IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags gop , republicans

Reply
Old 29th November 2009, 09:21 PM   #161
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by Sporanox View Post
We can argue about whether reducing our dependency on social help/handouts is a bad thing or not. Perhaps it is - perhaps our society has been incorrigibly altered. But it doesn't seem like such a bad idea to me to run with intelligent small-government proposals, instead of going "moderate" (read: deficit spending). We've had plenty of examples of that in the past decade.
There is a time for deficit spending. Wartime, for example. And during periods of extreme financial crisis which threaten the very fundamentals of economic operation.

This notion that deficit spending is an inherent evil above all others is rather bizarre.

In response to the recent financial freeze, Congressional Republicans churned out an alternate proposal which consisted entirely of tax cuts! It was totally insane.

That's what adherence to ideology will get you.

I'm not saying that the response we got wasn't flawed. It certainly was, and is. But at least it fended off a global meltdown, which the Republican proposal would not have.

That's the problem with ideological purity in a nutshell. You get one tool to fix all problems. And that never works.

Look, to be viable again, we have to engage with the real world, plain and simple, and that includes dealing with a wide variety of constituencies and making pragmatic compromises.

If we don't do that, we're dead.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2009, 09:38 PM   #162
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by Sporanox View Post
To give you an idea of how I believe Republican principles can work in practice, I'll give some examples:

1: Small, nonintrusive government. We get government out of people's sexual preferences wrt gay marriage (by legalizing it or getting out of marriage altogether) and submit to the rights of private American citizens in regards to wiretapping by making sure we do it legally.
I agree with you on those points.

Leave marriage to the churches, temples, and mosques, and allow civil unions for pretty much any pair of consenting adults who wants one.

No more BS wiretaps, and no more lying about it. FISA already allowed retroactive warrants, so all the smoke and mirrors about responsiveness was just a bunch of baloney.

However, we still need sufficient apparatus to actually govern this huge nation and not get steamrolled internationally.

Originally Posted by Sporanox View Post
2: Fiscal conservatism. We stop signing costly boondoggles like Medicare Part D and the bailouts into law. We let capitalism take its course, e.g. allowing firms to fail. We actually move to balance the budget.
The first part of that proposal is, I have to say, nothing but fantasy.

The "invisible hand" theory has long been debunked. There is no magic in benign-neglect capitalism. It leads to boom-and-bust cycles, economy-wrecking bubbles, and rampant corruption.

As for the bailouts, we learned our lesson with Lehman. Allowing those big firms to fail would be like throwing mutineers off a ship while they're shackled by the leg to the rest of the crew. Satisfying for a split second, but quickly resulting in the loss of the ship.

Were the bailouts distasteful? Absolutely. Were they bungled? In many ways, yes. But that said, there's no doubt that some form of financial infusion was 100% necessary.

And if we don't pick up the reins, and instead allow things to go back the way they were, with shadow markets and lax oversight -- or, worse, if we deregulate even further -- there is no doubt we'll soon come right back to where we were. Only this time, we won't be able to swing the bailout, and we'll all sink.

Balanced budget? I'm all for it, as soon as it can be responsibly done.

Originally Posted by Sporanox View Post
3: Strong national defense. We avoid overexerting the U.S. Army by modeling it for a conventional war it wasn't meant to fight; we recognize changes on the ground and respond to them when appropriate (the surge was too long in coming); and we actually PLAN RESPONSIBLY for war.
Yeah, I'm agreed there. And I think most in Washington are on board with that. I believe the Bush administration was an abberation on that count.

Because Bush was so weak when it came to anything military, his cabinet was key.

Unfortunately, with a few notable exception, his advisors consisted primarily of the extremists left over from his father's administration -- men like Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz, who had outlandish ideas that quite rightly had been blocked by cooler heads under Bush Sr., but who in Jr's administration were given free rein to implement these half-baked notions, with the results we have seen.

