GE pays no taxes, receives tax bonuses, ships jobs overseas, and its CEO is into job creation

[Chicomagiko]

So you had a point or was it a joke? Which is it?

[Chicomagiko]

Your point would be valid if there were only two possible choices. But since the majority (%45 in this case) were correct that does leave %55 that can be split up into other choices. Here is the poll:

http://polldaddy.com/poll/4799496/

As you can see it is not a mere 2 choice poll. Therefore his(the author) usage of the word majority to represent the highest number is correct.

[Plow]

Yugl is right. 45% does not mean most of the responders got it right, even if it means it got the most responses.

[Yugl]

He made an incorrect statement (Point), but I'm not seriously saying you shouldn't trust him because of that error (the joke).

As for the main point, he technically made an error. This comes up in political studies (Particularly studies on public knowledge) all the time and I can understand why you and Rhinox say he made a correct statement. I understand that you're trying to point out the distribution places 5 missiles as the mode. However, the mode=/= majority. The author said "Most of you got this week's question right." First, lets start with the basic "duh" questions. What does it mean to be right? It means you selected 5 missiles. What does it mean to not be right (i.e. wrong)? It means you selected anything but 5 missiles. Out of the total voters, 55% did not pick the right answer. 45% did pick the right answer. 55>45, so most did not pick the right answer. The lesson here is not to construct binary articulations (Right v Wrong) because that is what fumbled his statement. Had he said 5 missiles received more votes than other option, he would have been correct, but when you reduce it to right v wrong, the statement collapses. Small detail and one that easily becomes mixed up, but it these fine details that make a difference in politics.

[aurik]

HOLY SHIT HE USED "MOST" WRONGLY IN MY OPINION EVEN THOUGH HE COULD HAVE BEEN USING IT IN A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT CONTEXT THAT STILL MAKES HIM WRONG BECAUSE MY INTERPRETATION IS THE CORRECT ONE. WHAT A JERK NOBODY TRUST THAT GUY.

[Demosthenes11]

like most people know the word "plurality"...

but seriously, of course spending will go up each year. our population goes up ever year...

[Demosthenes11]

but seriously, of course spending will go up each year. our population goes up ever year...

Thinking more about this, what the fuck swamp lol.

Say the country consists of 10 people and a government. Government spends x amount for the 10 people in terms of infrastructure, defense, etc. When that population expands to 14 people, things require more spending. And guess what - you get more revenue from taxes. This is not just obvious - it's common fucking sense. A spending freeze makes no common fucking sense.

The US population is increasing at a rate of about 3-4 million per year, which is about a 1.3% increase on current population figures. But no, let's cut spending on the public!

[Yugl]

Thinking more about this, what the fuck swamp lol.

Say the country consists of 10 people and a government. Government spends x amount for the 10 people in terms of infrastructure, defense, etc. When that population expands to 14 people, things require more spending. And guess what - you get more revenue from taxes. This is not just obvious - it's common fucking sense. A spending freeze makes no common fucking sense.

The US population is increasing at a rate of about 3-4 million per year, which is about a 1.3% increase on current population figures. But no, let's cut spending on the public!

The sadistic response to that is the military controls population growth.

[Mazmaz]

HOLY SHIT HE USED "MOST" WRONGLY IN MY OPINION EVEN THOUGH HE COULD HAVE BEEN USING IT IN A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT CONTEXT THAT STILL MAKES HIM WRONG BECAUSE MY INTERPRETATION IS THE CORRECT ONE. WHAT A JERK NOBODY TRUST THAT GUY.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Thinking more about this, what the fuck swamp lol.

Say the country consists of 10 people and a government. Government spends x amount for the 10 people in terms of infrastructure, defense, etc. When that population expands to 14 people, things require more spending. And guess what - you get more revenue from taxes. This is not just obvious - it's common fucking sense. A spending freeze makes no common fucking sense.

The US population is increasing at a rate of about 3-4 million per year, which is about a 1.3% increase on current population figures. But no, let's cut spending on the public!

All I'm trying to say is, if we cut the military in half 300 billion, some politician, Republican's included, is now going to spend 600 billion somewhere else. So what has been accomplished? When revenues increased 22% over the Bush admin, spending went up 80%. If GE pays 1 billion, our politicians will then spend 4 billion.

