# Political Junkies Group created



## Guest (Oct 10, 2011)

Join in if you feel like it. I'll be curious to see how many people who complain about political debates stop by.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

My observation is a number of members appear to come to TC to write significantly _more number of posts_ here in the Community Forum about religion, politics, social issues etc. than they do about music in the music threads. Ths would suggest to me that perhaps other internet forums might be better suited for their passionate discussions. While we might get into heated discussions in other threads, at the very least, they are about _music_ and by members who, by and large, have written more posts here in TC about _music_ than they do about general mattters here in the Community Forum.

Just my two cents of crumbs.


----------



## graaf (Dec 12, 2009)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Ths would suggest to me that perhaps other internet forums might be better suited for their passionate discussions.


True, but debates about politics (and often religion too) happen on any forum (or any I've visited). It's unfortunate, but it's inevitable. I think that as long as these debates are kept in one sub-forum, and are not insulting, they can/should be tolerated. "Not insulting" part one is not easy, but insults happen in Mozart vs Beethoven threads, too.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

Political debates matter very greatly. Thanks to political debate, gay marriage is now legal in the state of New York, and homosexuals can join the US military with no legal stigma.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> My observation is a number of members appear to come to TC to write significantly _more number of posts_ here in the Community Forum about religion, politics, social issues etc. than they do about music in the music threads. Ths would suggest to me that perhaps other internet forums might be better suited for their passionate discussions. While we might get into heated discussions in other threads, at the very least, they are about _music_ and by members who, by and large, have written more posts here in TC about _music_ than they do about general mattters here in the Community Forum.
> 
> Just my two cents of crumbs.


Although we all often rub each other up the wrong way, I think - all possible internet fora considered - classical music is a good way to bond with people for wider cultural and political discussion. On other forums, the population may be far too crowded, and with that will probably be a lot more intolerable trolls; possibly even stricter moderation that quells discussion. Here, however, you can _generally_ rely on people who post legibly and intelligently, and who are generally well-thought out in many areas of life having developed a keen interest in something as complex and esoteric as classical music.

I think the forum should be just as much a place for meeting like-minded people in that respect and talking about whatever you want, as it is about actively talking about music.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Polednice said:


> Although we all often rub each other up the wrong way, I think - all possible internet fora considered - classical music is a good way to bond with people for wider cultural and political discussion. On other forums, the population may be far too crowded, and with that will probably be a lot more intolerable trolls; possibly even stricter moderation that quells discussion. Here, however, you can _generally_ rely on people who post legibly and intelligently, and who are generally well-thought in many areas of life having developed a keen interest in something as complex and esoteric as classical music.
> 
> I think the forum should be just as much a place for meeting like-minded people in that respect and talking about whatever you want, as it is about actively talking about music.


Yes, I agree in principle. Our "bond" is our love of classical music. My original post above questioned the apparent intent of others who might appear to contradict that due to their overwhelming number of other posts about non-musical matters. Luckily, they are a minority and at times do share valued opinions about music. _I only wish they contributed more in music than they do about these other matters._


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Fsharpmajor said:


> Political debates matter very greatly. Thanks to political debate, gay marriage is now legal in the state of New York, and homosexuals can join the US military with no legal stigma.


Yup, now everyone can get blown up in unethical wars!

Equality.


----------



## graaf (Dec 12, 2009)

Fsharpmajor said:


> Political debates matter very greatly. Thanks to political debate, gay marriage is now legal in the state of New York, and homosexuals can join the US military with no legal stigma.


They do matter, but somehow I doubt that legislators came to this forum for an opinion (or any other forum for that matter). I think members who dislike politics here rightly do so.


----------



## Guest (Oct 10, 2011)

regressivetransphobe said:


> Yup, now everyone can get blown up in unethical wars!
> 
> Equality.


no no no - no more of this political talk in the forum where it is unwanted - take it to the groups!


