Support NeoGAF

[Oblivion]

Yes, Facebook finally came through! Someone I hadn't seen since high school just posted this:

http://www.newsninja2012.com/this-teacher-rocks-entire-class-fails-when-obamas-socialism-experiment-fails/?hubRefSrc=email

Ugh. It was only a matter of time before some idiot college professor decided read that stupid chain e-mail and decided to apply it to real life.

 

[Black Mamba]

lmao on Megyn Kelly they had Brit Hume on to talk about Gates stuff and she was talking about how damning it was that Obama wanted "out of Iraq" and that Gates complained that the Admin "questioned the military."

DAMNING!

The GOP bubble is so hilarious.

 

[Aylinato]

What do you guys think of this?

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2014/01/ce...ls-for-a-rising-share-of-american-households/

Essentially AEI is saying that the middle class is 'disappearing' by becoming upper class. My first instinct is that there are less 'households' being created and that this is the result of more 20-somethings living with their parents, but looking up other data reveals household size has steadily dropped.

lol at the thought of middle class disappearing to the upper class. The numbers just don't support any such conclusion.

Yes, Facebook finally came through! Someone I hadn't seen since high school just posted this:

http://www.newsninja2012.com/this-teacher-rocks-entire-class-fails-when-obamas-socialism-experiment-fails/?hubRefSrc=email

If you fail an entire class you get fired. Considering that America isn't a full capitalist(though at times corporate america shows signs of how capitalism actually is[you know awful and only care about profit]) we americans have many socialist attributes.

However Obama is not a socialist.

 

[speculawyer]

Yes, Facebook finally came through! Someone I hadn't seen since high school just posted this:

http://www.newsninja2012.com/this-teacher-rocks-entire-class-fails-when-obamas-socialism-experiment-fails/?hubRefSrc=email

How does anyone with a brain believe such stuff? No teach name given, no school name, no link to a published story . . . just a random story about 'some teacher' at 'some local college'.

The power of confirmation bias.

 

[B-Dubs]

What do you guys think of this?

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2014/01/ce...ls-for-a-rising-share-of-american-households/

Essentially AEI is saying that the middle class is 'disappearing' by becoming upper class. My first instinct is that there are less 'households' being created and that this is the result of more 20-somethings living with their parents, but looking up other data reveals household size has steadily dropped.

I am 99% sure that this assertion is bullshit. In fact, I will go out on a limb and say they've cooked the books somehow because if this were true then we wouldn't be having any economic problems whatsoever.

Yes, Facebook finally came through! Someone I hadn't seen since high school just posted this:

http://www.newsninja2012.com/this-teacher-rocks-entire-class-fails-when-obamas-socialism-experiment-fails/?hubRefSrc=email

That is really dumb, like so very extraordinary dumb. Also very very unethical and if he did do this he'd have been fired instantly upon discovery.

 

[Black Mamba]

How does anyone with a brain believe such stuff? No teach name given, no school name, no link to a published story . . . just a random story about 'some teacher' at 'some local college'.

The power of confirmation bias.

Of course it's fake. http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/socialism.asp

Any economics professor claiming Obama has brought socialism to America should be fired for incompetence.

 

[StopMakingSense]

Yes, Facebook finally came through! Someone I hadn't seen since high school just posted this:

http://www.newsninja2012.com/this-teacher-rocks-entire-class-fails-when-obamas-socialism-experiment-fails/?hubRefSrc=email

I get all my news from NewsNinja2012 dot com.

 

[speculawyer]

Of course it's fake. http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/socialism.asp

Any economics professor claiming Obama has brought socialism to America should be fired for incompetence.

But it is a great story in a meta-way. It is a great example of how so many conservatives will just quickly believe something and reinforce their beliefs despite the information being transparently bogus.

Someone should follow it up with "And the psychology professor pointed out the story was completely bogus but lots of people readily believed it due to the phenomenon known as confirmation bias."

