Thursday, June 6, 2013

Liberal Christianity

(Difference between revisions)According to a 2007 study reported in the ''Journal of Family Issues'', adherents of [[liberal Christianity]] are more likely to engage in marital infidelity than theologically conservative Christians.[http://www.sagepub.com/hillhsstudy/articles/Chapter10_Article%2001.pdf Are There Religious Variations in Marital Infidelity?]  According to a 2007 study reported in the ''Journal of Family Issues'', adherents of [[liberal Christianity]] are more likely to engage in marital infidelity than theologically conservative Christians.[http://www.sagepub.com/hillhsstudy/articles/Chapter10_Article%2001.pdf Are There Religious Variations in Marital Infidelity?]  == Liberal Christianity, Darwinism and sexual immorality ===== Liberal Christianity, Darwinism and sexual immorality ===Liberal Christianity also embraces the [[evolution]]ary [[paradigm]] (see also: [[Evolution and liberalism]]).  Liberal Christianity also embraces the [[evolution]]ary [[paradigm]] (see also: [[Evolution and liberalism]]).  In identifying the primary factors determining these differences in community attitudes, the author of the research report, Dr Jonathan Kelley, said: ‘The single most important influence after church attendance is the theory of evolution.’[http://creation.com/morals-decline-linked-to-belief-in-evolution Morals decline linked to evolution]}}In identifying the primary factors determining these differences in community attitudes, the author of the research report, Dr Jonathan Kelley, said: ‘The single most important influence after church attendance is the theory of evolution.’[http://creation.com/morals-decline-linked-to-belief-in-evolution Morals decline linked to evolution]}}== Demographics and waning future influence of American liberal Christianity ==== Demographics and waning future influence of American liberal Christianity ==

Liberal Christianity or Theological Modernism is a broad term which basically refers to a movement within American Protestant denominations to stress the social role of Christianity, as in the Social Gospel of the early 20th century. This movement is characterized by a lack of emphasis on or denial of the plenary Divine inspiration and authority of the Bible, and commitment to doctrinal purity. Prevalent Biblical themes such as repentance from personal moral sin, hell and damnation for those who reject Christ, His blood atonement and His future literal reign are minimized, or militated against. In 1937, H. Richard Niebuhr summarized their basic gospel message as preaching that "A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross."[1][2]

Theologically, Liberal Christianity stresses a basic continuity between man and God, emphasizing the immanence of God rather than His transcendence. It tends to see religious knowledge emerging from research and the use of reason, as superior to Biblical revelation. Thus the liberal idea of religion as a personal relationship with God is one which is not necessarily bound to a Biblical doctrinal basis. This stands in in contrast to salvation resulting from faith in the Biblically substantiated gospel of grace, and in conformity with orthodox theological beliefs.

if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }

The most influential liberal Christian theologians were 19th century Germans: Friedrich Schleiermacher and Albrecht Ritschl.

Schleiermacher emphasized that religion was a personal relationship with God, and downplayed historical Christian doctrines such as the doctrine of creation, doctrine of Incarnation, doctrine of eternal life, etc.

Schleiermacher sought to re-establish the importance of Christianity using Christian religious experience rather than scientific knowledge. Ritschl revised Schleirmacher's idea and tried to re-establish their authority using Kant's idea of moral experience and in the fulfillment of the Kingdom of God. [3]

Doctrines that did not relate well to religious experience or moral experience tended to disappear.

Liberals view the Bible as the witness of God rather than the word of God. Strangely the view looks for support by a type of literal interpretation — though this should not be confused with the form of Biblical literalism found in fundamentalist and conservative churches — of the words of Paul in his second letter to Timothy:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,... 2_Timothy 3:16

Here some see Paul conveying that that scripture is a direct result of the authors contact with God ("witness"), whilst stopping short of claiming actual divine authorship ("word"). Conservative Christians would answer that Paul states here that the words which make up scripture are God-breathed, and that the Bible records God's promise to preserve His words, not merely His ideas.[4][5]

As a result Liberal Theologians view the Bible as a text to be interpreted in its historical context but through liberal critical analysis.[6] As a result, many hold that texts such as Genesis’ early chapters or Old Testament miracles are poetry or fables — having a message, but not to be taken literally (in spite of thew New Testament referring to such as literal events).[7] This approach began to dominate most Protestant denominations in the early 1900's, and was challenged by Neo Orthodoxy and Fundamentalism after 1940. Examples today include some churches within Anglican/Episcopalian, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, and United Church of Christ churches.[8] The word "liberal" in liberal Christianity does not refer to any political agenda or set of beliefs, although liberal theological beliefs will often form the basis of liberal political beliefs.

In addition, liberal Christians are seen taking an unwarranted pick-and-choose approach to the Bible, declaring that passages which they favor were intended by God to be followed today, while other parts are outdated or need to be reinterpreted, in order to conform with current trends. As needed, the spirit of the Bible is emphasized in such a way that its specific wording can be ignored or negated. As Machen comments,

Admitting that scientific objections may arise against the particularities of the Christian religion—against the Christian doctrines of the person of Christ, and of redemption through His death and resurrection—the liberal theologian seeks to rescue certain of the general principles of religion, of which these particularities are thought to be mere temporary symbols, and these general principles he regards as constituting "the essence of Christianity.[9]

Rather than the Bible being wholly inspired by God, many liberal Christians believe that the Bible was the work of numerous editorial redactors[10][11] — homophobic ones in cases where pro-homosexual writers wish to see homoeroticism positively portrayed between Bible characters — or even that certain parts of the Bible that do not agree with liberal theology are later additions that do not belong in the Bible at all.[12] In extreme cases, some liberal Christians even engage in politically correct censorship against those who quote Bible verses that tend to disprove a liberal Christian position. It may also esteem other books as works of God as well as the Bible. Some liberal Christians argue that correct Christian doctrine is whatever each individual believer deems it to be.

Most of those within mainline denominations evidence beliefs and its effects which are at variance with Biblically based historical Christian faith.[13] Two issues usually indicative of liberal denominations are support for abortion and homosexuality. For a more detailed treatment, see Homosexuality and Christianity.

In terms of economics, liberal Christianity emphasizes Testament eschatology towards the Kingdom of God into the liberal "law of progress." History does indeed show a growing maturity in technology, thought, and social relations, but conservatives argue there is nothing within the forces of history to suggest that good will triumph over evil. Conservatives say liberals deemphasize sin, i.e. evil triumphing over good.[14]

The Liberal Christian scholar Edgar S. Brightman said, "I believe in God because I believe that history represents a steady, moral progress." This was turned around by the neo-orthodox scholar Langdon Gilkey when he stated "I believe in God because to me history precisely does not represent such a progress."[15]

Strong elements in liberal Christianity have opposed Zionism since 1920, while at the same time combating intolerance and social hostility toward Jews inside the United States. Support for Zionism is a core belief of Fundamentaliam.

In American Protestantism and a Jewish State (1973) an Israeli government official Hertzel Fishman analyzed several years (1937-1967) worth of Christian Century and concluded that the magazine consistently and historically opposed a Jewish State in Palestine, obstructed immigration of Jewish refugees, minimized the Holocaust, tried to reduce Israel's boundaries and supported Arab 'rights'." Although Dr. Fishman found instances of the magazine denouncing individual acts of anti-semitism, he found that the magazine was consistent in its intolerance and opposition to collective acts of a Jewish "peoplehood."[16]

Espousing a liberal view of Christianity invalidates a person's Christian witness. If a self-proclaimed Christian does not take the entire Bible seriously, unbelievers will assume that they need not do so, either.

