US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Puncturing Another Progressive Myth

This is a discussion on Puncturing Another Progressive Myth within the Economy forums, part of the US Discussion category; Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalChic Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images. Quote: Originally Posted ...


Go Back   US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum > US Discussion > Economy

Economy Discuss economic policy and wallstreet

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #46 (permalink)  
Old 04-20-2014, 11:46 AM
Rshermr's Avatar
Registered User
Member #37424
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: LaConner, WA
Posts: 4,041
Thanks: 284
Thanked 515 Times in 451 Posts
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 51
Rshermr kicks locomotives off the tracks Rshermr kicks locomotives off the tracks Rshermr kicks locomotives off the tracks Rshermr kicks locomotives off the tracks Rshermr kicks locomotives off the tracks Rshermr kicks locomotives off the tracks Rshermr kicks locomotives off the tracks
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalChic Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
Quote: Originally Posted by Luddly Neddite Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.

PC is zero for 30,974 so far. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a cogent argument from PC on any topic, not just economics. Her grasp of history is even worse. Add to that the fact she can't write.
Its always the same - the long and disjointed OP shredded by those who can actually read and think, followed by pages of childish name calling.

Why do some rw's work so hard to keep others down?



1. The only thing you've ever shredded is lettuce.


2. Liberal policies that encourage the behaviors that cause and maintain poverty are what 'keeps people down.'



3. Let's see you shred this, you moron:

The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give a guaranteed income, a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for. Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given, low income recipients reduced their labor by 80 cents.
http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/...eams/12794.pdf

[The results for husbands show that the combination of negative income tax plans tested in SIME/DIME — which represents on average a relatively generous cash transfer program with a guarantee of 115% of the poverty line and a tax rate of 50% — has a significant negative effect on hours worked per year.
]Overview of the Final Report of the SIME/DIME: Report


a. Further results: dissolution of families: “This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons.
First, increased
marital breakups among the poor would increase the numbers on
welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the
separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments.
Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanying absence of
fathers from households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase.” http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf


b. “When families received guaranteed income at 90% of the poverty level, there was a 43% increase in black family dissolution and a 63% increase in white family dissolution. At 125% of the poverty levels, dissolutions were 75% and 40%.”
Robert B. Carleson, “Government Is The Problem,” p. 57.




More proof that you are a moron:

4. The colloquial use of “poverty” implies a material deprivation, which hardly exists. But this is not to say that a poverty of social conditions does not exist, and this cannot be remedied with money.
In fact, the root cause of this poverty is the perverse, counterproductive incentives arising from the welfare system itself.

Charles Murray’s “Losing Ground” documented this effect using social indicators such as work, marriage, legitimacy, crime, and alcohol and drug abuse, and showing how the massive increase in government welfare programs worsened the problem.



Over and over, proof that Liberal policies are the cause of the problem, not the solutions.
Wow. Look at this. PC starts things out with a STUDY. An actual STUDY. PC never uses impartial studies. Let's check it out. I am sure it is impartial. Not out of the bat **** crazy con web sites she normally frequents. So, who is the author, Robert E. Rector? Why, here we go:
Quote:
Robert Rector, a leading authority on poverty, welfare programs and immigration in America for three decades, is The Heritage Foundation’s senior research fellow in domestic policy.
Robert Rector
What a surprise. I am so dissapointed in you, PC. I do not use sources like moveon, but you use the far right wing bat **** crazy sites like Heritage. Wasting my time again. And, a study produced by them, based on data from 45 years ago. Tacky, me dear. Another cut and paste job from the bat **** crazy con sites.

Then you refference a Robert B. Carlson. Who would that be. Not another con from yet another bat **** crazy con web site, I hope. You must have SOME integrity. Let's see:
Quote:
Robert B. Carleson (1931-2006) was a key policy advisor on welfare issues to Ronald Reagan in California and the White House; he also founded a conservative alternative to the American Civil Liberties Union called the American Civil Rights Union in 1998.
Robert B. Carleson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Damn. I am so surprised. Another conservative, this one from the Ronald Reagan school of economic thought, as far right as possible. And here I was hoping that PC would show some integrity. But, alas, that hope was dashed again. Simply wasting my time.

