Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2017 10:37:24 GMT -7
You sure are persistent.
I cried about nothing, I stated facts and they back my claims that people are not creating opportunity.
Here, let me really get under your skin.
Since 80% of the country has not seen any income growth in 20 years, 80% of the country is poor.
There we go.
And you don't understand economically poor.
I am done with you at this point. I can't make you understand and a link I posted proved everything I said and even said I was off by 5%, it was 60%.
Go ahead and think if someone makes $XX a year they must be middle class. I will remember the middle class as the people who took risks and built this country in the early days.
I can't possibly argue a comprehension problem. You won....
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Mar 31, 2017 10:48:42 GMT -7
I cried about nothing, I stated facts and they back my claims that people are not creating opportunity. Sure you weren't crying. "a whole 55% of this country makes at or under $30K a year and that is gross pay. My mother worked at Walmart for about 30 years. She made about $30K a year." Mar 27, 2017 at 8:39pm Your mother working 30 yrs at Walmart for about $30K a year may be the only facts in your post unless you lying again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2017 11:01:34 GMT -7
www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-30/trickle-down-has-failed-wealth-and-income-have-trickled-top-5I swear, some of you right wing folks get your panties in a bunch and you aren't happy unless your slinging insults. I lied? About what exactly? Point it out? No... What you did instead is use your ideology to align with your thought process. In other words, you cried that I would not use your sources for information. I will continue to believe the government agency that has to know incomes can report them just fine. And the data does align pretty closely with what I said from that source of information. I don't scour the internet looking for information approved by you or anyone else. I look for those pesky little facts that always gets under someones skin. Congratulations, you proved in this very thread that you get butt hurt like many other people. And that you are one sided and don't want to look at anything that is against your own ideology. The data is available, look it up. While your wasting time not understanding me, you could be educating yourself. But nevermind. I would bet your one of those people who feel you are versed in everything. Go ahead, clicky the linky, it backs what I have been trying to get through to you.
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Mar 31, 2017 13:40:23 GMT -7
I lied? About what exactly? Point it out? 1. Again, for the slow witted. "According to BLS data and using this calculator, $41.4K was earned by 55% of this country for 2016." Mar 27, 2017 at 9:47pm You were told Mar 27, 2017 at 9:47pm with documentation. 2. "(a) Even at 40% (which I am sure is higher). That means one in about 3 people are poor in this country." Mar 28, 2017 at 1:36pm You were told Mar 28, 2017 at 10:01pm 2. (b) "Now, IMHO, more then 55% of the country is poor." Mar 29, 2017 at 8:01pm You were told Mar 28, 2017 at 10:01pm with documentation. You made your first lie. You were provided the correct percentage but insisted on your wrong amount. 3. "This would say 29% fits into somewhere in poor." Morning Mar 29 You were told Mar 29, 2017 at 10:23pm with documentation. You have now brought the confusion of using household income instead of individual income, especially when in the next paragraph you said you skewed the percentages. It's now intentional and you lied again. 4. "My statistics are much closer to fact then your own." March 30 am You had the calculator and were told Mar 27, 2017 at 9:47pm with documentation. Mar 27, 2017 at 10:30pm Had you used it for the $30,000 claim you'd noted that it's not 51% of all American workers but 39.7%. Note also that this uses SSA's taxable income, not total income as used by the one that dose these data - the Census Bureau . You were told this Mar 27, 2017 at 10:30pm. You now have repeated another falsehood and recorded another lie. 5. " Even the amount of people on food stamps don't align with what you say." 30 March 12:04am I wrote nothing about food stamps and second, your linked article makes no reference on the poverty rate or the middle class. FLASH - these are the topics here. 30 March 11:40 am 6. "I cried about nothing," March 31 Today Sure you weren't crying. "a whole 55% of this country makes at or under $30K a year and that is gross pay. My mother worked at Walmart for about 30 years. She made about $30K a year." Mar 27, 2017 at 8:39pm Your mother working 30 yrs at Walmart for about $30K a year may be the only facts in your post unless you lying again. 7. "I will continue to believe the government agency that has to know incomes can report them just fine. And the data does align pretty closely with what I said from that source of information." March 31 Today Really! You finally switched to the Census Bureau - the only government agency that reports these data and income trends. Funny, what you've been posting doesn't match. You got caught in another lie.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2017 18:36:20 GMT -7
