Evidence for God from Science

I don't think you'll get too many votes to raise gasoline taxes from your fellow Americans.

It wouldn't have zero effect, but the effect would be minor. Government's ability to manipulate marketplace decisions is poor and imprecise. And what jcg may not have realized is that the people who would be most affected - directly and indirectly - would be those at the lower end of the economic scale. They would suddenly be paying much more of their earnings for the same quantity of a necessary commodity that once cost much less. Those who could not afford it would be forced into public transit, which can take 2x-4x as long to get somewhere, and is far less flexible (i.e. their freedom to better themselves by working multiple jobs or taking college classes would be severely limited at best). The higher fuel tax would also increase the price of necessaries such as food, clothing, and other goods, because the fuel needed to produce and transport those goods would be far more expensive. People who are reasonably well off may or may not notice such price increases, but less well of people will suffer by the increased prices.

Effects like this are variously termed The Law of Unintended Consequences or Stage One Thinking (i.e. failing to think of the consequences of an action beyond Stage 1, the intended effect).

PeteSinCA wrote:Effects like this are variously termed The Law of Unintended Consequences or Stage One Thinking (i.e. failing to think of the consequences of an action beyond Stage 1, the intended effect).

Sort of like (no, more like precisely) Obamacare?

Byblos wrote:

PeteSinCA wrote:Effects like this are variously termed The Law of Unintended Consequences or Stage One Thinking (i.e. failing to think of the consequences of an action beyond Stage 1, the intended effect).

Sort of like (no, more like precisely) Obamacare?

I'm starting to think Obama knew his Obamacare would fail. One step closer to the single payer system, and govt run healthcare.

Like Rick, Byblos, I'm seriously unsure. ObamaCare (is that back to being a racist term?) has considerable and very real potential to do severe damage to healthcare in the US, by injecting confusion, complicating healthcare, increasing providers' costs, breaking long established relationships between providers and patients, significantly increasing consumers' (i.e. patients') costs, and exposing consumers to serious risk of identity theft. And, oh, yeah, the Healthcare.gov site is so bleeping unworkable that even now Pres. Obama's minions couldn't successfully manage the very basic publicity stunt of signing up Mr. Obama for ObamaCare ("All the President's horses and all the President's men couldn't put ObamaCare back together again"? Not that it's ever been together).

Getting to the point, Pres. Obama, like many others of liberal-Progressive bent believes, ultimately, in "single payer" healthcare - i.e. government-run (or "socialized") "healthcare". So I'm not convinced doing severe damage to the previously existing healthcare system in the US is unintended or a failure to think beyond Stage 1, since "single payer" "healthcare" will inevitably be proposed as a solution, should the chaos bring US healthcare crashing down. Nor, for that matter, am I convinced that bureaucrats' and politicians' stupidity is not not the reason for the present ongoing destruction and confusion. I'd like to see the whole mess unraveled - without "single payer" "healthcare", which will be another deadly fiasco - and motives examined later.

PeteSinCA wrote:"Canuckia" ... where have I heard that word recently ...?

I didn't want to be accused of plagerism plagierism plagarism...uh...copying, so I changed it to Canuckistan.

PeteSinCA wrote:It wouldn't have zero effect, but the effect would be minor. Government's ability to manipulate marketplace decisions is poor and imprecise. And what jcg may not have realized is that the people who would be most affected - directly and indirectly - would be those at the lower end of the economic scale. They would suddenly be paying much more of their earnings for the same quantity of a necessary commodity that once cost much less. Those who could not afford it would be forced into public transit, which can take 2x-4x as long to get somewhere, and is far less flexible (i.e. their freedom to better themselves by working multiple jobs or taking college classes would be severely limited at best). The higher fuel tax would also increase the price of necessaries such as food, clothing, and other goods, because the fuel needed to produce and transport those goods would be far more expensive. People who are reasonably well off may or may not notice such price increases, but less well of people will suffer by the increased prices.

Excellent point! I had never even thought of that.

FL

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:

PeteSinCA wrote:Effects like this are variously termed The Law of Unintended Consequences or Stage One Thinking (i.e. failing to think of the consequences of an action beyond Stage 1, the intended effect).

