View Full Version : Pre-Katrina video released
Old Man G Funk
03-02-2006, 09:44 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/01/AR2006030101731.html
So, who is right? Did Bush and Co. not do enough, even though they had the all kinds of warnings, or are the White House spokespeople right when they say Bush was fully engaged?
LOL!
Everyone knew that if NO ever got hit by a hurricane it was gonna be f*ckt... and it was... nothing anyone could really have done about that.
However, the majority of the blame for the screw-up lies on the Mayor of NO & our dumbass Governer here in La.
Old Man G Funk
03-02-2006, 09:51 AM
LOL!
Everyone knew that if NO ever got hit by a hurricane it was gonna be f*ckt... and it was... nothing anyone could really have done about that.
However, the majority of the blame for the screw-up lies on the Mayor of NO & our dumbass Governer here in La.
1. Why does the blame lie with them?
2. Why did Bush say something along the lines of, "No one could have predicted what happened here," if we all knew they were "f*ckt"?
fluff
03-02-2006, 09:59 AM
1. Why does the blame lie with them?
2. Why did Bush say something along the lines of, "No one could have predicted what happened here," if we all knew they were "f*ckt"?
More importantly, if N8 could have predicted it and Bush knew that then is he saying N8 is nobody?
Oh hell... it's a lot easier to just say it was "God's will" or "I blame Bush" dpending on your POV...
fluff
03-02-2006, 10:05 AM
Oh hell... it's a lot easier to just say it was "God's will" or "I blame Bush" dpending on your POV...
Ain't that the same thing from your POV?
Old Man G Funk
03-02-2006, 10:09 AM
Oh hell... it's a lot easier to just say it was "God's will" or "I blame Bush" dpending on your POV...
I'm not looking for expediency. I'm looking answers. Your knee-jerk bring out the pompoms for Bush reaction is not at all enlightening.
I agree that the mayor and the governor share some blame here. The article specifically states that the governor dismissed that the levees had broken due to the reports being unsubstantiated. I don't blame her for not relaying unsubstantiated reports as fact, but perhaps she should have taken the safe route. The mayor certainly could have done more to proactively get people out of the city.
The fact remains that the FEMA response was inadequate. The Bush admin. "leaked" out erroneous information about when the gov. asked for help from the National Guard and one has to wonder why they would take that step. If Bush was hearing from people days before the storm that this was going to be a major disaster, why weren't people ready to go before the storm hit?
I'm not looking for expediency. I'm looking answers. Your knee-jerk bring out the pompoms for Bush reaction is not at all enlightening.
I agree that the mayor and the governor share some blame here. The article specifically states that the governor dismissed that the levees had broken due to the reports being unsubstantiated. I don't blame her for not relaying unsubstantiated reports as fact, but perhaps she should have taken the safe route. The mayor certainly could have done more to proactively get people out of the city.
The fact remains that the FEMA response was inadequate. The Bush admin. "leaked" out erroneous information about when the gov. asked for help from the National Guard and one has to wonder why they would take that step. If Bush was hearing from people days before the storm that this was going to be a major disaster, why weren't people ready to go before the storm hit?
What happend to the hundreds of millions of federal dollars that went to La and NO for the levee system/evacuation plans etc over the last... say 40 years.. to prevent this kind of thing from happening?
Old Man G Funk
03-02-2006, 10:25 AM
What happend to the hundreds of millions of federal dollars that went to La and NO for the levee system/evacuation plans etc over the last... say 40 years.. to prevent this kind of thing from happening?
Certainly, the fact that planning and money were both on short order is not Bush's fault.
The fact that the city was not ready for this and was destroyed is not Bush's fault. That's something that has been lacking for many, many years, and if this storm had hit during Clinton's years, we'd be discussing what he could have done to protect NO.
I'm interested, however, in discussing what was done after the storm hit. A lot of people were left stranded, lost their lives, etc. Why didn't we have people ready? Why didn't we evacuate people more efficiently and sooner? If we don't figure this stuff out now, we are doomed to repeat the next time something like this happens.
Certainly, the fact that planning and money were both on short order is not Bush's fault.
The fact that the city was not ready for this and was destroyed is not Bush's fault. That's something that has been lacking for many, many years, and if this storm had hit during Clinton's years, we'd be discussing what he could have done to protect NO.
I'm interested, however, in discussing what was done after the storm hit. A lot of people were left stranded, lost their lives, etc. Why didn't we have people ready? Why didn't we evacuate people more efficiently and sooner? If we don't figure this stuff out now, we are doomed to repeat the next time something like this happens.
Well, the plan in NO was that there was a no plan for evacuating the ghettos. The locals have the first responder responsibility.. with the state backing them up. Our gov failed miserably... compare her inaction to the action of the Texas gov when Hurricane Rita was looking like it was going to hit Houston. Totally different.
sanjuro
03-02-2006, 10:42 AM
LOL!
Everyone knew that if NO ever got hit by a hurricane it was gonna be f*ckt... and it was... nothing anyone could really have done about that.
However, the majority of the blame for the screw-up lies on the Mayor of NO & our dumbass Governer here in La.
And Bush and Brown are totally blameless!!!!!!!
sanjuro
03-02-2006, 10:43 AM
Well, the plan in NO was that there was a no plan for evacuating the ghettos. The locals have the first responder responsibility.. with the state backing them up. Our gov failed miserably... compare her inaction to the action of the Texas gov when Hurricane Rita was looking like it was going to hit Houston. Totally different.
btw, i am going to work right now. be prepared in a hour to hear my response. shreveport might as well be a thousand miles away, and houston did about the same job as new orleans did...
Old Man G Funk
03-02-2006, 10:46 AM
What happend to the hundreds of millions of federal dollars that went to La and NO for the levee system/evacuation plans etc over the last... say 40 years.. to prevent this kind of thing from happening?
N8,
Re-reading my earlier response to this, I don't want to give the impression that your question isn't an important one to ask. It is. Why did we (as a society) not do more to protect something that we knew was in danger for many years?
Old Man G Funk
03-02-2006, 10:49 AM
Well, the plan in NO was that there was a no plan for evacuating the ghettos. The locals have the first responder responsibility.. with the state backing them up. Our gov failed miserably... compare her inaction to the action of the Texas gov when Hurricane Rita was looking like it was going to hit Houston. Totally different.
The evacuation planning was certainly faulty. The busses were not used to get people out, and the Superdome ended up being a disaster.
What about the fact that the federal government wasn't ready to go as soon as the storm passed? What about the fact that they weren't ready to go when the governor asked them to help, and then the White House tried to cover it up by smearing the governor?
Did the governor of Texas actually do more for Houston? Cars were sitting on the highways in complete gridlock as the storm approached. A system of using mass transport would have done the trick a lot better, which is exactly what Nagin was criticized for not doing. Why didn't Houston do it then?
jimmydean
03-02-2006, 10:51 AM
I hate to admit it, but I agree with N8.
