Political discussion thread

HackettFan wrote: There is nothing illogical about proposing a possible explanation for something and then making that be your conclusion because you've eliminated all other possibilities you identify. This is the basis of statistics and an awful lot of scientific reasoning. (It's not the case that we know there are black holes because we've observed them. We haven't). I agree it might still be wrong. It might be both right and wrong, because we're talking about a complex system, the broad population of Republicans and conservatives. I think the alternative explanations you propose are the best way to respond. Your point number 3 is very odd because that only just happened, so it can't explain any charges prior to it. In addition, what you call "subtly pushing" for gun control liberals call being reluctant. As one additional sidenote too, the constitution provides a right to bear arms. It does not provide a right to bear all arms or magazine clips of unlimited capacity.

I don't understand where you're getting the link "black>>>anti-gun rights."  Is this a racial stereotype I've never heard of?

The reason people worry about Obama taking away guns is because he is a liberal, and liberals are anti-gun rights. Comments like "clinging to their guns and religion" didn't help. The explanation you propose makes no sense.

Epignosis wrote: Meanwhile the wealthiest 25% pay 86% of the federal income tax.

This figure means nothing by itself. If, hypothetically, the wealthiest 25% earned 90% of the income, a 86% share of the federal income tax would mean they're undertaxed.

Epignosis wrote: And do not be fooled: With spending where it is, you cannot tax the rich to dissolve the deficit.  Hell, I'm convinced that even if more "revenue" were brought it, it would just be spent on something else, not put toward eliminating the deficit.

Of course taxing the rich is not nearly enough to dissolve the deficit, but it does improve the situation at least a tiny little bit. Reducing the deficit is a matter of lots of little spending cuts and revenue increases, and I don't see why increasing the tax rates on high incomes shouldn't be part of that. Not because of the "fair share" argument; I'm well aware that the rich pay their fair share for the most part. There are cases where they don't (we all remember Romney's ultra-low tax rates), but that is due to the way they earn their money, not due to the amount. No, the reason why higher tax rates on high incomes are a good idea is because the additional revenue has to come from somebody, and the rich can afford higher tax rates more easily than anybody else. Of course you could try reducing the deficit without raising any additional revenue, but that seems utterly foolish considering the sheer size of the deficit.

Epignosis wrote: Hell, I'm convinced that even if more "revenue" were brought it, it would just be spent on something else, not put toward eliminating the deficit.

Unfortunately, yes. You can't expect to solve the deficit problem by focusing solely on the revenue. The Reagan-esque "starve the beast" concept (lowering the revenue to force the government to make cuts) has only resulted in a higher deficit, and likewise, efforts to increasing the revenue have only resulted in more spending. The only way to solve the problem is to cut all superfluous spending and then adjust the federal revenue so that it adds up.

HarbouringTheSoul wrote: Epignosis wrote: Meanwhile the wealthiest 25% pay 86% of the federal income tax. This figure means nothing by itself. If, hypothetically, the wealthiest 25% earned 90% of the income, a 86% share of the federal income tax would mean they're undertaxed.

I am not dealing with hypotheticals.  I am dealing with data, which rarely anyone here likes to do.  The wealthiest 25% earned 66% of the nation's AGI and paid 87% of federal income taxes in 2009.  The lowest 50% of income earners earned 13.5% of the nation's AGI and paid 2.3% of the federal income taxes in 2009.

So then: Who is undertaxed?

HarbouringTheSoul wrote: Epignosis wrote: And do not be fooled: With spending where it is, you cannot tax the rich to dissolve the deficit.  Hell, I'm convinced that even if more "revenue" were brought it, it would just be spent on something else, not put toward eliminating the deficit. Of course taxing the rich is not nearly enough to dissolve the deficit, but it does improve the situation at least a tiny little bit. Reducing the deficit is a matter of lots of little spending cuts and revenue increases, and I don't see why increasing the tax rates on high incomes shouldn't be part of that. Not because of the "fair share" argument; I'm well aware that the rich pay their fair share for the most part. There are cases where they don't (we all remember Romney's ultra-low tax rates), but that is due to the way they earn their money, not due to the amount. No, the reason why higher tax rates on high incomes are a good idea is because the additional revenue has to come from somebody, and the rich can afford higher tax rates more easily than anybody else. Of course you could try reducing the deficit without raising any additional revenue, but that seems utterly foolish considering the sheer size of the deficit.

