Higher taxes for the rich?

[Sociobiology]

you want me to respond to a blog, critiquing a book I did not use as a source? Why?

I challenge you to source your claim.
I can list numbers I pull out of my ass as well.
I don't, because I know what evidence is.

Also you leave out important things like change in GDP, what counts as welfare spending, how much has the population changed in that time, ect.

My sources are the Bureau of Labor statistics CPI index

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt

and governmentspending.com

A blog that gives no sources and a list of CPI index numbers are not a source of your claims.

I am not the one making the claim YOU ARE, it is up to you to back it up with reliable data.
reliable relevant empirical data, not hearsay, not blogs claiming there own research wi not published paper, not unsourced pictures you found in your bubble,
reliable relevant empirical data, and it is up to you to demonstrate this.

I am trying to teach you how empirical arguments work, how productive conversations proceed. Use this opportunity to learn, because I will not waste my time arguing with straw.

[Obamacult]

My sources are the Bureau of Labor statistics CPI index

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt

and governmentspending.com

If the numbers lie, then provide your own.

If the source's argument don't ring true, then provide your counter-argument.

In sum, your personal opinion devoid of any factual, logical or empirically supported arguments, while appreciated, is not valid and reliable evidence.

You're comparing apples and oranges, mate.

Real GDP for the United States in 1960 was $2,830.9 billion, for a population of 179.323 people.

Real GDP for the United States in 2011, adjusted for inflation, was $13,153.9 billion, for a population of 311.592 people.

So, assuming a static population, welfare spending increased more-or-less proportionally with GDP. But since the population actually almost doubled in that time, increased spending on social services would have been necessary.

Indeed, in terms of welfare spending as a percentage of GDP, the United States is one the lowest among developed countries.

So you're complaining why?

Population almost doubled, while welfare benefits expanded by 10 fold.

THink about that for a second.

Equally important, poverty is at the same level four years into an Obama presidency that it was when welfare spending expanded in earnest during the Great Society in the middle 1960's

Think about that for a second.

[Sociobiology]

__________________________

You don't bother to read your sources do you?
because the article does claim this, it says
"This year, the {social security} system will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes"
which means it is paying out more than a single source of revenue, it is not "exceeded revenues" as you claim. And all this is according to your own source.

Dude, social security by itself is now represents a further drag on the economy because taxes from other than social security FICA will have to start paying into the system to support the system . This means that tax revenue normally spent on defense, law, education, welfare, medicare, etc. will have to be plundered to pay for social security benefits.

so now your changing your argument because you realize you have no sources for your original claim.

Moreover, approximately 40% of the budget is government health care and social security.

source

MOre ominous, if that is possible, is the fact that the federal government was forced to fund its operations with over 40% borrowed money further increasing the long term debt burden.

And now prove this is a bad thing.
prove that temporarily going into debt to maintain a needed service, is better than abandoning the service.

Moreover, the article states that this isn't a problem because the social security trust fund has $2.6 trillion in the 'bank'.

Do you realize that the money has already been spent ?

I never said any such thing, This is the third time you have purposefully mis-quoted me.
I will now treat you as liar with no interest in informed discussion.
Good day.

[Obamacult]

My sources are the Bureau of Labor statistics CPI index

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt

and governmentspending.com

A blog that gives no sources and a list of CPI index numbers are not a source of your claims.

I am not the one making the claim YOU ARE, it is up to you to back it up with reliable data.
reliable relevant empirical data, not hearsay, not blogs claiming there own research wi not published paper, not unsourced pictures you found in your bubble,
reliable relevant empirical data, and it is up to you to demonstrate this.

I am trying to teach you how empirical arguments work, how productive conversations proceed. Use this opportunity to learn, because I will not waste my time arguing with straw.

Okay, you don't like my sources on welfare expansion since 1964 -- then provide your own sources!


DIfferent sources, same result. Welfare spending (inflation adjusted dollars) has increased 10 fold since 1964.

And good luck, trying to find a source of raw data or empirical evidence that refutes my assertion.

You claimed I was bullshitting yet you still have not provided any factual data or empirical evidence to prove my welfare costs and inflation adjusted calculations from the BLS are faulty, save your personal opinion.

