The Politicization Of Coronavirus...

[foszoe]

Absolutely it was partisan. In response to a partisan post. Blanket statements should most often more nuanced which is the approach Bug began to attempt in a disingenuous manner. Why is the same level of scrutiny not applied when its reversed? Because here, on this forum, I believe there are mostly viewpoints are from the right with a high level of venn diagram overlap, at least among the most prolific posters and very few from the left so those with a right wing viewpoint tend to question, not only an opposite view but any view which does not agree, with posts that are often with partisan and personal in content instead of rational and thought provoking ones.

As my father said to my stepsister who after smacking my face 5 times in a row and then I smacked her back...."what is good for the goose is good for the gander".....of course my stepsister's mother didn't agree ...but that's another story.

I think that’s a partisan, facile view of the issue. Blue states aren’t donating to red states. At least not literally in the way that sounds. In poor southern states the incomes and therefore federal income taxes paid, compared to federal funds distributed in the state, including entitlements. Some of the largely populated blue states, like California, have higher incomes and higher taxes, compared to the federal funds coming in. It’s not true to say that those states donate to red states.

 

[OakRiver]

The post I replied to was the one I took issue with because it is a conclusion without evidence, could even be called a platitude, so I offered one back as a response. That is a conclusion without evidence. You responded in kind, so I did likewise to your post. I took no issues with Bugs specific posts or your responses in regards to pension funding. If we want to further define the premises to each of our conclusions, we probably would agree.

As to Bug in general, he provides me with a good laugh, and i mean that literally, I laugh out loud sometimes and he probably does the same to mine. I believe he is more interested in being right than having an actual discussion so I like to see where he goes with his posts, what he will respond to and what he will ignore is a game for me as I like to predict where he will go and see if I am right. He makes assumptions without evidence. He falsely attributes motive and uses contradictory evidence as proof of a point in the same post. One thing he typically does not do is admit error. For example, twice he attributes my source as ultimately being Bloomberg without any evidence nor does he provide any evidence for his claim.

Good. It is settled, Kentucky is not the "worst pension offender".

 

[foszoe]

English as a second language?

Good. It is settled, Kentucky is not the "worst pension offender".

 

[OakRiver]

English as a second language?

No.

The premise is very simple. You claimed that Kentucky is the "worst pension offender". Evidence was produced that contradicted that. You are now dancing on the head of a pin, trying to talk your way out of admitting that you were incorrect. So, either Kentucky is the "worst pension offender" or it is not. If it is not the "worst pension offender", then you were incorrect in your assertion. If you continue to stand by this claim you need to demonstrate why you believe this to still be true in spite of the evidence produced.

 

[foszoe]

The fallacy of the logic presented is that the problem was not clearly defined. Both answers are right depending on how the problem is defined. The tendency to either/or thinking in the post below and the one above is detrimental to consideration of other alternatives.

No.

The premise is very simple. You claimed that Kentucky is the "worst pension offender". Evidence was produced that contradicted that. You are now dancing on the head of a pin, trying to talk your way out of admitting that you were incorrect. So, either Kentucky is the "worst pension offender" or it is not. If it is not the "worst pension offender", then you were incorrect in your assertion. If you continue to stand by this claim you need to demonstrate why you believe this to still be true in spite of the evidence produced.

 

[OakRiver]

The fallacy of the logic presented is that the problem was not clearly defined. Both answers are right depending on how the problem is defined. The tendency to either/or thinking in the post below and the one above is detrimental to consideration of other alternatives.

No. You were proven wrong. You have been given ample opportunity to come back with evidence to prove your point and you refuse to do so. Now you are trying to re-frame the discussion by quibbling over what the definition of "is" is, because you cannot accept that you spoke in error.

 

[foszoe]

Incorrect.
Incorrect.
Incorrect.
Incorrect.

I think that means I go to first base!

No. You were proven wrong. You have been given ample opportunity to come back with evidence to prove your point and you refuse to do so. Now you are trying to re-frame the discussion by quibbling over what the definition of "is" is, because you cannot accept that you spoke in error.

 

[Alpo]

I think that’s a partisan, facile view of the issue. Blue states aren’t donating to red states. At least not literally in the way that sounds. In poor southern states the incomes and therefore federal income taxes paid, compared to federal funds distributed in the state, including entitlements. Some of the largely populated blue states, like California, have higher incomes and higher taxes, compared to the federal funds coming in. It’s not true to say that those states donate to red states.

Yes, it is. And once again you took a lot of words to say almost nothing.

 

[Alpo]

Incorrect.
Incorrect.
Incorrect.
Incorrect.

I think that means I go to first base!

This old man, he played two,
He played knick-knack with the agitprop crew;
With a knick-knack paddywhack,
Give a dog a bone,
This old man came rolling home.

 

[OakRiver]

Incorrect.
Incorrect.
Incorrect.
Incorrect.

I think that means I go to first base!

I'll be here when you want to come back and provide evidence to prove your claim. Anything else is just wheel spinning on your part.

 

[foszoe]

Already did! Had two links to look at, both misattributed to Bloomberg, and neither one was disproven. Squirrel!

I'll be here when you want to come back and provide evidence to prove your claim. Anything else is just wheel spinning on your part.

 

[OakRiver]

Already did! Had two links to look at, both misattributed to Bloomberg, and neither one was disproven. Squirrel!

You're awful hung up on the Bloomberg thing.

