IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Colorado incidents , Colorado politics , Estelle Carson , politics scandals

Reply
Old 28th October 2012, 11:57 AM   #41
The_Animus
Illuminator
 
The_Animus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,259
If you feel your in-laws are fraudulently receiving benefits then why don't you report them instead of supporting candidates who themselves are frauds.
The_Animus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2012, 12:01 PM   #42
applecorped
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 20,145
Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
If you feel your in-laws are fraudulently receiving benefits then why don't you report them instead of supporting candidates who themselves are frauds.
Stop snitchin'.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2012, 12:08 PM   #43
The_Animus
Illuminator
 
The_Animus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,259
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
"Redistribution" as it is used by conservatives is complete and utter BS.

http://imageshack.us/a/img831/866/incomegap.jpg

Please to show me this redistribution?
Exactly. I quickly looked up inflation from 1979 to today and it adds up to roughly 100%. When your wages only increase 16 or 25% that entire time but inflation rises 100% should it really surprise anyone that so many people need public assistance.
The_Animus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2012, 12:19 PM   #44
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by JeanFromBNA View Post
What percentage of people who use fraudulent means to obtain public assistance will actually admit to it? I don't have that answer. I could give personal, first hand anecdotes, but you don't want them.
I don't know of anyone who denies that there is fraud and abuse. There will always be fraud and abuse. In fact there are tip lines for reporting fraud and abuse. So, what is your point? I'm happy to discuss solutions to fraud and abuse but it will always exist to some degree. The point is that it exists in part because providing public assistance is good for everyone. It really is. Nations that provide public assistance have by far the wealthiest people on the planet, the highest levels of health and well being. Hence my following post:

Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
Is there any reason to think your ideal govt would result in the greatest good for the greatest number of citizens or do you have a different idea of what constitutes a successful nation? If a nation like Norway can have such a high standard of living with great opportunities for entrepreneurs and high levels of contentment, health and well being then what about your idea makes it preferable in your eyes and is there any empirical data that it would work as you envision?
As a staunch conservative of 48 years I didn't even know there was even such a correlation. Limbaugh, Hannity and other conservative media sources never pointed that out. Do you think they know?
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

Last edited by RandFan; 28th October 2012 at 12:24 PM.
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2012, 12:23 PM   #45
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
Exactly. I quickly looked up inflation from 1979 to today and it adds up to roughly 100%. When your wages only increase 16 or 25% that entire time but inflation rises 100% should it really surprise anyone that so many people need public assistance.
For some, anecdote is greater than fact.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2012, 01:00 PM   #46
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,785
I have to wonder what Jean's mother-in-law's "fake disability" is.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2012, 01:35 PM   #47
applecorped
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 20,145
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
For some, anecdote is greater than fact.
And vice versa.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2012, 01:36 PM   #48
Fitter
Illuminator
 
Fitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,113
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
I have to wonder what Jean's mother-in-law's "fake disability" is.
Probably not an above the knee amputation.
Fitter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2012, 01:51 PM   #49
Caper
Philosopher
 
Caper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,732
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
Is there any reason to think your ideal govt would result in the greatest good for the greatest number of citizens or do you have a different idea of what constitutes a successful nation? If a nation like Norway can have such a high standard of living with great opportunities for entrepreneurs and high levels of contentment, health and well being then what about your idea makes it preferable in your eyes and is there any empirical data that it would work as you envision?

Do you think if you adopted a Norway style government in the United States, you would be in the top of the charts in all the important categories?

The population of Norway is 5 million. The amount of people calling themselves solely Norwegian American is 3 million. My guess (and I don't have a study to back this up).... is the Norwegians living in the US are just as happy, just as successful, live just as long (that one I'm not as sure) and have just as high a standard of living as they do in their home country.
Caper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2012, 02:04 PM   #50
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by Caper View Post
Do you think if you adopted a Norway style government in the United States, you would be in the top of the charts in all the important categories?

