Give A Hand Up not A handout, Lets Make Taxpayers Out Of Taxeaters

UncleBuck said:
yes, let's ignore EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.

perhaps we can focus on unfounded talking points instead?

let's see....




yep, nothing but 100% talking points with no basis in reality. who would have seen that one coming?

:lol:

the arrogance of dumbasses with shitty talking points is astounding.

one might even say these talking point economists are quite uppity.
Click to expand...

Dude, you grab data compiled by leftwingers determined to justify the war on poverty. It's based on assumptions without facts and you call it empirical. Then yell dumbass and talking points.

Speaking of arrogance, you are saying you know more than a recent Nobel Laureate in economics from the Harvard school of business.. You will dismiss him though, he makes a fool of your hero Krugman. You know Krugman, the NYtimes democratic blogger? He's been proven wrong and simplistic concerning his economic "theories". Theories that you state as empirical evidence...

How bout herp derping about aggregate demand again and show us all how much of an expert in econ you are.
 
ginwilly said:
Dude, you grab data compiled by leftwingers determined to justify the war on poverty. It's based on assumptions without facts and you call it empirical.
Click to expand...

if you have a problem with the research done by columbia university, let's hear it.

if you have a convincing reasons for not using SPM versus OPM, let's hear it.

if you have a persuasive argument as to why programs designed specifically to combat poverty should not be looked at in a discussion about the war on poverty, let's hear it.

what i do not want to hear are your unfounded, baselss, partisan talking points after i present a mountain of well-researched, well defined, empirical evidence.

is that so hard to understand, you uppity, arrogant, talking point economist?
 
Buck, your "empirical" evidence is based on a mountain of assumptions. Assumptions that most economists are not willing to make. You stick with your data that starts with a supposition that the war on poverty helps, then provides a very basic data set and says "see?". I'll stick with the Nobel Laureate in Econ tyvm. What you are trying to quantify is UNQUANTIFIABLE.

Arrogance is assuming you can predict human behavior consistently and accurately. I'm not willing to go there and neither are many unbiased economists. In fact, most economists will admit to you that they are awful in future predictions and what their field relies on is examining history and making educated guesses. That's why econ is called a soft science. You are the type of fool who would call those economists who claim the New Deal saved the country empirical evidence but those who say the opposite as spouting talking points.

What you have done is like a psychologist who states that 10% of the population is bi-polar and his study is called empirical evidence. It's childlike and naive.

I expect big font from you any minute herp derping but it's empirical!! All your evidence shows is what the numbers would be if we cut everyone off, not what would have happened had we tried a better track.
 
ginwilly said:
Buck, your "empirical" evidence is based on a mountain of assumptions. Assumptions that most economists are not willing to make.
Click to expand...

prove it.

ginwilly said:
your data that starts with a supposition that the war on poverty helps
Click to expand...

prove it.

ginwilly said:
What you are trying to quantify is UNQUANTIFIABLE.
Click to expand...

prove it.

ginwilly said:
Arrogance is assuming you can predict human behavior consistently and accurately. I'm not willing to go there and neither are many unbiased economists. In fact, most economists will admit to you that they are awful in future predictions and what their field relies on is examining history and making educated guesses. That's why econ is called a soft science. You are the type of fool who would call those economists who claim the New Deal saved the country empirical evidence but those who say the opposite as spouting talking points.

What you have done is like a psychologist who states that 10% of the population is bi-polar and his study is called empirical evidence. It's childlike and naive.

I expect big font from you any minute herp derping but it's empirical!!
Click to expand...

yawn. you talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and never say a goddamn thing.

work on justifying some of the statements i asked for proof of above. you won't be able to, because your objections are yet again mere talking points with no force of persuasive argument behind them. but you can try.

do it for johnny.
 
UncleBuck said:
more talking points.

seductive to dumbass partisans, completely without basis in reality.

just like how all those lazy homeless people simply refuse to work. nevermind the underlying reality of mental and physical handicaps within the homeless community, focus on the seductive, shiny, pretty talking point.

you guys are dumber than fucking horses.
Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:
you didn't start a thread asking for answers, you started a thread calling the war on poverty a failure.

i don't need to provide anything else besides rebuttal to your false assertions and watch you flap like a sheet in the wind.

a very, very white sheet.
Click to expand...

You better look up the word rebuttal dude, because the garbage you posted above, sure as hell is not a rebuttal.