When I was there, we reviewed the plan for evacuation and it was a great plan. The problem is there was ZERO execution of that plan when the huricane hit.
The plan was to use city transportation to bus people out of the city to Baton Rouge. But days before, the city workers, including the cops, up and left by themselves, so there was nobody to drive the busses. Then when all hell broke loose, they scrambled to the dome that was never part of the plan and only made things worse.
There were plenty of busses, hell I drove 4 different ones while I was there. I say the execution of the plan was a failure of the city and state. That is what I saw when I was there.
<edit> I'll see if I can post pictures of my busses, it was fun to drive around with no traffic and no street lights to obey.
It was NO and LA's job to adequately warn it's citizen's, provide access to evacuation transport, and have an emergency response plan. They failed miserably.
It was FEMA's job to coordinate the emergency response. They failed miserably.
The local failures don't excuse the federal ones, and the federal ones don't excuse the local ones. We should be asking ourselves WHY each organization failed (in the case of FEMA it was because they were organizationally crippled by their incorporation into the Department of Homeland Security), and what needs to be done so they don't repeat those failures in the future.
I hate to admit it, but I agree with N8.
When I was there, we reviewed the plan for evacuation and it was a great plan. The problem is there was ZERO execution of that plan when the huricane hit.
Hmmm... in that case I take back my statement that the locals failed miserably. If they HAD a great plan, they were doing their job. It's FEMA's role to execute on that plan by coordinating the effort.
Hmmm... in that case I take back my statement that the locals failed miserably. If they HAD a great plan, they were doing their job. It's FEMA's role to execute on that plan by coordinating the effort.
Yes, blame bush.. it's soooo easy when they problems are far too difficult to think about.
jimmydean
03-02-2006, 11:05 AM
Hmmm... in that case I take back my statement that the locals failed miserably. If they HAD a great plan, they were doing their job. It's FEMA's role to execute on that plan by coordinating the effort.
There was also a lot of people in the 9th Ward that had the "won't leave my home for nothing" attitude until they found themselves treading water. That might have been part of it. But based on the number of busses we had access to, it was clear there was little or no attempt at evacuation.
Our area of opperations was in the heart of the 9th ward. We didn't get there until Tuesday and the school we stayed in (Fredirick Douglas Senior High) had 2 feet of water around it when we go there.
Old Man G Funk
03-02-2006, 12:21 PM
Yes, blame bush.. it's soooo easy when they problems are far too difficult to think about.
Brown's failures don't necessarily denote Bush's failures. Please try to keep up.
sanjuro
03-02-2006, 12:29 PM
Ray Nagin will be judged at election time.
Kathleen Blanco will be judged at election time.
We are judging Bush right now about Katrina.
1. The hurricane itself did not flood the city. The levees broke a day after the hurricane passed. Who was responsible for levee maintenance (US Army Corp of Engineers).
2. Of the 500,000 people living in New Orleans, 430,000 left successfully. The other 70,000, the poorest and the least capable, were not bussed out of town. BTW, where were they supposed to go? Who was supposed to set up housing for them? (FEMA)
3. What happened after the levees broke was totally on Bush and Brown.
BurlyShirley
03-02-2006, 12:48 PM
Abraham Lincoln would have swooped in wearing a red cape held the levess from breaking. Hillary Clinton would have stuck her finger in the dike...
But bush, no way. How dare he not contact each and every bus driver to tell them to get the hell out of bed and start bussing people. How dare he let all those cops and bus drivers leave town like that.
Old Man G Funk
03-02-2006, 01:01 PM
Abraham Lincoln would have swooped in wearing a red cape held the levess from breaking. Hillary Clinton would have stuck her finger in the dike...
But bush, no way. How dare he not contact each and every bus driver to tell them to get the hell out of bed and start bussing people. How dare he let all those cops and bus drivers leave town like that.
Certainly there was a breakdown in communication if the bus drivers left town early and didn't take people with them. Let's not resort to red herrings though by invoking Hillary Clinton or Abraham Lincoln.
How much is this Bush? How much should he personally have done? Was it enough to leave it to his agency heads, as his spokesperson said he did (from the article)?
sanjuro
03-02-2006, 02:00 PM
I think the reality is New Orleans is a f cked-up town. I wasn't surprised to see 70,000 people still left after the hurricane hit.
I also knew that the other Louisiana cities would not be opening their arms either. Hell, the Gretna police set up a roadblock on the bridge to New Orleans immediately after the hurricane.
Changleen
03-02-2006, 02:05 PM
Did y'all watch the video? Bush just sat there like a chump. He promised that Federal help would be forthcoming, and then it wasn't. He was directly advised in pretty strong terms that the levees were likely to brake, and then after they did, he said "no-one could have predicted that the levees would break". He is a ****tard.
No matter the secondary failings of the local response, which was also lame, Bush, as the freakin' President, failed miserably at his job.
I think the reality is New Orleans is a f cked-up town. I wasn't surprised to see 70,000 people still left after the hurricane hit.
I also knew that the other Louisiana cities would not be opening their arms either. Hell, the Gretna police set up a roadblock on the bridge to New Orleans immediately after the hurricane.
You know damn good and well that you wouldn't want those f*kers in your city either....
jimmydean
03-02-2006, 02:51 PM
Did y'all watch the video? Bush just sat there like a chump. He promised that Federal help would be forthcoming, and then it wasn't. He was directly advised in pretty strong terms that the levees were likely to brake, and then after they did, he said "no-one could have predicted that the levees would break". He is a ****tard.
No matter the secondary failings of the local response, which was also lame, Bush, as the freakin' President, failed miserably at his job.
It was no diiferent than the blank look he got when they told him "A PLANE FULL OF PEOPLE HIT A F@CKING BUILDING IN NY".
You should not be shocked by the "bush in the headlights" reaction.
Everyone should know that getting the federal government to do something 'speedy' is pretty much impossible. Its a huge bureaucracy that moves pretty slowly as well it should.
Changleen
03-02-2006, 04:08 PM
Everyone should know that getting the federal government to do something 'speedy' is pretty much impossible. Its a huge bureaucracy that moves pretty slowly as well it should.Except when they're looking after their own interests... getting re-elected for example.
Planning for relection starts 4 years in advance of the election.
Transcend
03-02-2006, 06:21 PM
What happend to the hundreds of millions of federal dollars that went to La and NO for the levee system/evacuation plans etc over the last... say 40 years.. to prevent this kind of thing from happening?
Levee repair $$...that's choice. Did you know the federal gov't just denied funding to bring the levees up to cat 4/5 protection levels? So ya..even when they are fixed, if a huge storm hits again...they will fail.
That war in Iraq must be starting to pull at the purse strings a little huh?
Transcend
03-02-2006, 06:23 PM
Everyone should know that getting the federal government to do something 'speedy' is pretty much impossible. Its a huge bureaucracy that moves pretty slowly as well it should.
