[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Kerry paid a very low amount relative to Bush. Kerry (and his wife) make far more money than Bush and paid a lower percentage as taxes.
Did you ever think to ask yourself why?
Answer: The majority of John and Theresa’s income is from capital gains not personal income.[/quote]
BINGO! We have a winner, folks!
[quote]hspder wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Not very ‘liberal’ with the cash: only 13% are on Pell Grants at Stanford. Funny how ‘liberalism’ is only for others.
Since when does Stanford have any discretion on who (and how much) to give Pell Grants? It uses a standard formula, created by congress. There’s no discretion here – it’s completely objective, and, again, the formula was generated by congress.
Sorry, try again!
[/quote]
BS. Then why do the Smithies (Smith, in MA) have 36%?
I don’t remember where I read this, but those are the numbers, if memory serves. And I’m too tired to google the damn thing. (You get to teach the ‘good’ ones, Doc.)
HH
[quote]hspder wrote:
doogie wrote:
Oh, this should be good. She must have really looked them over closely. Did you have her look at the CNN exit poll, too?
Your big words and fancy math have me confused. Did your blushing bride guess correctly? Does this iterative technique sound like it was “multiple regression analysis”?
You just went over the line. There is one thing I cannot tolerate, and that is those kinds of comments towards my wife. You can question me as much as you can, but questioning her is not something I will accept.
If you want to fall for the demagogy of one study (tip: picking telephone numbers at random does NOT create a statistically random sample for these ridiculously low sample sizes), and think you’re right and smarter than the two of us, go ahead. If you want to tell yourself that more educated people are more republican, go ahead. I really don’t care. Arguing with you just gives you a credibility that you do not have.
Good riddance with your delusion. I hope it brings you great health and wealth.
Over and out.
[/quote]
Doc,
This is a place basically for guys. He didn’t insult your wife. Remember where you are. Its a different culture here. What’s not ‘correct’ at a luncheon with Dr. Sowell wouldn’t even draw a blink here.
Peace.
HH
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
biltritewave wrote:
hspder wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Not very ‘liberal’ with the cash: only 13% are on Pell Grants at Stanford. Funny how ‘liberalism’ is only for others.
Since when does Stanford have any discretion on who (and how much) to give Pell Grants? It uses a standard formula, created by congress. There’s no discretion here – it’s completely objective, and, again, the formula was generated by congress.
Sorry, try again!
and republicans just doubled the amount of a pell grant. 
Still less then what was available when Clenis was in office.[/quote]
not true at all.
the authorized amount under the clinton years peaked at $4500 in 98, 99 but the highest amount appropriated during the clinton years for pell grant funding was$3125. Compare this to the maximum authorized amount under bush which maxes out at $5800 and appropriated amount of $4050. Both numbers signigcant increases over the clinton era. THe average grant is also signifcantly higher at $1915 in clintons last year (the highest) to $2, 469 under the last reported year for bush (2004)
If you look at the total money given in pell grants from clinton to bush, bush aslo has the lead. Highest total appropriated under clinton, 7.7 billion, in 99. Highest under bush, 13.5 billion for 2006
Anyway you slice it what you just stated is completely false.
Btw, my number come from the independent Congressional Research Service. Please show me numbers from an independent group that says differently.
thanks for playing,
me
[quote]hspder wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Kerry paid a very low amount relative to Bush. Kerry (and his wife) make far more money than Bush and paid a lower percentage as taxes.
Did you ever think to ask yourself why?
Answer: The majority of John and Theresa’s income is from capital gains not personal income.
BINGO! We have a winner, folks![/quote]
Capital gains which her first hubby earned! Those two leeches couldn’t run a gd vegetable stand between them.
HH
for the record, i think HSPDR is right on this pell grant at stanford thing. Its an income thing. The real question would be how much aid does stanford give that is need based/and is admission need blind (which it is now for most ivies but I dont know about other schools).
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Capital gains which her first hubby earned! Those two leeches couldn’t run a gd vegetable stand between them.[/quote]
… so are you saying that you agree with me that Capital Gains and Dividends Tax should be increased back?
