What the...
Take the data, put it in excel for each year. Average it out per year.
Drag that over from 2012 to 2018. What you will end up with is what I
posted. This isn't "conflicted", these were the actual rates.
I'm not talking about any other subject but tax rates, and income
accounting inflation. You're getting sidetracked.
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 9:10 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm
<thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> the whole thing comes down to you using data sets that are a result of
> advice from the powers that be. The very same powers that be that say trumps
> economic plans will fail. the forecast you reference is based on a
> continuation of economics based on advise from the same powers that be. The
> forecast is fully invalidated right off the bat, because its an assumption
> that had another clintonocracy as the primary variable.
> If anything, since youre using datasets that were generated as a result of
> the powers that be advice, for a forecast that was created in 2012, as of
> tuesday you should have accelerated the forecast based on the doom and gloom
> projections of the powers that be regarding trumps economic plans. The
> establishment was legitimately shocked by trumps win, thats how out of touch
> from reality they are.
>
> the 5ghz reference is anology to the powers that be. If I stuck with the
> failed system, I would be guranteed failure, no questions asked, the
> projections from the dataset were accurate. When the new dataset (and
> accompanying firmware) became available, I chose to adopt it, thus
> invalidating all previous datasets and projections.
>
> just because the people who failed say that the new guy will fail doesnt
> make it so, and considering their failure, their projections are suspect at
> best.
>
>
> The same with the ACA, I figured it would fail, because the existing system
> said it would fail, all projections from the established powers that be said
> it would fail, but I almost voted for obama to get it to happen (i ended up
> just not voting because i couldnt stomach it). The existing system was
> collapsing, the new guys plan was going to fail, unless it didnt, in which
> case it would have been a net gain, and if it failed, it would be off the
> table indefinitely. 8 years later two things happened, it failed miserably,
> to my mixed emotions, who doesnt want free stuff, but more importantly, the
> old broken system is also gone and options never considered are now on the
> table, like interstate competition. Why is it that little guys in this WISP
> industry are able to thrive amid big competitors? weve found ways to offer a
> quality product at an affordable price, or we are just a shitshow with no
> competition in a rural area, that wont apply to insurance since there is no
> infrastructure.
>
> give the guy a chance before you assume his failure will be any different
> than your guys failure. if we walk away in 4 years bankrupted we came into
> it bankrupted, if he lines his pockets, they lined their pockets. Or hes
> right, and its successful, and you, and your employees, and their families
> are better off for it. we literally have nothing to lose at this point
>
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 8:24 PM, Josh Reynolds <j...@kyneticwifi.com> wrote:
>>
>> So, let's address this piece by piece...
>>
>> "so which is it, 10 percent over 5-6 years or long term historical facts."
>>
>> It's both. I showed references for the historical context that
>> included the more recent ones, and using that information you can make
>> a reasonable assumption, if the trend continues at it's existing rate,
>> that by 2020 we will end up there.
>>
>> "Of huge concern to me is a person using historical facts to predict a
>> future that would only apply if the historic trends continued, yet
>> refuses to accept change. I assume the "projections show that in 2018,
>> the top 20% will have over 90% of the country's wealth." statement was
>> not formulated as of Tuesday evening, considering all of those "in the
>> know" already were picking out paint schemes for hillarys chambers."
>>
>> No, this was a statement based on the numbers made from 2012.
>>
>> "do you see the flawed logic to your passive aggressive insult?"
>>
>> No, I don't. I have 50 years of documentation that provides a damn
>> good reference.
>>
>> "I understand your man had some hope and some change, and even though
>> that change was more of the same, hes a god, but you have to pick a
>> timeline and a dataset."
>>
>> I'm not sure what you are talking about here? I don't know who "my
>> man" is, I have no gods (I'm an Atheist, Agnostic at best/worst), and
>> I did pick a timeline and a dataset.
>>
>> "a prime example, i have a sight where 5ghz is toast, absolutely
>> hosed. well, that was before the 5.1 goodness became available. See,
>> if I continue operating under previous rules, and the historic data
>> set, 5ghz is useless here. But, if I accept change, actual change,
>> where things are different, I can operate in 5ghz and succeed. I can
>> still call it 5ghz, hell I can call it tickled goat hump with a side
>> of rice, I can stop doing anything and worry about what i call it (you
>> know, a label) because we all know its a UNIIism (see what i did
>> there) It doesnt change the fact that there is a potentially viable
>> solution on the table. My only choice is whether I arrogantly stick
>> with the old data set and methodology and fail, or I get over myself
>> and give it a shot before I assume it will fail, because 5ghz always
>> failed"
>>
>> ... I have no idea what you are talking about here, or how this is in
>> any way relevant.
