News Channel Bias

Quote: Gandler

What matters is what is happening now.

The Republicans watch out for the common man. The Democrats are for the super rich, and the poor. Most middle class, blue collar, and hardworking people would logically identify with Republicans.

Wow nice deflection say something get called out as being wrong and say it doesn't matter but fine. You are honestly arguing that the Republicans aren't the party of the rich and that they look out for the middle class? They voted to end payroll tax cuts something that benefits the middle class. They are anti union something that benefits the middle class. They are anti regulation something that benefits the super rich and hurts the poor and middle class. They are for raising sales taxes and gas taxes things that hurt the middle class and would have almost no effect on the rich. Voted against assistance to home owners. For cutting funding for schools something that hurts the middle class and doesn't effect ultra rich who can send kids to private schools. There are even more examples but think that will suffice for now.

Also lol about the ultra rich not caring about regulations because they already have the money. Please explain to me how the Koch brothers, the Waltons, Sheldon Adelson, and a number of others in various industries are either not the ultra rich or how they are committed leftist. There are a number of ultra wealthy who do vote democrat and even perhaps a majority but it has nothing to do with not caring about regulations. Some are tech giants who rely on highly educated people and the fact is that is something Republicans are tearing down. Others simply realize a shrinking middle class will eventually hurt their bottom line some favor their social policy and there are numerous other reasons.

Yikes. if ever a thread called for me to block it, it is this one. This thread is icky. With some truly repulsive posts by AZDuffman. Keep on fighting that losing battle against the gays with your nonsensical arguments!

Quote: Twirdman

Wow nice deflection say something get called out as being wrong and say it doesn't matter but fine. You are honestly arguing that the Republicans aren't the party of the rich and that they look out for the middle class? They voted to end payroll tax cuts something that benefits the middle class. They are anti union something that benefits the middle class. They are anti regulation something that benefits the super rich and hurts the poor and middle class. They are for raising sales taxes and gas taxes things that hurt the middle class and would have almost no effect on the rich. Voted against assistance to home owners. For cutting funding for schools something that hurts the middle class and doesn't effect ultra rich who can send kids to private schools. There are even more examples but think that will suffice for now.

Also lol about the ultra rich not caring about regulations because they already have the money. Please explain to me how the Koch brothers, the Waltons, Sheldon Adelson, and a number of others in various industries are either not the ultra rich or how they are committed leftist. There are a number of ultra wealthy who do vote democrat and even perhaps a majority but it has nothing to do with not caring about regulations. Some are tech giants who rely on highly educated people and the fact is that is something Republicans are tearing down. Others simply realize a shrinking middle class will eventually hurt their bottom line some favor their social policy and there are numerous other reasons.

The payroll tax cuts ended because Obama and the Democrat Congress in 2009 made them temporary. That same Congress could have, but didn't, raise taxes on the rich (themselves and their donor base) to 100%. They could have but didn't close all these "loopholes" and raised taxes on the hated rich (themselves), provided free college, free cars, free pu***, a chicken in every pot and a tax raise to ever millionaire (themselves).
They didn't do it. All the base got was a crappy cell phone. Don't you realize it's all kabuke and you are being played for suckers as Nobama, the Clintons Reid and Pelosi crisscross the country lambasting "The Rich"-to audiences consisting of the elite that can afford the $40k tickets!
Pure theater.

Quote: bobsims

The richest people on Earth are committed leftists who support the Party Of Owe. Beverly Hills, Upper West Side, Georgetown, San Fransicko, Martha's Vineyard, North Shore of Chicago, etc., etc., etc.
The very rich vote Democrat. The bustouts, the losers, junkies, anchor babies, high school dropouts, pimps, welfare moms, sex offenders, crackheads, ho's and corrupt cronies all vote the same way. That is the base of your party. Everybody else votes Republican

I didn't check the richest people on earth, but I did search for the richest families in america.

Their political affiliations are:
56% Republican
30% Both
14% Democrat

The top 6 families are affiliated with Republicans.

Source: Forbes Magazine

Quote: bobsims

The payroll tax cuts ended because Obama and the Democrat Congress in 2009 made them temporary. That same Congress could have, but didn't, raise taxes on the rich (themselves and their donor base) to 100%. They could have but didn't close all these "loopholes" and raised taxes on the hated rich (themselves), provided free college, free cars, free pu***, a chicken in every pot and a tax raise to ever millionaire (themselves).
They didn't do it. All the base got was a crappy cell phone. Don't you realize it's all kabuke and you are being played for suckers as Nobama, the Clintons Reid and Pelosi crisscross the country lambasting "The Rich"-to audiences consisting of the elite that can afford the $40k tickets!
Pure theater.

So your argument is both sides are bad vote Republican. Not only do Republicans not ever put forth raising taxes on the rich they actively campaign on and attempt to lower taxes on the rich. Not only do they not offer free college and anything else they actively campaign on eroding the things we do have to help provide for college for instance privatizing the profits of college loans eliminating Pell grants. Also Democrats did let taxes be raised on the highest earners when they let Bush tax cut expire for top earners.

About Democrats playing to rich audiences the Republicans do it do. Do you think Romney's 47% comment was in front of a bunch of regular joes?

Personally I'll go with the party that while not really helping isn't actively trying to harm.

Quote: Twirdman

So your argument is both sides are bad vote Republican. Not only do Republicans not ever put forth raising taxes on the rich they actively campaign on and attempt to lower taxes on the rich. Not only do they not offer free college and anything else they actively campaign on eroding the things we do have to help provide for college for instance privatizing the profits of college loans eliminating Pell grants. Also Democrats did let taxes be raised on the highest earners when they let Bush tax cut expire for top earners.

In California a "rich" man pays 58% just in income taxes. 40% federal income tax, 4% in Medicare and Obamacare taxes and 14% California income tax.
An illegal sneaks into the country, pops out a baby and gets a check, a free apartment, medical, free heat and air conditioning, a free cell phone, citizenship and free education for her "dreamers" and a no deportation promise from the corrupt ruling party. Oh and pays 0% in income taxes.
Quick now-whose paying their "fair share".