[quote]biltritewave wrote:
for the record, i think HSPDR is right on this pell grant at stanford thing. Its made an income thing. The real question would be is how much aid does stanford give that is need based/and is admission need blind (which it is now for most ivies but I dont know about other schools).[/quote]
"
Beginning in academic year 2006-2007, parents of undergraduate financial aid applicants whose total annual income is less than $45,000 will not be expected to pay for their children’s educational costs at Stanford. Parents with income between $45,000 and $60,000 can expect a pro-rated reduction in their expected parent contribution.
This policy is designed for the purpose of facilitating attendance by students from families with relatively limited resources. Under this policy and as a general proposition, no parental contribution will be required where parental income from all sources is less than $45,000 per year.
"
[quote]hspder wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Therefore, Bush does in fact have the majority of those with more education (more than High School) in his corner!
You are a real spin-doctor aren’t you?
First of all, Bush DID. Not does, DID. This poll is from 2004.
Second, my point is that MORE education does NOT mean MORE support for Bush. The CNN poll clearly shows that – as we progress UP in the education ladder, Kerry closed in and wins at the top of the ladder.
[/quote]
No real spin to it: Most people with more education than a HS degree voted for Bush…according to the poll that you site.
From marketwatch:
"
[…]
The new tax law offers a huge benefit for higher earners: The ability to convert IRA funds into Roth IRAs, a perk which was, until now, off-limits to anyone with an adjusted gross income topping $100,000.
But what the “$70 billion tax law” conveniently fails to take into account is the lost revenue years from now, when all that retirement money comes out of Roth IRAs tax-free. No one knows when those distributions will occur, exactly, but you can bet we’ll be closer than we are now to Social Security and Medicare insolvency. Of course, that’s for another set of lawmakers to worry about…
Andrea Coombes, personal finance writer
"
Also from marketwatch:
"
Trust funds get trendy as wealth transfers to boomers
Brace yourself. There are going to be millions more Paris Hiltons in the world. I am speaking of Paris Hilton the trust fund baby – trusts are on fire.
A central tenet of estate planning is to give away as much of your assets as you can – tax-free – before you die. One trick in the estate planner’s bag is the grantor-retained annuity trust, or GRAT. The idea isn’t simple, and you’ll need a lawyer’s help, but it essentially allows you give your heirs a big gift without paying all the gift tax.
"
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
There is an underlying feeling among many that the only reason someone is rich is because they lied, cheated, or did some other bad thing to get their money. Or they had wealthy parents.
The truth is that the rich are just as honest or dishonest as the rest of us. And most worked very hard to get it.
The rich get taxed more (like the death tax) because people somehow feel they are getting even with rich people for being rich when they are not. So they feel some sense of entitlement that something is owed them because they were/are not rich.
Sorry to say that this is one attitude that liberals have been able to push quite successfully in the US. The class war is what many call it.
Well, my opinion is that if you didn’t work for it you do not deserve it. That is not to say that we shouldn’t take care of others, but it is not owed them and they don’t deserve it.
“Behind every great fortune lies a great crime”[/quote]
A true liberal speaks!
[quote]hspder wrote:
From marketwatch:
"
[…]
The new tax law offers a huge benefit for higher earners: The ability to convert IRA funds into Roth IRAs, a perk which was, until now, off-limits to anyone with an adjusted gross income topping $100,000.[/quote]
What an outrage!
Someone making over 100-k can now have the same privilege as a person making less money!
Those evil republicans…
[quote]hspder wrote:
Also from marketwatch:
"
Trust funds get trendy as wealth transfers to boomers
Brace yourself. There are going to be millions more Paris Hiltons in the world. I am speaking of Paris Hilton the trust fund baby – trusts are on fire.
A central tenet of estate planning is to give away as much of your assets as you can – tax-free – before you die. One trick in the estate planner’s bag is the grantor-retained annuity trust, or GRAT. The idea isn’t simple, and you’ll need a lawyer’s help, but it essentially allows you give your heirs a big gift without paying all the gift tax.
"
[/quote]
Let’s see, you are taxed when you earn your money (that’s once). If you invest it you pay tax again on the capital gains (that’s twice). And when you die they tax you yet again…
A guy works hard all his life and wants to pass that money on to his kids without fear of being taxed further on it.
