Now, I'm going to list a few commonly cited conservative positions. Abiding with the board's premise, I'd like to see empirical evidence from reputable, non-partisan sources validating these beliefs. Then, I'd be happy to present my own factual evidence that I feel debunks each of these prepositions; of which I have plenty.
1. Welfare encourages laziness and traps the poor in a cycle of poverty.
2. Tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy and large corporations stimulate economic growth for working and middle class people.
3. Private charity is more effective than government programs.
4. State run education is more effective than federal run education.
5. Privatized health care is more effective than universal, public health care.
6. Guns deter crime.
7. The death penalty (which I somewhat support) deters crime.
8. Gays marrying is more dangerous than straight convicted murderers marrying (which is legal).
9. The Free Market can stop corporations from fraud and trust-forming without federal help.
10. There exist >5% of the world's climate scientists that reject global warming theory.
11. There exist >5% of the world's biologists that reject Evolution.
12. Abstinence only sex ed works.
13. Contraceptive use increases STD transfer.
14. Second hand smoking is not real.
15. Women rarely get pregnant from "legitimate rape".
16. A fetus is sentient.
17. The Bush Administration's foreign policy strengthened our national security.
18. Western Europe, which has all of Obama's reforms on steroids, is a totalitarian socialist state.
19. The Founding Fathers were conservatives.
20. College is overhyped.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 11, 2012, 07:22:12 AM
Now, I'm going to list a few commonly cited conservative positions. Abiding with the board's premise, I'd like to see empirical evidence from reputable, non-partisan sources validating these beliefs. Then, I'd be happy to present my own factual evidence that I feel debunks each of these prepositions; of which I have plenty.
1. Welfare encourages laziness and traps the poor in a cycle of poverty.
2. Tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy and large corporations stimulate economic growth for working and middle class people.
3. Private charity is more effective than government programs.
4. State run education is more effective than federal run education.
5. Privatized health care is more effective than universal, public health care.
6. Guns deter crime.
7. The death penalty (which I somewhat support) deters crime.
8. Gays marrying is more dangerous than straight convicted murderers marrying (which is legal).
9. The Free Market can stop corporations from fraud and trust-forming without federal help.
10. There exist >5% of the world's climate scientists that reject global warming theory.
11. There exist >5% of the world's biologists that reject Evolution.
12. Abstinence only sex ed works.
13. Contraceptive use increases STD transfer.
14. Second hand smoking is not real.
15. Women rarely get pregnant from "legitimate rape".
16. A fetus is sentient.
17. The Bush Administration's foreign policy strengthened our national security.
18. Western Europe, which has all of Obama's reforms on steroids, is a totalitarian socialist state.
19. The Founding Fathers were conservatives.
20. College is overhyped.
1. In many cases, yes.
2. Not sure. I don't think targeting the wealthy does much for the economy but it does punish and send a message that people like you whine instead of looking in the mirror for the answers to problems.
3. Many are better. Private charity is outperforming FEMA during Sandy.
4. Not sure. Inoperable my granddaughter goes to a private school.
5. We'll see won't we?
6. I think it does. You have to ask criminals. Ask your friends.
7. No. But justice is served.
8. Stupid question.
9. Only corporations commit fraud or are you only concerned about them?
10. Don't care. Climate change is normal.
11. Who cares?
12. Sex Ed starts in the home. Condoms and birth control work. Abstinence is the most effective. Abortion seems the logical choice of many on the left.
13. No.
14. It is for real. It also stinks.
15. Stupid question. No such thing.
16. A fetus is a life worth protecting. It is a human being with rights.
17. After 9/11, we remained safe. Funny how after four years Obama is not responsible yet Bush after 7 months in office was blamed for 9/11. Clinton and his policies get a pass.
18. What Europe did has no bearing on us.
19. They are dead. Can't ask them.
20. Depends on the chosen field elected.
We all have differing opinions on many issues. Your facts may be factual to you. You need to start thinking for yourself instead of searching for how you feel or think. Hmmm. That sounds good! I think I will believe like this guy!
Why not "debate" each one thoroughly in its own thread. As you've posted it, it's a massive time waster.
Quote from: Yawn on November 11, 2012, 08:14:10 AM
Why not "debate" each one thoroughly in its own thread. As you've posted it, it's a massive time waster.
I'm not wasting my time on it. If he wants to start a thread with facts, we can talk about it.
You're on a roll scifi. Great threads!!!
1) Give me scientific evidence that there's a God.
2) Give me evidence that this random list is accurate.
I think we can add "lazy" to your personal list of attributes.
Quote from: Yawn on November 11, 2012, 08:14:10 AM
Why not "debate" each one thoroughly in its own thread. As you've posted it, it's a massive time waster.
What? Start 20 separate threads? :rolleyes:
Yet again, nobody has yet bothered to actually present peer reviewed studies that support any of the aforementioned positions (someone still doesn't understand that I never implied
every position in the OP is shared by
every conservative). You just have your "gut feeling".
You have 20 UNRELATED questions.
I would like to address the homosexual "marriage" thing, but I won't with a thousand unrelated other things cluttering up the thread. So I won't bother.
Quote from: Yawn on November 11, 2012, 08:56:49 AM
You have 20 UNRELATED questions.
I would like to address the homosexual "marriage" thing, but I won't with a thousand unrelated other things cluttering up the thread. So I won't bother.
Of course, you don't have to answer all 20 questions. Respond to any you like. But I'd expect facts and peer reviewed studies, not your "gut feeling".
no thank you.
