Sup echo chamber -- Waiting for Gov't Checks Threaed

[Mr Wiggl3s]

Well, i did it. I vote Obama. I was promised socialism and redistribution of wealth. So far all I've gotten is industry reforms.

I'm waiting of my government issued food and checks.

Anyone wanna chat aboot :q:q:q:q while we wait?

 

[cammerfe]

Doo Da---Doo Da

Camptown racetrack three miles...

KS

 

[Aquabrit]

I'm waiting of my government issued food and checks.

I'm waiting for Obama to grant me amnesty, so that I can avoid paying $675 for my naturalization application this month! :lol:

 

[Calabrio]

YouTube- Obama Is Going To Pay For My Gas And Mortgage!!!

 

[topher5150]

I wonder what was going through the camera guys head as he was recording this. Hell even she realized that Obama was running on a socialist platform

 

[rayner601]

Here's something to read while waiting.....

http://thefloraharvester.blogspot.com/2010/07/greenwood-cottonmouth-company-worker.html



Local Sandwich Shop owner, John Doe, recently moved to Greenwood from California. Doe said he has worked in human resources off and on for 15 years in the restaurant industry. Adjusting to employee behavior in the Delta has been difficult, he said.

"Within five months of being here, I've had three cooks walk out on me. This was after I had either increased their hours or given them a raise - or both - because they were doin' a good job. It's hard to find good employees here," he said.

"The third time it happened - yesterday - I stopped LaQuincia in the parking lot and said, 'Hey! What's wrong? I gave you a raise. Was it not enough?' And man, she went off on my a**," Doe said.

The employee went through a five-minute laundry list of various government benefits, such as childcare, healthcare and subsidized housing, that she would lose if she earned more money. Doe said she acted as if he was trying to bankrupt her.

"I apologized and offered to take it back," he said, "but she stormed off. I guess I've learned my lesson.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Well, i did it. I vote Obama. I was promised socialism and redistribution of wealth. So far all I've gotten is industry reforms.

So you all now admit that "socialism" and "redistribution of wealth" is NOT what Obama has been doing. Thanks. Got it.

As for the title of Cal's video, totally taken it out of context. She did NOT say that "Obama was going to pay for my gas and mortgage", what she said was that with him in the White House, she "won't have to worry about paying for her gas or mortgage", presumably because of better education and jobs, her financial future would be more secure enabling her to better afford filling her own tank and paying her own mortgage. Typical distortion and smear by the right. But par for the course on this site, pepetuated by its own "moderators".

 

[Calabrio]

So you all now admit that "socialism" and "redistribution of wealth" is NOT what Obama has been doing. Thanks. Got it.

No one said that redistribution of wealth would be his ONLY priority. His agenda is more ambitious than just that.
I'm not sure what groups, or where they are, will be the benefactors of any ultimate redistribution.
Poor Peggy might eventually get screwed over again.

As for the title of Cal's video, totally taken it out of context. She did NOT say that "Obama was going to pay for my gas and mortgage", what she said was that with him in the White House, she "won't have to worry about paying for her gas or mortgage", presumably because of better education and jobs, her financial future would be more secure enabling her to better afford filling her own tank and paying her own mortgage.

How's that working out for her?
How's that economic recovery working out for all of us?
You know. If I help (Obama), he’s gonna help me.”

Remember Henriette Hughes?
YouTube- Henrietta Hughes & The "I Love You Barack" Lady

I guess she meant, presumably, that Obama would create an atmosphere where she'd suddenly be better educated and have a better job enabling her to help herself by the end of the appearance...

Typical distortion and smear by the right.

Not at all, the only distortion here is your sorry effort to explain it away.
Do you have the "full context" available to you? Did I omit something or intentionally pick the unflattering video to make her look worse?
No, because that video is full context available.
And her words speak for them self.

But par for the course on this site, pepetuated by its own "moderators".

Don't let the door hit you in the ass.....

Regarding the woman affectionally known as "Peggy the Moocher" in the video I first posted.
She lives here in Sarasota, Fl. Henriette is a little further South.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Don't let the door hit you in the ass.....

What's that? Are you asking me to leave? If you don't like me around here pushing facts and truth in your face, why don't you ban me? Oh, that's right, if you did, it'd only prove my point.

Don't worry, I don't stop by very often, only for amusement when I'm REALLY bored.

How's that working out for her?
How's that economic recovery working out for all of us?
You know. If I help (Obama), he’s gonna help me.”

Quite well, thank you. Job losses have turned into job gains. Stock market recovery still going strong. 2nd straight summer where the price of gas isn't pushing $4/gal. Projected deficits still primarily driven by BuSh agenda, NOT Obama's. I could go on and on but what's the point? I'm only talking to a brick wall thats been brainwashed by Beck/Hannity/Limbaugh, who hate this country so much they'd work to undermine EVERYTHING GOOD Obama / Dems are trying to do so that it appears they are "damaging this country" so that the GOBP will win back power.

