jcd11235

Yes. When cutting taxes significantly increases revenue, we'll know we're on the wrong side of the curve. Have you any examples of that occurring in recent decades? I think it should be doing what it can to maximize the efficiency of resource utilization for the nation. In some cases, that means more government involvement, in some cases it means less government involvement. When the government can provide a necessary service to citizens via taxation for lower cost than citizens could obtain that service for themselves, or for necessary services that individuals would be reluctant to pay for voluntarily, then yes, I believe group purchase via taxation is a good thing. It is not accurate to assume that lower tax rates for individuals imply net increases in spendable income for those individuals. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

This informative link was posted in a different thread by another poster: Tax Cuts: Myths and Realities. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Or, I could suggest that the skydiver thats seeks out coaching (so he can downsize quickly to a sub-100' canopy loaded at 2+:1 and feels the need to do the really impressive swoops) decreases his probability of survival. Those are two separate actions: 1. getting coaching and 2. downsizing. Both can affect the probability of surviving a jump, further supporting my point. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

The only interpretation that matters is that of the SCOTUS, and they disagreed with Monroe's interpretation of the general welfare clause. The Founding Fathers provided no mechanism for the people to directly interpret or amend the Constitution. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

The US is not a dictatorship. The power to change the government lies primarily with the people. It is much more difficult to change private insurance companies. As has happened. There is enough need for reform to go around. I suggest you read the constitution and federalist paper 41 for starters. It doesn't matter what Federalist paper 41 says. The SCOTUS has interpreted Hamilton's, not Monroe's interpretation of the general welfare clause to be the correct interpretation. SCOTUS decisions trump Federalist papers. The Article III of the US Constitution makes the SCOTUS the ultimate authority w/r/t interpreting the Constitution. From United States v. Butler: Madison asserted it amounted to no more than a reference to the other powers enumerated in the subsequent clauses of the same section; that, as the United States is a government of limited and enumerated powers, the grant of power to tax and spend for the general national welfare must be confined to the enumerated legislative fields committed to the Congress. In this view, the phrase is mere tautology, for taxation and appropriation are, or may be, necessary incidents of the exercise of any of the enumerated legislative powers. Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. Each contention has had the support of those whose views are entitled to weight. This court has noticed the question, but has never found it necessary to decide which is the true construction. Mr. Justice Story, in his Commentaries, espouses the Hamiltonian position. We shall not review the writings of public men and commentators or discuss the legislative practice. Study of all these leads us to conclude that the reading advocated by Mr. Justice Story is the correct one. Hamilton and, more importantly, the SCOTUS, disagreed with Monroe on that point. The opinion of the SCOTUS trumps the opinion of Madison. Incidentally, Hamilton wrote the majority of the Federalist Papers. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

There's no such thing as a "skydive" without a skydiver, so these statements seem somewhat at odds. So, how would you phrase the explanation that each skydive is an independent event, but any particular skydive does not necessarily have the same probability of resulting in a fatality as the previous one (or one made 500 jumps previous) due to the lessons learned or knowledge obtained in the interim? As an example, I would suggest that a skydiver that seeks out and gets canopy coaching from a qualified coach (e.g. Scott Miller, Brian Germain) increases his probability of survival compared to before receiving such coaching. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Compare the quality of journalism of NPR with that of FOXNews, CNN, or other for profit news outlets. When the goal is to make a profit, objectivity is often lost. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Do you believe that insurance companies are inherently honest? You do realize that private insurance companies typically have an agenda, right? That's the status quo, the reason so many are calling for reform. That's not true. See United States v. Butler. I posted in more detail here. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

The US is far from being the only (or most popular) destination for medical tourism. Americans have been known to go abroad to obtain better medical care, also. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Count me in the not so reasonably informed group. I didn't know he was gay. Maybe I read about it before, but because I consider sexual preference to be about as important as eye color, I don't remember, because I just didn't care. C'est la vie. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I took this, and came out "New Thought". Gives me something to read up on. My top result was Unitarian Universalism. Apparently, I'm not cut out to be a Jehovah's Witness. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

From my experience, that applies to a portion of users of all three common platforms, Windows, OS X, and Linux. An older PC running a Linux distribution will meet the needs of most consumers. Some of those distributions don't even require a CS degree to install. Some even rival or surpass Windows w/r/t ease of use. Sometimes a need to run a particular application mandates use of Windows or OS X. From a hardware perspective, you generally get what you pay for. Last winter, when my sister needed advice about what laptop to buy, I steered her towards a PC, even though she liked using OS X after trying my Macbook Pro. She wanted a 17 inch screen, but otherwise only needed an entry level machine, a configuration for which Apple doesn't provide. A couple months earlier, a friend needed to replace a laptop, and in an effort to save a couple hundred bucks, ended up buying a PC that was significantly inferior to (and much bulkier than) the entry level Macbook that I recommended, which had the same screen size. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Sounds easy, except for the swim and the run. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I primarily use OS X. I have two versions of Windows installed as virtual machines on my Mac, but rarely use them for anything other than checking for compatibility issues. I also use a couple Linux distributions a little bit. To me, OS X has the most intuitive and easy to use user interface, without having to sacrifice the power associated with UNIX/*nix operating systems. (In other words, it's equally well suited for users who are nearly computer illiterate and SuperGeeks.) Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