Quote from: Yawn on November 11, 2012, 08:59:52 AM
no thank you.
So you can't actually defend your economic and social stances with facts and evidence, but you think the country should accept them? Off of what? Your "gut feeling"? :lol:
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 11, 2012, 08:54:47 AM
What? Start 20 separate threads? :rolleyes:
Yet again, nobody has yet bothered to actually present peer reviewed studies that support any of the aforementioned positions (someone still doesn't understand that I never implied every position in the OP is shared by every conservative). You just have your "gut feeling".
Hint: Go spend
your time, and present evidence that disproves each one, and we can go from there.
Quote from: kramarat on November 11, 2012, 09:04:19 AM
Hint: Go spend your time, and present evidence that disproves each one, and we can go from there.
Burden of proof fallacy.
But you probably don't know what that is, so I won't waste any more of my time:
Quote
Richest states (per capita)
District of Columbia
Delaware
Connecticut
Alaska
Massachusetts
Wyoming
New Jersey
New York
Minnesota
Virginia
Highest percent bellow poverty line (per capita)
Mississippi
Louisiana
New Mexico
District of Columbia
Arkansas
West Virginia
Kentucky
Texas
Alabama
South Carolina
Most Educated
Vermont
Connecticut
Massachusetts
New Jersy
Maine
Minnesota
Virginia
Wisconsin
Montana
New York
Least Educated
Arizona
Mississippi
New Mexico
Nevada
California
Lousiana
Alaska
Alabama
Hawaii
Tennessee
Most Suicides (per capita)
Wyoming
Montana
Alaska
Nevada
New Mexico
Oregon
Colorado
Idaho
West Virginia
Arizona
Fewest Suicides (per capita)
New York
District of Columbia
New Jersey
Massachusetts
Connecticut
Rhode Island
Illinois
Maryland
California
Ohio
As you can see, states with conservative policies tend to fail miserably in the long run; indeed,
all ten states with the lowest suicide rates are liberal.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tax-cuts-rich-dont-spur-151649273.html (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tax-cuts-rich-dont-spur-151649273.html)
Quoteutting taxes for the wealthy does not generate faster economic growth, according to a new report. But those cuts may widen the income gap between the rich and the rest, according to a new report.
A study from the Congressional Research Service -- the non-partisan research office for Congress -- shows that "there is little evidence over the past 65 years that tax cuts for the highest earners are associated with savings, investment or productivity growth."
In fact, the study found that higher tax rates for the wealthy are statistically associated with higher levels of growth.
The finding is likely to fuel to the already bitter political fight over taxing the rich, with President Obama and the Democrats calling for higher taxes on the wealthy to reduce the deficit and fund spending. Mitt Romney and the GOP advocate lower marginal tax rates for top earners, saying they fuel investment and job creation.
See this slideshow: America's Biggest Wealth Gaps
The CRS study looked at tax rates and economic growth since 1945. The top tax rate in 1945 was above 90 percent, and fell to 70 percent in the 1960s and to a low of 28 percent in 1986.
The top current rate is 35 percent. The tax rate for capital gains was 25 percent in the 1940s and 1950s, then went up to 35 percent in the 1970s, before coming down to 15 percent today - the lowest rate in more than 65 years.
Lowering these rates for the wealthy, the study found, isn't aligned with significant improvement in any of the areas it examined. Pushing tax rates down had a "negligible effect" on private saving, and while it does note a relationship between investing and capital gains rates, the correlations "are not statistically significant," the study says.
"Top tax rates," it concludes, "do not necessarily have a demonstrably significant relationship with investment."
The study said that lower marginal rates have a "slight positive effect" on productivity while lower capital gains rates have a "slight negative association" with productivity. But, again, neither effect was considered statistically significant.
Do higher taxes on the rich lead to faster economic growth? Not necessarily. The paper says that while growth accelerated with higher taxes on the rich, the relationship is "not strong" and may be "coincidental," since broader economic factors may be responsible for that growth.
There is one part of the economy, however, that is changed by tax cuts for the rich: inequality. The study says that the biggest change in the distribution of U.S. income has been with the top 0.1 percent of earners - not the one percent.
[ More From CNBC: One Percent Gives Up Ground -- to the Five Percent ]
The share of total income going to the top 0.1 percent hovered around 4 percent during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, then rose to 12 percent by the mid-2000s. During this period, the average tax rate paid by the 0.1 percent fell from more than 40 percent to below 25 percent.
The study said that "as top tax rates are reduced, the share of income accruing to the top of the income distribution increases" and that "these relationships are statistically significant."
In other words, cutting taxes on the rich may not grow the economic pie. But the study found that those cuts can effect "how that economic pie is sliced."
http://www.thepragmaticpundit.com/2012/05/democrats-v-republicans-debt-and.html (http://www.thepragmaticpundit.com/2012/05/democrats-v-republicans-debt-and.html)
(pictures don't show up; you'll have to click on the link)
Quote
Bill Clinton inspired me to rename and repost this information. This was the result when Presidents had a Congress that compromised.
THE DEBT, DEFICIT AND DEBT CEILING
Don't Blame Obama for Bush's 2009 Deficit
by Republican Daniel J. Mitchell of the Conservative Cato Institute
Click to enlarge
Barack Obama has lowest spending record of any recent president
You will often hear critics say that Bush left office with a $454 billion deficit. That was the deficit at the end of 2008 (12/31/2008). Then what accounts for the period from the end of December until the President is sworn into office in late January? Any calculation that begins when President Obama took office or at the end of 2009 (because the President had been in office for a year), is just flat-out wrong.