 

[Black Mamba]

But it is a great story in a meta-way. It is a great example of how so many conservatives will just quickly believe something and reinforce their beliefs despite the information being transparently bogus.

Someone should follow it up with "And the psychology professor pointed out the story was completely bogus but lots of people readily believed it due to the phenomenon known as confirmation bias."

It's not confirmation bias. It's Obama Derangement Syndrome.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

But it is a great story in a meta-way. It is a great example of how so many conservatives will just quickly believe something and reinforce their beliefs despite the information being transparently bogus.

Someone should follow it up with "And the psychology professor pointed out the story was completely bogus but lots of people readily believed it due to the phenomenon known as confirmation bias."

So like: Who's Afraid of Peer Review?
but for media?


Oh, I'd love to.

 

[thcsquad]

lol at the thought of middle class disappearing to the upper class. The numbers just don't support any such conclusion.

I am 99% sure that this assertion is bullshit. In fact, I will go out on a limb and say they've cooked the books somehow because if this were true then we wouldn't be having any economic problems whatsoever.

This is Census Bureau data; the document is directly linked, so the data itself isn't cooked although the image might be misleading. The only thing I don't know is where they got the 1970-1990 data; the Census table 690 mentioned doesn't go that far back. But if you look at the data that is present in the Census table, it at least supports part of the assertion made; in 1990, 15% of households were making 100k or more (in 2009 dollars), while in 2009, 20.1% were making that.

 

[Piecake]

This is Census Bureau data; the document is directly linked, so the data itself isn't cooked although the image might be misleading. The only thing I don't know is where they got the 1970-1990 data; the Census table 690 mentioned doesn't go that far back. But if you look at the data that is present in the Census table, it at least supports part of the assertion made; in 1990, 15% of households were making 100k or more (in 2009 dollars), while in 2009, 20.1% were making that.

Probably because the top 20% has seen an increase in wealth while everyone else is poorer. That author also defines the middle class as people who are making 25-75k, which is ridiculous because below 25k is basically abject poverty for a family of 4. Pretty easy to see an increase in the upper class when you define the middle class as barely above the poverty line

 

[Black Mamba]

Rand Paul cites economist's work against extending unemployment insurance, gets bitch-slapped by Rand.

Under normal circumstances, an up-and-coming academic might be pleased to have his work cited by a leading politician in the heat of a major policy debate.
Not so Rand Ghayad, who will shortly be receiving his Ph.D. in economics from Northeastern University, and whose research on unemployment was cited admiringly by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) in a recent essay about why extending unemployment insurance is a bad thing.

The problem, Ghayad wrote in a piece for the Atlantic, is that his research implies just the opposite. Ghayad's research indicates that employers discriminate against the long-term unemployed. That's the part of his work that Paul picked up on. The phenomenon, in fact, is pretty widely acknowledged.

But Ghayad says Paul's wrong to attribute to his work the further conclusion that the provision of unemployment benefits for longer periods explains the persistence of unemployment, especially long-term unemployment. "Just because companies discriminate against the long-term unemployed doesn't mean long-term benefits are to blame," Ghayad wrote in the Atlantic. "Paul might know that if he read beyond the first line of my paper's abstract."

The first line of the abstract reads, "Many analyses (point) to extended unemployment benefits as a reason" for persistent unemployment." The second line reads: "However, other explanations have also been proposed for this shift, including worsening structural unemployment."

The dispute is important because the idea that unemployment benefits foster unemployment is a key argument raised by conservatives against the extension of the benefits. The Senate approved a three-month extension Tuesday for 1.3 million Americans whose benefits ran out on New Year's Eve. But the extension faces stiff opposition in the GOP-controlled House.