Quote: bobsims

In California a "rich" man pays 58% just in income taxes. 40% federal income tax, 4% in Medicare and Obamacare taxes and 14% California income tax.
An illegal sneaks into the country, pops out a baby and gets a check, a free apartment, medical, free heat and air conditioning, a free cell phone, citizenship and free education for her "dreamers" and a no deportation promise from the corrupt ruling party. Oh and pays 0% in income taxes.
Quick now-whose paying their "fair share".

.

Do you write advertising brochures for slumlord tenant housing? You should. Yup, we are kicking the riches ass with the tax system; must be why they keep getting richer.

Better still, free room and board, just by the ocean in sunny California.

Quote: rxwine

Yup, we are kicking the riches ass with the tax system; must be why they keep getting richer.

It is a sure thing that the poor are not better off to any significant extent, despite a half-century of the War on Poverty and trillions in "Stimulus" spending. Nobody seems to have any explanation why the wealthy, whom most of us agree have not supported the Democratic legislators or executives, have been so well served by the drastic leftist-liberal socio-economic revisions. All the while the lower-income segment does not do much more than molder along.

Quote: bobsims

The richest people on Earth are committed leftists who support the Party Of Owe. Beverly Hills, Upper West Side, Georgetown, San Fransicko, Martha's Vineyard, North Shore of Chicago, etc., etc., etc.
The very rich vote Democrat. The bustouts, the losers, junkies, anchor babies, high school dropouts, pimps, welfare moms, sex offenders, crackheads, ho's and corrupt cronies all vote the same way. That is the base of your party. Everybody else votes Republican

Some of my best friends are all what you describe. There is no way in hell I would ever give them up.

Quote: SanchoPanza

It is a sure thing that the poor are not better off to any significant extent, despite a half-century of the War on Poverty and trillions in "Stimulus" spending. Nobody seems to have any explanation why the wealthy, whom most of us agree have not supported the Democratic legislators or executives, have been so well served by the drastic leftist-liberal socio-economic revisions. All the while the lower-income segment does not do much more than molder along.

Many companies have been well served by the increase in government public-private initiatives. The tax burden on the wealthy (rather than the super rich) has been going up as a percentage for a long time (look it up here's one take on it : http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/top10-percent-income-earners), while the middle tax burden has been dropping due to tax breaks, especially those for having a spouse, kids and a mortgage. It's changed in region 2008-2010, but I believe since 2010 it's continued to increase.

Increasing the top end tax burden is not a good solution, as much as I like progressive taxation... its plenty progressive enough in the US.

Quote: Twirdman

So your argument is both sides are bad vote Republican. Not only do Republicans not ever put forth raising taxes on the rich they actively campaign on and attempt to lower taxes on the rich. Not only do they not offer free college and anything else they actively campaign on eroding the things we do have to help provide for college for instance privatizing the profits of college loans eliminating Pell grants. Also Democrats did let taxes be raised on the highest earners when they let Bush tax cut expire for top earners.

About Democrats playing to rich audiences the Republicans do it do. Do you think Romney's 47% comment was in front of a bunch of regular joes?

Personally I'll go with the party that while not really helping isn't actively trying to harm.

Why is raising tax on the rich a good thing?


Also, why is free college a good thing?


Trying to stop tax raises is preventing harm.

Quote: Twirdman

So your argument is both sides are bad vote Republican. Not only do Republicans not ever put forth raising taxes on the rich they actively campaign on and attempt to lower taxes on the rich. Not only do they not offer free college and anything else they actively campaign on eroding the things we do have to help provide for college for instance privatizing the profits of college loans eliminating Pell grants. Also Democrats did let taxes be raised on the highest earners when they let Bush tax cut expire for top earners.

Why is raising taxes on the rich such a good thing to you?

Why on earth would we want to give away "free college?" And how would we do that? Are there faculty going to work for free, utilities to provide free electric, support staff who will also work for free?

Quote: ams288

Yikes. if ever a thread called for me to block it, it is this one. This thread is icky. With some truly repulsive posts by AZDuffman. Keep on fighting that losing battle against the gays with your nonsensical arguments!

You are free to try to counter any post I have made that you find "icky and repulsive." I encourage any and all to do so. I am not afraid of free discussion with those of whom disagree with me.

Quote: AZDuffman

Why is raising taxes on the rich such a good thing to you?

Why on earth would we want to give away "free college?" And how would we do that? Are there faculty going to work for free, utilities to provide free electric, support staff who will also work for free?

The only thing that I can surmise is the "social justice" argument. People who are wealthy should have to pay more to balance the scales, otherwise it would be unfair for people to keep the money that they earned.

As for free college. There are numerous costs that would make this unreasonable. But even more so, the logistical argument. Universities should be elite institutions, they are not, and can't be, for everybody. We don't need everybody in America to get a bachelors degree. In fact if we had that it would be devastating, if everybody had one, they would be worthless.

If anything we need more people In trade and technical school, those are positions that need to be filled, and they would actually have a job when they graduate. The last thing America needs right now, is a population full of liberal arts degrees.

Quote: Gandler

As for free college. There are numerous costs that would make this unreasonable. But even more so, the logistical argument. Universities should be elite institutions, they are not, and can't be, for everybody. We don't need everybody in America to get a bachelors degree. In fact if we had that it would be devastating, if everybody had one, they would be worthless.

If anything we need more people In trade and technical school, those are positions that need to be filled, and they would actually have a job when they graduate. The last thing America needs right now, is a population full of liberal arts degrees.

Totally correct. I tell anyone looking to go to college to skip it and take a trade unless they are taking a very technical degree. When 4 in 10 or more who start do not finish, something is very wrong.

It is an education-industrial complex. Look at a college town then multiply the tuition by the number of students. Then add more for all the other things the students buy. Then imagine sucking even 1/3 of that cash from the local economies.

Mike Rowe has it right. We are lending money we do not have to people who cannot pay it back to train for jobs that do not exist.

Quote: AZDuffman

Mike Rowe has it right. We are lending money we do not have to people who cannot pay it back to train for jobs that do not exist.

Boy that hits the nail on the head.

Quote: bobsims

Boy that hits the nail on the head.

A few long-format interviews with him are on YouTube. The guy really is onto what is wrong with the USA and why so many people are under-employed. If I were POTUS I would make Rowe the Secretary of Labor.

