We Need to Get Rid of the Death Tax

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]ZEB wrote:
sasquatch wrote:

Who is curbing incentive. Remeber, we are talking about the very rich. How would people who earn over 1mil be affected by a tax increase of 1%? 5mil=2.5%? 10mil5%? I know that translates to large dollars, but how is their lifestyle impacted? Is it enough to thwart their desire to make 10mil?

Read this very carefully:

"As soon as you take away enough of the incentive to become wealthy people who have an idea to create a product or service and would have started a business will just say…“what’s the point of working hard and giving it all to the government?”

Where does it say anything about a 1% tax hike?

Gee there sasquatch I guess it doesn’t huh?

Your crying like the poor little rich boy you claim not to be.

(And we go deeper-You know where this ends up right?..Okay. Remember when I said I had one good year? Ah never mind. Facts don’t really matter when you want attack someone right? Okay, I’ll retaliate)

And you sound like a guy who just fell off his working class bar stool trying to find all those loopholes that the rich have…But came up short!

(Come on now that had to hurt.)

Look at how the tax burden is falling–your example not mine–it hasn’t stopped people from wanting to earn big$'s. Look at how taxes have increased in the past 20-50 years. Hasn’t stopped many from taking their chances at becoming rich. You need to look at things in all there dimensions, not just from your seemingly narrow view.

(Now I have to do one back at you- Don’t you understand how these fights go?)

And you need a lesson in reading comprehension!

Here is what I said for the second time:

"As soon as you take away enough of the incentive to become wealthy people who have an idea to create a product or service and would have started a business will just say…“what’s the point of working hard and giving it all to the government?”

Now, are you claiming that no matter what the tax hike to the rich that the incentive will never be taken away? NO matter how high the tax rate goes?

How foolish that would be if you are saying that.

(See how I still gave you the benefit of the doubt- I could have stated that much worse. I’m still trying to be somewhat civil…we can still pull this out)

I know if you make it not worth their while they won’t do it.

That is a simple business law. The risk has to be worth the ultimate reward.

Go ask your buddy hspdr…Oh that’s right he wants to tax the top 20% even more since they only pay 80% of the taxes in the US.

Talk to you again soon…(I’m sure)

Make sure that you escalate the name calling and personal attacks. I will do the same and at the end of an additional 6 or 7 more posts each we will have really shown each other!

:wink:

[/quote]

I’ll try to answer in a much less condescending manner.

My comprehension skills are fine. I inserted those numbers to ask you "If we asked people making that kind of money to pay a little more, would that be enough to thwart enterprise as you seem to assume. I say that 1-2.5-5% actually affects nothing in their lifestyle. It would not prevent them from taking the risk to accumulate the wealth.

Maybe I didn’t make it clear, but I’m not looking for a fight and that’s how I type my post. If you want to look for things to fight about you’ll find them.

I disagree with your comparison. It matters little though. The fact that you feel you need to go tit-for-tat with every perceived jab is noteworthy. I said you’re crying like a little rich boy. That’s a fairly interpretable/generic type of behavior. Your shot, of course, attempts to belittle me personally, which is cheap.

I never suggested that you could tax 100% and not lose incentive. I suggested we haven’t reached that point yet as my examples show. We have dramativcally increased that amount and as yet no shortage of risk-takers.

I’ve escalated nothin nor called you any names. Nice try though

162

[quote]grew7 wrote:
I believe what this started this argument is that someone said something like, “Close the current loopholes, THEN take away the estate tax.”

So if the loopholes were closed, most of you would feel fine about getting rid of it?

So if people didn’t use these, it would be fair not to tax their estates so heavily, in your opinions?

How many people who use these loopholes take are affected by the estate tax? If it’s not the majority, then why not lower the tax rate or push back the amount one must inherit before being taxed until it mostly affects those who take advantage of all these loopholes?

What about grandma and grandpa who bought their land cheap but now sit on property that would be worth enough to be taxed?[/quote]

I stated that and I stand by it.

If everyone were taxed fairly and somehow we can verify that allincomes are being taxed appropriately–get rid of it. I’m not one for taxation or large gov’t. I wish we could shrink back, but it doesn’t look possible.

I’m not taxing them because I’m anti rich or jealous. My contention is along the way they get alot of ‘free’ money. That should then be taxed when the gov’t gets its chance.

If I’m off base with my loophole theory, then the tax is bogus. Plain and simple. If every cent they pull in is taxed fair and square then it sucks to be double-taxed.

Your land example is a good one. But I’m sure there have been property taxes paid over many years and such, but certainly, that would need to be addressed.

