Is it time to break-up the Federal government?

[Mavorpen]

Also, I'm still waiting.

The economics profession seems to increasingly endorse the existence of a strongly negative nonlinear effect of public debt on economic growth. Reinhart and Rogoff (2010) were the first to point out that a public debt-to-GDP ratio higher than 90% of GDP is associated with considerably lower economic performance in advanced and emerging economies alike

This is called peer reviewed empirical research. I would recommend that you peruse it from time to time, it carries more weight than your personal opinion unsupported by fact or logic or empirical research.

You seem to have a problem with understanding what "claims" are and how to address claims. On nearly every single post, when someone asks for evidence for claim X, you give them evidence for claim Y. You can't go one post without a straw man, can you? You've provided me with evidence for the claim, "debt doesn't matter at all and does not ever bring negative effects on the economy. Which of course wasn't my claim at all. I'll post it again for you, in the hope that you learn from this that making straw man does not move this discussion along:

Fantastic circular logic. Your argument is essentially that the debt is a big problem...because debt is bad. Care to show us how it's destroying our economy?

In other words, I'm not talking about debt in general, but specially OUR debt (ie the debt of the United States). Furthermore, in your quest to prove me wrong with a straw man, you seem to have admitted that the debt is not destroying our economy. If your source is indeed correct and at 90% debt to GDP ratio decreases economic growth considerably, our current debt is doing no such thing since our public debt to GDP ratio is currently at around 73%.

I am simply challenging you to respond to the following theory:

The problem of economic calculation by government.

Indeed, when confronted with facts, logic and empirical research you go into a tirade of personal invective and accusations without answering the questions or challenges I pose.

Hilarious. You claim I am not answering your questions or challenges... so you do the exact same fucking thing and refuse to show me where anyone of any meaning has argued this. I'm not going to answer your stupid "challenges" if they're straw man to begin with. Tell me who is arguing this, explain to me what this has anything to do with me, and THEN we can move along.

Not quite true, banks are an economic enterprise and when government engages itself in the economy and accumulates debt and resources, it too, becomes an economic enterprise and thus subject to the same consequences and effects on society at large. So essentially you favor decentralization of one economic entity, but not the other ?!!

That's not how governments work. Governments aren't economic enterprises. They exist to solve collective action problems. Governments can MANAGE economic enterprises, but it cannot be one itself.

Moreover, I think it is self-evident that the federal government is indeed larger than the state governments, hence if/when it fails the consequences to civil society will indeed be more deleterious than if a single isolated state government became insolvent.

You don't seem to understand the phrase, "the benefits outweigh the costs." I mean, that's one of the basics behind economic thought.

I don't follow your logic, or lack thereof, in this statement. You need to clean it up and clarify.

Or you can stop foaming at the mouth and read it.

This is really pure unsupported horseshit because the USA has spent hundreds of billions on infrastructure in the last four years.

Since your the 'expert' on infrastructure then can you cite a figure in dollars of how much more we need to spend?

About $2 trillion over 5 years. I'm confused on what you're arguing here. I claimed that the United States has a shitty infrastructure and you think citing it has spent billions on it refutes that? Sorry, but our infrastructure is in fact, horrendous.

Hence, I am sure your smart enough to know that when government taxes, borrows, prints and spends money that there are opportunity costs associated with transferring capital, labor and other resources from these industries into improving infrastructure.

Thank you for the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately I cannot grant you the same, as you do not seem to understand that in fact, poor infrastructure is a no no for a growing economy. The question is HOW MUCH spending at once we should do as well as where we should focus the most.

Lastly, are you aware of the Japanese experience spending and borrowing hundreds of billions improving infrastructure?

Read this and respond with your thoughts (I know this is from the rightwing tea party NYTimes, but forgive me, it was all I had):

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/world ... d=all&_r=0

I love how your own source proves me right.

In a nutshell, Japan’s experience suggests that infrastructure spending, while a blunt instrument, can help revive a developed economy, say many economists and one very important American official: Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, who was a young financial attaché in Japan during the collapse and subsequent doldrums. One lesson Mr. Geithner has said he took away from that experience is that spending must come in quick, massive doses, and be continued until recovery takes firm root.

Read your sources please. I have not argued that we should just throw money at infrastructure. We need to plan smart.

Sweetheart, society does not have unlimited resources, hence when credit is extended to certain public schemes and enterprises then the resources, labor, and capital employed by the use of that credit is denied to private sector actors.

That is where the shortages come into play.

Thank you for not even addressing my point at all.

Last time I checked, receiving 77% return on original investment is called the "fast track to bankruptcy".

Last time I checked.

I just LOVE your backtracking. You stated that people would not get not even half if any of their returns on Social Security. 77% is in fact LARGER than half. Furthermore, if you actually read what I provided, the return would drop only THREE points over a period of 49 years. That's NOWHERE near "fast track to bankruptcy."

