Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Amusing, GPA  
•       •       •

6173 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Apr 2011 at 8:03 PM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



631 Comments     (+0 »)
 
 
2011-04-17 04:38:35 PM  
Hey, I've never heard that old bullsh*t before!

Let's hear about the guys who go to dinner and split the bill, or the one about how your car insurance doesn't pay for oil changes? Those are fresh and accurate, too!
 
2011-04-17 04:39:36 PM  

hillbillypharmacist: Hey, I've never heard that old bullsh*t before!

Let's hear about the guys who go to dinner and split the bill, or the one about how your car insurance doesn't pay for oil changes? Those are fresh and accurate, too!


Affirmative Action bake sale!!!1!one
 
2011-04-17 04:43:18 PM  
And some farktards probably think this is an excellent analogy.
 
2011-04-17 04:46:04 PM  
faqsmedia.ign.com
 
2011-04-17 04:57:07 PM  
Maybe if there was something in the defining document of the course that said the professor had the ability to do so. That would be the only way the analogy works.
 
2011-04-17 05:07:30 PM  
It'd be nice if conservatives could break their addiction to bullshiat thought experiments that confirm their ideology but make them sound like stoned philosophy majors.

Some people have to live in the real world, and they don't think that "Progressive kids don't want to have their GPA reduced" = "NO MEDICARE FOR ANYONE".
 
2011-04-17 05:12:45 PM  
Your blog sucks.
 
2011-04-17 05:13:52 PM  
Two totally different things.

Rich people are bad.

Smart people are Asian.
 
2011-04-17 05:37:50 PM  
Well, then, by that analogy, the school is just giving this kid 4.0s while he's not even doing his homework, or any real work, for that matter.

Which means his daddy is rich enough to buy off the school system.
 
2011-04-17 05:42:30 PM  
false equivalence is false.
 
2011-04-17 05:43:12 PM  
When you can, and indeed must, use grade points to put food on your table and a roof over your head, then we'll talk.
 
2011-04-17 05:49:51 PM  

DarthBrooks: Two totally different things.

Rich people are bad.

Smart people are Asian.


But don't we dare call you racist.
 
2011-04-17 05:50:34 PM  
That's a stupid analogy. The whole idea behind affirmative action is that it lets someone who doesn't have absolute proof of excellence, such as someone without a great GPA, into college so they can excel on their own merits. When they're given the chance to go to school and have it paid for, it's now their own terms on passing and failing. Why is it that conservatives are so unable to grasp actual systems and instead fall back onto bad analogies that completely fail to address anything? Are you all that invested in your own bullshiat that you've lost all ability to reason?
 
2011-04-17 06:00:25 PM  

GAT_00: That's a stupid analogy. The whole idea behind affirmative action is that it lets someone who doesn't have absolute proof of excellence, such as someone without a great GPA, into college so they can excel on their own merits. When they're given the chance to go to school and have it paid for, it's now their own terms on passing and failing. Why is it that conservatives are so unable to grasp actual systems and instead fall back onto bad analogies that completely fail to address anything? Are you all that invested in your own bullshiat that you've lost all ability to reason?


WOW so misinformed.
 
2011-04-17 06:04:22 PM  

sponkster: GAT_00: That's a stupid analogy. The whole idea behind affirmative action is that it lets someone who doesn't have absolute proof of excellence, such as someone without a great GPA, into college so they can excel on their own merits. When they're given the chance to go to school and have it paid for, it's now their own terms on passing and failing. Why is it that conservatives are so unable to grasp actual systems and instead fall back onto bad analogies that completely fail to address anything? Are you all that invested in your own bullshiat that you've lost all ability to reason?

WOW so misinformed.


Wow, that was so informative that I'm just convinced that you've conclusively proved me wrong.
 
2011-04-17 06:16:49 PM  
Rich != smart.
 
2011-04-17 06:20:47 PM  

GAT_00: sponkster: GAT_00: That's a stupid analogy. The whole idea behind affirmative action is that it lets someone who doesn't have absolute proof of excellence, such as someone without a great GPA, into college so they can excel on their own merits. When they're given the chance to go to school and have it paid for, it's now their own terms on passing and failing. Why is it that conservatives are so unable to grasp actual systems and instead fall back onto bad analogies that completely fail to address anything? Are you all that invested in your own bullshiat that you've lost all ability to reason?

WOW so misinformed.

Wow, that was so informative that I'm just convinced that you've conclusively proved me wrong.


Are you a college professor? In the real world there are hiring preferences, set asides, quotas and more. Don't hire enough woman and minority owned contractors? That's a lawsuit. Why? Because liberals want to give disadvantaged business owners a hand up regardless of costs to taxpayers.
 
2011-04-17 06:41:37 PM  
A more appropriate analogy would be that I take advantage of academic services, tutoring, professor office hours, study sessions, honors courses, etc. in order to get my GPA up and then I demand that those services be discontinued for people coming after on the grounds that I did it all myself.
 
2011-04-17 06:47:44 PM  
When liberals are the "haves" instead of the "have-nots", then all of a sudden their Marxist, utopian "redistribution" ideals don't work for them.

It's all part of the pathology and hypocrisy which defines the left.

*

"I want to see some FReeper school teacher try this with their students and see what the reaction is! Watch the children freak, the parents freak, and the local teacher's union freak. Then explain it was a joke to teach that redistribution of property isn't a good idea.

Any FReeper teachers willing to give it the old college try? LOL!"

Done it already. :)

I brought candy.

Everytime a student got a question right, I put it aside.

I separated each one so that the students thought they'd get the candy after class.

Then when class was over I shoved them all together and divided them evenly.

Lesson learned.


*

I can just hear what each of those students are thinking.

It doesn't apply to me because I worked hard to get my GPA.

The rich don't work hard to earn their money therefore it is not the same.

Wait until their time comes to earn a "real" living.

*

I was training a manager at our company on his way up, and as his advocate managed to get him a (really) good raise (technically, he earned it, working double hours - a very hard worker.) He called me after the next payday, and said "I thought you said the raise was xx,xxx?"

I said, welcome to your government. Look at the gross and the net on the pay stub, then ask yourself if your ideas about government are sound. It's taken me years, but I have chipped away at a lot of that attitude.

*

Leftist teachers do actually try things like this, but it is usually much more subtle.

Nearly 30 years ago when I was in high school my social studies teacher decided to divide the class up into groups of five or six and give each group a collective grade.

I was one of those students with a 4.0 gpa and of course he stuck me in a group of screw ups and slackers. Well, I decided to go Galt on them and whatever the others did, I did too. I sat around and talked, looked at girls, bailed on class just like the others. I knew I had already earned enough for me to get an A out of the class.

At the end of the project, my liberal teacher told me how disappointed he was that I didn't pull the others across the finish line with me.

I told him how disappointed I was in him for expecting me to pull the wagon while everybody else got a free ride.

I don't know if he learned his lesson or not.
 
2011-04-17 06:51:06 PM  

Freep Impact: Well, I decided to go Galt on them


You never go full Galt.
 
2011-04-17 06:59:03 PM  
In other news, apples differ in many ways from oranges
 
2011-04-17 07:04:12 PM  
That headline might make sense if the Progressive student had a 5,000 GPA, but only needed the normal 4.0.
 
2011-04-17 07:08:31 PM  
Yet another chorus of "The rich must be good and virtuous; the poor much be lazy and stupid."

Isn't it nice when the people you think deserve punishment are the same ones who have absolutely no power to retaliate, and the people you fear are the same ones who need no correction?
 
2011-04-17 07:08:31 PM  

St_Francis_P: That headline might make sense if the Progressive student had a 5,000 GPA, but only needed the normal 4.0.


And if in the process he ensured that other students' GPA's never rose above 2.0
 
2011-04-17 07:13:44 PM  

Freep Impact: Everytime a student got a question right, I put it aside.

I separated each one so that the students thought they'd get the candy after class.

Then when class was over I shoved them all together and divided them evenly.

Lesson learned.


Sure, but he's just distributing fiat candy. When the markets tank I'll be fine, I've been squirreling away raw cocoa under my mattress.
 
2011-04-17 07:14:03 PM  

GAT_00: That's a stupid analogy. The whole idea behind affirmative action is that it lets someone who doesn't have absolute proof of excellence, such as someone without a great GPA, into college so they can excel on their own merits.


I would say the Supreme Court more or less rejected that reasoning. The only Constitutionally-acceptable justification for affirmative action is that a school has the right to determine the demographic makeup of its student body.

But yes, it's an extremely stupid analogy.
 
2011-04-17 07:41:28 PM  
...that's not how GPAs work.

/maybe if you said you were going to make your A a C and give the underperforming student a C instead of an F...
 
2011-04-17 08:04:12 PM  
How about just asking the progressive students to tutor their fellows who aren't doing as well?

. . . oh, wait, that wouldn't be a bad analogy for taxes then . . .

Giving the low performers points directly is useless: if, instead, the GPA points 'paid' for tutoring for their fellow students, I wonder if they'd still object to it?
 
2011-04-17 08:06:00 PM  
1: That is a horrible analogy.

2: Cut your farking sideburns, you hipster-looking fark.
 
2011-04-17 08:06:06 PM  
That's called grading by the curve, and it's quite common as well.
 
2011-04-17 08:06:16 PM  
No time to respond properly, but note that 'grading on a curve' does exist.
 
2011-04-17 08:06:52 PM  

moralpanic: That's called grading by the curve, and it's quite common as well.


Yeah, what he said.
 
2011-04-17 08:09:42 PM  
How's that whole "tax the rich" thing working out for Europe?

lulz
 
2011-04-17 08:09:57 PM  
Ah, the conservative mind. where you can monetize anything.
 
2011-04-17 08:10:46 PM  
Freep Impact: Thank you Freep, you are performing a valuable public service. The lesson I took away from all that was "I'm going to act like a total dick to you because I don't like the government. If you feel I'm mistreating you, don't blame me, blame the government."

Is that about right?
 
2011-04-17 08:10:52 PM  
doublesecretprobation 2011-04-17 05:42:30 PM false equivalence is false.
====================================================

Yeah, but that doesn't stop them from thinking it isn't.
 
2011-04-17 08:11:03 PM  
But I was born with the A+ average my parents left to me.

It would be unfair to make me actually have to study.
 
2011-04-17 08:11:56 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Maybe if there was something in the defining document of the course that said the professor had the ability to do so. That would be the only way the analogy works.


I hate to break it to the "professor" but when they normalize to fit grades to a curve (in the interests of preventing grade inflation) that's basically what they do. Just such an event cost me a 4.0 in a class once. Since someone of that advanced education is unaware of how to do their job, obviously they should be replaced, sent to carousel.
 
2011-04-17 08:14:16 PM  

GAT_00: Are you [conservatives] that invested in your own bullshiat that you've lost all ability to reason?


Yes.

This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.
 
2011-04-17 08:14:32 PM  
GPA is a zero-sum game. Every A causes someone else to go wanting!

Oh, wait...You mean the total points available in a class aren't split between all of the students, and makes this entire comparison invalid?
 
2011-04-17 08:14:51 PM  
The dead silence is from just how retarded this concept is.

Oh, and your blog sucks.
 
2011-04-17 08:15:22 PM  
www.luminomagazine.com

Is horrible, this analogy.
 
2011-04-17 08:15:58 PM  
Hell, even if this did happen, it would happen to all top students. So everyone who was at 4.0 is now at 3.5, making 3.5 the new A. There's actually no disadvantage...
 
2011-04-17 08:15:58 PM  
Wow, that's not a horrible analogy at all!
 
2011-04-17 08:17:27 PM  
Oh, yeah, because distribution of wealth in this country is based on an institutionally orchestrated facsimile of meritocracy and not, you know, luck or privilege...
 
2011-04-17 08:18:54 PM  

Tickle Mittens: Since someone of that advanced education is unaware of how to do their job, obviously they should be replaced, sent to carousel.


Looks like a blast!

makeiteighteh.files.wordpress.com
 
2011-04-17 08:18:58 PM  
um, yeah - its called grading on a curve. that's how you passed that test with a 58% - and because the average was a 45% you did pretty well. but that person who worked their butt off at got a 95% didn't do any better...
 
2011-04-17 08:19:18 PM  
Yeah because the bottom student's work directly contributes to the grade of the kid asking the question.
 
2011-04-17 08:19:59 PM  
Progressive Student: If my GPA is over 9000.0...
 
2011-04-17 08:20:21 PM  

Bocanegra: How's that whole "tax the rich" thing working out for Europe?


A bunch of the wealthiest Germans recently protested to have their taxes raised. This in Germany where unemployment is lower than in the US and social programs are vastly superior. As are the labor laws.
 
2011-04-17 08:21:06 PM  
Yes.

I also firmly believe children should have IQ tests before school and ones that excel should have something attached to their skulls to send a distracting 'ping' to slow them down.

This will make life more equal and give the 'average' student a chance.

Now when are we going to stop taxing the rich so heavy and let their greater intelligence lead this country into the future?

/Read Ayn Rand, use the flat tax. Ignore corporate power.
 
2011-04-17 08:21:19 PM  
That's the dumbest analogy I've heard all week, and Skinnyhead has been posting a lot this week.

Freep Impact: When liberals are the "haves" instead of the "have-nots", then all of a sudden their Marxist, utopian "redistribution" ideals don't work for them.

It's all part of the pathology and hypocrisy which defines the left.


You can't redistribute intelligence. It's not our fault that freepers are dumb as rocks.
 
2011-04-17 08:23:17 PM  
This is how conservatives see the world.
 
2011-04-17 08:25:32 PM  

NationwideClyde: Oh, yeah, because distribution of wealth in this country is based on an institutionally orchestrated facsimile of meritocracy and not, you know, luck or privilege...


And therefore, we should take rich people's money. How dare they be lucky or more privileged.

http://www.forbes.com/wealth/forbes-4 00/gallery

Those lucky, privileged jerks. None of those guys ever did anything for anyone!
 
2011-04-17 08:26:03 PM  

Britney Spear's Speculum: Yeah because the bottom student's work directly contributes to the grade of the kid asking the question.


This. And to those who are going to argue about grading on a curve blah blah blah...many universities have a minimum passing score...AFTER the curve. My school was 30 percent. So if your class did not pass, those with a total score below 30% definitely could not pass nor could their score contribute to the curve
 
2011-04-17 08:26:36 PM  

Atheist Vuvuzela Marching Band: This. And to those who are going to argue about grading on a curve blah blah blah...many universities have a minimum passing score...AFTER the curve. My school was 30 percent. So if your class did not pass, those with a total score below 30% definitely could not pass nor could their score contribute to the curve


Yeah I didn't mention this because it's pretty well assumed.
 
2011-04-17 08:26:42 PM  
i53.tinypic.com

Really, Fark?

REALLY???

/Remember when this site was about poking fun at these idiots in the media
//not being one of them?
 
2011-04-17 08:26:46 PM  

nowt: Progressive Student: If my GPA is over 9000.0...


i567.photobucket.com
 
2011-04-17 08:27:09 PM  
This analogy doesn't work. Since the poor pay more taxes than the rich, you would have to argue that the hard work of stupid kids is somehow giving a good student better grades.
 
2011-04-17 08:28:12 PM  

Msol: Hell, even if this did happen, it would happen to all top students. So everyone who was at 4.0 is now at 3.5, making 3.5 the new A. There's actually no disadvantage...


same with money.
 
2011-04-17 08:28:23 PM  

DKinMN: How dare they be lucky or more privileged.


Why should we allow unearned privilege to determine anything? Why should a kid whose parents sent them to Exeter have things easier than a kid who went to some public inner city school? If both are equally intelligent, why allow the Exeter kid to have it easier?
 
2011-04-17 08:29:46 PM  
I was unaware I was able to purchase goods and services with GPA points. Hmmmm, maybe the scrotom suckers are onto something
 
2011-04-17 08:30:16 PM  

Freep Impact: "I want to see some FReeper school teacher try this with their students and see what the reaction is! Watch the children freak, the parents freak, and the local teacher's union freak. Then explain it was a joke to teach that redistribution of property isn't a good idea.

Any FReeper teachers willing to give it the old college try? LOL!"

Done it already. :)

I brought candy.

Everytime a student got a question right, I put it aside.

I separated each one so that the students thought they'd get the candy after class.

Then when class was over I shoved them all together and divided them evenly.

Lesson learned.


You know where else reward and punishment is often shared by the group, as a way of building camaraderie, teamwork and unit discipline? Not surprised that freepers don't.
 
2011-04-17 08:30:57 PM  
Oh, don't get me wrong. I have no problem with people keeping the fruits of their hard work, luck, and/or privilege. All three have done good things for me. I'm just saying the analogy is massively flawed.
 
2011-04-17 08:31:06 PM  
Or how about this:

You make a deal with your professor that if you meet certain performance goals, that you will receive a 4.0 in the class. However, because you chose his class over another easier class, he's required to spot you at least a 2.0 to start. If by some chance you fail the class and cause all of your study partners' GPA to drop, the professor guarantees you a 4.0 on the grounds that you're the only member of the class smart enough to fix the mess you caused. And if you drop the class, the professor still gives you a 4.0 because failure to do so will send a message to other potential students that they shouldn't sign up for his class.
 
2011-04-17 08:31:21 PM  

GAT_00: That's a stupid analogy. The whole idea behind affirmative action is that it lets someone who doesn't have absolute proof of excellence, such as someone without a great GPA, into college so they can excel on their own merits. When they're given the chance to go to school and have it paid for, it's now their own terms on passing and failing. Why is it that conservatives are so unable to grasp actual systems and instead fall back onto bad analogies that completely fail to address anything? Are you all that invested in your own bullshiat that you've lost all ability to reason?


That is not the idea behind affirmative action, nor is that how affirmative action works.

/I award you no points.
//And may god have mercy on your soul.
 
2011-04-17 08:31:24 PM  
Why does conservative humor generally suck?
 
2011-04-17 08:32:20 PM  
"Leftist teachers do actually try things like this, but it is usually much more subtle.

Nearly 30 years ago when I was in high school my social studies teacher decided to divide the class up into groups of five or six and give each group a collective grade.

I was one of those students with a 4.0 gpa and of course he stuck me in a group of screw ups and slackers. Well, I decided to go Galt on them and whatever the others did, I did too. I sat around and talked, looked at girls, bailed on class just like the others. I knew I had already earned enough for me to get an A out of the class.

At the end of the project, my liberal teacher told me how disappointed he was that I didn't pull the others across the finish line with me.

I told him how disappointed I was in him for expecting me to pull the wagon while everybody else got a free ride.

I don't know if he learned his lesson or not."

wouldn't a comparable analogy be sticking you with a kids that are trying but have no resources to do the project. here's your team to lead, 2 people have the text book, 1 uses a typewriter, 2 have a phone, 2 of them have a computer, of those 2, 1 has internet access and all of them take the bus so there is no "after school time" also you aren't assigned class time to do the project. Also these are your teams for the rest of the school year. now GO!
 
2011-04-17 08:33:01 PM  
High GPAs are far more likely to be merited than high incomes. Unless, of course, grades are now given out by a committee of students who agree to give each other good grades at the expense of people who actually work for them.

That's how corporate boards work, and that's where most super-high incomes come from.
 
2011-04-17 08:33:21 PM  

Freep Impact: When liberals are the "haves" instead of the "have-nots", then all of a sudden their Marxist, utopian "redistribution" ideals don't work for them.
It's all part of the pathology and hypocrisy which defines the left.


Ok except for two things, the very rich are mostly liberals and your a idiot.
 
2011-04-17 08:34:59 PM  

clambam: Freep Impact: Thank you Freep, you are performing a valuable public service. The lesson I took away from all that was "I'm going to act like a total dick to you because I don't like the government. If you feel I'm mistreating you, don't blame me, blame the government."

Is that about right?


Basically. Though you didn't mention Marxism.
 
2011-04-17 08:35:33 PM  

ne2d: GAT_00: That's a stupid analogy. The whole idea behind affirmative action is that it lets someone who doesn't have absolute proof of excellence, such as someone without a great GPA, into college so they can excel on their own merits.

I would say the Supreme Court more or less rejected that reasoning. The only Constitutionally-acceptable justification for affirmative action is that a school has the right to determine the demographic makeup of its student body.

But yes, it's an extremely stupid analogy.


That and the fact that statistically speaking, affirmative action students and hirees tend to perform better. Affirmative action is looking at potential rather than proven value and experience and assuming that the proven value and experience of minorities who have been historically oppressed will understate their potential.
 
2011-04-17 08:35:49 PM  
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.
 
2011-04-17 08:36:59 PM  
If it was phrased as "Give a small amount of pointage to a pool to help people who are down on their luck, but give it to them in a system that requires them to get back on their feet ASAP.", I'd still be fine with it.
 
2011-04-17 08:37:42 PM  

The Fourth Karamazov: Why does conservative humor generally suck?


Comedy, like tragedy, has to come from a mind that has endured hardship. Apparently just believing that they've endured hardship isn't enough, no matter how much time they spend up on their own personal cross.
 
2011-04-17 08:38:21 PM  
www.bagelsound.com
 
2011-04-17 08:38:24 PM  

BEER STEAK: 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.


You'd be surprised. I'd say they would want more.
 
2011-04-17 08:38:31 PM  
Conservative: "So you'd be cool with me taking some points off your GPA to give the dumb some opportunity, right?" Progressive student:

I think that I too would be left speechless if somebody actually said something that stupid to me.
 
2011-04-17 08:38:36 PM  
amptoons.com

Yeah I know. But it works for Rich-Poor too.
 
2011-04-17 08:38:39 PM  
Taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor = the poor become richer and distribution of wealth becomes more balanced.

Taking the GPA from a smart student and giving it to a failing student =/= the failing student gets smarter and the intelligence of the general population rises.

I mean, seriously. How does anyone invoke this analogy with a straight face?
 
2011-04-17 08:38:43 PM  
farm1.static.flickr.com
 
2011-04-17 08:38:49 PM  
Is he actually admitting that Liberals have higher GPAs? That Conservatives are lazy and stupid and need GPA hand outs? That is what they say about wealth redistribution, so for him to actually believe his analogy he must also believe that about GPA distribution.

/How nice of him for admitting that conservatives are less intelligent.
//Don't get mad at me, he is the one saying it.
///And he is a conservative, so he would know.
 
2011-04-17 08:39:03 PM  
i.zdnet.com
Subby?
 
2011-04-17 08:39:28 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Bocanegra: How's that whole "tax the rich" thing working out for Europe?

A bunch of the wealthiest Germans recently protested to have their taxes raised. This in Germany where unemployment is lower than in the US and social programs are vastly superior. As are the labor laws.


Germany hasn't = Europe in about 70 years or so.
 
2011-04-17 08:40:04 PM  
Can all those students with the higher GPA be transferred from their community colleges to Ivy League schools while maintaining the same pay scale?

For this analogy to work, that's what would have to happen. All colleges across the country would have to be equalized and students with the higher GPA be able to freely switch to better education based on their GPA and exclude costs, etc.
 
2011-04-17 08:40:45 PM  
This is why we can't have nice things.
 
2011-04-17 08:41:39 PM  

Bocanegra: WhyteRaven74: Bocanegra: How's that whole "tax the rich" thing working out for Europe?

A bunch of the wealthiest Germans recently protested to have their taxes raised. This in Germany where unemployment is lower than in the US and social programs are vastly superior. As are the labor laws.

Germany hasn't = Europe in about 70 years or so.


Never mind the fact that Germany is Europe's largest economy.

But then again, you're just a partisan troll so facts get in the way of that.
 
2011-04-17 08:41:40 PM  
Who the funk thinks money and taxation---liquid capital--is somehow comparable to student performance in classes? At any given temporal point available capital is zero-sum. Grading isn't, unless you're on a curve. And then the highest grade is promoted, not reduced. You'd have to be weapons-grade stupid to ask the questions others are too smart to ask in the first place. Should've earned a much stronger smackdown.
 
2011-04-17 08:42:58 PM  
Equal opportunity for all is not the same thing as equal results for all. If we'd managed to remember this we'd have avoided both this stupid right-wing idea as well as several stupid left-wing ideas like hiring/acceptance quotas that address the symptom and not the problem.

WhyteRaven74: Why should we allow unearned privilege to determine anything? Why should a kid whose parents sent them to Exeter have things easier than a kid who went to some public inner city school? If both are equally intelligent, why allow the Exeter kid to have it easier?



We don't. Admission to College is based on standardized test results, recommendations, and extracurricular activities. The former aren't dependent on where you went to school, only how well-educated you are, and the last are more about school population than money (a 5A school will have more successful teams at a greater variety of activities than a 4A, etc).

Excepting schools with an established relationship with a particular institution, which are as often about helping the poor/stupid get into better colleges as anything else (see the relationship between Austin Community College and the University of Texas), at the admissions point you're pretty much on your own.

//There are legacies at specific institutions, as well, but they only have an advantage for that particular institution, and if we're going to talk about advantages in applying to specific colleges we'll be here all day.
 
2011-04-17 08:43:28 PM  

Freep Impact: When liberals are the "haves" instead of the "have-nots", then all of a sudden their Marxist, utopian "redistribution" ideals don't work for them.

It's all part of the pathology and hypocrisy which defines the left.

*

"I want to see some FReeper school teacher try this with their students and see what the reaction is! Watch the children freak, the parents freak, and the local teacher's union freak. Then explain it was a joke to teach that redistribution of property isn't a good idea.

Any FReeper teachers willing to give it the old college try? LOL!"

Done it already. :)

I brought candy.

Everytime a student got a question right, I put it aside.

I separated each one so that the students thought they'd get the candy after class.

Then when class was over I shoved them all together and divided them evenly.

Lesson learned.


*

I can just hear what each of those students are thinking.

It doesn't apply to me because I worked hard to get my GPA.

The rich don't work hard to earn their money therefore it is not the same.

Wait until their time comes to earn a "real" living.

*

I was training a manager at our company on his way up, and as his advocate managed to get him a (really) good raise (technically, he earned it, working double hours - a very hard worker.) He called me after the next payday, and said "I thought you said the raise was xx,xxx?"

I said, welcome to your government. Look at the gross and the net on the pay stub, then ask yourself if your ideas about government are sound. It's taken me years, but I have chipped away at a lot of that attitude.

*

Leftist teachers do actually try things like this, but it is usually much more subtle.

Nearly 30 years ago when I was in high school my social studies teacher decided to divide the class up into groups of five or six and give each group a collective grade.

I was one of those students with a 4.0 gpa and of course he stuck me in a group of screw ups and slackers. Well, I decided to go Galt on them and whatever the others did, I did too. I sat around and talked, looked at girls, bailed on class just like the others. I knew I had already earned enough for me to get an A out of the class.

At the end of the project, my liberal teacher told me how disappointed he was that I didn't pull the others across the finish line with me.

I told him how disappointed I was in him for expecting me to pull the wagon while everybody else got a free ride.

I don't know if he learned his lesson or not.


Someone should ask the freeper teacher if he's a union member.
 
2011-04-17 08:44:04 PM  

BEER STEAK: Let's say the grade points distribution at the university breaks down like this: Derpy or Poe's Law


Grades do not work that way.
 
2011-04-17 08:45:52 PM  

Arami76: Can all those students with the higher GPA be transferred from their community colleges to Ivy League schools while maintaining the same pay scale?

For this analogy to work, that's what would have to happen. All colleges across the country would have to be equalized and students with the higher GPA be able to freely switch to better education based on their GPA and exclude costs, etc.


And the fact that GPA, unlike income, generally has an upper limit. If the very rich effectively had some maximum income level in the real world, then perhaps the comparison would be slightly less absurd.
 
2011-04-17 08:46:16 PM  

Old enough to know better: Yeah I know. But it works for Rich-Poor too.


So in this revisionist historical fantasy of yours, was every white person a rich plantation owner?
 
2011-04-17 08:46:32 PM  
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?"

How about the fact that in an academic setting the dumb already have the same opportunities as the smart? They have the same books, the same teachers, the same access to tutors, libraries, etc. Everyone is starting in the same place with the exact same chance at success.

Can you honestly make that same argument about the poor in this country compared to the rich?
 