The population of Norway is 5 million. The amount of people calling themselves solely Norwegian American is 3 million. My guess (and I don't have a study to back this up).... is the Norwegians living in the US are just as happy, just as successful, live just as long (that one I'm not as sure) and have just as high a standard of living as they do in their home country.
Thanks for the question. Let me make clear that the rankings in the HDI are arguable. I'm happy to say good folks from JREF have disabused me of the notion that we can take the specific ratings as definitive and it is not my purpose to do so and I should come up with some kind of boiler plate caveat.

First, as to Norwegians living in America being identical in most every aspect as those living in Norway, I doubt that (there are a number of reasons why that is arguable). But then we are talking about small to moderate statistical variations and our own personal opinions. Not really relevant to my point. It's wasn't my purpose to compare and contrast America with Norway. My purpose was to choose an ideal that I could use as an example of a nation with a high degree of social services that is not a hell hole. Understood? I'm trying to falsify the erroneous notion that small governments produce the greatest outcomes for the most people.

Second, I gladly include America as being amongst the top nations for human development so your point really is moot. I can make my argument even if I were to concede that Norway and America are exact in every measurement of quality of life. I could make my argument using America as the ideal (I don't think it personally is the best example though as there are a number of metrics that call that into question)

Finally, the size of Norway is entirely irrelevant as I don't need Norway. It was a convenient example to falsify the notion of small govts being better. I'm happy to submit the aggregate of the entire list of top 35 nations.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2012, 02:13 PM   #51
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Now...

What I'm looking for is that bastion of libertarian and/or conservative and/or anarcho capitalist and/or fiscally conservative and/or whatever example to counter my argument.

Where are these small govt ideals or near ideals? I'm not asking for utopia, I'm asking for demonstration that small govt is emperically better than those ranked high in HDI (please to provide a list that you prefer?).

Don't get me wrong, govt CAN be too big. Having been a staunch conservative for most of my life I do not dismiss conservative ideology out of hand. I dismiss the propaganda of "the government that governs best governs least".

Government needs to be sufficiently large to produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people. The countries that are currently providing the best metrics are by and large Keynesian, neo-keynesian or something akin to that, capitalist systems that provide strong social safety nets and social programs for citizens but allow private property rights and who balance the needs of individuals, society and business.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

Last edited by RandFan; 28th October 2012 at 02:16 PM.
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2012, 02:18 PM   #52
applecorped
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 20,145
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post

Don't get me wrong, govt CAN be too big.
= Vote for Obama.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2012, 03:23 PM   #53
The_Animus
Illuminator
 
The_Animus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,259
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
= Vote for Obama.
What a great contribution to the discussion. Don't mind all the actual arguments people are providing. Just ignore them and respond with worthless one liners. It gets that post count high, and we all know that is what is important.
The_Animus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2012, 03:24 PM   #54
Caper
Philosopher
 
Caper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,732
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
Where are these small govt ideals or near ideals? I'm not asking for utopia, I'm asking for demonstration that small govt is emperically better than those ranked high in HDI (please to provide a list that you prefer?).
Would Norway completely fall apart from the seems if they reduced their size of government?...Lets say the size of the example you ask for?

Last edited by Caper; 28th October 2012 at 03:26 PM.
Caper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2012, 03:33 PM   #55
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by Caper View Post
Would Norway completely fall apart from the seems if they reduced their size of government?
Somehow I don't think you are getting this. It's okay Caper. Perhaps it's my fault.

I don't claim that any nation would fall apart with smaller govt. That's NOT my argument. My argument is that I find no correlation between small govt and high quality of life index.

One could ask if a table would lose its structural integrity if you removed some wood molecules? If the table then would not lose structural integrity then why not keep removing molecules and keep asking the question? Since you feel the need to cherry pick quotes let me put two back in.
  • "Don't get me wrong, govt CAN be too big."
  • "Government needs to be sufficiently large to produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people."
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2012, 04:00 PM   #56
stevea
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,061
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
Hey Jean, would you do me a favor? Tell me which of the 20 nations highest in HDI (or any other index) meets your criteria for small government?
Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan ... what's wrong - google broken for you ? Those nations take roughly half as much GDP by taxation as the US and have slammin' growth &HDI. HDI has several technical issues that make it distorted view, but OK - your dubious goalpost. When you eliminate nations who's income depends on natural resources or banking - then Singapore is #1, followed by HongKong , Swiss, US, Netherlands ... US used to be farther up the list but ... we went socialist and our per capita income dropped.