[Free Soviets]

Population almost doubled, while welfare benefits expanded by 10 fold.

THink about that for a second.

Equally important, poverty is at the same level four years into an Obama presidency that it was when welfare spending expanded in earnest during the Great Society in the middle 1960's

Think about that for a second.

(Image)

pre-tax poverty. of course, ye olde warre on poverty is fought post-tax. adjusting for that,

also, you are counting the ridiculous inflation of medical costs as somehow being a sign that the government has failed in its fight against poverty, rather than a more general failing of the american system as a whole.

[Obamacult]

Moreover, approximately 40% of the budget is government health care and social security

source

Fact Checked = True!

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/oct/11/michele-bachmann/bachmann-right-spending/

Good day to you sir.

[The Emerald Dawn]

You're comparing apples and oranges, mate.

Real GDP for the United States in 1960 was $2,830.9 billion, for a population of 179.323 people.

Real GDP for the United States in 2011, adjusted for inflation, was $13,153.9 billion, for a population of 311.592 people.

So, assuming a static population, welfare spending increased more-or-less proportionally with GDP. But since the population actually almost doubled in that time, increased spending on social services would have been necessary.

Indeed, in terms of welfare spending as a percentage of GDP, the United States is one the lowest among developed countries.

So you're complaining why?

Population almost doubled, while welfare benefits expanded by 10 fold.

THink about that for a second.

Equally important, poverty is at the same level four years into an Obama presidency that it was when welfare spending expanded in earnest during the Great Society in the middle 1960's

Think about that for a second.

Post WWII economic uptick doesn't factor into this AT ALL, does it?

I mean, that'd be way to obvious a factor in this.

[Salandriagado]

You're comparing apples and oranges, mate.

Real GDP for the United States in 1960 was $2,830.9 billion, for a population of 179.323 people.

Real GDP for the United States in 2011, adjusted for inflation, was $13,153.9 billion, for a population of 311.592 people.

So, assuming a static population, welfare spending increased more-or-less proportionally with GDP. But since the population actually almost doubled in that time, increased spending on social services would have been necessary.

Indeed, in terms of welfare spending as a percentage of GDP, the United States is one the lowest among developed countries.

So you're complaining why?

Population almost doubled, while welfare benefits expanded by 10 fold.

THink about that for a second.

Equally important, poverty is at the same level four years into an Obama presidency that it was when welfare spending expanded in earnest during the Great Society in the middle 1960's

Think about that for a second.

That is still not a source.

This is how you source something:

1) Claim it: I claim that changes in mean income account for less than a third of the variance of observed changes in poverty headcounts.
2) Quote your source:

Changes in the mean income of the population explain only 26% of the variance of observed changes in poverty headcounts

3) Link to your source, including location if it's a long text: Section 1.1, p6.

See? That is how you do it. Notice that the source is a reputable one, not a random blog.

[Obamacult]

Population almost doubled, while welfare benefits expanded by 10 fold.

THink about that for a second.

Equally important, poverty is at the same level four years into an Obama presidency that it was when welfare spending expanded in earnest during the Great Society in the middle 1960's

Think about that for a second.

That is still not a source.

This is how you source something:

1) Claim it: I claim that changes in mean income account for less than a third of the variance of observed changes in poverty headcounts.
2) Quote your source:

Changes in the mean income of the population explain only 26% of the variance of observed changes in poverty headcounts

3) Link to your source, including location if it's a long text: Section 1.1, p6.

See? That is how you do it. Notice that the source is a reputable one, not a random blog.

If my sources, blogs or not, are inaccurate (they are drawn from government sources) then feel free to refute them with whatever you consider to be legimate, reliable and valid counter sources.

Indeed, you have not provide a legitimate source refuting anything I have argued.

Hence, if my sources are wrong, then it should be easy to refute them rather than engage in an educational exercise on sourcing.

IN sum, if you dispute the fact that welfare spending in inflation adjusted dollars didn't increase 10 fold from the early 60's to present, and you are an expert on identifying and declaring legitimate sources -- it should be easy to rebut my data and sources.

Good luck and thanks in advance.

[Obamacult]

Population almost doubled, while welfare benefits expanded by 10 fold.