We looked at your evidence. We debunked it. The % unfunded pension debt is a terrible metric to use because it conceals the true level of the debt, and does not stand up to any intellectually honest scrutiny, or offer a worthwhile manner in which to compare the states. This discussion started from my post "Good thing that so many of those Blue states are able to contribute to the federal government, all while managing unsustainable pension programs.". You claimed that Kentucky was the "worst pension offender"

We looked at two state that have much greater unfunded pension debt than Kentucky; California and NJ. Until you actually provide evidence to the contrary, or manage to re-write the plain and ordinary meaning of the phrase "worst pension offender", you are wrong in what you are claiming about Kentucky.

I'm happy to revise my opinions if you provide new evidence. You can't go back to continue to debunked evidence to prove your claim, otherwise we'd still think that the earth is the center of our solar system, and everything revolves around our planet.

**edited to add**
If you really want to play semantics you are still incorrect. You made an absolute statement, that Kentucky is the "worst pension offender". You did not qualify that. You did not state that it has the worst % of unfunded pension debt (which, again, is a bad comparison). It has been proven that Kentucky is not the "worst pension offender", and that there are a number of states that are worse than Kentucky.

 

[foszoe]

Yet it made number one on fox business, wall street journal, pew research and the federal reserve. More intellectual honesty than displayed here.

You're awful hung up on the Bloomberg thing.

We looked at your evidence. We debunked it. The % unfunded pension debt is a terrible metric to use because it conceals the true level of the debt, and does not stand up to any intellectually honest scrutiny, or offer a worthwhile manner in which to compare the states. This discussion started from my post "Good thing that so many of those Blue states are able to contribute to the federal government, all while managing unsustainable pension programs.". You claimed that Kentucky was the "worst pension offender"

We looked at two state that have much greater unfunded pension debt than Kentucky; California and NJ. Until you actually provide evidence to the contrary, or manage to re-write the plain and ordinary meaning of the phrase "worst pension offender", you are wrong in what you are claiming about Kentucky.

I'm happy to revise my opinions if you provide new evidence. You can't go back to continue to debunked evidence to prove your claim, otherwise we'd still think that the earth is the center of our solar system, and everything revolves around our planet.

 

[OakRiver]

Yet it made number one on fox business, wall street journal, pew research and the federal reserve. More intellectual honesty than displayed here.

Attempting to appeal to authority is not a valid argument. Neither is ad hominem.

In case you missed the edit above:
If you really want to play semantics you are still incorrect. You made an absolute statement, that Kentucky is the "worst pension offender". You did not qualify that. You did not state that it has the worst % of unfunded pension debt (which, again, is a bad comparison). It has been proven that Kentucky is not the "worst pension offender", and that there are a number of states that are worse than Kentucky.

 

[MCgrease08]

This seems like a really productive discussion.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

This seems like a really productive discussion.

It's like the other Coronavirus thread. It's devolved into arguments about modeling techniques and data collection methods.

 

[Alpo]

It appears to be neck and neck, with the Irishman perhaps ahead by a nose.

Hal? What's our fabulous Internet Win prize for today?

 

[BugI02]

There are (at least) three ways to view underfunded pension liabilities; percent of aggregate liabilities funded, total aggregate unfunded liabilities and per capita unfunded liabilities. I am not aware of you disputing that per capita is the best tool for comparison (but I assume you will now).

Nevertheless, two of the three possible methods of comparison, including arguably the best one, do not support you (in percent, only 33.3% of available interpretations support your position)

Contrary to other wrong beliefs you have, who post's something doesn't really enter my mind. I see something like your post at the head of this cascade and my internal response is 'That doesn't sound right'. That's because I know that traditionally red/conservative states do not, as a rule, bestow the overly generous pension plans to state workers that are more common in older, bluer, more unionized cities. So I go look to see if my supposition is correct. I do not read every page returned by a google search, and indeed if I find evidence contradicting the claim on the first page that is fine with me - as long as it is a source I'm comfortable with such as in this case Forbes.

At this point, 'discussions' with you appear (to me) to track the following path

foszoe: 'I'm right'

foszoe: 'Using my interpretation, I'm right'

foszoe: 'Deviating from the broader discussion and ignoring the overarching concerns, you're wrong about this insignificant detail so I'm still right'

You're doing it now, you did it with the critique of the Greek Orthodox Church where the ostensible point was whether an organization worth hundreds of millions or billions (depending on the source) but still relying on the bankrupt Greek government to pay its officials and their pensions could be considered to exhibit greed/avarice. Based on some of your commentary, I concluded some of your thought processes might mirror mine, ie: you hear that 700 billion euro number and conclude 'that can't be right' and then go look for confirmation. But where you fall down is you are critical of the cites but then offer no refutation by citation, just as in the current case, where you had to be pressed to allow examination of your sources. If 700 billion or even 700 million euros was wrong, you seem incurious to follow up with what the correct information is. We simply have to take your word for it

There is also a whiff of victimhood in some of your posting, that somehow I am picking on you. I would submit that constant snide sniping about people and concepts that conservatives support, on a conservative leaning forum, should not surprise you in any way when it generates pushback. In fact, I believe it is exactly that audience and attention that you crave. As I've mentioned before, you are perfectly free to start a 'Trump is a poopy-head' thread or a 'Red states are horribly mismanaged' thread, but for some reason you don't. I suspect it is because you know they would die from lack of interest, which doesn't feed your peculiar needs

The difference between a discussion and an argument is directly related to the openness of the minds involved, the change is that conservatives are more willing to participate in either/or than pre-2015

 

[Mikey1911]

It appears to be neck and neck, with the Irishman perhaps ahead by a nose.

Hal? What's our fabulous Internet Win prize for today?

First Prize: One week with all of your computers stuck on the INGO GenPol board.

Second Prize: Two weeks with all of your computers stuck on the INGO GenPol board.

 

[BugI02]

"The competition is only so fierce because the prizes are so small"