There simply aren't that many examples of truly small governments on the planet. That doesn't mean they are economically unsuccessful, but instead it suggests that governments have a strong tendency to accumulate centralized power using their monopoly of force. If you look at US long history you'd see that we did quite well in developmental standards against the world in periods with far less government.

Now a challenge for YOU. Take a look at the nations with the largest/fattest governments based on a measure of taxes per GDP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...centage_of_GDP
A list perhaps headed by
Kirbati, Zimbabwe, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, Cuba, France, Finland, Norway, ... a motley list.

Now compare that list's average with the list of nations ranked by personal freedom, or economic freedom and you'll see a fairly clear pattern. The high-tax nations occupy a significant fraction of the dead-last-bottom in liberty (Zimbabwe & Cuba are examples) the rest are randomly distributed. The mid-high-end freedom+high-tax nations are the typical Euro-nations with very coherent cultures, Iceland & Finland are the top ranking examples.

The point has been made elsewhere but it should be obvious, even to the clueless. There is NO necessary relationship between large government and a reasonable measure of development. Many times large government correlates to terrifically bad abuses of personal liberty as governments consolidate power (power corrupts ... ). When we have a coherent culture (and perhaps a need for cooperation) as in many small N.Euro nations, then personal trust can occur and there is social pressure to not cheat your fellow nationals (=genetic cohort) - then in these cases high taxes and a large-government socialism can be useful. I have a theory that there is a relationship between cold-climate and successful socialism, but that's for another thread. When we have a large poly-cultural nation (few examples as good as the US, but I'd accept Canada, UK, France, India) the system of trust evaporates and socialism doesn't work very well.

So for example, cultural and natural resource issues might lead me (an American of N.Euro extraction) to prefer to emigrate to Iceland rather than Taiwan. I'd never be truly accepted in either place. Both nations have a very comparable per-capita GDP. But the 40.4% Icelandic tax rate and the ~12.4% Taiwanese rate tells me in bright red letters that I'd have more opportunity to be treated fairly - regardless of cultural preferences - in Taiwan. OTOH if I intended to be a leech on society rather than a net producer I'd rather emigrate to Iceland or France or the UK, or best of all Denmark.
--

I guess the question becomes - WHERE (if anywhere) do you rank personal liberality, personal rights, personal responsibility in your political schema ?


The OP made a clear case that *some* Democrats (and am NOT painting with a broad brush) prize and honor people lacking in principles, but merely with Leftish ideology. We've seen this repeatedly in the recent past. When a Dem is caught perpetrating the most clear-cut and obvious contraventions of social conventions they get a pass from many Dems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards), but when a Rep is caught out doing far less, sometimes merely mouthing bad ideas, they are expected to resign in disgrace, (Todd Akin, Mark Sanford). So yes the valid and obvious point is that some Dems are clearly outlandish hypocrites.
stevea is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2012, 04:12 PM   #57
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by stevea View Post
Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan ... what's wrong - google broken for you ?
All offer UHC. All have social services.

Quote:
There simply aren't that many examples of truly small governments on the planet. That doesn't mean they are economically unsuccessful...
The most good for the most people.

Quote:
, but instead it suggests that governments have a strong tendency to accumulate centralized power using their monopoly of force. If you look at US long history you'd see that we did quite well in developmental standards against the world in periods with far less government.
You'd also see lots of poverty and child labor.

Quote:
Now a challenge for YOU. Take a look at the nations with the largest/fattest governments based on a measure of taxes per GDP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...centage_of_GDP
A list perhaps headed by
Kirbati, Zimbabwe, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, Cuba, France, Finland, Norway, ... a motley list.
I said:
  • "Don't get me wrong, govt CAN be too big."
  • "Government needs to be sufficiently large to produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people."
Of course governments can be too big.