What he would be describing would be willful ignorance if it was true. But it is not. I said before and I will say again, the SSA counts income for people who pay Social Security taxes. Which means that with some exclusions, all people are counted. Now, I can choose to believe that SSA who counts money for most of the population, or I can believe republican talking points coming from data from other sources. I choose the latter instead. His claim of lying shows his ignorance. Willful ignorance is not a lie at all. If this was the case. This article articulates my point perfectly: www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-30/trickle-down-has-failed-wealth-and-income-have-trickled-top-5He refuses to look at data from a site that deals in financial data. This is a site that lives for digging through data and their sources would be purely financial and unbiased. Relevant info from said source that backs my claims: "The only segment of households who have registered gain in real income over the past 20 years is the top 5%" "Even excluding capital gains--the source of much of the wealthiest class's income--wealth disparity has reached astonishing asymmetries: most of the gains are flowing to the top 0.5%" And graphs on the site further bring home the point. In the early 1960s, the middle class was the major propeller of the economy. The tax rate on the rich did not allow for such huge income disparity we see today. The data is there and the bottom 60% of the economy is people who have seen no real income growth over the last 20 years. Which mean economically, they are poor. The top %20 has seen income grow where the middle 20% is the "middle class" of today. They are not creating opportunity like they were in the 1960s. I also posted this to which he did not reply: He does not understand. I am talking about economic power. When the middle class holds economic power, we flourish as a nation because the middle class is taking risk and creating opportunity. Now, even much of what Sam Walton has done to start his business is impossible today. Regulations have favored the rich while not giving the middle class the same opportunities of those in the top class. No evidence I lied about anything. Only evidence I used information not approved by him. But this does not make the evidence any less true, it just shows his very own, heavy bias. Now, I have company and I am truly done with him. If anyone would like to reply besides him, I will be glad to answer any questions if you can push your very own biases to the side if you have any.
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Mar 31, 2017 20:01:48 GMT -7
What he would be describing would be willful ignorance if it was true. Willful ignorance "...willful ignorance occurs when a person knows the truth but chooses to ignore it, or the person refuses to abandon false beliefs and pursue the development of further knowledge. According to the Urban Dictionary. willful ignorance is: The practice or act of intentional and blatant avoidance, disregard or disagreement with facts, empirical evidence and well-founded arguements [sic] because they oppose or contradict your own existing personal beliefs." www.thomhartmann.com/users/natural-lefty/blog/2012/12/psychologists-take-willful-ignoranceIt is sometimes referred to as tactical stupidity. rationalwiki.org/wiki/Willful_ignoranceYou've been shown the correct data but insist of spreading your own false ones. you've gone beyound willful ignorance. "Lie a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood." www.dictionary.com/browse/lieYour points: 1. "I said before and I will say again, the SSA counts income for people who pay Social Security taxes. Which means that with some exclusions, all people are counted. " No one argues with that. Your problem is that your SSA data isn't pertinent nor complete to the discussion of the income tiers and what is the poverty level. The SSA doesn't cover these areas, the Census Bureau, the guys that have the responsibility for coming up with this stuff, does. Do you consult Dr Seuss instead of the NRC for nuclear decay schemes? 2. "Now, I can choose to believe that SSA who counts money for most of the population, or I can believe republican talking points coming from data from other sources. I choose the latter instead." This is weird. Why do you choose "Republican" talking points? For that matter, where are these posted? 3. "His claim of lying shows his ignorance. Willful ignorance is not a lie at all. If this was the case." This one needs to be translated into English. "Lie definition, a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood." This is far beyond just ignorance as the claimed lie is documented with multiple repeated false examples after the correction was pointed out. www.dictionary.com/browse/lie 4. "He refuses to look at data from a site that deals in financial data. This is a site that lives for digging through data and their sources would be purely financial and unbiased." Nice diversion but this is a quixotic quest given your statement still fails to understand what is poverty or even the middle income. You got to understand the basics first. You instaed rely tremendously on political slant and emotion rather than pertinent facts. See #2 above. 5. "No evidence I lied about anything. Only evidence I used information not approved by him." Never had to be approved by me, just that it must be pertinent to the topic. The Census Bureau, the guys that have the responsibility for coming up with this stuff, has the pertinent stuff. Now as to lying, see the opening paragraphs. 6. "...and I am truly done with him." Haven't counted, but I think this is his 3rd time he said he was done. More lies?