Derp derp derp
 
beenthere said:
You better look up the word rebuttal dude, because the garbage you posted above, sure as hell is not a rebuttal.

Derp derp derp
Click to expand...

re·but·tal
riˈbətl/
noun
noun: rebuttal; plural noun: rebuttals
1.
a refutation or contradiction.


claim: the war on poverty is a failure

contradiction to claim: poverty among seniors dropped from 28% to 9% (and that's OPM! SPM is even more drastic).

wanna try again, caveman beenthere?
 
ginwilly said:
Buck, your "empirical" evidence is based on a mountain of assumptions. Assumptions that most economists are not willing to make. You stick with your data that starts with a supposition that the war on poverty helps, then provides a very basic data set and says "see?". I'll stick with the Nobel Laureate in Econ tyvm. What you are trying to quantify is UNQUANTIFIABLE.

Arrogance is assuming you can predict human behavior consistently and accurately. I'm not willing to go there and neither are many unbiased economists. In fact, most economists will admit to you that they are awful in future predictions and what their field relies on is examining history and making educated guesses. That's why econ is called a soft science. You are the type of fool who would call those economists who claim the New Deal saved the country empirical evidence but those who say the opposite as spouting talking points.

What you have done is like a psychologist who states that 10% of the population is bi-polar and his study is called empirical evidence. It's childlike and naive.

I expect big font from you any minute herp derping but it's empirical!! All your evidence shows is what the numbers would be if we cut everyone off, not what would have happened had we tried a better track.
Click to expand...

But Bucky's evidence is empirical, it's probably peer reviewed pending.:roll:
 
UncleBuck said:
prove it.



.
Click to expand...

I'm going to try to walk you through this. Your data that you call empirical evidence is based on what poverty would be like if we pulled the rug today. The data is based on "all things being equal".

I'm asking if you think it's an assumption that all things would be equal or if it's indeed "fact". Your empirical evidence is based on assumption, I'm not sure why you have trouble understanding or admitting this.
 
ginwilly said:
I'm going to try to walk you through this. Your data that you call empirical evidence is based on what poverty would be like if we pulled the rug today. The data is based on "all things being equal".

I'm asking if you think it's an assumption that all things would be equal or if it's indeed "fact". Your empirical evidence is based on assumption, I'm not sure why you have trouble understanding or admitting this.
Click to expand...

perhaps if you made the slightest effort to make reference to the actual study instead of just asserting stuff about it without any explanation whatsoever, i would stop asking you to actually make reference to the study.

see how that works?
 
UncleBuck said:
re·but·tal
riˈbətl/
noun
noun: rebuttal; plural noun: rebuttals
1.
a refutation or contradiction.


claim: the war on poverty is a failure

contradiction to claim: poverty among seniors dropped from 28% to 9% (and that's OPM! SPM is even more drastic).

wanna try again, caveman beenthere?
Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:
more talking points: Opinion.

seductive to dumbass partisans, completely without basis in reality: Opinion.

just like how all those lazy homeless people simply refuse to work. nevermind the underlying reality of mental and physical handicaps within the homeless community, focus on the seductive, shiny, pretty talking point.

you guys are dumber than fucking horses: Thoughtless rhetoric.
Click to expand...

No contradiction, no refutation, just opinion and rhetoric.
Nothing but Bucky, being Bucky.
 
beenthere said:

No contradiction, no refutation, just opinion and rhetoric.
Nothing but Bucky, being Bucky.
Click to expand...

if my claim that your talking points have no basis in reality is just opinion, then you should be able to point to an empirical example of when your talking points were met with success in reality.

for example, you claim lowering capital gains will have the investors creating jobs like crazy. how did that theory work out for you when jimmy carter lowered the ever loving shit out of capital gains?
 
UncleBuck said:
if my claim that your talking points have no basis in reality is just opinion, then you should be able to point to an empirical example of when your talking points were met with success in reality.

for example, you claim lowering capital gains will have the investors creating jobs like crazy. how did that theory work out for you when jimmy carter lowered the ever loving shit out of capital gains?
Click to expand...

I only needed the first three words of you quote to prove you did not refute a damn thing.

claim
verb: claim; 3rd person present: claims; past tense: claimed; past participle: claimed; gerund or present participle: claiming
1.
state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.





You really shouldn't have dropped out of college UncleBuck
 
beenthere said:
I only needed the first three words of you quote to prove you did not refute a damn thing.

claim
verb: claim; 3rd person present: claims; past tense: claimed; past participle: claimed; gerund or present participle: claiming
1.
state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.





