The left has gone full retard

[maskedmelon]

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

Your graph has some severe problems... namely that spending raw amounts doesn't have any relation to effective spending.

Your upending of Raev's argument is contingent on the veracity of the above bolded assertion. Care to differentiate raw and effective spending to substantiate your claim?

Do you have some supporting data on the nature and efficacy of welfare spending components?

[Alarti0001]

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

Your upending of Raev's argument is contingent on the veracity of the above bolded assertion. Care to differentiate raw and effective spending to substantiate your claim?

Do you have some supporting data on the nature and efficacy of welfare spending components?

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.

[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.

[JurisDictum]

Again I see Raev framing "the government" as some universal force -- where one government is the same as another and there is no difference policy to policy. The United States government doesn't design welfare programs to lift people out of poverty. They believe that it will make people lazy. So they purposefully make sure those that receive assistance are getting the lowest amount they need to sustain their lives. This way pressure is put on everyone to go to the market. It makes it hard to reject shitty work conditions and pay because everyone is desperate.

There are countries that do use welfare to lift people out of poverty -- and they don't see mass amounts of people choosing to permanently "live on the doll." Most people want to work. Especially when the labor laws dictate things like reasonable wage, pay, hours, and due process before getting fired.

A government program is like any human organization -- it can work in accomplishing its goal or it can not. And considering the stated goal of welfare programs in the States is not to lift people out of poverty -- you can't even honestly argue that the program isn't working. But even if you find programs that don't work like their supposed to -- it simply doesn't prove what people like Raev are trying to imply it does: that all government intervention is doomed to make things worse for everyone.

[Alarti0001]

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

Again I see Raev framing "the government" as some universal force -- where one government is the same as another and there is no difference policy to policy. The United States government doesn't design welfare programs to lift people out of poverty. They believe that it will make people lazy. So they purposefully make sure those that receive assistance are getting the lowest amount they need to sustain their lives. This way pressure is put on everyone to go to the market. It makes it hard to reject shitty work conditions and pay because everyone is desperate.

There are countries that do use welfare to lift people out of poverty -- and they don't see mass amounts of people choosing to permanently "live on the doll. Most people want to work. Especially when the labor laws dictate things like reasonable wage, pay, hours, and due process before getting fired.

A government program is like any human organization -- it can work in accomplishing its goal or it can not. And considering it is not the stated goal of welfare programs in the states is not to left people out of poverty -- you cant even say that the program isn't working. But even if you find programs that don't work like their supposed to -- it simply doesn't prove what people like Raev are trying to imply it does: that all government intervention is doomed to make things worse for everyone.

Ding Ding... we have a winner.

[Nihilist_santa]

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

Again I see Raev framing "the government" as some universal force -- where one government is the same as another and there is no difference policy to policy. The United States government doesn't design welfare programs to lift people out of poverty. They believe that it will make people lazy. So they purposefully make sure those that receive assistance are getting the lowest amount they need to sustain their lives. This way pressure is put on everyone to go to the market. It makes it hard to reject shitty work conditions and pay because everyone is desperate.

There are countries that do use welfare to lift people out of poverty -- and they don't see mass amounts of people choosing to permanently "live on the doll." Most people want to work. Especially when the labor laws dictate things like reasonable wage, pay, hours, and due process before getting fired.

A government program is like any human organization -- it can work in accomplishing its goal or it can not. And considering the stated goal of welfare programs in the States is not to lift people out of poverty -- you can't even honestly argue that the program isn't working. But even if you find programs that don't work like their supposed to -- it simply doesn't prove what people like Raev are trying to imply it does: that all government intervention is doomed to make things worse for everyone.

I agree with you that welfare in the US is not to lift people out of poverty. You are doing what you claim Raev is doing in assuming poverty is a universal standard. People considered impoverished in the US would be middle class in other countries.

You're also stating that we should just waste money and resources fighting human nature just because its someone's "goal". Poverty is not some new development. It has been pretty much the norm since recorded history. People are not poor simply because others have more or because they are being oppressed. There are a number of factors that would cause one to be impoverished and many of those lie with the individual(in the context of the US seeing as people have access to education,movement,and a functioning economy) and are outside of our control regardless of how much money you throw at it.

[Alarti0001]

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

I agree with you that welfare in the US is not to lift people out of poverty. You are doing what you claim Raev is doing in assuming poverty is a universal standard. People considered impoverished in the US would be middle class in other countries.

People living in the US making US wages and paying US prices wouldn't be impoverished in other countries making US wages but paying other prices.

But of course if they lived in those countries they'd be making those countries wages.

The main idea of poverty is not being able to purchase what you need to provide for yourself or your family. The currency you are or are not paid in doesn't matter. Impoverished people working for equivalent value in other countries are still poor.

Rape and Murder are human nature... we spend money fighting that. Should we not?

[Nihilist_santa]

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

People living in the US making US wages and paying US prices wouldn't be impoverished in other countries making US wages but paying other prices.

But of course if they lived in those countries they'd be making those countries wages.

The main idea of poverty is not being able to purchase what you need to provide for yourself or your family. The currency you are or are not paid in doesn't matter. Impoverished people working for equivalent value in other countries are still poor.

Rape and Murder are human nature... we spend money fighting that. Should we not?

I noticed your logic only works when applied one way. If you bring the immigrant then his class has gone up compared to his countrymen even if he starts at the bottom in the US. Its not about wages. Can wages in India provide for AC, Car, Cell Phone, Internet, and all of the shit the "impoverished" in the US see as necessities?

We dont fight rape and murder we deter it through punishment. You cant apply that to poverty and if you do as in trying to deter poverty you dont do it by giving people free shit without changing the mindset that enables their poverty.

[Alarti0001]

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

I noticed your logic only works when applied one way. If you bring the immigrant then his class has gone up compared to his countrymen even if he starts at the bottom in the US. Its not about wages. Can wages in India provide for AC, Car, Cell Phone, Internet, and all of the shit the "impoverished" in the US see as necessities?

We dont fight rape and murder we deter it through punishment. You cant apply that to poverty and if you do as in trying to deter poverty you dont do it by giving people free shit without changing the mindset that enables their poverty.

Who sees lack of A/C as poverty? Not the US standard... not the International Standard....

Logic works the same way always. You just assume things that aren't fact.