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Mar 31, 2017 20:15:22 GMT -7
What he would be describing would be willful ignorance if it was true. Willful ignorance "...willful ignorance occurs when a person knows the truth but chooses to ignore it, or the person refuses to abandon false beliefs and pursue the development of further knowledge. According to the Urban Dictionary. willful ignorance is: The practice or act of intentional and blatant avoidance, disregard or disagreement with facts, empirical evidence and well-founded arguements [sic] because they oppose or contradict your own existing personal beliefs." www.thomhartmann.com/users/natural-lefty/blog/2012/12/psychologists-take-willful-ignoranceIt is sometimes referred to as tactical stupidity. rationalwiki.org/wiki/Willful_ignoranceYou've been shown the correct data but insist of spreading your own false ones. you've gone beyound willful ignorance. "Lie a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood." www.dictionary.com/browse/lieYour points: 1. "I said before and I will say again, the SSA counts income for people who pay Social Security taxes. Which means that with some exclusions, all people are counted." No one argues with that. Your problem is that your SSA data isn't pertinent nor complete to the discussion of the income tiers and what is the poverty level. The SSA doesn't cover these areas, the Census Bureau, the guys that have the responsibility for coming up with this stuff, does. Do you consult Dr Seuss instead of the NRC for nuclear decay schemes? 2. "Now, I can choose to believe that SSA who counts money for most of the population, or I can believe republican talking points coming from data from other sources. I choose the latter instead." This is weird. Why do you choose "Republican" talking points? For that matter, where are these posted? 3. "His claim of lying shows his ignorance. Willful ignorance is not a lie at all. If this was the case." This one needs to be translated into English. "Lie definition, a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood." This is far beyond just ignorance as the claimed lie is documented with multiple repeated false examples after the correction was pointed out. www.dictionary.com/browse/lie 4. "He refuses to look at data from a site that deals in financial data. This is a site that lives for digging through data and their sources would be purely financial and unbiased." Nice diversion but this is a quixotic quest given your statement still fails to understand what is poverty or even the middle income. You got to understand the basics first. You instaed rely tremendously on political slant and emotion rather than pertinent facts. See #2 above. 5. "No evidence I lied about anything. Only evidence I used information not approved by him." Never had to be approved by me, just that it must be pertinent to the topic. The Census Bureau, the guys that have the responsibility for coming up with this stuff, has the pertinent stuff. Now as to lying, see the opening paragraphs. 6. "...and I am truly done with him." Haven't counted, but I think this is his 3rd time he said he was done. More lies? 7. "I will be glad to answer any questions if you can push your very own biases to the side if you have any. " But be aware, he chose to believe republican talking points coming from data from other sources.
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Mar 31, 2017 20:15:48 GMT -7
Willful ignorance "...willful ignorance occurs when a person knows the truth but chooses to ignore it, or the person refuses to abandon false beliefs and pursue the development of further knowledge. According to the Urban Dictionary. willful ignorance is: The practice or act of intentional and blatant avoidance, disregard or disagreement with facts, empirical evidence and well-founded arguements [sic] because they oppose or contradict your own existing personal beliefs." www.thomhartmann.com/users/natural-lefty/blog/2012/12/psychologists-take-willful-ignoranceIt is sometimes referred to as tactical stupidity. rationalwiki.org/wiki/Willful_ignoranceYou've been shown the correct data but insist of spreading your own false ones. you've gone beyound willful ignorance. "Lie a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood." www.dictionary.com/browse/lieYour points: 1. "I said before and I will say again, the SSA counts income for people who pay Social Security taxes. Which means that with some exclusions, all people are counted." No one argues with that. Your problem is that your SSA data isn't pertinent nor complete to the discussion of the income tiers and what is the poverty level. The SSA doesn't cover these areas, the Census Bureau, the guys that have the responsibility for coming up with this stuff, does. Do you consult Dr Seuss instead of the NRC for nuclear decay schemes? 2. "Now, I can choose to believe that SSA who counts money for most of the population, or I can believe republican talking points coming from data from other sources. I choose the latter instead." This is weird. Why do you choose "Republican" talking points? For that matter, where are these posted? 3. "His claim of lying shows his ignorance. Willful ignorance is not a lie at all. If this was the case." This one needs to be translated into English. "Lie definition, a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood." This is far beyond just ignorance as the claimed lie is documented with multiple repeated false examples after the correction was pointed out. www.dictionary.com/browse/lie 4. "He refuses to look at data from a site that deals in financial data. This is a site that lives for digging through data and their sources would be purely financial and unbiased." Nice diversion but this is a quixotic quest given your statement still fails to understand what is poverty or even the middle income. You got to understand the basics first. You instaed rely tremendously on political slant and emotion rather than pertinent facts. See #2 above. 5. "No evidence I lied about anything. Only evidence I used information not approved by him." Never had to be approved by me, just that it must be pertinent to the topic. The Census Bureau, the guys that have the responsibility for coming up with this stuff, has the pertinent stuff. Now as to lying, see the opening paragraphs. 6. "...and I am truly done with him." Haven't counted, but I think this is his 3rd time he said he was done. More lies? 7. "I will be glad to answer any questions if you can push your very own biases to the side if you have any." But be aware, he chose to believe republican talking points coming from data from other sources.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2017 1:42:23 GMT -7
Not responding to the person above:
Troll:
One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.
