I'd like to see a link on that, Kandahar.
Words always have different meanings depending on how they are used. How would I react if someone called me a mother****er? Maybe anything from amusement to fear...depends who it was and what the context was.
If you are in the top rates, your rate will be lower.
When deductions are cut, well, deductions are taken by people at all economic spectrums.
I'm not talking about white people secretly harboring grudges against black people and spending time thinking about how they can screw them over. It's generally more subtle than that. And I don't doubt at all that many people exhibiting these prejudices will swear up and down that they aren't racist, and truly believe it.
I live in downtown Washington, DC. :2wave:
OK, well let's try this: I've already explained what I see as the "actual problem of racism in this country" (i.e. subtle forms of prejudice that people don't even realize, and believing that everyone is on equal footing in terms of racism). So what DO you think is the "actual problem of racism in this country," if not this?
And I think that attempting to draw a false equivalence between racism against minorities and racism against whites is vile and abhorrent, as it is a roundabout way of saying that racism isn't a problem anymore and minorities should just get over it.
Ahh semantics, ok, let's call it prejudice and bigotry then, ok?
Uncommon is a much softer word than "typical" wouldn't you say, and once he makes the distinction towards, "white" he's making it racial, I am sure it is not "uncommon" for certain black folks to act a certain way around white people, Would I call it "typical"? Nahh... I tend to try not to stereotype people.
Thank you for your anecdotal, I am not sure however how to apply it. again, I am willing to expand the definition of "Racism" to cover bigotry and prejudice, but if you are not comfortable with it, let's keep it separate, I think, both your anecdotal and Obama's demonstrates prejudice, something that is really foreign to me when it comes to race relations, Maybe I am blissfully ignorant, but I've only seen people as people....
What started this was hatuey made a statement, my response was appropriate, as for the topic, i don't think black people are any more "brainwashed" than white people.
nominal rates =/= effective rates. as you well know.
actually most middle-to-lower income folks take the standard deduction - which does not change. Fewer than two in five tax returns claim deductions such as those for mortgage interest and state and local taxes and, in fact, most Americans owe more tax as a result of these deductions being in the tax code. The benefits of itemized deductions overwhelmingly go to the upper income earners in America.
Words have meanings. You don't get to make them up to fit what you want. If we are going to change the word "racist" to fit what we want, I could make it so that you fit it too.
Not much softer, but yes, it is softer. I think my word is more accurate than his. Niether of us could prove it however. We cannot discuss race without making things "racial". It's kinda the way of things.
Again, words have meanings. You can't just make up your own definition of racism so you can cry racist or accuse others of doing so.
Your response was factually wrong. Obama did not call typical white people racist.
Which in no way changes what I said.
So, poor people do not claim deductions?
..As the table shows, itemization rates rise as income rises. Only 7 percent of West Virginia tax returns with an adjusted gross income of less than $50,000 itemized, and nationwide, less than 20 percent of returns with an AGI of less than $50,000 itemized. However, over 93 percent of tax returns with an AGI greater than $200,000 itemized. The dramatic difference in itemization rates between the two ends of the income spectrum suggests that future tax reform policies that seek to end most itemized deductions while lowering tax rates across the board would result in a more progressive tax system and greater economic efficiency...
you'll note that they stick to the programs. so, for example, 100% of the cuts to medicare are counted as "cuts to a program targeted to poor people" despite the fact that the largest cuts from from the wealthier individuals in the program itself.
I would really like to see someone from the left give the "cuts to the poor" comparison between the Ryan and Obama medicare plans, given that the President's plan is to evenly cut Medicare across the populace, whereas the Ryan plan is to progressive cut Medicare, focusing the cuts in on our wealthier retirees. Obama's plan actually cuts more to the poor, but oddly, this doesn't seem to be getting much play....
how they score the tax benefits is beyond me - they must be making some pretty impressive assumptions, especially since Ryan has stated that his preference to only remove those credits for people making more than $250,000 a year.
bumpity-bump-bump....
you'll note that they stick to the programs. so, for example, 100% of the cuts to medicare are counted as "cuts to a program targeted to poor people" despite the fact that the largest cuts from from the wealthier individuals in the program itself.
I would really like to see someone from the left give the "cuts to the poor" comparison between the Ryan and Obama medicare plans, given that the President's plan is to evenly cut Medicare across the populace, whereas the Ryan plan is to progressive cut Medicare, focusing the cuts in on our wealthier retirees. Obama's plan actually cuts more to the poor, but oddly, this doesn't seem to be getting much play.
how they score the tax benefits is beyond me - they must be making some pretty impressive assumptions, especially since Ryan has stated that his preference to only remove those credits for people making more than $250,000 a year.
This is incorrect. Medicare is universal, not a program targeted to low-income people. 62% of the cuts from the Ryan budget come from things like Medicaid, Pell grants, food stamps, job training, etc. Virtually all of the participants in those programs are poor...and then you would add the poor people affected by cuts in universal programs like Medicare IN ADDITION to that 62%. In fact, Ryan's budget cuts Medicaid and other health programs for the poor almost TWICE as much as it cuts Medicare.
...House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s budget plan would get at least 62 percent of its $5.3 trillion in nondefense budget cuts over ten years (relative to a continuation of current policies) from programs that serve people of limited means...
The reason it doesn't get much play is because, even assuming that that's accurate, Medicare is just a small fraction of Ryan's overall budget cuts.
That's AFTER he gives them another huge tax cut. And he doesn't even specify what credits he wants to remove.
