Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: blacken700 on July 27, 2011, 09:00:40 AM
-
-
? ? ?
Why should they sacrifice anything? Its the govt that needs to sacrifice and shrink since its the one spending the money!
Additionally, what are the 50% who pay nothing sarificing?
WTF is wrong with you?
-
so the middle class has to pay everything
WTF is wrong with you?
-
so the middle class has to pay everything
WTF is wrong with you?
The middle class don't pay everything. The top 1% pay 38% of the incom tax and the bottom 50% pay nothing at all.
-
Yes, 47% of Households Owe No Taxes. Look Closer.
By DAVID LEONHARDT
Published: April 13, 2010
That’s the portion of American households that owe no income tax for 2009. The number is up from 38 percent in 2007, and it has become a popular talking point on cable television and talk radio. With Tax Day coming on Thursday, 47 percent has become shorthand for the notion that the wealthy face a much higher tax burden than they once did while growing numbers of Americans are effectively on the dole.
Neither one of those ideas is true. They rely on a cleverly selective reading of the facts. So does the 47 percent number.
Given that taxes are likely to be one of the big political issues of the next few years — and maybe the biggest one — it’s worth understanding who really pays what in taxes. Once you do, you can get a sense for our country’s fiscal options. How, in other words, will we be able to close the huge looming gap between the taxes we are scheduled to pay and the services we are scheduled to receive?
The answer is that tax rates almost certainly have to rise more on the affluent than on other groups. Over the last 30 years, rates have fallen more for the wealthy, and especially the very wealthy, than for any other group. At the same time, their incomes have soared, and the incomes of most workers have grown only moderately faster than inflation.
So a much greater share of income is now concentrated at the top of distribution, while each dollar there is taxed less than it once was. It’s true that raising taxes on the rich alone can’t come close to solving the long-term budget problem. The deficit is simply too big. But if taxes are not increased for the wealthy, the country will be left with two options.
It will have to raise taxes even more than it otherwise would on everybody else. Or it will have to find deep cuts in Medicare, Social Security, military spending and the other large (generally popular) federal programs.
All the attention being showered on “47 percent” is ultimately a distraction from that reality.
The 47 percent number is not wrong. The stimulus programs of the last two years — the first one signed by President George W. Bush, the second and larger one by President Obama — have increased the number of households that receive enough of a tax credit to wipe out their federal income tax liability.
But the modifiers here — federal and income — are important. Income taxes aren’t the only kind of federal taxes that people pay. There are also payroll taxes and investment taxes, among others. And, of course, people pay state and local taxes, too.
Even if the discussion is restricted to federal taxes (for which the statistics are better), a vast majority of households end up paying federal taxes. Congressional Budget Office data suggests that, at most, about 10 percent of all households pay no net federal taxes. The number 10 is obviously a lot smaller than 47.
The reason is that poor families generally pay more in payroll taxes than they receive through benefits like the Earned Income Tax Credit. It’s not just poor families for whom the payroll tax is a big deal, either. About three-quarters of all American households pay more in payroll taxes, which go toward Medicare and Social Security, than in income taxes.
Focusing on the statistical middle class — the middle 20 percent of households, as ranked by income — underlines this point. Households in this group made $35,400 to $52,100 in 2006, the last year for which the Congressional Budget Office has released data. That would describe a household with one full-time worker earning about $17 to $25 an hour. Such hourly pay is typical for firefighters, preschool teachers, computer support specialists, farmers, members of the clergy, mail carriers, secretaries and truck drivers, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Taking into account both taxes and tax credits, the average household in this group paid a total income tax rate of just 3 percent. A good number of people, in fact, paid no net income taxes. They are among the alleged free riders.
But the picture starts to change when you look not just at income taxes but at all taxes. This average household would have paid 0.8 percent of its income in corporate taxes (through the stocks it owned), 0.9 percent in gas and other federal excise taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. Add these up, and the family’s total federal tax rate was 14.2 percent.
I realize that it’s possible to argue that payroll taxes should be excluded from the discussion because they pay for benefits — Social Security and Medicare — that people receive on the back end. But that argument doesn’t seem very persuasive.
Why? People do not receive benefits equal to the payroll taxes they paid. Those who die at age 70 will receive much less in Social Security and Medicare than they paid in taxes. Those who die at 95 will probably get much more.