In his essay, Paul doesn't cite any evidence for the notion that unemployment benefits encourage joblessness. In fact, he's expressed that viewpoint so often that he doesn't even mention it explicitly in the piece, beyond a generalized swipe at "well-intentioned, big-hearted, but small-brained responses to real problems." It's treated as a given.
But Ghayad's paper, written for the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, finds that "a significant portion" of persistent unemployment (the technical topic of the research is the Beveridge curve, which tracks the relationship between job openings and unemployment) has occurred in recent years among new entrants to the work force and "unemployed re-entrants"--that is, people not eligible for any unemployment benefits at all. Possibly half the trend can be attributed to the "disincentive effects of unemployment benefit programs," Ghayad writes.

His conclusion is that "the increase in the unemployment rate relative to job openings will persist when unemployment benefit programs expire."

Put simply, that means that the idea that unemployment benefits keep people from looking for work shouldn't be part of the debate over extending benefits. That leaves in place another important rationale for extending benefits--to keep food on the table and a roof over the heads of the families of the long-term unemployed. The argument that unemployment benefits only encourage unemployment--Rand Paul's argument--looks more than ever merely like an excuse for denying help to people who need it.


http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-rand-paul-20140107,0,6889404.story#ixzz2pnW7mSOG

This quote just slays me:

Paul might know that if he read beyond the first line of my paper's abstract."

Paul is terrible at everything he does.

Anyway, while Ted Cruz is the asshole of the GOP, Rand is the village idiot. Not enough clown shoes big enough for these two pieces of shit.

edit: To the shock of no one, Rand Paul lied about his son being enrolled in medicaid against his will:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/rand-paul-son-kentucky-automatically-enrolled-medicaid

I wanted to mention this on Sunday but forgot.

 

[zero shift]

Of course it's fake. http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/socialism.asp

Any economics professor claiming Obama has brought socialism to America should be fired for incompetence.

Sometimes I really wish Obama was this radical Socialist that the neocons keep claiming he is.

I really wonder what America's Hugo Chavez would be like.

 

[Joe Molotov]

How does anyone with a brain believe such stuff? No teach name given, no school name, no link to a published story . . . just a random story about 'some teacher' at 'some local college'.

The power of confirmation bias.

Local College is a very prestigious school.

 

[remist]

Emails Link Top Christie Aide to Bridge Lane Closures

“Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee,” she emailed David Wildstein, Mr. Christie’s close friend and appointee at the Port Authority.

 

[Sibylus]

Congrats, Christie. The one thing to rival your great ambition was basal stupidity.

 

[Armoured Priest]

But it is a great story in a meta-way. It is a great example of how so many conservatives will just quickly believe something and reinforce their beliefs despite the information being transparently bogus.

Someone should follow it up with "And the psychology professor pointed out the story was completely bogus but lots of people readily believed it due to the phenomenon known as confirmation bias."

I was instantly reminded of The Wave when you said that.

 

[RustyNails]

Looks like Robert Gates wants a spot at Fox News.

 

[WayneMorse]

Emails Link Top Christie Aide to Bridge Lane Closures

Can and will Christie be impeached by the state legislature for this?

 

[StopMakingSense]

Emails Link Top Christie Aide to Bridge Lane Closures

Why would you email that???

 

[Wilsongt]

Looks like Robert Gates wants a spot at Fox News.

And so begins presidentquestionshiscabinetGate.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Can and will Christie be impeached by the state legislature for this?

I'm guessing "can" is yes, "will" is a nope.

The email is thoroughly damning, though it's missing the one explicit link to Christie himself. But his finger prints are all over it.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Looks like Robert Gates wants a spot at Fox News.

Eh? The coverage of his comments seem overblown. A military man upset about civilian leadership questioning military judgement? Shocker. Gates isn't a bomb thrower, and specifically says in the book that he agreed with Obama's Afghan decision, and that Obama tended to make tough/right decisions that went against his political advisers. If Gates goes on CNN/Fox/etc I can't imagine him shitting on the president.

The damning comments were on Biden and Hillary. It sounds like military brass can't stand Biden, who attempts to be the smartest guy in the room by playing devil's advocate. And the comment about Hillary only opposing the surge due to political primary reasons...ouch. Surely you can understand why a military man would find such comments insulting.

