Wrestleknownothing

You have excellent taste.

That is the lamest technique of all time. "Is the Pope Jewish? I am not saying he is. I am just asking a question."

I just informed my wife I have grabbing her ass in public blindness. I will let you know how that works out.

Can you prove you are right?

It is not just you

Sides? Why's it gotta sides? I see a false statement and I have to challenge it.

False

It was a math joke about redistributing wealth based on your castle built on averages. As for how any politician has ever come up with a headline number ever, I cannot say. My sense is that they are mostly designer numbers.

Start with the lack of understanding of the difference between a median and a mean when a distribution is bounded by zero and billions. But you also have a basic lack of understanding of what this latest program is. In your thread on the SCOTUS decision to stop Biden's loan forgiveness program jross said it was about accountability and doing what one agrees to do, to which you replied "well said". The latest announcement by the Biden administration is about the government finally being accountable and honoring the agreements they entered into. I know you want to conflate that with other Biden admin initiatives to give blanket forgiveness to student loans, but you are just plain wrong on that account. If you are for accountability and honoring contracts, then you have to support this intiative, even if you have to hold your nose while doing it.

And perhaps you could take a basic math class. The average is meaningless for this situation. The average has a massive right skew due to ultra-high earners. The median means more, but really what the bottom quartile or less earn is the real issue. Unless you are talking about redistributing income so that all college grads are making $1.9 million more than non-college grads? You Democrats are all the same.

"Reminds me of" <> "Same as" Lighten up

That is pretty bad. By this writer's standard Steveson had no business winning gold at the Olympics.

Correct. From the Flo article: Next season, near-falls will be worth two, three and four points depending on whether a wrestler receives two, three or four swipes.

Nope , I am not saying that at all.

You guys crack me up. If the politician you like makes promises, that is good policy. If the politician you don't like makes promises, that is buying votes. So sweet. So innocent. All policy is buying votes. All politicians do it. Reminds me about the transfer debates that go on around here. When your team does it it is wrong. When my team does it it is smart.

One of the points was to create greater separation between a takedown and an escape/release. But you outlined some unintended consequences. As for back points, 3 was added rather than replacing 2 or 4.

Depends on the nature of the organization.

Yes, but taxes are almost always a zero sum game. When taxes are cut there are three ways to finance that: lower spending (that has happened only six times since 1972), higher taxes elsewhere, and more borrowing. The latter two are tax increases spread across those who do not get a tax cut. The point being that taxes do not exist in a vacuum. So to claim his tax cut affects no one but himself while enforcing a contract is taking his money is disingenuous at best. I am against Biden's plan that got shot down by the Supreme Court. But that is absolutely not in any way, shape, or form, even remotely related to whether the federal government should honor a contract that they unilaterally created and signed.

I made two points that were a direct counter to claims that bigbrog made. The first point is that this is not at all like what the Supreme Court struck down. This is an existing program that was being poorly administered. The Biden administration is fixing the administration of the program and correcting past mistakes in the process. His second claim is that students should not be able to get out of the contracts they willingly signed. And in this case the exact opposite has been happening. The federal government has not lived up to the contract that they both designed and signed. So he was wrong on both counts. You then asked a related question about the accounting that lead to the headline numbers. My point there was to never trust any number any politician quotes you ever. And that is a bipartisan statement. So when you asked me if I was saying that every person covered by the error correction was going to get X, my reply is that I absolutely was not saying that because of my distrust of the numbers. And when you think about incentives, it is in Biden's best interest to inflate that number.

Given that the law is clear on your debt with respect to taxes, it really is not your money even if it is tied to your employment. You may have earned it in a very real sense, but in doing so your incur a liability that you can not shake, so do not act like you are somehow more virtuous accepting a tax cut than a student is enforcing their rights according to the contract they signed. A friend of mine use to say his kids' idea of sharing is "you give to me". You sound like one of his kids when you claim that a tax cut is getting your money back.

OK, you had me confused by the way you worded that.

The history lesson, while interesting, is not what his statement, nor my reply, was about. He used the words "right now". I disagree with that sentiment. What happened from 2016 to 2021 does not change my opinion. The fact remains that the US has the defending world silver medalist at 65. Your qualifier that 65 is the weakest weight in the US is also not what his statement, nor my reply, was about. When you have silver or better at 8 of 10 weights (and 5 of 6 Olympic weights), then sure a weight with a silver medalist can be considered relatively weak, but that does not make it weak in the absolute.

Are you suggesting a politician would do something that is potentially popular with the populace that won them the popular vote? I am shocked, shocked, I tell you. One more question, how have you felt about tax cuts?

I am not saying that at all. I will not speak for any government derived headline numbers ever. No one knows the details of how they came up with those numbers. Did they include future anticipated forgiveness? Is it just past forgiveness that was incorrectly accounted for? Is it some combination of the two? Or some other way? If you have ever tried to decipher a federal budget press release (never mind the actual budget document) you will know what I am talking about. Only a governmental entity can claim a larger number is a reduction.