Statistically insignificant for the conclusions you are trying to draw. That does not mean it is not significant in another context like that in which the WSJ presents it.
Uh.......What conclusions can we possibly even attempt to draw? Have you done the math, myp? Seriously...have you? The article I posted says there are 50,000 people EACH night in these shelters. Multiply that by 365 days in the year and how many people are you feeding and sheltering each year, myp? In only one of your major cities?
I can easily do the math....why not tell me what number you come up with. And then equate how many of those are children and I'll do that math for you, it comes to a wholesale embarrassment of 7,665,000. Just in New York City alone.
You continue throughout this nation....and that number becomes so staggering, it is way beyond anything you nor I can comprehend, what conclusions could you possibly draw, myp? Why is it the Wall Street Journal now headlines the media attention to this national f'n embarrassment? Why is it we re-elect a President without even discussing these issues, does anyone go to the polls to remove any chad looking at this reality? Who is responsible for this, myp. What conclusions if any do you make? Forget mine, why not make one of your own?
Congratulations Stonewall, you've finally realized most people in this country are poor.
If it makes you feel better, they're still better off then most, at least they have shelter.Congratulations Stonewall, you've finally realized most people in this country are poor.
Funny...myp giving me a lil flak for concluding these realities should reflect bad on our President. And here your conclusions are to tell me "most people in this country are poor." And that only tells me you've done little traveling, this is not a poor country.
And that's why this stat is a national embarrassment. Because we are a well off country and this shouldn't be the reality.
Once more you are being intellectually dishonest either on purpose because you just care about your political agenda or because you just don't realize you are doing it. What makes you think that there are no repeats in the 50k?
My whole point here is about intellectual honesty. Put the politics aside for a second and look at the data objectively. Yes, 50k is a lot, but everything is relative. One thing we should look at is how does that 50k compare to the TOTAL homeless population of years past. We should also compare it to the population of NYC, where you will find that it is just above 1/2 of 1 percent. And these are only a couple considerations. On judging the national economy/situation or the Presidency there are a lot more important considerations in addition to this one that come into play in order to draw a conclusion.
Well off? Norway is well off, we're just a step above starving in the streets with a handful of filthy rich people and lots of nice (on the outside) cities to cover up the stains. Most Americans are wage slaves (with a million or so actual slaves) who's only silver lining is not having to worry about dying. I know the right likes to gripe about 'class warfare' whenever anyone points out how far this country has fallen but it's true and it seems you're finally seeing it. The embarrassment isn't that this is happening to a well off country but rather that the world's #1 economy isn't well off (by developed standards at least).
We're just a step above starving? Has myp seen this? myp, take a looksy here.......David is concluding....that the US is one step above 'starving in the streets'.
"Wage slaves" who don't have to concern themselves with death is all we are. David here....myp.....is concluding that my stats here about NYC shelters is Stonewall...."finally seeing it." He agrees and makes conclusions himself regarding embarrassment. And can do so without being "intellectually dishonest" or having "an agenda."
No, you said, and I quote: "Multiply that by 365 days in the year and how many people are you feeding and sheltering each year, myp? In only one of your major cities?
I can easily do the math....why not tell me what number you come up with. And then equate how many of those are children and I'll do that math for you, it comes to a wholesale embarrassment of 7,665,000."
It isn't 7,665,000 people (also I think you did the math wrong anyway).
Care to point out how?Real sorry Sir, but turnaround is fair play.....it is you who is being disingenuous here...and it's because you're not doing well in this debate.
Show me the data. I could care less about your intuitive opinion. You are entitled to yours, I am entitled to mine, but facts and fact-based opinion are what matter when we are setting or advocating policy.
I asked YOU to do the math Sir, so if I did it wrong, give me your number. And it matters not the repeats, the government must feed and shelter millions each year, the number of meals and shelters needed also on the rise.
By referring to me as intellectually dishonest, making this about some agenda I must be advancing. You cannot deny my point, you can't even provide math of your own and yet you're focusing on me. Proof you're getting your hat handed to you. I believe you're making the 'dishonest' accusation because you're simply and matter of factly losing this argument. Moving on.
Ok, so what's your point? What is the conclusion you are trying to draw here other than running around with your head cut off yelling end of the world?
I don't even know your point. You misrepresenting numbers and using this sensationalist rhetoric is very much intellectually dishonest.
I already made my point; I don't question the Presidency, I'm not calling for the man's impeachment. I'm putting the blame squarely in his corner, 50,000 a night equates to over 18 million a year. That's a national embarrassment, myp. Food stamps at record numbers while Wall Street sees record profits. Homeless shelters overrun, this is an absolutely stunning number to me.....
You're merely losing the argument. You claimined all of this was statistically insignificant, I called you out on it and I think you're being disingenuous here. This isn't the first or last debate you've lost, surely.
When one side starts yelling over and over that it has "won" the "debate", that says something to me. Have fun tooting your own horn, just hurts your own ethos in my opinion.
Instead, maybe you should consider deeper, more meaningful questions like is the number in shelters more important or the number of homeless overall? Or questions concerning the turnover rate, the natural rate of homelessness, and the rate of homelessness is recession. Perhaps beyond that the impact that state help vs. no help has had or the ramifications of certain fiscal or monetary policy. There is no math for me to put out here because you aren't even using the right equation and the data you are using is too narrow for the questions you are trying to answer. You accused someone else of a "sky is falling" tactic lately, but that is exactly what you are doing here.
But I suspect you will keep hoisting the trophy and saying I have lost as if this is some game. So be it.
Last edited:
I am not the one clearly pushing a political agenda and manipulating irrelevant numbers to do so. Like I said when I first said you were being intellectually dishonest though, I am not sure if you are actually being dishonest or if you just don't realize it. I am starting to think the latter (in which case of course it isn't dishonesty, but just logical shortcomings in your argument that you fail to realize despite my explanations)...
Last edited:
Merely the one accusing others of "intellectual dishonesty" because you're losing this debate so badly. You called it statistically insignificant, your claim is no conclusions can be reached, we'll agree to disagree.......and continue to take note you've still produced no math of your own, nor made a point of your own other than to focus on me. You got bested in a debate, it won't be the first or last time, we move on.
I don't even know where to start. When even the researchers and news article you linked to admitted that they weren't sure of the ultimate implication of this data for their much narrower question, then I am not sure how you are so confident in making such large jumps and thinking they are rock solid in supporting your own convictions. Furthermore, I don't understand the one-sidedness of your posts- everything is anti Obama, never anything pro (or very rarely). That tells me there is some bias right off the bat. Furthermore, how a NYC homeless shelter figure falls only on the current President, I don't understand. And beyond that, what person in their right mind judges a Presidency on one datapoint like this? A datapoint that says about a half of a percentage of the population in a large city is in shelters without regard to the turnover rate there (there is a natural rate of homelessness just as there is a natural rate of unemployment in case you didn't know). I am not an Obama supporter, but at least be honest in evaluating him (unless you think every single bad thing falls on the President in which case you must think every President to date has been pretty much scum).
Similar threads
