Hypocrisy and Right vs. Left Wing

[rlg94086]

Maybe we aren’t.

It would help if “everyone” actually knew what a recession is. We might be in one, but you don’t really officially know until after two straight declining quarters. The president recognizes the fact that we are in a slowdown, but there is nothing wrong with stating that he doesn’t believe we are in a recession. It isn’t a denial of reality - it is a recognition that the slowdown may not be a recession.

 

[BamaRider]

All I know if we have one, I’m not gonna particpate in it.

 

[BamaRider]

And because I got time on my hands I found this quote by SoCal made a few posts back-

Humor is difficult to define, but it is generally divided into different types. A clever play on words, or a sly reference to something topical would be called ‘high brow’.

Do what? Humor is difficult to define? It is? If its funny I laugh, if its not I don’t, so that makes it non humorus in my book. But we are talking about libs, who tend to worry about alooooooot of stuff. Now fleecing working folks’ paychecks to install socialized medicine would be funny if some folk weren’t serious about doin it!

 

[ribozyme]

And because I got time on my hands I found this quote by SoCal made a few posts back-

Do what? Humor is difficult to define? It is? If its funny I laugh, if its not I don’t, so that makes it non humorus in my book. But we are talking about libs, who tend to worry about alooooooot of stuff. Now fleecing working folks’ paychecks to install socialized medicine would be funny if some folk weren’t serious about doin it!

Well, I guess we liberals are more conscientious about the world. Maybe that is because liberalism emphasizes empiricism.

And yes, I am a typically liberal. Read the links in my current signature as it will show how worried I am. I am worried that it might not be possible to sustain a civilization that uses 15 trillion Watts (joules per second). (This averages out to 2,000 joules per person on Earth. To put this in perspective, it is approximately the amount of energy required to heat 480 mL of water (at 298 K as the specific heat of water varies by temperature) by 1 K (1.8 F). This is the average energy expended by every human* per second*. Of course, people in the developed world use more.)
It should be obvious for anyone who is intellectually honest that this Raubwirtschaft on the biosphere cannot last beyond the mid 21st century. (We might find the means to solve the natural resource problems though.)

No wonder why I am worried!

 

[vern_humphrey]

You say these things, but I am at a loss at what they are based on.

The fact that poverty has bounced around between 11 and 14% since the Great Sociey kicked in.

The fact that there are multi-generational families on welfare and in poverty.

The fact that schools in the “poverty pockets” have such a high dropout rate.

If we look at the actual graph, we can see that poverty declined in the immediate aftermath of Johnson’s policies, but then leveled off. Since the rate did not significantly change, one might assert that there is no evidence that Johnson’s policies helped, but there is also no evidence that they hurt, as you claim.

If we look at the graph, we see that there was a slight up-tick immediately following the early implementation of the Great Society, and that poverty has remained between 11 and 15% ever since, moving up a tick or tow, down a tick or two, but always in that band range.

Now we see a basic ‘saw tooth’ pattern, a decrease under Clinton, an increase under Bush, but there does appear to be a ‘floor’ of sorts. But it is illogical to blame the floor on Johnson or his policies, since much of his safety net has long since been abandoned, or twisted into corporate welfare.

And where’s your proof that happened, or that somehow it became “corporate welfare?”

One dangerous thing to do is downplay the meaning of ‘small swings’ in rate. The argument ‘things are only a little worse under Bush’ is a relative one. Compared to the huge post WW-II shift in prosperity, it is small. But if you look at the top of the chart, which shows millions of people effected, you get a glimpse of what those ‘small’ changes mean in true human cost.

If you look at the top of the chart, you see the results of locking families in poverty, generation after generation.

Now here’s a challenge for you – name the Great Society social justice programs that get people OUT of poverty and make them self-sufficient.

 

[Lisa_Ann_H]

we have been told to follow God’s plan. We must be generous. It is also part of God’s plan for the poor to improve themselves so they too can become generous as well. Anyone who receives charity should give back also.

 

[vern_humphrey]

we have been told to follow God’s plan. We must be generous. It is also part of God’s plan for the poor to improve themselves so they too can become generous as well. Anyone who receives charity should give back also.

Unfortunately, we are not following God’s plan.

Instead of charity, where we give willingly of ourselves, we expect the government to do it with money taken by force of law. That money is used to create programs that lock the poor in poverty. It is used to create “housing projects” that concentrate the poor in areas where they cannot get jobs.

