Cry me a river for the freakin "poor" - Page 5 - Politics and War Forum

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.
Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Friday, July 16, 2010 3:23 PM on j-body.org
sndsgood wrote:

seems to me the more people we have the worse off th country is getting, the poorer its getting and the worse shape its getting. creating more babies thinking your get more income doesnt work out because of people and entities taking out allot more then what is going in.


Abuse of the welfare state indeed, they should lose income when they have more. we need to cut the great society crap people are no better off, the fabric of society just started to unravel. Making people accountable to their actions is the only way to bring things back on track




Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Saturday, July 17, 2010 7:40 AM on j-body.org
True Conservative wrote:

sndsgood wrote:

seems to me the more people we have the worse off th country is getting, the poorer its getting and the worse shape its getting. creating more babies thinking your get more income doesnt work out because of people and entities taking out allot more then what is going in.


Abuse of the welfare state indeed, they should lose income when they have more. we need to cut the great society crap people are no better off, the fabric of society just started to unravel. Making people accountable to their actions is the only way to bring things back on track

Economists agree that the financial future of a nation is dependent upon its population growth and birthrate. In instance such as Germany where the population growth has essentially gone static, a catastrophic set of events has been set in motion. Of primary concern is the "greying" of the population, which means that as more people reach retirement age, the cost burden will increase, but the income providers needed to be entering the workforce to pick up the tab...won't be there. A scary notion indeed.

The USA population has grown by practically 50% in recent years. While this meteoric rise most certainly includes a contingent of dependents who do not contribute, by far the majority of the new citizens are income earners who add to the pie via taxation, as well as by the commerce they cause. Thank God for this population growth, for had it not occurred, the recent economic woes may have been much worse, and much harder to recover from.





Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Saturday, July 17, 2010 9:49 AM on j-body.org
Does anyone dare dispute the idea that the poor and leech class of people breed more frequently than higher income earners? Yes, the overall number of births are from taxpaying familes. However, the leech class cranks out more offspring per female.

.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Saturday, July 17, 2010 10:53 AM on j-body.org
welfare breeders lead to a class of unproductive leechers, look at the inner city some time. tell me the great society improved their lives.

I am not drinking the kool aid on this one



Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Saturday, July 17, 2010 12:39 PM on j-body.org
Defender of My Waterpark wrote:

Does anyone dare dispute the idea that the poor and leech class of people breed more frequently than higher income earners? However, the leech class cranks out more offspring per female.

Upper class society and Religious right does as well. How so? Upper society do tend to have large families, some to pass on their heirs, some because they down right want to have large families. Religious folks also tend to have larger than usual family, mormons, christians, jewish and catholics. Especially when some preach to not use contraceptives... what else would can you expect?
Besides being absurd, what was your point for your argument?



THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Saturday, July 17, 2010 10:00 PM on j-body.org
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

Economists agree that the financial future of a nation is dependent upon its population growth and birthrate. In instance such as Germany where the population growth has essentially gone static, a catastrophic set of events has been set in motion. Of primary concern is the "greying" of the population, which means that as more people reach retirement age, the cost burden will increase, but the income providers needed to be entering the workforce to pick up the tab...won't be there. A scary notion indeed.

The USA population has grown by practically 50% in recent years. While this meteoric rise most certainly includes a contingent of dependents who do not contribute, by far the majority of the new citizens are income earners who add to the pie via taxation, as well as by the commerce they cause. Thank God for this population growth, for had it not occurred, the recent economic woes may have been much worse, and much harder to recover from.
Who are these economists, and where are the facts to back up the statement? Also, do these economists also agree than more is always better, or is there a consensus on the ideal birth rate? Have these economists also considered what factors may spur an increase in the population growth, such as economic outlook? I'd love to see the data you base your claims on. Or are you simply regurgitating?

For an example of my skepticism, the population growth in the US has been on a fairly steady decline for the past half century. However, there was a significant spike in the late 80's and early 90's, followed by another consistent steep downward trend which halted in 2003. Clearly the strength of the economy and the rate of population growth seem to be tied together, but is the growth the cause or the effect?






Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Sunday, July 18, 2010 8:28 AM



Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Sunday, July 18, 2010 8:04 AM on j-body.org
Economic theory on population growth and the effect on a nation's long-term economy, withy Germany as a particular case in point: It's out there, should you care to look; I didn't make it up. If you don't care to look for it, then you don't care to learn about it. I feel no compunction to "prove" anything to you, for you have proven yourself unworthy of the time spent. Should a more reasonable person ask, I would be happy to engage in an actual conversation.

You are mistaken about the nation's population growth. This is not economic theory, it is hard fact, so I am sure you can verify your misconception by doing your own research on this one too.

Everyone: Let's watch RWE run around the playground in delight crowing about how he "won" this round because I won't engage in a "war of biased sources" with him, and then get back to the actual conversation. I suggest any of you to do your own research should you take exception with anything he or I have said.






Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Sunday, July 18, 2010 8:20 AM on j-body.org
Nice cop-out Bill. Thank you for providing another example of your hypocrisy for all to see. As for my unworthiness, that's pure sour grapes on your part.

You just regurgitated something you heard or read, and can't back it up, which is exactly what you've always claimed of my points. And your attempt at preemptive deflection is pure weakness. You come in and make a claim, and then suggest that anyone who doesn't believe you research it. You're just incapable of providing the clear explanation with facts.

I edited my previous post because I realized a type-o in the second paragraph.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Sunday, July 18, 2010 8:30 AM



Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Sunday, July 18, 2010 8:39 AM on j-body.org
RWE: There it is, as predicted. Thank you.

I will also note that you edited your post nearly a half-hour after I replied to it. We can but wonder what my reply compelled you to change. To prevent you from further subversive backpedaling, I am quoting your edited version here:
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

Who are these economists, and where are the facts to back up the statement? Also, do these economists also agree than more is always better, or is there a consensus on the ideal birth rate? Have these economists also considered what factors may spur an increase in the population growth, such as economic outlook? I'd love to see the data you base your claims on. Or are you simply regurgitating?

For an example of my skepticism, the population growth in the US has been on a fairly steady decline for the past half century. However, there was a significant spike in the late 80's and early 90's, followed by another consistent steep downward trend which halted in 2003. Clearly the strength of the economy and the rate of population growth seem to be tied together, but is the growth the cause or the effect?

To everyone else: We can return to the convo now. If anyone would like to discuss my points after they've done some of their own research, I'd be happy to do so. Should someone like to take on a particularly easy one, check population growth in the USA in the last 25-50 years.







Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Sunday, July 18, 2010 12:41 PM on j-body.org
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:


I edited my previous post because I realized a type-o in the second paragraph.

And still managed to not get it correctly done. Awesome.
"Just saying..."

Carry on.



THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Sunday, July 18, 2010 1:54 PM on j-body.org
Bill, I changed "decade" to "half century". Nothing more. It wasn't a backpedal, it was an error I realized after looking at it a second time. Is this really all you've got? To make hollow claims that I'm distracting you from the conversation? You posted an unsubstantiated claim. I asked you some good questions about it, and what your sources were (this is your battle cry, yet you ignore it when it's asked of you. Good job with more hypocrisy).

LOL. Goodwrench, you prove again you've got nothing. However, since you now have a partner, you've been back here to try and jump on me some more. LMFAO buddy. Run away when your ass is handed to you, then come back with a friend! Too bad the two of you combined still have nothing useful to offer.









Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Sunday, July 18, 2010 2:56 PM on j-body.org
The word "typo" is a shortened version of "typographical error. Type-O refers to a human blood version Beyond that basic but satisfying chuckle, let's define:

Typographical error (often shortened to "typo") is a mistake made in, originally, the manual type-setting (typography) of printed material, or more recently, the typing process. The term includes errors due to mechanical failure or slips of the hand or finger, but usually excludes errors of ignorance.

Changing your post after it's been rebutted is not "fixing a typo". It's a cowardly decision to react to said rebuttal by going back and changing what you said. What makes it even more laughable in your case is that you didn't even clarify it until you got caught red-handed doing it. Only then did you offer an "explanation", and we are all left to wonder whether you are even telling the truth.