163

Thanks for answering. I should have asked you in a PM, because I wasn’t really trying to make a point about taxes or liberal college students. I was just curious considering you have 3 PhDs and an MS.

164

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

I will not say that only idiots are Republicans, being as we have some very intelligent ones on here.

However, the dumber and more ignorant the person, the more likely they are to be very racist, very xenophobic, anti-Jew, and generally of the thought lines of, “Fuck them, let’s just bomb them”. These people vote Republican (if they vote at all). [/quote]

http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=114

I know you recanted, but I thought I’d throw this out there for you.

Union members, low and lower middle income people tend to vote Democrat.

Race is the strongest determining factor in party affiliation, followed by church attend., gender, income, union household, and finally education at the bottom. The chart at the bottom of this page shows that the more education you have, the more likely you are to be Republican:

165

[quote]doogie wrote:
the more education you have, the more likely you are to be Republican:
http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=95[/quote]

I adamantly question the validity of that study.

I have several studies that say exactly the opposite… I’ve linked a few before when I had a similar discussion with thunderbolt.

Also, the point I made about Stanford, Harvard and Princeton being overwhelmingly liberal in both students and professors goes against that.

This poll is pretty clear:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

… shows that as you go up in education, Bush’s advantage narrows, culminating in a victory for Kerry in Post-Grads:

Postgrad Study (16%)
44% voted for Bush
55% voted for Kerry

166

[quote]doogie wrote:
http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=114

I know you recanted, but I thought I’d throw this out there for you.

Union members, low and lower middle income people tend to vote Democrat.

Race is the strongest determining factor in party affiliation, followed by church attend., gender, income, union household, and finally education at the bottom. The chart at the bottom of this page shows that the more education you have, the more likely you are to be Republican:
http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=95[/quote]

… so I showed my wife – she’s a Advanced Statistics professor over here at Stanford too – both analyses, without even telling her my own opinion or your conclusions (in order not to influence her) and she basically said both studies are completely bogus.

The first one makes a serious mistake, which, according to her, would cause her to flunk any student that made it: it tries to de-correlate variables that are correlated – of all things through “multiple regression analysis”. She asked me if I had gotten the study from a TV show script or something… It’s completely absurd.

Let me explain: Race, Church Attendance, Income and Education are all correlated at 0.5 or more. That means that you cannot single out any of the factors as affecting more any outcome, because they are all interdependent. What she can guess that they did was to sort the factors chronologically and just assume that whatever is determined first (race ? it is determined at birth) determines the last outcome. That is profoundly dumb and/or dishonest. For example, if one is less educated and also a low income (which is most of the time true), what determines the voting choice: the education or the income?

With regards to the second study, she says that since no information is given on the sampling method, one can automatically assume it is non-random. A non-random sample skews any result, as you can easily understand: you can just cherry-pick the people you want to sample to prove the point you want to make.

Neither of the studies would ever be published in a scientific paper. They are clearly the work of people who either have an agenda or have no idea what they are doing (“never explain with malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity”).

167

[quote]hspder wrote:

I adamantly question the validity of that study.[/quote]

Wow. You aren’t just a little curious about the study, you “adamantly” question it?

It must be the product of some evil, right wing think tank, right?

Let’s investigate the Pew Research Center.

[quote]
The Center is an independent opinion research group that studies attitudes toward the press, politics and public policy issues. We are best known for regular national surveys that measure public attentiveness to major news stories, and for our polling that charts trends in values and fundamental political and social attitudes. Formerly, the Times Mirror Center for the People & the Press (1990-1995), we are now sponsored by The Pew Charitable Trusts and are one of six projects that make up the Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan “fact tank” that provides information on the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world.

The Center’s purpose is to serve as a forum for ideas on the media and public policy through public opinion research. In this role it serves as an important information resource for political leaders, journalists, scholars, and public interest organizations. All of our current survey results are made available free of charge. [/quote]

That does sound evil. Maybe we should look at some of the recent things they’ve published to see if we see more of their Republican bias:

Bunch of Bush lovers. I apologize for posting a study from such a clearly obvious Republican organization as the Pew Research Center.

[quote]
I have several studies that say exactly the opposite… I’ve linked a few before when I had a similar discussion with thunderbolt. [/quote]

Do share.

In no way does the point you made above go against the findings of the study I posted.

You are smart enough to understand this.

ACADEMIA is liberal.

There are a limited number of professors. They stay year after year after year in the sheltered liberal world of academia.

Every year, thousands and thousands of students LEAVE academia. Sure they are liberal while at Stanford and Princeton and Harvard. They spend hours every day being lectured to by people who have been stuck in liberal academia for decades.