Winning in the political arena doesn't imply that your economic policies are sound. Indeed, history is rife with examples of excellent political operatives gaining power only to squander and lose it because of unsound economic policies.

Which is why it's important to note that you've lost BOTH the political argument and the economic argument.

Under the umbrella of significant economic and political meddling from the federal government. Hence, the federal government should be removed from this coercive and destructive regulatory and funding role and focus on responsibilities that it does best and are more critical -- namely protecting life, liberty, private property and enforcing contracts.

And you've still never formulated an argument for this backed up with evidence. Rather, you've thrown links at us about numbers concerning the federal government, never substantiating your claim that the states can handle it better. But it's good to know that you admit the states handle a good number of issues already.

Indeed, federal government meddling on both funding and what is taught in the schools is a bane on quality education taking away considerable autonomy from states, teachers, parents and students by forcing us all to adopt an inefficient and restrictive 'one size fits all' solution.

Yeah, no. That's the fault of individual states, not the federal government. In fact, the federal government has been lately reforming funding to bring higher results, where states have been lazy and unwilling to reform education themselves. I sure as hell cannot fathom how you can blame something that is up to the states on the federal government. You've obviously never been to Texas.

Note that using your implied 'logic' that the states handle health care and retirement is exposed as ridiculous by the fact that the federal government has accumulated over $50-100 trillion in unfunded debt that for these 'state managed' enterprises.

Are you saying that states take no part in healthcare? That's possibly the sillies thing I've read yet.

Please explain why the overwhelming majority of nation-states that have the highest GDP per capita are about the size of US states?

Listed in order by GDP (PPP) per capita

Please explain what this actually says about the efficiency of the states in the United States? You've thrown this out over and over without EVER establishing that it would ever apply to our states. Do you have any empirical evidence or not?

This list shows that growth and living standards can be achieved within a small governing framework. Hence, you don't need a huge state to gain wealth, in fact the opposite may be true in that large states are more difficult to govern.

Source?

In contrast, you want the whole of society, instead of a single state, to risk going to shit on your fetish with Marx and Lenin?!!??!

Nice.

You do know that I'm not a Marxist, right? If I've ever quoted Marx to support my stance, then please show me. Otherwise, this is a hilariously bad Red Herring.

You know, your wonderful and elegant opinion while appreciated is not valid and reliable. Hence, you need to support your insight with at least a shred of fact, logic and empirically supported evidence.

I'd appreciate if you did so, and actually address my claims.

It may not be the way they adjudicate things in leftwing academia, pop culture or the main stream media -- but in the academic, professional and scientific community where I hang out -- we require logic, facts, and empirical evidence.

Source this.

My point was that I am constantly being accused of being intolerant and close-minded despite the fact that I am an active participant in a decidedly leftwing echo chamber.

You are in fact close-minded. So I'm not sure what the problem here is. Your argument was that you are somehow special and are somehow an Übermensch because you're a "lone wolf" right winger going up against the left wing.

No, actually your personal opinion on this matter, while greatly appreciated, doesn't make sense.

Namely your vote in the last presidential election had the effect of 1/120,000,000 and not much else.

Which means that your vote mattered. I'm not sure why you cannot understand why .0000001 is not 0.

Moreover, you picked a candidate who manifestly did not share your views in totality and once elected you have virtually no sway on what is legislated beyond that of any other voter. The real drivers of government economic policy are special interest voting blocs, large corporations and heavily funded PACs.

Which was how the Founding Fathers designed the government. I just love how your insistent whining is against what the Founding Fathers wanted, while seemingly believing them to be angels.

Rote memorization of what is contained in the Federalist papers without a corresponding ability to engage in critical thinking is your downfall. Moreover, your fallacious assertion that you have a monopoly on understanding the ideological motivations of the founding fathers is both arrogant and ludicrous at best.

So basically you HAVEN'T read the Federalist papers? Thank you for admitting this. Please never mention the Founding Fathers again if you do not even have basic knowledge of the arguments used to defend the Constitution.

For example, the founding fathers, you, me, all of us want to create a system of governance that forestalls the emergence of a despot or absolutist. The best way to achieve this end is to decentralize, balance, limit and make transparent the elements of political and military force in society.

No. The Founding Fathers exposed this route as being completely idiotic and counterproductive. Instead, they limited government in its application of powers (though it does have a limit on its power overall as well).

We both disagree on the means to safeguard political and military force --- I assert that the federal government has gotten too big and corrupted by economic responsibilities that have been dramatically increased over the last 80 years managing economic and social affairs that none of our founding fathers would have approved.

Who gives a shit if they would have approved. THEY HAD NEVER SEEN A CAR BEFORE. No shit individuals from 200 years ago wouldn't understand why the government has expanded at first. I'm sure that once explained to them though, they would laugh you out of the room for espousing an ideology the almost the complete opposite of what they had.

