are you gonna watch the you know what tonight?

[Dancing Fire]

3rd debate is about foreign policy, eh.

that is one topic the President wanted to avoid...

 

[Dancing Fire]

Best line of 2nd debate

"Please proceed, Governor"

best Q of the debate was when the african american gentleman asked him "why do you deserve 4 more yrs"?

..of course the President can't come up with a good answer to that Q... and of course they didn't replay that Q on MSNBC...

 

[zoebartlett]

Not that this means much, but Tom Brokaw was on MSNBC on Tuesday and said that the best question he's ever heard in a town hall style debate came from my mom. I thought that was pretty cool.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

I have my absentee ballet in front of me, unopened. I believe i should be able to take a few things I believe in from one party and a few things from the other party. That to me is moderation--not be stuck with one party.

Normally, i am a social liberal, and a financial conservative, but i have been stopped in my tracks by the 47% of Americans who do not pay federal income tax. This fact has disturbed me above all others. I want to know how this is possible. We aren't becoming Greece, we are already there. Yes, of course I believe the top 1-10% should pay their share of taxes, as they have benefited the most from the society. But we, as Lula and Ksinger have suggested are a country in decline. We are excusing several portions of the population from contributing.as they ought to, to the well being of the country. Yes, the seniors, disabled should get a tax exemption, but I doubt that even comes to 20%. That figure is a symbol of excess give aways in the society that people have become addicted to.

Looking forward, not backward, finances will make or break this country. The financial cliff is just revoking tax relief. Let them go over the cliff. We gain more taxes without any problem.

I will have to continue to think a little more, but that 47% shouldn't be.


Thanks,

Annette

 

[minousbijoux]

I think on a fundamental level, many of us would agree that we should all come together and pay our fair share. The problem is defining "fair share" coupled with the fact that there is no trust between various factions. It appears that no one is willing to sit down, listen and trust enough to work it out. I believe that the vast majority of people in this country want to do the right thing, if they were comfortable with the rationale. But we have all been taught that the "other side" is dishonest, spinning the facts and generally out for questionable motives. Honestly, I don't know how we can possibly move forward. We need serious mediation and counseling.

 

[Dancing Fire]

it does not look good for the incumbent when the challenger is running neck to neck with only three weeks left.

I'm with you DF.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/157817/election-2012-likely-voters-trial-heat-obama-romney.aspx... There is a shift...

you know it is not good news when the PS Obama cheerleaders are so quiet this year compared to 2008...

 

[FrekeChild]

You know, it has nothing to do with the fact that we could be busy or anything...

I got to use "binders full of women" in a real life sentence yesterday. It was most excellent.

 

[Lula]

Hi,

I have my absentee ballet in front of me, unopened. I believe i should be able to take a few things I believe in from one party and a few things from the other party. That to me is moderation--not be stuck with one party.

Normally, i am a social liberal, and a financial conservative, but i have been stopped in my tracks by the 47% of Americans who do not pay federal income tax. This fact has disturbed me above all others. I want to know how this is possible. We aren't becoming Greece, we are already there. Yes, of course I believe the top 1-10% should pay their share of taxes, as they have benefited the most from the society. But we, as Lula and Ksinger have suggested are a country in decline. We are excusing several portions of the population from contributing.as they ought to, to the well being of the country. Yes, the seniors, disabled should get a tax exemption, but I doubt that even comes to 20%. That figure is a symbol of excess give aways in the society that people have become addicted to.

Looking forward, not backward, finances will make or break this country. The financial cliff is just revoking tax relief. Let them go over the cliff. We gain more taxes without any problem.

I will have to continue to think a little more, but that 47% shouldn't be.


Thanks,

Annette

Annette, my belief that we are a nation in decline stems from my understanding of how capitalism (which is a financial system) works. It is a boom and bust system (business cycles) that in its later stages, so the theory goes, encourages money and goods to aggregate in the hands of a few. We live in a democracy (political system) that operates under a capitalistic financial system. Greece is a democracy, but it is part of the European Union, which is an organization of 27 independent countries that work to foster common political, economic, and social goals. Many economists believe that a great deal of Greece's issues (and Italy and Ireland and Spain) stem from the decision to operate under a common currency -- the Euro -- which tended to benefit rich countries like Germany over poorer countries like Greece. Greece's economy is less powerful than Germany's economy, and there is a huge and complicated debate about how those differences in economic power should be handled under the rules of the EC. The forced austerity measures have caused a great deal of pain to the less powerful countries. Whether or not that pain was fair or necessary is a matter of some debate.