The different kinds of federal taxes are really just accounting categories. At the end of the day, the government has to cover the cost of all its operations with revenue from all its taxes. We can’t wish our deficit away by saying that it’s mostly a Medicare and Social Security deficit.
If anything, the government numbers I’m using here exaggerate how much of the tax burden falls on the wealthy. These numbers fail to account for the income that is hidden from tax collectors — a practice, research shows, that is more common among affluent families. “Because higher-income people are understating their income,” Joel Slemrod, a tax scholar at the University of Michigan, says, “We’ve been overstating their average tax rates.”
State and local taxes, meanwhile, may actually be regressive. That is, middle-class and poor families may face higher tax rates than the wealthy. As Kim Rueben of the Tax Policy Center notes, state and local income taxes and property taxes are less progressive than federal taxes, while sales taxes end up being regressive. The typical family pays a lot of state and local taxes, too — almost half as much as in federal taxes.
There is no question that the wealthy pay a higher overall tax rate than any other group. That is an American tradition. But there is also no question that their tax rates have fallen more than any other group’s over the last three decades. The only reason they are paying more taxes than in the past is that their pretax incomes have risen so rapidly — which hardly seems a great rationale for a further tax cut.
So why are those radio and television talk show hosts spending so much time arguing that today’s wealthy are unfairly burdened? Well, it’s hard not to notice that the talk show hosts themselves tend to be among the very wealthy.
No doubt, like the rest of us, they don’t particularly enjoy paying taxes. They are happy with the tax cuts they have received lately. They would prefer if other people had to pick up the bill for Medicare, Social Security and the military — people like, say, firefighters, preschool teachers, computer support specialists, farmers, members of the clergy, mail carriers, secretaries and truck drivers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html
-
HEY IDIOT - THEY GET THE PAYROLL TAX MONEY LATER IN THE FORM OF MEDICARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY!
And as for the second point:
The 47 percent number is not wrong. The stimulus programs of the last two years — the first one signed by President George W. Bush, the second and larger one by President Obama — have increased the number of households that receive enough of a tax credit to wipe out their federal income tax liability.
BOOOOOOOMMMMMM! ! ! ! ! !
-
HEY IDIOT - THEY GET THE PAYROLL TAX MONEY LATER IN THE FORM OF MEDICARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY!
And as for the second point:
The 47 percent number is not wrong. The stimulus programs of the last two years — the first one signed by President George W. Bush, the second and larger one by President Obama — have increased the number of households that receive enough of a tax credit to wipe out their federal income tax liability.
BOOOOOOOMMMMMM! ! ! ! ! !
just as long as milionaires and billionaires have idiots like you sticking up for them things will never change.and just because you use the word boooom that does'nt make your point right in fact using booom is a little retarded
-
So you have nothing at all. Thank you.
Your leftist bullshit is blown to smitherines again.
-
So you have nothing at all. Thank you.
Your leftist bullshit is blown to smitherines again.
and do you actually think the top 1% pay the 38% than you are an idiot, oh and i'm going to use your retarded word
boooom :D :D :D
-
Um...not suire about you retard by I aspire to be a millionaire...and don't begrudge the hard work it took many to get to that status. I do begrudge the millions who don't work and don't pay taxes.....
-
LOL blackass shown to be the idiot he is...
-
So you have nothing at all. Thank you.
Your leftist bullshit is blown to smitherines again.
You're arguing with a child that is a parasitic benefit leech. While the rest of us are out earning our keep, this pathetic scumbag sits at home firing away on Getbig while collecting his welfare paychecks.
He's a real piece of shit. Lazy fuck that will toe the democrat line because he can't be bothered working or paying taxes.
-
You're arguing with a child that is a parasitic benefit leech. While the rest of us are out earning our keep, this pathetic scumbag sits at home firing away on Getbig while collecting his welfare paychecks.
He's a real piece of shit. Lazy fuck that will toe the democrat line because he can't be bothered working or paying taxes.
why do people paint democratics as lazy? the red states receive more handouts the the blue states, this is a fact. On top of that the vast majority of college educated people, that is one degree up to phds and MD's are democrats. I would venture to say that it is the other way around based on all the data. Obama is also a more of the center type of guy in actuality, or at least based on his track record.
the vast majority of americans make under 75'000, why everyone thinks they will be millionaires is beyond me.