New Tax Cuts in Ryan Budget Would Give Millionaires $265,000 on Top of Bush Tax Cuts — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Exactly. I love the implication that only unthinking women, blacks and poor people vote for Democrats that so many conservatives make. And then they wonder why the Democrats attract more minorities. Well maybe it's because some of you call them brainwashed and accused them "drinking the Kool Aid" instead of acknowledging that in thinking for themselves just disagree with you.The Ryan budget absolutely decimates anti-poverty social programs. The CBPP estimates that 62% of the budget cuts come from programs targeted toward low-income people, and 37% of the tax benefits go to people earning more than $1 million.
Racism and misogyny all rolled into one sentence. Keep on going with that attitude, and I'm sure Republicans will win those voters back. After all, they have nothing to be offended about...because you say so. :roll:
:lamo because it scores it over 10 years.
but the Ryan plan doesn't change Medicare for anyone over the age of 55!
and they measure relative to current policies, rather than current law. which is to say that this:
is not only false, but that you made it up.
the reason it "doesn't get much play" is because it is inconvenient.
:lamo and these guys are pretending that nominal = effective rates!
The Ryan budget absolutely decimates anti-poverty social programs. The CBPP estimates that 62% of the budget cuts come from programs targeted toward low-income people, and 37% of the tax benefits go to people earning more than $1 million.
I'd like to see a link on that, Kandahar.
No matter WHAT Republicans do, there will be those unthinking women and lower-income people who will not take the time to understand. They just keep on drinkin' the Kool Aid. And, oh, how the Democrats love that.
Kandahar said:Racism and misogyny all rolled into one sentence. Keep on going with that attitude, and I'm sure Republicans will win those voters back. After all, they have nothing to be offended about...because you say so. :roll:
MaggieD said:What the hell are you talking about? Now you see racism in that post? Misogyny? Good lord.
kandahar said:Let me ask you this: As a woman, how did you avoid being brainwashed by the Democrats like the others were? Are you just that much smarter and better than everyone else?
I like how you just re-link the sites I already pointed out were deeply flawed.
:lol: what? no you didn't, you just restated them.to my point that their measure of the cuts only includes the pre-medicare cuts - which is to say, they don't count the cuts weighted towards the wealthy, and therefore they are overcounting the cuts to the poor as a percentage of total cuts - you responded by saying... that their measure of the cuts only includes the pre-medicare cuts.
to my point that their measure of the tax cuts only counted the nominal rather than the effective rate cuts your response was... that they only counted the nominal rather than the effective rate cuts.
to my point that the Obama plan for Medicare cuts more for the poor than the Ryan plan for Medicare, you responded... well there you just responded by asking about the Doc Fix, which I agree we shouldn't score, and which effects the projected costs of Obamacare accordingly.
the two sources you cite remain deeply flawed. the first one claims that a majority of Ryan's cuts are on the poor... only by not counting all the cuts.
the second claims that a majority of the tax reform benefits go to the rich... only by not accurately counting the effect of the tax reforms.
i mean heck. I can prove anything so long as I am allowed to dishonestly control the input.
..Those calculations do not represent a cost estimate for legislation or an analysis of the effects of any given policies. In particular, CBO has not considered whether the specified paths are consistent with the policy proposals or budget figures released today by Chairman Ryan as part of his proposed budget resolution...
The Right Wing Mantra is a simple one. If you vote Republican, you're thinking outside the box. If you vote Democrat, you're brainwashed. Never you mind that the overwhelming majority of the right wing voting base is one big white cell.... where as the Democrat voting base is composed of groups who are diversified by gender, ethnicity, sexuality, class etc. It's like the white cat telling the dalmatian that he's not diverse enough.
aaahhhh... I see how he does that. He separates Medicaid from Medicare/Medicaid, and then includes Obamacare as a "program for the poor".
and then he measures by change as a percentage of GDP rather than by "actual money cut" off of what it would otherwise cost.
So, for example, Medicare continues to grow as a % of GDP through 2030, so Medicare expenditures haven't been lowered. Even though, in fact, they have been.
2050 was a good date for him to choose - he get's to "hide the rise", if I can appropriate another abuse of statistics. Though at least he is honest enough to admit that Obama and Ryan both cut Medicare by the same amount.
well he is correct when he argues that Obamacare would be immensely expensive, and that thus cutting that disastrous program would be a massive reduction from the current assumes-Obamacare baseline.
but you may want to read the introductory paragraph for the CBO report he cites:
..Those calculations do not represent a cost estimate for legislation or an analysis of the effects of any given policies. In particular, CBO has not considered whether the specified paths are consistent with the policy proposals or budget figures released today by Chairman Ryan as part of his proposed budget resolution...
which is interesting. :shrug: that being said, this source does not provide support for your contention. "government personnel costs", for example, are not a program for the poor.
Well, if you want to act vile, then by all means what's stopping you? :roll:
wait, so when you and obama are talking, it's just talkin "racial" but when I do it, It's "race baiting".... wow....
then Obama and his grandmother would be bigots and demonstrated being prejudiced, then, yes?
"in your tight, semantical definition, you would be correct, Then again, I just clarified for you, it was a bigoted, prejudiced, racially insensitive statement. :shrug:
Yes. The idea that women who vote Democrat are "unthinking" is misogynistic, and the implication that "lower-income people" vote Democrat because they are drinking the Kool-Aid is racist (yes I know you didn't explicitly mention a race, but c'mon, you aren't referring to a poor white guy in a trailer park in Alabama).
Let me ask you this: As a woman, how did you avoid being brainwashed by the Democrats like the others were? Are you just that much smarter and better than everyone else?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?