When I sold gear, it was pretty common for Europeans to come to the US to buy gear and skydive because the price differences from what they would pay for the equipment and jumps in Europe were enough that it covered the cost of their trips. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Is the o in bolface like that on your birth certificate certificate of live birth, also? what is a bolface? That should have been, er, bol'face. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Cuba libre, unmixed, hold the lime, please. Uh, better make mine a double, also. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Is the o in bolface like that on your birth certificate certificate of live birth, also? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Okie dokie... so we went right from discrete random variables into continuous random variables. Shall we walk through all the independent random variables or jump right into Bayes? Cause if we're gonna take that walk; I'm gonna need to fix a drink. I was thinking it would be nice exercise in regression analysis. How many independent variables do you think we have? Let's see, there's jump numbers, time in sport, number of jumps made at home drop zone annually, canopy size, age, …. We could also set up some dummy variables for skydiving discipline, student progression type, etc. Perhaps you'd better make that drink a double. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Or, we could look at things accurately and realistically and be as safe as we can whilst having fun. The skydive has no memory, thus each skydive is an independent event. The skydiver, OTOH, does have a memory, so the potential for doing (or not doing) something that can result in death can potentially change from jump to jump. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Perhaps not. Correct. We cannot logically conclude that a particular black car is more likely to be in an accident than a particular red car, even though over 99% of the accidents involve at least one black car, and over 90% of accidents involve black cars exclusively. We have to know what proportion of the cars in the city are black and what proportion are red before we can draw any valid conclusions about the relative safety. If black cars comprise more than 95% of the cars in the city, then it is statistically less likely that a particular black car will be involved in an accident, compared to a particular red car. If black cars comprise significantly less than 95% of the cars in the city, then it is statistically more likely that a particular black car will be involved in an accident, compared to a particular red car. If black cars comprise approximately 95% of the cars in the city, then the color of a particular car has no significant effect on the probability that it is involved in an accident. Skydiving fatalities are the same. Just because the majority of fatalities involve skydivers with more than 300 jumps does not imply that a randomly selected jumper with over 300 jumps is more likely than a randomly selected jumper with less than 300 jumps to die on any particular skydive. We must first know what proportion of skydives are made by jumpers with over 300 jumps, and what proportion are made by jumpers with less than 300 jumps. Irrelevant, but did you Snopes that? You're back to the gambler's fallacy. True. And, with sufficient data, we could determine which aspect is statistically dominant. Having only the fatality data provided by USPA is not sufficient data. Possibly. Or, you might potentially decrease the risk. It all depends on whether the effects of competence or complacency increases faster. USPA don't provide sufficient data on their Web site to make that determination. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

The low interest rates of treasury bonds made mortgage backed securities more attractive investments than T-bonds, since they also had excellent bond ratings. The increased demand for MBS's drove up the demand for mortgages. After all, you can't have a mortgage backed security without mortgages to back it. The increased demand for mortgages required banks and other lenders to find more borrowers. They offered teaser rates, stated income mortgages, and NINA mortgages to attract those borrowers, so they would have a supply of mortgages to bundle and resell to investors. The lenders weren't interested in obtaining the real estate in foreclosure. Their goal was to make their profit obtaining and reselling the mortgages. Unfortunately, this resulted in many lenders not being particularly interested in practicing the careful underwriting necessary to ensure foreclosure rates didn't rise. Since they had no interest in keeping many of the mortgages in their own portfolios, foreclosures were not a major concern. They only needed borrowers to be able to make payments long enough to allow the lenders to resell the mortgage. I'm not sure I would call Wikipedia a "great ref." Nonetheless, from your linked source: The Glass-Steagall Act was enacted after the Great Depression. It separated commercial banks and investment banks, in part to avoid potential conflicts of interest between the lending activities of the former and rating activities of the latter. [Nobel Prize winning e]conomist Joseph Stiglitz criticized the repeal of the Act [(i.e. the GLB Act)]. He called its repeal the "culmination of a $300 million lobbying effort by the banking and financial services industries...spearheaded in Congress by Senator Phil Gramm." He believes it contributed to this crisis because the risk-taking culture of investment banking dominated the more conservative commercial banking culture, leading to increased levels of risk-taking and leverage during the boom period. The Federal government bailout of thrifts during the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s may have encouraged other lenders to make risky loans, and thus given rise to moral hazard. It appears Senator Dorgan knew what he was talking about. Here are three informative episodes of This American Life that give a good general overview of the crisis and its causes: The Giant Pool of Money, Another Frightening Show About the Economy, and Bad Bank. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Brother, I didn't even click on it, if you can't take more than 20 seconds to post a URL and run, I can't address it. Make a point, love to address it. You should probably click on it before criticizing the poster. You might be surprised at what you find. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Roger Nelson was rather 'prudent'. As was Bob Holler. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Do you believe that each individual taxpayer should have the right to choose whether or not to contribute funding for the military? Why or why not? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!