Quote: AZDuffman

A few long-format interviews with him are on YouTube. The guy really is onto what is wrong with the USA and why so many people are under-employed. If I were POTUS I would make Rowe the Secretary of Labor.

He gave testimony before the House Committee on Natural Resources last year: http://naturalresources.house.gov/media/?VideoID=04oRKHZ48Lo

New Jersey already offers free County College: But it has to be EARNED, not just given away.

http://www.njstars.net/

Quote: jetermacaw

New Jersey already offers free County College: But it has to be EARNED, not just given away.

http://www.njstars.net/

Yes but that is a state based program.

You can actually get a free bachelors degree, unless it changed since I graduated. You do 2 years at a community college and then you can transfer to any state college and earn your bachloers. But you have to be in the top 25% of your class (that may have changed too) to apply.

The theory is that it helps keeps top students inside NJ instead of losing them to colleges in other states.

It doesn't seem to matter much which news source you prefer here in the States, we are now ranked 49th in press freedom behind Niger, Botswana and Chile.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/02/12/u-s-drops-49th-world-press-freedom-rankings-second-lowest-ever/

Quote: AZDuffman

Again, I do not buy it. Providing for a child means more than having the cash to buy all kinds of things. It means showing a healthy lifestyle and bringing up a proper man or woman. On that point a child growing up in a gay household has problems because they will not see what a natural family unit behaves like. Of course to be fair we now have a generation that does not know that. And we are near the point where to have both parents married puts you in the minority. This will have dangerous consequences which we will see in about 20 years or so.

Gotta disagree with this one. What's important is not the sex of the 2 parents. What's important is for kids to see a committed, loving couple that shares both the richness and the pain of family life in constructive ways, including raising and caring about the kids. The home role model of how to function with another person in a complex, long-lasting relationship is crucial to how they will treat others in their own relationships as adults. I know many couples who provide that, whether straight or gay. And I would hazard a guess that many of the gay couples have provided a better example of loyalty to their partner because of the hardship over the last 20-30 years in remaining a couple as attitudes have changed. To have grown up with social adversity around them and see their parents be themselves and love their partner despite condemnation is a powerful, positive influence. (30 years max because it was nearly impossible for gays to have children in the home before that, whether adopted, live-in biologicals, whatever.)

Quote: beachbumbabs

Gotta disagree with this one. What's important is not the sex of the 2 parents. What's important is for kids to see a committed, loving couple that shares both the richness and the pain of family life in constructive ways, including raising and caring about the kids. The home role model of how to function with another person in a complex, long-lasting relationship is crucial to how they will treat others in their own relationships as adults. I know many couples who provide that, whether straight or gay. And I would hazard a guess that many of the gay couples have provided a better example of loyalty to their partner because of the hardship over the last 20-30 years in remaining a couple as attitudes have changed. To have grown up with social adversity around them and see their parents be themselves and love their partner despite condemnation is a powerful, positive influence. (30 years max because it was nearly impossible for gays to have children in the home before that, whether adopted, live-in biologicals, whatever.)

See, now it's things like that that are clearly guesses that make no sense and try to set one decision above another, or at least set apart one group's suffering from another. It never rang true to me, and it never made sense. Sure, it's great that a child is exposed to what loyalty looks like, but homosexual parents have no monopoly on modeling it just because of the current political momentum.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not necessarily against homosexual parents but there's nothing about it that makes it any different from any other kind of parenting. If you're trying to say that there is, then one way is necessarily better than the other, and I don't think that's what you mean.

Any parents - single, homosexual, heterosexual - all face unique obstacles and hardships and prejudices - and yes, shortfalls - whether favored in the current political environment or not, and they all have chances to set a good example or not. Setting one kind apart, or setting one kind of hardship/shortfall as more difficult than others, is the height of arrogance. Bullying and how it's handled by parents can be equally damaging to any household - rich or poor, homosexual or heterosexual, whatever.

Loyalty is certainly a positive model, and being homosexual parents *might* give them more opportunity to model it well for children. But it most certainly does NOT mean that 1) those homosexual parents will model it well given their (ostensibly) more frequent opportunities; 2) a child where it's modeled less frequently fails to follow the model; 3) a gazillion other factors.

Trying to set homosexual parents apart in this regard simply reflects a remarkable arrogance/dis-ingenuousness, or maybe a weird need to validate a pre-held political position, or maybe even an effort to be "cool." I don't know you, so I'm not guessing. But geez louise, this relentless politicizing of the topic is old and transparent ... not to mention utterly disregarding the welfare of the child.

Quote: MrWarmth

Quote: beachbumbabs

Gotta disagree with this one. What's important is not the sex of the 2 parents. What's important is for kids to see a committed, loving couple that shares both the richness and the pain of family life in constructive ways, including raising and caring about the kids. The home role model of how to function with another person in a complex, long-lasting relationship is crucial to how they will treat others in their own relationships as adults. I know many couples who provide that, whether straight or gay. And I would hazard a guess that many of the gay couples have provided a better example of loyalty to their partner because of the hardship over the last 20-30 years in remaining a couple as attitudes have changed. To have grown up with social adversity around them and see their parents be themselves and love their partner despite condemnation is a powerful, positive influence. (30 years max because it was nearly impossible for gays to have children in the home before that, whether adopted, live-in biologicals, whatever.)

See, now it's things like that that are clearly guesses that make no sense and try to set one decision above another, or at least set apart one group's suffering from another. It never rang true to me, and it never made sense. Sure, it's great that a child is exposed to what loyalty looks like, but homosexual parents have no monopoly on modeling it just because of the current political momentum.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not necessarily against homosexual parents but there's nothing about it that makes it any different from any other kind of parenting. If you're trying to say that there is, then one way is necessarily better than the other, and I don't think that's what you mean.

Any parents - single, homosexual, heterosexual - all face unique obstacles and hardships and prejudices - and yes, shortfalls - whether favored in the current political environment or not, and they all have chances to set a good example or not. Setting one kind apart, or setting one kind of hardship/shortfall as more difficult than others, is the height of arrogance. Bullying and how it's handled by parents can be equally damaging to any household - rich or poor, homosexual or heterosexual, whatever.