The United States, on the other hand, is one country, made up of 50 states, that operates under one federal tax system. One important difference between the U.S.A. and the EU is that the wealthier states in the U.S. effectively "transfer" money, through the federal tax system and federal benefits, to poorer states. These transfer payments occur quite seamlessly, and are done to spread the wealth for the benefit of the entire country. Many, but not all, of the red states are poor states. Many, but not all, of the blue states are wealthier states. So, in essence, many, but not all, of the red states are "takers" and many, but not all, of the blue states are "makers" because the red states tend to consume taxpayer paid benefits in a far greater amount than they contribute. But, because the U.S.A. is one country, and not 50 separate countries, our democratic government does not encourage people to think of states as makers or takers. We are all citizens of one country, no matter which state we reside in.

Many of the 47% pay no taxes because they are too poor to pay federal taxes. Many of the very poor, who pay no federal taxes, live in red states. So there's some cutting off of one's nose to spite one's face going on, on the part of one political candidate. Many wealthy people and many large businesses also pay no federal taxes because of the loopholes (all legal) in our tax system. Again, more cutting off of one's nose to spite one's face on the part of that political candidate. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...dc7bbe-0341-11e2-8102-ebee9c66e190_story.html

The economy is going to continue to be bogged down by the aftereffects of the banking crisis for many, many years. Neither party is willing to do what it will take to fix that issue. They are both owned by the banking industry. The global banking industry. In my opinion, this is the year to vote on social issues. Especially if you are a woman.

 

[ksinger]

Hi,

I have my absentee ballet in front of me, unopened. I believe i should be able to take a few things I believe in from one party and a few things from the other party. That to me is moderation--not be stuck with one party.

Normally, i am a social liberal, and a financial conservative, but i have been stopped in my tracks by the 47% of Americans who do not pay federal income tax. This fact has disturbed me above all others. I want to know how this is possible. We aren't becoming Greece, we are already there. Yes, of course I believe the top 1-10% should pay their share of taxes, as they have benefited the most from the society. But we, as Lula and Ksinger have suggested are a country in decline. We are excusing several portions of the population from contributing.as they ought to, to the well being of the country. Yes, the seniors, disabled should get a tax exemption, but I doubt that even comes to 20%. That figure is a symbol of excess give aways in the society that people have become addicted to.

Looking forward, not backward, finances will make or break this country. The financial cliff is just revoking tax relief. Let them go over the cliff. We gain more taxes without any problem.

I will have to continue to think a little more, but that 47% shouldn't be.


Thanks,

Annette

I always find it interesting which way people go. You've gone the way of being outraged about people not paying taxes. I'm outraged that so many people are so bloody poor in this country, that paying income tax might actually be the straw that breaks their back. We're talking about the POOR. Poor in a way that a guy who boasts of giving away an inheritance while at the same time KNOWING that he would NEVER be allowed to fail or starve, can never understand. Families of 4, making less than 26,400, don't pay income tax. Seriously contemplate that number for a sec, and then tell me you think taxing their income is going to help anyone. The whole idea is just a bit too Dickensian for me.

The outrage at the 47% is full of the image that just.won't.DIE of the non-working black welfare queen with 6 kids and a Cadillac. It's why Romney could say that "these people will never be convinced to take responsibility for their lives". The assumption is that A) ALL the 47% are not working, B) the reasons they aren't working are because they're lazy and unmotivated, C)they are the SAME people - as in their status never changes - once a 47%-er, always a 47%-er, and D) that the reasons they're poor are always their own fault. The reality is so different and so much more complex. I'm also bemused why the elderly always get a pass. Is there some magic that happens at 65 that says you DESERVE (as long as we're discussion who deserves what) a pass on income tax? Is it then just assumed that you always paid income tax before and now you're entitled to not pay it? I bet there are a few people who make it to elderly who never worked, but no one ever questions that. Not that I personally think that way mind you. I''m just tossing stuff out.

I was one of the 47%. I was a student once. I got loans(later repaid), and GRANTS - free money I never paid back - all the while not paying income tax. According to Romney I always will be I guess. Since I am very aware of how one job loss or serious illness could decimate me back to that status, I'll accept it. My upbringing means that I identify with the insecurity of the poor more than the contentment of those who have plenty, even though at present I have plenty.

And for Lula, beautiful explanation. I live in one of those red states BTW. A "welfare" state. But in my state, as in several others - mostly red as I recall - every single person - filthy rich or dirt poor - is taxed on every single bit of food that goes in their mouths - 8.3755 in fact.

