The Ant and the Grasshopper

Yeah; like if the data was was unfavorable for your belief system, you wouldn't dismiss it as just the fabrication of the "liberal government".

I and others have even given examples of how these numbers can be misinterpreted.=, so producing a number is not necessarily quite as "factual" as you think it is.

And the point is, whether this "percentage" is getting all the money, to the point of threatening to bring the entire nation and eventually the entire world economy down with it as this parable you like so much claims. Your numbers suggest no such thing as that.

 

That's a different thread, EricB. Leave it where it is.

The way these numbers can be misrepresented is by taking the groupings as percentages of the whole rather than as proportions of the groups.

They're not "my" numbers! The point of the statistics is that certain groups have a much larger percentage of its members taking some form of welfare benefit. This means that some groups tend to mooch more of others. That's a hard pill to swallow isn't it? Replace "mooch" with "have more needs" if you think that sounds better.

 

Sorry, your data won't fly.

If Michigan is such a "terrible example," why, then, can the auto plants in Alabama barely keep up with demand, while Detroit's in the toilet?

That's an easy answer...there's two reasons: unions, and too much government regulation. Michigan has both, Alabama--not so much.

In an apples to apples comparison, it's pretty plain.

 

Well, let me ask, what is your point? Your side reacted that this whole "grasshopper" thing was not aimed at a particular race (or even a class!) Positions like yours always deny, until you find some figures or data like that, then you feel confident enough to try to stick them in everyone's face; as speaking for themselves. But by now, you've contradicted your earlier stance.

So back to the point. Do you really think this group of "moochers" is really getting all the money, and even to the point that they are going to bring the whole nation and free world down? I guess all those people Windcatcher mentioned (Bill Gates, and all those global money foundations, or whatever they are), are going to be go down too, and all by the doing of this group as well, right? That is what the grasshopper story is suggesting.

 

How do you figure I contradict myself? I don't think so!

I responded for myself, EricB - not as a mindless drone of one side or the other if that's how it does divide.

The statistics don't say one group is getting all the welfare money. The statistics say that one group gets proportionately more - much more - than another group. So what does that mean?

What does it have to do with Bill Gates? Is this an attempt to shift the discussion to merits of various economic systems?

You sure are cocky and accusatory with your responses on this thread! Would you be that way face-to-face?

 

:laugh:

Get a grip. This silly littly story is an excellent analogy for the extent socialists will go to to steal from those that earn and distribute it according to their own ideas of entitlement.

If you see it as a racist diatribe, I recommend treatment for your own insecurities.

Or, better yet, just get over yourself. :thumbs:

 

Yeah, what does it mean? Because the story suggests that one group is getting all the money. Not just all the welfare money, but apparently, that welfare itself is draining all the nation's money. And this, mind you, after it was "reformed".

Well, we had a discussion particularly on that, and you changed it to "if you're not thankful that this is the best system, then you're dangerous to this nation".

What's "face to face" supposed to mean? That sounds almost like some sort of threat. I would probably not respond to this constant railing on other groups of people you think are getting your money unfairly, in person. That's why I do it in writing. It's your side that is cocky and accusatory, and you think you;re so right, that you can only see theother side returning in kind, and not even realize that it is your side that has set that tone.

Who are you; Joseph Botwinick all over again? You have a lot of nerve, as it is your side that is totally insecure with all this complaining and blaming at others; and apparently full of yourselves. You don't see me, or any of the others here who argue against you, or even any liberals arguing that some system we favor is the greatest thing on earth, and how everyone is out to destroy it. It's like the world revolves around you, and (according to Dragoon), God Himself made it that way.

I told you the context of where the story came from, and how obvious racial references were edited out of this version of it. Just because you decide it's an attack against "socialists" only (contextualizing it to your perspective), doesn't change those facts. The people giving things to the grasshoppers are only mentioned in passing, so they're not the focus of the story. The thing the socialists are supposedly doing so wrong in the first place is giving all the money to this group. This obsession with socialists is making you blind, to the point you will take up any rhetoric, to use against them.
Both they and the capitalists are playing the same power game, and anyone they chose to benefit in their schemes are simply pawns, but this story has the grasshoppers as the ultimate winners, and not any "socialists".

You wouldn't like it if someone took some Black Muslim diatribe calling a race "devils" and changed it around, and tried to say it only referred to multinational banks and those other powers.
As sensitive as you are that these "socialists" are so bent out to get you, you're the last to talk about someone else being insecure.