-
Obama had a record to the left of bernie sanders.
-
why do people paint democratics as lazy? the red states receive more handouts the the blue states, this is a fact. On top of that the vast majority of college educated people, that is one degree up to phds and MD's are democrats. I would venture to say that it is the other way around based on all the data. Obama is also a more of the center type of guy in actuality, or at least based on his track record.
the vast majority of americans make under 75'000, why everyone thinks they will be millionaires is beyond me.
Where did I say democrats were lazy? Can you actually quote that for me as I don't see it. I didn't bother reading the rest of your post after your first sentence consisted of nothing more than a sad straw man.
-
why do people paint democratics as lazy? the red states receive more handouts the the blue states, this is a fact. On top of that the vast majority of college educated people, that is one degree up to phds and MD's are democrats. I would venture to say that it is the other way around based on all the data. Obama is also a more of the center type of guy in actuality, or at least based on his track record.
the vast majority of americans make under 75'000, why everyone thinks they will be millionaires is beyond me.
the vast majority of welfare recepient are also democrats.........
-
why do people paint democratics as lazy? the red states receive more handouts the the blue states, this is a fact. On top of that the vast majority of college educated people, that is one degree up to phds and MD's are democrats. I would venture to say that it is the other way around based on all the data. Obama is also a more of the center type of guy in actuality, or at least based on his track record.
the vast majority of americans make under 75'000, why everyone thinks they will be millionaires is beyond me.
You just proved the point, education does not equal intelligence. Obama is a center type of guy? Compared to who, Stalin?
Why do people think they can be millionaires? Because this is America, you change your circumstances.
-
Obama is also a more of the center type of guy in actuality, or at least based on his track record.
:o Put the crack pipe down and step away from the keyboard. :)
Obama campaigned as a liberal and has governed as a liberal.
-
You're arguing with a child that is a parasitic benefit leech. While the rest of us are out earning our keep, this pathetic scumbag sits at home firing away on Getbig while collecting his welfare paychecks.
He's a real piece of shit. Lazy fuck that will toe the democrat line because he can't be bothered working or paying taxes.
hahaha this coming from the guy that lives at home with his mother now that is priceless :D :D. any time you want to compare homes you let me know,oh that's right you have to have your own home :D,your mommys don't count ;D
-
Do you own the group home?
-
Do you own the group home?
no :D but i would like to open one in your neighborhood,if i can tear down a couple of the burnt out slum buildings but they won't let me they are calling them landmarks :D
-
Take away the EITC and that will enable the bottom 50% to pay their fair share.
-
no :D but i would like to open one in your neighborhood,if i can tear down a couple of the burnt out slum buildings but they won't let me they are calling them landmarks :D
I just found a buyer for my building this week finally. I did not tell him of the homeless shelter coming next year w 500 bums.
I may finally be getting out of the Bronx after all these years.
-
I just found a buyer for my building this week finally. I did not tell him of the homeless shelter coming next year w 500 bums.
I may finally be getting out of the Bronx after all these years.
what are buildings going for in the bronx on average?
-
what are buildings going for in the bronx on average?
Depends where. I sold for double what I paid in 2004. I got an amazing deal in 2004.
-
Depends where. I sold for double what I paid in 2004. I got an amazing deal in 2004.
that's good at this time
-
that's good at this time
No kidding!
2 cars got broken into in front of my office last night. The thugs stole baby seats and diapers.
Homeless shelter across the street with 500 new bums.
Stores all boarded up.
Taxes going up.
Brothel next door has hookers up and down the street.
Thugs walking the block.
Time for me to go. I have had enough.
-
Where did I say democrats were lazy? Can you actually quote that for me as I don't see it. I didn't bother reading the rest of your post after your first sentence consisted of nothing more than a sad straw man.
you implied it when you said he towed the liberal line and is to lazy to work or pay taxes, otherwise why put the liberal party line in there?
reading comprehension much? you don't have to explicitly state things to imply them, if you meant something else please fill me in.
-
You just proved the point, education does not equal intelligence. Obama is a center type of guy? Compared to who, Stalin?
