This is dangerous to implement. It creates conditions for hyperinflation and such. — Posty McPostface

MMT is not a plan that you implement - it is an explanation of what is happening.

agree - thanks

Yes, and that doesn't make it less important. And whether a fetus is viable or not lies in the field of science.
— Bitter Crank

agree - however using viability as a criteria for person hood is outside science. — Rank Amateur

this is a very good example of what I mean - Bitter is way way too smart not to see the difference in using science as a tool to identify when a fetus is viable outside the womb , and using viability as a criteria for personhood - but often the answer we want colors how we see things - causes blind spots

Yes, and that doesn't make it less important. And whether a fetus is viable or not lies in the field of science. — Bitter Crank

agree - however using viability as a criteria for person hood is outside science.

Again - not interested in an argument on the morality of abortion. Interested in how individuals vary what they say they value based on the issue.

Because they do not question the same principles. — SnowyChainsaw

Respectfully disagree. Both climate change and abortion are about value of future lives. And many are for future lives on one issue and against on the other. Both climate change and abortion pit science against social issues. Many in one case value science in one case and social issues in the other.

Again my point is not is their a right or wrong, it is about an inconsistent application of values depending on the issue. So the chicken and egg question does ones values make ones position, or does one fit ones values into the position.

Sure, I can agree with that for the most part. But I still feel it assumes that there is a conflict between values in the context of discussing these two issues, which is just not the case. — SnowyChainsaw

Which is not the case because. . .

This is because they are very different issues. — SnowyChainsaw

I think that could be it. Certainly people can prioritize their values differently depending on the issue. It could also be an after the fact justification. It would depend a great deal on how conscious they were or were not on the variability of the application of their values.

What I find interesting is in many cases an individual would make an argument based on science for climate change against a social, financial argument. And make a social argument for abortion against the science. I also find it interesting that the final objective of those who favor climate change, is ultimately about saving future lives, And at the same time can find justification to devalue future human lives in the cases of abortion.

I would propose a consistent set of values should be either pro climate change and anti abortion or anti climate change and pro abortion, but I would further propose that is not the case.

I disagree that these issues are comparable. Climate change is an issue about preserving the environment so we can sustain our civalisations. The abortion debate is about how we value the autonomy of people's choices, mistakes and lives. Both issues are far too complex to be summed up as you have. — SnowyChainsaw

I see both about a tension between human life, and some other thing of value.

that is in your head, not mine. I would prefer this not be about abortion per se, but about what I see as the similarities in the issues and way individuals value different things depending on the issue.

I also don't think of the just-conceived egg/sperm combo as a person, or an ensouled being. When does a fetus become a person? When the first-cry infant is held in the arms of his or her parents, personhood has been achieved. — Bitter Crank

This is my point on the tension between science and non science on these two issues and how many individuals will value science on one and social on another. The biology on abortion is clear. A fetus is 100% human, and 100% alive. Personhood and rights therefore accorded are an argument outside science.

are they more or less human beings than the future human beings that climate change is concerned about? Are fertilized eggs today, less valuable than possible fertilized some time in the future?

The result is a debt that will never be paid. — frank

It would serve no economic purpose, but the government could pay the entire debt with a keystroke if it chose to.

I understand that personal or corporate debt isn't the same as national debt. However, the fact is that national debt is a recurrent item of discussion among economists and politicians, both. — Bitter Crank

Because it makes great politics, and very bad economics.

Here is a very good article on MMT. Worth a read for those interested

http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2014/06/modern-money-theory-basics.html

It is very counter intuitive to how we generally think about money, but it is the best explanation of how the economy really work. To be clear MMT is not a framework some one or government is following, it is an explanation of what is happening.

Some teasers:

A sovereign government can never become insolvent in its own currency

The government can burn every tax dollar it gets, and still buy anything it wants

Every single dollar of the deficit is now a dollar in someone's pocket

The government only taxes to control inflation

The government only borrows to control the overnight into rate

The government spends money into existence and taxes it out

The objective of government spending should be full employment

This one is not part of MMT, or the article. But the concern for the disparity in income is a very real economic, political, and social problem. If many of these dollars the government spends into existence to stimulate economic activity and increase employment only go into a growing rich guys account they become meaningless. Economic activity is based on spending- not investment. Private investment needs spending to buy the goods or services. Very very rich people do not spend vey much as a percentage of their reserves. While their billions looks cool on the Forbes list, it is a drag on the economy- very very rich people should be very heavily taxed.

