U.S. Politics XL--Double Down it

[Shryke]

Yeah, we're demonizing them: http://thinkprogress.org/2010/04/12/tea-party-racial-slur/

Sure.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Yeah, we're demonizing them: http://thinkprogress.org/2010/04/12/tea-party-racial-slur/

Sure.

Hey Shryke, what was your position on the whole Jeremiah Wright thingy?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

As far as the link, I keep seeing more and more of that kind of talk. And it it just empty, angry talk or should we start to become concerned?

Maybe....

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=36495

Neither side has a monopoly on virtue, despite what some may think. People on both fringes have gone overboard in the past, are going overboard now, and will go overboard in the future. I'm not sure what utility there is in focusing on them rather than on the issues themselves.

[Shryke]

Hey Shryke, what was your position on the whole Jeremiah Wright thingy?

Oh, so you care about my opinion now? Fancy that.

Jeremiah Wright is one man with some crazy ideas. Though given when he grew up, they aren't super surprising.

But really, why are you asking my opinion on some random guy?

Maybe....

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=36495

Neither side has a monopoly on virtue, despite what some may think. People on both fringes have gone overboard in the past, are going overboard now, and will go overboard in the future. I'm not sure what utility there is in focusing on them rather than on the issues themselves.

Except there's a big difference between when the Anti-Government Militias go overboard and when like PETA or the ELF go overboard.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Oh, so you care about my opinion now? Fancy that.

Jeremiah Wright is one man with some crazy ideas. Though given when he grew up, they aren't super surprising.

But really, why are you asking my opinion on some random guy?

Oh, don't worry. It's not that I value your opinion. The question was rhetorical. If you don't see a connection, that's fine.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

As far as the link, I keep seeing more and more of that kind of talk. And it it just empty, angry talk or should we start to become concerned?

How many people do you know who would be willing to take a bullet to prevent an ATF agent from arresting an Oklahoma gun store owner? I walk in some pretty paranoid circles and I don't know anyone. Nothing to worry about.

[Mad Monkey]

I'd take a bullet for a guy from Oklahoma. But not one of those Michiganders. They've had a free-ride for too long. Too damn long!

[mcbigski]

So unless you can come up with some reason why Tea Party Supporters would interpret the question the way you described 20% more then Tea Party Haters, your objection is full of shit. Why are 20% more people who are pro-Tea Party thinking "Man, I don't like to stereotype!" in your magical world?

I'm assuming the Strongly Support/Strongly Oppose Tea Party people were self described. In which case those numbers don't really mean much more than a typical self selecting internet poll, especially in light of the various 'crash the tea party' factions out there. If they were able to link their respondents to something more objective and falsifiable than self identification, then the numbers might mean something. Otherwise, we've got a poll from someone with an ax to grind, with only perfunctory controls, that confirms his initial suspicions. This is a problem with most polls, to be sure.

[Shryke]

I'm assuming the Strongly Support/Strongly Oppose Tea Party people were self described. In which case those numbers don't really mean much more than a typical self selecting internet poll, especially in light of the various 'crash the tea party' factions out there. If they were able to link their respondents to something more objective and falsifiable than self identification, then the numbers might mean something. Otherwise, we've got a poll from someone with an ax to grind, with only perfunctory controls, that confirms his initial suspicions. This is a problem with most polls, to be sure.

I don't see how this follows. What's the issue with self-identification here?

They called up a bunch of people and asked them a bunch of questions about Race and such and also asked them "How do you feel about the Tea Party?". Then they compared the answers of those strongly FOR the Tea Party with those strongly AGAINST the Tea Party.

Unless you are ascribing the 20% differentially to a large group of people lying to the pollsters about their support for the Tea Party AND about their racial views, all in the interest of making the Tea Party look bad?

Cause that's one hell of a conspiracy theory there.

[Lord Mord]

Shryke,

YOU are the one making the positive claim. You must prove to me why Tea Party Supporters are 20% more likely to misinterpret the question then Tea Party Haters.

Even if it's just, on its face, a poorly worded question? Shouldn't that simply invalidate the sample?

I do get the part about the differential, though. If the questions were more meaningful, and if we are able to rely on self-idenitifactions, then the statistic is, as you put it, stark.

[Shryke]

Oh, don't worry. It's not that I value your opinion. The question was rhetorical. If you don't see a connection, that's fine.

Ahh, so you were talking out of your ass for no reason and backed down from your attempt to illogically link the Jeremiah Wright stupidity and all the stuff on the Tea Party together once I refused to fall for your blatantly obvious trick question?

[Shryke]

Shryke,

Even if it's just, on its face, a poorly worded question? Shouldn't that simply invalidate the sample?

Why would it invalidate the sample wrt the differential?

As I said, if a poorly worded question is to blame, why the stark difference in answers?

They were all asked the same questions, why isn't this "error" systemic?

[Annelise]

I'd take a bullet for a guy from Oklahoma. But not one of those Michiganders. They've had a free-ride for too long. Too damn long!

That's right, keep it coming suckas! :commie: I'm gonna write Obama and ask him to have the armored car bursting with Oklahoma taxes to make a pit-stop at my house on the way to Detroit.

That thinkprogress link.. I took interest that it was in Springboro, we know people there. That guy is priceless. Spics? Oh, I was just thinking of a BeeGees song, I didn't realize that taken out of context, it might offend people. :lol: Certainly not coupled with comments about illegals being everywhere and wondering where my gun is at.

[Annelise]

Bold mine. Come on, no need for that.

I understand the intent to express condescension, but it's kind of a bizarre choice. Like the Canadian version of The Invisible Man.