Only Fema is supposed to avoid all the red tape and actually respond accordingly. Fast & effective being key, FEMA was neither.
what the f do you know canadianie???
The Amish
03-02-2006, 07:28 PM
As bad as I feel for the people of No they should realy be thankful they had any notice or place to atempt to flee to at all. Im mean look at the philipines, one minute your sitting in your hut the next thing you no the whole island gets washed away, or a whole village gets covered in mud. Its a foolish person who builds his house upon the sand. What can you realy do when a disaster like that occurs but stand in disbelief and wonder. Humanity steped up and people did what they could, thats realy about all you can ask for in those situations. The notion the government can/should protect you from all harm, especialy natural disasters is obsurd. In the end the money will come, the city will be rebuilt and life will go on as always. If you dont want to take the risk of trying to survive a hurricane move to ohio or something
Transcend
03-02-2006, 07:31 PM
what the f do you know canadianie???
Apprently much more then you. :rolleyes:
sanjuro
03-02-2006, 07:32 PM
As bad as I feel for the people of No they should realy be thankful they had any notice or place to atempt to flee to at all. Im mean look at the philipines, one minute your sitting in your hut the next thing you no the whole island gets washed away, or a whole village gets covered in mud. Its a foolish person who builds his house upon the sand. What can you realy do when a disaster like that occurs but stand in disbelief and wonder. Humanity steped up and people did what they could, thats realy about all you can ask for in those situations. The notion the government can/should protect you from all harm, especialy natural disasters is obsurd. In the end the money will come, the city will be rebuilt and life will go on as always. If you dont want to take the risk of trying to survive a hurricane move to ohio or something
Good point. I say withdraw federal road money from Western New York. They can plow the roads with their own trucks.
The Amish
03-02-2006, 07:39 PM
IF you live in W. ny and cant drive in the snow someone should wack you in the head with a tack hammer because your are a retard. Managing snowy roads is a far cry from picking up the mess caused by a category 5 hurricane
Transcend
03-02-2006, 07:59 PM
As bad as I feel for the people of No they should realy be thankful they had any notice or place to atempt to flee to at all. Im mean look at the philipines, one minute your sitting in your hut the next thing you no the whole island gets washed away, or a whole village gets covered in mud. Its a foolish person who builds his house upon the sand. What can you realy do when a disaster like that occurs but stand in disbelief and wonder. Humanity steped up and people did what they could, thats realy about all you can ask for in those situations. The notion the government can/should protect you from all harm, especialy natural disasters is obsurd. In the end the money will come, the city will be rebuilt and life will go on as always. If you dont want to take the risk of trying to survive a hurricane move to ohio or something
There is absolutely no question about that. At least they had some sort of warning to prepare...but how do you honestly prepare for a cat 5 hurricane?
My bet is that most of them "prepared" by getting ready for FEMA to arrive.
My opinion is that in something this big, so much bigger then any one person, the gov't really has to step up. They have to have a relief plan in place.
How long ago was the Tidal wave? Just over a year now right? We are coming on 6 months for Katrina and it honestly doesn't look like they will be as far along with reconstruction as some of the tsunami ravaged places are. That's pretty bad for the world's sole remaining superpower with way more resources then the philippines et al.
Old Man G Funk
03-03-2006, 05:51 AM
Humanity steped up and people did what they could, thats realy about all you can ask for in those situations. The notion the government can/should protect you from all harm, especialy natural disasters is obsurd.
But, did they really do all they could? Bush and Brown knew well in advance that the storm was coming. They had experts telling them how bad it would be, how much damage would be caused, etc. Yet, the effort was found wanting. Then, they tried to lie to the public about the depth of their knowledge as well as smear the governor with lies about her response time.
No one is saying that the government should protect one from all harm, and the government can't stop a hurricane from happening, but they can certainly alleviate the damage done and the aftermath, and that was NOT done.
Old Man G Funk
03-03-2006, 10:34 AM
Here's a follow-on story:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/02/AR2006030202130.html
kinghami3
03-03-2006, 11:12 AM
But, did they really do all they could? Bush and Brown knew well in advance that the storm was coming. They had experts telling them how bad it would be, how much damage would be caused, etc. Yet, the effort was found wanting. Then, they tried to lie to the public about the depth of their knowledge as well as smear the governor with lies about her response time.
No one is saying that the government should protect one from all harm, and the government can't stop a hurricane from happening, but they can certainly alleviate the damage done and the aftermath, and that was NOT done.
:stupid: I think that sums up the argument pretty well.
Yes, blame bush.. it's soooo easy when they problems are far too difficult to think about.
No the problems aren't that difficult to think about. It's actually relatively easy to break down the chain of responsibilities (they were and are very clearly defined), and there were failures at all levels. However, the responsibility for coordinating the response effort is unquestionably with FEMA. That is not arguable. So any failures in the coordination are the fault of FEMA.
What is arguable is the cause of those failures at FEMA. The failures that occured DID not occur in the Hurricane Andrew response, nor in the 9/11 response (though neither of those were perfect, they weren't complete cluster****s). The major difference in the operation of the department between those and Katrina was its incorporation into the Dept of Homeland Security, and not surprisingly a majority of the major failures can be traced to the new layers of bureacracy created by that move. Again, this is not arguable. Now you can argue all day about who is at fault for the creation and design of Homeland Security, but at the end of the day, unless these problems are addressed Homeland Security was and will continue to be a very very bad thing for our domestic emergency response. I feel like there's some irony there, but that would be opinion and I want to stick to the facts.
ooooops!!!
Clarification: Katrina-Video story
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON (AP) _ In a March 1 story, The Associated Press reported that federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees in New Orleans, citing confidential video footage of an Aug. 28 briefing among U.S. officials.
The Army Corps of Engineers considers a breach a hole developing in a levee rather than an overrun. The story should have made clear that Bush was warned about floodwaters overrunning the levees, rather than the levees breaking.
The day before the storm hit, Bush was told there were grave concerns that the levees could be overrun. It wasn't until the next morning, as the storm was hitting, that Michael Brown, then head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said Bush had inquired about reports of breaches. Bush did not participate in that briefing.
sanjuro
03-04-2006, 10:49 AM
Humanity steped up and people did what they could, thats realy about all you can ask for in those situations. The notion the government can/should protect you from all harm, especialy natural disasters is obsurd. In the end the money will come, the city will be rebuilt and life will go on as always. If you dont want to take the risk of trying to survive a hurricane move to ohio or something
This is always the cry of the conservative: someone else will do the job, so why should I?
Old Man G Funk
03-06-2006, 09:05 AM
ooooops!!!
Clarification: Katrina-Video story
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON (AP) _ In a March 1 story, The Associated Press reported that federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees in New Orleans, citing confidential video footage of an Aug. 28 briefing among U.S. officials.