Anyway, a bit rambling, but here is one of the endless statistical breakdowns of the who and why of the 47%. It's instructive. If anyone objects to the fact that it's NPR, a quick Google search brings up many many others.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/09/18/161337343/the-47-percent-in-one-graphic

 

[Dancing Fire]

[quote="ksinger|

The outrage at the 47% is full of the image that just.won't.DIE of the non-working black welfare queen with 6 kids and a Cadillac. It's why Romney could say that "these people will never be convinced to take responsibility for their lives". The assumption is that A) ALL the 47% are not working, B) the reasons they aren't working are because they're lazy and unmotivated, C)they are the SAME people - as in their status never changes - once a 47%-er, always a 47%-er, and D) that the reasons they're poor are always their own fault. The reality is so different and so much more complex. I'm also bemused why the elderly always get a pass. Is there some magic that happens at 65 that says you DESERVE (as long as we're discussion who deserves what) a pass on income tax? Is it then just assumed that you always paid income tax before and now you're entitled to not pay it? I bet there are a few people who make it to elderly who never worked, but no one ever questions that. Not that I personally think that way mind you. I''m just tossing stuff out.

[/quote]
why work when you have entitlement money coming in every month?. we should support our elderly citizens whom are too old to work,but why should taxpayers support the able to work but don't wanna work crowd?..

 

[Haven]

Not that this means much, but Tom Brokaw was on MSNBC on Tuesday and said that the best question he's ever heard in a town hall style debate came from my mom. I thought that was pretty cool.

 

[ksinger]

[quote="ksinger|

The outrage at the 47% is full of the image that just.won't.DIE of the non-working black welfare queen with 6 kids and a Cadillac. It's why Romney could say that "these people will never be convinced to take responsibility for their lives". The assumption is that A) ALL the 47% are not working, B) the reasons they aren't working are because they're lazy and unmotivated, C)they are the SAME people - as in their status never changes - once a 47%-er, always a 47%-er, and D) that the reasons they're poor are always their own fault. The reality is so different and so much more complex. I'm also bemused why the elderly always get a pass. Is there some magic that happens at 65 that says you DESERVE (as long as we're discussion who deserves what) a pass on income tax? Is it then just assumed that you always paid income tax before and now you're entitled to not pay it? I bet there are a few people who make it to elderly who never worked, but no one ever questions that. Not that I personally think that way mind you. I''m just tossing stuff out.

why work when you have entitlement money coming in every month?. we should support our elderly citizens whom are too old to work,but why should taxpayers support the able to work but don't wanna work crowd?.. [/quote]

The only answer I can give you DF is you really MUST give up your deeply cherished stereotypes about people on public assistance. They are flat out WRONG. Stereotypes always are. You simply INSIST that everyone who isn't working CAN but doesn't want to be because they're lazy. WHY do you assume that? It's WRONG. Being lazy is ONE way people can react, not the ONLY way. You're obviously projecting onto others what YOU would do in a similar situation - I have to assume this because you show a consistent lack of the ability to consider that there could be any OTHER way to react to receiving any public assistance other than to turn into a slug. But it still doesn't necessarily mean those people will actually react like you would.

 

[Dancing Fire]

[quote="ksinger|

The only answer I can give you DF is you really MUST give up your deeply cherished stereotypes about people on public assistance. They are flat out WRONG. Stereotypes always are. You simply INSIST that everyone who isn't working CAN but doesn't want to be because they're lazy. WHY do you assume that? It's WRONG. Being lazy is ONE way people can react, not the ONLY way. You're obviously projecting onto others what YOU would do in a similar situation - I have to assume this because you show a consistent lack of the ability to consider that there could be any OTHER way to react to receiving any public assistance other than to turn into a slug. But it still doesn't necessarily mean those people will actually react like you would.[/quote]



Karen
back in the early 70's our family can easily qualify for public assistance but instead of going on public assistance my older brother (17 yrs old) got a job washing dishes and my momm went to work in a tomato field to support the family,plus we can't speak any english,so IMO if we can survive through those tough times anybody can.society have changed a lot the in the past 40 yrs.

 

[Lula]

Not that this means much, but Tom Brokaw was on MSNBC on Tuesday and said that the best question he's ever heard in a town hall style debate came from my mom. I thought that was pretty cool.

Oh, very cool!

 

[Laila619]

The only answer I can give you DF is you really MUST give up your deeply cherished stereotypes about people on public assistance. They are flat out WRONG. Stereotypes always are. You simply INSIST that everyone who isn't working CAN but doesn't want to be because they're lazy. WHY do you assume that? It's WRONG. Being lazy is ONE way people can react, not the ONLY way. You're obviously projecting onto others what YOU would do in a similar situation - I have to assume this because you show a consistent lack of the ability to consider that there could be any OTHER way to react to receiving any public assistance other than to turn into a slug. But it still doesn't necessarily mean those people will actually react like you would.

