Facebook debates, political

Discussing all things political in NW Arkansas and beyond.
Post Reply
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Facebook debates, political

Post by Dardedar »

I've just had it with these ignorant neo-con right-wingers these days. Zero tolerance. Sometimes I do some roasting on Facebook and can't share the thread with others if they're not "friended" with the person hosting the thread. I'll post some of these, on political issues, here (there is facebook thread on religion in the religion section):

***
facebook link

LEE:
It's the Inequality, Stupid | Mother Jones
motherjones.com
Eight charts that explain everything that's wrong with America.

DAR
The US has a very high level of inequality when compared with our peer countries and this has profound societal results. Consider this excerpt from the book "The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better"
The theory of everything

These two British academics argue that almost every social problem, from crime to obesity, stems from one root cause: inequality.

...almost every social problem common in developed societies - reduced life expectancy, child mortality, drugs, crime, homicide rates, mental illness and obesity - has a single root cause: inequality.

"It became clear," Wilkinson says, "that countries such as the US, the UK and Portugal, where the top 20% earn seven, eight or nine times more than the lowest 20%, scored noticeably higher on all social problems at every level of society than in countries such as Sweden and Japan, where the differential is only two or three times higher at the top."

The statistics came from the World Bank's list of 50 richest countries, but Wilkinson suggests their conclusions apply more broadly. To ensure their findings weren't explainable by cultural differences, they analysed the data from all 50 US states and found the same pattern. In states where income differentials were greatest, so were the social problems and lack of cohesion."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/ ... sh-society
ROB responds:
"So instead of helping the bottom earners rise up, we should bring the top down? That goes against everything this country was founded on. Free market capitalism is the only way for an individual to be at the income level you want to be. Redistribution of wealth is Marxism to the letter. The fall of the USSR proved that redistributing wealth did not work. With Marxism, you still have an elite group at the top taking all the wealth. With capitalism..." [snip horseshit]>>

[blah blah blah, this goes on and on. This is when you know you have a nut that needs to be roasted. Below I'll just post my responses which include enough of the comments in question. There are two of them Rob and Jason.

Robert: "If we increase our own [oil] supply, the price goes down. Years ago when we did have more domestic drilling">>

DAR
What nonsense. US oil production peaked in the early 70's, as predicted, and has been in decline ever since. This is not from a lack of trying, we have more wells going now than ever before. The US has about 2% of the world's oil reserves and uses about 20% of the oil. That math is not difficult. "Drill here drill now" is nonsense on stilts.

ROB: " Taxes, as we all know, go straight to the coffers of corporations. Oh wait. No they dont.">>

Taxes largely go to build and maintain roads and last I checked, they didn't cover that and money still had to come from general revenue. Thus, gas taxes should be higher.

ROB: "Liberalism demands that there be a low income class to depend on the government to survive.">>

Standard rightwing canard but entirely false. Republicans are much better at creating poor people:

Except for Nixon, poverty went up under every Republican president since 1961. Under every Democratic president since 1961, it fell. The republicans aren't even good for the rich:

viewtopic.php?p=16511#p16511

ROB: "1% pays about 40% of the entire income tax. sounds fair to me. the bottom 50% pay about 3%.">>

More republican tax mythology. It ignores FICA and medicare taxes that go right into the general fund and also ignores that the poor get hammered at the state level, paying a higher percentage than the rich.

Just one of ten republican tax whoppers here (yours is #3):

http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archi ... 69.htm#ten

Jason comments:

JASON: "Countries such as Sweden are not equal comparisons">>

My citation referenced 50 of our peer countries. Certainly a representative sample.

JASON: "Japan is not doing that well economically.">>

Japan is the size of Montana and until a few months ago had the second largest economy on the planet. That's doing well.

JAS: "there are individual states in the United States that are doing relatively well.">>

Not clear how that is relevant to the fact that these social problems consistently follow wealth inequality, in 50 states and 50 countries.

JAS: "Americans have a safety net with social welfare, which not all citizens of the world enjoy.">>

Our peer countries are consistently better at that then us. Examples provided upon request.

***
JAS: "if you have people in poverty and the wealthy (inequality), people may be poor due to their drug use and so forth.">>

Now you're just making things up. They have drugs in all counties. When you compare states, inequality correlates with these societal problems. Same result is found when you look at countries. I see no reason to find you drug hypotheses plausible.

JAS: "There is this idea that money will solve problems with drugs, obesity, mental illness, and so forth...">>

That is a simplistic misunderstanding of what the book suggests. It's not raw dollars or even standard of living, but rather, specifically, inequality. The US has a high standard of living, and yet, profoundly high levels of inequality. And it reaps the societal problems that consistently correlate with such inequality: "reduced life expectancy, child mortality, drugs, crime, homicide rates, mental illness and obesity..." Do we really need to have 9x (per capita) people in jail as Japan? Something is broken. Our peer countries are far more successful at distributing the wealth of society more evenly and more fairly.

JAS: "A good data set to examine would be obese, drug addicts with mental health issues who win the lottery.">>

No, the fact that people freak out and do crazy things and quickly lose their money after a lottery win wouldn't have anything whatsoever to do with a comparison or measurement of inequality in society. Bad example.

ROBERT said: "my numbers came from the IRS.">>

Notice the chart, second from the bottom at LeeWood's Mother Jones link. Federal revenue from individual income tax now equals that received from payroll tax. Your assertion about what people pay in income tax completely (and conveniently) ignores... payroll tax (and all of the other taxes, such as state, etc).

Republicans and their conservative policies aren't even good for the rich:

http://hnn.us/articles/8301.html

***
ROB: "Yet it's the GOP at fault.">>

Yes it is. Bigtime. Bush, the crowning achievement of modern conservativism was easily the worst president in a century.