Loyalty is certainly a positive model, and being homosexual parents *might* give them more opportunity to model it well for children. But it most certainly does NOT mean that 1) those homosexual parents will model it well given their (ostensibly) more frequent opportunities; 2) a child where it's modeled less frequently fails to follow the model; 3) a gazillion other factors.

Trying to set homosexual parents apart in this regard simply reflects a remarkable arrogance/dis-ingenuousness, or maybe a weird need to validate a pre-held political position, or maybe even an effort to be "cool." I don't know you, so I'm not guessing. But geez louise, this relentless politicizing of the topic is old and transparent ... not to mention utterly disregarding the welfare of the child.

I'm not a psychologist or anthropologist, so wanted to emphasize that I'm making a guess, not trying to be an authority, or even setting apart anybody. I am saying that seeing adults work their way successfully through adversity is a positive example to set for kids. And until recently (though even now), that's been the environment around a family unit with two same-sex parents.

What gets said about one group isn't necessarily at the expense of another. It does mean that growing up in that family unit can have some positives, including those common to any two-parent household; it doesn't have to be inferior to growing up in other family configurations by definition. You mischaracterize me completely in the last paragraph. And you betray a strong bias when you say "utterly disregarding the welfare of the child". Who are you to say anyone else's family structure is bad for a child, just because it isn't yours? The arrogance is in anyone's blatant superior attitude when judging others.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Quote: MrWarmth

Quote: beachbumbabs

Gotta disagree with this one. What's important is not the sex of the 2 parents. What's important is for kids to see a committed, loving couple that shares both the richness and the pain of family life in constructive ways, including raising and caring about the kids. The home role model of how to function with another person in a complex, long-lasting relationship is crucial to how they will treat others in their own relationships as adults. I know many couples who provide that, whether straight or gay. And I would hazard a guess that many of the gay couples have provided a better example of loyalty to their partner because of the hardship over the last 20-30 years in remaining a couple as attitudes have changed. To have grown up with social adversity around them and see their parents be themselves and love their partner despite condemnation is a powerful, positive influence. (30 years max because it was nearly impossible for gays to have children in the home before that, whether adopted, live-in biologicals, whatever.)

See, now it's things like that that are clearly guesses that make no sense and try to set one decision above another, or at least set apart one group's suffering from another. It never rang true to me, and it never made sense. Sure, it's great that a child is exposed to what loyalty looks like, but homosexual parents have no monopoly on modeling it just because of the current political momentum.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not necessarily against homosexual parents but there's nothing about it that makes it any different from any other kind of parenting. If you're trying to say that there is, then one way is necessarily better than the other, and I don't think that's what you mean.

Any parents - single, homosexual, heterosexual - all face unique obstacles and hardships and prejudices - and yes, shortfalls - whether favored in the current political environment or not, and they all have chances to set a good example or not. Setting one kind apart, or setting one kind of hardship/shortfall as more difficult than others, is the height of arrogance. Bullying and how it's handled by parents can be equally damaging to any household - rich or poor, homosexual or heterosexual, whatever.

Loyalty is certainly a positive model, and being homosexual parents *might* give them more opportunity to model it well for children. But it most certainly does NOT mean that 1) those homosexual parents will model it well given their (ostensibly) more frequent opportunities; 2) a child where it's modeled less frequently fails to follow the model; 3) a gazillion other factors.

Trying to set homosexual parents apart in this regard simply reflects a remarkable arrogance/dis-ingenuousness, or maybe a weird need to validate a pre-held political position, or maybe even an effort to be "cool." I don't know you, so I'm not guessing. But geez louise, this relentless politicizing of the topic is old and transparent ... not to mention utterly disregarding the welfare of the child.

I'm not a psychologist or anthropologist, so wanted to emphasize that I'm making a guess, not trying to be an authority, or even setting apart anybody. I am saying that seeing adults work their way successfully through adversity is a positive example to set for kids. And until recently (though even now), that's been the environment around a family unit with two same-sex parents.

What gets said about one group isn't necessarily at the expense of another. It does mean that growing up in that family unit can have some positives, including those common to any two-parent household; it doesn't have to be inferior to growing up in other family configurations by definition. You mischaracterize me completely in the last paragraph. And you betray a strong bias when you say "utterly disregarding the welfare of the child". Who are you to say anyone else's family structure is bad for a child, just because it isn't yours? The arrogance is in anyone's blatant superior attitude when judging others.

I think most gay parents will tell you they hope their kids don't turn out to be gay. They don't want their kids to have to go through what they've had to go through.

Quote: mickeycrimm

Quote: beachbumbabs

Quote: MrWarmth

Quote: beachbumbabs

Gotta disagree with this one. What's important is not the sex of the 2 parents. What's important is for kids to see a committed, loving couple that shares both the richness and the pain of family life in constructive ways, including raising and caring about the kids. The home role model of how to function with another person in a complex, long-lasting relationship is crucial to how they will treat others in their own relationships as adults. I know many couples who provide that, whether straight or gay. And I would hazard a guess that many of the gay couples have provided a better example of loyalty to their partner because of the hardship over the last 20-30 years in remaining a couple as attitudes have changed. To have grown up with social adversity around them and see their parents be themselves and love their partner despite condemnation is a powerful, positive influence. (30 years max because it was nearly impossible for gays to have children in the home before that, whether adopted, live-in biologicals, whatever.)

See, now it's things like that that are clearly guesses that make no sense and try to set one decision above another, or at least set apart one group's suffering from another. It never rang true to me, and it never made sense. Sure, it's great that a child is exposed to what loyalty looks like, but homosexual parents have no monopoly on modeling it just because of the current political momentum.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not necessarily against homosexual parents but there's nothing about it that makes it any different from any other kind of parenting. If you're trying to say that there is, then one way is necessarily better than the other, and I don't think that's what you mean.

Any parents - single, homosexual, heterosexual - all face unique obstacles and hardships and prejudices - and yes, shortfalls - whether favored in the current political environment or not, and they all have chances to set a good example or not. Setting one kind apart, or setting one kind of hardship/shortfall as more difficult than others, is the height of arrogance. Bullying and how it's handled by parents can be equally damaging to any household - rich or poor, homosexual or heterosexual, whatever.

Loyalty is certainly a positive model, and being homosexual parents *might* give them more opportunity to model it well for children. But it most certainly does NOT mean that 1) those homosexual parents will model it well given their (ostensibly) more frequent opportunities; 2) a child where it's modeled less frequently fails to follow the model; 3) a gazillion other factors.

