Tax cuts vs. Minimum wage

[SobaViolence]

A minimum wage increase, the first in nearly a decade, got sidetracked yet again on Thursday when Senate Republicans tied its passage to a permanent estate tax cut for the wealthiest one percent of American families. Democrats refused to take the bait, and both measures failed.

The Republicans seem to be going out of their way to dramatize their passion for favoring the interests of the very richest over the livelihood of the working poor -- their brand of class warfare.

The federal minimum wage is now $5.15 an hour. In terms of purchasing power, that is its lowest level since the 1950s. The proposed legislation would raise the minimum to $7.25 by 2009.

Boston Globe via Commondreams (http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0805-20.htm)

[EN[i]GMA]

Thank God they both failed.

[Ace42X]

GMA']Thank God they both failed.

Your dogmatic phobia of a decent minimum wage reflects badly on you.

[EN[i]GMA]

Your dogmatic phobia of a decent minimum wage reflects badly on you.

I don't think it's ever been satisfactorally proven that a minimum wage increase won't either: increase unemployment among the poor, decrease wages among other workers, increase inflation, decrease employment elsewhere in the economy.

Until it can be shown that a minimum wage increase won't do those things (or at least not do them in destructive degrees) I can't support a minimum wage hike.

It's not as if I have 'dogmatic phobia' of the issue; it's that no study that I know of (including the Krueger and Card studies, that you never seem to bring up, even though they are perhaps the best current evidence for a minimum wage increase) proves that a wage increase doesn't cause at least one of these.

If you can link me to a study, I'd be more than happy to read it; but I think both of us know that no such evidence exists. I mean, I'm looking at the EPI's website right now and I'm less than convinved: http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage

Becuase on the other side: http://www.epionline.org/index_mw.cfm

The only response to the criticisms leveled against the minimum wage that I've found so far are in the FAQ:


Does the minimum wage cause job loss?
A 1998 EPI study failed to find any systematic, significant job loss associated with the 1996-97 minimum wage increase.

'Systematic, significant'.

Hardly resounding.

In fact, following the most recent increase in the minimum wage in 1996-97, the low-wage labor market performed better than it had in decades (e.g., lower unemployment rates, increased average hourly wages, increased family income, decreased poverty rates).

But we can't of course make the mistake of tying correlation with causation. The economy itself was strong then; very strong, I believe.

It makes sense that when the economy was performing better than it had been in decades, the poor would do better as well.

The 90's are almost universally regarded as a time of prosperity. Better evidence might be of a minimum wage increase in a sluggish economy; let's then look at countries with slower growing economies and high minimum wages. France, perhaps. France, of course has high unemployment and a high minimum wage. At the very least we can say the minimum wage doesn't reduce employment; I don't think it's a stretch at all to make the conclusion that the high cost of hiring new workers makes firms leery to hire. Whatever the case, a high minimum wage doesn't seem to help the young in France,

I mean, given France's high minimum wage, they should have almost no poverty and should be outperforming the US, correct?

But of course this is the case: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3496607.stm

Now I'm not presumptious enough to say it's solely minimum wage, or even primarily minimum wage that's causing these problems; but minimum wage certainly isn't fixing them, or even really alleviating them.

Granted, this is merely anecdotal evidence, but I've yet to find any actual case for an increase here. Can you make one?


Studies of the 1990-91 federal minimum wage increase, as well as to studies by David Card and Alan Krueger of several state minimum wage increases, also found no measurable negative impact on employment.

But of course there is this: http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg18n1c.html


Finally, a recent Fiscal Policy Institute (FPI) study of state minimum wages found no evidence of negative employment effects on small businesses.

'On small businesses'.

Again, without knowing how the study was set-up I can't critique it, but depending on the size of the business, getting rid of workers may not be an option at all.

A restaraunt can hardly go without a cook at all times, a cashier, a waiter, etc. But in the future, that firm may be less likely to hire due to it's increase payroll.

I can't, in any event, see how they would be more likely to hire.


New economic models that look specifically at low-wage labor markets help explain why there is little evidence of job loss associated with minimum wage increases. These models recognize that employers may be able to absorb some of the costs of a wage increase through higher productivity, lower recruiting and training costs, decreased absenteeism, and increased worker morale.

These models also ignore unemployment in other sectors, decreases in overall wages, and inflation.

Hardly the complete picture.

So in closing, if you have a constructive case to make, make it. Because for all your grandstanding in our last discussion on this matter you never actually proved how an increase would benefit. You don't ever provide studies (which leads me to believe you are ignorant of them), you don't provide data, you just harangue me, as if that somehow proves you correct. It doesn't.

I mean, just read some of the empirical evidence: http://www.epionline.org/mw_publications.cfm

Or discount it out of hand. Whichever is fine.

[Ace42X]

I am not going to get into a lengthy argument with you again, featuring bullshit talking points. You yourself provided links that pretty much make my case for me. And as much as you think that "no significant jobloss" is "hardly resounding", the evidence is here before our eyes.

The fact of the matter is that the US minimum wage is worth less than it has been for over half a century, and if you are going to argue that the US economy can't afford to keep its poorest citizens above the poverty line when other nations (such as mine) manage just fine, I'm gonna scoff. I don't care HOW many studies you cite that will try to tell me black is white, I'm still going to have to call bullshit on it.

Trade unions (certainly in the UK, and I guess elsewhere too) have been neutred, corrupted, circumvented and totally undermined. It is up to the government to look out for the electorate and challenge a way of life that has been structured by the rich and powerful for the rich and powerful.

And it is very easy for people who aren't on minimum wage and never will be to tell the people who are why it is necessary that they suffer. There were plenty of dogmatic bullshit arguments supporting slavery. The South made a big deal of the "practical necessity" of slavery, arguing that equitable treatment for the oppressed, whether commendable or no, would only end up making things worse for everyone, including the slaves.

It was bullshit then, and it is bullshit now. A company owner / manager won't voluntarily give up profits in order to help the staff, so he has to be made to. That simple.

