Ramius Posted December 21, 2006 Posted December 21, 2006 Right. Because when I wrote that someone who scored a 140 on an I.Q. test could be a lucky 130 or an unlucky 150, it was a sign of sheer idiocy. But when the Stanford author wrote that someone who scored a 140 on an I.Q. test could be a lucky 135 or an unlucky 145, it was a stroke of sheer brilliance. Likewise, when I went on to point out that there are more 130s available for getting lucky than there are 150s available for getting unlucky, it was a sign of a blathering idiot. But when the Stanford author pointed out that there are more 135s available for getting lucky than there are 145s available for getting unlucky, it was a sign of solid scholarship. And when I used the word "error" to describe the difference between someone's measured score and true score, it showed that I didn't know the difference between error and variance. But when the Stanford author used the word "error" to describe the difference between someone's measured score and true score, it was good scholarship. 873682[/snapback] No, bungee is right. You and your posts are nothing more than a waste of SDS's bandwidth.
Alaska Darin Posted December 21, 2006 Posted December 21, 2006 My point is that he, as someone who is one of the bigger beneficiaries of government programs (state and federal), is attacking government programs as promoting the welfare state. While moving would be ridiculous, he could chose to not cash his fund check. That's a bit less drastic, isn't it? In reality, I don't think he should do this, just as he shouldn't be advocating the cessation of the subsistence payments to the elderly, the widowed and the orphaned--sounds a bit different than the "welfare state" doesn't it? That being said, I'm regretting making this personal as to him, as this could be any crazy Alaskan advocating the cessation the SS program.... If I've offended, my apologies. 873642[/snapback] I'd love to know how I'm one of the biggest beneficiaries of government programs. Feel free to explain that one to me. Keep in mind I actually know WTF I'm talking about.
N.Y. Orangeman Posted December 21, 2006 Posted December 21, 2006 I'd love to know how I'm one of the biggest beneficiaries of government programs. Feel free to explain that one to me. Keep in mind I actually know WTF I'm talking about. 873734[/snapback] Actually, I know "WTF" I'm talking about as well. Alaska, as a state, receives two federal dollars for every one dollar it contributes to the tax roll. You benefit from this, direcltly and/or indirectly. Also, as an Alaskan, you receive around $1200 just for simply being a resident of Alaska. Please correct me if you have different figures.
N.Y. Orangeman Posted December 21, 2006 Posted December 21, 2006 I don't understand this. Doesn't this actually make his argument all the more compelling? If someone who is supposedly the 'beneficiary' of 'government largesse' is decrying the system, doesn't that say something much more powerful to you than someone who is NOT benefitting from the programs and decrying those same programs? To me, his living in Alaska (and possibly losing $$ due to his advocacy), actually makes me stop and think that there is something more to his position, not degrade it. But that's just me... 873714[/snapback] Does it when he is accepting the benefits of such a system and arguing on behalf of it to the extent it benefits him and those who are similarly situated, while, at the same time, decrying a program that benefits everyone (SS)? Therein lies the hypocrisy.
Bungee Jumper Posted December 21, 2006 Posted December 21, 2006 Right. Because when I wrote that someone who scored a 140 on an I.Q. test could be a lucky 130 or an unlucky 150, it was a sign of sheer idiocy. But when the Stanford author wrote that someone who scored a 140 on an I.Q. test could be a lucky 135 or an unlucky 145, it was a stroke of sheer brilliance. Likewise, when I went on to point out that there are more 130s available for getting lucky than there are 150s available for getting unlucky, it was a sign of a blathering idiot. But when the Stanford author pointed out that there are more 135s available for getting lucky than there are 145s available for getting unlucky, it was a sign of solid scholarship. And when I used the word "error" to describe the difference between someone's measured score and true score, it showed that I didn't know the difference between error and variance. But when the Stanford author used the word "error" to describe the difference between someone's measured score and true score, it was good scholarship. 873682[/snapback] I didn't say Stanford's writing was right. I said I wasn't mocking it...because I assume that the author was targeting the writing to a crowd only slightly smarter than your average turnip, and therefore took liberties. Specifically, the liberty in not explaining to your average turnip that ERROR AND VARIANCE ARE NOT THE SAME THING. I'm mocking you, because you think you're an intellectual, even though you're slightly dumber than your average turnip. Though perhaps the turnip got extraordinarily lucky...
