In spite of what he says, I worry about some of Cooch's* past moralist tendencies. I also lose a little trust with someone when they make a blanket "they would approve/disapprove" statement about the founders like that; as if those ornery bastards could agree on what to have for lunch!
*(Yes, I will call him that all the time if he get elected)
I barely know a thing about Shannon, though. I get a general sense of "TOUGH ON CRIME" from him and I worry that he prefers the grand gestures that make good headlines and not so effective policy; he helped co-found Amber Alert, for instance.
I voted for Creigh Deeds back in the AG race, but that Deeds isn't running this year. McDonnell, on the other hand, has consistently exceeded my expectations as AG... his handling of the Yankee Interlopers being my favorite example :)
Eh, when it comes to "Who would the Founders vote for?" I think every one you could name would vote for one of the right wing parties. Henry and Jefferson would be staunch Ron Paul fans, most of the rest would probably be libertarian/fiscal cons in the Republican Party. Although honestly, if you brought them back from the dead and gave them copies of the respective platforms, the Libertarian Party would probably get most of them.
Hamilton would be a Democrat for sure. I think Franklin too maybe, although I don't really have any evidence for that other then his general temperament/lifestyle.
Us small gummint types love to quote Jefferson, but he had some socialist tendencies here and there, probably influenced by all the time he spent in france. There's a reason he wrote "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" into the Declaration rather than "life, liberty, and property," which had been the battle-cry of the American patriots for years prior.
Speaking of, read Paine's "Agrarian Justice" sometime, in which the old boy swings in the direction of Chomsky. He suggests that property holders should "pay" for the privilege through taxation (he figured that in a state of nature "common property" of all mankind). These taxes would then be used to fund pensions for the elderly, poor people (i.e. those without property) over the age of 21, and a small remainder for the "lame and blind".
A section of my post got up and walked away. That first parenthetical statement should be "he figured that in a state of nature the Earth is the 'common property'" etc.
Could it be that the reason why people don't often debate you, Kevin, is that they see there is no point?
It's obvious to me that your mind is set on several concepts and simply won't let go. You have created a comfortable, pocket culture here in which this...
"Oh. You mean I might change their minds."
is eternally supported. People see this and realize that there is pretty much no point in debating you on most topics. In other words, you are simply not a very reasonable person when it comes to an issue like health care, for example. ANY government run system is bad. ANY information you put on this blog will be in support of this opinion. NO positive information regarding government run health care is allowed. You pretend it doesn't exist. If ANYONE disagrees with this they are a moron, fool, useful idiot blah blah blah and (hilariously) not grounded in the scientific methods and facts.
Yet you ignore this method and these facts in areas like health care, climate change, education, and fundamental international diplomacy. The people you invite to debate see this and realize it is a futile endeavor.
"If ANYONE disagrees with this they are a moron, fool, useful idiot blah blah blah and (hilariously) not grounded in the scientific methods and facts. "
Mark, you're the only person I know of who comments here that outright denies evidence.
But, but! You can actually BACK YOUR STATEMENT UP! I know, it's a new concept for you, but...
All you have to do is provide cases where Kevin has done that here.
Mark, are you claiming that Kevin is immune to logic and reasoning and has created a comfortable little bubble where he can truly Believe?
I find this really hard to accept coming from a man who truly and steadfastly believes that any policy which has failed everywhere it's been implemented can be made to work, only if we believe in it enough and finally, hopefully, find the RIGHT people to take us there.
you are simply not a very reasonable person when it comes to an issue like health care, for example
What evidence have you presented to change our minds? Remember, when the Frosts were presented as your poster case for how "unfeeling" Bush was for not expanding S-CHIP, you refused to even discuss the ludicrousness of a family, with 2 able-bodied parents who didn't want to have to work at a W-2 job, living in a much nicer house than the rest of us, with 3 new vehicles, and with commercial investment property (and a net worth considerably above me, at least), yet You and I are paying their medical bills. Now. Under the un-expanded S-CHIP. Meaning that when Obama expanded it, even more prosperous people are now covered with me paying the bills.
That sort of "reasonable?"
No, Ralph, that's not how debate works. You don't understand this (despite your claims), you want to get credit for your tone, for your credulity, for you wonder, but without presenting facts.
In your early days here, Kevin was kind enough to explain why he's so against government programs to you, and you challenged him when he said that no government program has gotten smaller - you cited the FCC, and have never accepted the fact that since 1980 (Since you said Reagan "chopped" the FCC) - their budget has gone up over 50x.
It's not that we're reflexively against government programs for illogical reasons, it's that every example you can point to follows an identical path. Just like the police and the park situation in the UK. That is the normal path of bureaucratic thinking. It's about control, more and more of it, and denying the easy things. The Low-Hanging-Fruit. Going after real criminals is dangerous.
And so it is with most of your examples - your stance is either just cause, or without scientific basis, and rather than either 1) prove your scientific basis or 2) admit the weaknesses and argue another point, you demand acceptance and credit for showing up and your tone.
And then, with no hint of irony, you then castigate us for talking smack about the current public education system.
for example. ANY government run system is bad. ANY information you put on this blog will be in support of this opinion. NO positive information regarding government run health care is allowed. You pretend it doesn't exist. If ANYONE disagrees with this they are a moron, fool, useful idiot blah blah blah and (hilariously) not grounded in the scientific methods and facts.
Yet you ignore this method
Mark, you don't know what the scientific method is. You're cargo culting when you try.
You keep misusing the words "theory" and "hypothesis". That's merely the first clue.
and these facts in areas like health care
Health Care? That's a wholly different matter than "Insurance", or who's going to pay for the health care and how.
climate change
Last week you said "Global Warming", what, some fell this week? Earliest ever? Whoops. Yeah, "Climate Change!" Yes, I sneer at it, because you don't know what you're talking about (remember: shitty educational system boosting self-esteem rather than knowledge?) and most of the people you cite have been proven to be either ideologues or outright frauds.
education
The best thing you can do for the education argument is stop reminding us of it. I note you're staying out of the couple of recent threads, you know, with "primary sources".
and fundamental international diplomacy.
You mean, like our current expert, who's backstabbed every ally we've got?
Gee, I can't imagine why we're "unable to use the scientific method there".
"Could it be that the reason why people don't often debate you, Kevin, is that they see there is no point?"
Kevin presents facts such that they can be verified and then he argues logically and rationally from facts to conclusions. He does so because he knows, as most of us here know, that conclusions contrary to observed facts cannot be correct. To beat that, i.e. "to win" against him, one must show that: 1) his facts are wrong; 2) his logic is wrong; or, 3) his conclusions are wrong.
Anyone can challenge him and attempt this. Some do, and via this method, he hands them their heads. It could be that others read this and decline because they know they cannot successfully challenge the facts he presents or his reasoning depending therefrom.
You challenge him almost continuously, but you neither accept facts that are contrary to your preconceived conclusions, nor do you reason logically and rationally from facts to conclusions. You appear to lack the ability and you quite demonstrably lack the will. You cannot admit his success and/or your failure and your fragile ego will not let you disengage. You are a textbook example of the principle of "escalation of failure", and in a case of pure projection, you expound on your failures and shortcomings as being Kevin's instead of yours.
I've been telling you for a long time, liar boy, that you're not fooling anyone. You get precisely the level of respect you have earned here, no more and no less.
I think Marky gets a bulk discount on strawmen.
"...(hilariously) not grounded in the scientific methods and facts. "
Just to add to the fun here:
1. Define the scientific method. No need to start at the ancient Greeks, just an understanding of Francis Bacon's work will do. And not the Irish surrealist painter, just in case you get confused.
2. Evince understanding of the method. (In other words, no cargo culting)
3. Show where Kevin or one of the regular commentators have failed to use the scientific method. You've endarkened Kevin's parlor for over 2 years, surely you have an example or two of our abject perfidy to the scientific method.
Based on past performance, I truly expect nothing of value from you. This is just for my amusement to see your reaction.
1. Repeated Observation, careful description, the formulation of theories based on possible explanations, and the gathering of additional data about the questions that followed from those theories.
2. I assume you mean "evidence?" Since I am not a complete asshat like DJ, I won't give you rectal about a typo. Other than what I have listed above, here are some more ideas. One could start off with a simple idea or theory. Or perhaps some research questions. From there, reviewing all literature or past research is always helpful. Out of this, a hypothesis arrives. If you are comparing two or more phenomena, one must examine the variables perhaps choosing an independent and dependent variable.
Next up is the selection of the method. Participant Observation? One could say that is what I am doing here. Unobtrusive measures? Controlled Experiment? Field Experiment? Or a survey?
Data analysis is also important throughout whatever method is selected as well as the conclusion of the study. If, for example, you have chosen a survey as your research method, frequency distributions can help you understand the data more effectively. To look at correlations between different time periods, a percent analysis might be used. Of course, one must remember that correlation does not mean causation.
3. How about the idea that our schools aren't educating our children because the system has been taken over by socialists, PC Nazis and "multi culti" bullshit? Please illuminate me as to the use of the scientific method here. What method did Kevin use and what sort of data analysis did he employ? In fact, where is his data? Thus far, I have only heard Kevin use his wife and a few other "experts" as examples of proof of his theory. His information comes only from sources with whom he agrees and, upon my challenge to him to get more involved and really study this problem, he refuses.
Oh, and Russell, my "past performance" is just fine, b to the w. I've listed link after link, fact after fact, and much support for my arguments. All are summarily dismissed as being "liars" or "morons" who are "wrong." Or it is completely ignored. Example: the Citigroup document I listed here a while back which PROVES UNEQUIVOCALLY that the wealthy in this country are more powerful than ever before as opposed to the "poor oppressed and overtaxed" people who are just being picked on by the envious rest of the population.
These documents are rife with data, analysis of said data, and conclusions based on the scientific method.
Take a look Figure 3, from part 1, which is titled The Metamorphosis of the Highest 1% of Income Earners in the US: from Rentier Rich to a Managerial Technocratic Aristocracy. This data, along with the rest in the document, proves Krugman's wealth transfer theory as well...recall Krugman is a "liar" "moron" "useful idiot" according to the "logicians" and scientific reasoners here...
I hope this answers your question, Russell, but I suspect it won't. I'm certain everyone will find some sound and well reasoned "facts" to use in their latest deluge of overly emotional comments masquerading as a counter argument.But, hey, I had a lot of fun writing this so I guess it was worth something:)
"2. I assume you mean "evidence?" Since I am not a complete asshat like DJ, I won't give you rectal about a typo."
evince [ɪˈvɪns]
vb
(tr) to make evident; show (something, such as an emotion) clearly
[from Latin ēvincere to overcome; see evict]
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evince
"Example: the Citigroup document I listed here a while back which PROVES UNEQUIVOCALLY that the wealthy in this country are more powerful than ever before as opposed to the "poor oppressed and overtaxed" people who are just being picked on by the envious rest of the population."
OK, the following example made me scratch my head, as it's hard to believe, but there it is in black and white (one could say, there's the evidence).
Arianna Huffington, she of the Huffington Post, is debating that what we have today is not actually Capitalism, but is Corporatism.
Maybe I'm wrong, but she has always struck me as a Leftist. In fact, one of THE Leftists.
Even the Left is beginning to come to terms with the fact that we are not living in a Free Market society dominated by Capitalism.
Which, correct me if I'm wrong, is the same argument that a number of people on this forum have been making (those people Markadelphia refers to as the "Radical Right").
But Markadelphia isn't a Leftist. He's an authoritarian stooge.
Once again I feel compelled to somewhat disagree with you:
"1) his facts are wrong; 2) his logic is wrong; or, 3) his conclusions are wrong."
I would say that this isn't quite accurate. It should be "1) his facts are wrong, or 2) his logic is wrong, and therefore his conclusion is wrong." Yeah, I know, it's kind of pedantic, but a valid conclusion flows directly from the evidence and the logic, and it can only be wrong if premises and/or the logic is wrong. In other words, you can't gainsay a conclusion as if it was independent of its underlying argument.
and…
"You get precisely the level of respect you have earned here, no more and no less."
That may be true for you, but I give him more respect here than I think he actually deserves. Maybe I'm alone in that.
It's been a while since I've seen this term defined, so it's gotten kind of fuzzy in my mind. Can you refresh my memory? Not to mention, explaining it to a certain commenter who probably has no idea what it means in the first place.
"It should be "1) his facts are wrong, or 2) his logic is wrong, and therefore his conclusion is wrong.""
Let's get really pedantic, Ed.
His conclusion could be wrong: 1) if the facts from which he reasoned are wrong; 2) if the logic by which he reasoned is wrong; 3) if he drew the wrong conclusions from that reasoning; or, 4) any combination of the three. But you are correct; if either 1) or 2) is wrong, then 3) should be wrong. He could make an independent error with any of the three, and so I just treated them as independent errors.
Such is beyond troll boy, though. I saw no reason to be more elaborate at the time.
"Can you refresh my memory?"
Not to steal Russell's thunder, but go see cargo cult. It's fascinating.
"1. Repeated Observation, careful description, the formulation of theories based on possible explanations, and the gathering of additional data about the questions that followed from those theories. "
You missed the part on experimentation.
"2. I assume you mean "evidence?" Since I am not a complete asshat like DJ, I won't give you rectal about a typo."
Nope, as Greg pointed out, I said 'evince' and I meant 'evince'. And, yes, you are a complete asshat.
"Other than what I have listed above, here are some more ideas."
Yay! Marky pulls out his teacher hat!
"One could start off with a simple idea or theory. Or perhaps some research questions. From there, reviewing all literature or past research is always helpful. Out of this, a hypothesis arrives. If you are comparing two or more phenomena, one must examine the variables perhaps choosing an independent and dependent variable.
Next up is the selection of the method. Participant Observation? One could say that is what I am doing here."
Ah, so that's what drives your insistence of being here no matter how wrong. We're part of your theory you are playing out. Right wing guinea pigs.
"Unobtrusive measures? Controlled Experiment? Field Experiment? Or a survey?
Data analysis is also important throughout whatever method is selected as well as the conclusion of the study. If, for example, you have chosen a survey as your research method, frequency distributions can help you understand the data more effectively. To look at correlations between different time periods, a percent analysis might be used. Of course, one must remember that correlation does not mean causation. "
What I find endlessly amusing is that though you espouse a basic understanding of the concepts here, none of your past performance would indicate passing familiarity of these concepts. Countless times has many implored you to take these basic steps in defending your muddled comments, but always we are met with a veritable litany of responses.It's almost like you just cribbed this from somewhere else.
"3. How about the idea that our schools aren't educating our children because the system has been taken over by socialists, PC Nazis and "multi culti" bullshit? Please illuminate me as to the use of the scientific method here. What method did Kevin use and what sort of data analysis did he employ? In fact, where is his data? Thus far, I have only heard Kevin use his wife and a few other "experts" as examples of proof of his theory. His information comes only from sources with whom he agrees and, upon my challenge to him to get more involved and really study this problem, he refuses. "
Being gob smacking obtuse isn't evidence. Failure to understand Kevin and other's evidence isn't a counter argument. But do continue! It's great laughs for the audience.
"Oh, and Russell, my 'past performance' is just fine, b to the w."
Do you really talk like that? I mean, I'm whiter than sour cream, so I avoid the pseudo street talk like the plague it is. And no, you've had your head handed back so often and run away from so many threads it's a joke around here. See: litany of responses.
(continued)
"fact after fact, and much support for my arguments."
Sorry, almost got drink on my keyboard. See the sentence above.
"All are summarily dismissed as being 'liars' or 'morons' who are 'wrong.' "
Let's take a fan favorite: Michael Moore. Proven liar. And there were many threads explaining why he was a liar. Which you ignored and you still try to use him as an exemplar of truth. So, no, all aren't summarily dismissed, just ones like Moore because of past events.
"Or it is completely ignored."
I... words fail me. But I am giggling!
" Example: the Citigroup document I listed here a while back which PROVES UNEQUIVOCALLY that the wealthy in this country are more powerful than ever before as opposed to the 'poor oppressed and overtaxed' people who are just being picked on by the envious rest of the population.
These documents are rife with data, analysis of said data, and conclusions based on the scientific method.
Here they are AGAIN in case you are interested.
Take a look Figure 3, from part 1, which is titled The Metamorphosis of the Highest 1% of Income Earners in the US: from Rentier Rich to a Managerial Technocratic Aristocracy. This data, along with the rest in the document [...]"
I don't recall these links. Must have missed them in the landslide of stupid you produce with such regularity.
"[..], proves Krugman's wealth transfer theory as well...recall Krugman is a 'liar' 'moron' 'useful idiot' according to the 'logicians' and scientific reasoners here..."
You keep using those words like you know what they mean.
I'm going to punt on this one for the time being and concur with Greg's analysis with this addendum: You're just too damn blinded by your preconceived notions about us to see when ideas overlap, regardless of source.
"I hope this answers your question, Russell, but I suspect it won't."
On the contrary, you responded much as I was expecting: cut and paste answers, a flailing about, and a display of shallowness of understanding and of character! Like I said, your response was the entertainment I was looking for, content was going to be almost a null set.
Of course, why then did I response? For entertainment, of course.
"I'm certain everyone will find some sound and well reasoned 'facts' to use in their latest deluge of overly emotional comments masquerading as a counter argument.But, hey, I had a lot of fun writing this so I guess it was worth something"
Really, you think your display of ignorance here warrants a smiley face? Amusing! You're like a jukebox, push any old button and get a simply splendid display!
"1. Repeated Observation, careful description, the formulation of theories based on possible explanations, and the gathering of additional data about the questions that followed from those theories."
This definition of the scientific method explains a lot about Marky. (A definitional Rorschach Test if you will.) There is absolutely no mechanism for correcting errors in the hypothesis.
Re Krugman. Far be it for me to deflate a Nobel Prize winner, but when he says things like this here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/opinion/10krugman.html?_r=2
"What saved the economy, and the New Deal, was the enormous public works project known as World War II, which finally provided a fiscal stimulus adequate to the economy’s needs."
That speaks volumes about the man's views on economics.
I'm generally of the opinion that WWII did have a large impact on turning around the economy. The effort required to successfully prosecute the war required adding women to the work force— which increased economic strength at the expense of family life — the building of additional industrial capacity, and the aggressive development of new technologies during the war which became significant economic drivers after the war.
Of course, the drought in the midwest significantly exacerbated by poor farming practices was probably the biggest driver in turning a regular depression into the "Great Depression". If I remember correctly, this problem was resolved well before the start of WWII, so the economy was already starting to recover.
And of course, the recovery would have happened so much sooner if the New Deal hadn't been such a huge drag on the economy.
I guess what I'm trying to say here is that I'm not sure Krugman is completely wrong on this point, unless he's claiming that WWII was the only factor that brought us out of the depression. (Though as I think about it, I'm wondering if we wouldn't have actually been further ahead of where we actually were in 1950 if WWII hadn't happened. In this case, WWII would have been a net drain on the economy.)
"I guess what I'm trying to say here is that I'm not sure Krugman is completely wrong on this point, unless he's claiming that WWII was the only factor that brought us out of the depression."
The problem with that is not so much that it's inaccurate...
I assume you mean "evidence?" Since I am not a complete asshat like DJ,
DJ knew what "evince" meant.
As does, I'm pretty sure, everybody but you.
As usual, your disclaimer instead makes the claim for you.
Example: the Citigroup document I listed here a while back which PROVES UNEQUIVOCALLY that the wealthy in this country are more powerful than ever before
It's sad, when you've never seen a consultant report before. Ever. In your life.
It doesn't prove that, hardly unequivocally - but then again, you fail to see the irony at the base of Michael Moore's work.
fact after fact, and much support for my arguments
Like the 'fact' that more than 44,000 people die every year because they don't have health insurance? That's one of several examples I could give of the things that qualify for the label "fact" in your world. You have recently cited precisely that as one of your "facts". If you wish, I'll go try to find where and quote/link it back to you.
I remember many, many times you've said that scientists who contest the conclusions of the global warming crowd cannot be trusted because they are in the pay of Big Oil(tm) and Fox News. You never backed that statement, but you expected it to be accepted as true.
Drs. David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler, are avowed government-run health care activists. Himmelstein co-founded Physicians for a National Health Program,
http://pnhp.org/
which bills itself as the “the only national physician organization in the United States dedicated exclusively to implementing a single-payer national health program.” Woolhandler is a co-founder and served as secretary of the group.
Since scientists who contest global warming cannot be trusted "because they're in the pocket of Big Oil and Fox News (even if they aren't in real life), does the associations of these authors taint the value of the study just as global warming opponents' associations apparently do? If not, why not?
Since, according to the study itself, anyone who was uninsured the one day they were asked who died for any reason over the next twelve years was assumed without any verification whatsoever to a) have remained uninsured for the entire time and b) have died a death that could have been prevented had they had insurance, how "factual" is that "fact"? Does the lack of verification, and the assumption that even someone who bought insurance the day after they were asked, kept it for the next 12 years and died instantly in a head-on collision died because they had no insurance make this "fact" in any way suspect? If not, why not?
You see Mark, the problem with you citing "fact after fact" is that so many of your "facts" are like the one above.
But did I? You asked me to evince an understanding. Not really seeing your analysis of that.
While we are on the subject of not seeing things, I laid out the scientific method and still have not seen it from any of you. And no serious rebuttals from my contentions. Time to man up, dudes.
Show me the scientific method for your assertion that our education system has been overrun by socialists/PC Nazis/multi culti homos. Or show me, using the scientific method, that the top one percent wealthy of our nation, are worse off than they were 20 years ago. Show me using facts, logic, and scientific method.
Until that time comes, ANY claim made about me is complete fucking bull shit.
The scientific method in simple terms for the simple:
1) Observe
2) Hypothesize
3) Test
a) If confirmed, Go to Step 4
b) Else, Return to step 1 or Abandon Hypothesis
4) Independent Testing
Marky, your problem is that you ignore any test which disproves your hypothesis and never, ever correct or abandon your theories. Furthermore, you pretend step 4 doesn't exist.
Item #1:"Show me the scientific method for your assertion that our education system has been overrun by socialists/PC Nazis/multi culti homos. Or show me, using the scientific method, that the top one percent wealthy of our nation, are worse off than they were 20 years ago. Show me using facts, logic, and scientific method."
Item #2:"Until that time comes, ANY claim made about me is complete fucking bull shit."
Here is yet another challenge, teacher boy.
Show us, using facts, logic, and the scientific method, that Item #1 is related in any way to Item #2, other than both came from your keyboard.
"Until that time comes, ANY claim made about me is complete fucking bull shit."
That's the funniest thing I've ever read.
Want to correct some more "typos," Mark? Shit. I bet you scratch out your student names on their papers and take points off because you can't figure out why they're not putting your name in "Your Name Here."
You just have no level below which you won't go, do you?
Unix-Jedi: "As does, I'm pretty sure, everybody but you."
Ralph: But did I? You asked me to evince an understanding.
First up, I didn't. While you might be used to a unitary and solitary opinion process, here we're individuals.
Secondly, what you were asked and what you condesendinly assumed you'd been asked were wildly variable.
You can't even admit you didn't know the word "evince". You're so used to misusing words and waving off being wrong that you can't even admit that you embarrassed yourself.
You said: 2. I assume you mean "evidence?" Since I am not a complete asshat like DJ, I won't give you rectal about a typo.
Yes, you are an asshat, and secondly, if you're going to think you're being superior, you might want to make sure you're correct. Aside from "evince" - "I won't give you rectal about a typo" isn't a correct sentence. Give a rectal.. what? Exam? Speculum?
That's not even correct slang, which I presume you mean "anal", being short for "anal-retentive"...
You can't even be sneeringly dismissive without fucking it up.
And no serious rebuttals from my contentions. Time to man up, dudes.
Hey, Sack Boy, remember the last time you said something like that? Or is that your hint you're about to bail on this thread, too?
Show me the scientific method for your assertion that our education system has been overrun by socialists/PC Nazis/multi culti homos.
This statement by you demonstrates you don't understand the "scientific method". Or what we've claimed or think.
Or show me, using the scientific method, that the top one percent wealthy of our nation, are worse off than they were 20 years ago. Show me using facts, logic, and scientific method.
First, we have to teach you the scientific method.
So far, you've failed every test. Rather than learning, you keep appealing and screaming and claiming racism and sexism and unfair and you needed more time and...
Until that time comes, ANY claim made about me is complete fucking bull shit.
Project away, Ralph. You didn't even know what "evince" was - now you're trying to dodge that little snark that's stuck to you. Verbatim, sack boy.
I laid out the scientific method and still have not seen it from any of you. And no serious rebuttals from my contentions. Time to man up, dudes.
I find it highly amusing that the comment where this quote was found immediately follows a comment where I show you in unequivocal terms how one of your prime "facts" completely ignores the scientific method, critical thinking, and even honest assessment of data, and how and why it does so. If you'd really like me to continue destroying the majority of your "facts" in such a manner, I'll be happy to oblige.
But for now, you are apparently treating it as if my comment was never posted. Hmmm...
Snicker. No, I did. And you thought I had misspelled 'evidence'. But spoken like a true liberal, only able to see a collective and not individuals!
"And no serious rebuttals from my contentions. Time to man up, dudes."
Perhaps you can reread everything Kevin has on his side bar? Oh! Wait! I assumed you had read anything to begin with. My mistake.
Here, I'll make this first little step easier: http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/06/george-orwell-daycare-center.html
I know, I know. You wouldn't recognize a rebuttal if it sat on your head singing "La donna é mobile" from Rigoletto. While on fire.
See, unlike you, we have a memory of the past and recall countless times where we built a solid argument and you simply ignored them and ran away.
Tthe scientific method is a tool in constructing arguments. I have a particular fondness for syllogism logic. The fact you are trying to demand us to use the scientific method is laughable because of your complete lack of weight around here, and you are, quelle surprise, misusing the term.
But do carry on! It's an endless source of amusement!
I think the definitive proof of Kevin's argument against the education system in the United States is the FACT that a high school teacher not only did not know the definition of a rather sophomoric word like evince, but could not even be bothered to look it up before berating someone on its use.
In the interests of trying to figure out what you mean, I went to that link and looked at the chart.
I see a few things:
#1 The chart covers roughly a century
#2 The share of top 1% of earners who earn money from "dividends" and "interest" (I assume these are Wall Street Fat Cats) has shrunk considerably during the century.
#3 The share of the top 1% of earners who earn money from "Entrepreneurial" sources has gone up and down, but generally increaesed over the Century
#4 The share of the top 1% of earners who earn money from "Wages" has gone from 20% to 60%.
To deduce that this is a sign of economic injustice, I must assume one of the following:
(A) Earning money from dividends/interest is good. (Being a Wall Street Fat Cat is good.)
(B) Earning money from wages is bad, if the wages put the earner in the top 1% of the national wealth.
I don't share either of these assumptions, though I don't know if another assumption could lead to a similar conclusion.
...show me, using the scientific method, that the top one percent wealthy of our nation, are worse off than they were 20 years ago.
Ket's say for the sake of argument that the top 1% are better off than they were 20 years ago. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just accepting your word for it rather than proving it to my own satisfaction. Okay, stipulate that it's so.
So what? All that tells me is that the wealthy are able to improve their circumstances at a faster rate than the poor. This is not exactly news.
What part of that do you object to? Do you consider economic success in any form to be something that should be punished as a crime?
I have to wonder why Marky even bothers coming here, since he gets squashed every time. I keep thinking of the punchline to an old joke which is probably familiar to most people here:
"I think the definitive proof of Kevin's argument against the education system in the United States is the FACT that a high school teacher not only did not know the definition of a rather sophomoric word like evince, but could not even be bothered to look it up before berating someone on its use."
"I think the definitive proof of Kevin's argument against the education system in the United States is the FACT that a high school teacher not only did not know the definition of a rather sophomoric word like evince, but could not even be bothered to look it up before berating someone on its use."
"I think the definitive proof of Kevin's argument against the education system..."
Well, that's not proof according to the rules that you have laid out for me. Still waiting for the use of the scientific method in regards to the failure of our education system. If you want to continue to berate me for being hasty in my reading, by all means...it just proves that you are full of shit when it comes to "logic" and "facts."
Now onto to someone making an actual effort...
"What part of that do you object to? Do you consider economic success in any form to be something that should be punished as a crime?"
Read the entire document and tell me if you see anything wrong with our current system. Look at all the data. You are asking the wrong question. One does not have "economic success" if they are successful at running a pyramid scheme.
GOF, you have exactly hit upon the blind spot that most on the right have when it comes to this issue...you think it is about "punishment" and it's not. At one time, there were wealthy people in this country who enjoyed comfortable lives, a middle class that never really had to worry about money, and poor people. Now we have wealthy people who have rigged the system and have seized more money (see:power) than this world has ever seen, no middle class, many who are one illness away from losing our homes, and an underclass that resembles Third World countries.
How this underclass was created is also seen in this document. And it's not because of government social programs or increased regulation which is probably why many of you are afraid to read the whole thing and analyze it...it's a giant fucking torpedo to your little fantasy world of "evil gubmint."
I have no problem if you want to continue to personally attack me for making a reading error. It just shows that some folks here (DJ, Kevin S, Unix, Russell, Ed) scream about ignoring facts and not using logic and then...do just that. Once again, I challenge you to read the document thoroughly and offer a scientific analysis using your deductive reasoning.
Now we have wealthy people who have rigged the system and have seized more money (see:power) than this world has ever seen, no middle class, many who are one illness away from losing our homes, and an underclass that resembles Third World countries.
Hmm, that sounds familiar. Except the people seeking to escape that are coming north, not crossing the border in the other direction.
I wish I had the link to the study that showed the people MOST concerned with income inequality are middle and upper middle class liberals. The poor are not the jealous, snarling mob feared by that group.
At one time, there were wealthy people in this country who enjoyed comfortable lives, a middle class that never really had to worry about money, and poor people.
Please define when this was. Not just "at one time" - when?
Now we have wealthy people who have rigged the system and have seized more money (see:power) than this world has ever seen, no middle class, many who are one illness away from losing our homes, and an underclass that resembles Third World countries.
Are you fucking high? And you're screaming about us projecting our rage? NO MIDDLE CLASS?
One illness away? You mean, after the illness is cured? Yes, that is certainly worse than what it used to be when you'd just die.
Now we have wealthy people who have rigged the system and have seized more money (see:power) than this world has ever seen
HOW? You run away every time this point comes up and we demonstrate to you that this is due to exactly the policy and prescription you want - nay DEMAND. Because you keep insisting on a system that's riggable.
You want to scream at us (all of whom are "middle class") while you can't even see what you're demanding is what the problem is.
How this underclass was created is also seen in this document.
No, it's not.
And it's not because of government social programs or increased regulation which is probably why many of you are afraid to read the whole thing and analyze it.
I read it. It might shock you to know I've written similar papers. I've read literally hundreds of them. They don't prove anything. They're policy analysis. Somewhere I've got one that lays out why OS/2 is the obvious successor to DOS, and why Windows NT won't succeed.
Yes. I have written such. ..it's a giant fucking torpedo to your little fantasy world of "evil gubmint."
Only to your fevered, cargo-culting mind.
I have no problem if you want to continue to personally attack me for making a reading error.
It wasn't a reading error. Nor was it the first. You condescendingly lectured, because you didn't know "evince". Which everyone else here did. That's not a minor error, no matter how much you want to run away from it (Just as you've run away from your other mistakes and lies.)
It just shows that some folks here (DJ, Kevin S, Unix, Russell, Ed) scream about ignoring facts and not using logic and then...do just that.
Nope, it doesn't show that. Try and twist and change the subject as much as you want, Mark, but yet again (this isn't the first time by any means), your utter ignorance was put on display, and you, rather than admitting it, rather than leaning, doubled down on stupid. You showcased, threw a spotlight on your ignorance, and then you insisted on demanding that our disagreement was due to our ignorance and lack of knowledge.
Just as you did with verbatim, just as you did with slavery, just as you did with DJ's quiz on mortgage markets (But there you also lied that you taken the quiz when you ran away).
We owe you nothing, sack boy.
"I have no problem if you want to continue to personally attack me for making a reading error."
Well, lessee now ...
Russell wrote:
"Evince understanding of the method."
You responded:
"I assume you mean "evidence?" Since I am not a complete asshat like DJ, I won't give you rectal about a typo."
Well, if your homework included the phrase "give you rectal about a typo", I would damned surely hack it with red ink, teacher boy. Do you ever read what you write before hitting "OK" to post it?
But, I digress.
You didn't know what the word "evince" was, but you knew the word you read was not "evidence", thus you did read it. It is irrelevant whether or not such was an "error" (although it is one of the very few times you have EVER admitted error of any kind), because whatever you read instead of "evidence" was a word that you didn't know the meaning of and couldn't be bothered to look up before behaving like an asshat in attacking Russell.
It is difficult to gauge which is deeper; your hypocrisy or your stupidity.
Now don't complain. You admitted that you have "no problem" if I want to personally attack you on this point.
The point yet again, teacher boy, is that you don't fool anyone.
And, you continue to disappoint me. I keep hoping for something new from you. Perhaps telling jokes, in Italian, backwards. Instead, you discharge this:
"It just shows that some folks here (DJ, Kevin S, Unix, Russell, Ed) scream about ignoring facts and not using logic and then...do just that."
It is, yet again, just another example of your (wait for it) Standard Response #9, the "Nuh-uh! Am not! You are!" response. You simply assert that the other side is what you don't like yourself being accused of.
Kevin is right; you just can't help yourself, can you?
The FACT is you have a limited vocabulary. The FACT is that morons like you are educating our youth. The FACT is that you'd be better off reading a dictionary than the drivel you keep linking to.
...and then I looked at Figures 1 and 2 from Part 2. From 1995 through 2004, mean income in thousands of constant 2004 dollars increased for every cohort the authors reported. The largest increase was in the top 10 percent, which saw mean income rise almost 50 percent. The next 10 percent saw an increase of about 24.27 percent...
...edging out the bottom 10 percent by about a tenth of a percentage point (24.16 percent).
