Yes, I'm sure you weren't implying that when you said statistics "work however you want them to."
Yes, I'm sure you weren't implying that when you said statistics "work however you want them to."This is where you went full retard.
Yes, I'm sure you weren't implying that when you said statistics "work however you want them to."
They want the leeches who are stealing from the hard workers to stop stealing from the hard workers.
You think the poor should be fed? Go write a check.
And they will destroy the credit rating of America and create an international depression to get it......... NICE.....
America should "tea party" the Tea Party, tar and feather the rats and throw 'em Boston Harbor.
Yes, this quote you like so much doesn't imply that statistics are useless or false:How does that even come close to saying that they are useless or false? Oh right, you don't have an argument then. Gotcha.
The contemporary practice of polling is fascinating. Ask a large group of uninformed, disinterested people questions about people and issues with which they are unfamiliar, and then use the statistical results of this exercise to toss out numbers to which even MORE uninformed, disinterested people can take sides and "choose" their own set of "opinions". The entire process bypasses the accumulation and analysis of facts, data, and knowledge, and is used to sway the political "opinions" of the naïve and ignorant masses of Americans who fail to act as mature, thinking, and participating members of the body politic. The fiscal, political, and social implications of this immaturity and ignorance of so many Americans will sadly be felt by those very fools themselves, who are so uninvolved and uninformed about the crisis that surrounds them. Wake up America, we're about to get what we deserve.
Senate Democrats’ budget includes nearly $1 trillion in new taxesNot aware of anyone proposing $1T in new taxes, but if the Dems were allowed to raise rates on the rich back in 2010 or 2011 our current debt wouldn't be quite so high now, would it? This is why libs are so frustrated with conservatives. Conservatives create giant recessions with their policies, lose elections over it and then still find every way possible to block policies that will aid recovery. Then they complain that the recession is our fault when it started before we had power, complain that we aren't fixing it fast enough when they are blocking everything we try to do to fix it, and complain that our policies will make things worse instead of better when all expert analysis points to the opposite. Then any attempt to point any of this out is dismissed with a hand wave. But Bush!
As for the spending, yes military spending is the obvious low hanging fruit since cutting "entitlements" tends to make things worse despite conservative's claims to the contrary.
Yes, this quote you like so much doesn't imply that statistics are useless or false:
Yet those statistical results accurately predicted the 2012 election outcomes.
Oh, $1T over ten years, I thought you were saying the Dems wanted to raise taxes high enough to erase the entire deficit.Senate Democrats budget includes nearly $1 trillion in new taxes
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mon...udget-includes-nearly-1-trillion-in-new-taxes
Democrats proposed $1T in new taxes within their Senate budget...but they were not specific about which credits, deductions and loopholes would be closed to raise the $975 billion in new revenues. So to conclude that Democrats only want tax increases that would only affect the rich is wishful thinking and unsupported by the facts.
Dems also wanted to increase taxes in 2011 with a 5 percent surtax on incomes of more than $1 million a year. They effectively got that increase and more on 1/1/13. But instead of just millionaires they wanted a 4.6% tax increase to apply to those earning $200k/$250k which cuts well into the middle class. Fortunately Republicans were able to get it up to $400k/$450k.
In reality, it's not about taxing the rich per se...it's actually about extracting as much money from the population as humanly possible regardless of economic class. This is readily apparent with Obamacare with its mandate and tax penalties which are regressive since the lower and middle classes will be hit hardest. This is something progressives apparently like to rationalize or ignore as 'the end justifies the means' in their worldview.
In my opinion, Obamacare needs to proceed as the Democrats planned...and the young and low/middle class folks need to see, smell and eat the shit sandwich they've been handed first hand. The reality is that ACA is just an absraction for most people (especially the poor and uneducated)...they won't fully understand what it means to them until they see the escalating ramifications up close and personal. At that point they will realize they've got a knife in their back and who put it there, they won't be fooled by the lying that is bound to follow...that it was all somehow the Republican's fault. Anyway, I digress.
The liberals got the huge tax increase from "the rich" they wanted on 1/1/13 except that it didn't extend into the middle class as deeply as they wanted. A few months later we discover that they aren't satisfied with what they got and now want another $1T from "the rich" as seen in their proposed budget.
Anybody that know much about how eceonomies work understand that during deep recession you don't do 2 things: (1) cut spending and (2) increase taxes. You say liberals are frustrated with conservatives...let me assure you that the feeling is mutual. Now that we've been out of the recession for several years most economists say they we need to start thinking about raising taxes and lowering spending. Republicans and Democrats just see one and not the other. Both are wrong for being so myopic in my opinion.