Here's how it works...the fiscal year is from October 1 through September 30th. So a President governs for his first 9 months under the budget of the preceding government.
At the end of the Bush fiscal year, September 30, 2009, the deficit was $1,417,121.
Obama's first fiscal year, September 30, 2010, the deficit was $1,294,090. The deficit went down!
Obama's second fiscal year September 30, 2011, the deficit was $1,298,614.
Obama's third fiscal year August 31, 2012 (latest available), the deficit was $1,164,373.
Source: Steve Benen, Maddow Blog
Trade Deficit Goes Down, Budget Deficit and Unemployment drop
Debt Reduction
Most government spending occurs automatically, without any action by the Congress or the President. Since fiscal year 1957, the amount of debt held by the federal government has increased each year. The ability to expand the economy has direct impact on the ability to bring about debt reduction, so I've included the following chart.
I am adding the following charts for further clarification.
Source: CBO Historical Budget Page
Balancing the Budget
President Clinton balanced the budget, giving the government a surplus. Not one single Republican in either house voted for the balanced budget.
Only 5 (five) current Presidents have governed with a surplus. They were all Democrats!
click here to enlarge
Recessions and Depressions
Republicans held the presidency at the onset of the last NINE (9) economic downturns, including the two greatest economic collapses in our history.
1. The Great Depression: Herbert Hoover (Republican)
2. Recession of 1953: Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican)
3. Recession of 1957: Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican)
4. Recession of 1960: Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican) *
5. The Oil Crisis: Richard Nixon (Republican)
6. 1980's Recession: Ronald Reagan (Republican)
7. 1990 Recession: George H.W. Bush (Republican)
8. 2002 Recession: George W. Bush (Republican)
9. The Second Great Depression: George W. Bush (Republican)
Correction:
* The Recession of 1960 began during the presidential campaign of that same year. The chart originally assigned the recession to President Kennedy, who was not inaugurated until 1961. It is important to note that what ended the recession was the call President Kennedy made for government spending. It helped to reduce unemployment and restore confidence in the economy. The recession came to an end that very year.
THANK YOU David Maurand of designPhase3
The Debt Ceiling
The DEBT CEILING has been raised 79 times since 1960; 49 times under Republican presidents and 30 times under Democratic presidents.
Under Reagan the debt ceiling was raised 17 times in eight years
Under Bush the debt ceiling was raised 4 times in 4 years
Under Clinton the debt ceiling was raised 4 times in eight years
Under Bush the debt ceiling was raised 7 times in eight years
Under President Obama the debt ceiling has been raised 4 times in 3 years
The Federal Workforce
Employment
Reagan expanded government more than any modern-day President. His was the largest non-military workforce in three decades. The only president who had a workforce that surpassed Reagan's was President Johnson's, during the Vietnam War. Reagan was in office during peacetime.
If we combine the totals for all federal employees, including the military:
Reagan began office with a total of 4,982,000 employees and ended his term with 5,292,000 employees. President Obama took office with a federal employee roster of 4,430,000 employees. At the end of 2010 President Obama's federal workforce numbered 4,443,000; that's 849,000 fewer employees than Reagan, the advocate of small government! Add to this the fact that President Reagan governed during peacetime, while President Obama inherited two wars.
*through 2010. Includes temporary Census workers
Job Creation
When it comes to job creation, the Democrats again do a better job than Republicans.
From the U.S. Department of Labor; data is listed from the best to the worst:
Unemployment Rates
Clearly Democratic Presidents create more jobs per year than Republican presidents. Unemployment rates are higher under Republicans....it's just a fact.
Johnson 1966-1969 average unemployment rate of 3.7%.
Clinton 1994-2001 average unemployment rate of 4.9%.
Kennedy 1962-1965 average unemployment rate of 5.2%.
Nixon 1970-1977 average unemployment rate of 6.3%.
Bush 1990-1993 average unemployment rate of 6.7%.
Carter 1978-1981 average unemployment rate of 6.7%.
Reagan 1982-1989 average unemployment rate of 7.3%.
Here's a pretty damning statistic:
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwaynedemocrats.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F05%2Fgraph.jpg&hash=3f172062da7c1a44c58520d7c27b7bfa6a038839)
Oh, here's another:
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8335%2F8113010115_f48e4b5058.jpg&hash=c815c1cd57fbeef053f0214f10d361b87f13af76)
You see what happens when you ignore blind partisanship and actually analyze the numbers?
This is Nate Silver vs conservative pundits all over again. Math vs gut feeling.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 11, 2012, 09:10:28 AM
Burden of proof fallacy.
But you probably don't know what that is, so I won't waste any more of my time:
As you can see, states with conservative policies tend to fail miserably in the long run; indeed, all ten states with the lowest suicide rates are liberal.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tax-cuts-rich-dont-spur-151649273.html (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tax-cuts-rich-dont-spur-151649273.html)
http://www.thepragmaticpundit.com/2012/05/democrats-v-republicans-debt-and.html (http://www.thepragmaticpundit.com/2012/05/democrats-v-republicans-debt-and.html)
(pictures don't show up; you'll have to click on the link)
Here's a pretty damning statistic:
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwaynedemocrats.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F05%2Fgraph.jpg&hash=3f172062da7c1a44c58520d7c27b7bfa6a038839)
Oh, here's another:
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8335%2F8113010115_f48e4b5058.jpg&hash=c815c1cd57fbeef053f0214f10d361b87f13af76)
You see what happens when you ignore blind partisanship and actually analyze the numbers?
