My wife just finished reading Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. It was given to her by my brother-in-law who considers it "his Bible." I asked her what she thought about it and this was our conversation.
"Are there actually people out there that think these characters are real?" she asked me.
"Which characters"
"The ones that make up most of society in this book...Rand's users and the mooches who take advantage of all the creative innovators."
"Uh...yeah."
"You mean that's how people who post on your site view people who collect Social Security?"
"Yep."
"Good Lord..."
The expression on her face made me realize how truly deluded the perception is of far too many people in this country. They actually think that people who are participate in government programs are dragging down our society. It also helped me to understand why blue collar folks are conservative. They are all under the horribly mistaken impression that our government is driving away innovators when, in fact, the exact opposite is true.
Just ask Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Mark Zuckerberg.
71 comments:
M: "You mean that's how people who post on your site view people who collect Social Security?"
"Yep."
Like I've said before, Mark, if you're so certain your beliefs are right, then why do you feel the need to lie about what those who disagree with you actually say and believe? Hmm?
Not sure how he is lying, Larry. Your consistent disdain expressed here and on Kevin's site for any left of center (or even moderately right for that matter) is rooted in this science fiction novel. It's so obvious that you have deluded yourself into thinking that innovators are being crushed in this country by moochers off of the government teat and that bureaucracy is responsible for all our problems. The characters in this book are so over the top stupid that it's surprising that you equate them with real people.
Not sure? Then it should be easy to back up the claim that all the people on this blog view those who collect Social Security as just like Rand's moochers. Why there must be dozens of comments here where people claim that, so why don't you just toddle off and suck your thumb while you try to find those comments.
I've never read Rand. So, despite my disdain for your the majority of your politics - it has nothing to do with Rand or Objectivism.
Meh.
What I find most appalling about SocSec is how you people are such liars about what it really is.
Yes, it is a Ponzi scheme.
Eh, fair's fair. Whenever I start talking politics with family and friends, and the subject turns to why so many people in the country can't seem to a. take care of themselves or b. so readily fall for transparent nonsense, I invariably use Mark as an example of how it is possible. Irrationality, using slogans instead of thought, refuses to go too in depth into his reasoning, and, to put the bow on the package, he's a teacher AND he has a ridiculously high opinion of his thinking. It's all there. I just fear for when Mark thinkers are a majority. Mark is working hard on that, no doubt. :)
so many people in the country can't seem to a. take care of themselves or b. so readily fall for transparent nonsense, I invariably use Mark as an example of how it is possible.
How did you get the idea that I can't take care of myself or that I encourage that in others? Ah yes, the cult...again. Ironic that you mention transparent nonsense because that's exactly from which this notion originates.
he's a teacher AND he has a ridiculously high opinion of his thinking.
Not really...unless you call accepting reality having a high opinion of one's own thinking. The likely issue here is that you simply can't accept that I: a) know what I am talking about and b) am right about some things. You don't like either one of these simple facts so you fall back into the ad hominem as well as the other 14 points.
I just fear for when Mark thinkers are a majority.
Uh...we already are, dude. Isn't that why you guys are always on about the apocalypse and stuff?
Mark, you need to work on your reading comprehension.
Haplo9: so many people in the country can't seem to a. take care of themselves OR b. so readily fall for transparent nonsense, I invariably use Mark as an example of how it is possible.
M: How did you get the idea that I can't take care of myself or that I encourage that in others? Ah yes, the cult...again. Ironic that you mention transparent nonsense because that's exactly from which this notion originates.
OR, Mark, didn't you read the fucking OR? Or did you just conveniently ignore it and instead emit a cloud of squid-ink in a desperate attempt to evade.
Then you pat yourself on the back for how wonderful you are.
You're a funny one one, Mark. Apocalypse. Hee-hee. Such a quaint notion. Except when it's you and Nikto squawking about Environmental Apocalypse, or shrieking about Political TEA Party Apocolypse. I know, I know, your superstitions are very real to you, but still...
Hmm, I see neither you nor your groupies seem to be producing any links to comments here where anyone calls those collecting Social Security moochers in any sense of the word, let alone the Randian definition. You like to quote the Bible. What does it say about bearing false witness?
>that I encourage that in others?
Uh, Mark? You're pretty much a standard issue statist liberal. When you advocate for government interventions? Government solutions to things you think are problems? Active government involvement in the economy? Yeah, you're not exactly encouraging people to take care of themselves. What do you think GM will do next time they have problems? How about other large companies, seeing GM's example? Do you think socializing the cost of medicine will make people more or less likely to take charge of their own health? (Yes, these are all obvious questions.) Sorry, you don't get to be a statist on one hand and then claim that you're, like, totally for self reliance and shit on the other hand.
>know what I am talking about
Kind of the problem isn't it? You've convinced yourself that you do. As we have seen so many times, you're not even close.
>unless you call accepting reality having a high opinion of one's own thinking.
Yeah, your grasp of reality is interesting to theorize on. I have two pet theories, myself:
1. You have been telling students what and how to think for so long that you've starting drinking your own kool aid, so to speak. This is kind of a vicious cycle because students aren't well equipped to push back against you, thus you form an inordinately high opinion of yourself. This manifests itself in your absolute certainly, even in the face of mounds of contrary evidence and reasoning, of your positions. I have seen this problem with other teachers, most notably my brother in law.
2. More of a general case - you're simply lazy, and again, teaching doesn't help you here. I have always wondered why you get so pissy when your views get put under the microscope. Well, obviously, one reason is because thats where they start to fall apart. But another, I think, is that you simply don't know how to subject your owns views to close scrutiny. You certainly won't have to do so with your students, not when you are in a superior position. You can easily get away with the glib platitudes and the cliched slogans that permeate your thinking in a classroom as a teacher. Not so much outside the classroom, and it is telling that you don't think that you should have to explain your reasoning and resort to muttering imprecations about fox news style questions, winning the argument, and whatever other avoidance strategies you seem to develop on a regular basis.
I'm inclined to believe that you are a product of both those theories. All of us are probably subject to the second one to one degree or another; you however, are way beyond the average.
How did you get the idea that I can't take care of myself or that I encourage that in others?
You consistently mock Republicans for their heartlessness because people dared think someone who can afford health insurance, chooses not to get it, and then later suffers medical problems that make him wish he had health insurance, should deal with the consequences of his own choices.
That certainly looks like encouraging people not to take care of themselves to me.
So... how did I get the idea that you encourage people not to take care of themselves? Because I watched you do it, that's how.
Hap, it's virtually impossible to have a rational discussion with you about government. For example, anyone who recognizes the fact that postwar investments in infrastructure, science, and education gave people more opportunity and improved our country is a "liberal statist." With that kind of "logic," it's hard to really go anywhere.
In addition, you make an awful lot of assumptions about how I am in the classroom (most of which are straight from right wing propaganda leaflets) and, ironically, fall into a decided lack of critical reasoning considering you have no real evidence upon which to base your theories.
And, sadly, we're back to the projection/flipping tactic again with the rest of what you said above. When you don't like my facts, then it's me (not you) who isn't explaining my reasoning or is avoiding the argument. Do you know any other way?
You've done complete work on how the government is bad. How about a at where they have done well? You could start with the steep progressive taxation that helped fund our post war boom and investment in the list above. Clearly, the results were a success considering our standing in the world since that time. Let's see if you are capable of being reasonable.
I'd like to see Haplo9 make a comment without personally attacking Mark. In other words,
1. Make a statement regarding an issue discussed on here.
2. Defend it with supporting evidence.
It's that simple. Here's an example.