If it were me, I might have used 1995 dollars, but inflation was low enough -- if perhaps not as low as claimed, due to fun with index statistics that real scientists consider impermissible -- that it probably doesn't matter too much, and the main point is that the analysis uses constant dollars. Upshot: Every cohort was measurably better off in financial terms in 2004 than in 1995.
So what is the crux of Sta-Punk's argument, if calling it an argument isn't giving it too much credit? Let's try this on for size:
"Despite being in great shape, we think that global capitalists are going to be getting an even greater share of the wealth pie over the next few years, as capitalists benefit disproportionately from globalization and the productivity boom, at the relative expense of labor." (emphasis added)
And there it is, folks: the shambling zombie corpse of relative immiserization, which was supposed to cause the global revolution after the Marxists figured out the absolute immiserization they'd originally predicted wasn't borne out by the evidence. Somehow it doesn't surprise me that Sta-Punk would try to play that card.
Okay, let's look a little more at what the authors had to say:
"In a plutonomy, the rich drop their savings rate, consume a larger fraction of their bloated, very large share of the economy. This behavior overshadows the decisions of everybody else. The behavior of the exceptionally rich drives the national numbers - the "appallingly low" overall savings rates, the
"over-extended consumer", and the
"unsustainable" current accounts that accompany this phenomenon. We want to spend little time worrying about these(non)issues, neither do we think they warrant any risk premium on equities." (Part 1, page 14)
A-heh. I'd love to sit them down over coffee and read that passage to them today, wouldn't you? Is this the kind of analysis you want to hold up as being unequivocal, Sta-Punk? Really?
Porsche, Bulgari, Burberry, LVMH, Coach, Hermes, Four Seasons Hotels, Polo Ralph Lauren...these are the investment recommendations the authors make. I see why Sta-Punk gets het up: it's like reading a Ouija board message from the ghost of Thorstein Veblen.
Class envy? In spades. Anticipating an objection, it doesn't matter, Sta-Punk, whether or not you actually want to fill your closets with those labels. What matters is that in your heart, you know you don't have the chops to earn what would be necessary to do so (you evince that every time you open your yap here). So you have to tear down those who do.
"...you think it is about "punishment" and it's not."
What is it, then? The authors themselves say the solution to plutonomy, if desired, is some form or another of expropriation (either revocation of property rights, or taxation, see Part 1, page 22).
So tell us: Who deserves to be expropriated, and who doesn't, and how do you propose to implement such a scheme without replacing the rule of law with the rule of Man, aka the law of the jungle?
"At one time, there were wealthy people in this country who enjoyed comfortable lives, a middle class that never really had to worry about money, and poor people. Now we have wealthy people who have rigged the system and have seized more money (see:power) than this world has ever seen, no middle class, many who are one illness away from losing our homes, and an underclass that resembles Third World countries.
"How this underclass was created is also seen in this document. And it's not because of government social programs or increased regulation which is probably why many of you are afraid to read the whole thing and analyze it...it's a giant fucking torpedo to your little fantasy world of 'evil gubmint.'"
No, it isn't. I read the whole thing, as they say on the Intartoobz, and there is no torpedo. (I also searched the document on the term "underclass" and came up dry. These documents are silent on the phenomena you invoked, Sta-Punk. In other words, you made it up. It simply isn't there, either explicitly or implicitly.
Do you get what I am saying, Sta-Punk? You made it up. Let us now discuss confirmation bias, shall we? Unless you'd rather I just called you a liar; either suits me just fine.
"Once again, I challenge you to read the document thoroughly and offer a scientific analysis using your deductive reasoning."
Please define when this was. Not just "at one time" - when?
LOL, "Ralph" has a very hard time with that, but I have coaxed out of him that it appears to have been the [19]50s when his mythical Golden Age happened. So short, so wrong on so many levels, so perfect for an ill-informed nostalgia.
"I think the definitive proof of Kevin's argument against the education system..."
"Well, that's not proof according to the rules that you have laid out for me. "
Yay! Pile the stupid on thicker!
"Still waiting for the use of the scientific method in regards to the failure of our education system."
Did you read anything Kevin? Did you read the link I helpfully provided? Did you read anything else anyone wrote? No?
"If you want to continue to berate me for being hasty in my reading, by all means...it just proves that you are full of shit when it comes to 'logic' and 'facts.'"
Hasty reading? Like hasty pudding? You really know nothing of logic, do you?
Let me break your, uh, 'argument' down.
1. Berating you for your poor reading skills.
2. Proves we are full of it.
My word, that isn't even a syllogism! Major premise, minor, and conclusion! That's all it takes and you can't muster up even that much.
"Now onto to someone making an actual effort..."
I'm sure GoF is basking in the glow of your praise.
"What part of that do you object to? Do you consider economic success in any form to be something that should be punished as a crime?"
"Read the entire document and tell me if you see anything wrong with our current system. Look at all the data. You are asking the wrong question. One does not have 'economic success' if they are successful at running a pyramid scheme. "
Holy crow. And yet you support ever dang statist program the left pukes forth. Amazing. Truly, a dizzying intellect.
"GOF, you have exactly hit upon the blind spot that most on the right have when it comes to this issue...you think it is about 'punishment' and it's not. At one time, there were wealthy people in this country who enjoyed comfortable lives, a middle class that never really had to worry about money, and poor people. Now we have wealthy people who have rigged the system and have seized more money (see:power) than this world has ever seen, no middle class, many who are one illness away from losing our homes, and an underclass that resembles Third World countries. "
Hear that sound? That was my jaw dropping in utter amazement in response to just how incredibly stupid that was. I have to break it down now!
(continued)
Let's start here "At one time, there were wealthy people in this country who enjoyed comfortable lives, a middle class that never really had to worry about money, and poor people."
So, are you saying that now there aren't wealthy people in this country who enjoy comfortable lives? That ALL the wealthy (I am not even going to ask you to define 'wealthy', I'm afraid I'd be laughing too hard to type coherently for days!) now have rigged the system?
Amazing! All the wealthy have rigged the system and no longer enjoy a comfortable life!
"more money (see:power)" Money != power. They are interrelated, but not equal.
On to "a middle class that never really had to worry about money". Er, as U-J said, when?
I'm the oldest of 6, my father was and still is a high school teacher, my mother was always a full time mother and she and my father took odd jobs during the year in order to make ends meets. They constantly worried about money. We are the middle class, and to say the middle class never had to worry about money just shows the lack of knowledge. As for myself, I'm a college dropout, but before I left to forge my own way (autodidact), I taught a class (pass/fail) at the University for a couple of semesters because I was one of the few with the needed knowledge and skill set to teach that particular class at that time.
"no middle class, many who are one illness away from losing our homes"
Whoa, whoa, whoa! You can't have "no middle class" and "many" at the same time! Either one or the other, not both. Pick one.
"and an underclass that resembles Third World countries."
I've lived near the projects in New Orleans (long before Hurricane Katrina) and in small towns in southern Brazil. There is no comparison. Yes, the poor in the projects do, indeed, live in squalor and poverty. They still lived like kings compared to the poor that I saw in Brazil. You are morally bankrupt.
"How this underclass was created is also seen in this document. And it's not because of government social programs or increased regulation which is probably why many of you are afraid to read the whole thing and analyze it...it's a giant fucking torpedo to your little fantasy world of 'evil gubmint.'"
Sigh. Ken beat you six ways from Sunday over this. You won't realize it, though. Par for the course.
"I have no problem if you want to continue to personally attack me for making a reading error. It just shows that some folks here (DJ, Kevin S, Unix, Russell, Ed) scream about ignoring facts and not using logic and then...do just that."
Sooo you have no problem with us ripping you apart for your blatant stupidity, even after you compared us to Al Queda? Gee, that is mighty big of you.
But the conclusion you posited (we scream and don't use facts and logic) isn't supported by the rest of your sentence or the evidence in this thread. Logic is a stranger to you, isn't it? And in the process of trying to mount your high horse, you use an ad hominem. It's like watching a Napoleon trying to mount a dray horse barebacked.
"Once again, I challenge you to read the document thoroughly and offer a scientific analysis using your deductive reasoning."
You are in no position to make any sort of challenge, ever. But again, I refer you to Ken's comment. And U-J's. But it is amusing to see you continue to whine about it!
...an underclass that resembles Third World countries.
What is your basis, if any, for this statement? Do you have any experience whatsoever of either group?
You see, I do. I have personally been homeless more than once, and have been at or below what the federal government defines as "the poverty line" nearly half my adult life.
I also went to Europe, the Middle East, the Caribbean and South America while I was in the Navy.
So what you appear to be telling me is that a class of people likely as not to have cell phones and color TVs, who rarely miss a meal other than by choice, inattention or bad budgeting (such as buying booze or drugs before they are sure if they have money for groceries), and who are nearly always given food and weather-tight housing, are equivalent to people who may not even know what electricity is, live in a "house" smaller than your bathroom, built by themselves out of scrap iron, reject plywood and cardboard, and consider themselves "living high" if they can count on one meal every day.
You'll forgive me if I have doubts about the accuracy of that statement, huh?
"Reading error?! Seriously?"
"Do you ever read what you write before hitting "OK" to post it?"
Actually, sometimes I don't. I admit this to be a fault on my part. I often read items here rather quickly and should probably take more time. There are times when I get overwhelmed by trying to respond to the veritable deluge of comments. I tried to explain this before but alas, different rules...
At the end of the day, I'm not perfect. Of course, any mistake I make is viewed as being proof positive that I am wrong about everything. I take that as a compliment, however, to know that your faith in your beliefs is so weak that a small and hasty error by someone as mildly insignificant as myself means you must be correct about everything.
One does not have "economic success" if they are successful at running a pyramid scheme.
Hmmm... are you suggesting that if someone has money, they should be allowed to spend it on personal goods or sock it away in some form of savings, but should not be allowed to invest it in a manner that creates jobs? Or that they should not be allowed to profit from such an investment?
Other than that possibility, I don't see what you're driving at when you refer to "pyramid schemes".
"If you want to continue to berate me for being hasty in my reading, by all means…"
You weren't berated for your hasty reading. You were berated for attempting to berate Russell for using a word which was actually correct. If you had "misread" it and simply let it go (or better yet, looked it up), then you would not have provided the stick used to beat you. The fact that you tried to go nuclear based on your misunderstanding (a common problem with you) only made the stick that much bigger — as in the size of a telephone pole.
In fact, you demonstrated your lack of understanding of the scientific method when you did this! You had a hypothesis (that Russell made a typo), then you ran with it as if it was an established fact. But you skipped the testing step entirely.
Congratulations on demonstrating Russell's point that you only think you understand the scientific method, but you really don't.
One more thing Marky. The internet is a wonderful invention. You don't even have to have a dictionary sitting on your desk anymore.
If you want to avoid future beatdowns because you didn't understand the meaning of a word, all you have to do is make use of this excellent source:
http://dictionary.reference.com/
As a teacher, you should already be well aware of the old adage that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. I've now shown you the water. The question is, will you actually drink?
Of course, any mistake I make is viewed as being proof positive that I am wrong about everything.
No. (As usual.)
Your continued and systematic mistakes that you make, without notice, without correction and the pattern of them continuing for quite literally years, extending into every thing you have commented on is "proof positive" that you're incapable of your own analysis or understanding.
Your history does that, not a single error or a simple one. There aren't different rules between commenters here. But what the difference is that you're not used to actual intellectual rigor.
Just like above, you denied the existence of the middle class. That's not minor, that's not a typo. That's far worse than not knowing "evince", and being sneering about it.
THAT, and your comments on "slavery" where a agreed upon contract is equated with owning people as property, is where we have "proof positive" that if you're right, it's via luck. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day - you don't manage to beat that average.
When did the "Middle class" not have to worry about Money, Mark? That's so insanely stupid that anybody with sense would just hush. But you'll continue to defend it, because you have no real moral sense. Just as you claim to have "won" the "slavery" debate.
You don't even have the imagination to understand what real slavery - or real poverty is. We've obsoleted the word "poverty" in the US and most of the west - poverty used to mean "Can't afford enough to eat" - now we've got the "impoverished" who are too fat to be easily moved to the hospital for their free-to-them health care.
I take that as a compliment, however, to know that your faith in your beliefs is so weak that a small and hasty error
The difference is that it wasn't a "small and hasty error". And we know this.
It was a piece and a parcel with all the rest of your imaginary world with Good on one side and Evil on the other and Oh, the 50s, were SOooooo good.
You don't even make up a decent fantasy world that's internally consistent. Allow me to demonstrate: In whatever magical time in the past, where the "middle class that never really had to worry about money,", exactly how much government existed? How much "free" health care? How many cancer treatments? Heart transplants? Kidney dialysis? How much of the government that you worship was there?
And given that you have this idyllic view of sometime in the past - presumably the 50s - where the federal government was a fraction of the size it is now, there were no environmental laws, there were almost no federal gun laws, there was no CONCEPT of the federal government running health care - why would you then not want to reduce government to the size of whatever time was your idyllic perfection?
See? If you were even serious, your own espoused views contradict yourself massively.
That is why we "jump" on those comments, Ralph, not that it's a small error - it's not. It indicates to anyone who can analyze exactly how your "thought" process works.
"Even a stopped clock is right twice a day - you don't manage to beat that average."
By my reckoning, he isn't even right that often.
Take his "mind reading" schtick. If he took his act on the road and did an "is this your card?" routine, he would be the guy who would be so bad at it that he would regularly go through 51 cards before he found the right one.
You should, really, and the fact that you don't shows.
"I admit this to be a fault on my part. I often read items here rather quickly and should probably take more time."
You should take more time. Really.
"There are times when I get overwhelmed by trying to respond to the veritable deluge of comments."
Really? I thought you reveled in it, giving that you keep coming back for more. But seriously, drowning you is not my intent. What is important is the content, not the volume. You can see the volume at a glance, but you have to slow down and read to get the content.
"I tried to explain this before ..."
Where? When? I don't recall reading it, but then I don't claim to remember everything.
"... but alas, different rules..."
No, teacher boy. There is no rule that you have to proofread what you post, and no one here tries to impose such a rule.
I proofread everything I post, but I don't always find all my spelling errors and typos. I don't impose such a rule on you, but I suggest that you follow the same rule that I impose on myself.
No, your "different rules" complaint is just excuse making, yet again.
"At the end of the day, I'm not perfect."
We've noticed. We're not perfect, either. But if you slow down and read this stuff carefully, you'll see us admitting our mistakes. You don't; you practice "escalation of failure" as if it were a virtue. You regularly commit error after error to avoid the embarrassment of admitting a single error. THAT is the primary source of all your difficulties here. Think what you could do if you could overcome that one character defect.
"Of course, any mistake I make is viewed as being proof positive that I am wrong about everything."
Again with the hyperbole, and you were doing so well (for you, anyway).
No, a simple mistake is viewed as being proof positive that you are not being careful, and nothing more.
But what led to this was not a simple mistake.
You claim to understand the scientific method and you get pissed when we show that you don't follow it. Indeed, I have complained for more than two years that you jump to conclusions as if it were a virtue. That is precisely what you did, to wit: 1) You saw a word that you were not familiar with which is spelled something like a word you are familiar with; 2) you jumped to the conclusion that Russell meant the latter but misspelled it as the former; 3) you took Russell to task for that assumed error and behaved like a holier-than-thou asshole while complaining about others taking you to task similarly; and, 4) and finally, when shown your error, made excuses that don't fit the facts.
What this was about was not that your vocabulary did not include a particular word, rather it was about your behavior in response thereto and your refusal to admit the error that led to it.
It was so avoidable. On my browser (FireFox), looking up the definition of a word requires four mouse clicks: double-click to select, right-click to bring up a context-sensitive menu, and left-click to select "Search the Free Dictionary for [the word selected]". It takes two seconds. Different rule, you say? No, I use this wonderful tool every day.
Try it. You'll like it, and you need it.
"I take that as a compliment, however, to know that your faith in your beliefs is so weak ..."
More hyperbole. More excuse making.
My faith in my beliefs is quite strong, little boy, which is why I keep posting here.
"... that a small and hasty error by someone as mildly insignificant as myself means you must be correct about everything.""
Even more hperbole. The conclusion does not follow from the premise. Logic, teacher boy, logic. Try it sometime.
Imagine what you could learn that is right if your would first unlearn what is wrong. You can do it if you try.
I'm just going to point out that Marky is using this one point as a smokescreen to avoid the various other flaws in his comments.
And that this isn't a "Hyuck! Mr. Teacheer done did a mistake! Hyuck hyuck!" moment, but as Ed, U-J and DJ have said, a indication of systemic escalation of failure.
Russell:
Yes.
That's his M.O. Which he doesn't think we've noticed time and again (DJ's list notwithstanding.)
It's almost a good tactical decision - he pivots on something like that, "evince" versus "evidence", then retreats using that pivot - leaving alone the rest of what he said, so that he can claim "victory" later, refusing to engage on those claims (such a no middle class, slavery, verbatim, etc.) and thus ignoring the rebuttals to what he said, so he doesn't have to deal with them.
Or it would be if he'd one it once. Or twice. But it's his primary method of extracting himself when he's realized he's totally in over his head and it's noticeable. That is, if you're able to do some analysis.
Wait! On this one other blog I know of, it was pointed out that some republican made a dumb statement on the house floor the other day. An effort was made to link everyone on "the right" to this one statement. Can't refute what was saidin an internet debate? Just go find some dumb statement that has nothing to do with anyone or anything and link your opposition to it. Brilliant!
Ah yes, I'd almost forgotten... while we're on the subject of the scientific method, Mark, please explain how and why the global warming hysteria constantly shrieked by the left qualifies as "science", as you personally have labelled it. Be advised, I can quite easily show you how it violates the scientific method.
Grumpy, does it begin with: 1) refusing or being reluctant to show their data; 2) refusing or being reluctant to explain their methodology; 3) refusing or being reluctant to be reviewed by their peers; or, 4) dismissing any question they don't like with "the science is settled"?
The opposite end of that spectrum is Stephen Hawking, who presents his data, explains his methodology, shows his conclusions, and invites, encourages, and dares anyone to show him to be wrong. He is often challenged. He just smiles. Sometimes he is proven to be wrong. When that happens, he revises his methodology and conclusions, and then he moves on, still smiling.
Now, if Al Gore was sure he was right on scientific grounds, wouldn't he do the same?
Hah. I crack me up.
Stephen Hawking is a scientist. Al Gore is a politician. Now, guess which one is the liar ...
Wait, here's something: "No Democrat is ever wrong."
Since Hawking isn't a Democrat, he's the liar!
Darn it, there's an entry under "Handicapable" which modifies the "Democrat" rule.
Gah, this is confusing! Too bad there isn't some sort of objective standard to determine the answers in cases -- wait, wait, there's a number for the DNC in here.
Ok, so I called the DNC and they said that Hawking is correct as long as he conforms to the word of the Goracle. Otherwise, he's an Evil White Male Oppressor and shouldn't be trusted. The handicapable part just means we can't make fun of him. Unless he converts to Christianity. Or becomes a Republican. Then it's open season on him, since he received the Medal of Freedom from the Won.
Russell, nowhere in your comments do I see the scientific method used to a) demonstrate to me that our education system is over run by socialists or b) an in depth analysis of the Citigroup document and relevant data.
You issued me a challenge. I accepted it and answered it, I suspect, more thoroughly then you thought I would. And more accurately. It doesn't matter to me if you don't accept the challenge. The next time you chide me for not answering questions, though, I would hope that you stop and think about this little exchange.
"Have we, at long last, found a chink in your armor?"
Well, according to you, you've beaten me several times so I don't get this comment. Still waiting for the scientific method on your ideas, DJ.
"Perhaps telling jokes, in Italian, backwards."
And, still waiting.
"The FACT is that you'd be better off reading a dictionary than the drivel you keep linking to."
Is this the scientific method? I don't think so. Did you read the link, Kevin? And I'm still waiting...
"See, I am a scientist."
Well, all I see, Ken, is commentary. That's fine. You are entitled to comment on anything you want. But to dress it up as logic and facts is complete bullshit. What is your hypothesis? What is your research method? How are you going to gather data and what method will you use to analyze it?
Meanwhile, back to someone..the same someone...making an honest effort.
"What is your basis, if any, for this statement? Do you have any experience whatsoever of either group?"
Take a look at this, GOF.
http://www.ramusa.org/
This group was founded in 1985 by Stan Brock, former star of Wild Kingdom, to help Third World countries out with medical care. Recently, their mission has shifted to inside the US because...well...there are parts of it that are like a Third World country. On a recent trip to LA, over 3000 people turned out for free medical care. Here is an interview with Stan Brock for more info...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKBXeWMDzvQ
This is one example. Been to New Orleans lately? Parts of it look an awful lot like Kabul to me. This is what a failed ideology does to a nation.
"Other than that possibility, I don't see what you're driving at when you refer to "pyramid schemes"."
No, I'm not suggesting that they should be told by the government how to invest their money. Nor am I suggesting that should have their wealth taken away by the government. What I am saying is that the wealthy of this country have rigged the system so it is impossible for anyone to make it to the top. They also don't invest it in private industry. They give it to someone like Bernie Madoff to invest in a derivative which is essentially air. Or unicorn farts-a phrase that many here like to use.
Ed, I guess I can add you to the "still waiting" list. As a matter of fact, why don't you use "facts and logic" to "prove" to me that homos are going to burn in hell.
"Logic, teacher boy, logic. Try it sometime."
And still waiting. If your faith was so strong, DJ, why are you so obsessed (and have devoted at least three Tolstoy novels) to "proving me wrong."
"Be advised, I can quite easily show you how it violates the scientific method."
Climate Change-another hilarious one. You claim to want to look at all the data but....you don't. The only data that you are interested in is the data that states that climate change is not man made. Or that it isn't even happening. Start with the belief and work backward. You can't possibly be wrong, can you? It would mean the end of the world...
I, however, think that climate change is definitely happening and probably man made. Based on the IPCC's data, there is a chance that it is not man made. The theory is about 90 percent valid based on relevant data so it might not be true. I have no problem admitting this. I'm also not vain enough to think that man is so great as to be able to destroy the earth.
What's really funny, though, is you free marketers and lovers of capitalism are missing out on a chance to make money. True or not true, China is all in and close to beating us on green energy. And yet your own vanity won't allow you to reap what could shape up to be massive profits. What a glorious conundrum!
And one that makes me giggle as I drift off to sleep:)
Parts of it look an awful lot like Kabul to me. This is what a failed ideology does to a nation.
Yet you keep insisting on doing the exact. same. thing. HARDER.
I'm not suggesting that they should be told by the government how to invest their money.
Yes, you are.
Nor am I suggesting that should have their wealth taken away by the government.
Yes, you are. Repeatedly.
What I am saying is that the wealthy of this country have rigged the system
HOW? HOW have they rigged the system? You won't answer that, for some reason.
They also don't invest it in private industry.
Then what the hell do they do with it?
They give it to someone like Bernie Madoff to invest in a derivative which is essentially air.
They.. give it to a con man?
Seriously?
That's your view of economics and you're trying to lecture us?
They lose it in a Ponzi scheme, and you seriously are basing your economic plans on this "hypothesis"?
Climate Change-another hilarious one.
Not really.
You claim to want to look at all the data but....you don't. The only data that you are interested in is the data that states that climate change is not man made. Or that it isn't even happening. Start with the belief and work backward. You can't possibly be wrong, can you? It would mean the end of the world...
More projection - that's exactly what's happened with "Global Warming" - give it it's name, Ralph. "Climate change" is meaningless. Yes, the Climate changes. How much of it is driven by manmade changes, and how much of it is bad?
Global warming would be great, as I've told you before. We'd feed more people, use less energy. You, as usual, ignored it.
What was that about "all the evidence" again? China? Green? Yeah. Right. Hey, good for them if so. But for some strange reason (it might be my grasp of history and PR under Communist states gives me a lot of doubt.
But you can't understand the word "evince", or even admit that you were wrong.
I don't even want to think about trying to explain "significant digits" to you. (Which is very important in this discussion).
But back to your "failed ideology" - answer the question.
WHEN did the "middle class not have to worry about money"? When, Ralph?
WHEN? And how much government influence and spending was there?
Or run away from your own argument, because you dare not try and back it up with actual data.
"Russell, nowhere in your comments do I see the scientific method used to a) demonstrate to me that our education system is over run by socialists or b) an in depth analysis of the Citigroup document and relevant data."
A) That's because I've done something any decent research knows how to do, utilize research done by others. Kevin's done a fantastic job researching and documenting this topic. Besides, you don't understand the scientific method anyways.
B) Did you read Ken's response? Or U-J's? See my answer to A)
"You issued me a challenge. I accepted it and answered it, I suspect, more thoroughly then you thought I would."
No, actually, I figured you'd do one of two things, either ignore it or try your best to show you knew something. I had tended towards the latter simply because you hadn't had your head drubbed soundly on this thread, yet. Your need to be accepted as an equal around here also factored in.
"And more accurately."
Uh, no. Sorry. You missed the testing phase and all that entails.
"It doesn't matter to me if you don't accept the challenge."
Riiiiight. Is that why you keep bringing it up?
"The next time you chide me for not answering questions, though, I would hope that you stop and think about this little exchange."
Holy crow. You did answer my initial questions. And then you ignored everything else I have written. And please take off the teacher's hat. We already know you are a condescending jerk, no need to drive the point further.
Oops, I should have kept reading:
"Well, all I see, Ken, is commentary. That's fine. You are entitled to comment on anything you want. But to dress it up as logic and facts is complete bullshit. What is your hypothesis? What is your research method? How are you going to gather data and what method will you use to analyze it?"
Holy crow. Again.
Once more, your failure to understand what is before you isn't indicative of our skills or knowledge. Your appalling lack of understanding how to analyze information has been well documented here.
Your misunderstanding of the scientific method is quite the show, though!
"I, however, think that climate change is definitely happening and probably man made. Based on the IPCC's data, there is a chance that it is not man made. The theory is about 90 percent valid based on relevant data so it might not be true. I have no problem admitting this. I'm also not vain enough to think that man is so great as to be able to destroy the earth."
Your contradictions are showing. Please take better care in public. Also, your failure to understand theory is apparent. There are treatments for that.
"And one that makes me giggle as I drift off to sleep"
Sta-Punk, I don't know who you hired to read to you what I wrote, but you should get your money back. If you read it yourself, you should find whoever "taught" you to read and get your money back.
"From 1995 through 2004, mean income in thousands of constant 2004 dollars increased for every cohort the authors reported. The largest increase was in the top 10 percent, which saw mean income rise almost 50 percent. The next 10 percent saw an increase of about 24.27 percent...
...edging out the bottom 10 percent by about a tenth of a percentage point (24.16 percent).
If it were me, I might have used 1995 dollars, but inflation was low enough -- if perhaps not as low as claimed, due to fun with index statistics that real scientists consider impermissible -- that it probably doesn't matter too much, and the main point is that the analysis uses constant dollars. Upshot: Every cohort was measurably better off in financial terms in 2004 than in 1995.
See, that's data, Sta-Punk. You offered a hypothesis (middle class destroyed, "Third World" underclass, etc.). I tested it, using data I found in your source, the very same source upon which you based your claim...and duly refuted it, to the surprise of no one at all.
That too is science. See what being able to read for comprehension can do for you?
"And one that makes me giggle as I drift off to sleep"
The Alinsky play has a better chance if it's not obvious. In that, though, it is all of a piece with the rest of your sophistry: clumsy, obvious, and incompetent.
What I am saying is that the wealthy of this country have rigged the system so it is impossible for anyone to make it to the top.
Really? So Bill Gates and Paul Allen were/are part of the rigged system? Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison, I could go on without even getting out of the high tech field or dropping down below the billionaire level. Is it necessary?
Is your beef with Paris Hilton and the other trustifarians (great and small)? Well, they are working diligently at dissipating the wealth created by their forbears. Not sure why that puts your panties in a bunch. Blame the god you believe in for putting you in the wrong place, time and family. It sure as hell has nothing to do with me or what I earn.
You know what Mark reciting the scientific method reminds me of? All of the teachers I had growing up who attempted to teach subjects they truly knew nothing about and either failed horribly or limped along, having their understanding of subject eclipsed by their brighter students by the end of the lesson.
I don't think Mark really truly understands what the scientific method is - probably because he never had a true science class in college or high school. He thinks he knows it because he can parrot what his teaching materials say, but simply parroting something is not the same as truly understanding it.
And again, this brings us back to one of the problems of our educational systems: teachers are no longer required to actually understand the subjects they teach. All they need to know how to do is parrot the material they're given to the class.
I remember in college looking through the general education requirements needed to get a bachelor's of science and trying to decide what classes I should take. I was advised by several different people (who were mostly liberal arts majors) that if I had to take any math classes, I should take the one intended for the education majors because it was the easiest, as most of it was doing stuff that we should have all learned in fourth grade.
Of course, I didn't have that option, because my major (Computer Science) required much more rigorous courses. But if that is the standard achieved by classes in the college of education, I can see why our education system is in a near state of failure.
It should be mentioned, that of all the teachers I had in college and high school, the best were the ones who had learned the subjects they taught outside of the college of education. They had actual degrees in the subjects that they taught. The VERY best ones were the ones who had experience in the commercial world that was directly related to their field of pedagogy.
Perhaps that is the best way to reform the educational system: dump the Education Majors, and replace them with people that have actual degrees.
Markadelphia, to be quite honest, you've proven yourself to be not worth my time. I have other readers who beat you with a ClueBat™ about the head and shoulders regularly without any effect at all, thus sparing me the futile effort.
But you draw those excellent comments, so it would be counterproductive for me to chase you off. You are such a stereotypical example of the Modern Leftist I think many of my readers have accused you of being my sock-puppet, but in my wildest dreams I could not come up with some of the stuff that rolls off your keyboard. (". . . no middle class . . ." Srsly? Which am I then, the fabulously Überwealthy or the Third World poverty posterchild? And you? How's your cardboard refrigerator box under the overpass holding up so far this fall?) :lol:
"I don't think Mark really truly understands what the scientific method is ..."
What give ya th' first clue, Mr. Tracy?
Ah, my apologies, Regolith. You don't deserve that and I'm showing my age by writing it. But it fits, doesn't it?
Markaphasia doesn't yet understand that the scientific method involves the use of rigorous, logical thinking. He demonstrated this by making the two statements I quoted in my challenge to him earlier in this thread in response to his challenge.
I'll repeat my challenge here. It begins by quoting two statements of his, verbatim, exactly as he posted them, with my item labels attached for purposes of reference:
"Item #1: "Show me the scientific method for your assertion that our education system has been overrun by socialists/PC Nazis/multi culti homos. Or show me, using the scientific method, that the top one percent wealthy of our nation, are worse off than they were 20 years ago. Show me using facts, logic, and scientific method."
"Item #2: "Until that time comes, ANY claim made about me is complete fucking bull shit."
"Here is yet another challenge, teacher boy.
"Show us, using facts, logic, and the scientific method, that Item #1 is related in any way to Item #2, other than both came from your keyboard."
Of course, Item #1 and Item #2 are not related, thus the challenge cannot be met. The conclusion drawn in Item #2 does not logically follow from a refusal or failure to accept or successfully respond to the challenge issued in Item #1.
Of course, he has ignored my challenge, which is as I expected.
Isn't it hilarious that he made those two statements in the middle of challenging someone else to use the scientific method to prove something to him?
"Ed, I guess I can add you to the "still waiting" list. As a matter of fact, why don't you use "facts and logic" to "prove" to me that homos are going to burn in hell."
Still waiting for what? An explanation of the scientific method? I already gave you an outline. Did you think it was wrong? You never challenged it. Did you need me to expand on it? You never asked. Is there some error in logic or data in something I posted? I didn't see anything from you pointing to a specific logic or data error.
Also, why should I run down your little rabbit trail? What RELEVANCE does it have to anything I posted or to how the scientific method works?
Furthermore, why should I respond to an irrelevant question asked by a guy who has abandoned hundreds of threads without answering relevant questions. Heck, I'm still waiting for you to point out even one perfect human being (Jesus Christ doesn't count) we could put in charge of a government that has total control our lives. If you start answering some of our challenges, then I'll consider answering yours.
(Note: This does not mean I cannot answer the challenge. I can. I just simply refuse.)
Okay, I did. So what? Lots of people need medical care, and lots of people are willing to take something that's offered free of charge.
And lots of people let proper preventive care slide in favor of other things, too. People who should know better.
And probably a surprisingly large percentage of them have cell phones and color TVs and live in weather tight houses they didn't have to build themselves from scrap.
Should I take this as "No, I have no personal experience of either group, I'm just going by what I read?"
Been to New Orleans lately?
Yeah, I have. I was part of the cleanup crew. And I live on the Gulf Coast, 20 miles from the Louisiana state line. Have you been to New Orleans lately?
For that matter, have you been to Gilchrist, TX? Don't bother, cos ever since Hurricane Ike last summer, it's GONE. That is not an exaggeration, either. Trust me on this, I'm only 50 miles from Gilchrist. It went from a beach community of over 800 houses to one. There's a reason they call this part of the country "Hurricane Alley", ya know.
Parts of it look an awful lot like Kabul to me.
Have you been to either place?
This is what a failed ideology does to a nation.
*snort*
The indians laughed at La Salle over 300 years ago when he suggested that was a good spot for a city. The people of N.O. had been missed by hurricanes so often they apparently thought they were immune. I guess they know better now. This is what a hurricane does to a city. Trust me on this one, I've been through.... eight of em, I think.
There was a system in place to take care of hurricane relief and evacuation, and had been since long before Bush was elected. Of course, the fact that a corrupt mayor didn't bother to implement it doesn't mean anything, does it? You can blame it on Bush (with enough stretching), so you do.
If "This is what a failed ideology does to a nation", I suppose you mean an ideology that claims no one should expect to be self-reliant or actually think about consequences, as liberal ideology has claimed for decades. I've lived in the middle of hurricane alley most of my life, and if I had as much warning as they had, I sure as hell wouldn't have still been below mean river level by the time the hurricane hit. And I don't care if I had to walk to get clear. I've personally done it before. In 1979 I spent 19 hours under the top of an overpass, waiting out Hurricane Elsie.