Trying to set homosexual parents apart in this regard simply reflects a remarkable arrogance/dis-ingenuousness, or maybe a weird need to validate a pre-held political position, or maybe even an effort to be "cool." I don't know you, so I'm not guessing. But geez louise, this relentless politicizing of the topic is old and transparent ... not to mention utterly disregarding the welfare of the child.

I'm not a psychologist or anthropologist, so wanted to emphasize that I'm making a guess, not trying to be an authority, or even setting apart anybody. I am saying that seeing adults work their way successfully through adversity is a positive example to set for kids. And until recently (though even now), that's been the environment around a family unit with two same-sex parents.

What gets said about one group isn't necessarily at the expense of another. It does mean that growing up in that family unit can have some positives, including those common to any two-parent household; it doesn't have to be inferior to growing up in other family configurations by definition. You mischaracterize me completely in the last paragraph. And you betray a strong bias when you say "utterly disregarding the welfare of the child". Who are you to say anyone else's family structure is bad for a child, just because it isn't yours? The arrogance is in anyone's blatant superior attitude when judging others.

I think most gay parents will tell you they hope their kids don't turn out to be gay. They don't want their kids to have to go through what they've had to go through.

Well luckily being homosexual or heterosexual is genetic so you can be raised by 20 gay men or a straight couple or in an orphanage and it will not even slightly change the chances of the outcome of your adult sexuality.

Really the only thing that matters is any study so far is that being raised by two responsible, attentive parents is positive for the children (single parents of any gender or sexuality are at a disadvantage). Sexuality and gender of the parents is virtually irrelevant to both the welfare and sexual outcome.
The reason that I say homosexual marriage is positive for children because it gives a new pool of couple to take children from orphanages and they can't procreate so it will help lower the population.

Quote: petroglyph

It doesn't seem to matter much which news source you prefer here in the States, we are now ranked 49th in press freedom behind Niger, Botswana and Chile.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/02/12/u-s-drops-49th-world-press-freedom-rankings-second-lowest-ever/

I am curious what they use to rank that rating?

I am guessing (after seeing who runs that site) a major factor is America's legal attack on news people who publish classified information?
If so then this is acceptable. If you publish information that you know you can't, you are likely going to face legal action, if not criminal action.

Anyone can publish anything else, you can publish the most hateful evil magazines you want, you can have KKK magazines, you can have homophobic magazines, you can publish ant-sematic magazines. Or you can publish even the most absurd magazines and nobody will stop you. For all intents and purposes we do have freedom of speech and press.

Just don't steal intellectual property (copyright) and don't publish information that is classified. Those are pretty much the only limits. And, preventing thievery is more than reasonable. I actually think intellectual property laws need to be more strictly enforced especially in the age of the internet where stealing and illegally distributing books and papers is very easy. Internet Piracy is a major problem that needs to be harshly cracked down on.

Quote: Gandler

Quote: mickeycrimm

Quote: beachbumbabs

Quote: MrWarmth

Quote: beachbumbabs

Gotta disagree with this one. What's important is not the sex of the 2 parents. What's important is for kids to see a committed, loving couple that shares both the richness and the pain of family life in constructive ways, including raising and caring about the kids. The home role model of how to function with another person in a complex, long-lasting relationship is crucial to how they will treat others in their own relationships as adults. I know many couples who provide that, whether straight or gay. And I would hazard a guess that many of the gay couples have provided a better example of loyalty to their partner because of the hardship over the last 20-30 years in remaining a couple as attitudes have changed. To have grown up with social adversity around them and see their parents be themselves and love their partner despite condemnation is a powerful, positive influence. (30 years max because it was nearly impossible for gays to have children in the home before that, whether adopted, live-in biologicals, whatever.)

See, now it's things like that that are clearly guesses that make no sense and try to set one decision above another, or at least set apart one group's suffering from another. It never rang true to me, and it never made sense. Sure, it's great that a child is exposed to what loyalty looks like, but homosexual parents have no monopoly on modeling it just because of the current political momentum.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not necessarily against homosexual parents but there's nothing about it that makes it any different from any other kind of parenting. If you're trying to say that there is, then one way is necessarily better than the other, and I don't think that's what you mean.

Any parents - single, homosexual, heterosexual - all face unique obstacles and hardships and prejudices - and yes, shortfalls - whether favored in the current political environment or not, and they all have chances to set a good example or not. Setting one kind apart, or setting one kind of hardship/shortfall as more difficult than others, is the height of arrogance. Bullying and how it's handled by parents can be equally damaging to any household - rich or poor, homosexual or heterosexual, whatever.

Loyalty is certainly a positive model, and being homosexual parents *might* give them more opportunity to model it well for children. But it most certainly does NOT mean that 1) those homosexual parents will model it well given their (ostensibly) more frequent opportunities; 2) a child where it's modeled less frequently fails to follow the model; 3) a gazillion other factors.

Trying to set homosexual parents apart in this regard simply reflects a remarkable arrogance/dis-ingenuousness, or maybe a weird need to validate a pre-held political position, or maybe even an effort to be "cool." I don't know you, so I'm not guessing. But geez louise, this relentless politicizing of the topic is old and transparent ... not to mention utterly disregarding the welfare of the child.

I'm not a psychologist or anthropologist, so wanted to emphasize that I'm making a guess, not trying to be an authority, or even setting apart anybody. I am saying that seeing adults work their way successfully through adversity is a positive example to set for kids. And until recently (though even now), that's been the environment around a family unit with two same-sex parents.

What gets said about one group isn't necessarily at the expense of another. It does mean that growing up in that family unit can have some positives, including those common to any two-parent household; it doesn't have to be inferior to growing up in other family configurations by definition. You mischaracterize me completely in the last paragraph. And you betray a strong bias when you say "utterly disregarding the welfare of the child". Who are you to say anyone else's family structure is bad for a child, just because it isn't yours? The arrogance is in anyone's blatant superior attitude when judging others.

I think most gay parents will tell you they hope their kids don't turn out to be gay. They don't want their kids to have to go through what they've had to go through.

