"The Republicans’ war on science and reason"

Thanks RandFan.

Not confrontational at all.

None of this is black and white nor as simplistic as some would lead us to believe.

Let me work on a response, which will include my basic understanding of the pros and cons of each approach as I see them.
 
Thanks RandFan.

Not confrontational at all.

None of this is black and white nor as simplistic as some would lead us to believe.

Let me work on a response, which will include my basic understanding of the pros and cons of each approach as I see them.
:) Thank you very much for that. I will carefully and sincerly consider your points.
 
if you think that the image is supporting 'trickle-down economics', you are not paying attention.

Well, if YOU think that I think that the image is supporting 'trickle-down economics', you are not paying attention.

Or inhabiting an alternative universe.

In this universe, what I said was, "But I'm not sure how it informs us about economic policy...Posting a photo like that in support of an economic theory is way simplistic, IMHO."
 
Where do I get my information? I lived through it. I'm 68. Perhaps you're younger and don't remember the Vietnam war.

Here's a bit of my biography that might explain something to you. When I was 17, about to turn 18, my parents pushed me into joining the Navy to avoid being drafted into the Army, thus to keep me a step or so back from any war. Since I was still 17 when I joined, I was in for what was called the Minority Enlistment: Join before you're 18, you get out the day before you turn 21. Those of us in for the minority enlistment were called, in the Navy, "kiddie cruisers." I joined in 1961 and was released from active duty in 1964. In addition to getting out before I turned 21, I got an earlier out to start college. I would have gotten out in mid October, but actually got out in early September of 1964.

I was raised in the 'burbs and was rather insulated from the outside world. Thus, my political values were somewhat moderate to conservative. During my last year of enlistment I discovered the works of Ayn Rand and became infatuated with her philosophy of objectivism. It really did appeal to a 20 year-old with limited life experience. In 1964 I registered as a Republican and enthusiastically voted for Barry Goldwater. Thus, when the Vietnam war started, I was an avid supporter of the war.

My support for the Vietnam war steadily eroded when government after government in South Vietnam fell. Each one was touted by the Johnson administration to be the one that would bring political stability to South Vietnam. None of them did. Further, year after year of American involvement in the war failed to make any gains. No territory was taken from the Viet Cong, and there was no conversion of the countryside into supporting our side in the struggle.

I began the war as an Ayn Rand enthusiast and a Goldwater Republican. By the end of the war, I was on the political left. Reality and my initial political ideology clashed. Eventually, reality won.

Let me end with an anecdote that indicates the duplicity of the American government toward its people concerning why and when we were drawn into that conflict. I was a hospital corpsman in the Navy. One of the hazards of being a Navy corpsman is that, upon graduation from Hospital Corps school, you might get sent to the Fleet Marine Force; i.e. you had joined the Navy, only to end up wearing Marine uniform, undergoing infantry training and being in combat with the Marines. Generally, only one or two guys from each company would be taken into the Fleet Marine Force. Suddenly, as our company was about to graduate in 1962, they started taking whole companies for the Fleet Marines (They leap-frogged our company, and I was spared that danger). The rationale given for this was that they were building up WestPac, i.e. the west Pacific Fleet. Since we were all naive 18 year-olds, t didn't occur to us to ask why they were building up WestPac. Of course, they were building it up to get ready for the Vietnam war. Thus, the assertion that we only went into Vietnam reluctantly in 1964 in response to North Vietnamese PT boats attacking our Navy ships is bogus.

Frankly, I think my living through the years of the Vietnam war trumps any book you can throw at me.

Bill, the above post was in response to your question about where I got my information. Are you going to respond to this or ignore it?
 
Getting back to the OP, the relationship the Republican Candidates have with reality, reason and science ratcheted up a significant notch today: Michele Bachmann dropped out of the race.
 
damn...there goes any chance for her obviously 'gay as pink icecream hubby' to be 'first lady'.
"Pink icecream" Not that there is anything wrong with pink icecream. As for Marcus... well, that's another story. :D
 
Last edited:
"trickle down economics" is where the rich use their money in a way that trickes down to the less fortunate.

The money trickes down because poorer people provide the rich people with goods or services.

How is that not just like having a job and working for someone?

I provide a service to rich people who pay me to do so. This makes them richer. How is that bad? They are richer and hire more people. The company grows and I have more job security.

How does this "not work" as Obama says? How is it not stupid that Progressive Radio talking heads repeat Obama in blind ideological admiration?

You say it does not work. How is that? How does having a job not work? How is trickle down economics not just like having a job?
 
"trickle down economics" is where the rich use their money in a way that trickes down to the less fortunate.
Not quite. Trickle-down economics is where tax breaks are provided to the rich with the idea that the rich will then create jobs and, thus, the money tickles down. The flaw is in the assumption that the rich will spend the money they get through tax breaks rather than saving it or invest it in ways that don't really allow it to reach down to the middle and lower classes.
 
"trickle down economics" is where the rich use their money in a way that trickes down to the less fortunate.

The money trickes down because poorer people provide the rich people with goods or services.

How is that not just like having a job and working for someone?