[EN[i]GMA]

I am not going to get into a lengthy argument with you again, featuring bullshit talking points. You yourself provided links that pretty much make my case for me.

Yes...

I could have saved myself a lot of time and, instead of adding it at the end of my post, simply have written "Whatever I post you'll discount out of hand."

Would have been more economical, though also, I accordingly presume, more bunk.

And as much as you think that "no significant jobloss" is "hardly resounding", the evidence is here before our eyes.

In one study.

The findings of one study hardly provide resounding evidence, when contrasted with many studies that prove the opposite.


The fact of the matter is that the US minimum wage is worth less than it has been for over half a century, and if you are going to argue that the US economy can't afford to keep its poorest citizens above the poverty line when other nations (such as mine) manage just fine, I'm gonna scoff.

Well, if I were to argue that, I would expect you to scoff.

Luckily, that's not my argument at all.

A minimum wage does no good for the unemployed; no amount of minimum wage will keep those without jobs making enough to stay above any poverty line.

The reason your country keeps its citizens out of poverty has more to do with generous social welfare systems than minimum wage laws. I mean, you aren't even pretending like you can prove minimum wage, and not the social safety net or some other factor is the key to Britains' low poverty rate.

If it were minimum wage, France, which also has a high minimum wage, wouldn't be having these problems: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3496607.stm would it? And of course, to deal with this poverty, what is proposed by the expert council? Minimum wage increase? Nope. Social safety net increase. It seems as if they experts prefer that method of alleviating poverty. Maybe they know something you don't know?

And to further undermine your already feeble characterization of me as someone who has it out for the poor, I support raising the Earned Income Tax Credit for use in alleviating poverty.

So how am I arguing that "that the US economy can't afford to keep its poorest citizens above the poverty line" when I support proposals that would have the US economy purchase social aid for the poorest citizens?

Please tell me how I'm not trying to help the poor; I'm dying to know.


I don't care HOW many studies you cite that will try to tell me black is white, I'm still going to have to call bullshit on it.

Yes, that's me, arguing that 'black is white'.

What a cookie-cutter non-answer.

That's a lazy fill-in-the-blank response and you know it. You can use that anywhere, and it makes as much sense.

"Chomskyan Transformative Grammar is nonsense. I don't care HOW many studies you cite that will try to tell me black is white, I'm still going to have to call bullshit on it."

"Quantum Mechanics is nonsense. I don't care HOW many studies you cite that will try to tell me black is white, I'm still going to have to call bullshit on it."

Appeal to ridicule doesn't do anything but make you look ill-informed which, on this subject, I think you are.

A case can be made for increasing the minimum wage, you just don't make it. Ever. You don't even try. You don't cite studies that support you, because you haven't read them. You don't cite statistics, because you don't know any. You just flail around and bitch about 'poverty' and pretend like you're on the moral high-ground. That's all you ever do.


Trade unions (certainly in the UK, and I guess elsewhere too) have been neutred, corrupted, circumvented and totally undermined. It is up to the government to look out for the electorate and challenge a way of life that has been structured by the rich and powerful for the rich and powerful.

You talk, and you talk, and you talk, and yes, it all sounds very nice, but it doesn't mean anything.

Nothing at all.


And it is very easy for people who aren't on minimum wage and never will be to tell the people who are why it is necessary that they suffer.

But it's apparently easier for those pretending to care to propose a nostrum to assuage their own guilt while they harangue others.


There were plenty of dogmatic bullshit arguments supporting slavery.

There are plenty of dogmatic bullshit arguments in your post, including that one.


The South made a big deal of the "practical necessity" of slavery, arguing that equitable treatment for the oppressed, whether commendable or no, would only end up making things worse for everyone, including the slaves.

You are absolutely shameless.

It's an embarrassment, it really is. I feel embarassed for you, that you would stoop to this level of bullshit. Couple that with your farce of a vote and you come off as a pitiable fool.


It was bullshit then, and it is bullshit now. A company owner / manager won't voluntarily give up profits in order to help the staff, so he has to be made to. That simple.

That simple is it?

Since we'll of course get no where, I'll close with your words and leave you to refute yourself: I am not going to get into a lengthy argument with you again, featuring bullshit talking points.

[Ace42X]

GMA']I could have saved myself a lot of time

Quite. I know that you have a hard-on for right-wing economics in exactly the same way Racerstang has a hard-on for backwards religions.

A minimum wage does no good for the unemployed; no amount of minimum wage will keep those without jobs making enough to stay above any poverty line.

Indeed, and speed limits don't do any good for people who die of food poisoning.

The reason your country keeps its citizens out of poverty has more to do with generous social welfare systems than minimum wage laws. I mean, you aren't even pretending like you can prove minimum wage, and not the social safety net or some other factor is the key to Britains' low poverty rate.

Like all things, a combination of factors are at work. So yes, I am not pretending any strawman you feel the need to concoct in order to trot out the usual dogmatic bull. However, a decent minimum wage *does* mean that people who *ARE* employed are above the poverty line. 100% employment is meaningless if they are all paid chickenfeed. With a decent minimum wage, the problem of employment can be addressed on its own, rather than the problem of employment being irrelevent due to employment not easing any of the social problems associated with poverty.

If it were minimum wage, France, which also has a high minimum wage, wouldn't be having these problems:

Strawman. I never said minimum wage was a magic bullet. It is a specific tool for a specific purpose - preventing powerful employers from being able to dictate unfair terms onto the socially vulnerable. And in this capacity, it works relatively well, giving a real-world physical benefit to poor people.

So how am I arguing that "that the US economy can't afford to keep its poorest citizens above the poverty line" when I support proposals that would have the US economy purchase social aid for the poorest citizens?

Because that is one hell of a turn around from your frequent assertions that small-government and decreased regulation is preferable to one that tries to manage its citzenry. Purchasing social aid for the poor, rather than letting the poor work themselves out of poverty for a fair wage, is pretty much anthithetical to the viewpoints you have professed in the past. If you wish to formerly recant them, just like you recanted your Libertarian ideology, so much the better. Just do it so we can hear next time.

