• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Ongoing Dem Debacle Thread: Commander will kill us all

WakeandBake said:
I used to go down to chapel hill and party at the Phi Gam house and not feel my face for the whole weekend there was so much blow. Not to mention the cash on the books on any game that weekend . Drinking beers walking down the street underage. Good times and no cops and no jail
Click to expand...

Looks like your good behavior and good decisions were rewarded.
 
I mean seriously, there are literal financial incentives for rich folks to not get divorced, yet here we are. It’s almost as if people’s love and family lives aren’t simply calculated financial decisions. It’s crazy, I know.
 
Does it ever make financial sense for anyone to have a kid even within a marriage?
 
MHBDemon said:
You mean like how the government subsidizes the prison industry?
Click to expand...

Kinda like how oil industry was all put together with a lot of bootstrap-pulling and no invasive weed of government. Same with the tech industry, aviation, etc. Thank god that after WWII the government was out of the way on innovation and economic expansion so the glorious and divine free market could produce all the greatness that it did!
 
jhmd2000 said:
You're actually confused why people stopped paying for their private obligations when the government (foolishly) volunteered to do so in their place? The explanation for why in the shadow of the ham-handed decision to provide no-expectations, entitlement subsistence payments, more people started living on no-expectations, entitlement subsistence payments eludes your dynamic intellect?
Click to expand...

You’re making assumptions about the mechanism for an observed pattern, but the data you provided to support your point cannot speak to the mechanism. The logistic growth of single parent births started before the advent of the program you blame. Your model of the system is faulty.
 
Last edited:
jhmd2000 said:
If you stop paying people to have broken families, you will definitely have less broken families.
Click to expand...

This is what gets me. You think the Democrats are condescending to people who are poor yet your whole political narrative revolves around people breaking up their families just to be paid by the government.
 
You can always tell when jhmd is getting his ass handed to him. The snark goes into overdrive.
 
jhmd2000 said:
Declaring "victory" in the face of the demonstrable, abysmal failures of your policies is the essence of #undepheated.

Your prideful indifference to the failures of the policies purporting to help them makes perfect sense. I never believed you actually cared for them.
Click to expand...

I am not declaring victory, I am simply saying that the data you provided to support your conclusion do not support your conclusion. Refine your model or collect more data are the appropriate next steps, continuing to argue that your analysis is correct when the data so obviously don’t support it, makes you look like a zealot.
 
You just ignore evidence that doesn't support your predetermined conclusion.

Many of the states have enacted your tougher welfare policies for over 20 years now. Have they shown a reduction in single parent households?
 
This is the part where jhmd believes he knows the "cure" for poverty and will describe how he will starve the poor into prosperity and they will thank him for giving them their dignity back from the wicked Dems who only wanted a perpetually poor voting bloc. Try the veal
 
I never declared victory. Just pointing out that you are impervious to a critical examination of the "facts" that you put forward as support for your positions. And when shown that, you just double down on the snark instead of taking any sort of objective evaluation.

We have all seen this two step many times.

Personally, I think this is a multi-faceted nuanced issue. You are the ideologue here.

I guess that we can also point out that building a strawman is another favored debate tactic of yours.
 
And jhmd argues and argues that giving poor people money in the form of welfare or food stamps or housing creates cyclical poverty, but when the numbers are drilled into he struggles to identify the people who actually do need from the gamers of the system because the numbers are so small they are practically insignificant. Also, deep dives into the numbers reveal the system works pretty well, actually. But jhmd needs a bogeyman, all conservative policies do, to stoke resentment and anger among voters to change policies that he doesn’t like, and paying taxes to help poors is one that he doesn’t like.
 
The parameters of the logistic growth function that you provided data for were in place prior to 1965. The increase was already underway starting sometime in the 1950s. The only thing you’ve got JH is that the war on poverty policies did nothing to affect the underlying fundamentals. But you can’t really even say that because you don’t know what they the inflection point, the slope or the max would have been with and with out the war on poverty policies. You’ve got nothing but an unsupported and unproveable theory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top