1. Social Security is a successful social program.
2. It has reduced poverty in the elderly by 40 percent since it began.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/aug/17/eddie-bernice-johnson/texas-congresswoman-eddie-bernice-johnson-says-soc/
ST,
Define "personal attack".
As you guys seem to use it, it means "disagreeing with Mark".
I don't agree with some of what Mark says but I don't rant on about my pet theories. That would be my definition of a personal attack. There's no substance to what Haplo 9 is saying. It would be more beneficial if he gave some historical evidence of his assertions. I second the challenge of Serial. Let's see if Haplo 9 can comment without making personal comments about Mark.
So, pray tell, how do you address an assertion by Mark about his actions without, you know, examining his actions?
1. Social Security is a successful social program.
2. It has reduced poverty in the elderly by 40 percent since it began.
So is 1. defined by 2.? Is that your definition of success? Or if statement 1 stands on its own, then you need to define successful.
Andrew Biggs, an expert on Social Security with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said that Social Security isn't particularly effective if looked at solely as an antipoverty program.
"In 2010, Social Security spent over $575 billion on retirement and survivors benefits, which comes to $14,675 for each person over age 65 –- enough to give every person a benefit that's 50 percent above the poverty line," said Biggs. "And yet we still have 10 percent of seniors in poverty. If reducing poverty was our only goal, we could do a lot more while spending a lot less than we do."
The above comment by 6Kings answers your question, A Noni. Of course, my comments seem to garner my personal attention than other posters.
Honestly, the personal attacks don't bother me at all nor does the scrutiny. I get much worse at school than I do here. And they are excellent illustrations of how devoid of substance these sorts of comments are when you break it down. Take Hap's comment above...take out the analysis of me and what is there really? Bupkus.
2. It has reduced poverty in the elderly by 40 percent since it began.
That may have been true 50 or 60 years ago. Today, low income working people are paying in so middle and upper income retirees can collect.
If you get to cite politihack as a solid source, I get to cite Cato or AEI, hell even Brookings! Not that I'm worried about you actually attempting to have a reasoned dialogue - you took your dump and now you've run.
I consider it a "personal attack" to be summarily dismissed as either idiotic, dishonest, or both because I dare to refer to something structurally identical to a Ponzi scheme as "a Ponzi scheme".
I find it especially offensive when the person so dismissing me has shown that he is not merely willing, but determined, to ignore the cronyism and corruption within his own party, as of course one would have to be in order to contemplate the idea of "financial reform legislation" written by "Countrywide Chris" Dodd with a straight face.
I consider it a personal attack to be dismissed as racist for failing to object to someone calling a black man a liar when he is caught in a lie (but only if he's a Democrat), or not having any sympathy for a black man who directly enabled hundreds of murders by drug lords.
I find it especially offensive when the person so dismissing me had no apparent objection to his own party referring to Condoleeza Rice as "Bush's house nigger", nor any objection to his favorite comedian saying President Obama wasn't really black because he doesn't have a gun in his pants. Obviously blatant racism isn't something he actually has a problem with. I, however, do.
So while I can understand your objection to personal attacks in principle, it's hard to find fault with those who treat Markadelphia thus, since they know in advance that they will receive no such courtesy in return.
I find it personally insulting that you can't read English. Pick a fucking name or you will be ignored. Juris-by calling Politifact "Politihack" isn't that a genetic fallacy? Refute their facts or continue with wha you say Mark does all the time.
>Take Hap's comment above...take out the analysis of me and what is there really? Bupkus.
Heheh. First, for those of you reaching for the fainting couch about my being so mean - um - did you read Mark's post? Not much analysis of anything is there? Except, maybe, his analysis of certain of his commentors. In fact, he simply made up a belief and assigned it to us. This was pointed out by Larry in the very first comment to the thread. And yet you get all up at arms when I indulge my own imagination of about why Mark is is the way he is? Come now children. At least I had the decency to label what I said as a theory, even if I think there is some truth to it. Mark extended no such courtesy in his imaginings.
Now I want to point to Serial Thrilla's comment, because it is excellent:
>1. Social Security is a successful social program.
2. It has reduced poverty in the elderly by 40 percent since it began.
I think this is a perfect example of the vapidity of thinking that goes on here. The very first question that comes to mind when you say the above is "what definition of success are you using?" That question has been asked of Mark many times, in multiple contexts. (The GM bailout is another that comes to mind.) He seems to think it is a gotcha question, or a fox news style question, or whatever his favorite term of avoidance is for that day. But it is in fact none of those things. It's a request for him to get specific about what he means. Because from where I sit, there are many ways in which Social Security seems very not successful:
1. This very year, it started spending more than it takes in, which requires increased borrowing, or taxes, or printing. http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html
2. The long term projections for Soc Sec (and Medicare) are awful. From same link: "While the combined OASDI program continues to fail the long-range test of close actuarial balance"
3. http://news.yahoo.com/us-wealth-gap-between-young-old-widest-ever-050259922.html
Wait what? Why is the government paying benefits to a class of people that is wealthier than the ones paying them those benefits? Why isn't it just welfare for destitute old people, rather than paying everyone?
Now, if you're just saying that Soc Sec is a "success" because it puts money in peoples pockets, that's fine, even if pretty unconvincing based on the above. But shit, ANY government spending would be a success based on that metric. Come to think of it, that is kind of the way Mark seems to approach these sorts of questions, so maybe that is exactly how you define success. Maybe you could actually answer those sorts of questions and enlighten us though, huh? Rather than muttering about "winning the argument" or whining about fox news questions?
Incidentally, Serial, did you actually read the link you posted? Down at the bottom they give this gem:
"The poverty rate among the elderly has dramatically declined. Whether that was the result of Social Security or other factors is beyond the scope of this review."
Translation: well, poverty went down, we don't know for sure that it was because of Soc Sec though.
That makes me ask - Mark, do you actually have a source for your oft repeated claim of 40% reduction in poverty in the elderly? Because the fuzziness of the politifact article makes me wonder if you have something more concrete than that. Of particular interest would be the implication of your claim - we can surmise that there was a big bump of people in poverty caused by the great depression. That includes the elderly. Once the depression was over, poverty would likely decline amongst all age ranges. However, the implication of your claim is that poverty amongst the elderly declined 40% faster than it otherwise would have, such as compared to the decline of poverty amongst other age groups. Do you have that kind of link? Or did you just read it and uncritically repeat it? (Not saying I know either way.) Either way, it would be hard to believe that that reduction in poverty still applies today.
This is why I gripe about trying to get Mark to think through his positions. You have to peel back layer upon layer of unexamined assumptions, glib generalities, and cliched nonsense in order to try to get him to be clear about what he is claiming. He doesn't like doing that, though that isn't surprising - it can't be enjoyable to have your cherished nostrums peeled away.
I find it personally insulting that you can't read English.
Correction: You find it personally insulting that I refuse to follow your (or Mark's) orders. I've seen the quality of responses here. Just in case you're too stupid to conceive of another reason besides inability to understand English as a reason for remaining anonymous, I'll explain it: You can take my refusal to bow to your will as indicative of those responses' value to me.
Pick a fucking name or you will be ignored.
You act as if being ignored by someone whose idea of "reasoned debate" is to say "shut your yap", and whose idea of an objective, unbiased source is Bill Maher or Daily Kos, is a bad thing. If you're waiting for my feelings to be hurt by being ignored by people like that (meaning, of course, you), I suggest you pack a lunch and bring a sleeping bag, you'll be waiting a while.
Well, Hap. Funny enough, I wrote exactly what you did and went to find that data (didn't post it though). One place I could find a reasonable review of that number is here: NBER
Not that M would know where it came from but the number seems to be a best guess from researching trends and trying to isolate the SS effect.