[Commodore]

fear Fat Reagan

NJ doesn't deserve this guy, but he's going to save the state.

[Week]

The GOP has found a new ally in its attempts to repeal healthcare.

:)

[lokisnow]

since it's nearly tax day I keep expecting the famed conservative lie about people not paying any taxes to crop up (and FTR, I still maintain that anyone who has a cent withheld from their paycheck for any purpose pays taxes and cannot be honestly counted towards the "don't pay any taxes" group talk radio hosts have aneurisms over).

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html?hp

The number is up from 38 percent in 2007, and it has become a popular talking point on cable television and talk radio. With Tax Day coming on Thursday, 47 percent has become shorthand for the notion that the wealthy face a much higher tax burden than they once did while growing numbers of Americans are effectively on the dole.

Neither one of those ideas is true. They rely on a cleverly selective reading of the facts. So does the 47 percent number.

...

All the attention being showered on “47 percent” is ultimately a distraction from that reality.

The 47 percent number is not wrong. The stimulus programs of the last two years — the first one signed by President George W. Bush, the second and larger one by President Obama — have increased the number of households that receive enough of a tax credit to wipe out their federal income tax liability.

But the modifiers here — federal and income — are important. Income taxes aren’t the only kind of federal taxes that people pay. There are also payroll taxes and capital gains taxes, among others. And, of course, people pay state and local taxes, too.

Even if the discussion is restricted to federal taxes (for which the statistics are better), a vast majority of households end up paying federal taxes. Congressional Budget Office data suggests that, at most, about 10 percent of all households pay no net federal taxes. The number 10 is obviously a lot smaller than 47.

...

Taking into account both taxes and tax credits, the average household in this group paid a total income tax rate of just 3 percent. A good number of people, in fact, paid no net income taxes. They are among the alleged free riders.

But the picture starts to change when you look not just at income taxes but at all taxes. This average household would have paid 0.8 percent of its income in corporate taxes (through the stocks it owned), 0.9 percent in gas and other federal excise taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. Add these up, and the family’s total federal tax rate was 14.2 percent.

I realize that it’s possible to argue that payroll taxes should be excluded from the discussion because they pay for benefits — Social Security and Medicare — that people receive on the back end. But that argument doesn’t seem very persuasive.

Why? People do not receive benefits equal to the payroll taxes they paid. Those who die at age 70 will receive much less in Social Security and Medicare than they paid in taxes. Those who die at 95 will probably get much more.

If anything, the government numbers I’m using here exaggerate how much of the tax burden falls on the wealthy. These numbers fail to account for the income that is hidden from tax collectors — a practice, research shows, that is more common among affluent families. “Because higher-income people are understating their income,” Joel Slemrod, a tax scholar at the University of Michigan, says, “We’ve been overstating their average tax rates.”

...

There is no question that the wealthy pay a higher overall tax rate than any other group. That is an American tradition. But there is also no question that their tax rates have fallen more than any other group’s over the last three decades. The only reason they are paying more taxes than in the past is that their pretax incomes have risen so rapidly — which hardly seems a great rationale for a further tax cut.

So why are those radio and television talk show hosts spending so much time arguing that today’s wealthy are unfairly burdened? Well, it’s hard not to notice that the talk show hosts themselves tend to be among the very wealthy.

No doubt, like the rest of us, they don’t particularly enjoy paying taxes. They are happy with the tax cuts they have received lately. They would prefer if other people had to pick up the bill for Medicare, Social Security and the military — people like, say, firefighters, preschool teachers, computer support specialists, farmers, members of the clergy, mail carriers, secretaries and truck drivers

Remember folks, Rush Limbaugh hates firefighters. :)

[El-ahrairah]

The Great State of Nebraska will forbid committing abortions after 20 weeks, the first such law in the country based on the grounds of fetal pain. Some court will probably throw it down, of course, but it's progress.

[Starkimus]

What I don't understand is why doesn't the tea party protest the war spending, that is something I can agree with at least but NO they have to protest the healthcare bill, helping others. I simply don't understand this type of thinking. It bothers me in more ways than one.

Helping people bad but war spending is okay and justified to the tea party's mind. It's inexcusable.

Elrick,

I would define it as "war = defending the United States of America and is a Constitutional responsibility of the Federal Government" (agree or disagree with the war by all means...I have no problem with that...in fact we may agree, but that is another subject)

"Nationalized health care = no way shape or form part of the Federal Governments Constitutional responsibility" And to top it off, we can't afford another brand spanking new entitlement.

Just so you get the other side. It really has nothing to do with "helping others". I help others by giving to my church and giving my time at soup kitchens, and building new houses for Habitat for Humanity. My church in turn provides financial funds as well as other food stuff for others in need. I guess my point here, is its my choice to help others. Not the Federal Government's choice.

You believe its OK for the government to decide what is best for me. I do not.

Umm..Im not saying I support the Tea Party Movement. They have shown themselves to do really nasty things (which I stated in the past). What is very sad, is that the original message of the movement (less government spending, say NO to more government intrusion)...completely got screwed by a few idiots.

Hasta!

Stark Out!

[Lightning Lord]

(removed just because I want to respond to the sentiment)

Hasta!

Stark Out!

Part of the government's responsibility is to protect its citizens. Sometimes, they have to be protected from themselves.

People need to be protected from corporations. Corporations aren't people and their only interest is in higher profits. The health care industry is a series of corporations. Their primary goal is to make money.

In the case of health care, citizens need their government to protect their lives by having health care available. This most recent bill is not exactly what I wanted, but something was necessary. I think the government should have provided a public option, in addition to mandating that everyone be covered. That is how you protect people: give them a choice to privately provide, or offer them another option.