If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Progressive student: "We should tax the rich to give the poor more opportunity." Conservative: "So you'd be cool with me taking some points off your GPA to give the dumb some opportunity, right?" Progressive student:   (thelookingspoon.com) divider line 631
    More: Amusing, GPA  
•       •       •

6164 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Apr 2011 at 8:03 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



631 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-04-18 12:00:56 PM

kab: You dislike it because it blows holes in your "free ride" nonsense.




No it does not. You can try and flail and twist stuff around, but they still get off easy for the most part.
 
2011-04-18 12:01:11 PM

Phil Herup: HeartBurnKid: Wait... did you just call Thune a liberal?

That... that's just stupid beyond words.



Reading comprehension.... how does it farking work?


Go and actually read the whole post and you'll see I was reposting a response to Thune to make a point.


Quote buttons... how do they farking work?

/PROTIP: When quoting somebody, you push the quote button on the post you're replying to, not the post where somebody else replied to the post you're replying to.
 
2011-04-18 12:02:02 PM

kab: Money works when it's moving.




Yeah... Moving freely, not at the force of a boot heel.
 
2011-04-18 12:02:49 PM

HeartBurnKid: Quote buttons... how do they farking work?




I used it correctly. You are too stupid to understand I guess.
 
2011-04-18 12:02:54 PM

PlatinumDragon: No, what is more elegant is to let socialism get involved.

To let Major labor unions drive up the cost of production in the United States pushing manufacturing overseas.

Turning once vibrant manufacturing hubs such as Detroit into Collective bargaining shiatholes.

I never said a word about implementing a single, rigid system of labour negotiation - nor did I miss the effort to blame the downfall of large manufacturing operations purely on collective bargaining agreements, excluding the numerous other factors that influenced the decline of that city, which I grew up across from and watched as I grew up.

Curious how you seem to have a problem with one set of individuals leveraging their collective agency to obtain increased compensation, while another doing the same thing on a wider scale is just the "free market" in action. 'Course, there are factors I could name that ensure that wider scale is nowhere near a "free market" either.


Ponder inflation and limited resources.

To give you a heading: Regional high-wages increases regional prices. If everyone suddenly has their wages doubled, they don't actually have their buying power doubled. But an international company that does business outside of the region, does have their competitiveness destroyed.
 
2011-04-18 12:03:16 PM

kab: We can argue all day about who should and should not be taxed, and at what level, but one thing is certain. The US economy isn't going to actually improve with the current amount of monetary consolidation that is in effect.

Money works when it's moving.


argh.

The money is moving.

There is NO Money at rest.

Money at rest depreciates, due to inflation.

This money is invested.

Even if it is only invested in a regular bank, and regular rates, it LOWERS the cost of money as there is more money to loan.
 
2011-04-18 12:06:08 PM

Thune: This money is invested.




To the left, collecting taxes is "investing" and redistributing that money is "charity"
 
2011-04-18 12:06:24 PM

Phil Herup: Quote buttons... how do they farking work?


Good of you to ask!

/quoting posts the Phil Herup way
 
2011-04-18 12:06:48 PM

kab: We can argue all day about who should and should not be taxed, and at what level, but one thing is certain. The US economy isn't going to actually improve with the current amount of monetary consolidation that is in effect.

Money works when it's moving.


Moving for the sake of moving is wasteful and inefficient.
 
2011-04-18 12:07:01 PM

lennavan: Thune: For instance, the government decided to subsidize ethanol production in the United States which led to vast amounts of corn redircted to fuel production. The government perceived this happening in a vacuum. But Economics said otherwise. In reality this redirection of corn produced increased worldwide food prices. In several locations to crisis levels.

It doesn't matter whether you are Ayn Rand, Karl Marx or Obama, you cannot escape economics.

Government subsidies as an example of free market economics? Ouch. Again, I think you and I are in complete agreement, you just don't recognize it.

I agree, we should look to things like morals and opinions when deciding if we SHOULD. What's more we should look to government subsidies to push the country in a direction that economics would not take us. Your example specifically I disagree with corn ethanol but whatever. The point is the same, the government can defy econ.


it's like you dont even read what you write.

