Why does this board lean Democrat?

[Lobohan]

@XT

No, especially since HE doesn’t think they would hurt the poor. He thinks they would help. If liberals enact policies they think would help The Poor, but they in fact hurt, does that mean they actually have a desire to hurt the poor?

Well he said, of a strong safety net, “lulls able-bodied people into lives of complacency and dependency, which drains them of their very will and incentive to make the most of their lives. It’s demeaning.”

Which to me, suggests that he thinks many poor are lazy and need to have the rug pulled out so that they will work. I’d say he fully expects people to suffer while they bootstrap themselves up.

[MaxTheVool]

@Lobohan

What if those policies do nothing to reach your stated goal, that is to say, balancing the budget?

Well, does whichever Republican we’re talking about (Paul Ryan? Rand Paul?) honestly agree with you that this policy has nothing to do with balancing the budget?

And of course far more likely than “Paul Ryan actively enjoys it when poor Americans suffer, and that’s why he proposed X” is “Some rich guy wants X to pass, so he told Paul Ryan to propose it and claim it has to do with balancing the budget, which Paul Ryan did”.
Saying that Republicans want the poor to suffer is like saying that Obama wants Iraqi children to die bleeding in the streets.

[MaxTheVool]

@Lobohan

Which to me, suggests that he thinks many poor are lazy and need to have the rug pulled out so that they will work. I’d say he fully expects people to suffer while they bootstrap themselves up.

You’re stretching a LOT… equating “Paul Ryan wants poor people to undergo temporary hardship because he honestly believes that in the long run they will be better off and happier for it” with “Paul Ryan wants poor people to suffer” is pretty weak sauce.

[Lobohan]

@MaxTheVool

Well, does whichever Republican we’re talking about (Paul Ryan? Rand Paul?) honestly agree with you that this policy has nothing to do with balancing the budget?

And of course far more likely than “Paul Ryan actively enjoys it when poor Americans suffer, and that’s why he proposed X” is “Some rich guy wants X to pass, so he told Paul Ryan to propose it and claim it has to do with balancing the budget, which Paul Ryan did”.
Saying that Republicans want the poor to suffer is like saying that Obama wants Iraqi children to die bleeding in the streets.

I agree that a worthy like Ryan certainly doesn’t want the poor to suffer, unless you mean the lazy ones who need to bootstrap themselves to prosperity.

More likely, he believes that temporary suffering will mean long term benefit.

Edited to Add: I agree it’s weak. I do believe Paul Ryan literally thinks poor people can stuff it, but I doubt he imagines them literally suffering. He probably envisions a Randian scene of a poor person working a first hard days work and realizing all at once that he can be a valuable member of society.

[Slypork]

@MaxTheVool

“Fiction” in that context meant “novels”, not “made up stuff”. I mean, it’s clearly possible for a poster with a conservative bent, who enjoys reading political thrillers, to start that thread looking for reading recommendations while being 100% in favor of the conservative side of every issue.

My bad, you are correct.

See! A conservative person not only can listen to liberals bust can even admit that he was wrong! It’s amazing what happens when people talk nicely to each other.

[DSeid]

I would concur.

To make clear however - are you admitting that the one datum was wrong, or that the point that the datum was allegedly in support of was wrong, that your data indeed actually supports a thesis that liberals on this board tend to more polite to conservatives than the other way around.

Do you recognize that your post and your eagerness to read that thread title as an obvious hate-filled insult evinces a quickness to taking offense and to feeling put upon?

Note: this is based on the data you provided only and is subject to the thoroughness of your, admittedly “quick and dirty” research. My personal sense is that reality is a bit closer to parity. But the research you provided is the best we’ve got.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Lobohan

What if those policies do nothing to reach your stated goal, that is to say, balancing the budget?

It’s this. If you propose to drastically slash programs for the poor, but give it all back in tax cuts to the rich so much so that you don’t end up balancing the budget, then what is the point? If your budget proposal will cost jobs and be a drag on the economy, then it’s fair to guess that the intent of the budget is not to close the deficit, create jobs or generate economic growth. It becomes apparent that the cruelty in the proposal is not a bug, it’s a feature.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3737

Despite its massive spending cuts, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s budget (which the House is considering this week) would still have a deficit of $287 billion in fiscal year 2022. And the Congressional Budget Office estimates that it wouldn’t produce a surplus until 2040.