RB: "Blame Republicans that gave in and joined the Dems in passing... spending bills.">>

Contrary to what you read on the side of the box, republicans having always been bigger spenders. Observe the record:

1) Over the last 75 years, Republican administrations have had an average annual deficit of $83.4 billion. The average for Democratic presidents is one fourth of that, only $20 billion.

http://hnn.us/articles/8301.html

2) Since 1959 federal spending has gone up an average $35 billion a year under Democratic presidents and $60 billion under Republicans. Republican presidents increased the national debt much faster, more than $200 billion per year, versus less than a $100 billion per year under Democrats."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 5Apr1.html

3) "Using the Bush White House's own numbers, the federal
government under Bill Clinton grew at an annual rate
of 3.4 percent. But over the past four years under
George W. Bush and his Republican Congress, the
federal government has grown at a staggering rate of
10.4 percent. More damning is the fact that... George
Bush never once vetoed a congressional bill."
--Republican Joe Scarborough, "Rome Wasn't Burnt in a Day”, pg. 29 (2004)

That bit about the conservatives being fiscally responsible? It's a crock.

RB: "the people are demanding less spending.">>

Then the record shows they should run from the republicans.

RB: "best election results in 70 years by the GOP in 2010.">>

Ah yes, your right-wing sources assured you it was an historic election! More rubbish. Note, Obama lost 60 seats. Observe the historical Mid-Term context:

1930-(R)..Hoover...........60
1938-(D)..FDR...............79
1946-(D)..HST...............66
1958-(R)..Ike................60
1966-(D)..LBJ................56
1974-(R)..Nixon.............52
1994-(D)..Clinton...........62

And do note that the republican majority in the house is actually smaller now than the Demo majority just was. Hardly historic. Reagan lost 12 senate seats in his first mid term, Obama lost six.

***
RB: "Have you lived in a socialist country,">>

I don't find those on the far right are very good at using anything other than a caricature definition of the word "socialist."

RB: "The middle class in the US is the richest middle class in the world.">>

Rubbish. Show this.

RB: "Compare that with the poor in Argentina">>

Amazing. You want to compare the US to Argentina to make it look better? US per capita GDP (10th in the world), Argentina? 80th. Pitiful.

RB: "I have seen socialism up close, it does. not. work.">>

No one said it does. But as our actual, comparable peer countries show, it is possible to have a thriving capitalism and also have far less wealth inequality and all of the societal problems that follow it. It's a ridiculously absurd, simplistic and false dichotomy to pretend the choice is to be capitalist or socialist.

RB: "Small govt, free market capitalism made this the richest country in the world in only 230 years.">>

Actually, wiping out the Indians, ravishing a new world full of natural resources, importing millions of slaves, getting on the top of the world pile after WW2, and enforcing our selfish business interests around the world with the marines, had a hell of a lot to do with it. And as the record shows, if you like smaller government, vote Demo.

***
JASON: Sweden is not a good comparison to the United States>>

Again, that's why 50 peer countries were used to compare, not just Sweden.

JAS: "Japan's geographical size is close to Montana but the population is a lot larger.">>

Japan, with only 4% of the population of China has an identical GDP. They'll do fine.

JAS: "Drug addiction causes property and so do a number of other factors;>>

I didn't know drug addiction caused "property" but... this was not a study of *poverty* but rather wealth inequality. Different kettle of fish.

JAS: "WE ARE ALL MARXISTS:">>

Be honest with language. Turn off the Glenn Beck and learn what the word marxist means.

JAS: "The United States is more communistic than China in some regards.">>

Then you shouldn't have any trouble giving an example of the US being more *communistic* than China. Stop using words such as "communist" as ridiculous caricature.
***

RB: " we are BROKE.">>

Just factually wrong. The US is the wealthiest country in the world. That's not broke. Per capita GDP comes in 10th.

RB: "Take more from the rich?">>

Yes. A lot more. Overall tax burden is at a 50 year low.

RB: " and when that money is all gone?">>

Eat them.

RB: " how do you get wealthy without capitalism?">>

More absurd simplistic, black/white, up/down, false dichotomies. Best to avoid fallacies when making your points. Best to turn off the FOX/Beck/Drudge/Dittohead stuff too.

JASON said: "democrats are mostly Creationists">>

Wrong. Creationism has much more support with the dimwits in the republican party. Not a close call.

JAS: " Both the Republicans and Democrats love to spend.">>

And as I show above with reference, the republicans love to spend much more. Not a close call.

RB: "[if... then...] the Tea Party will be the prevalent conservative party.">>

The Tea Party won't amount to anything and is quickly being absorbed by the republican machine. Simple demographics show that the republican party is on track to be a party of regional angry white folks who are mad because they will have minority status by 2044 (and in about 12 years for the age 25 demo).

Recommended reading: "The Truth About the Tea Party"

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... 928?page=1

***
RB: "yea rolling stone mag is not a biased source.">>

Genetic fallacy.

RB: "I can spend the next hour finding links countering everything you have said.">>

Of course you can't. Action, not words.

RB: "You say you don't like the parties">>

I never said that.

RB: "you defend everything Democrats do.">>

I didn't defend anything they do. I just referenced the historical record on spending. I've never been a democrat and the first democratic president I have ever voted for is Obama.

RB: "You blame Republicans for everything.">>

No, only what they screw up, which is a lot.

RB: "If you think the Tea Party is "regional angry white folks" then I call you a racist sir.">>

Don't care. I was putting sugar on it. They are also profoundly ignorant and usually fat. Since when is the Tea Party a "race?" The demographics of the republican and tea party base are there for anyone to see. Perhaps you can point me to a black republican senator or congressman?

RB: "I leave with you these: http://www.youtube.com/>>

I don't do "argument by what someone said on youtube." If you can back up your assertions with references, as I do, then do so.

