Smart, Rich Conservatives versus Poor, Dumb Conservatives
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 01:29:04 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  Smart, Rich Conservatives versus Poor, Dumb Conservatives
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Smart, Rich Conservatives versus Poor, Dumb Conservatives  (Read 4765 times)
Wisconsin+17
Ben Kenobi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,127
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: November 15, 2012, 08:21:08 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Given that President Bush and McCain all outperformed Romney, I think we can finally toss that myth in the dustbin.
Logged
Wisconsin+17
Ben Kenobi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,127
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: November 15, 2012, 08:23:12 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you don't believe that we are governed by the constitution, then what are we governed by? The whims of our present leaders?

The reason I support the constitution, is because the constitution is the founding principle of the United States of America. If one wants to be a citizen of the United States - one of the things that you swear to do is to uphold the constitution.
Logged
Wisconsin+17
Ben Kenobi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,127
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: November 15, 2012, 08:26:51 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The programs are all very different from each other, conflating them muddies the waters.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/03/us/growth-in-welfare-cost-outpaces-number-on-rolls.html

The primary cause, they say, is a complex and bloated bureaucracy.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,190
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: November 16, 2012, 12:29:43 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The programs are all very different from each other, conflating them muddies the waters.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/03/us/growth-in-welfare-cost-outpaces-number-on-rolls.html

The primary cause, they say, is a complex and bloated bureaucracy.
Administration, and your

One 1994 NYT article written before the aggressive government efficiency measures implimented by the Clinton Administration, and your increasingly outlandish soundinng claim of welfare programs having a 2/3 overhead rate remains wholly unsubstantiated.
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,241
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: November 16, 2012, 12:34:10 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The programs are all very different from each other, conflating them muddies the waters.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/03/us/growth-in-welfare-cost-outpaces-number-on-rolls.html

The primary cause, they say, is a complex and bloated bureaucracy.

You're basing your argument on an article from almost NINETEEN YEARS AGO?!
Logged
ajb
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 869
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: November 16, 2012, 12:54:06 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The programs are all very different from each other, conflating them muddies the waters.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/03/us/growth-in-welfare-cost-outpaces-number-on-rolls.html

The primary cause, they say, is a complex and bloated bureaucracy.

You're basing your argument on an article from almost NINETEEN YEARS AGO?!

Google is your friend here. For example, administrative costs equal about 6.3% of the money spent on TANF:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ofa/2011_tanf_data_with_states.pdf
Logged
ajb
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 869
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: November 16, 2012, 12:57:02 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The programs are all very different from each other, conflating them muddies the waters.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/03/us/growth-in-welfare-cost-outpaces-number-on-rolls.html

The primary cause, they say, is a complex and bloated bureaucracy.

You're basing your argument on an article from almost NINETEEN YEARS AGO?!

Google is your friend here. For example, administrative costs equal about 6.3% of the money spent on TANF:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ofa/2011_tanf_data_with_states.pdf

And, for comparison, the American Cancer Society spends about 9% on administration, and another 11% on fundraising:

http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/national/cancer/american-cancer-society-in-atlanta-ga-186/financial
Logged
Wisconsin+17
Ben Kenobi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,127
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: November 16, 2012, 09:04:46 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

One, it's the NYT.

Two, if you believe that the administration suddenly stopped being 'bloated' after the age of Clinton, I have a bridge to sell you.
Logged
ajb
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 869
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: November 16, 2012, 04:06:21 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

One, it's the NYT.

Two, if you believe that the administration suddenly stopped being 'bloated' after the age of Clinton, I have a bridge to sell you.

So you'd rather cite a newspaper article from two decades ago than the actual statistics on administrative costs for a major government welfare program (TANF) that I've provided above?
Logged
Wisconsin+17
Ben Kenobi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,127
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: November 16, 2012, 05:39:06 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Given that the NYT is a hostile witness, yes. Or are you calling the Times a liar?
Logged
ajb
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 869
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: November 16, 2012, 07:06:45 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Given that the NYT is a hostile witness, yes. Or are you calling the Times a liar?
They also said (in 1994, the year of that article) that Bill Clinton was President. Given that we know that Barack Obama is in fact President now, do you believe the NYT to have been lying in 1994?
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,890
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: November 16, 2012, 09:14:31 PM »


So Trump is to America what Berlusconi is to Italy.

...the fact he's never been elected to any office still makes America slightly superior, I guess. Tongue
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,190
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: November 18, 2012, 08:07:04 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

One, it's the NYT.

Two, if you believe that the administration suddenly stopped being 'bloated' after the age of Clinton, I have a bridge to sell you.

'It's the NYT"?!? THAT'S your argument?? Even after ajb directly cied how TANF is more cost effective than a major us charity (and at only 6% overhead, considerbly more efficient than most private charities), it's telling you're not even TRYING to claim 2/3 of welfare costs go to overhead anymore.

Most people after realizing they we're not merely mistaken, but GROSSLY and WILDLY off, would reconsider their views. But not you, good sir! You are unshaken by facts or statistics!

I accept your utter surrender and spare you further abject humiliation by posting further.
Logged
Wisconsin+17
Ben Kenobi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,127
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: November 19, 2012, 11:34:21 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The NYT is generally in opposition to welfare reform. If it is so bad as to deserve mention in the Times, then it must be absolutely terrible. Generally when a source is biased the other way, you can expect that source to be reliable on this issue.
Logged
ajb
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 869
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: November 19, 2012, 11:44:12 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The NYT is generally in opposition to welfare reform. If it is so bad as to deserve mention in the Times, then it must be absolutely terrible. Generally when a source is biased the other way, you can expect that source to be reliable on this issue.
Go back and read your article. It says that in 1991 federal administrative costs for Medicaid, food stamps and AFDC combined were $4.9 billion, while total federal expenditures on these three programs were $79 billion. That adds up to administrative costs of about 6.2%.
Maybe you misplaced a decimal point during your time travel?

Logged
Wisconsin+17
Ben Kenobi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,127
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: November 19, 2012, 11:51:18 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nazi Germany propaganda is reliable for establishing minimum German casulties, not maximum. The NYT is reliable for pointing out actual instances of government mismanagement, they are unreliable for it's scope.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,190
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: November 19, 2012, 12:32:57 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nazi Germany propaganda is reliable for establishing minimum German casulties, not maximum. The NYT is reliable for pointing out actual instances of government mismanagement, they are unreliable for it's scope.

So the NYT's liberal bent now equates its reliabilty to the Nazi Ministry of Information......


Look below you, kenobi, and I'm sure you'll see a shark you're flying over.
Logged
Wisconsin+17
Ben Kenobi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,127
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: November 19, 2012, 02:47:04 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actual quotation from my textbook on 'assessing historical reliability'.
Logged
ajb
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 869
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: November 19, 2012, 07:51:02 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actual quotation from my textbook on 'assessing historical reliability'.

Does that same textbook advocate reading only sources that are from twenty years prior to the events in question, then arbitrarily multiplying their numbers by ten?
You do realize that your methodology here is:
1. Make a claim about the present.
2. Find an article from the New York Times from twenty years ago that does not support your claim, even if that claim were being made about twenty years ago.
3. Say that the New York Times has a liberal bias, so that their refutation of your claim actually constitutes support for your claim.

Using this methodology, it's child's play to prove that the moon is made of green cheese. After all, there are tons of articles from the New York Times in 1994 which don't say that the moon is made of green cheese, and everybody knows that the liberal media is in bed with junk liberal science. So clearly, it follows that the moon is made of green cheese.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.041 seconds with 13 queries.