Then, you top it off with a quote by Charles Murray. Must be an impartial source. Let's see:
Quote:
Charles Alan Murray (born 1943) is an American libertarian political scientist, author, columnist, and pundit currently working as a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Murray_(author)
Wow. Can you believe it. PC is, if anything, consistent. You do keep your head in the bat **** crazy con web sites. Nothing impartial about you, PC. Just consistent con drivel. Cut and paste, cut and paste, cut and paste. And waste people's time.
Reply With Quote
  #47 (permalink)  
Old 04-20-2014, 01:21 PM
Iceweasel's Avatar
Custom User
Member #46539
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Washington State
Posts: 3,375
Thanks: 782
Thanked 1,251 Times in 866 Posts
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 1889
Iceweasel has a reputation beyond repute Iceweasel has a reputation beyond repute
Iceweasel has a reputation beyond repute Iceweasel has a reputation beyond repute Iceweasel has a reputation beyond repute Iceweasel has a reputation beyond repute Iceweasel has a reputation beyond repute Iceweasel has a reputation beyond repute Iceweasel has a reputation beyond repute Iceweasel has a reputation beyond repute Iceweasel has a reputation beyond repute Iceweasel has a reputation beyond repute Iceweasel has a reputation beyond repute Iceweasel has a reputation beyond repute Iceweasel has a reputation beyond repute Iceweasel has a reputation beyond repute Iceweasel has a reputation beyond repute
Wow. Can you believe it. PC is, if anything, consistent. You do keep your head in the bat **** crazy con web sites. Nothing impartial about you, PC. Just consistent con drivel. Cut and paste, cut and paste, cut and paste. And waste people's time.
Look who's talking. You didn't address the content, your response was purely character assassination. And then you're going to complain about a bias?
Reply With Quote
  #48 (permalink)  
Old 04-20-2014, 05:18 PM
Rshermr's Avatar
Registered User
Member #37424
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: LaConner, WA
Posts: 4,041
Thanks: 284
Thanked 515 Times in 451 Posts
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 51
Rshermr kicks locomotives off the tracks Rshermr kicks locomotives off the tracks Rshermr kicks locomotives off the tracks Rshermr kicks locomotives off the tracks Rshermr kicks locomotives off the tracks Rshermr kicks locomotives off the tracks Rshermr kicks locomotives off the tracks
Wow. Can you believe it. PC is, if anything, consistent. You do keep your head in the bat **** crazy con web sites. Nothing impartial about you, PC. Just consistent con drivel. Cut and paste, cut and paste, cut and paste. And waste people's time.
Look who's talking. You didn't address the content, your response was purely character assassination. And then you're going to complain about a bias?
Well, me poor ignorant boy, IF PC used a source that was impartial, I would address the subject of the article. But, me boy, and listen carefully, there was no impartial data. Just dogma. Presented as actual pertinent findings.
So, I could address the "study". Question is WHY? It is simply a waste of time. Like someone going out and finding a biased article from, say, moveon. And wasting your time. But then, since I have integrity, I do not. Integrity. Look it up, me boy. It is that thing that PC, and you, have none of.
And, me boy, it is not character assassination by me. It is simply PC assassinating her own character. Which you would understand if you had character. Or, integrity.

Last edited by Rshermr; 04-20-2014 at 05:21 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #49 (permalink)  
Old 04-20-2014, 05:24 PM
PoliticalChic's Avatar
Fighting Thugs and Libs
Member #12394
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 33,184
Thanks: 4,004
Thanked 11,834 Times in 6,864 Posts
Mentioned: 84 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 39243
PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow
PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow
Wow. Can you believe it. PC is, if anything, consistent. You do keep your head in the bat **** crazy con web sites. Nothing impartial about you, PC. Just consistent con drivel. Cut and paste, cut and paste, cut and paste. And waste people's time.
Look who's talking. You didn't address the content, your response was purely character assassination. And then you're going to complain about a bias?
Well, me poor ignorant boy, IF PC used a source that was impartial, I would address the subject of the article. But, me boy, and listen carefully, there was no impartial data. Just dogma. Presented as actual pertinent findings.
So, I could address the "study". Question is WHY? It is simply a waste of time. Like someone going out and finding a biased article from, say, moveon. And wasting your time. But then, since I have integrity, I do not. Integrity. Look it up, me boy. It is that thing that PC, and you, have none of.
And, me boy, it is not character assassination by me. It is simply PC assassinating her own character. Which you would understand if you had character. Or, integrity.




The above: An example of satire.

Look it up, worm......


....you might move up in the world....become a book worm!
__________________
People are most conservative on issues that they know most about. --Ann Coulter
Reply With Quote
  #50 (permalink)  
Old 04-20-2014, 05:29 PM
PoliticalChic's Avatar
Fighting Thugs and Libs
Member #12394
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 33,184
Thanks: 4,004
Thanked 11,834 Times in 6,864 Posts
Mentioned: 84 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 39243
PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow
PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalChic Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
Quote: Originally Posted by Luddly Neddite Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.