 

[shagdrum]

Johnny, that has to be about the most absurd economic "analysis" I have ever seen. It is nothing but partisan posturing masquerading as objective economic analysis (which is typical for them). The assumptions behind that analysis no respectable economist would make. It is rooted in static analysis', not dynamic analysis'. In other words, it assumes that people will not change their behavior in reaction to economic changes imposed by the government (unless it is convenient for the argument being made). Any analysis making that assumption is worthless. Nothing in that lines up at all with the basic laws of supply and demand. Not that you understand economics enough to realize that.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Johnny, that has to be about the most absurd economic "analysis" I have ever seen. It is nothing but partisan posturing masquerading as objective economic analysis. Nothing in that lines up at all with the basic laws of supply and demand. Not that you understand economics enough to realize that.

SURE it is, because you SAID SO.

Care to offer a rebuttal that doesn't consist of your dismissal? Or would you rather merely hide behind your self-proclaimed "expertise" in the areas of economics without actually putting them on display (again)?

 

[shagdrum]

And give your lies more consideration that you have ever given any opposing point of view on this forum? Why extend you a courtesy you never extend anyone else?

FYI: I did make specific, disprovable statements concerning that "study".

Oh, and Johnny, thanks for being the prototypical example of what this thread is talking about.

 

[foxpaws]

Johnny, that has to be about the most absurd economic "analysis" I have ever seen. It is nothing but partisan posturing masquerading as objective economic analysis (which is typical for them). The assumptions behind that analysis no respectable economist would make. It is rooted in static analysis', not dynamic analysis'. In other words, it assumes that people will not change their behavior in reaction to economic changes imposed by the government (unless it is convenient for the argument being made). Any analysis making that assumption is worthless. Nothing in that lines up at all with the basic laws of supply and demand. Not that you understand economics enough to realize that.

So what behavioral changes aren't being taken into account? And shag - from this point forward this can also be used when we question your economic analysis that you post.

Do you have a report that factors in your 'fuzzy' behavioral changes? Without that, the best we have to go on is Johnny B's, at least it is using available hard data.

How does fuzzy behavioral changes get factored in? Is there a correct, and standardized formula for that? Do you have the link to von Mises that shows the accepted 'right' way to factor in behavioral data so that you can skew what appears to be positive data for the 'opposing' side into 'bad economic forecasts'?

 

[shagdrum]

So what behavioral changes aren't being taken into account? And shag - from this point forward this can also be used when we question your economic analysis that you post.

Economic analysis is, at it's heart, a science aimed at understanding human behavior. It rests on the notion that humans will adapt in certain ways to changing economic circumstances.

That is the heart of the difference between static and dynamic analysis.

Do you have a report that factors in your 'fuzzy' behavioral changes? Without that, the best we have to go on is Johnny B's, at least it is using available hard data.

That is some twisted logic. No matter how obviously fabricated a "study" is, if there is no alternative info to go on, you have to assume even a blatantly biased and flawed study to be true.

Can you say "Moving the goalposts"?

Do you have the link to von Mises that shows the accepted 'right' way to factor in behavioral data so that you can skew what appears to be positive data for the 'opposing' side into 'bad economic forecasts'?

Gotta keep promoting those false narratives, eh.

EVERY economic school of thought assumes that human behavior changes in response to economic changes.

Do you really not understand even basic economics, or are you simply looking to delegitimize by any means necessary. Again.

 

[foxpaws]

Economic analysis is, at it's heart, a science aimed at understanding human behavior. It rests on the notion that humans will adapt in certain ways to changing economic circumstances.

That is the heart of the difference between static and dynamic analysis.

Systematic approach to determining the optimum use of scarce resources, involving comparison of two or more alternatives in achieving a specific objective under the given assumptions and constraints. It takes into account the opportunity costs of resources employed and attempts to measure in monetary terms the private and social costs and benefits of a project to the community or economy.
​

Don't see a lot there about human behavioral analysis shag... got a better definition?

That is some twisted logic. No matter how obviously fabricated a "study" is, if there is no alternative info to go on, you have to assume even a blatantly biased and flawed study to be true.

Can you say "Moving the goalposts"?

So, once again shag - you have nothing else - right?

Not a goalpost has been moved - Johnny B posted what appears to be some interesting numbers - now you need to post your opposite numbers that take into account human behavior, (more recent than your Heritage 9 year old junk). You claim that there should be an alternative - so why don't you just provide those happy little numbers for us... Johnny B doesn't need to provide them - he has stated his case... so now it is your turn, and then we can weigh the options. Only you seem to know how human behavior will affect the raw numbers - so, enlighten us, rather than condescend to us shag...