Well luckily being homosexual or heterosexual is genetic so you can be raised by 20 gay men or a straight couple or in an orphanage and it will not even slightly change the chances of the outcome of your adult sexuality.

Really the only thing that matters is any study so far is that being raised by two responsible, attentive parents is positive for the children (single parents of any gender or sexuality are at a disadvantage). Sexuality and gender of the parents is virtually irrelevant to both the welfare and sexual outcome.
The reason that I say homosexual marriage is positive for children because it gives a new pool of couple to take children from orphanages and they can't procreate so it will help lower the population.

For me, it appears to me that some men are just made that way. I have a gay first cousin and I know for sure he was'nt raised in an atmosphere that would make him gay. I think he was just born that way. And I can tell you that this tough ass heterosexual still loves his cousin and doesn't want to see him discriminated againt in any form. I'm not really sure about the women. They seem to make moves in and out of homosexuality. Ann Heche comes to mind.

Quote: mickeycrimm

Quote: Gandler

Quote: mickeycrimm

Quote: beachbumbabs

Quote: MrWarmth

Quote: beachbumbabs

Gotta disagree with this one. What's important is not the sex of the 2 parents. What's important is for kids to see a committed, loving couple that shares both the richness and the pain of family life in constructive ways, including raising and caring about the kids. The home role model of how to function with another person in a complex, long-lasting relationship is crucial to how they will treat others in their own relationships as adults. I know many couples who provide that, whether straight or gay. And I would hazard a guess that many of the gay couples have provided a better example of loyalty to their partner because of the hardship over the last 20-30 years in remaining a couple as attitudes have changed. To have grown up with social adversity around them and see their parents be themselves and love their partner despite condemnation is a powerful, positive influence. (30 years max because it was nearly impossible for gays to have children in the home before that, whether adopted, live-in biologicals, whatever.)

See, now it's things like that that are clearly guesses that make no sense and try to set one decision above another, or at least set apart one group's suffering from another. It never rang true to me, and it never made sense. Sure, it's great that a child is exposed to what loyalty looks like, but homosexual parents have no monopoly on modeling it just because of the current political momentum.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not necessarily against homosexual parents but there's nothing about it that makes it any different from any other kind of parenting. If you're trying to say that there is, then one way is necessarily better than the other, and I don't think that's what you mean.

Any parents - single, homosexual, heterosexual - all face unique obstacles and hardships and prejudices - and yes, shortfalls - whether favored in the current political environment or not, and they all have chances to set a good example or not. Setting one kind apart, or setting one kind of hardship/shortfall as more difficult than others, is the height of arrogance. Bullying and how it's handled by parents can be equally damaging to any household - rich or poor, homosexual or heterosexual, whatever.

Loyalty is certainly a positive model, and being homosexual parents *might* give them more opportunity to model it well for children. But it most certainly does NOT mean that 1) those homosexual parents will model it well given their (ostensibly) more frequent opportunities; 2) a child where it's modeled less frequently fails to follow the model; 3) a gazillion other factors.

Trying to set homosexual parents apart in this regard simply reflects a remarkable arrogance/dis-ingenuousness, or maybe a weird need to validate a pre-held political position, or maybe even an effort to be "cool." I don't know you, so I'm not guessing. But geez louise, this relentless politicizing of the topic is old and transparent ... not to mention utterly disregarding the welfare of the child.

I'm not a psychologist or anthropologist, so wanted to emphasize that I'm making a guess, not trying to be an authority, or even setting apart anybody. I am saying that seeing adults work their way successfully through adversity is a positive example to set for kids. And until recently (though even now), that's been the environment around a family unit with two same-sex parents.

What gets said about one group isn't necessarily at the expense of another. It does mean that growing up in that family unit can have some positives, including those common to any two-parent household; it doesn't have to be inferior to growing up in other family configurations by definition. You mischaracterize me completely in the last paragraph. And you betray a strong bias when you say "utterly disregarding the welfare of the child". Who are you to say anyone else's family structure is bad for a child, just because it isn't yours? The arrogance is in anyone's blatant superior attitude when judging others.

I think most gay parents will tell you they hope their kids don't turn out to be gay. They don't want their kids to have to go through what they've had to go through.

Well luckily being homosexual or heterosexual is genetic so you can be raised by 20 gay men or a straight couple or in an orphanage and it will not even slightly change the chances of the outcome of your adult sexuality.

Really the only thing that matters is any study so far is that being raised by two responsible, attentive parents is positive for the children (single parents of any gender or sexuality are at a disadvantage). Sexuality and gender of the parents is virtually irrelevant to both the welfare and sexual outcome.
The reason that I say homosexual marriage is positive for children because it gives a new pool of couple to take children from orphanages and they can't procreate so it will help lower the population.

For me, it appears to me that some men are just made that way. I have a gay first cousin and I know for sure he was'nt raised in an atmosphere that would make him gay. I think he was just born that way. And I can tell you that this tough ass heterosexual still loves his cousin and doesn't want to see him discriminated againt in any form. I'm not really sure about the women. They seem to make moves in and out of homosexuality. Ann Heche comes to mind.

I am not familiar with who that is, I am assuming a celebrity of some kind.
But it sounds like she is probably bisexual and just labels herself as homosexual or heterosexual depending on who she is dating/ sleeping with.

But its great that you are accepting of your cousin, usually people who have gay friends or family become a lot more open minded because they realize that being gay is not a big deal and it certainly does make you any better or worse of a person, or really different in any social way, other than who you sleep with.

Quote: Gandler

Quote: mickeycrimm

Quote: beachbumbabs

Quote: MrWarmth

Quote: beachbumbabs

Gotta disagree with this one. What's important is not the sex of the 2 parents. What's important is for kids to see a committed, loving couple that shares both the richness and the pain of family life in constructive ways, including raising and caring about the kids. The home role model of how to function with another person in a complex, long-lasting relationship is crucial to how they will treat others in their own relationships as adults. I know many couples who provide that, whether straight or gay. And I would hazard a guess that many of the gay couples have provided a better example of loyalty to their partner because of the hardship over the last 20-30 years in remaining a couple as attitudes have changed. To have grown up with social adversity around them and see their parents be themselves and love their partner despite condemnation is a powerful, positive influence. (30 years max because it was nearly impossible for gays to have children in the home before that, whether adopted, live-in biologicals, whatever.)