Its always the same - the long and disjointed OP shredded by those who can actually read and think, followed by pages of childish name calling.

Why do some rw's work so hard to keep others down?



1. The only thing you've ever shredded is lettuce.


2. Liberal policies that encourage the behaviors that cause and maintain poverty are what 'keeps people down.'



3. Let's see you shred this, you moron:

The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give a guaranteed income, a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for. Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given, low income recipients reduced their labor by 80 cents.
http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/...eams/12794.pdf

[The results for husbands show that the combination of negative income tax plans tested in SIME/DIME — which represents on average a relatively generous cash transfer program with a guarantee of 115% of the poverty line and a tax rate of 50% — has a significant negative effect on hours worked per year.
]Overview of the Final Report of the SIME/DIME: Report


a. Further results: dissolution of families: “This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons.
First, increased
marital breakups among the poor would increase the numbers on
welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the
separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments.
Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanying absence of
fathers from households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase.” http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf


b. “When families received guaranteed income at 90% of the poverty level, there was a 43% increase in black family dissolution and a 63% increase in white family dissolution. At 125% of the poverty levels, dissolutions were 75% and 40%.”
Robert B. Carleson, “Government Is The Problem,” p. 57.




More proof that you are a moron:

4. The colloquial use of “poverty” implies a material deprivation, which hardly exists. But this is not to say that a poverty of social conditions does not exist, and this cannot be remedied with money.
In fact, the root cause of this poverty is the perverse, counterproductive incentives arising from the welfare system itself.

Charles Murray’s “Losing Ground” documented this effect using social indicators such as work, marriage, legitimacy, crime, and alcohol and drug abuse, and showing how the massive increase in government welfare programs worsened the problem.



Over and over, proof that Liberal policies are the cause of the problem, not the solutions.
Wow. Look at this. PC starts things out with a STUDY. An actual STUDY. PC never uses impartial studies. Let's check it out. I am sure it is impartial. Not out of the bat **** crazy con web sites she normally frequents. So, who is the author, Robert E. Rector? Why, here we go:

What a surprise. I am so dissapointed in you, PC. I do not use sources like moveon, but you use the far right wing bat **** crazy sites like Heritage. Wasting my time again. And, a study produced by them, based on data from 45 years ago. Tacky, me dear. Another cut and paste job from the bat **** crazy con sites.

Then you refference a Robert B. Carlson. Who would that be. Not another con from yet another bat **** crazy con web site, I hope. You must have SOME integrity. Let's see:
Quote:
Robert B. Carleson (1931-2006) was a key policy advisor on welfare issues to Ronald Reagan in California and the White House; he also founded a conservative alternative to the American Civil Liberties Union called the American Civil Rights Union in 1998.
Robert B. Carleson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Damn. I am so surprised. Another conservative, this one from the Ronald Reagan school of economic thought, as far right as possible. And here I was hoping that PC would show some integrity. But, alas, that hope was dashed again. Simply wasting my time.

Then, you top it off with a quote by Charles Murray. Must be an impartial source. Let's see:
Quote:
Charles Alan Murray (born 1943) is an American libertarian political scientist, author, columnist, and pundit currently working as a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Murray_(author)
Wow. Can you believe it. PC is, if anything, consistent. You do keep your head in the bat **** crazy con web sites. Nothing impartial about you, PC. Just consistent con drivel. Cut and paste, cut and paste, cut and paste. And waste people's time.



Unlike you, a worm, everyone noted is a respected expert in the field.

And that is exactly why the OP is unassailable......as you found.
__________________
People are most conservative on issues that they know most about. --Ann Coulter
Reply With Quote
  #51 (permalink)  
Old 04-20-2014, 05:45 PM
Rshermr's Avatar
Registered User
Member #37424
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: LaConner, WA
Posts: 4,041
Thanks: 284
Thanked 515 Times in 451 Posts
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 51
Rshermr kicks locomotives off the tracks Rshermr kicks locomotives off the tracks Rshermr kicks locomotives off the tracks Rshermr kicks locomotives off the tracks Rshermr kicks locomotives off the tracks Rshermr kicks locomotives off the tracks Rshermr kicks locomotives off the tracks
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalChic Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalChic Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.




