Good point.Changleen said:
Pre-Katrina video released
- Thread starter Old Man G Funk
- Start date
Damn you... couldn't you let it roll for a little while.Changleen said:
We would have also accepted "GDP," or 'total tax revenues."
Tell him what's he's won, Don.
By the way, OMGF, my question didn't have a point. I don't really have an opinion on this one.
And my point was that his link was bullsh!t. But I'm sure he will continue babbling about how he is right.ohio said:
OMGF, in case you missed this post a couple weeks ago, it was directed at you:
Of course I broke my own rule and attempted to debate with Mr. Hardheaded-Never-Wrong anyway. Oops.Echo said:
So, lets focus on the time from 1970 to 2000 - There's not much point going back further than that as that is essentially (1965ish?) the start of proper welfare in the US if I remember rightly (? - correct me?). I see that the population went from approx. 200 Million to 275 Million in that time. A 37% (ish) increase right?
However the spending went from 1970's figure of 100 Million to 2000's figure of $425 Million - a 425% increase.
This is clearly quite a bit increase - the question is then how much of that increase is due to justifiable programmes that are doing good and how much, as The Amish put it, is being spent on crack?
However the spending went from 1970's figure of 100 Million to 2000's figure of $425 Million - a 425% increase.
This is clearly quite a bit increase - the question is then how much of that increase is due to justifiable programmes that are doing good and how much, as The Amish put it, is being spent on crack?
I'm curious as to what the hell got started in the 70's as it doesn't appear to be population related.
HAH!! I knew we could blame Bill somehow.Changleen said:
Just didn't want to take credit for a comment that I felt was incredibly witty.ohio said:
I'll address this first.Echo said:
A 30% increase over 8 years is NOT a runaway train. It is less than 4% increase a year, which is pretty average for gov. programs.
Um, considering that your point was to agree that we hand out $530 for crack consumption (post #64), the fact that I dissented and have tried to find documented proof, even though the burden of proof is on your sorry a55 to back up YOUR assertion and you haven't given one link or anything to back you up, you might want to rethink your statement here. It is not I who is ambiguous and unable to back things up, it is you.
Already answered before. 30% over 8 years is nothing to write home about. Plus, if it went up another 30% in the last 6 years, that would take the total from $166 billion to $215.8 bn.Echo said:
No, it wasn't a big jump in the numbers.
Ohio's question was "which year proves your point?" He might not care about the answer, but I do. Which year shows that we hand out $530 billion in cash to people to buy crack?
The $530 billion is a correct figure if one includes medicaid, social security, student loans, etc. What cash do poor people really receive in their hands? Welfare checks. So, how much do we really pay out that people can use on crack?
According to http://www.govspot.com/know/welfare.htm
About 5.76 million people receive welfare.
Let's say welfare pays poverty level, which for a average family is about $15000.
Multiply those numbers and you get a total expenditure of about $86.4 billion.
Care to back that up, or is it more assertion that you can't support? A55hat.
Now let's look at the facts. I never said anything about knowing what the gov't spends on welfare. In fact, one of my first posts in this thread I said:Old Man G Funk said:
All I did was correct Amish's guess on the population and adjust his figures accordingly. Then you posted a link that used 15 old data to make the numbers look much smaller than they actually are, and I called BS. Your link stated that the TOTAL for medicaid and welfare combined was under $100 billion. Then two posts later ohio posted figures that showed the total for medicaid and welfare combined was about $489 billion, and actually $536 billion if you count social services. Which of course you ignored.Echo said:
Now go get your Texas Instruments LED calculator watch and let's take a look at those figures. We can even make it a multiple choice quiz to increase your chances of passing. Question: Which number is closer to $530 billion?
a) $80 billion (from your link)
b) $536 billion (from numbers more recent than 1992)
I know this is a very difficult quiz for you, because it will require you to realize that you are a moron and have been ignoring every point everyone has made in this thread, and even deluded yourself into thinking others agree with you. Let's see how you do.
But, you've been defending the $530 bn. figure.Echo said:
No, the link was to show that the percentage given out in handouts was not as high as Amish seemed to think. The fact that you missed that is not surprising to me.
Objection, already answered. It's not my fault you can't read.
More logical fallacy on your part. You are once again equivocating. $530 bn. is NOT what we pay out in handouts, or do you think we give welfare recipients ~$100K a yaer?