The first-quarter 20th century neo-orthodoxy movement was a renewal of Christian doctrines that had been neglected by liberal Christianity within the American and European academy. At the heart of the neo-orthodox renewal appeals to symbolic and aesthetic interpretations of long forgotten Christian doctrines can be found in the works of Karl Barth, the Niebuhr brothers, and Paul Tillich.

See also: Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity

According to a 2007 study reported in the Journal of Family Issues, adherents of liberal Christianity are more likely to engage in marital infidelity than theologically conservative Christians.[17]

Liberal Christianity also embraces the evolutionary paradigm (see also: Evolution and liberalism).

In July of 2000, Creation Ministries International reported:

For years, many people have scoffed at any suggestion that the evils in society could be linked with the teaching of the theory of evolution. But new research has confirmed what Bible-believers have known all along—that the rising acceptance of Darwin’s theory is related to declining morality in the community.

The research survey of 1535 people, conducted by the Australian National University, revealed that belief in evolution is associated with moral permissiveness. Darwin himself apparently feared that belief in evolution by the common man would lead to social decay. The survey showed that people who believed in evolution were more likely to be in favour of premarital sex than those who rejected Darwin’s theory. Another issue which highlighted the contrast between the effect of evolutionary ideas and that of biblical principles was that Darwinians were reported to be ‘especially tolerant’ of abortion.

In identifying the primary factors determining these differences in community attitudes, the author of the research report, Dr Jonathan Kelley, said: ‘The single most important influence after church attendance is the theory of evolution.’[18]

See also: American atheism and Global Christianity

The Birkbeck College, University of London professor Eric Kaufman wrote in his 2010 book Shall the Righteous Inherit the Earth? concerning America:

High evangelical fertility rates more than compensated for losses to liberal Protestant sects during the twentieth century. In recent decades, white secularism has surged, but Latino and Asian religious immigration has taken up the slack, keeping secularism at bay. Across denominations, the fertility advantage of religious fundamentalists of all colours is significant and growing. After 2020, their demographic weight will begin to tip the balance in the culture wars towards the conservative side, ramping up pressure on hot-button issues such as abortion. By the end of the century, three quarters of America may be pro-life. Their activism will leap over the borders of the 'Redeemer Nation' to evangelize the world. Already, the rise of the World Congress of Families has launched a global religious right, its arms stretching across the bloody lines of the War on Terror to embrace the entire Abrahamic family.[19]

Christianity is the world's largest religion and it has seen tremendous growth over its 2000 year history.[21] Christianity has recently seen explosive growth outside the Western World which often has cultures which are very traditional and conservative.[22] In 2000, there were twice as many non-Western Christians as Western Christians.[23] In 2005, there were four times as many non-Western Christians as there were Western World Christians.[24] There are now more non-Western missionaries than Western missionaries.[25]

In 2011, the American Spectator declared concerning research published in the International Bulletin of Missionary Research:

The report estimates about 80,000 new Christians every day, 79,000 new Muslims every day, and 300 fewer atheists every day. These atheists are presumably disproportionately represented in the West, while religion is thriving in the Global South, where charismatic Christianity is exploding."[26]

see also: Internet evangelism and Atheist population

It is thought that given the increase in the availability of public's access to global communications that the more theologically conservative non-Western Christianity could influence Western Christianity to move into more theologically conservative direction.[27] For example, non-Western Anglicans are exerting influence in the worldwide Anglican communion as far as the Anglican Communion's policy concerning homosexuality.[28][29]

Ahlstrom, Sydney E. A Religious History of the American People. (1972), the standard scholarly history. Excerpt and text search Luker, Ralph E. "Liberal Theology and Social Conservatism: a Southern Tradition, 1840-1920." Church History v 10#2 1981. pp 193-207 p online edition Marty, Martin E. Modern American Religion, Vol. 1: The Irony of It All, 1893-1919 (1986); Modern American Religion. Vol. 2: The Noise of Conflict, 1919-1941 (1991) Noll, Mark. A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada (1992), by a conservative historian. Excerpt and text search Machen, J. Gresham (1881-1937), Presbyterian theologian. Christianity and Liberalism (1923). Online edition M. James Sawyer, Liberalism. Web page ? The Kingdom of God in America (1937), New York: Harper and Row, 1959, p. 193? http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=15-09-011-c? Langdon Gilkey, Naming the Whirlwind: The Renewal of God-Language, (1969), 73, 74, and 75? God's promise to preserve His Word? All Scripture Is Given By Inspiration? http://home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/liberalism.htm? http://www.gotquestions.org/liberal-Christian-theology.html? What Liberal Protestants Believe Beliefnet. Accessed 15 March 2008? J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism; Introduction? Documentary Hypothesis? http://www.ukapologetics.net/docu.htm? Is it true that 1 John 5:7...?? Revealing Statistics: Differences Between Denominations? Basic idea for this paragraph is from April 26, 1939 The Christian Century, Reinhold Niebuhr, "Ten Years That Shook My World", pages 542-546 ? Washingtonpost Obit of Langdon Gilkey ? [http://books.google.com/books?id=-BPjHQAACAAJ David A. Rausch, Zionism Within Early American Fundamentalism 1878-1918: A Convergence of Two Traditions (1979) pp 23-25 ? Are There Religious Variations in Marital Infidelity?? Morals decline linked to evolution? Why are 2012 and 2020 key years for Christian creationists and pro-lifers?? Is Christianity taking over the planet?? 2000 YEARS OF CHRISTIAN INCREASE? ? Is Christianity taking over the planet?? Is Christianity taking over the planet?? Is Christianity taking over the planet?? Thriving Christianity? http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18774? http://www.maravipost.com/malawi-politics/district/5751-bishop-mw-anglicans-totally-against-homosexuality.html? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2156406/Anglican-church-schism-declared-over-homosexuality.html

View the original article here

REFILE-UPDATE 2-Merck anesthesia-reversal agent faces new delay

(Adds dropped word at end of first sentence)

* FDA needs more time to analyze data -Merck * Merck says no new safety concerns cited by FDA * Shares down 0.7 percent By Ransdell Pierson

March 15 (Reuters) - The U.S. Food and Drug Administration will not complete its review of Merck & Co's experimental medicine to reverse the effects of anesthesia until the second half of 2013, representing a three-month delay, the drugmaker said.

Merck acquired the product, called sugammadex, through its merger in 2009 with Schering-Plough Corp. The product has faced numerous regulatory delays but is deemed by many analysts and doctors to be one of the biggest advances in anesthesia in decades.

The FDA in 2008 said it could not approve sugammadex until Merck provided more clinical trial data related to allergic reactions and blood clots, possible side effects of the drug. Merck early this year said it had completed the necessary trials and that the FDA had accepted the company's resubmitted marketing application for the drug.

Merck spokeswoman Pam Eisele on Friday said the FDA, in notifying the drugmaker about the expected delay in making a decision on the drug, did not cite any new safety issues.

"We've maintained regular meetings and discussions with the FDA, with a commitment to making sugammadex available in the United States," she said.

