Gun control and the misrepresentation of conservatism

[BigBallinStalin]

Why not legally require that kids should be taught how to eat healthily?

The US could pass many laws and enforce them to make sure that people eat healthily to avoid later consequences and costs on the national healthcare system (and costs incurred by the legal system and other people through frivolous lawsuits regarding obesity and what not).

[natty dread]

Why not legally require that kids should be taught how to eat healthily?

The US could pass many laws and enforce them to make sure that people eat healthily to avoid later consequences and costs on the national healthcare system (and costs incurred by the legal system and other people through frivolous lawsuits regarding obesity and what not).

Your kid eating unhealthily doesn't immediately threaten other people's lives.

[BigBallinStalin]

Again, it's an issue of whether the government should intervene and educate people on how to live their lives, or whether that education should be left more directly to the communities themselves.


PLAYER is a huge proponent for the state, so she believes that the state should provide the education and make it legally enforcable to attend the educational programs.

Other people don't trust the government, and/or they see the problems associated with yet another top-down approach with political incentives at play and the upcoming wasteful expenditure of resources--these people support other methods of educating others.


Instead, people should actually contribute to the forms of education that they wish. If player is so concerned about gun education in her neighboorhood, then she should "put her money where her mouth is" and actually contribute, instead of requiring the government to do something which it will inevitably perform poorly and wastefully.

[BigBallinStalin]

Why not legally require that kids should be taught how to eat healthily?

The US could pass many laws and enforce them to make sure that people eat healthily to avoid later consequences and costs on the national healthcare system (and costs incurred by the legal system and other people through frivolous lawsuits regarding obesity and what not).

Your kid eating unhealthily doesn't immediately threaten other people's lives.

Why be so arbitrary?

The point is to save lives, so let's save lives--especially since obesity is reponsible for killing 300,000 American lives per year according to surgeongeneral.gov http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/topics/obesity/calltoaction/fact_consequences.htm.

Accidental deaths from the mishandling of guns is responsible for how many deaths? 600 per year? (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2023823/posts). Down 95% since the early 1900s? (without the need for state intervention with legally required gun control classes for gun owners). Trying googling it and it's difficult to even show the numbers because the problem is so insignificant compared to other factors that kill more people.


Say 90% of welfare recipient eat unhealthily. Then later, they incur further costs on the national healthcare program (medicare, medicaid, etc). Look at the cost they imposed on all of society! They should have been educated on how to live their lives (using PLAYER's and apparently your logic favoring state intervention), so that they could be saved!

[BigBallinStalin]

Here's another interesting fact:

In the U.S. for 2006, there were 30,896 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,883; Homicide 12,791; Accident 642; Legal Intervention 360; Undetermined 220.

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

Compare that to 300,000 deaths per year related to obesity.

"WE NEED STATE INTERVENTION NOW TO SAVE OUR LIVES!!!!!"

My opinion: This is a topic du'jour for statists.

[spurgistan]

Because if a Republican has the audacity not to follow the party line right down the line, they must not be real Republicans!

Actually, what scotty fails to see, is that the Rinos ARE following the party lines to the T. The party has become a social left, economic Kenseyn (sp?) system supporting establishment, which the constituency is sick of. that is why Ron Paul is such a moving force. he wants to go with the government where the people such as myself want the government to go. DOWN in size, and BACk in it's intrusion on privacy. (See liberty defined, chapter 6)

Umm, see, the thing is, the Republican Party is farther to the right then it's been in around 50 years, at least economically. Note how the health care reform package we passed less year was significantly less comprehensive than Nixon's. Our taxes-to-GDP ratio was higher under Reagan source for BBS. BUPotY your ass.

Taxes-to-GDP ratio? That's a cute game they're playing with statistics. If taxes remained the same while the economy grew, then "taxes" would seem smaller. If taxes remained the same while a recession occurred (which happened when Reagan came to power), then "taxes" would seem higher.

In other words, a taxes-to-GDP ratio is limited in its application--it doesn't say much.

But, as far as the American Right is concerned, Murray Rothbard wrote a book called Betrayal of the American Right, which is free at mises.org (http://mises.org/books/betrayal.pdf). His book discusses the history of the American Right, and how it has shifted into what a portion of it is today.


