Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars Spent on Welfare But Poverty Levels Unaffect

Wrong

The town is suffering a down turn the glazier needs new equipment and the money to expand to cover demand but money is tight and the banks will not lend him the money.

The town is suffering a down turn the glazier needs new equipment and the money to help cover demand but money is tight and the banks have closed and so nothing happens.

Hey Wrong can you address the criticisms of you viewpoints yet?

 

Indie

Oh hells bells Indie we’ve been through this – try reading - The Decline and Fall of the America Empire: Part One 1945-2011
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...?t=435209&f=36

Oh and we’ve been through these things many, many times can you stop restating your views and actually address the criticisms of them?

 

My kids been ill so I’ve been away a few days but it seems this thread is continuing on the same path – the right wingers are still not addressing the criticisms of their views.

For example Indie has been evading honest debate for over two years and Wrong seems to want to follow in his footsteps – come on guys this isn’t doing your ideologies any favours here – they just come across as weak, lacking in any rational thought and undefendable.

 

Bal,

Sorry your kids been ill, but as your definition of addressing criticism, and rational thought would appear to be nothing less than to agree with you totally. Numerous attempts have been made to rephrase responses to you which you seem to have an uncanny ability to misinterpret or spin in a way that you can then respond to in a condescending way. Dishonesty would appear to be your forte.

 

Indie

Oh she’s ok, just a stomach bug, nothing serious, but thanks for your concern.

But come on man, this is just evasion tactic 336 in your repertoire and I’ll respond to it exactly the way I have responded to it all the other times you have used it – can you actually point out where I’ve supposedly misinterpreted or spun?

 

Oh every idea you're proposing would likely benefit me on one level. But poverty doesn't benefit anyone, in wide terms.

I don't have any strong economic opinions, I'm sorry. I'm reading Smith now, and it occurs that his views on the 'invisible hand' are greatly misrepresented considering that he outright opposes the creation of corporations but beyond that I've yet to form a lot of opinions.


Re; Semantic crap.
Did I Say earned? I said it was 'their money'. That's all. But were both on the same page now so I'm not sure it matter especially.

 

Glad to hear that.

Rather than go back through old posts I'll do so next time it occurs.

 

What crap. I don't for a second believe the majority of welfare recipients live better than workers.

I also don't think it's just a case of 'motivation.'

 

I have a job, a reading list, a uni assignment, etc so excuse me if I don't rush an all nighter brushing up on economic theory. I'll get onto those theorists at some point but YOU asserted that they back your views, therefore the onus is on YOU to prove it.

I'd agree with those two options. But the second option is crap. The governments main duty is to protect its citizens. That's what welfare's for.

 

Indie

Which is evasion tactic 129 in your repertoire and I’ll respond to it exactly the way I have responded to it all the other times you have used it – why is it that whenever asked to produce evidence of your smears you never seem able to do so?

 

Did I or someone say that poverty benefits anyone?

It may be their money now, but who earned it? And did the person(s) earning it have any say in giving it?

 

Indie

Not Thomas Sowell again

To repeat something I posted 06-14-2010

I’ve read a couple of books and many articles of Thomas Sowell (on Townhall etc) and the problem is that he is so obviously partisan and biased that his judgement and credibility is deeply flawed or totally lacking.

This is a man who’s claimed that the only commentators worth listening to are Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, G. Gordon Liddy because of their wide and deep knowledge.

Who equated voting for Obama with voting a Hitler or Mao.

And has claimed that the only thing that could save America from liberal thinking is a military coup.

*

This bias means that many of the things he presents are disingenuous or misleading, meaning that often the ‘evidence’ he puts forward when looked at can be a lot more ambiguous than he likes to present it.

This is a trait that has been noticed by many others for example this review of one of his books-

Intellectuals and Society, by Thomas Sowell (Basic Books, £17.99)
"Intellectuals" are here defined as those whose "end product" is ideas, and Sowell is wryly persuasive in his discussion of the structural incentives that encourage them to say "sweeping, reckless or even foolish things". The problem is that he blames them, often absurdly, for innumerable ills while neglecting to say clearly that when he writes "intellectuals", he means only liberals. In this sorry tale, leftish intellectuals were responsible for the second world war (recourse to the Hitler example is tellingly frequent); they also caused the US to lose in Vietnam, and cheered on "judicial activism" and other sundry outrages. One would hardly suspect from this book, meanwhile, that there exists a cadre of right-wing opinionistas who spout at least as much pernicious nonsense.
Sowell rightly inveighs against speaking of people as abstract groups, yet throughout imagines "the intelligentsia" as homogeneous; he disdains intellectuals' habit of speaking on matters outside their expertise, yet he, an economist, pontificates on legal matters, the efficacy of prisons and the state of "music, art and literature" today. The best chapter is one in which he intelligently demonstrates the way inferences can be skewed by varying interpretations of statistics. The rest of his disingenuously tribalist book is an exemplary illustration of what it seeks to denounce.

*

I think it may be possible that the only reason you respect and hold Thomas Sowell in high regard is because you share his prejudices and bias.

 

I didn't use the word 'majority' in what I posted, so why do you?

What is it a case of?

And I haven't implied that ALL persons out of work need to be motivated to seek employment, but can you confirm that NONE of them need to be motivated?

 

Then why does anyone need a job if it's governments duty to protect them in the form of welfare? Government could simply print money and allow everyone to purchase goods and services imported from China, India, or Europe, and instantly create a utopian society.

 

I don't waste time keeping track of past posts, and neither do I feel it would be time well spent to dig back looking for them. I read only the current posts and respond to them based on their current clearly stated content.

So do you wish to keep this game going without saying anything that would bring forth a response relevant to whatever it is or was, as the case may be, that you are talking about?

 

Bal,

If you would please provide me with a numbered list of what you are calling evasion tactics and I can save time by just posting the number in response to you in the future.

 

Bal,

#136

 

Indie

Oh and this is evasion tactic 94 an amusing one that I call ‘The Goldfish’ because it’s basically you claiming you have the memory of the proverbial goldfish* who can’t remember anything in the past but only what is in front of you at any one moment which of course is then instantly forgotten.

It is often accompanied by evasion tactic 90 – which is basically you saying you will not address anything unless it is repeated again even if it has been repeated a hundred or a thousand times before, and of course you then evade answering it again.

*I say proverbial goldfish because it is reckoned that actual goldfish have a good memory (of a few months) which is far better is seems that Indies.

 

#341 & #703 Need I say more?

 

Indie

I’d say that was the problem you can’t say more because to say more would reveal what is only suspected – that your ideas are not defendable in any rational or reasonable way.

So I ask once again why do you promote ideas that you seem totally incapable of defending from criticism?