>>
>> Again, political parties are assraping you with the barbwire and blood
>> covered bat Negan has on The Walking Dead. It's time we came together
>> as a nation and demanded real change - this means doing our own
>> research into the "news", and ignoring the preachings of those that
>> want to split us apart and keep us weak.
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 8:11 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm
>>
>> <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > so which is it, 10 percent over 5-6 years or long term historical facts.
>> > Of
>> > huge concern to me is a person using historical facts to predict a
>> > future
>> > that would only apply if the historic trends continued, yet refuses to
>> > accept change. I assume the "projections show that in 2018, the top 20%
>> > will
>> > have over 90% of the country's wealth." statement was not formulated as
>> > of
>> > Tuesday evening, considering all of those "in the know" already were
>> > picking
>> > out paint schemes for hillarys chambers.
>> >
>> > do you see the flawed logic to your passive aggressive insult?
>> >
>> > I understand your man had some hope and some change, and even though
>> > that
>> > change was more of the same, hes a god, but you have to pick a timeline
>> > and
>> > a dataset.
>> >
>> > a prime example, i have a sight where 5ghz is toast, absolutely hosed.
>> > well,
>> > that was before the 5.1 goodness became available. See, if I continue
>> > operating under previous rules, and the historic data set, 5ghz is
>> > useless
>> > here. But, if I accept change, actual change, where things are
>> > different, I
>> > can operate in 5ghz and succeed. I can still call it 5ghz, hell I can
>> > call
>> > it tickled goat hump with a side of rice, I can stop doing anything and
>> > worry about what i call it (you know, a label) because we all know its a
>> > UNIIism (see what i did there) It doesnt change the fact that there is a
>> > potentially viable solution on the table. My only choice is whether I
>> > arrogantly stick with the old data set and methodology and fail, or I
>> > get
>> > over myself and give it a shot before I assume it will fail, because
>> > 5ghz
>> > always failed
>> >
>> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 7:52 PM, Josh Reynolds <j...@kyneticwifi.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I don't think I can reason with an individual who's not willing to
>> >> consider well documented numbers as historical facts. I think you're
>> >> far more comfortable trying to simply blame a sitting President then
>> >> looking at a long term cancer that has been eroding this country over
>> >> the past 50 years, and that's a huge disappointment.
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 7:31 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm
>> >> <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > in 5 (well, 6) years, there is a 10% change, if there wasnt an abrupt
>> >> > alteration in the last two election cycles that would mean that
>> >> > about
>> >> > 48
>> >> > years ago the wealth was evenly distributed. now, I wasnt around
>> >> > then,
>> >> > but I
>> >> > know in the sixties, there were some hippies with some similar
>> >> > rhetoric,
>> >> > albeit alot more groovy tone.
>> >> >
>> >> > I would ask you the same question about said assrape, i didnt care
>> >> > for
>> >> > the
>> >> > one that actually happenned, im not about to describe my opinion of
>> >> > one
>> >> > that
>> >> > only exists in the future and in your head. Though out of curiousity,
>> >> > when
>> >> > youre imagining me taking the throbbing member, do I have a top hat
>> >> > on?
>> >> > Because seriously, if I ever get assraped, I would really prefer I
>> >> > have
>> >> > a
>> >> > top hat on.
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:53 PM, Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I would argue that he is past the age where he might cause harm.
>> >> >> He's
>> >> >> had
>> >> >> several bypasses after all.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> bp
>> >> >> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On 11/10/2016 4:29 PM, Gilbert T. Gutierrez, Jr. wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> That is true, but he is still under the same roof if I leave my
>> >> >>> wife
>> >> >>> and
>> >> >>> daughter there. :)
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Gilbert
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On 11/10/2016 10:06 AM, Bill Prince wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> He was not running for president. And neither was Melania.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> bp
>> >> >>>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> On 11/10/2016 9:04 AM, Gilbert T. Gutierrez, Jr. wrote:
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> I have more issues with Hilary's husband.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your
>> >> > team
>> >> > as
>> >> > part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team
>> > as
>> > part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as
> part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