If you want a horrific example of why pragmatism is better than ideological purity, you have to look no further than the Iraq war.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2009, 05:24 AM   #163
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post


I don't believe the US Constitution inevitably leads to a 2 party system. That's what we have, though, and it's hard to shake once you have it. But I don't see that there's anything in the Constitution that would naturally prohibit a mutli-party system with de-facto coalition governments.
Sure, but you have to come up with some way to prevent the problem of splitting the vote. So how do you remove the split the vote issue in the American electorial system?
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2009, 05:32 AM   #164
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
Originally Posted by Sporanox View Post
Submit platitudes, and you shall receive: You don't want government screwing around in your life women's lives, but screwing around in the lives of others babies is fine with you.
If you really want to debate that fine, but this isn't the thread for yet another abortion debate. OF course it isn't exactly goverment doing anything, rather not banning something.

Quote:
That's the point. Once they got into office, Republicans forgot about their principles. Their legislative dominance was, from then on, as much of a liability as an asset.
No they never had them to begin with. It was all propaganda.

Quote:
I concede that there is a possibility that Americans might decide they don't like the basic Republican principles. But the GOP hasn't been pushing basic Republican principles over the past decade, so there's no reason to keep the status quo.

See, that's the problem: those who want to keep the GOP the way it is don't consider that doing so will not really succeed in passing any true Republican solutions. There must be some room for disagreement, of course, but less than there has been in the past. If that leads to a new centrist party springing up, then that's fine with me.
Nice true scottsman fallacy right there. There is no difference between true republicans and actual republicans. You want the democratic party to be the only national party in the US.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2009, 05:35 AM   #165
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
Of course not. But you've been talking about needing to amend the Constitution to allow more parties. Right now, numerous parties run presidential candidates such as the Greens. That they don't get many votes does not mean they don't exist.
But look at what happens every time you get three major parties, the two that are the most similar lose. That is why there never have been and never will be three major parties in the US for any length of time. Three parties are unstable, one will disolve and some of its platform will be taken up by at least one of the other parties.

Quote:
Again, we do NOT have a two party system. We have a multi-party system dominated by the two largest parties.
We have an electorial system that has a two party solution as the stable solution to it.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2009, 05:41 AM   #166
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
Cain: This doesn't follow from what I said.



And yet, your original argument still doesn't follow. I'm just putting my words in a context.
And your context is like trying to get people to change water from being wet.
Quote:
How is a violent revolution even implied?
Only way to attain your goals.

Quote:
You were talking about unspecified elections. Local level politics is subject to institutional reform; such reforms have to start somewhere and then work their way up.
And then they hit the state level and die there.

Quote:
Now you're just ********ting. There are varying degrees of **********-up-ness. Moreover, there's also a huge chasm between where people are today philosophically -- "my vote for president should count, all votes should count equally" -- and the way institutions actually function. Voting is also, um, sort of important, because it's how we change everything else -- provided you do want to avoid violent revolution.
Sure, but nothing is going to happen.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2009, 05:45 AM   #167
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
In response to the recent financial freeze, Congressional Republicans churned out an alternate proposal which consisted entirely of tax cuts! It was totally insane.
You forgot that they also blame it on regulation and so want to reduce regulation. I mean it is clear that everything would be much better now if they didn't have to limit themselves to a mere 35-1 leveraging, but could go 80-1 or more.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2009, 08:51 AM   #168
drkitten
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 21,629
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
I don't believe the US Constitution inevitably leads to a 2 party system. That's what we have, though, and it's hard to shake once you have it. But I don't see that there's anything in the Constitution that would naturally prohibit a mutli-party system with de-facto coalition governments.
The "winner-take-all" system is what does it; that's actually a mathematical theorem (coalitions are unstable in a winner take all system, so the stable equilibrium is a set of two parties). You can find a non-mathematical explanation here if you like.
drkitten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2009, 08:53 AM   #169
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
Originally Posted by drkitten View Post
The "winner-take-all" system is what does it; that's actually a mathematical theorem (coalitions are unstable in a winner take all system, so the stable equilibrium is a set of two parties). You can find a non-mathematical explanation here if you like.
I thought game theory proved it but was not entirely confident in making that assertion.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2009, 10:32 AM   #170
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Sure, but you have to come up with some way to prevent the problem of splitting the vote. So how do you remove the split the vote issue in the American electorial system?
I don't think that's the problem.

