Wrestleknownothing

Again. Never said it, never implied it. You are so married to this idea that anyone who tells you you are wrong must be them.

Indeed, maybe you were not (you were not). But that study does not support or refute your claim. But you were just joking, so what difference does it make?

The primary problem in two words.

You ascribe things to me I never said nor implied. Of course Biden's policies (and Trump's before him) with regard to aggressively expanding the money supply while stopping production directly led to inflation. And now cutting back on the money supply while raising interest rates has begun to reverse the effect (though we are still on a knife's edge where we could tilt toward recession). But to blame Biden's attempted ban on new drilling permits on public lands, which would have been a rounding error on a pimple (and he was not even able to implement for more than a few months), is wrong. It also ignores that oil production has expanded continually under Biden, though it is still below the pre-pandemic peak.

If I told you you were wrong about what caused inflation would it matter?

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.