Yes, that's me, arguing that 'black is white'.

What a cookie-cutter non-answer.

Appeal to ridicule doesn't do anything but make you look ill-informed which, on this subject, I think you are.

And yet you are still trying to tell me a minimum wage doesn't alleviate poverty. I know people whose income has gone up substantially due to minimum wage, with them being paid several pounds an hour more, real money, and whose expenditure hasn't increased proportionately. If a study tries to tell me that isn't the case, it is wrong, and no amount of theorising changes that. Quite simply, they are better off because of minimum wage. You could argue that "hey, the companies would've voluntarily raised people's wages anyway to meet that!" - but of course I'd laugh and point to the numerous people living on the US minimum wage for whom companies have declined to raise their wages inline with inflation.

You don't even try.

You're right, I don't. I have gotten into numerous arguments with you where I have cited plenty of material, and all you did was sulk and gradually distance yourself from your position. No doubt you will grow out of this too on your own in your own time, just like you did with that liberty dollar nonsense.

You don't cite studies that support you, because you haven't read them. You don't cite statistics, because you don't know any.

We both know that statistics can be dressed up to mean anything you want them to. Take the Lancet study, for example, you google, and find someone interpreting them differently, and ignore it.

You yourself said there are studies going in both directions, and you have made your choice about which you want to lend credence to. Me showing the multiplicity of the sentiments will prove nothing. While it might give you great pleasure to think of me spending my free time going through incredibly dull pages of economics, it certainly does nothing for me. It's your fetish, not mine, and I don't buy into it.

You talk, and you talk, and you talk, and yes, it all sounds very nice, but it doesn't mean anything.

Nothing at all.

Rich coming from the person whose sole argument rests on voodoo economic theorising and dogmatism.

What it "means" is quite simple and clear. People working low-paid jobs get paid several pounds more for the same work, and as inflation has yet to over-take this and rob them of this bonus, and as no increase in unemployment has shifted this problem to a different demographic, it means they are better off for it. You can say "it's a strong economy that does it" - but of course you ignore the indisputable fact that, strong economy or no, companies do not voluntarily give away extra money out of the goodness of their non-existant hearts, and any CEO that did so would be cutting into profit margins, and thus be letting down shareholders and liable to expulsion.


But it's apparently easier for those pretending to care to propose a nostrum to assuage their own guilt while they harangue others.

There are plenty of dogmatic bullshit arguments in your post, including that one.

Perhaps you should look up dogmatism. I haven't actually referred to doctrine at all. You, in fact, criticised me for declining to. Make your mind up.

You are absolutely shameless.

And you're an opinionated loud-mouth who likes nothing better than to trot out boring reifications as an attempt to dress up your zealous ideology in a pseudo-intellectual venir. And you're as much of a prat for it now as you were two years ago before you recanting all that Liberty dollar and pro-gun nonsense.

It's an embarrassment, it really is. I feel embarassed for you, that you would stoop to this level of bullshit. Couple that with your farce of a vote and you come off as a pitiable fool.

Ahhh, moral indignation? Not a touch of hypocrisy in that there ad hominem, eh?

What you feel is upset that I don't stoop to your economic wet-dream fantasies like I used to, and am confronting you with tangible indisputable pragmatic facts. I know you and Q are both sad that I don't have time for you guys anymore, but if the best you can do is half-assed attempts to marginalise my opinion, you *should* feel embarrassed.

[EN[i]GMA]

Indeed, and speed limits don't do any good for people who die of food poisoning.

:rolleyes:


Like all things, a combination of factors are at work. So yes, I am not pretending any strawman you feel the need to concoct in order to trot out the usual dogmatic bull. However, a decent minimum wage *does* mean that people who *ARE* employed are above the poverty line.

Unless of course the wage isn't higher than the poverty line.

There's no point in going into inflation with you, as we both know where that will end up, but I'll simply mention it plays a role in tallying up a 'poverty line'.

100% employment is meaningless if they are all paid chickenfeed. With a decent minimum wage, the problem of employment can be addressed on its own, rather than the problem of employment being irrelevent due to employment not easing any of the social problems associated with poverty.

But it is of course much more difficult to solve the problem of employment when firms are unwilling to hire new workers due to the prohibitive cost.

As you said, there's a combination of factors. Minimum wage increases don't exist in isolation. They have costs.


Strawman. I never said minimum wage was a magic bullet. It is a specific tool for a specific purpose - preventing powerful employers from being able to dictate unfair terms onto the socially vulnerable.

The minimum wage doesn't just effect 'powerful' employers.

And in this capacity, it works relatively well, giving a real-world physical benefit to poor people.

To some poor people. It also causes inflation, can cause unemployment, and overall, has not been shown to alleviate poverty. Its gains are offset by other costs, and there is no clear-cut gain. Not for 'the poor' or for society as a whole.


Because that is one hell of a turn around from your frequent assertions that small-government and decreased regulation is preferable to one that tries to manage its citzenry.

An EITC is one of the more efficient forums of social welfare.

Milton Friedman preferred negative income tax to other forms of redistribution.

Purchasing social aid for the poor, rather than letting the poor work themselves out of poverty for a fair wage, is pretty much anthithetical to the viewpoints you have professed in the past.

An EITC is contingent upon work. That's a key reason I support it. It's rules are lax, I understand, but you are required to work.

If you wish to formerly recant them, just like you recanted your Libertarian ideology, so much the better. Just do it so we can hear next time.

I have no wish to "formerly" recant anything; I'm under no obligation to inform you of every time I change stances on policy.


And yet you are still trying to tell me a minimum wage doesn't alleviate poverty. I know people whose income has gone up substantially due to minimum wage, with them being paid several pounds an hour more, real money, and whose expenditure hasn't increased proportionately. If a study tries to tell me that isn't the case, it is wrong, and no amount of theorising changes that. Quite simply, they are better off because of minimum wage. You could argue that "hey, the companies would've voluntarily raised people's wages anyway to meet that!" - but of course I'd laugh and point to the numerous people living on the US minimum wage for whom companies have declined to raise their wages inline with inflation.