They can also afford to move their businesses elsewhere (as they often do).






Edited by Epignosis - December 17 2012 at 06:45

Alitare wrote: But when you're working with the bottom earners, you need to take the cost of living into consideration, right? If I, as a member of a bottom level income family, am taxed even more, I won't be able to handle paying basic electricity and water supply bills. And if we couldn't pay a heating bill then we'd all get sick in the winter and then we'd be unable to afford the hospital visits we'd be taking because we wouldn't be able to afford insurance in the first place (and many basic-level minimum/close to minimum wage job insurance coverage plans don't fully cover many things).There are hundreds of thousands of people in a similar situation I'm sure, and many worse off than this.  How do we determine who deserves what and why? Is the lower class scum for earning so much yet paying so little, comparatively? I also wonder what the numbers are. How much is 86% of the federal income tax and how much does the top 25% take in? I'm certainly not arguing for or against a rise or drop in taxing any given group. But what I'm not seeing is the brick number - the cost of living for a top 25% family (as an aggregate) and their total earned income after figuring all federal income taxes. Is that number more or less than the number we'd arrive at for figuring in the aggregate income average for a family in the bottom 25% after all taxes.  I'd like to see how much of the nation's AGI is spent toward the cost of living.. For example. If the bottom 50% earned 13% and the cost of living is 12% of the AGI, that leaves the bottom 50% as earning 1% saved income and the top earning 54%, then the numbers of paying out 2.3% and 87% even out much better. That's an example. I don't have the full numbers for all this, but it seems a lot more complex than some think.

I agree. The llama only showed that we have a progressive income tax. The whole reason for this, as you point out is that it's supposed to be based on ability to pay.

thellama73 wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: thellama73 wrote: That is a lie and you have no evidence with which to back it up. You need to read "Blowing Smoke" by Michael Wolraich.  He does an extremely elegent job of tracing the history of prejudice and paranoia in the Republican party, explaining the psychology behind it, and illustrating it with an AMPLE source of quotes.  One of the realizations I had (one of those strange realizations you have where you realize this is something you already knew, but never thought about because you just didn't want to) is that racists don't have to say the names of the characters to tell the story - they don't have to say "Cinderella" for you to know who they are talking about, they can simply mention a glass slipper and you know exactly who this story is about.  Racists don't come out and say "I hate this group of people and you should too" - they say "fear this group of people, because they are trying to take away our way of life that we've held dear for so long."  I'm not going to argue the point any further, but think about reading that book - it's an amazing eye-opener. And you need to stop making outrageous accusations without evidence. There is no record of anyone at a Sarah Palin rally shouting "kill him!" (an analysis of the tape in question revealed that it was a mishearing) and there is certainly no record of anyone at those rallies using the n word. Not even the media claimed that, so I assume you just made it up yourself. You can't just accuse people of doing these sorts of things and then when called out on your lies shrug it off and tell me to read a book. That is a horrible thing to do and you should be ashamed of yourself.

No need to accuse him.  Just because someone says something that's not true doesn't mean they're lying, it often means that they believe that thing is true.  And until its proven to him that it's not true, which I don't think it has been, you can expect him to go on believing it.  Let's keep the debate civil on both sides, please.

dtguitarfan wrote: ^ thellama73 wrote: That is a lie and you have no evidence with which to back it up. You need to read "Blowing Smoke" by Michael Wolraich.  He does an extremely elegent job of tracing the history of prejudice and paranoia in the Republican party, explaining the psychology behind it, and illustrating it with an AMPLE source of quotes.  One of the realizations I had (one of those strange realizations you have where you realize this is something you already knew, but never thought about because you just didn't want to) is that racists don't have to say the names of the characters to tell the story - they don't have to say "Cinderella" for you to know who they are talking about, they can simply mention a glass slipper and you know exactly who this story is about.  Racists don't come out and say "I hate this group of people and you should too" - they say "fear this group of people, because they are trying to take away our way of life that we've held dear for so long."  I'm not going to argue the point any further, but think about reading that book - it's an amazing eye-opener.

I could mention quite a few books that will show you how liberals have used race for their own benefit. How liberals use race to gain power electorally and alleviate their guilt. At least three of them by black authors (which you would of course accuse of brainwashing or Uncle Tom-ness or something ridiculous) yet I wouldn't have proved anything anyway. Those are the thoughts and ideas of others. You said "people said X in Y event" yet you don't have any, zero evidence of that. Don't bring books with ideas to prove supposed real life events. 