Why do people think they can be millionaires? Because this is America, you change your circumstances.
education does not equal intelligence, nope, it highly correlates with it which is actually a form of causation. Correlation is causation not the non-sensical shit people say about correlation is not causation, causation is just the highest form of correlation.
Also, his policies, his bipartisan plan and want for compromise puts him at the center. He has always tried to compromise while his ideology is left leaning his policies do not bare this out. I would say based on what we have seen he is more centered then far left, or slightly left of center. He kept the wars going, extended the bush tax cuts, bombed libya and is no agreeing to massive cuts in spending.
-
education does not equal intelligence, nope, it highly correlates with it which is actually a form of causation. Correlation is causation not the non-sensical shit people say about correlation is not causation, causation is just the highest form of correlation.
Also, his policies, his bipartisan plan and want for compromise puts him at the center. He has always tried to compromise while his ideology is left leaning his policies do not bare this out. I would say based on what we have seen he is more centered then far left, or slightly left of center. He kept the wars going, extended the bush tax cuts, bombed libya and is no agreeing to massive cuts in spending.
HAHAHHAAH You numb nut fuck stats 101 you moron is that correlation does NOT!!! equal causation you libtard fuck
-
HAHAHHAAH You numb nut fuck stats 101 you moron is that correlation does NOT!!! equal causation you libtard fuck
bump for necrosis...
magoo if you see this, what do you think about his idea that correlation leads to causation? LMFAO
-
HAHAHHAAH You numb nut fuck stats 101 you moron is that correlation does NOT!!! equal causation you libtard fuck
Im not wrong, you just have a rudimentary understanding of statistics.
from both a statistical and philosophical standpoint causation can never be absolutely proved hence many mathematicians have cited what i said above. It is true that in basic stats and epidemiological studies we are warned about not equating causation, hence the EBM pyramid in medical research and DBPCS.
However, i understand why people do in fact quote this message over and over as if it is some kind of mantra. You see correlations increase until they become causative, causation is a form of correlation that is tremendously strong how could it not be? There is actually a wiki page on this topic with some more persausive arguments.
to create this dichotomy is not to take into account the real world, everything even cause and effect can only be correlated you can never absolutely prove anything, hence axioms. I was making a point that intensely strong positive or negative correlations can be seen as pretty much causation as 100% certainty is not possible, as you know in studies even stringent alpha levels are measured by the probability the relationship has occured by chance. I have done numerous advance statistics courses, im not using that in my argument or you should listen to me but its a fact of the math and reality im afraid. Ill see if i can find the wiki page.
-
Im not wrong, you just have a rudimentary understanding of statistics.
from both a statistical and philosophical standpoint causation can never be absolutely proved hence many mathematicians have cited what i said above. It is true that in basic stats and epidemiological studies we are warned about not equating causation, hence the EBM pyramid in medical research and DBPCS.
However, i understand why people do in fact quote this message over and over as if it is some kind of mantra. You see correlations increase until they become causative, causation is a form of correlation that is tremendously strong how could it not be? There is actually a wiki page on this topic with some more persausive arguments.
to create this dichotomy is not to take into account the real world, everything even cause and effect can only be correlated you can never absolutely prove anything, hence axioms. I was making a point that intensely strong positive or negative correlations can be seen as pretty much causation as 100% certainty is not possible, as you know in studies even stringent alpha levels are measured by the probability the relationship has occured by chance. I have done numerous advance statistics courses, im not using that in my argument or you should listen to me but its a fact of the math and reality im afraid. Ill see if i can find the wiki page.
correct causation means correlation BUTTTTT correlation DOESNT MEAN CAUSATION...
there is a slight but extremely important difference there you cant seem to grasp...
-
correct causation means correlation BUTTTTT correlation DOESNT MEAN CAUSATION...
there is a slight but extremely important difference there you cant seem to grasp...
no i grasp it perfectly as i stated there are degrees of correlation once which perfect correlation is causation. Can't state it anymore plainly.
-
no i grasp it perfectly as i stated there are degrees of correlation once which perfect correlation is causation. Can't state it anymore plainly.
yes but simply b/c something is correlated doesnt mean one is causing the other...that is the part you fail to grasp...
-
yes but simply b/c something is correlated doesnt mean one is causing the other...that is the part you fail to grasp...