When these students LEAVE the universities, reality sets in they snap out of their daze.

[quote]
This poll is pretty clear:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

… shows that as you go up in education, Bush’s advantage narrows, culminating in a victory for Kerry in Post-Grads:

Postgrad Study (16%)
44% voted for Bush
55% voted for Kerry[/quote]

First of all, I showed that the more education a person had, the more likely they were to be Republican. You are talking about voting for Bush. Apples, Oranges.

Second, you question the validity of the Pew Research Center study and use a CNN exit poll to refute it? You can’t be serious.

Third, it is inaccurate for you to say your exit poll “shows that as you go up in education, Bush’s advantage narrows, culminating in a victory for Kerry in Post-Grads.”

Kerry starts off with the LEAD in the lowest category of education. People who weren’t high school graduates voted for Kerry 50% to 49% for Bush. College graduates voted 52% for Bush and 46% for Kerry. That’s no surprise. Get educated, get the hell out of the liberal wasteland that universities are and vote for Bush.

It’s also no surprise that people with “postgrad study” (aka “people who aren’t confident they can make it outside of sheltered world of liberal academia”)voted for Kerry 55% to 44% for Bush.

168

[quote]hspder wrote:

… so I showed my wife – she’s a Advanced Statistics professor over here at Stanford too – both analyses, without even telling her my own opinion or your conclusions (in order not to influence her) and she basically said both studies are completely bogus.[/quote]

Oh, this should be good. She must have really looked them over closely. Did you have her look at the CNN exit poll, too?

[quote]
The first one makes a serious mistake, which, according to her, would cause her to flunk any student that made it: it tries to de-correlate variables that are correlated – of all things through “multiple regression analysis”. She asked me if I had gotten the study from a TV show script or something… It’s completely absurd.[/quote]

I cut and pasted her criticisms into the feedback form on the Pew site. Those fools need to know they are completely absurd.

[quote]
Let me explain: Race, Church Attendance, Income and Education are all correlated at 0.5 or more. That means that you cannot single out any of the factors as affecting more any outcome, because they are all interdependent.[/quote]

Are you saying that in the general public Race, church attendance, income, and education are all correlated at 0.5 or more? I’m confused. The second sentence in the quote up there doesn’t make sense to me.

[quote]
What she can guess that they did was to sort the factors chronologically and just assume that whatever is determined first (race ? it is determined at birth) determines the last outcome. That is profoundly dumb and/or dishonest. For example, if one is less educated and also a low income (which is most of the time true), what determines the voting choice: the education or the income? [/quote]

Two Stanford professors couldn’t figure out that there is a “Methodology” link at the bottom of the study? Here’s what it says:
http://people-press.org/reports/methodology.php3

“The demographic weighting parameters are derived from a special analysis of the most recently available Census Bureau?s Current Population Survey (March 2005). This analysis produces population parameters for the demographic characteristics of households with adults 18 years of age or older, which are then compared with the sample characteristics to construct sample weights. The analysis only includes households in the continental United States that contain a telephone. The weights are derived using an iterative technique that simultaneously balances the distributions of all weighting parameters.”

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”?

[quote]
With regards to the second study, she says that since no information is given on the sampling method, one can automatically assume it is non-random.[/quote]

You know the saying about assumptions, right?

No information about sampling method?

It also says, “For a more detailed discussion of historical trends in party affiliation, see “Evenly Divided and Increasingly Polarized: The 2004 Political Landscape,” Nov. 5 2003, on the website of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, www.people-press.org.”

So I did that. Look! I found that pesky little chart you and your wife loved so much:

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=750

And look down there. It’s another link that says Methodology! If I really wanted to know something about the study instead of just assuming it’s crap because I don’t like its conclusions, I could click that link and find out all about it.

Does random mean something else at Stanford than it does everywhere else?

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=759

[quote]
The sample for this survey is a random digit sample of telephone numbers selected from telephone exchanges in the continental United States. The random digit aspect of the sample is used to avoid “listing” bias and provides representation of both listed and unlisted numbers (including not-yet-listed). The design of the sample ensures this representation by random generation of the last two digits of telephone numbers selected on the basis of their area code, telephone exchange, and bank number.

The telephone exchanges were selected with probabilities proportional to their size. The first eight digits of the sampled telephone numbers (area code, telephone exchange, bank number) were selected to be proportionally stratified by county and by telephone exchange within county. That is, the number of telephone numbers randomly sampled from within a given county is proportional to that county’s share of telephone numbers in the U.S. Only working banks of telephone numbers are selected. A working bank is defined as 100 contiguous telephone numbers containing one or more residential listings.

