[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

JFK was wrong?

In what respect?

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

My party? I'm an independent.

How many died because of Nixon? By your logic, Kennedy who expanded Vietnam, causing lots of death, was a worse President the Nixon who was bringing the boys home? Fortunately for the world, "far left logic" isn't really the standard for intellectual excellence

remember cambodia?

if you don't you must be young so you're excused

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm not sure what you mean. When I'm "on bush", I AM normally a minority, as the bush in question is usually only occupied by one person.

what?

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

blah blah blah

I am not the biggest fan of Bush.

blah blah blah

i can't let this one go by.

well this is news! from your posts during the last 6 years, you seemed to be a great supporter of gwb.

congrat, you are growing!

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

JFK was wrong?

Originally Posted by peeb 

In what respect?

In that he advocated cutting taxes to increase revenues to the treasury.
YouTube - Income Tax Cut. JFK Hopes To Spur Economy 1962/08/13 (1962) News reel
American Rhetoric: John F. Kennedy - Address to the Economic Club of New York audio from speech cited in article
Rationale for Kennedy's Tax Cut - New York Times

Rationale for Kennedy's Tax Cut
Published: September 18, 1984

Tax-cutting policies with a supply-side flavor were put forward two decades ago by the Democratic Administration of John F. Kennedy.

In a speech before the Economic Club of New York on Dec. 14, 1962, President Kennedy gave what could stand today as an eloquent statement of the supply- side case, particularly as it relates to budget deficits and tax rates.

He said:

''Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that, no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance the budget - just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits.

''In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low - and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now.''

[peeb]

Well, he was certainly simplifying for political purposes. There's no evidence for a simple relationship between the two.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Well, he was certainly simplifying for political purposes. There's no evidence for a simple relationship between the two.

So was he wrong for wanting to cut taxes?

[peeb]

Wrong from what perspective? I'm not familiar in detail with the decisions he faced at the time, all I'm saying is that there is no simple relationship between tax rates and revenue.

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Wrong from what perspective?

and the equivocations continue. No absolutes, no clear paths, anything can be rationalized away.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

and the equivocations continue. No absolutes, no clear paths, anything can be rationalized away.

Well do you disagree? Do you want to offer some evidence for a simple relationship between tax rates and revenue? I'm afraid economics is complicated.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

So was he wrong for wanting to cut taxes?

imo, tax cuts are great!

but in our real world, tax cuts are like the credit card companies offering 0% apr*

and it's good for the short term but if you owe thousands of dollars on those same credit cards, it just gets ugly from there

let's control the spending first....pay off the debt before china comes a callin' in the loans....

as well as 2 billion dollars a DAY for iraq

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by peeb 

I'm afraid economics is complicated.

then you should avoid discussing topics that are beyond your comprehension.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

So, JFK was a fool also?

Yes, no, who cares? What does this have to do with my post?

You post some idiocy about the Laffer curve. I post a study from the Treasury Dept that directly contradicts it, factually. I link to a page that lists four or five other studies that have the same conclusion. And you say JFK was wrong?! JFK isn't an economist, so I'm not going to waste my time rebutting him. Why don't you find a study from the Treasury Dept that supports your argument? Good luck, since it doesn't exist.

Sorry for calling you a name, but really. This is basic economics, which you can't argue against, so you respond with something political. That's really ridiculous.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

then you should avoid discussing topics that are beyond your comprehension.

Look, this is the last time - getting drunk and posting random insults is not acceptable. If you want to take a shot at explaining whether, and if so how, you think there is a simple correlation between tax rates and revenue, then by all means take a shot - otherwise go sleep it off.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by tie 

He did listen to the economic lefties, and did exactly what they all said.

Nope.

..and he only "road the fence" as stated because he had to. After 94, he was left to "triangulate". He was smart and did just that. He could have tried to actually go the far left route with taxes and such but was smart enough to know he couldn't.