And for all your talk of me using strawmen, this is what you give me.

No study I've linked to has tried to tell you that your friends didn't net a few more g's a year. You know this, and yet you state that it like the studies I've linked to really say something that contradicts your little anecdote.

But this is still giving you too much credit. The majority of people in minimum wage work aren't even poor to begin with. Many of them are teenagers, 3rd wage earners, spouses of wage earners, etc.

It's very possible that I'll have a minimum wage job next summer, or during college; an increase in pay would certainly be nice, but I'm not in any dire need of it. In this case, the increase would only serve to make someone who is solidly middle class, going to attend college and make an advanced income, a little bit richer; to give me a little bit more spending money.

Now as much as the prospect appeals to me, I can't really say it's a matter of life or death.

So it's an obfuscation for you to point to 3rd wage earners, or spouses, or whatever, to call this a poverty reduction measure.

According to the study open in front of me, only 16% of minimum wage earners live in an impoverished family (1998 numbers).

So increasing the minimum wage may help to allevate poverty in 16% of cases. That of course is contingent on it not causing others to go below poverty due to unemployment, for inflation not to increase the povery line, etc.

So most minimum wage earners, the vast majority, are not poor in the first place.

Also, many of the poor are not minimum wage earners. According to data from a proposed 1999 1 dollar increase, 83% of workers would have been unaffected by the raise. Since the current proposal was 2 dollars, this number is obviously lower, but it still is not the majority of the poor. Again, many people in poor families do not rely on minimum wage earnings or earnings below the new wage, so they wouldn't be helped by an increase. You, of course, ignore this.

You can go on til you're blue in the face, if you'd like, but it doesn't change the fact that you are wrong. Mistaken. Incorrect. In the vast majority of cases, an increase in minimum wage would not do a thing to allevate poverty. In the rest of the cases, an overall benefit has never been established. Say their wages are increased, but they lose money from the EITC. They may lose money, overall. You leave this sort of thing out, but it happens all the time.

If the increase in money takes them off of government assistance, they may be much poorere as a result.

Again, you ignore this, and again, an increase in the minimum wage has not been shown to allevate poverty. Get off it.


You're right, I don't. I have gotten into numerous arguments with you where I have cited plenty of material, and all you did was sulk and gradually distance yourself from your position. No doubt you will grow out of this too on your own in your own time, just like you did with that liberty dollar nonsense.

Perhaps; but any change would be based on evidence and effects demonstrated by studies.

As it stands now, there is not a good case for increasing the minimum wage. There just isn't. You may say this isn't the case, you may protest all you like, but the evidence simply is not there, or at least, I've not found it.


We both know that statistics can be dressed up to mean anything you want them to. Take the Lancet study, for example, you google, and find someone interpreting them differently, and ignore it.

You yourself said there are studies going in both directions, and you have made your choice about which you want to lend credence to. Me showing the multiplicity of the sentiments will prove nothing. While it might give you great pleasure to think of me spending my free time going through incredibly dull pages of economics, it certainly does nothing for me. It's your fetish, not mine, and I don't buy into it.

One can look at studies, their methodologies, their results, and discuss and interpet points, etc.

There can be disagreement and dissent. But when you don't even have an inkling of evidence backing you up (and you don't; if you did, you would have posted it by now), you aren't really in a position to criticise.


Rich coming from the person whose sole argument rests on voodoo economic theorising and dogmatism.

What it "means" is quite simple and clear. People working low-paid jobs get paid several pounds more for the same work, and as inflation has yet to over-take this and rob them of this bonus, and as no increase in unemployment has shifted this problem to a different demographic, it means they are better off for it. You can say "it's a strong economy that does it" - but of course you ignore the indisputable fact that, strong economy or no, companies do not voluntarily give away extra money out of the goodness of their non-existant hearts, and any CEO that did so would be cutting into profit margins, and thus be letting down shareholders and liable to expulsion.

Over the last 5 years minimum wage employees have received median wage growth of over 10%.

That alone is evidence that companies do give out money to minimum wage workers, up and above the minimum wage, after a period of time working for the company.

It happens.


But it's apparently easier for those pretending to care to propose a nostrum to assuage their own guilt while they harangue others.

An impressive sentence, huh?

I commend you for re-using it.


Perhaps you should look up dogmatism.

"Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles."

I haven't actually referred to doctrine at all. You, in fact, criticised me for declining to. Make your mind up.

You are dogmatic ("Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles.").

Your views on minimum wage are authoratative, arrogant assertions on unproven principals.

It fits exactly.


And you're an opinionated loud-mouth who likes nothing better than to trot out boring reifications as an attempt to dress up your zealous ideology in a pseudo-intellectual venir. And you're as much of a prat for it now as you were two years ago before you recanting all that Liberty dollar and pro-gun nonsense.

Yes, but now I'm a right prat.


Ahhh, moral indignation? Not a touch of hypocrisy in that there ad hominem, eh?

Not indignation, just pity for your shameful displays.


What you feel is upset that I don't stoop to your economic wet-dream fantasies like I used to, and am confronting you with tangible indisputable pragmatic facts.

Like how minimum wage would allevate poverty, when only 16% of the poor are on minimum wage, and an increase in minimum wage would take them off of many of the government sponsored hand-outs they depend on, like health care, child care, food stamps, EITC, etc, would cause more unemployment among the poor, would increase inflation, helping to remove their gains, and would do more to help middle class teens? Are those the 'tangible indisuptable pragmatic facts' you are talking about? Because they should be.

I know you and Q are both sad that I don't have time for you guys anymore, but if the best you can do is half-assed attempts to marginalise my opinion, you *should* feel embarrassed.

If this is all you can do, I'm not sad about any debates we've missed.

This was a poor showing, even from you.

[yeahwho]

Taxman vs. Batman (http://www.ezarchive.com/berkeleyplace/AlbumSpace/M35350K83/To+the+Taxmobile*21+*28Batman*29.mp3) Biatch!

