1
Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

You're All WelcomeFollow

#27 May 08 2014 at 9:27 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
zamwiki wrote:
Here I thought
Always start with a joke.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#28 May 08 2014 at 9:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
zamwiki wrote:
True the GOP is in control and if they weren't a bunch of spineless rino's we might get somewhere. But again none of this refutes the fact that just about all Democrat cities struggle financially. And it's because the Democrats have no interest in seeing the people take care of themselves.

Party of Projected Responsibility!

Illinois manages to have a big ole city full of Democrats and still manages to keep your deadbeat GOP asses afloat. It ain't because of the massive tax base in Effingham, Illinois either.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#29 May 08 2014 at 5:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
It's not the numbers that shouldn't be taken seriously, but the assumptions about political correlation and intent versus outcome which certain people have created out of thin air.

The intent is to pay less federal taxes and ALSO use more federal services. You know, the GOP platform: lower taxes, spend more, let poor people die, guns and jesus!

Edited, May 8th 2014 7:38pm by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#30 May 09 2014 at 7:11 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
which certain people have created out of thin air.
"Certain people" being the researchers, and "thin air" being available data, I'm sure.


The researchers collected and presented the data. I'm talking about the people who are interpreting the meaning of the data. That's where there's a huge disconnect. The interpretation assumes that we must focus on states and not individuals (or even groups of individuals) and ignores the nature of any given spending, treating all spending as though it's the same. But Republican spending policy is not and has never been "all federal spending is bad", but "some types of spending is bad". We can debate the criteria the GOP uses, but to show hypocrisy you must use their criteria.

What the maps show is that in states with fewer large metropolitan/business areas, and more agricultural areas, there's a higher ratio of money spent to tax revenue earned. Um... Which is not surprising and doesn't say a damn thing about GOP policy (or anyone's policy). It tells us that the wealthiest taxpayers tend to live in states with the largest metropolitan areas. The biggest businesses tend to headquarter in those same regions (where do you think that federal corporate taxes are paid?). Those factors are going to tend to outweigh any others in terms of the ratio at hand.

Similarly, while the implied assumption is that the federal spending is about welfare (which the GOP opposes), direct welfare dollars from the federal government is really a small portion of total direct assistance dollars nation wide. Most of what we call "welfare" is paid out by the states, not the federal government. Where does the federal government actually spend lots of dollars? On things like agro subsidies, federal land/park maintenance (amazing how much federal park land is in "flyover" states), military bases (again, lots of those in the midwest aren't there?), and a host of other things that the GOP is not necessarily opposed to at all.


And even when we do narrow it down to individual targeted income assistance, one of the key arguments made by the GOP is that the recipients aren't really benefited by this money in the long run, but that it mostly serves as a means to "buy votes" by the Democrats. And if we are to test this theory, we should not be looking at total dollars, or state distributions, but looking at voter patterns as they correlate to assistance dollars. And when we do that, there's a clear correlation to be had. The argument about red/blue states and dollars taxed/spent is entirely about deflecting this, by suggesting that since states with the most GOP voters also receive the best "deal" from the fed that this means that the GOP really somehow wants more of those dollars and doesn't really mean what it says.

When you strip out the extraneous data, and false assumptions though, there's nothing hypocritical or unusual about this data at all. Much ado about nothing really.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#31 May 09 2014 at 7:14 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
That's where there's a huge disconnect.
Yeah yeah, as usually it's everyone else but you.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#32 May 09 2014 at 7:22 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
military bases (again, lots of those in the midwest aren't there?)

Not especially, but then the Midwest (except MO) is pretty much all producers.

Unless you're one of the weirdos who takes the Midwest way further west than it should be and includes the Plains states. Maybe they have more bases, I dunno.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#33 May 09 2014 at 7:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
military bases (again, lots of those in the midwest aren't there?)

Not especially, but then the Midwest (except MO) is pretty much all producers.

Unless you're one of the weirdos who takes the Midwest way further west than it should be and includes the Plains states. Maybe they have more bases, I dunno.