Sugammadex is already sold in 75 countries under the brand name Bridion and had 2012 global sales of $261 million. That makes it a modest-sized product for Merck, the second-largest U.S. drugmaker.

Cowen and Co has projected global annual sales for the drug of $575 million by 2016, if it is approved in the United States.

It would be the first in a new class of medicines in the United States known as selective relaxant binding agents. It is designed to inactivate the effects of two widely used anesthesia drugs, rocuronium and vecuronium, and thereby help patients recover far more quickly from anesthesia.

Merck shares were down 0.7 percent at $43.97 on Friday morning on the New York Stock Exchange.

(Reporting by Ransdell Pierson in New York; editing by Gerald E. McCormick, John Wallace and Matthew Lewis)

((ransdell.pierson@thomsonreuters.com)(646 223 6030)(Reuters Messaging: ransdell.pierson.thomsonreuters.com@reuters.net))

Keywords: MERCK SUGAMMADEX/


View the original article here

Talk:Liberal Christianity

(Difference between revisions)

This page is much to kind to liberals. -- ChrisWa I suggest the addition of a section on criticisms or controversy.

No, because then people like myself will whine. -_- Fuzzy 18:47, 26 February 2008 (EST)

I finally understand conservapedia: it's a satire of what passes for conservative thought in the more extreme reaches of the 'net. That aschlafly is an absolute master of irony. This article started out as a sober rendition of liberal Christianity -- boring, boring, boring -- until aschlafly put his magic touch to it. Now it's hilariously funny, as long as I remember that this whole site is a parody of an actual encyclopedia! The joke's on me: it just took me too long to fully appreciate the subtle irony that permeates this site. And aschlafly -- if you're following this; if you're not really a committee of professional comedians -- my hat's off to you, sir! Keep up the wickedly satirical work; and you can count on me to keep the joke quiet, so that other pilgrims can experience the belly laugh I'm enjoying right now. Mrb

Mrb, I suggest you take your liberal bias elsewhere. -- ChrisWa

Could we list these "most popular denominations" for the benefit of those readers who don't know the popularity of various denominations? HelpJazz 19:31, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Yes indeed, that is needed here. Examples are always good - perhaps the article could also list which Churches allow what - both the (Protestant/Anglican) Church of England and Church of Ireland permit women clergy, for example, and are much less strict on matters of dogma. And that's hardly a 'small' population - certainly not the former, at any rate. And it's worth remembering that different branches and countries within a Church can have radically different slants - another example being the far-left wing activist nature of the Catholic Church in 70's and 80's Salvador, Nicaragua and Northern Ireland, and today in many other countries. While remaining 'conservative' on liturgical and family matters, Churches have often strayed politically. Misterlinx 19:56, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Are faiths opposed to liberal positions? Or are they not acting the way that they are because they believe they are following their god's teachings? Is it not the case for the truly faithful that their beliefs transcend mere politics? Or do gods actually have politics? Aboganza 19:34, 26 February 2008 (EST)

There's also a small possibility that I misunderstood the meaning of the first sentence and rewrote it to mean something else. HelpJazz 19:57, 26 February 2008 (EST)


I thought it was agreed you would stop slagging off peoples religion. How would you like it if I made an article on extreme Christianiy and intolerance or hatred? You would throw your teddy in the corner.--Patmac 09:11, 26 May 2013 (EDT)


View the original article here

Boehner ‘absolutely’ trusts Obama, but wary of odds for deficit deal

By Molly K. Hooper - 03/17/13 11:02 AM ET

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) says that he “absolutely” trusts President Obama, but is wary that a grand bargain on the deficit is attainable.

“I don't know whether we can come to a big agreement,” said Boehner in an interview aired Sunday on on ABC’s “This Week.” 

Boehner’s comments come after Obama’s week-long effort to reach out to lawmakers from both parties. The president visited Capitol Hill to meet with Democrats and Republicans from both chambers on a wide range of issues, but with a focus on building a framework to reach a deficit deal.

But the talks also highlighted the split between the White House and Republicans, in particular over taxes. Obama is calling for new tax revenues in a deficit deal.

Earlier this week, Obama also told House Republicans that he opposed a 10-year balanced budget in a closed-door meeting on Capitol Hill, saying his focus was on boosting the economy and jobs.

But Boehner said that increasing taxes on Americans was a non-starter for Republicans, noting that the president won that battle at the start of the year with the expiration of the George W. Bush-era tax cuts for individuals making more than several hundred thousand dollars.

Boehner said that of President Obama “believes that we have to have more taxes from the American people, we’re not going to get very far.”

“If the president doesn't believe that the goal oughta be to balance the budget over the next ten years-- I don't-- not sure we're gonna get very far,” Boehner cautioned.

The House and Senate are both set to vote on their respective budget proposals this week, but neither plan is expected to pass in the other chamber.

Boehner, though, suggested that the House and Senate budgets could at least move forward talks on a deficit deal.

“If we do -- it'll be between the two parties on Capitol Hill. Hopefully, we can go to conference on these budgets and hope springs eternal in my mind,” he said.

The No. 2 ranking Senate Democrat Dick Durbin (Mich.) on Sunday also said the House and Senate budget blueprints presented an opportunity for deal-making between the parties.

“We’ve got to pass this budget resolution in the Senate … and then we’re going to move to the next stage, and that is the grand bargain stage, that’s what the president is trying to set up, both sides sitting down on a bipartisan basis not trying to eliminate Medicare … putting revenues on the table that are fair … and making sure it’s a balanced approach,” Durbin said on “Fox News Sunday.”

Despite his contention that he has a “very good relationship” with President Obama, Boehner though said a grand bargain will be tough to achieve.

“We’re trying to bridge some big differences,” Boehner noted, adding that though the country is not facing “an immediate debt crisis,” in light of the changes that Congress has taken over the past few years. But he warned that there is a major crisis “looming,” in the “entitlement programs that are not sustainable in their current form.”

Fellow Republican, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said on “Fox News Sunday” however that his party may be open to creating revenue with tax reform, if Democrats are open to making structural changes in entitlements such as Medicare.

“I think Republicans if they saw true entitlement reform would be glad to look at tax reform that generates additional revenues, and that doesn't mean increasing rates that means closing loopholes, that also means arranging our tax system so that we have economic growth,” Corker said.

Corker said there was a window for a grand bargain occurring within the next four to five months.

View Comments

View the original article here

Novartis lung cancer drug gets key FDA designation

NEW YORK -- Novartis AG said Friday that its experimental cancer drug LDK378 was designated as a breakthrough therapy by the Food and Drug Administration.

The Swiss drugmaker is studying LDK378 as a treatment for a rare type of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. It is intended for patients whose cancer progressed during treatment with Pfizer Inc.'s drug Xalkori, or who could not tolerate treatment with Xalkori.

The FDA created the breakthrough therapy program in 2012 as a way to speed up the approval process for drugs that could be significant improvements in the treatment of serious or life-threatening diseases from what's currently on the market.

Novartis is running two mid-stage clinical trials of LDK378. It plans to start late-stage testing later in 2013 and to file for marketing approval in early 2014.

Shares of Novartis rose 96 cents to $69.91 in late morning trading. The stock has changed hands between $51.20 and $70.24 in the past 52 weeks.