As the authors note, assessing the causal effect of Social Security on poverty is difficult.
With that said, they did find:
The authors estimate that a $1,000 increase in Social Security benefits is associated with a 2 to 3 percentage point reduction in poverty rates for elderly households.
So with approximately 14K paid out to each elderly individual, the resulting drop using the top end 3% per 1,000 in benefits results in anywhere from 28% to 42% reduction in poverty - ASSUMING a linear progression. BUT, the official poverty line is $10,890 so there should be NO official poverty among the elderly - but there is.
All in all, they claim that they could confidently say that from 67 to 2000, there was estimated to be only a 17% reduction in poverty thanks to SS benefit changes.
I am not paying $5 to read the linked research paper though.
"the vapidity of thinking that goes on here"
"That question has been asked of Mark many times, in multiple contexts."
"It's a request for him"
"that is kind of the way Mark seems to approach these sorts of questions"
"Mark, do you actually have a source for your oft repeated claim of 40% reduction in poverty"
"I gripe about trying to get Mark to think through his positions."
"You have to peel back layer upon layer of unexamined assumptions, glib generalities, and cliched nonsense in order to try to get him to be clear about what he is claiming. He doesn't like doing that, though that isn't surprising - it can't be enjoyable to have your cherished nostrums peeled away."
So, really, you can't make any sort of argument without bringing in Mark, can you? Sure, you had a few items in there that you offered to support your argument but none that offered any real depth or look at Social Security honestly. Most of your points were about Mark because I think that's they only way you know how to debate: attacking the person not the issue. Sad.
It's a request for him to get specific about what he means.
Hap, seriously, do you think I was born yesterday? Contrary to your programming, I (and very many liberals) are not morons. But this is the game that you play. You don't have much in the way of your own support so you egg me on in the hopes of finding something you can use to "prove me wrong." I'll offer source after source, fact after fact and it won't matter. For example, I have made the claim (repeated above by Serial Thrilla) that Social Security has reduced poverty in the elderly. I base this on data from the US Census Bureau. The poverty rate for persons over 65 stood at 3.4 million in 2009. That's around 9 percent of the elderly population (about 39 million).
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb10-144.html
The source for 1935 is "Growing Old In America" by David Fischer
http://books.google.com/books/about/Growing_old_in_America.html?id=lvmSZbjZOxsC
although that number of 50 percent may be not be accurate as mentioned in the Politifact article linked above. Other researchers think it was likely higher. Check out this study.
http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/cde/cdewp/87-22.pdf
Poverty was over 70 percent for both men and women in 1939. 72 years later, it's less than 10 percent. The link provided by 6Kings illustrates the connection quite well.
Enacted in 1935, the Social Security system experienced rapid benefit growth in the post-WWII era. In fact, there is a striking association between the rise in Social Security expenditures per capita and the decline in elderly poverty, as Figure 1 illustrates (with both series scaled to fit on the same figure).
Now, you will take this information and a) ignore the key facts, b) start talking about me and c) attempt to goad me into a different direction-one that lies away from any sort of success achieved by a government program. As Serial Thrilla said above, there is very little in your comments that isn't "Mark" related.
I also think you are operating under the false assumption that there are many people reading these comments...some of whom can be swayed to your side if only you just continue with your tactics. I have site tracker set up for my site and can assure that the only people reading this are the regular readers who are never going to change their mind. So, continuing to focus on me is silly and futile.
I'm much more interested in having a discussion about how you think we would be better off without Social Security and what data you have to back up that claim. Or the suggestion that I made above which you have ignored. We do have some fairly serious problems in this country and discussions on how to solve them would be most interesting. For example, the unemployment rate for blacks is at 15 percent. What would you do change that? How? What about the achievement gap for blacks? How would you attempt to solve that problem and where is your evidence that your tactics have worked?
I guess Haplo 9 can't make a comment without insulting Mark. That's too bad because the issue of Social Security is an important one. I collect Social Security now that I am retired and don't want anyone, the government or Wall Street, messing around too much with it. Many of my friends in rural Iowa collect it as well and would be screwed without that regular check. We worked hard our entire lives and I resent being accused of being a loafer or part of a scheme just because I'm taking part in a program that I helped support. I wouldn't mind if it were means tested or if the age were raised to fix the issue of solvency but I don't want it to go away. It has reduced poverty in the elderly which I have seen first hand. We don't make a lot of money down here in Iowa but we work hard for every penny.
To the anonymous poster above, Mark doesn't have many rules for posting although I wish he would so it might be nice of you to follow at least the one. Also, Social Security is not structurally identical to a Ponzi Scheme. A Ponzi scheme is unsustainable because eventually the number of potential investors is exhausted. It falls apart quickly because of its structure and that's not the case with Social Security. There is also the fact that no one is being misled and there are no huge payouts or promises of huge returns. It's just a social safety net.
Sorry Serial, I had to rofl at this:
>Sure, you had a few items in there that you offered to support your argument but none that offered any real depth or look at Social Security honestly.
I note that Soc Sec has some serious funding issues, both short and long term, and I note that it is sending money to one of the wealthiest slices of American society, and your response is that? A yawn? Ok Serial. :) I'm going to have to go with concern troll for you. Let us know when you want to be a bit more.. substantial.
Mark, I'm proud of you. That is the first time within my memory that I looked at something you linked, and didn't find that you either wildly overstated what it concluded or misrepresented it.
>Hap, seriously, do you think I was born yesterday?
Kinda, yea. I stand by that one. I've lost count of the times I've tried to get you to get past handwavey nonsense only to have you get pissy about it.
>"prove me wrong."
Are you ever going to explain why this is bad? Proving someone wrong means that you have exposed flawed arguments and/or data. Isn't uncovering flawed arguments or data, you know, a good thing?
Thanks for the linky 6Kings, followed by Mark. I appreciate it. Leaving aside Soc Sec's finances, which none of you seem to care much about, I still have a question about those studies though, and it can be summed up by my dad. My dad is recently retired and collects soc sec - but there is no way he needs it. He lives in a large, paid off house, and has quite a bit of money socked away. However, he is a good enough manager of his money that his yearly income is very low - I don't know if it is below the poverty level, but it's probably close. He minimizes his income in order to minimize his taxes. When he needs money, he can either bump up his dividend producing assets, (which would bump up his income for purposes of comparing against the poverty level) or draw down from a bank or money market account. (Which would not increase his income, except for maybe some meager gains from cashing out of a money market account.) The point is this - the elderly, in general, have lower incomes than working people since they are retired. However, they also usually have quite a bit more wealth than working people, as I pointed out above. None of those studies seem to measure wealth, though to be fair, that's probably pretty hard - I'm not aware of any easy way to measure wealth, since you report income to the IRS, not wealth. But the question stands - why are taxpayers paying money to my dad? I love him, but he doesn't need it.
And back to tit for tat:
>As Serial Thrilla said above, there is very little in your comments that isn't "Mark" related.
Huh, well, maybe you shouldn't have made a post lying about what your commenters think, huh?
>I also think you are operating under the false assumption that there are many people reading these comments...some of whom can be swayed to your side
Oh I don't disagree, in fact, I'd bet that once the insults start flying, both sides get tuned out. (Yes Mark, you happily engage in it to, you just seem to really want to believe that you are above it all. You're fooling yourself.)
>I'm much more interested in having a discussion about how you think we would be better off without Social Security
Funny, I don't recall saying we should do away with Social Security - do you? I want Social Security to stop being some kind of "you've reached old age! Here's a pension for however long you have left!" and simply be a welfare program. If you're truly about to be eating dogfood, then you apply for welfare, and tell the welfare folks your wealth. If you live in a million dollar home, then rather than getting welfare benefits, how about downsizing? Now, is that a program you could support? Why or why not?
