Social DGames Social | V/LA |

[Xiivi]

KiKi quit making heads explode. It's not kosher.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

Who uses the word kosher anyway? No, I'm not looking for the smartass "Xiivii" answer.

EDIT: That ain't censored? I can understand ****** and could make a case for smartass, but I wouldn't expect it. Huh. The more you know.

EDITEDIT: BUT BAD*** IS CENSORED!? WHAT THE HELL!? IT'S A FREAKING COMPLIMENT AND IT'S CENSORED OVER SMARTASS!

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Asshat isn't censored. Penis is.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

No it isn't.

Also, I enjoy referring to asshats as such.

 

[BSL]

just say badass

Yeah, I've never gotten a B as my final grade...

...since Kindergarten.

I'm 2nd in my class lol.

how does that work?

 

[Terywj [태리]]

how does that work?

You know that grade higher than a B? It's called..uhm...an A.

 

[BSL]

how does being second in your class work, if he has made A's since kindergarten? who makes higher than an A?

 

[Terywj [태리]]

how does being second in your class work, if he has made A's since kindergarten? who makes higher than an A?

More than one person in each grade can make straight A's, you know.

Also, depending on his school ranking might be relative to the type of courses he's taking. For example at my school I'm ranked around the top 20 at the start of this year, but since most of the higher ranked kids are only taking 1 or 2 AP courses, if I can score A's in my four AP courses I have potential to rise over them in rank.

 

[#HBC | FrozeηFlame]

If your school only uses a grading system that scores using letters and plus/minus then yeah the best you can score is an A, but variance can occur via AP weighting and whatnot.

My HS actually used a numerical system so it was really easy to figure out exactly how and why people were ranked where they were. Every class you got a grade from 0 - 100 and if you were in a weighted class your grade was multiplied by 1.05.

I had an exceptionally competitive class, my final average was 97.7 and I was ranked like 15th lol. And that was with 9 AP courses. =/

 

[Nicholas1024]

Yes, we get "-2" written by every single "am, is, are, was, were" in our entire paper. It's awkward to replace but

"Lynching scum was Town's only chance of winning"

becomes:

"Lynching scum remains Town's only chance of winning."

It's absolutely tedious. Yes, I understand the implications; it forces us to use more diverse sentence structure and to explore new ways to convey our point. However, I'm in an AP English IV class, I don't need to learn new ways to write. I know how to write, and write well.

Wow, something that makes less sense than one of Obama's policies.

Now I remember why I've only ever taken 2 writing classes EVER. (Still A'd them, but they were a real pain.)

 

[Pierre the Scarecrow]

Wow, something that makes less sense than one of Obama's policies.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Mad? No, just amazed by human stupidity. I suppose I should expect it by now though...

 

[Pierre the Scarecrow]

 

[Nicholas1024]

Whatever Pierre. Enjoy your raised taxes.

 

[Overswarm]

Whatever Pierre. Enjoy your raised taxes.

I will happily get into politics.

Whose taxes are being raised? And why is this bad?

 

[Nicholas1024]

I think it's everyone's. And can you explain how taking money uniformly from everyone and wasting it in one of the most incompetent bureaucracies of all time can be a good thing? Especially in this time of economic hardship?

 

[Overswarm]

I think it's everyone's. And can you explain how taking money uniformly from everyone and wasting it in one of the most incompetent bureaucracies of all time can be a good thing? Especially in this time of economic hardship?

I can't explain how wasting it would be a good idea because wasting isn't a good idea.

What exactly is it being wasted on?


Currently taxes aren't being raised; tax breaks put in place earlier are merely expiring, as planned. The current administration intends for them to expire only for those making $250,000 a year or more, so that is hardly everyone.

 

[Evil Eye]

hay gize i no hao 2 pallitiks

*uninformed blanket statements*

m i doin it rite?

 

[KevinM]

yes you are

 

[Nicholas1024]

@Overswarm
Same difference. Either way, people's taxes go up.

As for how it's wasted... let's go with one example in particular, the welfare system.

Now, I'd like to get one thing straight here. I have no problem with the idea of giving money to those who need it. However, that sort of thing should be done by private charity and here's why:

With private charity, you can trust that the organizers will give money to those who will use it responsibly and try to get back on their feet as soon as possible. If said organizers aren't doing their job, just switch to a different charity. Problem solved. In addition, you can choose how much money you give: You don't get stuck paying more than you can afford.

With government welfare though, the money goes out to everyone, regardless of whether they're trying to get work or not. This results in millions of people just laying around, doing nothing, and waiting for the next handout. (And it's also why we have such a problem with illegal aliens: They know they can abuse the system like this.) And when it turns out that they organizers are doing an incompetent job... there's nothing you can do about it.