Sorry, that dog don't hunt. If people are too fucking stupid to do anything about an approaching Cat 5 hurricane, that's not Bush's fault, nor mine, nor anyone's but their own. I have no sympathy.
You live in Minnesota? How much sympathy would you have for people who went out boating on Lake Superior during the November gales? With no GPS, no radio, and no lifejackets? That's about how much sympathy I have for the people of N.O., for much the same reasons. The rest of us on this coast get that shit every few years, and we manage.
Nor am I suggesting that should have their wealth taken away by the government.
The fuck you aren't. That's what progressive taxation is.
What I am saying is that the wealthy of this country have rigged the system so it is impossible for anyone to make it to the top.
Which explains why such a large percentage of American millionaires and billionaires are first generation, huh?
They also don't invest it in private industry.
The fuck they don't. Do you think Microsoft, Apple, Hewlett-Packard, Dell, Walmart, and I dunno how many others just magically sprang into existence?
Note that the listed companies are ones that have created some of those first generation millionaires.
The only data that you are interested in is the data that states that climate change is not man made.
I thought you claimed to understand how the scientific method works. You really don't get the idea that 1) The very existence of a large number of data points that simply cannot be reconciled with AGW theory (or any theory, for that matter) means the theory obviously has holes in it, or 2) if you refuse to submit your data and methodology to peer review, even from those who oppose you, you automatically forfeit any credibility for the theory you are supposedly trying to defend, or 3) deciding whether a theory is correct by "consensus" (basically popularity poll) and then claiming "the science is settled" is directly antithetical to the entire process?
You really, truly don't understand that?
Based on the IPCC's data, there is a chance that it is not man made. The theory is about 90 percent valid based on relevant data so it might not be true. I have no problem admitting this.
Just so you know, the Mann "Hockey stick" that 90% figure was based on has been thoroughly debunked.
What's really funny, though, is you free marketers and lovers of capitalism are missing out on a chance to make money. True or not true, China is all in and close to beating us on green energy. And yet your own vanity won't allow you to reap what could shape up to be massive profits.
Is it vanity? Or is it an honest doubt that it can truly be heaven if those touting it demand that everyone be frog-marched to the Pearly gates?
I don't have a problem with "green energy". I have a problem with being forced. I have a problem with someone deliberately planning to make energy prices skyrocket so as to make that happen.
1) Ask pretty much anyone on this coast from Corpus Christi to Tampa, anywhere outside of New Orleans itself, and they'll tell you they did it to themselves. Pretty much anyone at all. You see, the rest of us have been through that, more than once. Instead of whining, we acted and we turned out okay.
Ask Jim in Galveston for pictures from right after Ike, I'd be surprised if he doesn't have plenty. I'll guarantee you'd have to know the two towns to tell which was which, things are destroyed when a hurricane hits. But although I haven't been to check, I'd bet Galveston is almost completely rebuilt by now, slightly over a year later. Note that Galveston is one of the few places on Earth that is an even worse spot as regards hurricanes than New Orleans is.
2) I find it incredibly sad that I'm not a scientist, not a teacher, and have not one single degree... and yet so far it looks like I have a clearer understanding of the scientific method than you do.
Eh. All of you guys are too smart for me.
Well, all but one.
I'm just a knuckle-dragger so the only thing I got out of this is that if I bring Marky-Mark some trinkets and beads he will worship me as a god. Right?
That's pretty cool though, if you think about it.
I don't normally comment here, generally I just read and absorb information and look at both sides of most every argument
BUT.....
I felt compelled to say something here.
quote/
"This is one example. Been to New Orleans lately? Parts of it look an awful lot like Kabul to me. This is what a failed ideology does to a nation."
/end quote.
I couldn't agree more, however I don't think that exactly works in favor of the point that is attempted within. New Orleans is most certainly a product of a failed ideology, that of which has has led to massive numbers of people demanding and/or expecting handouts and giving little to no thought on actually attempting to lift themselves out of poverty. Which side of the political argument demands such policies these days?
And to further the argument, it is insinuated that it is the Rich Capitalists' fault that these impoverished people of New Orleans remain in squalor?
Hippie, please.
I seem to recall a few years ago, in the aftermath of Katrina, that busload upon busload of New Orleans natives were heaped upon my fair Texas. Scores of these 'victims' were given debit cards(at taxpayers' expense) to use to purchase basic needs and goods, and many used them for "needs:" ranging from strip clubs to designer clothes. I and many of my fellow Texans volunteered to assist in any way we could to aid those in need. What was given us in return? An exponential increase in crime. Countless complaints. Not a finger lifted by an overwhelming mass to aid in the cleanup effort or to do anything about the issue at hand.
(This was not, mind you, how everyone affected responded or acted. It was, however, the overwhelming majority.)
I have seen firsthand what mindset is pervasive amongst these people, and I can say for sure right here, right now, it was not placed there by those among us who promote individual freedom, individual responsibility, and individual liberty.
Somehow, someway, I am supposed to infer that this behavior is somehow the fault of a conservative/republican/libertarian
/capitalist/fill-in-the-blank-as-long-as they are not associated with the left?
The people who gave the most to charity, who donated the most time, money, and thought to the needy, and the people who are overall paying the majority of the taxes collected in this country are somehow evil and responsible for the fall of a nation, yet somehow the people pushing the failed policies of failed nations are our new saviors, and are free to dictate "logic" and "facts" calculated only by their "feelings"?
There is a point (likely reached by the recent Nobel Peace Prize award) wherein even the Onion is rivaled in trying to emulate life. It just gets that surreal.
This beats that in spades. The National Enquirer couldn't be counted on to blow this much smoke.
On a separate note....
I've lived in every class available. I grew up rich, graduated high school and wound up in a job that put me in middle class. Upon losing that job, I was penniless and had to start from ground zero poverty and work my way back to lower middle class wherein I now reside. I do not recall, even when things were there worst and I made 10k a year (less, actually), being without basic needs like food, clothes, shelter, power, etc.
At no point did my life reflect ANYTHING remotely close to a third world country lifestyle. I had access to healthcare, even if it was just the emergency room or public clinic and the bills had to sit and wait eons until I had the funds to pay them. Never was I in danger of famine, disease, or in fear for my life.
To suggest that somehow there is some existence in the middle class wherein money is no concern is abject lunacy. Money is always a concern, you're either concerned with making it, spending it, or saving it. It never simply ceases to exist.
Apologies for the rant, but sometimes I feel compelled to add something, even if that something adds up to nothing.
Been to New Orleans lately? Parts of it look an awful lot like Kabul to me.
Speaking as someone who survived Katrina first-hand, and who has returned to the disaster area (namely, the Mississippi coast - an area that was harder-hit by the storm and has, in total, received significantly less money-per-person for recovery efforts) in order to recover his belongings and help fellow crewmates, and who has also happened to drop anchor and dock in such places as Kuwait, Djibouti, Bahrain, and the Maldives, I find the above comment to be offensively ignorant.
To be certain, I have never stepped foot in Afghanistan, and I am thankful for that every day. But what I saw in those few countries I did visit showed just how much better we have it, even immediately after one of the world's worst recorded natural disters.
And I really have nothing else to say about anything else Markadelphia wrote - it is all equally based on blind faith, insistence that his reality is the only "real" reality, an outright denial of basic logic and evidence, and so forth... He is, in short, yet another "woman with the earrings", and I have to tolerate too many of those already.
If memory serves, the flooding in the midwest this year did more damage and cost more lives than Katrina. Is that the result of a "failed ideology", too? Should people shriek about racism because the victims were nearly all white people? Or since they were nearly all middle class, did none of them actually exist?
Please explain, if you can, how either event has any connection whatever to ideology, or who is in the White House. Keep in mind that both relief efforts were put in place at the federal level decades ago, and both are administered on the ground at the state and local levels.
How is one the result of a "failed ideology" and the other is not?
I find the above comment to be offensively ignorant.
Yeah, starting to notice a pattern with Mark's analogies?
That's the thing about analogy, too; when you build one you're revealing some critical stuff about your thought process. It's similar to word association in that it reveals your biases, shows the gut reaction you have to certain ideas (conservatism/Al Qaeda, work/slavery). The difference is, someone in analogy has time enough to, in theory, think about what he's saying and put it aside on grounds of intellectual honesty.
"The difference is, someone in analogy has time enough to, in theory, think about what he's saying and put it aside on grounds of intellectual honesty."
"The people who gave the most to charity, who donated the most time, money, and thought to the needy, and the people who are overall paying the majority of the taxes collected in this country are somehow evil and responsible for the fall of a nation, yet somehow the people pushing the failed policies of failed nations are our new saviors, and are free to dictate "logic" and "facts" calculated only by their "feelings"?"
This is a complete and utter lie. As demonstrated quite clearly in the citigroup document, a document, Kevin, that was prepared by a PRIVATE organization, the wealthy of this nation have more money and power than ever before. These are facts and they are shown in the data in this document.
While I am certain that there is charity by the wealthy of this nation, you are failing to look at how much the system has changed over the years. In essence, you are no longer defending capitalism but corporate welfare or perhaps even corporate communism.
This new ideology which you defend is born out of fervent and borderline psychotic belief that the government is an all encompassing evil entity and that ONLY private industry can save the day. Even though we have all seen how poorly this ideology works, it doesn't matter. Don't believe what your eyes are telling you...gubmint evil. Ugh!
What you describe regarding feelings dictated by "logic" and "facts" is actually YOUR ideology and belief system. I offer as proof of this your assertion that the wealthy pay more in taxes than anyone else so poor them for being abused. Of course they "pay more" but that misses the point entirely and this is due to your feelings and not logic and facts....feelings which leave you COMPLETELY incapable of admitting any sort of fault with your psychotic belief system.
"This new ideology which you defend is born out of fervent and borderline psychotic belief that the government is an all encompassing evil entity and that ONLY private industry can save the day."
This old ideology which you defend is born out of a fervent and borderline psychotic belief that private industry is an all encompassing evil entity and that ONLY government can save the day.
Damn, teacher boy, but you practice projection as if you had no other skill. For example:
"... and this is due to your feelings and not logic and facts....feelings which leave you COMPLETELY incapable of admitting any sort of fault with your psychotic belief system."
As demonstrated quite clearly in the citigroup document,
No, it's not.
You don't know what that document is. All you can see is something that you think proves your point. It doesn't. (And Ken has addressed that, no wonder you're not talking to him.)
a document, Kevin, that was prepared by a PRIVATE organization, the wealthy of this nation have more money and power than ever before. These are facts and they are shown in the data in this document.
That's the take of those analysis, yes. Who the hell are they? I've never heard of them before or since.
I've prepared such documents for companies and even a couple for the EPA. They're analysis documents, and are worth reading, but they are not, by themselves, proof of anything. You have to still understand 1) what they're doing with the document and 2) the data they're presenting (and not).
As a matter of fact, I've edited and RE-WRITTEN a couple for the EPA where a prior writer had a bone to pick/axe to grind had had put his bias into the analysis in a glaring way - and it had passed until it came to me and I raised some flags about it.
They're writing a sales pitch. I've explained this to you above.
In essence, you are no longer defending capitalism but corporate welfare or perhaps even corporate communism.
No, just as in your New Orleans example, that's actually what you're doing.
This new ideology which you defend is born out of fervent and borderline psychotic belief that the government is an all encompassing evil entity and that ONLY private industry can save the day.
How many carbon credits do you have to buy to make up for your strawmen you burn?
That's you take on Kevin and other's belief - not theirs. It's been demonstrated to be wrong repeatedly, yet you're unwilling to change that strawman to the reality.
I offer as proof of this your assertion that the wealthy pay more in taxes than anyone else so poor them for being abused.
You offer what in proof? You haven't proven anything.
Except in your fevered mind.
Of course they "pay more" but that misses the point entirely and this is due to your feelings and not logic and facts.
Wait, what, you concede that you're wrong, but nevermind that, it's no the point? Then what is the point?
...feelings which leave you COMPLETELY incapable of admitting any sort of fault with your psychotic belief system.
Let's see, Mark.
Who here has defined the failure to rebuilt areas of New Orleans in 5 years as a "failed [Republican/Conservative] ideology"? (Notice that no other place devastated by Katrina has received a tenth of the funds poured into NO, and yet has rebuilt now.)
Who here claimed there is no middle class?
Who here claimed that there was a time when the middle class didn't worry about money?
Who here insists on giving the government power, power that's easily purchased by those with money?
Who here claims that the educational system is unfairly attacked and described, yet cannot even articulate a single point, nor define, much less defend a hypothesis?
Who here has claimed that the mortgage and financial markets are unregulated?
Who here has claimed that the rich don't invest their money, but give it to con men to steal, and thus the system isn't as we (according to you) describe it?
Who is citing a report by 3 (overseas) people with no idea of the backing, substance, or viability of their report, but that it's on CitiGroup letterhead, thus it's unarguable FACT? (Care to provide the other few tens of thousands of those reports, say, that are discussing the mortgage market and how there's no downside or how the CRA affects investments?)
Russell, I disagree. And, as I predicted in my original response to your challenge, the Nixonian approach would be taken with me and it has. Rather than give me props for generally laying out what you asked, hyper rage was heaped on the small mistakes I did make in the vain hope of making everyone here feel better about themselves and their insanely flawed ideology (see: faith is weak).
In regards to Kevin's use of the scientific method and his analysis of our education system, which post are you talking about? Thus far, all I have seen is commentary. Again, nothing wrong with commentary but it's not science rooted in facts and logic. I have yet to see an analysis of the aggregate data that NLCB has provided over the years regarding the students that aren't performing well in school. Of course, it's possible that I missed this and could be wrong.
And I'm not saying you are wrong. I'd like to see where Kevin used the scientific method to support his hypothesis that are schools are being run by socialists/fascists. Was he a participant in observation? Was it a controlled experiment? Did he do field work? Was it a survey? How did he gather the data and what sort of analysis did he do? Again, it's possible that I missed this but all I have seen is his wife's testimonial, a few ex teachers' tirades, some cutting and pasting from biased sources, and Besmenov quotes.
I know it's your job and all, but surely you can do it better than that.
Rather than give me props for generally laying out what you asked, hyper rage was heaped on the small mistakes I did make in the vain hope of making everyone here feel better about themselves and their insanely flawed ideology (see: faith is weak).
But you didn't "generally lay out what was asked".
small mistakes
Like lecturing on "evidence" because you didn't know "evince"?
That was blown up over you being an asshat about it. And then refusing to admit that it deals a serious blow to your ability to follow a discussion, much less participate.
It wasn't that MINOR, and particularly your attempts to gloss it over as we laughed weren't.
But "No Middle Class?" that's a "small error"? A time when the middle class "didn't have to worry about money"? New Orleans as "Proof of a failed ideology" (When it's a Liberal Ideology you're speaking of?)
Those aren't "small mistakes, nor are they the only three you made.
Mark: you don't understand how to analyze information. You're totally unwilling to learn, and you, rather than learning from your mistakes, insist on multiplying them.
And then tell us we're living in psychotic reality....
Even you know the truth you're denying, don't you?
"And, as I predicted in my original response to your challenge, the Nixonian approach would be taken with me and it has."
You keep using Nixonian like you know what it means.
"Rather than give me props for generally laying out what you asked,"
You don't get an attaboy you don't earn.
You gave a starting sketch of the scientific method, but with just a bit more probing, it became apparent that's all you have, a sketch. See the parts from Ed about testing, experimentation and feedback.
"hyper rage"
Sweet! Hyper rage! Of course of miss the point that we are all laughing at you. No rage, just chortling.
"was heaped on the small mistakes I did make in the vain hope of making everyone here feel better about themselves and their insanely flawed ideology (see: faith is weak)."
WTF? Man, you are dense. By the way, how does an ideology go from flawed to insanely flawed? Is there some sort of ritual or does it require a certification process?
Also, can you explain if there are no middle class then how can many be members of a null set? See, that isn't a small mistake, you keep doing that over and over, the whole thing with 'evince' was just an indicator of your constant systemic failure. So rant and rave all you want, that doesn't change the fact you have no idea what you talking about.
"In regards to Kevin's use of the scientific method and his analysis of our education system, which post are you talking about?"
You really do need your information predigested, don't you?
If you can't understand what Ken did in his take down of your CitiGroup link, you'll never understand what Kevin's posts provide. I linked one for you already, I won't do it again since any actions are redundant.
In fact, if I recall correctly, I've done this exact dance with you in the past some two years ago. You simply couldn't understand the most basic chains of logic, or even the concept of a premise. And, even after repeated attempts on my part to explain in detail what you needed to do, you still couldn't understand the directions I provided. Nice to see not much has changed!
Maybe if Muskadroolia went to church once in a while, even a very gay-happy Left-Liberal church like Presbyterians or Lutherans or American Baptists he'd realize how much small donations by the middle-class add-up to big quantities of actual charity. He's probably unaware of the ongoign tradition of tithing. But he's blind, deaf, and dumb as a post.
While Commenters correctly point out that Marky has repeatedly demonstrated himself to have an insufficient grasp of the scientific method (iirc, he once described it as "considering the opposite" or some such nonsense, though he's getting better at cutting and pasting) to be able to evaluate any argument so constructed, I'm surprised that no one has caught onto the fact that his repeated, bizarre demand that we somehow "use the scientific method" to prove what is really a matter of historical fact one way or the other is nothing more than an Alinsky Rule 4 maneuver.
The scientific method is not the tool of choice (and possibly not a valid tool at all) for establishing matters of historical fact. How does one scientifically test the hypothesis that George Washington did or did not cut down the cherry tree?
This is ultimately what he asks us to do , and in so doing, it illuminates much.
*sigh*
Okay, I'll bite. I shouldn't, and I know I shouldn't, but this is just too tempting.
/quote
This is a complete and utter lie. As demonstrated quite clearly in the citigroup document, a document, Kevin, that was prepared by a PRIVATE organization, the wealthy of this nation have more money and power than ever before. These are facts and they are shown in the data in this document.
/end quote
Really? I'm lying? When I say that I firsthand witnessed the unbridled generosity and charity of hundreds (perhaps thousands) of my fellow "bitter clingers" as we worked our fingers to the bone, raised the plate on Sunday morning towards the relief effort, cooked meals for the refugees, and volunteered to do everything we could to help, etc., that's all a fat lie?
Huh. I didn't know that. Thanks for clearing that up.
And just how in the hell can you compare anything in Katrina with the nations top earners having more power? That's comparing apples and minivans.
/quote
While I am certain that there is charity by the wealthy of this nation, you are failing to look at how much the system has changed over the years. In essence, you are no longer defending capitalism but corporate welfare or perhaps even corporate communism.
/end quote
Riiight. And charity has exactly WHAT to do with the system changing as you outlined here?
/quote
This new ideology which you defend is born out of fervent and borderline psychotic belief that the government is an all encompassing evil entity and that ONLY private industry can save the day. Even though we have all seen how poorly this ideology works, it doesn't matter. Don't believe what your eyes are telling you...gubmint evil. Ugh!
/end quote
Uhhh, yeah. This is reminding me more and more of the Underpants Gnomes scheme. Throw a beginning and an end that do not line up in the slightest, and put some question marks in the middle.
/quote
What you describe regarding feelings dictated by "logic" and "facts" is actually YOUR ideology and belief system. I offer as proof of this your assertion that the wealthy pay more in taxes than anyone else so poor them for being abused. Of course they "pay more" but that misses the point entirely and this is due to your feelings and not logic and facts....feelings which leave you COMPLETELY incapable of admitting any sort of fault with your psychotic belief system
/end quote
Soooo, we pay more in forced charity (taxes) and in good hearted charity (donations, tithing, actual volunteer work, etc.) but somehow this blinds me to seeing things any other way?
My ideology is only dictated by "feelings"?
No, my ideology is dictated by HISTORY.
Your claim that my proposed system is/was a failure is dishonest and self serving at best. You call it a failure only because it did not work the way you think it should.
My system has no faults?
Okay, I won't resort to insults here, but do you honestly think that anyone here believes that?
The system that I and many others here promote(without trying to speak for anyone else) is a system comprised of individual liberty and responsibility. There are indeed many negative aspects to it but it is likely the least evil of the alternatives.
Collectivists will, after all, be brought down by their own mistakes and flaws in this system.
It is not government that is inherently evil, it's the men who control it. You will never change that, no matter how many good meaning individuals you assign within.
With that, I'm done. I've said my piece, feel free to come back and revel in the fact that I refuse to go any further with this.
Also, Kevin's uber posts are more along the lines of a research paper than an op-ed. Not knowing the difference is just par of the course with Marky.
And, the scientific method is a process that takes different forms. Failure to identify the process in a different form, well, smacks of cargo culting.
I still am amused he whines about us not doing what he wants, when his questions have been answered in a form he doesn't understand.
I'm just a knuckle-dragger so the only thing I got out of this is that if I bring Marky-Mark some trinkets and beads he will worship me as a god. Right?
That's pretty cool though, if you think about it.
/end quote
Larry wins the internets. I can't stop laughing about that.
"This is a complete and utter lie. As demonstrated quite clearly in the citigroup document, a document, Kevin, that was prepared by a PRIVATE organization, the wealthy of this nation have more money and power than ever before. These are facts and they are shown in the data in this document."
And so, as demonstrated quite clearly in figures 1 and 2 of Part 2 of the Citigroup document, does everyone else.
As to charitable contributions, the point Kevin was making, there is not a syllable. Once again, you made it up.
Okay, then.
Kevin's hypothesis (paraphrased): The wealthy provide most of the private charity in this country.
Markadelphia's hypothesis: This is a complete and utter lie.
So, we have a null hypothesis and an alternative hypothesis. Now we need some data to test our competing hypotheses.
I used 2004 data because that's the most recent year the Citigroup analysts used.
Haloscan isn't the best format for this, sorry. The formatting may suck. Errors in cutting and pasting are mine, not the IRS's.
Adjusted Gross Income returns Amount (USD 1,000)
Under $5,000 198,717 158,358
$5,000 under $10,000 428,605 583,699
$10,000 under $15,000 782,103 1,246,110
$15,000 under $20,000 1,065,731 1,886,719
$20,000 under $25,000 1,269,685 2,501,976
$25,000 under $30,000 1,494,582 3,145,498
$30,000 under $35,000 1,778,517 3,501,913
$35,000 under $40,000 1,943,178 4,191,960
$40,000 under $45,000 1,959,406 4,328,132
$45,000 under $50,000 1,963,145 4,416,445
$50,000 under $55,000 1,931,690 4,404,211
$55,000 under $60,000 1,965,866 4,992,085
$60,000 under $75,000 5,520,688 14,568,080
$75,000 under $100,000 7,319,212 20,623,462
$100,000 under $200,000 8,279,167 34,301,007
$200,000 under $500,000 2,123,896 18,440,774
$500,000 under $1,000,000 385,211 8,150,747
$1,000,000 under $1,500,000 91,105 3,702,417
$1,500,000 under $2,000,000 39,647 2,543,783
$2,000,000 under $5,000,000 59,285 6,549,751
$5,000,000 under $10,000,000 14,749 4,428,598
$10,000,000 or more 9,241 16,898,662
The top 1.5 percent of AGI (based on samples of filed returns with itemized deductions as reported by IRS), those with AGI north of $200,000, made 25.53% of the total itemized cash and non-cash contributions in 2004. If you include those making at least $100,000 you get about 6.7% of filers making 36.67% of contributions.
I know which hypothesis I think has been rejected. How about you?
See, this is the scientific method. Watching Bill Maher, seagull-crapping a quote, and then flying away is not.
Anticipating a counterargument: "That's not enough, based on the wealth they control!"
The only rational and moral reply to that is: "What makes it your business?"
President Barack Obama’s economic recovery program saved 935 jobs at the Southwest Georgia Community Action Council, an impressive success story for the stimulus plan. Trouble is, only 508 people work there.
It's Mark-math!
(Remember, Mark, who accuses of of insane-world views, insisted that 22 million viewers (who watch the broadcast nightly news on average) was more than the 15 million all-time-peak listeners of Rush Limbaugh. But how dare we evince distrust of the educational system?)
"but somehow this blinds me to seeing things any other way?"
Yes. During the Eisenhower administration, the top one percent paid over 90 percent in income tax. You say you deal in historical facts. This is one. Under President Reagan, they paid around 50 percent. During these two time periods, did our country descend into socialism? Were the elite of our country "punished" for being rich? Or were they still able to enjoy their lifestyle? How did the infrastructure of our country look then as opposed to how it does now? I think better then and shit now.
Now that tax rate is just under 40 percent. They have a lower tax rate and make more money than ever before. And that's "being punished?" And if President Obama changes that rate from 38 to 39 percent, he's a socialist? And I lead with my feelings? Not fucking close, dude.
I don't think the government is the answer to everything. But I also don't think they are not the answer to anything. There was a time when it was more balanced. Now, it is not. And that's what I want, in the end, is more balance. I don't want the government running everything but I do want them to not shrink at the sight of the formula for a stock derivative and say, "Ah, whatever...you guys know what you are doing."
I'm certain that many of you are just dandy with the government providing for the common defense, right? Does that include Homeland Security? And don't some issues of public health fall under HS? If Al Qaeda attacked us with a biological weapon, it's within the government's obligations to protect us, right? So what if no one is attacking us and it's just a virus? How about then? Or what if it is cancer?
It seems terribly hypocritical to me to agree that the government should provide for our defense on the one hand and then turn around and say but ONLY like THIS. If you are the student of history that you say you are, at what times...what decades...was our country the most prosperous? For simplicity, let's say the 1930s to the present.
Ken, if Marky is going to claim it, he has to prove it. That's the scientific method in action. He has to provide his data to outside sources for independent verification.
During the Eisenhower administration, the top one percent paid over 90 percent in income tax. You say you deal in historical facts. This is one.
90%, you say? What does that mean?
Before I deal with it, I'll ask you (hah! has if you won't run away from that - much as you've run away from your own assertions, but I'm required to ask.)
90% of what? Define (hah!) that.
Then tell me what % of the income tax was paid by what % of the population.
You know, historical fact, right? Surely you can quickly answer that, right?
I think better then and shit now.
Says the man typing on the personal computer connecting to the rest of us via fiber optics/lasers and bouncing signals off of satellites.
Yeah, the infrastructure was much better then.. You're a couple of years older than me, Mark. So tell me. Remember the show "Emergency!"? Remember what the Ambulance looked like? and the guys in coats who merely drove you to the hospital?
(That show drove the demand for paramedic and what turned into EMTs everywhere.) But prior to 1980, a ambulance ride was merely a quick trip to a hospital - only the few places with paramedics actually *did* anything.
Yeah, it's so much worse now.
I don't think the government is the answer to everything.
We have yet to get an honest answer from you where you do Not demand more government power even if you're decrying the results of government power.
There was a time when it was more balanced. Now, it is not. And that's what I want, in the end, is more balance.
More nonsense from you. Not that I disagree (Like the stopped clock, this is your being right - by chance) - just your lack of ability to think has totally made you unable to understand WHAT you just said.
Yes, there's massive imbalance. Which also has followed an exponential growth in the government and in regulation. Which you're mostly oblivious, ignorant, or insultingly obtuse to.
You claim to want "more balance" by tilting the scale more.
Just as I've pointed out above, your comments are utterly at odds with your claimed policy statements.
When did the middle class "not have to worry about money"? When? I want specific dates - dates you won't give me because even you realize that it's a stupid thing to have said.
1920s? 30s? 40s? 50s? 60s? Define it Mark, go ahead. But when we dissolve in laughter, don't get mad at us for "hyper rage".
Any time in the past, even under Reagan, there were orders of MAGNITUDE less government. Wait. Sorry. I'll need to explain that to you. Just think of it as the zeros as you go up by 10s to 100s, for example. That'll work.
Balance. We've got more government than ever before and you demand more for "balance". That can't make sense, even for you.
Then call us psychotic. (And run away from your own arguments.)
C'mon, Ralph, if you're going to do your job, do it well.
"And that's what I want, in the end, is more balance."
Beginning, of course, with gubmint controlling health care, which is one sixth of the economy. That would be more balanced, now wouldn't it? Then throw in mortgage lending, banking, investing, automobile manufacturing, ...
"Ken, if Marky is going to claim it, he has to prove it. That's the scientific method in action. He has to provide his data to outside sources for independent verification."
As usual, he'd better first learn the definitions of the terms he uses. I suggest beginning with the definitions of "net tax rate", "marginal tax rate", "inclusive tax rate", and "exclusive tax rate".
Aw, c'mon, James! You're just getting warmed up! Don't you like playing Whack-a-Mark?
Actually, yes. I find it addicting enough that I am afraid if the state of California finds out about it, they will either outlaw it or tax the living crap out of those that partake.
However,
Done is done. Coming up on someone who continually beats themselves in the head with a hammer is pretty funny at first, but becomes excruciatingly painful (to the outside party) after a while. All you can do is ask said handyman to stop. If he doesn't, you move on. He will eventually get to the core of the problem.
Besides, I don't have to say or do anything. So far everything he has said or done has proven him either flat wrong or painfully ignorant.
Also, Re: Eisenhower. Korean war was just ending, the higher tax rates were due to the war. Eisenhower chose to keep the tax rates the way they were in attempt to balance the budget.
Ha!
More info : http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-192.html
I'm with James at this point. When I think of Tinkerballs, this video is the closest I can come to what it's like to "argue" with him. (He's the ghoul with the spoon, obviously.)
"Now, obviously what Obama is talking about is what we have had for a long time, progressive taxation. Now, he wants to raise the marginal income tax rate from about 36 percent today to about 39.5. It is a little higher because he wants to eliminate a lot of deductions that the other income people have, so perhaps it's in the 40's.
But let's remember, under Eisenhower, the marginal income tax rate was 91 percent." -Charles Krauthammer
And let's add in the the preceding paragraphs as well...
"Since the word "socialism" has reared its ugly head, let's dispose of it.
Joe the plumber is a great guy, but I will take my political philosophy from Fred Barnes rather than Joe the plumber. Socialism actually is when the government takes over means of production, or Lenin called the commanding heights of the economy.
And we saw it action not Soviet Union but in Britain after the Second World War where labor took over the mines, the railroads, and other of the sinews of the economy. It proved a disaster. Thatcher had to undo it. It is being undone around the world, and redone now on a temporary basis because of the financial crisis.
But as Fred indicated, that is all temporary. It's not intended to retake commanding heights. That's socialism."
I suppose that Krauthammer isn't a "real" conservative.
Where did he get the number? A talking head on TV (no matter which network) is not a verifiable source.
The best kind of source for this kind of number is one which lists the number in context, such as when it was passed, when it was ended, related numbers (such as what income level had to pay this rate, what the other rates were, what percentage of people had to pay that rate, etc.), what other taxes were taken at the time, and so forth. It should also have footnotes on where those numbers came from. (For example: "Source: Congressional Budget Office, Document Title, mmm, dd, 19xx, p. xx")
"An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists."
But don't note that the government took over two of the largest car companies (and two of the largest companies in the world), is specifying what you can pay employees, (and specifically firing some of them)...
And is talking about "competing" with the insurance companies in health insurance, while writing the rules and regulations, while requiring care and mandating reimbursements....
Geek with a .45 makes a fair point with his comments at 9:41 and 10:17 am Nov. 4, but I think (and no, I'm not claiming I thought of this a priori) there's a certain value for the bystanders in demonstrating that an Alinskyite's rigged game can be kicked up between his shoulder blades nearly as easily as a straight game.
Regarding that 90% figure that gets whipped out, I suggest that the following question be asked of the person quoting it:
What was the effective tax rate during paid by those who fell under that 90% tax bracket during that time period?
As any retired CPA that worked then can tell you, during that era there were quite a few loopholes (since closed) one could use to hide their income from the Tax Man, making that on-paper 90% figure irrelevant.
Thus, I ask of Marxedelphia: Can you provide proof that anyone that figure applied to actually paid taxes at those rates?
Shhhh! See, you gave it away, now he can try and google and wiki it and act like he knew it all along! ... Well, if he was able to synthesis information and actually deal with the weakness of a prior position of his. Considering he's yet to walk back on the "unregulated mortgage market" and this thread's gem "no middle class"....
"Where did he get the number? A talking head on TV (no matter which network) is not a verifiable source."
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=19
There are plenty of other sources.
"Can you provide proof that anyone that figure applied to actually paid taxes at those rates?"
You are correct, Mark, that they may not have paid that rate. I can do a little digging and see what I can find. As you know, private citizens are not obligated to release their tax records. Your point is interesting, though, in that it echoes what many CPAs say regarding people who bitch about taxes.."You must have a lousy accountant if you are paying that much!"
Essentially, my point regarding the 90 percent rate is that much of that money was used for infrastructure in this country. Our national highway system was built with some of that money. This system was integral to the economic growth of this country. One could argue that our interstate commerce is the backbone of capitalism in this country. Yet, according to many of you, it was built by "punishing the rich" and is socialism, right?
So what was the average tax rate paid during those years?
What was the total government budget?
How many people, and what % of the population worked for the government in any capacity?
Essentially, my point regarding the 90 percent rate is that much of that money was used for infrastructure in this country.
If that was your point, you failed massively to make it. You said nothing of infrastructure, but only of "top tax rates". Leaving aside why Kennedy slashed them so seriously - and how tax revenues increased when the tax rates were cut.
Our national highway system was built with some of that money.
Our interstate system was started under Eisenhower, that's true, but the national highway system predates Eisenhower by a good long while.
Yet, according to many of you, it was built by "punishing the rich" and is socialism, right?
Nope. You've missed the point as many times as it's been spelled out.
Now, when did the middle class "not have to worry about money"? And how much government was there at the time?
"You are correct, Mark, that they may not have paid that rate."
You still haven't done your homework, teacher boy.
Try this for starters:
Google "marginal tax rates Eisenhower". Select the third item (as of 11/05/09) which is this. You'll find a list showing the top marginal tax rate (%) for the years 1913 to 2003. Note that during the years 1951 through 1963, the top marginal rate was 91 or 92% on "taxable income over" $400,000.
