Study: Democrats more likely to think astrology is scientific, less likely to know Earth revolves around the sun

posted at 4:11 pm on February 17, 2014 by Allahpundit

Via Brendan Nyhan, there’s no better way to celebrate a day of national unity like Washington’s birthday than by sneering at the ignorance of our political opponents.

Okay, fine. Relative ignorance.

astro

Why the disparity? One possibility is education. Follow the last link and scroll down to Table 7 and you’ll see, as expected, that the more educated you are, the less likely you are to see astrology as scientific. According to the very first polls taken on the tea party movement in 2010, TPers are better educated (and wealthier) than the population on average. That probably explains why “conservative Republican” is at the bottom of the list above. On the other hand, exit polls from election day 2012 show Obama winning only narrowly among voters without a college degree. Maybe the education gap between the parties isn’t so pronounced. Or maybe income is somehow a better peg for astrological belief than education is: O did win heavily among poorer voters.

Another possibility is faith. It may be that the more devoutly you believe in a religion, the less likely you are to give credence to a quasi-religious belief system (which nonetheless purports to be “scientific”) like astrology. That would help explain why Republicans, the more religious of the two parties, are more skeptical. On the Democratic side, it’s a mirror image of the same story: Liberals are more likely to be religious skeptics than other Democrats and that bleeds over into skepticism of astrology, which pushes their numbers lower than moderate or conservative Dems. But not too low — one of the striking findings here is that even lefties are more than 10 points more likely to find scientific value in astrology than righties are.

The third possibility is that this is, to some degree, a byproduct of age demographics. You ready for this?

age

You get a 10-point drop with every 20 years of age. Republican voters skew older and young voters, famously, skew Democratic. It’s the ignorance of the millennials and the comparative wisdom of the elderly that’s pushing Democrats down and Republicans up, respectively. (Although … what’s up with the 70+ crowd?) Not only that, but according to another study of Americans’ confidence in astrology released last week, most of the population — but millennials especially — have seen their credulousness about astrology increase since 2005. Nine years ago, just 40 percent or so of the 18-29 age group believed that astrology was sort of scientific; today it’s nearly 60 percent. How come?

Maybe we can figure this out. Click the last link and eyeball the two graphs there. In the first graph, the number of skeptics (people who think astrology is “not at all scientific”) starts to climb halfway through Reagan’s first term, as America recovers from recession, and stays relatively high throughout the prosperous 90s. It starts to dip around the time Clinton was impeached — and then skyrockets right after 9/11, falling gradually but consistently since then. The second graph, tracking the number of believers (people who think astrology is at least sort of scientific) falls until 2005 and then increases only modestly — until around 2008, when it soars and keeps on soaring. Put all of that together and what we’re seeing here, I think, is people’s faith in astrology waxing and waning as their faith in public institutions rises and falls. A rosy economy in the 80s and 90s made them skeptical; the big swell of national unity after 9/11 made them even more skeptical. But as the Iraq war wore on and then, especially, the financial crisis and ensuing recession hit, they’ve lost faith in the economy and the government. Obama’s term in office has done little to repair it, so they start dabbling with alternate belief systems to impose order on the world. That’s not the only explanation for what’s happening, as I’ve already noted, but it ain’t just poor schooling, I think, that explains why millennials in particular are more susceptible to this. They’re the ones getting hit hardest in recession-era America. As is the lower class, which might account for the income link I suggested earlier.

I’ll leave you with this in lieu of an exit question:

sun


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5

But faith requires that you sacrifice your own selfishness and submit to God’s authority. It’s a scary proposition recognizing and admitting that you are not in control of your life but acceptance is invigorating. You’ll never be more free than when you accept Jesus’ offer of salvation.

Robbin Hood on February 18, 2014 at 6:53 AM

Isn’t is arrogant of you think your Jesus hold the keys to salvation?
What about Jews? Are they condemned to an eternal h$ll because they don’t believe in your Jesus?

The level of hubris shown by some Christians is remarkable.

liberalrules on February 18, 2014 at 11:17 AM

Bookmarking this for use next time the libs start claiming that the GOP is “anti-science”.

bartm on February 18, 2014 at 11:17 AM

So Democrats are more likely to believe in ‘cr@p’ science, like Astrology & ‘Global Warming’ than any REAL type of science…probably because the ‘cr@p’ sciences’ ‘evidence’ can me modified/falsified to ‘prove’ whatever they say?! I would agree with that…

easyt65 on February 18, 2014 at 11:18 AM

Isn’t is arrogant of you think your Jesus hold the keys to salvation?
What about Jews? Are they condemned to an eternal h$ll because they don’t believe in your Jesus?

The level of hubris shown by some Christians is remarkable.

liberalrules on February 18, 2014 at 11:17 AM

Hey, it learned a new word. How more preciouser is that?

NotCoach on February 18, 2014 at 11:21 AM

It reveals that larger companies are doing better because they don’t need to worry about threats from small businesses. They can relax spending on investment and innovation and focus on all of Obama’s new regulations – which is killing smaller competitors.

blink on February 18, 2014 at 11:17 AM

Quantitative easing has always been a scam that allows investors a safe haven for their money during a time when companies refuse to invest in growth due to the uncertainty created by the government.

NotCoach on February 18, 2014 at 11:22 AM

The best we can do is 2/3 of the Conservative Republican (I guess that translates to Tea Party?) demographic knows that the Earth revolves around the Sun?