RB: "Scarborough may call himself a Republican,">>

Genetic fallacy and irrelevant to his point which is simple historic record. Attack the message, not the messenger.

[random assortment of links snipped]

RB: "Already, according to the Obama administration’s estimates, the federal government is planning to spend...">>

Rubbish. The VAST majority of current spending is cleaning up leftover Bush ineptitude. All laid out directly here in this New York Times piece:

***
"America’s Sea of Red Ink Was Years in the Making

"The story of today’s deficits starts in January 2001, as President Bill Clinton was leaving office. The Congressional Budget Office estimated then that the government would run an average annual surplus of more than $800 billion a year from 2009 to 2012. Today, the government is expected to run a $1.2 trillion annual deficit in those years.

You can think of that roughly $2 trillion swing as coming from four broad categories: the business cycle, President George W. Bush’s policies, policies from the Bush years that are scheduled to expire but that Mr. Obama has chosen to extend, and new policies proposed by Mr. Obama.

The first category — the business cycle — accounts for 37 percent of the $2 trillion swing. It’s a reflection of the fact that both the 2001 recession and the current one reduced tax revenue, required more spending on safety-net programs and changed economists’ assumptions about how much in taxes the government would collect in future years.

About 33 percent of the swing stems from new legislation signed by Mr. Bush. That legislation, like his tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, not only continue to cost the government but have also increased interest payments on the national debt.

Mr. Obama’s main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000. Such policies — together with the Wall Street bailout, which was signed by Mr. Bush and supported by Mr. Obama — account for 20 percent of the swing.

About 7 percent comes from the stimulus bill that Mr. Obama signed in February. And only 3 percent comes from Mr. Obama’s agenda on health care, education, energy and other areas."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/busin ... .html?_r=1

So, for last year, something less than 10% from Obama's agenda, the rest sweeping up after the train wreck of an eight year run with your "fiscal conservativism." Bush's mess is not something that can be turned around on a dime. Let's review:

"The national debt doubled during Bush's tenure. His was the worst eight-year economic record of any modern president. Worse still, by 2007 the U.S. reached levels of income inequality not since 1929."

References here:

viewtopic.php?p=22525#p22525

RB: "read the Webster's definition of Marxism, and apply it to Obama's policies.">>

That you would say this reveals you either aren't honest with language or have no understanding of what the word means. Turn off the Beck, acquire a grown up understanding of words like "communist" "marxist" and "socialist."

RB: "look up other sources of information.">>

Spare me.
***
Rob and Jason didn't respond.
***
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Doug
Posts: 3388
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville, AR
Contact:

Re: Facebook debates, political

Post by Doug »

DOUG
That roast made my day.
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Facebook debates, political

Post by Dardedar »

Facebook exchange regarding the story on: "Fox News' Lies Keep Them Out of Canada"

***
RK: "It is great to have the freedom to watch whatever news you prefer. That is what is great about America. It is also great to have the freedom to not watch whatever news you prefer. I guess if the Obama administration had their way, people like Rush, Shawn, and Andrew would not be allowed on the airwaves.My question for the Canadian regulators would be, "Who decides if it is a lie?" Sure glad I am an American. GOD BLESS AMERICA!">>

TAM: "A lie is easy to define. It is something that goes against factual evidence. No one needs to decide it, statements are either verifiable or they are not. Anything falling outside the realm of true/false statements is based on opinion or emotion.
The public assumes that news agencies are there to tell them facts about their world. How are people supposed to make informed decisions about politics and policy if they cannot know which sources are factual and which are not? How is it good for America that he who has the most money can spread their propaganda the farthest? How do Americans know what is actually going on in their country if there is nothing in place to assure that we are informed accurately?">>

RK: "It is called personal responsibility. I don't want the government telling me what is right or wrong. That is my responsibility to determine what is factual. Let ME gather info from MY trusted sources and let ME form MY decision / opinion. I would NEVER let the Obama administration tell me what I should be listening to to form my opinion. Canada can keep that crap, thank you.">>

DAR
Rick said: "great to have the freedom to watch whatever news you prefer. That is what is great about America.">>

DAR
Before you toot that patriotic horn too much, you might want to know that there are folks who keep up with such things. Last I checked, Reporters Without Borders ranked the freedom of the press in the following countries in this order:

1) Finland, Iceland, Norway, Netherlands
5) Canada
6) Ireland
7) Germany, Portugal, Sweden
10) Denmark
11) France
12) Australia, Belgium
14) Slovenia
15) Costa Rica, Switzerland
17) United States

http://fayfreethinkers.com/mythbuster/a ... edom.shtml

RICK: "It is also great to have the freedom to not watch whatever news you prefer.">>

That is a freedom shared by all. So that one is not worth mentioning.

RK: "Obama administration had their way, people like Rush, Shawn, and Andrew would not be allowed on the airwaves.">>

Not true. They would certainly be allowed (and are). But in sensible freedom loving countries they would also balance the nuts you refer to here, with some dissenting opinion. And they certainly wouldn't allow a few corporations to basically purchase the public airwaves for the purpose of disseminating a constant drone of rightwing (or leftwing) propaganda. Talk radio is wasteland of rightwing misinformation. This does not serve the public interest of having an informed populace. For example:

"Study Confirms That Fox News Makes You Stupid

A new survey of American voters shows that Fox News viewers are
significantly more misinformed than consumers of news from other sources."

viewtopic.php?p=22952#p22952

RK: "Who decides if it is a lie?">>

That is the problem. A lie requires intent, and who knows if Fox News is actually constantly lying with intend, or if perhaps they are just really, really dumb. It may be a combination of both. Newscasters are certainly allowed to make mistakes, FOX News errors obviously go far beyond that. Examples upon request.