“GRAT” is a “GREAT” idea!
Liberals have no idea how much they hurt the working class by calling for more taxes…
And your spin continues, ZEB…
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Liberals have no idea how much they hurt the working class by calling for more taxes…[/quote]
(sarcasm)
Yeah, the articles I linked clearly show that it is the working class that is getting the most benefit out of the tax breaks that Bush came up with. The fact that income inequality has been increasing since they have been implemented just furthers the obvious benefit of these tax cuts.
(/sarcasm)
You continue to ignore all my points and spin everything I write or quote to death. When you cannot spin it, you ignore it. So I am not going to waste time responding to your talking points.
I just want to clarify something once and for all:
“Liberals” are not calling for MORE taxes; we just want to roll back this insane tax break program that Bush came up with, which is driving up inflation, hurting the economy, and clearly only benefits the extremely wealthy – NOT the working class.
[quote]hspder wrote:
And your spin continues, ZEB…
ZEB wrote:
Liberals have no idea how much they hurt the working class by calling for more taxes…
(sarcasm)
Yeah, the articles I linked clearly show that it is the working class that is getting the most benefit out of the tax breaks that Bush came up with. The fact that income inequality has been increasing since they have been implemented just furthers the obvious benefit of these tax cuts.
(/sarcasm)
You continue to ignore all my points and spin everything I write or quote to death. When you cannot spin it, you ignore it. So I am not going to waste time responding to your talking points.
I just want to clarify something once and for all:
“Liberals” are not calling for MORE taxes; we just want to roll back this insane tax break program that Bush came up with, which is driving up inflation, hurting the economy, and clearly only benefits the extremely wealthy – NOT the working class.
[/quote]
I understand where you are coming from. And I don’t comepletely disagree with some of your points.
It’s you that doesn’t understand where I am coming from.
I am for lowering taxes for all who pay them!
Government is inefficient and needs to gain control of spending. And quite honestly it’s just so large…
I would like to see the average working man and woman who makes 40-k to 50-k per year pay a flat 20% in taxes. Those making less than 30-k should not have to pay any taxes. They have a hard enough time making ends meet.
With the money that they save on taxes they will be able to put to good use for their childrens education. Or perhaps purchase something for themselves.
Just about anything that they do with it is far better than giving it to the government, so that the government can go out and purchase $500 toilet seats for the Pentagon. Or some other foolish expenditure.
I have seen them and it’s not pretty.
I’m not an elitist.
What I am is someone who has learned through a great amount of personal experience to not trust the government when it comes to money (and some other things).
Know what I mean Prof?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
hspder wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Kerry paid a very low amount relative to Bush. Kerry (and his wife) make far more money than Bush and paid a lower percentage as taxes.
Did you ever think to ask yourself why?
Answer: The majority of John and Theresa’s income is from capital gains not personal income.
BINGO! We have a winner, folks!
Capital gains which her first hubby earned! Those two leeches couldn’t run a gd vegetable stand between them.
HH
[/quote]
As opposed to self-made man Dubya?
C’mon, you’re smarter than this at least.
That wasn’t a shot on your wife. No offense was meant at all. I apologize if it came across that way.
That was me admitting I’m not smart enough to know whether “multiple regression analysis” is the same as iterative technique. I DON’T know if she guessed correctly.
I was just being an ass about you saying “she can guess” combined with later saying “she says since no information is given on the sampling method”–which wasn’t true at all. It was aimed at your bias, not your wife’s ability.
I know jackshit about statistics. I don’t have a clue if she guessed correctly or even what iterative technique is, I just found it funny that you are posting your wife’s guess about things (especially the sampling methods which were very clearly laid out).
It was also a reaction to your intellectual dishonesty in posting Facebook studies and CNN exit polls as if they were valid scientific studies and then pulling out the big guns and having your wife rip on the Pew study. That’s not fair. If you had had her rip up your sources first, there wouldn’t even have been enough left for you to post here and we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.
I really do want to carry on the conversation and I really am interested in all the questions that follow. I would like to learn more about this. I took a political analysis course in undergrad and a “statistics for morons” graduate course, but that’s the extent of my understanding of statistics and polling. If you are too offended to continue, that’ll be my loss.