I weep for my children.

nukemhill on February 18, 2014 at 11:25 AM

The level of hubris shown by some Christians is remarkable.

liberalrules on February 18, 2014 at 11:17 AM

The level of ignorance displayed by liberals is not surprising to anyone.

zoyclem on February 18, 2014 at 11:30 AM

The level of hubris shown by some Christians is remarkable.

liberalrules on February 18, 2014 at 11:17 AM

The level of hubris shown by most liberals is unremarkable.

Bmore on February 18, 2014 at 11:32 AM

The best we can do is 2/3 of the Conservative Republican (I guess that translates to Tea Party?) demographic knows that the Earth revolves around the Sun?
nukemhill on February 18, 2014 at 11:25 AM

Yes – but it does so on the back of a giant turtle that’s walking around the sun.
What is the turtle walking on?
The back of another even bigger turtle.
What’s that turtle on?
You can stop right there sonny boy – it’s turtles allll the way down….

dentarthurdent on February 18, 2014 at 11:37 AM

Isn’t is arrogant of you think your Jesus hold the keys to salvation?
What about Jews? Are they condemned to an eternal h$ll because they don’t believe in your Jesus?

The level of hubris shown by some Christians is remarkable.

liberalrules on February 18, 2014 at 11:17 AM

Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, and no one coes to the Father but by me.”

Take it up with Him.

davidk on February 18, 2014 at 11:37 AM

Isn’t is arrogant of you think your Jesus hold the keys to salvation?

liberalrules on February 18, 2014 at 11:17 AM

Arrogant how? Arrogance is thinking that what you think and say and do is more important than other people. The entire point of salvation is admitting that the things you think and say and do pale before larger issues, and should be governed by a higher authority, not your own whims.

The Schaef on February 18, 2014 at 11:46 AM

Bandit13,

I believe in the Triune God of the Bible: God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Now when you said

“you god raped his mother, condones slavery, is a misogynist and slauthered thousands. What a pu$$y!

your god is a pu$$y.

it neuters that sissy god of yours.

You’re really on a heavy duty period this month, huh Davina, just like your fictional god was when he flooded the earth. What a little bi+ch move that was.”

were you referring to the Triune God of the Bible?

Just want to be clear.

Thank you,

davidk

davidk on February 18, 2014 at 11:48 AM

Makes total sense. We, all of us instinctively known the farther left you go, politically the more stupid and easily duped one becomes.

tacticalmattt on February 18, 2014 at 11:49 AM

HEY … Astrology IS very scientific … so is counting cards at the Black Jack table. In either case it is using math to cheat people.

babylonandon on February 18, 2014 at 11:51 AM

Isn’t is arrogant of you think your Jesus hold the keys to salvation?
What about Jews? Are they condemned to an eternal h$ll because they don’t believe in your Jesus?

The level of hubris shown by some Christians is remarkable.

liberalrules on February 18, 2014 at 11:17 AM

And I am sure that you tell that to all of your Muslim friends, who believe the same, and are far more proactive about it, right?

DimsdalePiranha on February 18, 2014 at 11:56 AM

rogerb on February 17, 2014 at 9:26 PM

 
I completely agree that the stock market doesn’t tell the story of the current state of the economy, and I also find that it’s particular ridiculous that the stock market can be near all-time highs without…
 
segasagez on February 17, 2014 at 10:07 PM

 

Good point.
 
So what do you believe is motivating Obama to intentionally set up a bubble to pop?
 
rogerb on February 17, 2014 at 10:47 PM

 
I really do hope we get an answer to that.

rogerb on February 18, 2014 at 12:05 PM

STUDY: DEMOCRATS UNANIMOUSLY AGREE WITH THEIR LEADER THAT THERE ARE 57 STATES.

just sayin

cthemfly on February 18, 2014 at 12:10 PM

Oh, for crying out loud…how silly can we be? (Don’t answer that, you’ll spend the day on the list!)

The truth is that today’s population is profoundly illiterate about anything or anyone outside of their particular concentration or expertise. There is no general education any more…

My kids and grandchildren were not taught American History. They weren’t taught World History. The man or woman on the street today have no idea who we bombed to end the war in the Pacific. They have not idea of how World War I started, and many have no idea what countries were on which side, or why. They have absolutely no idea of how and why there is so much strife in the Middle East today; they know nothing about the creation of the State of Israel, the partitioning of the neighboring countries and all of the elements of knowledge that have the potential of guiding the human race to make better decisions on the basis of knowledge of the past.

And we are expected to take seriously some discussion of who cares about astrology, and why? What rubbish!

TKPedersen42 on February 18, 2014 at 12:11 PM

Most D voters are illiterate fools.

Schadenfreude on February 18, 2014 at 12:15 PM

The level of hubris shown by mostly ignorant liberals is unremarkable.

Bmore on February 18, 2014 at 11:32 AM

Fascist leftist thugs, who rule a big lot of sheeple.

Schadenfreude on February 18, 2014 at 12:17 PM

TKPedersen42 on February 18, 2014 at 12:11 PM

A while back I was talking to a kid who had just graduated from high school. He didn’t know that Canada wasn’t part of the US (he thought it was just a different state) and he thought Jimmy Hoffa was a professional wrestler. It’s not all bad. I’m sure that he did know how to put on a condom. Just for the record, if you need a class to tell you how to use birth control, you need to seek professional help.

bandutski on February 18, 2014 at 12:23 PM

And we are expected to take seriously some discussion of who cares about astrology, and why? What rubbish!