RK: "Sure glad I am an American.">>

Check out how America comes in on several other "freedom" issues at this link.

http://fayfreethinkers.com/mythbuster/a ... edom.shtml

You may be surprised to find it's largely a lot of nationalistic hype and cheer leading.

Jamie says: "the story is not true...">>

Which part specifically? I've caught RFK fudging things before (he is notoriously wrong on the vaccination/autism scare, and a few other things). Fox News has already been in Canada for years in that they rebroadcast the American stuff, but he seems to be referring, (rather sloppily) to the establishment of a "Canadian Fox News." Fox could do their bit in Canada, apparently, but they just couldn't call a considerable portion of it news. That seems right since, for the most part, it's not. It's purposeful misinformation.

One hundred specific, well referenced examples, provided upon request (and that's a drop in the bucket).

SHAR add: "Unfortunately I talked to a national correspondent requesting that she ask her producer to do a piece on the dangers of systemic pesticides. She answered, " I will ask but I probably won't be allowed to report on it because Bayer if one of our biggest advertisers." (Bayer sells neonicotinoids.) There was no report done. Our reporters are silenced for the financial interests of those who own the televsions stations. There is seldom true freedom of the press on national commercial television today.">>

DAR
That's a really good point Sharilyn. Free markets aren't interested in a lot of things (like taking care of old folks, sick, poor etc.) and they also don't care about accurate information. They are only interested in making a buck and next quarter dividends. There are a lot of ways to look at freedom and see how the US stacks up. Here's an analysis from those rightwingers over at Heritage Foundation. They have a freedom index which looks at:

"183 countries across 10 specific freedoms such as trade freedom, business freedom, investment freedom, and property rights." Here is the current order of the top ten:

1. Hong Kong
2. Singapore
3. Australia
4 . New Zealand
5. Switzerland
6. Canada
7. Ireland
8. Denmark
9. United States
10. Bahrain

http://www.heritage.org/index/

Then there is the Democracy Index from The Economist (UK) which looks at:

"60 indicators in five different categories: electoral process and pluralism, civil liberties, functioning of government, political participation and political culture..."

Here is the rank:

1 Norway
2 Iceland
3 Denmark
4 Sweden
5 New Zealand
6 Australia
7 Finland
8 Switzerland
9 Canada
10 Netherlands
11 Luxembourg
12 Ireland
13 Austria
14 Germany
15 Malta
16 Czech Republic
17 United States
18 Spain
19 United Kingdom
20 South Korea

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

etc.

DAR
Oh, there is also a gender empowerment ranking that measures women's freedom (several normal objective measurements considered). Here's the ranking:

1 Norway
2 Australia
3 Iceland
4 Canada
5 Ireland
6 Netherlands
7 Sweden
8 France
9 Switzerland
10 Japan
11 Luxembourg
12 Finland
13 United States
14 Austria
15 Spain

http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2009_EN_Table_K.pdf

***
RK: "All; No matter what kind of position you want to take, you can find someone sitting at a desk somewhere providing you with some sort of survey / study / reserch that supports that particular position. There was a poll last night that 100% of the respondants agreed people with brown hair are smarter that people with blonde hair. We all know that is not true, but supports my point. You dig deep enough, you can find some sort of support for your position. Again, all comes back to personal responsibility. If the national correspondent was not able to report on what she wanted to report on, did someone hold a gun to her head telling her she MUST work there? No, SHE made the decision to work there. Does the government need to step in? Hell no. She needs to find a job that will allow her to report what reflects how she wants to report. If she cannot find that, then she should find a new profession. In closing, this is America, great people have made HUGE sacrifices and fought for the freedoms we enjoy. If you do not like those fredoms, LEAVE!">>

DAR
RK: No matter what kind of position you want to take, you can find... some sort of survey / study / reserch that supports...>>

Excellent, then you shouldn't have any trouble finding a scientific analysis which measures normative objective variables which support your notion that America has greater freedom and liberties when compared with our peer countries. Best luck with that.

RK: There was a poll last night that...>>

Nothing that I referenced was "a poll." Big difference.

RK: did someone hold a gun to her head telling her she MUST work there?">>

This completely sidesteps Sharilyn's point and example which was about corporate money interests directly causing censorship of actual news and information. See right-wing talk radio and Fox News for a shining example of how America is not being served when corporations simply buy the media and turn it into a stream of dis-infotainment. We get a populace full of knuckleheads that don't know how to think or reason. They just repeat slogans they hear from their airhead news castors ("love America or leave" comes to mind).

RK: "this is America, great people have made HUGE sacrifices and fought for the freedoms we enjoy.">>

And those sacrifices are not served by people yammering on with jingoistic nonsense comfortable lies about America being something it is not.

RK: "If you do not like those fredoms, LEAVE!">>

America has never been about if you don't like it, keep it the same. It has always been about... if you don't like it, change it for the better. Course, conservatives hate that because they hate change and worst of all they hate "progress," by definition. If they didn't, they wouldn't be conservatives, they would be progressives.

Having lived in both Canada and the US for over 20 years respectively (as have Tamara and Sharilyn) we are in a unique position to say something directly to this knee jerk cheer-leading about the US being this or that. No one is served, and certainly not truth, when these comfortable myths are bandied about with no regard to their accuracy.