Quote:
The point has been made elsewhere but it should be obvious, even to the clueless. There is NO necessary relationship between large government and a reasonable measure of development.
My argument is this:

Governments need to be sufficiently large enough. I never claimed that being big was good. ON the contrary I said just the opposite.
  • "Don't get me wrong, govt CAN be too big."
  • "Government needs to be sufficiently large to produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people."
The point is that "big" or "small" isn't necessarily good. My argument is for "sufficient".

{snipped the rest} Let's address that for now.

Quote:
I guess the question becomes - WHERE (if anywhere) do you rank personal liberality, personal rights, personal responsibility in your political schema ?
The list of nations high in HDI demonstrate that you can have personal responsibility, personal liberty, personal rights AND provide strong social safety nets.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

Last edited by RandFan; 28th October 2012 at 04:15 PM.
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2012, 04:28 PM   #58
stevea
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,061
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
It's very difficult to get disability. It's not like getting food stamps. It took two years. I was denied twice and it was abundantly clear to anyone who took one look at me that I could not work. In the end it took a review from an administrative judge to grant me disability.
Empathy, but LOL. You constantly argue for more government, but when YOU run up against the gross inefficiency you ignore it, then you complain.

My wife just got SS disability *but* to be fair it REQUIRES an administrative judges' ruling and it typically takes two years and several rejections (as in my wife's clear-cut case). I DO feel that this is a case where the more indigent are harmed b/c of government's gross inefficiency. My wife is currently awaiting 2 years of SS disability payments based on an July ruling that these are due. It's laughably bad administration. Any insurance company would be sued out of existence.

FWIW my wife's private LT disability insurance kicked in immediately and without any disputes, delays or arguments. Far different than the government disability insurance system.

Of course we could sue the private insurer for any malfeasance, but there is no means to sue the government.

Yes - by all means let's let this same incompetent, slow and bureaucratic and un-sue-able and even arbitrary government control health care too - a brilliantly bad idea.
stevea is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2012, 04:37 PM   #59
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by stevea View Post
Empathy, but LOL. You constantly argue for more government, but when YOU run up against the gross inefficiency you ignore it, then you complain.
LOL no. I don't "complain". I point out that the BS propaganda about disability is wrong. And your own examples demonstrate my point (see below).

Quote:
My wife just got SS disability *but* to be fair it REQUIRES an administrative judges' ruling and it typically takes two years and several rejections (as in my wife's clear-cut case). I DO feel that this is a case where the more indigent are harmed b/c of government's gross inefficiency. My wife is currently awaiting 2 years of SS disability payments based on an July ruling that these are due. It's laughably bad administration. Any insurance company would be sued out of existence.

FWIW my wife's private LT disability insurance kicked in immediately and without any disputes, delays or arguments. Far different than the government disability insurance system.

Of course we could sue the private insurer for any malfeasance, but there is no means to sue the government.

Yes - by all means let's let this same incompetent, slow and bureaucratic and un-sue-able and even arbitrary government control health care too - a brilliantly bad idea.
Of course you ignore that not everyone can afford private LT disability insurance. And oddly enough your own examples for economic freedom offer UHC. So which is it?
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2012, 04:49 PM   #60
stevea
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,061
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
You'd also see lots of poverty and child labor.
Call for evidence.

Child labor and poverty in absolute terms were on the decline long before any government intrusions on the matter. It's a distortion to claim regulation reduced or prevented poverty or child labor.


Quote:
I said:
  • "Don't get me wrong, govt CAN be too big."
  • "Government needs to be sufficiently large to produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people."
Of course governments can be too big.
Then the thorny question; How do YOU define 'too big' and 'sufficiently large' and why should anyone else accept your personal definitions ? If you want to propose a constitutional amendment to allow social security, medicare and Obamacare, then I think this is a perfectly valid approach and I would applaud the effort. I may well disagree with the specifics and urge my state to not ratify, but it is the only valid and legitimate way to address the problem at the Federal level - with a super-majority of states deciding.