"Together, federal and state welfare spending would rise from around $434 billion in 2000 to $573 billion in 2005. "
Hey asshat next time read the rest of the story you googled and try not to post info thats 10 ytr's old
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/Test030701b.cfm
Hey asshat next time read the rest of the story you googled and try not to post info thats 10 ytr's old
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/Test030701b.cfm
No, I haven't. You can't read. All I said was that your link was biased info that arbitrarily picked data from the year that would make their assertion look valid.Old Man G Funk said:
And my point was that YOUR LINK WAS BS. You yourself have posted figures that show that. Are you drunk?Old Man G Funk said:
Fixed that for ya.Old Man G Funk said:
Since you have ignored the last two times I said this, I don't know why I should bother saying it again, but I never claimed to know what we hand out to welfare recipients. All I said was that your link was bullsh!t biased data.Old Man G Funk said:
Now you are saying that 2% of the population is on welfare. Fine. What is the national unemployment rate? Are people collecting unemployment not receiving a government handout? Did it ever occur to you that if my housing was paid for by the government, that would free up a lot of crack money in my welfare check? If my family's medical bills were paid by the government, I wouldn't have to use my welfare check for that either. More crack. If I had foodstamps, well there's more crack money in the welfare check. So just because underpriveliged government spending doesn't show up in their mailbox as a check doesn't mean it's not free money.
A) I didn't post that, Ohio did.The Amish said:
B) That is an inflated number. It is NOT the amount of cash $ that is given in handouts. It includes things like student loans, medicaid, etc.
Um, comment #73?Echo said:
If I were drunk, I might actually be able to converse with you, because I might be down to your level.
What figures did I post that show my link was BS? What part of it was BS? You concluded that expenditures shot up uncharacteristically after 1992, but that isn't the case.
No, you still have yet to notice that there's a difference between state and federal outlay of money, or at least notice that I notice the difference between the two. You've also failed to notice that I've talked about where the $530 bn. figure comes from and why it is wrong.
And you ignored where I said that you defended the number. Your appeal to your own ignorance and, "Oh, I never said that," is simply a cop-out where you are trying to hide that fact that you got it wrong, instead of just admitting it.
But it isn't money that you get in cash in your hand. You've got a lot of "what ifs" in your post there. It's all a bunch of unsubstantiated BS. Bring some material to back yourself up.
Speaking of backing yourself up, your charge that I never do so rings ever more hollow with each post you make. The reason? Because with each post you make, you make more and more personal attacks against me, and never bring any evidence to back yourself up. Who is the one guilty of sophistry here? At least I'm trying to find stats that support my side of things. You don't even try. You simply lob insults and logical fallacies.
Oh, and Echo, I hope you'll note where Amish's link goes and point out the philosophical biases they have, just like you did with my link.
I don't think anyone has ever posted a link in this forum that didn't have a political bias. What makes me laugh is when people post them as an example of being right. Statistics can say whatever you want them to say. If I wanted to prove your statistics were right I could probably do that too. My point is, and always has been, that your statistics don't mean crap. Amish's don't either. You just chose to try to defend yours more vigorously so I decided to have some fun with you. In the end we are all getting assraped by the government and there's nothing we can do about it. Just like I said about 40 posts ago.
A) I have posted links that didn't have a political bias, as have others.Echo said:
B) Having a political bias doesn't mean that the information is wrong.
Except we aren't talking about statistics, but raw numbers.
If your definition of fun is to make inane statements and then have to backpedal because you can't defend them, so be it. If your definition of fun is to make personal attacks instead of backing up your arguments, then so be it. If your definition of fun is to engage in sophistry, while the other person is clearly making an actual effort, so be it.
Personally, I think the "fun" you were looking for was putting someone you have a personal distaste for (me) in his place, and when that didn't work, you resorted to your backpedaling and your, "Oh, I was just having fun" pose. But hey, maybe I'm just having fun with you now.
That may be the case, but the amount that we supposedly pay in cash handouts for crack addicts doesn't appear to be a solid argument in favor of that.
Your raw numbers don't add up any more than anyone else's.Old Man G Funk said:
I don't have any personal distaste for you (at least I didn't before), I've seen you make some good points on here. I just thought your link was bogus info.Old Man G Funk said:
I still do.
I'm not the one that made the assertion that we give $530 bn. dollars in handouts for people to buy crack. The burden of proof was never on me. I, nevertheless, tried to show it was flawed anyway, and the number is flawed.Echo said:
Then, why the personal attacks?
First of all, the personal attacks started with some smartass comment by you about me having trouble with comprehension, when in fact you are the one with the blinders on.
I'm not going to pull a N8/OMGF and scour the intarweb for some f*cking website that suits my agenda. All I did was point out that your link was bogus. I don't know how many times I have to say it.
Generally, when I have to repeat the same thing to someone 7 times and they still don't get it, I'm tempted to refer to that person as a moron.
I'm not going to pull a N8/OMGF and scour the intarweb for some f*cking website that suits my agenda. All I did was point out that your link was bogus. I don't know how many times I have to say it.
Generally, when I have to repeat the same thing to someone 7 times and they still don't get it, I'm tempted to refer to that person as a moron.
Oh, the "He started it" defense. Nice.Echo said:
Oh, so now you compare me to N8? So, if I try to find anything to support my point, I'm obviously scouring the web to find bogus links that "suit my agenda." Nice. I'm glad to know how much you value doing research to make sure that your points are correct.