See, now it's things like that that are clearly guesses that make no sense and try to set one decision above another, or at least set apart one group's suffering from another. It never rang true to me, and it never made sense. Sure, it's great that a child is exposed to what loyalty looks like, but homosexual parents have no monopoly on modeling it just because of the current political momentum.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not necessarily against homosexual parents but there's nothing about it that makes it any different from any other kind of parenting. If you're trying to say that there is, then one way is necessarily better than the other, and I don't think that's what you mean.

Any parents - single, homosexual, heterosexual - all face unique obstacles and hardships and prejudices - and yes, shortfalls - whether favored in the current political environment or not, and they all have chances to set a good example or not. Setting one kind apart, or setting one kind of hardship/shortfall as more difficult than others, is the height of arrogance. Bullying and how it's handled by parents can be equally damaging to any household - rich or poor, homosexual or heterosexual, whatever.

Loyalty is certainly a positive model, and being homosexual parents *might* give them more opportunity to model it well for children. But it most certainly does NOT mean that 1) those homosexual parents will model it well given their (ostensibly) more frequent opportunities; 2) a child where it's modeled less frequently fails to follow the model; 3) a gazillion other factors.

Trying to set homosexual parents apart in this regard simply reflects a remarkable arrogance/dis-ingenuousness, or maybe a weird need to validate a pre-held political position, or maybe even an effort to be "cool." I don't know you, so I'm not guessing. But geez louise, this relentless politicizing of the topic is old and transparent ... not to mention utterly disregarding the welfare of the child.

I'm not a psychologist or anthropologist, so wanted to emphasize that I'm making a guess, not trying to be an authority, or even setting apart anybody. I am saying that seeing adults work their way successfully through adversity is a positive example to set for kids. And until recently (though even now), that's been the environment around a family unit with two same-sex parents.

What gets said about one group isn't necessarily at the expense of another. It does mean that growing up in that family unit can have some positives, including those common to any two-parent household; it doesn't have to be inferior to growing up in other family configurations by definition. You mischaracterize me completely in the last paragraph. And you betray a strong bias when you say "utterly disregarding the welfare of the child". Who are you to say anyone else's family structure is bad for a child, just because it isn't yours? The arrogance is in anyone's blatant superior attitude when judging others.

I think most gay parents will tell you they hope their kids don't turn out to be gay. They don't want their kids to have to go through what they've had to go through.

Well luckily being homosexual or heterosexual is genetic so you can be raised by 20 gay men or a straight couple or in an orphanage and it will not even slightly change the chances of the outcome of your adult sexuality.

Really the only thing that matters is any study so far is that being raised by two responsible, attentive parents is positive for the children (single parents of any gender or sexuality are at a disadvantage). Sexuality and gender of the parents is virtually irrelevant to both the welfare and sexual outcome.
The reason that I say homosexual marriage is positive for children because it gives a new pool of couple to take children from orphanages and they can't procreate so it will help lower the population.

+1. Thank you for re-stating what I'm trying to say in a way that might clarify matters.

Quote: petroglyph

It doesn't seem to matter much which news source you prefer here in the States, we are now ranked 49th in press freedom behind Niger, Botswana and Chile.

They call that the art of politics. Huck Finn stuff.

Someday we'll all be reminiscing about the good old days when others oppressed us.

Quote: Gandler

I am guessing (after seeing who runs that site) a major factor is America's legal attack on news people who publish classified information?

My guess is, very little of "the news" is really about objectively informing the population, it would be more aptly described as "perception management".

Watch cnn stateside or CNN in Qatar. It is two very different takes on the same events. The vast majority of media is owned by 6 corporations. That is who controls the message that the workaday-Johnny's receive in their otherwise busy lives. Watching "the news" is all anybody has time for.

Quote:

For all intents and purposes we do have freedom of speech and press.

The "presstitutes" don't even have freedom of the press. If you were any of the big 3, how long do you think you would have access to POTUS briefings if you asked questions that they found extremely uncomfortable? Ask VP Biden "did your son really get to be CFO of the Ukraine energy company" purely on merit, and see how many more times you get invited.

The debating points allowed on national television are agreed to by the candidates before the debates take place. Haven't you ever wondered why during '08 election, Hillary wasn't lambasted about her "ducking for fire from a hail of bullets" on the tarmac? The "issues" that will be debated during a campaign are all agreed to, but are never the ones I want debated, how about anyone else? It is always the same things mildly reworded. The issues are education, crime, the economy, social security. It never changes, regardless of party. Oh, there is always the one about lowering taxes, what a joke. The debate they are actually having is really about reducing the rate of increase in taxes, not, reducing taxes. I can't afford another reduction, the way they are enacted.

Quote:

I actually think intellectual property laws need to be more strictly enforced

Quit drinking the kool-aid.

Apple seems to have protected their tech for a long time. Don't put the onus on the kid in his parents basement for stealing music that has been broadcast out over the airwaves. Apple, or MS are fully capable of protecting themselves. They can legally listen to my phone conversations, hack into my email and attach cookies and ads, and buy politicians whose lobbyists write and produce laws that protect "the bigs".

They own and control the internet. Think about it. For Chrissake, somebody look out for the little guy.

Quote:

Internet Piracy is a major problem that needs to be harshly cracked down on.

OMG, There is no original thought, there are only patents on thoughts that have already been in play. The laws they want passed would make it illegal for me to "hum a tune" that I had heard on the radio, without first paying a vig. You want to let them claim everything including water and air and everyone have to pay them to use it, that's ridiculous.

If you get bored sometime look into who owns the airwaves, how can someone else own a frequency that has been around since the big bang? The feds own the rain. They also own us, although slavery was "abolished", heh heh.

It is like Monsanto being allowed to patent the seeds in the "seed bank" of the world. The pollen from their Frankenseeds drifts into an heirloom cornfield and they sue and put the farmer out of business, just for using his own seeds. Whereas in reality, Monsanto should have been made to control their GMO pollen. You are willing to allow control by the PTB. Where is the freedom? What good is the internet if there is not free access for the world. Otherwise it is just more "opinion assistance" for those that have a product to sell.

It really doesn't matter, the fix is in. We are just haggling over the details.