----------



## Guest (Oct 10, 2011)

I love it - I start a thread just to announce I have created a group where people can discuss politics . . . and people are using the thread to discuss politics. Old habits die hard.


----------



## Krummhorn (Feb 18, 2007)

Btw, DrMike's group page is located here.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> My observation is a number of members appear to come to TC to write significantly _more number of posts_ here in the Community Forum about religion, politics, social issues etc. than they do about music in the music threads. Ths would suggest to me that perhaps other internet forums might be better suited for their passionate discussions. While we might get into heated discussions in other threads, at the very least, they are about _music_ and by members who, by and large, have written more posts here in TC about _music_ than they do about general mattters here in the Community Forum.
> 
> Just my two cents of crumbs.


Well, assuming you avoid the temptation of joining the group, you will be spared us from now on.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

DrMike said:


> I love it - I start a thread just to announce I have created a group where people can discuss politics . . . and people are using the thread to discuss politics. Old habits die hard.


Speaking for myself, I didn't know about the forum groups until I clicked on Krummhorn's link to your group. How do I find them on TC's home page, though?

I'm probably overlooking something very obvious here.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Just underneath the four major links (Home - Forum - Blog - What's New), there are some smaller ones (new posts _etc._). Choose "Community" from that second list and click "Groups".


----------



## Guest (Dec 12, 2011)

I thought I would post in this thread again, just to remind people of the Political Junkies Group, where you can discuss politics ad nauseum. Political threads have popped back up in the forum, so I thought people might need a reminder. Part of it is self-serving - activity in the group has greatly dropped off in the last month. It is a moderated group (by yours truly), but I accept all who wish to join, and have not deleted any posts yet, other than duplicates! So come on down to Crazy Rightwing Dr. Mike's Political Junkies Group to bash Republicans, Democrats, Labor, Green, Silly, etc.!


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Too many extremist nutcases in there.


----------



## Guest (Dec 12, 2011)

^And you would be JUST the individual to bring moderation to the discussions!


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

DrMike said:


> ^And you would be JUST the individual to bring moderation to the discussions!


 "Moderation" means that I don't agree with anybody there.

What was that warning often given by medieval mapmakers at the edges of their maps? Here the dragons lie?

I will take a gander in there, _DrMike_. I really don't care much for heartburn though.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I would be more inclined to join the group if the subscription option actually worked.


----------



## Guest (Dec 12, 2011)

Polednice said:


> I would be more inclined to join the group if the subscription option actually worked.


What do you mean? Clarify, please.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Well there is the option to "subscribe" to groups and threads within groups which I supposed meant that I would receive notifications of new posts but I never did.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

I am very interested in politics, bt I absolutely refuse to engage in politcal discussion on this (or any other) forum.

If we get so partisan and pissy about 4'33, I'd hate to think what would happen if we tried to have a civil discussions over issues that REALLY matter.

I just refuse to waste my time.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> I am very interested in politics, bt I absolutely refuse to engage in politcal discussion on this (or any other) forum.
> 
> If we get so partisan and pissy about 4'33, I'd hate to think what would happen if we tried to have a civil discussions over issues that REALLY matter.
> 
> I just refuse to waste my time.


I do it not as a means to actually discuss the issues or to attempt to persuade people, but just to exercise my debating skills and make sure I'm up to scratch on all the knowledge that I ought to have. Politics, music, religion - the subject doesn't really matter; it's the act of argument that's important.


----------



## DABTSAR (Dec 1, 2011)

our leaders are war criminals, we're slaves to the capitalist system. workers of the world, unite!


----------



## Guest (Dec 15, 2011)

DABTSAR said:


> our leaders are war criminals, we're slaves to the capitalist system. workers of the world, unite!


Come see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

DrMike said:


> Come see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed!


----------



## Guest (Dec 15, 2011)

science said:


>


First of all - why is Cain being considered here? He is out of the race. He seems irrelevant. Perry has been pretty dead as of late, but at least he is still running.