I said read a book on economics.

YOU said, why, we dont have to use a free market economic solution.

I provide an example of how even in non-free market incidences the laws of economics still applies.

YOU said, But thats not a free market example.

--

The governemnt CANNOT defy economics.

Provide me one example of where the government defied economics.
 
2011-04-18 12:08:01 PM
Actually, wait, that was a selective quote of Thune. So my bad.

You managed to be right for once, Phil. Don't let it go to your head.
 
2011-04-18 12:08:45 PM

Phil Herup: Thune: This money is invested.



To the left, collecting taxes is "investing" and redistributing that money is "charity"


I trust a billionaires money far more in the hands of a "Bill Gates" than i do "Nancy pelosi's".

Unless we need the money for defense (the one item that is actually in the Constitution), i prefer they keep it.
 
2011-04-18 12:08:46 PM

lennavan: Thune: For instance, the government decided to subsidize ethanol production in the United States which led to vast amounts of corn redircted to fuel production. The government perceived this happening in a vacuum. But Economics said otherwise. In reality this redirection of corn produced increased worldwide food prices. In several locations to crisis levels.

It doesn't matter whether you are Ayn Rand, Karl Marx or Obama, you cannot escape economics.

Government subsidies as an example of free market economics? Ouch. Again, I think you and I are in complete agreement, you just don't recognize it.

I agree, we should look to things like morals and opinions when deciding if we SHOULD. What's more we should look to government subsidies to push the country in a direction that economics would not take us. Your example specifically I disagree with corn ethanol but whatever. The point is the same, the government can defy econ.


On the contrary, the government can defy economics as much as we can defy the laws of physics - we can't. An authority operating with a monopoly on force and control over media of exchange is mired in economics.

It's just that much economic theory relies on spherical sacred cows. If you want to see an academic ivory tower, I present the U of Chicago economics school circa 1970; if you want to see what happens when that ivory tower slams into reality, I present various Central and South American countries from the 1970s to about the mid-1990s, up to 2001, which I'm too lazy/busy with work to name en masse at the moment.
 
2011-04-18 12:12:16 PM

PlatinumDragon: much economic theory relies on spherical sacred cows



with visions of swastikas in my head, and plans for everyone?
 
2011-04-18 12:12:52 PM
1. Grades are not a scarce commodity. Wealth is.

2. Your grades are not mostly determined by who you were born to. Wealth is.
 
kab
2011-04-18 12:13:17 PM

Thune:

The money is moving.



Investment is certainly one side of it, but investments don't get much in the way of returns if said business doesn't have customers ready to hand money over.

It's argued often here that new jobs aren't being created because there is no demand. Few are asking why demand is down.
 
2011-04-18 12:15:14 PM

Blairr: PlatinumDragon: No, what is more elegant is to let socialism get involved.

To let Major labor unions drive up the cost of production in the United States pushing manufacturing overseas.

Turning once vibrant manufacturing hubs such as Detroit into Collective bargaining shiatholes.

I never said a word about implementing a single, rigid system of labour negotiation - nor did I miss the effort to blame the downfall of large manufacturing operations purely on collective bargaining agreements, excluding the numerous other factors that influenced the decline of that city, which I grew up across from and watched as I grew up.

Curious how you seem to have a problem with one set of individuals leveraging their collective agency to obtain increased compensation, while another doing the same thing on a wider scale is just the "free market" in action. 'Course, there are factors I could name that ensure that wider scale is nowhere near a "free market" either.

Ponder inflation and limited resources.

To give you a heading: Regional high-wages increases regional prices. If everyone suddenly has their wages doubled, they don't actually have their buying power doubled. But an international company that does business outside of the region, does have their competitiveness destroyed.


Ponder borders, international trade agreements that deal purely in capital flows, differing labour and environmental laws, restrictions on population movement (ie: immigration laws), and policies that encourage some forms of independent economic organizations while restricting the developmen of others.
 
kab
2011-04-18 12:15:44 PM

Phil Herup: No it does not. You can try and flail and twist stuff around, but they still get off easy for the most part.


I'm not the one flailing incessantly that the poor "don't pay any taxes". You've been proven wrong (again), you lose, good day sir, etc.
 