The Army Corps of Engineers considers a breach a hole developing in a levee rather than an overrun. The story should have made clear that Bush was warned about floodwaters overrunning the levees, rather than the levees breaking.
The day before the storm hit, Bush was told there were grave concerns that the levees could be overrun. It wasn't until the next morning, as the storm was hitting, that Michael Brown, then head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said Bush had inquired about reports of breaches. Bush did not participate in that briefing.
Whether the levees were breached or overrun, people have known for a long time that a Cat. 4 or Cat. 5 hurricane hitting NO would have catastrophic effects, including wide-ranging flooding. Some even suggested that only the third floor of buildings would remain above water.
So, how is this an oops?
Everyone should know that getting the federal government to do something 'speedy' is pretty much impossible. Its a huge bureaucracy that moves pretty slowly as well it should.
See Hurricane Andrew. See 9/11. FEMA used to be "speedy." Your second sentence only became true because of Homeland Security. I feel so much more secure now.
The Amish
03-06-2006, 11:06 AM
This is always the cry of the conservative: someone else will do the job, so why should I?
And you shout the true cry of a liberal. WHy help myself when I can always make some one else do it for me. JUst remember you have to work so hard because millions of people on welfare depend on you.
kinghami3
03-06-2006, 11:29 AM
Just remember you have to work so hard because millions of people on welfare depend on you.
...and the Liberal says "Yay, I am perfectly willing to work harder and pay higher taxes so those less fortunate than I can receive the benefits that they so desperately need!" Or at least I am; you conservatives can horde your money for all I care.
The Amish
03-06-2006, 11:31 AM
LOve to but for some reason my paycheck gets jacked every week before I even see it
narlus
03-06-2006, 11:49 AM
LOve to but for some reason my paycheck gets jacked every week before I even see it
maybe it wasn't such a good idea to give yr weed hookup direct withdrawal powers.
...and the Liberal says "Yay, I am perfectly willing to work harder and pay higher taxes so those less fortunate than I can receive the benefits that they so desperately need!" Or at least I am; you conservatives can horde your money for all I care.
Well, they say that when they are poor college students anyway... doesn't last too long afterwards though.
:p
The Amish
03-06-2006, 02:35 PM
maybe it wasn't such a good idea to give yr weed hookup direct withdrawal powers.
Who pays for weed?
narlus
03-06-2006, 02:41 PM
Who pays for weed?
i dunno. not me.
BuddhaRoadkill
03-06-2006, 03:02 PM
JUst remember you have to work so hard because millions of people on welfare depend on you.
Care to back that up with some numbers? How much of every tax dollar goes to actual welfare?
JUst remember you have to work so hard because millions of people on welfare depend on you.
Actually you work so hard because we invaded Iraq.
You might want to check your numbers.
The Amish
03-07-2006, 06:00 AM
BUllsh^t
Old Man G Funk
03-07-2006, 06:29 AM
LOve to but for some reason my paycheck gets jacked every week before I even see it
So, how much it too much to pay for taxes?
The Amish
03-07-2006, 08:05 AM
Frankly its all too much. Here in NY they get you coming and goin. It costs so much just to die I dont think I can even afford that
Old Man G Funk
03-07-2006, 08:10 AM
Frankly its all too much. Here in NY they get you coming and goin. It costs so much just to die I dont think I can even afford that
So, would you want to abolish all taxes?
Old Man G Funk
03-07-2006, 08:12 AM
Back on topic, I'm still waiting on N8 to tell me how that was an "oops" moment (that he jumped on as if it somehow refuted something...)
Here's a good take on that...
http://www.ucomics.com/tedrall/2006/03/04/
(Note: For those of you with short attention spans, it's a short cartoon.)
The Amish
03-07-2006, 08:23 AM
NOt all, some go towards basic services that everyone uses such as roads, bridges, and parks. BUt things that get double taxed such as used cars where your paying tax on something that was already taxed when it was originaly purchased, or the death tax where its basicaly like tipin a corpse upside down and shakin out all the change. Those taxes are just obsurd. I dont neccesarily want to get rid of all the taxes collected that go to welfare cause theres alot of people with genuine need, but I think the practice of handing these people cash which often winds up getting spent on crack and 40's needs to be changed so there's no way of spending the money on anything but basic living neccesities such as food clothes and shelter.
Old Man G Funk
03-07-2006, 08:29 AM
NOt all, some go towards basic services that everyone uses such as roads, bridges, and parks. BUt things that get double taxed such as used cars where your paying tax on something that was already taxed when it was originaly purchased, or the death tax where its basicaly like tipin a corpse upside down and shakin out all the change. Those taxes are just obsurd. I dont neccesarily want to get rid of all the taxes collected that go to welfare cause theres alot of people with genuine need, but I think the practice of handing these people cash which often winds up getting spent on crack and 40's needs to be changed so there's no way of spending the money on anything but basic living neccesities such as food clothes and shelter.
So, you object to taxes on used cars (which is a sales tax) and the inheritance tax. Um, neither of those come out of your paycheck.
If you are objecting to how the taxes are used, that's a different story. It generally wouldn't affect how much money is taken out of your paycheck, however. If the government doesn't spend it on welfare, it will find some other way to spend it, as evidenced by our amazingly large deficit.
As an aside, do you know how much of the tax revenue is actually spent on welfare?
The Amish
03-07-2006, 11:17 AM
This year alone were projected to spend about $530 billion dollars between state and federal welfare programs. I dont even think theres a billion people in the entire country so that means were all buying about $500 of crack a piece this year and we wont even catch a buzz
This year alone were projected to spend about $530 billion dollars between state and federal welfare programs. I dont even think theres a billion people in the entire country so that means were all buying about $500 of crack a piece this year and we wont even catch a buzz
Actually the US population is just under 300 million. So if you take into account that people on welfare aren't contributing to the tax base, we're each probably buying about $2000 worth of crack this year. But I for one WILL be catching a buzz, just not with that crack.
Old Man G Funk
03-07-2006, 12:22 PM
This year alone were projected to spend about $530 billion dollars between state and federal welfare programs. I dont even think theres a billion people in the entire country so that means were all buying about $500 of crack a piece this year and we wont even catch a buzz
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-runawaywelfare.htm
Old Man G Funk
03-07-2006, 12:55 PM
This year alone were projected to spend about $530 billion dollars between state and federal welfare programs. I dont even think theres a billion people in the entire country so that means were all buying about $500 of crack a piece this year and we wont even catch a buzz
By the way, $530 billion is more than we spend on defense, which is the largest item in the budget. Your numbers are way off (as shown in the link above.)
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-runawaywelfare.htm
Those numbers are from 1992. Give me 15 years of data to play with, and I could prove anything.
Old Man G Funk
03-07-2006, 01:13 PM
Those numbers are from 1992. Give me 15 years of data to play with, and I could prove anything.