TKPedersen42 on February 18, 2014 at 12:11 PM

The Idiocracy is already here.

dentarthurdent on February 18, 2014 at 12:24 PM

davidk on February 18, 2014 at 11:37 AM

Ouch! That’s gonna leave a mark.

PJ Emeritus on February 18, 2014 at 12:25 PM

Not sure where I was wrong…I was supporting your point

Pattosensei on February 18, 2014 at 10:15 AM

Check out my post immediately after that one, editing my previous one from “you” to “them.” It was early, and I was without coffee. My apologies for the mistake. I intended to refer to those who cling to faith in a natural origin to the universe while calling it science and belittling people of religious faith. Their ‘natural origins’ position is not based on science. It’s faith.

Well, I suppose you could actually divide it in two – the bit about “where all the galaxies came from” follows from sound logic & observational evidence, but “where did the big bang come from?” is… yeah, God only knows :P

Teleros on February 18, 2014 at 8:42 AM

That’s exactly my point. I’m not going to sit idly by while people who belittle faith wrap themselves in the mantle of science, all the while clinging to unscientific FAITH in a natural origin to the universe, a theory no more scientific than religious/supernatural hypotheses about the origins of the universe.

No matter your position on the origins of the universe, you have unscientific faith that it is so. Period.

Now, back to my lunch break!

xNavigator on February 18, 2014 at 12:27 PM

Arrogant how? Arrogance is thinking that what you think and say and do is more important than other people. The entire point of salvation is admitting that the things you think and say and do pale before larger issues, and should be governed by a higher authority, not your own whims.

…no, no, it’s definitely arrogant to suppose that one’s particular man-made religion is superior to all other man-made religions, and that the keys to salvation are held only by one’s particular religion and no others.

scientists, you see — real scientists, not media pretenders, armchair physicists, or string theorists — are happy to accept when their paradigms no longer fit the body of available observational evidence, and seek out new theories or modifications of existing paradigms in order to conform to the otherwise aberrant observations.

science is a constant process of discovery and self-correction.

religion, on the other hand, admits no possibility of inaccuracy. despite the numerous inconsistencies in scripture…despite the growing body of evidence that judaic, and possibly even christian, mythology was appropriated from earlier cultic practices, and despite the rather obvious fact that the entire premise upon which the religion stakes its claim to supremacy — an unbroken line to the ancestor of all humanity — being utterly farcical, there is quite literally nothing that can make a religious person reconsider his dogmatic inflexibility.

what of the 150 000 years of humankind before the jews crystallised their monotheistic religion (the bible, after all, is quite clear that the early israelites were polythesitic)? what of the millions of humans without access to judaic philosophy is its infancy? what of the BILLIONS of humans today who are brought up convinced of their own religious superiority — of their own unique access to The One And Only Truth?

well, god will sort these out fairly — surely! — but they’re following false gods in the meanwhile, and that’s too bad for them.

…that’s not arrogance?

perhaps we see religious arrogance, too, in the repeated incidence of the religious purporting to lecture the irreligious on scientific matters by invoking woefully outdated concepts and utterly misapplied loose definitions (here’s looking at you, entropy) in the service of religion. without naming any names to avoid ruffling feathers, peacocking one’s scientific ignorance in the service of jesus does a disservice to all involved — including jesus.

there are scientists on the right — no, seriously — who can speak quite fluently on these matters. perhaps if we all stuck to our own areas of relative expertise, we can make the delightfully schadenfreulig science gap even wider…since, after all, we know that democrats will never adopt a similar strategy of letting the experts do all the talking…

jaxisaneurophysicist on February 18, 2014 at 12:29 PM

Isn’t is arrogant of you think your Jesus hold the keys to salvation?

liberalrules on February 18, 2014 at 11:17 AM

Indeed, it is very ignorant and arrogant of you to think that obama holds the keys to your salvation.

Schadenfreude on February 18, 2014 at 12:29 PM

Isn’t is arrogant of you think your Jesus hold the keys to salvation 2+2=4?

liberalrules on February 18, 2014 at 11:17 AM

No. Arrogance has nothing to do with truth.

questionmark on February 18, 2014 at 12:29 PM

Isn’t is arrogant of you think your Jesus hold the keys to salvation?
What about Jews? Are they condemned to an eternal h$ll because they don’t believe in your Jesus?

The level of hubris shown by some Christians is remarkable.

liberalrules on February 18, 2014 at 11:17 AM

Everyone has equal access to salvation, Jew or Gentile. But each has to accept that salvation as offered through and by Jesus Christ. This isn’t hubris, it’s faith.

Robbin Hood on February 18, 2014 at 12:31 PM

It just proves Ronald Reagan’s quote, ‘It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so.’ g

esnap on February 18, 2014 at 12:31 PM

That’s exactly my point. I’m not going to sit idly by while people who belittle faith wrap themselves in the mantle of science, all the while clinging to unscientific FAITH in a natural origin to the universe, a theory no more scientific than religious/supernatural hypotheses about the origins of the universe.

you appear to be unclear on the fact that the big bang hypothesis offers absolutely no theory whatsoever as to its own causal aetiology. no scientist can say what causes the big bang; it’s certainly not sufficient to claim that the big bang somehow caused itself.

perhaps you are unaware that the big bang hypothesis is, if anything, the best scientific evidence for some supernatural prima causa in all of cosmology (hierarchy/tuning problems possibly notwithstanding). the reason rabidly irreligious theorists like hawking have been trying to do away with the current model is because the current model essentially requires that something caused the big bang — and if the big bang is the true, t=absolutely-zero, noncyclical origin of the universe, that something would almost by definition be supernatural.