THink about that for a second.

Equally important, poverty is at the same level four years into an Obama presidency that it was when welfare spending expanded in earnest during the Great Society in the middle 1960's

Think about that for a second.

(Image)

Post WWII economic uptick doesn't factor into this AT ALL, does it?

I mean, that'd be way to obvious a factor in this.

That's interesting.

Are you asserting that we didn't recover from the Great Depression until AFTER world war II ?

Because every liberal I ever talked to tells me that FDR's New Deal policies ended the Great Depression so that would render your argument absolute if that was true.

What say you?

Nonetheless, you will notice from the graph that welfare continued to two decades after the end of the war, thereby making it highly unlikely that this two decade improvement was post war boom.

Especially considering we suffer through 4 recessions from the end of the war to the 1960's

[The Emerald Dawn]

Post WWII economic uptick doesn't factor into this AT ALL, does it?

I mean, that'd be way to obvious a factor in this.

That's interesting.

Are you asserting that we didn't recover from the Great Depression until AFTER world war II ?

Because every liberal I ever talked to tells me that FDR's New Deal policies ended the Great Depression so that would render your argument absolute if that was true.

What say you?

Nonetheless, you will notice from the graph that welfare continued to two decades after the end of the war, thereby making it highly unlikely that this two decade improvement was post war boom.

Especially considering we suffer through 4 recessions from the end of the war to the 1960's

I say that the full effects of economic recovery took a lot longer than otherwise noted, and considering your chart doesn't go far enough back, have the correct demographic data, or consider data points beyond poverty threshold, I'd say that "recovery" is far too broad a term to quantify so simply as your chart suggests.

[Priory Academy USSR]

Post WWII economic uptick doesn't factor into this AT ALL, does it?

I mean, that'd be way to obvious a factor in this.

That's interesting.

Are you asserting that we didn't recover from the Great Depression until AFTER world war II ?

Because every liberal I ever talked to tells me that FDR's New Deal policies ended the Great Depression so that would render your argument absolute if that was true.

What say you?

Of course we were still recovering until after WW2. It was the world's worst recession ever, and to suspect everything would be up and running, business as usual, in under 10 years (or 6 from the New Deal) would be an unreachable goal.
Anyway, if we're saying WW2 made the economy recover, surely that means state intervention caused it?

[The Joseon Dynasty]

That is still not a source.

This is how you source something:

1) Claim it: I claim that changes in mean income account for less than a third of the variance of observed changes in poverty headcounts.
2) Quote your source:
3) Link to your source, including location if it's a long text: Section 1.1, p6.

See? That is how you do it. Notice that the source is a reputable one, not a random blog.

If my sources, blogs or not, are inaccurate (they are drawn from government sources) then feel free to refute them with whatever you consider to be legimate, reliable and valid counter sources.

Indeed, you have not provide a legitimate source refuting anything I have argued.

Hence, if my sources are wrong, then it should be easy to refute them rather than engage in an educational exercise on sourcing.

IN sum, if you dispute the fact that welfare spending in inflation adjusted dollars didn't increase 10 fold from the early 60's to present, and you are an expert on identifying and declaring legitimate sources -- it should be easy to rebut my data and sources.

Good luck and thanks in advance.

It's more that it isn't as relevant as you're making it out to be.

"Holy shit! Look at how big them numbers have gotten!" isn't an argument against welfare spending, and noting that the poverty rate has remained fairly static isn't, either, considering that the poverty rate isn't a single-variable function of welfare spending.

Poverty is influenced by the quality of education, economic trends, demographic shifts, the median age of the labour force, population density, government inefficiency, the provision of social welfare, etc.

If you could identify the changes in those other factors over time, and then explain why they would not influence the effectiveness of welfare provision, then you'd have a much stronger argument as to why welfare spending itself is ineffective.

At the moment, you don't have very much.

[Obamacult]

@ Free Soviets,


Your claim would have more merit if my figures included health care and retirement spending -- however they do not.

Welfare spending was approximately $66 billion in 1960 and it is approximately 10 times that today in inflation adjusted dollars. The numbers I quoted earlier don't factor in health care.

But thanks for the graph, that is cool and informative.