A Review of Paul Ryan's Budget Proposal

His budget proposal would simultaneously cut tax rates for the rich and corporations while slashing programs for the poor and elderly: […]

Lastly, it is worth highlighting that Rep. Ryan is gaming the system in creating budget estimates. Ryan’s budget proposal is too vague to be scored, so he simply told the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to determine the effect of his budget proposal assuming the proposal achieves its stated goals for spending and revenues.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/opinion/06krugman.html

The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has, however, stepped into the breach. Its numbers indicate that the Ryan plan would reduce revenue by almost $4 trillion over the next decade. If you add these revenue losses to the numbers The Post cites, you get a much larger deficit in 2020, roughly $1.3 trillion.

Paul Ryan's Roadmap to Inequality

At the same time, the Roadmap’s reprioritization of government spending also would be regressive in its impact. Proponents of the Roadmap or plans like it must explain how any projected increase in economic growth will compensate the majority of Americans for shouldering more tax burdens while receiving smaller government benefits.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/they-refused-to-believe-any-politician.html

For example, when Priorities informed a focus group that Romney supported the Ryan budget plan — and thus championed “ending Medicare as we know it” — while also advocating tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, the respondents simply refused to believe any politician would do such a thing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/03/13/paul-ryans-cruelly-radical-vision/

His budget is the work of an ideologue. It’s a bargaining ploy that even Ryan concedes is merely “a vision.”

It is full of holes and magic asterisks, the biggest being his refusal to detail any of the middle-class tax deductions he would have to scrap to get to his 25 percent income tax rate. […]

It’s a cruel budget. To finance his largess to the very well-off, Ryan would — through steep Medicaid cuts and the repeal of Obamacare — leave an additional 40 million to 50 million poor or moderate-income Americans without health insurance,

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/12/flimflam-forever/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto

Nothing has changed, except that the plan has gotten even crueler.

Paul Ryan declares war on the poor

As that watchdog group shows, the allegedly “pro-growth” GOP proposes no big cuts to corporate welfare or other subsidies that enrich the already rich. Instead, the party proposes that 66 percent of the cuts come from “programs that serve people of limited means.” Yes, that’s right: The “pro-growth” GOP is proposing to primarily cut the programs that reduce economic inequality and, thus, spur economic growth.

Where do much of the savings generated from those cuts go? That gets us to a report by Citizens for Tax Justice. The nonpartisan group discovered that after a decade of trickle-down tax cuts delivered more economic inequality and historically weak macroeconomic growth, the GOP is now proposing a budget whose centerpiece is a proposal to give those with an “income exceeding $1 million (an) average net tax decrease of over $200,000.”

Taken together, these two analyses spotlight the self-evident moral argument against such a budget. With all those aforementioned facts showing the rich getting richer and everyone else getting hit so hard, how heartless does a political party have to be to propose this kind of budget blueprint?

Ryan proposes another path to fewer jobs and slower growth

On net, we estimate that the Ryan budget would decrease gross domestic product (GDP) by 1.7 percent and decrease nonfarm payroll employment by 2.0 million jobs in calendar year 2014 relative to current policy.

[Bricker]

@DSeid

Bricker, perhaps my request to you was missed. Please give an example of an argument that you consider “slam-dunk” for the Right, like Global Climate Change is “for the Left” that you are not seeing any liberals here acknowledging like you do on Climate Change.

I did. I mentioned the taggants-in-gunpowder example. In that thread, despite a complete and thorough refutation of the complaint and the underlying thesis, I don’t see anyone who has acknowledged error – especially the OP.

[Bricker]

@MaxTheVool

You’re stretching a LOT… equating “Paul Ryan wants poor people to undergo temporary hardship because he honestly believes that in the long run they will be better off and happier for it” with “Paul Ryan wants poor people to suffer” is pretty weak sauce.

An oft-repeated request… But in my view, if more folks like you posted more critiques of the folks nominally on “their side,” it would go a long way towards eliminating the hostility I feel. Perhaps the biggest aspect of that hostility is the frustration when weak sauce is only challenged by those opposing the poster, leading to the fear that silence gives approbation.

[Dave_Hartwick]

@sleestak

They left because folks like Der Trirhs can run around insulting conservatives/republicans non stop and nothing is done. The mods don’t do jack. The members don’t do jack. When someone with the ‘correct’ opinions is an ass, well, it is just ignored.

Der Trihs has been flamed so much that he adopted a policy of not responding to Pit threads that involve him. Some of my favorite Der Trihs thread titles: “Are we just ignoring Der Trihs?”, “Der Trihs Pitting du jour” and “Der Trihs: the stomach ulcer of atheism”.

[GIGObuster]

@Bricker

An oft-repeated request… But in my view, if more folks like you posted more critiques of the folks nominally on “their side,” it would go a long way towards eliminating the hostility I feel. Perhaps the biggest aspect of that hostility is the frustration when weak sauce is only challenged by those opposing the poster, leading to the fear that silence gives approbation.

Well, we can see that sleestak should had been criticized by your side, several times already, specially when he enters a discussion on global warming, not much of that welcoming criticism there and here so I would think that the request that you are making should had more weight if someone from your side had done some cleanup in isle 216

As I pointed before, I still think that what we have here is that while this is not a scientific message board, science does appear a lot when one is looking for the straight dope on something, and currently one side is constantly demonstrating that science can be jettisoned at high levels of government when they do not like the research.

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2013/04/us-lawmaker-proposes-new-criteri-1.html

The new chair of the House of Representatives science committee has drafted a bill that, in effect, would replace peer review at the National Science Foundation (NSF) with a set of funding criteria chosen by Congress. For good measure, it would also set in motion a process to determine whether the same criteria should be adopted by every other federal science agency.

The legislation, being worked up by Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX), represents the latest—and bluntest—attack on NSF by congressional Republicans seeking to halt what they believe is frivolous and wasteful research being funded in the social sciences. Last month, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) successfully attached language to a 2013 spending bill that prohibits NSF from funding any political science research for the rest of the fiscal year unless its director certifies that it pertains to economic development or national security. Smith’s draft bill, called the “High Quality Research Act,” would apply similar language to NSF’s entire research portfolio across all the disciplines that it supports.

The reply from the NSF (PDF):

2013-04-26-ebj-nsf-grants.pdf

In the history of this Committee, no Chairman has ever put themselves forward as an expert in the science that underlies specific grant proposals funded by NSF. In the more than two decades of Committee leadership that I have worked with Chairmen Brown, Walker, Sensenbreimer, Boehlett, Gordon, and Hall — I have never seen a Chairman decide to go after specific grants simply because the Chairman does not believe them to be of high value.

Interventions in grant awards by political figures with agendas, biases, and no expertise is the antithesis of the peer review processes. By making this request, you are sending a chilling message to the entire scientific community that peer review may always be trumped by political review. You also threaten to compromise the anonymity that is crucial to the frank and open exchange of comments and critiques during the review process, and in doing so, further compromise the integrity of the merit review process.

How can future participants in the peer review process have confidence that their work will remain confidential when the Chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee has shown that probing specific awards absent any allegation of wrong-doing may become the way business is done?

Like you, I recognize that NSF grants conte from taxpayer dollars, and as such, that recipients of those grants have a responsibility back to the taxpayers. But I also believe that:

1. the progress of science itself — across all fields, including the social and
   behavioral sciences — is in the interest of the taxpayer; and

2. that NSF 's Broader Impact criterion is the right way to hold the individual grantee accountable.

As part of the COMPETES Re-authorization Act of 2010, out of concern that some NSF-funded scientists did not take this responsibility seriously enough, this Committee enacted a requirement for NSF to clarify and strengthen the Broader Impacts criterion. In response, NSB took up a review of both the intellectual and broader impacts criteria and after extensive community input and debate, updated their guidance to the Director of NSF.

In turn, the Director implemented new policy guidance to the grantee community and merit-review panels only tins past January. I encourage you to let this new policy take hold and then return to this area in a year or two with an appropriate oversight effort. Instead, through your document request, coupled with your “High Quality Research Act” proposal, you are taking steps that could erode NSF’s 60-year old peer review process at the same time that your legislative proposal would undermine NSF 's core mission as a basic research agency. I am sure this is not your intention, but intentions do not always predict outcomes and the path you are leading the Committee onto is very dangerous.

In 1950, Congress established the National Science Foundation “to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense…” The intent, however, was never that every single grant funded by NSF would meet all of these criteria, but that in the aggregate, the taxpayers’ investments in NSF over time would achieve all of them. And they have, in spades.

The moment you compromise both the merit review process and the basic research mission of NSF is the moment you undo everything that has enabled NSF to contribute so profoundly to our national health, prosperity, and welfare.

[eschereal]

@GIGObuster

… currently one side is constantly demonstrating that science can be jettisoned at high levels of government when they do not like the research.

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2013/04/us-lawmaker-proposes-new-criteri-1.html

Well, you know, all they do is just take our money and then tell us stuff we do not want to hear. They need to be brought under control. Smart people are, like, dangerous.