It might be 15 years old, but do you really think that we have changed that much in that amount of time, especially since the Republican controlled Congress passed a "welfare reform" measure in the mid 90s?
If you truly think that we spend $530 billion dollars on handouts to poor people, you are truly off base. If that is the correct number, it is only because a lot of other programs were lumped into it, like student loans. Most of the money does NOT go to the poorest part of the population. The link I cited showed that the poorest part of the population (16.4%) got only 17.8% of the money. Your complaints are mislaid.
It might be 15 years old, but do you really think that we have changed that much in that amount of time, especially since the Republican controlled Congress passed a "welfare reform" measure in the mid 90s?
If you truly think that we spend $530 billion dollars on handouts to poor people, you are truly off base. If that is the correct number, it is only because a lot of other programs were lumped into it, like student loans. Most of the money does NOT go to the poorest part of the population. The link I cited showed that the poorest part of the population (16.4%) got only 17.8% of the money. Your complaints are mislaid.
I have no f*cking idea how much gets spent on welfare, and frankly I don't care, because when it comes down to it, we are all going to get taxraped by the government, no matter who we "elect" (even though we don't really "elect" our leaders), no matter how much we bitch about it, and no matter what they tell us they are spending it on, because our entire system of government in the US is severely flawed.
My point is that if you give me 15 years of numbers (approximately 4 presidency terms) and let me choose which year's numbers prove my point the best, I'll have no trouble picking a year that does a nice job of proving me right. And if you truly believe that link you posted represents an unbiased subjective viewpoint, you my friend are the one who is deluded.
In Y2000, combined state and federal spending:
* Medical assistance to low income persons cost $222 billion or 51 percent of total welfare spending.
* Cash, food and housing aid together cost $167 billion or 38 percent of the total.
* Social Services, training, targeted education, and community development aid cost around $47 billion or 11 percent of the total.
The second item is the one people usually mean specifically when they say 'welfare.'
My point is that if you give me 15 years of numbers (approximately 4 presidency terms) and let me choose which year's numbers prove my point the best, I'll have no trouble picking a year that does a nice job of proving me right.
Well here's every year from 1929-2000. Which one proves you right?
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/images/rector0307cht2.jpg
Old Man G Funk
03-07-2006, 01:26 PM
I have no f*cking idea how much gets spent on welfare, and frankly I don't care, because when it comes down to it, we are all going to get taxraped by the government, no matter who we "elect" (even though we don't really "elect" our leaders), no matter how much we bitch about it, and no matter what they tell us they are spending it on, because our entire system of government in the US is severely flawed.
My point is that if you give me 15 years of numbers (approximately 4 presidency terms) and let me choose which year's numbers prove my point the best, I'll have no trouble picking a year that does a nice job of proving me right. And if you truly believe that link you posted represents an unbiased subjective viewpoint, you my friend are the one who is deluded.
Because that one year was an anomoly? I don't think so. Anyway, I found this link that you might find interesting as well...
http://web.hku.hk/~hrnwlck/sweldata/welspend.htm
Looks to me like in the 8 years from 1992 to 2000, Medicaid went from $76 billion to $222 billion, and AFDC went from $12 billion to $167 billion.
Any guesses as to what has happened to those numbers in the 6 years since 2000? OMGF? Perhaps Amish's numbers aren't quite so "way off base"?
Well here's every year from 1929-2000. Which one proves you right?
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/images/rector0307cht2.jpg
Looks to me like OMGF's link conveniently picked the year right before everything went through the roof. Just like I said.
Old Man G Funk
03-07-2006, 01:43 PM
Looks to me like in the 8 years from 1992 to 2000, Medicaid went from $76 billion to $222 billion, and AFDC went from $12 billion to $167 billion.
Any guesses as to what has happened to those numbers in the 6 years since 2000? OMGF? Perhaps Amish's numbers aren't quite so "way off base"?
It looks as though one is talking about federal and one is talking about state + federal.
Edit: Oh, and there's 8 years between 1992 and 2000.
Old Man G Funk
03-07-2006, 01:44 PM
Looks to me like OMGF's link conveniently picked the year right before everything went through the roof. Just like I said.
A) Um, I don't know how you get that, considering where 1992 falls on the curve (hint, the x-axis, or the bottom line, is where you find the year.)
B) I think Ohio's question holds. Which year proves your point?
It looks as though one is talking about federal and one is talking about state + federal.
Outstanding job of avoiding the question :thumb:
Old Man G Funk
03-07-2006, 01:50 PM
Outstanding job of avoiding the question :thumb:
Or maybe you just have trouble with comprehension? You don't have to answer that one.
You are the one really guilty of question avoidance as I see you avoided Ohio's question.
A) Um, I don't know how you get that, considering where 1992 falls on the curve (hint, the x-axis, or the bottom line, is where you find the year.)
B) I think Ohio's question holds. Which year proves your point?
OK smartass. Use your superior intellect to open MS Paint and draw a line straight up from about where 1992 would appear (hint, it's shortly after 1990). Then pull your head out of your ass and notice the approximately 30% increase in the blue area of the chart (hint, it's the one that designates cash, food, housing) from 1992-2000. I don't suppose your dazzling mind power noticed that this chart displays in "corrected" currency either? (I don't have time to explain to you what that means) Do you think the graph flattens from 2000-2006?
I answered ohio's question, but let me do it again for the mentally challenged (OMGF): your link chose the year 1992 for its sample statistics (and didn't use corrected currency either) which was right before a major jump in the numbers.
Changleen
03-07-2006, 02:25 PM
Uh, Can we get a graph of US population next to that welfare graph before we all go off half-cocked?
Uh, Can we get a graph of US population next to that welfare graph before we all go off half-cocked?
Good point.
Uh, Can we get a graph of US population next to that welfare graph before we all go off half-cocked?
Damn you... couldn't you let it roll for a little while.
We would have also accepted "GDP," or 'total tax revenues."
Tell him what's he's won, Don.
By the way, OMGF, my question didn't have a point. I don't really have an opinion on this one.
By the way, OMGF, my question didn't have a point. I don't really have an opinion on this one.
And my point was that his link was bullsh!t. But I'm sure he will continue babbling about how he is right.
OMGF, in case you missed this post a couple weeks ago, it was directed at you:
Well I certainly don't have the time or patience to "debate" with someone who apparently likes to post ambiguous statements thereby avoiding having to actually back them up, and usually resorts to arguing symantics of minutia instead of the subject at hand.
Of course I broke my own rule and attempted to debate with Mr. Hardheaded-Never-Wrong anyway. Oops.
Changleen
03-07-2006, 02:58 PM
OK, Here we go:
http://www.cok.net/photos/old/abol10/pointpopgraph.gif
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/images/rector0307cht2.jpg
Changleen
03-07-2006, 03:09 PM
So, lets focus on the time from 1970 to 2000 - There's not much point going back further than that as that is essentially (1965ish?) the start of proper welfare in the US if I remember rightly (? - correct me?). I see that the population went from approx. 200 Million to 275 Million in that time. A 37% (ish) increase right?