I lol'ed at "social left, economic Keynesian system" [whatthefuckamireading.jpg]

So, if a tax revenue-to-GDP ratio isn't an accurate indication of the level of taxation, what is? Whatever the Chamber of Commerce says? Just "Too High?" It seems like expecting tax revenue to rise as overall GDP rises would make sense, no? Which would keep the ratio even. Which makes this not some sort of statistical game, unless there's something I'm missing here.

[thegreekdog]

So, if a tax revenue-to-GDP ratio isn't an accurate indication of the level of taxation, what is? Whatever the Chamber of Commerce says? Just "Too High?" It seems like expecting tax revenue to rise as overall GDP rises would make sense, no? Which would keep the ratio even. Which makes this not some sort of statistical game, unless there's something I'm missing here.

This is just a thought, but it could be that the United States has the highest corporate tax rate in the world... but that's just a thought.

[natty dread]

Why not legally require that kids should be taught how to eat healthily?

The US could pass many laws and enforce them to make sure that people eat healthily to avoid later consequences and costs on the national healthcare system (and costs incurred by the legal system and other people through frivolous lawsuits regarding obesity and what not).

Your kid eating unhealthily doesn't immediately threaten other people's lives.

Why be so arbitrary?

The point is to save lives, so let's save lives--especially since obesity is reponsible for killing 300,000 American lives per year according to surgeongeneral.gov http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/topics/obesity/calltoaction/fact_consequences.htm.

Accidental deaths from the mishandling of guns is responsible for how many deaths? 600 per year? (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2023823/posts). Down 95% since the early 1900s? (without the need for state intervention with legally required gun control classes for gun owners). Trying googling it and it's difficult to even show the numbers because the problem is so insignificant compared to other factors that kill more people.


Say 90% of welfare recipient eat unhealthily. Then later, they incur further costs on the national healthcare program (medicare, medicaid, etc). Look at the cost they imposed on all of society! They should have been educated on how to live their lives (using PLAYER's and apparently your logic favoring state intervention), so that they could be saved!

Excuse me, but I don't believe I have yet expressed my opinion on the matter. Aren't you the one who's always offended when other people assume what your opinions are?

[BigBallinStalin]

Because if a Republican has the audacity not to follow the party line right down the line, they must not be real Republicans!

Actually, what scotty fails to see, is that the Rinos ARE following the party lines to the T. The party has become a social left, economic Kenseyn (sp?) system supporting establishment, which the constituency is sick of. that is why Ron Paul is such a moving force. he wants to go with the government where the people such as myself want the government to go. DOWN in size, and BACk in it's intrusion on privacy. (See liberty defined, chapter 6)

Umm, see, the thing is, the Republican Party is farther to the right then it's been in around 50 years, at least economically. Note how the health care reform package we passed less year was significantly less comprehensive than Nixon's. Our taxes-to-GDP ratio was higher under Reagan source for BBS. BUPotY your ass.

Taxes-to-GDP ratio? That's a cute game they're playing with statistics. If taxes remained the same while the economy grew, then "taxes" would seem smaller. If taxes remained the same while a recession occurred (which happened when Reagan came to power), then "taxes" would seem higher.

In other words, a taxes-to-GDP ratio is limited in its application--it doesn't say much.

But, as far as the American Right is concerned, Murray Rothbard wrote a book called Betrayal of the American Right, which is free at mises.org (http://mises.org/books/betrayal.pdf). His book discusses the history of the American Right, and how it has shifted into what a portion of it is today.


I lol'ed at "social left, economic Keynesian system" [whatthefuckamireading.jpg]

So, if a tax revenue-to-GDP ratio isn't an accurate indication of the level of taxation, what is? Whatever the Chamber of Commerce says? Just "Too High?" It seems like expecting tax revenue to rise as overall GDP rises would make sense, no? Which would keep the ratio even. Which makes this not some sort of statistical game, unless there's something I'm missing here.

Tax rates on income along set brackets and adjusted for inflation would be a much better indicator of whatever you're trying to show.

[thegreekdog]

Aren't you the one who's always offended when other people assume what your opinions are?

No that's me. As I recall you accused me of being homophobic. BBS has no problem with people making assumptions about him.

[BigBallinStalin]

Why not legally require that kids should be taught how to eat healthily?