You really shouldn't have dropped out of college UncleBuck
Click to expand...

only one problem: i did offer evidence and proof.

recall how i pointed out that jimmy carter lowered the ever loving shit out of capital gains (which you claimed would create jobs), yet jobs did not fall like rain in portland during the winter.

you're not too bright, are ya caveman beenthere?
 
UncleBuck said:
only one problem: i did offer evidence and proof.

recall how i pointed out that jimmy carter lowered the ever loving shit out of capital gains (which you claimed would create jobs), yet jobs did not fall like rain in portland during the winter.

you're not too bright, are ya caveman beenthere?
Click to expand...

Yah, and tell us again how Obama never said, you can keep your healthcare if you like it, you're just too funny.
 
Putting money in the hands of poor people who spend it in the local economy won't create more jobs because job creators need to put their vast piles of money in index funds invested in companies that outsource jobs in order to create more jobs!!!! we need to trust corporations that pay starvation wages to raise wages after we cut the social safety net because they will raise wages so that people don't have to work 20 hours a day to eat food and share a one room apartment with 10 people. trust me I know because a read Atlas Shrugged!!!! the corporations and the people who own the most stocks don't want a slave class that is too tired from working all day for basic necessities to try to pass laws or vote!!!! pulling up by bootstraps is best way and rich people maybe not rich because born rich but because work hard!!! we must stop food stamps because single mothers and poor people are too powerful and ruin country, not white people who vote and have most influence!!! Durr!!! free market can cure all ills, all hail mammon!!! regulations bad, don't read Upton Sinclair!!!
 
schuylaar said:
they also choose to direct their employees to programs such as SNAP and WELFARE..

EDIT: which we pay for
Click to expand...

So the fuck what? Walmart also funds La Rasa and does corporate welfare. I don't shop there. You seem to think I care. It's the government circle of life. You Reagan Republicans are fighting the wrong battle.
 
MidwesternGro said:
Putting money in the hands of poor people who spend it in the local economy won't create more jobs because job creators need to put their vast piles of money in index funds invested in companies that outsource jobs in order to create more jobs!!!! we need to trust corporations that pay starvation wages to raise wages after we cut the social safety net because they will raise wages so that people don't have to work 20 hours a day to eat food and share a one room apartment with 10 people. trust me I know because a read Atlas Shrugged!!!! the corporations and the people who own the most stocks don't want a slave class that is too tired from working all day for basic necessities to try to pass laws or vote!!!! pulling up by bootstraps is best way and rich people maybe not rich because born rich but because work hard!!! we must stop food stamps because single mothers and poor people are too powerful and ruin country, not white people who vote and have most influence!!! Durr!!! free market can cure all ills, all hail mammon!!! regulations bad, don't read Upton Sinclair!!!
Click to expand...


re•gur•gi•tate (rɪˈgɜr dʒɪˌteɪt)

v. -tat•ed, -tat•ing. . to give back or repeat, esp. something not fully understood or assimilated: to regurgitate a teacher's lectures.
 
UncleBuck said:
it's pretty clear that the right has nothing but THEORY which, since their theories remain completely unproven and entirely hypothetical with no actual examples of success in the real world, make them TALKING POINTS.

whereas all i have is a ton of EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE to prove that the war on poverty has worked, especially for seniors and children, the most vulnerable segments of our society.

maybe thomas sowell will one day have something to say that has basis in reality rather than talking points, until then you guys are just listening to a beneficiary of welfare for right wing partisan hack writers.
Click to expand...

We're living FDR's experiment and the empiracle evidence of what has has happened since until now. Socialism to fund communism isn't working.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

DIY-HP-LED
Trump: Americans Who Died in War Are ‘Losers’ and ‘Suckers’
6 7 8
Replies
142
Views
6K
Fogdog
Fogdog
hanimmal
Biden's Cabinet and administration picks.
2
Replies
24
Views
2K
schuylaar
S
S
Trump's Sneak Attack On Social Security..
2
Replies
23
Views
1K
Obepawn
Obepawn
squarepush3r
Tulsi Gabbard Pushes No War Agenda – and the Media Is out to Kill Her Chances
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
hanimmal
hanimmal
squarepush3r
It’s Over: The Democrats And The Republicans Are Both Conspiring To Bankrupt America And Destroy Our
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
hotrodharley
hotrodharley
Back
Top