However the spending went from 1970's figure of 100 Million to 2000's figure of $425 Million - a 425% increase.
This is clearly quite a bit increase - the question is then how much of that increase is due to justifiable programmes that are doing good and how much, as The Amish put it, is being spent on crack?
BuddhaRoadkill
03-07-2006, 04:30 PM
http://www.econ.rochester.edu/eco108/ch24/ch24-macro5/img015.GIF
I'm curious as to what the hell got started in the 70's as it doesn't appear to be population related.
Changleen
03-07-2006, 04:31 PM
Microchips, dude.
BuddhaRoadkill
03-07-2006, 04:50 PM
Microchips, dude.
HAH!! I knew we could blame Bill somehow. :rofl:
Old Man G Funk
03-08-2006, 05:35 AM
Damn you... couldn't you let it roll for a little while.
We would have also accepted "GDP," or 'total tax revenues."
Tell him what's he's won, Don.
By the way, OMGF, my question didn't have a point. I don't really have an opinion on this one.
Just didn't want to take credit for a comment that I felt was incredibly witty.
Old Man G Funk
03-08-2006, 05:39 AM
And my point was that his link was bullsh!t. But I'm sure he will continue babbling about how he is right.
I'll address this first.
A 30% increase over 8 years is NOT a runaway train. It is less than 4% increase a year, which is pretty average for gov. programs.
OMGF, in case you missed this post a couple weeks ago, it was directed at you:
Of course I broke my own rule and attempted to debate with Mr. Hardheaded-Never-Wrong anyway. Oops.
Um, considering that your point was to agree that we hand out $530 for crack consumption (post #64), the fact that I dissented and have tried to find documented proof, even though the burden of proof is on your sorry a55 to back up YOUR assertion and you haven't given one link or anything to back you up, you might want to rethink your statement here. It is not I who is ambiguous and unable to back things up, it is you.
Old Man G Funk
03-08-2006, 05:47 AM
OK smartass. Use your superior intellect to open MS Paint and draw a line straight up from about where 1992 would appear (hint, it's shortly after 1990). Then pull your head out of your ass and notice the approximately 30% increase in the blue area of the chart (hint, it's the one that designates cash, food, housing) from 1992-2000. I don't suppose your dazzling mind power noticed that this chart displays in "corrected" currency either? (I don't have time to explain to you what that means) Do you think the graph flattens from 2000-2006?
Already answered before. 30% over 8 years is nothing to write home about. Plus, if it went up another 30% in the last 6 years, that would take the total from $166 billion to $215.8 bn.
I answered ohio's question, but let me do it again for the mentally challenged (OMGF): your link chose the year 1992 for its sample statistics (and didn't use corrected currency either) which was right before a major jump in the numbers.
No, it wasn't a big jump in the numbers.
Ohio's question was "which year proves your point?" He might not care about the answer, but I do. Which year shows that we hand out $530 billion in cash to people to buy crack?
The $530 billion is a correct figure if one includes medicaid, social security, student loans, etc. What cash do poor people really receive in their hands? Welfare checks. So, how much do we really pay out that people can use on crack?
According to http://www.govspot.com/know/welfare.htm
About 5.76 million people receive welfare.
Let's say welfare pays poverty level, which for a average family is about $15000.
Multiply those numbers and you get a total expenditure of about $86.4 billion.
Old Man G Funk
03-08-2006, 05:52 AM
Originally Posted by Echo
Well I certainly don't have the time or patience to "debate" with someone who apparently likes to post ambiguous statements thereby avoiding having to actually back them up, and usually resorts to arguing symantics of minutia instead of the subject at hand.
Care to back that up, or is it more assertion that you can't support? A55hat.
Multiply those numbers and you get a total expenditure of about $86.4 billion.
Now let's look at the facts. I never said anything about knowing what the gov't spends on welfare. In fact, one of my first posts in this thread I said:
I have no f*cking idea how much gets spent on welfare
All I did was correct Amish's guess on the population and adjust his figures accordingly. Then you posted a link that used 15 old data to make the numbers look much smaller than they actually are, and I called BS. Your link stated that the TOTAL for medicaid and welfare combined was under $100 billion. Then two posts later ohio posted figures that showed the total for medicaid and welfare combined was about $489 billion, and actually $536 billion if you count social services. Which of course you ignored.
Now go get your Texas Instruments LED calculator watch and let's take a look at those figures. We can even make it a multiple choice quiz to increase your chances of passing. Question: Which number is closer to $530 billion?
a) $80 billion (from your link)
b) $536 billion (from numbers more recent than 1992)
I know this is a very difficult quiz for you, because it will require you to realize that you are a moron and have been ignoring every point everyone has made in this thread, and even deluded yourself into thinking others agree with you. Let's see how you do.
Old Man G Funk
03-08-2006, 07:10 AM
Now let's look at the facts. I never said anything about knowing what the gov't spends on welfare.
But, you've been defending the $530 bn. figure.
All I did was correct Amish's guess on the population and adjust his figures accordingly. Then you posted a link that used 15 old data to make the numbers look much smaller than they actually are, and I called BS.
No, the link was to show that the percentage given out in handouts was not as high as Amish seemed to think. The fact that you missed that is not surprising to me.
Your link stated that the TOTAL for medicaid and welfare combined was under $100 billion. Then two posts later ohio posted figures that showed the total for medicaid and welfare combined was about $489 billion, and actually $536 billion if you count social services. Which of course you ignored.
Objection, already answered. It's not my fault you can't read.
Now go get your Texas Instruments LED calculator watch and let's take a look at those figures. We can even make it a multiple choice quiz to increase your chances of passing. Question: Which number is closer to $530 billion?
a) $80 billion (from your link)
b) $536 billion (from numbers more recent than 1992)
I know this is a very difficult quiz for you, because it will require you to realize that you are a moron and have been ignoring every point everyone has made in this thread, and even deluded yourself into thinking others agree with you. Let's see how you do.
More logical fallacy on your part. You are once again equivocating. $530 bn. is NOT what we pay out in handouts, or do you think we give welfare recipients ~$100K a yaer?
The Amish
03-08-2006, 08:10 AM
"Together, federal and state welfare spending would rise from around $434 billion in 2000 to $573 billion in 2005. "
Hey asshat next time read the rest of the story you googled and try not to post info thats 10 ytr's old
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/Test030701b.cfm
But, you've been defending the $530 bn. figure.
No, I haven't. You can't read. All I said was that your link was biased info that arbitrarily picked data from the year that would make their assertion look valid.
No, the link was to show that the percentage given out in handouts was not as high as Amish seemed to think. The fact that you missed that is not surprising to me.
And my point was that YOUR LINK WAS BS. You yourself have posted figures that show that. Are you drunk?