I have tried to agree to disagree with the person above since this whole thing started. He refused.
He has also refused to acknowledge the information I provided that confirms what I was talking about. And he refused to understand but ironically he kept pushing for his ideas while talking about something completely separate then myself.
Then he started with names like liar while he was failing to comprehend what I was saying while it was clearly articulated.
That by definition is a troll.
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Apr 1, 2017 6:23:29 GMT -7
Not responding to the person above: Troll: One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument. I have tried to agree to disagree with the person above since this whole thing started. He refused. He has also refused to acknowledge the information I provided that confirms what I was talking about. And he refused to understand but ironically he kept pushing for his ideas while talking about something completely separate then myself. Then he started with names like liar while he was failing to comprehend what I was saying while it was clearly articulated. That by definition is a troll. Not responding to the person above: Troll: One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument. You can't agree to disagree with the person above since he continually posts false and misleading information even when shown the correct data. He has also continues to post irrelevant information while showing he doesn't understand the basics. Then he started with names like troll after being proved a liar. That by definition is a troll. Of interest is his repeated claims that he's done: 1. "Dinner time and I'm done with this subject with you." Mar 30, 2017 at 6:22pm 2. "Now, I am done." Mar 30, 2017 at 9:18pm 3. "Now, I have company and I am truly done with him." Evening, March 31 Yet just 4 some hours ago he again is at it after repeated claims he's done. Trolling, completely muddled or just lying again? Maybe all of the above and he wants to be taken seriously! Now he could possibly start over with his discussion of many day ago, but leave off his political slant, the sky isn't falling so cut the emotions and finally use the correct Census Bureau stats when claiming what is poor and average income. Once the basics are establish you'd be amazed that trends make more sense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2017 7:53:50 GMT -7
Am I reading some brotherly love(trolling)?LOL!
|
|
|
Post by boomhower on Apr 1, 2017 9:51:13 GMT -7
Am I reading some brotherly love(trolling)?LOL! Lol, just looks like Ranger us doing his schooling over here nowadays.
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Apr 1, 2017 14:52:06 GMT -7
Am I reading some brotherly love(trolling)?LOL! Lol, just looks like Ranger us doing his schooling over here nowadays. Actually its been great fun learning many of the ways I'm classified as broke. I'm not sure whether to thank Pew Research and the Census Bureau data or to hate them. Pew has put out a bunch of interesting stuff.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2017 15:49:20 GMT -7
Lol, just looks like Ranger us doing his schooling over here nowadays. Actually its been great fun learning many of the ways I'm classified as broke. I'm not sure whether to thank Pew Research and the Census Bureau data or to hate them. Pew has put out a bunch of interesting stuff. He's not schooling anyone. I can believe some blowhard on the internet, or I can believe a site who has succeeded on posting stuff about economics. The SSA aligns with what the site is saying very closely. And it even uses sources according to the image he approves as valid information. The site has been around for 8 years and it is ranked number 1434 on Alexa. So that or some guy? Hmmmm
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Apr 1, 2017 17:19:36 GMT -7
Actually its been great fun learning many of the ways I'm classified as broke. I'm not sure whether to thank Pew Research and the Census Bureau data or to hate them. Pew has put out a bunch of interesting stuff. He's not schooling anyone. You got schooled and earned your dunce cap.
|
|