The US could pass many laws and enforce them to make sure that people eat healthily to avoid later consequences and costs on the national healthcare system (and costs incurred by the legal system and other people through frivolous lawsuits regarding obesity and what not).

Your kid eating unhealthily doesn't immediately threaten other people's lives.

Why be so arbitrary?

The point is to save lives, so let's save lives--especially since obesity is reponsible for killing 300,000 American lives per year according to surgeongeneral.gov http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/topics/obesity/calltoaction/fact_consequences.htm.

Accidental deaths from the mishandling of guns is responsible for how many deaths? 600 per year? (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2023823/posts). Down 95% since the early 1900s? (without the need for state intervention with legally required gun control classes for gun owners). Trying googling it and it's difficult to even show the numbers because the problem is so insignificant compared to other factors that kill more people.


Say 90% of welfare recipient eat unhealthily. Then later, they incur further costs on the national healthcare program (medicare, medicaid, etc). Look at the cost they imposed on all of society! They should have been educated on how to live their lives (using PLAYER's and apparently your logic favoring state intervention), so that they could be saved!

Excuse me, but I don't believe I have yet expressed my opinion on the matter. Aren't you the one who's always offended when other people assume what your opinions are?

"Your kid eating unhealthily doesn't immediately threaten other people's lives"

[mentioning posts about kids getting killed because they don't know how to handle guns]

"I think Player makes some good points" (regarding enforcing laws which I don't support)
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=145048&start=90#p3168637
(and your response in relation to hers below it).

Therefore, you have been reasonably placed into Player's line of thinking (i.e. state intervention, etc etc about being the proper solution).

[spurgistan]

"Whatever I'm arguing" is that the current American tax regime, far from being unprecedentedly heavy, was a greater share of our GDP under Reagan, and pretty much everybody in the 40 years before that. Inflation don't mean jack shit.

[natty dread]

"Your kid eating unhealthily doesn't immediately threaten other people's lives"

[mentioning posts about kids getting killed because they don't know how to handle guns]

"I think Player makes some good points" (regarding enforcing laws which I don't support)
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=145048&start=90#p3168637
(and your response in relation to hers below it).

Therefore, you have been reasonably placed into Player's line of thinking (i.e. state intervention, etc etc about being the proper solution).

I think you read too much into posts with too few words in them.

Me saying that Player makes some good points does not indicate that I agree with her 100%.

I also believe you also make some good points.

As for the first quote, I was merely pointing out how I consider it somewhat invalid to directly compare the issues of gun safety vs. obesity. They are not directly comparable, and can not be treated the same.

To elaborate: I do believe the government should teach healthy eating habits to kids. Some governments are already doing that - encouraging schools to teach kids about nutrition and to serve healthy meals. But governments shouldn't be allowed to dictate what people can or can't eat. It's the parents' job to ensure their kids get proper nutrition.

I also do believe that some amount of gun control is necessary. There need to be limits and guidelines to how guns are handled, who can own a gun, etc.

I do not believe that governments should ban guns from their peoples alltogether. It's a tricky issue though, where to put the limits. Guns for sports and hunting are reasonably ok, as long as safety-guidelines are followed - and if they are not, then the licenses should be revoked instantly and for life.

But I don't think a government should allow people who are batshit crazy to own guns.

[BigBallinStalin]

"Whatever I'm arguing" is that the current American tax regime, far from being unprecedentedly heavy, was a greater share of our GDP under Reagan, and pretty much everybody in the 40 years before that. Inflation don't mean jack shit.

Ok.

Percentages of GDP can be misleading because the GDP itself varies. Therefore, when measurements of percentages of GDP are made, they are distorted by whatever business cycle the economy is riding... (as I already stated).

"Taxes-to-GDP ratio? That's a cute game they're playing with statistics. If taxes remained the same while the economy grew, then "taxes" would seem smaller. If taxes remained the same while a recession occurred (which happened when Reagan came to power), then "taxes" would seem higher. (Do you see how that works?)

__________________________

Inflation matters because inflation changes the real price of goods. When one calculates the real price of goods in the 1980s (taxes, for instance), then one must use a set date like 2008 or 2006 as the base year to determine the real prices of goods and taxes. This helps show the real prices of taxes and income at some time in the past. (ALso, depending on one's base year, the numbers change. So if you pick a year with high inflation compared with a year of low inflation, the numbers from the past change.)