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: thellama73 wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: thellama73 wrote: That is a lie and you have no evidence with which to back it up. You need to read "Blowing Smoke" by Michael Wolraich.  He does an extremely elegent job of tracing the history of prejudice and paranoia in the Republican party, explaining the psychology behind it, and illustrating it with an AMPLE source of quotes.  One of the realizations I had (one of those strange realizations you have where you realize this is something you already knew, but never thought about because you just didn't want to) is that racists don't have to say the names of the characters to tell the story - they don't have to say "Cinderella" for you to know who they are talking about, they can simply mention a glass slipper and you know exactly who this story is about.  Racists don't come out and say "I hate this group of people and you should too" - they say "fear this group of people, because they are trying to take away our way of life that we've held dear for so long."  I'm not going to argue the point any further, but think about reading that book - it's an amazing eye-opener. And you need to stop making outrageous accusations without evidence. There is no record of anyone at a Sarah Palin rally shouting "kill him!" (an analysis of the tape in question revealed that it was a mishearing) and there is certainly no record of anyone at those rallies using the n word. Not even the media claimed that, so I assume you just made it up yourself. You can't just accuse people of doing these sorts of things and then when called out on your lies shrug it off and tell me to read a book. That is a horrible thing to do and you should be ashamed of yourself. No need to accuse him.  Just because someone says something that's not true doesn't mean they're lying, it often means that they believe that thing is true.  And until its proven to him that it's not true, which I don't think it has been, you can expect him to go on believing it.  Let's keep the debate civil on both sides, please. People have to prove accusations. People do not have to prove the accusations of others to be wrong.

That's not what I'm saying, I agree that Geoff has the burden of proof, but I'm saying that Logan can't expect him to stop thinking what he thinks until it is proved otherwise to him. 

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: HackettFan wrote: Alitare wrote: But when you're working with the bottom earners, you need to take the cost of living into consideration, right? If I, as a member of a bottom level income family, am taxed even more, I won't be able to handle paying basic electricity and water supply bills. And if we couldn't pay a heating bill then we'd all get sick in the winter and then we'd be unable to afford the hospital visits we'd be taking because we wouldn't be able to afford insurance in the first place (and many basic-level minimum/close to minimum wage job insurance coverage plans don't fully cover many things).There are hundreds of thousands of people in a similar situation I'm sure, and many worse off than this.  How do we determine who deserves what and why? Is the lower class scum for earning so much yet paying so little, comparatively? I also wonder what the numbers are. How much is 86% of the federal income tax and how much does the top 25% take in? I'm certainly not arguing for or against a rise or drop in taxing any given group. But what I'm not seeing is the brick number - the cost of living for a top 25% family (as an aggregate) and their total earned income after figuring all federal income taxes. Is that number more or less than the number we'd arrive at for figuring in the aggregate income average for a family in the bottom 25% after all taxes.  I'd like to see how much of the nation's AGI is spent toward the cost of living.. For example. If the bottom 50% earned 13% and the cost of living is 12% of the AGI, that leaves the bottom 50% as earning 1% saved income and the top earning 54%, then the numbers of paying out 2.3% and 87% even out much better. That's an example. I don't have the full numbers for all this, but it seems a lot more complex than some think. I agree. The llama only showed that we have a progressive income tax. The whole reason for this, as you point out is that it's supposed to be based on ability to pay. That's an interesting way of looking at things, but you also have to remember that tax rates are about more than cost of living; one of the main reasons conservatives don't want to increase taxes on the rich is that the rich are the ones who provide much of the supply in our economy.  You need the rich to have a lot of money so that they can grow their businesses and improve their products and keep the economy going.

To which I would say, the rich do have a lot of money. They are not growing their businesses because the less affluent don't have money to spend on their products.

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: That's not what I'm saying, I agree that Geoff has the burden of proof, but I'm saying that Logan can't expect him to stop thinking what he thinks until it is proved otherwise to him.

I believe Logan expected Geoff to to stop thinking what he thinks if Geoff can't justify it. I find that to be a reasonable expectation personally.

So you would hope to affirm what you already believe rather than approaching the issue without bias?