Note that $400,000 in 1953 dollars (the year I was born) is equivalent to $3,235,490.64 in 2009 dollars. Inflation is a bitch.
Now, why do I keep on showing the word marginal in bold? To draw your attention to it. It is a term that you need to learn the definition of as it is used in the context of income tax rates.
Here is how it works:
Compute taxable income. That is total income, less adjustments to arrive at adjusted gross income, less deductions to arrive at taxable income. Thus, not every dollar earned is taxed. The tax rates are applied to taxable income, not total income.
Now, apply the marginal tax rates to compute the tax. For 2008 returns (i.e. last year), these rates were, for a filing status of "married filing jointly" (as shown on page 92 of Federal Form i1040gi.pdf, the instructions for last year's Federal Form 1040):
10% of the amount between 0 and 16,050
15% of the amount between 16,050 and 65,100
25% of the amount between 65,100 and 131,450
28% of the amount between 131,450 and 200,300
33% of the amount between 200,300 and 357,700
35% of the amount over 357,700
The key to understanding this is that as you earn more and more taxable dollars, they get taxed at a higher and higher rate. The term highest marginal tax rate is the rate applied at the margin, i.e. on the last taxable dollar earned.
For example, if you earned 357,701 in taxable income last year, the marginal tax rate applied to that last dollar was 35%, meaning the gubmint took 35 cents of it. But it took (see page 92, as cited) 96,770 of the first 357,700, giving a net total tax rate of 96,770.35 / 357,701 = 27.05%. This illustrates why the net tax rate is always less than the top marginal tax rate.
So, what was the net tax rate in 1953, when the top marginal tax rate was 92%? It depends on the total taxable income, thus it is not a fixed number, and it isn't 92%.
Now, I suggest two exercises for the teacher boy: 1) look up the tax rate schedule for 1953 and compute an example of the net total tax rate; and, 2) find the changes in tax rates (hint: begin with the first link I showed above) from 1963 to 1964, noting particularly the drop in the top marginal rate, said changes being insisted upon by President Kennedy, and look up the net increase in federal tax revenues that accrued as a result.
Now, a lesson in logic is in order.
Tax rates were once much higher than they are now. It does not logically follow from that observation alone that they are now either good or just. It takes much more investigation to make such an analysis, and you haven't yet done said analysis.
For example, in 1964, the last year of the Kennedy Administration, the marginal tax rates were reduced (with the top marginal rate dropping from 91% to 77%), resulting in both greater revenue to the gubmint and a lesser burden on the individual taxpayer. In 1988, the last year of the Reagan Administration, the marginal tax rates were reduced (with the top marginal rate dropping from 38.5% to 28%), again resulting in both greater revenue to the gubmint and a lesser burden on the individual taxpayer. In 2003, during the Bush Administration, the marginal tax rates were reduced (with the top marginal tax rate dropping from 38.6% to 35%), yet again resulting in both greater revenue to the gubmint and a lesser burden on the individual taxpayer.
This gives rise to a serious question: What would be the result if the marginal tax rates were dropped yet again? The only way to answer that question is to try it and see, because the result depends on the reactions of people who make economic decisions, and that is not predictable with specificity.
But look at the trend these three examples show, teacher boy. That's history.
Finally, why do we hear so much noise from Obamateur and Congress about raising marginal tax rates, particularly the top marginal rate, given the history I've hinted at above?
I also noticed that the link Marky provided also has a footnote next to the top marginal rate. During those periods, the total tax taken could not exceed a percentage which was lower than the taxable rate. For example, in 1953, the total amount of the tax could not exceed 88% of taxable income. And that was the highest maximum ever and only lasted for 2 years. So no one was ever taxed at %90 of their total income. And somehow I doubt that anyone ever actually paid a tax anywhere near that high.
It would be really interesting if we could find a chart listing percentages of actual taxes paid compared to total income.
I'll grant you, you have me on this one. However, you go immediately far astray from that basic premise. My belief that "government is evil" is not just some insane belief, it is a conclusion reached by examination of factual data.
Feel free to contest any point with which you disagree, and please follow up with an attempt to similarly define the whys and wherefores of your own position.
Government only has a limited number of tools at its disposal to achieve its ends. They are:
Confiscation of property (taxes, eminent domain, etc.)
Imprisonment (in other words, confiscation of liberty).
Violence (the deliberate injury or death of its opponents).
Those are the only tools any government has at its disposal. You can claim regulations and laws as tools they have, but that begs the question of why those subject to said regulations and laws conform to their dictates. See the 3 tools above, those are the reasons why. They are the only reasons why.
Note the common denominator of those 3 tools. They are all based in force.
Now, let's look at the private sector. The private sector is forbidden to use force on its customers. They can persuade, they can use economic and other forms of pressure to their own advantage, but they cannot, in and of themselves, force you to do anything.
This applies even to such essentials as food and housing. Even if there is only one grocery store and one construction company within any reasonable distance from me, they cannot forbid me doing my own construction or growing my own food.
The only way a private company can force me to patronize them is by enlisting the help of government, as insurance companies have done.
So yes, I believe government is, by definition, evil. It exists for one purpose and one purpose only, to exercise force against people, the majority of whom are its own citizens. This is demonstrated by the inherent limitations in its available tools.
Yes, I support taxation for military defense. For that matter, I support taxation for Mississippi River flood control. Yes, this means that members of Code Pink are being forced to spend money on something they don't believe they should have to. There is no contradiction. The reason I support such things is because a) they are not limited to a single area, and b) they are not subjects where individual choices will produce a less-than-lethal result. Mississippi River flood control is a problem that has to be addressed uniformly from Minnesota to Louisiana. If Minnesota politicians get it wrong, everyone from there to the Gulf pays the price. In the same way, I cannot agree to let the Code Pinkos refuse to pay taxes to support military defense. If they can get California to cede them part of the state that gets no government services, has no government-funded infrastructure and will not be protected by the military or the Coast Guard or whoever, then I'm okay with them not paying for military defense, or anything else they don't feel like paying for. In or out, don't swing on the door.
In short, they are areas where leaving the issue to individual choice, or even the choice of an individual state, not only produces disastrous results but goes directly against the concept of equality under the law. You see, if the Code Pinkos quit paying taxes to support the military, they get "free" military protection at my expense. Equality under the law ends up becoming "everyone gets the benefit, but those who don't wish to pay for it don't have to".
So... yes, government is evil. It is tolerated because in those areas it is applied, it is a necessary evil. As a result of this, I agree to government "fixing a problem" only after a) solutions have been tried in the private sector and have abjectly failed, and b) simply tolerating the problem just isn't one of our options.
Now, lets' apply those principles to some specifics, shall we?
Education: So far it appears that home-schooling and private schools produce consistently better results than schools funded by taxation. So yes, I am against force and the threat of force as a tool to provide the product of education. Not only can the private sector do the same job without forcing anyone, they are apparently making a better job of it.
Health care: Much of the screaming done by the party currently in power (including you as one of its members, Mark) is about "lowering costs/prices" and "increasing choice". The reason I am against government healthcare "reform" is because government is far more part of the problem than part of the solution. A good 10% of current costs is the direct result of politicians coddling trial lawyers and lawsuit fanatics. A majority of the current lack of choices is a direct result of government forbidding insurers from competing against one another in all 50 states.
In other words, the private sector has been forbidden by government to attempt to solve its own problems. And even with the problems imposed directly by government, healthcare insurance enjoys an 87% satisfaction rate, which I suspect is far higher than the satisfaction rate of nearly any government program you care to name. Therefore I feel that the "problem" would be easier to tolerate than any "solution" government imposed upon us.
Climate Change: I have shown, and will show you again if you need it, how the "fear-shit your pants-we're all gonna DIE!!!" alleged 'science' of the global warming alarmists is, at best, suspect. I'm not willing to go digging for links without a specific request for them, but I think a very cursory reading will show that almost any private industry you can name has been consistently trying to find ways to innovate and use less petroleum, less coal, less plastic, produce less pollution, etc. They haven't needed a campaign of alarmism to do this because they were motivated by the desire to a) reduce their own costs, thereby increasing net profits, and b) draw in more customers, thus increasing net profits.
Using the principles outlined in the above post, I fail to see why everything in the industry should be overhauled, since 1) the innovations you claim to want are happening anyway without government intervention, and 2) they are doing it in a way which benefits people in both the short and long terms, rather than punishing everyone in the short term for a long term benefit that government cannot provide without the assistance of the very same private sector they are punishing to get it. And besides, 3) I strongly suspect that, like healthcare, government's "solutions" will be much less satisfactory to the public at large than the "problems" they replaced.
I suspect that what has most people here blown away by your attitude is that you seem to think government intervention, in other words force or the threat of force, is a good first place to look for solutions, rather than where you look only after all other attempts to find a solution have failed.
Grumpy, Fox News has an interesting story about the health care bill that Polosi is about to put before the House.
I'll just quote the first few paragraphs:
"The health care reform bill awaiting debate in the House assumes millions of workers and employers would rather pay $167 billion in fines than purchase or provide adequate coverage, according to a recent analysis, raising questions about whether the plan does enough to make insurance affordable.
"Though the bill is estimated to expand coverage from the current 83 percent to 96 percent of legal U.S. residents, the windfall of projected penalty payments also exposes a potential contradiction in reform. A significant part of the plan to expand coverage relies financially on fines from the uninsured.
"The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated in its study last week that the House bill would bring in $167 billion over 10 years -- $33 billion from fines paid by individuals who decline to buy insurance, and the rest from employers who don't offer insurance to workers or contribute enough toward premiums.
"Ernest Istook, a former Republican congressman from Oklahoma who is now a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, calculated that anywhere between 8 million and 14 million people would end up paying the fines.
"This raises a few problems, he said. First, if those millions somehow get covered and don't pay the fine, then the health program is faced with a budget hole.
"Second, he said, it speaks to a flaw with the insurance packages that are being offered. "If you say people would rather pay $167 billion in penalties rather than buy insurance under your new plan, what's wrong with your new plan?" he asked.
Both sides in this cannibal-pot extravaganza better hope that those 8 to 14 million just roll over and pay the fines. That's an awfully big number -- it's not just a Carl Drega here, a Wayne Fincher there, and a Cory Mayes out thataway.
It amazes me that people can do the math, and still not be able to do the math.
It amazes me that a few (ahem) leaders in Congress can propose a law that depends on people disobeying it to be, by their reckoning, financially sound. Isn't this an implicit admission that they know people don't want it and the don't expect people to obey it? Isn't it a further admission that their stated goal, viz. financially sound, gubmint backed health care for everyone is not attainable by them?
"Tax rates were once much higher than they are now. It does not logically follow from that observation alone that they are now either good or just. It takes much more investigation to make such an analysis, and you haven't yet done said analysis."
That's true, I haven't. But this guy has. He also speaks to some of your other points. For purposes of discussion, I will cut and paste what he wrote.
"The year I was born-1968-the lowest income quintile ended at $3,323, and they were taxed (assuming all income was taxed) at 18.275%. In 2005, that lowest income quintile ended at $19,178, and they were taxed 15% - and overall tax reduction for the poorest Americans of 3.275%.
Compare this to the experience at the high end of the income scale. In 1968, earning $19,850 put a person in the top 5% of income earners, where they paid 30.1% taxes on additional earnings. In 2005, you had to earn $166,000 to break into the top 5% - and you paid 33% tax on additional earnings. Doesn't this mean that taxes went down on the poor and up on the rich? For some, yes. But that is still a skewed view of American wealth.
If adjusted for inflation, that $19,850 would be $111,988 in 2005 - and would be taxed at only 28%. That means the same income level has actually had their income tax drop 2%. That is pretty close to the same level of reduction felt by the lowest income earners. The majority of taxpayers, then, have seen their taxes fall by all of 2-3%. The full view, however, is only seen from the top.
The marginal tax rate - the highest tax bracket - in 1968 was 75.25% for incomes over $200,000. Adjusted for inflation, that would be a $1,128,351 - and they would pay 35% taxes on income over $326,450. For someone making over a million dollars a year currently, that's a 40% tax savings! According to the IRS Statistics of Income, that means about 270,000 people benefited from this tax break in 2004 (2005 and later statistics not currently available). So how much money is that? If the whole sum were subjected to only a 20% tax, the United States government would have brought in an additional $98 BILLION. By way of comparison, this is $17 billion more than was spent in Iraq in 2005.
This is a natural function of the multiplier effect of wealth. Less than one percent of Americans earn more than a million dollars, but they account for 11.2% of all income. This doesn't mean we should "soak the rich", but it does mean that over my lifetime the extremely wealthy have benefited from massive tax cuts."
This was from Thurman Hart of NJ.com
Like Mr Hart, I am not advocating seizing large quantities of cash from the most wealthy of this country. I am saying that it is quite clear that they have benefited massively over the years from tax breaks. This was done in order to encourage them to invest in our economy. They didn't do that. They pissed it away and gave it to people like Bernie Madoff and Tom Petters (local boy gone bad). They used to to pay their CEOs insane sums of money for failing and invested it in unicorn farts. I think we have seen what they do with breaks and I think they should have less of them. That does NOT mean that the government should control their money. It does mean that perhaps the government should not perform felatio on them.
Take Hart's analysis and compare it with the Citigroup document above. Throw in Krugman's work as well.
What do you see? If it is a communist plot to take over our country, then we should probably just end the discussion now and stop wasting each other's time.
I love this dream Leftists have that capital will just stand still for them to a-tax it. If you have wealth, that gives you mobility.
Money can be moved to other places.
Maryland learned that with its recent millionaire’s tax. They decided to tax millionaires at a higher rate and guess what: Fewer millionaires. So for those millionaires that left, instead of getting some of their income in taxes, the Maryland government now gets nothing. No wonder they are broke.
"Less than one percent of Americans earn more than a million dollars, but they account for 11.2% of all income. This doesn't mean we should "soak the rich", but it does mean that over my lifetime the extremely wealthy have benefited from massive tax cuts."
So what?
"I am saying that it is quite clear that they have benefited massively over the years from tax breaks."
So what?
"This was done in order to encourage them to invest in our economy. They didn't do that."
So what? Their money, innit? By what right -- by what authority -- do you or anyone claim to judge what anyone does with what is his?
Anyway, why does the U.S. government need any more money anyway? They piss through trillions and have little to show for the extra spending. What makes you think any new taxes will be spent wisely or in a way that you would agree with?
Do you think your guys will always be in charge?
They pissed it away and gave it to people like Bernie Madoff
So your economic theory - this is the 2nd time you've proposed it, and the 3rd time I've asked you about it - is that if the rich have money, they'll be conned out of it, so we should tax it so they have less to be conned out of?
OK, I can't let it go. (I tried, guys, I really tried.)
Mark, again, you've contradicted yourself.
Compare:
Markadelphia: I am not advocating seizing large quantities of cash from the most wealthy of this country.
Markadelphia: They pissed it away ... They used to to pay their CEOs insane sums of money for failing and invested it in unicorn farts. I think we have seen what they do with breaks and I think they should have less of them.
Only one of those can be true.
This was done in order to encourage them to invest in our economy.
No, it wasn't. That's not what "tax breaks" do. Again, you're betraying your socialist tendencies. Stop arguing about it. You just declared that the money is not theirs, it's the government's, and it should be allocated and divided by the government.
Yep. Again. You said it. You did, I didn't put it in your mouth. Let's requote:
. I am saying that it is quite clear that they have benefited massively over the years from tax breaks. This was done in order to encourage them to invest in our economy.
It was their money. Taxes took it away from them. Took their money and their property away from them.
Yes, you're a socialist through and through, and you need to stop denying it.
That does NOT mean that the government should control their money.
Nice disclaimer, but you just contradicted it. If it's their money they're entitled to it, and you need to justify taxing it, not not taxing it.
Furthermore, you say such things, but then you don't admit or agree to anything that would not lead to more government control.
You just said that "the rich" (which I guess are all of us, since there's "no middle class anymore", according to you) don't deserve tax breaks. Because we'll "misuse" them and give the money to conmen. (But Social Security, that's a good investment!
You know, of all the things you've said stupidly in this thread, that just might be the saddest. (But I'm sure you'll surprise me with another superlative.)
You still don't understand taxes, teacher boy. Now pay attention.
Item 1:
The income a person earns belongs to that person, not to the gubmint.
Thus, taxing said income amounts to the gubmint taking a portion of said income from that person. The portion of said income which the gubmint does not take is not a gift to that person from the gubmint. The portion of said income which the gubmint does take is a parasitic burden on that person which is levied by the gubmint.
Item 2:
Reducing the size of the bite the gubmint takes out of a person's income is not a gift from the gubmint to that person.
Want an analogy for illustration? Suppose you are accosted on the street by a person who points a gun at your gonads and says, "Give my a hunnerd bucks or I'm gonna blow your nuts off. No, on second thought, give me only eighty bucks." Said accoster has not made you a gift of twenty bucks, rather he has simply taken less from you than he might have. It's your money that he takes, and you're out eighty bucks.
Item 3:
The purpose of levying an income tax by the feddle gubmint is to raise revenue to pay for necessary functions thereof; the purpose is not to effect social engineering thereby.
I noted earlier the statement by President Reagan: "... Government should do only those things the people cannot do for themselves." The purpose of levying an income tax, and establishing the rates thereof, is not to adjust the incomes of various classes of people in the name of "fairness", and if you think the Constitution authorizes otherwise, I invite you to cite the Article, Section, and statement by which it does.
Item 4:
You cannot give income tax relief, i.e. you cannot reduce the taxes of, someone who does not pay income taxes.
"The Bush tax cuts removed six million people from the bottom end of the federal income tax rolls. Those six million people used to pay taxes, but now they don't, and the reason is that the Bush tax cuts reduced the rates and such that apply to their incomes. You cannot give greater income tax relief to any person than to eliminate their income tax obligations altogether, and the Bush tax cuts did that to six million taxpayers at the low end of the scale."
Now what was the net effect of who pays what in taxes as a result of the Bush tax cuts? The effects were: 1) six million taxpayers at the bottom end of the income scale no longer pay feddle income taxes; 2) taxpayers of every level of income pay income taxes at lower rates; 3) taxpayers at the high end of the income scale pay a larger fraction of the income taxes paid, i.e. they support a larger portion of the feddle gubmint than before; and, 4) economic activity increased such that feddle income tax revenues increased overall, despite the lower tax rates.
Do you get it yet? I'll state it again: As a result of the Bush tax cuts, those taxpayers with the highest income now pay a greater fraction of all the income taxes the feddle gubmint collects, which means they shoulder a bigger burden of gubmint than they did before, six million taxpayers at the lower end who used to pay feddle income taxes now pay no feddle income taxes at all, and economic activity increased such that feddle income tax revenues increased overall.
Why do you find anything to complain about with this? All you can see is that, if a person with a high income makes another dollar, he keeps a larger fraction of it. You utterly ignore that six million low income people now keep all the dollars they earn whereas they didn't before, and the economy and employment during the Bush administration grew by leaps and bounds. Your focus is unvarying, and it zeroes in on people with wealth and with high incomes. You simply have no tolerance for such.
Item 4:
"Like Mr Hart, I am not advocating seizing large quantities of cash from the most wealthy of this country."
vs.
"I think we have seen what they do with breaks and I think they should have less of them."
Thus you contradict yourself, liar boy. More to the point, you labeled "taxation in the name of fairness" as "good capitalism" and you have staunchly defended it as being a Really Good Idea. It is nothing more than taking income from those who have it and giving it to those who don't. Credibility, liar boy, credibility. You have none.
Item 5:
"I am saying that it is quite clear that they have benefited massively over the years from tax breaks."
See items 1 through 4 above.
"This was done in order to encourage them to invest in our economy."
No, it was done to increase tax revenues to the feddle gubmint, which it did. How and why this works has been explained to you many, many times.
"They didn't do that. They pissed it away and gave it to people like Bernie Madoff and Tom Petters (local boy gone bad). They used to to pay their CEOs insane sums of money for failing and invested it in unicorn farts."
Ah, the sheer depth of jumping to conclusions and making shit up this reveals. Is this really what you think wealthy people did as a result of paying taxes at lower rates? You pathetic shit-for-brains moron, feddle income tax revenues increased as a result of these tax cuts. Why? Because taxable economic activity increased as a result of these tax cuts. The result was increased investment that resulted in increased economic activity and employment, thus increased income taxes totals despite reduced income tax rates. And you just make shit up to the effect that it was all wasted on unicorn farts ...
The depth of your ignorance and your dishonesty defies imagination.
DJ and Ken, I don't see the point in continuing this line of debate. You don't get it. You never will. You are trapped in an ideology from which you will never break. Your head is firmly buried deep in the sand and you can't see what is going on around you.
When you are ready to understand what our country has become, I'll be more than willing to talk. Until that time, I'll be plotting my Marxist take over of the United States along with the rest of my revolutionary brothers and sisters who are...well...everyone else in this country. (see: people that don't belong to the cult).
Essentially, my point regarding the 90 percent rate is that much of that money was used for infrastructure in this country. Our national highway system was built with some of that money.
Mark, have you ever gotten lost? Compasses don't point true around you?
You've just been schooled. Repeatedly. With your own contradictions.
Yet you claim that we don't get it and
You are trapped in an ideology from which you will never break.
... Yet you won't back up your own statements. WHEN did the middle class "not have to worry about money?" And how much Government was there at this anointed time?
You say you don't want to control people's money - other than the money you want to control!
and you can't see what is going on around you.
You can't even agree with yourself inside the same comment on a thread.
"DJ and Ken, I don't see the point in continuing this line of debate. ...
When you are ready to understand what our country has become, I'll be more than willing to talk."
You don't fool anyone, little boy. You do such a good job for our side.
Markadelphia, I don't see the point in continuing this line of debate. You don't get it. You never will. You are trapped in an ideology from which you will never break. Your head is firmly buried deep in your ass and you can't see what is going on around you.
When you are ready to understand what our country is becoming, I'll be more than willing to talk. Until that time, I'll be plotting my Conservative armed revolt to take back the United States along with the rest of my Conservative brothers and sisters who are...well...everyone else in this country. (See: the vast majority of us who you complain are center-right.)
And you know, it actually took me longer to format that IRS 2004 tax info so that a reader could make heads or tails of it in Haloscan than it did to find, download, and confirm that it was the data I wanted (that was about, oh, five minutes' work).
Home now, and ready to smack the shit out of Markadaffya's conceit about taxes.
From the CBO data on taxes from 1979-2004, the top income earner quintile paid 64.9% of the total income taxes collected (in 79, pre Reagan tax cut). By 1989, the end of Reagan's admin that share had climbed to 71.4%, and as of 2004 was 85.3% (even with the Bush tax cuts). So contrary to Mark's assertion, the richest actually pay a larger share today then they did before Reagan, even though the nominal rate is lower. I don't see how you can whine that the income tax isn't progressive enough.
The problem of course has nothing to do with actual data. Those of Mark's ilk are jealous of others' success, and wish to see a leveling. Since it's all but impossible to level up, you've got to level down. I'll never be the athlete that Michael Jordan is, but if you cut off at least one of his legs we are closer to even. Never mind that I haven't actually gotten better - I've just made sure that he can't dunk on me with only one leg (or less).
I guess I don't get it either, and I'd really like to have you explain it in a form I can understand.
As I have pointed out, the only tools any government ever has at its disposal are the tools of force. Confiscation of property, confiscation of liberty, and physical violence. There are no other options, there never have been, and there are unlikely to be any new ones in the foreseeable future.
Now for the core questions: What possible functions of government, in your own words, justify the use of one or more of those tools, the only three they have, against the government's own citizens? Why do you consider it justified? Under what conditions should the use of the above tools against the citizenry be your first choice, rather than the choice of last resort?
"DJ and Ken, I don't see the point in continuing this line of debate. You don't get it. You never will. You are trapped in an ideology from which you will never break. Your head is firmly buried deep in the sand and you can't see what is going on around you."
Uh, Marxy? That's a mirror. DJ and Ken are over here.
"When you are ready to understand what our country has become, I'll be more than willing to talk."
Oh, and one other point on the marginal tax rates of the Eisenhower era. Who cut them 16 years before Reagan proposed his cut? C'mon M, surely you know.
In 1960, only 3% of tax filers paid a 30% or higher marginal tax rate. By 1980, after the inflation of the 1970s, the share was closer to 33%
... And in 1981 as part of the Reagan tax cuts, a bipartisan coalition voted to index the tax brackets for inflation.
... We also know what has happened with the Alternative Minimum Tax. Passed to hit only 1% of all Americans in 1969
Let me comment for Mark, speaking of "No middle class" - the AMT was targetted at 155 people.
Let me quote from wikipedia on the AMT: It was intended to target 155 high-income households that had been eligible for so many tax benefits that they owed little or no income tax under the tax code of the time.
Remember your 90% claim? Now, look at the facts around it. Only 3% even paid more than 30%, and there were entire groups of the "rich" that were able to use "shelters" and not pay any taxes at all.
Back to the WSJ: the AMT wasn't indexed for inflation at the time and neither was Bill Clinton's AMT rate increase in 1993. The number of families hit by this shadow tax more than tripled over the next decade. Today, families with incomes as low as $75,000 a year can be hit by the AMT unless Congress passes an annual "patch."
Back to Wiki, quoting the CBO: In 2010, if nothing is changed, one in five taxpayers will have AMT liability and nearly every married taxpayer with income between $100,000 and $500,000 will owe the alternative tax. Rather than affecting only high-income taxpayers who would otherwise pay no tax, the AMT has extended its reach to many upper-middle-income households.
Aside from that you claim there is no middle class anymore, this is also demonstrative of what you can't grasp about government programs.
155 tax filers in 1969 - in your lifetime! to 20% of all filers. - not 20% of the country, but filers. (Considering you're pushing to totally gut the health care and health insurance system for less than 5%, isn't it awfully hypocritical to be so blase about 20% of taxpayers?)
"Anyway, why does the U.S. government need any more money anyway? They piss through trillions and have little to show for the extra spending. What makes you think any new taxes will be spent wisely or in a way that you would agree with?"
Yosemite Sam
As a follow to this, I modify a statement from Mark earlier in this post: "The government of this nation has more money and power than ever before." I agree the wealthy have power, but when it's used against the people, they do it through government. Yet he wants more of it.
And as a follow to that, I really feel like I should repost my earlier question:
Government, any government at any time in the history of the world, has only three tools at its disposal to enforce its policies: 1. Confiscation of property, as in taxes or seizures. 2. Confiscation of liberty, as in prison sentences. 3. Physical violence.
What possible functions of government justify the use of one or more of those tools against the government's own citizens?
Why do you consider it justified?
Under what conditions should the use of the above tools against the citizenry be your first choice, rather than the choice of last resort?
By the answers to those 3 questions you can actually quite closely define your political philosophy.
"Buried in Nancy Pelosi's health-care bill is a provision that will partially repeal tax indexing for inflation, meaning that as their earnings rise over a lifetime these youngsters can look forward to paying higher rates even if their income gains aren't real.
"In order to raise enough money to make their plan look like it won't add to the deficit, House Democrats have deliberately not indexed two main tax features of their plan: the $500,000 threshold for the 5.4-percentage-point income tax surcharge; and the payroll level at which small businesses must pay a new 8% tax penalty for not offering health insurance.
"This is a sneaky way for politicians to pry more money out of workers every year without having to legislate tax increases. The negative effects of failing to index compound over time, yielding a revenue windfall for government as the years go on."
Now, where has this happened before? Can anyone say Alternative Minimum Tax?
Despite Marxy taking his ball and going home, I do have to say something else.
The scientific method requires repeated experimentation by oneself and, hopefully, others. Since Marxy evinced no understanding about the concept of experimentation, it isn't surprising he demands the scientific method to be misapplied to historical data.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2009/10/i-want-to-debate-but-they-keep-running.html (204 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
I wonder why that is?
They don't want to catch your fiercely nationalistic, emotionally overwrought, non-critical-thinking, raaaaacist!!!! cooties. ;)
Oh. You mean I might change their minds.
I see. ;)
The science on debate is settled. Those who engage in debate are deniers. The UN has issued a report that debate is ...
Oh hell. Eff 'em.
Congratulations on keeping up the debate. Me, I'm going to vote for the republican slate in the Old Dominion nest week.
Me too BlogDog. Not a huge Bolling fan, but I love me some Bobby Mac, and I'm very impressed with Cuccinelli. He gets it, he really does.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjZhOTQ2Njk4YjdkZWFmYWViMGI4NWU3ZTg1ZjM4ZjY%3D
In spite of what he says, I worry about some of Cooch's* past moralist tendencies. I also lose a little trust with someone when they make a blanket "they would approve/disapprove" statement about the founders like that; as if those ornery bastards could agree on what to have for lunch!
*(Yes, I will call him that all the time if he get elected)
I barely know a thing about Shannon, though. I get a general sense of "TOUGH ON CRIME" from him and I worry that he prefers the grand gestures that make good headlines and not so effective policy; he helped co-found Amber Alert, for instance.
I voted for Creigh Deeds back in the AG race, but that Deeds isn't running this year. McDonnell, on the other hand, has consistently exceeded my expectations as AG... his handling of the Yankee Interlopers being my favorite example :)
I keep telling you, you use unfair tactics like logic, facts and sticking to the point.
You can't expect people to FEEL that you are right unless you appeal to their sentiments. Sheesh!!! Get a grip >};o)
Try inviting them to emote with you.
Eh, when it comes to "Who would the Founders vote for?" I think every one you could name would vote for one of the right wing parties. Henry and Jefferson would be staunch Ron Paul fans, most of the rest would probably be libertarian/fiscal cons in the Republican Party. Although honestly, if you brought them back from the dead and gave them copies of the respective platforms, the Libertarian Party would probably get most of them.
Hamilton would be a Democrat for sure. I think Franklin too maybe, although I don't really have any evidence for that other then his general temperament/lifestyle.
Us small gummint types love to quote Jefferson, but he had some socialist tendencies here and there, probably influenced by all the time he spent in france. There's a reason he wrote "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" into the Declaration rather than "life, liberty, and property," which had been the battle-cry of the American patriots for years prior.
Speaking of, read Paine's "Agrarian Justice" sometime, in which the old boy swings in the direction of Chomsky. He suggests that property holders should "pay" for the privilege through taxation (he figured that in a state of nature "common property" of all mankind). These taxes would then be used to fund pensions for the elderly, poor people (i.e. those without property) over the age of 21, and a small remainder for the "lame and blind".
A section of my post got up and walked away. That first parenthetical statement should be "he figured that in a state of nature the Earth is the 'common property'" etc.
Could it be that the reason why people don't often debate you, Kevin, is that they see there is no point?
It's obvious to me that your mind is set on several concepts and simply won't let go. You have created a comfortable, pocket culture here in which this...
"Oh. You mean I might change their minds."
is eternally supported. People see this and realize that there is pretty much no point in debating you on most topics. In other words, you are simply not a very reasonable person when it comes to an issue like health care, for example. ANY government run system is bad. ANY information you put on this blog will be in support of this opinion. NO positive information regarding government run health care is allowed. You pretend it doesn't exist. If ANYONE disagrees with this they are a moron, fool, useful idiot blah blah blah and (hilariously) not grounded in the scientific methods and facts.
Yet you ignore this method and these facts in areas like health care, climate change, education, and fundamental international diplomacy. The people you invite to debate see this and realize it is a futile endeavor.
"The people you invite to debate see this and realize it is a futile endeavor."
You've done such good work for our side. Could be they see your comments and decide not to be associated with you.
That begs a certain question, Mark.
If Kevin and his commenters are such ideologues, so dead-set in their ways that even engaging them is a "futile endeavor"...
Then why do you keep coming back?
Ever heard the proverbial definition of insanity?
"If ANYONE disagrees with this they are a moron, fool, useful idiot blah blah blah and (hilariously) not grounded in the scientific methods and facts. "
Mark, you're the only person I know of who comments here that outright denies evidence.
But, but! You can actually BACK YOUR STATEMENT UP! I know, it's a new concept for you, but...
All you have to do is provide cases where Kevin has done that here.
Oh, wait. You can't.
Wait wait!
Mark, are you claiming that Kevin is immune to logic and reasoning and has created a comfortable little bubble where he can truly Believe?
I find this really hard to accept coming from a man who truly and steadfastly believes that any policy which has failed everywhere it's been implemented can be made to work, only if we believe in it enough and finally, hopefully, find the RIGHT people to take us there.
Ralph, Ralph, Ralph.
Ah. What's that, meatloaf for lunch?
you are simply not a very reasonable person when it comes to an issue like health care, for example
What evidence have you presented to change our minds? Remember, when the Frosts were presented as your poster case for how "unfeeling" Bush was for not expanding S-CHIP, you refused to even discuss the ludicrousness of a family, with 2 able-bodied parents who didn't want to have to work at a W-2 job, living in a much nicer house than the rest of us, with 3 new vehicles, and with commercial investment property (and a net worth considerably above me, at least), yet You and I are paying their medical bills. Now. Under the un-expanded S-CHIP. Meaning that when Obama expanded it, even more prosperous people are now covered with me paying the bills.
That sort of "reasonable?"
No, Ralph, that's not how debate works. You don't understand this (despite your claims), you want to get credit for your tone, for your credulity, for you wonder, but without presenting facts.
In your early days here, Kevin was kind enough to explain why he's so against government programs to you, and you challenged him when he said that no government program has gotten smaller - you cited the FCC, and have never accepted the fact that since 1980 (Since you said Reagan "chopped" the FCC) - their budget has gone up over 50x.
It's not that we're reflexively against government programs for illogical reasons, it's that every example you can point to follows an identical path. Just like the police and the park situation in the UK. That is the normal path of bureaucratic thinking. It's about control, more and more of it, and denying the easy things. The Low-Hanging-Fruit. Going after real criminals is dangerous.
And so it is with most of your examples - your stance is either just cause, or without scientific basis, and rather than either 1) prove your scientific basis or 2) admit the weaknesses and argue another point, you demand acceptance and credit for showing up and your tone.
