Change in gun laws since Newtown
When will they learn? How many more dead childrens’ bodies will it take?
Chart - Knowmore
Maybe they decided to put the constitution before feelings.
Or they looked at the study Obama ordered that showed gun control does not reduce crime. Or maybe they look at international data that shows, again, gun control does not reduce crime. Or maybe they looked at what their constituents want instead of a knee-jerk emotional reaction.
Or, like Cobra said, maybe they looked at the supreme law of the land before trying to take away rights from the people.
These were the men of
506th Parachute Infantry Regiment
101st Airborne Division
But one day when you're a pilot, you're gonna see that in combat, you make decisions -- and you have to live with the consequences.... That's what I'm trying to do.
This is so dumb. Even if we ignore the impossibility of defining “need”.
This would be the equivalent of saying “Yes, people die from falls. I get that. And they need the ability to float effortlessly above the ground. But I want to ask you the physics of it.”
Would we attack that person as being heartless and inhuman? Not at all.
And the laws of economics are likewise inescapable. So we need to consult them if we actually want to make sure our grand plans to save everybody from all hardships are not themselves going to do more harm than good.
Essentially what Stuart Varney is saying is this, “Yes, it would be nice for people on minimum wage to make more money. I agree that this would be desirable. But IS IT ACTUALLY POSSIBLE TO LEGISLATE THIS WITHOUT HURTING THOSE SAME PEOPLE WE ARE TRYING TO HELP?”
Because that is the relevant question to any discussion of minimum wage increases. And economics teaches us that raises in the minimum wage will have the effect of putting marginal low-skilled workers OUT OF A JOB. Yes, this is unfortunate. It is always sad to learn that we cannot magically make everyone better off by simply passing a law, but if we actually care about people, we need to try to learn a little bit about these kinds of things before we set out to do-good through government decrees.
But if we, like Stewart, simply shut our ears and adopt the anti-science approach of saying “IF SCIENCE CONTRADICTS MY FEELINGS AND ASSUMPTIONS THEN ITS HEARTLESS AND LALALALLAA I CAN’T HEAR YOU MEAN ECONOMISTS LALALALA!!!” then we’re going to end up in a whole mess of trouble.
What Jon Stewart is effectively saying in these gifs is this, “Dude, you’ve already admitted that people on minimum wage would be better off with more money, so that’s it. There’s no need to further investigate whether or not the minimum wage policy will actually achieve that goal. My assumptions and feelings tell me that it will, so that’s the end of the debate. In short: if you agree with me about ENDS, than it is impossible to disagree with me about the best MEANS to achieve those ends, because the means I chose are automatically right because I assume that they are. And if you so much as question the wisdom and effectiveness of the ends that I chose then you’re a bad person and I don’t have to listen to you because you’re just mean and heartless for no reason.”
(sidenote: I thought the left was supposed to be pro-‘science’ and reject the anti-intellectualism of the right? huh, weird.)
I think part of the problem is that people on the left think that “economics” is the science of figuring out how much money I can make.