But as aurik pointed out, we can just lower our standard of living, so carry on.

[Olo401]

All I'm trying to say is, if we cut the military in half 300 billion, some politician, Republican's included, is now going to spend 600 billion somewhere else. So what has been accomplished? When revenues increased 22% over the Bush admin, spending went up 80%. If GE pays 1 billion, our politicians will then spend 4 billion.

But as aurik pointed out, we can just lower our standard of living, so carry on.

Oh come on Swampy that's a really ridiculous assumption and you know it.

Thank you for at least acknowledging the problems in our politics extend to both parties though.

[guartz]

The real question here is, how do these things come about?

You simply have to look at the core of it all, when you have in place fictitious legal entities whom in most cases, are legally bound to seek profit and a representative government that favors what James Madison referred to as 'factions' then is it any wonder why governments adopt mercantile policies? I'm not afraid of comparing the current situation with corporations and governments to that of 17th century aristocratic Elizabethan system, no, what should be frightening is how the analogy fits so perfectly.

The only way to break this cycle is to use one weapon that has worked so well in the past, and that is reason and philosophy. Instead of fighting the human instinct, a society can come about that represents them in a way we haven't seen before in history. The idea of greed came about from virtues long ago now antiquated, as Nozick said,
“There is no social entity with a good that undergoes some sacrifice for its own good. There are only individual people, different individual people, with their own individual lives. Using one of these people for the benefit of others, uses him and benefits the others. Nothing more.”

We struggle in society that was built around the concept that men live in a constant state of war with each other, yet Hobbes couldn't have been more wrong. Yes, men are self interested animals more so then others, but he saw only strife that needed to be tamed, where in truth that self interest drives the cooperation that ascends men into higher and higher potential.

Look about you. Sky-scrappers, airplanes, cars, food, entertainment and goods being delivered from distances across the planet. What do we have to thank for that? A two thousand old dusty volume of half-mad scribbles? Or that two century old crusty sheet of paper some oh so virtuously swear to hold in remembrance?

No. The catalyst for this force of nature is simply some guy, somewhere, wanting to make a buck.

[Rhinox]

Brilliant

The South Korean and the Scandinavian and German models be damned the answer was right before our very eyes.

We must now strive to model ourselves after the highly successful Somalian model with elements of the Afghani model and a pinch of the Haitian model sprinkled about.

[Rhinox]

I mean it has to work you're right everyone self interest to stay alive and not starve to death would compel this type of society to succeed.

btw this would be amazing for job creation as now a new type of job opens up that was once previously not available to us. Piracy in the High Seas.

[guartz]

ah yes, your deep biting sarcasm hit home. lets completely ignore empirically observable facts about human nature and continue to base our society on fairy tales, after all, it's working just as planned.

[Rhinox]

ah yes, your deep biting sarcasm hit home. lets completely ignore empirically observable facts about human nature and continue to base our society on fairy tales, after all, it's working just as planned.

Yes its human nature.

Survival of the fittest or bust. I mean one of the major problems with our country is our debt caused by entitlement programs. A great solution is to higher the age required to collect and cut off Medicaid. See that way if you survive long enough to collect you truly deserve it. Thank you for opening my eyes to the true culprit of our problems.


Life expectancy rate being so high.

Oh it isn't sarcasm guartz I'm behind you 100%. I always wanted to aspire to becoming a tribal Warlord

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Or maybe, since we have lower tax levels now than at any point in the past 60 years, we should raise taxes since we can't properly function when we pinch pennies this hard.

I forgot about this earlier. Since 1950 tax revenues have averaged 17.8% of GDP, pretty much never higher than 20% or lower than 15%. I think we've had significant changes since 1950's yet it really hasn't wavered outside of that range. Raising taxes won't really help.

[aurik]

Well, cutting spending won't help either according to you, because cutting spending just leads to more spending.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Well, cutting spending won't help either according to you, because cutting spending just leads to more spending.

Insert b/c our politicians suck before the period and it's more accurate.

[aurik]

Well since cutting spending doesn't work to keep spending down, maybe we should try raising spending to reduce the rate at which spending grows!