 

Well you insisted the post was racial propaganda and others responded to that, considering you made it the focus. Maybe you should rant against Aesop since he originated the fable.

It seems relevant as the Democrats are now admitting that their Healthcare bill was intended to redistribute the wealth:

"It is a shift, a leveling...it will have the effect of addressing that maldistribution of income in America." - Max Baucus

"This is a form of redistribution" - Howard Dean

 

Aesop originated the fable, but he didn't aim it at any 20th/21st century American groups. Notice, this is "the modern version", with things changed and added to it.
And the point is, the lie that these "grasshoppers"; whoever they may be, are getting all the money. In a system where the rich continue to get richer; I don't know why people insist on blaming someone else for all the economic problems.

As for the healthcare thing; I have not been defending eveything Obama & Co have been doing. And I even voiced being alarmed at them making it mandatory for all to sign up for it. Liberals lack tact, and often take things way too far.
But I believe their point is, that healthcare costs are too high for many people. But conservatives refuse to ever consider corporate greed's part in that. No, they would be part of the victimized "ant" group; right? So they throw up a mockery of the situations that assumes everyone who cannot afford healthcare as lazy mooching grasshoppers playing and flittering all the money away, and bringing the world down with them. Whether race or class (both of which are being denied, so again; who are these grasshoppers), this is a highly untrue assumption.

 

The statistics show that some groups receive proportionately more - much more - welfare benefits than other groups. Do you have a problem with reading "all" into "proportionately more"?

Public welfare is a large drain on the the nation's tax payers and gets a poor return for the "investment". There are certainly needs but those needs can and should be met with private money willingly given by individuals and carefully managed by them or agencies they designate such as, ideally, their own local Church. Government forced "love offerings" have a way of being misused.

You should cover that on its own thread! That's not the subject here!

The question about "face-to-face" was asking you if you are as cocky and accusatory in person as you are in your writing. There's not threat in it! You sure are sensitive and ready to fight about everything. I can't see you, read your body language, etc. so I don't know what you're like in person. That could be a positive or a negative.

You're free to set a different tone if you think the "other side" has set the "cocky and accusatory" tone. Show us what you can do!

 

>So in billwald's world - black kids all do poorly in school.

Statistics NEVER apply to individuals, only to large populations. It is hard for some people to understand this.

 

I had always heard that it was about 1% of tax dollars, and here's a report confirming that:
http://finance.yahoo.com/taxes/article/102817/How-Your-Tax-Dollars-Are-Spent

Plus the link billwald provided showing that blacks were not the highest welfare recipients. Even if you true to argue that they have the highest percentage within the group, that still does not make them the "drain" on the economy.

Again; you're the one to talk, because your side are the ones who always get into ad-hominem (about the other person), including this stuff about being "cocky" to begin with, as well as "whining", being a socialist or trying to implement socialist policies, or hating or trying to destroy the country. So you're the ones who have been doing all the accusing. What difference does it make whether I do it in person or not? I am not ready to fight about "everything". And your side is sensitive when you think you're being accused of something. (I attacked the story itself, not anyone posting here). I only do it when someone else sets that tone, and I still have not gone to the depths that your side often does. If you can dish it out, you should be able to take it.

 

The bold meant "your side" of this debate; not any "race" division. The debate inludes the subject of race, but does not consist of one race arguing against another.
Take note, Dragoon: Precisely the point in that quote about who gets the most cocky and accusatory and ready to fight.

 

The amount of money spent of welfare - given away - is staggering. It is a large sum of money that comes out of taxes. The percentage of the total federal budget is not the largest - not by along shot - but that doesn't diminish the fact that it is a large expenditure. Plus, buried in many of the other budget categories are funds for welfare type programs. The liberals have figured out how to fund their grand plans through other appropriations. The defense budget has been used for this purpose. Even in the last so-called health care reform law they're funding loans for college students which gives away money considering to low interest rates, uncollected debts, forgiven debts, and outright grants. The bottom line is the federal government collects and distributes a lot of our money as "forced love offerings".

Despite all you attempted side tracking and repackaging of the data the statistics still show that the black and the Hispanic groups collect proportionally much more welfare than the white and the "other" groups. I ask again, why is that? Why are they more dependent upon such "help"? What are the reasons? You'd think that rather than argue about - even deny the statistics - that those involved would want to correct the problem that causes the statistics to be so different. But then I suppose the liberal answer would be even more spending on these groups because surely they we be incapable of assessing responsibility upon the participants. The best thing for all groups and the nation in general would be to get off the public welfare roll and take care of ourselves. It's a tough pill to swallow is it not, EricB? But current thinking is to further increase the dependency upon the federal government for our welfare because that's all the health care law is about - more unearned benefits for some and more taxes for others.