Quote:
The point is that "big" or "small" isn't necessarily good. My argument is for "sufficient".
But we have a constitution that calls for minimalist FedGov and also allows for amendment when there is wide agreement. Why do you imagine that the partisan decision of the 50.1% is comparable to the ratification of 3/4ths of states ?


Quote:
The list of nations high in HDI demonstrate that you can have personal responsibility, personal liberty, personal rights AND provide strong social safety nets.
I disagree. You cannot have strong safety nets without also taxing the successful heavily and that reduces freedom and abolishes personal responsibility. In several cases (Taiwan, Singapore) we have clear examples of nations not offering broad safety nets, yet have high HDI figures. One can be very irresponsible in Sweden, but not Singapore.

No the freedom to succeed is also the freedom to fail. You cannot blunt one edge of the sword without comparable blunting the other.

Last edited by stevea; 28th October 2012 at 04:56 PM.
stevea is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2012, 04:55 PM   #61
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by stevea View Post
I disagree. You cannot have strong safety nets without also taxing the successful heavily and that reduces freedom and abolishes personal responsibility. In several cases (Taiwan, Singapore) we have clear examples of nations not offering broad safety nets, yet have high HDI figures.
But they do have safety nets. I don't know about "broad" but they offer UHC and other social programs. Look, if you could show me a nation that offered little or no social programs that also had high HDI (including low inequality) then I'd happily concede the point.

Quote:
No the freedom to succeed is also the freedom to fail. You cannot blunt one edge of the sword without comparable blunting the other.
I was a life long staunch conservative. Of course you need incentive to succeed. Norway and even Denmark have highly successful citizens. Capitalism works there. They just have less inequality. And what's wrong with that?
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2012, 04:58 PM   #62
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 14,213
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
I was a life long staunch conservative. Of course you need incentive to succeed. Norway and even Denmark have highly successful citizens. Capitalism works there. They just have less inequality. And what's wrong with that?
We Scandinavians are commies?
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2012, 05:02 PM   #63
dc1971
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,021
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
= Vote for Obama.
Great counter-argument!

Wish I would have though of that!
dc1971 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2012, 05:32 PM   #64
stevea
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,061
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
But they do have safety nets. I don't know about "broad" but they offer UHC and other social programs. Look, if you could show me a nation that offered little or no social programs that also had high HDI (including low inequality) then I'd happily concede the point.
Lack of evidence or examples is not disproof.

Taiwan's government spends ~$630USD per capita on healthcare with good results, Singapore's is around $2k with great results and ~70-80% of ppl covered by Gov, and the US WITHOUT UHC spends a bit more than Singapore per capita just counting medicare and medicaid. So a nation can offer UHC with a small government footprint or can lack UHC with a large expensive government programs.

No - no obvious relationship between size/cost of government and services provided.

Quote:
I was a life long staunch conservative. Of course you need incentive to succeed. Norway and even Denmark have highly successful citizens. Capitalism works there. They just have less inequality. And what's wrong with that?
Really ? Here's a ranking that says otherwise.
http://www.doingbusiness.org/rankings
Shows Denmark and Norway ranking behind Afghanistan and Egypt in starting a biz. Easy to do business (withing government constraints), very hard to start a biz.
stevea is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2012, 05:39 PM   #65
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by stevea View Post
No - no obvious relationship between size/cost of government and services provided.
Bizarre claim. I don't know what "obvious" means but given the entire list of nations in the HDI mix, social services is a clear correlation.

