The Politicization Of Coronavirus...

[foszoe]

Evidence....provide a link.....provide source...appeal to authority. An interesting definition for appeal to authority.
Ad hominem. Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot.

The evidence Bug and yourself are using is acceptable for comparison across states. If however, the worst funded state pension as expressed by assets to liabilities and % of state GDP, a resident of that state should be more concerned about solvency. Bankruptcy typically looks at assets to liability instead of comparisons to other businesses. If would be reasonable to conclude that a trend of shrinking assets to liabilities and an increasing trend of pension fund to state GDP would be most concerning.

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.

 

[OakRiver]

Evidence....provide a link.....provide source...appeal to authority. An interesting definition for appeal to authority.
Ad hominem. Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot.

The evidence Bug and yourself are using is acceptable for comparison across states. If however, the worst funded state pension as expressed by assets to liabilities and % of state GDP, a resident of that state should be more concerned about solvency. Bankruptcy typically looks at assets to liability instead of comparisons to other businesses. If would be reasonable to conclude that a trend of shrinking assets to liabilities and an increasing trend of pension fund to state GDP would be most concerning.

Thank you. Your claim was that Kentucky is the "worst pension offender". To prove or dis-prove that necessitates a comparison between states. Attempting to move the goalposts after you have been proven wrong is just sour grapes.

End of discussion.

 

[foszoe]

Sure we can end the discussion.

Thank you. Your claim was that Kentucky is the "worst pension offender". To prove or dis-prove that necessitates a comparison between states. Attempting to move the goalposts after you have been proven wrong is just sour grapes.

End of discussion.

 

[Alpo]

And the Irishman pulls up lame at the turn!

Foz wins!

 

[BugI02]

Evidence....provide a link.....provide source...appeal to authority. An interesting definition for appeal to authority.
Ad hominem. Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot.

The evidence Bug and yourself are using is acceptable for comparison across states. If however, the worst funded state pension as expressed by assets to liabilities and % of state GDP, a resident of that state should be more concerned about solvency. Bankruptcy typically looks at assets to liability instead of comparisons to other businesses. If would be reasonable to conclude that a trend of shrinking assets to liabilities and an increasing trend of pension fund to state GDP would be most concerning.

I believe all of the evidence cited has been a snapshot in time, with the sources either using 2017 data (which they specified was the latest data up to date for all 50 states) or being derivative of that data (as in quoting Pew or Bloomberg). So exactly how have we established this new standard of 'shrinking assets to liabilities', which would seem to require a temporal component? Logically, I believe that older, bluer, more unionized cities would also be at a disadvantage by this new standard as my expectation is that places like Chicago can barely make budget let alone increase pension funding while their work force ages and continues to retire. If only you would cite data in support of your supposition then I could test my assumptions against the exact information that you are using

 

[foszoe]

INGOMike made the first post to which I responded. Everything, in my mind, flowed from that post. A claim that was about bankrupt blue states and bankrupt pensions. I can't name a bankrupt blue state (or red state) currently, is there one? It's an example of a conservative talking point that, I don't believe, is backed by evidence. However, no conservative here seemed to want to have that conversation. Oak did make a post mentioning Blue states and unsustainable pension programs to which I replied with the Kentucky remark. I admit to being focused on "bankrupt" not unsustainable because to a person living in that state, it would seem, to me, to be more relevant for a bankruptcy is a more severe consequence than than the evidence you presented. Either way, MIKE and OAK seemed preoccupied with mentioning Blue states when the Blue state modifier is really not necessary. It's not as if ONLY Blue states are close to Bankruptcy OR only BLUE states have unsustainable pension programs. That leaves me with the conclusion that BLUE is simply used to promote a talking point. So, anyway, I would start off your model conversation that both INGOMike and Oak made claims that I responded to, not the other way around.

This is the second time today I have outlined the flow of the conversation, but the assumption has been made that I was responding to Oak directly.. It leads one to think that either the post is being skimmed
Now IF Oak meant that post, to stand alone, then I should have asked on what grounds he made that statement and I have made a wrong assumption on that post.

As to the Church discussion, after I ask some questions that are not answered I lose interest because I do not clearly see the how the allegations are formed. When the other party is not willing to admit an obvious error, why continue? As it seems you feel you are on the receiving end feel free to explain why you do so.

"constant" "snide" and "sniping" sound like ad hominem when comments would suffice. I would assert that my comments are not constant for sure because I have made several comments in support of people and concepts that conservatives. I would suggest that its only when my comments disagree, they get more attention and a discussion follows which circles back to reinforcing the preconception of constancy. My definition of pressed differs from yours. It didn't take months or weeks, It took waiting for a question to be answered.

I don't take your posts personally, however, what I do enjoy, generally speaking, is questioning talking points that seem axiomatic to some so much so that when they are called into question, the burden of proof falls to the person who asks the question and the logic behind the assertion does not seem to be consistently applied. It often becomes But Trump or But Obama or a variation on the theme. It is entertaining. If those assertions are made in a thread, I see no reason to create a new one to talk about them.

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

 

[Ingomike]

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.

As the politicization of C-19 continues, it appears to me the blue states are looking to play chicken with the republicans in general for a bailout of their bankrupt states, particularly their bankrupt pensions...

This statement is my opinion based on multiple reports the blue states are doing just that, looking for how they can ease their pension burden. Whether or not it is even asked for is not known, but that it is being discussed by them seems common knowledge...