Objection, already ignored.
Fixed that for ya.
More logical fallacy on your part. You are once again equivocating. $530 bn. is NOT what we pay out in handouts, or do you think we give welfare recipients ~$100K a yaer?
Since you have ignored the last two times I said this, I don't know why I should bother saying it again, but I never claimed to know what we hand out to welfare recipients. All I said was that your link was bullsh!t biased data.
Now you are saying that 2% of the population is on welfare. Fine. What is the national unemployment rate? Are people collecting unemployment not receiving a government handout? Did it ever occur to you that if my housing was paid for by the government, that would free up a lot of crack money in my welfare check? If my family's medical bills were paid by the government, I wouldn't have to use my welfare check for that either. More crack. If I had foodstamps, well there's more crack money in the welfare check. So just because underpriveliged government spending doesn't show up in their mailbox as a check doesn't mean it's not free money.
Old Man G Funk
03-08-2006, 08:20 AM
"Together, federal and state welfare spending would rise from around $434 billion in 2000 to $573 billion in 2005. "
Hey asshat next time read the rest of the story you googled and try not to post info thats 10 ytr's old
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/Test030701b.cfm
A) I didn't post that, Ohio did.
B) That is an inflated number. It is NOT the amount of cash $ that is given in handouts. It includes things like student loans, medicaid, etc.
Old Man G Funk
03-08-2006, 08:29 AM
No, I haven't. You can't read. All I said was that your link was biased info that arbitrarily picked data from the year that would make their assertion look valid.
Um, comment #73?
And my point was that YOUR LINK WAS BS. You yourself have posted figures that show that. Are you drunk?
If I were drunk, I might actually be able to converse with you, because I might be down to your level.
What figures did I post that show my link was BS? What part of it was BS? You concluded that expenditures shot up uncharacteristically after 1992, but that isn't the case.
Fixed that for ya.
No, you still have yet to notice that there's a difference between state and federal outlay of money, or at least notice that I notice the difference between the two. You've also failed to notice that I've talked about where the $530 bn. figure comes from and why it is wrong.
Since you have ignored the last two times I said this, I don't know why I should bother saying it again, but I never claimed to know what we hand out to welfare recipients. All I said was that your link was bullsh!t biased data.
And you ignored where I said that you defended the number. Your appeal to your own ignorance and, "Oh, I never said that," is simply a cop-out where you are trying to hide that fact that you got it wrong, instead of just admitting it.
Now you are saying that 2% of the population is on welfare. Fine. What is the national unemployment rate? Are people collecting unemployment not receiving a government handout? Did it ever occur to you that if my housing was paid for by the government, that would free up a lot of crack money in my welfare check? If my family's medical bills were paid by the government, I wouldn't have to use my welfare check for that either. More crack. If I had foodstamps, well there's more crack money in the welfare check. So just because underpriveliged government spending doesn't show up in their mailbox as a check doesn't mean it's not free money.
But it isn't money that you get in cash in your hand. You've got a lot of "what ifs" in your post there. It's all a bunch of unsubstantiated BS. Bring some material to back yourself up.
Speaking of backing yourself up, your charge that I never do so rings ever more hollow with each post you make. The reason? Because with each post you make, you make more and more personal attacks against me, and never bring any evidence to back yourself up. Who is the one guilty of sophistry here? At least I'm trying to find stats that support my side of things. You don't even try. You simply lob insults and logical fallacies.
Old Man G Funk
03-08-2006, 08:30 AM
Oh, and Echo, I hope you'll note where Amish's link goes and point out the philosophical biases they have, just like you did with my link.
I don't think anyone has ever posted a link in this forum that didn't have a political bias. What makes me laugh is when people post them as an example of being right. Statistics can say whatever you want them to say. If I wanted to prove your statistics were right I could probably do that too. My point is, and always has been, that your statistics don't mean crap. Amish's don't either. You just chose to try to defend yours more vigorously so I decided to have some fun with you. In the end we are all getting assraped by the government and there's nothing we can do about it. Just like I said about 40 posts ago.
Old Man G Funk
03-08-2006, 09:11 AM
I don't think anyone has ever posted a link in this forum that didn't have a political bias. What makes me laugh is when people post them as an example of being right.
A) I have posted links that didn't have a political bias, as have others.
B) Having a political bias doesn't mean that the information is wrong.
Statistics can say whatever you want them to say. If I wanted to prove your statistics were right I could probably do that too. My point is, and always has been, that your statistics don't mean crap. Amish's don't either.
Except we aren't talking about statistics, but raw numbers.
You just chose to try to defend yours more vigorously so I decided to have some fun with you.
If your definition of fun is to make inane statements and then have to backpedal because you can't defend them, so be it. If your definition of fun is to make personal attacks instead of backing up your arguments, then so be it. If your definition of fun is to engage in sophistry, while the other person is clearly making an actual effort, so be it.
Personally, I think the "fun" you were looking for was putting someone you have a personal distaste for (me) in his place, and when that didn't work, you resorted to your backpedaling and your, "Oh, I was just having fun" pose. But hey, maybe I'm just having fun with you now.
In the end we are all getting assraped by the government and there's nothing we can do about it. Just like I said about 40 posts ago.
That may be the case, but the amount that we supposedly pay in cash handouts for crack addicts doesn't appear to be a solid argument in favor of that.
Except we aren't talking about statistics, but raw numbers.
Your raw numbers don't add up any more than anyone else's.
Personally, I think the "fun" you were looking for was putting someone you have a personal distaste for (me) in his place
I don't have any personal distaste for you (at least I didn't before), I've seen you make some good points on here. I just thought your link was bogus info.
I still do.
Old Man G Funk
03-08-2006, 09:30 AM
Your raw numbers don't add up any more than anyone else's.
I'm not the one that made the assertion that we give $530 bn. dollars in handouts for people to buy crack. The burden of proof was never on me. I, nevertheless, tried to show it was flawed anyway, and the number is flawed.
I don't have any personal distaste for you (at least I didn't before), I've seen you make some good points on here. I just thought your link was bogus info.
I still do.
Then, why the personal attacks?
First of all, the personal attacks started with some smartass comment by you about me having trouble with comprehension, when in fact you are the one with the blinders on.
I'm not going to pull a N8/OMGF and scour the intarweb for some f*cking website that suits my agenda. All I did was point out that your link was bogus. I don't know how many times I have to say it.
Generally, when I have to repeat the same thing to someone 7 times and they still don't get it, I'm tempted to refer to that person as a moron.
Old Man G Funk
03-08-2006, 09:56 AM
First of all, the personal attacks started with some smartass comment by you about me having trouble with comprehension, when in fact you are the one with the blinders on.
Oh, the "He started it" defense. Nice.
I'm not going to pull a N8/OMGF and scour the intarweb for some f*cking website that suits my agenda. All I did was point out that your link was bogus. I don't know how many times I have to say it.