This is Nate Silver vs conservative pundits all over again. Math vs gut feeling.
You made one crucial mistake that undoes your whole tangled pastiche...
Quote from: The Boo Man... on November 11, 2012, 10:35:08 AM
You made one crucial mistake that undoes your whole tangled pastiche...
It'll obviously be something entirely unrelated to the statistics.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 11, 2012, 10:38:35 AM
It'll obviously be something entirely unrelated to the statistics.
Oh. Ok :rolleyes:
Quote from: The Boo Man... on November 11, 2012, 10:40:50 AM
Oh. Ok :rolleyes:
You have a brilliant way of avoiding actually refuting evidence.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 11, 2012, 10:45:40 AM
You have a brilliant way of avoiding actually refuting evidence.
You have a brilliant way of avoiding asking for refuting evidence.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on November 11, 2012, 10:48:01 AM
You have a brilliant way of avoiding asking for refuting evidence.
Can I have refuting evidence? :rolleyes:
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 11, 2012, 10:51:45 AM
Can I have refuting evidence? :rolleyes:
Let me ask you something. Can a state opt out of a federal law/program. A simple yes or no please.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on November 11, 2012, 10:52:57 AM
Let me ask you something. Can a state opt out of a federal law/program. A simple yes or no please.
How does this have anything to do with the part of my post you quoted?
Maybe you should quote relevant sections to respond to.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 11, 2012, 10:55:08 AM
How does this have anything to do with the part of my post you quoted?
Maybe you should quote relevant sections to respond to.
Yes or no.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 11, 2012, 11:16:05 AM
I'll decide to say "red herring".
Really? So a state can or cannot opt out of the federal welfare program...
Quote from: The Boo Man... on November 11, 2012, 11:16:58 AM
Really? So a state can or cannot opt out of the federal welfare program...
No, it's that your question has nothing to do with the part of my post you quoted.
But to humor, I'll say No.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 11, 2012, 07:22:12 AM
Now, I'm going to list a few commonly cited conservative positions. Abiding with the board's premise, I'd like to see empirical evidence from reputable, non-partisan sources validating these beliefs. Then, I'd be happy to present my own factual evidence that I feel debunks each of these prepositions; of which I have plenty.
1. Welfare encourages laziness and traps the poor in a cycle of poverty.
2. Tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy and large corporations stimulate economic growth for working and middle class people.
3. Private charity is more effective than government programs.
4. State run education is more effective than federal run education.
5. Privatized health care is more effective than universal, public health care.
6. Guns deter crime.
7. The death penalty (which I somewhat support) deters crime.
8. Gays marrying is more dangerous than straight convicted murderers marrying (which is legal).
9. The Free Market can stop corporations from fraud and trust-forming without federal help.
10. There exist >5% of the world's climate scientists that reject global warming theory.
11. There exist >5% of the world's biologists that reject Evolution.
12. Abstinence only sex ed works.
13. Contraceptive use increases STD transfer.
14. Second hand smoking is not real.
15. Women rarely get pregnant from "legitimate rape".
16. A fetus is sentient.
17. The Bush Administration's foreign policy strengthened our national security.
18. Western Europe, which has all of Obama's reforms on steroids, is a totalitarian socialist state.
19. The Founding Fathers were conservatives.
20. College is overhyped.
Let me start by saying that much of what you present here are caricatures of conservative positions, or not conservative positions at all. I must wonder whether you are actually looking for answers here or are content to merely build up straw men to subsequently knock down.
I shall dismantle some of the most egregious assertions here:
8 - This is not a conservative position. Most conservatives oppose gay marriage on a moral level, not because it may induce some sort of immediate public danger to a greater extent than a marriage between convicted heterosexual murderers.
9 - This is not a conservative position.
10 - This is not a conservative position either. Of course the climate changes, if the climate didn't change I'd be concerned. This isn't the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter is, are humans the principle cause? If so, to what extent are we the cause? Is this extent of such a substantial danger to warrant extremely intrusive measures that regulate our every day lives from regulating what light bulbs we can use to what kind of cars we can drive?
11 - Rejection of evolution is not a conservative position, some conservatives reject evolution from a Biblical literalism Christian background. But trying to make a connection between rejection of evolution and conservatism is bad form and just plain ridiculous.
14 - This is stupid, and not a conservative position.
15 - This is not a conservative position either. Are you really so impressionable as to think that because one conservative said something to this effect that this is somehow a position accepted by millions of conservatives?
16 - This is not a conservative position either. The general conservative position is that since life begins at conception, personhood is intrinsically linked to the beginning of life and all persons have rights that should be protected, the most basic of which is the right to life. Sentience does not play a role in the abortion position of most conservatives.
17 - nothing could be farther from the truth, I will contend that true conservatives would not believe Bush's foreign policy made us safer. Bush's foreign policy should rightly be seen as neoconservative and a great departure from foreign policy that is truly conservative. Bush's foreign policy was disastrous, this should be evident to everyone on both sides of the spectrum in my opinion.
18 - How hyperbolic, I doubt on a serious level an conservative would equate what is going on in Europe as true totalitarianism, perhaps only as hyperbole or being comedically derisive.