[Bricker]

@GIGObuster

Well, we can see that sleestak should had been criticized by your side, several times already, specially when he enters a discussion on global warming, not much of that welcoming criticism there and here so I would think that the request that you are making should had more weight if someone from your side had done some cleanup in isle 216

Well, I have publicly (and repeatedly) indicated that I believe that global warming is a real phenomenon, and is in great measure a result of human activity… so I don’t think I qualify as being on sleestak’s side.

[pjnlsn]

It probably leans democrat because it’s stated purpose is to “fight ignorance”

And i’m completely serious, there’s a correlation between open-mindedness and being liberal, and then if you vote, voting Democrat.

[Deeg]

@DSeid

Please give an example of an argument that you consider “slam-dunk” for the Right, like Global Climate Change is “for the Left” that you are not seeing any liberals here acknowledging like you do on Climate Change.

How about nuclear power? My understanding is that most of the resistance to nuclear power is from the far left.

[MaxTheVool]

@pjnlsn

It probably leans democrat because it’s stated purpose is to “fight ignorance”

And i’m completely serious, there’s a correlation between open-mindedness and being liberal, and then if you vote, voting Democrat.

Being a liberal who considers himself (a) open minded, and (b) right about most things, I’d certainly like it if your claim was correct. And I don’t think it’s prima facie ridiculous that there could be a correlation (although not a perfect one) between political leanings and styles of thought.

But… do you have any evidence for your claim?

[MaxTheVool]

@Deeg

How about nuclear power? My understanding is that most of the resistance to nuclear power is from the far left.

See post 139

[MaxTheVool]

@Bricker

An oft-repeated request… But in my view, if more folks like you posted more critiques of the folks nominally on “their side,” it would go a long way towards eliminating the hostility I feel. Perhaps the biggest aspect of that hostility is the frustration when weak sauce is only challenged by those opposing the poster, leading to the fear that silence gives approbation.

I feel like you and I have been over this ground many many times… and it comes down to the fact that the SDMB isn’t a job, it isn’t a responsibility, it’s just something we do for fun. Being the guy who has to police your own side constantly just isn’t fun. I do it some. Other people do it some. The fact that it isn’t done more isn’t due to some conspiracy or hypocrisy or particular weakness among the SDMB left, it’s just human nature. (Not sure if you agree or not…)

[magellan01]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

It’s this. If you propose to drastically slash programs for the poor, but give it all back in tax cuts to the rich so much so that you don’t end up balancing the budget, then what is the point? If your budget proposal will cost jobs and be a drag on the economy, then it’s fair to guess that the intent of the budget is not to close the deficit, create jobs or generate economic growth. It becomes apparent that the cruelty in the proposal is not a bug, it’s a feature.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3737
A Review of Paul Ryan's Budget Proposal

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/opinion/06krugman.html
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2132663
Hullabaloo: "They refused to believe any politician would do such a thing."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/03/13/paul-ryans-cruelly-radical-vision/
Flimflam Forever - The New York Times

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/22/paul_ryan_declares_war_on_the_poor/

Ryan proposes another path to fewer jobs and slower growth | Economic Policy Institute

This is a mistake that is made quite often here. And yes usually by those on the left. Your cites argue that Ryan’s policies are bad for the poor. Now EVEN IF the that argument is correct, it offers no evidence that Ryan “desires” to hurt the poor. You’re attempting to divine his motivation while eliminating the possibility the his policies might have longterm upside for the poor. Or that some other greater good might be achieved which overshadows the negative effects you see. Assuming you’re even right about that.

Do you really think that is Ryan’s goal to hurt poor people? That even if a policy of his might actually hurt the poor, that that is part of the reason for him promoting that policy, as contrasted with, say, from it being an unwanted consequence he begrudgingly accepts in a quest for what he considers a greater good?

[eschereal]

@Deeg

How about nuclear power? My understanding is that most of the resistance to nuclear power is from the far left.

Nuclear power is a public-opinion-roller-coaster. A Fukushima incident makes lots of people worry about the hazards, and widespread support goes down. Then everyone forgets about it, till the next one happens. Right now, Hanford is a serious concern, but it is not getting a lot of coverage. One of its waste tanks will explode sometime next year and a few hundred thousand people will be nominally exposed to high-level waste, there will be some anxiety and hand-wringing, but it is up in the corner of the country, everyone will eventually forget about it. Nuclear power is only a right-wing slam-dunk most of the time.