And then, with no hint of irony, you then castigate us for talking smack about the current public education system.
for example. ANY government run system is bad. ANY information you put on this blog will be in support of this opinion. NO positive information regarding government run health care is allowed. You pretend it doesn't exist. If ANYONE disagrees with this they are a moron, fool, useful idiot blah blah blah and (hilariously) not grounded in the scientific methods and facts.
Yet you ignore this method
Mark, you don't know what the scientific method is. You're cargo culting when you try.
You keep misusing the words "theory" and "hypothesis". That's merely the first clue.
and these facts in areas like health care
Health Care? That's a wholly different matter than "Insurance", or who's going to pay for the health care and how.
climate change
Last week you said "Global Warming", what, some fell this week? Earliest ever? Whoops. Yeah, "Climate Change!" Yes, I sneer at it, because you don't know what you're talking about (remember: shitty educational system boosting self-esteem rather than knowledge?) and most of the people you cite have been proven to be either ideologues or outright frauds.
education
The best thing you can do for the education argument is stop reminding us of it. I note you're staying out of the couple of recent threads, you know, with "primary sources".
and fundamental international diplomacy.
You mean, like our current expert, who's backstabbed every ally we've got?
Gee, I can't imagine why we're "unable to use the scientific method there".
It can be stated more simply.
"Could it be that the reason why people don't often debate you, Kevin, is that they see there is no point?"
Kevin presents facts such that they can be verified and then he argues logically and rationally from facts to conclusions. He does so because he knows, as most of us here know, that conclusions contrary to observed facts cannot be correct. To beat that, i.e. "to win" against him, one must show that: 1) his facts are wrong; 2) his logic is wrong; or, 3) his conclusions are wrong.
Anyone can challenge him and attempt this. Some do, and via this method, he hands them their heads. It could be that others read this and decline because they know they cannot successfully challenge the facts he presents or his reasoning depending therefrom.
You challenge him almost continuously, but you neither accept facts that are contrary to your preconceived conclusions, nor do you reason logically and rationally from facts to conclusions. You appear to lack the ability and you quite demonstrably lack the will. You cannot admit his success and/or your failure and your fragile ego will not let you disengage. You are a textbook example of the principle of "escalation of failure", and in a case of pure projection, you expound on your failures and shortcomings as being Kevin's instead of yours.
I've been telling you for a long time, liar boy, that you're not fooling anyone. You get precisely the level of respect you have earned here, no more and no less.
I think Marky gets a bulk discount on strawmen.
"...(hilariously) not grounded in the scientific methods and facts. "
Just to add to the fun here:
1. Define the scientific method. No need to start at the ancient Greeks, just an understanding of Francis Bacon's work will do. And not the Irish surrealist painter, just in case you get confused.
2. Evince understanding of the method. (In other words, no cargo culting)
3. Show where Kevin or one of the regular commentators have failed to use the scientific method. You've endarkened Kevin's parlor for over 2 years, surely you have an example or two of our abject perfidy to the scientific method.
Based on past performance, I truly expect nothing of value from you. This is just for my amusement to see your reaction.
1. Repeated Observation, careful description, the formulation of theories based on possible explanations, and the gathering of additional data about the questions that followed from those theories.
2. I assume you mean "evidence?" Since I am not a complete asshat like DJ, I won't give you rectal about a typo. Other than what I have listed above, here are some more ideas. One could start off with a simple idea or theory. Or perhaps some research questions. From there, reviewing all literature or past research is always helpful. Out of this, a hypothesis arrives. If you are comparing two or more phenomena, one must examine the variables perhaps choosing an independent and dependent variable.
Next up is the selection of the method. Participant Observation? One could say that is what I am doing here. Unobtrusive measures? Controlled Experiment? Field Experiment? Or a survey?
Data analysis is also important throughout whatever method is selected as well as the conclusion of the study. If, for example, you have chosen a survey as your research method, frequency distributions can help you understand the data more effectively. To look at correlations between different time periods, a percent analysis might be used. Of course, one must remember that correlation does not mean causation.
3. How about the idea that our schools aren't educating our children because the system has been taken over by socialists, PC Nazis and "multi culti" bullshit? Please illuminate me as to the use of the scientific method here. What method did Kevin use and what sort of data analysis did he employ? In fact, where is his data? Thus far, I have only heard Kevin use his wife and a few other "experts" as examples of proof of his theory. His information comes only from sources with whom he agrees and, upon my challenge to him to get more involved and really study this problem, he refuses.
Oh, and Russell, my "past performance" is just fine, b to the w. I've listed link after link, fact after fact, and much support for my arguments. All are summarily dismissed as being "liars" or "morons" who are "wrong." Or it is completely ignored. Example: the Citigroup document I listed here a while back which PROVES UNEQUIVOCALLY that the wealthy in this country are more powerful than ever before as opposed to the "poor oppressed and overtaxed" people who are just being picked on by the envious rest of the population.
These documents are rife with data, analysis of said data, and conclusions based on the scientific method.
Here they are AGAIN in case you are interested.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6674234/Citigroup-Oct-16-2005-Plutonomy-Report-Part-1
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6674229/Citigroup-Mar-5-2006-Plutonomy-Report-Part-2
Take a look Figure 3, from part 1, which is titled The Metamorphosis of the Highest 1% of Income Earners in the US: from Rentier Rich to a Managerial Technocratic Aristocracy. This data, along with the rest in the document, proves Krugman's wealth transfer theory as well...recall Krugman is a "liar" "moron" "useful idiot" according to the "logicians" and scientific reasoners here...
I hope this answers your question, Russell, but I suspect it won't. I'm certain everyone will find some sound and well reasoned "facts" to use in their latest deluge of overly emotional comments masquerading as a counter argument.But, hey, I had a lot of fun writing this so I guess it was worth something:)
"2. I assume you mean "evidence?" Since I am not a complete asshat like DJ, I won't give you rectal about a typo."
evince [ɪˈvɪns]
vb
(tr) to make evident; show (something, such as an emotion) clearly
[from Latin ēvincere to overcome; see evict]
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evince
He said evince, and he meant evince.
"Example: the Citigroup document I listed here a while back which PROVES UNEQUIVOCALLY that the wealthy in this country are more powerful than ever before as opposed to the "poor oppressed and overtaxed" people who are just being picked on by the envious rest of the population."
OK, the following example made me scratch my head, as it's hard to believe, but there it is in black and white (one could say, there's the evidence).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/suggestions-wanted-for-ca_b_335779.html
Arianna Huffington, she of the Huffington Post, is debating that what we have today is not actually Capitalism, but is Corporatism.
Maybe I'm wrong, but she has always struck me as a Leftist. In fact, one of THE Leftists.
Even the Left is beginning to come to terms with the fact that we are not living in a Free Market society dominated by Capitalism.
Which, correct me if I'm wrong, is the same argument that a number of people on this forum have been making (those people Markadelphia refers to as the "Radical Right").
But Markadelphia isn't a Leftist. He's an authoritarian stooge.
DJ,
Once again I feel compelled to somewhat disagree with you:
"1) his facts are wrong; 2) his logic is wrong; or, 3) his conclusions are wrong."
I would say that this isn't quite accurate. It should be "1) his facts are wrong, or 2) his logic is wrong, and therefore his conclusion is wrong." Yeah, I know, it's kind of pedantic, but a valid conclusion flows directly from the evidence and the logic, and it can only be wrong if premises and/or the logic is wrong. In other words, you can't gainsay a conclusion as if it was independent of its underlying argument.
and…
"You get precisely the level of respect you have earned here, no more and no less."
That may be true for you, but I give him more respect here than I think he actually deserves. Maybe I'm alone in that.
Russell,
"no cargo culting"
It's been a while since I've seen this term defined, so it's gotten kind of fuzzy in my mind. Can you refresh my memory? Not to mention, explaining it to a certain commenter who probably has no idea what it means in the first place.
Thanks.
"It should be "1) his facts are wrong, or 2) his logic is wrong, and therefore his conclusion is wrong.""
Let's get really pedantic, Ed.
His conclusion could be wrong: 1) if the facts from which he reasoned are wrong; 2) if the logic by which he reasoned is wrong; 3) if he drew the wrong conclusions from that reasoning; or, 4) any combination of the three. But you are correct; if either 1) or 2) is wrong, then 3) should be wrong. He could make an independent error with any of the three, and so I just treated them as independent errors.
Such is beyond troll boy, though. I saw no reason to be more elaborate at the time.
"Can you refresh my memory?"
Not to steal Russell's thunder, but go see cargo cult. It's fascinating.
"I assume you mean "evidence?" Since I am not a complete asshat like DJ, I won't give you rectal about a typo."
Hah. Didn't even try to look the word "evince" up, did you, teacher boy?
Now, how many times have I complained about you jumping to conclusions, and you still keep doing it?
DJ beat me too it :)
"1. Repeated Observation, careful description, the formulation of theories based on possible explanations, and the gathering of additional data about the questions that followed from those theories. "
You missed the part on experimentation.
"2. I assume you mean "evidence?" Since I am not a complete asshat like DJ, I won't give you rectal about a typo."
Nope, as Greg pointed out, I said 'evince' and I meant 'evince'. And, yes, you are a complete asshat.
"Other than what I have listed above, here are some more ideas."
Yay! Marky pulls out his teacher hat!
"One could start off with a simple idea or theory. Or perhaps some research questions. From there, reviewing all literature or past research is always helpful. Out of this, a hypothesis arrives. If you are comparing two or more phenomena, one must examine the variables perhaps choosing an independent and dependent variable.
Next up is the selection of the method. Participant Observation? One could say that is what I am doing here."
Ah, so that's what drives your insistence of being here no matter how wrong. We're part of your theory you are playing out. Right wing guinea pigs.
"Unobtrusive measures? Controlled Experiment? Field Experiment? Or a survey?
Data analysis is also important throughout whatever method is selected as well as the conclusion of the study. If, for example, you have chosen a survey as your research method, frequency distributions can help you understand the data more effectively. To look at correlations between different time periods, a percent analysis might be used. Of course, one must remember that correlation does not mean causation. "
What I find endlessly amusing is that though you espouse a basic understanding of the concepts here, none of your past performance would indicate passing familiarity of these concepts. Countless times has many implored you to take these basic steps in defending your muddled comments, but always we are met with a veritable litany of responses.It's almost like you just cribbed this from somewhere else.
"3. How about the idea that our schools aren't educating our children because the system has been taken over by socialists, PC Nazis and "multi culti" bullshit? Please illuminate me as to the use of the scientific method here. What method did Kevin use and what sort of data analysis did he employ? In fact, where is his data? Thus far, I have only heard Kevin use his wife and a few other "experts" as examples of proof of his theory. His information comes only from sources with whom he agrees and, upon my challenge to him to get more involved and really study this problem, he refuses. "
Being gob smacking obtuse isn't evidence. Failure to understand Kevin and other's evidence isn't a counter argument. But do continue! It's great laughs for the audience.
"Oh, and Russell, my 'past performance' is just fine, b to the w."
Do you really talk like that? I mean, I'm whiter than sour cream, so I avoid the pseudo street talk like the plague it is. And no, you've had your head handed back so often and run away from so many threads it's a joke around here. See: litany of responses.
(continued)
"I've listed link after link,"
Yes, and most of them are mere opinion pieces.
"fact after fact, and much support for my arguments."
Sorry, almost got drink on my keyboard. See the sentence above.
"All are summarily dismissed as being 'liars' or 'morons' who are 'wrong.' "
Let's take a fan favorite: Michael Moore. Proven liar. And there were many threads explaining why he was a liar. Which you ignored and you still try to use him as an exemplar of truth. So, no, all aren't summarily dismissed, just ones like Moore because of past events.
"Or it is completely ignored."
I... words fail me. But I am giggling!
" Example: the Citigroup document I listed here a while back which PROVES UNEQUIVOCALLY that the wealthy in this country are more powerful than ever before as opposed to the 'poor oppressed and overtaxed' people who are just being picked on by the envious rest of the population.
These documents are rife with data, analysis of said data, and conclusions based on the scientific method.
Here they are AGAIN in case you are interested.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/667423...y-Report-Part- 1
http://www.scribd.com/doc/667422...y-Report-Part- 2
Take a look Figure 3, from part 1, which is titled The Metamorphosis of the Highest 1% of Income Earners in the US: from Rentier Rich to a Managerial Technocratic Aristocracy. This data, along with the rest in the document [...]"
I don't recall these links. Must have missed them in the landslide of stupid you produce with such regularity.
"[..], proves Krugman's wealth transfer theory as well...recall Krugman is a 'liar' 'moron' 'useful idiot' according to the 'logicians' and scientific reasoners here..."
You keep using those words like you know what they mean.
I'm going to punt on this one for the time being and concur with Greg's analysis with this addendum: You're just too damn blinded by your preconceived notions about us to see when ideas overlap, regardless of source.
"I hope this answers your question, Russell, but I suspect it won't."
On the contrary, you responded much as I was expecting: cut and paste answers, a flailing about, and a display of shallowness of understanding and of character! Like I said, your response was the entertainment I was looking for, content was going to be almost a null set.
Of course, why then did I response? For entertainment, of course.
"I'm certain everyone will find some sound and well reasoned 'facts' to use in their latest deluge of overly emotional comments masquerading as a counter argument.But, hey, I had a lot of fun writing this so I guess it was worth something"
Really, you think your display of ignorance here warrants a smiley face? Amusing! You're like a jukebox, push any old button and get a simply splendid display!
Thanks DJ, that was a fascinating read. But somehow I don't think Marky will get it.
"1. Repeated Observation, careful description, the formulation of theories based on possible explanations, and the gathering of additional data about the questions that followed from those theories."
This definition of the scientific method explains a lot about Marky. (A definitional Rorschach Test if you will.) There is absolutely no mechanism for correcting errors in the hypothesis.
Re Krugman. Far be it for me to deflate a Nobel Prize winner, but when he says things like this here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/opinion/10krugman.html?_r=2
"What saved the economy, and the New Deal, was the enormous public works project known as World War II, which finally provided a fiscal stimulus adequate to the economy’s needs."
That speaks volumes about the man's views on economics.
More on Krugman: http://mises.org/story/3387
N.B. I'm a fan of the Austrian school.
Russell,
I'm generally of the opinion that WWII did have a large impact on turning around the economy. The effort required to successfully prosecute the war required adding women to the work force— which increased economic strength at the expense of family life — the building of additional industrial capacity, and the aggressive development of new technologies during the war which became significant economic drivers after the war.
Of course, the drought in the midwest significantly exacerbated by poor farming practices was probably the biggest driver in turning a regular depression into the "Great Depression". If I remember correctly, this problem was resolved well before the start of WWII, so the economy was already starting to recover.
And of course, the recovery would have happened so much sooner if the New Deal hadn't been such a huge drag on the economy.
I guess what I'm trying to say here is that I'm not sure Krugman is completely wrong on this point, unless he's claiming that WWII was the only factor that brought us out of the depression. (Though as I think about it, I'm wondering if we wouldn't have actually been further ahead of where we actually were in 1950 if WWII hadn't happened. In this case, WWII would have been a net drain on the economy.)
"I guess what I'm trying to say here is that I'm not sure Krugman is completely wrong on this point, unless he's claiming that WWII was the only factor that brought us out of the depression."
The problem with that is not so much that it's inaccurate...
...it's more that the past is prologue.
I assume you mean "evidence?" Since I am not a complete asshat like DJ,
DJ knew what "evince" meant.
As does, I'm pretty sure, everybody but you.
As usual, your disclaimer instead makes the claim for you.
Example: the Citigroup document I listed here a while back which PROVES UNEQUIVOCALLY that the wealthy in this country are more powerful than ever before
It's sad, when you've never seen a consultant report before. Ever. In your life.
It doesn't prove that, hardly unequivocally - but then again, you fail to see the irony at the base of Michael Moore's work.
fact after fact, and much support for my arguments
Heh heh heh heh.
Hey, lemme clock you out, Ralph. Night.
fact after fact
Like the 'fact' that more than 44,000 people die every year because they don't have health insurance? That's one of several examples I could give of the things that qualify for the label "fact" in your world. You have recently cited precisely that as one of your "facts". If you wish, I'll go try to find where and quote/link it back to you.
I remember many, many times you've said that scientists who contest the conclusions of the global warming crowd cannot be trusted because they are in the pay of Big Oil(tm) and Fox News. You never backed that statement, but you expected it to be accepted as true.
Two of the people who did the study,
http://pnhp.org/excessdeaths/health-insurance-and-mortality-in-US-adults.pdf
Drs. David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler, are avowed government-run health care activists. Himmelstein co-founded Physicians for a National Health Program,
http://pnhp.org/
which bills itself as the “the only national physician organization in the United States dedicated exclusively to implementing a single-payer national health program.” Woolhandler is a co-founder and served as secretary of the group.
Since scientists who contest global warming cannot be trusted "because they're in the pocket of Big Oil and Fox News (even if they aren't in real life), does the associations of these authors taint the value of the study just as global warming opponents' associations apparently do? If not, why not?
Since, according to the study itself, anyone who was uninsured the one day they were asked who died for any reason over the next twelve years was assumed without any verification whatsoever to a) have remained uninsured for the entire time and b) have died a death that could have been prevented had they had insurance, how "factual" is that "fact"? Does the lack of verification, and the assumption that even someone who bought insurance the day after they were asked, kept it for the next 12 years and died instantly in a head-on collision died because they had no insurance make this "fact" in any way suspect? If not, why not?
You see Mark, the problem with you citing "fact after fact" is that so many of your "facts" are like the one above.
"As does, I'm pretty sure, everybody but you."
But did I? You asked me to evince an understanding. Not really seeing your analysis of that.
While we are on the subject of not seeing things, I laid out the scientific method and still have not seen it from any of you. And no serious rebuttals from my contentions. Time to man up, dudes.
Show me the scientific method for your assertion that our education system has been overrun by socialists/PC Nazis/multi culti homos. Or show me, using the scientific method, that the top one percent wealthy of our nation, are worse off than they were 20 years ago. Show me using facts, logic, and scientific method.
Until that time comes, ANY claim made about me is complete fucking bull shit.
The scientific method in simple terms for the simple:
1) Observe
2) Hypothesize
3) Test
a) If confirmed, Go to Step 4
b) Else, Return to step 1 or Abandon Hypothesis
4) Independent Testing
Marky, your problem is that you ignore any test which disproves your hypothesis and never, ever correct or abandon your theories. Furthermore, you pretend step 4 doesn't exist.
Funny thing is, I already said this in different words, and you pulled out Standard Response #1 when you wrote this:
"I laid out the scientific method and still have not seen it from any of you."
Item #1: "Show me the scientific method for your assertion that our education system has been overrun by socialists/PC Nazis/multi culti homos. Or show me, using the scientific method, that the top one percent wealthy of our nation, are worse off than they were 20 years ago. Show me using facts, logic, and scientific method."
Item #2: "Until that time comes, ANY claim made about me is complete fucking bull shit."
Here is yet another challenge, teacher boy.
Show us, using facts, logic, and the scientific method, that Item #1 is related in any way to Item #2, other than both came from your keyboard.
Hah. I crack me up.
"Until that time comes, ANY claim made about me is complete fucking bull shit."
Okay, I claim that you're a teacher.
Oh… wait…
Is this claim now invalid?
"Until that time comes, ANY claim made about me is complete fucking bull shit."
That's the funniest thing I've ever read.
Want to correct some more "typos," Mark? Shit. I bet you scratch out your student names on their papers and take points off because you can't figure out why they're not putting your name in "Your Name Here."
You just have no level below which you won't go, do you?
Unix-Jedi: "As does, I'm pretty sure, everybody but you."
Ralph: But did I? You asked me to evince an understanding.
First up, I didn't. While you might be used to a unitary and solitary opinion process, here we're individuals.
Secondly, what you were asked and what you condesendinly assumed you'd been asked were wildly variable.
You can't even admit you didn't know the word "evince". You're so used to misusing words and waving off being wrong that you can't even admit that you embarrassed yourself.
You said:
2. I assume you mean "evidence?" Since I am not a complete asshat like DJ, I won't give you rectal about a typo.
Yes, you are an asshat, and secondly, if you're going to think you're being superior, you might want to make sure you're correct. Aside from "evince" - "I won't give you rectal about a typo" isn't a correct sentence. Give a rectal.. what? Exam? Speculum?
That's not even correct slang, which I presume you mean "anal", being short for "anal-retentive"...
You can't even be sneeringly dismissive without fucking it up.
And no serious rebuttals from my contentions. Time to man up, dudes.
Hey, Sack Boy, remember the last time you said something like that? Or is that your hint you're about to bail on this thread, too?
Show me the scientific method for your assertion that our education system has been overrun by socialists/PC Nazis/multi culti homos.
This statement by you demonstrates you don't understand the "scientific method". Or what we've claimed or think.
Or show me, using the scientific method, that the top one percent wealthy of our nation, are worse off than they were 20 years ago. Show me using facts, logic, and scientific method.
First, we have to teach you the scientific method.
So far, you've failed every test. Rather than learning, you keep appealing and screaming and claiming racism and sexism and unfair and you needed more time and...
Until that time comes, ANY claim made about me is complete fucking bull shit.
Project away, Ralph. You didn't even know what "evince" was - now you're trying to dodge that little snark that's stuck to you. Verbatim, sack boy.
And thus he descends ever lower into the realm of escalation of failure.
I laid out the scientific method and still have not seen it from any of you. And no serious rebuttals from my contentions. Time to man up, dudes.
I find it highly amusing that the comment where this quote was found immediately follows a comment where I show you in unequivocal terms how one of your prime "facts" completely ignores the scientific method, critical thinking, and even honest assessment of data, and how and why it does so. If you'd really like me to continue destroying the majority of your "facts" in such a manner, I'll be happy to oblige.
But for now, you are apparently treating it as if my comment was never posted. Hmmm...
Time to man up, dude.
"You asked me to evince an understanding."
Snicker. No, I did. And you thought I had misspelled 'evidence'. But spoken like a true liberal, only able to see a collective and not individuals!
"And no serious rebuttals from my contentions. Time to man up, dudes."
Perhaps you can reread everything Kevin has on his side bar? Oh! Wait! I assumed you had read anything to begin with. My mistake.
Here, I'll make this first little step easier: http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/06/george-orwell-daycare-center.html
I know, I know. You wouldn't recognize a rebuttal if it sat on your head singing "La donna é mobile" from Rigoletto. While on fire.
See, unlike you, we have a memory of the past and recall countless times where we built a solid argument and you simply ignored them and ran away.
Tthe scientific method is a tool in constructing arguments. I have a particular fondness for syllogism logic. The fact you are trying to demand us to use the scientific method is laughable because of your complete lack of weight around here, and you are, quelle surprise, misusing the term.
But do carry on! It's an endless source of amusement!
I think the definitive proof of Kevin's argument against the education system in the United States is the FACT that a high school teacher not only did not know the definition of a rather sophomoric word like evince, but could not even be bothered to look it up before berating someone on its use.
"Show me the scientific method for your assertion that our education system has been overrun by socialists"
Let's test that hypothesis a little, by looking at what books the NEA recommends.
Ed:
Come now. You know only Mark is allowed to use links like that to "PROVES UNEQUIVOCALLY".
Different rules, and all that. Verbatim. Ephemeral. (I wanted to make him have to look one up.)
UJ: You spelled 'evidence' wrong. Don't worry, I did the same thing.
Russell:
And "Condescendingly" too, I must admit.
Luckily, I wasn't in the middle of being condescending about it.
UJ, I won't claim that the link proves anything "unequivocally". Even though it's very powerful evidence, it's still just a single data point.
Mark:
In the interests of trying to figure out what you mean, I went to that link and looked at the chart.
I see a few things:
#1 The chart covers roughly a century
#2 The share of top 1% of earners who earn money from "dividends" and "interest" (I assume these are Wall Street Fat Cats) has shrunk considerably during the century.
#3 The share of the top 1% of earners who earn money from "Entrepreneurial" sources has gone up and down, but generally increaesed over the Century
#4 The share of the top 1% of earners who earn money from "Wages" has gone from 20% to 60%.
To deduce that this is a sign of economic injustice, I must assume one of the following:
(A) Earning money from dividends/interest is good. (Being a Wall Street Fat Cat is good.)
(B) Earning money from wages is bad, if the wages put the earner in the top 1% of the national wealth.
I don't share either of these assumptions, though I don't know if another assumption could lead to a similar conclusion.
...show me, using the scientific method, that the top one percent wealthy of our nation, are worse off than they were 20 years ago.
Ket's say for the sake of argument that the top 1% are better off than they were 20 years ago. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just accepting your word for it rather than proving it to my own satisfaction. Okay, stipulate that it's so.
So what? All that tells me is that the wealthy are able to improve their circumstances at a faster rate than the poor. This is not exactly news.
What part of that do you object to? Do you consider economic success in any form to be something that should be punished as a crime?
"All that tells me is that the wealthy are able to improve their circumstances at a faster rate than the poor. This is not exactly news."
Indeed. It is called compound growth.
"Do you consider economic success in any form to be something that should be punished as a crime?"
He champions the cause of those who demonize people wanting to keep what they own. If the shoe fits ...
I have to wonder why Marky even bothers coming here, since he gets squashed every time. I keep thinking of the punchline to an old joke which is probably familiar to most people here:
"You don't come here for the hunting, do you?"
Bob:
Heh heh heh. Dat's a good one, no matter which variation it is.
"I think the definitive proof of Kevin's argument against the education system in the United States is the FACT that a high school teacher not only did not know the definition of a rather sophomoric word like evince, but could not even be bothered to look it up before berating someone on its use."
Win.
"I think the definitive proof of Kevin's argument against the education system in the United States is the FACT that a high school teacher not only did not know the definition of a rather sophomoric word like evince, but could not even be bothered to look it up before berating someone on its use."
Such things have happened before.
"I think the definitive proof of Kevin's argument against the education system..."
Well, that's not proof according to the rules that you have laid out for me. Still waiting for the use of the scientific method in regards to the failure of our education system. If you want to continue to berate me for being hasty in my reading, by all means...it just proves that you are full of shit when it comes to "logic" and "facts."
Now onto to someone making an actual effort...
"What part of that do you object to? Do you consider economic success in any form to be something that should be punished as a crime?"
Read the entire document and tell me if you see anything wrong with our current system. Look at all the data. You are asking the wrong question. One does not have "economic success" if they are successful at running a pyramid scheme.
GOF, you have exactly hit upon the blind spot that most on the right have when it comes to this issue...you think it is about "punishment" and it's not. At one time, there were wealthy people in this country who enjoyed comfortable lives, a middle class that never really had to worry about money, and poor people. Now we have wealthy people who have rigged the system and have seized more money (see:power) than this world has ever seen, no middle class, many who are one illness away from losing our homes, and an underclass that resembles Third World countries.
How this underclass was created is also seen in this document. And it's not because of government social programs or increased regulation which is probably why many of you are afraid to read the whole thing and analyze it...it's a giant fucking torpedo to your little fantasy world of "evil gubmint."
I have no problem if you want to continue to personally attack me for making a reading error. It just shows that some folks here (DJ, Kevin S, Unix, Russell, Ed) scream about ignoring facts and not using logic and then...do just that. Once again, I challenge you to read the document thoroughly and offer a scientific analysis using your deductive reasoning.
"... no middle class ..."
I'm squarely in the middle of the middle class, teacher boy, and have been my whole life.
You're getting shrill. Have we, at long last, found a chink in your armor?
Reading error?! Seriously?
Now we have wealthy people who have rigged the system and have seized more money (see:power) than this world has ever seen, no middle class, many who are one illness away from losing our homes, and an underclass that resembles Third World countries.
Hmm, that sounds familiar. Except the people seeking to escape that are coming north, not crossing the border in the other direction.
I wish I had the link to the study that showed the people MOST concerned with income inequality are middle and upper middle class liberals. The poor are not the jealous, snarling mob feared by that group.
At one time, there were wealthy people in this country who enjoyed comfortable lives, a middle class that never really had to worry about money, and poor people.
Please define when this was. Not just "at one time" - when?
Now we have wealthy people who have rigged the system and have seized more money (see:power) than this world has ever seen, no middle class, many who are one illness away from losing our homes, and an underclass that resembles Third World countries.
Are you fucking high? And you're screaming about us projecting our rage? NO MIDDLE CLASS?
One illness away? You mean, after the illness is cured? Yes, that is certainly worse than what it used to be when you'd just die.
Now we have wealthy people who have rigged the system and have seized more money (see:power) than this world has ever seen
HOW? You run away every time this point comes up and we demonstrate to you that this is due to exactly the policy and prescription you want - nay DEMAND. Because you keep insisting on a system that's riggable.
You want to scream at us (all of whom are "middle class") while you can't even see what you're demanding is what the problem is.
How this underclass was created is also seen in this document.
No, it's not.
And it's not because of government social programs or increased regulation which is probably why many of you are afraid to read the whole thing and analyze it.
I read it. It might shock you to know I've written similar papers. I've read literally hundreds of them. They don't prove anything. They're policy analysis. Somewhere I've got one that lays out why OS/2 is the obvious successor to DOS, and why Windows NT won't succeed.
Yes. I have written such.
..it's a giant fucking torpedo to your little fantasy world of "evil gubmint."
Only to your fevered, cargo-culting mind.
I have no problem if you want to continue to personally attack me for making a reading error.
It wasn't a reading error. Nor was it the first. You condescendingly lectured, because you didn't know "evince". Which everyone else here did. That's not a minor error, no matter how much you want to run away from it (Just as you've run away from your other mistakes and lies.)
It just shows that some folks here (DJ, Kevin S, Unix, Russell, Ed) scream about ignoring facts and not using logic and then...do just that.
Nope, it doesn't show that. Try and twist and change the subject as much as you want, Mark, but yet again (this isn't the first time by any means), your utter ignorance was put on display, and you, rather than admitting it, rather than leaning, doubled down on stupid. You showcased, threw a spotlight on your ignorance, and then you insisted on demanding that our disagreement was due to our ignorance and lack of knowledge.
Just as you did with verbatim, just as you did with slavery, just as you did with DJ's quiz on mortgage markets (But there you also lied that you taken the quiz when you ran away).
We owe you nothing, sack boy.
G'night, Ralph.
"I have no problem if you want to continue to personally attack me for making a reading error."
Well, lessee now ...
Russell wrote:
"Evince understanding of the method."
You responded:
"I assume you mean "evidence?" Since I am not a complete asshat like DJ, I won't give you rectal about a typo."
Well, if your homework included the phrase "give you rectal about a typo", I would damned surely hack it with red ink, teacher boy. Do you ever read what you write before hitting "OK" to post it?
But, I digress.
You didn't know what the word "evince" was, but you knew the word you read was not "evidence", thus you did read it. It is irrelevant whether or not such was an "error" (although it is one of the very few times you have EVER admitted error of any kind), because whatever you read instead of "evidence" was a word that you didn't know the meaning of and couldn't be bothered to look up before behaving like an asshat in attacking Russell.
It is difficult to gauge which is deeper; your hypocrisy or your stupidity.
Now don't complain. You admitted that you have "no problem" if I want to personally attack you on this point.
The point yet again, teacher boy, is that you don't fool anyone.
And, you continue to disappoint me. I keep hoping for something new from you. Perhaps telling jokes, in Italian, backwards. Instead, you discharge this:
"It just shows that some folks here (DJ, Kevin S, Unix, Russell, Ed) scream about ignoring facts and not using logic and then...do just that."
It is, yet again, just another example of your (wait for it) Standard Response #9, the "Nuh-uh! Am not! You are!" response. You simply assert that the other side is what you don't like yourself being accused of.
Kevin is right; you just can't help yourself, can you?
Markadelphia, you obviously have no idea what life is like in the third world.
The FACT is you have a limited vocabulary. The FACT is that morons like you are educating our youth. The FACT is that you'd be better off reading a dictionary than the drivel you keep linking to.
I looked at Figure 3 from Part 1...
...and then I looked at Figures 1 and 2 from Part 2. From 1995 through 2004, mean income in thousands of constant 2004 dollars increased for every cohort the authors reported. The largest increase was in the top 10 percent, which saw mean income rise almost 50 percent. The next 10 percent saw an increase of about 24.27 percent...
...edging out the bottom 10 percent by about a tenth of a percentage point (24.16 percent).
If it were me, I might have used 1995 dollars, but inflation was low enough -- if perhaps not as low as claimed, due to fun with index statistics that real scientists consider impermissible -- that it probably doesn't matter too much, and the main point is that the analysis uses constant dollars. Upshot: Every cohort was measurably better off in financial terms in 2004 than in 1995.
So what is the crux of Sta-Punk's argument, if calling it an argument isn't giving it too much credit? Let's try this on for size:
"Despite being in great shape, we think that global capitalists are going to be getting an even greater share of the wealth pie over the next few years, as capitalists benefit disproportionately from globalization and the productivity boom, at the relative expense of labor." (emphasis added)
And there it is, folks: the shambling zombie corpse of relative immiserization, which was supposed to cause the global revolution after the Marxists figured out the absolute immiserization they'd originally predicted wasn't borne out by the evidence. Somehow it doesn't surprise me that Sta-Punk would try to play that card.
Okay, let's look a little more at what the authors had to say:
"In a plutonomy, the rich drop their savings rate, consume a larger fraction of their bloated, very large share of the economy. This behavior overshadows the decisions of everybody else. The behavior of the exceptionally rich drives the national numbers - the "appallingly low" overall savings rates, the
"over-extended consumer", and the
"unsustainable" current accounts that accompany this phenomenon. We want to spend little time worrying about these(non)issues, neither do we think they warrant any risk premium on equities." (Part 1, page 14)
A-heh. I'd love to sit them down over coffee and read that passage to them today, wouldn't you? Is this the kind of analysis you want to hold up as being unequivocal, Sta-Punk? Really?
Porsche, Bulgari, Burberry, LVMH, Coach, Hermes, Four Seasons Hotels, Polo Ralph Lauren...these are the investment recommendations the authors make. I see why Sta-Punk gets het up: it's like reading a Ouija board message from the ghost of Thorstein Veblen.