1. The only thing you've ever shredded is lettuce.


2. Liberal policies that encourage the behaviors that cause and maintain poverty are what 'keeps people down.'



3. Let's see you shred this, you moron:

The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give a guaranteed income, a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for. Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given, low income recipients reduced their labor by 80 cents.
http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/...eams/12794.pdf

[The results for husbands show that the combination of negative income tax plans tested in SIME/DIME — which represents on average a relatively generous cash transfer program with a guarantee of 115% of the poverty line and a tax rate of 50% — has a significant negative effect on hours worked per year.
]Overview of the Final Report of the SIME/DIME: Report


a. Further results: dissolution of families: “This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons.
First, increased
marital breakups among the poor would increase the numbers on
welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the
separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments.
Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanying absence of
fathers from households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase.” http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf


b. “When families received guaranteed income at 90% of the poverty level, there was a 43% increase in black family dissolution and a 63% increase in white family dissolution. At 125% of the poverty levels, dissolutions were 75% and 40%.”
Robert B. Carleson, “Government Is The Problem,” p. 57.




More proof that you are a moron:

4. The colloquial use of “poverty” implies a material deprivation, which hardly exists. But this is not to say that a poverty of social conditions does not exist, and this cannot be remedied with money.
In fact, the root cause of this poverty is the perverse, counterproductive incentives arising from the welfare system itself.

Charles Murray’s “Losing Ground” documented this effect using social indicators such as work, marriage, legitimacy, crime, and alcohol and drug abuse, and showing how the massive increase in government welfare programs worsened the problem.



Over and over, proof that Liberal policies are the cause of the problem, not the solutions.
Wow. Look at this. PC starts things out with a STUDY. An actual STUDY. PC never uses impartial studies. Let's check it out. I am sure it is impartial. Not out of the bat **** crazy con web sites she normally frequents. So, who is the author, Robert E. Rector? Why, here we go:

What a surprise. I am so dissapointed in you, PC. I do not use sources like moveon, but you use the far right wing bat **** crazy sites like Heritage. Wasting my time again. And, a study produced by them, based on data from 45 years ago. Tacky, me dear. Another cut and paste job from the bat **** crazy con sites.

Then you refference a Robert B. Carlson. Who would that be. Not another con from yet another bat **** crazy con web site, I hope. You must have SOME integrity. Let's see:

Damn. I am so surprised. Another conservative, this one from the Ronald Reagan school of economic thought, as far right as possible. And here I was hoping that PC would show some integrity. But, alas, that hope was dashed again. Simply wasting my time.

Then, you top it off with a quote by Charles Murray. Must be an impartial source. Let's see:
Quote:
Charles Alan Murray (born 1943) is an American libertarian political scientist, author, columnist, and pundit currently working as a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Murray_(author)
Wow. Can you believe it. PC is, if anything, consistent. You do keep your head in the bat **** crazy con web sites. Nothing impartial about you, PC. Just consistent con drivel. Cut and paste, cut and paste, cut and paste. And waste people's time.



Unlike you, a worm, everyone noted is a respected expert in the field.

And that is exactly why the OP is unassailable......as you found.
That would be your opinion, me girl. And you know how much I respect your opinion.
Perhaps you just do not know what impartial means. Perhaps if you looked it up. Really, taking studies from well known conservative sources like aei and heritage, and a quote from a policy adviser for ronnie hardly count as impartial or unassailable. Cmon, me girl, just does not pass the giggle test. Hardly unassailable. Perhaps you meant to say highly assailable!!
But no big deal. Just par for the case for you, just like your typical post.
Reply With Quote
  #52 (permalink)  
Old 04-21-2014, 06:57 AM
PoliticalChic's Avatar
Fighting Thugs and Libs
Member #12394
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 33,184
Thanks: 4,004
Thanked 11,834 Times in 6,864 Posts
Mentioned: 84 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 39243
PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow
PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalChic Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
Wow. Look at this. PC starts things out with a STUDY. An actual STUDY. PC never uses impartial studies. Let's check it out. I am sure it is impartial. Not out of the bat **** crazy con web sites she normally frequents. So, who is the author, Robert E. Rector? Why, here we go:

What a surprise. I am so dissapointed in you, PC. I do not use sources like moveon, but you use the far right wing bat **** crazy sites like Heritage. Wasting my time again. And, a study produced by them, based on data from 45 years ago. Tacky, me dear. Another cut and paste job from the bat **** crazy con sites.

Then you refference a Robert B. Carlson. Who would that be. Not another con from yet another bat **** crazy con web site, I hope. You must have SOME integrity. Let's see:

Damn. I am so surprised. Another conservative, this one from the Ronald Reagan school of economic thought, as far right as possible. And here I was hoping that PC would show some integrity. But, alas, that hope was dashed again. Simply wasting my time.