It seems to me that either a third party withers on the vine or starts gaining steam.

If it gets any momentum, the other 2 parties simply incorporate the most attractive bits of their platform into their platforms (or one of them does) and draws away enough support so that they become non-viable.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2009, 10:34 AM   #171
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by drkitten View Post
The "winner-take-all" system is what does it; that's actually a mathematical theorem (coalitions are unstable in a winner take all system, so the stable equilibrium is a set of two parties). You can find a non-mathematical explanation here if you like.
Kewl. Hadn't seen that before. Interesting. Thanks.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2009, 10:37 AM   #172
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
I don't think that's the problem.

It seems to me that either a third party withers on the vine or starts gaining steam.

If it gets any momentum, the other 2 parties simply incorporate the most attractive bits of their platform into their platforms (or one of them does) and draws away enough support so that they become non-viable.
Or they replace a major party. The point is that there will always be and can only be two major parties in the US for any length of time.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2009, 10:41 AM   #173
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
 
Darth Rotor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 38,527
Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
He CHOSE not to exercise those options. He left the party and chose to run on a new ticket.
You and Tricky are right about Lieberman, but Lieberman was also right: in order to win, he had to leave the party. Joe looked out for number one.
__________________
Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission.
"Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis
Darth Rotor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2009, 10:45 AM   #174
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by Darth Rotor View Post
You and Tricky are right about Lieberman, but Lieberman was also right: in order to win, he had to leave the party. Joe looked out for number one.
As did Specter. His own party was caucusing against him, so his choice was to retire or switch.

And the Limbaughs of the world cheered.

Good riddance, they said.

That's all fine and well for them, because when the GOP is on the ropes it actually fires up their audience and they get richer. It's happening right now.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2009, 11:02 AM   #175
Sporanox
Muse
 
Sporanox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 899
Originally Posted by Piggy
That's who we've wound up in bed with. And now we find that there's no one else to shack up with, so most Republican office-holders dare not risk getting kicked out of that flea-infested bed for fear of being left out in the cold altogether.
I think you're being too melodramatic, both on the supposed stupidity of Palin and her influence, but unfortunately there is no definitive way to prove one side or the other.

Originally Posted by Piggy
Where did you get this idea that the core of conservative governance is a devotion to abandoning the responsibility to govern at all?
You know what a big-government solution is.
__________________
A joke is a very serious thing.

-Winston Churchill
Sporanox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2009, 11:02 AM   #176
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
 
Darth Rotor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 38,527
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
As did Specter. His own party was caucusing against him, so his choice was to retire or switch.

And the Limbaughs of the world cheered.

Good riddance, they said.

That's all fine and well for them, because when the GOP is on the ropes it actually fires up their audience and they get richer. It's happening right now.
What's that old adage?

Follow the money.

I confirmed for myself what Limbaugh was up to during Ahnold's run for California Governator: stirring up the pot was the most important thing for Rush, since Clinton was no longer in office for Rush to play his "shafting of America" schtick on.

His business model is so good, Glenn Beck has adopted it.

DR
__________________
Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission.
"Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis
Darth Rotor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2009, 12:08 PM   #177
Sporanox
Muse
 
Sporanox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 899
Originally Posted by Piggy
The first part of that proposal is, I have to say, nothing but fantasy.

The "invisible hand" theory has long been debunked. There is no magic in benign-neglect capitalism. It leads to boom-and-bust cycles, economy-wrecking bubbles, and rampant corruption.
Nobody believes in totally deregulated capitalism. That's a strawman. At the bare minimum, we restrict monopolies. I was speaking of the tendency to go along with deficit-ballooning government programs, which is not significantly connected to deregulation in this context.