I don't mean to speak for DF, but I am betting he doesn't think ALL people public assistance are simply lazy people who don't want to work. However, the reality is that there ARE people on public aid who milk the system and just don't want to work. And those are the ones who give the others a bad rap unfortunately.

 

[Lula]

[quote="ksinger|

The only answer I can give you DF is you really MUST give up your deeply cherished stereotypes about people on public assistance. They are flat out WRONG. Stereotypes always are. You simply INSIST that everyone who isn't working CAN but doesn't want to be because they're lazy. WHY do you assume that? It's WRONG. Being lazy is ONE way people can react, not the ONLY way. You're obviously projecting onto others what YOU would do in a similar situation - I have to assume this because you show a consistent lack of the ability to consider that there could be any OTHER way to react to receiving any public assistance other than to turn into a slug. But it still doesn't necessarily mean those people will actually react like you would.

Karen
back in the early 70's our family can easily qualify for public assistance but instead of going on public assistance my older brother (17 yrs old) got a job washing dishes and my momm went to work in a tomato field to support the family,plus we can't speak any english,so IMO if we can survive through those tough times anybody can.society have changed a lot the in the past 40 yrs.

DF, I sincerely respect your family's hard work. This country has been blessed by the hard work and other contributions of people who immigrate from all over the world.

Despite long hours and hard work, however, many people do not make enough income to owe federal income taxes. As ksinger noted, that does not mean that they pay no taxes. In her state food is taxed, and the wealthy and the poor pay that tax. The 47% comment related to federal income tax. That's why the comment is so absurd in that it singles out many, many hardworking people, and people who are in transitory situations, such as a future medical doctor who is receiving student loans, and who will go on to pay those loans back along with federal taxes for the rest of his/her working life.

Are there "deadbeats" scamming the system? Sure. Anytime there is a system, someone is scamming it. I give you Ivan Boesky as but one example of a deadbeat who took advantage of holes in the SEC regulations. He served time in prison for it. The presence of deadbeats or scammers, though, justifies reforms rather than tearing up the entire social safety net.

What insults me the most about the 47% comment is that it is obviously designed to stir up resentment. It was said strictly to make a political argument and shows a complete lack of understanding of the role and purpose of government in a civilized society. The 47% comment is not designed to lead to rational government policy. Instead, its purpose is to pit the have-nots against other have-nots for the political gain of a wealthy few. It's called "divide and conquer." I want no part of that.

 

[Dancing Fire]

The only answer I can give you DF is you really MUST give up your deeply cherished stereotypes about people on public assistance. They are flat out WRONG. Stereotypes always are. You simply INSIST that everyone who isn't working CAN but doesn't want to be because they're lazy. WHY do you assume that? It's WRONG. Being lazy is ONE way people can react, not the ONLY way. You're obviously projecting onto others what YOU would do in a similar situation - I have to assume this because you show a consistent lack of the ability to consider that there could be any OTHER way to react to receiving any public assistance other than to turn into a slug. But it still doesn't necessarily mean those people will actually react like you would.

I don't mean to speak for DF, but I am betting he doesn't think ALL people public assistance are simply lazy people who don't want to work. However, the reality is that there ARE people on public aid who milk the system and just don't want to work. And those are the ones who give the others a bad rap unfortunately.

yup, like i asked this guy "why don't you go and find a job?" he said...why should i?? ..i get more from public assistance than working for Mickey Ds... ... maybe b/c he has two kids?..

 

[Lula]

The only answer I can give you DF is you really MUST give up your deeply cherished stereotypes about people on public assistance. They are flat out WRONG. Stereotypes always are. You simply INSIST that everyone who isn't working CAN but doesn't want to be because they're lazy. WHY do you assume that? It's WRONG. Being lazy is ONE way people can react, not the ONLY way. You're obviously projecting onto others what YOU would do in a similar situation - I have to assume this because you show a consistent lack of the ability to consider that there could be any OTHER way to react to receiving any public assistance other than to turn into a slug. But it still doesn't necessarily mean those people will actually react like you would.

I don't mean to speak for DF, but I am betting he doesn't think ALL people public assistance are simply lazy people who don't want to work. However, the reality is that there ARE people on public aid who milk the system and just don't want to work. And those are the ones who give the others a bad rap unfortunately.

yup, like i asked this guy "why don't you go and find a job?" he said...why should i?? ..i get more from public assistance than working for Mickey Ds... ... maybe b/c he has two kids?..

Maybe it's time to relax the child labor laws in this country.