It's amazing to compare Clinton's first 2 years with the rest of his term in office. He spent the first two doing what Hillary told him and when that turned into a spectacular failure, spent his last 6 doing what Newt would let him.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by tie 

Your specific example is completely false, though. The whole world might have said they believed it, but in fact only the US and Britain really did.

Wow. You just called the rest of the world liars. Congrats!

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Wow. You just called the rest of the world liars. Congrats!

These are some of the batshit insane leaps of "logic" and straw-grasping that those that swallowed the whole "Bush made it all up" lie have to jump through whenever confronted with fact.

It's entertaining to watch, I'll say that.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by tie 

Yes, no, who cares? What does this have to do with my post?

You post some idiocy about the Laffer curve. I post a study from the Treasury Dept that directly contradicts it, factually. I link to a page that lists four or five other studies that have the same conclusion. And you say JFK was wrong?! JFK isn't an economist, so I'm not going to waste my time rebutting him. Why don't you find a study from the Treasury Dept that supports your argument? Good luck, since it doesn't exist.

Sorry for calling you a name, but really. This is basic economics, which you can't argue against, so you respond with something political. That's really ridiculous.

your own post provides the study you ask for
http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/...july252006.pdf
did you read it? It is arguing for making the tax cuts permanent

The purpose of the report is to provide a more in-depth, transparent understanding of dynamic
analysis, while also illustrating the positive contributions the tax relief, together with spending
reductions, can be expected to continue to make to the U.S. economy. In addition, the analysis
shows the importance of making the tax provisions permanent for the U.S. economy’s long-term
economic growth.

the result of the cuts, from the NY Times of all places
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/wa...=2&oref=slogin
and who is paying those taxes
http://treas.gov/press/releases/repo...xes.update.pdf

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

Well, I'd be tickled to run you through it if you're interested.

Sure! If you do, let me know if you would like for me to debate what you are saying... I don't wish to jump all over you if you would simply be playing devil's advocate.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Let's go with the Republican idea of 'steal from the poor, and give to the rich!'.

The repubs NOT robbing the rich is in no way stealing from the poor.

This what happens (and I've repeated this before)

The left overtax the Rich (steal from them and help pay for the poor)

The right comes in and fixes it to be a bit more fair. Then the left scream OMG!!! THEY ARE FAVORING THE RICH!!111

No, they are just treating them FAIRLY. I mean right now, the top 5% of our country pay for over 50% of our nations taxes the way it is. And the left want them paying MORE.

So this "stealing from the poor and giving to the rich" crap is malarky.

If a gal is on welfare, and she has kids she pulls the income tax refund in. We are talking thousands of dollars back.

I remember one year I gal I know, that had no job, that was living off the state, got a $4,000 income tax refund.

I've worked a decent job the past decade. I've never seen refunds like that.

Originally Posted by ironknee 

the tide is turning! our national nightmare is almost over!

You keep sticking the fingers in your ears and you are going to get an infection.

Originally Posted by tie 

Well it means something, in general.

Well it means the media has done a good job of painting things in a way that sells paper. The status quo usually has no REAL idea what is going on. They know a lot of slogans, and a lot of things "they heard" but when I've sat down with these people, they really have no clue as to what is really going on. And they don't care to. I always get "Oh it's a bunch of hogwash no matter who is in"

Your specific example is completely false, though. The whole world might have said they believed it, but in fact only the US and Britain really did.

That isn't factual at all. Heck not a month ago I showed where Canada thought so too. Again, If you want me to take the quote references out again I will.

(And in the US, we only believed it because we were fed lies.)

The same lies the Clinton Administration was fed when Clinton bombed Iraq's "Nuclear and biological labs" that he claimed Saddam did have? The same ones not ONE SINGLE person questioned Clinton of? The same lies that the majority of Congress were repeating over and over again until election time, when all of a sudden they did a 90° turn and started the "Campaign " ? If you are going to call people liars, There is a longer list than just Bush. And it started before him.