>For example, the unemployment rate for blacks is at 15 percent. What would you do change that?
Nothing that wouldn't be very likely to make the problem worse. What would you do? And why do you think that is a problem that needs, or can be solved by you or anyone else? (No, I'm quite serious. Yes, it would be nice if there were no racial disparities in employment. Btw - I don't know what you mean by "achievement gap." Achievement of what?
>We worked hard our entire lives and I resent being accused of being a loafer or part of a scheme just because I'm taking part in a program that I helped support.
Dear god. You do realize that the only person in this post and accompanying thread that has suggested that anyone thinks you are a loafer because you collect Soc Sec is.. Mark. Right?
>A Ponzi scheme is unsustainable because eventually the number of potential investors is exhausted.
You sure that Soc Sec doesn't have that problem? When it started the ratio of payers to payees was something like 100:1. Now its 2:1. Sure sounds like it's running out of "investors" to me. I put investors in quotes, of course, because Soc Sec is not voluntary whereas a Ponzi scheme is voluntary.
But hey, if you don't believe me, would you believe one Paul Krugman?
http://www.bostonreview.net/BR21.6/krugmann.html
"Social Security is structured from the point of view of the recipients as if it were an ordinary retirement plan: what you get out depends on what you put in. So it does not look like a redistributionist scheme. In practice it has turned out to be strongly redistributionist, but only because of its Ponzi game aspect, in which each generation takes more out than it put in. Well, the Ponzi game will soon be over, thanks to changing demographics, so that the typical recipient henceforth will get only about as much as he or she put in (and today's young may well get less than they put in)."
In short - Soc Sec is structured like a Ponzi scheme, even if it is transparent.
Perhaps I have misunderstood "the rules". As I understood it, "the rule" was, "If you post anonymously, do not expect me to respond to you." Note that it does not say, "anonymous posters are not allowed," nor "anonymous posters will be banned." Did I get that wrong?
I have not requested, required or demanded a response from Mark, nor have I grumbled about failing to get one (since he made that rule, at least.) Indeed, considering I already have experience of of his willingness to:
- ignore uncomfortable issues (eg the racism of his favorite comedian),
- present biased propaganda as objective debate (eg OWS vs. TEA Party comparison he casually failed to mention was lifted from Daily Kos),
- cite a source as fact or dismiss it as "right wing blogosphere, which is all lies" solely according to whether they agreed with his views (eg the IPCC report, US News)
- demand that utterly ludicrous propositions be treated as "moderate" (eg nancy Pelosi is a "moderate, centrist" pilitician, without examining the logical consequences of that assumption, for example it means conservative Democrat Ben Nelson is pretty much as "extremist nut bag" as Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders or Cynthia McKinney)
- Lionize or denigrate people solely according to the political views they claim, while completely ignoring their actions (eg Al Gore's zinc mine, Michael Moore declining to use union labor, Obama claiming "you can't just leave your A/C on 72 degrees all the time anymore" and then turning the White House heaters up to 80 in the winter, Sarah Palin is complicit in murder but Eric Holder is not, Obama's "most transparent Administration in history" stonewalling everything, many others)
...I could think of more, but you get the picture and I'm out of air. But given that, it's hard to see what benefit other than mere amusement I could expect to get out of a direct response.
But whatever, since you are going to take the typical Democrat approach to rules (the Humpty-Dumpty method, "they mean whatever I say they mean), here, here's a name.
I chose it becaue fruit bats are as close as I can find to actual, honest-to-goodness "noni mice" in the real world.
Fine. If you can get over that now, I'll make a point or two about SS.
The money put into SS produces no new wealth, nor does it invest in anything that does produce new wealth - which is identical to a Ponzi scheme.
The money being put in by current payees, the people at the bottom of the pyramid, is used to pay the benefits of the current beneficiaries, the people at the top of the pyramid - which is identical to a Ponzi scheme.
It's true that technically the money is invested in Treasury securities, which could theoretically enable the argument that no, money going in is being invested, money coming out is being withdrawn from prior investments... but that's the government contracting solely with itself. Someone running a Ponzi scheme could make precisely the same argument if he put incoming money into a savings account and withdrew outgoing money from the same savings account. It's an accounting gimmick, a deception.
When SS was first enacted, it was sold under the idea that when a retiree reaches age 65, he can withdraw benefits... but the average life expectancy of beneficiaries was 57, a fact which got conveniently left out of the sales pitch. That's deception.
Four Words: "Social Security Trust Fund". Calling that a deception would be charitable, that's a flat out, bald faced, deliberate lie. There is no such thing as a
"Social Security Trust Fund", nor has there ever been any such.
According to Time magazine ("Pie From the Sky, Feb 13 1939) hearings were already being held on "Social Security reform" barely 4 years after the Act's passage and before one single check had ever been issued to an old age beneficiary. Therefore every single person of whatever political stripe who has claimed SS was "solvent" from 1939 to now either didn't know what he was talking about or was deliberately lying. The majority of those have been legislators and economists, it would stretch "benefit of the doubt" to the breaking point to charitably assume they were all too ignorant to know what horseshit was coming out of their mouths. Unless you likewise charitably assume such stupidity, you can extend the same inferences back to 1935 and those who produced the original legislation.
"No deception", my ass.
--------------
Don't be fooled by the name. I still don't request, require or demand a response. See the integrity issues listed above, there's no future in it.
Hey all, long time listener, first time caller...Rick Perry recently called Social Security a Ponzi Scheme. The author of the book "Ponzi's Scheme," Michael Zuckoff, recently laid out three points that show how it is not a Ponzi Scheme.
"First, in the case of Social Security, no one is being misled," Zuckoff wrote in a January 2009 article in Fortune. "...Social Security is exactly what it claims to be: A mandatory transfer payment system under which current workers are taxed on their incomes to pay benefits, with no promises of huge returns."
Second, he wrote, "A Ponzi scheme is unsustainable because the number of potential investors is eventually exhausted. That's when the last people to participate are out of luck; the music stops and there's nowhere to sit. It's true that Social Security faces a huge burden — and a significant, long-term financing problem — in light of retiring Baby Boomers. … But Social Security can be, and has been, tweaked and modified to reflect changes in the size of the taxpaying workforce and the number of beneficiaries. It would take great political will, but the government could change benefit formulas or take other steps, like increasing taxes, to keep the system from failing."
Third, Zuckoff wrote, "Social Security is morally the polar opposite of a Ponzi scheme... At the height of the Great Depression, our society (see "Social") resolved to create a safety net (see "Security") in the form of a social insurance policy that would pay modest benefits to retirees, the disabled and the survivors of deceased workers. By design, that means a certain amount of wealth transfer, with richer workers subsidizing poorer ones.That might rankle, but it's not fraud... None of this is to suggest that Social Security is a perfect system or that there aren't sizeable problems facing the incoming administration and Congress. But it's not a Ponzi scheme. And Ponzi himself, who died in a hospital charity ward with only enough money for his burial, would never have recognized it as his own."
Given this information, I don't see how you can continue to call it a Ponzi Scheme. It makes no sense. You are taking a small similarity and committing a logical fallacy. For example,
Mark doesn't wear his seat belt
Hitler didn't wear his seat belt
Mark is Hitler
I thought the righties would get a kick out of that one!
A Ponzi Scheme has a transfer payment system
Social Security has a transfer payment system
Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme
Logical fallacy.
Juris-by calling Politifact "Politihack" isn't that a genetic fallacy? Refute their facts or continue with wha you say Mark does all the time.