 

[beebrisk]

[quote="ksinger|

The outrage at the 47% is full of the image that just.won't.DIE of the non-working black welfare queen with 6 kids and a Cadillac. It's why Romney could say that "these people will never be convinced to take responsibility for their lives". The assumption is that A) ALL the 47% are not working, B) the reasons they aren't working are because they're lazy and unmotivated, C)they are the SAME people - as in their status never changes - once a 47%-er, always a 47%-er, and D) that the reasons they're poor are always their own fault. The reality is so different and so much more complex. I'm also bemused why the elderly always get a pass. Is there some magic that happens at 65 that says you DESERVE (as long as we're discussion who deserves what) a pass on income tax? Is it then just assumed that you always paid income tax before and now you're entitled to not pay it? I bet there are a few people who make it to elderly who never worked, but no one ever questions that. Not that I personally think that way mind you. I''m just tossing stuff out.

why work when you have entitlement money coming in every month?. we should support our elderly citizens whom are too old to work,but why should taxpayers support the able to work but don't wanna work crowd?..

The only answer I can give you DF is you really MUST give up your deeply cherished stereotypes about people on public assistance. They are flat out WRONG. Stereotypes always are. You simply INSIST that everyone who isn't working CAN but doesn't want to be because they're lazy. WHY do you assume that? It's WRONG. Being lazy is ONE way people can react, not the ONLY way. You're obviously projecting onto others what YOU would do in a similar situation - I have to assume this because you show a consistent lack of the ability to consider that there could be any OTHER way to react to receiving any public assistance other than to turn into a slug. But it still doesn't necessarily mean those people will actually react like you would.[/quote]
____________________________________________________________

40+ years since Johnson's "war on poverty" and very little has changed.

Stereotypes exist because they are based in truth. And the truth is, that instead of a "leg up" for people in need, welfare has created a culture of entitlement and several generations of people who are shamelessly dependent on the state.

A "helping hand" is one thing but a "hand out" becomes a tool of enslavement rather than empowerment. If these programs were anything other than abject failures, we'd all be well aware by now of all the "success stories" they've created. That hasn't happened and we have enough history at this point to look back and realize that it never will.

 

[MissStepcut]

The idea that a large portion of the population doesn't pay "income tax" is really a matter of tax code semantics. If I may pull this from KSinger's source:

It's also important to note that income tax is just one of several federal taxes.

The payroll tax, which funds Medicare and Social Security, is another big source of revenue for the government. And most households that don't pay income tax do pay payroll tax.

Among those households paying neither income tax nor payroll tax, almost all are either elderly or earning less than $20,000 a year. Here's a graphic from the Tax Policy Center that breaks this down.

Also, it seems a bit odd to me to say that entitlement programs have "failed" when their use varies so widely with economic conditions. It suggests pretty clearly to me that at least some portion of the population avoids reliance on government programs when they can and uses them appropriately when they have need. Are there some people who never dig their way out? Sure. Does that justify phasing out programs that help people in need, just to keep benefits away from people we think don't deserve them and are lazy? I just don't understand that reasoning. It's more important to me that food insecure children be fed than that we, as a society, keep every program abuser from abusing the system.

 

[ksinger]

The only answer I can give you DF is you really MUST give up your deeply cherished stereotypes about people on public assistance. They are flat out WRONG. Stereotypes always are. You simply INSIST that everyone who isn't working CAN but doesn't want to be because they're lazy. WHY do you assume that? It's WRONG. Being lazy is ONE way people can react, not the ONLY way. You're obviously projecting onto others what YOU would do in a similar situation - I have to assume this because you show a consistent lack of the ability to consider that there could be any OTHER way to react to receiving any public assistance other than to turn into a slug. But it still doesn't necessarily mean those people will actually react like you would.

I don't mean to speak for DF, but I am betting he doesn't think ALL people public assistance are simply lazy people who don't want to work. However, the reality is that there ARE people on public aid who milk the system and just don't want to work. And those are the ones who give the others a bad rap unfortunately.

yup, like i asked this guy "why don't you go and find a job?" he said...why should i?? ..i get more from public assistance than working for Mickey Ds... ... maybe b/c he has two kids?..

Maybe it's time to relax the child labor laws in this country.

Ha. Well, if you recall, back in The Perpetually Silly Season, when the candidate clown car was still overflowing, Gingrich - when he wasn't waxing whacky about the moon colony he'd establish, suggested just that - that poor kids as young as 9 years old should be janitors in the schools, because yanno, being a 9-year old janitor is a sure way out of poverty. That and 9 year olds are really good at fixing the HVAC systems in schools - they fit in the ventilation shafts better.

 

[Maria D]

Not that this means much, but Tom Brokaw was on MSNBC on Tuesday and said that the best question he's ever heard in a town hall style debate came from my mom. I thought that was pretty cool.

That is cool! What was the question??

