Another CBO Study Superfreak Will Ignore

Damocles said:
Right, you predicted that Superfreak would remain in directed and purposeful ignorance of the report. I noted that he clearly has a strong knowledge of the report rather than any ignorance, neither purposeful ignorance or accidental.
Click to expand...

No, I didn't. I said that SF would refuse to acknowledge, disregard or reject the report.

Damocles said:
Again, where is the "agreement" you said I have presented?
Click to expand...

FARGLE BARGLE.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
If you aren't saying that income inequality is no big deal, what it the point of cherry-picking the Treasury study? You're making the same argument that the Bush treasury made, that Garrett made, that IBD made, that the Wall Street Journal editors made, that Paul Ryan made, that Eric Cantor made: income inequality isn't a problem because we have tremendous social mobility in the U.S.
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO.... 'cherry picking' the Treasury study? Why are you cherry picking the CBO study? Why do you support giving everyone equal income regardless of the work they do?
 
David St. Hubbins said:
If you aren't saying that income inequality is no big deal, what it the point of cherry-picking the Treasury study? You're making the same argument that the Bush treasury made, that Garrett made, that IBD made, that the Wall Street Journal editors made, that Paul Ryan made, that Eric Cantor made: income inequality isn't a problem because we have tremendous social mobility in the U.S.
Click to expand...

That is NOT the point they made you dolt.... The point they made is that the census data and CBO study are not as dire as they are made out to be by the fear mongers on the left. The CBO study itself notes that the same people are not occupying the bottom 20% or the top 1% that did in 1979. The treasury study shows that people are constantly moving up AND DOWN the brackets. That mobility is NOT accounted for in these studies.

If you have five people in 1979....

Person 1) makes $1mm
Person 2) makes $100k
Person 3) makes $50k
Person 4) makes $30k
Person 5) Is on welfare getting $15k

Then in 2007 you have:

Person 1) makes $200 k
Person 2) makes $2mm
Person 3) makes $65k
Person 4) is on welfare getting $20k
Person 5) makes $40k

How is it relevant to how these individuals fared to say that the gap between top and bottom grew? If you don't have the same people on the top and bottom that were on the top and bottom in 1979, then it is really not telling you their stories now is it? The point is that we DO have income mobility as the Treasury Department study shows. That mobility is not an insignificant amount of the population as you pretend it is.

Yes, people in the bottom are not likely to skyrocket to the top (with the exceptions of athletes, actors, musicians etc...). They are certainly going to face a harder road than those born to families at the top. They are certainly going to have to fight harder/study harder etc...

That doesn't change the fact that the whole myth the left has created of the evil rich taking more and more and more is nothing short of bogus given that people are constantly falling OUT of the top tier as well as new people moving into it.
 
Rana said:
It is what Jesus would do, the parable of the workers...
Click to expand...

Really? Jesus would promote giving people the same regardless of the work they put in? Please cite the parable you are referring to as I am quite obviously unfamiliar with it. That said, given that I am not a Christian, I really (and no disrespect to Christians intended) don't care what Jesus would have done.
 
Superfreak said:
Really? Jesus would promote giving people the same regardless of the work they put in? Please cite the parable you are referring to as I am quite obviously unfamiliar with it. That said, given that I am not a Christian, I really (and no disrespect to Christians intended) don't care what Jesus would have done.
Click to expand...

Really!

The parable of the vineyards. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+20:1-16&version=NIV

I was also making a joke because I know you are not a Christian.

You guys go wy over my head on economics, I read to learn, but can't argue :)
 
David St. Hubbins said:
No, I didn't. I said that SF would refuse to acknowledge, disregard or reject the report.



FARGLE BARGLE.
Click to expand...

No, you said he would "ignore" it, which is directed and purposeful ignorance.

The rest of this must be your way of saying, "I was building a straw man, but you won't let me and now I'm getting testy so I'll pretend to be ignorant of what you mean or say it was nonsense.

Please, point to any word or phrase in the post you quoted that assigned any sort of "agreement" with Superfreak's position, or just admit you are a hack who immediately, and in the most knee-jerk fashion possible due to immediate acrimony just seeing the name of somebody from a different party, assigned an opinion to a post that never existed there.
 
Damocles said:
No, you said he would "ignore" it, which is directed and purposeful ignorance.

The rest of this must be your way of saying, "I was building a straw man, but you won't let me and now I'm getting testy so I'll pretend to be ignorant of what you mean or say it was nonsense.

Please, point to any word or phrase in the post you quoted that assigned any sort of "agreement" with Superfreak's position, or just admit you are a hack who immediately, and in the most knee-jerk fashion possible due to immediate acrimony just seeing the name of somebody from a different party, assigned an opinion to a post that never existed there.
Click to expand...

I could make quite a cutting comment to you about this thread Damo, but I'm not going to. I really want to though.
 
Damocles said:
No, you said he would "ignore" it, which is directed and purposeful ignorance.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. The two words, while related, are different. To ignore something is to refuse to acknowledge, disregard or reject something. To be ignorant of somethng is to lack knowledge, information or awareness of it. It is often the case that we ignore things that we have knowledge, information or awareness of.