Sauce for the goose, ST. They are not a reliable source, period. You won't engage in a discussion that actually uses reliable sources - more's the pity. You will note that I was in partial agreement with you - about SS lifting the elderly out of poverty. That was in the past, not what is happening today. Can you pull your head out of the past (or wherever else it is) and discuss what is relevant today?
Poverty was over 70 percent for both men and women in 1939. 72 years later, it's less than 10 percent.
LMAO, say M what economic conditions might have contributed to that 70% poverty rate in '39? Are you or your researcher claiming SocSec fixed THAT?
No shit Juris. EVERYBODY is better off today than they were in 1939. That's the year you libs compare things to in this country?
Mark, I'm proud of you.
Thanks, grandpa!
This has always been a curious and ironic perception that you folks from Kevin's blog have of me. You view me as a naive adolescent (as evidenced by your comments above) when, in fact, the opposite is true (yet another example of projection/flipping). I don't have socialist fantasies about human nature, Hap. Why do you have libertarian fantasies about human nature?
Are you ever going to explain why this is bad?
I have several times. You're not interested in critical thought are examining all relevant information. You focus on only the evidence (if there is any) that supports your argument. That's confirmation bias. From here, you use weasel words, questions and scenarios to win the argument but not honestly examine whatever issue we are discussing. It's all about "beating" me in whatever way possible. It's classic Dick Nixon which is what the right has become...on steroids these days.
why are taxpayers paying money to my dad? I love him, but he doesn't need it.
This is more of the kind of discussion I'd like to have. You're right, they shouldn't and that's why Social Security should be means tested. There are plenty of people who don't need the check and by sifting them out of the equation we could fix the problems with SS. But is it fair that they should still pay in? Yes, when you consider that those people who need the checks are part of the 70 percent of consumer spending that supports our economy.
why do you think that is a problem that needs, or can be solved by you or anyone else?
This is a great example of something that has always perplexed me. The right always talks about taking responsibility for problems but their solution is always "Do Nothing." Health care? Do nothing. Climate change? Do nothing. High unemployment? Do nothing. Talk about laziness!
There are a variety of reasons why we need to fix the high unemployment among blacks. I'll set aside the argument that it's the right and human thing to do for now because I know you'll blow a bowel about that one. Instead, how about it would be better for the economy? Again, I come back to consumer spending. It's 70 percent of the economy and this large of a number is clearly a factor in causing our economy to be sluggish. So, how do we begin to solve this? Well, that leads us to the achievement gap.
Here's a place for you to get started on the definition of the achievement gap.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achievement_gap
Check out the economic implications and the McKinsey and Co 2009 study.
The bottom line is that if we address this issue in the same manner as we do homeland security, for example, our economy will improve. In my opinion, the path to closing the achievement gap, in part, lies here
http://www.corestandards.org/
This is the direction that the president and Secretary Duncan are headed. Getting there, of course, is obviously going to be tough. But, if we want to improve our economy and remain a leader in the world, we don't really have a choice.
Did I get that wrong?
No, you didn't. But if you want me to respond to you, you need a name. Good one, b to the w. To me, it seemed, that you did want a response.
I'd say Uncle Pete (thanks!) pretty much dispatched your logical fallacy about SS so, honestly, I don't really have much to add except the future pity I feel for UP who has further engaged a correlation that makes some on the right...well...loopy. And not at all reasonable.
They are not a reliable source
Ok, just so we are clear...that means that it's Ok to call Politifact an unreliable source (even though they painstakingly provide evidence for their ratings) but it's a genetic fallacy to call Andrew Brietbart or Michelle Malking unreliable sources. I just want to make sure we are all on the same page here.
>But is it fair that they should still pay in?
Why not? It's true that there is a perception that "I paid into Soc Soc, now I'm getting that back out again", as if Soc Sec is actually saving your money for future use. But that isn't true. Besides - we already pay lots in taxes that we don't expect to get back in any sort of direct payment. In other words, Soc Sec just seems different than normal tax and redistribute mechanisms because it has a different name. Maybe it just needs to be folded into a regular govt program funded directly from tax revenues to eliminate that perception. Since it will be funded from normal govt revenues more and more moving forward, that makes sense. Anyway, that's what i'd do.
>when, in fact, the opposite is true
So you say. :)
>It's all about "beating" me in whatever way possible.
You're not making any sense Mark, that's why I keep asking you. If I were to "beat" you, which honestly, would never happen on the internet, the most it would mean is that some argument or evidence is exposed as flawed. Which could only be a good thing. About the only thing I can get from all that is that I'm a meanie. Waaa! And I'm sorry, but you talking about critical thought is like a alcoholic talking about how often they are sober.
> I'll set aside the argument that it's the right and human thing to do for now because I know you'll blow a bowel about that one.
You misunderstand. It's not that I prefer to see black Americans lagging behind, and I'm well aware that having more people doing better can only be a win for the economy, society, etc. It's that you're seeing a problem, and blithely assuming that it is something that can be fixed by you (well, the government, presumably.) I think that is highly unlikely, and even more likely that your attempts to solve the problem would make it worse.
Why do I think that? Culture, primarily. In fact, I think you would know this better than anyone. Pick 3 random students of 3 races at your school - black, white, asian. Of those three, which is most likely to be studious? The asian one, I'd wager. Followed by the white student, then the black student. No, I'm not suggesting that there is some kind of innate difference between the students; I don't believe that for a second. What I am suggesting is that culture matters. And black culture, at this point in history, does not celebrate academic achievement. Something of the opposite, in fact. White culture isn't far behind. My point is that you're not going to fix culture, and neither is the government, no matter how noble their goals are. The only people that can change a culture are the people in the culture themselves. That said, there are some things the government can do to help, but they mostly involve stopping things - stop sending the message that blacks are inferior and need a leg up to compete, such as with affirmative action. Black people don't need it. Yes, it's true that by virtue of being black, you're more likely to have been born into more difficult circumstances. That has been true of other groups of people in the United States at many points in history. The Irish starting in NY. The Chinese, well, all over the US. Those groups have overcome those problems, and prospered. Black Americans can do the same. Now, all that said, what would you do? I think you vastly overestimate the ability of the government to solve a cultural problem. Throw money at black people - you make them dependent. Give them a leg up with something like affirmative action - you undercut real achievements, and increase racial tension at the same time. What solution is there that doesn't have severe side effects? How about simply saying, "Hey, you know what? We have a black president. The only thing that is going to stop a black person in this country is yourself."
Maybe it just needs to be folded into a regular govt program funded directly from tax revenues to eliminate that perception. Since it will be funded from normal govt revenues more and more moving forward, that makes sense.
That's certainly an idea that I'd explore further. The other thing to consider here is that SS trust fund is made up of Treasury IOUs. Critics of SS point to this as being a bad thing but when the stock market gets wonky where does everyone run? The safety of T bills.
the most it would mean is that some argument or evidence is exposed as flawed.
Except that you aren't really doing that if you do the weasel thing. You might "win" from the standpoint of style but not substance, hence Boaz's 14 points. That's the tactic that you folks use all the time and I think people are finally starting to wake up to that fact. On all the fundamentals regarding government, there's no "there" there to many of your arguments.
even more likely that your attempts to solve the problem would make it worse.
Only because you don't like it when the government solves problems:)
And black culture, at this point in history, does not celebrate academic achievement. Something of the opposite, in fact.
As you would likely ask me, where is your evidence for this? I'm willing to go along with you if you are talking about our culture overall. I've said as much in the past. But to point out that black culture is the reason why there is an achievement gap seems horribly biased. I'm not sure that's what you mean, though, so I'll need some clarification. What is it about black culture that is causing an achievement gap?