19 - This is an interesting one here. And I will contend that the found fathers are closest to today's Libertarians than anyone else. And today's libertarians are much closer to American conservatives than American liberals. The founding fathers would be against gun control, liberals support it. The found fathers were opposed to an income tax (no income tax existed in the constitution at all), liberals not only support the income tax, they support high income taxes for those they deem fit to pay it. The founding fathers were big supporters of states rights, something liberals consider a largely antiquated notion. Liberals believe in a "living document" interpretation of the constitution which lets them interpret it any way that want. Conservatives believe in a strict interpretation of the constitution from the point of view of those who wrote it which can be easily ascertained from their expositions on the constitution in things like the federalist papers. So when it comes to today's American liberals and American conservatives, the founding fathers would not align completely in any camp, but I certainly believe they would be closer to today's conservatives than today's liberals. Just read any material from the founding fathers, I believe they align closer to today's libertarians than anyone else, but when it comes to liberal vs conservative, they are undoubtedly closer to the conservative camp.
But as I said at the beginning of my post, you really misrepresent and make caricatures of things you perceive to be conservative position when they really are not at all. If you truly want to debate this issues, I suggest you ascertain what real conservative positions are and try to make a distinction between what conservative positions actually are and what leftist rhetoric characterizes conservative positions as.
Every single one of the aforementioned positions is held by at least a nontrivial minority in the conservative base.
Whether or not you personally hold these positions, even whether or not even a majority of conservatives hold these positions, is irrelevant. I'm merely asking an explanation for relevant claims by those conservatives who do support said claims.
BTW, Sarah Palin, among others, has clearly supported abstinence-only education. One of the many examples of a prominent right winger supporting a position that you may not openly endorse; that doesn't mean I can't attribute it to the Right.
Sci film Fan, I usually cut you slack because I agree with quite a few of your points and value the diversity of opinion you bring to the table...but I must bust you on this one. The burden of proof is on the party making the assertion (you) and not on the non-moving party. If you used that kind of logic in court, any judge I know would tear your rear end and ask you about which toilet diploma mill you got your degree from. He who asserts something has to provide evidence for his claim...not the other way around. You can't just post a random list and expect everyone else to do the work for you.
Quote from: Skeptic on November 11, 2012, 12:33:41 PM
Sci film Fan, I usually cut you slack because I agree with quite a few of your points and value the diversity of opinion you bring to the table...but I must bust you on this one. The burden of proof is on the party making the assertion (you) and not on the non-moving party. If you used that kind of logic in court, any judge I know would tear your rear end and ask you about which toilet diploma mill you got your degree from. He who asserts something has to provide evidence for his claim...not the other way around. You can't just post a random list and expect everyone else to do the work for you.
You're misunderstanding the purpose of the OP. It made no claims that X numbers of conservatives harbored Y positions. It simply listed a bunch of positions that have been held by conservatives of some sect, and asking conservatives to defend
whichever ones they happen to support.If (impersonal) you don't agree with one, just say so and move on. It's not a debate over what the conservative position is; it's an appeal to actually defend whichever ones one supports.
OK, as a fiscal conservative with moderate social viewpoints, I do not agree with 1/3 of the things on your list, agree with 1/3, and partially agree and partially disagree on the other 1/3.
I won't get more detailed because the explanation on each issue point by point would be so large and complex that no one would read it and complain about how much space I wasted on one post in this forum.
Maybe for most people one liners and slogans are sufficient to explain their political views...but my political views are too complex and detailed to explain in one or two sentences, and impossible to explain in one thread especially when you are asking about 20 things at the same time.
:thumbup: Yeah to what he said
Question for Fiction:
Quote2. Tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy and large corporations stimulate economic growth for working and middle class people.
Do you believe Obummer is "targeting the "ULTRA WEALTHY" alone? And why don't you believe they're entitled to the PROPERTY they own?
Quote from: Yawn on November 11, 2012, 12:56:07 PM
Do you believe Obummer is "targeting the "ULTRA WEALTHY" alone?
What does that have to do with the claim? Why can't we, regardless of whether Obama has done so, have tax cuts for everyone
except for the ultra-rich? QuoteAnd why don't you believe they're entitled to the PROPERTY they own?
By that logic, nobody should have to pay taxes, but you know that wouldn't work out.
I'm replying to YOUR question (#2).
Now do you believe Obummer is "targeting the ULTRA WEALTHY or the upper half of the middle class? Try responding with a little honesty.
Quote from: Yawn on November 11, 2012, 01:01:38 PM
I'm replying to YOUR question (#2).
You didn't honestly believe that
my position was that tax cuts for the wealthy stimulated economic growth, did you? :rolleyes:
That was a common conservative position I cited. Whether or not Obama's tax hikes will only affect the wealthy has absolutely no relevance to the direct request to support such a statement with empirical facts. You're simply trying to turn this into another Obama-bash.
This is the LAST time I'll respond to you if I don't get an honest and straight answer from you.
You and Obama talk about the "Super Rich" and the "Ultra Wealthy." My question again, is.......
Do you believe Obama and the Democrats are out to ONLY raise taxes on the "ULTRA WEALTHY" (YOUR words). Or are they, as we all know, going after the small busioness owners that make up the upper MIDDLE CLASS (if they're successful business owners).
WHO are Obama and the Democrats TARGETING?
Quote from: Yawn on November 11, 2012, 01:07:52 PM
This is the LAST time I'll respond to you if I don't get an honest and straight answer from you.
You and Obama talk about the "Super Rich" and the "Ultra Wealthy." My question again, is.......