I provide a service to rich people who pay me to do so. This makes them richer. How is that bad? They are richer and hire more people. The company grows and I have more job security.

How does this "not work" as Obama says? How is it not stupid that Progressive Radio talking heads repeat Obama in blind ideological admiration?

You say it does not work. How is that? How does having a job not work? How is trickle down economics not just like having a job?
Because that is not how supply side is defined. That is GOP propaganda that intentionally avoids the facts to justify failed policy.

So, what is supply side economics? Okay, so you have an economy that is in recession. What do you do? You could increase the amount of money that the rich have so they will create more jobs. You do this by lowering their taxes. However,

  1. No new jobs will be created if the discretionary income of the lower classes remains static (resulting in low demand for products and services).
  2. Should demand increase the rich will do what they always do to hire people BORROW MONEY.
  3. Bush lowered taxes in 2001 and 2003 and job growth and the economy has sucked.
  4. Reagan first lowered taxes and when that didn't work he raised them.
 
You say it does not work. How is that? How does having a job not work? How is trickle down economics not just like having a job?

If the jobs that the fat class create are in China, they have done us no good and need to start paying for a bigger share of the infrastructure here so that people with some sense of decency can start producing again.
 
Where do I get my information? I lived through it. I'm 68. Perhaps you're younger and don't remember the Vietnam war.

Here's a bit of my biography that might explain something to you. When I was 17, about to turn 18, my parents pushed me into joining the Navy to avoid being drafted into the Army, thus to keep me a step or so back from any war. Since I was still 17 when I joined, I was in for what was called the Minority Enlistment: Join before you're 18, you get out the day before you turn 21. Those of us in for the minority enlistment were called, in the Navy, "kiddie cruisers." I joined in 1961 and was released from active duty in 1964. In addition to getting out before I turned 21, I got an earlier out to start college. I would have gotten out in mid October, but actually got out in early September of 1964.

I was raised in the 'burbs and was rather insulated from the outside world. Thus, my political values were somewhat moderate to conservative. During my last year of enlistment I discovered the works of Ayn Rand and became infatuated with her philosophy of objectivism. It really did appeal to a 20 year-old with limited life experience. In 1964 I registered as a Republican and enthusiastically voted for Barry Goldwater. Thus, when the Vietnam war started, I was an avid supporter of the war.

My support for the Vietnam war steadily eroded when government after government in South Vietnam fell. Each one was touted by the Johnson administration to be the one that would bring political stability to South Vietnam. None of them did. Further, year after year of American involvement in the war failed to make any gains. No territory was taken from the Viet Cong, and there was no conversion of the countryside into supporting our side in the struggle.

I began the war as an Ayn Rand enthusiast and a Goldwater Republican. By the end of the war, I was on the political left. Reality and my initial political ideology clashed. Eventually, reality won.

Let me end with an anecdote that indicates the duplicity of the American government toward its people concerning why and when we were drawn into that conflict. I was a hospital corpsman in the Navy. One of the hazards of being a Navy corpsman is that, upon graduation from Hospital Corps school, you might get sent to the Fleet Marine Force; i.e. you had joined the Navy, only to end up wearing Marine uniform, undergoing infantry training and being in combat with the Marines. Generally, only one or two guys from each company would be taken into the Fleet Marine Force. Suddenly, as our company was about to graduate in 1962, they started taking whole companies for the Fleet Marines (They leap-frogged our company, and I was spared that danger). The rationale given for this was that they were building up WestPac, i.e. the west Pacific Fleet. Since we were all naive 18 year-olds, t didn't occur to us to ask why they were building up WestPac. Of course, they were building it up to get ready for the Vietnam war. Thus, the assertion that we only went into Vietnam reluctantly in 1964 in response to North Vietnamese PT boats attacking our Navy ships is bogus.

Frankly, I think my living through the years of the Vietnam war trumps any book you can throw at me.

Well, I posted the above a few days ago, then asked Bill in another post if he was gong to respond. I guess the answer is, "No.
 
Getting back to the Republican war on science, Here's a quote from Rick Santorum on evolution:

What we should be teaching are the problems and holes and I think there are legitimate problems and holes in the theory of evolution. And what we need to do is to present those fairly from a scientific point of view. And we should lay out areas in which the evidence supports evolution and the areas in the evidence that does not.

While I doubt Santorum will be the Republican nominee for president in 2012, his attitude toward evolution is pervasive among the Republican right, making it necessary for whoever does become the nominee to soft-peddle evolution and, with it, science.
 
Science is for people who expect the world to be rational.

In a sense, now that I think if it, this comment illustrates that you do not know how science works.

Science is not for people who expect the world to be rational. Science has no expectations at all. To have expectations is to be biased.

Science goes where the majority of the facts point. Sometimes the data does not all point in the same direction. The world is not rational. It is not rational in any way.
 
Last edited:
Getting back to the Republican war on science, Here's a quote from Rick Santorum on evolution:

Are we electing a president or a biologist?

How many people believe in evolution without being able to explain or understand it. That is just as bad if not worse because you believe something because it is the right thing to believe and you just skip over the qualification that one should understand something before believing it.

I believe in evolution because I understand it. It is science, not politics.
 

Back
Top Bottom