Your other comment is noteworthy:

also, you are counting the ridiculous inflation of medical costs as somehow being a sign that the government has failed in its fight against poverty, rather than a more general failing of the american system as a whole.

[/quote]

You actually hit the nail on the head and demonstrate that you have a knack for seeing truth through bullshit, but you only got it half right.

For example, before the Great Society and medicare legislation in the 1960's, Americans spent on 5% of GDP on health care spending and still had outcomes comparable to their counterparts around the globe. Yet, after government entered the health care industry in earnest in the middle 1960's with medicare, medicaid, etc. health care costs predictably skyrocketed to over 25% of GDP today with government spending responsible for over 50% of health care expenditures.

Simple math, when a bureaucrat or politician spends someone else's money, they rarely exercise the same due diligence and care to insure that these costs are met with comparable value. Indeed, health care costs, like those of the military, education, transportation infrastructure, etc. have all skyrocketed thanks to government inefficiencies, waste and corruption.

In contrast, costs and technological productivity in all private sector dominated industries has led to lower costs and improved quality.



I would like to entertain anyone who thinks that k12 education in the USA is anything but an abject failure. Especially considering that AMericans have arguably the most talented and advanced students, teachers, administrators and infrastructure in the world. e kick ass in everything else, except soccer and education -- so what is wrong?

Government manages education, and we just plain suck at soccer cuz kids in America would rather dunk, shoot 3's, sack a defenseless QB, smackdown an RB trying to catch a pass in the flat, and catch a TD pass in the corner of the endzone. And of course, knock one over the fence and make the batter look stupid on a change up.

[Obamacult]

That's interesting.

Are you asserting that we didn't recover from the Great Depression until AFTER world war II ?

Because every liberal I ever talked to tells me that FDR's New Deal policies ended the Great Depression so that would render your argument absolute if that was true.

What say you?

Nonetheless, you will notice from the graph that welfare continued to two decades after the end of the war, thereby making it highly unlikely that this two decade improvement was post war boom.

Especially considering we suffer through 4 recessions from the end of the war to the 1960's

I say that the full effects of economic recovery took a lot longer than otherwise noted, and considering your chart doesn't go far enough back, have the correct demographic data, or consider data points beyond poverty threshold, I'd say that "recovery" is far too broad a term to quantify so simply as your chart suggests.

I like the chart, I agree it would be interesting to see what was happening during and before WWII.

[Obamacult]

If my sources, blogs or not, are inaccurate (they are drawn from government sources) then feel free to refute them with whatever you consider to be legimate, reliable and valid counter sources.

Indeed, you have not provide a legitimate source refuting anything I have argued.

Hence, if my sources are wrong, then it should be easy to refute them rather than engage in an educational exercise on sourcing.

IN sum, if you dispute the fact that welfare spending in inflation adjusted dollars didn't increase 10 fold from the early 60's to present, and you are an expert on identifying and declaring legitimate sources -- it should be easy to rebut my data and sources.

Good luck and thanks in advance.

It's more that it isn't as relevant as you're making it out to be.

"Holy shit! Look at how big them numbers have gotten!" isn't an argument against welfare spending, and noting that the poverty rate has remained fairly static isn't, either, considering that the poverty rate isn't a single-variable function of welfare spending.

Poverty is influenced by the quality of education, economic trends, demographic shifts, the median age of the labour force, population density, government inefficiency, the provision of social welfare, etc.

If you could identify the changes in those other factors over time, and then explain why they would not influence the effectiveness of welfare provision, then you'd have a much stronger argument as to why welfare spending itself is ineffective.

At the moment, you don't have very much.

I agree that there is far too much emphasis on throwing money at social problems and not enough examination of the causal mechanisms for poverty.

For one, I know a few folks on the block that simply like their bourbon far more than they should. Many more refuse to put off instant gratification for long term savings. But I am all for helping out those in need and down on their luck, however I think that civil society would provide a bigger bang for its buck than government which seems to benefit from the poverty of others, while poverty conveniently continues.

Indeed, government rarely solves the social problem it was created to solve with trillions of tax payer dollars. The only thing that grows is the need for greater plunder of the productive private sector and the need for more highly paid bureaucrats to continue to mismanage the problem.