Yes, this alt-weekly's online poll hardly seems scientifically rigorous. What school is your research team affiliated with, Brown? Ha! Brown! It's probably them, or some other lesser Ivy.
And I had to use the pre-2012 benchmark data to match what was available for the states.
First part is a typo. Jan. 03, it should say. Second part was from preliminary data, and it should be 3.7 not 3.6. So thanks.
Thank you Jeffrey. Also, the "hundreds" line was an error. It should read "pictures showing hundreds of neutral ground violations."
I thought his comments on this topic were reasoned and insightful. As far as I'm concerned, there's no "better" than that.
I guess I was using the word to mean "expanded to an unusual level" as it's defined in the dictionary. But you're right, "increased" might have been a better way to word it. I apologize if this sort of, arguably imprecise wording made it impossible to understand the blog post.
Not sure what about this post suggests I think it's a change for the better. "Revenue neutral" does mean that the same amount of state revenue will come in, meaning what is being sold as a "tax cut" doesn't actually lower the overall tax burden. That it's being shifted to the poor (more regressive) is pretty much the whole point I'm making here.
All Comments »
Powered by Foundation