Author Topic: The post-fact political world  (Read 1754 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16008
  • Gender: Male
  • As above, so below
Re: The post-fact political world
« Reply #70 on: December 14, 2016, 09:16:56 PM »

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7572
  • Gender: Male
Re: The post-fact political world
« Reply #71 on: December 15, 2016, 08:14:37 AM »
So Obamacare subsidies are now "welfare"?

Is every tax credit "welfare"?  If so, than the entire country is on welfare, including almost all medium to large corporations.

Your article is from 4 years ago, BTW.

Also, you are wrong about the aging population:
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v66n4/v66n4p37.html

I didn't say "welfare", I said "some sort of assistance".   YOU said "welfare", to try to (falsely) show that the numbers were down; but they are not.  I was merely refuting that aspect of YOUR argument.  "Welfare" is but one aspect of "assistance".

I know the article is from four years ago, but it shows the trends since Clinton, and so is therefore valid.

I didn't say the population wasn't aging, I said the increase in numbers is not solely tied to that aging population (I used "demographics") as both you and Powerslave asserted.

We can argue this point if you like (it's certainly up for discussion) but I am treating the "tax credit" for the ACA differently. It's only a "tax credit" because of the way the scheme is set up (and in part because of Chief Justice Roberts reinforcement that the penalty is a "tax").  But in this case, it's clearly a subsidy to pay for services rendered.

Please don't obfuscate the point with false semantics arguments.  You don't have the facts to support your position, and as I said "saying it's so" doesn't "make it so".   

Offline 7th

  • Posts: 367
  • Gender: Male
Re: The post-fact political world
« Reply #72 on: December 18, 2016, 09:28:31 PM »
You don't have the facts to support your position, and as I said "saying it's so" doesn't "make it so".

This is the problem with today's discussions and the assumption that discussions are supposed to be factually conclusive.  *Nobody* really has the facts to support their position in the context of an online discussion.  We can only link images and words here, we can't really do anything else.  We need to bring trust and genuine interest of each other's perspectives back into the conversation.  Reducing everything to "show me your evidence" is the equivalent of saying "I do not value your opinion, I need third party verification".  Well, if we have learned anything this last year it is that you can find third party verification to back up anything no matter how absurd it may be.  Let us leave facts and evidence to those times when it is relevant.  Otherwise, Stadler is a super smart professional person who is willing to share his views with us.  Can't we just accept that?  Likewise, jsbru is also a super smart professional person who is willing to share his views.  If his views clash with Stadler's that is where the rest of us can learn something to help us form our own opinions.  The idea that you can throw down some stats from some "study" and win an argument is outdated.  These arguments are not meant to be "won", they are meant to enrich our understanding of each other as humans.       
"Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners" - George Carlin