And, that kind of waste is going on in just about everything that the government does. I maintain that there's very little done by the government that couldn't be done much better by private institutions.

 

[Nicholas1024]

@EE
Hey, you're doing it as well as most people. I'd probably elect you over most idiots currently in office.

 

[#HBC | FrozeηFlame]

Nononononono

Politics talk is not happening in Dgames kthx.

Look what I found!

http://www.smashboards.com/forumdisplay.php?f=23

Do it there pl0x. Or PM each other, that's cool too.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Ok, fair enough.

 

[Namaste]

And, that kind of waste is going on in just about everything that the government does. I maintain that there's very little done by the government that couldn't be done much better by private institutions.

This image was originally meant for health care, but it works the same here.

 

[Nicholas1024]

So? Private industry could do all those things themselves, and more efficiently. The key is open competition. If a company is doing things incompetently, then a more efficient company will come in and drive it out of business. The consumer (that would be YOU) benefits. The free market effectively controls itself. There is no such system controlling the government. All that you've proved is that government has controlled a bunch of industries, not that they can do it better than free market.

@Frozenflame
Sorry, but I'm not gonna let this guy's statement go unchallenged.

 

[#HBC | FrozeηFlame]

Hey Namaste, if you think you're funny, witty, or smart because you can post the most poorly constructed argument of all time (literally no logical substance there other than THE STATUS QUO SHOULD BE THE STATUS QUO BY VIRTUE OF BEING THE STATUS QUO HERPITY DERP DA DERP, but what else can you expect from /b/ these days), you aren't.

If you wanna be a troll **** off and please do so elsewhere. Especially if you want to troll about politics.

I love to debate things as much of the next guy and I won't sugar coat how belligerent I tend to be, but politics debates on the internet always get personal and always deal with sensitive issues that get people upset at one another. That's why I don't want it infiltrating Dgames threads.

Nick, you don't need to apologize to me, I don't make the rules here lol. I understand needing to respond to an argument that atrocious though.

 

[Overswarm]

@Overswarm
Same difference. Either way, people's taxes go up.

Why is that bad?

As for how it's wasted... let's go with one example in particular, the welfare system.

Now, I'd like to get one thing straight here. I have no problem with the idea of giving money to those who need it. However, that sort of thing should be done by private charity and here's why:

With private charity, you can trust that the organizers will give money to those who will use it responsibly and try to get back on their feet as soon as possible. If said organizers aren't doing their job, just switch to a different charity. Problem solved. In addition, you can choose how much money you give: You don't get stuck paying more than you can afford.

With government welfare though, the money goes out to everyone, regardless of whether they're trying to get work or not. This results in millions of people just laying around, doing nothing, and waiting for the next handout. (And it's also why we have such a problem with illegal aliens: They know they can abuse the system like this.) And when it turns out that they organizers are doing an incompetent job... there's nothing you can do about it.

And, that kind of waste is going on in just about everything that the government does. I maintain that there's very little done by the government that couldn't be done much better by private institutions.

Really?

As of 2007, we have 37.3 million people poverty. That's 12.5% of the population.

So when 1/8th of your country counts as "in poverty", I think we'd both agree that some sort of welfare is necessary.

The disagreement would come between your desire of private institution in place of government issued welfare.

It's up to you to prove to me that private institutions would work; so far, I have yet to see many private institutions that aren't government regulated be worthwhile. In addition to this, for every good charity I see there is another with a bloated budget. It's about accountability. Currently with private charaties there is very little. If 60% of donations go to paying salary, no one can stop them. Bono's charity drive recently got under fire for that, but it was just a PR disaster (whether true or not). No one talked about pressing charges because there are no charges to press.

In addition to them being unreliable, the normal benefit of a charity is gone. Most charaties are small. Those that are large and just as unwieldy as a government organization, and if one was to take over welfare as it is? It'd be huge.

Speaking of which, where do they get the money? Are you presuming we just shouldn't have welfare and if you are poor than that sucks for you?

So far you need to prove that:

1) a private institution wouldn't be as unwieldy as a government one
2) a private institution could be held accountable
3) how the private institution would be funded

Bill Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act in 1996 and it worked. Poverty rates dropped. August 1996 - June 2005, the number of people on welfare dropped from 12.2 million to 4.5 million. About 60 percent of mothers who left welfare got work.

Poverty was huge before Roosevelt's New Deal. In the year 1900, poverty has been estimated to have affected up to 56% of all american households. The Great Depression came and it was even worse! Hoover saw the economy shrink an average of 8.4% a year.

