The Klartext Landfill for Absurd, Ignorant, and Deplorable Posts VI

[Antonio the Sixth]

http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

These are hilarious.

[RFayette]

Go ahead!  It only proves how having actual steadfastly conservative positions is ridiculed here!

Then please explain how poverty will be eliminated within 5 years if we scrap every last bit of the social safety net, the only thing propping millions of people up right now. If that was the answer all along, why was anyone ever poor to begin with before we had those programs? You didn't even bother backing this statement up. Bootstraps alone won't magically solve everything.

All I can gather from this statement is either 1) you're a troll, 2) you're just heartless and you know damn well poverty will go through the roof, but since you got yours..., or 3) you honestly have no idea how the world works and just blindly think govt is the problem without having a clue why.

And the only thing this proves is how much ExtremeRepublican positions are ridiculed, and rightly so.

In 1950, the poverty rate was around 30%.  From then until the late 1960s, the poverty rate decreased pretty much linearly at a rate of 1 percentage point per year to about 12%.  In the late 1960s, we created a bunch of new social programs and LBJ launched the War on Poverty.  At that point, poverty suddenly stopped decreasing, and it is still at the 1960s levels today.  With the track that we were on, poverty would have likely been eradicated in America by 1980 if the government had never intervened in the first place.  Unfortunately, human nature is that people will not work if they can get almost as much money from the government from numerous different entitlement programs (each one may not be huge, but they add up quickly).  There are, by the way, several points where making one more dollar would result in a decrease in total income after taxes and benefits due to a loss of entitlements and the government stealing a higher percentage of the income through taxation.

The bolded part strikes me as an unwarranted extrapolation of the data.  Overall economic growth was significantly better in the '50s and '60s compared to the '70s.  While it is true that the Great Society programs helped contribute to the inflation of that era, the Oil Embargo would have created problems regardless, not to mention increasing global competition (which was temporarily abated post-WWII) exerting a downward pressure on low-skilled wages.  This just strikes me as a "post hoc ergo propter hoc":  a lot of variables changed in the late '60s and to pin it all on welfare spending seems unreasonable.  After all, if welfare spending is the cause of increased poverty, we would expect countries that spend a higher proportion of their GDP on social welfare programs to have a higher poverty rate, which isn't really the case as seen with the empirical data ( https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2046.html ).  This isn't to say we should increase welfare spending per se, just that your thesis has some holes in it.

[Virginiá]

At that point, poverty suddenly stopped decreasing, and it is still at the 1960s levels today.  With the track that we were on, poverty would have likely been eradicated in America by 1980 if the government had never intervened in the first place.

Key word: likely. You didn't really prove your point. Maybe you're right, but by that logic it would be by dumb luck.

And what about Social Security? You left that out of your explanation. What about all those old people who can't work anymore and rely on that program for most or even all of their income? Poverty isn't restricted to working age adults. Further, just because you give some people access to things like Medicaid does not mean they are staying on it solely because it's easier. Many people simply don't have appropriate opportunities to provide for their families. The issue of poverty is so much more complicated than you are making it out to be.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Completely scrapping the social safety net would also affect a lot of people who don't rely on it.

For example I would lose my job. Yeah f[inks] that.

[heatcharger]

Democrats are treating white people the same way they treated black people back in the 1950s and 1960s.

Jesus...

[MAINEiac4434]

What the goddamn hell.

[JustinTimeCuber]

What the goddamn hell.

[Dr. Arch]

What the goddamn hell.

lmao. A good chunk of the Republican voter base have lost their sh**t if they're anything like these two exemplary citizens.

[RI]

evergreen's response wasn't much better.

[OneJ]

I don't know if Scott has already posted this, (or anyone else for the matter + this post is already deleted) but...

The wise latina is a overweight slob with diabetes. Don't count on her lasting 7 years.

[The_Doctor]

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a new thread namer.

Go ahead!  It only proves how having actual steadfastly conservative positions is ridiculed here!

Stop being a victim. It's so 1980s Tip O'Neill liberal.

[Kingpoleon]

hahahaha, I'm f-cking deceased:

Oh, Haslam!  The fact that we have a budget surplus doesn't mean that we have to spend it all today!  If the government (federal and state) would get rid of every last bit of the social safety net and every last entitlement, poverty would be eradicated within five years (plus no one would have to pay more than 5% of their income in any form of taxation).

Time to close the thread, guys.

Jesus Christ

... You know, he's not wrong. He could just sum it up with a:

TL;DR: If we kill all poor people by banning welfare and charity, then there will be no more poverty!

[The Other Castro]

hahahaha, I'm f-cking deceased:

Oh, Haslam!  The fact that we have a budget surplus doesn't mean that we have to spend it all today!  If the government (federal and state) would get rid of every last bit of the social safety net and every last entitlement, poverty would be eradicated within five years (plus no one would have to pay more than 5% of their income in any form of taxation).

Time to close the thread, guys.

Jesus Christ

... You know, he's not wrong. He could just sum it up with a:

TL;DR: If we kill all poor people by banning welfare and charity, then there will be no more poverty!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owI7DOeO_yg

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

How long will it be until these stories are so universally ridiculed that they stop spreading?