View the original article here

User:EulaliaFa


View the original article here

Ryan: GOP budget best way to make ‘down payment’ on debt

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), architect of the House GOP budget plan unveiled last week, defended his proposal Sunday, saying it was Washington’s best chance to make a “down payment” and avoid a looming debt crisis.

“My goal and hope with this budget is that now that the Senate is actually doing a budget, is that we now have this vehicle, this legislative process, which was always intended to work this way,” said Ryan on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “The House passes a budget, the Senate passes a budget, talk with the president and let’s get a down payment on the problem.”

Ryan acknowledged that it was unlikely Obama would sign the House GOP budget into law. 

“But let’s get a down payment, let’s get a good start on the problem. That, to me, is something that a constructive, bipartisan engagement can accomplish” he said.

The House Budget Committee chairman said he welcomed Obama’s outreach to congressional lawmakers but would wait and see if the president was sincere about reaching an accord on a grand deficit deal or would resume campaigning.

Ryan said he also agreed with Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who said the U.S. was not facing a debt crisis right now.

“We do not have a debt crisis right now, but we see it coming. We know it is irrefutably happening. The point we are trying to make with our budget is: Let’s get ahead of this problem,” Ryan warned. “If we keep kicking the can down the road, if we follow the president’s lead or if we pass the Senate budget then we will have a debt crisis. Then everybody gets hurt”

Ryan joked that the country was like the “healthiest looking horse in the glue factory.”

Ryan’s budget unveiled last week would balance the budget in 10 years through $5.7 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade.  Ryan's plan assumes repeal of the administration's healthcare plan and would offer payments to seniors who opt out of Medicare for private insurance coverage.

Democrats quickly criticized the proposal, saying Ryan recycled the same ideas from his last budget and warning that the spending cuts and changes to Medicare would hurt the poor and seniors.

Ryan defended the plan, saying it was “what people want” from Washington.

“Our budget is a vision document, our budget encapsulates what we think is the right way to go: Fundamental tax reform for economic growth, patient centered healthcare replacing ‘ObamaCare,’ getting our budget balanced. It’s a responsible balanced budget,” said Ryan.

The House GOP plan also calls for tax reform that eliminates loopholes to cut the seven individual tax brackets to just two: 10 percent and 25 percent. 

Both the House and Senate are set to vote on their budget proposals this week.

Speaker Boehner on Sunday said he remained unconvinced either side will be able to come together on a large-scale deficit deal, but said that the competing budget plans offered hope that both sides in Congress would again talk seriously about a deal.

“I don't know whether we can come to a big agreement,” said Boehner in an interview on ABC’s “This Week.” 

“If the president doesn't believe that the goal ought to be to balance the budget over the next ten years-- I don't-- not sure we're going to get very far,” he added.

View Comments

View the original article here

Boehner: GOP needs better messaging

By Molly K. Hooper - 03/17/13 01:15 PM ET

The highest-ranking elected Republican thinks his party needs to articulate their message more effectively, not clean house of GOP leaders.

Asked if the party had grown “stale and moss covered” – in reference to a remark made by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky) at last week’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) – Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) defended the GOP’s principles. 

“The issue with our party is pretty simple.  There's nothing wrong with the principles of our party,” said Boehner on ABC’s “This Week.”  “But Republicans have not done as an effective job as we should in terms of talking about our principles in terms that average people can appreciate.” 

Last week’s CPAC summit of prominent GOP and conservative activists highlighted many of the divisions in the party, as Republicans look to rebound after the devastating presidential and Senate losses in the 2012 election.

Boehner seized on the issue of “balancing the budget.”

“Balancing the budget, as an example would be good for American families. We've got to do a better job of helping people understand what our principles are in terms that they deal with every day,” Boehner said.

View Comments

View the original article here

Gates: 'Too soon to tell' if Iraq war a success

Nearly a decade after President George W. Bush first ordered American troops into Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein, it remains "too soon to tell" whether the war left the country better or worse off, according to former Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

A number of questions concerning the future of postwar Iraq remain unanswered, Gates said during an interview on CNN's “State of the Union” on Sunday.

"We may not know the answers to those questions for another 10 or 15 years," the former Pentagon chief said. 

One question, according to Gates, is whether the Iraqi government can maintain its tenuous hold on power, in the face of renewed sectarian violence and a resurgent al Qaeda.

Baghdad and surrounding areas in Iraq have increasingly become the target of deadly suicide bombings and attacks by al Qaeda and other extremist groups in the country, while Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki continues to fend off accusations of rampant fraud and corruption within the government. 

However, Gates noted that if Iraq does become a stable, regional power in the Gulf, it will be one of the early examples of a nation that was able to emerge from a repressive dictatorship and evolve into a viable democracy. 

If that turns out to be the case, Gates added, Iraq could be seen as one of the early sparks in the Arab Spring movement that continues to revolutionize the Mideast. 

Rep. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), an Iraq war veteran, maintained Sunday that the Iraq war a "just and noble war."

“There is no certainty in human affairs," he added, noting that the epilogue on Iraq is still being written. That said, going into Iraq "was worth it,” he added. 

But Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii), also a veteran of the Iraq war, said the "miscalculations" in Iraq by the White House and Pentagon leaders could affect how the war is remembered. 

"Victory was not clearly defined," Gabbard said, noting that through most of the war American and allied commanders pursued an "unconventional war" by conventional means, bogging down the war effort and costing U.S. lives. 

One thing that Cotton and Gabbard did agree on is improving the system that cares for the new generation of American veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. 

"Without a doubt, we need to do better" for Iraq and Afghan veterans coming home, as well as all American veterans, Gabbard said. 

"We need to make a concerted effort to make sure those resources are there," said added.

The Department of Veterans Affairs [is] “like an insurance company" which may not have the most up-to-date approaches to get veterans their benefits, Cotton pointed out. 

But with a number of veterans being elected onto Capitol Hill, veterans benefit issues now have a congressional constituency that can fight for those Iraq and Afghan war vets, Cotton said.

View Comments

View the original article here

Liberal

(Difference between revisions)

A liberal is someone who favors increased government spending, power, and control, as in ObamaCare, as well as censorship of Christianity. Liberals have a goal of turning America into a communist state, not unlike the USSR. Indeed, liberals often pursued policies to benefit the Soviets. Increasingly, liberals side with the homosexual agenda, including supporting homosexual "marriage". Many liberals favor a welfare state where people receive endless entitlements without working. Liberals are often anti-Christian, or otherwise disagree with moral or social principles held by many American Christians. The liberal ideology has worsened over the years and degenerated into economically unsound views and intolerant ideology. Some liberals simply support, in knee-jerk fashion, the opposite of conservative principles without having any meaningful values of their own.

Polling data has consistently shown that a decreasingly large percentage of Americans identify as conservative, rather than as liberal, currently by 38% to 21%.[1]

A liberal supports many of the following political positions and practices:

Liberals currently use two Clauses of the Constitution to try to expand their power: the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause. The General Welfare Clause mentions "promoting the general welfare". This to a liberal means taxing the rich at increased rates and redistributing that money. The Commerce Clause, on the other hand, says that Congress has the power to regulate trade with foreign nations, between the states and with the Indian tribes. Since the days of FDR this Clause has been interpreted very loosely and has resulted in the federal government expanding its power. The latest example is The Affordable Care Act (ACA), better know as Obamacare. In the ACA, the liberals justify the individual mandate by saying it regulates commerce between the states.