ME: bleed economic power (not political or legal) from Washington back to the states because I trust civil society and 50 smaller and disparate states more than I trust the central government..

YOU: Washington isn't big enough, bleed ever more power from the civil society and states to the federal government because you trust the central government and you don't trust the people and states

Quote me saying any of that or stop with the straw men.

I see your view as manifestly naive and dangerous because it is the federal government that is already the largest, most indebted entity that already possessed most of the political and military power in society. Moreover, our nation did just fine for over 150 years growing from a largely primitive agrarian economy to the greatest economic juggernaut in history without incurring massive levels of structural debt in the process.

Which is of course horse shit. We lagged behind economically and couldn't even create a substantial industry before the Gold Rush. Considering that the nation grew bigger, technology changed, by necessity the government also had to grow. You can live in your bubble where somehow 1850=2013 and where you ignore factors such as technology and population if you want. I'll continue living in the real world.

Actually this is bullshit. You know that type of bullshit that can be passed on to citizens lacking in objective critical thinking skills.

Texas outperforms California regarding poverty

Sorry, but a blog is not evidence. Try again.

The poverty rate fell by 1 percentage point in Texas, within the margin of error.

I actually lol'd. You're celebrating over a decrease in 1 percentage point of the poverty rate? Did you even read past that?

Still, Texas had the sixth highest rate among states. About 4.5 million Texans, or 17.4 percent, lived in households with incomes below the federal poverty line, a figure that included nearly 1.8 million children, or 25.8 percent of all Texas children.
"Poverty is a serious problem that we cannot afford to ignore," Celia Cole with the Texas Food Bank Network said in a statement. "Our food banks are serving record numbers of families struggling to put food on the table, but we cannot do it alone. We need everyone and every resource at the table to tackle poverty and its symptoms."

Note that the Census.gov has developed a more accurate and substantive poverty index that takes into account differences in cost of living from state to state -- hence, the poverty numbers previously cited for states like Texas that have significantly lower costs of living have declined while states that have high costs of living like California have increased.

Source: http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases ... 2-215.html

I lol'd.

The only states that have higher Supplemental poverty rates are Hawaii, Florida, California, Georgia, New York, Mississippi, and Arizona (D.C. also has a higher rate). This means that Texas is in the top 10 for highest supplemental poverty rates.

It would help if you both supported your personal opinion with sources and you purged your critical thinking skills of ideological bias to help you identify bogus, misleading or incomplete statistics when you see them.

Yes, I identified misleading or incomplete statistics in your post. Maybe you should try that.

Indeed, it is the larger states that are dominated by inefficient governments whose citizens are suffering the most. Then again, you should welcome competition between the states if you really believe your ideological framework of command economies is beneficial. The world could see first hand the efficacy of your ideology of choice juxtaposed more limited governments in neighboring states.

Thank you fort this straw man. Can you quote me saying that I support a command economy? I support a efficient planned economy. I'm not surprised you don't know the definition between command and planned economy when you don't even know what "statism" means.

Moreover, it appears that it is the larger states that are having the most difficulty further supporting my hypothesis that government closest to the people, governs best.

That doesn't support your hypothesis at all, considering you've made an entire list of assumptions that are quite frankly laughably asinine. You have yet to actually bring empirical evidence supporting this. You've only given me sources that dance around this claim.

It is plainly clear that your vote in an election among a few thousand carries far more weight than the same vote in an election among millions.

To be quite honest, you haven't even explained why this is a better system.

Moreover, it is plainly clear that your tax money invested closer to home carries far more benefits than the same tax dollar invested thousands of miles from home.

Complete and utter bullshit. I would rather my shitty state not have even more control over taxes thank you. I prefer our poor not be fucked over even more.

If you can't surmount this basic self-evident logical hurdle, then it is useless to debate you further.

I am done with you for now.

How cute. You're running away.[/quote]

[Mavorpen]

Did it ever occur to you that a professional organization that makes its living on building infrastructure might have a little bias associated with their findings that assert the need for additional funding ?????

Of course not, because I live in the real world.

[Obamacult]

Red = the bullshit you posted.

Blue = the findings that you didn't post.

In sum, I cited a demonstrably leftwing source to support my assertions, and predictably you have disengeniously taken a snippet of the article and tried to present this contextually dishonest fraction as indicative of the entire thrust of the article.

Actually, no. The entire point was that you completely ignored the part of the article where it stated that infrastructure spending can be very beneficial. One of my main arguments is that public spending can improve economic outcomes. Your source admits this.

I ALSO acknowledged that Japan's experience showed us that you need to know what to spend on and that you need to spend your money wisely.

Read your sources please. I have not argued that we should just throw money at infrastructure. We need to plan smart.

Or in the very least, you have again engaged in a bullshit practice of data mining a fraction of the whole to dismiss the overwhelming preponderance of evidence that supports a complete opposite conclusion.

Only if you haven't been reading my posts, which it seems you haven't been.