In any case, you are completely mistaken about US population trends, and that's the only point that matters. I could not care less if you have the nads to research and understand your mistake; anyone whose opinion matters to me will either already know how wrong you are, or look it up themselves. You fell off the cliff on this one.







Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Sunday, July 18, 2010 4:50 PM on j-body.org
LOL. You've gotten seriously desperate now to be correcting my spelling of a shortened word.

As for you claim that I fixed something after I got caught, read the sentence and you'll see exactly why your wrong. LOL if I actually meant decade, then my mention of a change over 20 years ago wouldn't make sense. Simply put: you failed to smear my statement with you weak attempt. You still can't even make a useful counterpoint, or back up your original claim.







Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Sunday, July 18, 2010 6:58 PM on j-body.org
Error of ignorance indeed.

I reiterate:

To everyone else: We can return to the convo now. If anyone would like to discuss my points after they've done some of their own research, I'd be happy to do so. Should someone like to take on a particularly easy one, check population growth in the USA in the last 25-50 years.













Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Sunday, July 18, 2010 7:09 PM on j-body.org
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

If anyone would like to discuss my points after they've done some of their own research, I'd be happy to do so.
I've done my research. Are you simply afraid to take me on with facts? I put a few statistics out there for you which can easily be verified with government data. Over the last 50 years, we've been on a decline, interrupted in the mid-late 80's and early 90's by a substantial upward trend, which was then turned downward again in 92. So again, is population growth the cause or effect of a strong economy? And how do you draw that conclusion?






Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Monday, July 19, 2010 1:05 AM on j-body.org
This is part of why I don't bother posting in the War forum anymore.

Everyone claims victory, that the other people just can't handle your flawless argument. Your flawless argument being -
1. I'm right but you just won't admit it.
2. Point out that the other person has no substance in their post, but include none of your own.
3. Rinse and repeat x 20.
4. Claim high road and victory.
5. Next person does what you just did.
6. See step 1.

Cue the people agreeing that the other people are doing this, but they are of course innocent. This isn't aimed at any one person, but describes a few. I'm not asking anyone to defend themselves either, so don't bother. I would ask you to silently correct your behavior in the future and that is all.


For those that actually care, these are things that will help your posts tremendously -

1. Preview your post. If you kinda sounds like a douche - its because you are being one.

2. Stick to the facts, drop the condescending BS.

3. Less opinion, more verifiable facts. Things "you have heard" are not facts.

4. Citations are very helpful and show that you aren't just pulling @!#$ out of your ass. More is better.

5. Things are not "proven" just because you say they are, nor because you heard they are.

6. Don't ever complain that a post is "too long." Knowing what you are talking about on even the most simple of subjects requires a substantial investment of time READING. You cannot skimp on reading and know what the hell you are talking about at the same time. If you can't be bothered to invest several hours of your daily time educating yourself, then we can't be bothered to read what you think - because you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Reading your opinion therefore, is a waste of time.

7. On top of reading, you also need to invest plenty of time just THINKING about these things. If you are just reading and reciting - you are just allowing yourself to be programmed on what to think, and you have become an active part of the propaganda machine. People believe many, many things. But precious few invest much time into thinking about and self-justifying WHY they think these things. This is what separates critical thinkers from sheep.

7.5. BTW - if you believe that which you believe "because it is 'common sense'," then this DEFINITELY applies to you. "Common sense" is everything you have ever been lead to believe(typically from a young age) and have readily accepted as unquestionable truth. In N. Korea, the "fact" that Kim Jong Il's birth was greeted by a rainbow and he has magical power is "common sense," I assure you. The typical tendency of people to mostly share the religious and/or political beliefs of their parents and/or community is no accident. This is the "common sense" they where given. This same "common sense" is the main reason that people so often think people with other beliefs are idiots.

