Conservatives Hate Thinking

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

Is this like that article quoted in Scientific American about superstitious people and religion? A little more digging showed that the “researchers” (and yes, they were at a major university too), selected people they thought were superstitious, ignoring what they said about their own religious beliefs, then with this very skewed sample, set about with the thankless task of confirmation bias…

Studies that show that political doctrines (which are acquired) are actually intrinsic – even better, genetically determined, are the worst sort of disingenuous partisan claptrap masquerading as research.

– jj

62

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I do not think things will tank just yet, I think the Bush tax cuts will expire and fix a lot of problems [/quote]

You are so wrong for a number of reasons. First off the government taking more money out of the economy in the form of taxes will not help the economy. There will be less money for consumers and more importantly the people who best know how to manage their money wisely, will have less to put to good use generating commerce.

Next, the money raised from those taxes will be insufficient to bring down the massive deficits Obama has been running ever since he got elected. Any extra revenues that come in will be wasted like the stimulus. [/quote]

I do not know if a more exacting person exists . People are touting the bill that will fix our budgets and not kick it down the road . Paul Krugman says Ryan’s plan gives $4.3 Trillion in tax cuts and $1.7 trillion in spending cuts , how is that going to fix any thing ???

Please be exacting , thanks

63

[quote]atypical1 wrote:
Beans, in our current environment what do you think the the punishment that the free market would dish out? Serious question there.

james[/quote]

The financial crisis of 2008-2009 is a perfect example of what the free market does to those who act like assholes. OUr government stopped the free market from working.

When TARP first happened, I thought “this is what we need, without it people will be starving in the street.” I was an idiot.

If those funds had to be spent, and in some ways I feel they did, it would have been better spent keeping the people in their homes, and insuring the retirements of those say 50+ (to throw out an age without much thought) rather than just hand the same people that acted like assholes free money, we would have been better off.

But now we have a situation were QE has re-inflated the market, but no one has any confidence in the gains. People look at it like “this could crash at any moment.” Businesses are sitting on masive cash reserves because they know the whole house of cards can come down again, and don’t want to be caught holding their dicks again, and having to slash their workforce. They already gutted the dead weight employees and even a few they would have rather kept. I’ve read more than one poece about how productivity has pretty much maxed out. Assuming all else equal, in order to have more real growth, they will have to hire and invest in the company again. No one is going to do this given the current state of the union.

Do I think Romney being elected will fix this? Certianly not in 2 months, and this issue goes beyond politics at the moment.

There is a deep rift forming at the moment, and the left is feeding into it, thinking it will win them votes. Class division is an issue, and it will end ugly if government keeps playing into it. Just like we ended up in the “money buys our government” situation. Government played into it, and has been bought and paid for every sense.

64

[quote]countingbeans wrote:<<< Class division is an issue, and it will end ugly if government keeps playing into it. Just like we ended up in the “money buys our government” situation. Government played into it, and has been bought and paid for every sense.[/quote]Our government does not buy into either of these. It is an active fomenter and shameless practitioner of both.

65

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I do not think things will tank just yet, I think the Bush tax cuts will expire and fix a lot of problems [/quote]

You are so wrong for a number of reasons. First off the government taking more money out of the economy in the form of taxes will not help the economy. There will be less money for consumers and more importantly the people who best know how to manage their money wisely, will have less to put to good use generating commerce.

Next, the money raised from those taxes will be insufficient to bring down the massive deficits Obama has been running ever since he got elected. Any extra revenues that come in will be wasted like the stimulus. [/quote]

I do not know if a more exacting person exists . People are touting the bill that will fix our budgets and not kick it down the road . Paul Krugman says Ryan’s plan gives $4.3 Trillion in tax cuts and $1.7 trillion in spending cuts , how is that going to fix any thing ???

Please be exacting , thanks [/quote]

Krugman is far from an impartial person to be looking to for analysis of a budget plan.

Plus, if you look into the plan and read people other than pro-big government spending guys, you will see that the reduction in spending and debt increases happen over time to ease the pain. It wouldn’t balance the budget for a long time. But it is a step in the right direction. And the clusterfuck that is AHA is touted as a “step in the right direction even if not perfect” all the time.

66

The trouble is that all of those firms were essentially insolvent because of the loss of valuation of all of the debt that they were holding. The market was sorta working but the result that you spoke of would have actually happened without the spending. And the banks were given that money with no strings attached to it aside from having to pay it back.

If it were in the banks best interest to keep people in their homes they would have done so. What you saw was the free market at work once they received what was essentially a buyer for all of that debt.

You had mentioned that the money should have been used to keep people in their homes and protect the retirement. But that seems to go against your initial argument that the free market should be allowed to do what it wants to do because it’s not going to protect your home or protect your investment. I’m not a fan of just letting the banks do whatever because we the people end up paying for that.