 

[RustyNails]

He is already shitting on the president by saying Obama did not care about "winning" the wars, and was more concerned with ending them. I dont see any problem with Obamas attitude towards the wars, but it looks like Gates wanted to be there indefinitely like McCain wanted. He is also clinging to the troop surge myth. That did not do shit. But him being a milirary man blinds him to his soldiers and he cannot see the fuller picture. It was Sunni tribes forging an agreemwnt which led to stability, not troop surge.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Other top Christie associates mentioned in or copied on the email chain, all after the top New York appointee at the authority ordered the lanes reopened, include David Samson, the chairman of the agency; Bill Stepien, Christie’s re-election campaign manager and the newly appointed state GOP chairman; and Michael Drewniak, Christie’s spokesman.

Christie has previously said that no one in his staff or campaign was involved in the lane closings, and he has dismissed questions about political retribution by joking that he moved the traffic cones himself.

Yeah I'm sure Christie knew nothing. If he didn't he sure is a horrible manager of his team and state,

“Is it wrong that I’m smiling,” the recipient of the text message responded to Wildstein. The person’s identity is not clear because the documents are partially redacted for unknown reasons.

“No,” Wildstein wrote in response.

“I feel badly about the kids,” the person replied to Wildstein. “I guess.”

“They are the children of Buono voters,” Wildstein wrote, making a reference to Barbara Buono, the Democratic candidate for governor, who lost to Christie in a landslide in November.

Wildstein responded to Stepien: “It will be a tough November for this little Serbian,” an apparent reference to the Fort Lee mayor, who Baroni also referred to as “Serbia” in text messages.

Yeah that's the kind of guys we want running the country.

http://www.northjersey.com/news/christie_kelly_bridge_lane_closures_emails.html

 

[Diablos]

Democrats do seem to be playing it both ways — taking credit for engineering the economic recovery, but claiming that the economy is still too fragile to withstand changes to assistance programs.

Seriously, fuck CNN. The economy is improving but not to the extent that we should be shitcanning emergency unemployment benefits. How fucking hard of a concept is that to grasp?

"GOTTA LOOK LIKE WE PLAY BOTH SIDES AND SHAPE THE NARRATIVE EVEN WHEN IT MAKES NO SENSE, AT THE EXPENSE OF THOSE SERIOUSLY IN NEED! HERP MCDERP!"

I'd argue CNN is more damaging than even Fox News. Unless you are a complete moron you know where Fox stands on the vast majority of issues. CNN and their flavored position of the week reporting is toxic to people who have grown to trust their word as credible over the years.

 

[Zona]

Sometimes I really wish Obama was this radical Socialist that the neocons keep claiming he is.

I really wonder what America's Hugo Chavez would be like.

Like Hewie Long most likely.

 

[WayneMorse]

Like Hewie Long most likely.

The plutocrats have really dragged his name through the mud, especially in Louisiana where he did so much good for the state yet you'll never hear a politician say a good thing about him. The way we learned it in high school was that Huey Long was our version of Hitler.

 

[Touchdown]

Seriously, fuck CNN. The economy is improving but not to the extent that we should be shitcanning emergency unemployment benefits. How fucking hard of a concept is that to grasp?

"GOTTA LOOK LIKE WE PLAY BOTH SIDES AND SHAPE THE NARRATIVE EVEN WHEN IT MAKES NO SENSE, AT THE EXPENSE OF THOSE SERIOUSLY IN NEED! HERP MCDERP!"

I'd argue CNN is more damaging than even Fox News. Unless you are a complete moron you know where Fox stands on the vast majority of issues. CNN and their flavored position of the week reporting is toxic to people who have grown to trust their word as credible over the years.

This X 100.

 

[thcsquad]

I'm going to keep playing devil's advocate here, because I've yet to see a convincing rebuttal from the left on the census data.

Probably because the top 20% has seen an increase in wealth while everyone else is poorer.

