Newt promises a permanent moonbase by the end of his second term

[JoeTheJuggler]

What else is there to say?

You could simply admit that Newt's promises are unworkable and entirely at odds with his tax and budget proposals.

Or you could continue evading the question as to how he will fund these programs.

The several ways that Newt's statements have been misrepresented, obviously.

You mean by directly quoting his statements in the context in which they were made?

But what's with this "where's he going to get the money" stupidity? From a Congressional approval (or disapproval, as the case may be). Quite obviously.

So does the fact that all budget and tax law changes must be passed by Congress mean that we as voters are unable to scrutinize proposals made by presidential candidates to see if they make any kind of sense?

Do you really think even Newt doesn't think his proposals should be evaluated by the voters simply because they'd all need to be passed by Congress even if he were elected?

Really?

This is your latest attempt to respond to the very relevant and straightforward question about how to fund the programs Newt is proposing?

 

[mhaze]

...does the fact that all budget and tax law changes must be passed by Congress mean that we as voters are unable to scrutinize proposals made by presidential candidates to see if they make any kind of sense?

Do you really think even Newt doesn't think his proposals should be evaluated by the voters simply because they'd all need to be passed by Congress even if he were elected?...

Evaluated?

That's a different matter than "where would the money come from" or "what would the nasa budget be" or any of the other things that I pointed out would be simply the duty of Congress (and of the Senate after the new majority is in place).

But you'd need to accurately represent them before you could evaluate them. Not a very good track record on that, Joe.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Evaluated?

That's a different matter than "where would the money come from" or "what would the nasa budget be" or any of the other things that I pointed out would be simply the duty of Congress (and of the Senate after the new majority is in place).

No it isn't. Pointing out that Newt has made a campaign promise but has failed to say how he could possibly achieve it (and that it is inconsistent with his tax and budget proposals) is part of the evaluation we should put these proposals to.

But you'd need to accurately represent them before you could evaluate them. Not a very good track record on that, Joe.

Bull. I quoted his exact words taken in the context in which they were made. Your repeated denials that Newt actually made the promises he did is what is inaccurate.

Seriously, this is your latest attempt to respond to the question? Newt doesn't have to say how he would fund the program(s) he is promising because that's Congress' job?

So if a candidate promised every American a house, a car and literally a chicken in every pot, you'd just accept it without wondering how it would be financed, because--after all--that's Congress' duty?

 

[mhaze]

No it isn't. Pointing out that Newt has made a campaign promise but has failed to say how he could possibly achieve it (and that it is inconsistent with his tax and budget proposals) is part of the evaluation we should put these proposals to.
....that's Congress' duty?

Evaluation? You haven't done that at all. You've just engaged in some silly misrepresentations and extrapolations and offered your "opinion" as "evaluation". Which it's not.

And, yeah, funding or not funding and to what extent, based in part upon the POTUS's wishes, REALLY IS THE JOB OF CONGRESS. So you've simply got no point there, Joe. That's why you suggested the public out to "Evaluate" it, but then you backed right into the same dillemna. Unfortunately, repeating things over and over doesn't make them "True".

But it definitely makes them "Truthier".

I can't see any way to debate that with you because it falls under the category of "FACT". If a POTUS wanted money for XYZ, the issue goes to Congress.

So you got anything else?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Evaluation? You haven't done that at all.

You're a liar.

Newt's tax proposal would reduce federal revenues by $1.28 trillion. His promise to balance the budget means he would have to further reduce federal spending by another $1.3 trillion.

So where will the $10 billion from NASA's budget come from?

I have evaluated his promises, and they aren't possibly compatible with one another.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And your continued claim that I am misrepresenting Newt's words is pure BS, haze. I've quoted his very words in context. I've read the entire transcript of his speech to the Planetary Society, and it's abundantly clear that your claims about it are wrong. (You claimed he didn't promise a permanent moon base within 8 years; you claimed he would pay for it by printing money, and so on.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And, yeah, funding or not funding and to what extent, based in part upon the POTUS's wishes, REALLY IS THE JOB OF CONGRESS. So you've simply got no point there, Joe.

I've already noted this evasion, haze, and explained what's wrong with it. To summarize, I'll repeat the question you ducked, "So if a candidate promised every American a house, a car and literally a chicken in every pot, you'd just accept it without wondering how it would be financed, because--after all--that's Congress' duty?"