there is nothing unscientific about the big bang hypothesis, and it’s nonsensical for a religious person to reject it in service of “god created the universe”. what — he created it WITHOUT (something like) a big bang?

please think these things through.

jaxisaneurophysicist on February 18, 2014 at 12:35 PM

…no, no, it’s definitely arrogant to suppose that one’s particular man-made religion is superior to all other man-made religions, and that the keys to salvation are held only by one’s particular religion and no others.

jaxisaneurophysicist on February 18, 2014 at 12:29 PM

Christianity is not a man-made religion.

davidk on February 18, 2014 at 12:36 PM

jaxisaneurophysicist on February 18, 2014 at 12:29 PM

Very well put. However, I do see one flaw in your reasoning. You start with the theory that God does not exist and then draw upon “facts” (which we know can be interpreted in various ways) to support your conclusion. A good scientists does not discount anything and is the first to admit that that there are things outside of science which man cannot explain. Maybe in due course science will come up with those answers, however, until such time, the idea of God cannot be discounted without the proper evidence to do so.

bandutski on February 18, 2014 at 12:43 PM

you appear to be unclear on the fact that the big bang hypothesis offers absolutely no theory whatsoever as to its own causal aetiology. no scientist can say what causes the big bang; it’s certainly not sufficient to claim that the big bang somehow caused itself.

jaxisaneurophysicist on February 18, 2014 at 12:35 PM

I’m perfectly aware that the big bang theory doesn’t, in and of itself, offer an explanation of causality. Here’s my key point, the one YOU need to think through, because you’re missing it:

Most of the advocates of a natural origin to the universe use the moniker of science to explain their faith in a natural origin to the universe, and they proceed to tie that faith-based hypothesis to the big bang theory to wrap it up in a nice rhetorical and logical fallacy.

No matter your perspective on the origins of the universe, natural or supernatural, you have faith that it is so. It is not science.

xNavigator on February 18, 2014 at 12:45 PM

there is nothing unscientific about the big bang hypothesis, and it’s nonsensical for a religious person to reject it in service of “god created the universe”. what — he created it WITHOUT (something like) a big bang?

please think these things through.

jaxisaneurophysicist on February 18, 2014 at 12:35 PM

Many creationists embraced the idea of a Big Bang beginning. Have you not seen the bumper sticker:

I believe in the Big Bang.
God said it, BANG, it happened.

The Big Bang Theory is falling out of favor with scientists.

davidk on February 18, 2014 at 12:47 PM

How stupid are you, really?

Poll: 71% of Obama voters, 55% Democrats ‘regret’ voting for his re-election

Schadenfreude on February 18, 2014 at 12:49 PM

The Big Bang Theory is falling out of favor with scientists.

davidk on February 18, 2014 at 12:47 PM

Perhaps – but it’s still one of the better shows and still has decent ratings….

dentarthurdent on February 18, 2014 at 12:51 PM

Robbin Hood on February 18, 2014 at 6:53 AM

.
Isn’t is arrogant of you think your Jesus hold the keys to salvation?
What about Jews? Are they condemned to an eternal h$ll because they don’t believe in your Jesus?

The level of hubris shown by some Christians is remarkable.

liberalrules on February 18, 2014 at 11:17 AM

.
Tell Jesus yourself, when you meet him. But remember this … spending an eternity wishing you’d never been born, is a long time.

listens2glenn on February 18, 2014 at 12:59 PM

Irony is ironic. I went back to read the Twitter thread, and came across this gem by a mocking Democrat.

UrsusMaritimus‏@ursus_marit·Feb 17
@BrendanNyhan @chriscmooney @politicalmath interesting that majority of R’s know our relationship to sun movement-wise,but not warming-wise.

Hey moron, it’s Democrats who don’t get it. The sun is the thing that warms our climate, not Al Gore’s G-5.

Kenz on February 18, 2014 at 1:16 PM

The Big Bang Theory is falling out of favor with scientists.
 
davidk on February 18, 2014 at 12:47 PM

 
+1. The first season was okay, but you could tell it was gaining popularity when the writers began using poop jokes.

rogerb on February 18, 2014 at 1:17 PM

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed– inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

Scroll down to see the number of signatories.

davidk on February 18, 2014 at 1:30 PM

…no, no, it’s definitely arrogant to suppose that one’s particular man-made religion is superior to all other man-made religions… jaxisaneurophysicist on February 18, 2014 at 12:29 PM

I guess they don’t teach logic at neurophysicist school.

Akzed on February 18, 2014 at 1:35 PM

Let’s just suppose, for a moment, that our liberal friends are correct. There is no God. I will have wasted my life feeding the poor, helping the homeless and trying to spread the love of God to others. When I die after this wasted life, I find that I am wrong. Well, I wouldn’t really know because I’d be dead and that would be it.
On the other hand, let’s suppose that there is God after all. I die and I go to heaven. For those who didn’t believe, well, maybe God will turn the AC on for a little bit. In other words if I’m wrong, I lose nothing. If I’m right, I gain everything. Not a very difficult choice.

bandutski on February 18, 2014 at 1:39 PM

Well, this explains why liberals know the lyrics to “Aquarius” but don’t know diddley about the US Constitution.