Sort of like (no, more like precisely) Obamacare?

I'm starting to think Obama knew his Obamacare would fail. One step closer to the single payer system, and govt run healthcare.

Of course he did, don't be ridiculous. Either way though, it spells trouble. If he didn't know, he should have, otherwise he didn't think it through completely and how it will negatively affect millions of Americans, ergo he demonstrates utter incompetence, and if he did know and lied about it demonstrates utter contempt for the people who elected him.

I think he knew and intended Obamacare to ultimately bankrupt the insurance industry and push people towards a single payer. That was the plan the whole time. I do no, though, think that what we have now is what he intended. We are where we are because Obama and the Democrats underestimated the American people's opposition to his reforms.

The original plan, remember, included the public option. That was the true trojan horse. It got stripped out, but the consolation was that millions more Americans would end up up Medicaid and those who didn't would be under de facto government control insofar as the gov't would be dictating what insurance had to look like. As premiums rose, Democrats could make Medicaid bigger and bigger until they eventually just suggested a true single payer to simplify the system.

Unfortunately, Obama did not see the poor roll out coming. He didn't expect the unions to turn on him and demand exemptions. He truly thought that by now there would be millions and millions of people signing up and that public opinion would have turned in his favor on the matter (after all--Americans love their entitlements!). He's been wrong on every front, and it has forced him to make concession after concession after concession. He never planned on all these delays. He doesn't want them. He feels like he has to do them because the political pressure is too great. I emphasize: that is what he never saw, the political pressure.

So this is not going to get any better for him. 2014 will be worse for him and for the Democrats than this year has been. When the employer mandate kicks in and another 60 million lose their insurance, all hell will break loose. When premiums shoot through the roof because young people do not sign up (and they won't), the death spiral will be unavoidable. When he is forced to delay the entire individual mandate for a year, he will effectively be delaying the entire law for a year, which will delay signups even more. At that point, Democrats will jump ship. They will lose the Senate and they will likely lose seats in the House. There will be an breakup within that party. Huge divisions will develop. Clinton and the other candidates for the presidential nomination will start distancing themselves from a failed law, which will give party members cover for abandoning both a lame duck president and his "signature" achievement. All that means his approval ratings will begin to fracture among his base, which will push him into the low 30s.

At that point, he is completely toast. The entire law will be delayed until after 2016. If a Republican wins the WH, they will follow Reid's lead, finish off the fillibuster, and repeal the entire ACA within the first month of the new administration. They will replace it with something like a simple subsidization program for low income people to either purchase private insurance or else create a small government program that those people can buy into and leave the rest of the industry alone. Such a simple, elegant solution will be impossible to oppose on either side of the aisle, and not only will Obama's eight years have proved worthless, but his entire legacy--and the legacy of progressivism--will be obliterated for the next twenty years.

Bottom line: this is what happens when you put a neophyte in the WH. Stage one thinking.

He's done. Checkmate. It's over.

PeteSinCA wrote:It wouldn't have zero effect, but the effect would be minor. Government's ability to manipulate marketplace decisions is poor and imprecise. And what jcg may not have realized is that the people who would be most affected - directly and indirectly - would be those at the lower end of the economic scale. They would suddenly be paying much more of their earnings for the same quantity of a necessary commodity that once cost much less. Those who could not afford it would be forced into public transit, which can take 2x-4x as long to get somewhere, and is far less flexible (i.e. their freedom to better themselves by working multiple jobs or taking college classes would be severely limited at best). The higher fuel tax would also increase the price of necessaries such as food, clothing, and other goods, because the fuel needed to produce and transport those goods would be far more expensive. People who are reasonably well off may or may not notice such price increases, but less well of people will suffer by the increased prices.

And if 97% of the scientists actively studying the climate are right and the Internet arm chair climatologists are wrong then it's also the people at the lower end of the economic scale who will be disproportionately effected. Although in that instance millions of them will probably die.

Maybe it's time to think about addressing the fact that we're living in one of the most financially inequitable times in the history of the world.

And somebody will scream "SOCIALISM!!!" in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...

