• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Proved Last Night who benefits from Government spending

sangha said:
Another misportrayal of what she said disguised as a leading question.
Click to expand...

How is it misportrayal of what she said? She doesn't understand the basic logistics of her thought processes. Its hardly misportrayal to point it out.

And leading questions are fine here.
 
Henrin said:
How is it misportrayal of what she said? She doesn't understand the basic logistics of her thought processes. Its hardly misportrayal to point it out.

And leading questions are fine here.
Click to expand...

What you think is a logical inference is not accurate. Her words do not mean what you think they mean. They do not imply that she opposes "handouts" or even thinks of them as handouts

and while leading questions are allowed, they are still propogandistic. A leading question suggests the answer, compared to honest questions which are meant to elicit an answer. IOW, asking a leading question is a ploy. In this case, GI was attempting to frame a policy as a "handout" even though she never described them as a handout. In fact, she even denied that was what she was saying
 
Last edited:
sangha said:
It's not an incentive, so it doesn't incentivize. Your claim that it is an incentive needs to backed up with evidence. So far, I have seen none
Click to expand...

It's money isn't it? Don't you know what an incentive is?
 
Guy Incognito said:
It's money isn't it? Don't you know what an incentive is?
Click to expand...

The assumption you make is that we react ONLY to money. Making babies, for example, is hardly something we always sit down and consider money on. We have other inceentives, other motivations. And as I have linked, studies have failed to show the incentive you claimed.
 
Boo Radley said:
The assumption you make is that we react ONLY to money. Making babies, for example, is hardly something we always sit down and consider money on. We have other inceentives, other motivations. And as I have linked, studies have failed to show the incentive you claimed.
Click to expand...

GI keeps insisting that others post evidence to back them up. Yet he continues to insist that money is always an incentive but he has yet to post any evidence to back that up with.

I can wait
 
sangha said:
GI keeps insisting that others post evidence to back them up. Yet he continues to insist that money is always an incentive but he has yet to post any evidence to back that up with.

I can wait
Click to expand...

I think GI is a more reasonable fellow than some others, and to be honest, he can link people saying what he says / claims, though I doubt he can find a proper well considered study.
 
Boo Radley said:
I think GI is a more reasonable fellow than some others, and to be honest, he can link people saying what he says / claims, though I doubt he can find a proper well considered study.
Click to expand...

Oh definitely. He's capable of civil and reasonable discussion. I didn't mean to imply anything else. However, in this thread he has demanded proof from others, while making claims that remain unsubstantiated.

I'm sure he'll eventually come up with something
 
Boo Radley said:
I think GI is a more reasonable fellow than some others, and to be honest, he can link people saying what he says / claims, though I doubt he can find a proper well considered study.
Click to expand...

I think my claim is so basic that it doesn't really require a study, although I see what you mean, this is a scientifically verifiable hypothesis. If the government provides money for a behavior, the incentivizes that behavior.

I am sure you can test the theory that government providing money for a behavior will increase that behavior.
 
Guy Incognito said:
I think my claim is so basic that it doesn't really require a study, although I see what you mean, this is a scientifically verifiable hypothesis. If the government provides money for a behavior, the incentivizes that behavior.

I am sure you can test the theory that government providing money for a behavior will increase that behavior.
Click to expand...

Saying it is self-evident doesn't carry much weight. And govt does provide money to teenage mothers, and the rate of teenage motherhood has gone down.

It looks like your theory has been tested and proven to be false, as far as I can tell
 
sangha said:
Saying it is self-evident doesn't carry much weight. And govt does provide money to teenage mothers, and the rate of teenage motherhood has gone down.
Click to expand...

That has more to do with Roe v. Wade than anything. I've seen plenty of studies on that, most prominently the famous one in Freakonomics.
 
Guy Incognito said:
I think my claim is so basic that it doesn't really require a study, although I see what you mean, this is a scientifically verifiable hypothesis. If the government provides money for a behavior, the incentivizes that behavior.

I am sure you can test the theory that government providing money for a behavior will increase that behavior.
Click to expand...

This assumes, I think, that there are no other factors involved, that people actually consider this in any real way. The reason studies have not been able to bear out this basic truism is because few people actually sit down and consider it one way or other. So, the incentive you speak of has almost always been overridden by other, more fundamental factors. Love and sex for us has seldom been as logical as we like to pretend. ;)
 
Guy Incognito said:
That has more to do with Roe v. Wade than anything. I've seen plenty of studies on that, most prominently the famous one in Freakonomics.
Click to expand...