Yeah, sorry. I'm one of those people (weirdos even!) who thinks Ohio is "near East", and midwest should actually be located anywhere in the western half of the continental US (you know... in the "middle of the west"). Labels. I get it. Point still stands though. There are a hell of a lot of factors being lumped into the data on that map that don't have a damn thing to do with the red/blue narrative you're trying to tie into here. And when we take those factors out, you're kinda left with nothing at all.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#34 May 09 2014 at 7:45 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
*Shrug* I already debunked your "but it's agriculture!" schtick last time. I don't need to go round for round with someone desperate to make the data say something different or find a dozen ways to say "But it doesn't count!" Smiley: smile

Maybe if you unskew it...

Edit: Amusingly, the two worst states in Midwest for federal welfare are Indiana (#25) and Missouri (#37); the rest are all producers -- Guess which two Midwestern states voted Republican in 2012 Smiley: grin

Edited, May 9th 2014 8:47pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#35 May 09 2014 at 8:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
gbaji wrote:
Yeah, sorry. I'm one of those people (weirdos even!) who thinks Ohio is "near East", and midwest should actually be located anywhere in the western half of the continental US (you know... in the "middle of the west").
Exactly.

Midwest is Denver to the Mississippi, then it's all east coast more or less. Smiley: schooled
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#36 May 09 2014 at 8:26 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
*Shrug* I already debunked your "but it's agriculture!" schtick last time.


I didn't say "but it's agriculture" (see how I'm challenging your false claim rather than accepting it?). I said that it is a whole host of factors other than just welfare. Agriculture is just one thing. Military bases is another. Industry types is a third. Federal parks is a fourth. Where rich people live is a fifth. Where corporations put their headquarters is a sixth. Unless you address each and every factor that isn't "welfare paid directly to people", you haven't debunked a damn thing.

Quote:
I don't need to go round for round with someone desperate to make the data say something different or find a dozen ways to say "But it doesn't count!" Smiley: smile


And yet, you keep posting the same map and making the same false claims about what it means. What was I saying in the other thread about how liberals just repeat BS over and over? Saying "OMG! This is so relevant!" doesn't actually make it so.


Quote:
Edit: Amusingly, the two worst states in Midwest for federal welfare...


How are you defining "worst for federal welfare"? See, you're just tossing out vague and meaningless statements and hoping no one calls you on them. What precisely do you think the GOP position is that you're attacking here? Cause I'm not seeing it.

Remember, you're trying to prove some kind of hypocrisy by the GOP. To do that, you have to start with things the GOP opposes, and then show that they somehow support and/or benefit from them more than the Dems do. Because your map doesn't come remotely close to this. There are way too many factors involved that have nothing to do with the political questions at hand.


Quote:
..are Indiana (#25) and Missouri (#37); the rest are all producers -- Guess which two Midwestern states voted Republican in 2012 Smiley: grin



Again. What do you think that means? Even if we assume that the dollars of welfare relative to the dollars paid in taxes was the single most important issue to voters in those states, does this actually mean that the GOP really supports higher welfare relative to taxes? I mean, let's start with the "low taxes" being a platform of the GOP, so that's not a problem, right? That's half of the equation right there. And "too many people on welfare" can absolutely be something which could spur people to vote GOP. You seem to be missing that the GOP position isn't just about cutting people off welfare, but about trying to build jobs and opportunities so that people don't have to be on it in the first place. There's nothing at all inconsistent with a state with a high welfare recipient rate shifting towards the GOP.

It only appears to be strange if you think that welfare is "good". If high welfare is bad and something to be opposed, then voting GOP in response to a high welfare rate makes perfect sense. Again, I'm not sure what you think any of this means. And I suspect you don't know either. You're just tossing it out there because it sounds ominous or something, and you assume people will think negatively about the GOP as a result, without ever actually stopping to think about it.