2011-04-17 08:46:41 PM  
Heh, the rich kids already have extra points given to their GPAs. WTF is this guy talking about?
 
2011-04-17 08:47:04 PM  

WTF Indeed: Your blog sucks.

 
2011-04-17 08:47:52 PM  
So this is like when Joe Barton totally "schooled" a scientist on global warming by proudly demonstrating his ignorance about tectonic plates, right?
 
2011-04-17 08:48:37 PM  
Why yes! Listening to someone using such an incredibly farking moronic false equivalence DOES leave me utterly speechless at their insane level of stupidity! Good job, Subby. I haven't seen such an accurate headline in ages.
 
2011-04-17 08:48:52 PM  

Cinaed: BEER STEAK: Let's say the grade points distribution at the university breaks down like this: Derpy or Poe's Law

Grades do not work that way.


That was his point.
 
2011-04-17 08:48:54 PM  

Bocanegra: Old enough to know better: Yeah I know. But it works for Rich-Poor too.

So in this revisionist historical fantasy of yours, was every white person a rich plantation owner?


As a matter of curiosity, how many black plantation owners were there?
 
2011-04-17 08:49:31 PM  
Yay false equivalence!

Not that this isn't prima facie stupid, but let's break it down anyway:

Money is not the measure of opportunity. Money happens, it happens to people who don't deserve it and people who do. Capacity and capability are the measure of opportunity. Redistributing a person's GPA to a "dumb" person doesn't give the dumb person opportunity, it gives them a free ride. On the other hand, if say university were absolutely free, poor and rich alike would have equal opportunity to measure their success against each other in a competitive field.

Unfortunately college and universities have artificial barriers to opportunity, such as cost of tuition. A person with equal or greater capacity to learn and excel can be barred from doing so out of poverty. Of course, colleges and universities are not meant to be a measure of how rich you are, but a measure of how intelligent you are.

Ironically enough the analogy is so poor and yet enough people are revelling in it that it demonstrates that one doesn't need to redistribute GPA scores for the dumb to be successful. Plenty of retarded folks are lining up in adoration of these morons, offering to beat gay people to death or drag blacks behind their pickups or whatever hobbies conservatives partake in in celebration that we are once again convinced that the stupid excel just fine on their own.
 
2011-04-17 08:49:51 PM  

Robots are Strong: How about the fact that in an academic setting the dumb already have the same opportunities as the smart?


That's... not true even in the slightest.
The methods for funding of schools in the US, even at the public K-thru-12 level, is exceptionally inequal.
 
2011-04-17 08:50:51 PM  

nowt: As a matter of curiosity, how many black plantation owners were there?


Does Uncle Ben count? He owns a shiatload of rice.
 
2011-04-17 08:52:16 PM  
That is a stupid analogy and you are stupid for suggesting it.
 
2011-04-17 08:56:08 PM  
Let us complete the analogy: 100% estate tax. After all, everybody starts with the same GPA, right?
 
2011-04-17 08:56:16 PM  
That's great but it isn't the same. When the highest GPA's start firing and moving the colleges overseas to increase their GPA, you may be onto something. When the highest GPA's start advertising swill to have the lower GPA's use their GPA's to buy useless shiat, then we can talk. When the highest GPA's start using their GPA's to influence politics to ensure the lowest GPA's never ever increase their GPA, you might be farked.
 
2011-04-17 08:56:20 PM  
This is obviously a false equivalency, but I want to dive into it an examine why it's false, rather than just saying "Derp is derp."

In a capitalist firm a group of individuals work collectively to create or provide a good or service which is then sold on the open market. The return on the sale of the goods minus the cost of creating the goods equals the profit of the firm.

The owner of the firm (capitalist) or their representatives (management) determines how that profit is to be divided between dividends (which includes wages) and reinvestment. Because the decision making process is controlled by management, the greatest share of the dividends goes to management. This is the wealth distribution to which the term wealth redistribution refers. This leads to widespread wealth inequalities that would not exist if workers had a representative say in distribution of the dividends of their own labor.

GPA is not created collectively by the entire class (which is not a firm), and GPA is not the equivalent of the profit of the collective activity of a firm. To "redistribute" GPA presumes that GPA is distributed in the first place, which it is not.

Furthermore, there is no equivalent of the capitalist in the classroom. The teacher is not equivalent to the capitalist, as the teacher does not collect any profit from the labor of the students, nor does the teacher have ultimate control over the students GPA. No student is the equivalent of the capitalist, since no student has control over the distribution of GPA.

Thus the comparison of GPA to dividends is a false equivalency. They are not functionally similar.
 
2011-04-17 08:57:33 PM  

sponkster: GAT_00: That's a stupid analogy. The whole idea behind affirmative action is that it lets someone who doesn't have absolute proof of excellence, such as someone without a great GPA, into college so they can excel on their own merits. When they're given the chance to go to school and have it paid for, it's now their own terms on passing and failing. Why is it that conservatives are so unable to grasp actual systems and instead fall back onto bad analogies that completely fail to address anything? Are you all that invested in your own bullshiat that you've lost all ability to reason?

WOW so misinformed.


While I am as liberal as they come, I am a little perturbed at some of the affirmative action programs I've come across. My wife went to college in Texas. At the time, the Top Ten Percent rule was in effect - if you graduated in the top ten percent of your high school class, you were automatically accepted into any Texas public university.

She went to UT Austin. Her friend, who was also in the top ten percent of their class, also went to UT Austin. They grew up in the same neighborhood, went to the same school, had similar GPAs. Her friend's parents made a little more money and had a little nicer house, but that was it.

Her friend is also African American (my wife is whiter than a sheet). Her friend was invited into the "Pathways" program at UT. This involved much easier math courses (worksheets in college, for God's sake), extended tutoring hours, free homework assistance, etc, etc. My wife and her friend were still graded on the same scale.

I absolutely believe that there is still racism in America. I also think that in this particular case, Affirmative Action was unnecessary.
 
2011-04-17 08:57:38 PM  
Looks like some shiathead didn't learn about false equivalence in school.
 
2011-04-17 09:00:23 PM  

Lord Dimwit: Her friend is also African American (my wife is whiter than a sheet). Her friend was invited into the "Pathways" program at UT. This involved much easier math courses (worksheets in college, for God's sake), extended tutoring hours, free homework assistance, etc, etc. My wife and her friend were still graded on the same scale.

I absolutely believe that there is still racism in America. I also think that in this particular case, Affirmative Action was unnecessary.


Are you sure you know what affirmative action is?
 
2011-04-17 09:00:42 PM  
Oh and I think it is absolutely precious that these students are all naive and think that real life is fair and requires only hard work.
 
2011-04-17 09:01:37 PM  
If the university grading system was taxed like income, absolutely nothing would change. Just like how income tax is designed not to change the earning ranks from gross to net income, an equivalent system in grades wouldn't change the rankings of the students.

The valedictorian would still be valedictorian, the bottom student will still be on the bottom and employers would simply adjust to be a bit more sensitive to small GPA differences because everyone would be bunched closer together. So go ahead and tax GPA if you want.

//jeezus you people are morons
 
2011-04-17 09:01:39 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Lord Dimwit: Her friend is also African American (my wife is whiter than a sheet). Her friend was invited into the "Pathways" program at UT. This involved much easier math courses (worksheets in college, for God's sake), extended tutoring hours, free homework assistance, etc, etc. My wife and her friend were still graded on the same scale.

I absolutely believe that there is still racism in America. I also think that in this particular case, Affirmative Action was unnecessary.

Are you sure you know what affirmative action is?


...I suppose I don't, since if I did, you wouldn't have needed to ask.

Not being snarky, but how was I wrong?
 
2011-04-17 09:04:58 PM  

Lord Dimwit: ...I suppose I don't, since if I did, you wouldn't have needed to ask.

Not being snarky, but how was I wrong?


It sounds like your wife's friend was accepted into a program because she has (or claims to have) a learning disability, not because she's black.
 
2011-04-17 09:06:55 PM  
we all enter college with the same GPA so we should all enter adulthood with the same amount of money.

No more leaving or giving your kids money and 100% estate tax.
 
2011-04-17 09:07:05 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Lord Dimwit: ...I suppose I don't, since if I did, you wouldn't have needed to ask.

Not being snarky, but how was I wrong?

It sounds like your wife's friend was accepted into a program because she has (or claims to have) a learning disability, not because she's black.


No, this was a program specifically for minority students.
 
2011-04-17 09:07:16 PM  

skepticultist: This is obviously a false equivalency, but I want to dive into it an examine why it's false, rather than just saying "Derp is derp."

In a capitalist firm a group of individuals work collectively to create or provide a good or service which is then sold on the open market. The return on the sale of the goods minus the cost of creating the goods equals the profit of the firm.

The owner of the firm (capitalist) or their representatives (management) determines how that profit is to be divided between dividends (which includes wages) and reinvestment. Because the decision making process is controlled by management, the greatest share of the dividends goes to management. This is the wealth distribution to which the term wealth redistribution refers. This leads to widespread wealth inequalities that would not exist if workers had a representative say in distribution of the dividends of their own labor.

GPA is not created collectively by the entire class (which is not a firm), and GPA is not the equivalent of the profit of the collective activity of a firm. To "redistribute" GPA presumes that GPA is distributed in the first place, which it is not.

Furthermore, there is no equivalent of the capitalist in the classroom. The teacher is not equivalent to the capitalist, as the teacher does not collect any profit from the labor of the students, nor does the teacher have ultimate control over the students GPA. No student is the equivalent of the capitalist, since no student has control over the distribution of GPA.

Thus the comparison of GPA to dividends is a false equivalency. They are not functionally similar.


------------------------------------

This is all too complicated. The bottom line is that our tax system is specifically designed not to change the rank of those taxed. If I make $165K in taxable income, I will make more post-tax than someone who makes $164K, etc. Since GPA has no inherent value and the only thing that matters is the rank of the students, a tax would change absolutely nothing.
 
2011-04-17 09:08:18 PM  

Lord Dimwit: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Lord Dimwit: ...I suppose I don't, since if I did, you wouldn't have needed to ask.

Not being snarky, but how was I wrong?

It sounds like your wife's friend was accepted into a program because she has (or claims to have) a learning disability, not because she's black.

No, this was a program specifically for minority students.


And she's quite intelligent, I'd like to add. She's now at an Ivy League grad school getting her doctorate.
 
2011-04-17 09:10:02 PM  

Lord Dimwit: No, this was a program specifically for minority students.


Is there a link of some kind? Because a Google search for "University Texas Pathways" is coming up with nothing. Are you certain your wife simply didn't understand what this program was, or was she possibly making this story up?

It really doesn't make sense.
 
2011-04-17 09:10:21 PM  

Freep Impact:
I told him how disappointed I was in him for expecting me to pull the wagon while everybody else got a free ride.



This is how I know the person telling this story has never had a real job. Pulling other people in the wagon so that stuff gets done is half of my job.
 
2011-04-17 09:11:56 PM  
Rather than shaving points of high-performing students' GPAs (a false equivalency as explained earlier), a better analogy would be "do you think the professor should spend less time with you and more time with the troubled students?" The professor's time is limited, and higher-scoring students would be losing some of this limited resource in giving it to the lower-scoring students.

Also, the answer is yes, the professor (or at least TAs) should be spending more time with the students having trouble getting the subject matter. They're in school to learn, after all; if they already know it or have less trouble learning it, then..well...there you go.
 
2011-04-17 09:12:19 PM  

Some Dumb Freeper: Done it already. :)

I brought candy.

Everytime a student got a question right, I put it aside.

I separated each one so that the students thought they'd get the candy after class.

Then when class was over I shoved them all together and divided them evenly.

Lesson learned.


Interestingly, this could be used to teach a really good lesson.

Start with an empty bowl and a bowl of candy. Quiz the students, and every time a student gets question right, move three pieces of candy into the empty bowl. At the end of the class, divide all of the candy moved into the empty bowl between all the students, giving one piece to each student who answered at question right for each right answer. Divide the remaining two thirds between all the students, including those who earned candy by answering questions.

Repeat over several days. By weeks end the most knowledgeable students will be made clear, and the other students will cheer them on.

Now repeat the experiment, but give the empty bowl to the most selfish/greedy/gluttonous student in the class, regardless of their ability to answer questions. Allow that student to own all the candy and distribute as he sees fit at the end of the game.

You have now modeled socialism and capitalism for the students.
 
2011-04-17 09:13:10 PM  

tarkus1980: Freep Impact:
I told him how disappointed I was in him for expecting me to pull the wagon while everybody else got a free ride.

This is how I know the person telling this story has never had a real job. Pulling other people in the wagon so that stuff gets done is half of my job.


Here, here.
 
2011-04-17 09:13:54 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Lord Dimwit: No, this was a program specifically for minority students.

Is there a link of some kind? Because a Google search for "University Texas Pathways" is coming up with nothing. Are you certain your wife simply didn't understand what this program was, or was she possibly making this story up?

It really doesn't make sense.


I'm not making it up, though I can't promise that it was called "Pathways".

Here we go. Gateway, not Pathway. Sorry. http://www.utexas.edu/diversity/ddce/lcae/gateway.php
 
2011-04-17 09:16:42 PM  

skepticultist: Some Dumb Freeper: Done it already. :)

I brought candy.

Everytime a student got a question right, I put it aside.

I separated each one so that the students thought they'd get the candy after class.

Then when class was over I shoved them all together and divided them evenly.

Lesson learned.

Interestingly, this could be used to teach a really good lesson.

Start with an empty bowl and a bowl of candy. Quiz the students, and every time a student gets question right, move three pieces of candy into the empty bowl. At the end of the class, divide all of the candy moved into the empty bowl between all the students, giving one piece to each student who answered at question right for each right answer. Divide the remaining two thirds between all the students, including those who earned candy by answering questions.

Repeat over several days. By weeks end the most knowledgeable students will be made clear, and the other students will cheer them on.

Now repeat the experiment, but give the empty bowl to the most selfish/greedy/gluttonous student in the class, regardless of their ability to answer questions. Allow that student to own all the candy and distribute as he sees fit at the end of the game.

You have now modeled socialism and capitalism for the students.


Instead of giving the bowl to the most greedy student, give it to the student whose parents made the most money in the preceding twelve months, since that means that that person is obviously the most fit to decide how to divide resources.
 
2011-04-17 09:16:55 PM  

Cinaed: Robots are Strong: How about the fact that in an academic setting the dumb already have the same opportunities as the smart?

That's... not true even in the slightest.
The methods for funding of schools in the US, even at the public K-thru-12 level, is exceptionally inequal.


Well sure, but thats the poor getting farked, not the dumb.
 
2011-04-17 09:18:24 PM  

Robots are Strong: Well sure, but thats the poor getting farked, not the dumb.


The poor generally lack the appreciation for education and the benefits it can provide to their own progeny.

Poor and dumb has a strong correlation.
 
2011-04-17 09:18:35 PM  
The rich MUST have the fark taxed out of them. It's the only way to keep monsters like JP Morgan from coming back.
images.huffingtonpost.com
 
2011-04-17 09:18:50 PM  

Robots are Strong: Cinaed: Robots are Strong: How about the fact that in an academic setting the dumb already have the same opportunities as the smart?

That's... not true even in the slightest.
The methods for funding of schools in the US, even at the public K-thru-12 level, is exceptionally inequal.

Well sure, but thats the poor getting farked, not the dumb.


When I was in high school, the state enacted the "Robin Hood" program. I have no idea if that was its official name or not, but the point is that it would take some of the revenue in richer school districts from taxation and divert it to poorer areas of the state.

There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth, and I was quite in the minority for asking why the students in the poorer areas somehow deserved worse education because of where they happened to live.
 
2011-04-17 09:19:22 PM  

Shaggy_C: GPA is a zero-sum game. Every A causes someone else to go wanting!

Oh, wait...You mean the total points available in a class aren't split between all of the students, and makes this entire comparison invalid?


Well wait a minute, are you suggesting that wealth creation and economic growth is a zero-sum game?
 
2011-04-17 09:19:34 PM  
What about the 10 or 11 points of my GPA that goes to the school school bully to give nerds wedgies? Can I have that back?
 
2011-04-17 09:20:41 PM  
What Liberal Establishment? The goal posts have been moved so far to the Right St. Reagan wouldn't qualify as a Real Conservative.
 
2011-04-17 09:21:16 PM  

balloot: This is all too complicated. The bottom line is that our tax system is specifically designed not to change the rank of those taxed. If I make $165K in taxable income, I will make more post-tax than someone who makes $164K, etc. Since GPA has no inherent value and the only thing that matters is the rank of the students, a tax would change absolutely nothing.


Depends on the tax structure. If it was designed to equalize outcomes and give everyone the same grade point average then it certainly would have an effect on the rankings of students.

e.g. If Bob earns a 4.0 and Joe earns a 2.0 and I redistribute the GPA so that Joe and Bob each earn a 3.0, then I have totally distorted the outcomes. Which seems to be the implication of the argument.

If it were a simple flat tax or even a progressive curve tax on GPA, then yes, it would have no effect. But the term "GPA redistribution" implies that GPA would be taken from the "top earners" and redistributed to the lowest earners. And I'm assuming it would be redistributed towards equal outcomes because conservatives all seem to believe that the goal of progressives is equalized outcomes regardless of merit.
 
2011-04-17 09:21:47 PM  
There is also a subtle undertone saying that people with lower income, don't work as hard as the rich. The middle and lower class break their backs for pennies.
 
2011-04-17 09:22:36 PM  

Lord Dimwit: Here we go. Gateway, not Pathway. Sorry. http://www.utexas.edu/diversity/ddce/lcae/gateway.php


Yeah, I think your wife is confused. According to the website, this program offers optional math and science labs for students who want extra help. It doesn't mean she was taking easier courses for the same credit.
 
2011-04-17 09:22:37 PM  
Your blog is bad and you should feel bad!
 
2011-04-17 09:23:09 PM  

Bocanegra: How's that whole "tax the rich" thing working out for Europe?

lulz


Check out Germany you super genius.
 
2011-04-17 09:23:57 PM  

GAT_00: That's a stupid analogy. The whole idea behind affirmative action is that it lets someone who doesn't have absolute proof of excellence, such as someone without a great GPA, into college so they can excel on their own merits.


so much fail.

do you understand that there is competition to get into colleges?
Or do you think that every college accepts every applicant?
 
2011-04-17 09:24:04 PM  

Hydra: Well wait a minute, are you suggesting that wealth creation and economic growth is a zero-sum game?


No, but wealth distribution within a firm certainly is a zero-sum game. A pie cannot be split in such a way that every slice is the largest unless every slice is equal, so any slice that is larger than any other slice must necessarily reduce the size of some other slice.
 
2011-04-17 09:24:49 PM  

skepticultist: Some Dumb Freeper: Done it already. :)

I brought candy.

Everytime a student got a question right, I put it aside.

I separated each one so that the students thought they'd get the candy after class.

Then when class was over I shoved them all together and divided them evenly.

Lesson learned.

Interestingly, this could be used to teach a really good lesson.

Start with an empty bowl and a bowl of candy. Quiz the students, and every time a student gets question right, move three pieces of candy into the empty bowl. At the end of the class, divide all of the candy moved into the empty bowl between all the students, giving one piece to each student who answered at question right for each right answer. Divide the remaining two thirds between all the students, including those who earned candy by answering questions.

Repeat over several days. By weeks end the most knowledgeable students will be made clear, and the other students will cheer them on.

Now repeat the experiment, but give the empty bowl to the most selfish/greedy/gluttonous student in the class, regardless of their ability to answer questions. Allow that student to own all the candy and distribute as he sees fit at the end of the game.

You have now modeled socialism and capitalism for the students.


------------------

Your first example is obviously socialism. Is the 2nd one supposed to be capitalism?
 
2011-04-17 09:26:05 PM  
Lefties can't take it when logic and reason hits them in the face. Are they still waiting for Obumbles to redistribute the wealth? Maybe they can get a few GPA points from him instead...once he releases his grades, of course ;)
 
2011-04-17 09:27:34 PM  

Lord Dimwit: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Lord Dimwit: ...I suppose I don't, since if I did, you wouldn't have needed to ask.

Not being snarky, but how was I wrong?

It sounds like your wife's friend was accepted into a program because she has (or claims to have) a learning disability, not because she's black.

No, this was a program specifically for minority students.


Well, being a UT grad myself, I can say that Texas doesn't always address race in the best way.
 
2011-04-17 09:27:59 PM  

Hydra: Shaggy_C: GPA is a zero-sum game. Every A causes someone else to go wanting!

Oh, wait...You mean the total points available in a class aren't split between all of the students, and makes this entire comparison invalid?

Well wait a minute, are you suggesting that wealth creation and economic growth is a zero-sum game?


The amount of wealth in an economy at any given time is most certainly a zero-sum game.
 
2011-04-17 09:28:59 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: do you understand that there is competition to get into colleges?
Or do you think that every college accepts every applicant?


Do you think colleges accept an applicant that demonstrates superior scores but cannot pay the tuition over one that demonstrates inferior scores but can?

Once again, conservatives demonstrate a clear lack of thinking abilities.
 
2011-04-17 09:29:08 PM  
The only realistic way to address our federal fiscal crisis is to allow taxes on the wealthiest Americans to go back to the levels they were at under President Clinton.
 
2011-04-17 09:29:13 PM  

Shaggy_C: GPA is a zero-sum game. Every A causes someone else to go wanting!

Oh, wait...You mean the total points available in a class aren't split between all of the students, and makes this entire comparison invalid?



As much as I think the GPA-Wealth comparison is BS. You are wrong in a way. You've never hear of grading on a curve? Yes, some teachers will only give out so many A's regardless of how good everyone does.

A semi smart person in a class of really smart people will get a lower GPA than if he was in the same course but with less smart people. Even if the quality of his work was exactly the same in both cases.


/Side note: I've even heard of teachers grading on a curve in math or science classes, which is retarded.
//I mean, if you solve 95% of the math questions correct, you should get an A, regardless if everyone else in the class solved 100% of them right.
 
2011-04-17 09:29:13 PM  
Conservative: "So you'd be cool with me taking some points off your GPA to give the dumb some opportunity, right?"

Progressive student: That's called "Grading on a Curve", numbnuts.
 
2011-04-17 09:31:27 PM  

skepticultist: balloot: This is all too complicated. The bottom line is that our tax system is specifically designed not to change the rank of those taxed. If I make $165K in taxable income, I will make more post-tax than someone who makes $164K, etc. Since GPA has no inherent value and the only thing that matters is the rank of the students, a tax would change absolutely nothing.

Depends on the tax structure. If it was designed to equalize outcomes and give everyone the same grade point average then it certainly would have an effect on the rankings of students.

e.g. If Bob earns a 4.0 and Joe earns a 2.0 and I redistribute the GPA so that Joe and Bob each earn a 3.0, then I have totally distorted the outcomes. Which seems to be the implication of the argument.

If it were a simple flat tax or even a progressive curve tax on GPA, then yes, it would have no effect. But the term "GPA redistribution" implies that GPA would be taken from the "top earners" and redistributed to the lowest earners. And I'm assuming it would be redistributed towards equal outcomes because conservatives all seem to believe that the goal of progressives is equalized outcomes regardless of merit.


------------------------

WTF are you talking about? Here in the USA, and in every other civilized country in the world, we have a progressive income tax system that does NOT change the income rank of those taxed.

So yeah, I guess if you're arguing against a tax system that absolutely nobody uses and absolutely nobody is arguing for, I guess you have a solid counterpoint!
 
2011-04-17 09:34:55 PM  
GPA IS NOT farkING SCARCE YOU STUPID BASTARDS
 
2011-04-17 09:36:10 PM  

Mugato: Rich != smart.


Rich does not equal smart, regardless of how excited you are about the rich.
 
2011-04-17 09:38:02 PM  
When children can inherit their parents' GPAs, gimme a call.
 
2011-04-17 09:38:25 PM  

DamnYankees: Hydra: Shaggy_C: GPA is a zero-sum game. Every A causes someone else to go wanting!

Oh, wait...You mean the total points available in a class aren't split between all of the students, and makes this entire comparison invalid?

Well wait a minute, are you suggesting that wealth creation and economic growth is a zero-sum game?

The amount of wealth in an economy at any given time is most certainly a zero-sum game.


------------------

This statement is just WAY off. You should probably learn the meaning of the phrase zero-sum game if you wish to use it.
 
2011-04-17 09:38:41 PM  

Lord Dimwit: Not being snarky, but how was I wrong?


The extra assistance was being offered to African-Americans as a group. Just because one African-American didn't need the extra help, doesn't mean the group doesn't. You wife's friend was free to turn down the offered assistance.

Affirmative action isn't about individuals. It is an attempt to level the playing field between groups. It isn't always completely necessary, but implementing it on a case by case basis would be far more expensive and difficult.

When the majority of employers can look at a job applicant without considering race then affirmative action can be fazed out.
 
2011-04-17 09:39:28 PM  

Cinaed: Robots are Strong: Well sure, but thats the poor getting farked, not the dumb.

The poor generally lack the appreciation for education and the benefits it can provide to their own progeny.

Poor and dumb has a strong correlation.


I agree that poor and uneducated have a strong correlation, I disagree that poor and dumb have a strong correlation. Poor people are often uneducated because they don't have the means to acquire the education and this is frequently coupled with a background that doesn't value education. This doesn't mean that poor people are dumb, they just haven't had the same opportunities as people with money.
 
2011-04-17 09:41:01 PM  

balloot: This statement is just WAY off. You should probably learn the meaning of the phrase zero-sum game if you wish to use it.


So you believe that the distribution of the pool of wealth at any given moment is *not* a finite resource in which giving to one person requires depriving another?

Are you under the impression that wealth is infinite?
 
2011-04-17 09:41:25 PM  

Cinaed: Robots are Strong: Well sure, but thats the poor getting farked, not the dumb.

The poor generally lack the appreciation for education and the benefits it can provide to their own progeny.

Poor and dumb has a strong correlation.


The negro is inferior and an education would be wasted on them?
 
2011-04-17 09:42:55 PM  

balloot: Your first example is obviously socialism. Is the 2nd one supposed to be capitalism?


Pretty much.

It will even work, if the greedy fat slob who gets to distribute the candy makes sure to cut in both the question answerers (his earners) and the bullies in the class. Meanwhile the rest of the class will resent the kid who owns the bowl, and may -- depending on how intimidated they are by the bought off bullies -- decide to rob the kid after class. That's called a "revolution."

If he's even smarter, he'll distribute some to the entire class, keeping the partially mollified. That's called "liberalism."
 
2011-04-17 09:43:04 PM  
This has probably already been addressed, but perhaps the progressive student was simply speechless at such a stupid comparison. Kinda like when Steven Chu decided that explaining plate tectonics to Rep Joe Barton probably wasn't at all worth it.
 
2011-04-17 09:43:55 PM  
Sure you can have my extra GPA. If I had a 6.0 on a 4.0 scale and couldn't possibly use it. Would be about the same as people with multi-hundred millions who could never spend it all in their life time.

We could also call apples oranges and save some time.
 
2011-04-17 09:45:43 PM  
If you want to have fun, the person who thought this was a brilliant idea is responding to comment posts.
 
2011-04-17 09:45:46 PM  

DamnYankees: balloot: This statement is just WAY off. You should probably learn the meaning of the phrase zero-sum game if you wish to use it.

So you believe that the distribution of the pool of wealth at any given moment is *not* a finite resource in which giving to one person requires depriving another?

Are you under the impression that wealth is infinite?


-----------------

You're doing a great job of reinforcing my assertion that have no idea what a zero-sum game is.
 
2011-04-17 09:46:42 PM  

Lord Dimwit: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Lord Dimwit: No, this was a program specifically for minority students.

Is there a link of some kind? Because a Google search for "University Texas Pathways" is coming up with nothing. Are you certain your wife simply didn't understand what this program was, or was she possibly making this story up?

It really doesn't make sense.

I'm not making it up, though I can't promise that it was called "Pathways".

Here we go. Gateway, not Pathway. Sorry. http://www.utexas.edu/diversity/ddce/lcae/gateway.php


"Achieving College Excellence (ACE) Program"
"Preference is given to students who are the first in their families to attend a four-year university."