D.
------------
"And like it or hate it, it [Al Jazeera] is really effective. And in fact viewership of Al Jazeera is going up in the United States because it's real news. You may not agree with it, but you feel like you're getting real news around the clock instead of a million commercials and, you know, arguments between talking heads and the kind of stuff that we do on our news which, you know, is not particularly informative to us, let alone foreigners."
--Hillary Clinton, yesterday, telling us (correctly) that our news in the US, is shit. LINK
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Facebook debates, political

Post by Dardedar »

Got a religious fellow on abstinence only:

***
DAR
Ironically, pushing abstinence only programs inevitably result in more abortions.>>
Doulos for God: "Pushing abstinence without proper education is a problem.">>
DAR
Right. And the problem is called "abstinence only." It isn't a proper education and it doesn't work. See here:

http://www.openeducation.net/2009/01/05 ... he-coffin/
DOU: "I do not know how you can justify the more abortions statement.">>
DAR
Really? It's not that hard. Do you know what happens when legitimate, comprehensive sex education is substituted with "abstinence only" disinformation? Three words: sperm meets egg. This leads to more teen moms (see Palin's daughter) and this in many cases leads to more abortions. Abstinence is an important part of any comprehensive sex ed, the problem is specifically with "abstinence only."
DOU: "Sheer fact is that abortion has sky rocketed with the move away from abstinence into libral permissiveness.">>
Not true, note:

"Among states with available data, Arkansas had the highest pregnancy rate among nonHispanic white teenagers (67 per 1,000). Pregnancy rates among this group were also high in
other Southern states: Tennessee, South Carolina, Kentucky, West Virginia and Mississippi (60–63 per 1,000)." --http://tinyurl.com/4kzhj5p

So, red state central and home of the religious right seems to be really good at knocking up the teenagers (just as, hypocritically, religious conservatives also have more divorces etc.). Incidentally, higher religiosity and all sorts of societal dysfunction also work hand in hand. Observe:

"The correlation between religiosity and dysfunctionality is quite strong throughout all 17 nations, with the most religious nations (the United States, followed distantly by Ireland, Italy and Austria) being the most socially dysfunctional and the most secular nations (Sweden, Japan, Denmark and France) being the most socially successful.
...the highly religious United States scores the most dysfunctional in per capita homicide, incarceration, juvenile mortality, gonorrhea and syphilis infections, teenage abortions, adolescent pregnancies, marriage duration, income disparity, poverty, work hours, overexploitation of resources, and income inequality. In nearly all these cases, the gap between the United States and the other 16 nations is large. The teenage abortion rate is 29 per 1000 for the U.S. and between 14 and 21 per 1000 for the other nations, most of which have less restrictive abortion laws than does the U.S. The birthrate among adolescents aged 15-17 is 34 per 1000 in the U.S., and between 1 and 19 per 1000 in the 16 other nations."

This scientific study is all nicely laid out in this short article written by a friend of mine:

http://physics.uark.edu/hobson/NWAT/09.08.29.html
DOU: "And [permissiveness] only serves as an escape from responsibility.">>
DAR
Teaching abstinence only is an escape from responsibility. The responsibility to teach our children accurate and truthful information about how their bodies work rather than guilt laden, religious based, fear mongering, nonsense.

It's best to avoid unwanted pregnancies and even abortion of course, but should they be needed, remember, the God of the Bible is pro-choice and does not give a fetus the status of personhood. See a tract I put together on this here:

http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/fetus.shtml

D.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Facebook debates, political

Post by Dardedar »

This little exchange on NWAonline is too precious not to share. Starts here.

***
SFA: For the rest of the bloggers, you should note that FFT [Darrel] immigrated to the US from our semi-socialist neighbor Canada in 2008. Beware of his hidden agenda. For those of us who grew up in this country and understand what drives it's economic superiority, influxes like this are dangerous."
DAR
My line by line response to this and the rest.

SFA: You started this whole debate by pointing out deficiencies in corporate income taxation.">>

Wrong. That's your spin of my claim. Again:

Buddy said: "The 35 percent U.S. corporate tax rate disadvantages our companies when competing...>>

My response to this specific claim was:

This is extremely misleading. Buddy conveniently forgets to mention that 68% of US corporations pay no corporate tax. I also pointed out that of 30 peer nations we come in 4th from last in collection of corporate tax.

SFA: "[Darrel] immigrated to the US from our semi-socialist neighbor Canada in 2008.">>

Actually, that was 1987. You're not very good with details are you SFA?

Mother is American, father, Canadian. Try to not let your xenophobia of the Canadian horde distract you from the issues at hand.

SF: "Beware of his hidden agenda.">>

Damn him, he might want to make things better!

SF: "influxes like this are dangerous.">>

Beware the Canadian influx!

SFA: "As for McGovern...">>

Genetic fallacy. Best to avoid fallacies when making your points.

SFA: "The federal total debt has increased to a level higher than all the previous presidents combined.">>

Already explained to you. 93% of that is Bush leftovers. Note:

"Mr. Obama’s main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000. Such policies — together with the Wall Street bailout, which was signed by Mr. Bush and supported by Mr. Obama — account for 20 percent of the swing.

About 7 percent comes from the stimulus bill that Mr. Obama signed in February. And only 3 percent comes from Mr. Obama’s agenda on health care, education, energy and other areas."

NYT's

You can see this in chart form here.

SFA: "That is the real train-wreck we are facing.">>

You are repeating the republican canard of the day. In a list of nations sorted by public debt as a percentage of GDP, the US comes in 36th.

SFA: "50% of Americans pay no taxes, we are headed for disaster.">>

Why do you repeat this blatant falsehood when I took the time to carefully dismantled for you? Again:

"I have prepared a little post for you, with charts:

LINK

Your claim is false. I will post this information in this thread also, since clicking a link seems to be a problem for you.

D.

***
SFA: "50% of Americans pay no taxes, we are headed for disaster.">>

Let's review the ways this popular, yet profoundly dishonest conservative claim is wrong (this is just a sample).