I eagerly await another fallacious data mining exercise you exposing my failure to read your posts or understand your arguments.

Fixed.

I ignore a fraction of the article because I focused on the fundamental conclusions that ran counter to this minitua. In contrast, typically you focus on what little bit of anecdotal, minituia and circumstantial bullshit you can find to spin your way out of an ever deeper hole.

And no your bullshit admission that we need to know what to spend on and that you need to spend your money wisely. was not the conclusion of the article which was:

In the end, say economists, it was not public works but an expensive cleanup of the debt-ridden banking system, combined with growing exports to China and the United States, that brought a close to Japan’s Lost Decade. This has led many to conclude that spending did little more than sink Japan deeply into debt, leaving an enormous tax burden for future generations.

Which pretty much parallels everything I have been asserting on this thread -- and from the NYTimes no less.

[Obamacult]

Also, I'm still waiting.

You seem to have a problem with understanding what "claims" are and how to address claims. On nearly every single post, when someone asks for evidence for claim X, you give them evidence for claim Y. You can't go one post without a straw man, can you? You've provided me with evidence for the claim, "debt doesn't matter at all and does not ever bring negative effects on the economy. Which of course wasn't my claim at all. I'll post it again for you, in the hope that you learn from this that making straw man does not move this discussion along:


In other words, I'm not talking about debt in general, but specially OUR debt (ie the debt of the United States). Furthermore, in your quest to prove me wrong with a straw man, you seem to have admitted that the debt is not destroying our economy. If your source is indeed correct and at 90% debt to GDP ratio decreases economic growth considerably, our current debt is doing no such thing since our public debt to GDP ratio is currently at around 73%.


Hilarious. You claim I am not answering your questions or challenges... so you do the exact same fucking thing and refuse to show me where anyone of any meaning has argued this. I'm not going to answer your stupid "challenges" if they're straw man to begin with. Tell me who is arguing this, explain to me what this has anything to do with me, and THEN we can move along.



That's not how governments work. Governments aren't economic enterprises. They exist to solve collective action problems. Governments can MANAGE economic enterprises, but it cannot be one itself.

You don't seem to understand the phrase, "the benefits outweigh the costs." I mean, that's one of the basics behind economic thought.

Or you can stop foaming at the mouth and read it.


About $2 trillion over 5 years. I'm confused on what you're arguing here. I claimed that the United States has a shitty infrastructure and you think citing it has spent billions on it refutes that? Sorry, but our infrastructure is in fact, horrendous.

Thank you for the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately I cannot grant you the same, as you do not seem to understand that in fact, poor infrastructure is a no no for a growing economy. The question is HOW MUCH spending at once we should do as well as where we should focus the most.


I love how your own source proves me right.

In a nutshell, Japan’s experience suggests that infrastructure spending, while a blunt instrument, can help revive a developed economy, say many economists and one very important American official: Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, who was a young financial attaché in Japan during the collapse and subsequent doldrums. One lesson Mr. Geithner has said he took away from that experience is that spending must come in quick, massive doses, and be continued until recovery takes firm root.

Read your sources please. I have not argued that we should just throw money at infrastructure. We need to plan smart.

Thank you for not even addressing my point at all.

I just LOVE your backtracking. You stated that people would not get not even half if any of their returns on Social Security. 77% is in fact LARGER than half. Furthermore, if you actually read what I provided, the return would drop only THREE points over a period of 49 years. That's NOWHERE near "fast track to bankruptcy."

Which is why it's important to note that you've lost BOTH the political argument and the economic argument.

And you've still never formulated an argument for this backed up with evidence. Rather, you've thrown links at us about numbers concerning the federal government, never substantiating your claim that the states can handle it better. But it's good to know that you admit the states handle a good number of issues already.

Yeah, no. That's the fault of individual states, not the federal government. In fact, the federal government has been lately reforming funding to bring higher results, where states have been lazy and unwilling to reform education themselves. I sure as hell cannot fathom how you can blame something that is up to the states on the federal government. You've obviously never been to Texas.


Are you saying that states take no part in healthcare? That's possibly the sillies thing I've read yet.

Please explain what this actually says about the efficiency of the states in the United States? You've thrown this out over and over without EVER establishing that it would ever apply to our states. Do you have any empirical evidence or not?

Source?

You do know that I'm not a Marxist, right? If I've ever quoted Marx to support my stance, then please show me. Otherwise, this is a hilariously bad Red Herring.

I'd appreciate if you did so, and actually address my claims.

Source this.

You are in fact close-minded. So I'm not sure what the problem here is. Your argument was that you are somehow special and are somehow an Übermensch because you're a "lone wolf" right winger going up against the left wing.

Which means that your vote mattered. I'm not sure why you cannot understand why .0000001 is not 0.

Which was how the Founding Fathers designed the government. I just love how your insistent whining is against what the Founding Fathers wanted, while seemingly believing them to be angels.