I’ve got accounts with BofA but I have absolutely no influence on how they invest the money that I put in their institution. By the time I find out it’s too late and I’ve got no repercussion against them if they go belly up.

Right now nobody has a good handle on the economy and what needs to be done to fix it. Obama has obviously led us down the wrong path. Romney’s answer is to lower corp taxes but, like you alluded to, what the corps (and small businesses) really need to do is start hiring.

james

67

[quote]atypical1 wrote:
The trouble is that all of those firms were essentially insolvent because of the loss of valuation of all of the debt that they were holding. [/quote]

Yes and no. Their balance sheets looked like garbage, but cash wise a couple would have folded, and a couple would have survived.

This would have been good and bad. It would have thinned the heard, making the survivors even more powerful in the end, but at the same time, giving them a check figure to work off going forward.

But, it was all for not really, because:

They were doing what was in the best interest of themselves and, by extension, the home owners. They insured all these securities.

Just too bad they all insured with one, stupid fucking company. I still contend AIG is holding the biggest bag of shit here.

The government socializing losses like they did can be argued as a free market transaction, sure. But when it is the “tax payers’ money” (in this case the tax payer’s debt) that is forcing the tax payer to buy bullshit, and force isn’t freedom.

Well no, because both parties acted irresponsibily. The buyers didn’t know what the banks were doing with the debt or could they apparently do basic math, and the banks were approving people who had no right being approved, often times with government urging and backing.

You can’t have freedom without responsibility, otherwise you end up in the nanny state we are in today.

But about the government giving the money: in my heart I am still not sold on government intervention, but in my head, I know, at least in todays world, you are going to have it happen. 100% of the time, so I guess I would rather pick and choose better recipients. At least giving to the tax payers gives them their own money/debt back…

Fine, I am not going to repeat what I’ve said, and in today’s world, you are right that we can’t rely on the market to rein in the monster we/government have created.

You should be FDIC insured.

Which, to contradict myself, lol, I’m a proponent of.

[quote]Right now nobody has a good handle on the economy and what needs to be done to fix it. Obama has obviously led us down the wrong path. Romney’s answer is to lower corp taxes but, like you alluded to, what the corps (and small businesses) really need to do is start hiring.

james[/quote]

Yeah, and fucking with the tax code is not going to make a major play in that area, at least not what people think it will do. The Occupiers want big brother to take from the rich, and do what with it, I have no idea, they spend like dickheads. The Romeny’s of the world see the tax breaks as some savior. Reality is both will effect change, some change in the wrong direction, some change in the right direction, but in a vacuum, neither option solves shit.

68

Taking from the rich is just not a well thought out plan. I mean how sustainable is that and we can’t go beg from Bill Gates everytime we have a crises.

We are FDIC insured but if their investment side goes belly up then that’s not insured. The trouble is that it’s impossible to insure investment products because how do you decide on the value?

You made a good point about your heart telling you one thing but your head saying something different and too many people ignore what their head says on only pay attention to what they “feel” things should be like.

james

69

And I can’t believe you got me posting on TN again Beans.

70

[quote]atypical1 wrote:
And I can’t believe you got me posting on TN again Beans.[/quote]

HAHA!

In a thread on lazy thinking no less

71

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
Perhaps it’s a common sense thing. Common sense, when a person has it, can be considered low effort. Using an example of fiscal responsibility and conservatism, one can say it’s a ‘low-effort’ idea to say…‘Don’t spend more money than you take in’. To embark upon endless overriding, complicated flights of various ideas that promote the spending of money you don’t have will land you in a heap of unmanageable and suffocating debt.

Just sayin’…‘low-effort’ thought is not necessarily a bad (or insulting) thing.

P.S. Admittedly, I did not read the detailed study because I have to go to work, not because I didn’t want to raise my mental effort in doing so! I’ll check it out later. [/quote]

It takes less effort to tell the truth and see things as they actually are. Liberals spend most of their time trying to come up with creative ways of making bad ideas sound good, and assign pretty words to horrific practices. I am sure that that takes a tremendous amount of effort. You don’t have to spin truth or reality so that takes less effort. I would there for say that study is right on. It takes less effort to be right than it does to be wrong and try to make it sound like it’s right. [/quote]

You mean like when liberals THINK they can figure out a way to run a nanny state indefinitely, while maintaining a contracepted and aging socially liberal society?
[/quote]
Yes, I mean that. Give more money to the government so everybody can have a better life rings hollow to me. It doesn’t take much thought to see that as a fail. When you cede power to the government and then they don’t do right by you, don’t be surprised. The other problem is when you do that, you cannot get it back even if it was found to be a horrible mistake.
Name one government entity that has ever gone back to the people. I know of zero.

