Politics, Economics, and Religion

Information

Politics, Economics, and Religion

Religion has so many connections to political and economic beliefs, there needs to be a place to identify linkages, problems, goals, options, action plans and evaluation criteria.  

Members: 97
Latest Activity: 7 hours ago

What is the purpose of life?

An eternal question, what is the purpose of life?, occupied philosophers’ thoughts throughout history. Stone pictographs reveal even primitive peoples reflected on this query. Each one has the capacity to define his or her personal thinking about politics, economics and religion.

Discussion Forum

Free market creates monopoly - no market, no freedom

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Tom Sarbeck 7 hours ago. 10 Replies

Barry Lynn explains that a monopolist doesn't have to control 100% of a market. With the US having thousands of markets controlled as monopolies, we suffer the Economics of Destruction.What monopoly means is that a company has sufficient control of…Continue

Tags: free market economics, monopoly

Turns out that lawsuits have rules (Daily Kos)

Started by Loren Miller. Last reply by Joan Denoo Aug 6. 4 Replies

So ... now that John Boehner and the House of Representatives have decided that the most important thing on their agenda is suing President Obama for having the unmitigated nerve to want to accomplish something during his second term of office, it…Continue

Tags: rules, president, Barack Obama, sue, John Boehner

An Open Letter to Congressman John Boehner

Started by Loren Miller. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Jul 26. 2 Replies

Some days ago, Congressman John Boehner (R - Ohio) wrote an op-ed piece entitled, "…Continue

Tags: president, Barack Obama, sue, John Boehner

Comment Wall

Comment

You need to be a member of Politics, Economics, and Religion to add comments!

Comment by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on June 8, 2014 at 4:20pm

Sentient Biped, I get more upset about corporations and the wealthy using tricks to avoid taxes. I absolutely loathe taxes being used "to enrich cronies and military - corporate - investor complex" too. I guess our common ground is honesty in government and accountability to ordinary people. Right now politicians don't listen to regular voters at all, just big campaign donors.

Comment by Sentient Biped on June 8, 2014 at 1:32pm

I had a difficult time deciding whether I am fiscally conservative or not.  I don't like to think I belong to a particular catgory, buty if the shoe fits.... 

Much of my financial philosophy comes from experience.  Through much of my education, I saw administrators raising tuition, and professors demanding expensive texts or other devices, with the disingenuous claim "You will make much more money in the future as a result". Which for many was not true at all.  It's a bit analogous to the government, taking away hard earned savings of ordinary people and going into debt, to enrich cronies and military - corporate - investor complex by going into debt and creating misadventures abroad.

Wikipedia def of fiscal conservative "Fiscal conservatism is a politicoeconomic philosophy with regards towards fiscal policy and the advocating of fiscal responsibility."  I don't know about the details, but that describes aat least come of what I think.  The Reaganites were not fiscal conservatives - they created more debt, made the country into a debtor nation, and created transfer of resources from ordinary people to robber barons.

I do accept there are times when gov't must tax in order to obtain resources required for security, prevent invasion, protect people, or create important infrastructure.  Those funds should come from honest taxation, not the sneaky taxation and shell games of pretending it results in a better tomorrow for all, when in reality it results in more wealth for the 1%.

I am no economist, so what do I know.

I suspect anyone would fine be very very socially progressive, but with some precautions thrown in.  For example, I'm all for education for all - which is not our current system - but there should be accountability, so academic admin doesn't just squander the efforts, trust, and financial futures, of the students and their families.

Comment by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on June 8, 2014 at 12:42pm

I don't think liberals are fiscal conservatives. We tend to fund education, medical care, infrastructure maintenance, social security, etc.

One of the familiar slogans associated with fiscal conservatism since the Reagan years is "starve the beast," a phrase which suggests a policy approach of limiting the size of government by limiting appropriations for government programs. The assumptions underlying are that that government is less capable than businesses and individuals in spending money. [wikipedia]
Comment by Tom Sarbeck on June 8, 2014 at 2:23am

Ruth:

About all I can say that I didn't say in your Evolution of political difference thread is that liberals tend to be socially progressive and fiscally conservative.

Comment by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on June 7, 2014 at 9:51pm

Gladstone's lines sound right, Tom. But I don't understand what you mean by

...in San Francisco:

Progressivism is anger at liberals for their prudence.

For prudence, read fiscal conservatism.

Great cartoon, Loren!

Sentient Biped, the USDA's regulatory capture sickens me, mentally and possibly literally. Chicken makes up half of my protein.

Your wisdom is right on target, as always, Joan.

Comment by Tom Sarbeck on May 20, 2014 at 3:06am

Loren, your Gladstone quote helps me answer Ruth's post (in a thread about political evolution) saying she thought America's liberals and progressives are the same people.

First, though, I read a lot of pre-1688 English political history and can  say with confidence that centuries of conflict between Parliament (the Commons, not the Lords) and monarchs ended when William and Mary agreed to a largely advisory role.

I read too little of post-1688 English history to identify Gladstone as Liberal or Conservative. His describing Conservatives as fearful and Liberals as prudent tells me he was a Liberal.

Keeping in mind that the words Conservative and Liberal identify that nation's political parties, and the words Republican and Democrat identify ours, swapping Gladstone's two lines helps me answer Ruth.

In England:

Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear.

Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence.

In America, or at least in San Francisco:

Progressivism is anger at liberals for their prudence.

For prudence, read fiscal conservatism.

Comment by Loren Miller on May 19, 2014 at 5:01pm

Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear.
-- William E. Gladstone, 1866

Comment by Loren Miller on May 16, 2014 at 1:20pm


Yup ... makes perfect sense ... and if you believe THAT one...!

Comment by Sentient Biped on May 13, 2014 at 6:48pm

I don't know why Nancy Sinatra is delivering the lyrics, but it makes for interesting imagery.

Comment by Joan Denoo on May 12, 2014 at 3:30pm

Daniel and Loren, We have to be noisier! More vocal! Able to confront ignorance! Stop being afraid of offending someone for their beliefs! Be critical! Speak what we know to be true! 

The old hard headed ones won't listen and I don't really care. They will die off. The sad thing is, the younger ones are indoctrinated before they learn how to think and become contaminated with delusions. 

The people I want to read and think about my writings are the ones who haven't thought about these important issues one way or the other. They hear both sides, but don't understand the real challenges facing us. 

Contaminated foods of all kinds exist, they can be proven to do harm to farmers, consumers, and surrounding environments. Ignorance is not bliss. 

 
 
 

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service