[racer5.0stang]

Quite. I know that you have a hard-on for right-wing economics in exactly the same way Racerstang has a hard-on for backwards religions.

You are the one with the backwards belief structure based solely on what you think is right.

[valvano]

You are the one with the backwards belief structure based solely on what you think is right.

pay no attention to ace...his mommy and daddy are getting ready to send him to summer anime camp, he's been a good boy round the house lately, cleaning up after himself, walking the dog. he's not embarrassed that he'll be the oldest camper there.


BTW, find it funny that U2 have transferred most of the business dealings to Holland as a result of Ireland's high taxes on artist:

http://www.atu2.com/news/article.src?ID=4330

I'm a huge U2, seen them on nearly ever tour since UF, but can't help think to how much the railed against the rich on the JT tour and the almight dollar, now we find them moving their millions around to escape taxes...

[Schmeltz]

I honestly can't be bothered to wade through valvano's grammatical incoherence in the hope of phrasing some kind of message that his apparently severely damaged brain would find comprehensible, nor can I be tasked to spare the time required to dissect the deluge of verbiage produced by our friends Ace and Enigma. Rather, allow me to enunciate the following rebuttal to racerstang's sole point relevant to the discussion:


You are the one with the backwards belief structure based solely on what you think is right.


No, that would be you. Ass-backwards throwback to the Dark Ages that you are.

That is all.

[Bob]

You are the one with the backwards belief structure based solely on what you think is right.

every human being does this

[EN[i]GMA]

every human being does this

Exactly.

Who's going to base a belief system on what they personally believe is wrong?

"You just believe what you believe because you think it's right!"

No shit.

Would you prefer it if I believed things that I thought were wrong?

[racer5.0stang]

GMA']Would you prefer it if I believed things that I thought were wrong?

Most people do that as well.

For instance, you believe that George Bush is President but you may think that he is wrong on whatever level. Or you could believe that God exists but you may think that you are the only one who knows it.

In reference to my statement, I was trying to convey the idea that Ace merely believes what HE thinks is right regardless of what proof exists to disput his idea or what proof does not exist to support it.

every human being does this

That is true but without some sort of proof to support what I THINK is right or wrong, it is nothing more than an opinion.

I honestly can't be bothered to wade through valvano's grammatical incoherence in the hope of phrasing some kind of message that his apparently severely damaged brain would find comprehensible, nor can I be tasked to spare the time required to dissect the deluge of verbiage produced by our friends Ace and Enigma. Rather, allow me to enunciate the following rebuttal to racerstang's sole point relevant to the discussion:

The above statement is after the use of spell and grammer check as well as the use of a thesaurus.

This is what the statement began as:

i honestli caint be complainin abuot when valvons spellin and speekin means to me. i hav a hard time speekin on such things whith me brain that makes me sound impotent. Maybe affer i lern to spel and speek peeple will like mi. im not a smart man butt i kno what spel chek is.

[EN[i]GMA]

Most people do that as well.

For instance, you believe that George Bush is President but you may think that he is wrong on whatever level. Or you could believe that God exists but you may think that you are the only one who knows it.

What the fuck?

Is anyone else reading what I'm reading?


That is true but without some sort of proof to support what I THINK is right or wrong, it is nothing more than an opinion.

What you 'think' is right is only ever an opinion; that's what it is, by definition.


The above statement is after the use of spell and grammer check as well as the use of a thesaurus.

You are the one in need of that grammer checker.

And the spell checker.


This is what the statement began as:

i honestli caint be complainin abuot when valvons spellin and speekin means to me. i hav a hard time speekin on such things whith me brain that makes me sound impotent. Maybe affer i lern to spel and speek peeple will like mi. im not a smart man butt i kno what spel chek is.

That was hilarious.


I can't even believe I wasted the time to respond to him.

[D_Raay]

The above statement is after the use of spell and grammer check as well as the use of a thesaurus.

This is what the statement began as:

i honestli caint be complainin abuot when valvons spellin and speekin means to me. i hav a hard time speekin on such things whith me brain that makes me sound impotent. Maybe affer i lern to spel and speek peeple will like mi. im not a smart man butt i kno what spel chek is.

Is this some sort of little joke that only you are privy to?

[Schmeltz]

:confused:

I'm pretty sure that was some kind of dig at me, but I remain utterly bewildered as to its intended message.


I was trying to convey the idea that Ace merely believes what HE thinks is right regardless of what proof exists to disput[e] his idea or what proof does not exist to support it.


Rather ironic coming from somebody who clings stubbornly to what he thinks is right in spite of the mountains of scientific and historical evidence that disprove it, and the paltry, insubstantial shreds of fact that do support it.

[racer5.0stang]

:Rather ironic coming from somebody who clings stubbornly to what he thinks is right in spite of the mountains of scientific and historical evidence that disprove it, and the paltry, insubstantial shreds of fact that do support it.

If such evidence existed, then the Bible would be tossed aside much like a T.V. guide. Christians would stop reading it and stop going to church. CNN and Fox News would have a field day with the story. Reporters would stop having guests on their shows debating between creationism and evolution.

But anyone with cable can turn on the T.V. and see the Bible being preached. CNN and Fox News still have a field day. Reporters are still debating between the two.

These changes should be happening all over the world. But since they are not, your "mountains of scientific and historical evidence" must in fact, not exist.

I'm pretty sure that was some kind of dig at me, but I remain utterly bewildered as to its intended message.

I'm sure that is a common response to most people.

[Schmeltz]

If such evidence existed, then the Bible would be tossed aside much like a T.V. guide.


It's a shame that you apparently consider your own sacred text to hold no value simply because it no longer jives with scientific and historical knowledge. Why should the Bible be dispensed with simply because its accounts of the creation, the Deluge, and the Exodus have been decisively disproven? The Bible, in both its Old and New Testaments, contains much of moral and spiritual worth and the text constitutes a formative influence on the development of Western culture and philosophy. I would consider it among the foremost cornerstones of Western intellectual development of the last two millennia.