Yes, I am sensitive to being accused of something I haven't done! I hate it when I fall for that! How about you, Eric, or you just totally above that with your superior attitude?

 

Yes. Liberals have sneaky ways of funding welfare programs. Conservatives have sneaky ways of funding black ops and and foreign wars. You pays your money and makes your choice.

 

So you're suggesting that all of this "welfare money" is coming, not from the federal budget numbers; but from money taken from other expenditures. Of course, you now can no longer prorivide any figures for that.
This is another reason why throwing up numbers to me is a waste of time. Because it often overlooks something, but when this is pointed out, then some other factor is brought up totally nullifying the numbers. Why bother with the numbers then? Because you get to use the ones that are convenient to you!

A lot of that wasted federal money is also taken and misappropriated to things that benefit the middle class and especially the rich. Like the $400 screw drivers, and some huge airport they would build out in the middle of nowhere, and it had no real need. Ever heard of that stuff? Maybe not, as people were too buysy blaming the minorities. Who benefits from that? The people paying off conservative campaigners and media figures to feed the lie to the people (including the skewed statistics).

According to the above, you simply do not have enough hard evidence for your "dark grasshoppers draining the country" theory. Even if the actual numbers are technically higher than others. You're totally into conjecture, and trump up the data you like, and then cloud the obfuscate the whole thing when that fails.

And yet, whole groups of people get labeled and judged as if it were 90%. Most minorities are working, and yet a subculture developed within the group, back when their parents did work hard, and still brought home nothing, and lived horribly. So their kids eventually figured "why work; just get over". (I've heard top private executives use the same rationale when their gravy train was threatened back in the Clinton era). Eventually, most of these were forced to work. A few may have found loophopes (like children with minor disabilities); but still, the problem was addressed, and some measure was taken. Yet you still complain like it is 90% of the people taking 90% of your money.

There are people in the community trying to correct the problem. But you cannot wave your hand and just make everyone change their way of life and break out of a cycle that took hundreds of years to develop. Welfare reform was a first step, and again; most are working just like you are. Whatr else do you want?

I'm not pushing for any more spending on "these groups", and I see less spending on them, more spending on the corprorate world (but even that is the liberal's fault too, according to you) yet you are still complaining. I don't even see liberals trying to roll back the changes that were made. All you want to do is blame someone other than your heroes in the corporate world--even when they are the ones getting the handouts! It's totally luidcrous that you and millions of others actually think the poor are getting all the money in the country!

Nobody accused you of anything (I spoke about the origins of the "revised" grasshopper story, not you), yet you continue to be the one getting cocky accusing me of some "superior attitude". Just remember; you're the one trying to scold an entire group for the "lack of responsibility" of a relative few, and that your political system is the greatest thing on earth, and it is everyone else's fault it is not working right; and they're all out to ruin it. I've said nothing like this, and have not advocated any system or justified any group at all!

 

$400 screw driver . . . the cost is for the documentation, not the screw driver.

Take the KC135s for example. Your Air Force is fueling fighters with 60 year old planes. How many 60 year old cars are on the road? I suppose they could have bought enough spare parts in 1970 to last the next 40 years but . . . .

 

What is it about this plainly obvious statistical data that you can not accept? Do you just not like the story it tells?

The data shows that a larger proportion of blanks and of Hispanics receive public welfare than do whites and "others". That's fact - not conjecture - not trumped manipulated data - just plain fact.

Also the amount of money spent of entitlement programs in general is much greater than the 1.5% or so that you suggested! It's more like 30% or more and with the latest legislation on so-called health care "reform" will climb even higher.

 

You just completely bypassed what I pointed out, adnd went back to your numbers, as you continue to pull new numbers out of the air. That's why, apparently, there is no "plainly obvious statistical data". You can always pull something else out of somewhere to suit you.

And do you realize you're basically confessing the notion that minorities are a drain on the economy? I'm arguing they're not; and then you keep throwing up your one set of statistics in opposition. So you're not even denying that anymore; but once again feel you're covered by the numbers. (which you are holding up as some absolute proof, yet which don't even prove any such thing).