Then, Roosevelt came along and started the New Deal, beginning the welfare state. The economy GREW 6.4% a year. Social Security was added and, prior to that, old people were not well off at all. Go look up what happened to you when you got old back then. It wasn't pretty unless you had money saved up.

Poverty Rate (8)

1959   22.4%
1960   22.2  < recession year
1961   21.9
1962   21.0
1963   19.5
1964   19.0  < Johnson’s Great Society begins
1965   17.3
1966   14.7
1967   14.2
1968   12.8
1969   12.1
1970   12.6  < recession year
1971   12.5
1972   11.9
1973   11.1
1974   11.2  < recession year
1975   12.3  < recession year
1976   11.8  < individual benefits level off, decline
1977   11.6
1978   11.4
1979   11.7
1980   13.0  < recession year
1981   14.0  < Reagan-era cuts in individual benefits
1982   15.0  < recession year
1983   15.2
1984   14.4
1985   14.0
1986   13.6
1987   13.4
1988   13.0
1989   12.8
1990   13.5  < recession year
1991   14.2  < recession year
1992   14.8
1993   15.1

The more welfare, the less poverty. Kennedy and Johnson did some amazing work, but it was mostly destroyed after the 1975 SUN PAC decision. The Reagan administration was quite possibly the worst thing to happen to welfare up to that point (except for medicare and medicaid and the like, as health industry lobbyists made sure those were well funded to protect hospitals).

All this holds true internationally as well; as welfare spending grows, poverty decreases.


But hey, it's unwieldy and large and cumbersome, right? Who cares if it works if someone else could do it better, amirite?

I'm a fan of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" in situations like this, but I'll oblige.

In 1960, U.S. welfare programs made up 4.4 percent of the GDP. By 1992, that had grown to 12.9 percent. A third of that is Medicare as a windfall for hospitals and the like. (Psst... Obama's health care plan is trying to change that. Just FYI)

In other words, a more realistic expression would be about 4.4% to 8-9%.

At most, 13% of our GDP on welfare. Given consideration to how it's spent, 9% on non-medicare related expenses. At most.

You've already seen what that did, but let me recap. Between 1959 and 1973 poverty was cut in half. That is insanely successful. Anyone that says otherwise is a loon. You think a private institution is going to do better than that? That'd be insanely efficient. Black poverty went from 55 to 32% from 1959-1969. Those are HUGE changes. In ten years black poverty went down by 23%.

If you want to make an argument about the societal effects, go for it. I doubt they'd be worse than the effects of poverty.

But from an economic standpoint?

The amount put in and the benefits we received are astounding.


Here's a quote I like, btw:

To put this in perspective, in 1991, those making more than $200,000 a year approximately constituted the top 1 percent. This group reported $403 billion in Gross Adjusted Income, and paid $100 billion of that taxes -- an effective rate of 25 percent. Suppose that were raised to 70 percent, which would have brought in $282 billion in taxes. That’s an extra $182 billion, which could have given a pay raise of over $5,000 to each of the nation’s 35.7 million people in poverty. Essentially, this would have eliminated poverty in America. (Remember, most of the nation's poor are already working; the extra $5,000 would easily boost them out of the danger zone.) (17) And we could accomplish this without changing the taxes of 99 percent of Americans.

It doesn't take heroic efforts to reduce poverty dramatically. Taxing the top 1 percent at 1950s levels would largely accomplish this.

As for your "taxes are bad, hurk":

Get over it. Taxes pay for some awesome stuff. What you should focus on is not how taxes are bad, but what it's spent on. If I had to pay 80% of my income in taxes but the government gave me a new car, house of my own, free health/dental/vision, and an allotment of food stamps that I could use to purchase food, it wouldn't be so bad. Might not be preferrable (options are good), but the taxes themselves aren't evil.



If you're going to say "people could donate to a private institution" like a charity for welfare...

The government currently pays slightly more into it. So it'd take all the charitable donations people give to go straight to welfare. o_o



Anything else?

 

[Overswarm]

Oh, this probably doesn't need to be said but I got mega ninja'd writing that post. We can take this to another thread if you want ;D

 

[Nicholas1024]

Wow. I'm no stranger to walls of text, but that one made me do a double-take. We'll have to wait a bit on the debate, because

1) It'll take a while to write a reply to that

and

2) I don't have posting rights in the proving grounds yet (just applied a few minutes ago)

 

[#HBC | FrozeηFlame]

OS, I like a lot of what the post brings to the table as far as the debate goes and think it has some good debatable points but for the love of god please, copy pasta it, PM it to Nick, edit out your wall of text and have your fun elsewhere.

Like seriously can we get this **** out of here pronto before more people feel the need to chime in?

 

[Ronike]

Wait a minute, are you guys telling me that in voting for Obama, I was voting to elect him?!