Look at public schools for instance. State budgets get hit, funding gets cut, schools teachers and students all suffer. And you cannot do a damn thing about it, why? Because the government holds the strings and can do what they want.
So if you listen to the liberal school of thought, their answer is raise taxes…OK so you raise taxes, you slow the economy down and the actual revenue drops.
What they don’t realize is basic economic factors drive tax revenue waaaay more than individual percentages.
It’s really simple, the more money changes hands the more taxable opportunities exist. The more taxable opportunities exist, the more money in tax revenue.

The profit margin on a Ferrari is way higher than on a Kia, but Kia makes a veritable shit pile more money than Ferarri makes because they have more units on which to make a profit. What I don’t get is how people don’t understand these very, very simple concepts.
The truth is simple, it doesn’t take a lot of brain power to see things as they actually are.

72

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I do not think things will tank just yet, I think the Bush tax cuts will expire and fix a lot of problems [/quote]

Yup, the economy will be driven right off a cliff.

First, you don’t need the Bush tax cuts to pay more, simple don’t take any deductions. Be willing and start paying more yourself, then you can ask others to pay more.
Second, obama will resign the Bush tax cuts again because he has no choice and everybody knows it. With all the tax breaks coming to an end simultaneously, $800+ billion will be sucked instantly out of the economy. It doesn’t matter what political party you are for, to allow that to happen would be the dumbest thing ever.

73

[quote]atypical1 wrote:
Taking from the rich is just not a well thought out plan. I mean how sustainable is that [/quote]

It isn’t, and that is the problem. (Plus it leaves a bad taste in the mouth of those of us working 72 hour weeks trying to get promoted and make a better life for our family, only to be punished for working hard… But anyway… ;))

The other problem being, any attempt to “spread the wealth around” focuses on the wrong shit. That gets people in this mindset that the “pie” is a finite size. If we can focus on making the pie larger, adding value to the resources we have, adding resources, it helps everyone.

That is partly why education changes would be second on the “Beans fix America plan”. Throwing money at the problem isn’t working, we spend more and more every year. I’m not saying we don’t still need more dough, but we certainly need to think about a better way of spending it. (I’d prefer private education, market driven, but people would lose their fucking minds, and inner city kids would get hosed.)

If people added value to themselves, finding work would be easier. But adding value to yourself is hard work…

74

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I do not think things will tank just yet, I think the Bush tax cuts will expire and fix a lot of problems [/quote]

Yup, the economy will be driven right off a cliff.

First, you don’t need the Bush tax cuts to pay more, simple don’t take any deductions. Be willing and start paying more yourself, then you can ask others to pay more.
Second, obama will resign the Bush tax cuts again because he has no choice and everybody knows it. With all the tax breaks coming to an end simultaneously, $800+ billion will be sucked instantly out of the economy. It doesn’t matter what political party you are for, to allow that to happen would be the dumbest thing ever. [/quote]

Have to agree. It would be crippling.

And anyone that doesn’t understand that these “robinhood” taxes of Obama’s aren’t going to push more jobs offshore, more money offshore, and more economic activity offshore, just don’t understand how the system works.

Foreign markets are actually growing, and have slightly better tax rules, and best of all don’t have citizens that hate rich people and success.

75

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I do not think things will tank just yet, I think the Bush tax cuts will expire and fix a lot of problems [/quote]

Yup, the economy will be driven right off a cliff.

First, you don’t need the Bush tax cuts to pay more, simple don’t take any deductions. Be willing and start paying more yourself, then you can ask others to pay more.
Second, obama will resign the Bush tax cuts again because he has no choice and everybody knows it. With all the tax breaks coming to an end simultaneously, $800+ billion will be sucked instantly out of the economy. It doesn’t matter what political party you are for, to allow that to happen would be the dumbest thing ever. [/quote]

Have to agree. It would be crippling.

And anyone that doesn’t understand that these “robinhood” taxes of Obama’s are going to push more jobs offshore, more money offshore, and more economic activity offshore, just don’t understand how the system works.

Foreign markets are actually growing, and have slightly better tax rules, and best of all don’t have citizens that hate rich people and success. [/quote]

edit didn’t go through, so I just fixed it above

76

I post a study about how dumb conservatives are and you turn it into a meaningful discussion with civility? WTF is wrong with you people?