 

[zoebartlett]

Maria, the question was "What don't you know and how will you learn it?" My mom said that after Tom Brokaw read my mom's question, neither the President (candidate at the time) nor Senator McCain really answered it to her satisfaction. I think she thought both answers (particularly Obama's) were fluff...not really answered very thoughtfully. She was disappointed. She did become somewhat of a local celebrity for the question though, and my family got a kick out of it.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

Lula---- Greece's problems do not stem from the Euro. It is called Sovereign debt, because most of the Gov'ts of the countries in Europe took a Socialist path for many of the same liberal policies that some of you are stating. They retire at 50 , with signicant Gov't pensions, and are bankrupt.(not primarily because of the pensions) It appears, as well that budgets in a good portion of Europe must be cut to avoid simialr bankrupcy posibilities. Germany has always been a producer, and it is her money that these other countries wish to borrow. Greece will have to leave the Euro, not because of the Euro, but because they overspent and didn't collect tax revenue.
That is just an aside comment.

Ksinger I went to your link and it told me that a family of 4, using the tax credit, and earning 46.000 pays no taxes. That is the more than the median(or average) of most Americans. People with municpal bonds pay no tax on the bonds interest. Only seniors with low income don't pay taxes. I pay taxes on my social security and I paid taxes when I collected unemployment benefits some yrs ago. There is a psychological component of particpating in the tax system. You don't look like a taker, and you don't feel like a taker.
You threw out the untouchable seniors question, but immediately someone comes in with the poor starving kids question. Not to worry, the schools provide breakfast and lunch for them--parents don't have to worry. You have ask yourself the question of why so maqny people who have some success in life always mention what difficulties they went through. A real sense of accomplishment comes from overcoming. I've been poor, I've been upwardly mobile, and certainly the Gov't has played its role in that for me and my family, but we always payed our taxes. and when things got rough we kept going. My brother worked since he was 13, I worked since I was 16. Well. I'm still not happy about the 47 % but I'm delaying voting.

Beebrisk-- Johnsons war on poverty had to be scaled back in the beginning. So many people qualified. But, you don't see that kind of poverty any more. There really has been an improvement in life for most everyone, including the homeless. I think Johnson did good, but others may have carried it too far.

Thanks,
Annette

 

[AGBF]

Stereotypes exist because they are based in truth.

Would you care to back up that statement with proof? I do not want to get all discussion of political topics banned from Pricescope, so I will try not to be inflammatory in my response to you. It does not take a lot of historical research to show that minority groups such as Jews as African-American have been sterotyped by the larger society in the past century, however. I do not believe that the stereotypes used to characterize these racial/ethnic groups were based in truth. I believe that they were based in prejudice and jealousy.

If you have any actual evidence that stereotypes are always based in fact, by all means bring it on!

Deb/AGBF

 

[MissStepcut]

Hi,

Lula---- Greece's problems do not stem from the Euro. It is called Sovereign debt, because most of the Gov'ts of the countries in Europe took a Socialist path for many of the same liberal policies that some of you are stating. They retire at 50 , with signicant Gov't pensions, and are bankrupt.(not primarily because of the pensions) It appears, as well that budgets in a good portion of Europe must be cut to avoid simialr bankrupcy posibilities. Germany has always been a producer, and it is her money that these other countries wish to borrow. Greece will have to leave the Euro, not because of the Euro, but because they overspent and didn't collect tax revenue.
That is just an aside comment.

Ksinger I went to your link and it told me that a family of 4, using the tax credit, and earning 46.000 pays no taxes. That is the more than the median(or average) of most Americans. People with municpal bonds pay no tax on the bonds interest. Only seniors with low income don't pay taxes. I pay taxes on my social security and I paid taxes when I collected unemployment benefits some yrs ago. There is a psychological component of particpating in the tax system. You don't look like a taker, and you don't feel like a taker.
You threw out the untouchable seniors question, but immediately someone comes in with the poor starving kids question. Not to worry, the schools provide breakfast and lunch for them--parents don't have to worry. You have ask yourself the question of why so maqny people who have some success in life always mention what difficulties they went through. A real sense of accomplishment comes from overcoming. I've been poor, I've been upwardly mobile, and certainly the Gov't has played its role in that for me and my family, but we always payed our taxes. and when things got rough we kept going. My brother worked since he was 13, I worked since I was 16. Well. I'm still not happy about the 47 % but I'm delaying voting.

Beebrisk-- Johnsons war on poverty had to be scaled back in the beginning. So many people qualified. But, you don't see that kind of poverty any more. There really has been an improvement in life for most everyone, including the homeless. I think Johnson did good, but others may have carried it too far.