Class envy? In spades. Anticipating an objection, it doesn't matter, Sta-Punk, whether or not you actually want to fill your closets with those labels. What matters is that in your heart, you know you don't have the chops to earn what would be necessary to do so (you evince that every time you open your yap here). So you have to tear down those who do.
"...you think it is about "punishment" and it's not."
What is it, then? The authors themselves say the solution to plutonomy, if desired, is some form or another of expropriation (either revocation of property rights, or taxation, see Part 1, page 22).
So tell us: Who deserves to be expropriated, and who doesn't, and how do you propose to implement such a scheme without replacing the rule of law with the rule of Man, aka the law of the jungle?
"At one time, there were wealthy people in this country who enjoyed comfortable lives, a middle class that never really had to worry about money, and poor people. Now we have wealthy people who have rigged the system and have seized more money (see:power) than this world has ever seen, no middle class, many who are one illness away from losing our homes, and an underclass that resembles Third World countries.
"How this underclass was created is also seen in this document. And it's not because of government social programs or increased regulation which is probably why many of you are afraid to read the whole thing and analyze it...it's a giant fucking torpedo to your little fantasy world of 'evil gubmint.'"
No, it isn't. I read the whole thing, as they say on the Intartoobz, and there is no torpedo. (I also searched the document on the term "underclass" and came up dry. These documents are silent on the phenomena you invoked, Sta-Punk. In other words, you made it up. It simply isn't there, either explicitly or implicitly.
Do you get what I am saying, Sta-Punk? You made it up. Let us now discuss confirmation bias, shall we? Unless you'd rather I just called you a liar; either suits me just fine.
"Once again, I challenge you to read the document thoroughly and offer a scientific analysis using your deductive reasoning."
Done and done, Sta-Punk.
See, I am a scientist.
Class dismissed, jack-off.
Again.
"I laid out the scientific method and still have not seen it from any of you."
Since when.
You couldn't understand it if you did a copy and paste from a physics book.
Please define when this was. Not just "at one time" - when?
LOL, "Ralph" has a very hard time with that, but I have coaxed out of him that it appears to have been the [19]50s when his mythical Golden Age happened. So short, so wrong on so many levels, so perfect for an ill-informed nostalgia.
"I think the definitive proof of Kevin's argument against the education system..."
"Well, that's not proof according to the rules that you have laid out for me. "
Yay! Pile the stupid on thicker!
"Still waiting for the use of the scientific method in regards to the failure of our education system."
Did you read anything Kevin? Did you read the link I helpfully provided? Did you read anything else anyone wrote? No?
"If you want to continue to berate me for being hasty in my reading, by all means...it just proves that you are full of shit when it comes to 'logic' and 'facts.'"
Hasty reading? Like hasty pudding? You really know nothing of logic, do you?
Let me break your, uh, 'argument' down.
1. Berating you for your poor reading skills.
2. Proves we are full of it.
My word, that isn't even a syllogism! Major premise, minor, and conclusion! That's all it takes and you can't muster up even that much.
"Now onto to someone making an actual effort..."
I'm sure GoF is basking in the glow of your praise.
"What part of that do you object to? Do you consider economic success in any form to be something that should be punished as a crime?"
"Read the entire document and tell me if you see anything wrong with our current system. Look at all the data. You are asking the wrong question. One does not have 'economic success' if they are successful at running a pyramid scheme. "
Holy crow. And yet you support ever dang statist program the left pukes forth. Amazing. Truly, a dizzying intellect.
"GOF, you have exactly hit upon the blind spot that most on the right have when it comes to this issue...you think it is about 'punishment' and it's not. At one time, there were wealthy people in this country who enjoyed comfortable lives, a middle class that never really had to worry about money, and poor people. Now we have wealthy people who have rigged the system and have seized more money (see:power) than this world has ever seen, no middle class, many who are one illness away from losing our homes, and an underclass that resembles Third World countries. "
Hear that sound? That was my jaw dropping in utter amazement in response to just how incredibly stupid that was. I have to break it down now!
(continued)
Let's start here "At one time, there were wealthy people in this country who enjoyed comfortable lives, a middle class that never really had to worry about money, and poor people."
So, are you saying that now there aren't wealthy people in this country who enjoy comfortable lives? That ALL the wealthy (I am not even going to ask you to define 'wealthy', I'm afraid I'd be laughing too hard to type coherently for days!) now have rigged the system?
Amazing! All the wealthy have rigged the system and no longer enjoy a comfortable life!
"more money (see:power)" Money != power. They are interrelated, but not equal.
On to "a middle class that never really had to worry about money". Er, as U-J said, when?
I'm the oldest of 6, my father was and still is a high school teacher, my mother was always a full time mother and she and my father took odd jobs during the year in order to make ends meets. They constantly worried about money. We are the middle class, and to say the middle class never had to worry about money just shows the lack of knowledge. As for myself, I'm a college dropout, but before I left to forge my own way (autodidact), I taught a class (pass/fail) at the University for a couple of semesters because I was one of the few with the needed knowledge and skill set to teach that particular class at that time.
"no middle class, many who are one illness away from losing our homes"
Whoa, whoa, whoa! You can't have "no middle class" and "many" at the same time! Either one or the other, not both. Pick one.
"and an underclass that resembles Third World countries."
I've lived near the projects in New Orleans (long before Hurricane Katrina) and in small towns in southern Brazil. There is no comparison. Yes, the poor in the projects do, indeed, live in squalor and poverty. They still lived like kings compared to the poor that I saw in Brazil. You are morally bankrupt.
"How this underclass was created is also seen in this document. And it's not because of government social programs or increased regulation which is probably why many of you are afraid to read the whole thing and analyze it...it's a giant fucking torpedo to your little fantasy world of 'evil gubmint.'"
Sigh. Ken beat you six ways from Sunday over this. You won't realize it, though. Par for the course.
"I have no problem if you want to continue to personally attack me for making a reading error. It just shows that some folks here (DJ, Kevin S, Unix, Russell, Ed) scream about ignoring facts and not using logic and then...do just that."
Sooo you have no problem with us ripping you apart for your blatant stupidity, even after you compared us to Al Queda? Gee, that is mighty big of you.
But the conclusion you posited (we scream and don't use facts and logic) isn't supported by the rest of your sentence or the evidence in this thread. Logic is a stranger to you, isn't it? And in the process of trying to mount your high horse, you use an ad hominem. It's like watching a Napoleon trying to mount a dray horse barebacked.
"Once again, I challenge you to read the document thoroughly and offer a scientific analysis using your deductive reasoning."
You are in no position to make any sort of challenge, ever. But again, I refer you to Ken's comment. And U-J's. But it is amusing to see you continue to whine about it!
"Truly, a dizzying intellect."
Bwaaa hahahahaha! And subtle to boot.
Well played, sir. Well played indeed. ;)
Thanks Ken :)
...an underclass that resembles Third World countries.
What is your basis, if any, for this statement? Do you have any experience whatsoever of either group?
You see, I do. I have personally been homeless more than once, and have been at or below what the federal government defines as "the poverty line" nearly half my adult life.
I also went to Europe, the Middle East, the Caribbean and South America while I was in the Navy.
So what you appear to be telling me is that a class of people likely as not to have cell phones and color TVs, who rarely miss a meal other than by choice, inattention or bad budgeting (such as buying booze or drugs before they are sure if they have money for groceries), and who are nearly always given food and weather-tight housing, are equivalent to people who may not even know what electricity is, live in a "house" smaller than your bathroom, built by themselves out of scrap iron, reject plywood and cardboard, and consider themselves "living high" if they can count on one meal every day.
You'll forgive me if I have doubts about the accuracy of that statement, huh?
"Reading error?! Seriously?"
"Do you ever read what you write before hitting "OK" to post it?"
Actually, sometimes I don't. I admit this to be a fault on my part. I often read items here rather quickly and should probably take more time. There are times when I get overwhelmed by trying to respond to the veritable deluge of comments. I tried to explain this before but alas, different rules...
At the end of the day, I'm not perfect. Of course, any mistake I make is viewed as being proof positive that I am wrong about everything. I take that as a compliment, however, to know that your faith in your beliefs is so weak that a small and hasty error by someone as mildly insignificant as myself means you must be correct about everything.
More later...off to class..
One does not have "economic success" if they are successful at running a pyramid scheme.
Hmmm... are you suggesting that if someone has money, they should be allowed to spend it on personal goods or sock it away in some form of savings, but should not be allowed to invest it in a manner that creates jobs? Or that they should not be allowed to profit from such an investment?
Other than that possibility, I don't see what you're driving at when you refer to "pyramid schemes".
"If you want to continue to berate me for being hasty in my reading, by all means…"
You weren't berated for your hasty reading. You were berated for attempting to berate Russell for using a word which was actually correct. If you had "misread" it and simply let it go (or better yet, looked it up), then you would not have provided the stick used to beat you. The fact that you tried to go nuclear based on your misunderstanding (a common problem with you) only made the stick that much bigger — as in the size of a telephone pole.
In fact, you demonstrated your lack of understanding of the scientific method when you did this! You had a hypothesis (that Russell made a typo), then you ran with it as if it was an established fact. But you skipped the testing step entirely.
Congratulations on demonstrating Russell's point that you only think you understand the scientific method, but you really don't.
One more thing Marky. The internet is a wonderful invention. You don't even have to have a dictionary sitting on your desk anymore.
If you want to avoid future beatdowns because you didn't understand the meaning of a word, all you have to do is make use of this excellent source:
http://dictionary.reference.com/
As a teacher, you should already be well aware of the old adage that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. I've now shown you the water. The question is, will you actually drink?
Morning, Ralph.
Of course, any mistake I make is viewed as being proof positive that I am wrong about everything.
No. (As usual.)
Your continued and systematic mistakes that you make, without notice, without correction and the pattern of them continuing for quite literally years, extending into every thing you have commented on is "proof positive" that you're incapable of your own analysis or understanding.
Your history does that, not a single error or a simple one. There aren't different rules between commenters here. But what the difference is that you're not used to actual intellectual rigor.
Just like above, you denied the existence of the middle class. That's not minor, that's not a typo. That's far worse than not knowing "evince", and being sneering about it.
THAT, and your comments on "slavery" where a agreed upon contract is equated with owning people as property, is where we have "proof positive" that if you're right, it's via luck. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day - you don't manage to beat that average.
When did the "Middle class" not have to worry about Money, Mark? That's so insanely stupid that anybody with sense would just hush. But you'll continue to defend it, because you have no real moral sense. Just as you claim to have "won" the "slavery" debate.
You don't even have the imagination to understand what real slavery - or real poverty is. We've obsoleted the word "poverty" in the US and most of the west - poverty used to mean "Can't afford enough to eat" - now we've got the "impoverished" who are too fat to be easily moved to the hospital for their free-to-them health care.
I take that as a compliment, however, to know that your faith in your beliefs is so weak that a small and hasty error
The difference is that it wasn't a "small and hasty error". And we know this.
It was a piece and a parcel with all the rest of your imaginary world with Good on one side and Evil on the other and Oh, the 50s, were SOooooo good.
You don't even make up a decent fantasy world that's internally consistent. Allow me to demonstrate: In whatever magical time in the past, where the "middle class that never really had to worry about money,", exactly how much government existed? How much "free" health care? How many cancer treatments? Heart transplants? Kidney dialysis? How much of the government that you worship was there?
And given that you have this idyllic view of sometime in the past - presumably the 50s - where the federal government was a fraction of the size it is now, there were no environmental laws, there were almost no federal gun laws, there was no CONCEPT of the federal government running health care - why would you then not want to reduce government to the size of whatever time was your idyllic perfection?
See? If you were even serious, your own espoused views contradict yourself massively.
That is why we "jump" on those comments, Ralph, not that it's a small error - it's not. It indicates to anyone who can analyze exactly how your "thought" process works.
"Even a stopped clock is right twice a day - you don't manage to beat that average."
By my reckoning, he isn't even right that often.
Take his "mind reading" schtick. If he took his act on the road and did an "is this your card?" routine, he would be the guy who would be so bad at it that he would regularly go through 51 cards before he found the right one.
"Actually, sometimes I don't."
You should, really, and the fact that you don't shows.
"I admit this to be a fault on my part. I often read items here rather quickly and should probably take more time."
You should take more time. Really.
"There are times when I get overwhelmed by trying to respond to the veritable deluge of comments."
Really? I thought you reveled in it, giving that you keep coming back for more. But seriously, drowning you is not my intent. What is important is the content, not the volume. You can see the volume at a glance, but you have to slow down and read to get the content.
"I tried to explain this before ..."
Where? When? I don't recall reading it, but then I don't claim to remember everything.
"... but alas, different rules..."
No, teacher boy. There is no rule that you have to proofread what you post, and no one here tries to impose such a rule.
I proofread everything I post, but I don't always find all my spelling errors and typos. I don't impose such a rule on you, but I suggest that you follow the same rule that I impose on myself.
No, your "different rules" complaint is just excuse making, yet again.
"At the end of the day, I'm not perfect."
We've noticed. We're not perfect, either. But if you slow down and read this stuff carefully, you'll see us admitting our mistakes. You don't; you practice "escalation of failure" as if it were a virtue. You regularly commit error after error to avoid the embarrassment of admitting a single error. THAT is the primary source of all your difficulties here. Think what you could do if you could overcome that one character defect.
"Of course, any mistake I make is viewed as being proof positive that I am wrong about everything."
Again with the hyperbole, and you were doing so well (for you, anyway).
No, a simple mistake is viewed as being proof positive that you are not being careful, and nothing more.
But what led to this was not a simple mistake.
You claim to understand the scientific method and you get pissed when we show that you don't follow it. Indeed, I have complained for more than two years that you jump to conclusions as if it were a virtue. That is precisely what you did, to wit: 1) You saw a word that you were not familiar with which is spelled something like a word you are familiar with; 2) you jumped to the conclusion that Russell meant the latter but misspelled it as the former; 3) you took Russell to task for that assumed error and behaved like a holier-than-thou asshole while complaining about others taking you to task similarly; and, 4) and finally, when shown your error, made excuses that don't fit the facts.
What this was about was not that your vocabulary did not include a particular word, rather it was about your behavior in response thereto and your refusal to admit the error that led to it.
It was so avoidable. On my browser (FireFox), looking up the definition of a word requires four mouse clicks: double-click to select, right-click to bring up a context-sensitive menu, and left-click to select "Search the Free Dictionary for [the word selected]". It takes two seconds. Different rule, you say? No, I use this wonderful tool every day.
Try it. You'll like it, and you need it.
"I take that as a compliment, however, to know that your faith in your beliefs is so weak ..."
More hyperbole. More excuse making.
My faith in my beliefs is quite strong, little boy, which is why I keep posting here.
"... that a small and hasty error by someone as mildly insignificant as myself means you must be correct about everything.""
Even more hperbole. The conclusion does not follow from the premise. Logic, teacher boy, logic. Try it sometime.
Imagine what you could learn that is right if your would first unlearn what is wrong. You can do it if you try.
I'm just going to point out that Marky is using this one point as a smokescreen to avoid the various other flaws in his comments.
And that this isn't a "Hyuck! Mr. Teacheer done did a mistake! Hyuck hyuck!" moment, but as Ed, U-J and DJ have said, a indication of systemic escalation of failure.
Russell:
Yes.
That's his M.O. Which he doesn't think we've noticed time and again (DJ's list notwithstanding.)
It's almost a good tactical decision - he pivots on something like that, "evince" versus "evidence", then retreats using that pivot - leaving alone the rest of what he said, so that he can claim "victory" later, refusing to engage on those claims (such a no middle class, slavery, verbatim, etc.) and thus ignoring the rebuttals to what he said, so he doesn't have to deal with them.
Or it would be if he'd one it once. Or twice. But it's his primary method of extracting himself when he's realized he's totally in over his head and it's noticeable. That is, if you're able to do some analysis.
Wait! On this one other blog I know of, it was pointed out that some republican made a dumb statement on the house floor the other day. An effort was made to link everyone on "the right" to this one statement. Can't refute what was saidin an internet debate? Just go find some dumb statement that has nothing to do with anyone or anything and link your opposition to it. Brilliant!
U-J: I agree.
You'd think such a constant string of failures would warrant some sort of review to the process being applied.
But then again, Marky doesn't fully understand the scientific method.
Nor does he understand the term "failure".
Ah yes, I'd almost forgotten... while we're on the subject of the scientific method, Mark, please explain how and why the global warming hysteria constantly shrieked by the left qualifies as "science", as you personally have labelled it. Be advised, I can quite easily show you how it violates the scientific method.
Grumpy, does it begin with: 1) refusing or being reluctant to show their data; 2) refusing or being reluctant to explain their methodology; 3) refusing or being reluctant to be reviewed by their peers; or, 4) dismissing any question they don't like with "the science is settled"?
The opposite end of that spectrum is Stephen Hawking, who presents his data, explains his methodology, shows his conclusions, and invites, encourages, and dares anyone to show him to be wrong. He is often challenged. He just smiles. Sometimes he is proven to be wrong. When that happens, he revises his methodology and conclusions, and then he moves on, still smiling.
Now, if Al Gore was sure he was right on scientific grounds, wouldn't he do the same?
Hah. I crack me up.
Stephen Hawking is a scientist. Al Gore is a politician. Now, guess which one is the liar ...
"Now, guess which one is the liar ..."
Let me check the Liberal Playbook:
It says "when in doubt, blame the White Male."
Hmm.
There must be another rule to apply...
Wait, here's something: "No Democrat is ever wrong."
Since Hawking isn't a Democrat, he's the liar!
Darn it, there's an entry under "Handicapable" which modifies the "Democrat" rule.
Gah, this is confusing! Too bad there isn't some sort of objective standard to determine the answers in cases -- wait, wait, there's a number for the DNC in here.
Ok, so I called the DNC and they said that Hawking is correct as long as he conforms to the word of the Goracle. Otherwise, he's an Evil White Male Oppressor and shouldn't be trusted. The handicapable part just means we can't make fun of him. Unless he converts to Christianity. Or becomes a Republican. Then it's open season on him, since he received the Medal of Freedom from the Won.
Russell, nowhere in your comments do I see the scientific method used to a) demonstrate to me that our education system is over run by socialists or b) an in depth analysis of the Citigroup document and relevant data.
You issued me a challenge. I accepted it and answered it, I suspect, more thoroughly then you thought I would. And more accurately. It doesn't matter to me if you don't accept the challenge. The next time you chide me for not answering questions, though, I would hope that you stop and think about this little exchange.
"Have we, at long last, found a chink in your armor?"
Well, according to you, you've beaten me several times so I don't get this comment. Still waiting for the scientific method on your ideas, DJ.
"Perhaps telling jokes, in Italian, backwards."
And, still waiting.
"The FACT is that you'd be better off reading a dictionary than the drivel you keep linking to."
Is this the scientific method? I don't think so. Did you read the link, Kevin? And I'm still waiting...
"See, I am a scientist."
Well, all I see, Ken, is commentary. That's fine. You are entitled to comment on anything you want. But to dress it up as logic and facts is complete bullshit. What is your hypothesis? What is your research method? How are you going to gather data and what method will you use to analyze it?
Meanwhile, back to someone..the same someone...making an honest effort.
"What is your basis, if any, for this statement? Do you have any experience whatsoever of either group?"
Take a look at this, GOF.
http://www.ramusa.org/
This group was founded in 1985 by Stan Brock, former star of Wild Kingdom, to help Third World countries out with medical care. Recently, their mission has shifted to inside the US because...well...there are parts of it that are like a Third World country. On a recent trip to LA, over 3000 people turned out for free medical care. Here is an interview with Stan Brock for more info...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKBXeWMDzvQ
This is one example. Been to New Orleans lately? Parts of it look an awful lot like Kabul to me. This is what a failed ideology does to a nation.
"Other than that possibility, I don't see what you're driving at when you refer to "pyramid schemes"."
No, I'm not suggesting that they should be told by the government how to invest their money. Nor am I suggesting that should have their wealth taken away by the government. What I am saying is that the wealthy of this country have rigged the system so it is impossible for anyone to make it to the top. They also don't invest it in private industry. They give it to someone like Bernie Madoff to invest in a derivative which is essentially air. Or unicorn farts-a phrase that many here like to use.
Ed, I guess I can add you to the "still waiting" list. As a matter of fact, why don't you use "facts and logic" to "prove" to me that homos are going to burn in hell.
"Logic, teacher boy, logic. Try it sometime."
And still waiting. If your faith was so strong, DJ, why are you so obsessed (and have devoted at least three Tolstoy novels) to "proving me wrong."
"Be advised, I can quite easily show you how it violates the scientific method."
Climate Change-another hilarious one. You claim to want to look at all the data but....you don't. The only data that you are interested in is the data that states that climate change is not man made. Or that it isn't even happening. Start with the belief and work backward. You can't possibly be wrong, can you? It would mean the end of the world...
I, however, think that climate change is definitely happening and probably man made. Based on the IPCC's data, there is a chance that it is not man made. The theory is about 90 percent valid based on relevant data so it might not be true. I have no problem admitting this. I'm also not vain enough to think that man is so great as to be able to destroy the earth.
What's really funny, though, is you free marketers and lovers of capitalism are missing out on a chance to make money. True or not true, China is all in and close to beating us on green energy. And yet your own vanity won't allow you to reap what could shape up to be massive profits. What a glorious conundrum!
And one that makes me giggle as I drift off to sleep:)
Parts of it look an awful lot like Kabul to me. This is what a failed ideology does to a nation.
Yet you keep insisting on doing the exact. same. thing. HARDER.
I'm not suggesting that they should be told by the government how to invest their money.
Yes, you are.
Nor am I suggesting that should have their wealth taken away by the government.
Yes, you are. Repeatedly.
What I am saying is that the wealthy of this country have rigged the system
HOW? HOW have they rigged the system? You won't answer that, for some reason.
They also don't invest it in private industry.
Then what the hell do they do with it?
They give it to someone like Bernie Madoff to invest in a derivative which is essentially air.
They.. give it to a con man?
Seriously?
That's your view of economics and you're trying to lecture us?
They lose it in a Ponzi scheme, and you seriously are basing your economic plans on this "hypothesis"?
Climate Change-another hilarious one.
Not really.
You claim to want to look at all the data but....you don't. The only data that you are interested in is the data that states that climate change is not man made. Or that it isn't even happening. Start with the belief and work backward. You can't possibly be wrong, can you? It would mean the end of the world...
More projection - that's exactly what's happened with "Global Warming" - give it it's name, Ralph. "Climate change" is meaningless. Yes, the Climate changes. How much of it is driven by manmade changes, and how much of it is bad?
Global warming would be great, as I've told you before. We'd feed more people, use less energy. You, as usual, ignored it.
What was that about "all the evidence" again? China? Green? Yeah. Right. Hey, good for them if so. But for some strange reason (it might be my grasp of history and PR under Communist states gives me a lot of doubt.
But you can't understand the word "evince", or even admit that you were wrong.
I don't even want to think about trying to explain "significant digits" to you. (Which is very important in this discussion).
But back to your "failed ideology" - answer the question.
WHEN did the "middle class not have to worry about money"? When, Ralph?
WHEN? And how much government influence and spending was there?
Or run away from your own argument, because you dare not try and back it up with actual data.
G'night, Ralph.
"Well, according to you, you've beaten me several times so I don't get this comment."
It was a bit of sarcasm. You normally aren't shrill, thus a bit of emotion crept into your usual verbiage, and I so noted.
"Still waiting for the scientific method on your ideas, DJ."
I have no idea what you are talking about.
"If your faith was so strong, DJ, why are you so obsessed (and have devoted at least three Tolstoy novels) to "proving me wrong.""
I am not "obsessed" with anything. Yet again, you jump to conclusions, and yet again, you throw up a strawman.
As I have stated here several times, you are not going to win by default.
"And one that makes me giggle as I drift off to sleep ..."
You're spouting gibberish by the truckload, little boy. Do you believe you have captured the high road with this stuff?
"Russell, nowhere in your comments do I see the scientific method used to a) demonstrate to me that our education system is over run by socialists or b) an in depth analysis of the Citigroup document and relevant data."
A) That's because I've done something any decent research knows how to do, utilize research done by others. Kevin's done a fantastic job researching and documenting this topic. Besides, you don't understand the scientific method anyways.
B) Did you read Ken's response? Or U-J's? See my answer to A)
"You issued me a challenge. I accepted it and answered it, I suspect, more thoroughly then you thought I would."
No, actually, I figured you'd do one of two things, either ignore it or try your best to show you knew something. I had tended towards the latter simply because you hadn't had your head drubbed soundly on this thread, yet. Your need to be accepted as an equal around here also factored in.
"And more accurately."
Uh, no. Sorry. You missed the testing phase and all that entails.
"It doesn't matter to me if you don't accept the challenge."
Riiiiight. Is that why you keep bringing it up?
"The next time you chide me for not answering questions, though, I would hope that you stop and think about this little exchange."
Holy crow. You did answer my initial questions. And then you ignored everything else I have written. And please take off the teacher's hat. We already know you are a condescending jerk, no need to drive the point further.
Oops, I should have kept reading:
"Well, all I see, Ken, is commentary. That's fine. You are entitled to comment on anything you want. But to dress it up as logic and facts is complete bullshit. What is your hypothesis? What is your research method? How are you going to gather data and what method will you use to analyze it?"
Holy crow. Again.
Once more, your failure to understand what is before you isn't indicative of our skills or knowledge. Your appalling lack of understanding how to analyze information has been well documented here.
Your misunderstanding of the scientific method is quite the show, though!
"I, however, think that climate change is definitely happening and probably man made. Based on the IPCC's data, there is a chance that it is not man made. The theory is about 90 percent valid based on relevant data so it might not be true. I have no problem admitting this. I'm also not vain enough to think that man is so great as to be able to destroy the earth."
Your contradictions are showing. Please take better care in public. Also, your failure to understand theory is apparent. There are treatments for that.
"And one that makes me giggle as I drift off to sleep"
Maybe you need to adjust your meds?
Sta-Punk, I don't know who you hired to read to you what I wrote, but you should get your money back. If you read it yourself, you should find whoever "taught" you to read and get your money back.
"From 1995 through 2004, mean income in thousands of constant 2004 dollars increased for every cohort the authors reported. The largest increase was in the top 10 percent, which saw mean income rise almost 50 percent. The next 10 percent saw an increase of about 24.27 percent...
...edging out the bottom 10 percent by about a tenth of a percentage point (24.16 percent).
If it were me, I might have used 1995 dollars, but inflation was low enough -- if perhaps not as low as claimed, due to fun with index statistics that real scientists consider impermissible -- that it probably doesn't matter too much, and the main point is that the analysis uses constant dollars. Upshot: Every cohort was measurably better off in financial terms in 2004 than in 1995.
See, that's data, Sta-Punk. You offered a hypothesis (middle class destroyed, "Third World" underclass, etc.). I tested it, using data I found in your source, the very same source upon which you based your claim...and duly refuted it, to the surprise of no one at all.
That too is science. See what being able to read for comprehension can do for you?
"And one that makes me giggle as I drift off to sleep"
The Alinsky play has a better chance if it's not obvious. In that, though, it is all of a piece with the rest of your sophistry: clumsy, obvious, and incompetent.
What I am saying is that the wealthy of this country have rigged the system so it is impossible for anyone to make it to the top.
Really? So Bill Gates and Paul Allen were/are part of the rigged system? Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison, I could go on without even getting out of the high tech field or dropping down below the billionaire level. Is it necessary?
Is your beef with Paris Hilton and the other trustifarians (great and small)? Well, they are working diligently at dissipating the wealth created by their forbears. Not sure why that puts your panties in a bunch. Blame the god you believe in for putting you in the wrong place, time and family. It sure as hell has nothing to do with me or what I earn.
You know what Mark reciting the scientific method reminds me of? All of the teachers I had growing up who attempted to teach subjects they truly knew nothing about and either failed horribly or limped along, having their understanding of subject eclipsed by their brighter students by the end of the lesson.
I don't think Mark really truly understands what the scientific method is - probably because he never had a true science class in college or high school. He thinks he knows it because he can parrot what his teaching materials say, but simply parroting something is not the same as truly understanding it.
And again, this brings us back to one of the problems of our educational systems: teachers are no longer required to actually understand the subjects they teach. All they need to know how to do is parrot the material they're given to the class.
I remember in college looking through the general education requirements needed to get a bachelor's of science and trying to decide what classes I should take. I was advised by several different people (who were mostly liberal arts majors) that if I had to take any math classes, I should take the one intended for the education majors because it was the easiest, as most of it was doing stuff that we should have all learned in fourth grade.
Of course, I didn't have that option, because my major (Computer Science) required much more rigorous courses. But if that is the standard achieved by classes in the college of education, I can see why our education system is in a near state of failure.
It should be mentioned, that of all the teachers I had in college and high school, the best were the ones who had learned the subjects they taught outside of the college of education. They had actual degrees in the subjects that they taught. The VERY best ones were the ones who had experience in the commercial world that was directly related to their field of pedagogy.
Perhaps that is the best way to reform the educational system: dump the Education Majors, and replace them with people that have actual degrees.
Perhaps that is the best way to reform the educational system: dump the Education Majors, and replace them with people that have actual degrees.
Word.
"What I am saying is that the wealthy of this country have rigged the system so it is impossible for anyone to make it to the top."
The silliness of this statement just struck me. The logical conclusion is that, because no one can make to the top, then there is no one at the top.
Reductio ad absurdum. Gotta love it.
Did you read the link, Kevin?
Markadelphia, to be quite honest, you've proven yourself to be not worth my time. I have other readers who beat you with a ClueBat™ about the head and shoulders regularly without any effect at all, thus sparing me the futile effort.
But you draw those excellent comments, so it would be counterproductive for me to chase you off. You are such a stereotypical example of the Modern Leftist I think many of my readers have accused you of being my sock-puppet, but in my wildest dreams I could not come up with some of the stuff that rolls off your keyboard. (". . . no middle class . . ." Srsly? Which am I then, the fabulously Überwealthy or the Third World poverty posterchild? And you? How's your cardboard refrigerator box under the overpass holding up so far this fall?) :lol:
"I don't think Mark really truly understands what the scientific method is ..."
What give ya th' first clue, Mr. Tracy?
Ah, my apologies, Regolith. You don't deserve that and I'm showing my age by writing it. But it fits, doesn't it?
Markaphasia doesn't yet understand that the scientific method involves the use of rigorous, logical thinking. He demonstrated this by making the two statements I quoted in my challenge to him earlier in this thread in response to his challenge.
I'll repeat my challenge here. It begins by quoting two statements of his, verbatim, exactly as he posted them, with my item labels attached for purposes of reference:
"Item #1: "Show me the scientific method for your assertion that our education system has been overrun by socialists/PC Nazis/multi culti homos. Or show me, using the scientific method, that the top one percent wealthy of our nation, are worse off than they were 20 years ago. Show me using facts, logic, and scientific method."
"Item #2: "Until that time comes, ANY claim made about me is complete fucking bull shit."
"Here is yet another challenge, teacher boy.
"Show us, using facts, logic, and the scientific method, that Item #1 is related in any way to Item #2, other than both came from your keyboard."
Of course, Item #1 and Item #2 are not related, thus the challenge cannot be met. The conclusion drawn in Item #2 does not logically follow from a refusal or failure to accept or successfully respond to the challenge issued in Item #1.
Of course, he has ignored my challenge, which is as I expected.
Isn't it hilarious that he made those two statements in the middle of challenging someone else to use the scientific method to prove something to him?
"Nor am I suggesting that should have their wealth taken away by the government."
Don't we have a quote of him calling progressive income taxation "good capitalism" round here somewheres?
"Markaphasia doesn't yet understand that the scientific method involves the use of rigorous, logical thinking."
Since logic is a critical part of understanding the scientific method, missing that skill means one doesn't understand the scientific method.
But one can sure cargo cult!
"Ed, I guess I can add you to the "still waiting" list. As a matter of fact, why don't you use "facts and logic" to "prove" to me that homos are going to burn in hell."
Still waiting for what? An explanation of the scientific method? I already gave you an outline. Did you think it was wrong? You never challenged it. Did you need me to expand on it? You never asked. Is there some error in logic or data in something I posted? I didn't see anything from you pointing to a specific logic or data error.
Also, why should I run down your little rabbit trail? What RELEVANCE does it have to anything I posted or to how the scientific method works?
Furthermore, why should I respond to an irrelevant question asked by a guy who has abandoned hundreds of threads without answering relevant questions. Heck, I'm still waiting for you to point out even one perfect human being (Jesus Christ doesn't count) we could put in charge of a government that has total control our lives. If you start answering some of our challenges, then I'll consider answering yours.
(Note: This does not mean I cannot answer the challenge. I can. I just simply refuse.)
Take a look at this, GOF.
Okay, I did. So what? Lots of people need medical care, and lots of people are willing to take something that's offered free of charge.
And lots of people let proper preventive care slide in favor of other things, too. People who should know better.
And probably a surprisingly large percentage of them have cell phones and color TVs and live in weather tight houses they didn't have to build themselves from scrap.
Should I take this as "No, I have no personal experience of either group, I'm just going by what I read?"
Been to New Orleans lately?
Yeah, I have. I was part of the cleanup crew. And I live on the Gulf Coast, 20 miles from the Louisiana state line. Have you been to New Orleans lately?
For that matter, have you been to Gilchrist, TX? Don't bother, cos ever since Hurricane Ike last summer, it's GONE. That is not an exaggeration, either. Trust me on this, I'm only 50 miles from Gilchrist. It went from a beach community of over 800 houses to one. There's a reason they call this part of the country "Hurricane Alley", ya know.
Parts of it look an awful lot like Kabul to me.
Have you been to either place?
This is what a failed ideology does to a nation.
*snort*
The indians laughed at La Salle over 300 years ago when he suggested that was a good spot for a city. The people of N.O. had been missed by hurricanes so often they apparently thought they were immune. I guess they know better now. This is what a hurricane does to a city. Trust me on this one, I've been through.... eight of em, I think.
