[example1]

Originally Posted by Jayhawk Bill

Again, thanks for the detailed response. Hitting only the key points of disagreement:

1) Neither 3.2 nor 4.3 % of GDP/year is a rate of change. Both are rates of expenditure. A rate of change would be the change in % GDP/year, expressed in the units % GDP/year/year.

Let's use the actual figures from both recent administrations.

From 1993-2000, the expenditures on Medicare and Medicaid combined went from 3.4% of GDP to 3.4% of GDP. The rate of change was [(3.4 - 3.4)% GDP/year]/8 years, or zero. While the dollars spent increased, the increase parallelled GDP growth exactly.

From 2000-2006, the expenditures on Medicare and Medicaid combined went from 3.4% of GDP to 4.3% of GDP. The rate of change was [(4.3 - 3.4)% GDP/year]/6 years, or 0.15% GDP/year/year.

Looked at differently, the budget deficit is around 1.9% of GDP (2006 figures). However, 0.9% of that is due to growth in Medicare/Medicaid that's faster than could've been anticipated using Clinton-era stats.

Frankly, I simply don't care enough about whether or not you percieve Clinton to have had a role in balancing the budget to argue it to these lengths. I think we have all made our determination about Clinton's presidency. Personally, I give a president credit in this day and age if he agrees to anything put forth by the other party. Perhaps I'm jaded by our most recent president and years of partianship and genuine anger on both sides. If the Republican Congress was able to get that budget passed without pissing Clinton off enough to veto it, if they were savvy enough to pass welfare reform despite his ability to strike it down with the pen, then more power to them.

All this isn't a defense of GWB. I've PMed you an extraordinary criticism of Bush's integrity that goes beyond anything harped upon in the mainstream. My point, however, is that President Clinton deserves approximately no credit for balancing the budget, and that references to that work by Obama hurt Obama's credibility.

That's your opinion JHB and I hear you. Fair enough.

2) My ideas on gay marriage are hardly laughable. One of the leading contemporary European sociologists, Anthony Giddens, has been writing to the point that same-sex marriage opens up a great cultural unknown for over a decade. There are secular pundits on both the extreme right (George Gilder) and extreme left (Judith Stacey) who predict significant weakening of male-female marriage as an option and an institution. Choosing a highly-respected left-of-center source removed from the American Bible Belt rhetoric and influence, here's a brief quote from the BBC Religion and Ethics site:

There is no way of predicting what the long-term effect (of gay marriage) will be on the survival of the institution of marriage, and its role in ensuring the stability of society.

This is not very convincing. I assume you're talking about this snippit from the BBC Religion and Ethics site:

---It's difficult to construct any scenario in which allowing people of the same sex to marry does any damage at all to marriage in the short term.

---There is no way of predicting what the long-term effect will be on the survival of the institution of marriage, and its role in ensuring the stability of society.

---Allowing people of the same sex to marry does, of course, change the institution of marriage, but that's not the same as damaging it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics...gainst_6.shtml

Is it unfair for me to bring up the other parts of the same quote?

I'm pretty sure the same concerns were valid about other social movements in our country. Yes, it is going to fundamentally change our society if gays are allowed to "marry"; it is going to fundamentally change our society if they are allowed civil unions. It is going to fundamentally change society if gays are accepted and tolerated to the degree that I'm sure you agree they deserve. So what? Why does that prevent us from doing what is [i]morally right[i/], or at least morally consistent with American values in other areas (minority ethnic origins, minority sex)?

Given the increasing secularism in our country I see no reason that "marriage" has to perservere at all. I am married and I'm happy for it; but if one of the biggest schisms in our country is about religious-folks wanting to lay sole clame to the term "marriage", then I too can get a "union" or whatever. Marriage is a construct that has been represented in many different ways throughout history. It has been a mutual union of equal people, it has been an abusive, one-sided affair that has not been blessed or perfect. We have a long and varried relationship with marriage--also noted on the BBC page. Those who think it has been a static institution (sociologically) are uninformed. Marriage has looked different at different times.

The BBC website talks about all of that too. The stability of society has been challenged by much more earth shattering notions than allowing the small proportion of people who are gay to be "married". That said, I'm fine if civil unions are the limit.