So basically you HAVEN'T read the Federalist papers? Thank you for admitting this. Please never mention the Founding Fathers again if you do not even have basic knowledge of the arguments used to defend the Constitution.

No. The Founding Fathers exposed this route as being completely idiotic and counterproductive. Instead, they limited government in its application of powers (though it does have a limit on its power overall as well).

Who gives a shit if they would have approved. THEY HAD NEVER SEEN A CAR BEFORE. No shit individuals from 200 years ago wouldn't understand why the government has expanded at first. I'm sure that once explained to them though, they would laugh you out of the room for espousing an ideology the almost the complete opposite of what they had.

Quote me saying any of that or stop with the straw men.

Which is of course horse shit. We lagged behind economically and couldn't even create a substantial industry before the Gold Rush. Considering that the nation grew bigger, technology changed, by necessity the government also had to grow. You can live in your bubble where somehow 1850=2013 and where you ignore factors such as technology and population if you want. I'll continue living in the real world.


Sorry, but a blog is not evidence. Try again.

I actually lol'd. You're celebrating over a decrease in 1 percentage point of the poverty rate? Did you even read past that?

Still, Texas had the sixth highest rate among states. About 4.5 million Texans, or 17.4 percent, lived in households with incomes below the federal poverty line, a figure that included nearly 1.8 million children, or 25.8 percent of all Texas children.
"Poverty is a serious problem that we cannot afford to ignore," Celia Cole with the Texas Food Bank Network said in a statement. "Our food banks are serving record numbers of families struggling to put food on the table, but we cannot do it alone. We need everyone and every resource at the table to tackle poverty and its symptoms."

I lol'd.

The only states that have higher Supplemental poverty rates are Hawaii, Florida, California, Georgia, New York, Mississippi, and Arizona (D.C. also has a higher rate). This means that Texas is in the top 10 for highest supplemental poverty rates.

Yes, I identified misleading or incomplete statistics in your post. Maybe you should try that.

Thank you fort this straw man. Can you quote me saying that I support a command economy? I support a efficient planned economy. I'm not surprised you don't know the definition between command and planned economy when you don't even know what "statism" means.

That doesn't support your hypothesis at all, considering you've made an entire list of assumptions that are quite frankly laughably asinine. You have yet to actually bring empirical evidence supporting this. You've only given me sources that dance around this claim.

To be quite honest, you haven't even explained why this is a better system.

Complete and utter bullshit. I would rather my shitty state not have even more control over taxes thank you. I prefer our poor not be fucked over even more.

How cute. You're running away.

[Mavorpen]

I ignore a fraction of the article because I focused on the fundamental conclusions that ran counter to this minitua. In contrast, typically you focus on what little bit of anecdotal, minituia and circumstantial bullshit you can find to spin your way out of an ever deeper hole.

What "minitua"? If you actually read my post, you would know that I didn't disagree with you. In fact, I simply stated that your source also supported my claim that government spending in things such as infrastructure are beneficial for economic growth.

And no your bullshit admission that we need to know what to spend on and that you need to spend your money wisely. was not the conclusion of the article which was:

Do you even know what a conclusion is? A conclusion is a summation of the main points of an article. The main point of the article was about whether Japan's deficit spending was effective. The point was NOT to see whether deficit spending in general is effective. Not once did I dispute the conclusion, yet you're pointing out the conclusion to distract from the fact that your article supported one of my main points.

Which pretty much parallels everything I have been asserting on this thread -- and from the NYTimes no less.

No, it doesn't. It parallels your SINGLE claim about Japan, not about deficit or government spending in general.

[Mavorpen]

give me time, there is a ton of bullshit there.

As you can see, I am dispatching your minutia, semantics diversions, and outright fallacies in detail.

In the meantime, you are reeling and have offered nothing but sad and sorry attempts to rebut my assertions. Hence, you haven't offered anything substantial to support big government other than your personal opinion and invective devoid of facts, logic and empirical evidence.

Where have I supported big government? Still spewing the same stupid straw man are we?

[Inyourfaceistan]

No. Is your goal North American factional violence?

[Obamacult]

I ignore a fraction of the article because I focused on the fundamental conclusions that ran counter to this minitua. In contrast, typically you focus on what little bit of anecdotal, minituia and circumstantial bullshit you can find to spin your way out of an ever deeper hole.

What "minitua"? If you actually read my post, you would know that I didn't disagree with you. In fact, I simply stated that your source also supported my claim that government spending in things such as infrastructure are beneficial for economic growth.

And no your bullshit admission that we need to know what to spend on and that you need to spend your money wisely. was not the conclusion of the article which was:

Do you even know what a conclusion is? A conclusion is a summation of the main points of an article. The main point of the article was about whether Japan's deficit spending was effective. The point was NOT to see whether deficit spending in general is effective. Not once did I dispute the conclusion, yet you're pointing out the conclusion to distract from the fact that your article supported one of my main points.