There was a system in place to take care of hurricane relief and evacuation, and had been since long before Bush was elected. Of course, the fact that a corrupt mayor didn't bother to implement it doesn't mean anything, does it? You can blame it on Bush (with enough stretching), so you do.
If "This is what a failed ideology does to a nation", I suppose you mean an ideology that claims no one should expect to be self-reliant or actually think about consequences, as liberal ideology has claimed for decades. I've lived in the middle of hurricane alley most of my life, and if I had as much warning as they had, I sure as hell wouldn't have still been below mean river level by the time the hurricane hit. And I don't care if I had to walk to get clear. I've personally done it before. In 1979 I spent 19 hours under the top of an overpass, waiting out Hurricane Elsie.
Sorry, that dog don't hunt. If people are too fucking stupid to do anything about an approaching Cat 5 hurricane, that's not Bush's fault, nor mine, nor anyone's but their own. I have no sympathy.
You live in Minnesota? How much sympathy would you have for people who went out boating on Lake Superior during the November gales? With no GPS, no radio, and no lifejackets? That's about how much sympathy I have for the people of N.O., for much the same reasons. The rest of us on this coast get that shit every few years, and we manage.
Nor am I suggesting that should have their wealth taken away by the government.
The fuck you aren't. That's what progressive taxation is.
What I am saying is that the wealthy of this country have rigged the system so it is impossible for anyone to make it to the top.
Which explains why such a large percentage of American millionaires and billionaires are first generation, huh?
They also don't invest it in private industry.
The fuck they don't. Do you think Microsoft, Apple, Hewlett-Packard, Dell, Walmart, and I dunno how many others just magically sprang into existence?
Note that the listed companies are ones that have created some of those first generation millionaires.
The only data that you are interested in is the data that states that climate change is not man made.
I thought you claimed to understand how the scientific method works. You really don't get the idea that 1) The very existence of a large number of data points that simply cannot be reconciled with AGW theory (or any theory, for that matter) means the theory obviously has holes in it, or 2) if you refuse to submit your data and methodology to peer review, even from those who oppose you, you automatically forfeit any credibility for the theory you are supposedly trying to defend, or 3) deciding whether a theory is correct by "consensus" (basically popularity poll) and then claiming "the science is settled" is directly antithetical to the entire process?
You really, truly don't understand that?
Based on the IPCC's data, there is a chance that it is not man made. The theory is about 90 percent valid based on relevant data so it might not be true. I have no problem admitting this.
Just so you know, the Mann "Hockey stick" that 90% figure was based on has been thoroughly debunked.
What's really funny, though, is you free marketers and lovers of capitalism are missing out on a chance to make money. True or not true, China is all in and close to beating us on green energy. And yet your own vanity won't allow you to reap what could shape up to be massive profits.
Is it vanity? Or is it an honest doubt that it can truly be heaven if those touting it demand that everyone be frog-marched to the Pearly gates?
I don't have a problem with "green energy". I have a problem with being forced. I have a problem with someone deliberately planning to make energy prices skyrocket so as to make that happen.
You apparently do not.
Oh, and 2 final points:
1) Ask pretty much anyone on this coast from Corpus Christi to Tampa, anywhere outside of New Orleans itself, and they'll tell you they did it to themselves. Pretty much anyone at all. You see, the rest of us have been through that, more than once. Instead of whining, we acted and we turned out okay.
Ask Jim in Galveston for pictures from right after Ike, I'd be surprised if he doesn't have plenty. I'll guarantee you'd have to know the two towns to tell which was which, things are destroyed when a hurricane hits. But although I haven't been to check, I'd bet Galveston is almost completely rebuilt by now, slightly over a year later. Note that Galveston is one of the few places on Earth that is an even worse spot as regards hurricanes than New Orleans is.
2) I find it incredibly sad that I'm not a scientist, not a teacher, and have not one single degree... and yet so far it looks like I have a clearer understanding of the scientific method than you do.
Eh. All of you guys are too smart for me.
Well, all but one.
I'm just a knuckle-dragger so the only thing I got out of this is that if I bring Marky-Mark some trinkets and beads he will worship me as a god. Right?
That's pretty cool though, if you think about it.
I don't normally comment here, generally I just read and absorb information and look at both sides of most every argument
BUT.....
I felt compelled to say something here.
quote/
"This is one example. Been to New Orleans lately? Parts of it look an awful lot like Kabul to me. This is what a failed ideology does to a nation."
/end quote.
I couldn't agree more, however I don't think that exactly works in favor of the point that is attempted within. New Orleans is most certainly a product of a failed ideology, that of which has has led to massive numbers of people demanding and/or expecting handouts and giving little to no thought on actually attempting to lift themselves out of poverty. Which side of the political argument demands such policies these days?
And to further the argument, it is insinuated that it is the Rich Capitalists' fault that these impoverished people of New Orleans remain in squalor?
Hippie, please.
I seem to recall a few years ago, in the aftermath of Katrina, that busload upon busload of New Orleans natives were heaped upon my fair Texas. Scores of these 'victims' were given debit cards(at taxpayers' expense) to use to purchase basic needs and goods, and many used them for "needs:" ranging from strip clubs to designer clothes. I and many of my fellow Texans volunteered to assist in any way we could to aid those in need. What was given us in return? An exponential increase in crime. Countless complaints. Not a finger lifted by an overwhelming mass to aid in the cleanup effort or to do anything about the issue at hand.
(This was not, mind you, how everyone affected responded or acted. It was, however, the overwhelming majority.)
I have seen firsthand what mindset is pervasive amongst these people, and I can say for sure right here, right now, it was not placed there by those among us who promote individual freedom, individual responsibility, and individual liberty.
Somehow, someway, I am supposed to infer that this behavior is somehow the fault of a conservative/republican/libertarian
/capitalist/fill-in-the-blank-as-long-as they are not associated with the left?
The people who gave the most to charity, who donated the most time, money, and thought to the needy, and the people who are overall paying the majority of the taxes collected in this country are somehow evil and responsible for the fall of a nation, yet somehow the people pushing the failed policies of failed nations are our new saviors, and are free to dictate "logic" and "facts" calculated only by their "feelings"?
There is a point (likely reached by the recent Nobel Peace Prize award) wherein even the Onion is rivaled in trying to emulate life. It just gets that surreal.
This beats that in spades. The National Enquirer couldn't be counted on to blow this much smoke.
On a separate note....
I've lived in every class available. I grew up rich, graduated high school and wound up in a job that put me in middle class. Upon losing that job, I was penniless and had to start from ground zero poverty and work my way back to lower middle class wherein I now reside. I do not recall, even when things were there worst and I made 10k a year (less, actually), being without basic needs like food, clothes, shelter, power, etc.
At no point did my life reflect ANYTHING remotely close to a third world country lifestyle. I had access to healthcare, even if it was just the emergency room or public clinic and the bills had to sit and wait eons until I had the funds to pay them. Never was I in danger of famine, disease, or in fear for my life.
To suggest that somehow there is some existence in the middle class wherein money is no concern is abject lunacy. Money is always a concern, you're either concerned with making it, spending it, or saving it. It never simply ceases to exist.
Apologies for the rant, but sometimes I feel compelled to add something, even if that something adds up to nothing.
No, James, that added up to quite a bit more than nothing.
Been to New Orleans lately? Parts of it look an awful lot like Kabul to me.
Speaking as someone who survived Katrina first-hand, and who has returned to the disaster area (namely, the Mississippi coast - an area that was harder-hit by the storm and has, in total, received significantly less money-per-person for recovery efforts) in order to recover his belongings and help fellow crewmates, and who has also happened to drop anchor and dock in such places as Kuwait, Djibouti, Bahrain, and the Maldives, I find the above comment to be offensively ignorant.
To be certain, I have never stepped foot in Afghanistan, and I am thankful for that every day. But what I saw in those few countries I did visit showed just how much better we have it, even immediately after one of the world's worst recorded natural disters.
And I really have nothing else to say about anything else Markadelphia wrote - it is all equally based on blind faith, insistence that his reality is the only "real" reality, an outright denial of basic logic and evidence, and so forth... He is, in short, yet another "woman with the earrings", and I have to tolerate too many of those already.
If memory serves, the flooding in the midwest this year did more damage and cost more lives than Katrina. Is that the result of a "failed ideology", too? Should people shriek about racism because the victims were nearly all white people? Or since they were nearly all middle class, did none of them actually exist?
Please explain, if you can, how either event has any connection whatever to ideology, or who is in the White House. Keep in mind that both relief efforts were put in place at the federal level decades ago, and both are administered on the ground at the state and local levels.
How is one the result of a "failed ideology" and the other is not?
I find the above comment to be offensively ignorant.
Yeah, starting to notice a pattern with Mark's analogies?
That's the thing about analogy, too; when you build one you're revealing some critical stuff about your thought process. It's similar to word association in that it reveals your biases, shows the gut reaction you have to certain ideas (conservatism/Al Qaeda, work/slavery). The difference is, someone in analogy has time enough to, in theory, think about what he's saying and put it aside on grounds of intellectual honesty.
"Don't we have a quote of him calling progressive income taxation "good capitalism" round here somewheres?"
Yes, we do, Ken. You can find it here:
Sarah: ""taxation in the name of "fairness" comes from. What do you call it?"
Markaphasia: "I call it good capitalism."
"The difference is, someone in analogy has time enough to, in theory, think about what he's saying and put it aside on grounds of intellectual honesty."
Think about it? Hell, Markaphasia can't take the time to read what he writes, much less what he responds to.
"The people who gave the most to charity, who donated the most time, money, and thought to the needy, and the people who are overall paying the majority of the taxes collected in this country are somehow evil and responsible for the fall of a nation, yet somehow the people pushing the failed policies of failed nations are our new saviors, and are free to dictate "logic" and "facts" calculated only by their "feelings"?"
This is a complete and utter lie. As demonstrated quite clearly in the citigroup document, a document, Kevin, that was prepared by a PRIVATE organization, the wealthy of this nation have more money and power than ever before. These are facts and they are shown in the data in this document.
While I am certain that there is charity by the wealthy of this nation, you are failing to look at how much the system has changed over the years. In essence, you are no longer defending capitalism but corporate welfare or perhaps even corporate communism.
This new ideology which you defend is born out of fervent and borderline psychotic belief that the government is an all encompassing evil entity and that ONLY private industry can save the day. Even though we have all seen how poorly this ideology works, it doesn't matter. Don't believe what your eyes are telling you...gubmint evil. Ugh!
What you describe regarding feelings dictated by "logic" and "facts" is actually YOUR ideology and belief system. I offer as proof of this your assertion that the wealthy pay more in taxes than anyone else so poor them for being abused. Of course they "pay more" but that misses the point entirely and this is due to your feelings and not logic and facts....feelings which leave you COMPLETELY incapable of admitting any sort of fault with your psychotic belief system.
"This new ideology which you defend is born out of fervent and borderline psychotic belief that the government is an all encompassing evil entity and that ONLY private industry can save the day."
This old ideology which you defend is born out of a fervent and borderline psychotic belief that private industry is an all encompassing evil entity and that ONLY government can save the day.
Damn, teacher boy, but you practice projection as if you had no other skill. For example:
"... and this is due to your feelings and not logic and facts....feelings which leave you COMPLETELY incapable of admitting any sort of fault with your psychotic belief system."
That's you in a nutshell.
Morning, Ralph.
As demonstrated quite clearly in the citigroup document,
No, it's not.
You don't know what that document is. All you can see is something that you think proves your point. It doesn't. (And Ken has addressed that, no wonder you're not talking to him.)
a document, Kevin, that was prepared by a PRIVATE organization, the wealthy of this nation have more money and power than ever before. These are facts and they are shown in the data in this document.
That's the take of those analysis, yes. Who the hell are they? I've never heard of them before or since.
I've prepared such documents for companies and even a couple for the EPA. They're analysis documents, and are worth reading, but they are not, by themselves, proof of anything. You have to still understand 1) what they're doing with the document and 2) the data they're presenting (and not).
As a matter of fact, I've edited and RE-WRITTEN a couple for the EPA where a prior writer had a bone to pick/axe to grind had had put his bias into the analysis in a glaring way - and it had passed until it came to me and I raised some flags about it.
They're writing a sales pitch. I've explained this to you above.
In essence, you are no longer defending capitalism but corporate welfare or perhaps even corporate communism.
No, just as in your New Orleans example, that's actually what you're doing.
This new ideology which you defend is born out of fervent and borderline psychotic belief that the government is an all encompassing evil entity and that ONLY private industry can save the day.
How many carbon credits do you have to buy to make up for your strawmen you burn?
That's you take on Kevin and other's belief - not theirs. It's been demonstrated to be wrong repeatedly, yet you're unwilling to change that strawman to the reality.
I offer as proof of this your assertion that the wealthy pay more in taxes than anyone else so poor them for being abused.
You offer what in proof? You haven't proven anything.
Except in your fevered mind.
Of course they "pay more" but that misses the point entirely and this is due to your feelings and not logic and facts.
Wait, what, you concede that you're wrong, but nevermind that, it's no the point? Then what is the point?
...feelings which leave you COMPLETELY incapable of admitting any sort of fault with your psychotic belief system.
Let's see, Mark.
Who here has defined the failure to rebuilt areas of New Orleans in 5 years as a "failed [Republican/Conservative] ideology"? (Notice that no other place devastated by Katrina has received a tenth of the funds poured into NO, and yet has rebuilt now.)
Who here claimed there is no middle class?
Who here claimed that there was a time when the middle class didn't worry about money?
Who here insists on giving the government power, power that's easily purchased by those with money?
Who here claims that the educational system is unfairly attacked and described, yet cannot even articulate a single point, nor define, much less defend a hypothesis?
Who here has claimed that the mortgage and financial markets are unregulated?
Who here has claimed that the rich don't invest their money, but give it to con men to steal, and thus the system isn't as we (according to you) describe it?
Who is citing a report by 3 (overseas) people with no idea of the backing, substance, or viability of their report, but that it's on CitiGroup letterhead, thus it's unarguable FACT? (Care to provide the other few tens of thousands of those reports, say, that are discussing the mortgage market and how there's no downside or how the CRA affects investments?)
Who, Mark?
Russell, I disagree. And, as I predicted in my original response to your challenge, the Nixonian approach would be taken with me and it has. Rather than give me props for generally laying out what you asked, hyper rage was heaped on the small mistakes I did make in the vain hope of making everyone here feel better about themselves and their insanely flawed ideology (see: faith is weak).
In regards to Kevin's use of the scientific method and his analysis of our education system, which post are you talking about? Thus far, all I have seen is commentary. Again, nothing wrong with commentary but it's not science rooted in facts and logic. I have yet to see an analysis of the aggregate data that NLCB has provided over the years regarding the students that aren't performing well in school. Of course, it's possible that I missed this and could be wrong.
And I'm not saying you are wrong. I'd like to see where Kevin used the scientific method to support his hypothesis that are schools are being run by socialists/fascists. Was he a participant in observation? Was it a controlled experiment? Did he do field work? Was it a survey? How did he gather the data and what sort of analysis did he do? Again, it's possible that I missed this but all I have seen is his wife's testimonial, a few ex teachers' tirades, some cutting and pasting from biased sources, and Besmenov quotes.
LOOK OUT! HE'S GONNA BLOW!!!
"that NLCB has provided over the years regarding the students that aren't performing well in school."
Maybe those students would be doing better if their teachers would crack a bloody dictionary once in a while.
Ralph, Ralph, Ralph.
I know it's your job and all, but surely you can do it better than that.
Rather than give me props for generally laying out what you asked, hyper rage was heaped on the small mistakes I did make in the vain hope of making everyone here feel better about themselves and their insanely flawed ideology (see: faith is weak).
But you didn't "generally lay out what was asked".
small mistakes
Like lecturing on "evidence" because you didn't know "evince"?
That was blown up over you being an asshat about it. And then refusing to admit that it deals a serious blow to your ability to follow a discussion, much less participate.
It wasn't that MINOR, and particularly your attempts to gloss it over as we laughed weren't.
But "No Middle Class?" that's a "small error"? A time when the middle class "didn't have to worry about money"? New Orleans as "Proof of a failed ideology" (When it's a Liberal Ideology you're speaking of?)
Those aren't "small mistakes, nor are they the only three you made.
Mark: you don't understand how to analyze information. You're totally unwilling to learn, and you, rather than learning from your mistakes, insist on multiplying them.
And then tell us we're living in psychotic reality....
Even you know the truth you're denying, don't you?
"Russell, I disagree."
Shocker! But where and what and why?
"And, as I predicted in my original response to your challenge, the Nixonian approach would be taken with me and it has."
You keep using Nixonian like you know what it means.
"Rather than give me props for generally laying out what you asked,"
You don't get an attaboy you don't earn.
You gave a starting sketch of the scientific method, but with just a bit more probing, it became apparent that's all you have, a sketch. See the parts from Ed about testing, experimentation and feedback.
"hyper rage"
Sweet! Hyper rage! Of course of miss the point that we are all laughing at you. No rage, just chortling.
"was heaped on the small mistakes I did make in the vain hope of making everyone here feel better about themselves and their insanely flawed ideology (see: faith is weak)."
WTF? Man, you are dense. By the way, how does an ideology go from flawed to insanely flawed? Is there some sort of ritual or does it require a certification process?
Also, can you explain if there are no middle class then how can many be members of a null set? See, that isn't a small mistake, you keep doing that over and over, the whole thing with 'evince' was just an indicator of your constant systemic failure. So rant and rave all you want, that doesn't change the fact you have no idea what you talking about.
"In regards to Kevin's use of the scientific method and his analysis of our education system, which post are you talking about?"
You really do need your information predigested, don't you?
If you can't understand what Ken did in his take down of your CitiGroup link, you'll never understand what Kevin's posts provide. I linked one for you already, I won't do it again since any actions are redundant.
In fact, if I recall correctly, I've done this exact dance with you in the past some two years ago. You simply couldn't understand the most basic chains of logic, or even the concept of a premise. And, even after repeated attempts on my part to explain in detail what you needed to do, you still couldn't understand the directions I provided. Nice to see not much has changed!
Maybe if Muskadroolia went to church once in a while, even a very gay-happy Left-Liberal church like Presbyterians or Lutherans or American Baptists he'd realize how much small donations by the middle-class add-up to big quantities of actual charity. He's probably unaware of the ongoign tradition of tithing. But he's blind, deaf, and dumb as a post.
While Commenters correctly point out that Marky has repeatedly demonstrated himself to have an insufficient grasp of the scientific method (iirc, he once described it as "considering the opposite" or some such nonsense, though he's getting better at cutting and pasting) to be able to evaluate any argument so constructed, I'm surprised that no one has caught onto the fact that his repeated, bizarre demand that we somehow "use the scientific method" to prove what is really a matter of historical fact one way or the other is nothing more than an Alinsky Rule 4 maneuver.
The scientific method is not the tool of choice (and possibly not a valid tool at all) for establishing matters of historical fact. How does one scientifically test the hypothesis that George Washington did or did not cut down the cherry tree?
This is ultimately what he asks us to do , and in so doing, it illuminates much.
Darn it, geek! I was just working on that point!
Not as succinctly as you just put it, though.
*grumbles*
*sigh*
Okay, I'll bite. I shouldn't, and I know I shouldn't, but this is just too tempting.
/quote
This is a complete and utter lie. As demonstrated quite clearly in the citigroup document, a document, Kevin, that was prepared by a PRIVATE organization, the wealthy of this nation have more money and power than ever before. These are facts and they are shown in the data in this document.
/end quote
Really? I'm lying? When I say that I firsthand witnessed the unbridled generosity and charity of hundreds (perhaps thousands) of my fellow "bitter clingers" as we worked our fingers to the bone, raised the plate on Sunday morning towards the relief effort, cooked meals for the refugees, and volunteered to do everything we could to help, etc., that's all a fat lie?
Huh. I didn't know that. Thanks for clearing that up.
And just how in the hell can you compare anything in Katrina with the nations top earners having more power? That's comparing apples and minivans.
/quote
While I am certain that there is charity by the wealthy of this nation, you are failing to look at how much the system has changed over the years. In essence, you are no longer defending capitalism but corporate welfare or perhaps even corporate communism.
/end quote
Riiight. And charity has exactly WHAT to do with the system changing as you outlined here?
/quote
This new ideology which you defend is born out of fervent and borderline psychotic belief that the government is an all encompassing evil entity and that ONLY private industry can save the day. Even though we have all seen how poorly this ideology works, it doesn't matter. Don't believe what your eyes are telling you...gubmint evil. Ugh!
/end quote
Uhhh, yeah. This is reminding me more and more of the Underpants Gnomes scheme. Throw a beginning and an end that do not line up in the slightest, and put some question marks in the middle.
/quote
What you describe regarding feelings dictated by "logic" and "facts" is actually YOUR ideology and belief system. I offer as proof of this your assertion that the wealthy pay more in taxes than anyone else so poor them for being abused. Of course they "pay more" but that misses the point entirely and this is due to your feelings and not logic and facts....feelings which leave you COMPLETELY incapable of admitting any sort of fault with your psychotic belief system
/end quote
Soooo, we pay more in forced charity (taxes) and in good hearted charity (donations, tithing, actual volunteer work, etc.) but somehow this blinds me to seeing things any other way?
My ideology is only dictated by "feelings"?
No, my ideology is dictated by HISTORY.
Your claim that my proposed system is/was a failure is dishonest and self serving at best. You call it a failure only because it did not work the way you think it should.
My system has no faults?
Okay, I won't resort to insults here, but do you honestly think that anyone here believes that?
The system that I and many others here promote(without trying to speak for anyone else) is a system comprised of individual liberty and responsibility. There are indeed many negative aspects to it but it is likely the least evil of the alternatives.
Collectivists will, after all, be brought down by their own mistakes and flaws in this system.
It is not government that is inherently evil, it's the men who control it. You will never change that, no matter how many good meaning individuals you assign within.
With that, I'm done. I've said my piece, feel free to come back and revel in the fact that I refuse to go any further with this.
Also, Kevin's uber posts are more along the lines of a research paper than an op-ed. Not knowing the difference is just par of the course with Marky.
And, the scientific method is a process that takes different forms. Failure to identify the process in a different form, well, smacks of cargo culting.
I still am amused he whines about us not doing what he wants, when his questions have been answered in a form he doesn't understand.
One last thought.
/quote
I'm just a knuckle-dragger so the only thing I got out of this is that if I bring Marky-Mark some trinkets and beads he will worship me as a god. Right?
That's pretty cool though, if you think about it.
/end quote
Larry wins the internets. I can't stop laughing about that.
"This is a complete and utter lie. As demonstrated quite clearly in the citigroup document, a document, Kevin, that was prepared by a PRIVATE organization, the wealthy of this nation have more money and power than ever before. These are facts and they are shown in the data in this document."
And so, as demonstrated quite clearly in figures 1 and 2 of Part 2 of the Citigroup document, does everyone else.
As to charitable contributions, the point Kevin was making, there is not a syllable. Once again, you made it up.
Okay, then.
Kevin's hypothesis (paraphrased): The wealthy provide most of the private charity in this country.
Markadelphia's hypothesis: This is a complete and utter lie.
So, we have a null hypothesis and an alternative hypothesis. Now we need some data to test our competing hypotheses.
Ah, here's some: http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=96981,00.html
I used 2004 data because that's the most recent year the Citigroup analysts used.
Haloscan isn't the best format for this, sorry. The formatting may suck. Errors in cutting and pasting are mine, not the IRS's.
Adjusted Gross Income returns Amount (USD 1,000)
Under $5,000 198,717 158,358
$5,000 under $10,000 428,605 583,699
$10,000 under $15,000 782,103 1,246,110
$15,000 under $20,000 1,065,731 1,886,719
$20,000 under $25,000 1,269,685 2,501,976
$25,000 under $30,000 1,494,582 3,145,498
$30,000 under $35,000 1,778,517 3,501,913
$35,000 under $40,000 1,943,178 4,191,960
$40,000 under $45,000 1,959,406 4,328,132
$45,000 under $50,000 1,963,145 4,416,445
$50,000 under $55,000 1,931,690 4,404,211
$55,000 under $60,000 1,965,866 4,992,085
$60,000 under $75,000 5,520,688 14,568,080
$75,000 under $100,000 7,319,212 20,623,462
$100,000 under $200,000 8,279,167 34,301,007
$200,000 under $500,000 2,123,896 18,440,774
$500,000 under $1,000,000 385,211 8,150,747
$1,000,000 under $1,500,000 91,105 3,702,417
$1,500,000 under $2,000,000 39,647 2,543,783
$2,000,000 under $5,000,000 59,285 6,549,751
$5,000,000 under $10,000,000 14,749 4,428,598
$10,000,000 or more 9,241 16,898,662
The top 1.5 percent of AGI (based on samples of filed returns with itemized deductions as reported by IRS), those with AGI north of $200,000, made 25.53% of the total itemized cash and non-cash contributions in 2004. If you include those making at least $100,000 you get about 6.7% of filers making 36.67% of contributions.
I know which hypothesis I think has been rejected. How about you?
See, this is the scientific method. Watching Bill Maher, seagull-crapping a quote, and then flying away is not.
Anticipating a counterargument: "That's not enough, based on the wealth they control!"
The only rational and moral reply to that is: "What makes it your business?"
>>With that, I'm done. I've said my piece, feel free to come back and revel in the fact that I refuse to go any further with this.
James passes the test. I'll have to post up why later....too long for a lunch hour.
President Barack Obama’s economic recovery program saved 935 jobs at the Southwest Georgia Community Action Council, an impressive success story for the stimulus plan. Trouble is, only 508 people work there.
It's Mark-math!
(Remember, Mark, who accuses of of insane-world views, insisted that 22 million viewers (who watch the broadcast nightly news on average) was more than the 15 million all-time-peak listeners of Rush Limbaugh. But how dare we evince distrust of the educational system?)
"With that, I'm done. I've said my piece, feel free to come back and revel in the fact that I refuse to go any further with this."
Aw, c'mon, James! You're just getting warmed up! Don't you like playing Whack-a-Mark?
"but somehow this blinds me to seeing things any other way?"
Yes. During the Eisenhower administration, the top one percent paid over 90 percent in income tax. You say you deal in historical facts. This is one. Under President Reagan, they paid around 50 percent. During these two time periods, did our country descend into socialism? Were the elite of our country "punished" for being rich? Or were they still able to enjoy their lifestyle? How did the infrastructure of our country look then as opposed to how it does now? I think better then and shit now.
Now that tax rate is just under 40 percent. They have a lower tax rate and make more money than ever before. And that's "being punished?" And if President Obama changes that rate from 38 to 39 percent, he's a socialist? And I lead with my feelings? Not fucking close, dude.
I don't think the government is the answer to everything. But I also don't think they are not the answer to anything. There was a time when it was more balanced. Now, it is not. And that's what I want, in the end, is more balance. I don't want the government running everything but I do want them to not shrink at the sight of the formula for a stock derivative and say, "Ah, whatever...you guys know what you are doing."
I'm certain that many of you are just dandy with the government providing for the common defense, right? Does that include Homeland Security? And don't some issues of public health fall under HS? If Al Qaeda attacked us with a biological weapon, it's within the government's obligations to protect us, right? So what if no one is attacking us and it's just a virus? How about then? Or what if it is cancer?
It seems terribly hypocritical to me to agree that the government should provide for our defense on the one hand and then turn around and say but ONLY like THIS. If you are the student of history that you say you are, at what times...what decades...was our country the most prosperous? For simplicity, let's say the 1930s to the present.
"During the Eisenhower administration, the top one percent paid over 90 percent in income tax."
Where does this number come from?
Where does this number come from?
A functionally illiterate gloss on marginal tax rates, Ed.
Ken, if Marky is going to claim it, he has to prove it. That's the scientific method in action. He has to provide his data to outside sources for independent verification.
During the Eisenhower administration, the top one percent paid over 90 percent in income tax. You say you deal in historical facts. This is one.
90%, you say? What does that mean?
Before I deal with it, I'll ask you (hah! has if you won't run away from that - much as you've run away from your own assertions, but I'm required to ask.)
90% of what? Define (hah!) that.
Then tell me what % of the income tax was paid by what % of the population.
You know, historical fact, right? Surely you can quickly answer that, right?
I think better then and shit now.
Says the man typing on the personal computer connecting to the rest of us via fiber optics/lasers and bouncing signals off of satellites.
Yeah, the infrastructure was much better then.. You're a couple of years older than me, Mark. So tell me. Remember the show "Emergency!"? Remember what the Ambulance looked like? and the guys in coats who merely drove you to the hospital?
(That show drove the demand for paramedic and what turned into EMTs everywhere.) But prior to 1980, a ambulance ride was merely a quick trip to a hospital - only the few places with paramedics actually *did* anything.
Yeah, it's so much worse now.
I don't think the government is the answer to everything.
We have yet to get an honest answer from you where you do Not demand more government power even if you're decrying the results of government power.
There was a time when it was more balanced. Now, it is not. And that's what I want, in the end, is more balance.
More nonsense from you. Not that I disagree (Like the stopped clock, this is your being right - by chance) - just your lack of ability to think has totally made you unable to understand WHAT you just said.
Yes, there's massive imbalance. Which also has followed an exponential growth in the government and in regulation. Which you're mostly oblivious, ignorant, or insultingly obtuse to.
You claim to want "more balance" by tilting the scale more.
Just as I've pointed out above, your comments are utterly at odds with your claimed policy statements.
When did the middle class "not have to worry about money"? When? I want specific dates - dates you won't give me because even you realize that it's a stupid thing to have said.
1920s? 30s? 40s? 50s? 60s? Define it Mark, go ahead. But when we dissolve in laughter, don't get mad at us for "hyper rage".
Any time in the past, even under Reagan, there were orders of MAGNITUDE less government. Wait. Sorry. I'll need to explain that to you. Just think of it as the zeros as you go up by 10s to 100s, for example. That'll work.
Balance. We've got more government than ever before and you demand more for "balance". That can't make sense, even for you.
Then call us psychotic. (And run away from your own arguments.)
C'mon, Ralph, if you're going to do your job, do it well.
"And that's what I want, in the end, is more balance."
Beginning, of course, with gubmint controlling health care, which is one sixth of the economy. That would be more balanced, now wouldn't it? Then throw in mortgage lending, banking, investing, automobile manufacturing, ...
"Ken, if Marky is going to claim it, he has to prove it. That's the scientific method in action. He has to provide his data to outside sources for independent verification."
As usual, he'd better first learn the definitions of the terms he uses. I suggest beginning with the definitions of "net tax rate", "marginal tax rate", "inclusive tax rate", and "exclusive tax rate".
Hah. I crack me up.
Ed:
Mark: "During the Eisenhower administration, the top one percent paid over 90 percent in income tax."
Ed: Where does this number come from?
Oh, you can easily find it in most left-wing sites. Google Eisenhower tax rates (Most sites are Not Safe For Your Sanity - warning.)
What you won't find is the explanation that you and Ken have already twigged onto, and Ralph, in his cut-and-paste argument style, doesn't understand.
Psst... Think progressive marginal tax rates...
Aw, c'mon, James! You're just getting warmed up! Don't you like playing Whack-a-Mark?
Actually, yes. I find it addicting enough that I am afraid if the state of California finds out about it, they will either outlaw it or tax the living crap out of those that partake.
However,
Done is done. Coming up on someone who continually beats themselves in the head with a hammer is pretty funny at first, but becomes excruciatingly painful (to the outside party) after a while. All you can do is ask said handyman to stop. If he doesn't, you move on. He will eventually get to the core of the problem.
Besides, I don't have to say or do anything. So far everything he has said or done has proven him either flat wrong or painfully ignorant.
"Besides, I don't have to say or do anything. So far everything he has said or done has proven him either flat wrong or painfully ignorant."
Ah, the Akido form of argument :)
Also, Re: Eisenhower. Korean war was just ending, the higher tax rates were due to the war. Eisenhower chose to keep the tax rates the way they were in attempt to balance the budget.
Ha!
More info : http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-192.html
I'm with James at this point. When I think of Tinkerballs, this video is the closest I can come to what it's like to "argue" with him. (He's the ghoul with the spoon, obviously.)
Yeah, it's hard to sharpen one's knife on a wet sponge.
Kevin, where do you find this stuff?!?
I dub Marky "Spoonkiller"
"Where does this number come from?"
It's common knowledge but since I know you won't believe any source but this one...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,443908,00.html
"Now, obviously what Obama is talking about is what we have had for a long time, progressive taxation. Now, he wants to raise the marginal income tax rate from about 36 percent today to about 39.5. It is a little higher because he wants to eliminate a lot of deductions that the other income people have, so perhaps it's in the 40's.
But let's remember, under Eisenhower, the marginal income tax rate was 91 percent." -Charles Krauthammer
And let's add in the the preceding paragraphs as well...
"Since the word "socialism" has reared its ugly head, let's dispose of it.
Joe the plumber is a great guy, but I will take my political philosophy from Fred Barnes rather than Joe the plumber. Socialism actually is when the government takes over means of production, or Lenin called the commanding heights of the economy.
And we saw it action not Soviet Union but in Britain after the Second World War where labor took over the mines, the railroads, and other of the sinews of the economy. It proved a disaster. Thatcher had to undo it. It is being undone around the world, and redone now on a temporary basis because of the financial crisis.
But as Fred indicated, that is all temporary. It's not intended to retake commanding heights. That's socialism."
I suppose that Krauthammer isn't a "real" conservative.
Still waiting on when the middle class "didn't have to worry about money." ......
Where did he get the number? A talking head on TV (no matter which network) is not a verifiable source.
The best kind of source for this kind of number is one which lists the number in context, such as when it was passed, when it was ended, related numbers (such as what income level had to pay this rate, what the other rates were, what percentage of people had to pay that rate, etc.), what other taxes were taken at the time, and so forth. It should also have footnotes on where those numbers came from. (For example: "Source: Congressional Budget Office, Document Title, mmm, dd, 19xx, p. xx")
"Socialism actually is when the government takes over means of production, or Lenin called the commanding heights of the economy."