8. Some of the best reading for keeping yourself intellectually honest is reading that contradicts your world view. Don't just instantly write it off, rather see what they have to say, verify provable facts, think long and hard about it. If you are more right wing - read plenty of articles on Huffington Post(for example). If you are more left wing, read plenty of articles on NRO(for example). I'd still avoid stronger (less balanced/more nutty) partisan sites like Daily KOS, WND, Move-on, Biggovernment, etc. Although those sites do often have useful information, the partisan BS is generally too thick and you can find the same or higher quality information elsewhere.

9. If you really feel the need to insult someone personally(which already means your arguments is just as weak as your self confidence), take that @!#$ to PM or better yet GTFO.


To expand on #6(the part I underlined) - this isn't really meant to be insulting, just realistic. You see... the people who least knowledgeable on a subject are often the least aware of their lack of knowledge. Very similar to the "consultant's paradox" (those with the greatest need for a consultant are the least aware of it), people don't know how much they don't know. Conversely the more you learn, the more you realize just how much you never knew that you never knew. Answers always lead to more questions(questions we never knew to ask before having the previous answer). It's really exponential.

For an example, think back to your teenage years. There is so much you didn't know in those years(probably things you wish you knew then), but at the time you where blissfully unaware of this. Most likely, that never stopped you from believing you knew enough. You probably had confidence in your view of the world and thus in your own judgment. You where of course, ignorant of the scope of your own ignorance. That doesn't really change too much when we become adults, even into our advanced years - we just become more confident(or perhaps more arrogant) in believing we know it all(or at least enough). In reality though, the rabbit hole just gets deeper while we have averted our eyes.

... and so we arrive at the present condition of the War Forum, American politics, and even International politics. Lots of confidence in various beliefs, lots of ego, not much substance. Everyone is talking, no one is listening. After all, we all know that we know the truth even if these other idiots just don't get it.







Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Monday, July 19, 2010 4:17 AM on j-body.org
Thanks, Mom. You always knew best.



So. USA Population Growth over the last 25 to 50 years, anyone?

My contention:
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

The USA population has grown by practically 50% in recent years. While this meteoric rise most certainly includes a contingent of dependents who do not contribute, by far the majority of the new citizens are income earners who add to the pie via taxation, as well as by the commerce they cause. Thank God for this population growth, for had it not occurred, the recent economic woes may have been much worse, and much harder to recover from.


HIS contention:
RWE wrote:

...the population growth in the US has been on a fairly steady decline for the past half century.









Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Monday, July 19, 2010 8:26 AM on j-body.org
So, your contention is that our growth has not been declining for the past 50 years? Is that correct?






Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Tuesday, July 20, 2010 12:51 PM on j-body.org
While I mostly agree, I feel the need to be an ass:
bk3k wrote:

7.5. BTW - if you believe that which you believe "because it is 'common sense'," then this DEFINITELY applies to you. "Common sense" is everything you have ever been lead to believe(typically from a young age) and have readily accepted as unquestionable truth. In N. Korea, the "fact" that Kim Jong Il's birth was greeted by a rainbow and he has magical power is "common sense," I assure you.
[citation needed]




fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster
Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Tuesday, July 20, 2010 6:00 PM on j-body.org
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

My contention:
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

The USA population has grown by practically 50% in recent years. While this meteoric rise most certainly includes a contingent of dependents who do not contribute, by far the majority of the new citizens are income earners who add to the pie via taxation, as well as by the commerce they cause. Thank God for this population growth, for had it not occurred, the recent economic woes may have been much worse, and much harder to recover from.


HIS contention:
RWE wrote:

...the population growth in the US has been on a fairly steady decline for the past half century.
Quote:

So, your contention is that our growth has not been declining for the past 50 years? Is that correct?
Funny you were unwilling to answer that.

I'll provide something to back up my statement:



Source: worldbank.org.
Note, I used this source because it had a downloadable data set, but these numbers come from the US government database. I verified them on the census website, but did not find a downloadable Excel file as I did on the worldbank.org site.

You will see that over the last 50 years, the rate of population growth has declined. In 1960, it was 1.7%. As of 2008 (when the data set was last updated) we are at .91%. We are growing at nearly half the rate we were 50 years ago. You can also see a turn around in this trend that started in the late 80's, after there had been a drastic decrease in unemployment.

