You might want to add to your critical thinking one thing - How do we pay for the progressive agenda? It'd be nice to see something besides rich people/companies are greedy and need to be taxed more.

The tax struture is geting top-heavy in terms of % taxes paid by high wage earners and we still have a $1.4T deficit and the health plan to pay for.

Heck, myabe cost savings like no Iraq war? I got the prop tax bill on a Portland property and PFDR + Urban Renewal = the amount paid for schools.

Well, as my dad used to say with enough irony to note the irony but not enough to make him adjust his mindset: "Don't bother me with the facts, my mind is made up!"

Critical thinking is the #1 enemy of a very substantial part of the United States economy. Would critical thinkers consume highly processed foods containing unhealthy levels of fat, salt and unknown and unpronounceable chemicals? Would critical thinkers incur credit card debt at high rates of interest to purchase disposable consumer products? Would critical thinkers spend their evening watching "Battle of the Network Stars"?

Morons make the world go round.

I have to say that when I lived in Texas that I considered a lack of critical thinking to be a right wing disease, but, living in Portland, I've been shocked at how reality testing challenged the left can be.

Maybe my sample is limited. I know that when I lived in Texas, knowing that someone was a Cowboys fan would have precluded letting them even know that I was associated with critical thinking.

Good post. News to me that Jeff was talking about moderates. So, you all are really going to ignore the reprehensible right, as they pile the kindling up around the house?

Texas does produce a broad range. Bush to Paul. On BO, I, Pat and Jenni have confessed. Definitely not cookie cutter progressives.

What I got out of my undergraduate (liberal arts) education was an ability to read, write, analyze, and think critically. Many years later, I can only vaguely tell you about the assorted subjects (which may be due to the beer drinking and less to the passage of time)...but I know that every course I took encouraged me to think critically about an author's writing, perspective, and construction. In HS, most kids only get exposure to that kind of rigorous education in AP/IB advanced courses (if they exist in the first place).

Critical thinking is hard work. It requires research and being exposed to facts and circumstances that may be unsettling at first. A critical thinker should always be willing to have his/her perspective turned upside down (or at least tilted) by new information, facts, perspectives, studies, and time. I have seen a deficit of critical thinking exist in all political camps and across the spectrum. Why? Because it's easier to sit back on your haunches and be comfortable in thinking that you certainly know what you know because it's right. It's hard to be comfortable in a state of not knowing or in spending the time to find/do (legitimate) research that backs up what say.

My favorite quote of all time has to be one commonly attributed to Lincoln: "Best to keep one's mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove any doubt". There have been few times in history when silent wisdom triumphs over boisterous foolery...but it is those times, when people take time to listen, that are the most rewarding. Talking's easy, it's listening that's hard.

I don't want a country or state of Kumbaya. Frankly, it would be a pretty uninteresting and cardboard-bland. I'd go for a state of respect, which is impossible achieve if everyone is carrying pitchforks, enjoying the sounds of their own voices, and no one is listening.

"Critical thinking is a minor irritant and a vestigal appendage to a few civics and social studies classes."

In Portland, it tends to be tied into a defensive attitude about how "progressive" we are. Though we're a very different city in a very different state today, history concerns itself with progressions and decisions back to The Oregonian's opposition to suffrage, massacres of Chinese in the 1880s and the Modoc War, the most expensive Indian war in US history. The confiscation of Japanese-American land (now prime real-estate) in the West Hills? The complex and sordid history of the Termination Act that turned Klamath County from a prosperous and healthy ecosystem and community into a dirt-poor timber plantation.

Here in Portland, we've low-balled a lot of things under the pretense that the mediocrity of othercities mass transit, or education, or crime, excuses our own shortcomings.

Both the smug and the influential (and the smug influential) seemed to have made OR-Gov a foregone race, and couldn't be happier. Why are we cheering on the same entrenched re-treads that led us to this point?

A hungry quintile of children, an unemployed underclass--these are things that any civilized people should take shame in. Question me if critical thinking compels you to, but come at it with a look at reality and not what you want to see. False equivalencies and rose-colored lenses are not needed. If we don't have pervasive, lasting problems than who else can we condemn in the US? Not many.

I think it would be entirely appropriate to begin this new era of rational debate by applying our new Critical Thinking skills to the post itself. Let's take another look at the sample dispute between Pat and his dad:

Dad: "You know, in England, older people who want hip replacement surgery are out of luck. They wait in line for months and most retirees aren't even eligible."

Me (after a quick Google): "It's just not true Dad. In the last reported year, 68% of all hip replacement surgeries were performed on people over the age of 70, and about 1500 were performed on people over the age of 85."

Everyone have their Critical Thinking goggles on? Good. Let's begin.

Dad offers two points to support his conclusion that "older people... are out of luck," 1) They wait in line for months, and 2) most retirees are ineligible.

Pat, in his rebuttal, offers two counter-points which prove Dad's points are inaccurate. Or do they? A closer look at what the Google-generated rebuttal actually proves is warranted. Because none of Pat's argument addresses wait times, it is fair to assume that the entire counter-argument is aimed at the assertion that most retirees are not eligible for hip replacement. Unfortunately, Pat's statistics do nothing to disprove Dad's point. Pat's statistics do not tell us how many seniors need hip replacement, nor how many are eligible. The demographic breakdown of those who do receive the surgery tells us absolutely nothing about who is eligible, who is not, and who should be. A hard number regarding a portion of those who do receive the surgery is similarly useless. The number of seniors that are ineligible, and need hip replacement, remains a mystery.