Then, you top it off with a quote by Charles Murray. Must be an impartial source. Let's see:

Wow. Can you believe it. PC is, if anything, consistent. You do keep your head in the bat **** crazy con web sites. Nothing impartial about you, PC. Just consistent con drivel. Cut and paste, cut and paste, cut and paste. And waste people's time.



Unlike you, a worm, everyone noted is a respected expert in the field.

And that is exactly why the OP is unassailable......as you found.
That would be your opinion, me girl. And you know how much I respect your opinion.
Perhaps you just do not know what impartial means. Perhaps if you looked it up. Really, taking studies from well known conservative sources like aei and heritage, and a quote from a policy adviser for ronnie hardly count as impartial or unassailable. Cmon, me girl, just does not pass the giggle test. Hardly unassailable. Perhaps you meant to say highly assailable!!
But no big deal. Just par for the case for you, just like your typical post.



"That would be your opinion,..."



No, actually, it is reality, worm.


If you care to continue with the attempt to marginalize any voices that don't conform to the Liberal view, i.e., that speak the truth.....


....how about you find any reputable sources that agree with your slander of the links in my post.


After you can't do so.....

....consider suttee....
__________________
People are most conservative on issues that they know most about. --Ann Coulter
Reply With Quote
  #53 (permalink)  
Old 04-21-2014, 07:03 AM
Iceweasel's Avatar
Custom User
Member #46539
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Washington State
Posts: 3,375
Thanks: 782
Thanked 1,251 Times in 866 Posts
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 1889
Iceweasel has a reputation beyond repute Iceweasel has a reputation beyond repute
Iceweasel has a reputation beyond repute Iceweasel has a reputation beyond repute Iceweasel has a reputation beyond repute Iceweasel has a reputation beyond repute Iceweasel has a reputation beyond repute Iceweasel has a reputation beyond repute Iceweasel has a reputation beyond repute Iceweasel has a reputation beyond repute Iceweasel has a reputation beyond repute Iceweasel has a reputation beyond repute Iceweasel has a reputation beyond repute Iceweasel has a reputation beyond repute Iceweasel has a reputation beyond repute Iceweasel has a reputation beyond repute Iceweasel has a reputation beyond repute
Well, me poor ignorant boy, IF PC used a source that was impartial, I would address the subject of the article. But, me boy, and listen carefully, there was no impartial data. Just dogma. Presented as actual pertinent findings.
So, I could address the "study". Question is WHY? It is simply a waste of time. Like someone going out and finding a biased article from, say, moveon. And wasting your time. But then, since I have integrity, I do not. Integrity. Look it up, me boy. It is that thing that PC, and you, have none of.
And, me boy, it is not character assassination by me. It is simply PC assassinating her own character. Which you would understand if you had character. Or, integrity.
Was that supposed to look smart?
Reply With Quote
  #54 (permalink)  
Old 04-21-2014, 07:27 AM
Rshermr's Avatar
Registered User
Member #37424
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: LaConner, WA
Posts: 4,041
Thanks: 284
Thanked 515 Times in 451 Posts
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 51
Rshermr kicks locomotives off the tracks Rshermr kicks locomotives off the tracks Rshermr kicks locomotives off the tracks Rshermr kicks locomotives off the tracks Rshermr kicks locomotives off the tracks Rshermr kicks locomotives off the tracks Rshermr kicks locomotives off the tracks
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalChic Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalChic Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.




Unlike you, a worm, everyone noted is a respected expert in the field.

And that is exactly why the OP is unassailable......as you found.
That would be your opinion, me girl. And you know how much I respect your opinion.
Perhaps you just do not know what impartial means. Perhaps if you looked it up. Really, taking studies from well known conservative sources like aei and heritage, and a quote from a policy adviser for ronnie hardly count as impartial or unassailable. Cmon, me girl, just does not pass the giggle test. Hardly unassailable. Perhaps you meant to say highly assailable!!
But no big deal. Just par for the case for you, just like your typical post.



"That would be your opinion,..."



No, actually, it is reality, worm.


If you care to continue with the attempt to marginalize any voices that don't conform to the Liberal view, i.e., that speak the truth.....


....how about you find any reputable sources that agree with your slander of the links in my post.


After you can't do so.....