The decline in liberal principles can be illustrated by how Franklin Delano Roosevelt opposed and condemned public sector unions, stating that the idea of collective bargaining can't be transferred from the private to the public sector, as that would result in the government being unable to carry out its duties. Yet today, decades later, Democrats and liberals are in lock-step with public sector unions, as they "donate" money to the reelection campaign in exchange for more taxpayer money in their wallets and fluffed up pensions.

Current dictionaries describe the liberal ideology by pretending that a liberal is "a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties" or "a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets,"[10] or "open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc." or "favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties."[11] In practical usage, the term "liberal" is more closely synonymous with "radical," "immoral," "anti-freedom," or "bad."

if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }

For more information please see: Liberals and uncharitableness and Atheism and charity

In March of 2008, George Will wrote at RealClearPolitics concerning the United States:

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives....

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.[13]

Atheists and agnostics often reject Biblical morality (and therefore conservative Christianity ) and hold to moral relativism.[14] Therefore, it is not surprising that per capita atheists and agnostics in America give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists.[8][9][10]

The political magazine the American Spectator featured an article which focused on liberal politicians and uncharitableness exposing the hypocrisy of the liberal politicians it featured.[15]

In addition, Barack Obama has been criticized concerning his lack of charitable giving.

See also: Liberalism and bestiality

Bestiality is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. The atheist philosopher Peter Singer defends the practice of bestiality (as well as abortion, infanticide and euthanasia)[17]. Despite holding these immoral views the liberal and pro-evolution academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at Princeton University (Princeton University is a very liberal school - see: Liberalism and bestiality).[18] Peter Singer was installed as the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University in 1999 and in 2006 it was reported that he still worked part-time in that capacity. [19] In 2006, it was also reported that Singer worked part-time as Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne in the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics since 2005.[20]

Joe Carter's First Things article entitled The Dangerous Mind declares concerning Peter Singer declared:

Singer has spent a lifetime justifying the unjustifiable. He is the founding father of the animal liberation movement and advocates ending “the present speciesist bias against taking seriously the interests of nonhuman animals.” He is also a defender of killing the aged (if they have dementia), newborns (for almost any reason until they are two years old), necrophilia (assuming it’s consensual), and bestiality (also assuming it’s consensual).[21]

On October 5, 2011, the British newspaper The Telegraph wrote an article which discussed how homosexuality "rights" have emboldened individuals to ask for so called bestiality "rights" (see: Homosexuality and bestiality).[22]

In 2010, the liberal state of Washington has the highest number of reported cases of bestiality in the United States even though it was merely the 13th most populous state according to the 2010 United States census. (for more information please see: Washington state and bestiality).[23][24][25]

In 2005, four legislators in the liberal state of Massachusetts tried to soften its bestiality laws.[26]

The Bible says that bestiality is a perversion and, under the Old Testament Jewish Law, punishable by death (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 18:23, Leviticus 20:15 and Deuteronomy 27:21). The atheistic worldview does not lend itself to the establishment of morality within society and individuals (see: Atheism and morality and Atheism and deception). The atheistic worldview does not lend itself to the establishment of morality within society and individuals (see: Atheism and morality and Atheism and deception).

A study found that "Psychiatric patients were found to have a statistically significant higher prevalence rate (55%) of bestiality than the control groups (10% and 15% respectively)."[28] The atheist population has a higher suicide rate and lower marriage rates than the general population (see: Atheism and suicide and Atheism and marriageability and Atheism and health).

For more information please see:

See also: Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant

Bestiality is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. A crowd at Occupy Wall Street was led to repeat various chants which included a chant involving bestiality and the incident was videotaped.[29]

Below is an excerpt of the chant:

Everything seems to be possible. [Crowd Parrot Chant] You can travel to the moon. [CPC] You can become immortal [CPC] by biogenetics. You can have sex with animals, or whatever. [CPC].[30] 2384975035 230a0eac30.jpg

The Wall Street Journal reported: "A comprehensive new study released by Baylor University, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. [31]

Also, in September of 2008, the Wall Street Journal reported:

The reality is that the New Atheist campaign, by discouraging religion, won't create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new levels of mass superstition. And that's not a conclusion to take on faith — it's what the empirical data tell us.

"What Americans Really Believe," a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience, such as evolution than evangelical Christians....

This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener," skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in pseudoscience, cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.[32]

Smear merchants.jpg

Democrats and most media outlets in the U.S. are blatantly liberal.[33] Liberalism in North America today practices three primary tactics to attack the Republican Party, and sometimes to attack American values in general. These three liberal tactics can be pronounced using the following acronym: SIN. Liberals (1) shift the subject, they (2) ignore the facts, and they (3) name call.[34][35]

Liberals typically support a "mixed" economy, a policy similar to that of fascism. [36] There's another goal, from my point of view, which is to try to lay the groundwork for a radical political force which would conceive of itself as distinctly to the left of moderate, reformist American liberals. And that has two aspects. One is to try to change that liberalism, to transform it by analysis, critique, and activism; the second is to build a radical movement which would be an autonomous force in its own right, which would be distinct from the traditional American liberal consensus. This radical part of the program involves not simply supporting the liberal students against conservative students and conservative professors, but trying to act on them, to push them to the left. It also involves trying to find and support, even trying to help create, networks of radical students in law school and of radical professors around the country — students and teachers who see themselves as wanting to go a lot further than most people want to go. [37]

The National Journal compiles the votes of each congress member each year and uses the information to create rankings[38] of how liberal each member of the United States Congress is. In addition to showing the voting records of each member and given an overall all ranking of liberalness, the National Journal also ranks congress members by liberalness in the areas of social, economic, and foreign policy.

See also: American atheism and Decline of atheism and Global atheism

Due to the explosive growth of global Christianity in traditional cultures and their influence on Western Christianity and the higher birth rate of conservative Christians and religious conservatives, social conservatism is expected to rise.

The Birkbeck College, University of London professor Eric Kaufman wrote in his 2010 book Shall the Righteous Inherit the Earth? concerning America:

High evangelical fertility rates more than compensated for losses to liberal Protestant sects during the twentieth century. In recent decades, white secularism has surged, but Latino and Asian religious immigration has taken up the slack, keeping secularism at bay. Across denominations, the fertility advantage of religious fundamentalists of all colours is significant and growing. After 2020, their demographic weight will to tip the balance in the culture wars towards the conservative side, ramping up pressure on hot-button issues such as abortion. By the end of the century, three quarters of America may be pro-life. Their activism will leap over the borders of the 'Redeemer Nation' to evangelize the world. Already, the rise of the World Congress of Families has launched a global religious right, its arms stretching across the bloody lines of the War on Terror to embrace the entire Abrahamic family.[39]

In Europe, on the other hand, parties that call themselves liberal are moderate in outlook, ranging from centre-left to centre-right, promote typically economic and business freedom. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe[40] is a party of the European Parliament that represents most liberal parties from European countries. Similar policies are promoted by many liberal parties throughout the world,[41] such as the Liberal Party of Australia.[42]

Trade unions and socialist parties often criticize politicians for promoting lower taxes on business, or more flexible hiring and firing laws, by calling them "liberals" or neoliberals. Thus, just as in the US, "liberal" may occasionally be used as a term of abuse. But when someone is called "liberal" in Europe, it has an entirely different meaning than in the US. In fact, the US meaning of liberal is more similar to the politics of European socialist or social democratic parties.[43]

In history, the word "liberal" has meant different things at different times, and was associated with individual liberty in prior centuries. In the postwar period, liberals supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. After the end of the cold war, with the demise of socialism and communism, many liberals embraced some ideas from economic neo-liberalism, and coined it the "Third Way". In the area of national security and foreign policy liberals in the U.S. failed to define a consistent stance, even after the events of 9/11 and the beginning of the war in Iraq. Liberals generally support affirmative action, gay marriage, and abortion.[44]

Liberalism is a political philosophy with freedom as its core value. The term was originally applied to supporters of individual liberties and equal rights, but, in America, the term has come to represent a movement of social change that often conflicts with conservative values such as moral values and traditions derived from Northern European Protestantism.