2011-04-18 12:16:35 PM

NoisyPiper: Your grades are not mostly determined by who you were born to.



My dad was valedictorian.


NoisyPiper: Wealth is.



My dad's father worked in the basement of a newspaper setting print blocks.
 
2011-04-18 12:17:19 PM

Phil Herup: PlatinumDragon: much economic theory relies on spherical sacred cows


with visions of swastikas in my head, and plans for everyone?


You keep away from my teeth, and don't come back until you demonstrate basic reading comprehension.
 
2011-04-18 12:17:34 PM

kab: I'm not the one flailing incessantly that the poor "don't pay any taxes". You've been proven wrong (again), you lose, good day sir, etc.



Run away now, and take your intellectual dishonesty with you.
 
2011-04-18 12:17:56 PM

NoisyPiper: 1. Grades are not a scarce commodity. Wealth is.


You can get both by working hard.

Or have neither by being a lazy ass.

2. Your grades are not mostly determined by who you were born to. Wealth is.

So, if i work hard, and not be a lazy ass, then i can provide my children more wealth and a better life than i was provided.

Got it.
 
2011-04-18 12:19:29 PM

Thune: So, if i work hard, and not be a lazy ass, then i can provide my children more wealth and a better life than i was provided.




Of course you "owe" society extra for giving you permission to take care of yourself and family.
 
2011-04-18 12:19:45 PM

PlatinumDragon: Blairr: PlatinumDragon: No, what is more elegant is to let socialism get involved.

To let Major labor unions drive up the cost of production in the United States pushing manufacturing overseas.

Turning once vibrant manufacturing hubs such as Detroit into Collective bargaining shiatholes.

I never said a word about implementing a single, rigid system of labour negotiation - nor did I miss the effort to blame the downfall of large manufacturing operations purely on collective bargaining agreements, excluding the numerous other factors that influenced the decline of that city, which I grew up across from and watched as I grew up.

Curious how you seem to have a problem with one set of individuals leveraging their collective agency to obtain increased compensation, while another doing the same thing on a wider scale is just the "free market" in action. 'Course, there are factors I could name that ensure that wider scale is nowhere near a "free market" either.

Ponder inflation and limited resources.

To give you a heading: Regional high-wages increases regional prices. If everyone suddenly has their wages doubled, they don't actually have their buying power doubled. But an international company that does business outside of the region, does have their competitiveness destroyed.

Ponder borders, international trade agreements that deal purely in capital flows, differing labour and environmental laws, restrictions on population movement (ie: immigration laws), and policies that encourage some forms of independent economic organizations while restricting the developmen of others.


I will do no such thing.

shiat sounds complicated, yo.
 
2011-04-18 12:20:32 PM

Phil Herup: kab: You dislike it because it blows holes in your "free ride" nonsense.

No it does not. You can try and flail and twist stuff around, but they still get off easy for the most part.


Yes Phil, poor people "get off easy". Because spending 95% of your income on life's necessities (which btw are currently heavily inflated in price thanks to speculation by the "hard working" wealthy) is such a cakewalk, and leaves you with plenty of opportunity to improve your life, with no risk of catastrophic financial ruin.
 
2011-04-18 12:20:35 PM

kab: Thune:

The money is moving.



Investment is certainly one side of it, but investments don't get much in the way of returns if said business doesn't have customers ready to hand money over.

It's argued often here that new jobs aren't being created because there is no demand. Few are asking why demand is down.


IMO demand is down because few people have faith in the long term stability of the US economy.

Honestly and effectively address the debt crisis and demand will go back up.
 
2011-04-18 12:21:52 PM

NoisyPiper: 1. Grades are not a scarce commodity. Wealth is.

2. Your grades are not mostly determined by who you were born to. Wealth is.


Shocking. The analogy wasn't perfect.

But I suspect with minimal effort and imagination you can understand what was meant by it.
 
2011-04-18 12:22:49 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Because spending 95% of your income on life's necessities




That is all you need. The necessities. I have heard this countless time from the left.