 

[Al_Masetti]

There is another issue that directly bears on the topic of this thread. I would post a link, but it’s from a paid Web site. Perhaps someone can find a free link. So, apologies to all, but I’m posting the whole (brief) article / letter … and it’s about the politicization of science.: … and this is another of those “Right vs. Left” debating points.

---

Why I Left Greenpeace

By PATRICK MOORE [co-founder of Greenpeace]
April 22, 2008; Page A23 [Wall Street Journal]

In 1971 an environmental and antiwar ethic was taking root in Canada, and I chose to participate. As I completed a Ph.D. in ecology, I combined my science background with the strong media skills of my colleagues. In keeping with our pacifist views, we started Greenpeace.

But I later learned that the environmental movement is not always guided by science. As we celebrate Earth Day today, this is a good lesson to keep in mind.

At first, many of the causes we championed, such as opposition to nuclear testing and protection of whales, stemmed from our scientific knowledge of nuclear physics and marine biology. But after six years as one of five directors of Greenpeace International, I observed that none of my fellow directors had any formal science education. They were either political activists or environmental entrepreneurs. Ultimately, a trend toward abandoning scientific objectivity in favor of political agendas forced me to leave Greenpeace in 1986.

The breaking point was a Greenpeace decision to support a world-wide ban on chlorine. Science shows that adding chlorine to drinking water was the biggest advance in the history of public health, virtually eradicating water-borne diseases such as cholera. And the majority of our pharmaceuticals are based on chlorine chemistry. Simply put, chlorine is essential for our health.

My former colleagues ignored science and supported the ban, forcing my departure. Despite science concluding no known health risks – and ample benefits – from chlorine in drinking water, Greenpeace and other environmental groups have opposed its use for more than 20 years.

Opposition to the use of chemicals such as chlorine is part of a broader hostility to the use of industrial chemicals. Rachel Carson’s 1962 book, “Silent Spring,” had a significant impact on many pioneers of the green movement. The book raised concerns, many rooted in science, about the risks and negative environmental impact associated with the overuse of chemicals. But the initial healthy skepticism hardened into a mindset that treats virtually all industrial use of chemicals with suspicion.

Sadly, Greenpeace has evolved into an organization of extremism and politically motivated agendas. Its antichlorination campaign failed, only to be followed by a campaign against polyvinyl chloride.

Greenpeace now has a new target called phthalates (pronounced thal-ates). These are chemical compounds that make plastics flexible. They are found in everything from hospital equipment such as IV bags and tubes, to children’s toys and shower curtains. They are among the most practical chemical compounds in existence.

Phthalates are the new bogeyman. These chemicals make easy targets since they are hard to understand and difficult to pronounce. Commonly used phthalates, such as diisononyl phthalate (D(name removed by moderator)), have been used in everyday products for decades with no evidence of human harm. D(name removed by moderator) is the primary plasticizer used in toys. It has been tested by multiple government and independent evaluators, and found to be safe.

Despite this, a political campaign that rejects science is pressuring companies and the public to reject the use of D(name removed by moderator). Retailers such as Wal-Mart and Toys “R” Us are switching to phthalate-free products to avoid public pressure.

It may be tempting to take this path of least resistance, but at what cost? None of the potential replacement chemicals have been tested and found safe to the degree that D(name removed by moderator) has. The Consumer Product Safety Commission recently cautioned, “If D(name removed by moderator) is to be replaced in children’s products . . . the potential risks of substitutes must be considered. Weaker or more brittle plastics might break and result in a choking hazard. Other plasticizers might not be as well studied as D(name removed by moderator).”

The hysteria over D(name removed by moderator) began in Europe and Israel, both of which instituted bans. Yet earlier this year, Israel realized the error of putting politics before science, and reinstated D(name removed by moderator).

The European Union banned the use of phthalates in toys prior to completion of a comprehensive risk assessment on D(name removed by moderator). That assessment ultimately concluded that the use of D(name removed by moderator) in infant toys poses no measurable risk.

The antiphthalate activists are running a campaign of fear to implement their political agenda. They have seen success in California, with a state ban on the use of phthalates in infant products, and are pushing for a national ban. This fear campaign merely distracts the public from real environmental threats.

We all have a responsibility to be environmental stewards. But that stewardship requires that science, not political agendas, drive our public policy.

Mr. Moore, co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace, is chairman and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies.