Gwynplaine on February 18, 2014 at 1:40 PM

Pascal bandutski on February 18, 2014 at 1:39 PM

Akzed on February 18, 2014 at 1:41 PM

there is nothing unscientific about the big bang hypothesis and it’s nonsensical for a religious person to reject it in service of “god created the universe”. what — he created it WITHOUT (something like) a big bang? please think these things through. jaxisaneurophysicist on February 18, 2014 at 12:35 PM

It’s so much more rational to believe that matter has divine qualities like eternity and omnipotence.

Akzed on February 18, 2014 at 1:45 PM

Isn’t is arrogant of you think your Jesus hold the keys to salvation?
What about Jews? Are they condemned to an eternal h$ll because they don’t believe in your Jesus?

That’s for God to decide.

The level of hubris shown by some Christians is remarkable.

liberalrules on February 18, 2014 at 11:17 AM

No, you see, “hubris” goes like this: “Those ignorant Bible-thumping inbred morons don’t know what’s in their best interests, like we proggies do.”

ddrintn on February 18, 2014 at 1:49 PM

Isn’t is arrogant of you think your Jesus hold the keys to salvation?
liberalrules on February 18, 2014 at 11:17 AM

Not at all. Next question?

tommyboy on February 18, 2014 at 1:51 PM

Counter-intuitively these models had been constructed to be compatible with the big bang. I.e. the big bang was not the beginning. However, as cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston explained earlier this year, hope in these ideas “may now be dead”. Vilenkin showed that all these models still demand a beginning. They do not stretch back in true infinity; rather, there is still a “start of everything.”3

Of the eternal inflation model, Vilenkin says that, “You can’t construct a space-time with this property”—the equations simply don’t work. “It can’t possibly be eternal in the past. There must be some kind of boundary.”

http://creation.com/universe-had-a-beginning#endRef2

davidk on February 18, 2014 at 1:53 PM

Good point.

So what do you believe is motivating Obama to intentionally set up a bubble to pop?

rogerb on February 17, 2014 at 10:47 PM

I really do hope we get an answer to that.

rogerb on February 18, 2014 at 12:05 PM

Not intending to bash President Bush, but trying to answer your question in context.

I remember there was a push from Congress and the White House to have reforms and an audit of Freddie Mac, which was being run by Democrat Franklin Raines. If my memory is correct he earned 96 million during his leadership of Freddie Mac. At that time Raines would not budge on acquiring no more than 25% of the mortgage portfolio with NIJA loans. Not the best way to explain, so don’t nit-pick. Also with the support of Barney Frank, he refused to allow Freddie Mac books to be audited, I believe, because they had been cooked like Enron’s.

At this time, with full support of the Democrats, Congress and the White House dropped their initial request…..I know…..I know…..the Democrats were against reform…….just stay with me okay. Then Raines moved on with a nice pay day, no reform, no audit, and now Freddie Mac started to accept bad mortgages to the turn of 50% of the portfolio. I content this was done to keep the economy going as things were going south for President Bush. It has always be MY contention that President Bush knew about the pending housing bubble, but hoped it would happen after his term in office was over. When President Bush spoke about “turning away from free market principles” I always thought he was talking about bad credit policies that kept the housing bubble going and not the TARP bailout. The quote I attribute to President Bush is not exact.

I believe President Obama is doing the same thing (artificially keeping the economy going) via QE/Digitizing the debt, but for different reasons. I believe the current administration does foresee a stock market bubble busting, but not in the near future. Just MY thoughts and a different explanation than the one you guys sometimes allude to. If you notice, I did not say I was right and you are wrong. Just giving my opinion.

HonestLib on February 18, 2014 at 1:53 PM

If you’re going to hammer him for a speech he made about the stock market, you can’t ignore it’s gains while he’s been President. That’s all I’m saying (here).

segasagez on February 17, 2014 at 10:09 PM

Stock values going up while the economy remains stagnant equals “phony”.

ddrintn on February 18, 2014 at 1:56 PM

HonestLib on February 18, 2014 at 1:53 PM

I think you chose the right moniker. No offense intended but I had given up hope in finding a polite, well spoken liberal. As you can see on this board, no one has a problem with a difference of opinion as long as it is stated in a respectful manner. I think you fill those requirements very well.

bandutski on February 18, 2014 at 2:16 PM

I believe President Obama is doing the same thing (artificially keeping the economy going) via QE/Digitizing the debt, but for different reasons. I believe the current administration does foresee a stock market bubble busting, but not in the near future…
 
HonestLib on February 18, 2014 at 1:53 PM

 
Thanks. I don’t disagree. And I’m 100% positive that Obama is absolutely fine making it until January 21st and then to heck with it.
 
I do hope segasagez answers, though. Because:
 
Either President Obama didn’t know what he was doing (recall our laughing at and/or vigorously defending Obama’s profit and earnings ratio comment is what got us to this point in the discussion)
 

The stock market was in the tank at the time and the President spoke on that lowness. Apparently, his (in)competence has led to the to the highest market in history.
 
segasagez on February 17, 2014 at 10:07 PM

 
or he did understand what he was doing and the bubble that will devastate the middle class and retirees is all on purpose.
 
There aren’t any other choices.
 
Sorry about that, segasagez.

rogerb on February 18, 2014 at 2:31 PM

…no, no, it’s definitely arrogant to suppose that one’s particular man-made religion is superior to all other man-made religions

jaxisaneurophysicist on February 18, 2014 at 12:29 PM

Only if that man is the one who made it. The fact that it did not originate with oneself precludes the notion of attaching the faith to an inflated valuation of one’s own ideas.

religion, on the other hand, admits no possibility of inaccuracy.