BraveNewCheneyWorld: are currently heavily inflated in price thanks to speculation by the "hard working" wealthy



So this is the cause of inflation according to you? LOL
 
2011-04-18 12:24:07 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Yes Phil, poor people "get off easy"




When it comes to covering their cost to the government, they absolutely do get off easy.
 
2011-04-18 12:24:18 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Phil Herup: kab: You dislike it because it blows holes in your "free ride" nonsense.

No it does not. You can try and flail and twist stuff around, but they still get off easy for the most part.

poor people "get off easy". Because spending 95% of your income on life's necessities (which btw are currently heavily inflated in price thanks to speculation by the "hard working" wealthy) is such a cakewalk, and leaves you with plenty of opportunity to improve your life, with no risk of catastrophic financial ruin.


Almost as if the adjective "poor" is indicates something.

Should poor people be ballin' and shot callin'?
 
2011-04-18 12:24:57 PM

Blairr: PlatinumDragon: Blairr: PlatinumDragon: No, what is more elegant is to let socialism get involved.

To let Major labor unions drive up the cost of production in the United States pushing manufacturing overseas.

Turning once vibrant manufacturing hubs such as Detroit into Collective bargaining shiatholes.

I never said a word about implementing a single, rigid system of labour negotiation - nor did I miss the effort to blame the downfall of large manufacturing operations purely on collective bargaining agreements, excluding the numerous other factors that influenced the decline of that city, which I grew up across from and watched as I grew up.

Curious how you seem to have a problem with one set of individuals leveraging their collective agency to obtain increased compensation, while another doing the same thing on a wider scale is just the "free market" in action. 'Course, there are factors I could name that ensure that wider scale is nowhere near a "free market" either.

Ponder inflation and limited resources.

To give you a heading: Regional high-wages increases regional prices. If everyone suddenly has their wages doubled, they don't actually have their buying power doubled. But an international company that does business outside of the region, does have their competitiveness destroyed.

Ponder borders, international trade agreements that deal purely in capital flows, differing labour and environmental laws, restrictions on population movement (ie: immigration laws), and policies that encourage some forms of independent economic organizations while restricting the developmen of others.

I will do no such thing.

shiat sounds complicated, yo.


Just take this cute spherical cow (ok, it's a balloon), put your trust and cash in Wu-Tang Financial, and rest easy as they diversify your bonds.
 
2011-04-18 12:25:33 PM
The real, underlying question in this debate is obscured by the deadlock over whether the analogy is appropriate.

The real question is: Do you believe that people who are wealthy are simply more deserving than people who are poor?

Why can't we talk about this question without the silly analogies?
 
2011-04-18 12:25:54 PM

lennavan: Poverty solved, everyone now gets at least 50k a year.


Would not work. It looks good on the outside, but spreading money like that leads to hyperinflation, which means that once everyone makes 50k at minimum, 50k means jack squat.
 
2011-04-18 12:28:29 PM
unless I'm out of it right now and can't recognize satire. . .
 
2011-04-18 12:28:35 PM

Cats_Lie: The real question is: Do you believe that people who are wealthy are simply more deserving than people who are poor?



Deserving of what?
 
2011-04-18 12:28:52 PM

Blairr: NoisyPiper: 1. Grades are not a scarce commodity. Wealth is.

2. Your grades are not mostly determined by who you were born to. Wealth is.

Shocking. The analogy wasn't perfect.

But I suspect with minimal effort and imagination you can understand what was meant by it.


the teacher imposes an arbitrary grade tax and takes a cut right while providing no benefit to the class? this teacher has a 50.0! 40 taken from the A's, 10 from the middle 50% and 0 from the rest!
 
2011-04-18 12:29:00 PM

Phil Herup: NoisyPiper: Your grades are not mostly determined by who you were born to.


My dad was valedictorian.


NoisyPiper: Wealth is.


My dad's father worked in the basement of a newspaper setting print blocks.


Anecdotes.

There are plenty more hard workers on the factory floor than in the executive towers.

I have a friend whose mother works 14 hour shifts as a manager at a restaurant, and makes less than my other friend's dad who works as a dentist, and his step-dad who works as an aerospace exec. The mother doesn't get nearly the compensation the other two get.