You on the other hand continue to repeat nonsense and drivel in your constant efforts to twist and dodge the simple problem of how to fund Newt's proposals.

 

[mhaze]

I've already noted this evasion, haze, and explained what's wrong with it. To summarize, I'll repeat the question you ducked, "So if a candidate promised every American a house, a car and literally a chicken in every pot, you'd just accept it without wondering how it would be financed, because--after all--that's Congress' duty?"

You on the other hand continue to repeat nonsense and drivel in your constant efforts to twist and dodge the simple problem of how to fund Newt's proposals.

Now you are just being ridiculous. Why stop at a chicken in every pot?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Now you are just being ridiculous.

Just applying your BS reasoning to candidates and their promises in general. Or does this BS reasoning of yours only apply to Newt?

[ETA: FWIW, this type of argumentation is called reductio ad absurdum. If I carry your argument logically to a conclusion that we agree is absurd, then your argument is disproven. You do agree that it's absurd not to question the fiscal feasibility of candidates' campaign promises because if they were elected POTUS, passing the budget would be Congress' duty?]

Why stop at a chicken in every pot?

Because I needed to stop somewhere to ask the question that you are continuing to evade.

Your claim is that we should ask how Newt proposes to fund the projects needed to achieve his campaign promises because that's Congress' duty.

I'm asking you if you would then accept any candidates promises no matter how preposterous they are fiscally simply because that's Congress' duty?

 

[mhaze]

Just applying your BS reasoning to candidates and their promises in general. Or does this BS reasoning of yours only apply to Newt?

[ETA: FWIW, this type of argumentation is called reductio ad absurdum. If I carry your argument logically to a conclusion that we agree is absurd, then your argument is disproven. ....

I can't see why my comments shouldn't apply across the board to all candidates and their campaign promises. At least pretty much so.

No, actually reducto ad absurdem often produces illogical results, and is a class of logical error, not correctness.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

So I agree with you that you were wrong.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I can't see why my comments shouldn't apply across the board to all candidates and their campaign promises. At least pretty much so.

What silliness, haze. So if a presidential candidate promises to provide free healthcare for everyone, hundreds of billions for job stimulus, massive tax cuts, and a balanced budget, we should just accept it as legitimate because Congress really passes all these budget issues?

No, actually reducto ad absurdem [sic] often produces illogical results, and is a class of logical error, not correctness.

Not surprisingly, you're flat out wrong yet again, haze.

Reductio ad absurdum can be misused, but is itself not a "class of logical error". It is a legitimate form of disproving a proposition when properly used (as I have done).

From the source you cite (but apparently didn't bother to read):

Reductio Ad Absurdum:
showing that your opponent's argument leads to some absurd conclusion. This is in general a reasonable and non-fallacious way to argue.

The short entry goes on to point out that the hazard of misusing this legitimate proof is by falling prey to the Fallacy of the General Rule.

That fallacy would only apply here if you think that there is no such general rule that the fiscal proposals of presidential candidates shouldn't be evaluated for feasibility since that is Congress' duty. (You have just said you believe there is such a rule, which of course, leads to the absurd conclusion that you must accept the bizarre hypothetical campaign promises I have asked you about.)

To think otherwise is to fall prey to the fallacy of special pleading. (That there are some special standards that apply to Newt's promises only.)

But again, your claim that reductio ad absurdum is a "class of logical error" is simply wrong.

ETA: And I suspect that this latest false claim you've made is primarily yet another evasion. You seem willing to talk about anything rather than the question of how Newt's proposals would be consistent with the promises he made in the speech to the Planetary Society.

 

[mhaze]

What silliness, haze. So if a presidential candidate promises to provide free healthcare for everyone, hundreds of billions for job stimulus, massive tax cuts, and a balanced budget, we should just accept it as legitimate because Congress really passes all these budget issues?


Not surprisingly, you're flat out wrong yet again, haze.

Reductio ad absurdum can be misused, but is itself not a "class of logical error". It is a legitimate form of disproving a proposition when properly used (as I have done)......

But that's exactly what you haven't done. You've been carping repeatedly about "where's he going to get the 10B", etc. That's not amendable to the same rules as "where's he going to get the (500b, 1T, 2T, etc)."