The sample was released for interviewing in replicates. Using replicates to control the release of sample to the field ensures that the complete call procedures are followed for the entire sample. The use of replicates also insures that the regional distribution of numbers called is appropriate. Again, this works to increase the representativeness of the sample.

At least 10 attempts were made to complete an interview at every sampled telephone number. The calls were staggered over times of day and days of the week to maximize the chances of making a contact with a potential respondent. All interview breakoffs and refusals were re-contacted at least once in order to attempt to convert them to completed interviews. In each contacted household, interviewers asked to speak with the “youngest male 18 or older who is at home.” If there is no eligible man at home, interviewers asked to speak with “the oldest woman 18 or older who is at home.” This systematic respondent selection technique has been shown empirically to produce samples that closely mirror the population in terms of age and gender.

Non-response in telephone interview surveys produces some known biases in survey-derived estimates because participation tends to vary for different subgroups of the population, and these subgroups are likely to vary also on questions of substantive interest. In order to compensate for these known biases, the sample data are weighted in analysis.

The demographic weighting parameters are derived from a special analysis of the most recently available Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey (March 2002). This analysis produced population parameters for the demographic characteristics of households with adults 18 or older, which are then compared with the sample characteristics to construct sample weights. The analysis only included households in the continental United States that contain a telephone. The weights are derived using an iterative technique that simultaneously balances the distributions of all weighting parameters.[/quote]

I’m sure CNN paying temp. workers minimum wage to stand outside polling places and try to get people to stop and tell them who they voted for is a MUCH better technique.

Are you or your wife seriously suggesting that the Pew Research Center “cherry-picked” the people or surveys they wanted to use in this analysis in order to skew the results so that it would show that as people get more educated, their chance of voting Republican increases?

[quote]
Neither of the studies would ever be published in a scientific paper. They are clearly the work of people who either have an agenda or have no idea what they are doing (“never explain with malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity”).[/quote]

“They are clearly the work of people who either have an agenda or have no idea what they are doing.”

Fascinating.

169

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
I happen to believe my contention that 95% of the wealth pays 80% of the taxes is fairer. It matters little to me how many people control that money. That is statistically insignificant to compare a 2 different value groups.[/quote]

Here is my fundamental problem with what you are saying:

You (and some others) look at the amount of wealth and claim that THIS is more important than the actual man or woman who earned it!

As you say “it matters little to me how many people control that money.”

But in reality, that’s exactly what IS important! “The people.”

When we have the top 20 percent already paying 80% of all taxes that is indeed a form of punishment on those who have gained wealth.

Another poster (I think lorisco) stated something on the order of this being societies way of punishing the rich.

While I’m not what anyone would term “rich” I would like to be in that category someday. And what’s wrong with that as a goal?

If I’m able to hire three more people in my small business, that means that three more people have jobs. And three more people have money to spend who might have been unemployed, or working for someone else for less money.

When an entreprenuer wins, everyone wins, includig the tax man because the tax base widens and more people pay taxes.

I guess I’m just tired of people taking a one sided view of those who truly are driving the economy.

As the tired old sang goes: I never saw a poor person hire anyone!

With that said, why constantly attack and punish those who can truly make a difference for the better?

In addition to this I think we need to drop the stereotypes which are also pushed by some on this thread.

All rich people are not evil. Just as all poor people are not lazy. I wonder why so many think it’s okay to stereotype in this fashion? Does it give some a superior feeling to claim someone is lazy who has not achieved what they have financially?

In turn, does it give others a better feeling to claim that the rich got that way because they are dishonest? Does it help them deal with their own personal financial failures better?

The class warfare promulgated largely by the democratic party liberals only harms our country. It seems to me that in order to gain more votes from the working class, they try to drive a wedge between the classes. But of course it’s deeper than that…

It doesn’t make moral or economic sense.

That’s nice to hear. We can agree on that one.

170

[quote]sasquatch wrote:

I’ll try to answer in a much less condescending manner.[/quote]

I thank you for this, and I will do the same.

While I don’t think any of those numbers are going to reverse the incentive, I wonder why they are necessary. I think if more money is allowed to be left IN the market and out of governments hands it will go further to drive the economy.

If you tax an “S” corp (small business) for example that will put a break on how fast that they can expand that their business. Or perhaps may even prevent them from expanding. This only harms the economy.

When we raise taxes on anyone the money goes the the government. They have already proven that they are not the very best at handling money. And certainly they should not be in the business of redistributing wealth!

I never want to fight…just ask my wife.

Seriously, I would much rather discuss than fight. When we discuss I can walk away with some ideas that I learn from you, and hopefully the reverse happens. When we fight neither of us does anything but attempt to piss off the other guy…that’s such a waste.