The friend whose mother works the 14 hour shifts is getting straight As, and is the first in his family to attend university.

The friend whose father/step-father is a dentist/exec is on academic probation.

Also; just because you say it, doesn't mean I believe you. You have a history of making stuff up.
 
2011-04-18 12:29:46 PM

Phil Herup: That is all you need. The necessities. I have heard this countless time from the left.


focus on the 95% number, that's the real point Phil. When you have so little financial flexibility, your life can be ruined by very minor unfortunate events.

Phil Herup: BraveNewCheneyWorld: are currently heavily inflated in price thanks to speculation by the "hard working" wealthy

So this is the cause of inflation according to you? LOL


You really shouldn't chastise people about their reading comprehension. This isn't the first time in this thread your response showed that you can't follow a short sentence. Know what speculation means? Maybe you should look it up.
 
2011-04-18 12:30:32 PM
Just came to say: retarded analogy is retarded.

That is all.
 
2011-04-18 12:31:25 PM

BEER STEAK: Here is the appropriate analogy -

Let's say the grade points distribution at the university breaks down like this:

Top 1% of students - 42% of all grade points
Next 4% - 27% of grade points
Next 5% - 11% of grade points
Next 10% - 12% of grade points
Bottom 80% - 7% of grade points at the university

So that's the top 10% of students holding 80% of all grade points at the school. Now, if those top 10% of students choose not to give some of their grade points up, a whole lot of that bottom 80% are going to flunk out of school. And if too many people start to flunk out of school, the reduced enrollment numbers will mean less income for the university, so some professors will be laid off, some sports will be cut, etc. Basically, the quality of life at the university will start to go in the tank. So this will affect even the top students. Not only will life be not as fun, there will be fewer classes to take, and thus, fewer grade points to earn in the future.

In that case, I'd say the top 1% with GPA's of like 1,000.0 would be willing to give away a little.


Let me take another crack at salvaging this GPA analogy. Using the percentages listed above (which I pulled off of a quick Google search for wealth distribution in the U.S.), if we had a university with 10,000 students, with a maximum GPA of 4.0, the breakdown of student GPA's would look something like this -

100 students - GPA of 4.0
400 students - GPA of 0.65
500 students - GPA of 0.21
1,000 students - GPA of 0.11
8,000 students - GPA of 0.01
 
2011-04-18 12:34:06 PM

Thune: NoisyPiper: 1. Grades are not a scarce commodity. Wealth is.

You can get both by working hard.

Or have neither by being a lazy ass.

2. Your grades are not mostly determined by who you were born to. Wealth is.

So, if i work hard, and not be a lazy ass, then i can provide my children more wealth and a better life than i was provided.

Got it.


Wealth is not very determined by hard work. And, speaking as one whose gone through the rigamarole of university, your grades have more to do with sucking up to professors than they do with hard work. Yes, you CAN achieve both with hard work, but most of this country's super-wealthy do not work as hard as a lot of this country's working poor. Miners work harder than bank executives, and are more important for the running of a functional society.

The wealth of bank executives are always higher than the wealth of miners.

Plus, the largest wealth-generating area in this country is the stock exchange. The American wealthy tend to make their money off the stock market, not their work.

It is corroborated by studies that most people will stay in the same socioeconomic level as their parents. There are exceptions to those statistics, but those exceptions have more to do with right place/right time and luck than they have to do with purely hard work.
 
2011-04-18 12:39:01 PM

NoisyPiper: I have a friend whose mother works 14 hour shifts as a manager at a restaurant, and makes less than my other friend's dad who works as a dentist, and his step-dad who works as an aerospace exec. The mother doesn't get nearly the compensation the other two get.




What is your point? That she works "harder"?

She most likely doesn't, she just has crappy hours.
 
2011-04-18 12:39:34 PM

Blairr: NoisyPiper: 1. Grades are not a scarce commodity. Wealth is.

2. Your grades are not mostly determined by who you were born to. Wealth is.

Shocking. The analogy wasn't perfect.

But I suspect with minimal effort and imagination you can understand what was meant by it.


Oh, I understand what was meant by it. But it is still a bad analogy.