Oh, so now you compare me to N8? So, if I try to find anything to support my point, I'm obviously scouring the web to find bogus links that "suit my agenda." Nice. I'm glad to know how much you value doing research to make sure that your points are correct.
Generally, when I have to repeat the same thing to someone 7 times and they still don't get it, I'm tempted to refer to that person as a moron.
And, when you keep repeating the same thing over and over after it has already been addressed, acting like it hasn't been addressed? Like, the sudden spike after 1992, the one that isn't shown by the graph?
This is starting to sound post-modern to me. All viewpoints to you are equally invalid, so how can we know anything? Problem with that is that when one makes a claim that can be empirically shown to be false, then it's not up to interpretation.
And, when you keep repeating the same thing over and over after it has already been addressed, acting like it hasn't been addressed? Like, the sudden spike after 1992, the one that isn't shown by the graph?
I'll just ask you one question about that graph so you can focus.
There are two time periods in the blue part of that graph where steep upward trends begin. Where are they?
Hint: look around the early 70's and the early 90's.
Old Man G Funk
03-08-2006, 10:20 AM
I'll just ask you one question about that graph so you can focus.
There are two time periods in the blue part of that graph where steep upward trends begin. Where are they?
Hint: look around the early 70's and the early 90's.
If you define that as a runaway upward trend, then there's plenty of places where you could say the same thing. How much of that is cash handouts? How much goes towards housing and food stamps? You don't know. You just know that the link I cited is wrong, and now you have to come up with some reason why it is wrong. What you fail to consider is that even with a sharp increase the next year, it doesn't invalidate the numbers that were used.
The best measure for this would be to check the poverty level over the years and the numbers of people receiving welfare checks. That would be the most accurate representation. Welfare generally is considered a supplement which brings the recipient to somewhere BELOW poverty level, so if you calculate to poverty level, that would give you your upper bound on the figures.
You just know that the link I cited is wrong, and now you have to come up with some reason why it is wrong. What you fail to consider is that even with a sharp increase the next year, it doesn't invalidate the numbers that were used.
I didn't say the numbers were wrong. I said that particular link deliberately chose to use data from 1992, because they knew that the data after that doesn't support their agenda. They got you hook line and sinker though. So they apparently know who their target audience is.
Old Man G Funk
03-08-2006, 10:51 AM
I didn't say the numbers were wrong. I said that particular link deliberately chose to use data from 1992, because they knew that the data after that doesn't support their agenda. They got you hook line and sinker though. So they apparently know who their target audience is.
Um, no, they didn't. Put in the number for 1993, 1994, or 1995 and you will most likely find a similar relationship.
Question: How do you "know" it is wrong? You have nothing to back up that you "know" it is wrong. You could be skeptical, but how do you "know"? The answer is that you don't. You just assumed it was wrong and then went on rant after rant about how it was wrong, without really being able to say why it was really wrong. You looked for anything you thought might be an anomoly and jumped on it. How does data from other years not support the assertion? You can't say, you just "know" it is wrong.
It reminds me of evolution deniers. They just "know" evolution is wrong, and they ad hoc reasons as to why. They come up with the answer and then fit the "facts" around that answer.
They come up with the answer and then fit the "facts" around that answer.
My contention is that your link did exactly that. Sorry you don't agree.
Old Man G Funk
03-08-2006, 12:19 PM
My contention is that your link did exactly that. Sorry you don't agree.
Well, when you can back up your preconceived conclusion, let me know.
In the meantime, here are some links that might be of interest:
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/news/stats/6097rf.htm
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ofs/data/index.html
In the second one, you can go year by year for the last 8 years or so and see what aid was given out federally and state by state.
Well, when you can back up your preconceived conclusion, let me know.
In the meantime, here are some links that might be of interest:
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/news/stats/6097rf.htm
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ofs/data/index.html
In the second one, you can go year by year for the last 8 years or so and see what aid was given out federally and state by state.
Once again you are assuming that 1) the government is telling the truth about where they spend our money, and 2) that these websites are accurately and objectively interpreting and displaying the numbers given them by the government.
Fact is, I'm forced to pay taxes knowing full well that most of the money will be wasted on stupid crap, used to bomb innocent civilians, or given to crackheads. If I can figure out a way to get out of paying for all this bullsh!t I don't believe in, I'll do it. Until then don't expect me to buy into the theories you post about what happens to tax money.
Old Man G Funk
03-08-2006, 12:39 PM
Once again you are assuming that 1) the government is telling the truth about where they spend our money, and 2) that these websites are accurately and objectively interpreting and displaying the numbers given them by the government.
Fact is, I'm forced to pay taxes knowing full well that most of the money will be wasted on stupid crap, used to bomb innocent civilians, or given to crackheads. If I can figure out a way to get out of paying for all this bullsh!t I don't believe in, I'll do it. Until then don't expect me to buy into the theories you post about what happens to tax money.
You think the government is lying about how much money is spent? They don't have to. Most mofos are too lazy to go look it up, and the numbers don't mean much to them when they do look it up. The numbers only mean something to us because we are looking for one specific thing.
If you want a way to get out of "paying for all this bullsh!t [you] don't believe in," then move to the Cayman Islands or something.
You think the government is lying about how much money is spent? They don't have to. Most mofos are too lazy to go look it up, and the numbers don't mean much to them when they do look it up. The numbers only mean something to us because we are looking for one specific thing.
If you want a way to get out of "paying for all this bullsh!t [you] don't believe in," then move to the Cayman Islands or something.
I will leave this country when I can. My reasons for staying currently outweigh the benefits of leaving, but trust me, I will be gone when I can swing it. And on that day, I will wish you the best of luck with your corrupt warmongering government.
Old Man G Funk
03-08-2006, 12:51 PM
I will leave this country when I can. My reasons for staying currently outweigh the benefits of leaving, but trust me, I will be gone when I can swing it. And on that day, I will wish you the best of luck with your corrupt warmongering government.
Well, at least we can agree that less corruption and less war-mongering are good things.
Well, at least we can agree that less corruption and less war-mongering are good things.
You would think that would go without saying. But not in today's America. Now we actually need government agencies coming up with new laws to keep other government agencies from ripping people off and screwing people over. From the top on down.
Statistics can't be manipulated unless you mean outright fraud. People, however, can be very easily manipulated by false conclusions from statistics.
The arguement that interpretation of statistics is inherently biased, and the following logic that therefore all statistics should be ignored is a bull**** one. There is such thing as rigorous use of statistics, and there is such thing as sound and valid conclusions from statistics. Just because many people are too lazy, stupid or biased to be rigorous doesn't invalidate the technique as a whole.
For an example of interesting and rigorous use of statistics, see Freakonomics. For an example of biased conclusions falsely drawn from statistics, see all the bullsh!t political implications people think they read in Freakonomics but didn't.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.