I agree with you. But my point on that is we would be much better off economically if we did not have such a high tax rate…for anyone!

How does giving the government more money help anyone?

“The government spends money like a drunken sailor. But at least the sailor is spending his own money!”

President Ronald Reagan

172

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

That is not true at all. I went back on what I said- what you just said is as ridiculous as what I did.

More education does not mean Republican at all, and your poll chart is bullshit.[/quote]

Strong, strong arguement there Irish.

You posted an ignorant rant based on your personal feelings. I posted a study from an extremely reputable organization specializing in research.

I didn’t make any kind of causation statement, and I pointed out that education really wasn’t that important in determining how people vote.

173

[quote]ZEB wrote:
sasquatch wrote:

I’ll try to answer in a much less condescending manner.

I thank you for this, and I will do the same.

My comprehension skills are fine. I inserted those numbers to ask you "If we asked people making that kind of money to pay a little more, would that be enough to thwart enterprise as you seem to assume. I say that 1-2.5-5% actually affects nothing in their lifestyle. It would not prevent them from taking the risk to accumulate the wealth.

While I don’t think any of those numbers are going to reverse the incentive, I wonder why they are necessary. I think if more money is allowed to be left IN the market and out of governments hands it will go further to drive the economy.

If you tax an “S” corp (small business) for example that will put a break on how fast that they can expand that their business. Or perhaps may even prevent them from expanding. This only harms the economy.

When we raise taxes on anyone the money goes the the government. They have already proven that they are not the very best at handling money. And certainly they should not be in the business of redistributing wealth!

Maybe I didn’t make it clear, but I’m not looking for a fight and that’s how I type my post. If you want to look for things to fight about you’ll find them.

I never want to fight…just ask my wife.

Seriously, I would much rather discuss than fight. When we discuss I can walk away with some ideas that I learn from you, and hopefully the reverse happens. When we fight neither of us does anything but attempt to piss off the other guy…that’s such a waste.

I never suggested that you could tax 100% and not lose incentive. I suggested we haven’t reached that point yet as my examples show. We have dramativcally increased that amount and as yet no shortage of risk-takers.

I agree with you. But my point on that is we would be much better off economically if we did not have such a high tax rate…for anyone!

How does giving the government more money help anyone?

“The government spends money like a drunken sailor. But at least the sailor is spending his own money!”

President Ronald Reagan
[/quote]

And I’ll finish this (I hope) with me saying that it is not my intent to further tax the ‘rich’ to even further lessen the burden on anyone else. My wish would be for less spending and less taxation across the board. I’m not saying “oh, we need 500mil more, just tax the rich.” What I guess I’m trying to say is that the burden to them is less–just the actual life burden–than to those ‘less compensated.’ So, if without my or anyone elses approval, the gov’t taxes us more, I would rather see it come from those that have more and in this case we are discussing the death tax.

No hate

Not ‘fair’ I’m sure to some

174

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
hspder wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
When these kids grow up and stop getting force fed liberalism many will likely shift their political beliefs.

Would you care to provide any evidence of that?

I provided a study with some real numbers. Please return in kind.

Do you actually believe that the students are fed balanced arguments by their liberal professors?

You just admitted it is a liberal institution and now you want to pretend that the liberalism does not penetrate the classroom?[/quote]

Not very ‘liberal’ with the cash: only 13% are on Pell Grants at Stanford. Funny how ‘liberalism’ is only for others.

175

[quote]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”?[/quote]

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.

176

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Not very ‘liberal’ with the cash: only 13% are on Pell Grants at Stanford. Funny how ‘liberalism’ is only for others.[/quote]

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!

177

[quote]hspder wrote:
This poll is pretty clear:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html[/quote]

Polls say many things.

According to the poll that you site Bush recieved the majority of those with “some college” (54%) and “college grads” (52%).

And while Bush lost the “post grads” only getting 44%, that group only represents a total of 16% of the total of five groups represented in the study!

When you combine the total of “some college” and “college grad” that totals 58% of the five groups represented. And Bush easily carried a majority of those two groups.

Therefore, Bush does in fact have the majority of those with more education (more than High School) in his corner!

178

[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]

and republicans just doubled the amount of a pell grant. :slight_smile:

179

[quote]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.[/quote]

Did you ever think to ask yourself why?

Answer: The majority of John and Theresa’s income is from capital gains not personal income.

180

[quote]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. :-)[/quote]

Still less then what was available when Clenis was in office.

181

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Therefore, Bush does in fact have the majority of those with more education (more than High School) in his corner!
[/quote]

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.