....consider suttee....
Only you, and a few of your like minded con tools, believe in the use of totaly partial sites like the bat **** crazy web sites like aei and heritage, to prove anything. Sorry, me dear, useing a 1970's study by aei is desperate.
Relative to the rest, I will do what all rational people do, which is to ignore your drivel. How about you try using impartial sources like an actual rational human being. I know you are not paid to do so, which, me dear, makes you irrelivent.
Reply With Quote
  #55 (permalink)  
Old 04-21-2014, 07:35 AM
PoliticalChic's Avatar
Fighting Thugs and Libs
Member #12394
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 33,184
Thanks: 4,004
Thanked 11,834 Times in 6,864 Posts
Mentioned: 84 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 39243
PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow
PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalChic Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
That would be your opinion, me girl. And you know how much I respect your opinion.
Perhaps you just do not know what impartial means. Perhaps if you looked it up. Really, taking studies from well known conservative sources like aei and heritage, and a quote from a policy adviser for ronnie hardly count as impartial or unassailable. Cmon, me girl, just does not pass the giggle test. Hardly unassailable. Perhaps you meant to say highly assailable!!
But no big deal. Just par for the case for you, just like your typical post.



"That would be your opinion,..."



No, actually, it is reality, worm.


If you care to continue with the attempt to marginalize any voices that don't conform to the Liberal view, i.e., that speak the truth.....


....how about you find any reputable sources that agree with your slander of the links in my post.


After you can't do so.....

....consider suttee....
Only you, and a few of your like minded con tools, believe in the use of totaly partial sites like the bat **** crazy web sites like aei and heritage, to prove anything. Sorry, me dear, useing a 1970's study by aei is desperate.
Relative to the rest, I will do what all rational people do, which is to ignore your drivel. How about you try using impartial sources like an actual rational human being. I know you are not paid to do so, which, me dear, makes you irrelivent.



So much fun skewering you....

..here, let's do it again:

"....how about you find any reputable sources that agree with your slander of the links in my post."



Dunce.
__________________
People are most conservative on issues that they know most about. --Ann Coulter
Reply With Quote
  #56 (permalink)  
Old 04-21-2014, 08:29 AM
Rshermr's Avatar
Registered User
Member #37424
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: LaConner, WA
Posts: 4,041
Thanks: 284
Thanked 515 Times in 451 Posts
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 51
Rshermr kicks locomotives off the tracks Rshermr kicks locomotives off the tracks Rshermr kicks locomotives off the tracks Rshermr kicks locomotives off the tracks Rshermr kicks locomotives off the tracks Rshermr kicks locomotives off the tracks Rshermr kicks locomotives off the tracks
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalChic Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalChic Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.




"That would be your opinion,..."



No, actually, it is reality, worm.


If you care to continue with the attempt to marginalize any voices that don't conform to the Liberal view, i.e., that speak the truth.....


....how about you find any reputable sources that agree with your slander of the links in my post.


After you can't do so.....

....consider suttee....
Only you, and a few of your like minded con tools, believe in the use of totaly partial sites like the bat **** crazy web sites like aei and heritage, to prove anything. Sorry, me dear, useing a 1970's study by aei is desperate.
Relative to the rest, I will do what all rational people do, which is to ignore your drivel. How about you try using impartial sources like an actual rational human being. I know you are not paid to do so, which, me dear, makes you irrelivent.



So much fun skewering you....

..here, let's do it again:

"....how about you find any reputable sources that agree with your slander of the links in my post."



Dunce.
Not only are you immaterial, but numb. That is you that you are skewering.
Nah. Lets just let you produce more right wing bat **** sites as references. Pretty soon it will be kind of like fox news on this site. Perfect for cons like you, me dear, who live in a constant world of right wing propaganda. The rest of us can continue to simply ignore you, since you are, after all, irrelevant.
Reply With Quote
  #57 (permalink)  
Old 04-21-2014, 09:00 AM
PoliticalChic's Avatar
Fighting Thugs and Libs
Member #12394
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 33,184
Thanks: 4,004
Thanked 11,834 Times in 6,864 Posts
Mentioned: 84 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 39243
PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow
PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalChic Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
Only you, and a few of your like minded con tools, believe in the use of totaly partial sites like the bat **** crazy web sites like aei and heritage, to prove anything. Sorry, me dear, useing a 1970's study by aei is desperate.
Relative to the rest, I will do what all rational people do, which is to ignore your drivel. How about you try using impartial sources like an actual rational human being. I know you are not paid to do so, which, me dear, makes you irrelivent.



So much fun skewering you....

..here, let's do it again:

"....how about you find any reputable sources that agree with your slander of the links in my post."



Dunce.
Not only are you immaterial, but numb. That is you that you are skewering.
Nah. Lets just let you produce more right wing bat **** sites as references. Pretty soon it will be kind of like fox news on this site. Perfect for cons like you, me dear, who live in a constant world of right wing propaganda. The rest of us can continue to simply ignore you, since you are, after all, irrelevant.