_________________________

In conclusion, using GDP proportions for taxation is misleading (especially if other data are not included). You've fallen for a statistical lie, but there's no need to get all butthurt over it.

[BigBallinStalin]

"Your kid eating unhealthily doesn't immediately threaten other people's lives"

[mentioning posts about kids getting killed because they don't know how to handle guns]

"I think Player makes some good points" (regarding enforcing laws which I don't support)
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=145048&start=90#p3168637
(and your response in relation to hers below it).

Therefore, you have been reasonably placed into Player's line of thinking (i.e. state intervention, etc etc about being the proper solution).

I think you read too much into posts with too few words in them.

Me saying that Player makes some good points does not indicate that I agree with her 100%.

I also believe you also make some good points.

As for the first quote, I was merely pointing out how I consider it somewhat invalid to directly compare the issues of gun safety vs. obesity. They are not directly comparable, and can not be treated the same.

Sure they can. Going with PLAYER's logic, it just takes education and state-enforced laws. By using her logic, I'm expressing how ridiculous her standpoint is.


I apologize for my 80% mixing your support for her points as believing that you actually think her points being made are good (i.e. in favor of state programs to educate people on gun safety, which would require it to be involuntary and for it to target gun owners in order for the program to be "effective")

To elaborate: I do believe the government should teach healthy eating habits to kids. Some governments are already doing that - encouraging schools to teach kids about nutrition and to serve healthy meals. But governments shouldn't be allowed to dictate what people can or can't eat. It's the parents' job to ensure their kids get proper nutrition.

As long as that's voluntary, then I agree.

I also do believe that some amount of gun control is necessary. There need to be limits and guidelines to how guns are handled, who can own a gun, etc.

I do not believe that governments should ban guns from their peoples alltogether. It's a tricky issue though, where to put the limits. Guns for sports and hunting are reasonably ok, as long as safety-guidelines are followed - and if they are not, then the licenses should be revoked instantly and for life.

But I don't think a government should allow people who are batshit crazy to own guns.

Regarding current US gun control laws, I'm tolerable towards them.

[Phatscotty]

"Whatever I'm arguing" is that the current American tax regime, far from being unprecedentedly heavy, was a greater share of our GDP under Reagan, and pretty much everybody in the 40 years before that. Inflation don't mean jack shit.

taxes are too high and there are too many, and this does not even touch on licensing fees and such.

Taxed Enough Already.

[Woodruff]

To elaborate: I do believe the government should teach healthy eating habits to kids.

As long as that's voluntary, then I agree.

You don't believe schools should require a basic health class? Particularly given the nature of the expenses our society is taking on as a result of shitty health?

[BigBallinStalin]

To elaborate: I do believe the government should teach healthy eating habits to kids.

As long as that's voluntary, then I agree.

You don't believe schools should require a basic health class? Particularly given the nature of the expenses our society is taking on as a result of shitty health?

No.

His statement doesn't equal your statement.

[Woodruff]

To elaborate: I do believe the government should teach healthy eating habits to kids.

As long as that's voluntary, then I agree.

You don't believe schools should require a basic health class? Particularly given the nature of the expenses our society is taking on as a result of shitty health?

No. His statement doesn't equal your statement.

His statement is absolutely a part of any basic health class I've ever seen in schools.

[spurgistan]

"Whatever I'm arguing" is that the current American tax regime, far from being unprecedentedly heavy, was a greater share of our GDP under Reagan, and pretty much everybody in the 40 years before that. Inflation don't mean jack shit.

Ok.

Percentages of GDP can be misleading because the GDP itself varies. Therefore, when measurements of percentages of GDP are made, they are distorted by whatever business cycle the economy is riding... (as I already stated).

"Taxes-to-GDP ratio? That's a cute game they're playing with statistics. If taxes remained the same while the economy grew, then "taxes" would seem smaller. If taxes remained the same while a recession occurred (which happened when Reagan came to power), then "taxes" would seem higher. (Do you see how that works?)