I do agree that if affirmative action were outlawed in all states (as it is in a few now) that its banning could actually achieve what AA sets out to do. With the full power of the state behind enforcement of a law that states no one can be hired or fired based on the color of their skin, bias would fall away.
My solution starts in school and that's why I linked the CORE site. Public education is the government, I suppose, but it's going to take much more than money and standards to fix the problem. In fact, money is the last thing we need right now. What we truly need is people's time, patience and dedication. Parents have to parent which will allow teachers more time to actually instruct instead of nanny. But that goes along with your point about culture.
The achievement gap with blacks is also more unique than the other groups you mention due to slavery and how we developed from that point forward. This is a much more complex problem than money or quick fixes can solve. Honestly, I'm not sure I have many answers.
One thing I can say is that it's actually the white kid, not the Asian kid, that does better in school. Then the Latino kid and last (always last) the black kid. I'd also agree that having a black president does help in a number of ways that can't be measured quantitatively.
I have several times.
You have a very bad habit of saying that M - instead of repeating your supposed explanations. I know it suits your persecution complex, but people ask you questions in an attempt to better understand you. Rather than take that opportunity to clarify, you just get huffy and say "I already told you". It is tiresome, when it isn't just childish and dishonest.
Black culture doesn't celebrate academic achievement, Haplo 9? And you wonder why people think you numscals are racist.
Black culture
What is black culture? It isn't in the genetic structure that produces dark skin or curly hair. Is race something more than genetics? Oddly enough, that is an old view of race. You would think we were a bit more enlightened about that now.
>numscals are racist.
You just knew the race card was coming, didn't you. It's like Pavlov's dog with you clowns. (Btw, I don't think you celebrate academic achievement either, spelling like that.)
Anyway, the comment window apparently refreshes every so often, and takes my comment with it if I left it open. Will have to see if I can rebuild it.
Short version - if you are black in the US today, you are much less likely to come from a stable, two parent family that takes an active role in your life relative to other racial groups. That is a fact, unfortunately.
http://city-journal.org/html/15_3_black_family.html
In my opinion, that is the #1 factor of any achievement gap you point to. Having two parents and a father figure in your life is a huge advantage, and Mark should know this as well as anyone. Now, you can argue that the sad state of the black nuclear family isn't a product of black culture. What is the cause then? Racism? A tough sell. Back in 1960, when racism was actually an everyday reality vs today, the black illegitimacy rate was 22%. Now it is around 70%.
http://www.isteve.com/2003_Black_Illegitimacy_Rate_Declines.htm
So what happened? If the change wasn't the result in changes in black culture, then what? (And why do you think that you, or the government can do something significant about it?) About the only thing I can think of that might help is something of an anathema to you, because it would involve taking your own side to task. I know I usually complain about both parties being mostly the same, but the D party stands quite alone in their use of fear mongering in order to keep black voters on their side. White conservatives are out to get ya! Conservatives want to go back to slavery or Jim Crow! Horseshit. Even so, it's doubtful that D race baiting existed in the exquisite form it does today back in the 60's, so that is hardly an explanation.
The other irony is that the 60's were the start of the Great Society programs - wow, they sure kicked some ass, huh.
I don't claim to have any great ideas here - but the point I'm trying to make is that not every problem has a solution. And if your thinking is:
a. Problem
b. Something must be done!
c. X is something!
d. Let's do X.
I'd rather do nothing than X, since X is just randomly chosen, just as likely to make things worse.
And you wonder why people think you numscals are racist.
Isn't it funny how the people who are always accusing others of racism are consistently the same people who always demand that problems be assigned priority based on the race of the people involved?
White people doing badly in school? Fuck 'em. Asians doing badly in school? Fuck 'em. Latinos doing badly in school? Fuck 'em. They aren't black, so they aren't the problem.
And yes, I concede that the problem is more widespread in some ethnic groups than others. That is no excuse for treating those individuals who don't fit into the 'problem' group as if they don't exist, or their issues don't matter. And yet that is precisely what is being done here, and precisely what Democrats demand be done with any and every problem that has factors which vary by gender, sexual orientation and/or ethnicity.
...racist.
You keep using that word... I don't think it means what you think it means.
You just knew the race card was coming, didn't you.
Well, first of all, UP wasn't exactly playing the race card. He was simply expressing surprise that you find it perplexing that people think you are racist when you make generalized comments like that based on someone's culture. Worse, though, is how you skip over any sort of reflection and go to your "shield" which is hollering about playing the race card. That doesn't absolve you of making a ridiculous comment like "Black culture doesn't celebrate academic achievement." If you think you are simply stating fact, I challenge you to find some black people and say that out loud. Let me know how it works out.
Now, you're comments about family stability (not just for blacks but for many other groups) is very true. Manzi talked about this in his piece that we reference constantly on here. Pushing for young people to embrace loving, two person house holds and committed relationships is something I do every day because your point is valid.
What's not valid is your finger pointing at the Great Society. I know that's Sowell's line of argument but he (and you) conveniently skip over the Reagan years as if they never happened. I recognize that some of what Reagan did was necessary (although extremely painful to the middle class) in order to keep us competitive in the global marketplace. But you can't simply ignore his policies had as well on black people and the middle class in general.
Here's some data to consider. In 1959, the poverty rate for children under 15 was 26 percent. In 1979, it was 17 percent. For men in 1959, it was 33 percent. In 1979, it was 10 percent. For women in 1959, it was 38 percent. In 1979, it was 18 percent. These are overall numbers. If you look at blacks, we see the poverty rate go from 55 percent in 1960 to 27 percent in 1968. My sources for this are the links above and this one.
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=372
Here's another source that balances many of the conservative myths about the Great Society.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/1999/9910.califano.html
Here's the Sowell link to with which to compare it.
http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/politics/poverty/3864-War-Poverty-Revisited.html
Now, if you are the critical thinker you say you are, what do you think of both of these pieces in looking at them honestly?
I'm still waiting for an apology from Mark for lying to his wife about his commenters.
a. Problem
b. Something must be done!
c. X is something!
d. Let's do X.
I'd rather do nothing than X, since X is just randomly chosen, just as likely to make things worse.
Again, your programming about liberals and how the government is nearly always bad at doing something...sheesh...
Here's my view.
1. Problem.
2. Something must be done.
3. What are the possible courses of action?
4. Without money, how can we solve this problem?
5. X's are possible solutions.
6. Let's take an eclectic approach and do some of each of the X's.
Well, first of all, UP wasn't exactly playing the race card.
Yes, that is exactly what he did.
Again, your programming about liberals...
That isn't something limited to liberals (and Hap did not say it was). For example.
Again, your programming about liberals and how the government is nearly always bad at doing something...sheesh...
That's not quite correct. It's more an observation that both governments and liberals exhibit a strong tendency to think that doing anything, no matter how ineffective, ill-planned, or even counterproductive, is always and forever better than doing nothing. As if "doing nothing" cannot ever be the correct action.
Ask anyone who cooks if there's never a time when doing nothing is the only correct action. If you do anything to it, you'll screw it up. Or ask a winemaker.
This is why Affirmative Action has spent 2 full generations now teaching American blacks to demand and expect things solely for being black. Now you decide it's a bad idea. Fine and good, but the damage is done. American black culture will probably be at least 3 or 4 generations more recovering from that.
>What's not valid is your finger pointing at the Great Society.
You misread. I'm pointing out that Great Society seems pretty unlikely to have helped the problem given the stark numbers, not that it caused it. I think it would take quite a bit more work to claim that Great Society caused the huge increase in black illegitimacy.