"Lets just let you produce more right wing bat **** sites as references..."

Watch your language.

Twice I've given you the opportunity to provide any support for your drivel....

...but, with the NYTimes, WaPo, HuffPo, etc. available to you.....

...you still couldn't.



Why?


Not just because you are a dunce, but because you are a liar.


My sources are reputable, expert, and dispositive.



You, on the other hand, a Jay Leno punch line.



The only way for you to prevent the laughter.....as I suggested....is suttee.

I'll be glad to light the pyre! The 'worm roast!'

Is tomorrow good for you?
__________________
People are most conservative on issues that they know most about. --Ann Coulter
Reply With Quote
  #58 (permalink)  
Old 04-21-2014, 02:19 PM
Rshermr's Avatar
Registered User
Member #37424
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: LaConner, WA
Posts: 4,041
Thanks: 284
Thanked 515 Times in 451 Posts
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 51
Rshermr kicks locomotives off the tracks Rshermr kicks locomotives off the tracks Rshermr kicks locomotives off the tracks Rshermr kicks locomotives off the tracks Rshermr kicks locomotives off the tracks Rshermr kicks locomotives off the tracks Rshermr kicks locomotives off the tracks
PC says:


Quote:
Twice I've given you the opportunity to provide any support for your drivel....

...but, with the NYTimes, WaPo, HuffPo, etc. available to you.....

...you still couldn't


Why?
It is not that I could not, but rather that I would not. Why would I argue what is being said by sources that are obviously agenda driven, posted by a paid tool who is agenda driven, causing me to use my time to find data about nonsense posted by right wing sources. You see, me poor ignorant tool, you do not pay me to educate you or to spend my time vetting already well known agenda driven sites to whom truth is an afterthought. The fact that you use AEI, Heritage, and a Reagan official simply shows that you have no integrity.
Think Tank Spectrum Revisited ? FAIR

So, you use the two most conservative sites in the country and a Reagan official as your ONLY sources. You could have used the NY Times, or Wn. Post, or perhaps a quote from Brookings, a site rated as centrist by FAIR.

Quote:
My sources are reputable, expert, and dispositive.
First, me dear, sources are not dispositive. They may make dispositive pronouncements, given suffieient authority, but they themselves are not dispositive. And your sources are not reputable. Nor expert. They are, however, agenda driven and known to produce information that is untrue. Here is an actual impartial source, called Fairness and Accuracy In Rporting (FAIR). Conservatives tend to pretend the site does not exist. I am sure you are aware of it. So, how do your two sources stack up? Heritage is the number one conservative site. AEI is number two. And, even a tool like you knows that if you take a quote from a Reagan administration official, you have a quote from a highly conservative source.
If you use think tanks, you have more centrist than either conservative or progressive sites to chose from. Funny you never use them. Brookings Institution is the number one think tank over all, and the only one with more activity than aei or heritage. And it is centrist. Yet you use the con sites. Which is no surprise.
Because, me dear, using impartial sources is a sign of integrity. And you have none.

Last edited by Rshermr; 04-21-2014 at 02:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #59 (permalink)  
Old 04-21-2014, 02:31 PM
GreenBean's Avatar
Supporting Member
Member #46353
Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,364
Thanks: 793
Thanked 510 Times in 392 Posts
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 965
GreenBean could run the Federal Reserve
GreenBean could run the Federal Reserve GreenBean could run the Federal Reserve GreenBean could run the Federal Reserve GreenBean could run the Federal Reserve GreenBean could run the Federal Reserve GreenBean could run the Federal Reserve GreenBean could run the Federal Reserve GreenBean could run the Federal Reserve GreenBean could run the Federal Reserve GreenBean could run the Federal Reserve GreenBean could run the Federal Reserve GreenBean could run the Federal Reserve
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalChic Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
I get such a kick out of Donald J. Boudreaux, professor of economics at George Mason University!

He regularly writes a letter to the editor of a major American publication in response to an absurdity, or an incorrect statement, offered up by a columnist or politician, and the following, totally skewers one of our Liberal White House hacks.




Here is one of Boudreaux's missives:

Editor, Washington Post
1150 15th St., NW
Washington, DC 20071

Dear Editor:

You report that Jason Furman, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, recently “displayed a chart showing how food stamps and other social programs had lowered poverty dramatically over the past half century.... But the graph also showed that the economy itself had done nothing for the poor: Only government dollars had” (“Economist Jason Furman is the wonkiest wonk in the White House,” Feb. 13).