Quotes that both Clinton's have said, that Kerry, Edwards, and Gore have said. Before it was uncool to think Iraq was a threat. Because it was election time.

Originally Posted by ironknee 

i can't let this one go by.
well this is news! from your posts during the last 6 years, you seemed to be a great supporter of gwb. congrat, you are growing!

No, this just shows you've not been paying attention. I've said from day one that I thought all the candidates sucked. That I was voting for the lesser of two evils. I just don't agree with certain people's stance on Iraq in here. I've ALWAYS said there have been better presidents than Bush. And I've said if the Left had someone STRONGER they could have easily beaten Bush. So start paying attention, and you might learn something.

Here is another shocker for ya, I even voted for Clinton once. Just because I am not a anti-bush hating zealot like most of the people that complain about Bush. Doesn't suddenly make me think he's the best president ever.

We haven't had a decent president since Reagan IMHO.

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I mean right now, the top 5% of our country pay for over 50% of our nations taxes the way it is. And the left want them paying MORE.

So what's wrong with that? I am in the highest tax bracket right now, and I have no problem paying a larger share of my income than somebody who barely scraps by with minimum income. I recognize that if I make that much money, it is because the society as a whole allows me, and that's possible only if there is social peace. So I benefit from the fact that lower incomes people can get basic needs (such as education, and hopefully soon healthcare, for free). They probably still do have a job that's quite unpleasant.
The problem with conservative is the thinking that since some people abuse the system, the system should be scrapped. With that attitude I am surprised they don't want guns to be prohibited completely...

Besides according to some statistics (and we all know what we can do with stats), the richest 5% in the US own 58% if the US wealth. So there for your complaining.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by villalobos 

Besides according to some statistics (and we all know what we can do with stats), the richest 5% in the US own 58% if the US wealth. So there for your complaining.

According to who's statistics?
The top 5% earns about 35% of total adjusted income, but pays 59% of the taxes.

We're also not talking the ultra-rich, just those making around $150,000 and up. Even the top 1% is only in the $350,000 range and up.

[Cold Warrior]

And when you're in the northeast cities our some places out West, 150k isn't much if you're a dual-income couple with children, when healthcare and education costs are rising far beyond inflation.

The top bracket is oppressive. Just another way for cradle-to-grave government to enslave its people so that they know no other teet but Big Brother, and suckle at said teet for their entire lives, afraid to ween.

[zwiebel_]

Originally Posted by peeb 

The Swamp: Bush's approval at new low in Reuters: 24 percent

And amazingly, 44% of people either think the country is on the right track, or don't know. What is going on?

The sad part is that these 24% represent the extreme right wing evangelical and neocon part of our nation which has brought us into this whole mess. If we could just relocate the 75 million off to an island, we would be in a much better shape. Oh, yeah, make some room for the members of the congress, while you're at it.

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

According to who's statistics?
The top 5% earns about 35% of total adjusted income, but pays 59% of the taxes.

We're also not talking the ultra-rich, just those making around $150,000 and up. Even the top 1% is only in the $350,000 range and up.

Yeah but they have more than 50% of the wealth (including assets that is) according to statistics. I guess it balances out at the end. Stop the whining. Contributing a bigger share of your income when you are richer only makes sense.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

That isn't factual at all. Heck not a month ago I showed where Canada thought so too. Again, If you want me to take the quote references out again I will.

I asked you to find actions, not quotes. I take it that you couldn't find a single one? Yeah, that's what I thought.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

your own post provides the study you ask for
http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/...july252006.pdf
did you read it? It is arguing for making the tax cuts permanent

I don't get it. I provide you tons of links, and you can't read one of them. You argued that the tax cuts financed themselves. Have you forgotten that argument? Do you now admit that you were wrong? As I said before, the Treasury Dept disagrees with you.

