Suppose, for the sake of argument, your premise is right

Post #421,405 by drook 11/24/17 9:31:26 AM 11/24/17 9:31:26 AM Reply	Suppose, for the sake of argument, your premise is right If it's true that economists disagree* with everything Republicans say, why do you conclude that's the fault of the economists? * Ignoring for the moment that lack of consensus among economists is a long-standing cliche. -- Drew
Post #421,409 by boxley 11/24/17 11:35:46 AM 11/24/17 11:37:23 AM Reply	Re: Suppose, for the sake of argument, your premise is not right If it's true that economists disagree* with everything Republicans say why are you arguing that? from the original post of Ashton's link The Union of Concerned Scientists puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve our planet's most pressing problems. Joining with people across the country, we combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future. don't even see the word economists in there "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman Edited by boxley Nov. 24, 2017, 11:37:23 AM EST Expand All History
Post #421,411 by drook 11/24/17 1:12:46 PM 11/24/17 1:12:46 PM Reply	I was replying to you, not Ashton Econ is a lot of things mostly wrong the branch of science that particular group of scientists belong to is the study that everything a repo deems useful must ergo be wrong in fact, and postulate theories as to why. That was pretty clearly (for you) talking about what economists do. -- Drew
Post #421,413 by boxley 11/24/17 1:35:50 PM 11/24/17 1:36:19 PM Reply	that is two distict and separate assertions 1. Econ is a lot of things mostly wrong 2.the branch of science THAT particular group of scientists belong to is the study that everything a repo deems useful must ergo be wrong in fact, and postulate theories as to why. bolded uppercase that refers to the Union of Concerned Scientists "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman Edited by boxley Nov. 24, 2017, 01:36:19 PM EST Expand All History
Post #421,415 by Ashton 11/24/17 3:19:52 PM 11/24/17 3:19:52 PM Reply	Now you've Boxed-self-in to explaining the word "useful" Hmmm Göbbels was (a) useful tool for --> the Ends of the perhaps Prime-sociopath of the last century.. you sure that was a good word upon which to hang some irascible/incoherent musing? Since via-simple-inspection LOTS of things "Repos deem 'useful'" involve deception, infinite forms of dissembling and in-the-end: are SAID: only so as to increase personal-net-worth while utterly ignoring/aka disdaining the harm they cause [ergo Intentionally, as-in-premeditated Lying] to the masses who comprise the actual and entire dis-US: such as, Today It IS. cf. ..and that man simply Used me! when he _____ etc. etc. Yup, great word-associations there. Go ahead, Man-splain away ... maybe in Esperanto? or as we say en Español: ¡Que lastima! You are entitled to Any Old opinions, flat-out. You aren't entitled to employ your-own-'facts' or alt-definitions of common words, I wot.
Post #421,416 by boxley 11/24/17 3:26:18 PM 11/24/17 3:26:18 PM Reply	retooling the tax code is useful doubling the personal excemtion would be very useful. So would extending the SS tax to any income without an upper limit but I suppose 1/2 is better than none. "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman

Welcome to IWETHEY!