As for the bailouts, I'm not totally convinced they were necessary, partially because there is no way to prove the doomsday scenarios used to scare us into supporting them.

Quote:
Balanced budget? I'm all for it, as soon as it can be responsibly done.
We will never have a balanced budget if we keep throwing our money away. This is something that most people in Congress can't grasp. I'm not certain they realize the value of a lower deficit, either.

Quote:
If you want a horrific example of why pragmatism is better than ideological purity, you have to look no further than the Iraq war.
Ideology by itself doesn't cripple the nuts and bolts of an operation. Incompetence does. We saw that with Rumsfeld's vision of the Army (unsuited to occupation) and an institutional inability to respond to changing circumstances.
__________________
A joke is a very serious thing.

-Winston Churchill
Sporanox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2009, 12:29 PM   #178
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of)
Posts: 27,292
Originally Posted by Sporanox View Post
<snip>

Ideology by itself doesn't cripple the nuts and bolts of an operation. Incompetence does. We saw that with Rumsfeld's vision of the Army (unsuited to occupation) and an institutional inability to respond to changing circumstances.

Yes it does. That is exactly the problem. Ideology without any regard for reality is crippling.

The past eight years of ideology driven decision making has been disastrous. Please let us have some pragmatism.
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2009, 12:43 PM   #179
Sporanox
Muse
 
Sporanox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 899
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
Yes it does. That is exactly the problem. Ideology without any regard for reality is crippling.

The past eight years of ideology driven decision making has been disastrous. Please let us have some pragmatism.
Explain how that happened in Iraq, please? We are probably playing with semantics. I view the "shower us with roses" summation of war strategy and an over-reliance on shady exiles as incompetent methodology. Perhaps that is an extension of ideology. Yet, even though one would be ideologically decided to invade Iraq, there is no reason to remain ignorant of the facts known before the war, or dismiss the widespread looting and chaos as nothing of consequence.
__________________
A joke is a very serious thing.

-Winston Churchill
Sporanox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2009, 12:50 PM   #180
ParrotPirate
Graduate Poster
 
ParrotPirate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,606
They just keep painting themselves closer to the farthest right corner of the room,don't they?
ParrotPirate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2009, 02:06 PM   #181
drkitten
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 21,629
Originally Posted by Sporanox View Post
As for the bailouts, I'm not totally convinced they were necessary, partially because there is no way to prove the doomsday scenarios used to scare us into supporting them.
Ah, yes. The "you can't prove to me there's no Bigfoot" argument.

Quote:
We will never have a balanced budget if we keep throwing our money away. This is something that most people in Congress can't grasp. I'm not certain they realize the value of a lower deficit, either.
The only problem with that is that we've had a balanced budget in recent memory. The deficit decreased substantially under Clinton, based on sensible economic theories that say that when the economy is doing well by itself, you refrain from further stimulus and instead build up reserves that can be used when the economy starts to fail. Or as Fed Chairman Martin put it, the Fed's job (and by extension the government's) is "to take away the punch bowl just as the party gets going."

Of course, having said, that, the party is no longer going, and it's the Fed's job (and the government's) to bring the punch bowl back. Until the party starts up again, when they should take it away and start collecting tips to use to buy another bowl twenty years from now.....

Quote:
Ideology by itself doesn't cripple the nuts and bolts of an operation. Incompetence does.
But ideology is often -- usually? -- a cause of incompetence. If you bring preconceived conclusions to the table instead of letting data drive the conclusions, you will at best ignore the data and do the wrong thing, and at worst distort the data to support doing the wrong thing.
drkitten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2009, 03:14 PM   #182
Sporanox
Muse
 
Sporanox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 899
Originally Posted by drkitten
Ah, yes. The "you can't prove to me there's no Bigfoot" argument.
Appeal to ridicule.