Oh, I think the moron understands. But, like all elitist left wing idiots, admitting you are wrong is not an option. For them it is better to blame others or try to talk their way out of it. Which rarely works because it has the effect of making them look even more clueless. Necrosis the nitwit is a perfect example.
-
yes but simply b/c something is correlated doesnt mean one is causing the other...that is the part you fail to grasp...
i honestly am in awe of your lack of reading comprehension. There are degrees of correlation which can go in a inverse relationship or positive, we say something is causative in research for example when it exceeds a .05 alpha level. Correlations do not imply causation as i have stated, causation however, is a form of correlation, and for research purposes and statistics it is not even a perfect correlation but small amount of chance occurence. How does anything i have said indicate that im saying all forms of correlation are causative? just so you know they could be it is just the percentage of chance the the outcome or independent variable was causative is higher, ie more likely to be chance.
you are graspoing at staws, its either you dont know statistics or you just can't accept my answer, im not wrong everything ive stated is a fact. causation is one end of correlation and complete non-coherance the other.
-
Oh, I think the moron understands. But, like all elitist left wing idiots, admitting you are wrong is not an option. For them it is better to blame others or try to talk their way out of it. Which rarely works because it has the effect of making them look even more clueless. Necrosis the nitwit is a perfect example.
says the guy who comes into a debate an insults the other person. lol, ok elitist left wing idiot. When you are confronted with something you think is incorrect try stepping back and thinking about the arguments presented insted of dogmatically holding your position.
-
bump for necrosis...
magoo if you see this, what do you think about his idea that correlation leads to causation? LMFAO
i like the appeal to someone for assurance, lol. correlation is causation like i said. Like the quote from a famous geneticist and matemetician states. all correlations are not causative, but like i stated right above they could be its just the likelihood of chance and extraneous or compounding variables increases with lower correlations, while very high correlations are considered causative.
so in a brief comment, causation is a form of correlation, not all correlations are causative for the multitude of reasons i have now stated. But to say correlation is not causation is not true as you have already elucidated causation is a form of correlation. Thus you have to refine what you are talking about as i have done. My main issue with the whole mantra of correlation is causation is people use it to dismiss epidemiological evidence on that accord when they haven't even looked at the raw data or statistics, it is not good to state this unless you actually know how to review stats, ie do anovas,ancovas, linear regression models etc.... you have to weight multiple variables etc..
its not that simple and the arbitrary 5% chance is not a good argument.
you keep posting your one line repetitious statments saying i dont know what im talking about meanwhile you haven't adressed one point and have actually agreed with me, seemingly unknown to you.
-
i like the appeal to someone for assurance, lol. correlation is causation like i said. Like the quote from a famous geneticist and matemetician states. all correlations are not causative, but like i stated right above they could be its just the likelihood of chance and extraneous or compounding variables increases with lower correlations, while very high correlations are considered causative.
so in a brief comment, causation is a form of correlation, not all correlations are causative for the multitude of reasons i have now stated. But to say correlation is not causation is not true as you have already elucidated causation is a form of correlation. Thus you have to refine what you are talking about as i have done. My main issue with the whole mantra of correlation is causation is people use it to dismiss epidemiological evidence on that accord when they haven't even looked at the raw data or statistics, it is not good to state this unless you actually know how to review stats, ie do anovas,ancovas, linear regression models etc.... you have to weight multiple variables etc..
its not that simple and the arbitrary 5% chance is not a good argument.
you keep posting your one line repetitious statments saying i dont know what im talking about meanwhile you haven't adressed one point and have actually agreed with me, seemingly unknown to you.
Correlation is NOT causation. Tony's right and like I said before, you're a retard.
Causality, at least the type you're referring to, requires 3 factors -
A statistically sig. relationship
The causal variable must precede the other variable
No other factors can account for the cause
With intelligence and education, you fail miserably in the second 2. Intelligence may very well precede education. And other factors such as testing ability and aptitude, type of measurements, etc., socioeconomic issues, and any number of issues may all contribute to the cause.
Sadly, this is statistics 101 - and you fail...as usual.
Here's a novel idea - post your proof moron.
-
Why talk of deault?
As Bachmann said just pay debt first and cut from there.
no deafult no problem no more debt
-
Correlation is NOT causation. Tony's right and like I said before, you're a retard.