__________________________

Inflation matters because inflation changes the real price of goods. When one calculates the real price of goods in the 1980s (taxes, for instance), then one must use a set date like 2008 or 2006 as the base year to determine the real prices of goods and taxes. This helps show the real prices of taxes and income at some time in the past. (ALso, depending on one's base year, the numbers change. So if you pick a year with high inflation compared with a year of low inflation, the numbers from the past change.)

_________________________

In conclusion, using GDP proportions for taxation is misleading (especially if other data are not included). You've fallen for a statistical lie, but there's no need to get all butthurt over it.

You know, you're way better at sounding like a dick than explaining things, but I'm interested. So, please, for my general edification, if 2007 GDP were $30 trillion, and tax revenues were $3 trillion (numbers I just made up) giving us a rate of 10%, and the 2008 numbers were $40 trillion and $3.2 trillion, giving us 8%, go how it is impossible to deduce that we were in fact less highly taxed in 2008.

[BigBallinStalin]

To elaborate: I do believe the government should teach healthy eating habits to kids.

As long as that's voluntary, then I agree.

You don't believe schools should require a basic health class? Particularly given the nature of the expenses our society is taking on as a result of shitty health?

No. His statement doesn't equal your statement.

His statement is absolutely a part of any basic health class I've ever seen in schools.

A part is not the whole, Woodruff.

Are you still looking for an internet fight, or would you rather rephrase your question?

[BigBallinStalin]

"Whatever I'm arguing" is that the current American tax regime, far from being unprecedentedly heavy, was a greater share of our GDP under Reagan, and pretty much everybody in the 40 years before that. Inflation don't mean jack shit.

Ok.

Percentages of GDP can be misleading because the GDP itself varies. Therefore, when measurements of percentages of GDP are made, they are distorted by whatever business cycle the economy is riding... (as I already stated).

"Taxes-to-GDP ratio? That's a cute game they're playing with statistics. If taxes remained the same while the economy grew, then "taxes" would seem smaller. If taxes remained the same while a recession occurred (which happened when Reagan came to power), then "taxes" would seem higher. (Do you see how that works?)

__________________________

Inflation matters because inflation changes the real price of goods. When one calculates the real price of goods in the 1980s (taxes, for instance), then one must use a set date like 2008 or 2006 as the base year to determine the real prices of goods and taxes. This helps show the real prices of taxes and income at some time in the past. (ALso, depending on one's base year, the numbers change. So if you pick a year with high inflation compared with a year of low inflation, the numbers from the past change.)

_________________________

In conclusion, using GDP proportions for taxation is misleading (especially if other data are not included). You've fallen for a statistical lie, but there's no need to get all butthurt over it.

You know, you're way better at sounding like a dick than explaining things, but I'm interested. So, please, for my general edification, if 2007 GDP were $30 trillion, and tax revenues were $3 trillion (numbers I just made up) giving us a rate of 10%, and the 2008 numbers were $40 trillion and $3.2 trillion, giving us 8%, go how it is impossible to deduce that we were in fact less highly taxed in 2008.

How should I treat bendejo statements like "inflation doesn't mean jack shit"? __? With a respectful answer? hah. You think saying such jackass statements provides a great argument that invalids what I said earlier? Please. Put away your cross, and I'll treat you with respect.

_______________________________________________


Regarding your example, it depends on inflation and the base year for the price in order to determine the real GDP. There's nominal GDP (which are the two GDPs you stated in your example) and real GDP. Adjusting for inflation is performed via the GDP-deflator, which makes evident the real GDP relative to a set base year and its prices.

Which means that depending on one's base year for the price, the numbers will vary. I can't succintly express to you the differences between real and nominal values, GDP in general, inflation, and the GDP-deflator on here. It's up to you to educate yourself through wikipedia or through a simple book on economics or maybe through someone on here who's willing to spend the time to do so.

Besides, your example and the statistics used do not rely on other data. Other data is important, like specific tax brackets, and adjusting for inflation, etc. I don't know how to convince you that other data matters. If you believe only one thing and ignore other relevant factors that weren't mentioned, then how certain can you really be?

[Woodruff]

As long as that's voluntary, then I agree.

You don't believe schools should require a basic health class? Particularly given the nature of the expenses our society is taking on as a result of shitty health?

No. His statement doesn't equal your statement.

His statement is absolutely a part of any basic health class I've ever seen in schools.