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

And give your lies more consideration that you have ever given any opposing point of view on this forum? Why extend you a courtesy you never extend anyone else?

"Ever"? "Never"? Are you sure you want to use those terms? Out of the 1900+ posts I've made on this site NOT ONE gave an opposing viewpoint consideration worthy of further debate?? If so, you've just painted yourself a dispicable, dishonest LIAR. You know as well as I do that is not true, in fact YOU and I have engaged in several lengthy discussions where I've given your opposing viewpoint much consideration and thoughtful response. Only when your insidious impetulance overwhelms my patience do I sometimes become dismissive of you. Your warm welcome upon my initial recent return here, and your tone thus far indicate that this thread will soon see a similar fate.

FYI: I did make specific, disprovable statements concerning that "study".

Oh sure, now that you are playing that immature game of going back to edit your post AFTER I've replied to it so that it looks like I'm ignoring this. How dishonest (but typical) of you. But yet, I'll humor you:

It is nothing but partisan posturing masquerading as objective economic analysis (which is typical for them). The assumptions behind that analysis no respectable economist would make. It is rooted in static analysis', not dynamic analysis'. In other words, it assumes that people will not change their behavior in reaction to economic changes imposed by the government (unless it is convenient for the argument being made). Any analysis making that assumption is worthless. Nothing in that lines up at all with the basic laws of supply and demand. Not that you understand economics enough to realize that.

That is all you got? A nine year old retort from Heritage completely unrelated to this topic, who themselves have been shown to make partisan assumptions?

In constructing its baseline, Heritage partly assumes its own conclusion. The baseline projections developed by Heritage generally resemble CBPP’s, with one crucial difference. Heritage assumes that regular discretionary spending (other than war costs and stimulus funds) will grow at the same rate as the GDP over the next 10 years. In contrast, we assume that such appropriations will grow somewhat more slowly in the 10-year budget window because they will grow with inflation; this is the standard, widely accepted baseline assumption. Heritage’s decision to scrap normal baseline practices and assume higher levels of discretionary spending boosts such spending by more than a full percentage point of GDP by the end of the ten-year period and adds to interest costs as well. Heritage then uses this increased spending it assumes to buttress its claim that it is excessive spending growth that causes the deficit. In theory, policymakers might choose to increase discretionary spending to keep pace with GDP, but that is highly unlikely in these straitened times. And that is not how the Budget Enforcement Act, CBO, and the Office of Management and Budget define “current policy” when they make their baseline budget projections for the coming decade.

So CBPP uses asumptions for future predictions that are consistent w/ the BEA, CBO and OMB, and Heritage cherry-picks an assumption to bias their results to bolster their supporter's party position.

Oh, and Johnny, thanks for being the prototypical example of what this thread is talking about.

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[shagdrum]

Systematic approach to determining the optimum use of scarce resources, involving comparison of two or more alternatives in achieving a specific objective under the given assumptions and constraints. It takes into account the opportunity costs of resources employed and attempts to measure in monetary terms the private and social costs and benefits of a project to the community or economy.
​

Don't see a lot there about human behavioral analysis shag... got a better definition?

Is that the best you can do? Cherry pick? Again?

You only show your ignorance of what you are talking about; namely economics.

The social sciences are the fields of academic scholarship that explore aspects of human society

Economics is the social science that is concerned with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services

"Production, distribution and consumption" are all human behavior. It is that behavior that economics studies.

The behavior of people is studied by the academic disciplines of psychiatry, psychology, social work, sociology, economics, and anthropology.

now you need to post your opposite numbers that take into account human behavior

If someone says 2+2=100, that has to be accepted as fact unless and until someone can articulate not only why that is false, but also what the correct answer would be? That is absurd. Weather you choose to admit it or not, you are moving the goalposts.

Moving the goalposts, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. In other words, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt.

Only you seem to know how human behavior will affect the raw numbers

And yet I never implied anything of the sort...

 

[shagdrum]

Johnny, nothing in your last post actually confronts what I said. It misrepresents some of it, and attempts to circumvent other parts of it, but you never actually respond to the points I raised; instead attempting to simply delegitimize instead of honestly and civily discussing ideas on their merits.

Thanks, again for proving that thread right. Thanks for demonstrating why no one takes you at all seriously.

And finally, thanks for trolling. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

 

[foxpaws]

Is that the best you can do? Cherry pick? Again?

You only show your ignorance of what you are talking about; namely economics.

The social sciences are the fields of academic scholarship that explore aspects of human society

Economics is the social science that is concerned with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services

"Production, distribution and consumption" are all human behavior. It is that behavior that economics studies.

