Redistribution of GPA.

[huevonkiller]

By the way barfo, sorry to bring up your nemesis again but FDR hates you.

They're called public unions, and eliminating them from industries stops bailouts funded by us, the taxpayer.

 

[barfo]

barfo first off, why are you focused on the most unimportant BS in this entire thread? Lol ok whatever though I'll deal with you.

Well you simply haven't learned a thing about the public sector.

Barfo whenever the government runs any sector, they channel millions of taxpayer dollars into their terribly run companies. Socialism prescribes fixed rates and laws in situations where they are not ideal, hence we have to bail them out.

And subsidies were ended by the act as well. You're like Chris Matthew's clone, chill brah.

I think you've been badly misinformed. First of all, the government never ran the airlines. They were always private businesses. Direct subsidies to airlines were never part of the pre-deregulation system, nor were bailouts. Instead, fares were set artificially high by regulators so that airlines were guaranteed to make money even while flying relatively few passengers. The burden of that regulatory system was borne by the passengers, not the taxpayers.

On the other hand, airlines have always benefited from massive indirect subsidies, and they continue to do so today. All of the airports are built with taxpayer money. The FAA is run with taxpayer money. These are huge, expensive subsidies that we provide to the airlines (presumably because we as a people believe it is important to have air transportation). It's also the case that various governments now subsidize flights to small towns which would otherwise be unprofitable for the airlines to serve. In the pre-deregulation days, the government forced the airlines to fly those unprofitable routes, but set fares on the profitable routes high enough to cover the cost of going to the smaller towns. So what was once subsidized by the business traveler is now subsidized by the government. So in that sense, you have it completely bass-ackwards.

barfo

 

[huevonkiller]

Right its a partial deregulation, and the only one of its kind.

I don't recall stating otherwise.

I think you've been badly misinformed. First of all, the government never ran the airlines. They were always private businesses.
Direct subsidies to airlines were never part of the pre-deregulation system, nor were bailouts. Instead, fares were set artificially high by regulators so that airlines were guaranteed to make money even while flying relatively few passengers. The burden of that regulatory system was borne by the passengers, not the taxpayers.
On the other hand, airlines have always benefited from massive indirect subsidies, and they continue to do so today. All of the airports are built with taxpayer money. The FAA is run with taxpayer money. These are huge, expensive subsidies that we provide to the airlines (presumably because we as a people believe it is important to have air transportation). It's also the case that various governments now subsidize flights to small towns which would otherwise be unprofitable for the airlines to serve. In the pre-deregulation days, the government forced the airlines to fly those unprofitable routes, but set fares on the profitable routes high enough to cover the cost of going to the smaller towns. So what was once subsidized by the business traveler is now subsidized by the government. So in that sense, you have it completely bass-ackwards.

barfo

What a fraudulent response given the moronic restriction of this industry and your support of it.

Well it's called interstate commerce, you apparently have no idea what that means. It affects most taxpayers directly or indirectly try to read about the commerce clause in case you want to familiarize yourself with reality. Your wasteful government supported programs affect the entire country.

"Even the partial freeing of the air travel sector has had overwhelmingly positive results. Air travel has dramatically increased and prices have fallen. After deregulation, airlines reconfigured their routes and equipment, making possible improvements in capacity utilization. These efficiency effects democratized air travel, making it more accessible to the general public.

Airfares, when adjusted for inflation, have fallen 25 percent since 1991, and, according to Clifford Winston and Steven Morrison of the Brookings Institution, are 22 percent lower than they would have been had regulation continued (Morrison and Winston 2000). Since passenger deregulation in 1978, airline prices have fallen 44.9 percent in real terms according to the Air Transport Association. Robert Crandall and Jerry Ellig (1997) estimated that when figures are adjusted for changes in quality and amenities, passengers save $19.4 billion dollars per year from airline deregulation. These savings have been passed on to 80 percent of passengers accounting for 85 percent of passenger miles. The real benefits of airline deregulation are being felt today as never before, with LCCs increasingly gaining market share."

 

[huevonkiller]

Nice but you're cornered now.

"First, Congress may regulate the use of the channels of interstate commerce;
Second, Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in Interstate Commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities;
Finally, Congress's commerce authority includes the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce (i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce"

According to you a wide range of supreme court cases should be overturned, you have absolutely no clue how your ignorant regulation burdens the entire nation not just passengers.

The net loss of profit rears its ugly head throughout the economy, you still haven't grasped that.

 

[barfo]

What a fraudulent response given the moronic restriction of this industry and your support of it.

My support of it??? Your reading is as bad as your writing, apparently.

Well it's called interstate commerce, you apparently have no idea what that means. It affects most taxpayers directly or indirectly try to read about the commerce clause in case you want to familiarize yourself with reality.