RE:

Government's ability to manipulate marketplace decisions is poor and imprecise. And what jcg may not have realized is that the people who would be most affected - directly and indirectly - would be those at the lower end of the economic scale.

....Actually the main and growing causes of most poverty in the United States...is manipulation and speculation of the real estate market and other markets...by the system that I describe below. Anyone can google the fact that....in the period between 1950 and 1980...there was a real middle class; with mostly a one person (Daddy); who worked and was able to purchase a house (averaging only 25% of income)..and support a family...even with the most progressive income tax in the history of the world.

In expensive cities like LA and New York, and S.F...it "forces" a majority to rent instead of own...paying an average of 45 - 50% of income..for housing...
So what pray tell is left to spend on our dumb economy..that depends on purchases...a third grader can understand this...
because they haven't got the disease of liberalphobia....and they can clearly see things as they are.

Here in the U.S. where the vast majority of its people worship and give power to a "market" that has inordinately perverted the value of labor to the highest imaginable extremes between the underpaid and the overpaid workers. The U.S housing market has continually perverted the value of the basic human need of shelter into a greedy, land-grabbing, and embarrassing national disgrace. The real estate "market" is easily ARTIFICIALLY INFLATED AND MANIPULATED to new highs; by the tremendous purchasing power of our growing wealthy and overpaid group that "forces" too many out of the "market".

This "market" of inherent greed and corruption continually self-destructs. For every millionaire the housing market makes; it also increases the poverty of hundreds, if not; thousands. How do people in the "richest and greatest" country decide that it's OK to equate a purchase of shelter with a back-breaking down payment and thirty years of debt? But, don't worry; the crooked U.S. government will subsidize your inflated real estate mortgage with another tax loophole; for the steadily shrinking group with jobs and credit scores that can afford such a purchase.

...hmmmm?...what's the definition of a system that "forces" inflation and creates poverty out of the thin air..."free market" capitalism.
Even the Pope has spoken of it as "evil"....although I would be a hypocrite if I called it ...evil... I am not a conservaphobe..as some falsely think.

I would simply call it...a disaster waiting to happen..everday The U.S. is becoming closer to a third world nation. There is no more TRUE.."middle class" left.

The percentage of people that can buy a home and raise a family on one income....might be 5% or less. This is the technical definition of a third world country like Mexico.

Mexico is the 12th largest economy in the world....and because of their corrupt, right wing, government....over 90% of their people are poor and the country is a parasite(not the people..whom I dearly love and pray for) that ekes by from the estimated $11 billion dollars sent over there by Mexican immigrants ....instead of being spent here. And people risk their lives to come here to pick fruit and vegetables...because ...

Free market capitalism...would rather produce jobs about...making money out of money...instead of providing living wages and honoring the extremely hard work of these blessed immigrants. We are blessed to have the law abiding ones.

Remember....the real enemy here is corruption.....no matter what flag is flown or language that is spoken.

Listen, capitalism and free, market-driven economic models are a bit like Darwinism - they are not inherently evil or good - such models are morally neutral. And so capitalism has both merits and negative consequences. Appropriately but not excessively regulated, it is the best economic system the world has known. It has produced far more opportunities and benefits for the lower classes than any other. But while capitalism is morally neutral, people driving it are not. And yet no economic model is any better or worse than the values and actions of the individuals and entities active within it, and the overseers/regulatory bodies and rules that police it.

The alternative to capitalism and a free, market-driven economy is a government system in which the government constantly meddles, over-regulates, and picks what it THINKS are winners and what it sees as being losers. And the track record of such government micromanaging - whether in democracies, dictatorships, or in socialist or communist systems - is dismal. Capitalism works best with appropriate safeguards for fair play, has limits to over-reaching monopolies, and yet is business-friendly/encouraging and that minimizes barriers that inappropriately inhibit it. Of course, achieving and maintaining a healthy balance of parameters for capitalism is an enormous challenge - of which government oversight plays a key role. As for people who would have you believe that capitalism is inherently bad, evil and necessarily brings out the most corruption - well, they are very selective in cherry picking their rationale for such belief, and they're not supported by the facts.

philip ..thanks for your insight....my reply is a new thread...Capitalism That Serves...Not Deserves....
Happy Christmas!