It's your radical fundamentalist interpretation of the text that ought to be discarded out of hand, not the text itself. But I don't expect you to think that deeply, given the stirring logical fallacy that accompanied your last post.


I'm sure that is a common response to most people.


You mean from most people.

[racer5.0stang]

It's a shame that you apparently consider your own sacred text to hold no value simply because it no longer jives with scientific and historical knowledge. Why should the Bible be dispensed with simply because its accounts of the creation, the Deluge, and the Exodus have been decisively disproven?

If those accounts are not true, then the rest cannot be true. Even if the text contains some parts that hold truth, how could you determine what is true and what is not.

In order the Bible to be the word of God it must be true in it's entirety.

It holds no importance if you or I can not determine what is true and what is not.

[Schmeltz]

If those accounts are not true, then the rest cannot be true.


Why not? Paul's Epistles hold no moral or spiritual value because the Deluge is just a story? The teachings of Jesus are to be discarded because Abraham is a fictional creation? The beauty of the Psalms is diminished because the Hebrews never lived in Egypt? What's more important - the lesson of Jonah and the bottle-gourd plant, or the reality of its occurrence? Is it more important that Adam and Eve actually existed, or that their story of humanity's distance from God and our need for redemption touches on the spiritual needs of anybody, anytime, anywhere?

In order for the Bible to be the word of God, you have only to look within it for those aspects of the text in which God shows himself to you most clearly. If the only way for you to find a measure of truth in the text is for it to be literally true when it cannot be - and, so sorry, it simply cannot - then I think you're missing the point. Determine for yourself what is literally true and what is not, and what is spiritually true and what is not. Look at science and history alongside the Bible. If you do that, you'll find that they don't really contradict one another - only superficially. Spiritually, I don't see why you couldn't find a reconciliation. Unless, of course, your rigid fanatical fundamentalism blinds you to all but one level of a profound and deeply interpretive text.

[racer5.0stang]

If the only way for you to find a measure of truth in the text is for it to be literally true when it cannot be - and, so sorry, it simply cannot - then I think you're missing the point.

There is no "measure" of truth. Truth, in order to be truth, must be 100% or it is tainted and not whole.

If the text is not literally true in all aspects whether physical or spiritual then the text is false and deserves no attention. Why base your beliefs on partial lies or partial truths?

I am curious why you believe that the Bible cannot be literally true.

Look at science and history alongside the Bible.

I do. You see, the Bible uses science as part of the equation while science does not use the Bible. Science cannot explain or define God so therefore God, according to science, does not exist. Which is why we have theories such as Evolution and The Big Bang.

If you do that, you'll find that they don't really contradict one another - only superficially.

Unless you believe in ID, they do in many instances. Even Intellegent Design is far fetched, to say the least.

[D_Raay]

theories such as Evolution

What do you mean theory? Scientists all agree 100% with this "theory", as you call it. Their only disagreement is in the smaller cyclical things that they need to know more on.

I remember Bush saying the "jury was still out" on evolution. Is that where you got this notion?

What jury? Where? Whenever someone starts to preach to me about evolution being just a theory, I pull out a fossil. If they continue after that I throw it just over their head.

[racer5.0stang]

What do you mean theory? Scientists all agree 100% with this "theory", as you call it. Their only disagreement is in the smaller cyclical things that they need to know more on.

Actually, no they don't. Maybe just the ones who you choose to listen to.

I remember Bush saying the "jury was still out" on evolution. Is that where you got this notion?

I seem to vaguely remember that but I am not sure of the context around it. But to answer your question, no I did not set my beliefs around Bush.

What jury? Where? Whenever someone starts to preach to me about evolution being just a theory, I pull out a fossil. If they continue after that I throw it just over their head.

You pull out a fossil and what? Explain how it was preserved?

[Schmeltz]

Truth, in order to be truth, must be 100% or it is tainted and not whole.


This is empty, worthless dogma no different from fundamentalist Islam. Your understanding of "truth" is rigid and simplistic, and it doesn't offer much room for growth or the development of a more complex perception. I pity that about you, if it is indeed true.


If the text is not literally true in all aspects whether physical or spiritual then the text is false and deserves no attention.


Why? Why would the metaphysical aspect of one part detract from the spiritual or moral value of another? Aesop's Fables are mythology from start to finish, but there are still messages of value contained in them relevant to both our culture and that which created them. Again, your insistence on the attachment of literal truth to stories meant to inspire the spirit is regressive and detracts from the message of the text. Shame, really.


I am curious why you believe that the Bible cannot be literally true.


Scientific enquiry, which has as its stated goal the objective and skeptical study of natural phenomena, and historical enquiry, which has as its stated goal the dispassionate investigation of the human past, have disproved the literal truth of significant portions of the Bible. In particular the creation myth described in the Bible has been debunked in detail. The myth of the Deluge has likewise been proven to be no more than just that. And the stories of the Hebrew Exodus and the establishment of the Israelite kingdom have been demonstrated to be total fabrications with no material evidence to support them, and much to detract from them. These conclusions are indisputable and the fundamentalist attempt to scientifically unseat them is laughable and fraught with a total ignorance of scientific methodology.


I do.


Mmmm... no, you don't. You are beginning with a stated premise and discarding out of hand any information, however strongly established, does not jive with your preconception. You have defined an extremely narrow frame of reference for your ability to assess not only information but, I suspect, reality itself. Again, go ahead if you find that attractive, but I can't possibly imagine why anybody would.


Even Intellegent Design is far fetched


Ah, I see we agree on something.

[D_Raay]

You pull out a fossil and what? Explain how it was preserved?

How ironic that you missed my joke about something going over your head by my joke going over your head.

Ever heard of the Scopes trial there racer? And what scientists are you talking about that don't believe in evolution?

[Funkaloyd]

If the text is not literally true in all aspects whether physical or spiritual then the text is false and deserves no attention.Columbus believed the world was spherical, and believed he'd reached the East Indies. He hadn't made it to the East Indies, therefore the world is flat.