Second of all, why are they showing the dollar change in absolute dollars? Obviously those that pay a lot more in taxes will see more coming back to them in tax cuts in terms of absolute dollars. I don't even earn $340,000 in income, gross, so it would be ridiculous for me to expect to gain $340,000 less in taxes. Why not show the data in terms of % reduction in their tax burden? That seems like it would be a more worthwhile figure than what is presented here. I'm only concerning myself with the Gingrich plan here - 1) because he is one of the frontrunners for the GOP; 2) because his purportedly gives the "most" to the "rich." For someone in the 1%, who can expect to pay $340,000 less in taxes - how much are they still paying? What percent drop will they see in their tax burden? And I notice that Gingrich's plan shows drops in tax burden for practically every group, except the bottom 20%, who will *gasp* expect to pay $6 more in taxes.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

DrMike said:


> First of all - why is Cain being considered here? He is out of the race. He seems irrelevant. Perry has been pretty dead as of late, but at least he is still running.
> 
> Second of all, why are they showing the dollar change in absolute dollars? Obviously those that pay a lot more in taxes will see more coming back to them in tax cuts in terms of absolute dollars. I don't even earn $340,000 in income, gross, so it would be ridiculous for me to expect to gain $340,000 less in taxes. Why not show the data in terms of % reduction in their tax burden? That seems like it would be a more worthwhile figure than what is presented here. I'm only concerning myself with the Gingrich plan here - 1) because he is one of the frontrunners for the GOP; 2) because his purportedly gives the "most" to the "rich." For someone in the 1%, who can expect to pay $340,000 less in taxes - how much are they still paying? What percent drop will they see in their tax burden? And I notice that Gingrich's plan shows drops in tax burden for practically every group, except the bottom 20%, who will *gasp* expect to pay $6 more in taxes.


I couldn't figure out what the numbers represent. If they mean what you say they mean, the Gingrich plan will destroy the gov't slightly quicker than the other plans?


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

DrMike said:


> Why not show the data in terms of % reduction in their tax burden?


There's a graph showing the percent changes under Gingrich's plan here:

*http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204336104577094910634122058.html*


----------



## Guest (Dec 15, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> I couldn't figure out what the numbers represent. If they mean what you say they mean, the Gingrich plan will destroy the gov't slightly quicker than the other plans?


No - ther government will destroy itself. Let's look at the numbers. According to the 2010 census, there are roughly 112 million families in the country. That means that the top 1% consists of ~1.12 million families. I don't know if this is accurate - the chart doesn't state whether this is the top 1% of wage earners, or the top 1% of all. But we will go with the larger number - 1% of all families.

So if you assume decrease of $340,000 in taxes for each of those families, that comes out to a total of ~$383 billion less that the treasury would take in, not accounting for any of the other brackets. In the last 2 years, since we have had Obama budgets, the deficits have been ~$1.3 trillion. For 2012, the projection is for $1.1 trillion. Even if you were to completely reverse those numbers, and charge the top 1% an additional $340,000, rather than cut that much, you would still run deficits close to $1 trillion.

The problem, my friend, is spending.


----------



## Guest (Dec 15, 2011)

Fsharpmajor said:


> There's a graph showing the percent changes under Gingrich's plan here:
> 
> *http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204336104577094910634122058.html*


You have to be a subscriber to see the graph. Is there any way you can cut and paste it?


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

(click to enlarge)

I'm not a subscriber either--maybe that doesn't matter if you live outside the USA.


----------



## Guest (Dec 15, 2011)

Fsharpmajor said:


> View attachment 2768
> 
> 
> (click to enlarge)
> ...


So what this tells me is that, under a flat tax, everybody gets a tax cut. The disparity in how much each group will save is based on how progressive a tax structure we have now - i.e. those in higher income brackets pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes than those in lower income brackets. So it makes sense that, if you go from a progressive tax system to a flat tax system, there will be a difference in how much less each group will get, as a percentage of their income.