**** it, I thought that guy was scum for sure...

 

[Nicholas1024]

Wait a minute, are you guys telling me that in voting for Obama, I was voting to elect him?!

I thought that guy was scum for sure...

Epic. Win.

This made my day.

 

[Namaste]

Hey Namaste, if you think you're funny, witty, or smart because you can post the most poorly constructed argument of all time (literally no logical substance there other than THE STATUS QUO SHOULD BE THE STATUS QUO BY VIRTUE OF BEING THE STATUS QUO HERPITY DERP DA DERP, but what else can you expect from /b/ these days), you aren't.

The argument is that "people believe the government can't do anything well", when they do hundreds of thing well and without them really interfering in people's rights. Also you're the only one who is getting belligerent, it's a social thread I can post socially

 

[thedocsalive]

Wait a minute, are you guys telling me that in voting for Obama, I was voting to elect him?!

**** it, I thought that guy was scum for sure...

*dead* @ this

 

[#HBC | FrozeηFlame]

The argument is that "people believe the government can't do anything well", when they do hundreds of thing well and without them really interfering in people's rights. Also you're the only one who is getting belligerent, it's a social thread I can post socially

Of course I'm the one who's being belligerent. I warned you as much in my post. =P

Yeah you can post socially here, I never said you couldn't post what you did.

But just as well, it can make me mad, and I can then ream you out for posting logically abhorrent, incendiary **** that is only going to further a political debate that I'm doing everything in my power to prevent from happening.

Socially of course. =)

 

[M.K]

Ewww, what the **** at politics. And where did all these new people come from?

TERY! BACK TO YOUR CAGE!

*swings Poke Center key*

But to those wondering why I'm 2nd, there is one other girl who has all As, but has taken 1-2 more AP classes than me.

At my school an A in a normal class is a 4.0, a A in an honors class is a 5.0, and a C in an AP Class is a 6.0. I have a 4.916 GPA.

 

[#HBC | FrozeηFlame]

I assume you mean an A* not a C, in an AP class is a 6.0.

Regardless...

HOLY GRADE INFLATION BATMAN!

Why the **** does you school give so much weight to AP/Honors classes?

In my school's system you could at MAX get 5 points tacked on to your grade out of 100. And that was if you got a 100 in the class lmao. The lower your score the less the multiplier helps you.

Basically the weight might push you up half a letter grade (like B+ to A- etc.) at the most.

So this is what they were talking about at those standardized test meetings about massive grade inflation in America hahahaha

How many APs have you taken anyway and which ones?

EDIT: lmao just did a quick calc of my senior year GPA using this system and conservatively (gave myself 2 A- in two classes where I can't remember if I had the A or not) and it came out to 5.3125. Dear lord 6 APs senior year = god tier GPA inflation lulz

 

[Ronike]

My high school gave a 1 point boost for Honors classes, but no point boost for AP classes for whatever reason...

 

[M.K]

Oh....oh no. That's our GPA calculation. It doesn't add to our final grade. And yeah, I meant A in AP Class is a 6.0.

If someone were to get all As in 4 normal (called "academic" at my school) and 4 honors classes, they would have a GPA of 4.5 (4+4+4+4+5+5+5+5= 36 / 8 = 4.5).

We don't have +/-s, we run on a 7-point scale (100-->93 is an A, 92-->85 is a B, 84-->77 is a C, 76-->70 D, >70 is an F).

I've taken 10 AP classes:

10th Grade
AP Human Geography (3 on AP Exam)

11th Grade
AP English Language (5 on AP Exam)
AP Psychology (5 on AP Exam)
AP US History (4 on AP Exam)
AP Biology (4 on AP Exam)

12th Grade (Current Year)
AP English Literature
AP Calculus AB
AP Calculus BC
AP Chemistry
AP Environmental Science

I'm on Fall Break now, though. My school goes 9 weeks then takes a 2 week break. I have 4 classes per 18-week semesters. Right now, I have As in AP Chem, APES, and my Lifetime Sports I class. Calculus I can bring up, because I've got like a borderline A/B.

 

[#HBC | FrozeηFlame]

Hmmmm interesting.

I did:

10th: European History (4)
11th: English Language (5), American History (5)
12th: Physics C: Mechanics (4), Calc BC (5), English Lit. (5), Stats (4), Government (5), Macroeconomics (4)

Wtf at Calc BC and AB as separate classes? You're taking the BC exam right? You know you take a different test than ABers if you're in BC and just get an AB subscore right? I wouldn't count that as a separate class unless you're taking both at the same time, which really doesn't make much sense at all. =/

Neat @ seeing AP Geo, Psych and Enviro. My school didn't have those.