allengoodman

f\left ( x \right )=e^{x} \to {f}'\left ( x \right )=e^{x}

His characterization was interesting, but I'm not sure if I agree. Since the crisis, Warren Buffet acquired 10% perpetual preferred stock of Goldman Sachs, invested $2.6 billion into Swiss Re, and acquired Burlington Northern for $24 billion. Three deals, each of which was different in composition, cost, and market. Moreover, I suspect each will be success and none wholly initiated by a "certain earnings profile." Nonetheless, while I think the comparison is meaningless, the underlying logic is intellectually attractive.

I agree, our defect might be insurmountable. However, reducing spending, while important, is comparatively ineffective to increasing revenue. In the later part of this decade, because of changes in Social Security, you're likely to see less traction from spending reductions than you might think. Therefore, we must increase revenue sooner than later. Furthermore, most of this should come from the middle class. We cannot sustain our deficit with the current middle class tax rate.

That said, our short-term deficit issue could be address immediately. If we cancel the entirety of the Bush tax cuts, we could stabilize our deficit without major expenditure decreases or revenue increases.

From a stimulatory perspective, It's true that a lower income tax rate is better than a higher tax rate, but the benefit is marginal. I'd look up the forecast, but hilariously, the C.B.O. website is unavailable. I think the cost benefit is two years of full-time employment per million dollars of total-budget. Interestingly, changes in the income tax rate get most of the press, but it's largely ineffective in comparison to other stimulatory options (e.g. decreasing payroll taxes and extending unemployment benefits being the two most beneficial).

Really? Where?

Exactly. Most of the top ranked liberal arts college have gender parity. For example, my school, Amherst College, has a 50% male to female ratio. Likewise, Williams is 48% to 50%, Swarthmore is 47% to 53%, and Pomona is equal. This is also true for Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. Since each school is competing for the same 10% of high school students and has an acceptance rate of 10% it’s probable that males have an advantage. However, affirmative action contributes a fair amount to the overall success of these schools and their graduates. I suspect, and I hope, applicants agree.

It’s also worth mentioning that this has become more of a problem because of the Seven Sisters. Harvard’s acquiring of Radcliffe and Vassar becoming coeducational placed greater pressure on similarly ranked schools. Moreover, Amherst and Williams’ becoming coeducational might’ve contributed to this imbalance.