See Classical Liberalism. Compare Libertarianism.

See also: Infamous liberals

Source: The Politix Group

"I never use the words Democrats and Republicans. It's liberals and Americans." -James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under Ronald Reagan

? http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1042/winds-of-political-change-havent--shifted-publics-ideology-balance? http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs? http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs? http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs? The Warren Court, led by liberal Justices William O. Douglas, Hugo Black, Abe Fortas, William Brennan and Chief Justice Earl Warren issued 36 decisions granting First Amendment rights to obscenity and pornography. These decisions remain fully supported by liberals today.? http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs? Democrats Aim To Kill Abstinence-Only Program Funding, Fox News, Monday, June 25, 2007? and environmental organizations, for example Greenpeace? For example, the liberal wing of the U.S. Supreme Court issued the 5-4 Kelo v. City of New London decision authorizing the taking of private property by government in order to give the property to another private entity rather than convert it to a public use.? http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=liberal&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&h=00? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal? http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html? http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html? http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=152? http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1c5_1238044128&c=1? ? ? ? The Basis of a Christian Worldview? The Basis of a Christian Worldview? The Dangerous Mind by Joe Carter, First Things? The dark side of sexual freedom: American 'zoophiles' take on the language of equality - October 5, 2011 - The Telegraph? Pet Abuse -2010? 2010 United States Census data? 2011 Political map - CNN? [Massachusetts bill to repeal fornication, adultery, and blasphemy, and to soften bestiality laws]? Study Finds TV Treats Marital Sex as Burdensome, Adultery as Positive? A prevalence study of bestiality (zoophilia) in psychiatric in-patients, medical in-patients, and psychiatric staff - Int J Psychosom. 1991;38(1-4):45-7.? The 10 Greatest Moments From The Occupy Wall Street Protests So Far? The 10 Greatest Moments From The Occupy Wall Street Protests So Far? [1]? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html? Media Bias basics. Media Research Center.? Scott Baker. Did Herman Cain Give the ‘Don’t Miss’ Speech at CPAC?, The Blaze, February 12, 2011.? YouTube. Herman Cain: "Stupid People Are Ruining America", February 11, 2011.? Video discussion about how modern liberalism is actually fascist by author Jonah Goldberg..? Liberal Values in Legal Education Duncan Kennedy (professor at Harvard Law School)? http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm? Why are 2012 and 2020 key years for Christian creationists and pro-lifers?? http://www.alde.eu? http://www.liberal-international.org/? [2]? [3]? "Political liberals tend, for whatever reason, to be ardent supporters of both gay rights and pro-choice programs." Greenberg and Bailey [4] ? http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s151/candypop_02/Serial%20Killers/John%20Wayne%20Gacy/?action=view¤t=SERIAL_KILLER_John_Wayne_Gacy_In-1.mp4? http://www.digitaljournal.com/image/45527

View the original article here

FDA seeks to fast track Novartis lung cancer drug

* LDK378 treats non-small cell lung cancer

* Compound seen as potential future blockbuster

* Novartis sees first regulatory filing in early 2014

ZURICH, March 15 (Reuters) - The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has designated a compound developed by Novartis AG to treat a type of non-small cell lung cancer for fast-track development and review, the Swiss drugmaker said on Friday.

Novartis said the FDA had given "breakthrough therapy" designation to its LDK378 compound, a process aimed at speeding up the review of drugs that treat life-threatening conditions if the therapy has demonstrated efficacy.

LDK378 - seen as a potential future blockbuster - is designed to treat anaplastic lymphoma kinase positive (ALK+) metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Sufferers tend to be non-smokers and younger than other lung cancer patients.

Novartis said two Phase II trials were under way and it planned to launch several Phase III trials later this year with first regulatory filing expected by early next year.

"This breakthrough therapy designation will allow us to collaborate more closely with the FDA and potentially to expedite the availability of an important new treatment option for patients with ALK+ NSCLC," said Alessandro Riva, Novartis head of oncology development.

(Reporting by Emma Thomasson, editing by William Hardy)

((+41 58 306 7311)(Reuters Messaging: emma.thomasson.thomsonreuters.com@reuters.net))

Keywords: NOVARTIS/LUNGCANCER


View the original article here

Boehner Says He Would Oppose Marriage Equality Even If Son Was Gay

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) — who is spending millions of taxpayer dollars opposing marriage equality — told ABC’s This Week that he could never see himself supporting same-sex unions, despite the growing evolution towards marriage for all within the Republican Party.

Responding to Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) change of heart on the issue, Boehner said that he “appreciates” his friend’s new position, but insisted that “I believe that marriage is a union of a man and a woman” and predicted that he would not change his mind even if he found out that his own son is gay:

MARTHA RADDATZ (HOST): Can you imagine yourself in a situation where you reversed your decision as Portman has on gay marriage if a child of yours or someone you love told you they were gay.

BOEHNER: Listen, I believe marriage is a union between one man and one woman. It’s what I grew up with, it’s what i belive, it’s what my church teaches me and I can’t imagine that position would ever change.

Watch it:

Research indicates that people who have a close gay friend or family member are “more than twice as likely” to support same-sex marriage.


