The left has gone full retard

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What data is necessary? The why is the question.. the graph doesn't detail the "why". You seem confused, you think I'm making an argument that welfare spending is effective ever. I simple stated the "destroyed by facts" he provided are not enough to lead to his message.

No, you made a claim that raw spending doesn't have any relation to effective spending. You assumed burden of proof there. How do you know? Is the truth self-evident? Divined?
Inferred? How?

And no, I am not mistaking your argument, because you haven't made one (aside from the mutual exclusivity of raw spending and effective spending, which I asked you to explain).

Your entire schtick is generally picking apart other peoples arguments without making one yourself, like what I am doing right now. I suppose I should call you stupid and fat if I am to properly follow suit. You seem to have fun with it, so not going to fault you there, it's what we do, but I am generally interested in how you arrive at some of you conclusions.

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No, you made a claim that raw spending doesn't have any relation to effective spending. You assumed burden of proof there. How do you know? Is the truth self-evident? Divined?
Inferred? How?

And no, I am not mistaking your argument, because you haven't made one (aside from the mutual exclusivity of raw spending and effective spending, which I asked you to explain).

Your entire schtick is generally picking apart other peoples arguments without making one yourself, like what I am doing right now. I suppose I should call you stupid and fat if I am to properly follow suit. You seem to have fun with it, so not going to fault you there, it's what we do, but I am generally interested in how you arrive at some of you conclusions.

Until you can prove that raw spending has a relation to effect than you must assume it doesn't.

But no I don't have fun with my 'schtick' its highly concerning t me how uneducated an illogical people are here. My 'schtick' only points out the inconsistencies so people can form better opinions... but its very very hard to break through the prideful defense of the faithful. Sometimes you need to bludgeon.

You may call me stupid the very moment I become stupid. I don't call people fat as it has no relation to an intellectual discussion.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Until you can prove that raw spending has a relation to effect than you must assume it doesn't.

The graph has failed to demonstrate that increasing government spending decreases poverty. Until we have data indicating otherwise, we must assume that in general increasing government spending does not decrease poverty. The efficacy of specific programs cannot be determined based on the data presented, nor can the relation between total spending and effective spending.

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You may call me stupid the very moment I become stupid. I don't call people fat as it has no relation to an intellectual discussion.

Well, I am not going to call you stupid.









fat.

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The graph has failed to demonstrate that increasing government spending decreases poverty. Until we have data indicating otherwise, we must assume that in general increasing government spending does not decrease poverty. The efficacy of specific programs cannot be determined based on the data presented, nor can the relation between total spending and effective spending.

Well, I am not going to call you stupid.

fat.

It must be assumed that simply increasing spending (throwing money at something) doesn't have a tangible effect. Seems logical.

Seems we are on the same page. Raev seems clueless CONFIRMED>

[JurisDictum]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The graph has failed to demonstrate that increasing government spending decreases poverty. Until we have data indicating otherwise, we must assume that in general increasing government spending does not decrease poverty. The efficacy of specific programs cannot be determined based on the data presented, nor can the relation between total spending and effective spending.



Well, I am not going to call you stupid.









fat.

But we have plenty of evidence that countries that spend more on welfare experience less poverty. If someone gives you enough money -- you aren't poor anymore are you? The argument that government spending can't decrease the poverty rate is wrong via common sense. We don't even have to delve into the psychological impact of getting money from the government.

It amazes me how free market ideology so successfully gets people to ignore the obvious. They tell you with a straight face that trickle down economics helps poor/working people.

Edit: to clarify, I agree poverty is -- at least for my purposes -- somewhat relative to where you live. This is why we talk about "inequality" more than poverty. My primary concern is quality of life. I feel it is generally lower for the poor. I can't necessarily say the same for middleclass vs wealthy people.

[Nihilist_santa]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

But we have plenty of evidence that countries that spend more on welfare experience less poverty. If someone gives you enough money -- you aren't poor anymore are you? The argument that government spending can't decrease the poverty rate is wrong via common sense. We don't even have to delve into the psychological impact of getting money from the government.

It amazes me how free market ideology so successfully gets people to ignore the obvious. They tell you with a straight face that trickle down economics helps poor/working people.

Edit: to clarify, I agree poverty is -- at least for my purposes -- somewhat relative to where you live. This is why we talk about "inequality" more than poverty. My primary concern is quality of life. I feel it is generally lower for the poor. I can't necessarily say the same for middleclass vs wealthy people.

Common sense like Venezuela or the theoretical sort?

[Patriam1066]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

But we have plenty of evidence that countries that spend more on welfare experience less poverty. If someone gives you enough money -- you aren't poor anymore are you? The argument that government spending can't decrease the poverty rate is wrong via common sense. We don't even have to delve into the psychological impact of getting money from the government.

It amazes me how free market ideology so successfully gets people to ignore the obvious. They tell you with a straight face that trickle down economics helps poor/working people.

Edit: to clarify, I agree poverty is -- at least for my purposes -- somewhat relative to where you live. This is why we talk about "inequality" more than poverty. My primary concern is quality of life. I feel it is generally lower for the poor. I can't necessarily say the same for middleclass vs wealthy people.

You say "poverty is relative to where you live," and then say countries that spend more on welfare experience less poverty

If a country with a high GDP per capita and a high standard of living as a result, spends more money on welfare because of a higher cost of living than, say, a poorer country, did your stats prove the efficacy or welfare spending or did they just show that a more successful country, with a higher standard of living, has a higher cost to provide basic services? Even if you had data, statistics matter. Sweden would have to spend more to fight poverty than Latvia. In addition, welfare systems don't make Sweden experience less poverty than say, latvia. There are other cultural, educational, and societal factors at play

PS: as for the free market, we had this dude named Hamilton. After arguing for tariffs for decades, he finally got them implemented after the War is 1812. This had two effects: 1. Jump started nascent American industry
2. Provided jobs for a growing merchant marine (American ships with American crews hauling goods from Europe were exempted from tariffs).

Voila, minimal regulation, minimal bureaucracy, and economic growth, wage increases, prosperity! But you support Hillary Clinton, the devil incarnate, so you wouldn't know about fighting for America workers against fucked up trade deals like NAFTA and TPP, the former signed into law by a Clinton and the latter to be signed into law by a Clinton in the future

[maskedmelon]

With regard to charity/redistribution/etc., here is what struggle with. Two questions, one moral, one rational.

How does it serve my loved ones for me to expend resources that I have acquired on random strangers? Why should I place the interests of anyone above those whom I care about? How am I a better person for depriving those who have helped, cared for and loved me in favor of those who have not?

How does society or man in general benefit from subsidy of failure? What is the rational argument for investing in the least fit? Is it wise to dilute the mean?

[Pokesan]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

With regard to charity/redistribution/etc., here is what struggle with. Two questions, one moral, one rational.

How does it serve my loved ones for me to expend resources that I have acquired on random strangers? Why should I place the interests of anyone above those whom I care about? How am I a better person for depriving those who have helped, cared for and loved me in favor of those who have not?

How does society or man in general benefit from subsidy of failure? What is the rational argument for investing in the least fit? Is it wise to dilute the mean?

not getting eaten is a pretty good survival strategy

[dafier]

Vote HILBAMA 2016!!!