Quote:
The only problem with that is that we've had a balanced budget in recent memory. The deficit decreased substantially under Clinton, based on sensible economic theories that say that when the economy is doing well by itself, you refrain from further stimulus and instead build up reserves that can be used when the economy starts to fail. Or as Fed Chairman Martin put it, the Fed's job (and by extension the government's) is "to take away the punch bowl just as the party gets going."
Why is that a problem? Most people know the budget was balanced under Clinton. That's why I keep typing the qualifier "the last decade"...

Quote:
Of course, having said, that, the party is no longer going, and it's the Fed's job (and the government's) to bring the punch bowl back. Until the party starts up again, when they should take it away and start collecting tips to use to buy another bowl twenty years from now.....
Two things:

1) The government has bought a crappy punch bowl. I don't think they're up to the task.

2) The government never had the money to buy the punch bowl in the first place, and I doubt they will twenty years from now at their current mindset.

Quote:
But ideology is often -- usually? -- a cause of incompetence. If you bring preconceived conclusions to the table instead of letting data drive the conclusions, you will at best ignore the data and do the wrong thing, and at worst distort the data to support doing the wrong thing.
I'm fairly certain Bush wanted Iraq to turn around. The reason why the surge wasn't implemented earlier was, in part, because Rumsfeld was incompetent. I see what you mean, though. You might tie the latter's failure to a belief that a leaner military could meet the challenge of occupation, which would be an ideology - although quite separate from several others.
__________________
A joke is a very serious thing.

-Winston Churchill
Sporanox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2009, 03:21 PM   #183
drkitten
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 21,629
Originally Posted by Sporanox View Post
Why is that a problem? Most people know the budget was balanced under Clinton. That's why I keep typing the qualifier "the last decade"...
Because that's an unrepresentative sample. What was your phrasing? "We will never have a balanced budget if we keep throwing our money away. This is something that most people in Congress can't grasp."

First, I don't see that qualifier in there anywhere. But more importantly, claiming that we will "never" have something because "most" Congressmen in the past ten years don't grasp it is like my claiming that we will never have summer again because most of the past week has been cold and rainy.

The past ten years have been largely dictated by one of the least competent presidents in the history of the United States running up enormous deficits and creating an economic and political cesspool that will take both time and money to clean up.


Quote:
1) The government has bought a crappy punch bowl. I don't think they're up to the task.
And you're doing it again. They were up to the task ten years ago. How did the punch bowl change between 1999 and 2009?

Quote:
I'm fairly certain Bush wanted Iraq to turn around.
I'm also quite certain that he wanted the Texas Rangers to win the World Series. If not the Superbowl. Merely "wanting" something doesn't make a person competent or not an ideologue.

The problem was not what he wanted, but what he thought would happen. His ideology dictated that it would turn around, even when it demonstrably wasn't turning around. I might want a position as the President's National Science Advisor, but only a lunatic would believe that I am or even that I will get it.
drkitten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2009, 03:24 PM   #184
drkitten
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 21,629
Originally Posted by Sporanox View Post
Appeal to ridicule.
Yup. An appropriate response to a non-sequitur that attempts to inappropriately move the goalposts. If you want to know what would have happened without the stimulus, consult the various economists. There's a pretty universal consensus by now that the stimulus has worked but wasn't big enough and therefore the recovery is going to be pretty anemic.

Epistemologically, that's no more controversial than the idea that if I hadn't operated on your cancer, it would have spread and killed you. Of course, no oncologist can prove that, but that's hardly a reason to dismiss your doctor's opinion.
drkitten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2009, 03:41 PM   #185
Sporanox
Muse
 
Sporanox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 899
Originally Posted by drkitten
Because that's an unrepresentative sample. What was your phrasing? "We will never have a balanced budget if we keep throwing our money away. This is something that most people in Congress can't grasp."