A part is not the whole, Woodruff. Are you still looking for an internet fight, or would you rather rephrase your question?

What I'd rather have is you to try to discuss the issue honestly. No, a part is not the whole...but it absolutely is a part. If "teaching healthy eating habits to kids" is a part of "any basic health class I've ever seen in schools", and you agree here that it is, then you must agree that teaching healthy eating habits to kids does NOT necessarily need to be voluntary and that there is no reason at all for it not to take place in a school. Unless you're going to now argue that primary education should be voluntary?

[PLAYER57832]

Sure they can. Going with PLAYER's logic, it just takes education and state-enforced laws. By using her logic, I'm expressing how ridiculous her standpoint is.

To do that, you would first have to truly express my standpoint. So far, you have not, particularly not on the gun issue.

I do believe kids should be taught good eating habits, nutrition as part of science or health (however the school wants to frame it), providing what is taught is based on science and not just the latest fads.

I would like to see gun use should taught to anyone wanting to buy a gun, but I am not sure I want a law on that. Maybe some extension of current hunting laws that require kids to go through hunter safety classes before they can hunt.

My big issue is that right now, in PA and other places, people are allowed to shoot guns that are very powerful in crowded areas such that strays have hit and injured people. The other issue I mentioned was per the gun show where the 8 year old was killed. No responsible adult would have let an 8 year old use that gun... and it is a case where a law might be needed to prevent the idiots from doing things like that. I also think the NRA needs to step in and advocate for some of these laws so that the more extreme left wingers don't get full bans passed.

[Timminz]

"Whatever I'm arguing" is that the current American tax regime, far from being unprecedentedly heavy, was a greater share of our GDP under Reagan, and pretty much everybody in the 40 years before that. Inflation don't mean jack shit.

Ok.

Percentages of GDP can be misleading because the GDP itself varies. Therefore, when measurements of percentages of GDP are made, they are distorted by whatever business cycle the economy is riding... (as I already stated).

"Taxes-to-GDP ratio? That's a cute game they're playing with statistics. If taxes remained the same while the economy grew, then "taxes" would seem smaller. If taxes remained the same while a recession occurred (which happened when Reagan came to power), then "taxes" would seem higher. (Do you see how that works?)

__________________________

Inflation matters because inflation changes the real price of goods. When one calculates the real price of goods in the 1980s (taxes, for instance), then one must use a set date like 2008 or 2006 as the base year to determine the real prices of goods and taxes. This helps show the real prices of taxes and income at some time in the past. (ALso, depending on one's base year, the numbers change. So if you pick a year with high inflation compared with a year of low inflation, the numbers from the past change.)

_________________________

In conclusion, using GDP proportions for taxation is misleading (especially if other data are not included). You've fallen for a statistical lie, but there's no need to get all butthurt over it.

You know, you're way better at sounding like a dick than explaining things, but I'm interested. So, please, for my general edification, if 2007 GDP were $30 trillion, and tax revenues were $3 trillion (numbers I just made up) giving us a rate of 10%, and the 2008 numbers were $40 trillion and $3.2 trillion, giving us 8%, go how it is impossible to deduce that we were in fact less highly taxed in 2008.

How should I treat bendejo statements like "inflation doesn't mean jack shit"? __? With a respectful answer? hah. You think saying such jackass statements provides a great argument that invalids what I said earlier? Please. Put away your cross, and I'll treat you with respect.

_______________________________________________


Regarding your example, it depends on inflation and the base year for the price in order to determine the real GDP. There's nominal GDP (which are the two GDPs you stated in your example) and real GDP. Adjusting for inflation is performed via the GDP-deflator, which makes evident the real GDP relative to a set base year and its prices.

Which means that depending on one's base year for the price, the numbers will vary. I can't succintly express to you the differences between real and nominal values, GDP in general, inflation, and the GDP-deflator on here. It's up to you to educate yourself through wikipedia or through a simple book on economics or maybe through someone on here who's willing to spend the time to do so.

Besides, your example and the statistics used do not rely on other data. Other data is important, like specific tax brackets, and adjusting for inflation, etc. I don't know how to convince you that other data matters. If you believe only one thing and ignore other relevant factors that weren't mentioned, then how certain can you really be?