 

[SoCalRC]

Not exaclty. I *earned * (foregin concept to many in this country) my pension and healthcare benefits by working for 26 years,

You are, seemingly legitimately, missing the point. The job was created collectively, for the common good, and was paid for, collectively, by society.

The statement that many people do not understand earning and work is un Christian, and demonstrably untrue. US workers, particularly those at the bottom of our earning brackets, work harder (hours per week, productivity, etc.) than virtually anyone else on earth. However, unlike a civil servant such as yourself, they generally do so with lower wages, no pension, and no health benefits.

But the truth be told I loved the fire dept and would have done the job for free.

And you wonder why I at least broach the concept your requiring financial stewardship?

The humor refereed to here is the fact I could go down to local whatever office, whine and moan loud enough to some govt paper shuffler and leave outta there with a monthly disability check, a total scam becuse I’m about as fit as ya can get.

No, that wasn’t the funny part, in fact, it wasn’t a part at all. You are confusing right wing hate speech with reality again. The ones primarily defrauding US taxpapers are slimebag corporations abusing massive no-bid contracts. The GAO, and various public watchdog groups, all note that the sort of fraud and abuse that you are gnashing your teeth about is incredibly small.

Other notes: If you are middle class, you most likely own a home. What, exactly, is the mortgage interest tax credit if not a public ‘handout’ to encourage your standard of living? Like your job, it is a collective investment, allowing people, such as yourself, to accumulate some generational weath. There are lots of examples of this, but this is one that anyone middle class tax payer can normally comprehend. If you legitimately cannot grasp this concept, I am sorry for you.

As far as your rant about ‘socialized medicine’, we have socialized medicine in this country, it is called Medicare. It take on the most expensive segment of the population. And, right now, it is the only thing dampenig the already explosive 10-18% infalation in the private system. Interestingly, it used to substantially outperform the private system in cost->care, until we elected those ‘borrow and spend’ Republicans. They massively expanded it with Plan D, which, thanks to provisions to protect drug company profits, has done nothing to help the average cost for drugs seniors spend, but is costing taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.

As for Vietnam, thank you for confirming my math. We could correct your vague recollections, but there is no need. I pointed out that, although you were questioning my love for country, I had volunteered for service in a war I did not support. You responded, ‘what could you do, you were too young’. Now that we both agree that you were old enough to volunteer for service in a time of war, but chose not to, I can return to my original point.

When the nation went to war, I volunteered. You did not.

You were a career civil servant, and retired early on a taxpayer funded pension. I grew up in a house with no running water, started my working career, literally, shoveling excrement. I’m now poised to pay the estate tax, and am working past normal retirement age.

I’ve volunteered in war, lived in legitimate poverty, and built up businesses that employ a good many people. Why, precisely, are you better equipped to know about love and service to country, the realities of being poor, or the realities of economic growth? Because an overweight drug convict with an apparent taste for underage Dominican prostitutes told you?

The one thing it seems you would be an expert on is ‘government employement’ and ‘living on the public’s dime’ - but your comments their are unfathomable. You profess to be hardworking, everyone else is lazy and worthless paper shuffler (see your comment above).

Has it escaped your attention that in right wing world, public servants like yourself are “part of the problem”? Rush once pointed out that real Americans don’t get to retire early with health care plans and a pension - it is just because of the corrupt public sector unions and civil service laws that make it impossible to fire people…

How bizarre to accept that dismissive world view without realizing that you, yourself, are included in it.

 

[SoCalRC]

If we look at the graph, we see that there was a slight up-tick immediately following the early implementation of the Great Society,

How do you find that? The ‘centerpiece’ was the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. The tax cut that Kennedy had proposed was also enacted at that time.

Poverty rates continued to decline at essentially the same rate as before up until about 1969, when they leveled off. Even if the data showed an ‘up’ (which it does not), we’d have no way of proving rather it was, say, the tax cuts, or the policies that caused it.

And where’s your proof that happened, or that somehow it became “corporate welfare?”

The General Accounting Office, the Department of the Treasury, and the Federal Budget. We spend more on military contracts that the GAO and CBO have identified as involving “significant fraud” and orther wrong doing than we do on all surviing Johnson programs (except Medicare).

If you look at the top of the chart, you see the results of locking families in poverty, generation after generation.