First, I don't see that qualifier in there anywhere. But more importantly, claiming that we will "never" have something because "most" Congressmen in the past ten years don't grasp it is like my claiming that we will never have summer again because most of the past week has been cold and rainy.
Where was this level of spending in the Clinton Administration? Clearly, most legislators have lost their inhibitions. This is not impossible.

Quote:
And you're doing it again. They were up to the task ten years ago. How did the punch bowl change between 1999 and 2009?
Well, for one, I don't think there were stimulus funds awarded to nonexistent districts in 1999.

Quote:
I'm also quite certain that he wanted the Texas Rangers to win the World Series. If not the Superbowl. Merely "wanting" something doesn't make a person competent or not an ideologue.
True.

Quote:
The problem was not what he wanted, but what he thought would happen. His ideology dictated that it would turn around, even when it demonstrably wasn't turning around. I might want a position as the President's National Science Advisor, but only a lunatic would believe that I am or even that I will get it.
His ideology did not lead to Rumsfeld's failures. This is obvious because he still had the same mindset when he pushed the surge, which did turn it around. This was my point.

ETA

Quote:
Yup. An appropriate response to a non-sequitur that attempts to inappropriately move the goalposts. If you want to know what would have happened without the stimulus, consult the various economists. There's a pretty universal consensus by now that the stimulus has worked but wasn't big enough and therefore the recovery is going to be pretty anemic.
Hah. Yes, I've heard: this stimulus was too small, and we might need another one!

The problem with that is those same policymakers who drafted the stimulus predicted unemployment without the stimulus that was lower than actual unemployment with the stimulus. There's also the matter of no evidence that the stimulus actually was cost-effective, or did what it was claimed to have done.
__________________
A joke is a very serious thing.

-Winston Churchill

Last edited by Sporanox; 30th November 2009 at 03:46 PM.
Sporanox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2009, 03:47 PM   #186
drkitten
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 21,629
Originally Posted by Sporanox View Post
Where was this level of spending in the Clinton Administration?
Actually, the spending was for the most part there, with the exception of the military spending.

Quote:
Clearly, most legislators have lost their inhibitions. This is not impossible.
Not impossible. Just not true.

What destroyed the surplus was not primarily a sudden upsurge in spending, but the irresponsible (and ideologically driven) tax cuts pushed through by Bush. It's not that spending went up, but that revenues went down -- at the very time they should have been going up, to bring the housing boom under control.

Which, again, is a triumph of ideology over facts.

Quote:
Well, for one, I don't think there were stimulus funds awarded to nonexistent districts in 1999.
Well, no. Nor were there stimulus funds awarded to districts that did exist in 1999, since there weren't stimulus funds to distribute. But there were certainly inefficiencies and slipups in 1999 just as there were in 2009.
drkitten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2009, 03:49 PM   #187
drkitten
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 21,629
Originally Posted by Sporanox View Post
Hah. Yes, I've heard: this stimulus was too small, and we might need another one!
Yes. You may have also heard that the Steelers won the Superbowl and that Prince Charles is heir apparent to the throne of the UK. Depending upon where you heard it -- for example, if you read it in a reliable and reputable source, you might even consider reading the rest of the article and seeing why they say it.

Quote:
The problem with that is those same policymakers who drafted the stimulus predicted unemployment without the stimulus that was lower than actual unemployment with the stimulus.
I see. So your suggestion is that the stimulus actually increased unemployment? What's the basis for that claim?

Quote:
There's also the matter of no evidence that the stimulus actually was cost-effective, or did what it was claimed to have done.
Not if you don't read the rest of the article where the economists tell you why the stimulus wasn't big enough, there isn't.
drkitten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2009, 03:56 PM   #188
Sporanox
Muse
 
Sporanox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 899
Originally Posted by drkitten
Actually, the spending was for the most part there, with the exception of the military spending.
Our enormous deficits at the present are primarily a result of military spending? Keep telling yourself that.