"The analysis presented in the paper suggests that permanently extending the President's tax relief enacted in 2001 and 2003 likely would lead to a long-run increase in the cpital stock and an increase in national output in both the short run and the long run. If the revenue cost of that tax relief is offset by reducing future government spending, the increase in output is likely be [sic] about 0.7 percent under plausible assumptions. If, instead, the tax relief is extended only through the end of the budget window (i.e., it is temporary), the tax relief would increase national output in the short run, but long-run output would decline as future tax rates increase."

There is no argument to be made that cutting taxes from their current levels increases revenue. Only the truly insane believe it. Since you can't even bother to read the articles you quote from, I give up on you.

the result of the cuts, from the NY Times of all places
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/wa...=2&oref=slogin
and who is paying those taxes
http://treas.gov/press/releases/repo...xes.update.pdf

Again, what is this all about?! Have you given up your argument that cutting taxes increases tax revenue?

(By the way, since government spending has been increasing twice as fast as the GDP over the last couple years, I think it is clear which scenario we are going to be in. The revenue cost of the tax relief is not being offset by reducing government spending, and so even Treasury concedes that long-run output will decline.)

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by villalobos 

Yeah but they have more than 50% of the wealth (including assets that is) according to statistics. I guess it balances out at the end. Stop the whining. Contributing a bigger share of your income when you are richer only makes sense.

Those that need to stop whining, are those that constantly whine that the "rich" aren't paying their fair share. Even if you could produce a stat that proved that people in the top 5% own 50% of "the wealth", and that it was taxable assets in the here and now, paying nearly 60% of current taxes would make it a "fair share".

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Those that need to stop whining, are those that constantly whine that the "rich" aren't paying their fair share. Even if you could produce a stat that proved that people in the top 5% own 50% of "the wealth", and that it was taxable assets in the here and now, paying nearly 60% of current taxes would make it a "fair share".

Worse. This also assumes the "rich" don't comprise the lions-share of philanthropy and jobs. The rich give more not only in taxes, but in aid to the poor in a wealth of different ways. The punitive mentality comes from those statistically less likely to donate to charity.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

"The analysis presented in the paper suggests that permanently extending the President's tax relief enacted in 2001 and 2003 likely would lead to a long-run increase in the cpital stock and an increase in national output in both the short run and the long run. If the revenue cost of that tax relief is offset by reducing future government spending, the increase in output is likely be [sic] about 0.7 percent under plausible assumptions. If, instead, the tax relief is extended only through the end of the budget window (i.e., it is temporary), the tax relief would increase national output in the short run, but long-run output would decline as future tax rates increase."

There is no argument to be made that cutting taxes from their current levels increases revenue. Only the truly insane believe it. Since you can't even bother to read the articles you quote from, I give up on you.

This was your proof that tax cuts do not lead to increased output? The entire premise of the paper is founded on the notion that tax cuts increase output. If made permanent, the tax relief would lead to increased capital stock and national output both short-term and long-term. It finishes by stating that if the tax cuts remain temporary (only through the budget window), national output would increase in the short-term, but decrease in the long-term as taxes increase.

Again, what is this all about?! Have you given up your argument that cutting taxes increases tax revenue?

I guess the question should be, given your quoted link; have you given up your argument that cutting taxes do not lead to increased capital stock and national output? If you haven't, The treasury's conclusion disagrees with you.

(By the way, since government spending has been increasing twice as fast as the GDP over the last couple years, I think it is clear which scenario we are going to be in. The revenue cost of the tax relief is not being offset by reducing government spending, and so even Treasury concedes that long-run output will decline.)

No presidential candidate is going to run on a platform of increased government spending. While I agree with you that the current spending by this Administration could only be categorized as "rampant" and "unacceptable", this does not mean the tax relief should not be made permanent or that tax relief does not increase tax revenue.

At least, not per the paper you cited.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stwain2003 

I think it's funny that Democrats use the President of United States having an extramarital affair to point fingers at how much WORSE President Bush is doing. Typical, since the majority of them support the destruction of the family by way of abortion, gay marriage, and the like.