Causality, at least the type you're referring to, requires 3 factors -
A statistically sig. relationship
The causal variable must precede the other variable
No other factors can account for the cause
With intelligence and education, you fail miserably in the second 2. Intelligence may very well precede education. And other factors such as testing ability and aptitude, type of measurements, etc., socioeconomic issues, and any number of issues may all contribute to the cause.
Sadly, this is statistics 101 - and you fail...as usual.
Here's a novel idea - post your proof moron.
i agree meatpie, nothing of what i said contradicts what you said. Jesus, go to a statistic class
here learn something other then basic statistics you twit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_regression
i guess the famous geneticist and mathmetician i quoted failed stats 101.
again much more elequently then i have stated
'Causation' has been popularly used to express the condition of association, when applied to natural phenomena. There is no philosophical basis for giving it a wider meaning than partial or absolute association. In no case has it been proved that there is an inherent necessity in the laws of nature. Causation is correlation... [P]erfect correlation, when based upon sufficient experience, is causation in the scientific sense.
— Henry E. Niles
a significant relationship refers to the t score exceeding a p level, usually 5% in academia, this leaves a 5% chance your results are not due to the independent variable but insted chance, or some extraneous nuisance variable. WRT to no other factors, chance even in significant results do exist, this can be lowered with increased power of an experiement or more stringent alpha level, in fact sometimes changing from a .05 to .01 actually makes the results non-significant, thus wrecking the supposed causality and significant relationship.
I don't know how to explain it any further to you, its obvious neither of you have a rudimentary understanding of stats, as you have said nothing actually involving statistics, while i have given various examples only to be ignored.
again correlation is a continuim. At zero there is no correlation and the two variables x and y do not share a relationship. As you increase the correlation the likelihood of chance decreases and the variables have a stronger predicitive relationship. At 95-995 confidence interval we usually conclude causality, this is arbitrary, obviously however it is universally agreed upon. All degrees of CORRELATION ARE NOT CAUSATIVE BUT COULD BE, HOWEVER, THEY ARE INCREASINGLY UNLIKELY DUE TO HIGHER PROBABILITY OF EXTRANEOUS VARIABLES AND CHANCE, AT 95% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL WE SAY ITS CAUSATIVE, WITH A 5% CHANCE OF THE RESULTS OR THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLE NOT ACCOUNTING FOR THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE.
white is all the colors of the spectrum, blue is a seperate color but white contains blue but also other spectrums. This analogy aids us in correlation as correlation contains none to perfect, with perfect being causation, however, not all of correlation is causation, it is a part of it however. as an aside, causation is arbitrarty.
still dont get what im saying, then i cant help you. im under the impression you dont know what causation nor correlation actually is. in the example of education if there is a 75% chance or correlation with intelligence we run a mulitple regression analysis to account for other correlative variables. We apply a particular alpha level and weight to those, we can then conclude if the variable is likely causative if the value for it obtained falls within a pre-determined confidence interval
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_interval
or use bayesian methods.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_of_variance
multiple means
you also should split intelligence up and say that increased or improved intelligence correlates with education success, however, the construct of intelligence is not a concrete thing but a fluid abstact thing, thus its unlikely there is a causative factor or a single causative factor, however, clusters can be causative.
owned much?
-
CAN BE...CAN BEE..... CANNNN MOTHER FUCKING BEEE.....
you stated it as a truth...correlation isnt causation...causation leads to correlation
but CORRELATION DOESNT HAVE TO MEAN CAUSATION...
-
This is your claim retard:
correlation is causation like i said.
No it's not.
Linear regression is irrelevant to the issue and a pathetic attempt to hide your idiocy.
Philosophical quotes are irrelevant to the issue and a pathetic attempt to hide your idiocy.
Even a perfect correlation is not causation unless it meets the other two tests.
BTW, you haven't even proved the first.
You're pathetic and dumb. Probably because you're Canadian...I'm starting to see a VERY HIGH CORRELATION THERE...hmmm...
-
This is your claim retard:
No it's not.
Linear regression is irrelevant to the issue and a pathetic attempt to hide your idiocy.
Philosophical quotes are irrelevant to the issue and a pathetic attempt to hide your idiocy.
Even a perfect correlation is not causation unless it meets the other two tests.