Which pretty much parallels everything I have been asserting on this thread -- and from the NYTimes no less.

No, it doesn't. It parallels your SINGLE claim about Japan, not about deficit or government spending in general.

Now you agree with me, that is hilarious. For example, I expose your bullshit and when cornered you play the 'I agree with you' card and throw in a few moved goalposts at the same time.

Nice.

No matter, here is another one of your fallacious bullshit assertions that I dispatched:

And then there's reality, where states such as Texas, which has a growing poverty rate, yet has a growing economy and a legislature dominated by big business. Oh, and you're honestly arguing that more third parties will have chances, when in states such as Texas, they can't even have TWO competing parties? Get a clue.

In reality, this dog doesn't bark. I don't know where you got the bullshit stats that show Texas poverty increased because it simply isnt true.

I eagerly await which bullshit diversion you will employ on this one. Note that the boys in the engineering department are taking bets on how you will spin this gaffe. I have lost over 3 bucks betting quarters on your bullshit and sociobiology earlier in the week. However, you have provided the boys much merriment so thanks is deserved.

[Mavorpen]

Now you agree with me, that is hilarious. For example, I expose your bullshit and when cornered you play the 'I agree with you' card and throw in a few moved goalposts at the same time.

Nice.

Actually no. Nowhere did I say I agreed with you. I stated that I didn't dispute the final statement of the article, which I didn't. Not disputing=/=agreeing. That isn't complicated to understand now is it?

In reality, this dog doesn't bark. I don't know where you got the bullshit stats that show Texas poverty increased because it simply isnt true.

Yeah, my data was a little outdated I think.

I eagerly await which bullshit diversion you will employ on this one. Note that the boys in the engineering department are taking bets on how you will spin this gaffe. I have lost over 3 bucks betting quarters on your bullshit and sociobiology earlier in the week. However, you have provided the boys much merriment so thanks is deserved.

How intellectually dishonest of you to completely ignore the rest of that part. I'll repost it for you.

I actually lol'd. You're celebrating over a decrease in 1 percentage point of the poverty rate? Did you even read past that?

Still, Texas had the sixth highest rate among states. About 4.5 million Texans, or 17.4 percent, lived in households with incomes below the federal poverty line, a figure that included nearly 1.8 million children, or 25.8 percent of all Texas children.
"Poverty is a serious problem that we cannot afford to ignore," Celia Cole with the Texas Food Bank Network said in a statement. "Our food banks are serving record numbers of families struggling to put food on the table, but we cannot do it alone. We need everyone and every resource at the table to tackle poverty and its symptoms."

Note that the Census.gov has developed a more accurate and substantive poverty index that takes into account differences in cost of living from state to state -- hence, the poverty numbers previously cited for states like Texas that have significantly lower costs of living have declined while states that have high costs of living like California have increased.

Source: http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases ... 2-215.html

I lol'd.

The only states that have higher Supplemental poverty rates are Hawaii, Florida, California, Georgia, New York, Mississippi, and Arizona (D.C. also has a higher rate). This means that Texas is in the top 10 for highest supplemental poverty rates.

[Obamacult]

No. Is your goal North American factional violence?

Seriously dude, there was no factional violence from 1865 to 1930's and the US government had little influence in education, retirement, housing, health care, etc.

I am only advocating the transfer of economic and social management to the states or civil society. It works fine in smallish nations like those listed below:

Listed in order by GDP (PPP) per capita

Qatar = 1.7 million
Liechtenstein = 36,000
Luxembourg = 500,000
Bermuda = 64,000
Monaco = 50,000
Singapore = 5.3 million
Jersey = 97,000
Falkland Is. = 2,500
Norway = 5.0 million
Brunei = 400,000
Hong Kong = 7.0 million
United States (1st large state listed ) = 310 million
UAE =8,264,070
Guernsey =62,431
Switzerland =8,014,000
Cayman Is. =55,456
Gibaltar =29,752
Netherlands =16,775,273
Kuwait = 3,582,054
Austria =8,458,023
Australia =22,894,306
Ireland=4,588,252
Sweden=9,551,781
Canada =35,002,447
Iceland=320,060
Germany (2nd large state listed) = 81 million

As you can plainly see that the states with the largest GDP per capita (PPP) are smallish in size very similar to US states.

As I have asserted repeatedly and which has not been refuted (save by personal opinion devoid of fact, logic or empirical evidence) is that one of the causal reasons for this dynamic is that government closer to the people and governs best. Moreover, tax money collected and spent closer to the people is more effective.

[Mavorpen]

No. Is your goal North American factional violence?

Seriously dude, there was no factional violence from 1865 to 1930's and the US government had little influence in education, retirement, housing, health care, etc.

Oh I get it. Black people aren't really humans amirite?

[Obamacult]

Now you agree with me, that is hilarious. For example, I expose your bullshit and when cornered you play the 'I agree with you' card and throw in a few moved goalposts at the same time.