No, you see that, because you start with absolute belief and then fit the data. If, as you propose, Johnson’s programs lock people into poverty, then defunding and disbanding them should result in decreases in poverty. But if we look at the chart we can see that cuts in the programs coincide with periods of increasing poverty, not the other way around. This does not prove that the programs help, but it certainly makes your hypothesis highly suspect.

Now here’s a challenge for you – name the Great Society social justice programs that get people OUT of poverty and make them self-sufficient.

An interesting challenge, since I did not profess that the programs had worked, only that there was no real evidence to suggest they were a significant causal factor in creating or maintaining poverty.

However, I think a few do still seem to have merit. For example, Medicare has, until the disasterous Bush/GOP Plan D, has outperformed the private medical system in terms of cost control and administrative overhead. At the same time, it has been of significant help in maintaining a middle class. Given the staggering inflation in medical care over the last few decades, Medicare has undoubtedly allowed many folks here to do things like live in homes and send their kids to college instead of paying for grandparents’ healthcare.

The Higher Education Act of 1965 also seems to have been a wise investment for the country and a boon to a middle class. It helped rise the level of our universities, making us a world leader in modern technology, and it also helped provide access to college to many students who, otherwise, would not have been able to afford it. All the data we have shows that significantly improved their lifetime incomes and economic contributions to society.

I also happen to think that the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 was a good idea, though it principally improved education in rural and less prosperous states. It is focussed on the idea that an education is the best tool one can provide someone escape poverty.

The infrastructure changes are more debatable, though I think that the Department of Transportation, finally authorized in 1966 has, in general, been a good thing for health, safety, and prosperity.

And, I happen to think that PBS and NPR, though both now vilified by the right, have been good investments. Along the same lines, I also think that the National Endowment for the Humanities (not to be confused with the NEA) has proven to be an overall wise investment.

 

[vern_humphrey]

How do you find that? The ‘centerpiece’ was the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. The tax cut that Kennedy had proposed was also enacted at that time.

Poverty rates continued to decline at essentially the same rate as before up until about 1969, when they leveled off. Even if the data showed an ‘up’ (which it does not), we’d have no way of proving rather it was, say, the tax cuts, or the policies that caused it.

The Great Society went well beyond that. And, there is a lag effect – bureaucracies do not spring into existance overnight, and begin their counter-productive acts at full force the following morning.

The General Accounting Office, the Department of the Treasury, and the Federal Budget. We spend more on military contracts that the GAO and CBO have identified as involving “significant fraud” and orther wrong doing than we do on all surviing Johnson programs (except Medicare).

Oh, we got what we paid for in the Great Society – and what we paid for was a permanent underclass, locked in poverty.

 

[BamaRider]

ok where do we start today? LOL

Originally Posted by BamaRider
The humor refereed to here is the fact I could go down to local whatever office, whine and moan loud enough to some govt paper shuffler and leave outta there with a monthly disability check, a total scam becuse I’m about as fit as ya can get.

So you said this-

The statement that many people do not understand earning and work is un Christian, and demonstrably untrue. US workers, particularly those at the bottom of our earning brackets, work harder (hours per week, productivity, etc.) than virtually anyone else on earth. However, unlike a civil servant such as yourself, they generally do so with lower wages, no pension, and no health benefits.

You deny 10% of all disability claims are bogus (US govt stats) and cost 25 billion dollars a year? I didn’t day a word about anyone in the condition you desribe, God Bless them, but if those folks hope to improve their situation, it will be on their own devices, not the govt.

No, that wasn’t the funny part, in fact, it wasn’t a part at all. You are confusing right wing hate speech with reality again. The ones primarily defrauding US taxpapers are slimebag corporations abusing massive no-bid contracts. The GAO, and various public watchdog groups, all note that the sort of fraud and abuse that you are gnashing your teeth about is incredibly small.

I agree corporations defrauding the govt should be dealt with appropiaetly.

Other notes: If you are middle class, you most likely own a home. What, exactly, is the mortgage interest tax credit if not a public ‘handout’ to encourage your standard of living? Like your job, it is a collective investment, allowing people, such as yourself, to accumulate some generational weath. There are lots of examples of this, but this is one that anyone middle class tax payer can normally comprehend. If you legitimately cannot grasp this concept, I am sorry for you.

Yeah I do own my own home. Paid for, and lived in it for 31 years. So I no longer have the mortgage interest deduction. And in your world the deduction is govt handout?? The fact the govt allows a working middle class guy, to make a deduction to keep more of the money HE earned is a handout??? How did you arrive at that conclusion?