Gee, interstate commerce. I love it when you use those big words.

"Even the partial freeing of the air travel sector has had overwhelmingly positive results. Air travel has dramatically increased and prices have fallen. After deregulation, airlines reconfigured their routes and equipment, making possible improvements in capacity utilization. These efficiency effects democratized air travel, making it more accessible to the general public.

All that is certainly true, and contradicts nothing at all that I said.

Airfares, when adjusted for inflation, have fallen 25 percent since 1991, and, according to Clifford Winston and Steven Morrison of the Brookings Institution, are 22 percent lower than they would have been had regulation continued (Morrison and Winston 2000). Since passenger deregulation in 1978, airline prices have fallen 44.9 percent in real terms according to the Air Transport Association. Robert Crandall and Jerry Ellig (1997) estimated that when figures are adjusted for changes in quality and amenities, passengers save $19.4 billion dollars per year from airline deregulation. These savings have been passed on to 80 percent of passengers accounting for 85 percent of passenger miles. The real benefits of airline deregulation are being felt today as never before, with LCCs increasingly gaining market share."

No question, fares came down significantly, as did airline profits. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with government subsidies or bailouts, as you were claiming.

barfo

 

[barfo]

Nice but you're cornered now.

"First, Congress may regulate the use of the channels of interstate commerce;
Second, Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in Interstate Commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities;
Finally, Congress's commerce authority includes the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce (i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce"

According to you a wide range of supreme court cases should be overturned, you have absolutely no clue how your ignorant regulation burdens the entire nation not just passengers.

Again, you are ascribing to me views that I don't have. If I dispute something that you state as fact but is actually untrue, it does not imply anything about my views on other matters. You made a mistake about subsidies and bailouts, but that doesn't mean I want to go back to regulating airlines. It just means you didn't know what you were talking about.

barfo

 

[huevonkiller]

Sorry barfo but you guessed wrong this time.

My support of it??? Your reading is as bad as your writing, apparently.

Yes you keep questioning me.

You continue to cheerlead these policies.

Gee, interstate commerce. I love it when you use those big words.

That's how I role nigguh.

All that is certainly true, and contradicts nothing at all that I said.

Sure it does, it goes against your entire philosophy.

No question, fares came down significantly, as did airline profits. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with government subsidies or bailouts, as you were claiming.

barfo

Well this is where you blew it, what do you think a bailout is and how it is funded? The taxpayer is burdened by it, you don't know what you're talking about.

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled against you and your assertions of what does, and does not impact interstate commerce.

 

[huevonkiller]

Again, you are ascribing to me views that I don't have. If I dispute something that you state as fact but is actually untrue, it does not imply anything about my views on other matters. You made a mistake about subsidies and bailouts, but that doesn't mean I want to go back to regulating airlines. It just means you didn't know what you were talking about.

barfo

Nope, you fucked up.

"fares were set artificially high by regulators so that airlines were guaranteed to make money even while flying relatively few passengers. The burden of that regulatory system was borne by the passengers, not the taxpayers. "

 

[barfo]

Nope, you fucked up.

"fares were set artificially high by regulators so that airlines were guaranteed to make money even while flying relatively few passengers. The burden of that regulatory system was borne by the passengers, not the taxpayers. "

If you really want to argue that point, go ahead... I'll wait.

But I think you are just digging your hole deeper.

barfo

 

[huevonkiller]

If you really want to argue that point, go ahead... I'll wait.

But I think you are just digging your hole deeper.

barfo

Dude, there's nothing to argue I know Constitutional law.

We can shift this back into the economy if you want though. Either way you're screwed.

 

[barfo]

Well this is where you blew it, what do you think a bailout is and how it is funded? The taxpayer is burdened by it, you don't know what you're talking about.

What bailout are you talking about? Be specific.

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled against you and your assertions of what does, and does not impact interstate commerce.

I've made no assertions about that whatsoever. You are hallucinating.

barfo

 

[huevonkiller]

What bailout are you talking about? Be specific.



I've made no assertions about that whatsoever. You are hallucinating.

barfo

backtracking now?

Chill man.

 

[barfo]

Dude, there's nothing to argue I know Constitutional law.

Let me put this as gently as I can: lol dude.

barfo

 

[MARIS61]

GPA's are meaningless, pointless, and absolutely worthless.

Try again.

 

[huevonkiller]

Let me put this as gently as I can: lol dude.

barfo

Time to let it go, barfo. You're not perfect it is cool.

 

[huevonkiller]

You made a mistake about subsidies and bailouts, but that doesn't mean I want to go back to regulating airlines. It just means you didn't know what you were talking about.

barfo

It affects interstate commerce, adds to the deficit, and is a bigger burden on the taxpayer not just passenger. The advanced figures show it, the Supreme Court supports me, you made a bad assertion. Barfo you're clearly not ready for this subject and you lacked basic logic. A bailout is a general term I use for any ignorant burden the taxpayer takes, you have nothing against me.