[racer5.0stang]

Columbus believed the world was spherical, and believed he'd reached the East Indies. He hadn't made it to the East Indies, therefore the world is flat.

His discovery of America does not change the truth of the earth being spherical nor would his ignorance of believing to discover the East Indies change the shape of the earth.

[Schmeltz]

Thanks for the response, racer.

[racer5.0stang]

This is empty, worthless dogma no different from fundamentalist Islam.

Other than the fact that you don't see any Christians high-jacking planes in order to kill thousands of people to ignorantly serve a false god who according to someone rewards with nothing more than the lust of the flesh. There is a "god" that the Bible talks about that rules this world and his tactics are the lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and the pride of life.

Seventy two virgins as a reward falls in there somewhere.

Your understanding of "truth" is rigid and simplistic, and it doesn't offer much room for growth or the development of a more complex perception.

The truth is often a straight and narrow road. The curves come in when the truth tells us something that we don't like or agree with and we try and alter it. These changes still do not affect the truth only how we respond to it.

Why?

A book that is claimed to be inspired of God cannot hold any errors.

Aesop's Fables are mythology from start to finish, but there are still messages of value contained in them relevant to both our culture and that which created them.

Yes, but Aesop does tell us what our purpose is here on this earth. Nor does he expound upon the one choice that we must make that determines where we will spend eternity.

I agree that there are alot of good books that have been written over the years that hold significant meaning. In our day and time there is only one book that holds the true meaning of life and only one book that can feed us physically but most importantly, spiritually.

Scientific enquiry

Knowledge that is based merely on what man thinks. Man at one time thought that the earth was flat and that was proven wrong. How long will it be before the same happens with the theory of evolution?

In particular the creation myth described in the Bible has been debunked in detail.

What exactly debunked creation described by the Bible?

You are beginning with a stated premise and discarding out of hand any information, however strongly established, does not jive with your preconception.

I find it more profitable to put my faith in God rather than man. If this makes me backwards in the self proclaimed intellegent groups, then so be it.

Thanks for the response, racer.

My apologies for the delay. Time is a luxury that we expect to have plenty of and often find that we have less than we thought.

[Schmeltz]

you don't see any Christians high-jacking planes in order to kill thousands of people


I see Christians lobbying their political leaders to create military forces that take the lives of dozens of people at a time, hundreds of times a day. The Christians don't need to hijack the planes, they merely pay for them. And they do exponentially more damage than the terrorists could ever hope to.


These changes still do not affect the truth only how we respond to it.


What's the difference? You cannot demonstrate the hard consequences afforded to those who choose one version of philosophical truth over another. There is no evidence available in favour of your position - unless you have managed to construct a case in your spare time, when many of the most sophisticated thinkers in the history of civilization have failed to do so.


A book that is claimed to be inspired of God cannot hold any errors.


But the errors that it holds can be objectively demonstrated. How do you account for that?


In our day and time there is only one book that holds the true meaning of life


What a monumentally ignorant thing to say.


Man at one time thought that the earth was flat and that was proven wrong.


I am more than positive that our current understanding of evolution will eventually be redefined as new discoveries and investigative results come to light. I am equally sure that the Western (and, indeed, the collective human) understanding of history, politics, philosophy, and spirituality will make enormous strides beyond our ability to understand, in coming generations. The fact that our understanding of reality becomes more complex and refined over long periods of time ought to give your narrow, ignorant frame of reference pause. I see little difference between your religious framework and that of ancient men, grasping at mythological supserstition to explain phenomena that they could not be bothered to investigate objectively. But the difference is that people were able to learn, at some point, that the earth was not flat, just as people now are able to discern that their understandings of reality are more complex than the terms they can currently use to define them. Except, of course, for absolutists like yourself.


What exactly debunked creation described by the Bible?


Shit, man. This is the information age. Must you act like a toddler?


I find it more profitable to put my faith in God rather than man.


Rather than profitable, you mean masturbatory. I suppose I can understand that, on one level.


Time is a luxury


Ah, once again we can agree on at least one thing.

[Bob]

A book that is claimed to be inspired of God cannot hold any errors.

couldn't that be an error?

[Bob]

what about posts on message boards? does that criteria apply to them, too? because god just inspired me, hang on, let me write down what he said;

"The color orange is a sinful color, and those who partake of it shall be punished with eternal indigestion. Onions are a blessed fruit, thou shalt partake of them daily"

i dunno, doesn't make much sense to me, but hell it's god, who am i to argue with it?

i mentioned i'm a prophet earlier, right? i'm sure i did. anyway there you go. god's truth, go with it

[racer5.0stang]

But the errors that it holds can be objectively demonstrated. How do you account for that?

What errors are you refering to?

I see Christians lobbying their political leaders to create military forces that take the lives of dozens of people at a time, hundreds of times a day.

What military forces and for what purpose(s)?

What a monumentally ignorant thing to say.

The point I was making is that while we consider the Bible to be one book it is actually comprised of several books written over time.

According to your statement, do you know of another?

I am more than positive that our current understanding of evolution will eventually be redefined

I'm sure it will, much like the theories in the past such as the Big Bang, for instance.

But the difference is that people were able to learn

No, as I said before people didn't like the truth so they decided to change it. Our society is trying to explain life; past, present, and future without God. I agree that people are able to learn and our knowledge in our day and age has exceeded any other civilization in times past. But without God, we can't explain where we came from or where we are going.

Take history for example. Who is to say that history that is taught in our schools today is accurate? What would stop these people who penned this information from changing the accuracy of the events in order to benefit themselves or simply because they didn't like it? The same can be said about science. What would stop scientists from changing data that originally did not support their theory?

I guess faith comes in various forms, whether we want to admit it or not.

Shit, man. This is the information age. Must you act like a toddler?

Sure I could do a search, but that wouldn't give me your opinion which is what I asked for.

i mentioned i'm a prophet earlier, right? i'm sure i did.

If you are sure, then why did you ask?