"The following graph comes from a report (pdf) by Citizens for Tax Justice. It compares the share of the total tax burden -- that means income taxes, payroll taxes, state and local taxes, capital gains taxes, and so forth -- with the share of the total income for different groups. It's the single most important graph to understand our tax system."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-k ... _taxe.html

The ‘50 percent pay no tax’ fraud, Part II

"...the actual number of taxable units (households and individuals) that earn enough to file tax forms but pay no federal income tax is actually 38 percent, not 50 percent. --source: factcheck

And of course, income taxes are just one of several forms of federal taxation — you’ve got gasoline taxes, payroll taxes, etc. The Congressional Budget Office has analyzed total effective federal tax rates by income, and comes up with the following (2005 numbers):

----—-Average income ————Effective fed tax rate

Lowest 20 percent………$15,900 ……………………4.3%

Second 20 percent…….. $37,400…………………… 9.9%

Middle 20 percent……….$58,500………………….. 14.2%

Fourth 20 percent……….,$85,200………………….. 17.4%

Top 20 percent…………..$231.300…………………..25.5%

Top 1 percent…………..$1,558,500………………….31.2%

http://tinyurl.com/dalbrg

Now let's look at Arkansas specifically:

"When all Arkansas taxes are totaled up, the study found that:

* Arkansas families earning less than $15,000—the poorest fifth of Arkansas non-elderly taxpayers—pay 12 percent of their income in Arkansas state and local taxes.

* Middle-income Arkansas taxpayers—those earning between $26,000 and $42,000—pay 11.7 percent of their income in Arkansas state and local taxes.

* But the richest Arkansas taxpayers—with average incomes of $911,500—pay only 6.8 percent of their income in Arkansas state and local taxes."

See the state by state break down here:

http://www.itepnet.org/wp2009/statespecific.html

SFA, your claim that "50% of Americans pay no taxes" is ludicrously, astonishingly, false. Please stop saying things that are so blatantly false. People might start to not take your claims seriously.
***
SFA: "EITC refundable tax credits.">>

These help make the system more progressive at the federal level, but they do not negate the other taxes poor people pay. I just addressed this in the Buddy thread.

SFA: "we are going to pay ourselves for an unproven climate change?">>

Carbon sequestration attempts and transition to renewable green energy sources etc., will have costs (followed by great benefits).

Science, especially with regard to future outcomes, doesn't provide "proof." We know with a very high degree of certainty the earth is warming rapidly and we are responsible for most of the warming.

SFA: "So you are a marxist?">>

Nope, successful capitalist. But like Jefferson, Adam Smith (and even Jesus) I understand the fairness of progressive taxation and shared sacrifice. Note:

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right." --Thomas Jefferson

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
--Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

Were those fellows "marxist" SFA? (Never mind Jesus, he was clearly a socialist through and through).

D.
-----------
Billionaires' guide to U.S. taxes shows Top 400 pay lower rates than you

BLOOMBERG NEWS

"The 400 U.S. taxpayers with the highest adjusted gross income paid income taxes at an actual, or “effective,” rate of just under 17 percent in 2007, down from almost 30 percent in 1995, according to the Internal Revenue Service. The effective rate for the 1.4 million people in the top 1 percent of taxpayers dropped to 23 percent in percent the year before. That means the top 400 pay a lower rate than the next 1,399,600 or so, Bloomberg Businessweek reports in its April 11 issue."

http://tinyurl.com/3ngegcu
***
SFA: "our semi-socialist neighbor Canada in 2008..." "...dangerous influx">>

Earlier SFA quoted the conservative Heritage Foundation, so it might be interesting to see what they think about our comparative freedoms, economic and otherwise. They have a freedom index which looks at:

"183 countries across 10 specific freedoms such as trade freedom, business freedom, investment freedom, and property rights." Here is the order of the top ten:

1. Hong Kong
2. Singapore
3. Australia
4. New Zealand
5. Switzerland
6. Canada
7. Ireland
8. Denmark
9. United States
10. Bahrain

http://www.heritage.org/index/

Then there is the Democracy Index from The Economist which looks at: "60 indicators in five different categories: electoral process and pluralism, civil liberties, functioning of government, political participation and political culture..."

Here is the rank:

1 Norway
2 Iceland
3 Denmark
4 Sweden
5 New Zealand
6 Australia
7 Finland
8 Switzerland
9 Canada
10 Netherlands
[snip 6...]
17 United States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

There is also a gender empowerment ranking that measures women's freedom (several normal objective measurements considered). Canada comes in 4th, US 13th.

http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2009_EN_Table_K.pdf

Could it be that we could actually learn something from these peer countries on such issues? Or should we be afraid of their "dangerous" influence?

D.
***

All from this thread on NWAonline:

http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2011/apr/ ... -20110411/
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Facebook debates, political

Post by Dardedar »

In the exchange below, I am responding to attacks on social security by this libertarian X3 fellow. One point I make is how SS is secure, unlike his playing with the stock market. And low and behold, turns out X3 left his web cam on and we can see an actual clip of him doing his investing. See it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4hfdaC7 ... r_embedded

***The roast

X3: "I’ll use “libertarian">>

From the frying pan, into the fire. Label yourself as you wish. Don't care.

X3: "the joke is what it [SS] costs to do it.">>

Actually, SS is a fantastic deal and extremely efficient. The notion that it would be inappropriate for the wealthiest country on the planet, to spend 1.3% of it's GDP (2003) on 50 million of it's most needy widows, elderly, orphans, disabled and destitute, is absurd. Unless of course, you are using the morals of a libertarian.

X3: "Saying that without SS that seniors would have nothing is [a]...fallacy.">>

Nonsense. As referenced in another thread, we have about 1/4 of the children in Arkansas living in poverty. Many people living on the edge are not in a position to play the stock market or feed an optional risk based, "maybe I'll get lucky and make a bundle, or lose it all" retirement plan. Hence the need for a government plan. And that plan needs to be funded, and it is.

X3: "many seniors who STILL can’t make ends meet, even with SS, because... poor money management">>

Oops, don't look now, but X3 just shot his own argument in the foot. We need more SS?