Note, also, that I'm neither endorsing nor opposing gay marriage. I'm pointing out that there are viable secular reasons to oppose it--just as there are certainly religious reasons to oppose it and there are also potentially viable reasons to support it.

The fear of change is not a viable reason to oppose something rooted in the rights of individuals in our country to share benefits or to visit each other in the hospital, etc.,. The same argument can be put forth that "marriage"--as a religiously based union between two people and god--is an outdated idea and that nobody can predict the enormity of our society's secular movement away from god and toward rigorous study to determine what is actually happening in our world. Given the work you have gone to to show "secular" perspectives on traditionally religiously based arguments, clearly you believe that secularism is, in some sense, here to stay. The consequences of THAT shift have been--and will continue to be--more significant than a spin-off change like gay marriage/civil unions has been. I don't read that you are concerned with the deliterious effects of moving away from fundamentalist religions, and it appears that much of your work and rigorous scholarship is predicated on that movement--at least insofar as you would not tolerate "my religion tells me it is right" as an excuse for a significant social belief or practice. The pragmatist in you moves beyond that without much difficulty, it seems. The unknown is not always bad, and it is not always damaging.

You deserve more than a criticism, though. Here's what I support:

Thanks.

i) The ideas of Democratic Senator Jim Webb articulated in his autobiographical book Born Fighting, and

I would very much be in favor of a Webb Vice-Presidency.

ii) Action to bring the Gini Coefficient http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient back to its 1950's through 1970's levels of around 35-40. The Gini Coefficient was 46.9 in 2005 according to the US Census Bureau. That's indicative of highly unequal wealth distribution rarely seen in Western Democracies, and I subjectively perceive it as a threat to our way of government. An immediate first solution would be restoration of pre-Reagan tax rates on the mere top 1% of wage earners.

Fascinating stuff JHB. Fascinating. And yes, I agree with taxing the top 1% to reduce that coefficient to those more acceptable levels. I too subjectively perceive it as a threat to our way of government.

But I commented earlier on the importance of median vs. mean statistics. Given that five percent of our nation possesses over half of its wealth, I can understand your frustration with use of aggregate GDP or mean household income.

I figured you would.

4) The concept that the actions of mankind significantly influence global warming is not a scientific consensus. Even if it were, unilateral action to reduce US CO2 emissions would be a highly counterproductive response. Others are challenging you on this--I strongly recommend abandoning that aspect of your position.

You and I just disagree on this one. I do not propose a unilateral action to reduce US CO2 emissions. I believe appropriate accomodation should be made by companies that have the highest CO2 impact to address that impact. If those companies are not willing, and their CEOs are taking home hundreds of millions of dollars while spending millions to fight it, then I'm okay with unilateral action. Action needs to be taken not to squish companies that cannot manage it affordably, but other companies continue to make great profit--and invest great amounts--to keep any reductions on their CO2 production limited because it is more cost effective and helps them make a profit. I want our next president to have the balls (or ovaries) to do something about the profits for the very top end of our income earners, who largely feel that they do not need to give back and that being asked would somehow be un-american.

But as an aside, remember that my points regarding the uncertainty of humanity's influence on global warming were drawn from your own EPA link. You cannot accurately claim that the US Government or Bush Administration agrees with you--it does not.

Furthermore, outside the Bush Administration there are many studies that question the effect of human actions on climate, pointing to climate changes before the last century or two as evidence that the planet has appeared to endure warmer periods in the post-Ice Age timeframe without rapid collapse of global ecosystems.

You're right. Everything I cited said that humans DID have an impact, but it is inconclusive how much impact. I would say that until you or I are experts on the subject--which neither of us are simply by perusing the internet for the newest findings on the subject--we will argue this forever because there is no clear cut answer.

You tend to downplay it until there is absolute proof, I tend to assume that the sooner we start on fixing the problem the more likely we are to defeat it, and that we should at least think about what we can do to mitigate the problem. That was your approach with gay marriage, right? You aren't sure of what the social consequences might be but you're willing to look further into it before saying that you'll just let it happen. That's how I feel about this one, except that in this case "looking into it" requires a pretty significant investment. Of course, significant scientific investments have often proven beneficial for our country. If we figued out better ways to power our lives that do not require foreign oil then we would all be better off for it.

Example1, thank you for sharing your passionate views.

I can't wait for spring training so I can stop being the butt of everyone's political fervor!!