Dad, recognizing an irrational opponent, makes the wise decision to defuse the situation: change the subject.

I've read in numerous periodicals that cutting taxes stimulates the economy. For instance, recently socialist states like Germany and France have begun cutting taxes as a means of stimulating the economy.

Pat - do you believe cutting taxes stimulates the economy?

The reason I ask is because this is the exact opposite the USA seems to be going under democrat/obama rule.

Pat, sounds like you agree that if we could offer tax cuts without increasing borrowing, that would have a good effect on the economy? That makes good sense to me, but I don't see any major parties advocating that.

"The most recent was the one in the stimulus package signed into law by Obama a couple of months back."

The obama stimulus wasn't based on tax cuts - just printing money and giving it to people, hoping for job creation, which hasn't panned out.

"whole free lunch idea has been embraced by many alleged "fiscal conservatives"

Not sure what you mean here, I can't think of any conservatives that adovcate a free lunch?

Bottom line for me: I don't think we can keep expanding entitlement programs forever w/o serious economic problems for this country. At some point, we'll have to get serious about the future of this country - I just hope it doesn't take a fiscal armageddon for people of all political stripes to realize "there is no free lunch".

"You Know stuff, like Obama didn't cut taxes, and in fact what he's done so far is "the opposite". - Pat

I haven't seen my taxes cut by obama or anybody else. As a matter of fact, despite the value of my house plummeting, my property taxes are due to increase. Also, the Multnomah dems just raised vehicle registration fees by $19. I am not seeing the "tax cuts" that you know exist. I am not calling you a liar, Pat, I just don't see them...? Can you be more specific. Where are the cuts?

"A disproportionate taxation on the poor and working class inevitably harms the economy" - Steve

I agree. But everytime I turn around, fee's and taxes are increasing for me (middle class) - not going down. I don't see the democrats or republicans solving this, and I don't think it's sustainable.

I guess I hadn't noticed obama cut taxes - because I am not seeing it in my bottom line. With everything else going up in cost - my $65/month, or whatever extra obama has allowed me to keep from my paycheck, hasn't made much of a dent.

You may want to consider taking a look at what expenses that are and are not part of the CPI calculation. Link

Follow some of the expanded items.

Note that taxes (other than sales tax) are not included in the calculation.

Since many can agree that healthcare costs are increasing at a rapid rate, other expenses must be declining to compensate.

I don't know about Jellyroll's specific situation, but he clearly knows that his paycheck isn't going as far as it use to go.

As far as coupons, sales, etc. are concerned, you are right that careful shoppers can make their dollars go farther. Unfortunately many simply do not pay any attention at all to these easy savings. It just takes a little effort.

Steavis said, "How do we pay for the progressive agenda?"

First of all, Steavis, very little that is printed on BO has anything to do with progressivism.

Real progressives' agenda would pay for health care by defunding Obama's wars and occupations, bringing home the imperial troops from the thousand or so military bases that we're presently funding without comment from the elites of both corporate parties, and ending the welfare-for-the-rich subsidies that both paries love.

No tax increases necessary.

"I've read in numerous periodicals that cutting taxes stimulates the economy. For instance, recently socialist states like Germany and France have begun cutting taxes as a means of stimulating the economy."

Where do you get Germany and France being socialist states? They have socialist components that make sense, such as a couple of the better health care systems in the world, but if their elected leaders - Angela Merkel in German and Nicolas Sarkozy in France - are clearly right of center that would be difficult to do in a socialist state.

Also, how do you explain Rich Germans Want More Taxes? Could it be they want to sabotage their own economy if raising taxes automatically has a negative impact on the economy?

Can I point out that many of us have migrated away from the Democratic party based on the arrogance that is on display here? Whenever someone starts out by pointing out how super smart they are compared to their dad, it makes me want to hurl. He did raise you, right? Maybe he knows a couple of things you don't, just via his age and experiences.
When I worked at UCSF, I found the vast majority of liberals have no clue what Democrats and "progressives" actually stand for: more government power and intervention in their lives. If you hate fighting with your insurance company, wait until you find out what it's like to fight with your government as your insurance company. There is a basic benefit we have all achieved from having these entities separate that I think you guys forget: oversight. Your friend who needs the hip replacement could call the insurance commissioner now. Additionally, she could schedule the surgery herself and pay for it out of pocket. Under the utopian ideal that progressives want, paying for these things out of pocket will no longer be an option. When the insurance commissioner is the one making the decision to deny her coverage, who will she call? The press in England have had a field day covering the women who are fighting to get the newest drugs to help fight breast cancer, but it hasn't moved the cold hearts of the bureaucrats denying their coverage.

I'm sorry about that. I'll go a bit slower so you can keep up. Your dad brought up the obvious problems with socialized medicine in England. You said that he was wrong about the single case scenario he quoted. Then you suggested that you had "won" the argument because you could deny a single specific case based on questionable numbers. I point out that there is at least one other case scenario that you cannot deny factually that is a glaring problem with socialized medicine limiting care. That is to say, the core of your father's argument is factually correct and you are arrogant not to admit it (maybe you aren't the super critical thinker you assume you are).
If healthcare is a right, would you say that medical professionals are technically legally required to work for free? Does government have the "right" derived from people to force pay structures even if it creates slaves? Doesn't that infringe on the right to liberty or the pursuit of happiness? Constitutional rights were intended to limit government, yet, it seems your understanding suggests they are intended to expand government and nullify other rights.

<h2>Man, I take back my earlier post. It was mean sounding and snotty. I apologize.</h2>