Do you believe Obama and the Democrats are out to ONLY raise taxes on the "ULTRA WEALTHY" (YOUR words). Or are they, as we all know, going after the small busioness owners that make up the upper MIDDLE CLASS (if they're successful business owners).
WHO are Obama and the Democrats TARGETING?
Let me try one more time to get you to understand the most basic principle of "sticking to the damn topic":
THIS THREAD HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OBAMA. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DEMOCRATIC POLICY. IT HAS TO DO WITH ASKING FOR EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR SPECIFIC CONSERVATIVE STANCES.
QuoteTHIS THREAD HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OBAMA. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DEMOCRATIC POLICY. IT HAS TO DO WITH ASKING FOR EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR SPECIFIC CONSERVATIVE STANCES.
I think we have a failure to communicate. You are painting all conservatives with a broad liberal brush.
You probably didn't know this, but unlike liberals, conservatives don't all just blindly dance to the same song. So your thread makes no sense here. Conservatives are not a collective............that would be liberals you are describing.
Quote# 2. Tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy and large corporations stimulate economic growth for working and middle class people.
WHO do you and Obama consider the
ULTRA WEALTHY? Is a struggling business owner who employs 5 or 10 people worthy of being TARGETED with huge tax increases?
I want to know WHO you think Obama is targeting with his tax increases
Quote from: kramarat on November 11, 2012, 01:37:40 PM
I think we have a failure to communicate. You are painting all conservatives with a broad liberal brush.
You haven't bothered to read any of my successive posts, have you?
Quote from: Yawn on November 11, 2012, 01:58:01 PM
WHO do you and Obama consider the ULTRA WEALTHY?
Let's just make an arbitrary benchmark and say an income of one million dollars or more.
So after three pages,
not one piece of evidence has been presented to support anything. You guys literally bullshitted for three pages, just to avoid coming up with some figures to support your case. :laugh:
A million in assets? a million sitting in the bank? A million per year?
You consider any of these "ULTRA WEALTHY"? How old are you? And you know Obama is TARGETING those with FAR LESS for massive tax increases don't you?BTW, nobody knows what the "topic" of this thread is. Like we tried to explain, you' posted a lot of UNRELATED things and YOU said respond to any ONE we want. This is why a thread should deal with ONE topic.
QuoteSo after three pages, not one piece of evidence has been presented to support anything.
You only have yourself to blame. Your thread makes no sense.
Quote from: Yawn on November 11, 2012, 02:10:14 PM
A million in assets? a million sitting in the bank? A million per year?
A million per year. I thought that would be quite simple to understand.
QuoteAnd you know Obama is TARGETING those with FAR LESS for massive tax increases don't you?[/b]
Irrelevant to the thread, as I have explained to you on five successive occasions.
Quote
BTW, nobody knows what the "topic" of this thread is.
Because you fail at reading comprehension. After 5 successive clarifications, you still can't understand that this thread has nothing to do with Obama.
Now, let me put it in bold text, the argument number 2 you are addressing:
Provide empirical, peer reviewed studies to support the proposition that decreasing taxes specifically on people making an annual income of 1 million dollars or more will stimulate economic growth for the rest of the nation.I'm not responding to your post unless if it contains a link, quotes or whatever with
numbers and math.
Sorry, but I don't dance for you to entertain you. I respond where I want and when I want.
It IS about Obama and the Left when you talk about the "ULTRA WEALTHY." Only Liberals/Socialists/Communists exploit "class envy."
We don't have classes in America. We have INDIVIDUALS struggling to create the life that makes them happy.
YOU and Obama look to Godvernment and want more and more of a CITIZEN'S property.
Income tax is evil and WRONG. America was never intended to fund itself this way. You're too stuck in this viewpoint to see the alternatives.
Your president is as DISHONEST as you. He talks about going after the "super wealthy" but what he really means is the
MIDDLE CLASS--BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE MONEY IS.
This thread, and this short exchange is why you cannot have reasonable CONVERSATIONS with the Godvenment worshiping Liberal/Socialist/Communist.
There is NO common point of agreement.
QuoteI'm not responding to your post unless if it contains a link, quotes or whatever with numbers and math.
Thank you
Quote from: Skeptic on November 11, 2012, 12:47:31 PM
OK, as a fiscal conservative with moderate social viewpoints, I do not agree with 1/3 of the things on your list, agree with 1/3, and partially agree and partially disagree on the other 1/3.
I won't get more detailed because the explanation on each issue point by point would be so large and complex that no one would read it and complain about how much space I wasted on one post in this forum.
Maybe for most people one liners and slogans are sufficient to explain their political views...but my political views are too complex and detailed to explain in one or two sentences, and impossible to explain in one thread especially when you are asking about 20 things at the same time.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Let me preface my responses with "Everything the Govt touches turns to shit" so that you may better understand my position on all your points
but to CLARRIFY on taxes and their effect on the economy which I consider the main issue of the election and the next four years:
1. Taxing the "rich" has a way of trickling down to the middle class. Taxes on corporations get passed on to the consumer, that means higher prices on EVERYBODY.
What I dispse about Obamao and you progressives is you somehow think that somebody who makes $200K or $250K is rich or a millionare.
You have to be able to do basic math to figure this out but somebody who makes $250 K is NOT A MILLIONAIRE.
If you get your increased taxes, it won't be enough and the next thing you know you'll be argueing that somebody who makes $100 K a year is rich and lets tax them because they are a Millionare or the top 1%.
When that happens news flash... it means the economy REALLY SUCKS...when somebody who makes 200 K, 175K, 150 K 100K is considered rich and is the top 1% or 5%...the economy has completely failed.