jjamie12 Posted December 21, 2006 Posted December 21, 2006 Does it when he is accepting the benefits of such a system and arguing on behalf of it to the extent it benefits him and those who are similarly situated, while, at the same time, decrying a program that benefits everyone (SS)? Therein lies the hypocrisy. 873748[/snapback] I don't think I've ever seen AD 'advocate' the $1,200 (or whatever $$ amount it is) payment to Alaskans. I'm sure he takes the money. As he should. Anytime someone gets any sort of rebate from the government, they should take it... It is OUR money, afterall. Similarly, I think that there is a reasonable debate to be had whether or not Social Security actually does 'benefit' everyone. A very strong case can be made that we would all be better off if the government let us keep our money so that we could invest it on our own. Any diversified investment over our working lives turns out to be better than Social Security. So... who really has our (the collective our) best interest at heart in this conversation? You or AD? I'm not really sure I know the answer to that. However, I do know that AD's feeling that many government programs designed to help people actually do the opposite; this isn't hypocrisy, it's an opinion.
N.Y. Orangeman Posted December 21, 2006 Posted December 21, 2006 I don't think I've ever seen AD 'advocate' the $1,200 (or whatever $$ amount it is) payment to Alaskans. I'm sure he takes the money. As he should. Anytime someone gets any sort of rebate from the government, they should take it... It is OUR money, afterall. Similarly, I think that there is a reasonable debate to be had whether or not Social Security actually does 'benefit' everyone. A very strong case can be made that we would all be better off if the government let us keep our money so that we could invest it on our own. Any diversified investment over our working lives turns out to be better than Social Security. So... who really has our (the collective our) best interest at heart in this conversation? You or AD? I'm not really sure I know the answer to that. However, I do know that AD's feeling that many sgovernment programs designed to help people actually do the opposite; this isn't hypocrisy, it's an opinion. 873762[/snapback] Accepting it is volition enough (as we agree, he should). He's attacking government programs on the board, in particular, one that serves as a safety net for the elderly, widows and orphan. On the other hand, he strongly advocates for Alaska's share of federal appropriations due to its strategic importance and it relative youth within the construct that is the U.S. (both valid points from where I sit). However, I don't think you can have it both ways: railing against the Federal goverment programs. I firmly disagree with your statement of SS. While you can make an argument that privatization in some form, . He implied (and correct me if I am wrong) he believed SS should be terminated in its entiretly. Big difference. It is a broken system, but it has done an incredible amount of good since its inception. While you and others of our ilk who are capable of investing over, many can't or don't have the means to. I fully agree some programs aren't helping people, but SS isn't one of them.
jimmy_from_north_buffalo Posted December 21, 2006 Author Posted December 21, 2006 Wow. Hearing this from a Western NY native, given Buffalo's economic situation, is both highly ironic and not the least bit ironic. Simultaneously. That's a real accomplishment. 873308[/snapback] Actually I'm for centralizing the health care system and taking the pressure off of the local areas.
jimmy_from_north_buffalo Posted December 21, 2006 Author Posted December 21, 2006 Im still trying to figure out how he managed to define paying salaries for basic social services as "pork." If I can figure that one out, the formula for cold fusion cant be far behind! 873340[/snapback] Perhaps a basic government course at a local college could bring you up to speed on how much federal funding is used to fund 'basic' programs at the state and local level
Alaska Darin Posted December 21, 2006 Posted December 21, 2006 Actually, I know "WTF" I'm talking about as well. You'll forgive me for not seeing that. What I see is simple regurgitation of mass media bullcrap. Alaska, as a state, receives two federal dollars for every one dollar it contributes to the tax roll. Which should be no surprise to anyone who understands the issue. You still haven't answered the question of whether or not you think each state should get back exactly what they pay in, or the pointlessness of that fact. You benefit from this, direcltly and/or indirectly. How exactly do I benefit? I'm dying to have someone who has never set foot in Alaska explain that to me. Also, as an Alaskan, you receive around $1200 just for simply being a resident of Alaska. Please correct me if you have different figures. 873746[/snapback] The PFD is paid to all Alaska residents for royalties on Alaska's resources. The amount varies depending on a variety of factors. It's actually one of the few examples of smart government. Don't worry, eventually the liberals will take that away and spend it on boondoggles as well.