I don't actually think it's by race - I remember talking to a friend from Texas years ago on something around this topic. I think there are a lot of factors which make it seem that way. Think of a few factors:

* larger than median classes
* first person (or age range) to attend college
* below median income
* must know about the program

When you add in a few more factors, it's easy to see how this would be viewed as by race. Link (new window)
"Gateway retention program in 1994 to first-generation college students with low entrance exam scores and to other students facing disadvantages. This year, roughly $500,000 will be spent on Gateway, which has a 50- faculty teaching staff."
"With Texas' public colleges operating under the strictures of the Hopwood court decision, which banned affirmative action, Gateway is open to students of all races and ethnicities. But minority students have made up about 75 percent of those enrolled in the program since it was founded, Arellano says. "
 
2011-04-17 09:46:48 PM  

DamnYankees: balloot: This statement is just WAY off. You should probably learn the meaning of the phrase zero-sum game if you wish to use it.

So you believe that the distribution of the pool of wealth at any given moment is *not* a finite resource in which giving to one person requires depriving another?

Are you under the impression that wealth is infinite?


-----------------------

Oops....

You're doing a great job of reinforcing my assertion that you have no idea what a zero-sum game is.
 
2011-04-17 09:47:26 PM  
Another interesting observation is that GPA is not finite.
 
2011-04-17 09:47:46 PM  

theorellior: This has probably already been addressed, but perhaps the progressive student was simply speechless at such a stupid comparison. Kinda like when Steven Chu decided that explaining plate tectonics to Rep Joe Barton probably wasn't at all worth it.


Alright smart guy, YOU explain how all that oil got under Alaska. I'll wait.
 
2011-04-17 09:48:44 PM  

balloot: WTF are you talking about? Here in the USA, and in every other civilized country in the world, we have a progressive income tax system that does NOT change the income rank of those taxed.


Yeah, I know.

So yeah, I guess if you're arguing against a tax system that absolutely nobody uses and absolutely nobody is arguing for, I guess you have a solid counterpoint!

That's what the conservatives do. This GPA = Wages argument is based on their misunderstanding of progressive tax policies. They are arguing against wealth redistribution towards equalization, when progressive actually argue for wealth redistribution to stabilization.

I was demonstrating that even if you start with the assumption that progressive want perfect wealth equalization, the GPA = Wages equivalency argument is still a false equivalency.
 
2011-04-17 09:49:08 PM  

hovsm: Another interesting observation is that GPA is not finite.


Well, GPAs are finite; you can't get higher than a 4 (ignoring the 4.3 crap for an A+). I think you mean to say that the total amount of all GPA's given is not bounded at anything less than 4 times the number of students.
 
2011-04-17 09:50:30 PM  
"Spreading the wealth" is a dumb philosophy. It takes away all incentive to make something of yourself. Only the simple minded and socialists advocate this non-workable solution.
 
2011-04-17 09:51:19 PM  

skepticultist: This GPA = Wages argument is based on their misunderstanding of progressive tax policies.


Funny, I figured it was a misunderstanding of GPA based on never having gone to class.
 
2011-04-17 09:52:46 PM  

2wolves: Bocanegra: How's that whole "tax the rich" thing working out for Europe?

lulz

Check out Germany you super genius.


Yeah, but I should completely ignore Spain, Portugal, and Greece, amirite?
 
2011-04-17 09:54:04 PM  

tony41454: "Hoarding the wealth" is a dumb philosophy. It takes away all incentive to make something of yourself. Only the simple-minded advocate this non-workable solution.

 
2011-04-17 09:56:20 PM  

Worst.Fark handle. ever.: The rich MUST have the fark taxed out of them. It's the only way to keep monsters like JP Morgan from coming back.


i262.photobucket.com
 
2011-04-17 09:56:55 PM  

skepticultist:

I was demonstrating that even if you start with the assumption that progressive want perfect wealth equalization, the GPA = Wages equivalency argument is still a false equivalency.


-----------

I guess. I'm not sure why if you were arguing for the progressive side of the issue you would characterize your position as something wayyyy to the left that has nothing to do with any real government policy anywhere.

It's like saying "It's not so bad that progressives want to implement death panels in health care! Here's all the efficiencies death panels bring you..." and then pointing out that conservatives say liberals want death panels, so you needed to defend them.
 
2011-04-17 10:00:06 PM  

IlGreven: Well, then, by that analogy, the school is just giving this kid 4.0s while he's not even doing his homework, or any real work, for that matter.

Which means his daddy is rich enough to buy off the school system.


Yeah, I don't mean to cast aspersions on the wealthy, I know a lot of them work ridiculously hard, but you can't exactly be born into good grades.
 
2011-04-17 10:01:46 PM  
So, the simple minded respond. NOWT can't come up with anything original so he/she shows their ignorance. Tell me, O master of the Low IQ, what group in this country is responsible for creating the most jobs? Creating business? What does this country need more of right now? Jobs? Will the poor create jobs? Will those on food stamps and welfare create jobs? No, Mr. Simple, it's the "rich," those with combined incomes of over $250,000 who own franchises, warehouses, print shops, etc., and the "super rich" who own factories. Fine, you can advocate your socialist wealth spreading, but you'll sit on your arse and collect welfare, because there will be no jobs. (Man, some people are just DENSE.)
 
2011-04-17 10:07:41 PM  

balloot: I guess. I'm not sure why if you were arguing for the progressive side of the issue you would characterize your position as something wayyyy to the left that has nothing to do with any real government policy anywhere.


I wasn't arguing the progressive side. I was critiquing the argument made.
 
2011-04-17 10:07:54 PM  

Bocanegra: 2wolves: Bocanegra: How's that whole "tax the rich" thing working out for Europe?

lulz

Check out Germany you super genius.

Yeah, but I should completely ignore Spain, Portugal, and Greece, amirite?


------------------------

Let's go by unemployment rate, since the main claim of conservatives is that social safety nets limit the motivation to work.

Netherlands - 4.3% unemployment
Germany - 5.6%
UK - 7.9%
Belgium 8%
Denmark - 8.2%
Italy - 8.6%

And for bonus points, let's look at the Scandinavian countries that implement...*shudder*...socialism:
Norway - 3.4%
Sweden - 7.6%
Finland - 8%

So yeah, the countries you mentioned aren't doing so well. But as a whole, the top EU countries are doing better than the US even with much higher taxes. Also, the EU country that notably took a very fiscally conservative stance and lowered taxes aggressively (Ireland) is suffering the most of anyone. Any other questions?
 
2011-04-17 10:11:15 PM  
I guess the difference is you don't end up starving to death when your GPA hits zero.
 
2011-04-17 10:14:17 PM  

NobleHam: ne2d: GAT_00: That's a stupid analogy. The whole idea behind affirmative action is that it lets someone who doesn't have absolute proof of excellence, such as someone without a great GPA, into college so they can excel on their own merits.

I would say the Supreme Court more or less rejected that reasoning. The only Constitutionally-acceptable justification for affirmative action is that a school has the right to determine the demographic makeup of its student body.

But yes, it's an extremely stupid analogy.

That and the fact that statistically speaking, affirmative action students and hirees tend to perform better. Affirmative action is looking at potential rather than proven value and experience and assuming that the proven value and experience of minorities who have been historically oppressed will understate their potential.


It falls flat on its face when it becomes apparent that potential is not worth more than proven value.
 
2011-04-17 10:14:58 PM  
i75.photobucket.com
 
2011-04-17 10:15:15 PM  

kleppe: That and the fact that statistically speaking, affirmative action students and hirees tend to perform better. Affirmative action is looking at potential rather than proven value and experience and assuming that the proven value and experience of minorities who have been historically oppressed will understate their potential.

It falls flat on its face when it becomes apparent that potential is not worth more than proven value.


Which is why companies only hire older, experienced employees?
 
2011-04-17 10:15:58 PM  

Without Fail: Lord Dimwit: Not being snarky, but how was I wrong?

The extra assistance was being offered to African-Americans as a group. Just because one African-American didn't need the extra help, doesn't mean the group doesn't. You wife's friend was free to turn down the offered assistance.

Affirmative action isn't about individuals. It is an attempt to level the playing field between groups. It isn't always completely necessary, but implementing it on a case by case basis would be far more expensive and difficult.

When the majority of employers can look at a job applicant without considering race then affirmative action can be fazed out.


By that logic, though, shouldn't scholastic programs or scholarships be offered to low-income people in general, not just black people because they're black? I mean a lot of these scholarships/programs would qualify a black child of a doctor and a lawyer, but turn away a white child from the ghetto.
 
2011-04-17 10:18:20 PM  
From the blog author in his blog's comment section:


"That said, you COMPLETELY missed the point. The argument is over the value of taking what the "haves" earned and giving them to the "have nots" in the name of fairness. THAT is the point, and it is the only point to be argued here.

This isn't an exercise in literally comparing GPA to money... but nice try. I would confuse the issue too if I were you.

Furthermore, if you really want to get into the realm of how much money people NEED then people who game the system so they don't ever have to work need/deserve the tax money extracted from the rich just as much as you think the rich need/deserve it.

That's basically saying you want, to enable deadbeats by punishing the fruits of labor you deem excessive...and who the hell do you think you are?

I'm not rich by any means, but maybe I'd like work up to being there someday. So I'm not going to be a whiny little b*tch who wants to tear down rich people and make life difficult for them because those difficulties will still be there should I ever join the club.

And that's the same response I would give if somebody asked me if I think schools should redistribute GPA... for the sake of fairness"



So, we learn:

1) He thinks progressive taxation is all about fairness for its own sake. Little things like giving people a fighting chance, countering systematic biases in the flow of money or, heck, not letting people suffer and die is changing the subject.

2) His comparing GPA to money was not about comparing GPA to money. Saying so is just trying to confuse the subject.

3) If people really need $X to live, then even people who game the system would need $X to live. And that's absurd, right?

4) He doesn't want to make life difficult for the rich. The difficulty of anyone else's life is passed over without mention.
 
2011-04-17 10:20:46 PM  

tony41454: e/she shows their ignorance. Tell me, O master of the Low IQ, what group in this country is responsible for creating the most jobs? Creating business? What does this country need more of right now? Jobs? Will the poor create jobs? Will those on food stamps and welfare create jobs? No, Mr. Simple, it's the "rich," those with combined incomes of over $250,000 who own franchises, warehouses, print shops, etc., and the "super rich" who own factories. Fine, you can advocate your socialist wealth spreading, but you'll sit on your arse and collect welfare, because there will be no jobs. (Man, some people are just DENSE.)


You know, you hear people say things like "the government thinks they know how to spend your money better than you do" when they want to rile someone up. The fact of the matter though is that yeah, they do know how to spend your money better than you do, at least when it comes promoting the greater good of our society. Will they do it efficiently? Almost definitely not. But if a person spends their own money, they will do it in a way that benefits themselves, and this is how it should be. When the government spends it it's supposed to help everyone. So what the government should do is take a little bit of money from everyone, and spend it in such a way that everyone benefits. But they should take a little more from the people that can afford to give a little more, and take a little less from the people that can't. The rich people will still be rich, the poor people will still be poor, we'll have a stable society where even poor people have a chance at success, and you'll still be farking moron.
 
2011-04-17 10:20:52 PM  
Because money is exactly the same thing as grades.
 
2011-04-17 10:21:28 PM  

deSelby: 1) He thinks progressive taxation is all about fairness for its own sake. Little things like giving people a fighting chance, countering systematic biases in the flow of money or, heck, not letting people suffer and die is changing the subject.


Note how this is consistent with the the GOP's entire philosophical frame: the reductive morality of something is more highly prioritized than actual facts or god forbid, math. In short, rhetorical tricks.
 
2011-04-17 10:22:38 PM  

DamnYankees: balloot: This statement is just WAY off. You should probably learn the meaning of the phrase zero-sum game if you wish to use it.

So you believe that the distribution of the pool of wealth at any given moment is *not* a finite resource in which giving to one person requires depriving another?

Are you under the impression that wealth is infinite?


Well, it may be zero-sum in terms of the units of wealth itself, but not necessarily in terms of the utility derived thereof. I.e. a progressive redistribution of wealth could conceivably be positive-sum, given that the utility gained by those with less wealth will outweigh the utility lost by the wealthy. Though I don't think this is necessarily what balloot was trying to argue.
 
2011-04-17 10:24:11 PM  
Apples and oranges.

GPA is not a currency, and there is not a finite amount of it that everyone must share.

GPA is not the only value used in opportunities to make a living. Money is all that we have.

GPA is not necessary to live on.
 
2011-04-17 10:24:18 PM  
Leave it to a Conservative to conflate individual effort with income. More money = better person/harder worker/smarter.

How about this? Since everybody starts with the same GPA when they enter college, would Conservatives be willing to give up all of the money and possessions they have that weren't directly earned by the sweat of their brow upon graduation?

Yeah, I thought not.

/the blogtard should look into GPA inflation practices at Ivy league schools.
 
2011-04-17 10:24:26 PM  

balloot: Bocanegra: 2wolves: Bocanegra: How's that whole "tax the rich" thing working out for Europe?
lulz


Pretty damn well. lulz
http://www.forbes.com/2011/01/19/norway-denmark-finland-business-washi​ngton-wor l d-happiest-countries_slide_11.html (new window)
 
2011-04-17 10:25:16 PM  

kleppe:
It falls flat on its face when it becomes apparent that potential is not worth more than proven value.


Except that as I said, affirmative action has been shown to be correct. People who get their job or go to college through affirmative action tend to perform better than other people with the same proven qualifications. There is statistical evidence to support the idea that proven value understates potential in historically oppressed groups.
 
2011-04-17 10:25:24 PM  

Robots are Strong: tony41454: e/she shows their ignorance. Tell me, O master of the Low IQ, what group in this country is responsible for creating the most jobs? Creating business? What does this country need more of right now? Jobs? Will the poor create jobs? Will those on food stamps and welfare create jobs? No, Mr. Simple, it's the "rich," those with combined incomes of over $250,000 who own franchises, warehouses, print shops, etc., and the "super rich" who own factories. Fine, you can advocate your socialist wealth spreading, but you'll sit on your arse and collect welfare, because there will be no jobs. (Man, some people are just DENSE.)

You know, you hear people say things like "the government thinks they know how to spend your money better than you do" when they want to rile someone up. The fact of the matter though is that yeah, they do know how to spend your money better than you do, at least when it comes promoting the greater good of our society. Will they do it efficiently? Almost definitely not. But if a person spends their own money, they will do it in a way that benefits themselves, and this is how it should be. When the government spends it it's supposed to help everyone. So what the government should do is take a little bit of money from everyone, and spend it in such a way that everyone benefits. But they should take a little more from the people that can afford to give a little more, and take a little less from the people that can't. The rich people will still be rich, the poor people will still be poor, we'll have a stable society where even poor people have a chance at success, and you'll still be farking moron.


----------------

You, sir, win the internets. Well done.
 
2011-04-17 10:26:19 PM  
The Gentleman's C.
 
2011-04-17 10:26:55 PM  
if you wanted a more correct analogy it would be

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: Only if you'd be cool with me not teaching your class for you while you sit at your desk counting the money I made you.
 
2011-04-17 10:27:16 PM  

Ablejack: The Gentleman's C.


Keep your degenerate transsexualism out of this mixed metaphor.
 
2011-04-17 10:28:28 PM  
If the kid is only getting a good grade because his parents donated a very large sum of cash to the school then yes I'd be in favor of dividing his grade up.
 
2011-04-17 10:29:18 PM  
Income and wealth aren't the same.

The analogy of GPA to income, hard work = just rewards is actually pretty good.

That seems to be lost when people complain about the "rich".
Again, a high income doesn't mean you are wealthy.
 
2011-04-17 10:30:09 PM  
Robots are Strong Quote 2011-04-17 10:25:24 PM
But they should take a little more from the people that can afford to give a little more, and take a little less from the people that can't. The rich people will still be rich, the poor people will still be poor, we'll have a stable society where even poor people have a chance at success, and you'll still be farking moron.

No they shouldn't. And I'll tell you why, you farking moron:

Only The Rich Pay Taxes
Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.03% of Income Taxes

October 10, 2003

There is new data for 2001. The share of total income taxes paid by the top 1% fell to 33.89% from 37.42% in 2000. This is mainly because their income share (not just wages) fell from 20.81% to 17.53%. However, their average tax rate actually rose slightly from 27.45% to 27.50%.

This proves that it was not the tax cut that caused revenues from the rich to fall, but the recession and the stock market crash. In other words, you live by the sword, you die by the sword. If you are going to benefit from the rich paying more taxes, due to progressivity, on the upside, you are going to lose more revenue from these people on the downside. This is a good argument for reducing progressivity.

Think of it this way: less than four dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are the top half millionaires? Noooo, more like "thousandaires." The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $26,000 and up in 1999. (The top 1% earned $293,000-plus.) Americans who want to are continuing to improve their lives - and those who don't want to, aren't. Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay:

Top 5% pay 53.25% of all income taxes (Down from 2000 figure: 56.47%). The top 10% pay 64.89% (Down from 2000 figure: 67.33%). The top 25% pay 82.9% (Down from 2000 figure: 84.01%). The top 50% pay 96.03% (Down from 2000 figure: 96.09%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.97% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 17.53 (2000: 20.81%) of all income. The top 5% earns 31.99 (2000: 35.30%). The top 10% earns 43.11% (2000: 46.01%); the top 25% earns 65.23% (2000: 67.15%), and the top 50% earns 86.19% (2000: 87.01%) of all the income.
The Rich Earned Their Dough, They Didn't Inherit It (Except Ted Kennedy)

The bottom 50% is paying a tiny bit of the taxes, so you can't give them much of a tax cut by definition. Yet these are the people to whom the Democrats claim to want to give tax cuts. Remember this the next time you hear the "tax cuts for the rich" business. Understand that the so-called rich are about the only ones paying taxes anymore.

I had a conversation with a woman who identified herself as Misty on Wednesday. She claimed to be an accountant, yet she seemed unaware of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which now ensures that everyone pays some taxes. AP reports that the AMT, "designed in 1969 to ensure 155 wealthy people paid some tax," will hit "about 2.6 million of us this year and 36 million by 2010." That's because the tax isn't indexed for inflation! If your salary today would've made you mega-rich in '69, that's how you're taxed.

Misty tried the old line that all wealth is inherited. Not true. John Weicher, as a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank, wrote in his February 13, 1997 Washington Post Op-Ed, "Most of the rich have earned their wealth... Looking at the Fortune 400, quite a few even of the very richest people came from a standing start, while others inherited a small business and turned it into a giant corporation." What's happening here is not that "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer." The numbers prove it.

Link (new window)
 
2011-04-17 10:31:48 PM  
You libs do realize that the root cause of quotas and affirmative action is that minority students and population in general are not performing to standard levels. When deep diving the issue you find that the problems start early in the educational and social environments that these minorities are subjected to. These environments are 100% a result of that liberal Johnson and his "Great Society" projects. What kind of a douche would think that warehousing poor uneducated minorities in large numbers separated from other peoples would in anyway help them? Look in the mirror libs----find a person needing affirmative action and find a liberal policy that got them there.
 
2011-04-17 10:33:39 PM  

Snatch Bandergrip: This analogy doesn't work. Since the poor pay more taxes than the rich, you would have to argue that the hard work of stupid kids is somehow giving a good student better grades.


You gotta hide your completely false statements better.
 
2011-04-17 10:33:44 PM  

tony41454: Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.03% of Income Taxes


It's funny. He thinks the top 50% all qualify as "rich."

Funnier still -- this is all before Bush cut taxes on the rich.
 
2011-04-17 10:35:21 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: tony41454: Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.03% of Income Taxes

It's funny. He thinks the top 50% all qualify as "rich."

Funnier still -- this is all before Bush cut taxes on the rich.


I like how he bases his argument only on "income" instead of "wealth" and even farks that up.
 
2011-04-17 10:35:42 PM  
Lenny_da_Hog Quote 2011-04-17 10:33:44 PM
tony41454: Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.03% of Income Taxes

It's funny. He thinks the top 50% all qualify as "rich."

Funnier still -- this is all before Bush cut taxes on the rich.


Didn't read the article, did you? Didn't think so.
 
2011-04-17 10:36:22 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: You libs do realize that the root cause of quotas and affirmative action is that minority students and population in general are not performing to standard levels. When deep diving the issue you find that the problems start early in the educational and social environments that these minorities are subjected to. These environments are 100% a result of that liberal Johnson and his "Great Society" projects. What kind of a douche would think that warehousing poor uneducated minorities in large numbers separated from other peoples would in anyway help them? Look in the mirror libs----find a person needing affirmative action and find a liberal policy that got them there.


Segregation was a liberal policy?

/difficulty: "liberal" != "Democratic"
 
2011-04-17 10:38:07 PM  
Oh look, it's this shiat again.

This anology doesn't make sense no matter the number of times that it's vomited forth from conservative morons.
 
2011-04-17 10:38:13 PM  
I'll play--

tony41454: So, the simple minded respond. NOWT can't come up with anything original so he/she shows their ignorance. Tell me, O master of the Low IQ, what group in this country is responsible for creating the most jobs?


Workers. There is no "job" unless someone works.


Creating business?

Workers, who also happen to be the consumers supporting the businesses in question.


What does this country need more of right now?

Well-paid workers.


Jobs?

Not if by "job" you mean "slavery for less-than-adequate-and/or-fair wage".


Will the poor create jobs?

You mean, they can't currently afford to?


Will those on food stamps and welfare create jobs?

And yet, there seems to be some minimum level of wealth at which the "poor" can franchise themselves, using your own argument. At some point, you're halfway there, right?


No, Mr. Simple, it's the "rich," those with combined incomes of over $250,000 who own franchises, warehouses, print shops, etc., and the "super rich" who own factories.

Who use the citizenry, not as equals, but as lessers. Consider wealth distribution a further tax for becoming wealthy off the liberties of others.


Fine, you can advocate your socialist wealth spreading, but you'll sit on your arse and collect welfare, because there will be no jobs.

You mean, the rich will throw tantrums like spoiled brats who don't want to share, tho the health, peace and -prosperity- of a nation would be raised ever-so-much?


(Man, some people are just DENSE.)

That's a given, and an understatement.
 
2011-04-17 10:38:52 PM  

RanDomino: GPA IS NOT farkING SCARCE YOU STUPID BASTARDS


You haven't read the comments on most internet message boards lately, have you?

GPA is a farking endangered species.
 
2011-04-17 10:40:53 PM  

tony41454: Didn't read the article, did you? Didn't think so.


Of course not. Your premise and source were both made of stupid -- long-outdated stupid at that.
 
2011-04-17 10:42:40 PM  

tony41454: No they shouldn't. And I'll tell you why, you farking moron: copypasta


FTFY

upload.wikimedia.org

Anyways, measuring only income is a poor way to examine wealth inequality. This map is based on the GINI coefficient. It works on a sliding scale, 0 is perfect wealth equality and 1 is all wealth owned by a single person.

Yes, wealth inequality in America is at banana-republic levels.
 
2011-04-17 10:42:41 PM  
You mean everyone in the class gets the same books?


That communism!! Under the GOP idea only the rich kids get book...

Oh wait sorry reality is actually is worse than my analogy.

Conservative Fair competition:

Poor kid: Not have the chance to even go to college.

Rich Kid: Automatically gets in because your dad went and you have money

Yeah that's fair "competition" - Kid of someone rich - Get things handed to you.

Kid of someone one poor - Fark you!!


It's not taking you wealth to give to someone else. It's making sure people have the possibility IF THEY WORK HARD to make something of their life.
 
2011-04-17 10:47:59 PM  
Rick kid - Does poor in school, gets into college because his dad did and has lots of money.

Rich Kid - Still fails in college. Gets high paying job handed to him by his relatives.

Rich Kid - Fails at job... It's ok inherits trust fund to maintain being rich...

Poor kid - Work s hard gets straight A's, maybe government can loan him some money to afford to go to college....


Rich Kid - fark NO *I* *WORKED* (inheriting) HARD FOR MY MONEY WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO SHARE IT!!!!!!


This is what we are really talking about.
 
2011-04-17 10:48:16 PM  
nowt Quote 2011-04-17 10:38:13 PM
I'll play--

Oh, please, spare me your liberal, socialist tripe about "lessers" and the "wealthy." Sheesh. Who raised your butt, farking Karl Marx? Get a grip and join the human race! This is not the proletariat rising up against the aristocracy, this is America which is bereft of jobs, people are out of work, and any job is a good job. Good grief, some people it seems would rather sit on their butt all day singing work songs instead of being out working!
 
2011-04-17 10:49:24 PM  

raanne: um, yeah - its called grading on a curve. that's how you passed that test with a 58% - and because the average was a 45% you did pretty well. but that person who worked their butt off at got a 95% didn't do any better...


Or grade inflation.

The main thing is to be honest about what you're doing. If the goal is redistribution, dont pretend theres some other motive. Dont pretend youre helping everyone pass when youre raising Cs to Bs so theyll give you a great teacher evaluation.
 
2011-04-17 10:50:30 PM  
Lenny_da_Hog Quote 2011-04-17 10:40:53 PM
tony41454: Didn't read the article, did you? Didn't think so.

Of course not. Your premise and source were both made of stupid -- long-outdated stupid at that.


And thus, so was your response.
 
2011-04-17 10:50:50 PM  
As a member of the "Let them Eat Cake Party", I wholeheartedly endorse the analogy. After all, if the poor performing students wanted to do better, they should've entered the first grade with a ninety dollar calculator, a full set of art supplies, and a professional edition of the dictionary.

Anything else is unfair.
 
2011-04-17 10:52:36 PM  
Kid, we're living in the James O'Keefe era. Your old-fashioned College DERPublican antics just aren't going to cut it anymore.

The ridiculous facial hair is a good start, but maybe consider dressing up like Evel Knievel and brandishing a big black dildo in your next viral video, hm...?
 
2011-04-17 10:53:18 PM  

tony41454: Lenny_da_Hog Quote 2011-04-17 10:40:53 PM
tony41454: Didn't read the article, did you? Didn't think so.

Of course not. Your premise and source were both made of stupid -- long-outdated stupid at that.

And thus, so was your response.


And here you commit the fallacy of Derping the Question
 
2011-04-17 10:54:02 PM  

Bocanegra: 2wolves: Bocanegra: How's that whole "tax the rich" thing working out for Europe?

lulz

Check out Germany you super genius.

Yeah, but I should completely ignore Spain, Portugal, and Greece, amirite?


You don't come here for the hunting do you?
 
2011-04-17 10:55:20 PM  

tony41454: nowt Quote 2011-04-17 10:38:13 PM
I'll play--

Oh, please, spare me your liberal, socialist tripe about "lessers" and the "wealthy." Sheesh. Who raised your butt, farking Karl Marx? Get a grip and join the human race! This is not the proletariat rising up against the aristocracy, this is America which is bereft of jobs, people are out of work, and any job is a good job. Good grief, some people it seems would rather sit on their butt all day singing work songs instead of being out working!


And singing slave songs! Spare the human race, let alone America, your particular psychopathy. The means to increase and maintain the standard of living across the board are there. Why hasn't it occurred?

Delusions of attaining grandeur.
 
2011-04-17 10:55:50 PM  
No kids who were raise poor ever made it into the top 1% income bracket ever.

Wait, I know several of them. And they all pay a ton of taxes.
 
x23
2011-04-17 10:55:55 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Mugato: Rich != smart.

Rich does not equal smart, regardless of how excited you are about the rich.



want to take a wild guess what the ! in front of the = means?
you are going to be totally shocked when you find out!

Link (new window)

/not obscure
 
2011-04-17 10:56:31 PM  

PonceAlyosha: kleppe: That and the fact that statistically speaking, affirmative action students and hirees tend to perform better. Affirmative action is looking at potential rather than proven value and experience and assuming that the proven value and experience of minorities who have been historically oppressed will understate their potential.

It falls flat on its face when it becomes apparent that potential is not worth more than proven value.

Which is why companies only hire older, experienced employees?


Like I said, proven value is worth (and costs) more.
 
2011-04-17 10:56:43 PM  
Call me when I can inherit my dad's GPA.
 
2011-04-17 10:58:42 PM  

Animatronik: The main thing is to be honest about what you're doing. If the goal is redistribution, dont pretend theres some other motive. Dont pretend youre helping everyone pass when youre raising Cs to Bs so theyll give you a great teacher evaluation.


Most medical schools in this country grade on a curve (or even pass-fail now).

There are some subjects that can't be taught and evaluated in a reasonable amount of time. You either test on the material as is and curve, or you simplify the material so people pass the exam. Simply put, a subject that becomes an entire field of study that people dedicate their lives to - neurology for example - could be tested in a manner that the majority of the class would fail, every time. You either curve the exam, or take a more general approach.

Most professors curve to the lowest possible B or a C average. It's not about polishing turds.
 
2011-04-17 11:01:33 PM  

tony41454: So, the simple minded respond. NOWT can't come up with anything original so he/she shows their ignorance. Tell me, O master of the Low IQ, what group in this country is responsible for creating the most jobs? Creating business? What does this country need more of right now? Jobs? Will the poor create jobs? Will those on food stamps and welfare create jobs? No, Mr. Simple, it's the "rich," those with combined incomes of over $250,000 who own franchises, warehouses, print shops, etc., and the "super rich" who own factories. Fine, you can advocate your socialist wealth spreading, but you'll sit on your arse and collect welfare, because there will be no jobs. (Man, some people are just DENSE.)


Sorry, but to say that people who make over 250K create jobs is the biggest pile of crap I have ever heard.

People who are self-employed and run BUSINESSES create jobs.

I find it very telling that this distinction isn't made. Care to explain why that is?
 
2011-04-17 11:01:53 PM  

Animatronik: The main thing is to be honest about what you're doing. If the goal is redistribution, dont pretend theres some other motive. Dont pretend youre helping everyone pass when youre raising Cs to Bs so theyll give you a great teacher evaluation.


I truly hate the way you troll and then try to make it obvious by using quotation marks appropriately once then never again.
 
2011-04-17 11:02:15 PM  

drewkumo: Animatronik: The main thing is to be honest about what you're doing. If the goal is redistribution, dont pretend theres some other motive. Dont pretend youre helping everyone pass when youre raising Cs to Bs so theyll give you a great teacher evaluation.

Most medical schools in this country grade on a curve (or even pass-fail now).

There are some subjects that can't be taught and evaluated in a reasonable amount of time. You either test on the material as is and curve, or you simplify the material so people pass the exam. Simply put, a subject that becomes an entire field of study that people dedicate their lives to - neurology for example - could be tested in a manner that the majority of the class would fail, every time. You either curve the exam, or take a more general approach.

Most professors curve to the lowest possible B or a C average. It's not about polishing turds.


I think you must have learned to polish turds at the same school where they taught you that the US. is horrible because of wealth inequality.
 
2011-04-17 11:02:31 PM  

tony41454: Robots are Strong Quote 2011-04-17 10:25:24 PM
But they should take a little more from the people that can afford to give a little more, and take a little less from the people that can't. The rich people will still be rich, the poor people will still be poor, we'll have a stable society where even poor people have a chance at success, and you'll still be farking moron.

No they shouldn't. And I'll tell you why, you farking moron:

Only The Rich Pay Taxes
Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.03% of Income Taxes


Newsflash. The people that have the money pay the taxes. Paying the taxes allows those people the opportunity to live and prosper in a society that gives them a chance at success, you freaking chucklehead.

And not to be the guy that attacks the source, but a Rush Limbaugh article? Seriously?
 
2011-04-17 11:02:57 PM  

The Fourth Karamazov: Why does conservative humor generally suck?


Humor has to have some basis in reality in order for it to be funny.
 
2011-04-17 11:04:24 PM  
With all being said and done, you don't (over)tax those who create the jobs. You create a business friendly environment for economic growth to happen. THAT'S how job growth occurs. If the "rich" have more money, they invest in more factories to create more money, which in turn creates more jobs and wages. This is how it's done. Redistributing (or taking away) what someone has worked hard for discourages growth and innovation, factories close down, people lose jobs. I guess this is what Obama wants, since that's what he's doing.
 
2011-04-17 11:06:30 PM  

tony41454: With all being said and done, you don't (over)tax those who create the jobs.


Tell me when they get around to doing that.
 
2011-04-17 11:07:45 PM  
Robots are Strong Quote 2011-04-17 11:02:31 PM
tony41454: Robots are Strong Quote 2011-04-17 10:25:24 PM
But they should take a little more from the people that can afford to give a little more, and take a little less from the people that can't. The rich people will still be rich, the poor people will still be poor, we'll have a stable society where even poor people have a chance at success, and you'll still be farking moron.

No they shouldn't. And I'll tell you why, you farking moron:

Only The Rich Pay Taxes
Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.03% of Income Taxes


Newsflash. The people that have the money pay the taxes. Paying the taxes allows those people the opportunity to live and prosper in a society that gives them a chance at success, you freaking chucklehead.

And not to be the guy that attacks the source, but a Rush Limbaugh article? Seriously?


And where do you get your facts? The Daily Kos? The Soros Newsletter? The Alinsky Primer? Seriously???? Rush got the "facts" straight from the IRS, chucklehead. What don't you try the same.
 
2011-04-17 11:07:50 PM  

hitchking: It'd be nice if conservatives could break their addiction to bullshiat thought experiments that confirm their ideology but make them sound like stoned philosophy majors.

Some people have to live in the real world, and they don't think that "Progressive kids don't want to have their GPA reduced" = "NO MEDICARE FOR ANYONE".


Oh, you are being too kind. It makes them sound like 6th graders at best.
 
2011-04-17 11:09:31 PM  
erveek Quote 2011-04-17 11:06:30 PM
tony41454: With all being said and done, you don't (over)tax those who create the jobs.

Tell me when they get around to doing that.



Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.03% of Income Taxes--
read the article I linked to.
 
2011-04-17 11:11:38 PM  

Salt Lick Steady: Animatronik: The main thing is to be honest about what you're doing. If the goal is redistribution, dont pretend theres some other motive. Dont pretend youre helping everyone pass when youre raising Cs to Bs so theyll give you a great teacher evaluation.

I truly hate the way you troll and then try to make it obvious by using quotation marks appropriately once then never again.


If I were trolling, I wouldnt be posting well-reasoned arguments that a dipshiat calls trolling because he doesnt have a well-reasoned response.

Ive TA'd classes where the prof applied a huge curve because he wanted 70+% of the students to make Bs and As. And other classes where nobody would have passed without a curve. There is a difference. And some validity to this analogy.

People who go on and on about wealth inequality need to focus on people at the bottom, instead of making promises to the middle class that cant be kept without going deeper and deeper into debt.
 
2011-04-17 11:11:50 PM  
I would have answered that this would be fine, and add if he would be ok with seeing who was able to hold onto their wallet while we were at it. Obviously, if the little shiat isn't stong enough from me taking it, then by all rights I should have it. It's just business, darwin at work and all.

SouthernManDunWrong: GAT_00: sponkster: GAT_00: That's a stupid analogy. The whole idea behind affirmative action is that it lets someone who doesn't have absolute proof of excellence, such as someone without a great GPA, into college so they can excel on their own merits. When they're given the chance to go to school and have it paid for, it's now their own terms on passing and failing. Why is it that conservatives are so unable to grasp actual systems and instead fall back onto bad analogies that completely fail to address anything? Are you all that invested in your own bullshiat that you've lost all ability to reason?

WOW so misinformed.

Wow, that was so informative that I'm just convinced that you've conclusively proved me wrong.

Are you a college professor? In the real world there are hiring preferences, set asides, quotas and more. Don't hire enough woman and minority owned contractors? That's a lawsuit. Why? Because liberals want to give disadvantaged business owners a hand up regardless of costs to taxpayers.


Yes southernmanDUNwrong, tell us more about how they're givin' the blacks an the mexicans all yer jorbs.
 
2011-04-17 11:11:55 PM  

SouthernManDunWrong: GAT_00: sponkster: GAT_00: That's a stupid analogy. The whole idea behind affirmative action is that it lets someone who doesn't have absolute proof of excellence, such as someone without a great GPA, into college so they can excel on their own merits. When they're given the chance to go to school and have it paid for, it's now their own terms on passing and failing. Why is it that conservatives are so unable to grasp actual systems and instead fall back onto bad analogies that completely fail to address anything? Are you all that invested in your own bullshiat that you've lost all ability to reason?

WOW so misinformed.

Wow, that was so informative that I'm just convinced that you've conclusively proved me wrong.

Are you a college professor? In the real world there are hiring preferences, set asides, quotas and more. Don't hire enough woman and minority owned contractors? That's a lawsuit. Why? Because liberals want to give disadvantaged business owners a hand up regardless of costs to taxpayers.


Wow, you are so full of shiat. The only time I have seen this is in government based contracts, and the FACTS are that it is the exception and rarely the rule.

Why do you have to lie all the time. Can't your arguments stand up to reality?
 
2011-04-17 11:14:57 PM  

Animatronik: I think you must have learned to polish turds at the same school where they taught you that the US. is horrible because of wealth inequality.


Coming from a man whose probably never taken a class challenging enough to warrant a curve. It's ok if you don't understand how a curve works, there's a reason they made "business math".

I mean the last thread I saw you in you were legitimately trying to make the argument that spending between countries was better compared in raw numbers than in %GDP.

You're more outspoken than you are educated, which is a common theme among partisans.
 
2011-04-17 11:15:01 PM  
Did the student inherit his GPA without actually working for those grades?
 
2011-04-17 11:15:19 PM  
Next, the whackadoodles will start discussing giving people fish vs. teaching them to fish, when they have done neither, nor have they ever tried to teach a starving man to do anything (it isn't very easy).

Nope, it will be circular 6th grade based sophistry, platitudes, and derp.

Meanwhile, the adults have to actually do things to get this country upright again.
 
2011-04-17 11:16:39 PM  
LAST POST: Redistribution was as ugly when Obama said it to Joe the Plumber as it is today. Don't do it. In the immortal words of James T. Kirk: "It doesn't work."
 
2011-04-17 11:17:18 PM  

SouthernManDunWrong: Because liberals want to give disadvantaged business owners a hand up regardless of costs to taxpayers.


Maybe these "disadvantaged business owners" wouldn't be and have been so "disadvantaged" if not for the actions of people who purposely choose and have chosen not to hire them. If the playing field were truly level, there would not need to be "set-asides" or a "hand up", because those who were and are "disadvantaged" would be and would have been in the mix right along with everyone else.

So before you start whining about "lawsuits" and "taxpayers", just remember that those same "taxpayers" and their fathers and fathers before them benefited from a system in which certain groups of people were kept "disadvantaged", by law and by practice. No violins here, not even little ones.

Racism, sexism, ageism, homophobia... not just words in a dictionary, but part of present day reality in the here and now.
History. Learn some.
 
2011-04-17 11:17:33 PM  
Good farking Lord, EVERY one of you right wing farktards are absolutely useless.
 
2011-04-17 11:18:15 PM  

deSelby: From the blog author in his blog's comment section:

I'm not rich by any means, but maybe I'd like work up to being there someday. So I'm not going to be a whiny little b*tch who wants to tear down rich people and make life difficult for them because those difficulties will still be there should I ever join the club.


Wow. You rarely hear one of these idiots actually admit it so nakedly.

/keep dreaming, you crazy bagger
 
2011-04-17 11:18:47 PM  

tony41454: LAST POST: Redistribution was as ugly when Obama said it to Joe the Plumber as it is today. Don't do it. In the immortal words of James T. Kirk: "It doesn't work."


So why do you support it when Republicans do it?
 
2011-04-17 11:19:19 PM  

tony41454: The bottom 50% is paying a tiny bit of the taxes, so you can't give them much of a tax cut by definition. Yet these are the people to whom the Democrats claim to want to give tax cuts. Remember this the next time you hear the "tax cuts for the rich" business. Understand that the so-called rich are about the only ones paying taxes anymore.


Because they can afford it. A completely fair system would give each person the same amount at birth and let them each use it as they thought was fit.

Government is (and always has been) designed to benefit the rich:

Without government there is no ownership. Government enforces your contracts, deeds and real estate. Without this enforcement you own nothing more than you can carry.

What prevents me from moving into your home and calling it my own?

Government

What prevents me from driving off in your car?

Government

What forces me to pay for items at a store?

Government

What makes me pay my mortgage and debts to the rich?

Government


Do you get it? The whole purpose of the social contract is to ALLOW ownership and prevent chaos. Without government there would be no way to make a profit. It supports our society and allows the greedy to accumulate wealth. Even welfare payments to the poor benefit the rich by paying the poor a small amount to NOT steal out of desperation. Since Government benefits the rich to an enormous degree, let them pay for it.
 
2011-04-17 11:20:13 PM  

EbolaNYC: I would have answered that this would be fine, and add if he would be ok with seeing who was able to hold onto their wallet while we were at it. Obviously, if the little shiat isn't stong enough from me taking it, then by all rights I should have it. It's just business, darwin at work and all.SouthernManDunWrong: GAT_00: sponkster: GAT_00: That's a stupid analogy. The whole idea behind affirmative action is that it lets someone who doesn't have absolute proof of excellence, such as someone without a great GPA, into college so they can excel on their own merits. When they're given the chance to go to school and have it paid for, it's now their own terms on passing and failing. Why is it that conservatives are so unable to grasp actual systems and instead fall back onto bad analogies that completely fail to address anything? Are you all that invested in your own bullshiat that you've lost all ability to reason?

WOW so misinformed.

Wow, that was so informative that I'm just convinced that you've conclusively proved me wrong.

Are you a college professor? In the real world there are hiring preferences, set asides, quotas and more. Don't hire enough woman and minority owned contractors? That's a lawsuit. Why? Because liberals want to give disadvantaged business owners a hand up regardless of costs to taxpayers.

Yes southernmanDUNwrong, tell us more about how they're givin' the blacks an the mexicans all yer jorbs.


I know, I live in fly over country, and all I hear from some of my neighbors is how the n*ggers and the w*tbacks are ruinning America.

I finally told one of them that we could jump in my car right now, drive into town, and I would give him $500 dollars for every black person and mexican person we saw on the street in one hour, but if we didn't but for every 15 minutes that we didn't see one, he owed me $500.

Strangely enough, there was a lot of muttering and the conversation came to an end.

We are 93% white in my state, and I am sick of hearing about minorities from stupid redneck morons who obviously have no capability to make themselves happy in life.

/waiting to be called a bigot for not tolerating some asshole's bigotry.
 
2011-04-17 11:21:22 PM  

Without Fail: What prevents me from moving into your home and calling it my own?

Government

What prevents me from driving off in your car?

Government

What forces me to pay for items at a store?

Government

What makes me pay my mortgage and debts to the rich?

Government


Who controls the British crown?
Who keeps the metric system down?
We do! We do!
Who leaves Atlantis off the maps?
Who keeps the Martians under wraps?
We do! We do!
Who holds back the electric car?
Who makes Steve Gutenberg a star?
We do! We do!
Who robs cavefish of their sight?
Who rigs every Oscar night?
We do! We do!
 
2011-04-17 11:21:43 PM  
tony41454:
i52.tinypic.com
If the "rich" have more money, they invest in more factories to create more money, which in turn
creates more jobs and wages.
i53.tinypic.com

YET ANOTHER supply-side conservatard who doesn't understand how wealth is created.

They don't invest in more factories unless people are buying.

They're not taxed on the money they use to pay for factories either. It's not a choice between paying taxes and hiring people, at least not when it comes to income tax. Payroll taxes are a different matter.
 
2011-04-17 11:23:03 PM  

How Does That Taste: tony41454: LAST POST: Redistribution was as ugly when Obama said it to Joe the Plumber as it is today. Don't do it. In the immortal words of James T. Kirk: "It doesn't work."

So why do you support it when Republicans do it?


Exactly, the transfer of wealth to the rich is easily identifiable in any number of analyses of our current economy. It's not difficult to see.

Corporations have record high profits, record low taxes, and can flow back and forth across borders with impunity.

Whackadoodles are dumb.
 
2011-04-17 11:24:32 PM  

tony41454: (over)tax those who create the jobs. You create a business friendly environment for economic growth to happen. THAT'S how job growth occurs. If the "rich" have more money, they invest in more factories to create more money, which in turn creates more jobs and wages. This is how it's done. Redistributing (or taking away) what someone has worked hard for discourages growth and innovation, factories close down, people lose jobs. I guess this is what Obama wants, since that's what he's


Do you honestly think that a 3.5% increase in their income tax rate would keep those people from investing in those factories? To make the numbers simple, lets pretend that an individual was going to see a $100,000 return on their investment on top of recouping their original investment. You're telling me that they wouldn't bother investing if they were only going to make $96,500? That wouldn't be worth the trouble? Is this what you honestly believe?
 
2011-04-17 11:24:41 PM  

tony41454: So, the simple minded respond. NOWT can't come up with anything original so he/she shows their ignorance. Tell me, O master of the Low IQ, what group in this country is responsible for creating the most jobs? Creating business? What does this country need more of right now? Jobs? Will the poor create jobs? Will those on food stamps and welfare create jobs? No, Mr. Simple, it's the "rich," those with combined incomes of over $250,000 who own franchises, warehouses, print shops, etc., and the "super rich" who own factories. Fine, you can advocate your socialist wealth spreading, but you'll sit on your arse and collect welfare, because there will be no jobs. (Man, some people are just DENSE.)



gamesnet.vo.llnwd.net
Hey shiathead, think long and hard about this and ask if it applies to yourself. Link (new window)

 
2011-04-17 11:27:41 PM  

tony41454: erveek Quote 2011-04-17 11:06:30 PM
tony41454: With all being said and done, you don't (over)tax those who create the jobs.

Tell me when they get around to doing that.


Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.03% of Income Taxes--
read the article I linked to.


So when are they going to create some jobs? Read what I posted before replying.
 
2011-04-17 11:28:06 PM  
Dear rightwing idiots,

GPA is not currency. That is all.
 
2011-04-17 11:29:47 PM  
The real question is what nationality were most of the student's interviewed on the video? Were they even American citizens?
 
2011-04-17 11:31:14 PM  

BroadbandGremlin: The real question is what nationality were most of the student's interviewed on the video? Were they even American citizens?


Relevance?
 
2011-04-17 11:31:48 PM  

tony41454: LAST POST: Redistribution was as ugly when Obama said it to Joe the Plumber as it is today. Don't do it. In the immortal words of James T. Kirk: "It doesn't work."


News flash: All tax systems are "redistribution of wealth". Not only is your statement horribly wrong, but there has never in the history of the world been a successful country that DID NOT practice redistribution of wealth. Sorry to impose on your fantasy world.
 
2011-04-17 11:32:18 PM  
Government is the creation and tool of the rich. Always has been. The poor don't need it.

Why don't we give every poor person in America an assault weapon (it is their right to own one) and bus them (on public roads) to the wealthier neighborhoods.

Then we announce that today will be a Government free holiday!

No laws, no rules and anything that they have possession of the next day is theirs to keep.

Do you understand the purpose of Government better now?
 
2011-04-17 11:33:20 PM  

RanDomino: GPA IS NOT farkING SCARCE YOU STUPID BASTARDS


And here we have essence of the ugly foundation of the thinking of many angry liberals in this thread.

Wealth is a finite quantity, no new wealth may be created. We may as well be living in the year 1800.

Therefore, if there is wealth inequality, it must be the result of opptesion of the working man.

Thete is no room for innovation by indoviduals that increases quality of life in such a world, because creation of anything with more value than an existing thing is impossible.
 
2011-04-17 11:33:42 PM  

Yankees Team Gynecologist: tony41454:


If the "rich" have more money, they invest in more factories to create more money, which in turn
creates more jobs and wages.


YET ANOTHER supply-side conservatard who doesn't understand how wealth is created.

They don't invest in more factories unless people are buying.

They're not taxed on the money they use to pay for factories either. It's not a choice between paying taxes and hiring people, at least not when it comes to income tax. Payroll taxes are a different matter.


The hell you say!

What is even funnier is that most ground level conservatives have no idea how much money corporations get from their taxes to grow and expand and defer costs.

I'm about to get a government subsidized 100k loan to expand my business. I am going to put it in a very nice interest bearing bond account. I will have little to zero loss of revenue as a result, and it is all thanks to the taxpayers. In fact, I might even make money on the loan over time.

Thanks conservatives for having no idea how wealthy people use you to make their money! Please go on and tell us how it is all ground level bootstrappy investment!

No, rich people have more rights than you and more doors open to them than you from your own government.

You give them tons of cash, lower their taxes, accept layoffs and decreased wages, and they are still going to ditch you for overseas, just because they can make a few sheckles more.

Please understand that the majority of the rich despise you ground level grunts. You are a means to an end for them. They refer to you as units, consumers, and "the enemy" in their board meetings. Yet, you keep white knighting for them.

Wow.
 
2011-04-17 11:33:59 PM  

pion: Dear rightwing idiots,

GPA is not currency. That is all.


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Yet a GPA is a reward for merit and hard work just like a paycheck.

Why not distribute GPAs so that those who have to work, or have children can also make good grades?
 
2011-04-17 11:34:50 PM  
I see we have the 'Well that's not the same' type responses...

So I'll put it simply for you.

You work hard to get something, whether it's grades, or success in a career, or some type of athletic achievement and when you accomplish it somebody says to you that it's not fair that you worked hard and got it when other people didn't.

Why is that unfair? You worked for it. You earned it.

You see this played out in a different way when children sports try to say that nobody lost and everyone gets a trophy even if they did nothing.

For my entire school life I watched some kids basically just not try. There's a difference between 'under privileged' and 'just doesn't do the work', what do you do when a teenager won't do their school work, or come to school, and in general either drops out or barely finishes? What do you do when they go on applying their stunning work ethic to life and can barely take care of themselves?

If you're a liberal, you excuse their bad behavior and tell the people who did work hard that they must now subsidize their poor life style choices, thus insuring few if any consequences for them and sending the message to others that it's alright, the government will take care of you, just as long as you vote for Joe Democrat of course.

You may now commence with the tired old stupid counter arguments where you:

A) Completely ignore the fact that there are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people just like I described: They are poor because they were given multiple chances to succeed in life, and wasted all of them.

B) Start going on about various true hard luck cases where somebody did their very best but ended up getting put down anyway through no fault of their own, and hold these examples up as something other than the exceptions they actually are.
 
2011-04-17 11:36:12 PM  
I wrote a few papers for other people in college that made me feel dumber, so I think I did that
 
2011-04-17 11:38:37 PM  

Bocanegra: 2wolves: Bocanegra: How's that whole "tax the rich" thing working out for Europe?

lulz

Check out Germany you super genius.

Yeah, but I should completely ignore Spain, Portugal, and Greece, amirite?


Why do you hate America so much? Why do you assume we couldn't do better than Germany? Why do you assume we'd manage things as poorly as the ass end of the Europe Union, and not as well as its most prosperous members?

You should have more faith in your country men, you unpatriotic ass.
 
2011-04-17 11:38:43 PM  

Robots are Strong: tony41454: (over)tax those who create the jobs. You create a business friendly environment for economic growth to happen. THAT'S how job growth occurs. If the "rich" have more money, they invest in more factories to create more money, which in turn creates more jobs and wages. This is how it's done. Redistributing (or taking away) what someone has worked hard for discourages growth and innovation, factories close down, people lose jobs. I guess this is what Obama wants, since that's what he's

Do you honestly think that a 3.5% increase in their income tax rate would keep those people from investing in those factories? To make the numbers simple, lets pretend that an individual was going to see a $100,000 return on their investment on top of recouping their original investment. You're telling me that they wouldn't bother investing if they were only going to make $96,500? That wouldn't be worth the trouble? Is this what you honestly believe?


Now, now, that involves math and facts. We can tell from his other posts that he actually believes Rush Limbaugh math.

Hey, Tony, I own a business and employ people. Let me tell you that you have no flippin clue how the rich think or relate to money.

Let me also tell you that your tax dollars support a lot of what they do.

You have no clue how our economy actually functions, and you are a fool for white knighting for people like me.
 
2011-04-17 11:38:49 PM  

Lord Dimwit: Also, the answer is yes, the professor (or at least TAs) should be spending more time with the students having trouble getting the subject matter. They're in school to learn, after all; if they already know it or have less trouble learning it, then..well...there you go.


Unfortunately those teachers thought it was more important to call in sick and protest the state government that cut their bargaining rights but saved their jobs, meaning those teachers would be able to help more students in the future... unless they found a new problem to complain about.
 
kab
2011-04-17 11:42:09 PM  
If wealth is the infinite pie that some believe it to be, you'd think there wouldn't so much effort put into consolidating it.
 
2011-04-17 11:42:54 PM  

randomjsa: I see we have the 'Well that's not the same' type responses...

So I'll put it simply for you.

You work hard to get something, whether it's grades, or success in a career, or some type of athletic achievement and when you accomplish it somebody says to you that it's not fair that you worked hard and got it when other people didn't.

Why is that unfair? You worked for it. You earned it.

You see this played out in a different way when children sports try to say that nobody lost and everyone gets a trophy even if they did nothing.

For my entire school life I watched some kids basically just not try. There's a difference between 'under privileged' and 'just doesn't do the work', what do you do when a teenager won't do their school work, or come to school, and in general either drops out or barely finishes? What do you do when they go on applying their stunning work ethic to life and can barely take care of themselves?

If you're a liberal, you excuse their bad behavior and tell the people who did work hard that they must now subsidize their poor life style choices, thus insuring few if any consequences for them and sending the message to others that it's alright, the government will take care of you, just as long as you vote for Joe Democrat of course.

You may now commence with the tired old stupid counter arguments where you:

A) Completely ignore the fact that there are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people just like I described: They are poor because they were given multiple chances to succeed in life, and wasted all of them.

B) Start going on about various true hard luck cases where somebody did their very best but ended up getting put down anyway through no fault of their own, and hold these examples up as something other than the exceptions they actually are.


If any of that had any bearing on reality, then you might be right, but it doesn't.

It is the same old crap you morons always spew.

Yet, when we look at facts, your arguments never hold up. Why don't you stop letting your bitterness and fear that somebody might be getting something you aren't lead you around by the nose.

You would be happier and not such a bitter waste of space.
 
2011-04-17 11:44:44 PM  
 
2011-04-17 11:45:16 PM  
PlatinumDragon
Because money is exactly the same thing as grades.

I think the reasoning is like this: Grades are a measure of ability. Wealth is a measure of ability. Therefore, grades are wealth. DED (derp erat demonstrandum)
 
2011-04-17 11:46:04 PM  
It's funny how they can quote that the "top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of income tax" and not realize that the reason the system is setup this way, is because the bottom 50% are *living on the edge*, and if you raise taxes on them, they will *fall off*.

But I await their well-reasoned, researched cited response to demonstrate that making the tax code less progressive will actually create *more* income equality -- ignoring of course the past 35 years increased inequality the recent regressive tax changes have made.

Naturally, I'd grant them that hey, income inequality isn't the most important measure of the quality of a society... but then after demonstrating how weak the US is growing in other areas....

/not really awaiting it, better things to do
 
2011-04-17 11:48:41 PM  

drewkumo: This map is based on the GINI coefficient.


Just FYI, the Gini coefficient is named for Corrado Gini; it's not an initialism.

Otherwise, yes.
 
2011-04-17 11:50:27 PM  

randomjsa: I see we have the 'Well that's not the same' type responses...

So I'll put it simply for you.

You work hard to get something, whether it's grades, or success in a career, or some type of athletic achievement and when you accomplish it somebody says to you that it's not fair that you worked hard and got it when other people didn't.

Why is that unfair? You worked for it. You earned it.


Or inherited it.

How about those of us who aren't greedy farkers? Who don't want to be lawyers? What about those who are just not very intelligent or suffer from depression?

The ability to earn money isn't necessarily of any benefit to society. The United States government supports capitalism. It allows money to earn money and rewards those with money. With hard work some can get ahead, but the United States currently has less upward mobility than most European (SOCIALIST!) countries. Let the rich pay for the system that allows them to become and stay rich. Why should poor people pay to support capitalism? That's like forcing a slave to pay for his own chains.
 