77

Percentage Change in After-Tax Income
Cash Income
(in thousands of 2009 dollars) 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Less than 10 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 5.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%
10-20 1.0% 1.0% 1.1% 1.0% 4.5% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.8%
20-30 2.6% 2.6% 2.5% 2.4% 5.4% 2.5% 2.4% 2.4% 2.2%
30-40 2.7% 2.8% 2.7% 2.6% 5.2% 2.8% 2.7% 2.7% 2.4%
40-50 2.6% 2.5% 2.4% 2.5% 4.7% 2.6% 2.5% 2.5% 2.2%
50-75 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 4.6% 2.8% 2.7% 2.7% 2.3%
75-100 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 3.1% 4.8% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 2.8%
100-200 3.8% 3.8% 3.9% 4.0% 5.1% 4.3% 4.2% 4.2% 3.6%
200-500 3.4% 3.4% 3.8% 3.9% 4.0% 4.1% 4.3% 4.3% 3.6%
500-1,000 3.9% 4.0% 4.2% 4.2% 4.3% 4.3% 5.0% 5.0% 3.8%
More than 1,000 6.0% 6.0% 6.3% 6.1% 6.2% 6.0% 7.3% 7.3% 6.3%

78

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Percentage Change in After-Tax Income
Cash Income
(in thousands of 2009 dollars) 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Less than 10 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 5.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%
10-20 1.0% 1.0% 1.1% 1.0% 4.5% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.8%
20-30 2.6% 2.6% 2.5% 2.4% 5.4% 2.5% 2.4% 2.4% 2.2%
30-40 2.7% 2.8% 2.7% 2.6% 5.2% 2.8% 2.7% 2.7% 2.4%
40-50 2.6% 2.5% 2.4% 2.5% 4.7% 2.6% 2.5% 2.5% 2.2%
50-75 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 4.6% 2.8% 2.7% 2.7% 2.3%
75-100 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 3.1% 4.8% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 2.8%
100-200 3.8% 3.8% 3.9% 4.0% 5.1% 4.3% 4.2% 4.2% 3.6%
200-500 3.4% 3.4% 3.8% 3.9% 4.0% 4.1% 4.3% 4.3% 3.6%
500-1,000 3.9% 4.0% 4.2% 4.2% 4.3% 4.3% 5.0% 5.0% 3.8%
More than 1,000 6.0% 6.0% 6.3% 6.1% 6.2% 6.0% 7.3% 7.3% 6.3%[/quote]

@ Pat I will quit taking mine if every one quits taking theirs . and again it clearly shows a disparity in the value of my dollar compared to Mitt’s or Goerge’s

79

[quote]jnd wrote:

[quote]TLDR: Conservatives like low-effort thought and Science is witchcraft.
[/quote]

It does not say that conservatives “like” low-effort thought. It says that when people are engaged in low-effort mental processing this promotes politically conservative thoughts, not that political conservatives use low-effort thinking. No need to overstate the result to make your point.

The fact that conservatives propagate lies linking abortion to mental health difficulties (and increased breast cancer risks), and support abstinence-only education is far more damning than this study. Also cannot forget the new gem that women do not get pregnant via “legitimate” rape.

It is just sad how so many people wantonly ignore clear scientific results.

jnd[/quote]

I don’t know anything about claims of abortion affecting mental health difficulties. You’ll have to provide documentation for that gem; however, there is an increased risk of breast cancer when one uses the Pill! I’d have to see documentation for that claim, as well.

However, the last one is blatantly out of context and an actual misquote of Senate Hopeful Akin and ignores the fact that he apologized and said he mixed up his words.

I find it is the left-wing nuts like you that are guilty of the low thought, if by low thought I mean patently false and indefensible by any normal standard of debate.

80

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Percentage Change in After-Tax Income
Cash Income
(in thousands of 2009 dollars) 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Less than 10 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 5.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%
10-20 1.0% 1.0% 1.1% 1.0% 4.5% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.8%
20-30 2.6% 2.6% 2.5% 2.4% 5.4% 2.5% 2.4% 2.4% 2.2%
30-40 2.7% 2.8% 2.7% 2.6% 5.2% 2.8% 2.7% 2.7% 2.4%
40-50 2.6% 2.5% 2.4% 2.5% 4.7% 2.6% 2.5% 2.5% 2.2%
50-75 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 4.6% 2.8% 2.7% 2.7% 2.3%
75-100 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 3.1% 4.8% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 2.8%
100-200 3.8% 3.8% 3.9% 4.0% 5.1% 4.3% 4.2% 4.2% 3.6%
200-500 3.4% 3.4% 3.8% 3.9% 4.0% 4.1% 4.3% 4.3% 3.6%
500-1,000 3.9% 4.0% 4.2% 4.2% 4.3% 4.3% 5.0% 5.0% 3.8%
More than 1,000 6.0% 6.0% 6.3% 6.1% 6.2% 6.0% 7.3% 7.3% 6.3%[/quote]

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

revenues (taxes in the door) are more under Bush than any year under Clinton save one.

In constant dollars there is 3 years in bush’s time that don’t bring in more than Clinton’s best year.