Nice.

Actually no. Nowhere did I say I agreed with you. I stated that I didn't dispute the final statement of the article, which I didn't. Not disputing=/=agreeing. That isn't complicated to understand now is it?

In reality, this dog doesn't bark. I don't know where you got the bullshit stats that show Texas poverty increased because it simply isnt true.

Yeah, my data was a little outdated I think.

I eagerly await which bullshit diversion you will employ on this one. Note that the boys in the engineering department are taking bets on how you will spin this gaffe. I have lost over 3 bucks betting quarters on your bullshit and sociobiology earlier in the week. However, you have provided the boys much merriment so thanks is deserved.

How intellectually dishonest of you to completely ignore the rest of that part. I'll repost it for you.

I actually lol'd. You're celebrating over a decrease in 1 percentage point of the poverty rate? Did you even read past that?

Still, Texas had the sixth highest rate among states. About 4.5 million Texans, or 17.4 percent, lived in households with incomes below the federal poverty line, a figure that included nearly 1.8 million children, or 25.8 percent of all Texas children.
"Poverty is a serious problem that we cannot afford to ignore," Celia Cole with the Texas Food Bank Network said in a statement. "Our food banks are serving record numbers of families struggling to put food on the table, but we cannot do it alone. We need everyone and every resource at the table to tackle poverty and its symptoms."

I lol'd.

The only states that have higher Supplemental poverty rates are Hawaii, Florida, California, Georgia, New York, Mississippi, and Arizona (D.C. also has a higher rate). This means that Texas is in the top 10 for highest supplemental poverty rates.

Your data was a little outdated ??!! This another way of saying that it was bullshit.

And talk about some serious hypocrisy, my challenge was to your bullshit statement that Texas poverty was increasing and low and behold you add some bullshit sideshow that I never mentioned or commented on, namely the high level of poverty in Texas relative to other states.

If you didn't have double standards, you wouldn't have any standards.

[Mavorpen]

Your data was a little outdated ??!! This another way of saying that it was bullshit.

No, that's another way of saying it was a little outdated. Poverty was growing by 2010 and I think 2011.

And talk about some serious hypocrisy, my challenge was to your bullshit statement that Texas poverty was increasing and low and behold you add some bullshit sideshow that I never mentioned or commented on, namely the high level of poverty in Texas relative to other states.

You're not getting away that easily.

You in fact DID compare Texas to other states, multiple times. Don't lie. Address this or concede:

I actually lol'd. You're celebrating over a decrease in 1 percentage point of the poverty rate? Did you even read past that?

Still, Texas had the sixth highest rate among states. About 4.5 million Texans, or 17.4 percent, lived in households with incomes below the federal poverty line, a figure that included nearly 1.8 million children, or 25.8 percent of all Texas children.
"Poverty is a serious problem that we cannot afford to ignore," Celia Cole with the Texas Food Bank Network said in a statement. "Our food banks are serving record numbers of families struggling to put food on the table, but we cannot do it alone. We need everyone and every resource at the table to tackle poverty and its symptoms."

Note that the Census.gov has developed a more accurate and substantive poverty index that takes into account differences in cost of living from state to state -- hence, the poverty numbers previously cited for states like Texas that have significantly lower costs of living have declined while states that have high costs of living like California have increased.

Source: http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases ... 2-215.html

I lol'd.

The only states that have higher Supplemental poverty rates are Hawaii, Florida, California, Georgia, New York, Mississippi, and Arizona (D.C. also has a higher rate). This means that Texas is in the top 10 for highest supplemental poverty rates.

[Inyourfaceistan]

No. Is your goal North American factional violence?

Seriously dude, there was no factional violence from 1865 to 1930's and the US government had little influence in education, retirement, housing, health care, etc.

I am only advocating the transfer of economic and social management to the states or civil society. It works fine in smallish nations like those listed below:

Listed in order by GDP (PPP) per capita

Qatar = 1.7 million
Liechtenstein = 36,000
Luxembourg = 500,000
Bermuda = 64,000
Monaco = 50,000
Singapore = 5.3 million
Jersey = 97,000
Falkland Is. = 2,500
Norway = 5.0 million
Brunei = 400,000
Hong Kong = 7.0 million
United States (1st large state listed ) = 310 million
UAE =8,264,070
Guernsey =62,431
Switzerland =8,014,000
Cayman Is. =55,456
Gibaltar =29,752
Netherlands =16,775,273
Kuwait = 3,582,054
Austria =8,458,023
Australia =22,894,306
Ireland=4,588,252
Sweden=9,551,781
Canada =35,002,447
Iceland=320,060
Germany (2nd large state listed) = 81 million

As you can plainly see that the states with the largest GDP per capita (PPP) are smallish in size very similar to US states.

