OK, like a previous post I had where some report came out and claimed that the nominal number of people that were below the poverty line was proof positive Bush and Cheney were out there knee-capping babies and stealing old people's dentures, I made the clear distinction that to look at the nominal amount of people on any statistic or trait was pointless in a population that is growing.
That's because if a population is growing, you will by default always have "record numbers of people" doing X, Y and Z each and every year.
For example;
Did you know that in 1790 only 3,000 Americans died of cancer.
But under George Bush a "record" of over 60,000 Americans died of cancer! Bush supports cancer! End the pro-Cancer regime now!!!!
Idiocy.
I then suggested some simple 4th grade mathematics that would imply there might be a "poverty rate." That 4th grade logic would imply you would acknowledge the population is growing and a more proper measure of poverty would be the percentage of the population under the poverty line. This painted a much less dismal portrait of what the left was trying to pass on as truth.
And so I find it my job again to calculate a similar ratio this time. For a moronic friend of mine who hates Bush because, well he's Bush, and the Independent in the UK have pointed out the same thing with equally ignorant and moronic bliss (and within 4 hours of each other, so I'm surmising some e-mail is being forwarded in leftist circles as to this latest egregious "atrocity" against the American people).
FOOD STAMP RECIPIENTS REACH AND ALL TIME HIGH!!!!
Therefore...
BUSH IS HITLER AND WE MUST KILL ALL RICH PEOPLE!!!!!
But before we start sharpening our pitchforks and cutting the brake lines to SUV's in the fancier zip codes, allow me to tender an argument in the vain hopes some on the left will adhere to some intellectual honesty and agree with me that, yes, we should really measure the number of people on food stamps, not on a nominal basis, but as a percentage of the population.
Food stamp recipients have gone up, but they are not at a record high as a percent of the population.
Now I know this may dismay some of you leftists, socialists and commies out there, but that's the truth. I'm sorry, I don't make stuff up, this is just the census bureau and the department of agriculture. If you don't like their data, go yell at them.
Regardless, as you can see, food stamp recipients as a percent of the population (despite the best efforts of people employed by the food stamp program to do outreach and get more on the program to protect their jobs) has actually gone down from 2006. Albeit slightly, a lower percentage of people are on food stamps as of 12-31-07 than were in 2006. 2008 data is not yet available, and please don't give me guff about how in those past three months food stamps applicants have skyrocketed and I'm not accounting for it.
Additionally, to point out the hypocrisy of the "food-stamps-are-at-an-all-time-high-Bush-must-die" camp, the food stamp rate reached an all-time high under Bill Clinton, yet we did not clamor for his death nor claim the US was in the next "Great Depression" (because frankly those of us on the right couldn't even think of something so stupid as to point to food stamps as a means by which to incriminate an administration).
Now, look, I'm seriously getting sick of this childish nonsense. And that's exactly what it is, is childish nonsense. I was having a conversation with a friend of mine who agreed with me completely that it's not even worth having a conversation with your typical leftist by our age, because by our age they have made up their mind and want to believe in what they want to believe. Data, statistics, facts and reality have nothing to do with it. They will take whatever data they can and twist, contort and spin it to their own desires, with no desire to actually follow or care what is the truth. So do me and the rest of the intellectually honest people a favor. Don't even feign some kind of passion or fake adherence to the truth. We know your game. You just will cling on to whatever tidbit of data you can and propagate it as truth to push your ulterior political agendas. I can't even debate with the majority of leftists anymore because it's pointless. Truth and data have no effect on you.
Libertarian/Conservative - "The sky is blue."
Liberal/Leftist - "No it isn't."
Libertarian/Conservative - "Well how do you explain this data from the Federal Reserve that proves it is."
*Liberal switches to default conspiracy mode*
Liberal/Leftist - "Well, obviously Bush is in control of the Fed and all their economics were told they'd lose their jobs if they didn't say the sky was blue."
This is why I just resort to betting most leftists because it puts an endgame to a conversation that no amount of logic or honest would conclude, and saves me an immense amount of time.
So look, at minimum, just please be honest. You hate or at minimum envy people who have it better off than you and want their money. It's OK, admit it, heck, I'll even go along with you at times as I've seen enough nepotism and spoiled brat daddy's boys/girls get jobs they were completely incompetent to receive. But just say you're for socialism or communism because you are just plain envious. Don't go through the shenanigans of trying futile and dishonest shtick like this as somehow providing the "means" or "rationale" as to why its OK to take other's people money that frankly isn't yours.
Maybe if you spent more time working on a business or getting a degree in engineering or computers, or heck, channeled the hate and envy into something productive and stopped protesting "cause x"or whatever the flavor of the week the cause is, you'd have your own money to envy. Which you could then tax from yourself and give to yourself in a weird self-serving wealth redistributing way and claim riches yet "social justice" at the same time. Whatever turns your gears.
No comments:
Post a Comment