What's funny is how fast this thread came to be about Clinton, despite at title to the contrary. It seems Democrats are the only ones to point fingers at other presidents to make their choice president look good.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This was your proof that tax cuts do not lead to increased output?

I guess the question should be, given your quoted link; have you given up your argument that cutting taxes do not lead to increased capital stock and national output?

Ebuddy, I already know that you know nothing of economics. Your idea of fiscal responsibility is to support a $2 trillion war that harms our national interest. And you supported that by arguing that spending money on a war is equally well motivated as spending money on infrastructure, research, or education... I don't think Chongo needs any "help" from you on economics. If this is your idea of fun, you'll have to decide whether a life of complete social retardation is worth it.

I have never argued that tax cuts do not lead to increased output. Chongo argued that tax cuts led to increased revenue. When I challenged him to find any support for that position, he tried to switch his argument around.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by villalobos 

So what's wrong with that?

Nothing at all. That is what they are paying now. But requesting them pay more is a bit obnoxious. They are paying that much, and Bush is being accused of favoring the rich was my point.

I am in the highest tax bracket right now, and I have no problem paying a larger share of my income than somebody who barely scraps by with minimum income.

Well cool for you. Not everyone might not want to. Some may believe they've worked hard for that money. We shouldn't have a gov FORCING us to do such a thing. It should be voluntary.

The problem with conservative is the thinking that since some people abuse the system, the system should be scrapped. With that attitude I am surprised they don't want guns to be prohibited completely...

No, I am saying that we shouldn't punish those that are well to do just because they are well to do. Now, if they want to give their money freely out of their own will. Then that is great! But the robbing the rich to give to the poor stuff has got to stop. This isn't treating them equally. And by not stealing from the rich and giving to the poor doesn't suddenly mean you are FAVORING the rich. It just means you aren't robbing them.

Besides according to some statistics (and we all know what we can do with stats), the richest 5% in the US own 58% if the US wealth. So there for your complaining.

Regardless the top 5% pay for most of the US taxes. To expect them to pay more or you'll be called "Favoring the rich" is a ridiculous notion.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by tie 

I asked you to find actions, not quotes. I take it that you couldn't find a single one? Yeah, that's what I thought.

WorldNetDaily: Inspector: Saddam had WMD on 'short notice'

"Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin said Monday he believes Saddam had WMD and they've fallen into terrorists' hands, making the threat of terrorism greater now than in the wake of 9-11, Canada's Sun Media reported."

Now spin how that isn't relevant yadda yadda blah blah.

I can find tons more. Done this before many times.

[wallinbl]

I don't get all of this. They're all scumbags. Let's just be honest about it. Bill was, George is, Hillary is, Rudy is, etc. Why fight over which scumbag is preferred over which?

[peeb]

Because which one gets 'elected' has an impact on who gets screwed, and how much.

[ironknee]

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

I don't get all of this. They're all scumbags. Let's just be honest about it. Bill was, George is, Hillary is, Rudy is, etc. Why fight over which scumbag is preferred over which?

Hear, hear!


Vote for the least scummy scumbag! Ron Paul in `08!

[osiris]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

WorldNetDaily: Inspector: Saddam had WMD on 'short notice'

"Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin said Monday he believes Saddam had WMD and they've fallen into terrorists' hands, making the threat of terrorism greater now than in the wake of 9-11, Canada's Sun Media reported."

Now spin how that isn't relevant yadda yadda blah blah.

I can find tons more. Done this before many times.

The thing is anyone can believe in something, or think that something exists, but to prove something is an entirely different concept. And I assure you that if Saddam had WMDs, he would've used them on day one of the invasion against the US. Instead he ran like a girly man.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

No, this just shows you've not been paying attention. I've said from day one that I thought all the candidates sucked. That I was voting for the lesser of two evils. I just don't agree with certain people's stance on Iraq in here. I've ALWAYS said there have been better presidents than Bush. And I've said if the Left had someone STRONGER they could have easily beaten Bush. So start paying attention, and you might learn something.