Quote:
What destroyed the surplus was not primarily a sudden upsurge in spending, but the irresponsible (and ideologically driven) tax cuts pushed through by Bush. It's not that spending went up, but that revenues went down -- at the very time they should have been going up, to bring the housing boom under control.
Again, are these the causes of our outrageous deficits today? No. That would be bailouts and a near-trillion dollar stimulus package.

Bush's lack of fiscal discipline did indeed cause substantial deficits, but those indiscretions are now looking like the tip of the iceberg. Both incidents are problems. ETA: and again, it's too bad conservatives ignored the lack of fiscal discipline until a member of the other side got into office.

ETA II: Bush, with the help of a Democratic congress, pushed the bailouts through. He shares much of the blame.

Quote:
I see. So your suggestion is that the stimulus actually increased unemployment? What's the basis for that claim?
Don't get too excited. My contention is that the stimulus was not effective.
__________________
A joke is a very serious thing.

-Winston Churchill

Last edited by Sporanox; 30th November 2009 at 03:58 PM.
Sporanox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2009, 03:59 PM   #189
drkitten
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 21,629
Originally Posted by Sporanox View Post
Our enormous deficits at the present are primarily a result of military spending?
Not at all. Our enormous deficits are primarily a result of irresponsible tax cuts.

Quote:
Again, are these the causes of our outrageous deficits today?
Yes.

Quote:
That would be bailouts and a near-trillion dollar stimulus package.
"Keep telling yourself that."



Quote:
Don't get too excited. My contention is that the stimulus was not effective.
... which is to say, it should have been bigger.

Game-set-match.
drkitten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2009, 04:14 PM   #190
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by Sporanox View Post
I think you're being too melodramatic, both on the supposed stupidity of Palin and her influence, but unfortunately there is no definitive way to prove one side or the other.
Did you actually read my post?

I think not.

First of all, I'm not at all wrong about Palin's ignorance (not stupidity).

But once again, I'm not talking about Palin's influence. I'm talking about the influence of her audience.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2009, 04:16 PM   #191
Sporanox
Muse
 
Sporanox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 899
Originally Posted by drkitten View Post
Not at all. Our enormous deficits are primarily a result of irresponsible tax cuts.



Yes.



"Keep telling yourself that."


ETA: That darn graph stopped showing up.

Quote:
... which is to say, it should have been bigger.

Game-set-match.
Yes, when we see in hindsight that a government program gave $6+ billion to phantom districts and is highly ineffective at producing jobs, we slap ourselves and say, "Darn! Should have wasted more money!"
__________________
A joke is a very serious thing.

-Winston Churchill

Last edited by Sporanox; 30th November 2009 at 04:37 PM.
Sporanox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2009, 04:18 PM   #192
Sporanox
Muse
 
Sporanox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 899
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
Did you actually read my post?

I think not.

First of all, I'm not at all wrong about Palin's ignorance (not stupidity).

But once again, I'm not talking about Palin's influence. I'm talking about the influence of her audience.
Sorry, that was unclear, but it does seem like you are asserting that the "audience" crawled out of the woodwork in response to Palin.
__________________
A joke is a very serious thing.

-Winston Churchill
Sporanox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2009, 04:19 PM   #193
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by Sporanox View Post
As for the bailouts, I'm not totally convinced they were necessary, partially because there is no way to prove the doomsday scenarios used to scare us into supporting them.
Actually, there is a way of demonstrating that we were on the verge of financial freeze.

But it requires more reading than you may be up for.

And unfortunately, I don't have the time to dredge it all up, so I'll have to leave it at that.

If you actually look at the details of what went on, it's frightening as hell, and I'm still surprised that we've come out this well so far.