View the original article here

Economics Model Answers Eleven - 2013

(Difference between revisions)1.  Briefly define each of these terms: monopsony, economic rent, and economic profits.1.  Briefly define each of these terms: monopsony, economic rent, and economic profits.:A [[monopsony]] is when there is only one buyer, as in the example of only one company to employ people (buy labor) in a small town.:Economic rent is the extra revenue obtained above the minimum amount that would occur in a perfectly competitive market, as in the example of the extra profits a monopolist is able to earn due to his monopoly.:Economic profit is the profit earned when opportunity costs are considered.  It is usually less than the accounting profit, which is merely money received minus money paid.2.  Define, in your own words, what a "production possibilities curve" is.2.  Define, in your own words, what a "production possibilities curve" is.:A production possibility curve is a graph that illustrates the different combinations of goods that a nation can produce.  Moving along the production possibilities curve represents transferring resources from one good (or service) to the other.3.  Review: how is the elasticity of demand for labor related to the price elasticity of demand for the product of that labor?3.  Review: how is the elasticity of demand for labor related to the price elasticity of demand for the product of that labor?:If the good produced by the firm is ''highly'' price elastic, then a small increase in price causes a large decrease in demand for the good, and thus a large decrease in output by the firm.  But this large decrease in output means there must be a large decrease in the number of workers needed to produce that output.  Thus the demand for labor is highly elastic when there is high price elasticity of demand for the product of that labor.  Notice how in economics it helps to consider the extreme case to get the right answer.  4.  Do you think that government policy should give high priority to the Lorenz curve?  Explain the issue that a Lorenz curve addresses, and whether you think that should be a high priority of government economic policy.4.  Do you think that government policy should give high priority to the Lorenz curve?  Explain the issue that a Lorenz curve addresses, and whether you think that should be a high priority of government economic policy.:An example of a Lorenz curve is [http://ingrimayne.com/econ/AllocatingRationing/MeasuringIncomeDist.html here].:The Lorenz curve shows the actual distribution of income among people in society, compared with what an equal distribution of income in society. Thus the Lorenz curve illustrates inequality in wealth distribution.  But if government tries to make wealth distribution equal, then it reduces opportunity and discourages people from working to making more money.  The result is an overall loss in total wealth in society, as occurs in communist systems.5. Look again at Figure A (on p.3).  What is the opportunity cost of shifting production from B to C?  5. Look again at Figure A (on p.3).  What is the opportunity cost of shifting production from B to C?  6. Review:  explain again what AFC, AVC and ATC are, and how they relate to each other.  When should a firm shut down in the short run?6. Review:  explain again what AFC, AVC and ATC are, and how they relate to each other.  When should a firm shut down in the short run?:AFC is average fixed costs, which are the total fixed costs divided by number of units produced. AVC is average variable costs, which are the total variable costs divided by number of units produced. AFC+AVC=ATC.  Stated another way, ATC is average total costs, which is FC+VC/Q. If AVC>P, then a firm should shut down in the short run.7. What is needed to reach point D in Figure A (on p.3)?  (In other words, what causes a production possibilities curve to shift outward?)7. What is needed to reach point D in Figure A (on p.3)?  (In other words, what causes a production possibilities curve to shift outward?):There would need to be a shift in the production possibility frontier of the goods outward, due to an increase in the production and efficiency, in order for point D to be reached. This increase in overall output of goods could occur due to advances in technology, an increase in the workforce, or better equipment available for businesses.8.  Look again at Figure C (on p.1) in the lecture (the first graph in this Lecture).  At what point is total revenue maximized?8.  Look again at Figure C (on p.1) in the lecture (the first graph in this Lecture).  At what point is total revenue maximized?:Total revenue is ''maximized'' when marginal revenue equals 0 (crosses the x-axis).  This is the quantity at Point E, and the price on the demand curve corresponding to that quantity.9.  Explain why the production possibilities curve is convex (opening downward like the top of a circle) rather than concave (opening upward like the inside of a bowl) or a straight line.9.  Explain why the production possibilities curve is convex (opening downward like the top of a circle) rather than concave (opening upward like the inside of a bowl) or a straight line.:It is convex because it is inefficient converting a factory from the production of one good to another.  The maximum total number of goods that can be produced will be near the mid-point, and the overall total declines as all the factories are converted to producing only one good or the other.10.  Suppose you are a monopsony, and you must pay $9 per hour ($9/hr) to hire nine workers, but in order to hire one more worker you must pay $10/hr.  The tenth worker will bring in $15 extra per hour to the firm’s revenue.  Do you hire the tenth worker?10.  Suppose you are a monopsony, and you must pay $9 per hour ($9/hr) to hire nine workers, but in order to hire one more worker you must pay $10/hr.  The tenth worker will bring in $15 extra per hour to the firm’s revenue.  Do you hire the tenth worker?:No, you do not hire the tenth worker. If you were to hire the tenth worker, then that hiring would end up costing you $19 an hour ($10 for the extra work plus an additional $1 per nine workers to raise their wage to $10 per hour), while resulting in revenue of only $15. That would be a loss of $4 an hour, and you would not want to incur that loss.11.  In the term "comparative advantage," to what does the adjective "comparative" refer?  What is the term actually "comparing"?  Explain.11.  In the term "comparative advantage," to what does the adjective "comparative" refer?  What is the term actually "comparing"?  Explain.:It is a "comparison of the comparisons."  What really matters is how much more efficiently a nation can produce one good relative to another good, compared with how much more efficiently the other nation can produce one good relative to another good.  But don't get too tangled up in this detail for purposes of the exam.  Any comparison of nations and their production of two goods on the exam is likely a question about comparative advantage, and the correct answer will almost certainly be for the cheaper country to produce what it produces best.[[Category:Economics lectures]]

Economics Homework - [1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12]


1. Briefly define each of these terms: monopsony, economic rent, and economic profits.

A monopsony is when there is only one buyer, as in the example of only one company to employ people (buy labor) in a small town. Economic rent is the extra revenue obtained above the minimum amount that would occur in a perfectly competitive market, as in the example of the extra profits a monopolist is able to earn due to his monopoly. Economic profit is the profit earned when opportunity costs are considered. It is usually less than the accounting profit, which is merely money received minus money paid.

2. Define, in your own words, what a "production possibilities curve" is.

A production possibility curve is a graph that illustrates the different combinations of goods that a nation can produce. Moving along the production possibilities curve represents transferring resources from one good (or service) to the other.

3. Review: how is the elasticity of demand for labor related to the price elasticity of demand for the product of that labor?

If the good produced by the firm is highly price elastic, then a small increase in price causes a large decrease in demand for the good, and thus a large decrease in output by the firm. But this large decrease in output means there must be a large decrease in the number of workers needed to produce that output. Thus the demand for labor is highly elastic when there is high price elasticity of demand for the product of that labor. Notice how in economics it helps to consider the extreme case to get the right answer.

4. Do you think that government policy should give high priority to the Lorenz curve? Explain the issue that a Lorenz curve addresses, and whether you think that should be a high priority of government economic policy.

An example of a Lorenz curve is here. The Lorenz curve shows the actual distribution of income among people in society, compared with what an equal distribution of income in society. Thus the Lorenz curve illustrates inequality in wealth distribution. But if government tries to make wealth distribution equal, then it reduces opportunity and discourages people from working to making more money. The result is an overall loss in total wealth in society, as occurs in communist systems.

5. Look again at Figure A (on p.3). What is the opportunity cost of shifting production from B to C?

350 cars.

6. Review: explain again what AFC, AVC and ATC are, and how they relate to each other. When should a firm shut down in the short run?

AFC is average fixed costs, which are the total fixed costs divided by number of units produced. AVC is average variable costs, which are the total variable costs divided by number of units produced. AFC+AVC=ATC. Stated another way, ATC is average total costs, which is FC+VC/Q. If AVC>P, then a firm should shut down in the short run.

7. What is needed to reach point D in Figure A (on p.3)? (In other words, what causes a production possibilities curve to shift outward?)

There would need to be a shift in the production possibility frontier of the goods outward, due to an increase in the production and efficiency, in order for point D to be reached. This increase in overall output of goods could occur due to advances in technology, an increase in the workforce, or better equipment available for businesses.

8. Look again at Figure C (on p.1) in the lecture (the first graph in this Lecture). At what point is total revenue maximized?

Total revenue is maximized when marginal revenue equals 0 (crosses the x-axis). This is the quantity at Point E, and the price on the demand curve corresponding to that quantity.

9. Explain why the production possibilities curve is convex (opening downward like the top of a circle) rather than concave (opening upward like the inside of a bowl) or a straight line.