 

[foszoe]

I believe all of the evidence cited has been a snapshot in time, with the sources either using 2017 data (which they specified was the latest data up to date for all 50 states) or being derivative of that data (as in quoting Pew or Bloomberg). So exactly how have we established this new standard of 'shrinking assets to liabilities', which would seem to require a temporal component? Logically, I believe that older, bluer, more unionized cities would also be at a disadvantage by this new standard as my expectation is that places like Chicago can barely make budget let alone increase pension funding while their work force ages and continues to retire. If only you would cite data in support of your supposition then I could test my assumptions against the exact information that you are using

https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/pension/funding_ratio/map/#year:2017

 

[foszoe]

My main contention with that position is would a red state behave any differently? It is my preconception, based on how governments feed at the trough, that the color of the state don't matter.

This statement is my opinion based on multiple reports the blue states are doing just that, looking for how they can ease their pension burden. Whether or not it is even asked for is not known, but that it is being discussed by them seems common knowledge...

 

[OakRiver]

And the Irishman pulls up lame at the turn!

Foz wins!

Great to see that, even as a spectator, you continue your losing streak.

 

[OakRiver]

So, knowing that politicians don't like relinquishing any power once they obtain in (hello Patriot Act), what do we think will be normalized after this? I imagine that SCOTUS will have a lot of litigation to work its way through.

I also foresee a cultural shift, with more of a focus on eroding liberties based on public safety, as we have seen attempted with limits on firearms due to some nebulous and ill-defined threat that activists claim.

 

[foszoe]

I think that cultural shift has been underway since at least post civil war era. About the only thing these crises do is accelerate the erosion like a tidal wave versus normal tide erosion.

So, knowing that politicians don't like relinquishing any power once they obtain in (hello Patriot Act), what do we think will be normalized after this? I imagine that SCOTUS will have a lot of litigation to work its way through.

I also foresee a cultural shift, with more of a focus on eroding liberties based on public safety, as we have seen attempted with limits on firearms due to some nebulous and ill-defined threat that activists claim.

 

[Alpo]

Great to see that, even as a spectator, you continue your losing streak.

Did you say something? I have you on "semi-ignore". I only see what I want to see.

Much like a Trump supporter.

 

[femurphy77]

To me, this seems like the guy at work breaking a safety rule.
If he got hurt EVERY time he broke a safety rule, he would NEVER break the rules.
But he has a certain percent chance of getting hurt doing a job.
Breaking the rule increases his chances. By some amount.
So, he doesn't get hurt.
Next time he thinks, well, I didn't get hurt. It must be a stupid rule. So he breaks it again.
This happens a dozen times. A dozen times he's okay.
Until he's not.
Then he's not sure why he broke the rule, and he thinks the company should "pay" for him breaking the rule.
Cause if they REALLY meant safety was important, they would do SOMETHING.


Same thing with debt.
We go into debt.
No big deal.
Then more debt.
No big deal.
Repeat a dozen times.
Then the house of cards fall down, and everyone will be looking for someone else to blame.


Just my opinion.

This works for guys involved in criminal activities as well like um taking potshots at cops.

Just noticed a correlation there. Don't mind me.

 

[OakRiver]

Did you say something? I have you on "semi-ignore". I only see what I want to see.

Much like a Trump supporter.

If you can't see what you quoted that points to a deeper issue, sorry I can't help you. Shame about your selective blindness though, when you wanted to nip at my heels you had no problem in reading my posts.

Much like the Democrats, and accusations of sexual misconduct by Biden.

 

[Alpo]

Trump is the biggest sex offender running for president this fall.

Your hypocrisy is that it means nothing to you.

 

[printcraft]

Trump is the biggest sex offender running for president this fall.

Your hypocrisy is that it means nothing to you.

No and no. You know the reason. Don't play dumb, you are smarter than that.

The leftists in this county have pushed the #metoo, sex matters, on the national scene with thousands of news pieces and articles
if it in any way could or would have an impact on the right.

They are FLAT OUT ignoring it now.

 

[foszoe]

Oh Trump weighs more than Biden!! He's definitely bigger....oh wait, I just did something like some Trump supporters by creating my own criteria so I can argue I am right based on it....

I think the protocol is to now ask you for a link documenting Trump's weight to compare to Biden!

No and no. You know the reason. Don't play dumb, you are smarter than that.

The leftists in this county have pushed the #metoo, sex matters, on the national scene with thousands of news pieces and articles
if it in any way could or would have an impact on the right.

They are FLAT OUT ignoring it now.

 

[Alpo]

No and no. You know the reason. Don't play dumb, you are smarter than that.

The leftists in this county have pushed the #metoo, sex matters, on the national scene with thousands of news pieces and articles
if it in any way could or would have an impact on the right.

They are FLAT OUT ignoring it now.

No....not all of them. But it's the same thing that you confronted when Trump ran against Hillary: Are you gonna vote for Mr. Stinky or the ***** from Hell?

 

[OakRiver]

Trump is the biggest sex offender running for president this fall.

Your hypocrisy is that it means nothing to you.

"Squirrel!!"

You weren't able to ignore that post were you? So, what do you think I am being hypocritical about?

I have no idea why you keep letting Trump live rent free in your head, and keep bringing him up at every opportunity.