And the thing is, the money belongs to nobody but the person who earned it - so by taxing less, we are merely letting people keep more of their income. Their is no taking from one group to give to another, unless you think in terms of entitlement programs "belonging" to people, or government spending being "owned" by anyone. But the second you start thinking of another person's money "belonging" to you, that is where we start to have problems - because who doesn't spend another person's money more freely than they would their own?


----------



## Scarpia (Jul 21, 2010)

DrMike said:


> And the thing is, the money belongs to nobody but the person who earned it - so by taxing less, we are merely letting people keep more of their income. Their is no taking from one group to give to another, unless you think in terms of entitlement programs "belonging" to people, or government spending being "owned" by anyone. But the second you start thinking of another person's money "belonging" to you, that is where we start to have problems - because who doesn't spend another person's money more freely than they would their own?


This is the mode of thinking which is going to destroy United States, the assumption that letting people keep more of their income is an unconditional benefit to the economy. Taxes now (as a fraction of GDP) are at the lowest level since 1950. Why isn't the economy doing great? Why should be assume that lowering them further will improve things?

It is informative to divide government spending into two rough categories, consumption and investment. Paying benefits to retired people, medicare/medicaid, invading foreign countries, these are consumption of resources. We can argue that they are justified, but they do not contribute to the development of the economy.

There are other expenditures which result in economic development. Examples of federal government investment which have been of enormous benefit in the past are transportation infrastructure (the interstate highway system) communication infrastructure (the internet), primary education, public universities, national research laboratories, funding of science, engineering and technology research. Taxes have been cut, the entitlements have only increased, the federal investments that have been responsible for the spectacular economic growth the US has experienced since WWII have been choked off. A recent NSF study concluded that, as a percentage of GDP, federal support of scientific and technology research has declined from 1.1% to 0.7% since the mid 1990's. That is a 30% cut over 15 years. Meanwhile, China has raised its science and technology budget to 1.5% of GDP, with the stated goal of increasing it to 2.5% of GDP by 2020.

It is certainly true that US wealth has come from the success of private enterprise. However, the technology sector in the US has benefited from federal support. You may argue that Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Robert Noyce, etc, were the visionaries that created wealth. But when they set of their companies, they built upon ideas that had been first conceived by people working with federal support, and they hired legions of scientist and engineers who had been trained in university research labs supported by the federal government. If federal support for science continues to evaporate, US technology companies will lose the advantage they had over overseas firms.

Where will that leave US citizens? I do not suggest that higher taxes are automatically the answer. But the US must continue to invest in the future, and we will have to find the money somewhere, either by raising taxes or by cutting expenditures on entitlements or other consumption. Not having a job takes the fun out of a lot tax rate.


----------



## Guest (Dec 15, 2011)

Once again we are facing a deadline to pass a continuing resolution to keep the government funded for another short period of time - the deadline is Friday. Why? Because the Senate has failed to pass a budget in over 2 years. Nothing. Nada. Zip. So we keep coming to this political brinkmanship, where hasty compromises are made last minute that ultimately nobody likes because nobody wants the government to shut down. All because the Senate won't get to work and pass a budget, or even put one forward that they can then use for bargaining with the House. The House has put forward budgets, but the Senate won't budge. Government agencies are hurting right now, because nobody can do any long term planning when the government only gets funded in short bursts. For all this talk about Democrats being pro-science, this problem is especially hitting science hard.


----------



## Scarpia (Jul 21, 2010)

DrMike said:


> Once again we are facing a deadline to pass a continuing resolution to keep the government funded for another short period of time - the deadline is Friday. Why? Because the Senate has failed to pass a budget in over 2 years. Nothing. Nada. Zip. So we keep coming to this political brinkmanship, where hasty compromises are made last minute that ultimately nobody likes because nobody wants the government to shut down. All because the Senate won't get to work and pass a budget, or even put one forward that they can then use for bargaining with the House. The House has put forward budgets, but the Senate won't budge. Government agencies are hurting right now, because nobody can do any long term planning when the government only gets funded in short bursts. For all this talk about Democrats being pro-science, this problem is especially hitting science hard.