There's nothing to this except pure rhetoric. I mean, if you actually believed that this means that the GOP states promoted higher welfare for the people in their states, and you think providing people with that valuable safety net of public services is important, than shouldn't you conclude that the Dems are doing a crappy job? The flip side of the same assumption has to be true as well, right? If you truly believed any of what you're claiming, then you should be voting GOP to make your own state a better deal for its citizens, right? I mean, isn't that what you want?

Clearly, even you don't believe that, so why on earth should anyone else?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#37 May 09 2014 at 8:31 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
(see how I'm challenging your false claim rather than accepting it?)
See how it's less effective than simply not saying something stupid in the first place?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#38 May 09 2014 at 8:54 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
You seem to be missing that the GOP position isn't just about cutting people off welfare, but about trying to build jobs and opportunities so that people don't have to be on it in the first place.
A GOP platform of subsidizing post-high school education and making American-owned manufacturing companies return those manufacturing jobs to the US, and therefore US citizens, might be a good start.

If those aren't "viable options" for the GOP to support, please tell me what exactly they are doing (or promoting) to "build jobs and opportunities" in the USA.

EDIT: Besides "lower taxes" of course.

Edited, May 9th 2014 8:56pm by Bijou
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#39 May 09 2014 at 11:48 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Yeah, sorry. I'm one of those people (weirdos even!) who thinks Ohio is "near East", and midwest should actually be located anywhere in the western half of the continental US (you know... in the "middle of the west").
Exactly.

Midwest is Denver to the Mississippi, then it's all east coast more or less. Smiley: schooled

As a New Yorker who spent considerable time in Ohio...Midwest starts west of the Delaware.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#40 May 10 2014 at 2:15 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I didn't say "but it's agriculture"

You did previously, I was just remembering it with a chuckle. Yes, Gbaji, you can list a dozen reasons why blue states produce and red states take. That's... ummm... sort of the point. Just throwing a dozen reasons at the wall and praying one of them sticks doesn't change the simple fact that, on average, red states live off blue states' taxes. Some of us produce, some of us live on federal welfare. The latter tend to vote Republican.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#41 May 10 2014 at 8:29 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
I'm not sure why you brought up personal welfare Gbaji, I think you've misunderstood the point.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#42 May 10 2014 at 8:34 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
He understands the point. He's just throwing everything at the wall in try to distract from it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#43 May 10 2014 at 8:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
gbaji wrote:
How are you defining "worst for federal welfare"?
There's a link in the first post...

Or if you really don't like that one Varus has one that may be more your thing.

Edited, May 10th 2014 7:42am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#44 May 12 2014 at 7:30 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
There's a link in the first post...

Or if you really don't like that one Varus has one that may be more your thing.
Unnecessary, there's plenty of data that can be ignored in the first link to get it to conform to any rhetoric they want to pretend to stand for.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#45 May 12 2014 at 9:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
There's a link in the first post...

Or if you really don't like that one Varus has one that may be more your thing.
Unnecessary, there's plenty of data that can be ignored in the first link to get it to conform to any rhetoric they want to pretend to stand for.
It's so hard to know who's ignoring what this days.

Should make all politicians fill out a form so we know what science they don't believe in.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#47 May 12 2014 at 10:32 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
zamwiki wrote:
Do you really think
Welfare leech seeking out male comrades.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#48 May 12 2014 at 10:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
zamwiki wrote:
If he actually believed that nonsense he wouldn't have half the views he pretends to on here.

If I believed my ("liberal") nonsense, I wouldn't have half my ("liberal") views?

Smiley: dubious
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#50 May 12 2014 at 8:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You seem to be missing that the GOP position isn't just about cutting people off welfare, but about trying to build jobs and opportunities so that people don't have to be on it in the first place.
A GOP platform of subsidizing post-high school education and making American-owned manufacturing companies return those manufacturing jobs to the US, and therefore US citizens, might be a good start.