There is so much in your post I want to address but I've got to get some work done. But I will say one thing...you frame everything with a huge dose of partisan bias. The sooner you realize that, the better chance you'll have of actually thinking through the issues and facts from a more rational perspective.
And they will destroy the credit rating of America and create an international depression to get it......... NICE.....
America should "tea party" the Tea Party, tar and feather the rats and throw 'em into Boston Harbor.
Your confusion probably stems from your inability to recognize that when I said "Statistics. How do they work?" I was referring to statistical probability so when you replied "however you want them to work" you were in effect actually saying "statistical probability works however you want it to work."You really are a try hard. Trying hard at a straw man argument. Yet still failing miserably.
A: The National Debt is the total amount of money owed by the government; the federal budget deficit is the yearly amount by which spending exceeds revenue. Add up all the deficits (and subtract those few budget surpluses we've had) for the past 200+ years and you'll get the current National Debt.
Politicians love to crow "The deficit is down! The deficit is down!" like it's a great accomplishment. Don't be fooled. Reducing the deficit just means we're adding less to the Debt this year than we did last year. Big deal -- we're still adding to the Debt. When are we going to start seeing the Debt actually go down?
Your confusion probably stems from your inability to recognize that when I said "Statistics. How do they work?" I was referring to statistical probability so when you replied "however you want them to work" you were in effect actually saying "statistical probability works however you want it to work."
Yes, your inability to recognize that aggregate polling is based on statistical probablities, not cherry-picked statistics.Inability to recognize. ROFL. Love how you put it that way. As if its my fault because you can't be clear or love moving goal posts which is the more likely scenario here.
If this was your original meaning, perhaps the post following your original on this side topic could have said that. Since it didn't and you've waited until now to move those goal posts, I think I'm able to recognize just fine, that you are full of shit.
Yes, your inability to recognize that aggregate polling is based on statistical probablities, not cherry-picked statistics.
Statistical probablility works the way it works. It doesn't work however you want it to work.You are pretty dense and now your doing exactly what you accused me of doing. An Irrelevant semantics win. Calling it statistical probability doesn't change anything.
Statistical probablility works the way it works. It doesn't work however you want it to work.
Sure it does. The quote you posted was from a guy that doesn't understand how polling and the following statistical analysis works, so he portrays it as a load of horse shit.Keep derping it up, its pretty entertaining. None of this has anything to do with the quote I posted.
Sure it does. The quote you posted was from a guy that doesn't understand how polling and the following statistical analysis works, so he portrays it as a load of horse shit.
Utter bullshit. Repubs held majorities in the HOR & the Senate from Jan 2003 until Jan 2007, and the White House from Jan 2001 to Jan 2009, the period of time when the housing bubble went nuts.
They sure as Hell didn't let the Dem majority stop them on much of anything else they wanted at the time, so they obviously didn't want to deal wit the GSE's very much at all. They merely created political cover for saps like you.
Remember Dubya touting the Ownership Society from the Bully pulpit? The pics of his regulators taking mini-chainsaws to piles of banking paperwork? Moves by the SEC that let the shadow banking system leverage up to 30:1 & higher?
How about the pundits & prognosticators of the Right? Yeh, these guys-
http://economicsofcontempt.blogspot.com/2008/07/official-list-of-punditsexperts-who.html
The problem with Righties is that they think they get to invent their own facts, ignore the real ones.
What are these prosperous times that Bush had? Does nobody remember the market crash of 2001? The "prosperity" that followed was imaginary, built on unrealistic housing prices, and erased by the housing crash.
Bush fucked us in many, many ways, but let's not pretend we had some roaring economy. It was all phony money.
Yet that data was collected the same way it has always been collected, and the statistical analysis of that data accurately predicted the future.He isn't talking about the math behind it or the analysis whatsoever. He is talking about how the data is collected, or more accurately who its collected from.
Its not exactly sound to rely on statistics about a subject that is generated from data that was collected from people who don't know or give two shits about that subject. Again, given the data, the statistical analysis may be sound, but drawing any conclusions from that is pretty silly.
Someday, you'll figure it out, today isn't looking so good. On that note, I'm not derailing this any further. If its not clear enough for you, so be it.
Yea, I know they don't give a flying fuck about America, they WANT it to go down in flames. Hey as long as the lunatics in their district vote for them, everything is kosher.
And our current "prosperity"?
And what is your solution to this rather inconvenient "voting" stuff? The bottom line is that it appears that the Reps are actually representing their constituents which is generally rather rare these days.