Hello? Are we learning yet? Let's check dictionary.reference.com:
Socialism
"An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists."
Ed:
But don't note that the government took over two of the largest car companies (and two of the largest companies in the world), is specifying what you can pay employees, (and specifically firing some of them)...
And is talking about "competing" with the insurance companies in health insurance, while writing the rules and regulations, while requiring care and mandating reimbursements....
And don't you dare call that socialism!
Since Mark gets so upset when conservatives call Obama "socialist", does that mean they must be pretty close to home, under his rules?
EMP:
HYPER RAGE! HYPER RAGE! HYPER RAGE!
RACIST!
Geek with a .45 makes a fair point with his comments at 9:41 and 10:17 am Nov. 4, but I think (and no, I'm not claiming I thought of this a priori) there's a certain value for the bystanders in demonstrating that an Alinskyite's rigged game can be kicked up between his shoulder blades nearly as easily as a straight game.
Regarding that 90% figure that gets whipped out, I suggest that the following question be asked of the person quoting it:
What was the effective tax rate during paid by those who fell under that 90% tax bracket during that time period?
As any retired CPA that worked then can tell you, during that era there were quite a few loopholes (since closed) one could use to hide their income from the Tax Man, making that on-paper 90% figure irrelevant.
Thus, I ask of Marxedelphia: Can you provide proof that anyone that figure applied to actually paid taxes at those rates?
I won't be holding my breath...
Mark: (Not Ralph)
Shhhh! See, you gave it away, now he can try and google and wiki it and act like he knew it all along! ... Well, if he was able to synthesis information and actually deal with the weakness of a prior position of his. Considering he's yet to walk back on the "unregulated mortgage market" and this thread's gem "no middle class"....
And not only is there "no middle" there are "many" in this empty set.
I think I'll call Marky "Scuttle" from the Little Mermaid, the seagull that thought knew everything but was wrong about it all.
Or maybe just Marxy!
"Where did he get the number? A talking head on TV (no matter which network) is not a verifiable source."
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=19
There are plenty of other sources.
"Can you provide proof that anyone that figure applied to actually paid taxes at those rates?"
You are correct, Mark, that they may not have paid that rate. I can do a little digging and see what I can find. As you know, private citizens are not obligated to release their tax records. Your point is interesting, though, in that it echoes what many CPAs say regarding people who bitch about taxes.."You must have a lousy accountant if you are paying that much!"
Essentially, my point regarding the 90 percent rate is that much of that money was used for infrastructure in this country. Our national highway system was built with some of that money. This system was integral to the economic growth of this country. One could argue that our interstate commerce is the backbone of capitalism in this country. Yet, according to many of you, it was built by "punishing the rich" and is socialism, right?
Morning, Ralph.
So what was the average tax rate paid during those years?
What was the total government budget?
How many people, and what % of the population worked for the government in any capacity?
Essentially, my point regarding the 90 percent rate is that much of that money was used for infrastructure in this country.
If that was your point, you failed massively to make it. You said nothing of infrastructure, but only of "top tax rates". Leaving aside why Kennedy slashed them so seriously - and how tax revenues increased when the tax rates were cut.
Our national highway system was built with some of that money.
Our interstate system was started under Eisenhower, that's true, but the national highway system predates Eisenhower by a good long while.
Yet, according to many of you, it was built by "punishing the rich" and is socialism, right?
Nope. You've missed the point as many times as it's been spelled out.
Now, when did the middle class "not have to worry about money"? And how much government was there at the time?
"You are correct, Mark, that they may not have paid that rate."
You still haven't done your homework, teacher boy.
Try this for starters:
Google "marginal tax rates Eisenhower". Select the third item (as of 11/05/09) which is this. You'll find a list showing the top marginal tax rate (%) for the years 1913 to 2003. Note that during the years 1951 through 1963, the top marginal rate was 91 or 92% on "taxable income over" $400,000.
Note that $400,000 in 1953 dollars (the year I was born) is equivalent to $3,235,490.64 in 2009 dollars. Inflation is a bitch.
Now, why do I keep on showing the word marginal in bold? To draw your attention to it. It is a term that you need to learn the definition of as it is used in the context of income tax rates.
Here is how it works:
Compute taxable income. That is total income, less adjustments to arrive at adjusted gross income, less deductions to arrive at taxable income. Thus, not every dollar earned is taxed. The tax rates are applied to taxable income, not total income.
Now, apply the marginal tax rates to compute the tax. For 2008 returns (i.e. last year), these rates were, for a filing status of "married filing jointly" (as shown on page 92 of Federal Form i1040gi.pdf, the instructions for last year's Federal Form 1040):
10% of the amount between 0 and 16,050
15% of the amount between 16,050 and 65,100
25% of the amount between 65,100 and 131,450
28% of the amount between 131,450 and 200,300
33% of the amount between 200,300 and 357,700
35% of the amount over 357,700
The key to understanding this is that as you earn more and more taxable dollars, they get taxed at a higher and higher rate. The term highest marginal tax rate is the rate applied at the margin, i.e. on the last taxable dollar earned.
For example, if you earned 357,701 in taxable income last year, the marginal tax rate applied to that last dollar was 35%, meaning the gubmint took 35 cents of it. But it took (see page 92, as cited) 96,770 of the first 357,700, giving a net total tax rate of 96,770.35 / 357,701 = 27.05%. This illustrates why the net tax rate is always less than the top marginal tax rate.
So, what was the net tax rate in 1953, when the top marginal tax rate was 92%? It depends on the total taxable income, thus it is not a fixed number, and it isn't 92%.
Now, I suggest two exercises for the teacher boy: 1) look up the tax rate schedule for 1953 and compute an example of the net total tax rate; and, 2) find the changes in tax rates (hint: begin with the first link I showed above) from 1963 to 1964, noting particularly the drop in the top marginal rate, said changes being insisted upon by President Kennedy, and look up the net increase in federal tax revenues that accrued as a result.
Now, a lesson in logic is in order.
Tax rates were once much higher than they are now. It does not logically follow from that observation alone that they are now either good or just. It takes much more investigation to make such an analysis, and you haven't yet done said analysis.
For example, in 1964, the last year of the Kennedy Administration, the marginal tax rates were reduced (with the top marginal rate dropping from 91% to 77%), resulting in both greater revenue to the gubmint and a lesser burden on the individual taxpayer. In 1988, the last year of the Reagan Administration, the marginal tax rates were reduced (with the top marginal rate dropping from 38.5% to 28%), again resulting in both greater revenue to the gubmint and a lesser burden on the individual taxpayer. In 2003, during the Bush Administration, the marginal tax rates were reduced (with the top marginal tax rate dropping from 38.6% to 35%), yet again resulting in both greater revenue to the gubmint and a lesser burden on the individual taxpayer.
This gives rise to a serious question: What would be the result if the marginal tax rates were dropped yet again? The only way to answer that question is to try it and see, because the result depends on the reactions of people who make economic decisions, and that is not predictable with specificity.
But look at the trend these three examples show, teacher boy. That's history.
Finally, why do we hear so much noise from Obamateur and Congress about raising marginal tax rates, particularly the top marginal rate, given the history I've hinted at above?
DJ,
I also noticed that the link Marky provided also has a footnote next to the top marginal rate. During those periods, the total tax taken could not exceed a percentage which was lower than the taxable rate. For example, in 1953, the total amount of the tax could not exceed 88% of taxable income. And that was the highest maximum ever and only lasted for 2 years. So no one was ever taxed at %90 of their total income. And somehow I doubt that anyone ever actually paid a tax anywhere near that high.
It would be really interesting if we could find a chart listing percentages of actual taxes paid compared to total income.
gubmint evil
I'll grant you, you have me on this one. However, you go immediately far astray from that basic premise. My belief that "government is evil" is not just some insane belief, it is a conclusion reached by examination of factual data.
Feel free to contest any point with which you disagree, and please follow up with an attempt to similarly define the whys and wherefores of your own position.
Government only has a limited number of tools at its disposal to achieve its ends. They are:
Confiscation of property (taxes, eminent domain, etc.)
Imprisonment (in other words, confiscation of liberty).
Violence (the deliberate injury or death of its opponents).
Those are the only tools any government has at its disposal. You can claim regulations and laws as tools they have, but that begs the question of why those subject to said regulations and laws conform to their dictates. See the 3 tools above, those are the reasons why. They are the only reasons why.
Note the common denominator of those 3 tools. They are all based in force.
Now, let's look at the private sector. The private sector is forbidden to use force on its customers. They can persuade, they can use economic and other forms of pressure to their own advantage, but they cannot, in and of themselves, force you to do anything.
This applies even to such essentials as food and housing. Even if there is only one grocery store and one construction company within any reasonable distance from me, they cannot forbid me doing my own construction or growing my own food.
The only way a private company can force me to patronize them is by enlisting the help of government, as insurance companies have done.
So yes, I believe government is, by definition, evil. It exists for one purpose and one purpose only, to exercise force against people, the majority of whom are its own citizens. This is demonstrated by the inherent limitations in its available tools.
Yes, I support taxation for military defense. For that matter, I support taxation for Mississippi River flood control. Yes, this means that members of Code Pink are being forced to spend money on something they don't believe they should have to. There is no contradiction. The reason I support such things is because a) they are not limited to a single area, and b) they are not subjects where individual choices will produce a less-than-lethal result. Mississippi River flood control is a problem that has to be addressed uniformly from Minnesota to Louisiana. If Minnesota politicians get it wrong, everyone from there to the Gulf pays the price. In the same way, I cannot agree to let the Code Pinkos refuse to pay taxes to support military defense. If they can get California to cede them part of the state that gets no government services, has no government-funded infrastructure and will not be protected by the military or the Coast Guard or whoever, then I'm okay with them not paying for military defense, or anything else they don't feel like paying for. In or out, don't swing on the door.
In short, they are areas where leaving the issue to individual choice, or even the choice of an individual state, not only produces disastrous results but goes directly against the concept of equality under the law. You see, if the Code Pinkos quit paying taxes to support the military, they get "free" military protection at my expense. Equality under the law ends up becoming "everyone gets the benefit, but those who don't wish to pay for it don't have to".
So... yes, government is evil. It is tolerated because in those areas it is applied, it is a necessary evil. As a result of this, I agree to government "fixing a problem" only after a) solutions have been tried in the private sector and have abjectly failed, and b) simply tolerating the problem just isn't one of our options.
Continued...
"... Government should do only those things the people cannot do for themselves." -- Ronald Reagan
Now, lets' apply those principles to some specifics, shall we?
Education: So far it appears that home-schooling and private schools produce consistently better results than schools funded by taxation. So yes, I am against force and the threat of force as a tool to provide the product of education. Not only can the private sector do the same job without forcing anyone, they are apparently making a better job of it.
Health care: Much of the screaming done by the party currently in power (including you as one of its members, Mark) is about "lowering costs/prices" and "increasing choice". The reason I am against government healthcare "reform" is because government is far more part of the problem than part of the solution. A good 10% of current costs is the direct result of politicians coddling trial lawyers and lawsuit fanatics. A majority of the current lack of choices is a direct result of government forbidding insurers from competing against one another in all 50 states.
In other words, the private sector has been forbidden by government to attempt to solve its own problems. And even with the problems imposed directly by government, healthcare insurance enjoys an 87% satisfaction rate, which I suspect is far higher than the satisfaction rate of nearly any government program you care to name. Therefore I feel that the "problem" would be easier to tolerate than any "solution" government imposed upon us.
Climate Change: I have shown, and will show you again if you need it, how the "fear-shit your pants-we're all gonna DIE!!!" alleged 'science' of the global warming alarmists is, at best, suspect. I'm not willing to go digging for links without a specific request for them, but I think a very cursory reading will show that almost any private industry you can name has been consistently trying to find ways to innovate and use less petroleum, less coal, less plastic, produce less pollution, etc. They haven't needed a campaign of alarmism to do this because they were motivated by the desire to a) reduce their own costs, thereby increasing net profits, and b) draw in more customers, thus increasing net profits.
Using the principles outlined in the above post, I fail to see why everything in the industry should be overhauled, since 1) the innovations you claim to want are happening anyway without government intervention, and 2) they are doing it in a way which benefits people in both the short and long terms, rather than punishing everyone in the short term for a long term benefit that government cannot provide without the assistance of the very same private sector they are punishing to get it. And besides, 3) I strongly suspect that, like healthcare, government's "solutions" will be much less satisfactory to the public at large than the "problems" they replaced.
Mark,
I suspect that what has most people here blown away by your attitude is that you seem to think government intervention, in other words force or the threat of force, is a good first place to look for solutions, rather than where you look only after all other attempts to find a solution have failed.
Grumpy, Fox News has an interesting story about the health care bill that Polosi is about to put before the House.
I'll just quote the first few paragraphs:
"The health care reform bill awaiting debate in the House assumes millions of workers and employers would rather pay $167 billion in fines than purchase or provide adequate coverage, according to a recent analysis, raising questions about whether the plan does enough to make insurance affordable.
"Though the bill is estimated to expand coverage from the current 83 percent to 96 percent of legal U.S. residents, the windfall of projected penalty payments also exposes a potential contradiction in reform. A significant part of the plan to expand coverage relies financially on fines from the uninsured.
"The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated in its study last week that the House bill would bring in $167 billion over 10 years -- $33 billion from fines paid by individuals who decline to buy insurance, and the rest from employers who don't offer insurance to workers or contribute enough toward premiums.
"Ernest Istook, a former Republican congressman from Oklahoma who is now a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, calculated that anywhere between 8 million and 14 million people would end up paying the fines.
"This raises a few problems, he said. First, if those millions somehow get covered and don't pay the fine, then the health program is faced with a budget hole.
"Second, he said, it speaks to a flaw with the insurance packages that are being offered. "If you say people would rather pay $167 billion in penalties rather than buy insurance under your new plan, what's wrong with your new plan?" he asked.
"The answer, Istook said: "It's expensive.""
And, I don't hesistate to add, it's gubmint.
Both sides in this cannibal-pot extravaganza better hope that those 8 to 14 million just roll over and pay the fines. That's an awfully big number -- it's not just a Carl Drega here, a Wayne Fincher there, and a Cory Mayes out thataway.
It amazes me that people can do the math, and still not be able to do the math.
It amazes me that a few (ahem) leaders in Congress can propose a law that depends on people disobeying it to be, by their reckoning, financially sound. Isn't this an implicit admission that they know people don't want it and the don't expect people to obey it? Isn't it a further admission that their stated goal, viz. financially sound, gubmint backed health care for everyone is not attainable by them?
"Tax rates were once much higher than they are now. It does not logically follow from that observation alone that they are now either good or just. It takes much more investigation to make such an analysis, and you haven't yet done said analysis."
That's true, I haven't. But this guy has. He also speaks to some of your other points. For purposes of discussion, I will cut and paste what he wrote.
"The year I was born-1968-the lowest income quintile ended at $3,323, and they were taxed (assuming all income was taxed) at 18.275%. In 2005, that lowest income quintile ended at $19,178, and they were taxed 15% - and overall tax reduction for the poorest Americans of 3.275%.
Compare this to the experience at the high end of the income scale. In 1968, earning $19,850 put a person in the top 5% of income earners, where they paid 30.1% taxes on additional earnings. In 2005, you had to earn $166,000 to break into the top 5% - and you paid 33% tax on additional earnings. Doesn't this mean that taxes went down on the poor and up on the rich? For some, yes. But that is still a skewed view of American wealth.
If adjusted for inflation, that $19,850 would be $111,988 in 2005 - and would be taxed at only 28%. That means the same income level has actually had their income tax drop 2%. That is pretty close to the same level of reduction felt by the lowest income earners. The majority of taxpayers, then, have seen their taxes fall by all of 2-3%. The full view, however, is only seen from the top.
The marginal tax rate - the highest tax bracket - in 1968 was 75.25% for incomes over $200,000. Adjusted for inflation, that would be a $1,128,351 - and they would pay 35% taxes on income over $326,450. For someone making over a million dollars a year currently, that's a 40% tax savings! According to the IRS Statistics of Income, that means about 270,000 people benefited from this tax break in 2004 (2005 and later statistics not currently available). So how much money is that? If the whole sum were subjected to only a 20% tax, the United States government would have brought in an additional $98 BILLION. By way of comparison, this is $17 billion more than was spent in Iraq in 2005.
This is a natural function of the multiplier effect of wealth. Less than one percent of Americans earn more than a million dollars, but they account for 11.2% of all income. This doesn't mean we should "soak the rich", but it does mean that over my lifetime the extremely wealthy have benefited from massive tax cuts."
This was from Thurman Hart of NJ.com
Like Mr Hart, I am not advocating seizing large quantities of cash from the most wealthy of this country. I am saying that it is quite clear that they have benefited massively over the years from tax breaks. This was done in order to encourage them to invest in our economy. They didn't do that. They pissed it away and gave it to people like Bernie Madoff and Tom Petters (local boy gone bad). They used to to pay their CEOs insane sums of money for failing and invested it in unicorn farts. I think we have seen what they do with breaks and I think they should have less of them. That does NOT mean that the government should control their money. It does mean that perhaps the government should not perform felatio on them.
Take Hart's analysis and compare it with the Citigroup document above. Throw in Krugman's work as well.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12699486/paul_krugman_on_the_great_wealth_transfer/print
What do you see? If it is a communist plot to take over our country, then we should probably just end the discussion now and stop wasting each other's time.
I love this dream Leftists have that capital will just stand still for them to a-tax it. If you have wealth, that gives you mobility.
Money can be moved to other places.
Maryland learned that with its recent millionaire’s tax. They decided to tax millionaires at a higher rate and guess what: Fewer millionaires. So for those millionaires that left, instead of getting some of their income in taxes, the Maryland government now gets nothing. No wonder they are broke.
"Less than one percent of Americans earn more than a million dollars, but they account for 11.2% of all income. This doesn't mean we should "soak the rich", but it does mean that over my lifetime the extremely wealthy have benefited from massive tax cuts."
So what?
"I am saying that it is quite clear that they have benefited massively over the years from tax breaks."
So what?
"This was done in order to encourage them to invest in our economy. They didn't do that."
So what? Their money, innit? By what right -- by what authority -- do you or anyone claim to judge what anyone does with what is his?
Do you understand yet?
Anyway, why does the U.S. government need any more money anyway? They piss through trillions and have little to show for the extra spending. What makes you think any new taxes will be spent wisely or in a way that you would agree with?
Do you think your guys will always be in charge?
They pissed it away and gave it to people like Bernie Madoff
So your economic theory - this is the 2nd time you've proposed it, and the 3rd time I've asked you about it - is that if the rich have money, they'll be conned out of it, so we should tax it so they have less to be conned out of?
Oh, and additionally...
You might want to slack up on old Bernie there.
Or else we'll have to start asking you questions about the difference between Madoff and Social Security.
OK, I can't let it go. (I tried, guys, I really tried.)
Mark, again, you've contradicted yourself.
Compare:
Markadelphia: I am not advocating seizing large quantities of cash from the most wealthy of this country.
Markadelphia: They pissed it away ... They used to to pay their CEOs insane sums of money for failing and invested it in unicorn farts. I think we have seen what they do with breaks and I think they should have less of them.
Only one of those can be true.
This was done in order to encourage them to invest in our economy.
No, it wasn't. That's not what "tax breaks" do. Again, you're betraying your socialist tendencies. Stop arguing about it. You just declared that the money is not theirs, it's the government's, and it should be allocated and divided by the government.
Yep. Again. You said it. You did, I didn't put it in your mouth. Let's requote:
. I am saying that it is quite clear that they have benefited massively over the years from tax breaks. This was done in order to encourage them to invest in our economy.
It was their money. Taxes took it away from them. Took their money and their property away from them.
Yes, you're a socialist through and through, and you need to stop denying it.
That does NOT mean that the government should control their money.
Nice disclaimer, but you just contradicted it. If it's their money they're entitled to it, and you need to justify taxing it, not not taxing it.
Furthermore, you say such things, but then you don't admit or agree to anything that would not lead to more government control.
You just said that "the rich" (which I guess are all of us, since there's "no middle class anymore", according to you) don't deserve tax breaks. Because we'll "misuse" them and give the money to conmen. (But Social Security, that's a good investment!
You know, of all the things you've said stupidly in this thread, that just might be the saddest. (But I'm sure you'll surprise me with another superlative.)
You still don't understand taxes, teacher boy. Now pay attention.
Item 1:
The income a person earns belongs to that person, not to the gubmint.
Thus, taxing said income amounts to the gubmint taking a portion of said income from that person. The portion of said income which the gubmint does not take is not a gift to that person from the gubmint. The portion of said income which the gubmint does take is a parasitic burden on that person which is levied by the gubmint.
Item 2:
Reducing the size of the bite the gubmint takes out of a person's income is not a gift from the gubmint to that person.
Want an analogy for illustration? Suppose you are accosted on the street by a person who points a gun at your gonads and says, "Give my a hunnerd bucks or I'm gonna blow your nuts off. No, on second thought, give me only eighty bucks." Said accoster has not made you a gift of twenty bucks, rather he has simply taken less from you than he might have. It's your money that he takes, and you're out eighty bucks.
Item 3:
The purpose of levying an income tax by the feddle gubmint is to raise revenue to pay for necessary functions thereof; the purpose is not to effect social engineering thereby.
I noted earlier the statement by President Reagan: "... Government should do only those things the people cannot do for themselves." The purpose of levying an income tax, and establishing the rates thereof, is not to adjust the incomes of various classes of people in the name of "fairness", and if you think the Constitution authorizes otherwise, I invite you to cite the Article, Section, and statement by which it does.
Item 4:
You cannot give income tax relief, i.e. you cannot reduce the taxes of, someone who does not pay income taxes.
I commented on this before, wherein I stated (emphasis added):
"The Bush tax cuts removed six million people from the bottom end of the federal income tax rolls. Those six million people used to pay taxes, but now they don't, and the reason is that the Bush tax cuts reduced the rates and such that apply to their incomes. You cannot give greater income tax relief to any person than to eliminate their income tax obligations altogether, and the Bush tax cuts did that to six million taxpayers at the low end of the scale."
Now what was the net effect of who pays what in taxes as a result of the Bush tax cuts? The effects were: 1) six million taxpayers at the bottom end of the income scale no longer pay feddle income taxes; 2) taxpayers of every level of income pay income taxes at lower rates; 3) taxpayers at the high end of the income scale pay a larger fraction of the income taxes paid, i.e. they support a larger portion of the feddle gubmint than before; and, 4) economic activity increased such that feddle income tax revenues increased overall, despite the lower tax rates.
Do you get it yet? I'll state it again: As a result of the Bush tax cuts, those taxpayers with the highest income now pay a greater fraction of all the income taxes the feddle gubmint collects, which means they shoulder a bigger burden of gubmint than they did before, six million taxpayers at the lower end who used to pay feddle income taxes now pay no feddle income taxes at all, and economic activity increased such that feddle income tax revenues increased overall.
Why do you find anything to complain about with this? All you can see is that, if a person with a high income makes another dollar, he keeps a larger fraction of it. You utterly ignore that six million low income people now keep all the dollars they earn whereas they didn't before, and the economy and employment during the Bush administration grew by leaps and bounds. Your focus is unvarying, and it zeroes in on people with wealth and with high incomes. You simply have no tolerance for such.
Item 4:
"Like Mr Hart, I am not advocating seizing large quantities of cash from the most wealthy of this country."
vs.
"I think we have seen what they do with breaks and I think they should have less of them."
Thus you contradict yourself, liar boy. More to the point, you labeled "taxation in the name of fairness" as "good capitalism" and you have staunchly defended it as being a Really Good Idea. It is nothing more than taking income from those who have it and giving it to those who don't. Credibility, liar boy, credibility. You have none.
Item 5:
"I am saying that it is quite clear that they have benefited massively over the years from tax breaks."
See items 1 through 4 above.
"This was done in order to encourage them to invest in our economy."
No, it was done to increase tax revenues to the feddle gubmint, which it did. How and why this works has been explained to you many, many times.
"They didn't do that. They pissed it away and gave it to people like Bernie Madoff and Tom Petters (local boy gone bad). They used to to pay their CEOs insane sums of money for failing and invested it in unicorn farts."
Ah, the sheer depth of jumping to conclusions and making shit up this reveals. Is this really what you think wealthy people did as a result of paying taxes at lower rates? You pathetic shit-for-brains moron, feddle income tax revenues increased as a result of these tax cuts. Why? Because taxable economic activity increased as a result of these tax cuts. The result was increased investment that resulted in increased economic activity and employment, thus increased income taxes totals despite reduced income tax rates. And you just make shit up to the effect that it was all wasted on unicorn farts ...
The depth of your ignorance and your dishonesty defies imagination.
DJ and Ken, I don't see the point in continuing this line of debate. You don't get it. You never will. You are trapped in an ideology from which you will never break. Your head is firmly buried deep in the sand and you can't see what is going on around you.
When you are ready to understand what our country has become, I'll be more than willing to talk. Until that time, I'll be plotting my Marxist take over of the United States along with the rest of my revolutionary brothers and sisters who are...well...everyone else in this country. (see: people that don't belong to the cult).
Essentially, my point regarding the 90 percent rate is that much of that money was used for infrastructure in this country. Our national highway system was built with some of that money.
Jeebus M, you just can't get anything right.
In 1956, the outside interests agreed with congressional leaders on a compromise for funding the Interstate System. The gas tax would be increased to 3 cents, but highway user tax revenue from excise taxes on gasoline, tire rubber, tube rubber, and the sales tax on new trucks, buses, and trailers would be credited to a new Highway Trust Fund and reserved for use on the Interstate System and other highway projects. (The Highway Trust Fund is modeled after the Social Security Trust Fund-that is, the revenue goes into the general treasury, but is credited to the Fund.) The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, which President Eisenhower signed on June 29, 1956, adopted this compromise.
The Interstate Highway system was funded by THAT, not by high marginal income tax. You are such an idiot.
You don't get it. You never will.
Mark, have you ever gotten lost? Compasses don't point true around you?
You've just been schooled. Repeatedly. With your own contradictions.
Yet you claim that we don't get it and
You are trapped in an ideology from which you will never break.
... Yet you won't back up your own statements. WHEN did the middle class "not have to worry about money?" And how much Government was there at this anointed time?
You say you don't want to control people's money - other than the money you want to control!
and you can't see what is going on around you.
You can't even agree with yourself inside the same comment on a thread.
Night, Ralph. Sweet dreams.
"DJ and Ken, I don't see the point in continuing this line of debate. ...
When you are ready to understand what our country has become, I'll be more than willing to talk."
You don't fool anyone, little boy. You do such a good job for our side.
Markadelphia, I don't see the point in continuing this line of debate. You don't get it. You never will. You are trapped in an ideology from which you will never break. Your head is firmly buried deep in your ass and you can't see what is going on around you.
When you are ready to understand what our country is becoming, I'll be more than willing to talk. Until that time, I'll be plotting my Conservative armed revolt to take back the United States along with the rest of my Conservative brothers and sisters who are...well...everyone else in this country. (See: the vast majority of us who you complain are center-right.)
I think I want to get this thread framed!
I think I want this thread framed!
Yes. I thought I was so clever I posted it twice.
BTW, Marxy, when all your premises are wrong, your argument conclusion cannot correct or supported.
As the kids say on the intertubes: "pwned!"
And you know, it actually took me longer to format that IRS 2004 tax info so that a reader could make heads or tails of it in Haloscan than it did to find, download, and confirm that it was the data I wanted (that was about, oh, five minutes' work).
Ken:
By the way, a very nice job above in your several comments.
Home now, and ready to smack the shit out of Markadaffya's conceit about taxes.
From the CBO data on taxes from 1979-2004, the top income earner quintile paid 64.9% of the total income taxes collected (in 79, pre Reagan tax cut). By 1989, the end of Reagan's admin that share had climbed to 71.4%, and as of 2004 was 85.3% (even with the Bush tax cuts). So contrary to Mark's assertion, the richest actually pay a larger share today then they did before Reagan, even though the nominal rate is lower. I don't see how you can whine that the income tax isn't progressive enough.
The problem of course has nothing to do with actual data. Those of Mark's ilk are jealous of others' success, and wish to see a leveling. Since it's all but impossible to level up, you've got to level down. I'll never be the athlete that Michael Jordan is, but if you cut off at least one of his legs we are closer to even. Never mind that I haven't actually gotten better - I've just made sure that he can't dunk on me with only one leg (or less).
There is kind you are, U-J.
You don't get it. You never will.
I guess I don't get it either, and I'd really like to have you explain it in a form I can understand.
As I have pointed out, the only tools any government ever has at its disposal are the tools of force. Confiscation of property, confiscation of liberty, and physical violence. There are no other options, there never have been, and there are unlikely to be any new ones in the foreseeable future.
Now for the core questions: What possible functions of government, in your own words, justify the use of one or more of those tools, the only three they have, against the government's own citizens? Why do you consider it justified? Under what conditions should the use of the above tools against the citizenry be your first choice, rather than the choice of last resort?
"DJ and Ken, I don't see the point in continuing this line of debate. You don't get it. You never will. You are trapped in an ideology from which you will never break. Your head is firmly buried deep in the sand and you can't see what is going on around you."
Uh, Marxy? That's a mirror. DJ and Ken are over here.
"When you are ready to understand what our country has become, I'll be more than willing to talk."
There's only one appropriate response to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZwuTo7zKM8
(as if there was any doubt…)
Oh, and one other point on the marginal tax rates of the Eisenhower era. Who cut them 16 years before Reagan proposed his cut? C'mon M, surely you know.
Yup, it was the monsters, Ed. Fearsome, they are.
Oh, yeah...
I meant to bring this up in the discussion on the income tax, and totally forgot til I just read this in the WSJ:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703932904574511794170939688.html
In 1960, only 3% of tax filers paid a 30% or higher marginal tax rate. By 1980, after the inflation of the 1970s, the share was closer to 33%
...
And in 1981 as part of the Reagan tax cuts, a bipartisan coalition voted to index the tax brackets for inflation.
...
We also know what has happened with the Alternative Minimum Tax. Passed to hit only 1% of all Americans in 1969
Let me comment for Mark, speaking of "No middle class" - the AMT was targetted at 155 people.
Let me quote from wikipedia on the AMT:
It was intended to target 155 high-income households that had been eligible for so many tax benefits that they owed little or no income tax under the tax code of the time.
Remember your 90% claim? Now, look at the facts around it. Only 3% even paid more than 30%, and there were entire groups of the "rich" that were able to use "shelters" and not pay any taxes at all.
Back to the WSJ:
the AMT wasn't indexed for inflation at the time and neither was Bill Clinton's AMT rate increase in 1993. The number of families hit by this shadow tax more than tripled over the next decade. Today, families with incomes as low as $75,000 a year can be hit by the AMT unless Congress passes an annual "patch."
Back to Wiki, quoting the CBO:
In 2010, if nothing is changed, one in five taxpayers will have AMT liability and nearly every married taxpayer with income between $100,000 and $500,000 will owe the alternative tax. Rather than affecting only high-income taxpayers who would otherwise pay no tax, the AMT has extended its reach to many upper-middle-income households.
Aside from that you claim there is no middle class anymore, this is also demonstrative of what you can't grasp about government programs.
155 tax filers in 1969 - in your lifetime! to 20% of all filers. - not 20% of the country, but filers. (Considering you're pushing to totally gut the health care and health insurance system for less than 5%, isn't it awfully hypocritical to be so blase about 20% of taxpayers?)
There's a lesson there, but you won't learn it.
Oh, sorry, I almost forgot. Mornin' Ralph!
"In other words, the private sector has been forbidden by government to attempt to solve its own problems."
GOF, this is what's known in Mark's world as "Free-Market" Capitalism...
"Anyway, why does the U.S. government need any more money anyway? They piss through trillions and have little to show for the extra spending. What makes you think any new taxes will be spent wisely or in a way that you would agree with?"
Yosemite Sam
As a follow to this, I modify a statement from Mark earlier in this post: "The government of this nation has more money and power than ever before." I agree the wealthy have power, but when it's used against the people, they do it through government. Yet he wants more of it.
And as a follow to that, I really feel like I should repost my earlier question:
Government, any government at any time in the history of the world, has only three tools at its disposal to enforce its policies: 1. Confiscation of property, as in taxes or seizures. 2. Confiscation of liberty, as in prison sentences. 3. Physical violence.
What possible functions of government justify the use of one or more of those tools against the government's own citizens?
Why do you consider it justified?
Under what conditions should the use of the above tools against the citizenry be your first choice, rather than the choice of last resort?
By the answers to those 3 questions you can actually quite closely define your political philosophy.
And I get Comment #200!
You can always tell when Markadelphia comments on a post here.
And I..I claim comment #201!
Bwa ha!
Bwa ha!
Bwa ha ha ha ha ha !
>>cough
You can always tell when Markadelphia comments on a post here.
That's true, but this is a truely epic thread to be remembered for a long time (and it's why Brave Sir Ralph is running away.)
Ah, but ain't this interesting:
"Buried in Nancy Pelosi's health-care bill is a provision that will partially repeal tax indexing for inflation, meaning that as their earnings rise over a lifetime these youngsters can look forward to paying higher rates even if their income gains aren't real.
"In order to raise enough money to make their plan look like it won't add to the deficit, House Democrats have deliberately not indexed two main tax features of their plan: the $500,000 threshold for the 5.4-percentage-point income tax surcharge; and the payroll level at which small businesses must pay a new 8% tax penalty for not offering health insurance.
"This is a sneaky way for politicians to pry more money out of workers every year without having to legislate tax increases. The negative effects of failing to index compound over time, yielding a revenue windfall for government as the years go on."
Now, where has this happened before? Can anyone say Alternative Minimum Tax?
Despite Marxy taking his ball and going home, I do have to say something else.
The scientific method requires repeated experimentation by oneself and, hopefully, others. Since Marxy evinced no understanding about the concept of experimentation, it isn't surprising he demands the scientific method to be misapplied to historical data.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>