 

[barfo]

It affects interstate commerce, adds to the deficit, and is a bigger burden on the taxpayer not just passenger. The advanced figures show it, the Supreme Court supports me, you made a bad assertion. Barfo you're clearly not ready for this subject and you lacked basic logic. A bailout is a general term I use for any ignorant burden the taxpayer takes, you have nothing against me.

Time to let it go, huevonkiller. You're not perfect it is cool.

barfo

 

[bluefrog]

huevonkiller just stop. You're not making any sense.

 

[blazerboy30]

money collected benefits the whole (and in some cases, and bfwa said, is detrimental). My taxes help others.

my GPA helps me. My GPA going to Tim Johnson because he's a dullard doesn't help me. my taxes going to pay for police, streets, government, does.

This is a really lame argument.

If you don't think a GPA helps anybody with anything in life, that is an understandable position to hold.

But to think that a high GPA will help "me", but a higher GPA won't help somebody else is an absurd and inconsistent position if you also think that redistributing somebody's wealth will help others.

 

[blazerboy30]

GPA's are meaningless, pointless, and absolutely worthless.

Try again.

Then why are you so bitter that yours was so low?

 

[bluefrog]

I see GPA redistribution in almost every class I take.

There is always a weak link in group projects but the group as a whole gets the grade. Often workload is not even and the work submitted is based off of one or two people's ideas.

Is this fair? It's in the groups best interest to defer to the strongest members. If all the members contribute equally the submission might not be as strong and everyone's grade would suffer.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

I think huevonkiller is my new favorite poster. He's like if BenDavis503 spent all his time drinking Rockstar and scanning wikipedia articles while half-listening to Michael Savage. Also hating commas. Why do you hate commas?

Let me put this as gently as I can: lol dude.

barfo

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to barfo again.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

huevonkiller just stop. You're not making any sense.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

I would give up some of my GPA if it meant another undergraduate would graduate instead of fail.

Maybe it's not fair, maybe the student dogged it the whole time, maybe I worked much harder while they played . . . or maybe the student was a single mother working two jobs and going to school, maybe they were ill and unable to study and do treatment, maybe they have a learning disability and they actually worked twice as hard as me.

I don't know what the situation is but if giving a person a little GPA of mine has a chance of really helping one of my fellow students in life . . . well I see it as a way of giving back to the school that has helped me in life.

This is a great post and probably because I'm a namby-pamby-socio-commu-marxi-muslim liberal.

But it gets to the heart of one thing that many conservatives don't want to accept: that people are inherently different, come from different areas of life, have different views on what is important, and have different social situations. Cutting funding that millions of people depend on (and not just because they are lazy, stop rolling your eyes) will not "inventivize" them, it will simply make the crack they slip through open up that much quicker.

And GOD, don't you hate it when filthy bums ask you for money? Why don't they get a job?

 

[3RA1N1AC]

And GOD, don't you hate it when filthy bums ask you for money? Why don't they get a job?

they are just lazy hobos willing to take a shot in the mouth for some rubbing alcohol, and they make $1000 bucks a day begging anyways, i ask THEM for money

 

[BrianFromWA]

This is a great post and probably because I'm a namby-pamby-socio-commu-marxi-muslim liberal.

Wow...normally just one is bad. That's hitting the jackpot. Though I'd surmise that most practicing Muslims would be highly against your socio-commu-liberal agenda, whether or not they go with the namby-pamby side.

But it gets to the heart of one thing that many conservatives don't want to accept: that people are inherently different, come from different areas of life, have different views on what is important, and have different social situations. Cutting funding that millions of people depend on (and not just because they are lazy, stop rolling your eyes) will not "inventivize" them, it will simply make the crack they slip through open up that much quicker.

What did those people in social situations depend on before our tax dollars were made available to them? And what happened when they fell through that "crack"?

For the record, I accept that people come from different situations. I came from a pretty poor one and made out relatively well, and am raising my kids for it to be even better for them. But America was not and is not set up to be an entitlement state. For one, we don't pay nearly enough in taxes. There's no rule (either of nature or of law) that states that a functioning, working human being can work at 64 but must retire and go on the government dole for their medical and income at 65 while continuing a lifestyle that wasn't sustainable and they hadn't saved for. There's no rule that states that someone incapable or unwilling to work must continue to be subsidized for doing so. We are all allowed to make (for the most part) our own choices of lifestyle, worship, spending, etc...what has been cut from society in the last half-century or so is a recognition that consequences come with those choices. And we have now created entire generations who seem to think that because someone was ill and unable to study, they should be given a degree certifying completion of accredited learning objectives at a satisfactory level even though they didn't do the work. That, in my humble opinion, is complete and utter horseshit. WTF?