Thanks,
Annette

Annette, I think you might be defining "paid taxes" differently. People on unemployment of course pay taxes, but the question is, what do they get back in their return? And that is what is at issue. Everyone in the study filed a tax return, so they all paid taxes in some form (presumably, since if you don't have any income at all you don't have to file). That might satisfy your "psychological component"? It may well turn out that some of the times you think you paid your taxes, actually you didn't by the Romney definition.

 

[Maria D]

Maria, the question was "What don't you know and how will you learn it?" My mom said that after Tom Brokaw read my mom's question, neither the President (candidate at the time) nor Senator McCain really answered it to her satisfaction. I think she thought both answers (particularly Obama's) were fluff...not really answered very thoughtfully. She was disappointed. She did become somewhat of a local celebrity for the question though, and my family got a kick out of it.

That *is* a great question and sounds like something a teacher would ask! Is your mom a teacher too?

 

[beebrisk]

Stereotypes exist because they are based in truth.

Would you care to back up that statement with proof? I do not want to get all discussion of political topics banned from Pricescope, so I will try not to be inflammatory in my response to you. It does not take a lot of historical research to show that minority groups such as Jews as African-American have been sterotyped by the larger society in the past century, however. I do not believe that the stereotypes used to characterize these racial/ethnic groups were based in truth. I believe that they were based in prejudice and jealousy.

If you have any actual evidence that stereotypes are always based in fact, by all means bring it on!

Deb/AGBF

I think the more interesting question would be: Can you provide evidence that they're not? Can you site factual information that there isn't a single kernel of truth to stereotypes and/or generalizations?

I'm not suggesting that we resort to using them, I'm simply stating that there is *some* basis of truth to them. If not, no one would ever use a stereotype or generalization to bolster their case. You can see plenty of evidence of that right here on these pages when one is trying to make a point about a dissenting opinion; as in, "American's are terminally stupid".

 

[ksinger]

Hi,

Lula---- Greece's problems do not stem from the Euro. It is called Sovereign debt, because most of the Gov'ts of the countries in Europe took a Socialist path for many of the same liberal policies that some of you are stating. They retire at 50 , with signicant Gov't pensions, and are bankrupt.(not primarily because of the pensions) It appears, as well that budgets in a good portion of Europe must be cut to avoid simialr bankrupcy posibilities. Germany has always been a producer, and it is her money that these other countries wish to borrow. Greece will have to leave the Euro, not because of the Euro, but because they overspent and didn't collect tax revenue.
That is just an aside comment.

Ksinger I went to your link and it told me that a family of 4, using the tax credit, and earning 46.000 pays no taxes. That is the more than the median(or average) of most Americans. People with municpal bonds pay no tax on the bonds interest. Only seniors with low income don't pay taxes. I pay taxes on my social security and I paid taxes when I collected unemployment benefits some yrs ago. There is a psychological component of particpating in the tax system. You don't look like a taker, and you don't feel like a taker.
You threw out the untouchable seniors question, but immediately someone comes in with the poor starving kids question. Not to worry, the schools provide breakfast and lunch for them--parents don't have to worry. You have ask yourself the question of why so maqny people who have some success in life always mention what difficulties they went through. A real sense of accomplishment comes from overcoming. I've been poor, I've been upwardly mobile, and certainly the Gov't has played its role in that for me and my family, but we always payed our taxes. and when things got rough we kept going. My brother worked since he was 13, I worked since I was 16. Well. I'm still not happy about the 47 % but I'm delaying voting.

Beebrisk-- Johnsons war on poverty had to be scaled back in the beginning. So many people qualified. But, you don't see that kind of poverty any more. There really has been an improvement in life for most everyone, including the homeless. I think Johnson did good, but others may have carried it too far.

Thanks,
Annette

Annette,

First, the real median household income - regardless of household status like married/unmarried/kids/no kids - in the United States in 2011 was $50,054, according to the US Census, so already 46,000 is under that. So there's that. I couldn't find a national median income for a family of 4, but if you look at the link below, and you scroll down you will see the median income by state, of a family of 4, and 60% of that beside it. (Those estimates are for Use Under the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), and also come from the US Census Bureau.) Almost all of them are substantially higher (except for MIssissippi, which is only a bit higher but hey, it's MIssissippi) than both 46,000 and 50,054. I think it will be helpful in comparing apples to apples, and in understanding why your saying that 46,000 is over the national median is not a good comparison, and is not exactly plush when you have a family to support. Depending on what part of the country you're in in that status, it could be REALLY difficult making it on that.