The failure of the "supercommittee" means that science will be cut by 10%. Imagine that, 1 in 10 scientific research projects canceled next year. The "Ryan Budget" proposes to cut funding to science/technology research by at least 30% over the next few years. Almost a third of scientific research in the US canceled. Almost 1 in 3 students studying for PhDs in physics, chemistry, biology, material science, computer science, computer engineering, told their projects are canceled.

China is desperately trying to increase its science/technology power. They are spending huge sums but their main problem is that their best scientific talent comes to the US for their education and never returns. In their own universities they are lavishly supporting third-rate talent. Now, the US pulls the plug on science funding. You can expect a mass exodus of scientific talent from the US to China, the likes of which has not been seen since WWII when the European scientific establishment fled Europe to the US.


----------



## Guest (Dec 15, 2011)

Scarpia said:


> This is the mode of thinking which is going to destroy United States, the assumption that letting people keep more of their income is an unconditional benefit to the economy. Taxes now (as a fraction of GDP) are at the lowest level since 1950. Why isn't the economy doing great? Why should be assume that lowering them further will improve things?
> 
> It is informative to divide government spending into two rough categories, consumption and investment. Paying benefits to retired people, medicare/medicaid, invading foreign countries, these are consumption of resources. We can argue that they are justified, but they do not contribute to the development of the economy.
> 
> ...


http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
If you go to that link for the Tax Policy Center, you will see that, by 2005, tax revenues had already climbed back to higher than they had been prior to the Bush tax cuts. The recession has taken a toll, but we are still taking in more revenue now than we did prior to the Bush tax cuts. And it is more revenue - adjusted to either current dollars, or also showing adjusted to a fixed date (1995) dollar - than at any of those times when we spent so heavily on infrastructure. The problem is that entitlement programs are exploding, and crowding out most everything else, except for defense. If you want to spend more on infrastructure, you have to either run up deficits (which we are doing now at an alarming rate), cut spending elsewhere (and when has government ever willingly cut any kind of spending), or significantly raise revenues. Problem is, at the rate we are spending now, you would need to take in at least another trillion in revenues just to break even on spending. The government lost nowhere near that kind of revenue with the Bush tax cuts. Revenues, adjusted for today, in 2000 were $2.025 trillion. The lowest they got after the Bush tax cuts was $1.782 trillion. That is a difference of only $243 billion. That wouldn't even cut our current deficits by 1/4. It doesn't matter how much you want to raise taxes - government always comes up with some new way to spend the new money, in a way that is typically wasteful.

So we can blame tax cuts all we want, but until government starts prioritizing and spending responsibly, and cutting what we don't need, no amount of tax revenues in the world will ever be enough.


----------



## Guest (Dec 15, 2011)

Scarpia said:


> The failure of the "supercommittee" means that science will be cut by 10%. Imagine that, 1 in 10 scientific research projects canceled next year. The "Ryan Budget" proposes to cut funding to science/technology research by at least 30% over the next few years. Almost a third of scientific research in the US canceled. Almost 1 in 3 students studying for PhDs in physics, chemistry, biology, material science, computer science, computer engineering, told their projects are canceled.
> 
> China is desperately trying to increase its science/technology power. They are spending huge sums but their main problem is that their best scientific talent comes to the US for their education and never returns. In their own universities they are lavishly supporting third-rate talent. Now, the US pulls the plug on science funding. *You can expect a mass exodus of scientific talent from the US to China*, the likes of which has not been seen since WWII when the European scientific establishment fled Europe to the US.


I wouldn't count on that mass exodus. Regardless of whether they have the money, who wants to go live under a repressive regime? Chinese scientists are still coming here, despite the increased funding there. There has to be some reason. And why are we not yet seeing the beginnings of an exodus over there? From what you already said, there is already an imbalance. We have cut funding down to 0.7% of GDP, while China has increased to 1.5%. Why are they still coming here? We should already be seeing, at the very least, a slow-down in the flow of scientists from there to here, if not a reversal. Are we seeing signs of that yet?