Liberals are cultists. They don't care about truth or morals. They're brainwashed.

Just mush between their ears.

Everyone who does not subscribe to their indoctrinated world view is evil and deserves to die. This is what they believe.

Truth has no meaning to them. They're hatred is so blinding that they will accept any lie no matter how ridiculous it is.

I don't know what it's like to be so hateful that I would willingly parrot something that I know is propaganda hogwash. And I'm glad that I never will know. It's so pathetic.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

hahahaha, I'm f-cking deceased:

Oh, Haslam!  The fact that we have a budget surplus doesn't mean that we have to spend it all today!  If the government (federal and state) would get rid of every last bit of the social safety net and every last entitlement, poverty would be eradicated within five years (plus no one would have to pay more than 5% of their income in any form of taxation).

Time to close the thread, guys.

Perhaps he means this literally?

[Figueira]

Similarly the polls in the US has Clinton winning by 3% and she won the popular vote by 2%.

And France has no Electoral College, to boot.

Sure, California helped the national polls save face. But France doesn't have any California's. The whole place is one giant Midwest. So it's more akin to Brexit. The far right always under polls in Europe. Le Pen will win for sure.

[Kingpoleon]

How long will it be until these stories are so universally ridiculed that they stop spreading?

Liberals are cultists. They don't care about truth or morals. They're brainwashed.

Just mush between their ears.

Everyone who does not subscribe to their indoctrinated world view is evil and deserves to die. This is what they believe.

Truth has no meaning to them. They're hatred is so blinding that they will accept any lie no matter how ridiculous it is.

I don't know what it's like to be so hateful that I would willingly parrot something that I know is propaganda hogwash. And I'm glad that I never will know. It's so pathetic.

It sounds like he's parroting your ideal BRTD-world from the view of someone critical of it.

[Mr. Smith]

Hillary without a doubt in my mind. Tulsi is not a progressive and has clearly cast herself as an Assadist. The only reason why she endorsed Bernie is because she wants the wing to support her in the future, even though she's everything they fought against in the establishment.

LBJ was a racist dixiecrat before he passed the Great Society. Careers wind around and the past remarks can be poor indicator of future policy choice.

No understanding of LBJ whatsoever in this post.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

glad to see that at least the democratic base is accepting reälity

What's so illegitimate about Trump? You can say muh popular vote all you'd like, but that doesn't change the fact that presidential elections are determined by the electoral college.

ya m8 he didn't win by either measure so i don't see what your point is

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

glad to see that at least the democratic base is accepting reälity

What's so illegitimate about Trump? You can say muh popular vote all you'd like, but that doesn't change the fact that presidential elections are determined by the electoral college.

ya m8 he didn't win by either measure so i don't see what your point is

i'm sorry facts trigger you (?)

[100% pro-life no matter what]

glad to see that at least the democratic base is accepting reälity

What's so illegitimate about Trump? You can say muh popular vote all you'd like, but that doesn't change the fact that presidential elections are determined by the electoral college.

ya m8 he didn't win by either measure so i don't see what your point is

i'm sorry facts trigger you (?)

Explain exactly why you think Clinton won the Electoral College

[Kingpoleon]

glad to see that at least the democratic base is accepting reälity

What's so illegitimate about Trump? You can say muh popular vote all you'd like, but that doesn't change the fact that presidential elections are determined by the electoral college.

ya m8 he didn't win by either measure so i don't see what your point is

i'm sorry facts trigger you (?)

Explain exactly why you think Clinton won the Electoral College

The same way many, many Republicans, perhaps including you, thought Romney won the Electoral College.((Voter fraud)

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

glad to see that at least the democratic base is accepting reälity

What's so illegitimate about Trump? You can say muh popular vote all you'd like, but that doesn't change the fact that presidential elections are determined by the electoral college.

ya m8 he didn't win by either measure so i don't see what your point is

i'm sorry facts trigger you (?)

Explain exactly why you think Clinton won the Electoral College

- republicans' large-scale illegal schemes to prevent people from voting (some of which were so egregious they were struck down even after the indefensible shelby co. v. holder decision) are very well documented

- i think even the farthest-right of us can agree that at least like, two or three percent of trump voters (i.e. enough to account for the official margins) are nazis, no? (obviously it's substantially more than that but y'know) anyways nazis aren't people and therefore can't vote

[RINO Tom]

glad to see that at least the democratic base is accepting reälity

What's so illegitimate about Trump? You can say muh popular vote all you'd like, but that doesn't change the fact that presidential elections are determined by the electoral college.

ya m8 he didn't win by either measure so i don't see what your point is

i'm sorry facts trigger you (?)

Explain exactly why you think Clinton won the Electoral College

- republicans' large-scale illegal schemes to prevent people from voting (some of which were so egregious they were struck down even after the indefensible shelby co. v. holder decision) are very well documented

- i think even the farthest-right of us can agree that at least like, two or three percent of trump voters (i.e. enough to account for the official margins) are nazis, no? (obviously it's substantially more than that but y'know) anyways nazis aren't people and therefore can't vote

Nobody likes Nazis, but in the context of American politics and the freedom of speech and expression we will never, ever take for granted in this country, this sentence belongs in this thread.  Horrible people are allowed to express their horrible opinions.