National debt, in a country with a fiat currency, that has lender confidence, has absolutely nothing at all I in common with personal, or local government debt. Completely apples to oranges. The only thing that should impact the increase or decrease in the deficit should be the employment rate.

As an example - does the constitution ( 14th amendment ) provide for same sex marriage ? Or should individual states, and there citizens, decide if they want to legislate either for or against same sex marriage ?

How does this language relate to same sex marriage?

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I see room for both sides of the issue in this language.

as the First Amendment did not limit the states from enacting state churches and sending people to prison for blasphemy laws. The First Amendment was finally applied to the states through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, in the late 1940s. — LD Saunders

That is a very important point in constitutional discussions. On your point above - that does not mean the founders thought one way or the other it - it just meant they thought it was a matter to be decided by the state, not the federal government. This was, and continues to be a major constitutional issue.

For example, if say the SCOTUS overturned Roe v wade, that does not mean they decided that abortion would be illegal - it would just return it to the states to decide on a state by state basis.

There has been, in many conservative or "originallists" minds, an over reach on the interpretation of the 14th amendment as a means to legislate from the bench, avoiding all that messy legislative stuff.

There is a natural tension between "originalist" and " living constitution" proponents on interpretations of the Constitution. This is IMO a good thing. Either side taken to an extreme is problematic. Here are two very good voices of each position discussing the issue:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGKgJdW55nc

Fort Agnostic, featuring high walls, a lovely moat, and a tall tower upon which to look down on the ignorant masses — praxis

you forgot to add " and fart in their general direction "

I vote for Aquinas's argument against Anselm - that we do not posses the ability or the tools to, in anyway, accurately imagine the nature of God.

aside - I think the Ontological argument is elegant logic, and not a very good proof of the existence of God.

Yes, if you're talking about the Republican base perception that Kavanaugh will change abortion precedent, not whether that precedent will actually change, then we are talking about the same thing — boethius

yes

I do not believe life long appointments really do free people from all leverage points and allows them to vote their conscience. Leverage in elite circles can be from all sorts of angles. — boethius

In general, and historically I have been impressed with how the court has decided many - most issues. Even rulings that I disagreed with. It is a human institutions, and there are exceptions to that, but in general they have been a reasoned body. I think the lifetime appointment is a critical part of that.

I think the impeachment boat has sailed. — boethius

Hasn't even left the dry dock yet. We have not had a direct serious charge yet against him - if such a charge comes to life - the Republicans in Wash will rush to the floor to start proceedings and do all they can to end this nightmare.

other than the rant by our idiot in chief - she seems to have been treated with the highest respect by just about everyone -

but I don't get the point of not believed without corroborating evidence - what are the correct actions that should be taken when with non-corroborated allegations ???

My opinion is that this scenario has essentially zero chance of happening — boethius

completely agree

As I mentioned in an earlier comment, the purpose of the FBI investigation was simply to buy time — boethius

completely agree

I also disagree that this this is about abortion — boethius

it is about the votes about abortion - not the issue, the votes. It is, and has been, about how 3 Republicans can vote against a pro life court member and get re-elected, or run for president, and how 1 democrat can vote no and not get beat in a Republican state by a republican.

Kavanaugh's nomination is about protecting Trump. — boethius

disagree - the beauty of the lifetime appointment to the bench is once on - Trump hold absolutely no power over him, none. It maybe about a constitutional issue of what can or can't be done to a president - but it won't be about Trump.

Trump has been finding by trial-and-error who's loyal and who's not. — boethius

I can help him there - none of them are, and that is exactly the loyalty he deserves.

as for all the other Trump stuff - let me restate what I said before - he is the worst human being to ever hold the office - and the sooner he an this mess leave Washington the better.

Not being a Republican or a Democrat, but an independent who thinks the system is broken - here is what I think would be a great ending. The Senate approves Judge Kavanaugh on Saturday - and on Monday he declines the nomination. And in declining he says the Senate has so politicized the confirmation process that his ascendancy to the Court could hurt its ability to act as a check on both the Administration and the Legislature.

Admittedly not reading through most of this - but I don't think mathematically it matters much what probability you put on God is or God is not. It is an expected value problem. It is the respective payoffs that matter. If the pay off for God is, is unimaginable happiness, and the pay off for God is not, is - nothing ( well maybe sleeping in on Sunday ) - the expected value of "God is" will be near infinitely better if the probability of "God is" is 50 - 50 or a million to one.

from what I have been reading - it looks like the Republicans have the numbers now - look for a vote on Saturday to confirm. But a lot can happen between now and then and I would expect a no holds barred democratic fight in the press. Would guess the strategy from here out would be just pile on accusation after accusation on the hope that the weight of it all makes at least 2 of the 3 Republicans that are on the fence leaning yes to waiver.