It is convex because it is inefficient converting a factory from the production of one good to another. The maximum total number of goods that can be produced will be near the mid-point, and the overall total declines as all the factories are converted to producing only one good or the other.

10. Suppose you are a monopsony, and you must pay $9 per hour ($9/hr) to hire nine workers, but in order to hire one more worker you must pay $10/hr. The tenth worker will bring in $15 extra per hour to the firm’s revenue. Do you hire the tenth worker?

No, you do not hire the tenth worker. If you were to hire the tenth worker, then that hiring would end up costing you $19 an hour ($10 for the extra work plus an additional $1 per nine workers to raise their wage to $10 per hour), while resulting in revenue of only $15. That would be a loss of $4 an hour, and you would not want to incur that loss.

11. In the term "comparative advantage," to what does the adjective "comparative" refer? What is the term actually "comparing"? Explain.

It is a "comparison of the comparisons." What really matters is how much more efficiently a nation can produce one good relative to another good, compared with how much more efficiently the other nation can produce one good relative to another good. But don't get too tangled up in this detail for purposes of the exam. Any comparison of nations and their production of two goods on the exam is likely a question about comparative advantage, and the correct answer will almost certainly be for the cheaper country to produce what it produces best.

View the original article here

Klobuchar: Grand bargain on deficit still within reach

There is still time for Republicans to find common ground with the White House and congressional Democrats for a grand bargain on the deficit, a top Senate Democrat said Sunday. 

When asked point-blank on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” whether she believed a grand bargain could be reached, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D) replied: "I do." 

"The American people will not stand for this anymore," said of the fiscal stalemate that has blocked lawmakers from a deal. 

"There are [several] things we can do" to trim government spending, such as closing a number of corporate loopholes in the current tax code ,while ensuring critical social welfare programs remain viable, she added. 

However, House and Senate Republicans would have to acknowledge that tax increases must be part of that equation, she insisted. 

Klobuchar’s optimism was matched by Tennessee Republican Sen. Bob Corker, who told “Fox News Sunday” that he sees a four to five month window in which to obtain a grand deficit bargain.  

“I think Republicans if they saw true entitlement reform would be glad to look at tax reform that generates additional revenues," said Corker. 

But "that doesn't mean increasing rates that means closing loopholes, that . . . means arranging our tax system so that we have economic growth,” he added. 

Their comments come after President Obama’s week-long effort to reach out to lawmakers from both parties. The president visited Capitol Hill to speak with Democrats and Republicans from both chambers on a wide range of issues, but with a focus on building a framework to reach a deficit deal.

Despite those efforts, House Majority Leader Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) remained unconvinced either side will be able to come together on a large-scale deficit deal. 

“I don't know whether we can come to a big agreement,” said Boehner in an Sunday interview on ABC’s “This Week.” 

“If the president doesn't believe that the goal oughta be to balance the budget over the next ten years-- I don't-- not sure we're gonna get very far,” he added. 

But the battle between congressional Republicans and the Obama administration does not mean House and Senate lawmakers cannot come up with their own bipartisan plan, according to Boehner. 

"Hopefully, we can go to conference on these budgets and hope springs eternal in my mind,” Boehner said.

View Comments

View the original article here

Template:Mainpageleft


Conservapedia: Over 450 million Views & 1,000,000+ Edits. Free courses are here. Or join our discussion of the Origination Clause.

Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity

101 evidences for a young earth

Comprehensive resource to refute the claims of evolutionists

Question evolution! campaign - worldwide anti-evolution campaign featuring 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer]

The Question evolution! campaign is a worldwide anti-evolution campaign and is primarily being conducted in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and South Africa.[1] The focus of the campaign is on 15 Questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer. The 15 questions can be found HERE.

10 reasons why 2013 will be a BAD year for Darwinism

January-blue-calendar.jpg

5 strategies to collapse Darwinism

Five.pngChina location.png

Can social unrest in Europe lead to a change of their religious landscape? Are creationists poised and in a position to take advantage of this unrest to further grow biblical creation belief in Europe? [2][3]

Europe map.png

Essays on atheism and evolution

Good person test

"I do not seek. I find."

Pablo Picasso

If you want the present to be different from the past, study the past.

Baruch Spinoza

Kind words do not cost much. Yet they accomplish much.

Blaise Pascal

Christian apologetics is the defense of the Christian faith through logical arguments. The term comes from the Greek word apologia, which means "defense".

"To everything there is a season, A time for every purpose under heaven." - Ecclesiastes 3:1 (NKJ)

“when the wicked perish, there is song,’’ but later warns, “If your enemy falls, do not rejoice.” - The Book of Proverbs.

"The wicked flee when no one is pursuing, But the righteous are bold as a lion." - Proverbs 28:1 (NASB)

Though translation of the New Testament is complete, improvements and ideas are always welcome, and much work remains in the Old Testament.

Find your favorite verses and join the Best of the Public in translating a few!


View the original article here

Colorado Sheriffs Threaten Not To Enforce Their Own State’s Gun Laws

For months, local sheriffs have been objecting to federal efforts to stem gun violence in the wake of the Newtown massacre, claiming they violate “states’ rights.” Now, with a package of gun violence prevention measures awaiting the governor’s signature in a state that has seen some of the most deadly and high-profile mass shootings, several Colorado county sheriffs are threatening not to enforce their own state’s measures to expand criminal background checks and limit ammunition magazines if they are signed into law. The Greeley Tribune reports:

Weld County Sheriff John Cooke said he won’t enforce either gun-control measure waiting to be signed into law by Gov. John Hickenlooper, saying the laws are “unenforceable” and would “give a false sense of security.” […]

“They’re feel-good, knee-jerk reactions that are unenforceable,” he said.

Cooke said the bill requiring a $10 background check to legally transfer a gun would not keep firearms out of the hands of those who use them for violence.

“Criminals are still going to get their guns,” he said.

Cooke said the other bill would also technically ban all magazines because of a provision that outlaws any magazine that can be altered. He said all magazines can be altered to a higher capacity.

Cooke said he, like other county sheriffs, “won’t bother enforcing” the laws because it will be impossible for them to keep track of how the requirements are being met by gun owners. He said he and other sheriffs are considering a lawsuit against the state to block the measures if they are signed into law.

El Paso County Sheriff Terry Maketa also said Thursday that several of the laws are unenforceable and that he would willfully ignore the high-capacity magazine limit. And Cooke’s position appears to have the support of a number of other state sheriffs; during testimony calling the law unenforceable, 20 other county sheriffs stood behind him in solidarity.

Sheriffs’ assertions that the laws are simply too difficult to enforce and/or ineffective is the latest in a string of arguments by a contingent of county sheriffs opposed to any new gun violence prevention measures. Other sheriffs, several of whom are part of a fringe militia group whose members believe that sheriffs are the highest law enforcement authorities and vow to defy any law or order that violates their radical view of the Constitution, have argued that federal regulation violates states’ rights and the Second Amendment.

Conservative legislators are also already committing to repeal the ammunition magazine limit if enacted through a 2014 ballot measure.

Other measures that passed both houses of the Colorado legislature include a requirement that firearm buyers pay for their own background checks, a ban on online certification for concealed-carry permits, and a ban on gun purchases by people convicted of domestic violence crimes.


View the original article here