"...more than a third of the 50 million Americans now receiving benefits rely on Social Security for 90 percent of their income." -link below

X3: "for the [SS] to be sustainable..., the SS retirement age will have to be raised">>

Not true. It's easily sustainable with slight tweaks. Rebuttal below.

X3: "Make the system sustainable,...">>

It's still in surplus. You don't know what you are talking about. Note:

"Thanks to hikes in the Social Security payroll tax in the 1980s designed to create a surplus to handle the crunch of baby-boomer retirements, the program's trust fund is projected to grow steadily for nearly 20 more years — until 2027.

After that, officials estimate there will be sufficient money to pay 100 percent of benefits until 2041, when the surplus is expected to be exhausted. From that year on, payroll tax revenue alone should be able to meet 78 percent of the program's obligations — even if no changes are made."

http://www.ohio.com/news/american_dream/27325314.html

That's from 8/08 so, thanks to the great Bush Depression, those numbers are off a bit. Not much. Easy tweaks.

X3: "when people see... the benefits they can get,... more opposition to the program.">>

That's what Bush said. People got a wonderful first hand demonstration of how absurd his privatizations plans were, when he drove the US into a ditch and cut the stock market in half.

X3: "widows and the disabled can buy private insurance... for a fraction of what SS [costs].">>

Again, you haven't the foggiest idea of what you are talking about. Your devotion to free market worship is cute, but naive in the extreme. Free markets don't care about such things, that's why societies address them collectively.

cont...
***
X3: "the SS “trust fund”,... actually empty>>

More r-wing nonsense. When Senator Mark Warner made a similar mistake, he received the following correction:

(February 17, 2011)

"The Trustees’ Report projects that Social Security will remain fully solvent through 2037 and will be able to pay almost 80 percent of benefits for many decades past this date. It is also worth noting that the necessary increases in funding to maintain full solvency are relatively small compared to items like the rise in defense spending over the last decade, so there certainly are not major economic obstacles to maintaining full funding.
I hope that you will have the time to review the program’s finances more carefully so that when you speak on it in the future you are better informed. I would be happy to assist you in providing additional background if it would be helpful.
Regards,
Dean Baker
Co-Director, Center for Economic and Policy Research

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/node/44758/print

X3: "not concerned in the least with what other countries are doing.">>

I am not concerned in the least that you aren't concerned (hopefully readers are learning why libertarian conventions can be held in a phone booth).

Responsible members of the species are not so vain and wedded to tribalistic American Exceptionalism that they won't humbly look to peer countries that are better at excelling in certain societal categories. The US has a lot to learn in several categories (see quote below).

X3: "our GDP is CONSIDERABLY higher than any of those countries.">>

Not per capita. Pretty similar.

X3: "once you’ve gotten people suckered into getting a handout,">>

SS is funded by the people and collected by the people. It's not a handout. Try to make your smears accurate.


X3: "[make SS optional] you can not contribute and you’re on your own.">>

Nope. Won't work. Not if you want a first world nation without millions living destitute. Or put another way, a libertarian paradise. See Somolia. As usual, and as in the past, the regressive conservatives (libertarians too) will have to be dragged into a livable improved world (by the progressives) whether they like it or not.

D.
-------
"...the highly religious United States scores the most dysfunctional in per capita homicide, incarceration, juvenile mortality, gonorrhea and syphilis infections, teenage abortions, adolescent pregnancies, marriage duration, income disparity, poverty, work hours, overexploitation of resources, and income inequality. In nearly all these cases, the gap between the United States and the other 16 nations is large."

Article by Art Hobson:

http://physics.uark.edu/hobson/NWAT/09.08.29.html
***
X3: "even if my employer goes under tomorrow, my money is safe.">>

This shows a level of naivety that is difficult to parody. See Worldcom, Enron, Arthur Anderson, GM, Lehman Bros., Sharper Image, 2008, and thousands more. Start here:

http://www.businesspundit.com/the-25-wo ... n-history/

http://www.areppim.com/stats/stats_20to ... t80x08.htm

X3: "Taxes do kill growth>>

Tell that to Clinton:
Average of 4 percent in economic growth annually.

An increase in median family income of $6,338.

Job creation totaling more than 22.5 million.

Inflation at 2.5 percent.

The nation's largest surplus ever, $237 billion in fiscal 2000.

A 4 percent unemployment rate in December, the lowest rate in 30 years.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/01/ ... 2929.shtml
X3: "if you want more tax revenue, the way to do it is to grow the economy, not raise taxes.">>

Discredited, supply-side, rubbish. Factcheck has a nice debunk:
"...economists say tax cuts do not spark enough growth to pay for themselves.

This economic theory is what George H.W. Bush called “voodoo economics.” We called it “supply-side spin”... We found that a slew of government economists – from the Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation and the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers – all disagreed with that theory, saying that tax cuts may spur economic growth but they lead to revenues that are lower than they would have been if the cuts hadn’t been enacted."

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/h ... igher.html
Note the date. The "White House’s Council of Economic Advisers" are GW Bush's people.

X3:"SS... a Ponzi scheme.">>

I am sure I had corrected you on this howler the last time you floated it, and indeed I had, just a couple months ago. So here it is again, this time read for comprehension:

Flash from the past...

***
X3: "...Social Security, the world's largest Ponzi Scheme">>

DAR
This is a favorite canard so I'll let the folks at SS explain it to you:

"There is no unsustainable progression driving the mechanism of a pay-as-you-go pension system, and so it is not a pyramid or Ponzi scheme.

