I can't think of anything worth that. I'll lie, steal, cheat, or kill to avoid it. Of course, in the back of my mind I would be thinking this loser is probably lying, I mean he is a sick a-hole who is terrorizing people.

I enjoyed the "debate" below. Other than Harris, seems like the conclusion is that science is a foundation for helping to determine moral values, but that morality isn't a science. Maybe if we could map everyone's brain into a supercomputer and run endless experiments to determine peak "thriving" - whatever that would mean to everyone, then maybe it could be a science. Maybe economics of morality will be as close as we can get? http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/the-great-debate

Thanks, we have some agreement.

Fewer does provide less gun death as evidence that I have provided suggests. Laws do help, they are far from perfect. What is the alternative? Should I become Eastwood and go around taking the bad guys out? maybe a taser? Oh yeah, the bad guys have guns, so maybe a grenade launcher for small females. Funny thing, no matter what happens, people extrapolate to the extreme where only bad people have guns. Fewer is useful as has been shown already. In this particular case, the guy had a mental disorder and obtained a gun LEGALLY. That is what I am talking about. We already limit many weapons and various guns. It makes it harder to obtain them if the SELLER also can get into trouble. So having a system in place to prevent people from obtaining grenades, even if it isn't a life sentence to buy one, is effective.

We have made some changes regarding security, especially in airports as a result of this attack. Similarly, I think gun laws should be examined in the wake of this incident. Tighter gun control is warranted, with evidence provided when comparing states within the US and comparing the US with foreign countries. I think it the easiest, most sensible thing to do. If he doesn't have a gun, there is no way he kills 6 people.

I don't know, was the guy suicidal? Maybe police or armed public would have made him think twice. Can't get rid of guns, so just give up and let just about anyone have them. No training or education required. Not even a healthy brain. Yes, and planes had nothing to do with those deaths on 9/11. Heck, they could have done it with plastic chopsticks.

Not sure what your point is rigney. I would think that the conclusions from the article would imply that we should want to improve the education and wealth of the people as well as tighten gun control in order to reduce gun deaths. Trying to make people servants would probably increase the problem.

I didn't make a point, I provided a chart and a link to an article. From the article. Did you have any conclusions in regards to this data?

Interesting article

I couldn't find any violent rhetoric in the specific case of her run in office,although this was strange. Of course, I didn't spend very much time and I can't review local radio, etc. online. Very rarely can we find a direct cause for such events. If he had an alcoholic father, would that be THE cause? No, but maybe a contributing factor. In this way, I think the political speech from the experts, those who should no better, results in even worse speech and attitudes from pundits and others. Chat rooms all over the web are full of malcontents who feed off of this vibe and take it to higher and higher extremes. IMO, we should expect more civility from each other and especially professionals, not to avoid situations like this, but to improve everyday life. I think gun control is more directly related to this incident. The fact that he legally obtained a gun is troublesome. I would hope that anyone with a similar background could not legally obtain a gun in the future. We will always have "bad" or mentally unstable and violent people. Keeping them from legally obtaining guns seems to be a smart way to go.

I do agree that Hitchens won the debate, but I doubt if the host feels the same. Maybe they planned to make some money of this or something. Or maybe there were other videos with dubbing, etc. and they decided to just wipe them all. Not sure I would jump to the conclusion that they are afraid people will see it.

Yeah, I should have put a smiley after that one, I agree completely that it would be a dumb idea. It should be obvious that middle class demand and confidence is the primary issue, not lack of capital.

I think we should eliminate taxes on those making greater than 1 million dollars for the next two years. That will really get us growing. Not only that, but it will then force Obama to run on the idea of tax increases in the next election(because he won't make these cuts permanent) and the huge deficit will prove he is a big spender.

All the drama to basically "stay the course". The compromise is basically throwing everyone a bone, of course some get a much bigger bone. I wonder if we will see a compromise on cuts, where everyone gets a cut they want? Let's see.

If I were going to drink my piss on a regular basis, I'd make sure to drink plenty of water - to help improve the taste. So, maybe as a feedback mechanism to make sure you stay hydrated, maybe it might help. Or just don't flush your toilet in the morning and welcome that smell when returning from work.