The behavior of people is studied by the academic disciplines of psychiatry, psychology, social work, sociology, economics, and anthropology.

So great - give us the social science breakdown on the numbers that Johnny posted - I keep asking, you keep tossing out junk. Numbers shag - not fuzzy stuff... I am sure since you live and breathe by economic analysis - you can get into the numbers part - Or from this point forward do we question all economic studies because their analysis of human behavior could be flawed - because it doesn't 'allow' for your exact viewpoint of what human behavior will be present in the year 2019...

If someone says 2+2=100, that has to be accepted as fact unless and until someone can articulate not only why that is false, but also what the correct answer would be? That is absurd. Weather you choose to admit it or not, you are moving the goalposts.

But, we are not discussing 'math' - we are discussing projecting costs into the future. So, since you want to inject the fuzzy 'human behavior' into the mix - please do. Don't forget to add in the possibility of Armageddon happening, WWIII occurring, aliens landing, and that time travel will be 'online' in 2015...

Moving the goalposts, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. In other words, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt.

I have not raised the bar - I have asked you to provide additional numbers that allow for your 'human behavior' equation, so we can compare them to Johnny Bs numbers. Until that time, I will take his numbers as being correct, because you don't have any opposing studies, just some sort of blind accusation that without human behavior allowances, Johnny's numbers are all bad.

And yet I never implied anything of the sort...

So, post them shag... Or at least show some sort of something that would show where the numbers could be skewed incorrectly - are the war numbers wrong, are the tarp numbers wrong, what is 'wrong'?

 

[shagdrum]

Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
​

I never made some vague "fuzzy" allusion to human behavior as you are intimating. The context was very specific; static vs. dynamic analysis (something which has been discussed on this forum before; a fact you are well aware of).

To suggest that, "from this point forward do we question all economic studies because their analysis of human behavior could be flawed" is to sensationalize and distort what I was saying. You know better yet you are being intentionally and unnecessarily hyperbolic and contentious.

Being purposely provocative like that only serves to bait those espousing opposing views which serves your ultimate goal of delegitimizing those views.

Using the "divide and conquer" technique, s/he manipulates one group opinion against the other. This is accomplished by manipulating those who are out of step to appear "ridiculous, unknowledgeable, inarticulate, or dogmatic." S/He wants certain members of the group to become angry, thereby forcing tensions to accelerate. The facilitator is well trained in psychological manipulation. S/He is able to predict the reactions of each group member. Individuals in opposition to the policy or program will be shut out of the group.
​

I see no reason to engage you under some illusion that you are actually interested in an honest discussion. If you cannot honestly discuss ideas on their merits you are wasting everyone's time.

Stay Classy!

 

[shagdrum]

You know as well as I do that is not true, in fact YOU and I have engaged in several lengthy discussions where I've given your opposing viewpoint much consideration and thoughtful response.

:bowrofl::bowrofl::bowrofl:

Thanks for the laugh.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Johnny, nothing in your last post actually confronts what I said. It misrepresents some of it, and attempts to circumvent other parts of it, but you never actually respond to the points I raised; instead attempting to simply delegitimize instead of honestly and civily discussing ideas on their merits.

YOU made the claim:

The assumptions behind that analysis no respectable economist would make.

....in a limp-wristed attempt to dismiss CBPP's analysis, and offered NO substantiating evidence whatsoever other than from a 9-year old, unrelated topic from a source who has been shown to make the same type of biased assumptions you accused CBPP of making. I countered with the fact that several other independent "respectable economist" organizations use the same baseline assumptions as CBPP. It is up to YOU to substantiate your statement w/ evidence or facts. Put-up or shut-up.

Thanks, again for proving that thread right. Thanks for demonstrating why no one takes you at all seriously.

PROJECTION!!!

And finally, thanks for trolling. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Ah, as always, when you've lost the debate, you resort to insults. Whats wrong, can't stand the heat?

Both Fox and I have asked you to back-up your CLAIM and you have failed repeatedly to do so. Thanks for playing, YOU LOSE. AGAIN.

 

[fossten]

SURE it is, because you SAID SO.

Care to offer a rebuttal that doesn't consist of your dismissal? Or would you rather merely hide behind your self-proclaimed "expertise" in the areas of economics without actually putting them on display (again)?

Wow what a great comeback. Tom Sawyer would be so proud.

Let us know when you graduate from Junior High.

 

[fossten]

Ah, as always, when you've lost the debate, you resort to insults. Whats wrong, can't stand the heat?

PROJECTION!

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

PROJECTION!

Thanks for the non-contribution to this thread. Now go back into hiding behind Cal's skirt, little boy.