I think you’re a few reformations behind the times on this claim.

well, god will sort these out fairly — surely! — but they’re following false gods in the meanwhile, and that’s too bad for them.

…that’s not arrogance?

No. Why would it be? It’s nothing to do with anything I said or did.

The Schaef on February 18, 2014 at 2:35 PM

Isn’t is arrogant of you think your Jesus hold the keys to salvation?

liberalrules on February 18, 2014 at 11:17 AM

When did he become my Jesus? Every strain of my traceable ancestry was born a continent away from where Christianity started. My Scotish and Irish ancestors were the savages of all savages. The Romans didn’t want to deal with the Picts and the rampaging Vikings avoided Ireland at all costs. (Almost every body did, which was why St. Patrick’s visit was daunting by its bravery.)

Colin Wilson investigated cases of dissapearances of young ladies in the dark corners of the British Isles, and came to the conclusion that some dug-in Celts were practicing Druidic sacrifice in the 20th century.

In my late teens and early 20s, I became a vigorous agnostic, did I become any sort of Christian who had any idea what Christianity entailed.

He’s only “my Jesus” by my choosing him. How odd that I should choose the same hope for others that I chose for myself….

See, there’s a difference between “having a religion” and believing in something. Your approach shows no awareness of how bound up it is in your worldview, where I just “have a religion” and the Jews “have” theirs.

Axeman on February 18, 2014 at 2:37 PM

The level of hubris shown by some Christians non-believers is remarkable.

liberalrules on February 18, 2014 at 11:17 AM

FIFY.

avagreen on February 18, 2014 at 2:38 PM

Axeman on February 18, 2014 at 2:37 PM

I think LancePantherman is right when he says liberaldrools is a kid. His understanding of the world is more than a little juvenile, and not just in the typical leftist way.

NotCoach on February 18, 2014 at 2:45 PM

At this time, with full support of the Democrats, Congress and the White House dropped their initial request…..I know…..I know…..the Democrats were against reform…….just stay with me okay. Then Raines moved on with a nice pay day, no reform, no audit, and now Freddie Mac started to accept bad mortgages to the turn of 50% of the portfolio. I content this was done to keep the economy going as things were going south for President Bush. It has always be MY contention that President Bush knew about the pending housing bubble, but hoped it would happen after his term in office was over. When President Bush spoke about “turning away from free market principles” I always thought he was talking about bad credit policies that kept the housing bubble going and not the TARP bailout. The quote I attribute to President Bush is not exact.

HonestLib on February 18, 2014 at 1:53 PM

The statement I bolded ignores the reality that Bush in fact tried to rein in Fannie/Freddie, but was ignored by the Democrats who controlled the Banking Committee.

BTW, don’t forget to mention that both Raines and his partner in crime Jaime Gorelick are Democrats.

Del Dolemonte on February 18, 2014 at 2:46 PM

Either President Obama didn’t know what he was doing (recall our laughing at and/or vigorously defending Obama’s profit and earnings ratio comment is what got us to this point in the discussion)

The stock market was in the tank at the time and the President spoke on that lowness. Apparently, his (in)competence has led to the to the highest market in history.

segasagez on February 17, 2014 at 10:07 PM

or he did understand what he was doing and the bubble that will devastate the middle class and retirees is all on purpose.

There aren’t any other choices.

Sorry about that, segasagez.

rogerb on February 18, 2014 at 2:31 PM

There’s another choice. We are currently in an environment that is pro-business but not pro-employee. Democrats only have so much political capital, and that capital was spent on other things. I think there is now a focus to spend that capital on implementing policies that are more pro-employee, which was the crux of the State of the Union. I think we will see the economic situation of the little man improve as those policies are developed and put into place.

I have a question for you, though. If there was a policy put into place that improved the economic position of American workers, but had a negative impact on the stock market, would you personally support that policy?

segasagez on February 18, 2014 at 2:46 PM

Wondering what some progressives on this site think about this? Even the ACLU is up in arms over this. No longer have to be committing a crime or even be suspected of doing so to have this happen.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/everything-you-need-to-know-about-automatic-license-plate/

AND,
https://www.aclu.org/alpr

Bless our prezzie’s heart. We’re sounding more and more like N.Korea.

avagreen on February 18, 2014 at 2:47 PM

HonestLib on February 18, 2014 at 1:53 PM

The statement I bolded ignores the reality that Bush in fact tried to rein in Fannie/Freddie, but was ignored by the Democrats who controlled the Banking Committee.

BTW, don’t forget to mention that both Raines and his partner in crime Jaime Gorelick are Democrats.

Del Dolemonte on February 18, 2014 at 2:46 PM

Bush tried about a dozen times to do something about both FM’s…I sat on the bottom of my bed watching this on TV while it was happening. He was vilified right and left by the progs in D.C. for this.
He was not only ignored, but was attacked by the Democrats for doing so.
In fact, in 2003, when we sent our first members of the Cabinet up to talk about this on Capitol Hill, Barney Frank had a hearing in which they basically beat up everybody we sent up there in pretty vociferous language. This is the famous hearing where one of the Democratic members literally says that he is ‘pissed off’ that the administration is even raising this issue,” Rove said.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/bush-administration-tried-reform-freddie-and-fannie-five-years-ago
In fact, he actually got a bill through the Senate Banking and Finance Committee only to have it filibustered by [Sen.] Chris Dodd.”

avagreen on February 18, 2014 at 2:56 PM

or he did understand what he was doing and the bubble that will devastate the middle class and retirees is all on purpose.
 
There aren’t any other choices.
 