As I have asserted repeatedly and which has not been refuted (save by personal opinion devoid of fact, logic or empirical evidence) is that one of the causal reasons for this dynamic is that government closer to the people and governs best. Moreover, tax money collected and spent closer to the people is more effective.

1) Oh, I must have misread your post. I thought you litteraly meant like a national breakup.
My bad...

2) But on that note I do strongly oppose the idea of "states rights" (mainly because of New York and California). Weakening Federal power is conpletely different than letting local political factions rule almost unopposed. I'm all for deregulation and spending cuts, but you lost me if your advocating transferral of Federal powers to regional governments.

[The Willing]

Every time Obamacult says bullshit take a shot

Every time Obamacult says strawman take a shot

Everytime Obamacult says fallacious take two shots

You'd be drunk before you got through half the thread

[Mavorpen]

Every time Obamacult says bullshit take a shot

Every time Obamacult says strawman take a shot

Everytime Obamacult says fallacious take two shots

You'd be drunk before you got through half the thread

If you take an extra one every time he uses them incorrectly you'd be dead before you got through 1/4 of the thread.

[Obamacult]

Seriously dude, there was no factional violence from 1865 to 1930's and the US government had little influence in education, retirement, housing, health care, etc.

Oh I get it. Black people aren't really humans amirite?

In sum, when cornered by facts, logic and empirical evidence, your getting down right offensive and sick with this reprehensible assertion that I am a racist.

This bullshit needs to stop. I will not tolerate this sickening ad hominem -- you have stooped to a new level of intellectual vitriol with this latest post.

[Nua Corda]

Marilize Legaljuana!

[Conserative Morality]

In sum, when cornered by facts, logic and empirical evidence, your getting down right offensive and sick with this reprehensible assertion that I am a racist.

This bullshit needs to stop. I will not tolerate this sickening ad hominem -- you have stooped to a new level of intellectual vitriol with this latest post.

What, you think that 1865-1930 wasn't filled with anti-black violence? Because if you do, then your assertion is wrong, if you don't, then your view of history is wrong, if you avoid the accusation but maintain your claim, then you're implying black people are less than human.

[Mavorpen]

In sum, when cornered by facts, logic and empirical evidence, your getting down right offensive and sick with this reprehensible assertion that I am a racist.

Oh no, I didn't say you were racist. Your claim that there was no factional violence is just plain stupid considering there in fact was, most notably centered around minorities.

This bullshit needs to stop. I will not tolerate this sickening ad hominem -- you have stooped to a new level of intellectual vitriol with this latest post.

It wasn't an ad hominem. Learn what that word means please.

[Esternial]

Sure, I'd love to see what happens.

Like pressing a big red button.

[Mavorpen]

In sum, when cornered by facts, logic and empirical evidence, your getting down right offensive and sick with this reprehensible assertion that I am a racist.

This bullshit needs to stop. I will not tolerate this sickening ad hominem -- you have stooped to a new level of intellectual vitriol with this latest post.

What, you think that 1865-1930 wasn't filled with anti-black violence? Because if you do, then your assertion is wrong, if you don't, then your view of history is wrong, if you avoid the accusation but maintain your claim, then you're implying black people are less than human.

I find it interesting that he got defensive enough to believe that I was calling him racist when I was in fact not. If you ask me, that actually hurt his claim that he isn't racist (not that I'm saying he is).

[Obamacult]

Seriously dude, there was no factional violence from 1865 to 1930's and the US government had little influence in education, retirement, housing, health care, etc.

I am only advocating the transfer of economic and social management to the states or civil society. It works fine in smallish nations like those listed below:



As you can plainly see that the states with the largest GDP per capita (PPP) are smallish in size very similar to US states.

As I have asserted repeatedly and which has not been refuted (save by personal opinion devoid of fact, logic or empirical evidence) is that one of the causal reasons for this dynamic is that government closer to the people and governs best. Moreover, tax money collected and spent closer to the people is more effective.

1) Oh, I must have misread your post. I thought you litteraly meant like a national breakup.
My bad...

2) But on that note I do strongly oppose the idea of "states rights" (mainly because of New York and California). Weakening Federal power is conpletely different than letting local political factions rule almost unopposed. I'm all for deregulation and spending cuts, but you lost me if your advocating transferral of Federal powers to regional governments.

I only advocate transferring management of economic activities to the states or civil society of responsibiilities that are leading the federal government down the road to insolvency and financial collapse -- Greek style (sorry, no pun intended).

The feds would still have all the guns and gavels.

[Xsyne]

Seriously dude, there was no factional violence from 1865 to 1930's and the US government had little influence in education, retirement, housing, health care, etc.

Oh I get it. Black people aren't really humans amirite?

No, violence is possible against any living organism. What he said requires black people to be objects.

[Mavorpen]

Oh I get it. Black people aren't really humans amirite?

No, violence is possible against any living organism. What he's saying is that black people are objects.

I probably laughed too hard at this.

Oh well.