After looking at this data, as well as other economic indicators during the same period, I am skeptical of the claim that all population growth causes the increase in economic strength. Surely the argument can be made that an increase in population increases economic activity, but this does not necessarily mean it is economic boosting activity. This is where my statements come from.

Now, let's step back one second and consider economic strength from the perspective of, say, Social Security. Surely, the way that program has been managed, it absolutely requires solid population growth. It's been managed like a damned Ponzi scheme. By definition it needs to constantly have an influx of new payers to support the payees. Had it been managed like a retirement account, as it was intended, it would be entirely self-supporting, and sufficiently insulated from influence of population growth. The same point can be made about Medicare.

I will not throw too much information in this post, as I would like to hear some thoughtful discussion of this before further complicating it.







Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Tuesday, July 20, 2010 6:14 PM on j-body.org
Yep. I figured you'd cite percentage, but it's fuzzy math when the principal number is increasing every year as in the case of US population.

The nation has gained 100 million new citizens in the lat 50 years, going from 200 to 300 million. In the last ten years, we've gained approximately ten percent new citizens, going from about 270 million to 300 million. That's huge. That means we gained 30 million in ten years, but only 70 million in the 40 years previous. This is an upward trend, and no amount of number-juggling or interpretation of percentages will alter this.

As to your example: The difference between approximately 1 percent and 1.8 percent is negligible at best.. Why, it's not even a one-percent difference. The annual growth rate as a percentage is not the only pertinent aspect...one percent of 270 million is the same actul number gain in citizens as 1.8 percent of 200 million.

What matters are the real numbers I am providing in this post. The US population, and by extension its tax base, is growing, and quickly.





Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Tuesday, July 20, 2010 6:39 PM on j-body.org
Rate is very important, because it will show you what's actually happening. Also, if the trend continues, we could see a point where our growth ceases. Most likely not in our lifetime, but not too far into our distant future.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is a problem. Frankly, I don't believe major population growth is necessary to maintain a stable economy. Surely if it was decreasing that would be a problem, but all other things being equal, a population which is basically steady should be able to maintain a reasonably stable economy.

However, if you look at the trends, you'll see where changes took place. This is significant, because it can show you a potential reason for the change occurring.







Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Wednesday, July 21, 2010 10:14 AM on j-body.org
Figures that you guys were agruing for pages over a difference in terminology (Bill referring to population growth, Quik to rate of growth).

Quik, any chance you have a source for data from further back? I think starting the data during the Baby Boom period is slightly skewing it in your favor here (showing a decrease), whereas starting ten years earlier would help show what you're talking about with Social Security more clearly.

Bill, I don't think anyone would be stupid enough to argue that the population base hasn't increased yearly...




fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster
Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Wednesday, July 21, 2010 10:54 AM on j-body.org
in europe population growth has been a major issue. in germany for example they had to import workers to make up for their graying populace. heck even hitler knew population growth was important to the economy. but the point is the rate of population growth is tied to economic growth, period.

The fact RWE brings up is valid as far as how the monies were supposed to be managed. these programs were poorly designed in teh first place, but when the politicians (note not mentioning parties) started dipping in it destroyed it. they will put it off for when they are not in office any more, but the fact is, we are going to have to make hard choices in government entitlement programs, because we can not carry the burden as teh baby boomers go away. once they go out of the work force, we will have a huge dip in income coming in, especially since the early 90's boomers are not in high paying jobs and the older ones will have hugely increased demands on the reserves.



Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Wednesday, July 21, 2010 10:59 AM on j-body.org
Notec, the data is on the government site. I've got it bookmarked at home. I'll check into it tonight. No doubt the baby boom skewed it, but that was far enough in the past that we have sufficient data to see a current trend. As for seeing the Social Security trend I was talking about, that was just an example of something that requires major growth. While we could mix some more data in there and see the revenue/expenditure ratio trend, but it's not really on the point here.






Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.

 

Start New Topic Advanced Search