Quote:
Really ? Here's a ranking that says otherwise.
http://www.doingbusiness.org/rankings
Shows Denmark and Norway ranking behind Afghanistan and Egypt in starting a biz. Easy to do business (withing government constraints), very hard to start a biz.
I don't see that you've made your point. Please to explain? Denmark and Norway are high in HDI, GDP etc. and low in inequality. Denmark's ease of doing business ranking is 5th and Norway is 6th. It looks like you are desperately cherry picking. Perhaps there are some good and valid reasons why starting a business should be a bit more complicated. I don't know but it looks like you are simply flailing around trying to find any data.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

Last edited by RandFan; 28th October 2012 at 05:44 PM.
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2012, 07:22 PM   #66
JeanFromBNA
Critical Thinker
 
JeanFromBNA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 439
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
For some, anecdote is greater than fact.
First hand anecdotes are fact, unless you're calling me a liar.
JeanFromBNA is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2012, 07:26 PM   #67
JeanFromBNA
Critical Thinker
 
JeanFromBNA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 439
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
As a staunch conservative of 48 years I didn't even know there was even such a correlation. Limbaugh, Hannity and other conservative media sources never pointed that out. Do you think they know?
How would I know what they know? But you apparently think that you know what they know and what I know from a few posts. You substitute stereotypes for observation. I really thought you were better than that.
JeanFromBNA is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2012, 07:27 PM   #68
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,785
Originally Posted by JeanFromBNA View Post
First hand anecdotes are fact, unless you're calling me a liar.
Do you apply the same standards to those who "know" they've seen ghosts?

What is this disability that your mother-in-law is faking, btw?
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2012, 07:28 PM   #69
JeanFromBNA
Critical Thinker
 
JeanFromBNA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 439
Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
If you feel your in-laws are fraudulently receiving benefits then why don't you report them instead of supporting candidates who themselves are frauds.
How do you know that I haven't? And from your statement, I take it that you're not voting this year, either?
JeanFromBNA is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2012, 07:30 PM   #70
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,785
Originally Posted by JeanFromBNA View Post
How do you know that I haven't?
Ok. Have you?
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2012, 07:38 PM   #71
JeanFromBNA
Critical Thinker
 
JeanFromBNA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 439
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
Do you apply the same standards to those who "know" they've seen ghosts?

What is this disability that your mother-in-law is faking, btw?
"thaiboxer" (snort - my bad) Ken misreads my posts. Fact or not? I mean about the Muay Thai and the post misreading.

Ken is substituting a stereotype evil conservative caricature instead of understand an individual position. Fact or opinion, Ken?

I never said that my mother-in-law had a disability, or that she is collecting any support payments.

And if she has a disability, it's none of your goddamned business.
JeanFromBNA is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2012, 07:39 PM   #72
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by JeanFromBNA View Post
First hand anecdotes are fact, unless you're calling me a liar.
No, I'm saying that for me they are not facts. My mother says she talks to Jesus and she hears his voice. I don't think my mother is a liar but I'm not going to start talking to Jesus. Do you think my mother is a liar?

As a skeptic A.) I'm interested in evidence I can verify. B.) I understand confirmation bias and human nature to sincerely get things wrong.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

Last edited by RandFan; 28th October 2012 at 07:48 PM.
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2012, 07:41 PM   #73
JeanFromBNA
Critical Thinker
 
JeanFromBNA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 439
Originally Posted by Fitter View Post
Probably not an above the knee amputation.
This made my husband LOL. If you only knew how close you were!
JeanFromBNA is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2012, 07:46 PM   #74
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by JeanFromBNA View Post
How would I know what they know? But you apparently think that you know what they know and what I know from a few posts. You substitute stereotypes for observation.
I honestly don't know what they know. I know I never heard anyone on the right tell me the truth as it relates to correlation. I always thought small govts meant prosperity. As far as what you know, I've no idea what you know and I've never substituted any stereotype for anything. I know that you are furthering stereotypes by relying anecdotal evidence (the worst type to further stereotypes).

Quote:
I really thought you were better than that.
Spare me the rhetorical device. It has no effect on me. I've not been unfair to you. Spouting anecdotal hearsay evidence is a fallacy. And I sincerely expect better in a skeptics forum.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

Last edited by RandFan; 28th October 2012 at 07:47 PM.
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2012, 07:50 PM   #75
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,785
Originally Posted by JeanFromBNA View Post
I never said that my mother-in-law had a disability, or that she is collecting any support payments.