Sorry about that, segasagez.
 
rogerb on February 18, 2014 at 2:31 PM

 
There’s another choice. We are currently in an environment that is pro-business but not pro-employee…
 
segasagez on February 18, 2014 at 2:46 PM

 
Good to see you, segasagez. So it was on purpose, then.
 
Suck it, retirees.
 
Suck it, middle class.

 

Democrats only have so much political capital,

 
They had all three branches.
 

and that capital was spent on other things.

 
They had all three branches.
 

I think there is now a focus to spend that capital on implementing policies that are more pro-employee,

 
They had all three branches.
 

which was the crux of the State of the Union.

 
Yes, now he can blame the (R)s because his supporters have forgotten that they had all three branches.
 

I think we will see the economic situation of the little man improve as those policies are developed and put into place.

 
They had all three branches.
 

I have a question for you, though. If there was a policy put into place that improved the economic position of American workers, but had a negative impact on the stock market, would you personally support that policy?
 
segasagez on February 18, 2014 at 2:46 PM

 
Give your example.

rogerb on February 18, 2014 at 2:57 PM

House + Senate + Presidency. Not Congress/pres/SC. Admittedly poor phrasing on my part, but I think you’re sharp enough to have understood.

rogerb on February 18, 2014 at 3:01 PM

There’s another choice. We are currently in an environment that is pro-business but not pro-employee.
segasagez on February 18, 2014 at 2:46 PM

Where in he11 did you get that idea?
We currently have THE highest corporate income tax rate in the world, government regulations are are growing darn near exponentially along with the cost of compliance, 0bumblescare is making a mess of companies, and the economy sucks – which is not a good thing for companies trying to make money.
You ahve to be completely insane to make a statement like that.

The “pro-business” aspect of what’s happening right now is the “free money” for Dem cronies with a green scam company.

dentarthurdent on February 18, 2014 at 3:03 PM

…no, no, it’s definitely arrogant to suppose that one’s particular man-made religion is superior to all other man-made religions, and that the keys to salvation are held only by one’s particular religion and no others.

jaxisaneurophysicist on February 18, 2014 at 12:29 PM

There is no difference between saying “My religion is man-made” and not having a religion. There was a time when I had no religion, and that would be the way again were I to think that it was simply stuff someone else made up. Of course, even before faith, I don’t think I ever thought of it as “made”, but expressions of the symbolism of the ineffable human nature.

And I still approach it like that. I’m a skeptic; so while I don’t believe that every person who says God told them something, I don’t believe that they’re trying to tell me that they’re better than me because the implication is God talks to them, and perhaps not me.

As far as whether religion requires certainty, I think as the fastest growing religion in the history of the West, it attracted people who demanded certainty. But Paul can’t even be heard it his most diffuse, without scoffers throwing the accusation that he fosters foolishness: “Quarreling comes out of our flesh or willful nature”, “Consider another opinion better than your own”, “Knowledge puffs up, but Love builds up”. “We see through a glass darkly”. And this goes in tradition with Jesus cheif commandment that we love one another, and “do not do as the pagans, who lord it over each other”–a pivotal quote used in Locke’s letters on Toleration–as Locke tried to theorize how we move toward a thoroughly Christian society.

Read I Corinthians, progressing chapter by chapter and tell me that he’s not challenging a growing contentiousness (which was organic to the Greek Agora culture, no less).

There is actually so much in the Bible against setting yourself up as an unassailable authority and claiming to know the whole scheme, and more about walking with God and shining a lamp unto your feet so you do not stumble in our current step.

I think you’ve shown more dogma in that one paragraph, then I show in 5.

Axeman on February 18, 2014 at 3:11 PM

Suck it, retirees.

Suck it, middle class.

They had all three branches.

rogerb on February 18, 2014 at 2:57 PM

As i said, they used their political capital on the Affordable Care Act. That would arguably be a benefit to retirees and to the middle class. Let’s not argue if it actually is a benefit, but you’re position that they were intentionally screwing those two groups is invalidated that they passed legislation intended to help those exact two groups.

Regarding the policy, I don’t have a specific example. It’s a general question; would you support a policy that lowered the stock market but helped the middle class?

segasagez on February 18, 2014 at 3:12 PM

The economy as a whole needs some work though. I think the question we should be asking is how we can translate this high market to the regular worker-bees and not just the investors and CEOs.

segasagez on February 17, 2014 at 10:07 PM

Is there something keeping the worker bees from being investors?

Garwalf on February 18, 2014 at 3:14 PM

Where in he11 did you get that idea?
We currently have THE highest corporate income tax rate in the world, government regulations are are growing darn near exponentially along with the cost of compliance, 0bumblescare is making a mess of companies, and the economy sucks – which is not a good thing for companies trying to make money.
You ahve to be completely insane to make a statement like that.

The “pro-business” aspect of what’s happening right now is the “free money” for Dem cronies with a green scam company.

dentarthurdent on February 18, 2014 at 3:03 PM

If the environment isn’t currently pro-(big)business, why is the stock market the highest it’s ever been(by far)?

segasagez on February 18, 2014 at 3:15 PM

unbelievable ignorance.

Murphy9 on February 18, 2014 at 3:18 PM

segasagez on February 18, 2014 at 3:15 PM

$85B pumped into the economy by the Feds to keep it afloat.
Watch what happens when there’s even a suggestion that this will stop. The Market stutters (goes bearish) and waits for news that the economy is still bad, which means that the priming of the pump will continue and the growth continues and returns to the bullish market.

