huevonkiller, you're clearly confused. What am I embarrassed about? LOL @ "typical lefty post" and "liberal propaganda." Please let me know why what I said is liberal propaganda, and maybe I'll "take responsibility" for it. Whatever that's supposed to mean. Come at me, brah. What's the most important subject in this thread? What am I disagreeing with? If you know what you're talking about, please back it up. Using the quote function, if you don't mind. Yes, students have the tendency to overuse commas. That doesn't make leaving them out of sentences that need them okay. It makes your writing confusing and irritating to try and sort through. You're in college? Oh, and go ahead and enlighten me about where my grammar is "flawed." This should be good. No, it shows that I am have a hell of a time trolling you because you are so easy to troll.
this just in, 4.0 gpa college nerds want redistribution of all the sweet poontang all the idiot jocks pull also, in other news old republicans think youth is wasted on the young
I think this student has a lot to learn. GPA is a poor analogy to wealth and money. Saying redistributing GPA is very similar to money is wrong. They are not close. So, you start out with a crap analogy, then obnoxiously shove it into folks faces like "its the TRUTH man!", and expect them to come toward your way of thinking. Not gonna happen.
Hoojacks I don't care if you "troll" me. I don't bitch about trolling like other people here. This is what you said before: "I didn't say you were wrong. I don't actually think you're reading what anyone is saying to you". Of course we disagree and on the most important subject. Pick up a dictionary nigguh. Our problem is spending not taxing the rich, genius. Taxing doesn't work, it is called Hauser's law. Denny has raped you on this subject already. hoojacks your grammar advice is terrible and we ARE talking about math. We ARE talking about the Supreme Court. It is called interstate commerce shut the fuck up now. 1. But you're a bad teacher, due to various spelling errors you've made. 2. You don't know how to use commas. 3. You need a dictionary you have no idea what basic words mean. That's pretty much game son. Damn you choked the shit out of yourself. You're not trolling me, relax dude LOL.
i swear to god he is like putting his posts through a translator... and nigguh? how are we talking about math and the supreme court again? i asked earlier and you sent me back to the op...where there is nothing, nothing at all worth talking about
Good, then I will keep it up. This is fun. How would a dictionary help me here? If I look up "The most important subject in this retarded fucking thread huevonkiller made" in the dictionary, will I all of a sudden understand what in the bloody hell you're talking about? He has? When the fuck was I talking about Hauser's law? When was I talking about taxing the rich? Are you sure you're not confusing me with barfo again? You're still not making any sense. LOL omfg chill brah just walk away already whut whut So far, I typed "yell" instead of "tell". Go ahead and look at the keyboard and note the proximity of the "y" to the "t." Boom, roasted fams oh, and I misspelled "incentivize." Pretty common word there. I'll own up to that. I disagree I know how to use commas you are the one who doesn't know how to use commas you just fucked up I am better you suck at everything. Really? Now I think you're trolling me, because no one could possibly present this and think it means anything other than "Look at me, I am a Jersey Shore wannabe wash-up and I will now roid-rage all over the internet. Boom, roasted LOL brah." Yeesh. I think I need to take a nap. Or am I?
Others have at least tried. Your brain must be fried. Stop slurping his cum and answer my simple question. Is Darcy correct? Compare and contrast taxing the rich with redistributing GPA. Are you completely ignorant of our economic situation?
Wow you are just not that smart. You said we don't disagree. You must be insane. Haha you don't know what Hauser's Law is. What an amateur you are. Hauser's law is about your stupid assertion that we get revenue from taxing the rich. Every time I bring up the commerce clause you say "hk you're wrong" That's not a defense, you are saying various Supreme Court cases should be overturned . Lol. You need a dictionary, you have no idea what marginal tax rates are for example. When I bring up a fancy term your defense is to use personal attacks, but you don't have a statistical defense. "By DAVID RANSON The Greeks have always been trendsetters for the West. Washington has repudiated two centuries of U.S. fiscal prudence as prescribed by the Founding Fathers in favor of the modern Greek model of debt, dependency, devaluation and default. Prospects for restraining runaway U.S. debt are even poorer than they appear. U.S. fiscal policy has been going in the wrong direction for a very long time. But this year the U.S. government declined to lay out any plan to balance its budget ever again. Based on President Obama's fiscal 2011 budget, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates a deficit that starts at 10.3% of GDP in 2010. It is projected to narrow as the economy recovers but will still be 5.6% in 2020. As a result the net national debt (debt held by the public) will more than double to 90% by 2020 from 40% in 2008. The current Greek deficit is now thought to be 13.6% of a far smaller GDP. Unlike ours, the Greek insolvency is not too large for an international rescue. As sobering as the U.S. debt estimates are, they are incomplete and optimistic. They do not include deficit spending resulting from the new health-insurance legislation. The revenue numbers rely on increased tax rates beginning next year resulting from the scheduled expiration of the Bush tax cuts. And, as usual, they ignore the unfunded liabilities of social insurance programs, even though