And, when you keep repeating the same thing over and over after it has already been addressed, acting like it hasn't been addressed? Like, the sudden spike after 1992, the one that isn't shown by the graph?
This is starting to sound post-modern to me. All viewpoints to you are equally invalid, so how can we know anything? Problem with that is that when one makes a claim that can be empirically shown to be false, then it's not up to interpretation.
I'll just ask you one question about that graph so you can focus.Old Man G Funk said:
There are two time periods in the blue part of that graph where steep upward trends begin. Where are they?
Hint: look around the early 70's and the early 90's.
If you define that as a runaway upward trend, then there's plenty of places where you could say the same thing. How much of that is cash handouts? How much goes towards housing and food stamps? You don't know. You just know that the link I cited is wrong, and now you have to come up with some reason why it is wrong. What you fail to consider is that even with a sharp increase the next year, it doesn't invalidate the numbers that were used.Echo said:
The best measure for this would be to check the poverty level over the years and the numbers of people receiving welfare checks. That would be the most accurate representation. Welfare generally is considered a supplement which brings the recipient to somewhere BELOW poverty level, so if you calculate to poverty level, that would give you your upper bound on the figures.
I didn't say the numbers were wrong. I said that particular link deliberately chose to use data from 1992, because they knew that the data after that doesn't support their agenda. They got you hook line and sinker though. So they apparently know who their target audience is.Old Man G Funk said:
Um, no, they didn't. Put in the number for 1993, 1994, or 1995 and you will most likely find a similar relationship.Echo said:
Question: How do you "know" it is wrong? You have nothing to back up that you "know" it is wrong. You could be skeptical, but how do you "know"? The answer is that you don't. You just assumed it was wrong and then went on rant after rant about how it was wrong, without really being able to say why it was really wrong. You looked for anything you thought might be an anomoly and jumped on it. How does data from other years not support the assertion? You can't say, you just "know" it is wrong.
It reminds me of evolution deniers. They just "know" evolution is wrong, and they ad hoc reasons as to why. They come up with the answer and then fit the "facts" around that answer.
My contention is that your link did exactly that. Sorry you don't agree.Old Man G Funk said:
Well, when you can back up your preconceived conclusion, let me know.Echo said:
In the meantime, here are some links that might be of interest:
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/news/stats/6097rf.htm
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ofs/data/index.html
In the second one, you can go year by year for the last 8 years or so and see what aid was given out federally and state by state.
Once again you are assuming that 1) the government is telling the truth about where they spend our money, and 2) that these websites are accurately and objectively interpreting and displaying the numbers given them by the government.Old Man G Funk said:
Fact is, I'm forced to pay taxes knowing full well that most of the money will be wasted on stupid crap, used to bomb innocent civilians, or given to crackheads. If I can figure out a way to get out of paying for all this bullsh!t I don't believe in, I'll do it. Until then don't expect me to buy into the theories you post about what happens to tax money.
You think the government is lying about how much money is spent? They don't have to. Most mofos are too lazy to go look it up, and the numbers don't mean much to them when they do look it up. The numbers only mean something to us because we are looking for one specific thing.Echo said:
If you want a way to get out of "paying for all this bullsh!t [you] don't believe in," then move to the Cayman Islands or something.
I will leave this country when I can. My reasons for staying currently outweigh the benefits of leaving, but trust me, I will be gone when I can swing it. And on that day, I will wish you the best of luck with your corrupt warmongering government.Old Man G Funk said:
Well, at least we can agree that less corruption and less war-mongering are good things.Echo said:
You would think that would go without saying. But not in today's America. Now we actually need government agencies coming up with new laws to keep other government agencies from ripping people off and screwing people over. From the top on down.Old Man G Funk said:
Statistics can't be manipulated unless you mean outright fraud. People, however, can be very easily manipulated by false conclusions from statistics.
The arguement that interpretation of statistics is inherently biased, and the following logic that therefore all statistics should be ignored is a bull**** one. There is such thing as rigorous use of statistics, and there is such thing as sound and valid conclusions from statistics. Just because many people are too lazy, stupid or biased to be rigorous doesn't invalidate the technique as a whole.
For an example of interesting and rigorous use of statistics, see Freakonomics. For an example of biased conclusions falsely drawn from statistics, see all the bullsh!t political implications people think they read in Freakonomics but didn't.
The arguement that interpretation of statistics is inherently biased, and the following logic that therefore all statistics should be ignored is a bull**** one. There is such thing as rigorous use of statistics, and there is such thing as sound and valid conclusions from statistics. Just because many people are too lazy, stupid or biased to be rigorous doesn't invalidate the technique as a whole.
For an example of interesting and rigorous use of statistics, see Freakonomics. For an example of biased conclusions falsely drawn from statistics, see all the bullsh!t political implications people think they read in Freakonomics but didn't.