Wealth is made in a cooperative system with other people. The desk worker cannot make their salary without the truck driver delivering goods to consumers, and sales clerks selling the goods to consumers. The executives can't make their money without the desk worker, the truck driver, or the sales clerk. They make their money thanks to a stable system, a well-maintained infrastructure and the work of others.

That's why third world countries are not where we are. They don't have that.

Education is not like that. The 2.0 student is not necessary for the 4.0 student to exist. The sales clerk making $8/hr is necessary for the executive making $1 million a year to exist. Tax dollars are reinvested into a system to ensure the executive can still make that sort of money; so they can have a healthy workforce, a reliable infrastructure, and national defense. GPA cannot.
 
2011-04-18 12:42:17 PM

Phil Herup: NoisyPiper: I have a friend whose mother works 14 hour shifts as a manager at a restaurant, and makes less than my other friend's dad who works as a dentist, and his step-dad who works as an aerospace exec. The mother doesn't get nearly the compensation the other two get.



What is your point? That she works "harder"?

She most likely doesn't, she just has crappy hours.


I absolutely mean she works harder. The aerospace exec spends his time playing golf. She spends her time making sure a restaurant runs smoothly. The world can do without the exec. The manager is a bit more useful.
 
2011-04-18 12:45:08 PM

NoisyPiper: I absolutely mean she works harder.



There is no proof of that.


NoisyPiper: The aerospace exec spends his time playing golf.



When he is not playing golf, do you observe him?
 
2011-04-18 12:46:52 PM

NoisyPiper: 1. Grades are not a scarce commodity. Wealth is.

2. Your grades are not mostly determined by who you were born to. Wealth is.


Interesting. Ive seen point #2 disputed by many liberal farkers. And university quotas are equivalent to redistribution of letter grades, since the outcome is the same. As far as #1 goes, private investment increases our wealth in ways that can be hard to measure. Its a more changeable quantity than ppl realize.

I think you cant go to one extreme or the other. Overly 'progressive' taxes trade bloated govt for private investment in technology. On the other hand, excess income should be taxed at a higher rate.
 
2011-04-18 12:47:10 PM

NoisyPiper: There are plenty more hard workers on the factory floor than in the executive towers.


Define hard working!

I know some hard workin' ditch diggers but they can stay the fark away from balancing my company's budget.
 
2011-04-18 12:48:55 PM

Phil Herup: Cats_Lie: The real question is: Do you believe that people who are wealthy are simply more deserving than people who are poor?


Deserving of what?


Anything that money can buy, which is pretty much everything.
 
2011-04-18 12:51:49 PM

NoisyPiper: Blairr: NoisyPiper: 1. Grades are not a scarce commodity. Wealth is.

2. Your grades are not mostly determined by who you were born to. Wealth is.

Shocking. The analogy wasn't perfect.

But I suspect with minimal effort and imagination you can understand what was meant by it.

Oh, I understand what was meant by it. But it is still a bad analogy.

Wealth is made in a cooperative system with other people. The desk worker cannot make their salary without the truck driver delivering goods to consumers, and sales clerks selling the goods to consumers. The executives can't make their money without the desk worker, the truck driver, or the sales clerk. They make their money thanks to a stable system, a well-maintained infrastructure and the work of others.

That's why third world countries are not where we are. They don't have that.

Education is not like that. The 2.0 student is not necessary for the 4.0 student to exist. The sales clerk making $8/hr is necessary for the executive making $1 million a year to exist. Tax dollars are reinvested into a system to ensure the executive can still make that sort of money; so they can have a healthy workforce, a reliable infrastructure, and national defense. GPA cannot.


How can you be above average if there is no average?

College grads compete for jobs based on GPA. Percentile within class may be a scarce commodity; only 10% get to be in the top 10%.
 
2011-04-18 01:05:09 PM

Cats_Lie: Phil Herup: Cats_Lie: The real question is: Do you believe that people who are wealthy are simply more deserving than people who are poor?


Deserving of what?

Anything that money can buy, which is pretty much everything.



The moar money you have the moar you can buy.

If you obtained your money legally, you most likely deserve it.
 
Displayed 50 of 631 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report