It's about methodology though, not intended result. The GOP has no problem with post-high school education when that education actually applies to productive employment demands of the economy. Surely you can see a disconnect in a platform which subsidizes 4 year university education, whilst simultaneously focusing on manufacturing jobs, which largely do not require or benefit from the degrees granted by those institutions. Interestingly enough, it's usually the Right that proposes things like more focus on trade schools and apprenticeship programs. The Left, on the other hand, is attached at the hip to the money side of the education industry, and seems to care more about funneling money into that industry than in actually educating people in the knowledge and skills they'll need to be successful.

Similarly, the Right believes in a free market, not a forced market. So "making manufacturing companies return those jobs" is somewhat in opposition to the idea of that free market. We prefer things like "encouraging" to "making". I'll also point out that the Left does a great job implementing economic policies which drive those jobs away from the US. Making it more expensive to operate manufacturing jobs in the US, then attacking the other guy for there not being enough manufacturing jobs, and then proposing that we force companies to create those cost ineffective jobs in the US anyway, sounds like a horrific way to actually create jobs and economic prosperity, and a great way to impose arbitrary and authoritarian power over the citizens.

There's no perfect solution here, but let's not pretend that the GOP proposals are all wrong, much less that the Dems are all perfect and shiny. We're at least reasonably consistent with our positions, while the Left seems to consistently create the very problems they use to justify more government intervention. They're only consistent with regards to increasing the amount of government power in play.

Quote:
If those aren't "viable options" for the GOP to support, please tell me what exactly they are doing (or promoting) to "build jobs and opportunities" in the USA.


How about simply *not* creating regulations that drive those jobs away? How about, if we decide that such regulations are necessary for our clean air, water, etc, that we accept that "manufacturing jobs" are not going to be the future of employment in the US, and focus instead on educations which match the actual jobs that are left. So how about actually focusing on educations in science, engineering, computers, etc? We're fine with classical educations, even liberal arts educations if folks want them, but if the reason for subsidizing education is to help people be able to get good paying jobs, perhaps we should be finding ways to limit those subsidies to just those degrees/certs/training that actually results in gainful employment in our economy rather than the one made up of unicorns and wishful thinking that the Left seems to want to promote.

Let's tie education more directly to the actual job market. Yeah. Evil capitalism and whatnot, but how about allow the industries and businesses to actually set (influence at least) the curriculum standards? Heaven forbid that corporations actually tell universities "this is what we need you to be teaching people", and have that affect the curriculum? Or heaven forbid we actually step away from the "4 year university or bust" approach to education and stop deriding things like trade schools?

You do *not* need a 4 year degree (or any degree) to be successful in our workforce. You need training and skills that are applicable to the industries you might wish to work in. You want suggestions, there you go. I've said many times over the years on this forum that it drives me nuts every time I hear someone insist that there are no good paying jobs in the US, or you have to know people, or have the right connections, or whatnot, when I literally see foreign nationals being hired from all over the world, and brought to the US at ridiculous expense to work jobs here because there physically aren't enough people in the US with the correct skills. We have a massive disconnect between what our education system is teaching, and what our job market is demanding.

Let's start there? Is there anyone who actually has a problem with this? Because it's usually folks with their heads stuck up the rears of the education industry that oppose this, and I'll give you just one guess as to which "side" of our political spectrum those folks are on.

Quote:
EDIT: Besides "lower taxes" of course.


This would be in addition to lower taxes. Smiley: tongue


Seriously though, you could probably get businesses to fund the damn education. Of course, that would require damaging the whole taxes -> student loans -> university -> political support money pump action going on right now, and there are some who don't want that. But it's so cost effective to be able to hire folks from the US that we could probably get this sort of trade school stuff up and running and cut the actual tax cost for higher education in half whilst doing it. If only we could get past the whole "OMG! They want to cut spending for schools!" rhetoric (which really means "they want to cut the amount of tax dollars we can funnel to our university buddies).

Spending more money on something doesn't actually mean you're getting more. It's amazing how often the Left seems to fail to get this.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#51 May 12 2014 at 8:34 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Is "disconnect" your buzzword of the month?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 278 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (278)