The word fact and opinion are not the same word

a reply to: nonspecific

I don't even need to do that. The amount of times I get lost in a conversation because someone either invents half my conversation for me or just changes it completely to argue about something else only tangentially related to what we were discussing happens to me on a near constant basis. It happened at least once in this thread and once or twice in other threads today already.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I love the platitudes but can you give some concrete examples. I'm not a very smart person.

I have a feeling he is right but am also struggling to get my head around what he is saying.

Hope that makes us both feel a bit less stupid.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: nonspecific

I don't even need to do that. The amount of times I get lost in a conversation because someone either invents half my conversation for me or just changes it completely to argue about something else only tangentially related to what we were discussing happens to me on a near constant basis. It happened at least once in this thread and once or twice in other threads today already.

It used to drive my crazy in the real world but I got around that by only ever talking about whatever other people want to talk about.

it is far easier that way.

a reply to: Tellurian

Oh come on. Leave poor Bill alone. He's married to Hillary. That's enough punishment for one soul to endure.

I will tell you one thing through, Clinton's second term was the only time in 60 years the purchasing power of the median worker's wage actually rose. In the year 2000 your one dollar actually purchased more slices of bread than in 1996. An absolutely a stunning achievement because it never ever happens!

a reply to: nonspecific

I tend to just stop talking to them. Though that tactic is becoming less and less successful because their idiocy isn't decreasing by any measure... It used to be reality was the disprover of all lies, but those days appear to be gone.

a reply to: nonspecific

It is inaccurate to equate money with solutions to problems.

It is also inaccurate to think that spending money fixes everything. If money were an answer to life, then Hollywood, one of the richest places in the world, would not be the cesspool it is.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The deficit and the debt really don't matter. What does matter is the purchasing power of worker's take home power. If the economy has enough money circulating in enough hands everything feels good. Static numbers around debt really don't matter as long as the economy is serving the people's needs with enough velocity.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Those things do matter.

We still have to pay for them in the budget. A significant portion of what the government takes in pays for the service on that debt. Sure, we can simply print money to pay that off, but every dollar we print without anything of worth to back it also lowers the worth of every other dollar out there.

So, government uses a large portion of what it takes from workers to pay off its debt service (interest on debt) and if it does that the cheap way by printing more to cover, it also lowers the value of its workers' remaining dollars. That's two ways government keeps its workers from having purchasing power, direct and indirect, that are related to the debt and deficit.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: nonspecific

It is inaccurate to equate money with solutions to problems.

It is also inaccurate to think that spending money fixes everything. If money were an answer to life, then Hollywood, one of the richest places in the world, would not be the cesspool it is.

I do not think that i expressed what I meant very well.

If we elect a government to collect a fair amount of taxes and use that money to enable us to live in a happy well balanced society and they do that then they should not be able to spend too much money as the money they spend results in a better society and if we reach a platau then no more money needs to be spent and can be refunded and future taxation adjusted accordingly.

If we are saying that taxes are too high in relation to the standard of living we are recieving for the investment in tax then the government must not be spending the money in a way that is beneficial to society and therefore misapropriating it.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Yeah. That's fair. I just wish people would worry about these things BEFORE they became a problem instead of after they've become one. It's much easier (and cheaper) to fix something before it actually breaks and needs fixing.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Clinton's second term was the only time in 60 years the purchasing power of the median worker's wage actually rose. In the year 2000 your one dollar actually purchased more slices of bread than in 1996. An absolutely a stunning achievement because it never ever happens!

It had more to do with the "Internet Boom" than anything Clinton did ... Windows 98 had just came out and computers were beginning to sell by the boat load and anyone with a web site was being sold as a "Startup"... Clinton was just at the right place at right time is all..

Oh forgot, Clinton did do something ,he went all in on the great sucking sound and cheap goods from overseas..

a reply to: nonspecific

I think it's a mistake to equate electing government with collecting taxes as if that is the prime function of government.

Government is to decide what needs to be done to safeguard society and enable it to thrive. Once government decides what should be done, then it decides who to fund it should funds be needed.

The government should not say, "Well, how much are we stealing from the people this year?" before they do anything else.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: nonspecific

I think it's a mistake to equate electing government with collecting taxes as if that is the prime function of government.

Government is to decide what needs to be done to safeguard society and enable it to thrive. Once government decides what should be done, then it decides who to fund it should funds be needed.

The government should not say, "Well, how much are we stealing from the people this year?" before they do anything else.

I agree but to run a country you need funds and that is the point of taxation is it not?

As to your second comment many would say that is exactly what a government says and there is a fair ammount of evidence to back them up.

a reply to: nonspecific

In our history, the government did not have the power to do that at all until an amendment was passed. Up until that point, every bill that required funding needed to have any taxes as part of the bill itself.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: nonspecific

In our history, the government did not have the power to do that at all until an amendment was passed. Up until that point, every bill that required funding needed to have any taxes as part of the bill itself.

So the bill needed to have the funding needed included in itself and then the tax was created to fund the bill is that correct? was it better before or afterwards? what if there was a surplus or shortfall could it be taken from other funds?

Sorry if the questions sound simple but the US system is complex to outsiders.

a reply to: nonspecific

Generally speaking, it worked well enough until the Civil War. There was a temporary general revenue tax passed then which was repealed 10 years later. They tried to pass an income tax in 1894, but the SCOTUS struck it down as unconstitutional because it was not apportioned according to state population. That led to the 16th Amendment which led the system we have today.

Prior to that, Congress was expected to work within it's means. You also have to understand that the US was not a social welfare state either.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I love the platitudes but can you give some concrete examples. I'm not a very smart person.

If only I had the time....

if i have time later ill come back through.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

It is still REAL data therefore it is factual.

It is real data?

Apparently you forgot about HIDE THE DECLINE.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

*eyeroll* Yes it is real data. It is indisputable that the world has been reaching record highs year after year.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Which data?

The tree ring data that forms the 'hockey handle' was generated with skewed computer model methods, for all intensive purposes, in the code it literally said "apply very artificial adjustment", "hide the decline". The SPIKE at the end well thats satellite type data superimposed unto the tree ring model. Which given their hack methods of of handling the tree ring data who knows what to even make of it.

Its important to show a smooth line until the past 30 years so that the combined effect is ALARMING. With big swings in variation it wouldnt be = classic propaganda technique.

But none of that even matters: lets just say that tree ring data set is perfect, and the way they applied the modern 'spike' data to it and that data too s flawless, it absolutely doesnt account for MWP / LIA and yet Mann et al screams and shouts from the bristlecone tree tops that that graph represents the planet. When everyone knows that just isnt true.

And if they arent honest about that then why should we even trust his data methods to begin with?

Well all we have to do is dig into the CRU emails + computer code and clearly Mann et al is full of snip.