I'm not sure how that would be a factor here. The assertion is that a higher percentage of houesholds are rich, roughly the same percentage of households are middle-class, and less households are poor than before. This would be a good thing. Sure, the rich might be pulling away from everybody else, which isn't good, but that's talking about something different.

That author also defines the middle class as people who are making 25-75k, which is ridiculous because below 25k is basically abject poverty for a family of 4. Pretty easy to see an increase in the upper class when you define the middle class as barely above the poverty line

I agree that 25k is low, but when you get down to the third graph, which is 50-100k defining middle class, it still holds. The 15-20% number also comes from the 100k cutoff definition.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Yeah I'm sure Christie knew nothing. If he didn't he sure is a horrible manager of his team and state,

sounds like he has more in common with Obama than just a hug.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

The plutocrats have really dragged his name through the mud, especially in Louisiana where he did so much good for the state yet you'll never hear a politician say a good thing about him. The way we learned it in high school was that Huey Long was our version of Hitler.

You could probably blame Sinclair Lewis for that, given his portrayal of Huey in It Can't Happen Here.

FDR too.

 

[empty vessel]

I'm going to keep playing devil's advocate here, because I've yet to see a convincing rebuttal from the left on the census data.

This may simply reflect demographics. The baby boom generation is the largest chunk of population, and they were advancing their careers during this period. All things average, they would make more towards the end of their careers than at the beginning. Until I can see where the pre-1990 data comes from, though, there is no reason to trust the data given. The page is curiously silent about the source of pre-1990 data. The post-1990 data do indeed show at least a 5% jump in the number of households making over 100k between 1990 and 2009. But, again, this could be explained by simple demographics.

 

[ivysaur12]

Utah will not recgonize the 1300+ gay marriages performed in the state now that the stay is in place.

Also:

‏@samsteinhp 1m
Dem aide confirms Politico scoop: Reps. Mike McIntyre (D-N.C.) and Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) are retiring

Bad day for Kay Hagan.

 

[Wilsongt]

Utah will not recgonize the 1300+ gay marriages performed in the state now that the stay is in place.

Also:



Bad day for Kay Hagan.

Yes, bad day for Kay Hagan, but what does this mean for Kay Hagan?

 

[RustyNails]

Yes, bad day for Kay Hagan, but what does this mean for Kay Hagan?

Bad news for Kay Hagan.

 

[thcsquad]

This may simply reflect demographics. The baby boom generation is the largest chunk of population, and they were advancing their careers during this period. All things average, they would make more towards the end of their careers than at the beginning. Until I can see where the pre-1990 data comes from, though, there is no reason to trust the data given. The page is curiously silent about the source of pre-1990 data. The post-1990 data do indeed show at least a 5% jump in the number of households making over 100k between 1990 and 2009. But, again, this could be explained by simple demographics.

Thanks. I even asked about the source of that data (posted as thcrock), and I don't think he's responded yet. What's worse is that the graph implies yearly data going back to then, while the census literally had four time data points. My guess is that the Census does have that data available somewhere, but I'm too busy to spend hours digging.

However, the graph does start right about when LBJ's War on Poverty got going, and from what I know that war was at least marginally successful and should explain the initial dip in the share of lower income households. In fact, the liberal argument is that things went to hell with Reagan, so 1967-1981 should show a favorable graph (and it does).

 

[ivysaur12]

Bad news for Kay Hagan.

How does she sleep?

 

[Wilsongt]

How does she sleep?

Badly.

 

[Piecake]

I'm going to keep playing devil's advocate here, because I've yet to see a convincing rebuttal from the left on the census data.



I'm not sure how that would be a factor here. The assertion is that a higher percentage of houesholds are rich, roughly the same percentage of households are middle-class, and less households are poor than before. This would be a good thing. Sure, the rich might be pulling away from everybody else, which isn't good, but that's talking about something different.