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/03/15/2012-6220/state-median-income-estimates-for-a-four-person-household-notice-of-the-federal-fiscal-year-ffy-2013#t-1

Now to the next link. It's from the original one I posted. I'll compress it a bit, but here's the link if anyone is interested.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001547-Why-No-Income-Tax.pdf

Term defined: tax expenditures - special provisions in the tax code that benefit particular taxpayers or activities

The Tax Policy Center has determined that about half people who don’t owe income tax are off the rolls not because they take advantage of tax breaks but rather because they have low incomes. For example, a couple with two children earning less than $26,400 will pay no federal income tax this year because their $11,600 standard deduction and four exemptions of $3,700 each reduce their taxable income to zero. The basic structure of the income tax simply exempts subsistence levels of income from tax.

So right there the 47% (and I think it's actually 46% and change) becomes halved. So now, if you believe the numbers of those making so little they flat out can't be taxed according to the current code, it's really only 24% that are supposedly living large on the rest of us.

Anyway, Of all nontaxable units, half would still owe no tax in 2011 if all tax expenditures were repealed and only these standard income tax provisions applied. The other half owes no tax because of tax expenditures.

To determine which tax expenditures moved tax units from being taxable to being nontaxable, we arranged tax expenditures into eight groups and then estimated how many units became nontaxable when we added each group of tax expenditures sequentially to the standard income tax provisions. These are the eight groups:

elderly tax benefits (the extra standard deduction for the elderly, the exclusion of a portion of Social Security benefits, and the credit for the elderly);

credits for children and the working poor (the child tax credit, the child and dependent care tax credit, and the earned income tax credit);

exclusion of other cash transfers (cash transfer benefits other than Social Security and unemployment, such as TANF and SSI);

above-the-line deductions and tax-exempt interest;

itemized deductions;

education credits;

other credits; and

reduced rates on capital gains and dividends (zero rate on gains and dividends that would otherwise be taxed at 10 or 15 percent, 15 percent rate combined with credits).

Of the 38 million tax units made nontaxable by the addition of tax expenditures, 44 percent are moved off the tax rolls by elderly tax benefits and another 30 percent by credits for children and the working poor. (That's a full 74% of that remaining 23% (of the 46-47%).

The other six groups of tax expenditures have much less impact, each making 6 percent or fewer units nontaxable.

Among nontaxable units that would face positive tax liability except for tax expenditures, the type of tax expenditure that makes them nontaxable varies substantially by income (see chart 3).

For tax units with income below $50,000, the tax expenditures for the elderly, children, and the poor are most important.

For tax units with income between $50,000 and $100,000, the child and education credits and itemized deductions move the most units off the tax rolls.

For those with income over $100,000, the above-the-line deductions, itemized deductions, and reduced rates on capital gains and dividends matter most.

So remove any tax breaks for the elderly and kids and you've pretty much got it covered. No one ever complains though, I've noticed, at the thought of the stars aligning and their combined child care credits and itemized deductions making it so they don't owe taxes. Maybe because those of us who can itemize like that idea. For ourselves anyway. The old, the very young, and the poor don't deserve that break, but we do.

 

[AGBF]

Goodmalood
Stereotypes exist because they are based in truth.

Would you care to back up that statement with proof? I do not want to get all discussion of political topics banned from Pricescope, so I will try not to be inflammatory in my response to you. It does not take a lot of historical research to show that minority groups such as Jews as African-American have been sterotyped by the larger society in the past century, however. I do not believe that the stereotypes used to characterize these racial/ethnic groups were based in truth. I believe that they were based in prejudice and jealousy.

If you have any actual evidence that stereotypes are always based in fact, by all means bring it on!

I think the more interesting question would be: Can you provide evidence that they're not? Can you site factual information that there isn't a single kernel of truth to stereotypes and/or generalizations?I'm not suggesting that we resort to using them, I'm simply stating that there is *some* basis of truth to them. If not, no one would ever use a stereotype or generalization to bolster their case. You can see plenty of evidence of that right here on these pages when one is trying to make a point about a dissenting opinion; as in, "American's are terminally stupid".

There is a difference between making a comment-i.e.stating something (be it right or wrong)-as I did when I said, "Americans are terminally stupid" which is assuredly a stereotype and defending all stereotypes as based on truth!!! I was once a Ph.D candidate in modern European history and had a chance to be exposed to Nazi propaganda used in German schools after the Weimar Republic. I assure that the pictures of Jews in the children's schoolbooks were not based on true representations of how Jewish people looked. I do not believe that there was a kernel of truth in what was said in them, either.

Logically one does not have to look at all stereotypes and prove that absolutely none has any truth in it to argue that the statement, "Sterotypes exist because they are based in truth" is false. One must only find one stereotype that does not exist because it is based in truth in order to prove the statement false.


Deb/AGBF