If you're interested, Frontline's "Inside the Meltdown" is a good place to start.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2009, 04:22 PM   #194
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by Sporanox View Post
We will never have a balanced budget if we keep throwing our money away. This is something that most people in Congress can't grasp. I'm not certain they realize the value of a lower deficit, either.
Of course they grasp this. They're not third-graders. Unfortunately, they often have the same urges to overspend that we do in our private lives, and for much the same reasons.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2009, 04:24 PM   #195
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by drkitten View Post
But ideology is often -- usually? -- a cause of incompetence. If you bring preconceived conclusions to the table instead of letting data drive the conclusions, you will at best ignore the data and do the wrong thing, and at worst distort the data to support doing the wrong thing.
The best examples of this are Doug Feith and Paul Wolfowitz.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2009, 04:28 PM   #196
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by drkitten View Post
Yup. An appropriate response to a non-sequitur that attempts to inappropriately move the goalposts. If you want to know what would have happened without the stimulus, consult the various economists. There's a pretty universal consensus by now that the stimulus has worked but wasn't big enough and therefore the recovery is going to be pretty anemic.
Opponents of stimulus now find their butts in a pretty tight crack right now.

We saw some economic growth last quarter, and it's pretty much agreed all around that it's due to stimulus, and it will take a while longer for real growth to kick in.

So if you claim the stimulus failed, you have nowhere to go.

If you deny that the stimulus is responsible for propping up the economy (that is, stopping the freefall) then your only option is to claim that the apparent bounce is real, which means the stimulus didn't fail.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2009, 04:29 PM   #197
Sporanox
Muse
 
Sporanox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 899
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
Actually, there is a way of demonstrating that we were on the verge of financial freeze.

But it requires more reading than you may be up for.

And unfortunately, I don't have the time to dredge it all up, so I'll have to leave it at that.

If you actually look at the details of what went on, it's frightening as hell, and I'm still surprised that we've come out this well so far.

If you're interested, Frontline's "Inside the Meltdown" is a good place to start.
I will watch and compare it, thanks.

Quote:
Of course they grasp this. They're not third-graders. Unfortunately, they often have the same urges to overspend that we do in our private lives, and for much the same reasons.
I'm not sure if they do. HR 3200 was projected to "save money" when the CBO scored it as a deficit-increasing initiative.
__________________
A joke is a very serious thing.

-Winston Churchill
Sporanox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2009, 04:33 PM   #198
Sporanox
Muse
 
Sporanox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 899
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
Opponents of stimulus now find their butts in a pretty tight crack right now.

We saw some economic growth last quarter, and it's pretty much agreed all around that it's due to stimulus, and it will take a while longer for real growth to kick in.

So if you claim the stimulus failed, you have nowhere to go.

If you deny that the stimulus is responsible for propping up the economy (that is, stopping the freefall) then your only option is to claim that the apparent bounce is real, which means the stimulus didn't fail.
Sorry, if you have to add that qualifier in there, you haven't stuck opponents of the stimulus in a bind.
__________________
A joke is a very serious thing.

-Winston Churchill
Sporanox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2009, 04:47 PM   #199
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by Sporanox View Post
Sorry, that was unclear, but it does seem like you are asserting that the "audience" crawled out of the woodwork in response to Palin.
I've never said that, although it's certainly true that Palin whipped them into a frenzy.

In fact, Palin was the wrong strategy because Obama's candidacy had already brought out the base in force. Palin was redundant in that regard, and only served to alienate the voters McCain really needed -- middle-of-the-road independents and Reagan Democrats.

The problem now is that ideological extremism by the GOP has left the remaining seats dependent on the far right-wing fringe, the kind of folks who cheer Palin, leave Fox News playing on their TVs all day, and believe Glenn Beck's nonsense.

That's why this purity test is the wrong move. It goes farther in the direction that has already cost us the White House and Congress.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2009, 04:49 PM   #200
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by Sporanox View Post
Sorry, if you have to add that qualifier in there, you haven't stuck opponents of the stimulus in a bind.
Yes, they are in a bind, because if the current bump is due to the stimulus rather than real economic growth, it has done exactly what it was intended to do.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:17 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.