----------



## Scarpia (Jul 21, 2010)

DrMike said:


> I wouldn't count on that mass exodus. Regardless of whether they have the money, who wants to go live under a repressive regime? Chinese scientists are still coming here, despite the increased funding there. There has to be some reason. And why are we not yet seeing the beginnings of an exodus over there? From what you already said, there is already an imbalance. We have cut funding down to 0.7% of GDP, while China has increased to 1.5%. Why are they still coming here? We should already be seeing, at the very least, a slow-down in the flow of scientists from there to here, if not a reversal. Are we seeing signs of that yet?


If US graduate schools accepted students solely based on academic merit virtually all of the students would be Chinese. Chinese students have to be put under quotas because a lot of the money that supports graduate students is earmarked for US citizens. It used to be that virtually all of the Chinese graduate students would stay in the US. Now, I'd say half are getting better offers from China and are going back. Repression in China applies to restless workers, not scientists. The students that accept offers from China seem to be going back to a much higher standard of living that scientists in the US.


----------



## Guest (Dec 15, 2011)

Scarpia said:


> If US graduate schools accepted students solely based on academic merit virtually all of the students would be Chinese. Chinese students have to be put under quotas because a lot of the money that supports graduate students is earmarked for US citizens. It used to be that virtually all of the Chinese graduate students would stay in the US. Now, I'd say half are getting better offers from China and are going back. Repression in China applies to restless workers, not scientists. The students that accept offers from China seem to be going back to a much higher standard of living that scientists in the US.


Oh, repression can apply to scientists as well. For example, where I went to school for my Ph.D., there was a Chinese scientist who was detained in China when he went back to visit his sick parents, because he was a practitioner of Falun Gong. The repression may not be specifically directed at scientists, but scientists are not immune.

At any rate, your earlier post made it sound like we would see an exodus of SCIENTISTS, not just Chinese scientists, to China. It is true that many scientists of other nationalities are in the U.S. because the money, and the research environment, are better. My graduate advisor, a native of London, passed up a faculty position in England for one in the U.S., in the deep South, because the facutly position in England would have meant a pay cut from what he was making as a postdoc in the U.S., the funding was tighter in England, and the animal rights laws would have restricted him from being able to conduct the kind of research on which he had based his career. And the cost of living was substantially lower in the U.S. There are numerous factors that determine where scientists end up. While increased funding might lure more Chinese scientists back to their native country, I doubt it will lure many others.


----------



## Scarpia (Jul 21, 2010)

DrMike said:


> At any rate, your earlier post made it sound like we would see an exodus of SCIENTISTS, not just Chinese scientists, to China. It is true that many scientists of other nationalities are in the U.S. because the money, and the research environment, are better. My graduate advisor, a native of London, passed up a faculty position in England for one in the U.S., in the deep South, because the facutly position in England would have meant a pay cut from what he was making as a postdoc in the U.S., the funding was tighter in England, and the animal rights laws would have restricted him from being able to conduct the kind of research on which he had based his career. And the cost of living was substantially lower in the U.S. There are numerous factors that determine where scientists end up. While increased funding might lure more Chinese scientists back to their native country, I doubt it will lure many others.


I don't think England is in any position to compete with the US for scientists. Germany has the Max Planck Institute, and other countries such as France and the Netherlands support science reasonably well, they may be able to hold their own as long as they can get their sovereign dept crisis under control.

Asia is the key for the US. Sure, Apple had Steve Jobs prancing on the stage in his black turtleneck. In the city of Cupertino California white people are a minority. It is a city with a majority of Asians, and where almost half the population has a graduate degree. If people from Asia stop coming to the US, the US tech industry will disappear. What will we be left with? Growing corn and celebrity sex videos?