I agree that 25k is low, but when you get down to the third graph, which is 50-100k defining middle class, it still holds. The 15-20% number also comes from the 100k cutoff definition.

and 60% of Americans are poorer. I am not sure how thats a good thing, even if some in the middle class moved into the upper middle class

 

[teiresias]

Utah will not recgonize the 1300+ gay marriages performed in the state now that the stay is in place.

I really think this issue needs to be addressed by the SC if they're going to issue a stay. At the very least they need to expedite any court action for Utah, because this is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[ivysaur12]

I really think this issue needs to be addressed by the SC if they're going to issue a stay. At the very least they need to expedite any court action for Utah, because this is absolutely ridiculous.

ThinkProgress said that the stay was unanimous. Is that true? I didn't think there was any opinions issued with it.

 

[teiresias]

ThinkProgress said that the stay was unanimous. Is that true? I didn't think there was any opinions issued with it.

What I'm saying is since the SC issued the stay, and now Utah is unilaterally nullifying only a certain class of marriage licenses that have been granted, then it wouldn't surprise me if someone didn't file something specifically over this action by Utah rather than wait for the actual case itself to come up.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Utah will not recgonize the 1300+ gay marriages performed in the state now that the stay is in place.

Also:



Bad day for Kay Hagan.

Shit. Another easy GOP pickup.

I guess the silver lining is Dems won't have to spend money holding a seat that's been long gone anyway. And McIntyre's pretty conservative.

 

[ivysaur12]

What I'm saying is since the SC issued the stay, and now Utah is unilaterally nullifying only a certain class of marriage licenses that have been granted, then it wouldn't surprise me if someone didn't file something specifically over this action by Utah rather than wait for the actual case itself to come up.

No, I agree. Sorry, I was sort of thinking tangentially to your post.

 

[speculawyer]

Similarly,
the entire eastern Kentucky region has m ore than 25 counties with unemployment rates above 10 percent and nearly the whole of eastern Kentucky is well above the national average. High tax rates, EPA regulations, and the war on coal
are to blame for decimating the region.

Or its the market picking these people as, in your words, 'losers'

High tax rates? Tax rates are higher in many other states that are doing much better. So that's just blind faith ideology proven wrong by the facts.

EPA/war on coal are the same thing. Well get over it, losers. You can't whine when your buggy whips are no longer selling well. It is natural gas that is really killing coal.

And yeah, we like clean air and we don't need coal when we have solar, wind, hydro, natural gas, LEDs, low-power flat panel TVs, nuclear, etc. Electricity demand has been dropping and renewable generation is growing fast. Coal sucks and we don't need it any more . . . so move on to new industries. You don't have an inherent right to make money from coal.

I get it . . . it really hurts to have an industry collapse. But that is the market far more than government so stop blaming government for everything.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Thanks. I even asked about the source of that data (posted as thcrock), and I don't think he's responded yet. What's worse is that the graph implies yearly data going back to then, while the census literally had four time data points. My guess is that the Census does have that data available somewhere, but I'm too busy to spend hours digging.

The Census Bureau does much more than just the decennial census, including the Current Population Survey.

This may simply reflect demographics. The baby boom generation is the largest chunk of population, and they were advancing their careers during this period. All things average, they would make more towards the end of their careers than at the beginning. Until I can see where the pre-1990 data comes from, though, there is no reason to trust the data given. The page is curiously silent about the source of pre-1990 data. The post-1990 data do indeed show at least a 5% jump in the number of households making over 100k between 1990 and 2009. But, again, this could be explained by simple demographics.

My guess is it comes from some version of the CPS. Table H-17 at this web page includes historical household income data (using 2012 dollars, rather than 2009, which may explain some of the discrepancies in percentages for each category) going back to 1967. There's also information there (see Table H-10) based on the age of the head of household, so if you're up to it, you can test your hypothesis regarding the significance of baby boomers.

 

[teiresias]

Eric Cantor getting primaried is hilarious.

 

[bananas]

How will this Christie bridge scandal affect Kay Hagan's chances?