If the demographics of the population were stable, then a pay-as-you-go system would not have demographically-driven financing ups and downs, and no thoughtful person would be tempted to compare it to a Ponzi arrangement. However, since population demographics tend to rise and fall, the balance in pay-as-you-go systems tends to rise and fall as well. This vulnerability to demographic ups and downs is one of the problems with pay-as-you-go financing. But this problem has nothing to do with Ponzi schemes or any other fraudulent form of financing; it is simply the nature of pay-as-you-go systems."

http://web.archive.org/web/20041001-200 ... ponzi.html
***
X3: "Carter administration... tax was raised to the levels of today (until just recently, which is another huge mistake of the current leadership)..">>

This is rather muddled but seems to say that the current leadership has raised taxes. Let's go with that. So again, just factually false.
"Federal, state and local taxes — including income, property, sales and other taxes — consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. That rate is far below the historic average of 12% for the last half-century. The overall tax burden hit bottom in December at 8.8.% of income before rising slightly in the first three months of 2010."

viewtopic.php?p=21493#p21493
You keep getting wrong answers, because you start with fictional premises. It's a libertarian thing.

X3: [McGovern] statement is a red herring.>>

Actually, I thought it a really good and relevant point that makes conservatarians squirm. And you admit you can't give an example. Extra points for an honest answer!

X3: "His [Eisenhower] parallels today are guys like Ron Paul.">>

All of these comedians out of work and you are giving away jokes like that for free? Shame.

X3: "Eisenhower is probably more similar to libertarians today.">>

Is that what they told you in libertarian class?

X3: "So, no, I can't name anything.">>

Bingo.

X3: "WHEN was the last time a federal initiative now generally approved by both of our major parties put forward by liberals over the opposition of conservatives?">>

See the list contained within the McGovern quote. I can make a longer one if you like. And you don't have to go back 50-75 years.

D.
***
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Facebook debates, political

Post by Dardedar »

Powerful letter from a local person regarding taxes:

***
There are a lot of very solid posts from FFT, and I would encourage readers and other posters to try harder to ignore his sarcastic tone. He, among the many posters, is the one who has most accurately shared the facts on our tax system.

I grew up in poverty, but my dad was a hard working entrepreneur. He became a millionaire during my lifetime and I have lived a life which has some insights as a result.

Our family holds assets in a trusts, corps, Lim partnerships... We own a few million dollars in local real estate. Our two households own six homes.

Our annual gr. income is $400k+/- at present. We have no employees, and our biggest expense is debt service.

This year we are filing extensions, but will be paying zero tax. Same as last year, and the year before...

Why? Our accountant summed it up. It is his job to manipulate, within the limits of the law, our income and expense reporting to maximize our deductions and minimize our tax liability. We've been audited. It is all legitimate stuff.

Is it fair? If we read this thread, it sounds like people like Buddy don't seem concerned about what is fair, or even wise, for our national future. It is legal, but certainly not fair. There will come a day when the Mudbath covering up the facts (supported by both parties) enrages the public. People are amazingly easy to keep misled, for a while.

People are addicts to money and the freedom to spend it however we can. Micro financing via personal creditcards has "empowered" the poor to feel the rush of their addiction beyond their ability to sustain it. Profits go to huge corps.

The problem with taxation in America is that there is a broken system of loopholes designed to allow those with more wealth to utilize more loopholes. The IRS system must be dismantled and replaced with an alternative system of Jeffersonian scaled taxation. The poorest should be exempt, the wealthiest should bear the largest burden. The reason this is fair requires deeper financial wisdom than most people possess.

Fairness. I know the wealthy addicts don't tolerate paying for the effects of their wealth building, but the fact remains that the amassing of wealth is the cause of most government expenses.

Why do we need a military that stabilizes the flow of oil to us and our allies? Why do we need to defend our borders against illegal immigration? Why do we need to build highway infrastructure? Etc... Because of our human being-ness? No. Because of our wealth building.

The tax rate for everyone, as simple percentage, can be much lower than it currently is, but only if people, like us, have to actually pay it. Re-regulate the media to prevent news broadcasts from lying or intentionally misrepresenting facts. That's the first step to helping people like Buddy wash off the corporate mudbath. Until then the facts remain buried in obscure online forums instead of primarily TV.

LINK
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Facebook debates, political

Post by Dardedar »

Been having a little round and round with a fellow on Huff Po. Posted this in the quickie response box and it screwed up the formatting. Now HP won't take a repost, so I'll put my response to his, here:

***
Timesjoke: "run away from a direct question">>

When did I fail to respond to a direct question? Demonstrate.

T: "or point, lie,">>

Lie? Show where I have intentionally said something I know is untrue.

T: "counter accusations">>

I only make accusations I can back up.

T: "Every number you offer is distorted">>

Excellent. Then you won't have any trouble at all showing one that is. Begin.

T: "the illegals who are sick">>

Sorry, I really can't take you bigotry against Hispanics seriously. It's ludicrous.

T: "20 million sickly illegals">>

That's hilarious.

T: "France has...">>

Arguably, the best healthcare in the world. For well understood reasons.

US: 19th in “Death from curable diseases.” (we'd be lower but there were only 19 countries in this comparison)

France: • Best performance in “Mortality Amenable to Health Care.”

Oh, and we're 19th in infant mortality too.
Oh, and Canadians have lower rates of in-hospital mortality (1.4% Canada vs. 2.2% U.S.).

T: "big push to ration">>

Hey T, ask those 20,000 dead Americans each year what they know first hand about "rationing." What, you can't cause their dead?

T: "the size and reach of delivery does change our numbers.">>

Excuses, excuses. And all of those MRI's just sitting there.

T: "No other Country you speak of has our population size or the distance they are spread out."

Good point. Population density per square mile of three similar sized peer countries:

US: 83
Canada: 9.1 (a little bigger)
Austrailia: 7.8 (similar to US) Link

Nobody "spread out" over there! You're funny. I like you.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
Post Reply