.... Mr. Furman is mistaken to assert that, over the past half century, “the economy itself had done nothing for the poor.”

Here’s a link to a 2008 article with its own charts.... shows that the percentage of poor American households in 2005 to have refrigerators, stoves, color televisions, air conditioning, and automatic dishwashers is higher than was the percentage of all American households in 1971 to have these amenities. And my own research suggests an important reason for this happy fact: the amount of time that ordinary (“non-supervisory”) workers must work in order to earn enough income to buy these (and many other) products is today is much lower than it was decades ago.

[link here: http://www.american.com/archive/2008...are-we-doing/]




For example, to buy a 22 cubic feet refrigerator-freezer, such a worker in 1975 had to toil for 140 hours. To buy the same size refrigerator-freezer today, the typical American worker must work only 52 hours. To buy a 30” electric range and oven cost the typical American worker in 1975 125 hours of work; today such a range and oven costs the typical American worker only 21 hours of work.



Similar reductions in work-time costs have occurred for food, clothing, and countless other goods and services — a trend that is strong evidence that “the economy itself” continues to improve the living standards of middle-income and poor Americans.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
and
Martha and Nelson Getchell Chair for the Study of Free Market Capitalism at the Mercatus Center
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030
Nothing? Nothing At All?






"....strong evidence that “the economy itself” continues to improve the living standards of middle-income and poor Americans."


So much for the 'poor are getting poorer' trope.

I know that the above won't convince our Liberal pals......facts never do.

How very libertarian of him!

HOW DARE THOSE POOR PEOPLE ENJOY A BETTER LIFER THAN THEY DID IN 1970! SHAME ON THEM!

AND HOW DARE THEY HAVE FANCY NICETIES LIFER REFRIGERATORS AND STOVES!!!

HOW DARE THEY!
If they've been living off my paycheck since 1970 - you're damn ****ing straighht HOW DARE THEY !
__________________
Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.
- George Orwell

25 More Americans will die today at the hands of Illegal Aliens
8 More American Children will be molested by illegal Aliens.

“At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child — miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats.”-- P.J O'Rourke
Reply With Quote
  #60 (permalink)  
Old 04-21-2014, 03:52 PM
PoliticalChic's Avatar
Fighting Thugs and Libs
Member #12394
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 33,184
Thanks: 4,004
Thanked 11,834 Times in 6,864 Posts
Mentioned: 84 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 39243
PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow
PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow PoliticalChic has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow
PC says:


Quote:
Twice I've given you the opportunity to provide any support for your drivel....

...but, with the NYTimes, WaPo, HuffPo, etc. available to you.....

...you still couldn't


Why?
It is not that I could not, but rather that I would not. Why would I argue what is being said by sources that are obviously agenda driven, posted by a paid tool who is agenda driven, causing me to use my time to find data about nonsense posted by right wing sources. You see, me poor ignorant tool, you do not pay me to educate you or to spend my time vetting already well known agenda driven sites to whom truth is an afterthought. The fact that you use AEI, Heritage, and a Reagan official simply shows that you have no integrity.
Think Tank Spectrum Revisited ? FAIR

So, you use the two most conservative sites in the country and a Reagan official as your ONLY sources. You could have used the NY Times, or Wn. Post, or perhaps a quote from Brookings, a site rated as centrist by FAIR.

Quote:
My sources are reputable, expert, and dispositive.
First, me dear, sources are not dispositive. They may make dispositive pronouncements, given suffieient authority, but they themselves are not dispositive. And your sources are not reputable. Nor expert. They are, however, agenda driven and known to produce information that is untrue. Here is an actual impartial source, called Fairness and Accuracy In Rporting (FAIR). Conservatives tend to pretend the site does not exist. I am sure you are aware of it. So, how do your two sources stack up? Heritage is the number one conservative site. AEI is number two. And, even a tool like you knows that if you take a quote from a Reagan administration official, you have a quote from a highly conservative source.
If you use think tanks, you have more centrist than either conservative or progressive sites to chose from. Funny you never use them. Brookings Institution is the number one think tank over all, and the only one with more activity than aei or heritage. And it is centrist. Yet you use the con sites. Which is no surprise.
Because, me dear, using impartial sources is a sign of integrity. And you have none.



"It is not that I could not,...."

Yeah, it is.



You have proven to be, and will remain, a lying, sniveling, worm.

Time for you to crawl back to the dumpster.
__________________
People are most conservative on issues that they know most about. --Ann Coulter
Reply With Quote
Reply


Lower Navigation
Go Back   US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum > US Discussion > Economy
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:22 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.