Here is another shocker for ya, I even voted for Clinton once. Just because I am not a anti-bush hating zealot like most of the people that complain about Bush. Doesn't suddenly make me think he's the best president ever.

We haven't had a decent president since Reagan IMHO.

sorry, i don't buy your spin....now that america is back to it's senses and sees bush as the retard as he is, his supporters are now back tracking...

and as for reagan, stem-cell research could have helped him

[Chongo]

[ironknee]

i love mad magazine. tv show not so much

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by osiris 

The thing is anyone can believe in something, or think that something exists, but to prove something is an entirely different concept. And I assure you that if Saddam had WMDs, he would've used them on day one of the invasion against the US. Instead he ran like a girly man.

That wasn't my point, I was told only the US and England thought he had them. It simply wasn't true.

Originally Posted by ironknee 

sorry, i don't buy your spin

Well it's a good thing, since I wasn't selling one...

now that america is back to it's senses and sees bush as the retard as he is, his supporters are now back tracking...

I suggest you do some backtracking yourself. Of posts made by me. My stance hasn't changed.

[ironknee]

^^ yet you voted for him TWICE

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Sure! If you do, let me know if you would like for me to debate what you are saying... I don't wish to jump all over you if you would simply be playing devil's advocate.

Oh. Have at it.

I've been thinking through what's the best way to pursue this, and I keep hitting a big snag when I get to redistribution of wealth. I can see that exploding in a million different directions and overwhelming the rest of the discussion.

The main thing I'm concerned about is what you think of the criticisms of redistribution of wealth.

For instance, one of the criticisms of RoW is that it's legalized theft. Is this criticism true from where you are standing?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

Oh. Have at it.

I've been thinking through what's the best way to pursue this, and I keep hitting a big snag when I get to redistribution of wealth. I can see that exploding in a million different directions and overwhelming the rest of the discussion.

The main thing I'm concerned about is what you think of the criticisms of redistribution of wealth.

For instance, one of the criticisms of RoW is that it's legalized theft. Is this criticism true from where you are standing?

Well, is paying tax legalized theft? Perhaps we should start there...

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Well, is paying tax legalized theft? Perhaps we should start there...

I don't see how it isn't.

[Cold Warrior]

Taxes are a mandatory contribution to the building and maintenance of a nation's strategic infrastructure and its common defense. There's no other way to fund the government. However, it's too easy for Congress to relentlessly expand their definition of infrastructure to include stuff that isn't necessary (and, on that note, people's definition of necessary will vary).

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

I don't see how it isn't.

Well, in saying that, are you debating semantics or stating that we shouldn't have to pay tax?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

Taxes are a mandatory contribution to the building and maintenance of a nation's strategic infrastructure and its common defense. There's no other way to fund the government.

This was sort of what I was getting at by posing the question.

What you say is true, but I don't think that invalidates the criticism (i.e. shows the criticism to be untrue).

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

Taxes are a mandatory contribution to the building and maintenance of a nation's strategic infrastructure and its common defense. There's no other way to fund the government. However, it's too easy for Congress to relentlessly expand their definition of infrastructure to include stuff that isn't necessary (and, on that note, people's definition of necessary will vary).

There are programs that work better when managed by the government, plain and simple, I think it would be pretty hard to dispute this.

To me, it's simply about defining what are vital services, as well as what the government is better equipped at providing.

I see health care as a social service that is best provided by a non-profit driven organization. I think that many of the common arguments against this are severely flawed in premise, and that while many Americans have had bad experiences with other government programs, this does not make them inherently inferior. Organizations (private or public) are only as good as their leadership, resources, and funding...

It's time to gut what we have and start over. America is a great country, but frankly what we have now in terms of health care is a piece of **** in terms of its design.