Alaska Darin Posted December 21, 2006 Posted December 21, 2006 Actually I'm for centralizing the health care system and taking the pressure off of the local areas. 873943[/snapback] That'll work great. Passing the buck to some faceless bureaucracy usually does.
jimmy_from_north_buffalo Posted December 21, 2006 Author Posted December 21, 2006 Very often liberal spending programs do far more harm than good. Take LBJ's Great Society program. You could make more money on welfare than at a very low wage job. What did people in low wage jobs do? Exactly what you'd expect them to do: they quit. A long-term effect of this is that many people in welfare communities lost the culture of work. This made it harder to break the cycle of poverty. As though to ensure as many people were born into poverty as possible, the Great Society program included financial incentives for welfare recipients to have as many children as possible. And lest these children be born into stable, two-parent homes, welfare mothers were told they had to divorce their husbands if they expected to receive full welfare benefits. If a father had significant contact with his children after the divorce, he could expect to be punished for welfare fraud. Nor were these problems unique to LBJ's great society program. Ronald Reagan wrote about how his father was a diehard Democrat. As such, Reagan's father was awarded a local position involving the distribution of New Deal government benefits. Reagan saw firsthand how these programs often discouraged people from finding short-term work. Whatever happened to the harmful incentives created by the Great Society program? They were reformed by California's Republican governor Ronald Reagan back in the 1970s, and by the Republican Congress in the 1990s. Not only did liberal Democrats create massive problems with their wasteful and harmful social programs, they took little interest in solving those problems once the problems manifested themselves. It'd be less of a disaster for bin Laden to get an atomic bomb than for New Deal or Great Society liberals to get hold of government power. 873445[/snapback] Hysterical! Yes, liberal programs ruined the ghetto, created more poverty and generally destroyed America
Alaska Darin Posted December 21, 2006 Posted December 21, 2006 Accepting it is volition enough (as we agree, he should). The PFD is included in the Constitution of the State of Alaska. He's attacking government programs on the board, in particular, one that serves as a safety net for the elderly, widows and orphan. None of which are Constitutional. It is not the role of the Federal Government to provide such programs. In fact, that is one of the biggest reasons the settlers of this country fought for their freedom. You want that crap in your state, you pay for it. On the other hand, he strongly advocates for Alaska's share of federal appropriations due to its strategic importance and it relative youth within the construct that is the U.S. (both valid points from where I sit). However, I don't think you can have it both ways: railing against the Federal goverment programs. You're wrong. I'm strongly against pork. I'm strongly for Constitutional mandates like INFRASTRUCTURE - which the state of Alaska is woefully lacking. I firmly disagree with your statement of SS. While you can make an argument that privatization in some form, . He implied (and correct me if I am wrong) he believed SS should be terminated in its entiretly. Big difference. It is a broken system, but it has done an incredible amount of good since its inception. While you and others of our ilk who are capable of investing over, many can't or don't have the means to. I fully agree some programs aren't helping people, but SS isn't one of them. 873855[/snapback] You're right, I'm firmly for terminating SS over term and installing the necessary (large) tax breaks for people willing to save their own money for retirement - including even larger breaks for people who invest their money in America (we're not talking savings bonds, either). Socialist Security will never be fixed. EVER.
Alaska Darin Posted December 21, 2006 Posted December 21, 2006 Hysterical! Yes, liberal programs ruined the ghetto, created more poverty and generally destroyed America 873967[/snapback] Good call. Keep ignoring the fact that despite the trillions of dollars thrown at these problems that they're still there in all their glory - at virtually the same percentage as before we tried to solve them with money we don't have. But at least guys like Ted Turner are getting richer off them. Moron.
Alaska Darin Posted December 21, 2006 Posted December 21, 2006 I didn't say Stanford's writing was right. I said I wasn't mocking it...because I assume that the author was targeting the writing to a crowd only slightly smarter than your average turnip, and therefore took liberties. Specifically, the liberty in not explaining to your average turnip that ERROR AND VARIANCE ARE NOT THE SAME THING. I'm mocking you, because you think you're an intellectual, even though you're slightly dumber than your average turnip. Though perhaps the turnip got extraordinarily lucky... 873750[/snapback] Could you pocket protector wearing, giant cranium having, research book loving nerds keep your special education class to one thread, please? Thanks.