As far as your rant about ‘socialized medicine’, we have socialized medicine in this country, it is called Medicare. It take on the most expensive segment of the population. And, right now, it is the only thing dampenig the already explosive 10-18% infalation in the private system. Interestingly, it used to substantially outperform the private system in cost->care, until we elected those ‘borrow and spend’ Republicans. They massively expanded it with Plan D, which, thanks to provisions to protect drug company profits, has done nothing to help the average cost for drugs seniors spend, but is costing taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.

If you think medicare is a good program, then I dunno what to tell ya, it’s a cluster.

The one thing it seems you would be an expert on is ‘government employement’ and ‘living on the public’s dime’ - but your comments their are unfathomable. You profess to be hardworking, everyone else is lazy and worthless paper shuffler (see your comment above).

Has it escaped your attention that in right wing world, public servants like yourself are “part of the problem”? Rush once pointed out that real Americans don’t get to retire early with health care plans and a pension - it is just because of the corrupt public sector unions and civil service laws that make it impossible to fire people…

How bizarre to accept that dismissive world view without realizing that you, yourself, are included in it.

They’re are a few things the govt does well. Public safety and National defense, are two, because they operate in a different world, with a clear chain of command, and accountablility, something not usually seen at the courthouse, statehouse, or city hall.

You are the one the one making the term “paper shuffler” a bad thing. There is no denial you have to visit one to apply for SSI disablity. Thats what he does. My guess some are good, some are inept. You get that everywhere. Now I wouldn’t want the job, can you guess what HIS day must be like? But he makes the final decesion on who gets a check and who doesn’t, it is what it is.

it is just because of the corrupt public sector unions and civil service laws that make it impossible to fire people…

No doubt about this. Some unions have broke agenices and corporations. But I was non union.

Where did I question you’re love of country?? Please go back and find that, as I make it a policy not to get involed such talk, I make the assumption EVERYONE here loves his Catholic Faith, and his Country. To not do so is not good. Now, do I think lib agenda is bad for the country, YES, but that does not mean those espousing it don’t care about their country. They’re just misguided LOL.

 

[goofyjim]

ok where do we start today? LOL

Originally Posted by BamaRider
The humor refereed to here is the fact I could go down to local whatever office, whine and moan loud enough to some govt paper shuffler and leave outta there with a monthly disability check, a total scam becuse I’m about as fit as ya can get.

So you said this-

You deny 10% of all disability claims are bogus (US govt stats) and cost 25 billion dollars a year? I didn’t day a word about anyone in the condition you desribe, God Bless them, but if those folks hope to improve their situation, it will be on their own devices, not the govt.

I agree corporations defrauding the govt should be dealt with appropiaetly.

Yeah I do own my own home. Paid for, and lived in it for 31 years. So I no longer have the mortgage interest deduction. And in your world the deduction is govt handout?? The fact the govt allows a working middle class guy, to make a deduction to keep more of the money HE earned is a handout??? How did you arrive at that conclusion?

If you think medicare is a good program, then I dunno what to tell ya, it’s a cluster.

They’re are a few things the govt does well. Public safety and National defense, are two, because they operate in a different world, with a clear chain of command, and accountablility, something not usually seen at the courthouse, statehouse, or city hall.

You are the one the one making the term “paper shuffler” a bad thing. There is no denial you have to visit one to apply for SSI disablity. Thats what he does. My guess some are good, some are inept. You get that everywhere. Now I wouldn’t want the job, can you guess what HIS day must be like? But he makes the final decesion on who gets a check and who doesn’t, it is what it is.

No doubt about this. Some unions have broke agenices and corporations. But I was non union.

Where did I question you’re love of country?? Please go back and find that, as I make it a policy not to get involed such talk, I make the assumption EVERYONE here loves his Catholic Faith, and his Country. To not do so is not good. Now, do I think lib agenda is bad for the country, YES, but that does not mean those espousing it don’t care about their country. They’re just misguided LOL.

So now it is only 10% of the claims being bogus? Gee last week I thought it was half of them.

 

[BamaRider]

I’m sorry but had to double post to address the SoCal’s loooooooong post. LOL.

When the nation went to war, I volunteered. You did not.