BTW, you haven't even proved the first.
You're pathetic and dumb. Probably because you're Canadian...I'm starting to see a VERY HIGH CORRELATION THERE...hmmm...
you are taking my quote out of context with respect to my other posts explaining what i was saying and my position. I was pointing out that correlation may be causative then i went to explain the statistics or math of the situation. Causation is correlation, all correlations are not causative would be a more refined version or expanded upon( as i said wrt to varying degrees of correlation), which i have done with about 20 posts, describing different ways and scenarios.
by the way brutal response to my post, lol. Linear regression meets one of your criteria lol. Do you want me to do an equation for you with multiple variables like you outlilned? quotes are not irrelevant to the issue, how do you figure that, he is a scientist speaking about science, he parrots what i said, causation is correlation.
Also, causality depends on the field of science you are in so no i dont have to meet your criteria without context, as in quantum mechanics a intense field of math, cause and effect are not concrete especially wrt non-locality and quantum entanglement.
100% causation is impossible to know by the way so your other claim that no other variables can account for the data is non-sequitor hence the use of alpha levels that are not 100%, jesus you are a moron, there is still a chance that the dependent variable was not altered by the independent variable no matter how stringent the experiment.
i assume you are just trolling me now. Nice try with the one liners, you dont even have a fucking clue about statistics and apparently science. Guess what, some of the stuff they tell you in introductory science isn't really the whole truth.
way to join in and parrot some fucking shit found on wiki. i would leave out the ad-hominems because its an obvious sign of someone loosing an argument.
-
nothing was taken out of context you moron, you made an incorrect statement multiple times and then when finally realizing your mistake recanted...
-
you are taking my quote out of context with respect to my other posts explaining what i was saying and my position. I was pointing out that correlation may be causative then i went to explain the statistics or math of the situation. Causation is correlation, all correlations are not causative would be a more refined version or expanded upon( as i said wrt to varying degrees of correlation), which i have done with about 20 posts, describing different ways and scenarios.
by the way brutal response to my post, lol. Linear regression meets one of your criteria lol. Do you want me to do an equation for you with multiple variables like you outlilned? quotes are not irrelevant to the issue, how do you figure that, he is a scientist speaking about science, he parrots what i said, causation is correlation.
Also, causality depends on the field of science you are in so no i dont have to meet your criteria without context, as in quantum mechanics a intense field of math, cause and effect are not concrete especially wrt non-locality and quantum entanglement.
100% causation is impossible to know by the way so your other claim that no other variables can account for the data is non-sequitor hence the use of alpha levels that are not 100%, jesus you are a moron, there is still a chance that the dependent variable was not altered by the independent variable no matter how stringent the experiment.
i assume you are just trolling me now. Nice try with the one liners, you dont even have a fucking clue about statistics and apparently science. Guess what, some of the stuff they tell you in introductory science isn't really the whole truth.
way to join in and parrot some fucking shit found on wiki. i would leave out the ad-hominems because its an obvious sign of someone loosing an argument.
Nobody took you out of context, Tard. I merely eliminated all of your bullshit.
Whorewell was right, you've got to be The Luke.
This is just another pathetic attempt to muddy the water. Nobody's talking about physics or aerospace or any other stupid shit you want to bring up.
INTELLIGENCE AND EDUCATION IS THE ISSUE.
So yes moron, you need to meet ALL 3 CRITERIA.
Now go back to WIKI (which you apparently think is an authoratative source, hahahaha), and try to demonstrate your point.
BTW, you still haven't demonstrated your initial contention.
Don't worry Luke, we all know you're used to getting owned and making pathetically desperate attempts to move the subject elsewhere.
-
Serious question necwhatever,
Do you honestly know the level of your own stupidity? I mean read your own fucking words.
jesus you are a moron,
i would leave out the ad-hominems because its an obvious sign of someone loosing an argument.
::)
-
Serious question necwhatever,
Do you honestly know the level of your own stupidity? I mean read your own fucking words.
::)
trolloloolololol
nice response again, if you guys actually were reading what im saying it would be obvious im not contradicting you, im merely expanding on correlation and the possibilities that correlation is not causation doesn't inherently state.
either way im in another province right now, so i cant respond in any detail if you decide to reply troll.