Damocles said:
The rest of this must be your way of saying, "I was building a straw man, but you won't let me and now I'm getting testy so I'll pretend to be ignorant of what you mean or say it was nonsense.

Please, point to any word or phrase in the post you quoted that assigned any sort of "agreement" with Superfreak's position, or just admit you are a hack who immediately, and in the most knee-jerk fashion possible due to immediate acrimony just seeing the name of somebody from a different party, assigned an opinion to a post that never existed there.
Click to expand...

I AM CORNHOLIO.
 
Cornholio said:
No, it isn't. The two words, while related, are different. To ignore something is to refuse to acknowledge, disregard or reject something. To be ignorant of somethng is to lack knowledge, information or awareness of it. It is often the case that we ignore things that we have knowledge, information or awareness of.
Click to expand...
Right, and if one ignores (refrains from noticing) stuff that they know exists are they purposefully ignorant of the information that they may otherwise have due knowledge of? My answer would be, yes. Superfreak remains knowledgeable on the subject, he has not ignored it.

Unless you are using the definition by Law which is to reject as having insufficient evidence.

I AM CORNHOLIO.
Click to expand...

K
 
Damocles said:
Right, and if one ignores (refrains from noticing) stuff that they know exists are they purposefully ignorant of the information that they may otherwise have due knowledge of? My answer would be, yes. Superfreak remains knowledgeable on the subject, he has not ignored it.
Click to expand...

Unless you are using the definition by Law which is to reject as having insufficient evidence.[/quote]


You are mistaking a necessary condition for a sufficient condition. One need not be ignorant of something to ignore it. Thus, saying "Suprefreak will ignore this" can mean that Suprefreak will be purposefully unaware of the report and it's conclusions, but it does not necessarily mean that. I can also mean that that Superfreak will read every single word of the report and refuse to acknowledge/disregard/reject it nevertheless.
 
Onceler said:
Let me just paint a hypothetical for you. What if there was some fatal flaw in the capitalist system, whereby the following happened: once someone got rich through their own hard work, they found out that they could get richer just by virtue of the money they had, in a way no longer really related to work. Beyond that, their kids and the generations beyond them kept using this loophole to stay rich and get richer, without any work at all. Through this method, a significant amount of the nation's wealth basically stayed in the same group's hands, an amount that continued to grow, without any visible work being done.

And higher education, one of the few means whereby someone not in that group could hope to aspire to join that group, slowly & gradually grew in cost to the point where many of those not in the group either couldn't afford to attend, or attended at great debt to themselves, so that instead of accumulating wealth afterwards with their hard work, they spent many years just paying off that debt.

Would you have an suggestions on what could be done to address that flaw?
Click to expand...

My suggestion would be that you stop taking acid and seek some professional help.
 
Cornholio said:
The data does not show what you think it shows. You are arguing that income inequality isn't a big deal because we have tremendous social mobility in the United States, but we don't.
Click to expand...

Millionaires on the rebound

What recession? The millionaire population jumped in the U.S. by 8% last year, fueled by the stock market recovery, according to an industry report on Wednesday.

The number of U.S. households worth at least $1 million rose to 8.4 million in 2010, compared to 7.8 million the prior year, according to a report by Spectrem Group.
 
Cornholio said:
Unless you are using the definition by Law which is to reject as having insufficient evidence.


You are mistaking a necessary condition for a sufficient condition. One need not be ignorant of something to ignore it. Thus, saying "Suprefreak will ignore this" can mean that Suprefreak will be purposefully unaware of the report and it's conclusions, but it does not necessarily mean that. I can also mean that that Superfreak will read every single word of the report and refuse to acknowledge/disregard/reject it nevertheless.
Click to expand...

The problem is that I have not ignored any of the reports he has put forth. I have read each and every one. I have acknowledged their conclusions. Pointing out flaws in their conclusions does not mean I am ignoring them. I am specifically addressing their conclusions.

What dung is saying is: 'If you disagree with any report I put forth, you are ignoring it'.... that is absurdity at its finest.
 
Last edited:
Cornholio said:
Unless you are using the definition by Law which is to reject as having insufficient evidence.
Click to expand...

You are mistaking a necessary condition for a sufficient condition. One need not be ignorant of something to ignore it. Thus, saying "Suprefreak will ignore this" can mean that Suprefreak will be purposefully unaware of the report and it's conclusions, but it does not necessarily mean that. I can also mean that that Superfreak will read every single word of the report and refuse to acknowledge/disregard/reject it nevertheless.
Click to expand...

So, you are saying "You could be right, but I choose to say that you aren't by deliberately ignoring portions of the definition that can be taken that way. In short, I am actually being deliberately ignorant of portions of what you are saying about deliberate ignorance."

That is ironic, and funny, but it doesn't change that what I said can at least "be taken" as an accurate statement, even if you are deliberately ignorant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top