>generalized comments like that based on someone's culture. Worse, though, is how you skip over any sort of reflection and go to your "shield" which is hollering about playing the race card.
Shrug. If you think it is conducive to honest conversation about racial problems to accuse someone of racism for making observations about racial culture, so be it. Generalizing, when you are talking about large group of people, is sort of, you know, necessary. It goes without saying that there are exceptions - or did you deep thinkers need that spelled out for you?
>If you think you are simply stating fact, I challenge you to find some black people and say that out loud.
Ah, is that the test for correctness? Say it to a black person? Well, I'd imagine that Bill Cosby might agree with me, but I wouldn't be surprised if he'd rather not hear it from a white conservative. Like I said, the only people that can fix problems specific to black people are.. black people. Condescending white liberals, or honest conservatives are unlikely to help. If someone was telling you how shitty of a job you are doing raising your kids, would you be happly to listen to them? You might grudgingly agree with them, but you sure wouldn't want to listen to it.
>5. X's are possible solutions.
6. Let's take an eclectic approach and do some of each of the X's.
Groan. Exactly like a technocrat. "Hey, we don't really have an idea how any of these will work, but what the heck, lets try it anyway." Like I said - you have a bias towards doing something, anything, as long as you can believe that something is being done. You are heedless of the damage you might cause. That's how AA got started. Apparently, nobody sat down and thought, "Hrm. I wonder if the idea that discrimination on the basis of skin color as a remedy for.. discrimination on the basis of skin color is a good idea."
Regarding your links on poverty, I think theres a fairly easy way to assess which have merit - look at the source data. If, as Sowell claims, black poverty had been declining steadily since 1940, well before any fabulous government programs, then isn't quite valid to ask whether Great Society programs accomplished much for black people? You can't, for example, choose the depths of the Great Depression as your starting point for the measurement of poverty, then claim that because FDR farted that it made poverty go down. Yes, there was correlation, but that is not proof of causation. Looking at trends is the easiest way to separate the two. I haven't had much luck finding source data though, but I'm probably not experienced enough looking.
Yes, that is exactly what he did.
JURIS IMPERATIVE! Therefore, it must be true. We'll see what UP says.
Fine and good, but the damage is done.
So, you are asserting that AA was 100 percent ineffective? Or that it did more harm than good? That's not really a critical analysis, MF. It seems to me that once again you are doing the confirmation bias again and not really looking at all the facts. I say there was a time it was needed given the racial problems we had in this country and now it really isn't. And you're not thinking out of the box on this one. A ban on AA still accomplishes some of the goals of AA if you really think about it, right?
honest conversation about racial problems to accuse someone of racism for making observations about racial culture
Except that you're not being fully honest and sort of being dickish by making generalized comments like that. It's a problem when you say that I do it but OK when you do?
Well, I'd imagine that Bill Cosby might agree with me,
I agree but he's black and you aren't so you can't. Them's the breaks, kiddo.
Condescending white liberals, or honest conservatives are unlikely to help.
Oh my..honest conservatives? I'll agree with you on the former but what a rosy picture you paint of conservatives. Blacks haven't been brainwashed into following Democrats. They simply recognize bigotry when they see it on the right and there's much more of it than you are willing to admit. Remember this?
http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/mssrp_table.pdf
73 percent think that if blacks on only tried harder, than they would succeed. But please, continue with your babe in the woods routine.
Exactly like a technocrat.
Actually, more of a functionalist. There isn't one right way and one wrong to do things, Hap. Sometimes it takes a combination of several things. But, hey, if the government is suggesting it, then doing nothing is always preferred, right?
That's how AA got started.
Really not true but there is likely no way I can convince you.
Too bad the people you vote for markadelphia stop at your step #5. You won in 2008 and the problems still exist and are getting worse.
I particularly like " I challenge you to find some black people and say that out loud. Let me know how it works out."
ooooo, they'll beat you up! Tough guys. What an example of critical thinking. You see bigotry every hour of every day markadelphia and you use the charge of racism in an attempt to intimidate people into silence.
Coward.
I called Haplo 9 a numscal not a racist. I don't know Haplo 9 personally so I can't say for sure whether he is or not. By making overly general comments as s/he did above, Haplo does sound racist and would be perceived that way by many people. I think we all know who the coward would be because Haplo would never say something like that around black people because s/he knows how it would be taken. But Haplo is still a numscal just like Rush and the others who play the race game. They make a comment that is pretty clearly racist and or at least dangles a toe in the water and then wait for someone to call them a racist. Then they whip up their troops by yelling about playing the race card. It'll be a great tactic until no one cares anymore.
I'm still waiting for a response to the logical fallacy about Social Security.
You won in 2008 and the problems still exist and are getting worse.
Define "the problems" and offer evidence to back up your claim.
>I called Haplo 9 a numscal not a racist.
Followed by:
>By making overly general comments as s/he did above, Haplo does sound racist and would be perceived that way by many people.
"Hey guys, I didn't call him a racist. I just sort of, you know, put it out there." Good one Pete. What exactly is an "overly general" comment btw? Should I use non-general terms when describing large groups of people in order to not be called a racist by such radiant lights like you? Maybe self flagellation is yours and Mark's thing - fraid not for me.
>Or that it did more harm than good?
I would definitely assert this. Further, I think you have to be pretty naive to support AA. We want to remedy discrimination - so lets discriminate. What an idiotic idea. This, incidentally, is why conservatives don't have much respect for intellectuals - only an intellectual could convince themselves that such a stupid idea is a good one. I'll also pull a Pete here and just slyly suggest that if you support AA, then you just might believe that black people aren't able to compete on a level playing field with other races. Ie that they are inferior in some way. Hey, I'm not calling you guys racists, just, you know, sayin.
>Except that you're not being fully honest and sort of being dickish by making generalized comments like that.
Huh? I'm not being fully honest about what? Have you read my mind and seen the racist within Mark? Tell me Mark - what is the "proper" way to make that make an observation about the culture of a large group of people without generalizing? Not make it at all?
>73 percent think that if blacks on only tried harder, than they would succeed.
Er..? And that is evidence of what, exactly? I mean, horrors - people still seem to believe that working hard is correlated with success? What a thunder bolt! I recall going around this last time with you - I pointed out to you that if answering yes to that question was hard evidence of racism, then 54% of independents and 33% of your team are racists. Here's a thought - maybe it doesn't indicate racism? Either that or racism is incredibly widespread. I mean look at some of those other questions. Other minorities overcame prejudice, blacks should do the same. 56% of your people said yes! Holy crap!
>But, hey, if the government is suggesting it, then doing nothing is always preferred, right?
No - if the idea is terrible and/or will have significant negative side effects, then doing nothing is preferred. Is it really that hard to understand? Most ideas for things the government should do are terrible because the proponents (politicians) play up the benefits, rather than the costs or tradeoffs in order to sell the programs. It's what they do, dude. You, in fact, should be quite familiar with that, as it is pretty much your standard MO when discussing all the wonderful things the government does.
>I'll agree with you on the former but what a rosy picture you paint of conservatives.
I don't think I quite said all conservatives are honest on the subject of race, but they do have one thing going for them - they don't generally race bait like D's do. But do let me know when R's start proposing laws that will actually resume slavery, or bring back Jim Crow, or explicitly discriminate against black americans, and I'll march with you. Until then, I imagine you'll have to highlight the occasional nut, and/or conjure up racism based on survey responses, or making "generalized" comments.
>Define "the problems"
Just kind of winging it here, and I don't know what rld was getting at, but hrm.. unemployment?