Money has no ethics.

avagreen on February 18, 2014 at 3:18 PM

*$85B per month.

avagreen on February 18, 2014 at 3:20 PM

No, we live in an environment with fiscal and regulatory policies that are pro-big-business and anti-small-innovative-start-up-business.

This often occurs with socialistic policies such as Obama’s.

blink on February 18, 2014 at 3:03 PM

Obama has pro-big-business, socialistic policies?

Like what? Give me an example of a pro-big-business, socialistic policy.

segasagez on February 18, 2014 at 3:21 PM

We currently have THE highest corporate income tax rate in the world, government regulations are are growing darn near exponentially along with the cost of compliance

dentarthurdent on February 18, 2014 at 3:03 PMIndeed, it was one of the reasons that we had so little control on Colateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs), becauase the SPEs governing them were rarely domestic, because the world’s investors wanted to avoid our capital gains taxes, just as much as ours did.

In other words if unregulated derrivatives “caused” the recent collapse, it was because investors needed some structure to base derrivative instruments in other countries that traded on our markets, and wanted to take as little a loss as possible.

Axeman on February 18, 2014 at 3:21 PM

They had all three branches.
 
rogerb on February 18, 2014 at 2:57 PM

 
As i said, they used their political capital on the Affordable Care Act. That would arguably be a benefit to retirees and to the middle class. Let’s not argue if it actually is a benefit, but you’re position that they were intentionally screwing those two groups is invalidated that they passed legislation intended to help those exact two groups.

 
Whoa. That’s quite the admission. So, almost exactly like the stock market bubble, they didn’t know what buttons to push or what happened when they pushed them, or they did it on purpose.
 
Again, there are no other choices. They either knew what they were doing or they didn’t. You hinted at it, but which do you currently believe it was?
 
Regardless, so your position is that the Obama administration has been impotent since passing Obamacare?
 

Regarding the policy, I don’t have a specific example. It’s a general question; would you support a policy that lowered the stock market but helped the middle class?
 
segasagez on February 18, 2014 at 3:12 PM

 
So no specific example of your
 

“a policy put into place that improved the economic position of American workers, but had a negative impact on the stock market”

?
 
Thanks for playing.
 
I’ll check back in if you can come up with one, btw.

rogerb on February 18, 2014 at 3:23 PM

If the environment isn’t currently pro-(big)business, why is the stock market the highest it’s ever been(by far)?

segasagez on February 18, 2014 at 3:15 PM

$85B pumped into the economy by the Feds to keep it afloat.
Watch what happens when there’s even a suggestion that this will stop. The Market stutters (goes bearish) and waits for news that the economy is still bad, which means that the priming of the pump will continue and the growth continues and returns to the bullish market.

Money has no ethics.

avagreen on February 18, 2014 at 3:18 PM

Ava hit it.

dentarthurdent on February 18, 2014 at 3:25 PM

perhaps you are unaware that the big bang hypothesis is, if anything, the best scientific evidence for some supernatural prima causa in all of cosmology (hierarchy/tuning problems possibly notwithstanding).

jaxisaneurophysicist on February 18, 2014 at 12:35 PM

It’s not “evidence” it’s an explanatory model. What I’ve seen over the years is that both the “lumpiness” of the universe and the “smoothness” of the universe have both, in turns, required the Big Bang.

Axeman on February 18, 2014 at 3:26 PM

Again, your socialist brain is confused. I certainly support policies that all the economy to grow even if such policies don’t help the top market cap companies used to measure the DJIA.

Unwinding the restrictive regulatory environment would probably do this.

So, same question right back at you. Are you willing to support a policy that lowered the stock market buy helped the middle class (and all other classes as well)?

blink on February 18, 2014 at 3:18 PM

Yes, an unregulated environment has been very successful for the American worker in the past.

Child Labor laws? Who needs them. Business know not to exploit children for their financial gains.

Fire escapes in buildings? Why force a business to shoulder that cost? A business would never just let their employees burn up.

And the regulation they’re considering about storing dangerous chemicals near rivers? Why are we trying to keep business down? They would never be so negligent to let that stuff spill into the water supply that would impact the schools down stream.

Blink, you live in a fantasy land.

Are you willing to support a policy that lowered the stock market buy helped the middle class (and all other classes as well)?

blink on February 18, 2014 at 3:18 PM

Yes.

segasagez on February 18, 2014 at 3:27 PM

Dodd-Frank

How many dozens of other examples do you want?

Please.

blink on February 18, 2014 at 3:21 PM

How is Dodd-Frank socialistic?

segasagez on February 18, 2014 at 3:30 PM

Like what? Give me an example of a pro-big-business, socialistic policy.

segasagez on February 18, 2014 at 3:21 PM

How about billions in loans to risky green energy cronies, that are going under left and right – with their owners / executives walking away rich, workers unemployed, and taxpayers stuck with the bill?
Do you want more?

dentarthurdent on February 18, 2014 at 3:30 PM

Whoa. That’s quite the admission. So, almost exactly like the stock market bubble, they didn’t know what buttons to push or what happened when they pushed them, or they did it on purpose.

Again, there are no other choices. They either knew what they were doing or they didn’t. You hinted at it, but which do you currently believe it was?

Regardless, so your position is that the Obama administration has been impotent since passing Obamacare?

Are you asking me if they’ve been less effective after losing the house? Certainly. I would love Republicans to agree with most things the Democrats want to do.

Are you saying that Republicans should do so?

segasagez on February 18, 2014 at 3:32 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5