I thought the Bush tax cuts only benefitte dthe rich?

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Johnny, my undergraduate degree (from UCONN) is in statistics. This is NOT statistics, it is elementary school mathematics. A 33 percent tax decrease is larger than an 11.6 percent tax decrease. Sorry if that ruffles your political feathers.

I'd also argue that giving an extra $1,000 to a guy making $20k a year, means more to him than giving $11,500 back to a guy making $250K. Why? Something called "diminishing marginal returns". Simply puit, a $100 raise means more to someone earning minimum wage than a $1 million raise to Bill Gates.

Every time someone proves you wrong, you just keep telling yourself that they are "taking it out of context". The other kook here keeps accusing me of "spin" for making the outrageous claim that 33 is, in fact, greater than 11.6.

Ah, a fellow Husky, I was a senior when the men's and women's teams won the championships in the same year.

You're right. I keep typing statistics and that's the completely incorrect term. I'm a jackass in that aspect. You aren't ruffling my political feathers at all... mostly because, like usual from very partisan people, you think I'm a liberal because I disagree with you.

And every time someone proves you wrong, you change the context of your original statement. First, who benefited more from the change in policy, then it's who appreciates it more, now it's whoever pays more overall is screwed? Benefits can be quantified, appreciation cannot.

If I give a bum on the street a $100 bill, he'll certainly appreciate it more than someone on Wall Street that cashed in a $1M deal. But the bum certainly didn't benefit more.

[scottw]

[QUOTE=JohnnyD;808316]If I give a bum on the street a $100 bill

QUOTE]

if you are truly a liberal you will take a hundred dollar bill from your neighbor and give it to the bum... and then congratulate yourself....see, you both benefit

now to debate who benefits more...the bum or the liberal

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Ah, a fellow Husky, I was a senior when the men's and women's teams won the championships in the same year.

You're right. I keep typing statistics and that's the completely incorrect term. I'm a jackass in that aspect. You aren't ruffling my political feathers at all... mostly because, like usual from very partisan people, you think I'm a liberal because I disagree with you.

And every time someone proves you wrong, you change the context of your original statement. First, who benefited more from the change in policy, then it's who appreciates it more, now it's whoever pays more overall is screwed? Benefits can be quantified, appreciation cannot.

If I give a bum on the street a $100 bill, he'll certainly appreciate it more than someone on Wall Street that cashed in a $1M deal. But the bum certainly didn't benefit more.

You're all over the place. You even sort of proved my point.

Consider the bum getting $100 or Warren Buffet getting $1 million. The $1 million is meaningless to Buffet, it doesn't change his life at all. $100 to a homeless person can have a very meaningful impact (that's the 'diminishing marginal returns' I was referring to).

A bum "makes out better" getting $100 than Buffet does getting $1 million. You practically said that yourself. Because the $100 adds more incrementalutility to the bum's life than $1 million does to Buffet.

Same logic with the tax decrease, it's the same thing.