Enjoy
Quote from: valjean on November 11, 2012, 11:33:47 AM
Let me start by saying that much of what you present here are caricatures of conservative positions, or not conservative positions at all. I must wonder whether you are actually looking for answers here or are content to merely build up straw men to subsequently knock down.
I shall dismantle some of the most egregious assertions here:
8 - This is not a conservative position. Most conservatives oppose gay marriage on a moral level, not because it may induce some sort of immediate public danger to a greater extent than a marriage between convicted heterosexual murderers.
9 - This is not a conservative position.
10 - This is not a conservative position either. Of course the climate changes, if the climate didn't change I'd be concerned. This isn't the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter is, are humans the principle cause? If so, to what extent are we the cause? Is this extent of such a substantial danger to warrant extremely intrusive measures that regulate our every day lives from regulating what light bulbs we can use to what kind of cars we can drive?
11 - Rejection of evolution is not a conservative position, some conservatives reject evolution from a Biblical literalism Christian background. But trying to make a connection between rejection of evolution and conservatism is bad form and just plain ridiculous.
14 - This is stupid, and not a conservative position.
15 - This is not a conservative position either. Are you really so impressionable as to think that because one conservative said something to this effect that this is somehow a position accepted by millions of conservatives?
16 - This is not a conservative position either. The general conservative position is that since life begins at conception, personhood is intrinsically linked to the beginning of life and all persons have rights that should be protected, the most basic of which is the right to life. Sentience does not play a role in the abortion position of most conservatives.
17 - nothing could be farther from the truth, I will contend that true conservatives would not believe Bush's foreign policy made us safer. Bush's foreign policy should rightly be seen as neoconservative and a great departure from foreign policy that is truly conservative. Bush's foreign policy was disastrous, this should be evident to everyone on both sides of the spectrum in my opinion.
18 - How hyperbolic, I doubt on a serious level an conservative would equate what is going on in Europe as true totalitarianism, perhaps only as hyperbole or being comedically derisive.
19 - This is an interesting one here. And I will contend that the found fathers are closest to today's Libertarians than anyone else. And today's libertarians are much closer to American conservatives than American liberals. The founding fathers would be against gun control, liberals support it. The found fathers were opposed to an income tax (no income tax existed in the constitution at all), liberals not only support the income tax, they support high income taxes for those they deem fit to pay it. The founding fathers were big supporters of states rights, something liberals consider a largely antiquated notion. Liberals believe in a "living document" interpretation of the constitution which lets them interpret it any way that want. Conservatives believe in a strict interpretation of the constitution from the point of view of those who wrote it which can be easily ascertained from their expositions on the constitution in things like the federalist papers. So when it comes to today's American liberals and American conservatives, the founding fathers would not align completely in any camp, but I certainly believe they would be closer to today's conservatives than today's liberals. Just read any material from the founding fathers, I believe they align closer to today's libertarians than anyone else, but when it comes to liberal vs conservative, they are undoubtedly closer to the conservative camp.
But as I said at the beginning of my post, you really misrepresent and make caricatures of things you perceive to be conservative position when they really are not at all. If you truly want to debate this issues, I suggest you ascertain what real conservative positions are and try to make a distinction between what conservative positions actually are and what leftist rhetoric characterizes conservative positions as.
I find it sad that you dont see the irony in this statement. On the one hand, you (quite correctly) berate Sci-fi Fan for his use of the Strawman Fallacy but on the other, you use that very same fallacy when describing the position of the left. By far the mildest use of it so far in this thread, indeed, but you were on a roll. I was rooting for you until the last two paragraphs.
Sci fi fan, I expected a bunch of conservatives on a conservative board to have strawman arguments. I was not disappointed, but I am by you. You know good debating tactics, use them.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 11, 2012, 07:22:12 AM
Now, I'm going to list a few commonly cited conservative positions. Abiding with the board's premise, I'd like to see empirical evidence from reputable, non-partisan sources validating these beliefs. Then, I'd be happy to present my own factual evidence that I feel debunks each of these prepositions; of which I have plenty.
1. Welfare encourages laziness and traps the poor in a cycle of poverty.
2. Tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy and large corporations stimulate economic growth for working and middle class people.
3. Private charity is more effective than government programs.
4. State run education is more effective than federal run education.
5. Privatized health care is more effective than universal, public health care.
6. Guns deter crime.
7. The death penalty (which I somewhat support) deters crime.
8. Gays marrying is more dangerous than straight convicted murderers marrying (which is legal).
9. The Free Market can stop corporations from fraud and trust-forming without federal help.
10. There exist >5% of the world's climate scientists that reject global warming theory.
11. There exist >5% of the world's biologists that reject Evolution.
12. Abstinence only sex ed works.
13. Contraceptive use increases STD transfer.
14. Second hand smoking is not real.
15. Women rarely get pregnant from "legitimate rape".
16. A fetus is sentient.
17. The Bush Administration's foreign policy strengthened our national security.
18. Western Europe, which has all of Obama's reforms on steroids, is a totalitarian socialist state.
19. The Founding Fathers were conservatives.
20. College is overhyped.
Okay you're looking at this wrong... remember the Government is here for the reasons listed in Article 1 section 8. With that being said, I dont have to prove whether one is right or wrong, but constitutionality should suffice right? Here we go then...
1. Welfare is wealth redistribution. If a police officer cant come into my home, take some possessions, and give them to my next door neighbor, why can the federal government?