jimmy_from_north_buffalo Posted December 21, 2006 Author Posted December 21, 2006 Redistribution of income does work great. New York State's idiot liberal programs and ideas have successfully "redistributed" income from New York State to other states. Jobs too. And people! Sure, most outside observers would say Buffalo is a complete dump compared to any prosperous city in the United States. But that's why we need you to explain to them that Buffalo is really a utopia. If only we had some more pork....... 873483[/snapback] First off, my point that redistributing income is correct. It has to be done. Secondly, blaming liberalism for Buffalo's decline can only be done by ignoring some very basic truths. No doubt a person like you has no problem ignoring the most basic truths, but I'll just throw some ideas at you none the less. Conservative states like North Carolina and Ohio and West Virginia, to name a few, have all experienced heavy job loses as well. The factories have gone to other countries because there are fewer environmental laws and workers don't make nearly as much money. Perhaps a strict laissez-fair policy on the part of the states could have kept more jobs here, but the wages would be so low only illegals would want them, and then the right would be up in arms about illegals 'taking' jobs. As to other cities being better than Buffalo I would agree, but again, you and the other Conservative simply chalk that up to liberalism. I'd call it governmental incompetence, which does not have to be the case. Government planning is very important and needs to be done right. We haven't got that here while other cities have been more blessed. Ever been to Milwaukee? Beautiful city. In a very Progressive state. The Progressive movement in many ways started in Wisconsin and they are getting it right. Their waterfront is impressive and really simply beautiful. What did we do to our beautiful park? We put the 1-190 right through the middle of it. That's not liberalism, that's pure imcompetence.
Bill from NYC Posted December 21, 2006 Posted December 21, 2006 Ever been to Milwaukee? Beautiful city. In a very Progressive state. The Progressive movement in many ways started in Wisconsin and they are getting it right. Their waterfront is impressive and really simply beautiful. What did we do to our beautiful park? We put the 1-190 right through the middle of it. That's not liberalism, that's pure imcompetence. 873988[/snapback] Does this sound "progressive and beautiful" to you?
jimmy_from_north_buffalo Posted December 21, 2006 Author Posted December 21, 2006 Good call. Keep ignoring the fact that despite the trillions of dollars thrown at these problems that they're still there in all their glory - at virtually the same percentage as before we tried to solve them with money we don't have. But at least guys like Ted Turner are getting richer off them. Moron. 873985[/snapback] Your ignorance is driving your opinion. The facts are we as a nation--rich, middle class and poor--are wealthier, healthier and have more free time than before the social programs of the New Deal and Great Society came along. That's just undisputable. Moron? I think not. Know who is a moron? The guy who would love to cut government spending and have all those people who benefit from that spending with jobs lose those jobs. Taxes would sure go down, especially for the wealthy, but the human misery index would sure shoot up. That's when poverty would increase. You always make it a point to say you do not supporting either political party. Neither party follows your strict anti-government philosophy. Know why that is? Because in a modern properous society the government needs to take an active role in may areas. The notion that it shouldn't is childish. That's why you are so far out in the wilderness
SilverNRed Posted December 21, 2006 Posted December 21, 2006 First off, my point that redistributing income is correct. It has to be done. Secondly, blaming liberalism for Buffalo's decline can only be done by ignoring some very basic truths. No doubt a person like you has no problem ignoring the most basic truths, but I'll just throw some ideas at you none the less. Conservative states like North Carolina and Ohio and West Virginia, to name a few, have all experienced heavy job loses as well. The factories have gone to other countries because there are fewer environmental laws and workers don't make nearly as much money. Perhaps a strict laissez-fair policy on the part of the states could have kept more jobs here, but the wages would be so low only illegals would want them, and then the right would be up in arms about illegals 'taking' jobs. As to other cities being better than Buffalo I would agree, but again, you and the other Conservative simply chalk that up to liberalism. I'd call it governmental incompetence, which does not have to be the case. Government planning is very important and needs to be done right. We haven't got that here while other cities have been more blessed. Ever been to Milwaukee? Beautiful city. In a very Progressive state. The Progressive movement in many ways started in Wisconsin and they are getting it right. Their waterfront is impressive and really simply beautiful. What did we do to our beautiful park? We put the 1-190 right through the middle of it. That's not liberalism, that's pure imcompetence. 873988[/snapback] Right, I'm sure New York State's ranking as one of the very worst for taxes has nothing to do with it. Upstate NY has been on life support for decades. I guess every city is just incompetent? You'd have to be insane to move your business or start a business in Buffalo, NY, when you have so many other places to choose from. Also, how on earth is North Carolina's economy poor if there was so much construction in downtown Raleigh that they had trouble planning a parade route for the Hurricanes after they won the Cup? And when did Ohio become a "conservative" state?
SilverNRed Posted December 21, 2006 Posted December 21, 2006 You always make it a point to say you do not supporting either political party. Neither party follows your strict anti-government philosophy. Know why that is? 874010[/snapback] Because both political parties know there are tons of morons like you think government spending = jobs = good? It's easier to get elected if you reassure everyone that the government will help take care of them.
Recommended Posts