Philip wrote:Listen, capitalism and free, market-driven economic models are a bit like Darwinism - they are not inherently evil or good - such models are morally neutral. And so capitalism has both merits and negative consequences. Appropriately but not excessively regulated, it is the best economic system the world has known. It has produced far more opportunities and benefits for the lower classes than any other. But while capitalism is morally neutral, people driving it are not. And yet no economic model is any better or worse than the values and actions of the individuals and entities active within it, and the overseers/regulatory bodies and rules that police it.

The alternative to capitalism and a free, market-driven economy is a government system in which the government constantly meddles, over-regulates, and picks what it THINKS are winners and what it sees as being losers. And the track record of such government micromanaging - whether in democracies, dictatorships, or in socialist or communist systems - is dismal. Capitalism works best with appropriate safeguards for fair play, has limits to over-reaching monopolies, and yet is business-friendly/encouraging and that minimizes barriers that inappropriately inhibit it. Of course, achieving and maintaining a healthy balance of parameters for capitalism is an enormous challenge - of which government oversight plays a key role. As for people who would have you believe that capitalism is inherently bad, evil and necessarily brings out the most corruption - well, they are very selective in cherry picking their rationale for such belief, and they're not supported by the facts.

Philip,
Thank you for injecting some logic into this conversation.

Merry Christmas, guys!

That Jesus was born into our world, died for us, rose and thus provided our path to salvation, THESE are all that truly matter. World systems and governments will come and go, but nothing and no one else will stand the test of time - or bring a joy that won't ever fade. I try to remember this when I get too cranked up about politics, government and things beyond my control that so aggravate me. Yes, we live in real time and need to encourage good earthly governance and policies. And while the world often seems overwhelming, exasperating, and unrelentingly evil, in the end, Jesus is all that really matters and is THE One who has overcome the world! And so all our fears and frustrations are but for a period of time, because HE is in absolute control and has an eternity of peace, beauty and joy planned that is far beyond our comprehension.

Blessings for a prosperous 2014!

philip...I concur with your thoughts. True Unity is only found in God. There is no unity in politics. I have found that we even have different concepts and
definitions of the same words. At that point...unity falls apart ...and only God can lead us into everlasting Truth through Jesus Christ.

This forum can be good to sharpen the skills of writing the truth in love, being patient with those who misunderstand, and forgiving to those who accuse and
judge unjustly.

In the end only God is Holy and Righteous...and only Jesus Christ has the last word in all authority and power and judgement....
Praise His name...we have Christmas everyday!!!! PEACE and LOVE..brother...

SkepticalSkeeter wrote:

PeteSinCA wrote:It wouldn't have zero effect, but the effect would be minor. Government's ability to manipulate marketplace decisions is poor and imprecise. And what jcg may not have realized is that the people who would be most affected - directly and indirectly - would be those at the lower end of the economic scale. They would suddenly be paying much more of their earnings for the same quantity of a necessary commodity that once cost much less. Those who could not afford it would be forced into public transit, which can take 2x-4x as long to get somewhere, and is far less flexible (i.e. their freedom to better themselves by working multiple jobs or taking college classes would be severely limited at best). The higher fuel tax would also increase the price of necessaries such as food, clothing, and other goods, because the fuel needed to produce and transport those goods would be far more expensive. People who are reasonably well off may or may not notice such price increases, but less well of people will suffer by the increased prices.

And if 97% of the scientists actively studying the climate are right and the Internet arm chair climatologists are wrong then it's also the people at the lower end of the economic scale who will be disproportionately effected. Although in that instance millions of them will probably die.

Maybe it's time to think about addressing the fact that we're living in one of the most financially inequitable times in the history of the world.

And somebody will scream "SOCIALISM!!!" in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...

SkSk - just curious - how many of those "97%ers" are are on that Antarctic expedition to investigate ice disappearance and unable to get home because....wait for it....you know it's coming....their ship is stuck in the ice?

As for your the part of your post irrelevant to this thread, I'm not taking the bait. Besides, I use the "S Word" very seldom - possibly not all year (note the time/date stamp! - so I would probably disappoint you, anyway, despite being a Mod on a News/Politics discussion forum.