Either way, the only reason I posted the first study was to show that level of education does not strongly affect party affiliation. Do you (or your Advanced Statistics professor wife) have some evidence that the conclusion is wrong?
[quote]
If you want to fall for the demagogy of one study (tip: picking telephone numbers at random does NOT create a statistically random sample for these ridiculously low sample sizes),[/quote]
You can’t really think the term ‘demagogy’
was appropriate when talking about this study. Its freaking title is “Democrats gain edge in party identification”!
Where did you get “ridiculously low sample sizes”? The point we are fighting about is education’s affect on party affiliation. The chart in the study that addresses the topic shows that there were a total of 19,118 samples in the three surveys used. That’s an average of 6372 samples per survey:
Are you really saying that isn’t enough or where you just still pissed when you wrote that?
The Stanford thing you linked to says the Harvard study only used 1206 telephone survey. That provided a margin of error of ?2.8 percent at the 95 percent confidence level? What is an acceptable number?
For that matter, does looking at people’s Facebook sites constitute a valid study? You called it, “a study with some real numbers” and asked Zap to respond in kind. Do you really think looking at Facebook sites wsa more valid than the Pew study I posted?
Do you think exit polls are more reliable than the method posted for picking samples in the Pew study? Why wouldn’t the method in the Pew produce a random sample?
How could an exit poll–which completely misses absentee voters, which would be influenced by so many different factors from the appearance of the person taking the poll to the schedules of the people willing to participate (if you don’t have a job to get to, you have more time to stop and chat)–produce a more random sample?
Finally, what method for picking a random sample in a telephone survey would be more appropriate.
I’m genuinely interested in all of the questions I’m asking you. I don’t have some deep-seeded hope that I’ll bring two Stanford professors to their knees, bowing before my awesome knowledge.
[quote]
and think you’re right and smarter than the two of us, go ahead. If you want to tell yourself that more educated people are more republican, go ahead. I really don’t care. Arguing with you just gives you a credibility that you do not have.[/quote]
I addressed the “smarter than the two of you” part already.
My belief is that education has very little influence on party affiliation. I’m pretty sure you have that same belief, whether you will admit it at this point or not.
I think you are just being VERY intellectually dishonest in this discussion, though.
You wrote, “Neither of the studies would ever be published in a scientific paper” AFTER posting a study from the Stanford Newspaper using FACEBOOK sites for samples and a CNN exit poll. Would either of those be published in a scientific paper?
You posted a study that looked at freaking Facebook sites–sites whose primary purpose is helping you get laid. You knew it wasn’t a valid study when you posted it, but you did anyway.
You knew your CNN exit poll doesn’t reflect education’s affect on party affiliation. It’s specifically about the 2004 election. You can’t make any real conclusions about party affiliation and education level from it. You knew that when you posted it.
The results of the Pew study in this chart:
or EXTREMELY close to the CNN exit poll you posted:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
even though one is dealing with party affiliation and the other the 2004 vote.
The Pew study has college graduates being 33% Rep. and 32% Dem. in 2004.
The CNN poll has college graduates voting 52% for Bush and 46% for Kerry.
It would have been nice to see what the education levels of the self-identified Republicans and Democrats in the CNN exit poll, and it would have been nice if the Pew survey had a post-graduate category.
That’s about as fair as having an Advanced Statistics professor attack studies that say basically the same thing as the exit poll you posted.
I’ll add some spin.
From everything I’ve learned about Stanford on this thread, I think it is fair to say that their admission policies discriminate against the poor and against conservatives.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
As opposed to self-made man Dubya?
C’mon, you’re smarter than this at least.
[/quote]
What year did YOU display the intestinal fortitude to give up a debilitating habit such as alcohol?
What year did YOU graduate from Harvard?
What year did YOU graduate from YALE?
What year did you get elected as Governor of Texas?
What year did YOU get reelected as Governor of Texas?
What year did YOU get elected President of the United States?
What year did YOU get reelected President of the United States?
MANY are born into wealth and power. Few rise to the occasion the way GW has.
Enough with your hate…