----------



## Guest (Dec 16, 2011)

Scarpia said:


> I don't think England is in any position to compete with the US for scientists. Germany has the Max Planck Institute, and other countries such as France and the Netherlands support science reasonably well, they may be able to hold their own as long as they can get their sovereign dept crisis under control.
> 
> Asia is the key for the US. Sure, Apple had Steve Jobs prancing on the stage in his black turtleneck. In the city of Cupertino California white people are a minority. It is a city with a majority of Asians, and where almost half the population has a graduate degree. If people from Asia stop coming to the US, the US tech industry will disappear. What will we be left with? Growing corn and celebrity sex videos?


Again - China has already surpassed us in the percent of GDP they spend on science. Are we seeing the exodus beginning? As far as tech jobs go, I believe the pay is still better in the U.S. than in China. Other than a hypothetical exodus of people with advanced degrees out of this country, do you have any evidence that suggests this is happening, or that it will happen? There are numerous reasons why China is not very attractive. Sure, things will get better for Chinese scientists in China, but I think there are numerous factors behind going elsewhere for education, and then staying there. And so many of those factors simply can't be overcome by increased science funding. And currently, so much of the Chinese R&D industry is focused on pirating technology developed elsewhere.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Scarpia said:


> [...]
> What will we be left with? Growing corn and celebrity sex videos?


That could be done simultaneously.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Taxes / GDP adjusted for inflation is the relevant number. Of course tax revenues ordinarily go up over time: they'd better, or else it means we're having deflation or the economy isn't growing.

Which gets to another point: when the economy is down, tax revenues go down, but a lot of the government spending cannot respond to a recession like that. Barring some kind of really radical tax reform, tax revenues will go back up and the deficit will shrink a bit when the economy gets going again.

Of course that consideration holds true even if the government doesn't do the responsible thing and spend a bit to increase aggregate and get the economy going again. If we had a rational fiscal policy, the government would run large enough deficits during a recession to get the economy going (_especially_ if the government can borrow at negative real interest rates, as it has been able to do lately), and during the rest of the time the government would run a surplus. Instead we get Republican policy (running deficits because we won't tax ourselves and we don't give a flipping darn about deficits) in both recession and normal times.

(Of course the goal may be to drive the government into such debt that repaying Social Security is impossible, returning the working class to a position of dependency on their employer-patrons. If so, then running deficits in normal economies is good rational planning.)


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Re: Science - 

The GDP of China is barely 1/3 of the US and about 1/10th per capita, which means that the US should be paying scientists a lot more than China pays for a few decades. But of course China is growing faster than the US, so it's only a matter of time. 

In a few fields, such as probably medical tech, the US will be ahead of China probably for our entire lives. In some other fields we should expect China to get more advanced than the US, as Japan has done with robotics. China does have a big problems with intellectual freedom, and barring major political changes there the US will probably have greater intellectual freedom for a few more decades, but things are likely to get better in China, while some signs even point to that getting worse in the US. 

India will also be catching up, barring things like war with Pakistan. Fair chance that in a couple generations India becomes a bigger technological power than China. 

Although this is bad for the relative status of the US and maybe for the entire West, for humanity it is an unambiguously good thing. It's wonderful if we can triple or quadruple the number of people working on problems like energy technology, medicine (things like Alzheimer's, autism, new antibiotics, HIV/AIDS, prions, etc.), nano tech, materials, etc... 

The probable acceleration in scientific and technological knowledge will improve our lives in many, many ways.


----------



## Guest (Dec 16, 2011)

science said:


> Taxes / GDP adjusted for inflation is the relevant number. Of course tax revenues ordinarily go up over time: they'd better, or else it means we're having deflation or the economy isn't growing.
> 
> Which gets to another point: when the economy is down, tax revenues go down, but a lot of the government spending cannot respond to a recession like that. Barring some kind of really radical tax reform, tax revenues will go back up and the deficit will shrink a bit when the economy gets going again.
> 
> ...