It's exactly correct, and the end of the argument (well for reasonable people) to just note that the committee would get such a request from the POTUS, and do something with it, and send that to the floor. It's the converse of my argument that is ridiculous - that there is no way he can get 10B. That's what you seem to believe. If the Congress wants to give to to a special project of the POTUS, they most certainly can and will do so, if the votes are there.

No reducto blah blah, and none of your contrived logic changes that one bit.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

But that's exactly what you haven't done. You've been carping repeatedly about "where's he going to get the 10B", etc. That's not amendable to the same rules as "where's he going to get the (500b, 1T, 2T, etc)."

Why not?

As I've shown, if we accept Newt's tax proposal and his balanced budget promise, he will have to make up $2.5 trillion plus in spending cuts.

Asking where he will get the $10 billion from is merely pointing out that Newt has made a promise with no credible way of funding it.

Your failed attempts to respond to this question, and then your continued evasions of it underscore that it's a preposterous campaign promise.

It's exactly correct, and the end of the argument (well for reasonable people) to just note that the committee would get such a request from the POTUS, and do something with it, and send that to the floor. It's the converse of my argument that is ridiculous - that there is no way he can get 10B. That's what you seem to believe. If the Congress wants to give to to a special project of the POTUS, they most certainly can and will do so, if the votes are there.

So you're saying you would accept any presidential candidate's promises as being feasible despite the inability of anyone to explain how it could be paid for simply because the budget is Congress' duty?

That's not remotely reasonable, and I think you know it.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

No reducto blah blah, and none of your contrived logic changes that one bit.

What "contrived logic"?

Haze, you just cited a page that makes the same point that I did about reductio ad absurdum and which refuted your ignorant claim about it.

You're embarrassing yourself.

 

[mhaze]

....Asking where he will get the $10 billion.....

Is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard.

 

[Muldur]

I gotta admit it's tempting.

Man, that FREE STUFF...it's so fine!

*yawns*

Someone wake me whne mhaze learns another tune...

 

[Muldur]

[re: mhaze]
When the children in the group home have behaviors like this that make worse the thing they are supposed to compensate for, we usually make it a focus of therapy...

Indeed.

The supporters of this moonbase nonsense are exactly like troubled little children who cannot deal with the fact that if they waste their money on the shiny toy they will not have money to pay for things that are actually needed and beneficial for the family.

 

[Muldur]

I can't even repeat it when an oppositional magic talisman argument is repeated moronically?

Awww.....

You know I agree it's been worn thin. But aren't blue jeans with bunches of holes worn through in style these days?

It's far from "an oppositional magic talisman".

It's the truth about the very real human cost of wasting billions of dollars on this moonbase nonsense when there are far more important REAL needs that are going unmet on Earth.

I repeat my original challenge: will you (or any moonbase supporter) please tell me just which children must go hungry, or families unhoused, or sick unhealed?

And will you volunteer personally to look Little Johny, Little Jenny, and their desperate parents in the face and tell them that they must suffer to pay for this boondoggle?

 

[Muldur]

Not to harp on this point, but think about this: the X-Prize's modest advancement over what was done back in '63 was to have a craft that carried 3 people rather than 1 and that took off on its own rather than being carried up to an altitude of about 13.7 km before going on its own.

But the X-Prize was won by a craft that made a total of 3 flights (and will never fly again) and it was in 2005! Going back from '63 by the same interval (from 2005 back to 1963) takes us back to 1921--the era of the very infancy of commercial passenger and freight air travel.

Is this the very bold kind of advancement Newt has in mind?

More importantly, what has this "achievement" done to actually help mankind?

Nothing.

Achieving the X-prise has done NOTHING to feed the hungry, heal the sick, house the homeless or accomplish anything other than "bragging rights" for a small group of private investors who have more money than common sense.

 

[Muldur]

It's total nonsense. I have no idea where you get the idea that you even HAVE an argument. Whatever a POTUS wanted to do, he would go to Congress and request it. The relevant committees would make recommendations. Period. Expand NASA budget, contract it, use part for prizes, add money for prizes, etc.

And that makes it any less of an insane idea?

And this coming from someone who claims to be "fiscally conservative", who, as Joe and others have pointed out, would spend billions of dollars that the gov't doesn't have (and won't have if his cocamame tax proposals were passed) on a "feel good" project like a moonbase in the face of crushing deprivation on the part of millions of Americans.