And GOD, don't you hate it when filthy bums ask you for money? Why don't they get a job?

I hate it when they ask for money, I give them a card to our church's food bank, ClothesLine and job training program, and they throw the card away in front of me and curse me for not giving them money. But that's ok...we're all wicked, and there but for the grace of God go I.

 

[Natebishop3]

Why would you want to give your GPA to someone who didn't do enough work or effort to pass his classes? Let's say, hypothetically, that you give them some of your GPA and they graduate. What good is that degree going to do them? They obviously didn't do enough work to have the degree benefit them, and with so many people out there with bachelors degrees right now, that degree won't do them much good. You, on the other hand, would graduate with a higher GPA, possibly go on to graduate with honors, and that's going to reward your efforts and give you a better chance at getting a good job.

The whole point of the article is to point out that those who work hard are rewarded. That's the whole point of capitalism. Those who work hard are rewarded. Why should someone who does the bare minimum of work be rewarded with free handouts? Obviously there are some people who are screwed over by the system because no system is perfect, but by and large it is the best system in existence. Hard work = high rewards.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Hard work = high rewards.

I would tweak this a bit. I'm sure we all know people who work really hard, but just don't get something...conversely, there are people that never have to study that seem to just "get it" easily. I'd say that "high achievement" = high rewards.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Wow...normally just one is bad. That's hitting the jackpot. Though I'd surmise that most practicing Muslims would be highly against your socio-commu-liberal agenda, whether or not they go with the namby-pamby side.

Actually, Muslims essentially invented the socialist state a thousand years ago, but that is neither here nor there. Today, it's the namby-pambyness that has gotten everyone into a little tiff.

What did those people in social situations depend on before our tax dollars were made available to them? And what happened when they fell through that "crack"?

They probably depending on their family and/or community, and then fell on hard times. Falling through the cracks can mean a lot of different things. It can be not being able to afford school and working at McDonalds for the rest of your life, or it can be not being able to afford rent and living out of your car. This is an all to common scenario, even with our "nanny government."

For the record, I accept that people come from different situations. I came from a pretty poor one and made out relatively well, and am raising my kids for it to be even better for them. But America was not and is not set up to be an entitlement state. For one, we don't pay nearly enough in taxes. There's no rule (either of nature or of law) that states that a functioning, working human being can work at 64 but must retire and go on the government dole for their medical and income at 65 while continuing a lifestyle that wasn't sustainable and they hadn't saved for.

I'm with you so far.

There's no rule that states that someone incapable or unwilling to work must continue to be subsidized for doing so.

So what should be done with people that are incapable of working?

We are all allowed to make (for the most part) our own choices of lifestyle, worship, spending, etc...

Sure, but you cannot choose what class you are born into. Or how you are raised. Or if you get a disease or an injury. Or if you are laid off because your neo-conservative asshole bosses shipped your position overseas, or technology made your job obsolete. Or if your neo-conservative asshole white-collar criminal boss took your entire retirement fund in a massive accounting scheme.

what has been cut from society in the last half-century or so is a recognition that consequences come with those choices. And we have now created entire generations who seem to think that because someone was ill and unable to study, they should be given a degree certifying completion of accredited learning objectives at a satisfactory level even though they didn't do the work. That, in my humble opinion, is complete and utter horseshit. WTF?

Wait, what? I'm lost now.

I hate it when they ask for money, I give them a card to our church's food bank, ClothesLine and job training program, and they throw the card away in front of me and curse me for not giving them money. But that's ok...we're all wicked, and there but for the grace of God go I.

I gave a dude a dollar and then he asked me for 50 more. That's pretty irritating. I may have considered giving him another dollar if he so wasn't so obviously a crackhead. But the first dollar is always free.

If I were homeless, I would take food and/or support any way I could get it, but I would be pretty bitter that in order to get help I had to be proselytized to.

 

[blazerboy30]

But it gets to the heart of one thing that many conservatives don't want to accept: that people are inherently different, come from different areas of life, have different views on what is important, and have different social situations. Cutting funding that millions of people depend on (and not just because they are lazy, stop rolling your eyes) will not "inventivize" them, it will simply make the crack they slip through open up that much quicker.

You clearly missed the point of the article.

The point of the article wasn't whether or not others should want to support, give to or help those with less. I can totally understand Treaty_of_Batum's feeling that he would give up his to help another, and I do the same on my own.

The point of the article was to point out the hypocrisy of those saying that want to spread wealth around, but when put in terms that would directly and possibly negatively affect themselves, their views and opinions change.