Explain how deficit spending is a Republican policy. The last budget passed was when Democrats controlled the House, Senate, and White House - we have been running deficits that whole time. Clinton, the last Democrat in the White House, had deficits in 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997. He had surpluses in 1998, 1999, and 2000. Carter had deficits in all 4 years of his administration - 1977, 1978, 1979, and 1980. Johnson had deficits in 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, and 1968. Kennedy had deficits for his entire term - 1961, 1962, and 1963. I should point out that Democrats controlled the House for the majority of this time - not until the Republican Revolution of 1992.

Since 1940, there have been only 12 years when the U.S. ran with a surplus, not a deficit - 
1947, 1948, 1949, 1951 - Truman (D)
1956, 1957, 1960 - Eisenhower (R)
1969 - Nixon (R)
1998, 1999, 2000 - Clinton (D)
2001 - Bush (R)

So in 72 years, there have been 60 years of deficits. Democrats have been in the White House for 29 of those deficit years, Republicans for 31. That difference of 2 years hardly makes the case that deficit spending is a Republican policy.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

So...how does everyone feel about the USA's pull out in Iraq?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

violadude said:


> So...how does everyone feel about the USA's pull out in Iraq?


Move those boys and their stuff over to Afghanistan, stomp on the Taliban for a few months, then bring _everybody_ home - from everywhere they are - and study on what goes down for awhile. Hey, if deficit spending is really a good thing, let the EU build up its economy on defense spending for awhile.

:scold:


----------



## mtmailey (Oct 21, 2011)

harpsichordconcerto said:


> my observation is a number of members appear to come to tc to write significantly _more number of posts_ here in the community forum about religion, politics, social issues etc. Than they do about music in the music threads. Ths would suggest to me that perhaps other internet forums might be better suited for their passionate discussions. While we might get into heated discussions in other threads, at the very least, they are about _music_ and by members who, by and large, have written more posts here in tc about _music_ than they do about general mattters here in the community forum.
> 
> Just my two cents of crumbs.


you see in america we have the rights of freedom of speech and the freedom of press.


----------



## mtmailey (Oct 21, 2011)

violadude said:


> So...how does everyone feel about the USA's pull out in Iraq?


that is good news now money can be used to help the americans also there should not be anymore troops getting killed either.IRAQ should learn to do for self.also they the troops can spend time with family.


----------



## Guest (Dec 20, 2011)

Scarpia said:


> I don't think England is in any position to compete with the US for scientists. Germany has the Max Planck Institute, and other countries such as France and the Netherlands support science reasonably well, they may be able to hold their own as long as they can get their sovereign dept crisis under control.
> 
> Asia is the key for the US. Sure, Apple had Steve Jobs prancing on the stage in his black turtleneck. In the city of Cupertino California white people are a minority. It is a city with a majority of Asians, and where almost half the population has a graduate degree. If people from Asia stop coming to the US, the US tech industry will disappear. What will we be left with? Growing corn and celebrity sex videos?


Yet another reason why I don't think money alone is going to lure Chinese scientists back to China once they have tasted what life can be like outside of a repressive regime:


> Huang Jinqiu, a Chinese writer and dissident, has been released after eight years in prison. So, how did it go for him? This report gives us a whiff of it:
> 
> According to reliable sources, Huang, while in prison, was transferred to the Liyang Psychiatric Hospital in Changzhou because he appealed his sentence and refused to kneel on one knee while speaking with prison authorities. After being returned to prison, he was placed in the strict supervision block, where he was subjected to torture and physical and verbal abuse, including beating, being shocked with an electric baton on his legs and mouth, having his toes crushed, and solitary confinement. During this period, he was forced to run 150 laps a day on gravel, and, when he could not run anymore, was dragged through gravel, which tore through his clothes.
> 
> The abuses and torture resulted in torn cartilage in both of his knees and torn ligaments in his legs. He developed traumatic arthritis and inflammation of the joints. At his worst moment, he was unable to stand to walk and lost some of his ability to care for himself. The prison hospital refused him treatment.


----------