Not sure what is left to do other than that.

Bigger question is what did this circus do to the court and it's decisions going forward.

very much agree - we have been in a "legislature from the bench" for some time, and combine this with executive orders and the process is getting corrupted. Not sure if the cause is over reach by the executive or the court, or ineffectiveness of the house.

This all about Abortion and the votes it gets for and against and math, and has been from the start.

2 months ago:

48 democratic senators were a no vote for confirmation
48 republican senators were a yes vote for confirmation

1 democratic senator was looking for a way to vote no - and not lose
his next election in a very republican district.

2 republican senators were looking for a way to vote no - and and minimize any damage that would cause to their republican base.

1 republican senator was looking for a way to use this stage as a way to position himself for 2020.

just a quick aside - I don't really have a dog in this race. i think Pres Trump is by far the worst human being to ever hold the office. My only real issue is, solely because of the importance of this seat. This process, and the delay of Garland, for the same reason, are a travesty. And none of this bonfire of the vanities is about any truth finding about Judge Kavanughs suitabilty - it is either pushing through, or delaying, this nomination passed the midterms depending on what side of the aisle you are on.

The republicans are committed to Kavanaugh now because any other nominee is obviously passed the midterm
and the Democrats are doing absolutely everything they can do push this passed the midterm.

This is about abortion and the votes it can get, and the votes it can lose -

Both Democrats and Republicans are allowed to be members of the SCOTUS. And as amazing as that is, generally Republican Presidents nominate Republicans, and Democratic Presidents nominate Democrats. It is one of the really cool things about winning an election.

he was all of those things you wanted him to be until give or take 60 days ago when a women sent a letter to the committee saying he molested her as a teenager.

Everything that has happened after Sen. Feinstein received that letter has been about politics.

I agree with absolutely everything you said after : This is simply not true. The point I am making and you are missing, is the reality of the situation is meaningless. It is only the politics that matter, and the politics would have found a way to turn even that into the incorrect way to react.

Now to the part about " this is simply not true" - None of this point is true or false it is all opinion.

really interesting - I am not sure if treating a machine as a moral actor is an elevation of the machine, or a demotion of the human.

And anyway, the display that we have gotten from Bart Kavanaugh simply shows that he is far more of a political hack than a lawyer. But that's obvious when you look at the guy's CV. — ssu

maybe a fair point if you put more weight on the last few days, than the prior 20 years.

You can deny false allegations and make a sincere, firm case that people will believe without loosing your temper. You can be credible and convincing without loosing it. As Boethius said, you do think that someone for the post of Supreme Court Justice would be able to respond in a different way. — ssu

My point was, IMO, however he responded it would have been incorrect by those doing all they can to prevent his nomination.

can we put it in jail if it kills someone with the switch on? with the switch off? Can we put the switch thrower in jail if the switch was on? Can we throw the manufacture in jail if the switch was off?

Not to loose your cool (or temper) just like Bret "Bart the beer-lover" Kavanaugh does. — ssu

I think it is equally likely if he was calm and cool the narrative would be " see he did it, no one could take an allegation like that so calmly if he didn't do it "

I would put the odds of a favorable democratic response to anything Judge Kavanaugh said or did as slim and none.

All this just makes me to think in a better light Trump's previous pick for SCOTUS. Don't remember such a show then. — ssu

Not as much as stake - conservative seat for conservative seat - and as you say he was a good choice. (probably means Trump had nothing to do with it )

This in going to have nothing to do with the FBI, or Dr. Ford or Judge Kavanaugh - this will come down to the Republican leadership and the POTUS pressure on Collins and Murkowski. If they make it clear they will activly oppose their re-election, they have a tough choice - a) vote your conscience (like that could happen), b) cave and vote yes c) vote no - and take their chances on re-election.

Opinion not philosophy - but pretty sure Kavanaugh is toast. Mukowski and collins do not want a SCOTUS that will endanger Roe - or support state driven restrictions on abortion. Unless the FBI comes back with Dr. Ford made the whole thing up, there is enough noise around him now they can vote no, and go to their constituents with a story it was not about abortion, but about his fitness for the job and take their chances.

IMO Judge Kavanaugh played this completely wrong. He should have immediately acknowledged that he lead the frat boy life, drank too much as a teenager and in college, said and did some juvenile stuff that he is not proud of now. But completely deny the sexual attack - and make people weigh his teenage - college years versus all the years thereafter.