And if she has a disability, it's none of your goddamned business.
Well, pick any of the in-laws you've decided to give vague anecdotes about then. Let me know what the disability they claim is, and why you feel they don't have that disability Your anecdotes sound like typical, woo, anecdotes. They are non-specific and make broad generalizations.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2012, 07:55 PM   #76
JeanFromBNA
Critical Thinker
 
JeanFromBNA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 439
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
No, I'm saying that for me they are not facts. My mother says she talks to Jesus and she hears his voice. I don't think my mother is a liar but I'm not going to start talking to Jesus. Do you think my mother is a liar?

A.) As a skeptics I'm interested in evidence I can verify. B.) I understand confirmation bias and human nature to sincerely get things wrong.
As a skeptic, I can tell you about a woman I hired to clean our office one time. We agreed to the price, she arrived on time, and left us with a shiny floor, vacuumed rugs, and gleaming desks. I was writing her check, when I asked her if she needed a 1099 or was she a corporation or LLC. Her reply: "You can't 1099 me. I'm on disability." I said, you do a great job, why not come above board where you can get more clients. Her answer: "I got a car note to pay, I got a mortgage to pay." Her car was a recent model, nice SUV. This happened to me. You can choose not to believe it, but it happened just as I described.
JeanFromBNA is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2012, 07:59 PM   #77
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,785
Originally Posted by JeanFromBNA View Post
You can choose not to believe it, but it happened just as I described.
I don't choose to not believe you any more than I choose not to believe in a god.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2012, 08:05 PM   #78
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by JeanFromBNA View Post
As a skeptic, I can tell you about a woman I hired to clean our office one time. We agreed to the price, she arrived on time, and left us with a shiny floor, vacuumed rugs, and gleaming desks. I was writing her check, when I asked her if she needed a 1099 or was she a corporation or LLC. Her reply: "You can't 1099 me. I'm on disability." I said, you do a great job, why not come above board where you can get more clients. Her answer: "I got a car note to pay, I got a mortgage to pay." Her car was a recent model, nice SUV. This happened to me. You can choose not to believe it, but it happened just as I described.
{sigh}

Quote:
The expression anecdotal evidence refers to evidence from anecdotes. Because of the small sample, there is a larger chance that it may be unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases.

Misuse of anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy and is sometimes informally referred to as the "person who" fallacy ("I know a person who..."; "I know of a case where..." etc.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2012, 08:09 PM   #79
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,785
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
{sigh}
Oh, I'm sure she understands this when it comes to ghosts, sasquatch and other woo. Just not her own.

I don't think anyone is denying that there are those who game the system. What she is failing to do is to prove that it's a significant number of people doing so.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2012, 08:10 PM   #80
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Jean, you've been here since 2009, do you sincerely not know what skepticism is?

Quote:
Skepticism or scepticism (see spelling differences) is generally any questioning attitude towards knowledge, facts, or opinions/beliefs stated as facts,[1] or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere.[2]
Philosophical skepticism is an overall approach that requires all information to be well supported by evidence.[3] Classical philosophical skepticism derives from the 'Skeptikoi', a school who "asserted nothing".[4] Adherents of Pyrrhonism, for instance, suspend judgment in investigations.[5] Skeptics may even doubt the reliability of their own senses.[6] Religious skepticism, on the other hand is "doubt concerning basic religious principles (such as immortality, providence, and revelation)".[7] Most[who?] scientists are empirical skeptics, who admit the possibility of knowledge based on evidence, but hold that new evidence may always overturn these findings.
I am a skeptic. I don't need to decide if you are a liar or not. I don't need to believe or not. When you produce anecdotal evidence (and/or hearsay evidence). I can simply take the null hypothesis. This is what is expected of skeptics. I don't need to offend you and you don't need to bother appealing to my decency as to whether I should call you a liar.

That's simply the way skepticism works.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:29 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.