I dont understand what RvW has to do with your ideas about incentives. Could you explain?
 
Boo Radley said:
This assumes, I think, that there are no other factors involved, that people actually consider this in any real way. The reason studies have not been able to bear out this basic truism is because few people actually sit down and consider it one way or other. So, the incentive you speak of has almost always been overridden by other, more fundamental factors. Love and sex for us has seldom been as logical as we like to pretend. ;)
Click to expand...

I agree, and I suppose it is possible that an incentive could have no effect, but considering how counterintuitive it is that a monetary incentive will have no effect on a behavior, or decrease a behavior, I think the burden is on you to show that this is true rather than the other way around.

I think it is generally safe to assume than an incentive will indeed incentivize a behavior, all else being equal.

Certainly an incentive will not decrease the behavior.
 
Last edited:
sangha said:
I dont understand what RvW has to do with your ideas about incentives. Could you explain?
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with incentives, it has to do with the drop in teenage motherhood.
 
Guy Incognito said:
I agree, and I suppose it is possible that an incentive could have no effect, but considering how counterintuitive it is that a monetary incentive will have no effect on a behavior, or decrease a behavior, I think the burden is on you to show that this is true rather than the other way around.

I think it is generally safe to assume than an incentive will indeed incentivize a behavior, all else being equal.

Certainly an incentive will not decrease the behavior.
Click to expand...

I have shown that no study has been able to show the effect, which I think meet my burden. Becasue studies have not been able to confirm what you see as intuitive, I think any actual effect is too small to worry about.
 
Guy Incognito said:
I agree, and I suppose it is possible that an incentive could have no effect, but considering how counterintuitive it is that a monetary incentive will have no effect on a behavior, or decrease a behavior, I think the burden is on you to show that this is true rather than the other way around.

I think it is generally safe to assume than an incentive will indeed incentivize a behavior, all else being equal.

Certainly an incentive will not decrease the behavior.
Click to expand...

Agreed on the last. Maybe it should be said that there is a minimal level that must be met before an incentive has a discernible effect. Specifically, it must be greater (or at least somewhere in the range) of the disincentives
 
Boo Radley said:
I have shown that no study has been able to show the effect, which I think meet my burden. Becasue studies have not been able to confirm what you see as intuitive, I think any actual effect is too small to worry about.
Click to expand...

To quote Rummie from Boondocks, an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
 
sangha said:
Agreed on the last. Maybe it should be said that there is a minimal level that must be met before an incentive has a discernible effect. Specifically, it must be greater (or at least somewhere in the range) of the disincentives
Click to expand...

Well, I think we are circling an agreement. I have always said that a minimal safety net is necessary.
 
Guy Incognito said:
To quote Rummie from Boondocks, an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Click to expand...

Ad that was to make fun of Rummie. You see, absence of evidence means you got nothing. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
Ad that was to make fun of Rummie. You see, absence of evidence means you got nothing. ;)
Click to expand...

The reason it was making fun of Rummie is because it that situation the burden of proof was on him. But we already agreed the burden is on you in this situation. You cannot meet your burden with an absence of evidence. You can only meet your burden with evidence.
 
Last edited:
Guy Incognito said:
The reason it was making fun of Rummie is because it that situation the burden of proof was on him. But we already agreed the burden is on you in this situation. You cannot meet your burden with an absence of evidence. You can only meet your burden with evidence.
Click to expand...

No, the burden is not mine, we've made no such agreement. You are claiming the affirmative, that there is an effect. I showed thier is no studies to prove that. You're Rummy in this istuation. :coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
No, the burden is not mine, we've made no such agreement. You are claiming the affirmative, that there is an effect. I showed thier is no studies to prove that. You're Rummy in this istuation. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

Wrong on both counts:
Boo Radley said:
I have shown that no study has been able to show the effect, which I think meet my burden.
Click to expand...

You're wrong. You already agreed you have a burden to meet. An absence of evidence does not meet a burden.

It's been fun, but I've soundly defeated you. No need to continue to go round and round.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Wrong on both counts:


You're wrong. You already agreed you have a burden to meet. An absence of evidence does not meet a burden.

It's been fun, but I've soundly defeated you. No need to continue to go round and round.
Click to expand...

Yes I met my burden. That is not the same as agreeing THE burden was mine to met. You are equal to saying there are wmds. You say there is an incentive effect. You have the positive. My only burden is to show there is no evidence of such, which I have done. The burden to prove there is belongs to you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom