"The Republicans’ war on science and reason"

Robert Prey said:
The more applicable phrase (for Lefties) is Figures don't lie, but liars, figure. If you don't know that the lions share of the US expenditure is SS, Medicare and Medicaid, then you just aren't paying attention.
Click to expand...

I know the numbers, and without the deliberate attempt on the part of the Republicons to bankrupt the country, it would not be an issue.

Your disparaging, false insinuation that I am a liar is hereby noted.

Also, please explain why you insinuate that I, a right-leaning moderate, am a "leftie". Please do not make such accusations again.
 
Last edited:
jj said:
Let me think, since I have said, in this discussion, recently, in several places, treads, etc, that undoing the W gift to the rich, stopping the stupid wars that ruined our national reputation and made us out to be a second-rate USSR, and raising the rtirement age for people under 40, obviously I'm not in favor of more debt.

I will put it bluntly, Robert, the faux-Republicans are very nearly entirely responsible for this horrible debt, the debt has grown under every republican president after Eisenhower faster than under the Democratic presidents, and now that the Republicans have created a budget crisis deliberately, they are quite dishonestly and inhumanely trying to use the crises they, themselves, intentionally created to kill off every social program in existance, and return the USA to the 1800's in terms of individual welfare.

In short, they are nothing but merchants of misery. Why do you support misery?
Click to expand...

"In 31 months of Barack Obama’s presidency, according to the Treasury and CBS News, the US has added $4 trillion to its national debt. That approaches the presidential record set by George W. Bush of $4.9 trillion, but there’s a catch to that. Bush set that record in two terms — in 96 months."

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-beats-bushs-u-s-debt-accumulation-in-less-than-half-the-time/
 
Robert Prey said:
The more applicable phrase (for Lefties) is Figures don't lie, but liars, figure. If you don't know that the lions share of the US expenditure is SS, Medicare and Medicaid, then you just aren't paying attention.
Click to expand...

You do realize that, just now, you didn't provide any Figures, but just figured, don't you?

Just an observation. Perhaps you should consider practicing what you preach.
 
tyr_13 said:
Well seeing as one (war) is ending, that wouldn't exactly be right.
Click to expand...

Maybe not exactly, and I applaud Obama for getting us (mostly? soon?) out of at least one of two morasses that Bush got us into.

I came of age during the Vietnam War. The war had not been started by Johnson, but I still remember the chants "Hey! Hey! LBJ, How many kids did you kill today?" Over time it became "his" war. When it went on to become Nixon's war, Nixon then "owned" it, and I think he ultimately did the right thing by getting us out, even if it took longer than it needed to IMHO.

Since neither the Iraq nor the Afghanistan "wars" are really wars, Obama could have pretty much ended them by fiat the day he took office. The trillions of dollars spent and all the lives lost since then became "his" to the extent they were part of a multi-year plan he endorsed, even if the ultimate goal was an orderly withdrawal.

leftysergeant says, "Bush the Lesser has to eat it all." He strengthens his argument by pointing out that Bush is a "shrub" and his cronies are "merry morons". And jj refers to "the deliberate attempt on the part of the Republicons to bankrupt the country...", and I assume his misspelling was intentional. And there's also this from jj: "the faux-Republicans are very nearly entirely responsible for this horrible debt..." This sort of thing discourages me. I'm here to both argue a position, and to learn from others. Over the years I've been swayed by more than a few intelligent arguments in forums such as this. But the intransigence of some here is disappointing. To say that Obama is 0% responsible for war expenses, or that Republican are intentionally attempting to bankrupt the country requires a certain level of partisan blindness. I respect leftysergeant's and jj's opinion about as much as I respect Sean Hannity's - I can predict pretty well what each is going to say on any given topic and the vehemence with which they will espouse it. Being that predictable makes all, well, boring - and not worth my time.

Similarly, to say that Republicans are at war on science and reason because their economic reasoning is unscientific is to ignore that even experts disagree on the economic effects of tax rates, stimulus spending and the like.

Anyway, this thread's content/aggravation level is reaching the point where I'm starting to find it not worthwhile. I'll continue to scan it for a short while for any "meat", but may just let it go.
 
Last edited:
Fast Eddie B said:
Maybe not exactly, and I applaud Obama for getting us (mostly? soon?) out of at least one of two morasses that Bush got us into.

I came of age during the Vietnam War. The war had not been started by Johnson, but I still remember the chants "Hey! Hey! LBJ, How many kids did you kill today?" Over time it became "his" war. When it went on to become Nixon's war, Nixon then "owned" it, and I think he ultimately did the right thing by getting us out, even if it took longer than it needed to IMHO.

Since neither the Iraq nor the Afghanistan "wars" are really wars, Obama could have pretty much ended them by fiat the day he took office. The trillions of dollars spent and all the lives lost since then became "his" to the extent they were part of a multi-year plan he endorsed, even if the ultimate goal was an orderly withdrawal.

leftysergeant says, "Bush the Lesser has to eat it all." He strengthens his argument by pointing out that Bush is a "shrub" and his cronies are "merry morons". And jj refers to "the deliberate attempt on the part of the Republicons to bankrupt the country...", and I assume his misspelling was intentional. And there's also this from jj: "the faux-Republicans are very nearly entirely responsible for this horrible debt..." This sort of thing discourages me. I'm here to both argue a position, and to learn from others. Over the years I've been swayed by more than a few intelligent arguments in forums such as this. But the intransigence of some here is disappointing. To say that Obama is 0% responsible for war expenses, or that Republican are intentionally attempting to bankrupt the country requires a certain level of partisan blindness. I respect leftysergeant's and jj's opinion about as much as I respect Sean Hannity's - I can predict pretty well what each is going to say on any given topic and the vehemence with which they will espouse it. Being that predictable makes all, well, boring - and not worth my time.
Click to expand...

He could have ended them instantly, and he isn't 0% responsible, but that doesn't mean in any way that ending them instantly would have been the best thing to do and that he's 100% or even 50% responsible. I understand that back in the day Vietnam was viewed differently, but that doesn't make that view instantly applicable to these wars.

For the record, I'm not pleased with the pace of the withdraw, but acknowledge that I'm not exactly an expert and the more I look at the details the fewer other good options I could consider viable.

Similarly, to say that Republicans are at war on science and reason because their economic reasoning is unscientific is to ignore that even experts disagree on the economic effects of tax rates, stimulus spending and the like.

Anyway, this thread's content/aggravation level is reaching the point where I'm starting to find it not worthwhile. I'll continue to scan it for a short while for any "meat", but may just let it go.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah, it's politics. I don't even read some posters any more. While I have no one on my ignore list, sadly I have sort of a mental one. That's probably why I don't see the economic argument as the thrust of the main argument for Republicans being anti-science. The current PR and leadership is clearly and forcefully anti-science based on their stances on established science issues.

Again, I disagree with them on a lot of economic issues, but I wouldn't call them anti-science for it. Some of them reject reason with the way they support some policies though, because they tend to reject evidence to the contrary. They have no monopoly on that though, and even policies I endorse I've seen supported in an anti-reason way.
 
jj said:
You have a problem with simple, arithmetical facts, then, Eddie?
Click to expand...

You sent me to Google, which led me to Wikipedia, which showed me this:

6418721915_b7b28e42e8_z.jpg


And, so, I've been informed (yay!) and the numbers do surprise me, but I accept them. I was and am disgusted with Bush's lack of fiscal restraint, but I'm open to seeing a broader pattern as well.

So, comparing 7.3% rise under Republicans, with 1.0 % rise under Democrats, the only question is does this qualify as "very nearly entirely responsible"? I guess that's just semantics but...

...the date spread is important. It conveniently excludes both Roosevelt and Obama.

But as I said before, this is all past history. The question is, who has the best solutions going forward? I'm all ears on that one.
 
AlBell said:
Some do, but it isn't Eddie.
Click to expand...

Then you accept the simple, demonstrable, verifiable fact that every drastic increase in the deficit has been due entirely to Republican presidents.

Thank you!
 
Fast Eddie B said:
You sent me to Google, which led me to Wikipedia, which showed me this:

[qimg]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7161/6418721915_b7b28e42e8_z.jpg[/qimg]

And, so, I've been informed (yay!) and the numbers do surprise me, but I accept them. I was and am disgusted with Bush's lack of fiscal restraint, but I'm open to seeing a broader pattern as well.

So, comparing 7.3% rise under Republicans, with 1.0 % rise under Democrats, the only question is does this qualify as "very nearly entirely responsible"? I guess that's just semantics but...

...the date spread is important. It conveniently excludes both Roosevelt and Obama.

But as I said before, this is all past history. The question is, who has the best solutions going forward? I'm all ears on that one.
Click to expand...

When you consider Obama, you need to consider how much of that money was already dedicated by Bush, too.

Sorry. It really does kinda suck that the "party of fiscal responsibility" is a pack of liars.
 
Upchurch said:
You do realize that, just now, you didn't provide any Figures, but just figured, don't you?

Just an observation. Perhaps you should consider practicing what you preach.
Click to expand...

Easy as pie.



SS, Medicare, Medicaid, 38%, Nat. Defense, 19%.
 
Robert Prey said:
The more applicable phrase (for Lefties) is Figures don't lie, but liars, figure. If you don't know that the lions share of the US expenditure is SS, Medicare and Medicaid, then you just aren't paying attention.
Click to expand...

The lion's share refers to the greatest portion. In this case it would need to account for 51% or greater for your claim to hold water. As SS is paid for out of everyone's paychecks I am curious if you would care to revise your claim?
 
Fast Eddie B said:
You sent me to Google, which led me to Wikipedia, which showed me this:

[qimg]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7161/6418721915_b7b28e42e8_z.jpg[/qimg]

And, so, I've been informed (yay!) and the numbers do surprise me, but I accept them. I was and am disgusted with Bush's lack of fiscal restraint, but I'm open to seeing a broader pattern as well.

So, comparing 7.3% rise under Republicans, with 1.0 % rise under Democrats, the only question is does this qualify as "very nearly entirely responsible"? I guess that's just semantics but...

...the date spread is important. It conveniently excludes both Roosevelt and Obama.

But as I said before, this is all past history. The question is, who has the best solutions going forward? I'm all ears on that one.
Click to expand...
Roosevelt clearly isn’t a relevant point of comparison, so I’m sceptical of you motives for wanting to include him.

Obama isn’t a good comparison either since he took office at a time of great crisis. His spending increases have been rather modest with that taken into account. If you exclude his move of Iraq/Afghanistan from off budget spending, as it was under bush to on Budget as it is now US spending from 2009 (the last Bush Budget) to 2012 spending increases under Obama have been ~3.5% per year.
 
jj said:
Yep, 38% back into the economy, 19% destroyed and value eliminated.

Game, set, match. Thank you for proving my point.

Oh, and the deficit is not directly due to either of those, THAT would be due to the 'W' tax cuts for the lords and masters of the USA.
Click to expand...

If more revenue comes in after the W tax cuts, how does that contribute to the deficit???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom