- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
If I have more, I win.
Do I need to define win for you? :2funny:
Seriously, that's good, but that group is shrinking and not growing. That's the point. Ideally, just like in grading, you'd like a nice curve with most in the middle. If you have most at the ends, and the middle small, there is likely a problem. This really isn't complicated.
Yes, we know that. But is the gap studily grows, that is different. And I haven't mentioned reasons at all yet, though I suspect policy that favors wealthy and business play a role.
You too shouldn't make leaps as you're no better than TD at it.
Yes, we know that. But if the gap studily grows, that is different. And I haven't mentioned reasons at all yet, though I suspect policy that favors wealthy and business play a role among many reasons.
You too shouldn't make leaps as you're no better than TD at it.
I should note that the number of winners is not really relevant. I said i prefer a society where some can win rather than everyone being forced into mediocrity. I tried out for two olympic teams knowing that in my sport and in my country I had about a one in four chance of making it (I didn't) and then about a one in 20 chance of winning a medal if I made the team. Bad odds but what I learned training for that (and all the other tournaments I won along the way including two america's cups) was very worthwhile. The left often seems to engage in a cynical view that people shouldn't try to win because the game is rigged against them and they are better off not expending the effort and letting the dem party and a dem run government taking care of them while many of us on the right argue that working hard and trying to win has massive benefits for both the individual and society even if most of those who try don't win
a nation where everyone tries to be an olympic track or swimming or boxing or table tennis or badminton athlete is going to be far more healthy than one where everyone sits on their collective asses figuring its not worth the sweat and muscle aches given the odds against making the team.
likewise, we have a far more prosperous nation where everyone tries to be self sufficient and economically independent if not "rich" than one where everyone sits around waiting for the welfare check
If I have more, I win.
Do I need to define win for you? :2funny:
Seriously, that's good, but that group is shrinking and not growing. That's the point. Ideally, just like in grading, you'd like a nice curve with most in the middle. If you have most at the ends, and the middle small, there is likely a problem. This really isn't complicated.
My leaps are better than yours.
I suspect changes to the law, like the expansion of credit in the 1970's following the FCRA and also in the 1980's with mortgage interest being tax deductible.
win is how you define it for yourself
I suspect you don't have much of an athletic background but its a matter of perspective
If I go into a tournament as the 32nd seed in a field of 64 and I get to the quarter finals I would consider that a win. If I am the #1 seed I would consider it a LOSS. If I come from the ghetto and went to a third rate HS school and make Honors at a good public university that is a clear win. If I have an IQ of 165 and graduated valedictorian of a top prep school mere honors at a decent state university would be failure.
Who is the winner of football, baseball, soccer, etc?
That's why I try not to leap.
Perhaps, and more. From corporate welfare, to trying to control the economy by making up for low wages with credit, the idea itself, would also be among the reasons. Government likely should favor no one, but if it were going to, I'd argue the middle class would have been a better choice.
Each game has but one winner. If the game is economic success, that is one game and not three. In the game of get it all, only one will. But, you and he miss the point. I don't even say that is the game. I say that it shoudl not be the game. That we should seek more and put less emphasis on winning that game.
The article I gave you said:
Florida's unemployment rate remains far higher than the 9.1 percent national average.
And then it said this:
Recently, both a Tax Foundation study and University of Central Florida economist Sean Snaith have argued that reducing taxes has no discernible impact on job growth.
It's not hard to find evidence to support such a view. Other states with much higher corporate tax rates — Connecticut, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey — all enjoy significantly lower jobless numbers, as well as hosting the corporate headquarters of many more Fortune 500 companies per capita.
Tax cuts don't create jobs - Tampa Bay Times
The FCRA was done to prevent discrimination in credit lending.
The problem is that it may have loosened standards, too much.
It's an unexpected consequence of government legislation, that had broad and sweeping effects.
Keeping up with the Jones was easier than ever, to the point of moral hazard, by both lenders and borrowers.
Sorry, the numbers based upon the states presented don't support that. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not but cherry picking one state and then coming to conclusions based upon that is more than a little flawed.
WHo said it was unintended? Business needs buyers more than tax cuts. I think our leaders really know that. Worker wages couldn't go for ever, and unions fell out of favor, like with reason. Still, you need buyers. Credit needed to eb expanded, or the economy gets worse. Less people are hired, and the cycle gets rather bleak.
Charrrrrge it!!!!!
And we need this attitude of keeping up with the Jones'. It encourages consumerism. Like I said, business is very short sighted at times.
No one is cherry picking. Flordia was used because it was a florida article. That is why I gave you other articles.
It was unintended, because it was meant to allow consumers access to their credit reports to fix errors and it also outlawed arbitrary discrimination on credit granting and reporting.
And if they would have used another state instead? What was it? North Dakota? What conclusions would we then come up with?
Yes, I know. And it wasn't the only effort. But do try to hear what I'm saying. :coffeepap
the rich dems who are creating addiction to government handouts are actively ruining this country so they can win elections and with it get the wealth and power they derive from holding public office
So you think providing basic necessities to American citizens is an effort to make them equal? BTW I am still waiting for you to explain why you should not pay more when you use facilities and laws supported by all tax payers.
I do hear what you were saying, but I wholly disagree.
Credit was actually pretty common in the 1800's,however, credit reporting nationwide was not.
The problem was, that some underwriters and other people involved in the credit keeping and granting market used arbitrary discrimination, that the government outlawed.
It was an unintended side effect, that people would be granted more credit than they should of used.
It's not a mass conspiracy.
None of the other articles use Florida. All did studies and came to the same conclusion. They can find no evidence tax cuts create jobs. I think I gave you six or seven articles, and told you there was even more. Florida was only mentioned because that one article was in dealing with an issue in Florida.
I was around in the 80's.
Nor do I claim a mass conspiracy, exactly. Only that it was part of their thinking. They always concern themselves with how to increase business and keep people working, and I would bet there were lobbists right there, pushing, and knowing it would increase sales.
This actually happened in 1970, at least with the FCRA.
Reading the intent of the legislation, would not have one necessarily believe that credit standards would be loosened for individuals, but that's generally what happened, in my opinion.
I know exactly what you said and this just verifies that I was correct so again why not quit dodging and give a straight answer
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?