2011-04-17 11:51:51 PM  
Not an apt comparison in my opinion. I wouldn't shave points off GPA for someone else, not that my GPA was all that high to begin with, but if I could give another person a fraction of my mind and my capacity to reason and think rationally... I think I would.
 
2011-04-17 11:56:50 PM  

iaazathot: Robots are Strong: tony41454: (over)tax those who create the jobs. You create a business friendly environment for economic growth to happen. THAT'S how job growth occurs. If the "rich" have more money, they invest in more factories to create more money, which in turn creates more jobs and wages. This is how it's done. Redistributing (or taking away) what someone has worked hard for discourages growth and innovation, factories close down, people lose jobs. I guess this is what Obama wants, since that's what he's

Do you honestly think that a 3.5% increase in their income tax rate would keep those people from investing in those factories? To make the numbers simple, lets pretend that an individual was going to see a $100,000 return on their investment on top of recouping their original investment. You're telling me that they wouldn't bother investing if they were only going to make $96,500? That wouldn't be worth the trouble? Is this what you honestly believe?

Now, now, that involves math and facts. We can tell from his other posts that he actually believes Rush Limbaugh math.


Speaking of the Rush Limbaugh math, I'd be willing to bet that the numbers in article ignored any capital gains and focused solely on income. Add those numbers in as income taxed at 15% and I'm guessing we'd see a pretty drastic change.
 
2011-04-18 12:00:37 AM  

Without Fail: randomjsa: I see we have the 'Well that's not the same' type responses...

So I'll put it simply for you.

You work hard to get something, whether it's grades, or success in a career, or some type of athletic achievement and when you accomplish it somebody says to you that it's not fair that you worked hard and got it when other people didn't.

Why is that unfair? You worked for it. You earned it.

Or inherited it.

How about those of us who aren't greedy farkers? Who don't want to be lawyers? What about those who are just not very intelligent or suffer from depression?

The ability to earn money isn't necessarily of any benefit to society. The United States government supports capitalism. It allows money to earn money and rewards those with money. With hard work some can get ahead, but the United States currently has less upward mobility than most European (SOCIALIST!) countries. Let the rich pay for the system that allows them to become and stay rich. Why should poor people pay to support capitalism? That's like forcing a slave to pay for his own chains.


Hell man, the slave owner never gets to wear the chains, why should he have to pay for them?
 
2011-04-18 12:02:15 AM  

randomjsa: I see we have the 'Well that's not the same' type responses...

So I'll put it simply for you.

You work hard to get something, whether it's grades, or success in a career, or some type of athletic achievement and when you accomplish it somebody says to you that it's not fair that you worked hard and got it when other people didn't.

Why is that unfair? You worked for it. You earned it.

You see this played out in a different way when children sports try to say that nobody lost and everyone gets a trophy even if they did nothing.

For my entire school life I watched some kids basically just not try. There's a difference between 'under privileged' and 'just doesn't do the work', what do you do when a teenager won't do their school work, or come to school, and in general either drops out or barely finishes? What do you do when they go on applying their stunning work ethic to life and can barely take care of themselves?

If you're a liberal, you excuse their bad behavior and tell the people who did work hard that they must now subsidize their poor life style choices, thus insuring few if any consequences for them and sending the message to others that it's alright, the government will take care of you, just as long as you vote for Joe Democrat of course.

You may now commence with the tired old stupid counter arguments where you:

A) Completely ignore the fact that there are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people just like I described: They are poor because they were given multiple chances to succeed in life, and wasted all of them.

B) Start going on about various true hard luck cases where somebody did their very best but ended up getting put down anyway through no fault of their own, and hold these examples up as something other than the exceptions they actually are.


-----------------------------

Is there any point at all to this rambling diatribe?
 
2011-04-18 12:06:18 AM  

balloot: Is there any point at all to this rambling diatribe?


Is there ever?
 
2011-04-18 12:08:13 AM  

Robots are Strong: Hell man, the slave owner never gets to wear the chains, why should he have to pay for them?


Bling?
 
2011-04-18 12:08:48 AM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: Just FYI, the Gini coefficient is named for Corrado Gini; it's not an initialism.

Otherwise, yes.


Damnit, I want my name on something cool.
 
2011-04-18 12:16:55 AM  

Snatch Bandergrip: This analogy doesn't work. Since the poor pay more taxes than the rich, you would have to argue that the hard work of stupid kids is somehow giving a good student better grades.


"The poor pay more taxes than the rich"? have you been reading George Orwell again?
 
2011-04-18 12:17:41 AM  

DamnYankees: hovsm: Another interesting observation is that GPA is not finite.

Well, GPAs are finite; you can't get higher than a 4 (ignoring the 4.3 crap for an A+). I think you mean to say that the total amount of all GPA's given is not bounded at anything less than 4 times the number of students.


The context in which I stated that GPA is not finite should tell you that I wasn't referring to the actual number to which you are awarded. Context is good. We don't share a finite amount of GPA. Well there are too many 4.0's so I am sorry, you get no GPA.
 
2011-04-18 12:18:39 AM  
I ... I just have no counterargument.

Checkmate.

/rushes off to join Republican Party, country club.
//rejected by country club.
 
2011-04-18 12:24:15 AM  
I have trouble equating the two.

Anyways, the guy riding the skateboard in the background made me laugh.
The girl that shows up at 2:08 is totally hot.

/You gotta keep an eye out for the really important details.
 
2011-04-18 12:26:58 AM  

Without Fail: Robots are Strong: Hell man, the slave owner never gets to wear the chains, why should he have to pay for them?

Bling?


i262.photobucket.com
 
2011-04-18 12:33:15 AM  
(btw, the above is from a really cool artist, if you're into surrealism and satire -- Paweł Kuczyński (new window))
 
2011-04-18 12:34:44 AM  
sigh, wtb flat tax.
 
2011-04-18 12:37:06 AM  

BuckTurgidson: I ... I just have no counterargument.

Checkmate.


Ha! If I had read that two seconds earlier my screen would be covered in a Heineken spit-take.
 
2011-04-18 12:39:55 AM  

tony41454: So, the simple minded respond. NOWT can't come up with anything original so he/she shows their ignorance. Tell me, O master of the Low IQ, what group in this country is responsible for creating the most jobs? Creating business? What does this country need more of right now? Jobs? Will the poor create jobs? Will those on food stamps and welfare create jobs? No, Mr. Simple, it's the "rich," those with combined incomes of over $250,000 who own franchises, warehouses, print shops, etc., and the "super rich" who own factories. Fine, you can advocate your socialist wealth spreading, but you'll sit on your arse and collect welfare, because there will be no jobs. (Man, some people are just DENSE.)


I hear ya man, but you're wasting your breath here, Most on this site love polishing Government knob too much to realize SOMEONE has to work to subsidize all their bullshait.
 
2011-04-18 12:42:43 AM  
Oh come on you jerks, you fell for THIS hoary old chestnut again??

Goddamn, it was old when I was learning my ABCs.

/pissing the entire Universe off since 1963
 
2011-04-18 12:42:56 AM  

kyrg: I hear ya man, but you're wasting your breath here, Most on this site love polishing Government knob too much to realize SOMEONE has to work to subsidize all their bullshait.


That would be the workers, dumbass.
 
2011-04-18 12:44:44 AM  

Kittypie070: /pissing the entire Universe except Lenny off since 1963


Biatch.
 
2011-04-18 12:45:11 AM  
Students in the same class begin from the same starting point and the same number of resources are spent providing them with an education. What they do from that equal starting point is largely dependent on their work and innate talent.

Tell me the distribution of wealth in this country works the same way.
 
2011-04-18 12:48:20 AM  

randomjsa: So I'll put it simply for you.


You're missing the point. The goal isn't equal opportunity, it's equal outcome.
 
2011-04-18 12:48:53 AM  
baloney4145431441351551341: blah blab blah blaah blah blaaahhhh blab blab blah blah Jobs? Will the poor create jobs? Will those on blah blab blah blaah food stamps and blah blab blah blaah? No, Mr. Simple, it's the "rich," blah blab blah blaah of blaah blah blaaahhhh blab blab blah blah over $250,000 who own franchises, blaah blah blaaahhhh blab blab blah blah warehouses, print shops, etc., and the "super rich" blaah blah blaaahhhh blab blab blah blah who own blaah.

WHAR JOBS
RICH PEOPLE,
WHAR?
\0/
|
/\

 
2011-04-18 12:52:13 AM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: tenpoundsofcheese: do you understand that there is competition to get into colleges?
Or do you think that every college accepts every applicant?

Do you think colleges accept an applicant that demonstrates superior scores but cannot pay the tuition over one that demonstrates inferior scores but can?

Once again, conservatives demonstrate a clear lack of thinking abilities.


Sort of. The Ivy league is full of valedictorians, saluditorians and people with 4.0s. You have a weird mix of legacies from Phillips Exeter and poor kids from Brooklyn Tech, but rarely do you have the middle class kid from Peoria, IL who has 4.0 but not the name nor the story to get into Harvard.
 
2011-04-18 01:01:26 AM  
Lenny_da_Hog 2011-04-18 12:44:44 AM
Kittypie070: /pissing the entire Universe except Lenny off since 1963

Biatch.


Yeah, Lenny, I'm a bad BAD kitty.
 
2011-04-18 01:12:46 AM  

hitchking: BuckTurgidson: I ... I just have no counterargument.

Checkmate.

Ha! If I had read that two seconds earlier my screen would be covered in a Heineken spit-take.


These young conservative men have hit the bullseye, and now the liberal dominoes will fall like a house of cards.

Yahtzee.
 
2011-04-18 01:15:19 AM  
Judging by the headline I can tell that TFA and the thread that accompanies it will surely be polite and unbiased. But I won't waste my time reading either, instead I think I'll just go turn on my AM radio because it's easier to be spoonfed my bullshiat aurally.
 
2011-04-18 01:21:41 AM  
If the course is graded on a curve, it won't make any difference.
 
2011-04-18 01:24:43 AM  

Psumek:
Sort of. The Ivy league is full of valedictorians, saluditorians and people with 4.0s. You have a weird mix of legacies from Phillips Exeter and poor kids from Brooklyn Tech, but rarely do you have the middle class kid from Peoria, IL who has 4.0 but not the name nor the story to get into Harvard.


Harvard is expensive. The kid from Peoria will be fine at some crappy school like Notre Dame. The poor kid from Brooklyn Tech attending Harvard is on a need based total scholarship and probably can't afford Notre Dame.
 
2011-04-18 01:26:08 AM  
Unlike money, you can't use your GPA to create GPA.
 
2011-04-18 01:28:05 AM  

impaler: Unlike money, you can't use your GPA to create GPA.


Or leverage your GPA to keep other people from making GPA.
 
2011-04-18 01:34:28 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: impaler: Unlike money, you can't use your GPA to create GPA.

Or leverage your GPA to keep other people from making GPA.


Or inherit a GPA you didn't earn.
 
2011-04-18 01:38:44 AM  

GreenAdder: Lenny_da_Hog: impaler: Unlike money, you can't use your GPA to create GPA.

Or leverage your GPA to keep other people from making GPA.

Or inherit a GPA you didn't earn.


Or use your GPA to impress women.
 
2011-04-18 01:41:41 AM  
The difference is there are some libtards that have a GPA to give up. That's why it's bad.
 
2011-04-18 01:43:36 AM  

HeartBurnKid: When you can, and indeed must, use grade points to put food on your table and a roof over your head, then we'll talk.


And that's why you hate affirmative action?
 
2011-04-18 01:52:10 AM  

drewkumo: GreenAdder: Lenny_da_Hog: impaler: Unlike money, you can't use your GPA to create GPA.

Or leverage your GPA to keep other people from making GPA.

Or inherit a GPA you didn't earn.

Or use your GPA to impress women.


Or use 85000 GPA points to buy a new rug for your office.
 
2011-04-18 01:52:37 AM  

hillbillypharmacist: Hey, I've never heard that old bullsh*t before!

Let's hear about the guys who go to dinner and split the bill, or the one about how your car insurance doesn't pay for oil changes? Those are fresh and accurate, too!


Almost 300 posts off a retarded chain e-mail. Priceless.
 
2011-04-18 01:55:57 AM  

Mentat: drewkumo: GreenAdder: Lenny_da_Hog: impaler: Unlike money, you can't use your GPA to create GPA.

Or leverage your GPA to keep other people from making GPA.

Or inherit a GPA you didn't earn.

Or use your GPA to impress women.

Or use 85000 GPA points to buy a new rug for your office.


Or embezzle someone else's GPA, then use those high grades to bribe Congress into acquitting you.
 
2011-04-18 02:01:47 AM  
beinecke.library.yale.edu

Read it.
Analyze it.
Decide for yourself.

Marx's analysis has been brought into the 21st century by a number of his proponents, but both the core of his method and the beef of his criticism of capitalist political economy is still as relevant as they were in 1867.

If, after that you, want to ignore the rest of his and Engels' writing, go ahead. I could truly care less.

My best guess however, is that not a single Fark Independent or Conservative has made it through even Volume I of Capital. They don't know a bloody thing about the thing they most fear, which is likely in part why they fear it.
 
2011-04-18 02:06:59 AM  
Chimperror2 2011-04-18 01:41:41 AM
blah flarp libtards blah. That's why it's bad. (picks nose)

Have a peanut, sh*thead.
 
2011-04-18 02:08:57 AM  
Kittypie070:
baloney4145431441351551341: blah blab blah blaah blah blaaahhhh blab blab blah blah Jobs? Will the poor create jobs? Will those on blah blab blah blaah food stamps and blah blab blah blaah? No, Mr. Simple, it's the "rich," blah blab blah blaah of blaah blah blaaahhhh blab blab blah blah over $250,000 who own franchises, blaah blah blaaahhhh blab blab blah blah warehouses, print shops, etc., and the "super rich" blaah blah blaaahhhh blab blab blah blah who own blaah.

WHAR JOBS
RICH PEOPLE,
WHAR?
\0/
|
/\


Basically, especially since the rich are totally reliant on the poor to survive.

They do after all do all the work and provide or the services and make the infrastructure that got them living out of caves put into place. Heck, without law enforcement and the military, most of them would have been raped to death and all their stuff taken along time ago. I guess they forget that we live in a society and everything is interconnected and reliant on every part of the society to survive.
 
2011-04-18 02:17:48 AM  
limeyfellow 2011-04-18 02:08:57 AM


Basically, especially since the rich are totally reliant on the poor to survive.

They do after all do all the work and provide or the services and make the infrastructure that got them living out of caves put into place. Heck, without law enforcement and the military, most of them would have been raped to death and all their stuff taken along time ago. I guess they forget that we live in a society and everything is interconnected and reliant on every part of the society to survive.


Well, OK. Now what?

They think they're gods.

Got any suggestions of how to disabuse them of that little notion?

I thought humanity had pretty much put an end to the divine right of kings a while back, but here it is again.
 
2011-04-18 02:21:40 AM  

tony41454: With all being said and done, you don't (over)tax those who create the jobs.


I know you're a genuinely stupid person, who actually believes this crap, but I have bad news for you. No matter how much you try to help the rich hang on to all their money, they will never give you any of it. They will not be at all grateful to you. They are laughing at you; the only feeling they have for you is contempt-- because you're so dumb you will support policies that hurt you, just because Rush told you to.
 
2011-04-18 02:25:38 AM  

Bocanegra: How's that whole "tax the rich" thing working out for Europe?

lulz


How's that whole "give the rich huge tax breaks" working out for the US?
 
2011-04-18 02:34:08 AM  

limeyfellow: Basically, especially since the rich are totally reliant on the poor to survive.

They do after all do all the work and provide or the services and make the infrastructure that got them living out of caves put into place. Heck, without law enforcement and the military, most of them would have been raped to death and all their stuff taken along time ago. I guess they forget that we live in a society and everything is interconnected and reliant on every part of the society to survive.


30.media.tumblr.com
 
2011-04-18 02:40:34 AM  
Pell Grants and other financial aid is what gives the poor more poor opportunities, but of course the conservaderps don't like that tax money is being used to pay for education on any level. That analogy is stupid on so many levels; for one, the poor are not all dumb, just like the rich are not all smart, some of the smartest people of the last century started off poor, Albert Einstein or Nikolai Tesla for instance.
 
2011-04-18 04:14:49 AM  
And he has put an end to commenting on his blog post.

Let's see some of his last words on the subject. In response to the objections that GPA can't be inherited, GPA doesn't serve the same function as money, GPA can't max out, low GPA can't kill you and so on, he says:

"Analogies compare similarities, so they would always fall apart if you take them to the degree that the libs have done here. The argument isn't in any way about how an earned GPA is the SAME as earned income."

Yes, pointing out that the reasons we have for treating money differently don't apply to GPA is just taking it too far, isn't it?

"The argument is about taking what is earned and giving it to people that didn't earn as much in the name of "fairness." That is really the only argument being had here."

Translation: Accept the caricature or GTFO.
 
2011-04-18 04:36:02 AM  

tony41454: So, the simple minded respond. NOWT can't come up with anything original so he/she shows their ignorance. Tell me, O master of the Low IQ, what group in this country is responsible for creating the most jobs? Creating business? What does this country need more of right now? Jobs? Will the poor create jobs? Will those on food stamps and welfare create jobs? No, Mr. Simple, it's the "rich," those with combined incomes of over $250,000 who own franchises, warehouses, print shops, etc., and the "super rich" who own factories. Fine, you can advocate your socialist wealth spreading, but you'll sit on your arse and collect welfare, because there will be no jobs. (Man, some people are just DENSE.)


You couldn't be more wrong. The business-owners don't create jobs.

Only one thing creates jobs - demand. From there, it's just simple game theory for a business owner to expand to meet demand - otherwise he won't realize the potential profits.

What creates demand? Two things:
1. Wealth in the pocket of the consumer (ability to meet price)
2. Desire for product.

The American economy has a lot of 2. It doesn't have much of 1. Most of the American wealth is not moving - it's being held by the wealthiest members - and if it is moving, it's moving out of the country to create foreign subsidaries and investment.

It's no wonder the economy is crashing.
 
2011-04-18 05:04:10 AM  

GreenAdder: Did the student inherit his GPA without actually working for those grades?


t0.gstatic.com

Of course not.

 
2011-04-18 05:12:26 AM  
img828.imageshack.us
 
2011-04-18 05:15:19 AM  

Yankees Team Gynecologist: wealth is created


It's either printed or mined.

What is the best way to go about carrot and sticking, remains to be settled.
 
2011-04-18 05:24:37 AM  
In case no one has mentioned it:

Your blog sucks, subby. Truly. It's awful.
 
2011-04-18 05:45:00 AM  

EberhardKarl:
My best guess however, is that not a single Fark Independent or Conservative has made it through even Volume I of Capital. They don't know a bloody thing about the thing they most fear, which is likely in part why they fear it.


I dont know much about jumping out of an airplane without a parachute either. I do however know the results of both. Stalin alone murdered 60 million people. The problem with socialism is not socialism. It is in the method of implementing it --Force.
 
2011-04-18 05:52:22 AM  
If I was rich (I am not), I would be happy to pay more in taxes. It isn't that I wouldn't want to keep my money; it's just that I understand that money I pay in taxes goes towards paying for infrastructure and other things that made it possible for me to accumulate said wealth in the first place.

Heck... if I was truly rich, I would find deserving people each year and pay off all their bills, mortgages, cars, land, etc... putting them in a position to live more comfortably off what money they do have.

But I'm one of those strange folks that wants to see everyone around me prosper, not just myself. The disparity I see between rich and poor is getting wider every day. Sickening disparity, in fact.

Of course... I'm an artist. I don't really expect to get rich anytime soon, if ever.
 
2011-04-18 05:53:28 AM  

bigsteve3OOO: EberhardKarl:
My best guess however, is that not a single Fark Independent or Conservative has made it through even Volume I of Capital. They don't know a bloody thing about the thing they most fear, which is likely in part why they fear it.

I dont know much about jumping out of an airplane without a parachute either. I do however know the results of both. Stalin alone murdered 60 million people. The problem with socialism is not socialism. It is in the method of implementing it --Force.


So then you agree that socialism via a lawful, democratic government is different in kind from Stalinist tyranny.

Right?
 
2011-04-18 05:58:39 AM  

captain_heroic44: bigsteve3OOO: EberhardKarl:
My best guess however, is that not a single Fark Independent or Conservative has made it through even Volume I of Capital. They don't know a bloody thing about the thing they most fear, which is likely in part why they fear it.

I dont know much about jumping out of an airplane without a parachute either. I do however know the results of both. Stalin alone murdered 60 million people. The problem with socialism is not socialism. It is in the method of implementing it --Force.

So then you agree that socialism via a lawful, democratic government is different in kind from Stalinist tyranny.

Right?


If it is voluntary like the Mennonites, yeah what a great way to live. If it is forced at gunpoint no the not so much. But no I cant see how a vote to become a socialist country cant account for the people who vote no. lets say 350 mil Americans, 50 mil like me dont want it and vote no, do you kill us or imprison us?
 
2011-04-18 06:02:07 AM  

starsrift: tony41454: So, the simple minded respond. NOWT can't come up with anything original so he/she shows their ignorance. Tell me, O master of the Low IQ, what group in this country is responsible for creating the most jobs? Creating business? What does this country need more of right now? Jobs? Will the poor create jobs? Will those on food stamps and welfare create jobs? No, Mr. Simple, it's the "rich," those with combined incomes of over $250,000 who own franchises, warehouses, print shops, etc., and the "super rich" who own factories. Fine, you can advocate your socialist wealth spreading, but you'll sit on your arse and collect welfare, because there will be no jobs. (Man, some people are just DENSE.)

You couldn't be more wrong. The business-owners don't create jobs.

Only one thing creates jobs - demand. From there, it's just simple game theory for a business owner to expand to meet demand - otherwise he won't realize the potential profits.

What creates demand? Two things:
1. Wealth in the pocket of the consumer (ability to meet price)
2. Desire for product.

The American economy has a lot of 2. It doesn't have much of 1. Most of the American wealth is not moving - it's being held by the wealthiest members - and if it is moving, it's moving out of the country to create foreign subsidaries and investment.

It's no wonder the economy is crashing.


So much THIS.

Putting more money in the pockets of the wealthy does not create jobs. Only one thing creates jobs: increased DEMAND, which in turn means that companies must hire workers to meet said demand. You want to create jobs? Put more money in the hands of the consumers-- don't increase their taxes in order to give the wealthy more money, which will most likely get invested overseas.

Corporate profits are at record highs, and unemployment is still flirting with 10%. Why? Because tony41454's argument is full of shiat.
 
2011-04-18 06:04:00 AM  

bigsteve3OOO: [...] lets say 350 mil Americans, 50 mil like me dont want it and vote no, do you kill us or imprison us?


I'm going to go out on a limb, here...
No?
 
2011-04-18 06:13:23 AM  

bigsteve3OOO: 50 mil like me dont want it and vote no, do you kill us or imprison us?


That seems pretty extreme.

I'd see 3 choices if that happened:

1. You go along to get along... You might not like it, but if that is the way the country went despite your vote, oh well... Lots of things get voted through that people don't like, yet they still enforce it.

2. You move to another country... If you don't like the way things are here, there are other places you could go. I don't think anyone would force you to stay.

3. You fight it (likely violently) and then yes... you are either killed or imprisoned. I suppose it's possible you could win the fight, but not very likely.

Although it's purely a hypothetical since no one of any consequence is proposing we become a socialist country. We do have programs that might seem "socialist" to people who have no interest in helping their fellow citizens at any point, but I think most of those programs are really just domestic investment, not a move towards socialism.

Besides... this whole idea that every man is an island is nonsense. We all rely intrinsically on each other for everything from our roads to our water to our food. I know of NO ONE who is entirely self reliant (grows their own food, supplies all their own water, builds their own house from wood they chopped down, produces their own electricity, etc. Not saying that there isn't anyone out there like that, I just don't know anyone who is.

Bottom line is... We are herd animals. It is good to take care of the herd.
 
2011-04-18 06:22:05 AM  

captain_heroic44: So then you agree that socialism via a lawful, democratic government is different in kind from Stalinist tyranny.

Right?


One will never work, because of human nature. The other was Stalinism.
 
2011-04-18 06:25:34 AM  

sendtodave: captain_heroic44: So then you agree that socialism via a lawful, democratic government is different in kind from Stalinist tyranny.

Right?

One will never work, because of human nature. The other was Stalinism.


Should we be praising Europe on their triumph over human nature then?
 
2011-04-18 06:26:02 AM  
Sorry subby, but the analogy is no good....

The student earned his good grades.
 
2011-04-18 06:26:58 AM  
"To give the poor more opportunity" is a stupid reason to tax the rich more. Did they really say this?
 
2011-04-18 06:30:50 AM  

Wyalt Derp: "To give the poor more opportunity" is a stupid reason to tax the rich more. Did they really say this?


It kinda makes sense though. If the rich keep hording all the money, what opportunity is there for the poor to accumulate any?
 
2011-04-18 06:35:19 AM  

Fail in Human Form: sendtodave: captain_heroic44: So then you agree that socialism via a lawful, democratic government is different in kind from Stalinist tyranny.

Right?

One will never work, because of human nature. The other was Stalinism.

Should we be praising Europe on their triumph over human nature then?


Fine, fine. Better to say that the Marxist idea of Communism (stateless, equal, etc.), supposedly the end-game of socialism, is impossible. European style is likely as far as we will get.

Mostly because people need a ruling class to tell them what to do.
 
2011-04-18 06:39:00 AM  

St_Francis_P: That headline might make sense if the Progressive student had a 5,000 GPA, but only needed the normal 4.0.


this, This, THIS!
 
2011-04-18 07:01:28 AM  
There is only one real way a student can sacrifice part of their grade to the better of his fellow students, they could do mediocre on an exam and hope the prof curves it for everyone.
 
2011-04-18 07:10:49 AM  

JohnnyC: If I was rich (I am not), I would be happy to pay more in taxes. It isn't that I wouldn't want to keep my money; it's just that I understand that money I pay in taxes goes towards paying for infrastructure and other things that made it possible for me to accumulate said wealth in the first place.

Heck... if I was truly rich, I would find deserving people each year and pay off all their bills, mortgages, cars, land, etc... putting them in a position to live more comfortably off what money they do have.

But I'm one of those strange folks that wants to see everyone around me prosper, not just myself. The disparity I see between rich and poor is getting wider every day. Sickening disparity, in fact.

Of course... I'm an artist. I don't really expect to get rich anytime soon, if ever.


Hang in there, We'll all be down to your level soon.
 
2011-04-18 07:15:48 AM  

sendtodave:
Fine, fine. Better to say that the Marxist idea of Communism (stateless, equal, etc.), supposedly the end-game of socialism, is impossible.


Well its only the end-game in the distorted view of right wingers so thats kind of irrelevant no?
 
2011-04-18 07:18:00 AM  

sendtodave: Mostly because people need a ruling class to tell them what to do


You mean like a royal family or something right?
 
2011-04-18 07:22:44 AM  

kyrg: Hang in there, We'll all be down to your level soon.


What do you mean by that, exactly?

I would actually pull in pretty good money if there were jobs in my field available in my area. Sadly, in the rock bottom economy of Michigan, there just aren't many, if any, 3D artist jobs around (that I'm aware of). There was one a couple months ago that I interviewed for... sadly, I didn't get the position. A guy I was up against had more on the job experience than I do. Oh well... maybe I'll get the next one that comes up (assuming one does).
 
2011-04-18 07:30:50 AM  
Why are conservatives so bad at making analogies?
 
2011-04-18 07:37:11 AM  

JohnnyC: kyrg: Hang in there, We'll all be down to your level soon.

What do you mean by that, exactly?

I would actually pull in pretty good money if there were jobs in my field available in my area. Sadly, in the rock bottom economy of Michigan, there just aren't many, if any, 3D artist jobs around (that I'm aware of). There was one a couple months ago that I interviewed for... sadly, I didn't get the position. A guy I was up against had more on the job experience than I do. Oh well... maybe I'll get the next one that comes up (assuming one does).


Is moving an option? If not, why?
 
2011-04-18 07:44:18 AM  

gaspode: sendtodave:
Fine, fine. Better to say that the Marxist idea of Communism (stateless, equal, etc.), supposedly the end-game of socialism, is impossible.

Well its only the end-game in the distorted view of right wingers so thats kind of irrelevant no?


No, it's the end-game of Marxist socialism.

The advanced stage of socialism, referred to as "upper-stage communism" in Marxist theory, is based on the socialist mode of production but is differentiated from socialism in a few fundamental ways. While socialism implies public ownership (by a state apparatus) or cooperative ownership (by a worker cooperative enterprise), communism would be based on common ownership of the means of production. Class distinctions based on ownership of capital cease to exist, along with the need for a state. A superabundance of goods and services are made possible by automated production that allow for goods to be distributed based on need rather than merit.

Humans will never abolish class. We like comparing status too much. Heck, even small scale communes tend to fall prey to cult of personality around a strong leader.

slackist: sendtodave: Mostly because people need a ruling class to tell them what to do

You mean like a royal family or something right?


Royal family; president; chieftain; emperor; colonel; your jerk of a boss. Someone to look up to, and to emulate, to teach you how to properly look down on others.
 
2011-04-18 07:47:04 AM  

Anti_illuminati: Why are conservatives so bad at making analogies?



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: [realizes he's talking to an idiot and doesn't further respond.]
 
2011-04-18 07:49:03 AM  

Anti_illuminati: Why are conservatives so bad at making analogies?


Because they don't have to present a logical argument, only an argument that seems like a zinger to someone with the iq of a ham sandwich*.

*Not intended to insult ham sandwiches
 
2011-04-18 07:58:34 AM  

sendtodave: Humans will never abolish class. We like comparing status too much. Heck, even small scale communes tend to fall prey to cult of personality around a strong leader.


Assuming we don't kill ourselves, I think you're wrong in terms of economics, as it's inevitable that we will reach levels of engineering where productivity is far beyond society's rate of consumption (and I don't think the people in charge now will be able to maintain control of it forever). Though this will be replaced in the future, where "class" is a function of knowledge and personality, which I personally would welcome (even though I'm kind of a jerk half the time).
 
2011-04-18 08:01:47 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: *Not intended to insult ham sandwiches


Of course not, we all know how much liberals love pork. Oink oink, libs!

Zing!

/I should get paid for this
 
2011-04-18 08:08:24 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Assuming we don't kill ourselves, I think you're wrong in terms of economics, as it's inevitable that we will reach levels of engineering where productivity is far beyond society's rate of consumption (and I don't think the people in charge now will be able to maintain control of it forever).


Division of labor based on status is inherent in every culture, and always has been. Even post scarcity, I sure we'll find some way to force drones to continue to work, and allow kings (or, your jerk of a boss) to continue to rule. It's a sociological question, really, not just an economic one.

But, I have been reading a bit too much of The Theory of the Leisure Class the past couple of days.

In the book, Veblen argues that economic life is driven not by notions of utility, but by social vestiges from pre-historic times. Drawing examples from the contemporary period and anthropology, he held that much of today's society is a variation on early tribal life.

According to Veblen, beginning with primitive tribes, people began to adopt a division of labor along certain lines. The "higher status" group monopolized war and hunting, while farming and cooking were considered inferior work.
 
2011-04-18 08:19:15 AM  
Lefty Progressives and hypocrisy go together like chocolate and peanut butter.

In fact, you cant be a progressive without hypocrisy, it just does not work. Their own ideology is unworkable if they had to stick to their guns and not be able to pick and choose when it was convenient for them.


And of the course "shamelessness" is a big part of being a hypocrite, you need that too, so you can actually go outside.

Perhaps this is why they only hang out with each other and are not comfortable around normal people.
 
2011-04-18 08:20:52 AM  
"So you'd be cool with me taking some points off your GPA to give the dumb some opportunity, right?"

That's the worst attempt at an analogy I've EVER heard.

It just stupid and doesn't make any sense. (Insert Sarah Palin joke here).
 
2011-04-18 08:25:23 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Anti_illuminati: Why are conservatives so bad at making analogies?
Because they don't have to present a logical argument, only an argument that seems like a zinger to someone with the iq of a ham sandwich.


Conservative: Then tell me, Why are there still apes?
 
2011-04-18 08:27:05 AM  

Phil Herup: Lefty Progressives and hypocrisy go together like chocolate and peanut butter.

In fact, you cant be a progressive without hypocrisy, it just does not work. Their own ideology is unworkable if they had to stick to their guns and not be able to pick and choose when it was convenient for them.


And of the course "shamelessness" is a big part of being a hypocrite, you need that too, so you can actually go outside.

Perhaps this is why they only hang out with each other and are not comfortable around normal people.


Wow Phil, your more delusional than normal today.

At least you got your irrational feeling of superiority over the ooga booga progressives to fall back on.

I like how you've taken to using the term "progressive"...right in lock-step with the rest of your ilk. Good boy.
 
2011-04-18 08:28:28 AM  

drewkumo: tony41454: No they shouldn't. And I'll tell you why, you farking moron: copypasta

FTFY

Anyways, measuring only income is a poor way to examine wealth inequality. This map is based on the GINI coefficient. It works on a sliding scale, 0 is perfect wealth equality and 1 is all wealth owned by a single person.

Yes, wealth inequality in America is at banana-republic levels.


It's farking crazy that our wealth disparity is higher than Russia's. I mean, I've seen this chart before and I've studied the GINI coefficient, but I guess I never really thought about that comparison. I've been to Russia, and the wealth disparity there seemed more obvious. But I guess I underestimated exactly how rich America's rich is.
 
2011-04-18 08:30:30 AM  
Do we start with the CEO GPAs of 555.0?
 
2011-04-18 08:31:07 AM  

Kryllith: Do we start with the CEO GPAs of 555.0?


Dont worry. It'll trickle down to the rest of us.
 
2011-04-18 08:34:01 AM  

Phil Herup: Lefty Progressives and hypocrisy go together like chocolate and peanut butter.

In fact, you cant be a progressive without hypocrisy, it just does not work. Their own ideology is unworkable if they had to stick to their guns and not be able to pick and choose when it was convenient for them.


And of the course "shamelessness" is a big part of being a hypocrite, you need that too, so you can actually go outside.

Perhaps this is why they only hang out with each other and are not comfortable around normal people.


A compelling argument.
 
2011-04-18 08:38:12 AM  

sendtodave: Phil Herup: Lefty Progressives and hypocrisy go together like chocolate and peanut butter.

In fact, you cant be a progressive without hypocrisy, it just does not work. Their own ideology is unworkable if they had to stick to their guns and not be able to pick and choose when it was convenient for them.


And of the course "shamelessness" is a big part of being a hypocrite, you need that too, so you can actually go outside.

Perhaps this is why they only hang out with each other and are not comfortable around normal people.

A compelling argument.


It also fails to consider that if you do have friends who you aren't like lockstep with politically, you can A. not talk about politics. or B. Hang out with people who are smart enough to rationally talk about it without starting to throw their own shiat.

Since Phil obviously is unable to do B, I see where his problem comes from
 
2011-04-18 08:39:08 AM  

jchuffyman: sendtodave: Phil Herup: Lefty Progressives and hypocrisy go together like chocolate and peanut butter.

In fact, you cant be a progressive without hypocrisy, it just does not work. Their own ideology is unworkable if they had to stick to their guns and not be able to pick and choose when it was convenient for them.


And of the course "shamelessness" is a big part of being a hypocrite, you need that too, so you can actually go outside.

Perhaps this is why they only hang out with each other and are not comfortable around normal people.

A compelling argument.

It also fails to consider that if you do have friends who aren't in lockstep with you politically, you can A. not talk about politics. or B. Hang out with people who are smart enough to rationally talk about it without starting to throw their own shiat.

Since Phil obviously is unable to do B, I see where his problem comes from


FTFM
 
2011-04-18 08:39:48 AM  

Corvus: Rich kid - Does poor in school, gets into college because his dad did and has lots of money.

Rich Kid - Still fails in college. Gets high paying job handed to him by his relatives.

Rich Kid - Fails at job... It's ok inherits trust fund to maintain being rich...

Poor kid - Work s hard gets straight A's, maybe government can loan him some money to afford to go to college....


Rich Kid - fark NO *I* *WORKED* (inheriting) HARD FOR MY MONEY WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO SHARE IT!!!!!!


This is what we are really talking about.


This is how left wing retards think all day, every day. Unreal. These people can not be reasoned with.


I think Corvus may have the biggest chip on his shoulder in all of FARKdom.
 
2011-04-18 08:42:11 AM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: nowt: Progressive Student: If my GPA is over 9000.0...


New meme doesn't get the old meme?
 
2011-04-18 08:44:58 AM  

Phil Herup: Corvus: Rich kid - Does poor in school, gets into college because his dad did and has lots of money.

Rich Kid - Still fails in college. Gets high paying job handed to him by his relatives.

Rich Kid - Fails at job... It's ok inherits trust fund to maintain being rich...

Poor kid - Work s hard gets straight A's, maybe government can loan him some money to afford to go to college....


Rich Kid - fark NO *I* *WORKED* (inheriting) HARD FOR MY MONEY WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO SHARE IT!!!!!!


This is what we are really talking about.

This is how left wing retards think all day, every day. Unreal. These people can not be reasoned with.


I think Corvus may have the biggest chip on his shoulder in all of FARKdom.


Where were you, man? We had an entire thread about comparing Obama to a chimp. Other trolls had to make your tired arguments for you.
 
2011-04-18 08:46:10 AM  

jchuffyman: It also fails to consider that if you do have friends who you aren't like lockstep with politically, you can A. not talk about politics. or B. Hang out with people who are smart enough to rationally talk about it without starting to throw their own shiat.

Since Phil obviously is unable to do B, I see where his problem comes from


I just love it. A young liberal arts college student telling me I don't hang out with anyone smart enough to talk rationally about politics.

Good luck in the job market with all those "skills" you have learned in college. Let us idiots know how everything works out. OK?
 
2011-04-18 08:48:49 AM  

erveek: Where were you, man? We had an entire thread about comparing Obama to a chimp. Other trolls had to make your tired arguments for you.


What are you talking about?


What were these "tired arguments" about? Pointing out what a huge group of hypocrites and thin-skinned, double-standard embracing hacks you all are?
 
2011-04-18 08:51:50 AM  

Phil Herup: jchuffyman: It also fails to consider that if you do have friends who you aren't like lockstep with politically, you can A. not talk about politics. or B. Hang out with people who are smart enough to rationally talk about it without starting to throw their own shiat.

Since Phil obviously is unable to do B, I see where his problem comes from

I just love it. A young liberal arts college student telling me I don't hang out with anyone smart enough to talk rationally about politics.

Good luck in the job market with all those "skills" you have learned in college. Let us idiots know how everything works out. OK?


Well Phil, you can take it from me a college graduate with a technical degree. I'm telling you that you are not smart enough to talk rationally about politics. That's kind of unfair, you might be smart enough. But you certainly are far to delusional to participate in a rational conversation.

Hey, aren't you a dentist? Probably shouldn't be ball busting a college graduate of any type.
 
2011-04-18 08:53:15 AM  

Phil Herup: erveek: Where were you, man? We had an entire thread about comparing Obama to a chimp. Other trolls had to make your tired arguments for you.

What are you talking about?


What were these "tired arguments" about? Pointing out what a huge group of hypocrites and thin-skinned, double-standard embracing hacks you all are?


That'll show em Phil. Throw out a few irrational opinions when asked about your arguments.
 
2011-04-18 08:54:43 AM  

Phil Herup: erveek: Where were you, man? We had an entire thread about comparing Obama to a chimp. Other trolls had to make your tired arguments for you.

What are you talking about?


What were these "tired arguments" about? Pointing out what a huge group of hypocrites and thin-skinned, double-standard embracing hacks you all are?


Phil Herup won't post in the thread in question. Is he scared?
 
2011-04-18 08:59:10 AM  
Bad comparison is bad. Come by next time when a large minority of average people have a 0.0 GPA and a tiny minority of average people have a 50,000,000,000 GPA.
 
2011-04-18 09:01:37 AM  

Jpud73: Hey, aren't you a dentist? Probably shouldn't be ball busting a college graduate of any type.


I am not busting on college graduates in general, I am busting on you specifically, or did you not pick that up?

I was focusing on that you have not even learned just how much you really don't know, forget about the little that you do actually know. It is fine. We have all been there too.

You just should prolly keep your uninformed opinion a little closer to your vest while the adults are talking, lest you show your ignorance.

Jpud73: you can take it from me a college graduate with a technical degree.



In what? Did you get a job in your field of study?
 
2011-04-18 09:06:06 AM  

Anti_illuminati: Why are conservatives so bad at making analogies?


I guess because modern conservatives are composed of two groups: insane derpers and people making money off insane derpers.
 
2011-04-18 09:06:40 AM  

evilboyevil: a large minority of average people


t1.gstatic.comt1.gstatic.comt1.gstatic.com

Did you actually write that?

FARK Lib mantra: "Use the term minority as often as possible, even incorrectly, just keep saying it. Large minorities are best minorities."
 
2011-04-18 09:08:39 AM  

RanDomino: PlatinumDragon
Because money is exactly the same thing as grades.

I think the reasoning is like this: Grades are a measure of ability. Wealth is a measure of ability. Therefore, grades are wealth. DED (derp erat demonstrandum)


That's what I suspect as well. So cute - they think we live in a meritocracy, and don't understand the difference between recognition of skills or knowledge and a medium of exchange and resource control.

Given the prevalence of Bolshevist tactics and organization by the capitalists these days (wholly-owned astroturf, thinly-veiled front groups, not-so-democratic centralism, etx.), I don't think I'm entirely out of line to use the term "useful idiots".
 
2011-04-18 09:09:47 AM  

GreenAdder: Lenny_da_Hog: impaler: Unlike money, you can't use your GPA to create GPA.

Or leverage your GPA to keep other people from making GPA.

Or inherit a GPA you didn't earn.


Unless your last name is "Bush" and your granddad played footsie with Fascists.

/yeah, I went there
 
2011-04-18 09:10:44 AM  

Phil Herup:
I am not busting on college graduates in general, I am busting on you specifically, or did you not pick that up?


No, I didn't pick up on that since you were clearing were implying that a liberal arts degree isn't worth much. Now you are lying to try to cover up what you did, which I guess shows remorse, or at least the acknowledgement that you did something wrong. Baby steps.

I was focusing on that you have not even learned just how much you really don't know, forget about the little that you do actually know. It is fine. We have all been there too.

Jesus, that was barely coherent. Perhaps someone needs a English refresher course.

You just should prolly keep your uninformed opinion a little closer to your vest while the adults are talking, lest you show your ignorance.

I think my opinion was quite informed....being a college graduate and knowing that you are an delusional dentist with an irrational fear of "progressives", I think I got all my bases covered. Sorry, once again you attempt at an insult falls shorts of the mark.

In what? Did you get a job in your field of study?

I sure did buddy. In Computer Science, and have been working in the field since. How bout you? Do they even have degrees in dentistry? Are you a college graduate?
 
2011-04-18 09:19:24 AM  
"Bocanegra: WhyteRaven74: Bocanegra: How's that whole "tax the rich" thing working out for Europe?

A bunch of the wealthiest Germans recently protested to have their taxes raised. This in Germany where unemployment is lower than in the US and social programs are vastly superior. As are the labor laws.

Germany hasn't = Europe in about 70 years or so."


So, what I have learned is that Bocanegra doesn't think that Germany is in Europe???!! Well, there's a conservative for you....
 
2011-04-18 09:21:05 AM  
Hmmm. That's quite an interesting hypothetical you pulled out of your ass. In this fictional school, are the 4.0 kids given private classrooms away from the other students, with one on one face time with the best tutors, and a crack team of researchers to analyze their tests and challenge bad grades to ensure their GPA stays disproportionately high?
 
2011-04-18 09:22:02 AM  

WhyteRaven74: A bunch of the wealthiest Germans recently protested to have their taxes raised. This in Germany where unemployment is lower than in the US and social programs are vastly superior. As are the labor laws.


When we threw out the idea of a nobility in the US, sadly, we threw out the idea of noblesse oblige with it.
 
2011-04-18 09:25:00 AM  

FlippityFlap: A bunch of the wealthiest Germans recently protested to have their taxes raised.


Why protest? There is nothing stopping them from donating more money to the government.


If you are rich and want to pay more, then just do it. No one is stopping you.
 
2011-04-18 09:27:24 AM  

EberhardKarl: My best guess however, is that not a single Fark Independent or Conservative has made it through even Volume I of Capital.


In their defense, Das Kapital is the most boring goddamn book ever written. It makes Moby Dick look like a Fourth of July parade.
 
2011-04-18 09:27:46 AM  

Jpud73: That'll show em Phil. Throw out a few irrational opinions when asked about your arguments.


I think Phil is very close to a complete mental breakdown. He used to answer with some substance, but now it's gotten down to "NO U!"

I predict if the 2012 elections go badly for Republicans (and it looks like this will), Phil might blow his last resistor...

/...for a sister that'll certify ya...
//He needs a bit of shock treatment...
//Obscure?
 
2011-04-18 09:28:02 AM  
gpa isn't zero-sum. that's a retarded metaphor.
 
2011-04-18 09:30:29 AM  
The difference being that Grade Point Averages reflect the hard work that the student does to earn it, and is not reflective of his or her ability to exploit and manipulate others.
 
2011-04-18 09:34:01 AM  

MonkeyPundit: The difference being that Grade Point Averages reflect the hard work that the student does to earn it, and is not reflective of his or her ability to exploit and manipulate others.


There are a million different reason why the analogy to GPA doesn't work.

The most glaring probably being that there is not a limited amount of GPA to go around. And that GPA reflects nothing more than an arbitrary rating system, not tangible assets. From the jump this analogy is shiate.
 
2011-04-18 09:34:12 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Maybe if there was something in the defining document of the course that said the professor had the ability to do so. That would be the only way the analogy works.


Ror this to be a proper analogy, it would have to be about school funding, not about GPA. The GPA is perfect as an analogy for the way the Right Wing tries to turn the other classes against each other. "Hey, bight kid at the poor school, how 'bout we spread your GPA points around to the other kids in your school until you shut up."
 
2011-04-18 09:35:30 AM  

Jpud73: I sure did buddy. In Computer Science, and have been working in the field since. How bout you? Do they even have degrees in dentistry? Are you a college graduate?


Still nothing on Phil Herup's degree status.

Yet he feels comfortable criticizing others for their choice of study.

Typical.
 
2011-04-18 09:39:33 AM  

Phil Herup: evilboyevil: a large minority of average people

Did you actually write that?

FARK Lib mantra: "Use the term minority as often as possible, even incorrectly, just keep saying it. Large minorities are best minorities."


You might try, say, a Google search before mocking the use of a phrase simply because you're ignorant of it.
 
2011-04-18 09:41:22 AM  
A conservative view on grades? I didn't know home schoolers got grades.
 
2011-04-18 09:44:25 AM  

Jpud73: Jpud73: I sure did buddy. In Computer Science, and have been working in the field since. How bout you? Do they even have degrees in dentistry? Are you a college graduate?

Still nothing on Phil Herup's degree status.

Yet he feels comfortable criticizing others for their choice of study.

Typical.


If he's actually a dentist in the US he'd have a postgraduate degree.
 
2011-04-18 09:44:28 AM  

Jpud73: Still nothing on Phil Herup's degree status.



I thought you had to be kidding.

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: You might try, say, a Google search before mocking the use of a phrase simply because you're ignorant of it.



"A large minority of average people" is a walking contradiction.
 
2011-04-18 09:45:45 AM  

Phil Herup: Why protest? There is nothing stopping them from donating more money to the government.

If you are rich and want to pay more, then just do it. No one is stopping you.


Because the people who choose to horde wealth would then have an increase in their influence over government simply from the lack of those who are able to offer the same level of opposition.
 
2011-04-18 09:47:34 AM  
My GPA is just a number.

But, if I could out I could modify my 3.81 and change it to a 2.00, and as a result 1,000 families would be able to feed their children, or get grandpa the medical treatment he needs... damn right I would happily donate my points.

And, if I found out that too many people in my school were getting high GPA's, and it was damaging to the school (the way our country is being damaged by too much debt), damn right I'd be in favor of adjusting the grading system.
 
2011-04-18 09:48:52 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Because the people who choose to horde wealth would then have an increase in their influence over government


So it is not really about "revenue" is it?

It is about controlling the wealth, which is a misuse of taxation.
 
2011-04-18 09:51:39 AM  

Cats_Lie: But, if I could out I could modify my 3.81 and change it to a 2.00, and as a result 1,000 families would be able to feed their children, or get grandpa the medical treatment he needs... damn right I would happily donate my points.



But would you dole out your points so that a dumb kid could have moar points and have a better chance at post graduate school?

Of course, your chances will go down quite a bit as a result.
 
2011-04-18 09:54:01 AM  

Phil Herup:
Monkeyfark Ridiculous: You might try, say, a Google search before mocking the use of a phrase simply because you're ignorant of it.


"A large minority of average people" is a walking contradiction.


I suppose you could nitpick the use of "average" there if you wanted to pretend you didn't understand the sense in which he meant it.

But it appeared that you thought "large minority" was some sort of contradiction in terms and that using it is somehow "incorrect." That would be wrong.
 
2011-04-18 09:58:10 AM  

Phil Herup: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Because the people who choose to horde wealth would then have an increase in their influence over government

So it is not really about "revenue" is it?

It is about controlling the wealth, which is a misuse of taxation.


You really didn't understand what I just said, did you? Because I said pretty much the exact opposite. It's about raising revenue in a way that doesn't allow a segment of the wealthy to gain increased influence over the nation's wealth via a weakening of opposing influence.
 
2011-04-18 10:02:27 AM  

Phil Herup: Jpud73: Still nothing on Phil Herup's degree status.


I thought you had to be kidding.


Jpud73 would like the long form transcript and diploma.
 
2011-04-18 10:02:53 AM  

Phil Herup: Cats_Lie: But, if I could out I could modify my 3.81 and change it to a 2.00, and as a result 1,000 families would be able to feed their children, or get grandpa the medical treatment he needs... damn right I would happily donate my points.


But would you dole out your points so that a dumb kid could have moar points and have a better chance at post graduate school?

Of course, your chances will go down quite a bit as a result.


Sounds like you are the dumb kid who needed "moar" points.
 
2011-04-18 10:05:11 AM  

Freep Impact: "I want to see some FReeper school teacher try this with their students and see what the reaction is! Watch the children freak, the parents freak, and the local teacher's union freak. Then explain it was a joke to teach that redistribution of property isn't a good idea.

Any FReeper teachers willing to give it the old college try? LOL!"

Done it already. :)

I brought candy.

Everytime a student got a question right, I put it aside.

I separated each one so that the students thought they'd get the candy after class.

Then when class was over I shoved them all together and divided them evenly.

Lesson learned.


what?

so . . . he taught a bunch of kid that they get a fair share of candy after class.
 
2011-04-18 10:06:17 AM  

Phil Herup: Of course, your chances will go down quite a bit as a result.


There's your problem Phil. Asking the wealthy to take on an extra 3% or so increase does not reduce their net worth by "quite a bit". In fact, it's negligible.

So...if the 3.5 GPA student could drop to, say, 3.47 and it results in twenty other students going from 1.5 to 2.5, then I don't think the high GPS student gave up much at all, nor were their prospect in any way diminished. The other students, though, just got a much better chance.

Also, not that you'll answer this, but what would be wrong with returning to the tax rates under Saint Ronnie Reagan?
 
2011-04-18 10:08:48 AM  

Lockeslessons: Asking the wealthy to take on an extra 3% or so increase does not reduce their net worth by "quite a bit".



I see. Just because it wont affect them "too much" it is therefore OK to take it.

Even though they already pay the most, it is still not enough.


Got it.
 
2011-04-18 10:09:42 AM  

Lockeslessons: Also, not that you'll answer this, but what would be wrong with returning to the tax rates under Saint Ronnie Reagan?


We don't need it.


The problem is the spending.
 
2011-04-18 10:16:23 AM  

Phil Herup: I see. Just because it wont affect them "too much" it is therefore OK to take it.

Even though they already pay the most, it is still not enough.

Got it.


Why do you even bother pretending that you are a Republican troll? If you were a true Republican, the idea that the rich pay any taxes would disgust you. Please stop the charade. It's pathetic. You do not love this country like I do. You only love trolling people on this message board, you clown. I fight the good fight on Fark.com because I want this country to succeed. I do not want liberals to corrupt it. I want to win. You merely pretend that you want to win.
 
2011-04-18 10:16:38 AM  

Phil Herup: Cats_Lie: But, if I could out I could modify my 3.81 and change it to a 2.00, and as a result 1,000 families would be able to feed their children, or get grandpa the medical treatment he needs... damn right I would happily donate my points.


But would you dole out your points so that a dumb kid could have moar points and have a better chance at post graduate school?


No, of course not. Is this part of the analogy?

Why can't I be in favor of tax breaks for people who need and deserve them, and not be in favor of tax breaks for people who don't?
 
2011-04-18 10:16:44 AM  

Phil Herup: Lockeslessons: Also, not that you'll answer this, but what would be wrong with returning to the tax rates under Saint Ronnie Reagan?

We don't need it.


The problem is the spending.


Ronnie thought we did. Was he wrong? Granted, he was dealing with the Cold War and we're dealing with the aftermath of two actual wars...but just to be clear...Ronald Reagan was wrong? Just wanna hear you say it.
 
2011-04-18 10:21:50 AM  

Lockeslessons: Phil Herup: Of course, your chances will go down quite a bit as a result.

There's your problem Phil. Asking the wealthy to take on an extra 3% or so increase does not reduce their net worth by "quite a bit". In fact, it's negligible.

So...if the 3.5 GPA student could drop to, say, 3.47 and it results in twenty other students going from 1.5 to 2.5, then I don't think the high GPS student gave up much at all, nor were their prospect in any way diminished. The other students, though, just got a much better chance.

Also, not that you'll answer this, but what would be wrong with returning to the tax rates under Saint Ronnie Reagan?


St_Francis_P: That headline might make sense if the Progressive student had a 5,000 GPA, but only needed the normal 4.0.


This and this.

I would turn around and ask the guy if he is suggesting that there should be a cap in place on the maximum amount of money one is allowed to make.
 
2011-04-18 10:23:11 AM  

Cats_Lie: Why can't I be in favor of tax breaks for people who need and deserve them, and not be in favor of tax breaks for people who don't?


Deserve, as in, have worked for/earned?
 
2011-04-18 10:24:20 AM  
Phil is on my ignore list, so my conversation with him was in quotes from other people. Considering I have a job lined up in the fall, you have no point. Although, the job is overseas, so I guess its not American enough for you.
 
2011-04-18 10:24:34 AM  
when will the GOP compare apples to oranges? There doesn't have to be competition in classes, that usually is forced.

The top 400 earners paid on average 17% for their effective tax rate. I'm guessing this is less of a percentage than 99.99% of America. I really just want them to pay more or equal to what I do in terms of percent of income. Right now they pay less. So its like they are the ones that would be receiving the grades redistributed. But its from the 0to 3.98 GPA to the 3.99 group.
 
2011-04-18 10:26:39 AM  
When you argue by analogy, the correct way to attack is to show how the analogy does not hold up.

For instance:

St_Francis_P: That headline might make sense if the Progressive student had a 5,000 GPA, but only needed the normal 4.0.


Well said, my good sir.

It also might make sense if that progressive student had been BORN IN to that 5,000 GPA and only needed a 4.0. You know, rather than earned it himself.

It also might make sense if that progressive student had been in charge of a group of students where they agreed to do all of his work for him so he could kick back and rake in his 4.0 in exchange for a 1.0 because otherwise they couldn't afford the school.

Many ways the analogy breaks down. But I'm sure we'll hear this one again.
 
2011-04-18 10:27:16 AM  

Phil Herup: Jpud73: Still nothing on Phil Herup's degree status.


I thought you had to be kidding.

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: You might try, say, a Google search before mocking the use of a phrase simply because you're ignorant of it.


"A large minority of average people" is a walking contradiction.