Now whose questioning whose patriotism? Hmmmmmm? I was 18 years old in 1973, I went to college, but I served my country and community in other ways, and so let it go at that. I’ve said asked many times is a military service a requirement in your view to have an opinion? I mean I was in the fire dept 26 years, but ultimately the show was run by the civilians we serve. If they vote politicians to draw down the service so be it, the will of the people is served. I never viewed the guy working his civilian job as less devoted to his community then I because of his career path, that whole notion is crazy, and I don’t know why you constantly bring it up. Your service in Vietnam was honorable and good, and everyone here, me included, appreciates it.

You said you were raised up poor, I’m not gonna get into the who “had it the hardest” thing, because I can’t. I’ve been blessed most of my life. I have many friends, I married the homecoming queen/cheerleader that happened to be the only Catholic girl in 100 miles, we had a family, and my son is a successful business man, I had a great career that I loved, and I retired at 49 to pretty much do as I please. I promise I don’t take it for granted, and I’m humbled at so many blessings. I can’t tell ya why the Lord has blessed me so many ways, so I’ll concede the fact I came up mostly easy. I’ve only had 2 jobs my entire *life, *after school I worked a factory job (ugh) a few years before I found my true calling in the fire dept. What can I say? I thank Him everyday and doubly so at Mass That means I can’t have a opinion? Heck brother, I wouldn’t swap places with *anybody *walking the planet, why would I want to?

I live in world of optimism and hope, tempered with the fact there are many that don’t have that. I happen to think the path I took to get here is the right one, and if more followed it, things would be better. People are not being served by a bunch of libs telling them have no hope unless you keep voting for us, because we control the faucet, and can turn it off and on, making you dependent. Instead of giving these people some tough love on how to make it in this country, they create as Vern points out a cycle of dependency.

I was raised middle class, I had it good, but that does not mean I don’t know true abstract poverty. I served many years in a ghetto district fire station, and because my agency served the entire county I was sent to rural, isolated areas of the county, where the fire dept was the closest thing to medical attention these folks got. Lets just say I saw some bad things over 26 years, so yes, I do know how bad some people have it, but lets just say your ideas to pull these folks up and mine are not the same.

I’m thinking now would be a good time for moderator to close thread? LOL

 

[BamaRider]

Jimbo got online and made this comment-

So now it is only 10% of the claims being bogus? Gee last week I thought it was half of them.

I never said it was half Jimbo, but what I will say the 10% is what they admit to, the final number on that we’ll probably* never *know, because if it got out, they’d be a uprising to shut the program down, and we can’t have that, IMHO.

 

[goofyjim]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3569864&postcount=594

Read carefully. The words say for every legitimate claim there is a fraudulent one. This is tantamount to saying 50% of claims are fraudulent. Now a couple posts back he admits it’s only 10%, if that. So which is it? Are you just guessing or actually have overall complete stats to prove your point.

 

[goofyjim]

If 50% of disability claims were fraudulent I would see reasons for revamping the systme but if it’s only 10% do we cut back the program for the 90% that truly need it and are using it efficiently? No. Go after the 10% and use the extra savings for the remaining 90. Because those who are legitimately disabled still cannot possibly survive off of the current system.

 

[SoCalRC]

You deny 10% of all disability claims are bogus (US govt stats) and cost 25 billion dollars a year?

What is to deny? You didn’t quote any real statistics or sources. Frontline took a good look at the subject:

pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/workplace/etc/fraud.html

And there is quite a bit of research from the DHHS suggesting the opposite of what you are now claiming.

As for the rest, I’ve told you, I’m not responding to any more red herrings and circular arguments.

 

[SoCalRC]

The Great Society went well beyond that. And, there is a lag effect – bureaucracies do not spring into existance overnight, and begin their counter-productive acts at full force the following morning.

Oh, we got what we paid for in the Great Society – and what we paid for was a permanent underclass, locked in poverty.

Ah, so what you are saying is that we start with accepting your assessment as inarguably true, then fudge the data to fit.

Like I mentioned, when you start with psuedo certainty and reality and reason are simply arguments of convenience, there is no discourse possible.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Ah, so what you are saying is that we start with accepting your assessment as inarguably true, then fudge the data to fit.

No, I start with the data and follow it to the conclusion to which it points. You may find that strange, I know.

Like I mentioned, when you start with psuedo certainty and reality and reason are simply arguments of convenience, there is no discourse possible.

No, I don’t follow your apprach of digging up everything I can find that points the way I want to go, and rejecting what points in another direction.

Nor do I snidely accuse you of things like “thinking like a protestant.”