>Actually, more of a functionalist. There isn't one right way and one wrong to do things, Hap. Sometimes it takes a combination of several things.
Ah, yes. Mark only offers solutions that are functional. Gag. Put more accurately - you strongly believe in yours and other "smart" peoples ability to fix problems - no matter the problem, there is some solution to it - you just have thought of it or tried it yet. I, on the other hand, recognize that not all problems are solvable, and that attempting to solve some problems will make them worse.
>There isn't one right way and one wrong to do things, Hap. Sometimes it takes a combination of several things.
Have you ever considered that there may be no right ways? And that doing a combination of several things is just a combination of wrong things together, which will only magnify your error? I don't know that you are willing to accept such limits.
I'd say Uncle Pete (thanks!) pretty much dispatched your logical fallacy about SS...
Okay, so being able to point to places where it isn't deceptive renders the places I pointed out where it is deceptive invalid...
...ewkay.
That's like a woman saying she's perfectly faithful to her husband because she never sleeps with other men unless he's out of town.
This is why I didn't care about getting a response. Once you correct for the bias of the source, the information density of the remainder is less than the sound of thunder or the barking of a dog.
WaPo on the actual history of govt attempts at M's functionalism. It is even non partisan. Not that this will shake M's faith in govt in the slightest - obviously they just didn't have the right people in charge!
juris-I'm speaking of the sociological perspective of functionalism and using that as a tool for analyzing problems. It's certainly not the only one as interaction (symbolic or otherwise) also offer us a perspective on the hows and whys of the challenges we face as a culture. Functionalism addresses society as a whole in terms of the function of its constituent elements; namely norms, customs, traditions and institution---of which government is a part.
Huh? I'm not being fully honest about what?
Well, there's a lack of honesty on a couple of levels. First, I think you should just come out and say that blacks are lazy which is what it seems you want to say. Maybe I'm wrong...I don't know...but that's how I see it. The other thing is, like most on the right, you're very reticent when it comes to being reflective on issues of race. There's nothing wrong with admitting that you have bias, are bigoted or are racist. I still struggle with my bias towards Muslim men. Likely, this bias will never go away and what's worse is that it's a racial, religious, AND cultural bias.
Regarding AA, again, there was a time and place for it. I think you will agree that in the early 60s cultural attitudes towards blacks were different than they are today. Back then, it was needed because companies wouldn't hire black people because they were niggers. Say that today and you will quickly find yourself out of business. In many ways, the state exercising this power at the time shifted, in a positive way, cultural attitudes. Today, however, outlawing AA has a positive effect because with this law if a company refuses to hire someone based on race, the state (which will actually do something about it now as opposed to the many that didn't back then) comes down like a ton of bricks.
if the idea is terrible and/or will have significant negative side effects,
Except that most ideas that the government suggests are this way, right? Again, we're back to your bias which is terribly difficult to leave out of the equation.
Have you ever considered that there may be no right ways?
This brings up an interesting point which I may turn into a full post one of these days. Before I go any further, though, I need to ask you a question. Do you think that the United States is the greatest country on the planet?
>First, I think you should just come out and say that blacks are lazy which is what it seems you want to say.
You know, the part about this that fascinates me is the way that Mark puts on his "I'm the gatekeeper of acceptable discourse, and I decide what you *really* mean" hat. Apparently, when I say that black culture doesn't seem to celebrate academic achievement, what I *really* meant is that black people are lazy. How does he know this? He just knows. He can feel it. I bow to your ability to make stuff up in order to impugn other peoples motives Mark. How very.. liberal of you.
>you're very reticent when it comes to being reflective on issues of race.
Yes Mark, I get it. In order to be "geniuine" when talking about race, you have to have some secret sin or guilt to confess, like how every single time this sort of subject comes up you remind everyone about your horrible bias regarding Muslim men. That gives you authenticity, you see. I'm afraid I don't really care either way. Admitting your bias doesn't make your claims any more or less valid. There probably isn't much point in pointing out that this is a recurring theme for you, that admitting something, or confessing something somehow makes you more right in some other, unrelated area. Sorry, not buying it.
>Back then, it was needed because companies wouldn't hire black people because they were niggers.
What astounding naivete. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that people in companies had this massive bias against black people, do you really think that forcing said companies to hire black people is going to make the racial animus of the people in the company go *down*? Once again - you simply stop at "I have good intentions!" and don't bother to think through the likely outcomes of your preferred policies. I'm sensing a trend here. I imagine you uncritically accept the accusations of redlining and the gender wage gap as well?
>Except that most ideas that the government suggests are this way, right?
Yes indeed, as most ideas from the government come from politicians. Or technocrats who are so enamored of the idea of being able to solve any ill with government power that they readily overlook their own limitations. (That would be you, if you weren't sure. Oh, sorry, functionalists.)
>Do you think that the United States is the greatest country on the planet?
Yes. There aren't many other places that so many people want to go to. That said, I worry about the future. Out of curiosity - does what's happening in Europe give you any second thoughts, at all, about funding a welfare state on massive borrowing?
you have to have some secret sin or guilt to confess
You misunderstand. Everyone is biased. That's human nature. I'm simply being honest about my bias (especially the more acute one) and you aren't. I don't know this for sure but I'm willing to bet that you were raised in a house where there was tremendous bias against black people. Once you admit that you have bias (and likely an acute one towards black people) you can begin to confront the problems that face them more honestly.
Instead, however, you are playing the game that many conservatives play these days. It's sort of a reverse race baiting and it's honestly reminiscent of my son scraping the cookie crumbs off of his shirt and the corner of his mouth yet saying, "Who? Me? I didn't eat any cookies!!!"
Yes. There aren't many other places that so many people want to go to.
I agree. It is the greatest country on the planet. And why are we that way? Well, it's because we have been a leader in the world promoting free markets and trade. Beginning in 1944 at Breton Woods, we have pushed economically liberal theories around the world and look at the results. This would be an area on which you and I would agree.
But we have also struck a balance (and a very successful one, I think) between social welfare programs and capitalism (welfare capitalism). We are great because of these programs and that's where we disagree and you suddenly become willfully ignorant. We are the leader in a unipolar world (for the time being) because of successful government programs. There is no way to dispute this fact considering what transpired from the 1930s to the late 1970s.
does what's happening in Europe give you any second thoughts, at all, about funding a welfare state on massive borrowing?
Let's look at the whole picture here. Yes, a country like Greece was borrowing too much money and went to far with social programs. But they didn't just get there from spending issues. Their entire country is made up of tax dodgers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/world/europe/02evasion.html?pagewanted=all
Now, you could make the argument that taxes are too high and that's why people cheat but that still means there needs to be tax reform of some sort.
I worry about the future.
I worry as well about the future but really it's more frustration and this is where we get into the managing fantasies problem. You, along with many others on the right, are convinced we are shifting to a European style government. This is a complete overreaction. Any hint of social welfare programs apparently means the whole 9 yards. This simply isn't true. It's always been about balance and our unique ability to tackle issues without resorting to extremes. To put it simply, stop being paranoid and we're not going to become pure socialists. Hell, we won't even become democratic socialists! I'm certainly not advocating either as it would a disaster in the global marketplace.
Equally disastrous is not confronting our inequality. This can be mitigated by a certain degree of social welfare. But therein lies the problem-any degree and you guys start frothing at the mouth. This is what I worry about when I think about the future...cutting off our nose to spite our face.
government programs made us great? and who cares if people froth at the mouth when you have control of the white house and senate.
I'm simply being honest about my bias
That is the most hilarious thing I've read, EVER!!
Oh, my sides hurt!!!
government programs made us great?
Missed the paragraph before that one, did you, don?
Post a Comment