2. Top 10% of earners pay 71% of income taxes. Will you socialists not be happy until the top 1% pays for 100%... How about everyone does their fair share with a FLAT TAX? '
3. Private charity preserves my economic liberty... see #1... Government programs steals from one and gives to another. Irrefutable
4. Federally run education keeps me from deciding what my child will learn in school. Liberals want to prevent monopolies in the market, but they are ok with a monopoly on education which has caused America to decline in the world in Math and Science.. not to mention the fact that our kids dont know the basics of the constitution or their rights when they graduate.
5. Privatized healthcare preserves my freedom and liberty, your socialized medicine assumes a one size fits all process will work. I DONT WANT ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT...
6. 2nd Amendment.... what are you getting at here? Guns allow me to protect myself from gun wielding morons. I have that right dont I?
7. No it doesn't... Criminals don't care about penalties.
8. You're Stupid
9. NO entity can stop anyone from committing fraud, BUT our court system can rectify the situation once fraud has occured. No need to have these regulations which stifle the economy in order to seem like you are attempting to make things right. In the long run, you hurt those you say you are trying to help.
10. dont care
11. dont care
12. dont care
13. WTF?
14. SECOND hand is real, luckily i dont have to stand next to people that smoke.
15. Abortions that occur due to rape make up less than 1% of abortions.
16. I dont know... A fetus has a heartbeat at 18 days though... If you mother got into a car crash and was in a coma, but had a heartbeat, but was not a sentient, would we murder her?
17. No
18. Socialist state, YES
19. Founding Fathers were for limited government as per Article 1 section 8. They were about freedom and local governing. you my friend are more like MARX.
20. Irrelevant.... More importantly, everyone thinks they have the RIGHT to go to college, to include taking from me to make it happen.
The use of statistics to make a point is flawed since statistics look for correlation, where this argument seems to be pulling causation out of them- a logical fallacy.
Tax cuts leave more money in private hands, to invest, consume or save.
This is better for the economy than filtering the money through an inefficient bureaucracy and redistributing it.
For taxation destroys the incentive to produce, and redistribution does the same. Minimizing these acts strengthens incentives to produce, and with it, the economy.
The free market is the best means of market regulation for consumers know better than regulators what they want.
Competition forces sound practice, lest loss of market share is the goal.
Self interest is socially coordinating.
New member. First post. This is the first thread I opened and didn't get past page 1. Sci Fi was asking for peer-reviewed studies to refute his claims but provided yahoo, liberal bloggers, and Facebook pictures to support his claims. I think I'm done with this thread, on to the next!
Quote from: DieHard on November 12, 2012, 09:51:06 AM
New member. First post. This is the first thread I opened and didn't get past page 1. Sci Fi was asking for peer-reviewed studies to refute his claims but provided yahoo, liberal bloggers, and Facebook pictures to support his claims. I think I'm done with this thread, on to the next!
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Welcome Diehard, you just met one of a few moonbats that soil the entry to the forum.
Just wipe your feet and come on in. :wink:
Still no numbers.
Still a gnat buzzing around my soup.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 13, 2012, 01:20:42 PM
Still no numbers.
You're asking us to prove you're not an idiot. Sorry, no-can-do.
Quote from: taxed on November 13, 2012, 02:34:25 PM
You're asking us to prove you're not an idiot. Sorry, no-can-do.
Nope, I'm asking for proof for things that are hardly self evident.
For example: the claim that it's better to invest in the wealthy than in the middle class.
Not self evident. Ergo, it requires evidence. You know, more than your say-so.
QuoteFor example: the claim that it's better to invest in the wealthy than in the middle class.
Your thinking is all screwed up. You're INVESTING in no one. It's HIS money. Not yours. Your money is the money YOU earn. Obama doesn't invest in anyone except the growth of Godvernment
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 13, 2012, 03:33:39 PM
Nope, I'm asking for proof for things that are hardly self evident.
Nope. You're asking us to answer your idiocy, which gives it validity.
Quote
For example: the claim that it's better to invest in the wealthy than in the middle class.
Proof: You have no idea what you're talking about. This is liberal propaganda that means nothing. By discussing this would mean it has validity. When you learn to articulate what you think you mean, then we can discuss it. Just spewing idiocy doesn't make you smarter.
Quote
Not self evident. Ergo, it requires evidence. You know, more than your say-so.
You don't respect the doers in society. That is a fact.
Quote from: taxed on November 13, 2012, 03:41:31 PM
Proof: You have no idea what you're talking about. This is liberal propaganda that means nothing.
That's an interesting choice of words, given that I made no claim, but rather asked for verification of a claim.
Quote from: Yawn on November 13, 2012, 03:36:30 PM
Your thinking is all screwed up. You're INVESTING in no one. It's HIS money. Not yours. Your money is the money YOU earn. Obama doesn't invest in anyone except the growth of Godvernment
Yeah he does, and he picked losers.
Think green energy. :laugh:
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 13, 2012, 03:46:50 PM
That's an interesting choice of words, given that I made no claim, but rather asked for verification of a claim.
It isn't a claim. It's idiocy. That's the point.
Quote from: taxed on November 13, 2012, 04:32:19 PM
It isn't a claim. It's idiocy. That's the point.
Oh, so you
don't believe in trickle down economics?
That's good to know.
It's a real pleasure reading your posts taxed. ,
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 13, 2012, 04:34:30 PM
Oh, so you don't believe in trickle down economics?
That's good to know.
That isn't what that is. Try again.