• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cato caught lying again

No, if I was talking about corporations I would have said so.
Well, you were by no means specific, or specific only in that in "taking more" signifies being more poor. Admitting to corporate welfare would, whether YOU brought it up or not, indicate welfare is just not for the poor. Further logic would indicate, then, welfare is not necessarily dependent on how actually "needy" one is. This obviating your whole only if they are more impoverished will they need more benefits, or as you put it, "...if someones takes in more welfare it means they are more poor"... but would rather guess it more dependent on how many votes its calculated to garner in the future while employing the vote getter's particular partisan agenda.

So, perhaps it was you, this time, that inadvertently gave another example, not of CATO, but of you and yours trying to trick us. I understand that you truly believe what you are saying to be truth, yet it seems you are willing to ignore much in the acceptance of this "truth".

More than enough of our people, at either the low or high end, get more than is necessary currently...both ends need quit sticking their hands out, palms upwards, begging for more.
 
Well, you were by no means specific, or specific only in that in "taking more" signifies being more poor. Admitting to corporate welfare would, whether YOU brought it up or not, indicate welfare is just not for the poor. Further logic would indicate, then, welfare is not necessarily dependent on how actually "needy" one is. This obviating your whole only if they are more impoverished will they need more benefits, or as you put it, "...if someones takes in more welfare it means they are more poor"... but would rather guess it more dependent on how many votes its calculated to garner in the future while employing the vote getter's particular partisan agenda.

So, perhaps it was you, this time, that inadvertently gave another example, not of CATO, but of you and yours trying to trick us. I understand that you truly believe what you are saying to be truth, yet it seems you are willing to ignore much in the acceptance of this "truth".

More than enough of our people, at either the low or high end, get more than is necessary currently...both ends need quit sticking their hands out, palms upwards, begging for more.

TANF has a about 5 million recipients (out of 310M Americans - about 1% of the population). About 4.8 million are poor kids, average age, 8.

NEXT FOOLISH RIGHTWING MEME!
 
TANF has a about 5 million recipients (out of 310M Americans - about 1% of the population). About 4.8 million are poor kids, average age, 8.

NEXT FOOLISH RIGHTWING MEME!
And your point? TANF is one of the programs involved, so? Are you calling them the 1 percenters now, are you?

So, lets take a look at your numbers there...that seems to make there about 200,000 adults [5 million recipients minus the 4.8 million that are children, "poor kids, average age, 8"]. Now what would be an average, understanding math is my worst subject...but would that not average 24 kids per parent recipient?
 
Well, you were by no means specific, or specific only in that in "taking more" signifies being more poor. Admitting to corporate welfare would, whether YOU brought it up or not, indicate welfare is just not for the poor. Further logic would indicate, then, welfare is not necessarily dependent on how actually "needy" one is. This obviating your whole only if they are more impoverished will they need more benefits, or as you put it, "...if someones takes in more welfare it means they are more poor"... but would rather guess it more dependent on how many votes its calculated to garner in the future while employing the vote getter's particular partisan agenda.

So, perhaps it was you, this time, that inadvertently gave another example, not of CATO, but of you and yours trying to trick us. I understand that you truly believe what you are saying to be truth, yet it seems you are willing to ignore much in the acceptance of this "truth".

More than enough of our people, at either the low or high end, get more than is necessary currently...both ends need quit sticking their hands out, palms upwards, begging for more.

I don't consider corporate welfare to be welfare, it is really just a left wing talking point. So this argument you want to distract with, yet again, is just a distraction. Try a new debate tactic for once, you won't get anywhere with me by doing this.
 
CATO, which is financed by the knownothing Koch Brothers, grinds out one disreputable study after the next, hoping quanity has a quality all its own.

Indeed the whole point of the CATO is to give grist to the rightwing noise machine mill, which repeats its nonsense ad infinitum. It's how conservative "economics" works.

I'll bet you never question a government report, oh they are reputable and right on the money. Yeah
 
I don't consider corporate welfare to be welfare, it is really just a left wing talking point. So this argument you want to distract with, yet again, is just a distraction. Try a new debate tactic for once, you won't get anywhere with me by doing this.
You don't really have debatable points, just wrong points... myths you are promulgating. More aptly put, fluff, so who has any intention of trying to get anywhere with you...that's just craziness... your views [ as they probably said in the 60s when drugs and far out liberal notions were even, kinda, the in thing ] are nowhere man...


 
You don't really have debatable points, just wrong points... myths you are promulgating. More aptly put, fluff, so who has any intention of trying to get anywhere with you...that's just craziness... your views [ as they probably said in the 60s when drugs and far out liberal notions were even, kinda, the in thing ] are nowhere man...


You aren't even debating my views. You are changing the argument because you get presented with evidence and then dodge addressing it. You're approaching austrian Econ levels here.
 
You aren't even debating my views. You are changing the argument because you get presented with evidence and then dodge addressing it. You're approaching austrian Econ levels here.
No, you are just unwilling to own up to your article's underlying weaknesses. Good luck with all that.

Oh, and...

Thank you, very nice compliment. Austrian.
 
Back
Top Bottom