[Echewta]

anyone here make minimun wage?

[Schmeltz]

What errors are you refering to?


The Biblical accounts of the creation of the earth, the Israelite Exodus, and the Deluge are some examples: these are not factual accounts, but mythological stories discounted by all the available scientific and historical evidence. The investigation of the past has revealed that the Bible's claims about these matters are erroneous. Factually impaired.


What military forces and for what purpose(s)?


Your country's forces in Iraq, and stealing oil.

[/quote]
According to your statement, do you know of another?
[/quote]

I know of no book that contains the answer to life, the universe, and everything (except for The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy). Nor do I believe that such an answer exists. Each of us imbue our lives with whatever meaning we choose.


No, as I said before people didn't like the truth so they decided to change it.


So the world really is flat? God is not necessary for anything whatsoever, that is simply your own prejudice talking. You define everything on the basis of that starting premise and your worldview is consequentially severely limited, to the point where in an age that produces more literate media than any other you consider all meaningful knowledge to be condensed into a single volume of highly dubious factual accuracy and decidedly archaic vintage.


Who is to say that history that is taught in our schools today is accurate?


Ah, now you're thinking objectively! That's the spirit! Any school worth its salt teaches, along with a factual body of scientific or historical knowledge, that all knowledge is to be absorbed with a healthy dose of skepticism. Not just in case some faceless conspiratorial college of scientists and historians is busily rewriting things to suit some unspecified personal or political agenda (your suggestion borders on the farcical), but in order to remain intellectually attuned to the refinement and redefinition of one's understanding based on new progress in interpretation or material discovery.

In actuality, I do not accept anything on faith and I make it a practice to subject my interpretations of the world to skepticism and ongoing investigation. I often find that newer or more reliable information compels me to rethink or alter my positions on many issues - something I am sure is well outside your ability to imagine.


anyone here make minimun wage?


Not anymore. I got mad skills now.

[Bob]

anyone here make minimun wage?

not since i was 16, and then i just spent it on CD's because i was still in high school

If you are sure, then why did you ask?

i dunno, i'm just a man, i'm not perfect. god though, god's pretty perfect, i talk to him alot.

[racer5.0stang]

The Biblical accounts of the creation of the earth, the Israelite Exodus, and the Deluge are some examples: these are not factual accounts, but mythological stories discounted by all the available scientific and historical evidence. The investigation of the past has revealed that the Bible's claims about these matters are erroneous. Factually impaired.

I wonder if the available scientific evidence you are refering to is the same scientific evidence stating that all life "miraculously" evolved. It would seem that the only thing that evolved is the theory not the evidence. But you have sparked my curiousity and I would like a reference concerning the Exodus and why you say it didn't happen.

Your country's forces in Iraq, and stealing oil.

Stealing from the rich and giving to...? I just paid $2.92 per gallon for 87 octane. It would be nice if there were some sort of kick back for the war in Iraq, but so far there has only been higher taxes and higher fuel charges.

Each of us imbue our lives with whatever meaning we choose.

Wouldn't that be nice. Unfortunately, nothing could be farther from the truth.

Matthew 7:13, 14

13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

God is not necessary for anything whatsoever, that is simply your own prejudice talking.

For life to exist, even in it's simpliest form, God is necessary for it's creation and it's ability to continue to exist. To believe otherwise, is the greatest error of all.

Colossians 1:16, 17

16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

something I am sure is well outside your ability to imagine.

If that were the case, I would be in agreement with you on such issues as creation and so forth. I like to think outside of the box. The box being the finite limitations of man which construct the boundaries of his wisdom. Not that I am some great thinker, but that, God who is infinite, holds greater wisdom than man and his entire existance on this earth.

anyone here make minimun wage?

Not since last week, I got a raise. I'm at $5.50 now. See what happens when you work hard at McDonald's!!

i talk to him alot.

Glad to hear it.

[Schmeltz]

I wonder if the available scientific evidence you are refering to is the same scientific evidence stating that all life "miraculously" evolved.


I don't know of any such evidence, but I have studied some that states that life evolved gradually. I suppose there is a bit of the miraculous about the whole thing, on one level, but certainly not in the spurious sense of a divine intervention.


But you have sparked my curiousity and I would like a reference concerning the Exodus and why you say it didn't happen.


Good works with which to start are Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times by Donald Redford and The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein. You can probably find them at the "library", which is a place that stores books that are not the Bible.


It would be nice if there were some sort of kick back for the war in Iraq


Well, one wasexpected. As I recall, the leadup to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 was replete with glowing predictions by neoconservative pundits to the effect that American troops would be welcomed as liberators by a grateful Iraqi citizenry, who would swiftly move to enshrine the principles of democracy and equality in their new constitution and pay for the reconstruction of their own country (at great profit to American corporations) through massively expanded oil production.

Hindsight, eh?


Unfortunately, nothing could be farther from the truth.
...
To believe otherwise, is the greatest error of all.


You have here made two very bold assertions that purport to resolve some fairly major philosophical points of contention. But all you have offered in support of your position is quotes from a text whose historicity and factual accuracy is highly disputable. Your private belief system is a poor substitute for objective, logical, reasonable argument - particularly so for me, since I used to conform to it myself but now consider it archaic, repressive, and fundamentalist. If you wish to prove that a God is necessary for the maintenance of natural life cycles, you'll have to do a whole hell of a lot better than that.


I like to think outside of the box.


This is amusing. In fact, your box is one of the smallest in the world.* I will agree with you on the point that our intellects are subject to finite limitations that represent boundaries of a sort to our collective wisdom, but your approach to this problem is deeply, deeply flawed. Instead of seeking to transcend these limitations, which is perfectly possible and must necessarily constitute the goal of any intellectually productive individual or society, you create more of them through your refusal to consider any kind of information that does not conform to them in the first place. You have created, for yourself, intellectual boundaries far more finite and limited than those with which we are naturally endowed. If that's your choice, so be it - but I really don't hold any respect for such a position.

*Wow, I wish there was a different way to say that.