If you can't figure out what a "large minority" of the population set termed "average people" means, I don't want you anywhere near my teeth.
 
2011-04-18 10:27:43 AM  

Cats_Lie: Why can't I be in favor of tax breaks for people who need and deserve them,


People who do not pay any income taxes, or barely any, do not need breaks.
 
2011-04-18 10:29:25 AM  

PlatinumDragon: If you can't figure out what a "large minority" of the population set termed "average people" means, I don't want you anywhere near my teeth.



So the average people are a minority? OK.

They are a large minority.
 
2011-04-18 10:31:26 AM  

Phil Herup: PlatinumDragon: If you can't figure out what a "large minority" of the population set termed "average people" means, I don't want you anywhere near my teeth.


So the average people are a minority? OK.

They are a large minority.


And you're staying far, far away from my mouth.
 
2011-04-18 10:32:09 AM  

Phil Herup: Cats_Lie: Why can't I be in favor of tax breaks for people who need and deserve them,

People who do not pay any income taxes, or barely any, do not need breaks.


Some of them do.

Anyway, they need them more than billionaires do.
 
2011-04-18 10:32:48 AM  
I'm definitely in favor of a required course in critical thinking skills. It would eventually cut down on stupid comparisons.

Even worse than the false-equivalence is all the people patting the derper on the back for coming up with something that makes complete sense to them.
 
2011-04-18 10:33:31 AM  

Phil Herup: Cats_Lie: Why can't I be in favor of tax breaks for people who need and deserve them,

People who do not pay any income taxes, or barely any, do not need breaks.


Because the ability to buy beans and rice isn't a need. The ability to buy a slightly larger yacht is a need. Right?
 
2011-04-18 10:33:55 AM  

Lockeslessons: Asking the wealthy to take on an extra 3% or so increase does not reduce their net worth by "quite a bit". In fact, it's negligible.


Who farking cares? It's not your money.

And say, for argument, you're talking about someone who has built a business for 40 years, and is now selling it for a million bucks to help his OWN family. Your negligible 3% is worth $30,000 in taxes. In what farking world is that not a lot of money?
 
2011-04-18 10:35:42 AM  
The premise of the post is silly in the first place. Who gives a shiat what a student has to say about anything?

"HURR, I'VE GONE TO COLLEGE FOR FIVE SEMESTERS NOW, I THINK I KNOW HOW TO FIX THE ECONOMY BETTER THAN THOUSANDS OF ECONOMISTS WITH THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF COMBINED EXPERIENCE WHO STILL CAN'T FIX THE GLOBAL ECONOMY."

That's pretty much the basis for Fark, by the way. There are teams of experienced economists out there who are far smarter than the twentysomething retards here, and they don't know how to fix anything, but everyone on Fark knows how to fix the economy, yes sir.

The bottom line is, no one knows. If we knew, we wouldn't be in the predicament we're in. Would changing tax structures fix anything? Maybe, but you're a retard if you're 100 percent positive about it.

Not to mention, keywords: GLOBAL ECONOMY. Taxing a relative handful of people in the United States to the tune of a few billions of dollars more isn't going to cause some massive tidal wave of economic renewal throughout the world.
 
2011-04-18 10:36:55 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Phil Herup: Cats_Lie: Why can't I be in favor of tax breaks for people who need and deserve them,

People who do not pay any income taxes, or barely any, do not need breaks.

Because the ability to buy beans and rice isn't a need. The ability to buy a slightly larger yacht is a need. Right?



If you don't pay income taxes, you don't need a break from them. This can not get any simpler.
 
2011-04-18 10:37:16 AM  

GAT_00: That's a stupid analogy. The whole idea behind affirmative action is that it lets someone who doesn't have absolute proof of excellence, such as someone without a great GPA, into college so they can excel on their own merits. When they're given the chance to go to school and have it paid for, it's now their own terms on passing and failing. Why is it that conservatives are so unable to grasp actual systems and instead fall back onto bad analogies that completely fail to address anything? Are you all that invested in your own bullshiat that you've lost all ability to reason?


Isn't it more than a bit racist to assume minorities are incapable of success without some form of government assistance?

Conservatives don't care whether minorities succeed or fail. I think that's far more respectful than the alternative.
 
2011-04-18 10:38:09 AM  

topcon: The premise of the post is silly in the first place. Who gives a shiat what a student has to say about anything?


Exactly.
 
2011-04-18 10:39:51 AM  

Phil Herup: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Phil Herup: Cats_Lie: Why can't I be in favor of tax breaks for people who need and deserve them,

People who do not pay any income taxes, or barely any, do not need breaks.

Because the ability to buy beans and rice isn't a need. The ability to buy a slightly larger yacht is a need. Right?


If you don't pay income taxes, you don't need a break from them. This can not get any simpler.


Yes, I know, conservatives are geniuses when it comes to the simple. The problem is, they just don't get it that some things are actually more complex.
 
2011-04-18 10:40:45 AM  
I took the last part of the headline to imply that the progressive student sat in stunned silence due to the complete stupidity of the conservative student's analogy.
 
2011-04-18 10:41:41 AM  

LL316: Conservatives don't care whether minorities succeed or fail. I think that's far more respectful than the alternative.


That's not accurate. It's more accurate to say that if you succeed or fail, conservatives don't care what the color of your skin is, and don't think persons of one skin color deserve a head start at the other's expense.
 
2011-04-18 10:41:51 AM  

Occam's Nailfile: Lockeslessons: Asking the wealthy to take on an extra 3% or so increase does not reduce their net worth by "quite a bit". In fact, it's negligible.

Who farking cares? It's not your money.

And say, for argument, you're talking about someone who has built a business for 40 years, and is now selling it for a million bucks to help his OWN family. Your negligible 3% is worth $30,000 in taxes. In what farking world is that not a lot of money?


I guess the remaining $970 000 just isn't enough. Mind you, if a severe medical crisis is the reason, $1 million can disappear in little time. Thankfully, I live in a place where eeeebilsozializm means a family unit is less likely to be financially shattered by a health catastrophe, because everyone pitches in a bit for those who need it - rich, poor, and everyone in between.
 
2011-04-18 10:42:53 AM  

Cats_Lie: The problem is, they just don't get it that some things are actually more complex.


Riiiiiiight. We need some "nuance" here.


It is the only way you can sidestep the contradictions and hypocrisy.
 
2011-04-18 10:43:41 AM  

Phil Herup: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Phil Herup: Cats_Lie: Why can't I be in favor of tax breaks for people who need and deserve them,

People who do not pay any income taxes, or barely any, do not need breaks.

Because the ability to buy beans and rice isn't a need. The ability to buy a slightly larger yacht is a need. Right?


If you don't pay income taxes, you don't need a break from them. This can not get any simpler.


Since when is "barely any" equal to zero?
 
2011-04-18 10:43:42 AM  

EberhardKarl: Read it.
Analyze it.
Decide for yourself.

Marx's analysis has been brought into the 21st century by a number of his proponents, but both the core of his method and the beef of his criticism of capitalist political economy is still as relevant as they were in 1867.

If, after that you, want to ignore the rest of his and Engels' writing, go ahead. I could truly care less.

My best guess however, is that not a single Fark Independent or Conservative has made it through even Volume I of Capital. They don't know a bloody thing about the thing they most fear, which is likely in part why they fear it.



We haven't made it through Mein Kampf either, you suggest we read that one?
 
2011-04-18 10:44:28 AM  

PlatinumDragon: Occam's Nailfile: Lockeslessons: Asking the wealthy to take on an extra 3% or so increase does not reduce their net worth by "quite a bit". In fact, it's negligible.

Who farking cares? It's not your money.

And say, for argument, you're talking about someone who has built a business for 40 years, and is now selling it for a million bucks to help his OWN family. Your negligible 3% is worth $30,000 in taxes. In what farking world is that not a lot of money?

I guess the remaining $970 000 just isn't enough. Mind you, if a severe medical crisis is the reason, $1 million can disappear in little time. Thankfully, I live in a place where eeeebilsozializm means a family unit is less likely to be financially shattered by a health catastrophe, because everyone pitches in a bit for those who need it - rich, poor, and everyone in between.

The government already gets about $350,000 on that transaction, you jackass.

 
2011-04-18 10:45:25 AM  

topcon: The premise of the post is silly in the first place. Who gives a shiat what a student has to say about anything?


The premise of your post is retarded in the first place. Students 18 and above get to vote. That's why politicians should care. Now, you could go down the route these kids get to vote but by and large don't because they're farking morons too lazy to go to the polls and thats why no one gives a shiat what they have to say, and I'd agree with you. But you didn't. Instead you went on to say:

topcon: "HURR, I'VE GONE TO COLLEGE FOR FIVE SEMESTERS NOW, I THINK I KNOW HOW TO FIX THE ECONOMY BETTER THAN THOUSANDS OF ECONOMISTS WITH THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF COMBINED EXPERIENCE WHO STILL CAN'T FIX THE GLOBAL ECONOMY."



Are you an economist? Do you know better? How many people in the United States know better than the thousands of economists you cite? You just argued that pretty much no one should have any input whatsoever into the country and society they live in. We should have some intellectual elite ruling class and the rest of us just be happy.

topcon: but everyone on Fark knows how to fix the economy, yes sir.

The bottom line is, no one knows.


Here's the thing, pretty much everyone knows how to fix the economy. It's closer to 100% than it is to 0%. If I stuck a gun to everyone's head 18 and above and said "GIVE ME A SUCCESSFUL WAY TO FIX THE ECONOMY OR YOU WILL DIE" they'd get it right.

The question is not how CAN we fix the economy, that's well known. The question is how SHOULD we fix the economy? Do you see how these two questions are completely different?

I can fix poverty in the United States completely. So can you. The solution is not hard. I can fix the budget in the United States completely. So can you. It's not hard. The question is how SHOULD we. And that's where and why the opinions of the masses matter. Because it's our country. We can absolutely fix the debt by cutting costs to zero while raising taxes on everyone. The debt will absolutely be fixed. Should we do that? I don't think so.
 
2011-04-18 10:45:39 AM  

heinekenftw: Freep Impact: "I want to see some FReeper school teacher try this with their students and see what the reaction is! Watch the children freak, the parents freak, and the local teacher's union freak. Then explain it was a joke to teach that redistribution of property isn't a good idea.

Any FReeper teachers willing to give it the old college try? LOL!"

Done it already. :)

I brought candy.

Everytime a student got a question right, I put it aside.

I separated each one so that the students thought they'd get the candy after class.

Then when class was over I shoved them all together and divided them evenly.

Lesson learned.

what?

so . . . he taught a bunch of kid that they get a fair share of candy after class.


He taught a select group of kids to feel entitled to more candy than they received.

One Freeper responded to the story by recommending the teacher do that with grades next year. No really.
 
2011-04-18 10:46:55 AM  

Mentat: EberhardKarl: My best guess however, is that not a single Fark Independent or Conservative has made it through even Volume I of Capital.

In their defense, Das Kapital is the most boring goddamn book ever written. It makes Moby Dick look like a Fourth of July parade.


This is very true
 
2011-04-18 10:47:16 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Phil Herup: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Phil Herup: Cats_Lie: Why can't I be in favor of tax breaks for people who need and deserve them,

People who do not pay any income taxes, or barely any, do not need breaks.

Because the ability to buy beans and rice isn't a need. The ability to buy a slightly larger yacht is a need. Right?


If you don't pay income taxes, you don't need a break from them. This can not get any simpler.

Since when is "barely any" equal to zero?


Help me here - income and FICA taxes are still withheld from paycheques even if the person would qualify for EITC at tax filing time, right?

If so, that means even those who "don't pay income taxes" actually do - they're participating in government cash flow, they just get a refund and a piddling bit more back when their taxes are filed... assuming they qualify for EITC.
 
2011-04-18 10:49:28 AM  

lennavan: I can fix poverty in the United States completely.


This is a huge lie or at least a giant mistake, but considering the source we'll go with "lie". The War on Poverty has been about as successful as the War on Drugs.
 
2011-04-18 10:49:53 AM  

Thune: EberhardKarl: Read it.
Analyze it.
Decide for yourself.

Marx's analysis has been brought into the 21st century by a number of his proponents, but both the core of his method and the beef of his criticism of capitalist political economy is still as relevant as they were in 1867.

If, after that you, want to ignore the rest of his and Engels' writing, go ahead. I could truly care less.

My best guess however, is that not a single Fark Independent or Conservative has made it through even Volume I of Capital. They don't know a bloody thing about the thing they most fear, which is likely in part why they fear it.


We haven't made it through Mein Kampf either, you suggest we read that one?


I have, but that was for historical interest. Also have read the Communist Manifesto, The Wealth of Nations, the Koran and other various influential books

Mein Kampf is the scariest farking book I've ever read
 
2011-04-18 10:50:07 AM  

PlatinumDragon: If so, that means even those who "don't pay income taxes" actually do - they're participating in government cash flow, they just get a refund


I rest my case.
 
2011-04-18 10:50:45 AM  

PlatinumDragon: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Phil Herup: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Phil Herup: Cats_Lie: Why can't I be in favor of tax breaks for people who need and deserve them,

People who do not pay any income taxes, or barely any, do not need breaks.

Because the ability to buy beans and rice isn't a need. The ability to buy a slightly larger yacht is a need. Right?


If you don't pay income taxes, you don't need a break from them. This can not get any simpler.

Since when is "barely any" equal to zero?

Help me here - income and FICA taxes are still withheld from paycheques even if the person would qualify for EITC at tax filing time, right?

If so, that means even those who "don't pay income taxes" actually do - they're participating in government cash flow, they just get a refund and a piddling bit more back when their taxes are filed... assuming they qualify for EITC.



This is take-the-cake nonsense.

IF THEY GET IT BACK THEY DONT PAY TAXES.

Not even counting the EITC.

(and dont give me that state and local taxes crap, you know we are talking about Federal income tax.)
 
2011-04-18 10:53:19 AM  

jchuffyman: Thune: EberhardKarl: Read it.
Analyze it.
Decide for yourself.

Marx's analysis has been brought into the 21st century by a number of his proponents, but both the core of his method and the beef of his criticism of capitalist political economy is still as relevant as they were in 1867.

If, after that you, want to ignore the rest of his and Engels' writing, go ahead. I could truly care less.

My best guess however, is that not a single Fark Independent or Conservative has made it through even Volume I of Capital. They don't know a bloody thing about the thing they most fear, which is likely in part why they fear it.


We haven't made it through Mein Kampf either, you suggest we read that one?

I have, but that was for historical interest. Also have read the Communist Manifesto, The Wealth of Nations, the Koran and other various influential books

Mein Kampf is the scariest farking book I've ever read



I don't really need to read Das Kapital, to know its crap.

The whole foundation of the book is that some people own other peoples labor.

That the collective owns the fruits of the individuals labor.

No, they don't.
 
2011-04-18 10:54:25 AM  

Phil Herup: PlatinumDragon: If so, that means even those who "don't pay income taxes" actually do - they're participating in government cash flow, they just get a refund

I rest my case.


As in he just made the point that ends the argument, or that he just turned the stupid dial to 11?
 
2011-04-18 10:55:32 AM  

Thune: you know we are talking about Federal income tax.


Dude.... every tax thread involves an attempt to redirect the point away from this fact by the FARK LibsTM. The left can not logically debate in income tax threads, so they have to bring up the other taxes every time.
 
2011-04-18 10:56:32 AM  
i think the analogy isn't totally off base.

You have a baseline GPA required to get into college (say 3.0, just making that up) which equates to the cost of living.

So the students with > 3.0 should give points to those with
Whether a student is born into a 5000 GPA or works their butt off repairing past circumstances resulting in a 1.0 GPA and makes it to 4.0 is immaterial. The analogy still stands, redistribution of GPA wealth brings those below cost of living (3.0) to at least cost of living.

Anyone with a GPA some number higher than 3.0 gives up points for those below 3.0

If progressives aren't on board then they need to think about redistribution of wealth some more.
 
2011-04-18 10:57:25 AM  

Phil Herup: lennavan: I can fix poverty in the United States completely.

This is a huge lie or at least a giant mistake, but considering the source we'll go with "lie". The War on Poverty has been about as successful as the War on Drugs.


Oh, I CAN absolutely fix poverty. Take the number of people making less than 50k each and multiply by the average amount under 50k they make. Take the number of people making more than 100k a year, divide by the amount you got above. All of that money redistributed to people making less than 50k. Poverty solved, everyone now gets at least 50k a year.
 
2011-04-18 10:57:58 AM  

Snatch Bandergrip: This analogy doesn't work. Since the poor pay more taxes than the rich, you would have to argue that the hard work of stupid kids is somehow giving a good student better grades.


Almost like a curve of sorts :D
 
2011-04-18 11:00:07 AM  

Phil Herup: Cats_Lie: The problem is, they just don't get it that some things are actually more complex.

Riiiiiiight. We need some "nuance" here.


It is the only way you can sidestep the contradictions and hypocrisy.


No

The only way that conservatives can sidestep the idea that they are too stupid for some of these issues is to make fun of smart people.
 
2011-04-18 11:00:35 AM  

Occam's Nailfile: PlatinumDragon: Occam's Nailfile: Lockeslessons: Asking the wealthy to take on an extra 3% or so increase does not reduce their net worth by "quite a bit". In fact, it's negligible.

Who farking cares? It's not your money.

And say, for argument, you're talking about someone who has built a business for 40 years, and is now selling it for a million bucks to help his OWN family. Your negligible 3% is worth $30,000 in taxes. In what farking world is that not a lot of money?

I guess the remaining $970 000 just isn't enough. Mind you, if a severe medical crisis is the reason, $1 million can disappear in little time. Thankfully, I live in a place where eeeebilsozializm means a family unit is less likely to be financially shattered by a health catastrophe, because everyone pitches in a bit for those who need it - rich, poor, and everyone in between.

The government already gets about $350,000 on that transaction, you jackass.


Brainfart on my part. $620 000 is still a nice chunk of change, more than a majority of hardworking people on Earth will ever have at one moment in their entire lifetimes. Sure, you may have worked hard for it - so did any employees, people employed in other workplaces, etc., etc... barring medical or old-age issues, amounts of money that seem huge in absolute terms are quite manageable in percentage terms at the levels you're talking about. If you think people pay too much for too little, fine. Don't get huffy about "your" money with someone who also has to contribute "his" money to general upkeep, particularly when the amounts you're ticked about losing could easily support an individual for a year free and clear.

/no, not envious - quite happy on my average wage
//just bemused at the complete lack of perspective
 
2011-04-18 11:02:09 AM  

lennavan: Phil Herup: lennavan: I can fix poverty in the United States completely.

This is a huge lie or at least a giant mistake, but considering the source we'll go with "lie". The War on Poverty has been about as successful as the War on Drugs.

Oh, I CAN absolutely fix poverty. Take the number of people making less than 50k each and multiply by the average amount under 50k they make. Take the number of people making more than 100k a year, divide by the amount you got above. All of that money redistributed to people making less than 50k. Poverty solved, everyone now gets at least 50k a year.


Are you serious or trolling?

Even if you could pull off such a totalitarian transfer, there would be people in poverty in less than 2 years.

There is, and always will, be a subset of the population that produces nothing, or are a net drag.

There are people that will blow that 50k on drugs, alcohol, strippers, gambling, and any number of pointless crap, and be broke again in no time.

Poverty is not the cause, it's an effect.
 
2011-04-18 11:02:30 AM  

Thune: jchuffyman: Thune: EberhardKarl: Read it.
Analyze it.
Decide for yourself.

Marx's analysis has been brought into the 21st century by a number of his proponents, but both the core of his method and the beef of his criticism of capitalist political economy is still as relevant as they were in 1867.

If, after that you, want to ignore the rest of his and Engels' writing, go ahead. I could truly care less.

My best guess however, is that not a single Fark Independent or Conservative has made it through even Volume I of Capital. They don't know a bloody thing about the thing they most fear, which is likely in part why they fear it.


We haven't made it through Mein Kampf either, you suggest we read that one?

I have, but that was for historical interest. Also have read the Communist Manifesto, The Wealth of Nations, the Koran and other various influential books

Mein Kampf is the scariest farking book I've ever read


I don't really need to read Das Kapital, to know its crap.

The whole foundation of the book is that some people own other peoples labor.

That the collective owns the fruits of the individuals labor.

No, they don't.


Never worked for a corporation, have you?
 
2011-04-18 11:03:36 AM  

lennavan: Oh, I CAN absolutely fix poverty. Take the number of people making less than 50k each and multiply by the average amount under 50k they make. Take the number of people making more than 100k a year, divide by the amount you got above. All of that money redistributed to people making less than 50k. Poverty solved, everyone now gets at least 50k a year.


heh cute, and then prices skyrocket because of what the market can bear and in about 5 years you're right back where you started.
 
2011-04-18 11:04:27 AM  

Thune: jchuffyman: Thune: EberhardKarl: Read it.
Analyze it.
Decide for yourself.

Marx's analysis has been brought into the 21st century by a number of his proponents, but both the core of his method and the beef of his criticism of capitalist political economy is still as relevant as they were in 1867.

If, after that you, want to ignore the rest of his and Engels' writing, go ahead. I could truly care less.

My best guess however, is that not a single Fark Independent or Conservative has made it through even Volume I of Capital. They don't know a bloody thing about the thing they most fear, which is likely in part why they fear it.


We haven't made it through Mein Kampf either, you suggest we read that one?

I have, but that was for historical interest. Also have read the Communist Manifesto, The Wealth of Nations, the Koran and other various influential books

Mein Kampf is the scariest farking book I've ever read


I don't really need to read Das Kapital, to know its crap.

The whole foundation of the book is that some people own other peoples labor.

That the collective owns the fruits of the individuals labor.

No, they don't.


The main theme is capitalism works best (makes the most profit) when workers are neglected and paid shiatty wages. This is true, hence outsourcing in the modern area to countries where you are allowed to do that. Das Kapital also does not propose revolution. That is the job of the Communist Manifesto.

So yeah, read it before analyzing it. I have yet to read Ayn Rand, so as much as I am tempted to shiat on her work, I refrain from it for this very reason.
 
2011-04-18 11:04:44 AM  
Did anyone mention how stupid the analogy is?

Maybe if we were talking about taking all the money from all the rich people, making them poor and distributing it to all the poor people they might have a point. After all this is the "disingenuous" premise they use when ever discussing this issue.

Of course the truth is much different. The nation's federal tax bill is the lowest it has been since the 1950's (look it up if you don't believe me because it is true) and our country is reeling in debt. The current administration is only responsible for 11% of the budget deficit, so we must look further back for a solution. I say lets look back when things were better. Oh, those people in the top tier were paying 2% to 3% more in federal taxes. Weirdest thing too, they didn't go bankrupt but prospered along with the populace as a whole. It wasn't until the tax rates dropped did the economy fall into a huge economic hole.
 
2011-04-18 11:05:12 AM  

lennavan: Oh, I CAN absolutely fix poverty. Take the number of people making less than 50k each and multiply by the average amount under 50k they make. Take the number of people making more than 100k a year, divide by the amount you got above. All of that money redistributed to people making less than 50k. Poverty solved, everyone now gets at least 50k a year.


I knew you would go this route as you are an authoritarian left wing collectivist... AKA a "Progressive".

Your plan does not work on several levels, the biggest being that the poor will always find a way to return to being poor.

The forced equality of shared misery is what you want.
 
2011-04-18 11:05:55 AM  

PlatinumDragon: Thune: jchuffyman: Thune: EberhardKarl: Read it.
Analyze it.
Decide for yourself.

Marx's analysis has been brought into the 21st century by a number of his proponents, but both the core of his method and the beef of his criticism of capitalist political economy is still as relevant as they were in 1867.

If, after that you, want to ignore the rest of his and Engels' writing, go ahead. I could truly care less.

My best guess however, is that not a single Fark Independent or Conservative has made it through even Volume I of Capital. They don't know a bloody thing about the thing they most fear, which is likely in part why they fear it.


We haven't made it through Mein Kampf either, you suggest we read that one?

I have, but that was for historical interest. Also have read the Communist Manifesto, The Wealth of Nations, the Koran and other various influential books

Mein Kampf is the scariest farking book I've ever read


I don't really need to read Das Kapital, to know its crap.

The whole foundation of the book is that some people own other peoples labor.

That the collective owns the fruits of the individuals labor.

No, they don't.

Never worked for a corporation, have you?



I work for one now.

And they do not "own", by fiat, the fruits of my labor.

I sell it to them, willingly.

It is a mutually benificial trade of money for services.

Free Market.

Learn something.
 
2011-04-18 11:06:26 AM  

Thune: Poverty is not the cause, it's an effect.


Or maybe, just maybe, it's a complex system involving BOTH, and it's not black and white? You morons.
 
2011-04-18 11:06:57 AM  

chasd00: i think the analogy isn't totally off base.

You have a baseline GPA required to get into college (say 3.0, just making that up) which equates to the cost of living.

So the students with > 3.0 should give points to those with
Whether a student is born into a 5000 GPA or works their butt off repairing past circumstances resulting in a 1.0 GPA and makes it to 4.0 is immaterial. The analogy still stands, redistribution of GPA wealth brings those below cost of living (3.0) to at least cost of living.

Anyone with a GPA some number higher than 3.0 gives up points for those below 3.0

If progressives aren't on board then they need to think about redistribution of wealth some more.


Money is not an indicator of merit. It is a medium of exchange, and nothing more. If conservatives cannot understand this principle, then they need to think about their priorities some more.
 
2011-04-18 11:09:11 AM  

tony41454: With all being said and done, you don't (over)tax those who create the jobs. You create a business friendly environment for economic growth to happen. THAT'S how job growth occurs. If the "rich" have more money, they invest in more factories to create more money, which in turn creates more jobs and wages. This is how it's done. Redistributing (or taking away) what someone has worked hard for discourages growth and innovation, factories close down, people lose jobs. I guess this is what Obama wants, since that's what he's doing.


While I agree with you in principle, what constitutes "overtaxing"? If you ask the tax-ees, many will say anything over zero percent is overtaxing. That's patently ridiculous, but that's where many conservatives are making their stand. So if you're unwilling to negotiate and you insist on a unreasonable goal, you shouldn't be surprised when your negotiating partner throws up his hands and simply assigns a tax rate you find to be onerous.

For instance, we're now faced with a dilemma in the US. The choices seem to be raise taxes on the wealthy (with the understanding--I'm being honest here--that when the economy improves middle class tax rates will go up as well) or cut social spending to the bone and throw the elderly, infirm and veterans under the bus. Thus far the conservative response has been "Oh well, nice knowing you elderly, infirm and veterans. I'm sure you won't mind making this sacrifice for the good of the country." Ultimately, the affected groups will come to their senses and say "I'm voting for the guy who'll stiff the rich so my benefits don't disappear." A much better solution would be for everyyone to take a small hit--for the elderly to pay, say, 5% or 10% more for their health care and for the wealthy to accept, say, a tax rate of 37.5% rather than the proposed 39.5%. But the conservatives have to be willing to compromise, and that seems to be outside their political vocabulary.
 
2011-04-18 11:09:39 AM  
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:

Well submitter that article summation is a perfect definition of the phrase "false equivalency".
 
2011-04-18 11:09:51 AM  

Thune: PlatinumDragon: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Phil Herup: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Phil Herup: Cats_Lie: Why can't I be in favor of tax breaks for people who need and deserve them,

People who do not pay any income taxes, or barely any, do not need breaks.

Because the ability to buy beans and rice isn't a need. The ability to buy a slightly larger yacht is a need. Right?


If you don't pay income taxes, you don't need a break from them. This can not get any simpler.

Since when is "barely any" equal to zero?

Help me here - income and FICA taxes are still withheld from paycheques even if the person would qualify for EITC at tax filing time, right?

If so, that means even those who "don't pay income taxes" actually do - they're participating in government cash flow, they just get a refund and a piddling bit more back when their taxes are filed... assuming they qualify for EITC.


This is take-the-cake nonsense.

IF THEY GET IT BACK THEY DONT PAY TAXES.

Not even counting the EITC.

(and dont give me that state and local taxes crap, you know we are talking about Federal income tax.)


What part of "cash flow" did you fail to understand? Until that refund arrives/they get old or sick enough to start drawing SS, those taxes are still gone from the hypothetical low-income taxpayer's cheque. If that refund is less than the entire amount in income taxes withheld, they paid taxes in net terms.

Given the present wealth distribution, getting huffy about tax refunds to several million people who hold less than 5% of the country's resources is... pretty miserly.
 
2011-04-18 11:11:05 AM  
Americans overwhelmingly say tax the rich.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147080/americans-back-budget-deal-declare-n​o-winner. a spx
 
2011-04-18 11:14:36 AM  

jchuffyman: Thune: jchuffyman: Thune: EberhardKarl: Read it.
Analyze it.
Decide for yourself.

Marx's analysis has been brought into the 21st century by a number of his proponents, but both the core of his method and the beef of his criticism of capitalist political economy is still as relevant as they were in 1867.

If, after that you, want to ignore the rest of his and Engels' writing, go ahead. I could truly care less.

My best guess however, is that not a single Fark Independent or Conservative has made it through even Volume I of Capital. They don't know a bloody thing about the thing they most fear, which is likely in part why they fear it.


We haven't made it through Mein Kampf either, you suggest we read that one?

I have, but that was for historical interest. Also have read the Communist Manifesto, The Wealth of Nations, the Koran and other various influential books

Mein Kampf is the scariest farking book I've ever read


I don't really need to read Das Kapital, to know its crap.

The whole foundation of the book is that some people own other peoples labor.

That the collective owns the fruits of the individuals labor.

No, they don't.

The main theme is capitalism works best (makes the most profit) when workers are neglected and paid shiatty wages. This is true, hence outsourcing in the modern area to countries where you are allowed to do that. Das Kapital also does not propose revolution. That is the job of the Communist Manifesto.

So yeah, read it before analyzing it. I have yet to read Ayn Rand, so as much as I am tempted to shiat on her work, I refrain from it for this very reason.



You are misrepresenting. I never said Das Kapital promoted Revolution.

(although, a concept that pushes class warfare cant really lead anywhere else.)

"The main theme is capitalism works best (makes the most profit) when workers are neglected and paid shiatty wages."

Exactly. Do i need to go any further? you already proved in one concept, a concept of your choosing, why the book and thesis is flawed.

To think that that correctly captures capitalism is to avoid acknowleging the billions that have been steadily moved out of poverty since the industrial revolution took off.

Simple equation, if the populace cannot afford your product, manufacturers cannot get rich selling them.

So the notion that capitalism is just a system to keep the populace poor is nonsense.
 
2011-04-18 11:16:23 AM  

Thune: PlatinumDragon: Thune: jchuffyman: Thune: EberhardKarl: Read it.
Analyze it.
Decide for yourself.

Marx's analysis has been brought into the 21st century by a number of his proponents, but both the core of his method and the beef of his criticism of capitalist political economy is still as relevant as they were in 1867.

If, after that you, want to ignore the rest of his and Engels' writing, go ahead. I could truly care less.

My best guess however, is that not a single Fark Independent or Conservative has made it through even Volume I of Capital. They don't know a bloody thing about the thing they most fear, which is likely in part why they fear it.


We haven't made it through Mein Kampf either, you suggest we read that one?

I have, but that was for historical interest. Also have read the Communist Manifesto, The Wealth of Nations, the Koran and other various influential books

Mein Kampf is the scariest farking book I've ever read


I don't really need to read Das Kapital, to know its crap.

The whole foundation of the book is that some people own other peoples labor.

That the collective owns the fruits of the individuals labor.

No, they don't.

Never worked for a corporation, have you?


I work for one now.

And they do not "own", by fiat, the fruits of my labor.

I sell it to them, willingly.

It is a mutually benificial trade of money for services.

Free Market.

Learn something.


Ah, so you are also given a percentage of the profit from your labour as well as your base wage? You're part of an ownership collective? You can renegotiate your labour sales contract at any time with an expectation that you will be treated as a equal partner in the transaction? You have access to perfect information?

If you think anyone is operating in a truly free market, you're kidding yourself.
 
2011-04-18 11:17:02 AM  

PlatinumDragon: Thune: PlatinumDragon: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Phil Herup: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Phil Herup: Cats_Lie: Why can't I be in favor of tax breaks for people who need and deserve them,

People who do not pay any income taxes, or barely any, do not need breaks.

Because the ability to buy beans and rice isn't a need. The ability to buy a slightly larger yacht is a need. Right?


If you don't pay income taxes, you don't need a break from them. This can not get any simpler.

Since when is "barely any" equal to zero?

Help me here - income and FICA taxes are still withheld from paycheques even if the person would qualify for EITC at tax filing time, right?

If so, that means even those who "don't pay income taxes" actually do - they're participating in government cash flow, they just get a refund and a piddling bit more back when their taxes are filed... assuming they qualify for EITC.


This is take-the-cake nonsense.

IF THEY GET IT BACK THEY DONT PAY TAXES.

Not even counting the EITC.

(and dont give me that state and local taxes crap, you know we are talking about Federal income tax.)

What part of "cash flow" did you fail to understand? Until that refund arrives/they get old or sick enough to start drawing SS, those taxes are still gone from the hypothetical low-income taxpayer's cheque. If that refund is less than the entire amount in income taxes withheld, they paid taxes in net terms.

Given the present wealth distribution, getting huffy about tax refunds to several million people who hold less than 5% of the country's resources is... pretty miserly.


how many words do you need to use to misrepresent the argument?

You said they pay taxes.

If they get it all back, plus an EITC, they don't.
 
2011-04-18 11:19:31 AM  

Phil Herup: I knew you would go this route as you are an authoritarian left wing collectivist... AKA a "Progressive".

Your plan does not work on several levels, the biggest being that the poor will always find a way to return to being poor.

The forced equality of shared misery is what you want.


Oh, I said this is what we CAN do, not what we SHOULD do.

These two things are beyond your comprehension.
 
2011-04-18 11:19:45 AM  

Biological Ali: Conservative: "So you'd be cool with me taking some points off your GPA to give the dumb some opportunity, right?" Progressive student:

I think that I too would be left speechless if somebody actually said something that stupid to me.


If you're going to nitpick at nuance and completely ignore the very obvious "point," sure.

The gist is: When people are successful, they're not indebted to anyone for being successful. Regardless of your "progressive" ideas of neat things you can do with my money, it's not yours and I don't care about your extravagant plans to spend my money.

Get over it and fark off.

/People need to be told to fark off more regularly, they're getting too nosey.
 
2011-04-18 11:21:47 AM  

Thune: Are you serious or trolling?

Even if you could pull off such a totalitarian transfer, there would be people in poverty in less than 2 years.

There is, and always will, be a subset of the population that produces nothing, or are a net drag.

There are people that will blow that 50k on drugs, alcohol, strippers, gambling, and any number of pointless crap, and be broke again in no time.

Poverty is not the cause, it's an effect.


From those people, we can take 25k away from each and have the government spend that money for them. Provide them government homes, food, clothes and so on.

Here's the point. The United States has:

X wealth
Y people

I contend:

X / Y > poverty

It is possible, we can do it. The question is not can we do it, it is SHOULD we do it.
 
2011-04-18 11:22:25 AM  

PlatinumDragon: Thune: PlatinumDragon: Thune: jchuffyman: Thune: EberhardKarl: Read it.
Analyze it.
Decide for yourself.

Marx's analysis has been brought into the 21st century by a number of his proponents, but both the core of his method and the beef of his criticism of capitalist political economy is still as relevant as they were in 1867.

If, after that you, want to ignore the rest of his and Engels' writing, go ahead. I could truly care less.

My best guess however, is that not a single Fark Independent or Conservative has made it through even Volume I of Capital. They don't know a bloody thing about the thing they most fear, which is likely in part why they fear it.


We haven't made it through Mein Kampf either, you suggest we read that one?

I have, but that was for historical interest. Also have read the Communist Manifesto, The Wealth of Nations, the Koran and other various influential books

Mein Kampf is the scariest farking book I've ever read


I don't really need to read Das Kapital, to know its crap.

The whole foundation of the book is that some people own other peoples labor.

That the collective owns the fruits of the individuals labor.

No, they don't.

Never worked for a corporation, have you?


I work for one now.

And they do not "own", by fiat, the fruits of my labor.

I sell it to them, willingly.

It is a mutually benificial trade of money for services.

Free Market.

Learn something.

Ah, so you are also given a percentage of the profit from your labour as well as your base wage? You're part of an ownership collective? You can renegotiate your labour sales contract at any time with an expectation that you will be treated as a equal partner in the transaction? You have access to perfect information?

If you think anyone is operating in a truly free market, you're kidding yourself.


If I agreed to sell my services for X amount, and they agreed to pay X amount, then what's the problem?

I can renegotiate at any time, and i am free to take my services elsewhere at any time.

No market is truly free. The issue is the degree of freedom.

I want the market to be more free, you want it to be less.
 
2011-04-18 11:22:34 AM  

chasd00: heh cute, and then prices skyrocket because of what the market can bear and in about 5 years you're right back where you started.


shh, adults are talking.
 
2011-04-18 11:24:58 AM  

Thune: To think that that correctly captures capitalism is to avoid acknowleging the billions that have been steadily moved out of poverty since the industrial revolution took off.


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Capitalism's approval rate down to 11%

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2009/11_novembe​r/09/poll . shtml

Must be cause everyone is lazy and has no "character".
 
2011-04-18 11:25:45 AM  

Thune: jchuffyman: Thune: jchuffyman: Thune: EberhardKarl: Read it.
Analyze it.
Decide for yourself.

Marx's analysis has been brought into the 21st century by a number of his proponents, but both the core of his method and the beef of his criticism of capitalist political economy is still as relevant as they were in 1867.

If, after that you, want to ignore the rest of his and Engels' writing, go ahead. I could truly care less.

My best guess however, is that not a single Fark Independent or Conservative has made it through even Volume I of Capital. They don't know a bloody thing about the thing they most fear, which is likely in part why they fear it.


We haven't made it through Mein Kampf either, you suggest we read that one?

I have, but that was for historical interest. Also have read the Communist Manifesto, The Wealth of Nations, the Koran and other various influential books

Mein Kampf is the scariest farking book I've ever read


I don't really need to read Das Kapital, to know its crap.

The whole foundation of the book is that some people own other peoples labor.

That the collective owns the fruits of the individuals labor.

No, they don't.

The main theme is capitalism works best (makes the most profit) when workers are neglected and paid shiatty wages. This is true, hence outsourcing in the modern area to countries where you are allowed to do that. Das Kapital also does not propose revolution. That is the job of the Communist Manifesto.

So yeah, read it before analyzing it. I have yet to read Ayn Rand, so as much as I am tempted to shiat on her work, I refrain from it for this very reason.


You are misrepresenting. I never said Das Kapital promoted Revolution.

(although, a concept that pushes class warfare cant really lead anywhere else.)

"The main theme is capitalism works best (makes the most profit) when workers are neglected and paid shiatty wages."

Exactly. Do i need to go any further? you already proved in one concept, a concept of your choosing, why the book and thesis is flawed.

To think that that correctly captures capitalism is to avoid acknowleging the billions that have been steadily moved out of poverty since the industrial revolution took off.

Simple equation, if the populace cannot afford your product, manufacturers cannot get rich selling them.

So the notion that capitalism is just a system to keep the populace poor is nonsense.


Ok, maybe not all the way true, But I agree, you have to have people to buy your products.Which, in the 19th century, most of the production and selling would be done in a smaller area. Today it works because the producers, aka, some asian kid, are not the same as the consumers. However, Marx thought capitalism was an unsustainable system. So keeping people poor would not work forever. But you have to keep in mind that Marx was writing at a time before social safety nets existed. In essence, capitalist systems became regulated by the government, which took away a lot of the excesses that would have been there in the 19th century. So one way to look at it is more care given to workers happened without a revolution being necessary.
 
2011-04-18 11:26:15 AM  

Thune: PlatinumDragon: Thune: PlatinumDragon: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Phil Herup: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Phil Herup: Cats_Lie: Why can't I be in favor of tax breaks for people who need and deserve them,

People who do not pay any income taxes, or barely any, do not need breaks.

Because the ability to buy beans and rice isn't a need. The ability to buy a slightly larger yacht is a need. Right?


If you don't pay income taxes, you don't need a break from them. This can not get any simpler.

Since when is "barely any" equal to zero?

Help me here - income and FICA taxes are still withheld from paycheques even if the person would qualify for EITC at tax filing time, right?

If so, that means even those who "don't pay income taxes" actually do - they're participating in government cash flow, they just get a refund and a piddling bit more back when their taxes are filed... assuming they qualify for EITC.


This is take-the-cake nonsense.

IF THEY GET IT BACK THEY DONT PAY TAXES.

Not even counting the EITC.

(and dont give me that state and local taxes crap, you know we are talking about Federal income tax.)

What part of "cash flow" did you fail to understand? Until that refund arrives/they get old or sick enough to start drawing SS, those taxes are still gone from the hypothetical low-income taxpayer's cheque. If that refund is less than the entire amount in income taxes withheld, they paid taxes in net terms.

Given the present wealth distribution, getting huffy about tax refunds to several million people who hold less than 5% of the country's resources is... pretty miserly.

how many words do you need to use to misrepresent the argument?

You said they pay taxes.

If they get it all back, plus an EITC, they don't.


How hard can you try to ignore per-pay deductions? On a full-year basis the tax burden may work out to zero, but the point I was trying to raise - which you flatly refuse to acknowledge - is that on scales shorter than a year, taxes are still being withheld from paycheques, contributing to continuous government revenue. It would be easier for the given individual if they only paid (or didn't) at the end of the fiscal year, but that military and court system won't fund itself in between - so they pay, and get back anything they overpaid, based on the tax code, at the end of the fiscal year.

This is not difficult to understand.
 
2011-04-18 11:27:02 AM  

lennavan: Oh, I said this is what we CAN do, not what we SHOULD do.

These two things are beyond your comprehension.


No. What is beyond your comprehension is that it would not work even if you did actually do it.
 
2011-04-18 11:29:46 AM  

PlatinumDragon: On a full-year basis the tax burden may work out to zero....


Again... point over.


Also it is not really a "burden" if it is zero. What these people are doing is getting away with mostly a free ride. Yet they complain about the very people who support and subsidize their cost to America.
 
2011-04-18 11:31:12 AM  

LasersHurt: Thune: Poverty is not the cause, it's an effect.

Or maybe, just maybe, it's a complex system involving BOTH, and it's not black and white? You morons.


Oh it is a complex system. It involves culture.

If Somalis, Chinese, or Vietnamese immigrants can, within a generation, have progeny attending college, then the problem of "poor" is not a result of the system, it is a result of culture. They prove by their success that it is possible to succeed here, even easy (as compared to other nations).
No, Poverty is a result of the lazy ass, victim culture endemic to indigenous poor in the nation that have been bred to believe that the system is stacked against them, that they are owed a livelyhood, and that it's better to hold up liquor stores and sell drugs, then to work hard for it.

If you remove the "culture" issues from the "poor" equation, "Poverty" truly does become an effect in this nation, not a cause.
 
2011-04-18 11:32:47 AM  

AnotherDisillusionedCollegeStudent: chasd00: i think the analogy isn't totally off base.

You have a baseline GPA required to get into college (say 3.0, just making that up) which equates to the cost of living.

So the students with > 3.0 should give points to those with
Whether a student is born into a 5000 GPA or works their butt off repairing past circumstances resulting in a 1.0 GPA and makes it to 4.0 is immaterial. The analogy still stands, redistribution of GPA wealth brings those below cost of living (3.0) to at least cost of living.

Anyone with a GPA some number higher than 3.0 gives up points for those below 3.0

If progressives aren't on board then they need to think about redistribution of wealth some more.

Money is not an indicator of merit. It is a medium of exchange, and nothing more. If conservatives cannot understand this principle, then they need to think about their priorities some more.


Money is a side effect of merit just like a high GPA is a side effect of hard work at school. You earn money through work like you earn GPA points through work.

Some are born with a 5000 GPA and some are born with a 0 GPA, most are born with a 3.1 GPA. Some are born millionaires, some are born in poverty, most are born middle class.

A weakness in the conservative argument are those with wildly high GPA's (like say > 250 ). You could argue that they have met the requirements to get into any college and therefore they should be the ones to pay. It would equivalent to taxing the households earning more than 250k/year like what has been proposed.

The more I think about it the more I see the failure of the analogy because the GPA scale stops pretty much at 4.0 and there is no ceiling on wealth. So I concede the point on this one, lucky you :)
 
2011-04-18 11:33:04 AM  

Phil Herup: PlatinumDragon: On a full-year basis the tax burden may work out to zero....

Again... point over.


Also it is not really a "burden" if it is zero. What these people are doing is getting away with mostly a free ride. Yet they complain about the very people who support and subsidize their cost to America.


Last time I checked even a minimum wage worker is paying into social security and medicare.
 
2011-04-18 11:33:10 AM  

Phil Herup: Again... point over.


Also it is not really a "burden" if it is zero. What these people are doing is getting away with mostly a free ride. Yet they complain about the very people who support and subsidize their cost to America.


Finally, someone says what we're all thinking: These poor people have it too easy! No more free rides!
 
2011-04-18 11:33:14 AM  

lennavan: Thune: Are you serious or trolling?

Even if you could pull off such a totalitarian transfer, there would be people in poverty in less than 2 years.

There is, and always will, be a subset of the population that produces nothing, or are a net drag.

There are people that will blow that 50k on drugs, alcohol, strippers, gambling, and any number of pointless crap, and be broke again in no time.

Poverty is not the cause, it's an effect.

From those people, we can take 25k away from each and have the government spend that money for them. Provide them government homes, food, clothes and so on.

Here's the point. The United States has:

X wealth
Y people

I contend:

X / Y > poverty

It is possible, we can do it. The question is not can we do it, it is SHOULD we do it.



Absof*ckinglutely Not.

Good lord, read a book on economics, and moral hazzard.

any book.
 
2011-04-18 11:33:32 AM  

Phil Herup: PlatinumDragon: On a full-year basis the tax burden may work out to zero....

Again... point over.


Also it is not really a "burden" if it is zero. What these people are doing is getting away with mostly a free ride. Yet they complain about the very people who support and subsidize their cost to America.


Good to see you agree with raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy Phil, I didn't think you had it in you sir.

Link (new window)
 
2011-04-18 11:36:46 AM  

PlatinumDragon: Thune: PlatinumDragon: Thune: PlatinumDragon: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Phil Herup: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Phil Herup: Cats_Lie: Why can't I be in favor of tax breaks for people who need and deserve them,

People who do not pay any income taxes, or barely any, do not need breaks.

Because the ability to buy beans and rice isn't a need. The ability to buy a slightly larger yacht is a need. Right?


If you don't pay income taxes, you don't need a break from them. This can not get any simpler.

Since when is "barely any" equal to zero?

Help me here - income and FICA taxes are still withheld from paycheques even if the person would qualify for EITC at tax filing time, right?

If so, that means even those who "don't pay income taxes" actually do - they're participating in government cash flow, they just get a refund and a piddling bit more back when their taxes are filed... assuming they qualify for EITC.


This is take-the-cake nonsense.

IF THEY GET IT BACK THEY DONT PAY TAXES.

Not even counting the EITC.

(and dont give me that state and local taxes crap, you know we are talking about Federal income tax.)

What part of "cash flow" did you fail to understand? Until that refund arrives/they get old or sick enough to start drawing SS, those taxes are still gone from the hypothetical low-income taxpayer's cheque. If that refund is less than the entire amount in income taxes withheld, they paid taxes in net terms.

Given the present wealth distribution, getting huffy about tax refunds to several million people who hold less than 5% of the country's resources is... pretty miserly.

how many words do you need to use to misrepresent the argument?

You said they pay taxes.

If they get it all back, plus an EITC, they don't.

How hard can you try to ignore per-pay deductions? On a full-year basis the tax burden may work out to zero, but the point I was trying to raise - which you flatly refuse to acknowledge - is that on scales shorter than a year, taxes are still being withheld from paycheques, contributing to continuous government revenue. It would be easier for the given individual if they only paid (or didn't) at the end of the fiscal year, but that military and court system won't fund itself in between - so they pay, and get back anything they overpaid, based on the tax code, at the end of the fiscal year.

This is not difficult to understand.


Nor is it material.

If i pay 500$ into taxes for the year, but get 500$ back plus a 4000$ EITC, then i payed no taxes.

This is not difficult to understand.
 
2011-04-18 11:40:43 AM  

Thune: PlatinumDragon: Thune: PlatinumDragon: Thune: jchuffyman: Thune: EberhardKarl: Read it.
Analyze it.
Decide for yourself.

Marx's analysis has been brought into the 21st century by a number of his proponents, but both the core of his method and the beef of his criticism of capitalist political economy is still as relevant as they were in 1867.

If, after that you, want to ignore the rest of his and Engels' writing, go ahead. I could truly care less.

My best guess however, is that not a single Fark Independent or Conservative has made it through even Volume I of Capital. They don't know a bloody thing about the thing they most fear, which is likely in part why they fear it.


We haven't made it through Mein Kampf either, you suggest we read that one?

I have, but that was for historical interest. Also have read the Communist Manifesto, The Wealth of Nations, the Koran and other various influential books

Mein Kampf is the scariest farking book I've ever read


I don't really need to read Das Kapital, to know its crap.

The whole foundation of the book is that some people own other peoples labor.

That the collective owns the fruits of the individuals labor.

No, they don't.

Never worked for a corporation, have you?


I work for one now.

And they do not "own", by fiat, the fruits of my labor.

I sell it to them, willingly.

It is a mutually benificial trade of money for services.

Free Market.

Learn something.

Ah, so you are also given a percentage of the profit from your labour as well as your base wage? You're part of an ownership collective? You can renegotiate your labour sales contract at any time with an expectation that you will be treated as a equal partner in the transaction? You have access to perfect information?

If you think anyone is operating in a truly free market, you're kidding yourself.

If I agreed to sell my services for X amount, and they agreed to pay X amount, then what's the problem?

I can renegotiate at any time, and i am free to take my services elsewhere at any time.

No market is truly free. The issue is the degree of freedom.

I want the market to be more free, you want it to be less.


You have no idea what I want, and presenting theory fails as an argument in the face of reality, where no individual is an island and collective entities - whether publicly-accountable or privately-organized - can bring much more economic force to bear than the vast majority of individuals.

If both sides are satisfied with the transaction, awesome - but they still own the results of your work unless you have an agreement to receive a share of the revenue from further trade of the result. This isn't college communism, this is a fair description of the reality. You provide labour, they pay you in exchange for your time and effort, and they own the result, with which to do as they please.

When these transactions and behaviours are scaled up to groups of several hundred, thousand, or million people, it's not quite so elegant anymore.
 
Xai
2011-04-18 11:41:32 AM  
wow, that has to be the dumbest thing ever said. no wonder the progressive student didn't answer.

I'm glad that conservative isn't an economist since he can't tell the difference between tradeable, tangeble assets (cash) and analysis data of intangable factors (consumer confidence, etc)
 
2011-04-18 11:43:11 AM  

Thune: lennavan: Thune: Are you serious or trolling?

Even if you could pull off such a totalitarian transfer, there would be people in poverty in less than 2 years.

There is, and always will, be a subset of the population that produces nothing, or are a net drag.

There are people that will blow that 50k on drugs, alcohol, strippers, gambling, and any number of pointless crap, and be broke again in no time.

Poverty is not the cause, it's an effect.

From those people, we can take 25k away from each and have the government spend that money for them. Provide them government homes, food, clothes and so on.

Here's the point. The United States has:

X wealth
Y people

I contend:

X / Y > poverty

It is possible, we can do it. The question is not can we do it, it is SHOULD we do it.



Absof*ckinglutely Not.

A well reasoned reply, well explained and very thorough. I'm convinced.

Thune: Good lord, read a book on economics, and moral hazzard.


Why would I read a book on economics? Solutions do not have to follow the rules of free market economics.

Read a book on moral hazard? Hey, I couldn't agree more. It is absolutely a question of whether or not we SHOULD do it. Morals and all. I love that you agree with me but your reply is super pouty mad proclaiming otherwise. It's funny.
 
2011-04-18 11:45:14 AM  

PlatinumDragon: Thune: PlatinumDragon: Thune: PlatinumDragon: Thune: jchuffyman: Thune: EberhardKarl: Read it.
Analyze it.
Decide for yourself.

Marx's analysis has been brought into the 21st century by a number of his proponents, but both the core of his method and the beef of his criticism of capitalist political economy is still as relevant as they were in 1867.

If, after that you, want to ignore the rest of his and Engels' writing, go ahead. I could truly care less.

My best guess however, is that not a single Fark Independent or Conservative has made it through even Volume I of Capital. They don't know a bloody thing about the thing they most fear, which is likely in part why they fear it.


We haven't made it through Mein Kampf either, you suggest we read that one?

I have, but that was for historical interest. Also have read the Communist Manifesto, The Wealth of Nations, the Koran and other various influential books

Mein Kampf is the scariest farking book I've ever read


I don't really need to read Das Kapital, to know its crap.

The whole foundation of the book is that some people own other peoples labor.

That the collective owns the fruits of the individuals labor.

No, they don't.

Never worked for a corporation, have you?


I work for one now.

And they do not "own", by fiat, the fruits of my labor.

I sell it to them, willingly.

It is a mutually benificial trade of money for services.

Free Market.

Learn something.

Ah, so you are also given a percentage of the profit from your labour as well as your base wage? You're part of an ownership collective? You can renegotiate your labour sales contract at any time with an expectation that you will be treated as a equal partner in the transaction? You have access to perfect information?

If you think anyone is operating in a truly free market, you're kidding yourself.

If I agreed to sell my services for X amount, and they agreed to pay X amount, then what's the problem?

I can renegotiate at any time, and i am free to take my services elsewhere at any time.

No market is truly free. The issue is the degree of freedom.

I want the market to be more free, you want it to be less.

You have no idea what I want, and presenting theory fails as an argument in the face of reality, where no individual is an island and collective entities - whether publicly-accountable or privately-organized - can bring much more economic force to bear than the vast majority of individuals.

If both sides are satisfied with the transaction, awesome - but they still own the results of your work unless you have an agreement to receive a share of the revenue from further trade of the result. This isn't college communism, this is a fair description of the reality. You provide labour, they pay you in exchange for your time and effort, and they own the result, with which to do as they please.

When these transactions and behaviours are scaled up to groups of several hundred, thousand, or million people, it's not quite so elegant anymore.


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.
 
2011-04-18 11:46:54 AM  

Cats_Lie: Last time I checked even a minimum wage worker is paying into social security and medicare.



Wow... they always go there. Every tax thread is about "income taxes", yet the left always feels the need to redirect and point out that there are other taxes too.

Did I say this before? Lemme check..

Phil Herup: Thune: you know we are talking about Federal income tax.

Dude.... every tax thread involves an attempt to redirect the point away from this fact by the FARK LibsTM. The left can not logically debate in income tax threads, so they have to bring up the other taxes every time.



Sure did.
 
2011-04-18 11:48:49 AM  

Phil Herup: The only type of tax is an income tax


I disagree!
 
2011-04-18 11:49:51 AM  

Thune: LasersHurt: Thune: Poverty is not the cause, it's an effect.

Or maybe, just maybe, it's a complex system involving BOTH, and it's not black and white? You morons.

Oh it is a complex system. It involves culture.

If Somalis, Chinese, or Vietnamese immigrants can, within a generation, have progeny attending college, then the problem of "poor" is not a result of the system, it is a result of culture. They prove by their success that it is possible to succeed here, even easy (as compared to other nations).
No, Poverty is a result of the lazy ass, victim culture endemic to indigenous poor in the nation that have been bred to believe that the system is stacked against them, that they are owed a livelyhood, and that it's better to hold up liquor stores and sell drugs, then to work hard for it.

If you remove the "culture" issues from the "poor" equation, "Poverty" truly does become an effect in this nation, not a cause.


So the rest of us need to shore up our public education. Not cut education spending.
 
2011-04-18 11:50:22 AM  

lennavan: I disagree!


I see you felt the need to return to your comfort zone of lying.