these benefits are officially recognized as "mandatory spending" when the time comes to pay them out. The feds assume a relationship between the economy and tax revenue that is divorced from reality. Six decades of history have established one far-reaching fact that needs to be built into fiscal calculations: Increases in federal tax rates, particularly if targeted at the higher brackets, produce no additional revenue. For politicians this is truly an inconvenient truth. [ranson] The nearby chart shows how tax revenue has grown over the past eight decades along with the size of the economy. It illustrates the empirical relationship first introduced on this page 20 years ago by the Hoover Institution's W. Kurt Hauser—a close proportionality between revenue and GDP since World War II, despite big changes in marginal tax rates in both directions. "Hauser's Law," as I call this formula, reveals a kind of capacity ceiling for federal tax receipts at about 19% of GDP. What's the origin of this limit beyond which it is impossible to extract any more revenue from tax payers? The tax base is not something that the government can kick around at will. It represents a living economic system that makes its own collective choices. In a tax code of 70,000 pages there are innumerable ways for high-income earners to seek out and use ambiguities and loopholes. The more they are incentivized to make an effort to game the system, the less the federal government will get to collect. That would explain why, as Mr. Hauser has shown, conventional methods of forecasting tax receipts from increases in future tax rates are prone to over-predict revenue. For budget planning it's wiser and safer to assume that tax receipts will remain at a historically realistic ratio to GDP no matter how tax rates are manipulated. That leads me to conclude that current projections of federal revenue are, once again, unrealistically high. Like other empirical "laws," Hauser's Law predicts within a range of approximation. Changes in marginal tax rates do not make a perceptible difference to the ratio of revenue to GDP, but recessions do. When GDP falls relative to its potential, tax revenue falls even more. History shows that, in an economy with no "output gap" between GDP and potential GDP, a ratio of federal revenue to GDP of no more than 18.3% would be realistic. In this form, Hauser's Law provides a simple basis for testing the validity of any government's revenue projections. Today, since the economy already suffers from a large output gap that is expected to take many years to close, 18.3% must be a realistic upper limit on the ratio of budget revenues to GDP for years to come. Any major tax increase will reduce GDP and therefore revenues too. But CBO projections based on the current budget show this ratio reaching 18.3% as early as 2013 and rising to 19.6% in 2020. Such numbers implicitly assume that the U.S. labor market will get back to sustainable "full employment" by 2013 and that GDP will exceed its potential thereafter. Not likely. When the projections are tempered by the constraints of Hauser's Law, it's clear that deficit spending will grow faster than the official estimates show. Mr. Ranson is the head of research at H. C. Wainwright & Co. Economics. " http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704608104575217870728420184.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
That's a statistical defense, learn know to make an argument. Your political theories are terrible. Also fuck Lincecum , he is not in his prime anymore and needs a haircut. Yes, I am wondering this as well.
I'm not a mod in the blazer forum sorry. That will not work. That's what you like anyway, there's nothing wrong with that.
ok guys, you all favor a flat tax correct? so in this analogy, ALL students should be docked the same percentage of gpa right?
No. I said that I didn't say you were wrong. I am sure we disagree on things, such as what this conversation is even on. Why the fuck would I know what Hauser's Law is? I don't study economics. I think you have some serious comprehension issues. You're making shit up. I never made that assertion. Oh look you just done choked yerself out LOL. Game. Idiot. What the fuck are you talking about? Every time you try and bring up the commerce clause or the supreme court or advanced metrics I say, "hk, you're not making sense because THIS DOESNT APPLY TO WHAT ME AND YOU WERE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSING." And doesn't. It doesn't apply. Nothing you've said applies to what I was talking about. You're attributing false arguments to me and I think you actually might have a learning disability. Now I feel bad for trolling you. Does the dictionary have an entry for "marginal tax rates"? When you bring up fancy terms, my "defense" is to ask you what in the flying hell those things had to do with the discussion. You know, my original post that brought this onslaught of nonsense went like this: Cutting funding to groups in need doesn't make them more likely to work hard, it makes them more likely to fall through the cracks. And SOMEHOW, you interpreted that as me making grandiose statements about the Supreme Court and Hauser's Law and the commerce clause and all this bombastic economic blah blah blah AND THEN you talk at me as if I can read your mind. It's great that you're getting an education and you want to discuss the things you are learning about, but you need some help with social skills. This is sincere now. Most of us can't follow you. You make arguments that seem completely off topic, and then you make fun of anyone who can't follow your hidden line of thinking. This makes you look like an asshole, but I'm sure you're perfectly fine in real life. It's just like... wow.
well that is silly, that would never work for the government, and thats what this is all about right? or are yall just in fantasy land?