Quote: Kerkebet

They call that the art of politics. Huck Finn stuff.

Someday we'll all be reminiscing about the good old days when others oppressed us.

I wish I disagreed, or at least "didn't get it".

Quote: petroglyph

My guess is, very little of "the news" is really about objectively informing the population, it would be more aptly described as "perception management".

Watch cnn stateside or CNN in Qatar. It is two very different takes on the same events. The vast majority of media is owned by 6 corporations. That is who controls the message that the workaday-Johnny's receive in their otherwise busy lives. Watching "the news" is all anybody has time for.

The "presstitutes" don't even have freedom of the press. If you were any of the big 3, how long do you think you would have access to POTUS briefings if you asked questions that they found extremely uncomfortable? Ask VP Biden "did your son really get to be CFO of the Ukraine energy company" purely on merit, and see how many more times you get invited.

While I don't disagree completely. It is woth adding that even if 6 corporations control much of the mainstream news, that is still 6 different people competing with each other. But even more so the Internet allows anyone to post what they discover.

But the big point is that you can write almost anything that you like. Even if companies choose not to, then that is their choice. But there is not some legal blanket forcing them to write or not write.

Quote:

The debating points allowed on national television are agreed to by the candidates before the debates take place. Haven't you ever wondered why during '08 election, Hillary wasn't lambasted about her "ducking for fire from a hail of bullets" on the tarmac? The "issues" that will be debated during a campaign are all agreed to, but are never the ones I want debated, how about anyone else? It is always the same things mildly reworded. The issues are education, crime, the economy, social security. It never changes, regardless of party. Oh, there is always the one about lowering taxes, what a joke. The debate they are actually having is really about reducing the rate of increase in taxes, not, reducing taxes. I can't afford another reduction, the way they are enacted.

.

This is a good point and I don't disagree. But it's not hugely relevant to the issue as a whole. It's just the people who make the debates want an organized format to maximize time on the key issues. Crime education and economy are all major issues most people care about.

Quote:

Quit drinking the kool-aid.

Apple seems to have protected their tech for a long time. Don't put the onus on the kid in his parents basement for stealing music that has been broadcast out over the airwaves. Apple, or MS are fully capable of protecting themselves. They can legally listen to my phone conversations, hack into my email and attach cookies and ads, and buy politicians whose lobbyists write and produce laws that protect "the bigs".

They own and control the internet. Think about it. For Chrissake, somebody look out for the little guy. OMG, There is no original thought, there are only patents on thoughts that have already been in play. The laws they want passed would make it illegal for me to "hum a tune" that I had heard on the radio, without first paying a vig. You want to let them claim everything including water and air and everyone have to pay them to use it, that's ridiculous.

If you get bored sometime look into who owns the airwaves, how can someone else own a frequency that has been around since the big bang? The feds own the rain. They also own us, although slavery was "abolished", heh heh.

They can do that because the tiny print in the phone agreement that nobody reads allows such things.

Look out for the little guy you say? Try being a nationwide band who is known but not huge or rich. They now have to tour endlessly to make up the money they lost to piracy. Nobody has a right to somebody else's work.

Do you own land? By your logic, land has been here since earths formation. So I have every right to trespass through your land as I please.

Quote:

It is like Monsanto being allowed to patent the seeds in the "seed bank" of the world. The pollen from their Frankenseeds drifts into an heirloom cornfield and they sue and put the farmer out of business, just for using his own seeds. Whereas in reality, Monsanto should have been made to control their GMO pollen. You are willing to allow control by the PTB. Where is the freedom? What good is the internet if there is not free access for the world. Otherwise it is just more "opinion assistance" for those that have a product to sell.

It really doesn't matter, the fix is in. We are just haggling over the details.

GMOSs do endless amounts of good for the world. Monsanto has every right to protect their work as do all scientific and academic scholars.

Everyone has access to the Internet. Just like everyone has access to public streets. You just can't use them to engage in illegal activities or robbery.

Quote: Twirdman

Not only do Republicans not ever put forth raising taxes on the rich

Because they are ALREADY high. If you tally up FICA/Medicare/Federal/State/Real Estate/Local school/Sales taxes I pay well over 50%, probably 60% of my annual salary in taxes. Please tell me what the 'fair' amount for me to pay is?

Quote: SOOPOO

Because they are ALREADY high. If you tally up FICA/Medicare/Federal/State/Real Estate/Local school/Sales taxes I pay well over 50%, probably 60% of my annual salary in taxes. Please tell me what the 'fair' amount for me to pay is?

No idea, but the top end of the income spectrum in the US is excessively taxed -compared to- the middle.

The tax laws in the US are broken, but no-one will fix them, as they will loose the key swinging voters.

Quote: thecesspit

No idea, but the top end of the income spectrum in the US is excessively taxed -compared to- the middle.

The tax laws in the US are broken, but no-one will fix them, as they will loose the key swinging voters.

Warren Buffet has claimed he pays less taxes than his secretary.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/04/news/economy/buffett-secretary-taxes/

Quote: SOOPOO

Because they are ALREADY high. If you tally up FICA/Medicare/Federal/State/Real Estate/Local school/Sales taxes I pay well over 50%, probably 60% of my annual salary in taxes. Please tell me what the 'fair' amount for me to pay is?

Then the fact of the matter is you are no where near rich. FICA/Medicare have a cap well below what one would consider rich so in all honesty really don't put a dent as a percentage of tax bill for the ultra wealthy payroll taxes are 7.5% of the first 117 thousand move up to even 1 million dollars again hardly ultra wealthy but good enough, it is less then 1% even assuming you are self employed and have to pay the entire amount you are talking about only 1.7%. Again sales tax can largely be ignored since its almost always less then 10% and ultra wealthy spend very little percentage of their income per year. The Federal rate is just under 40% and California state tax is one of the highest at 12.3% so you are sitting at maybe 54% as someone of decent levels of wealth might move up slightly depending on the property of his home but to get anywhere near 60% a rich person would have to have an outrageously expensive home. This complete ignores the fact a significant portion of the ultrawealthy peoples income is in the form of capital gains which are taxed at 20% so someone who is actually rich and not merely decently well off has a tax liability probably significantly under 40% when all taxers are combined and is probably under 35%. This comes from the 20% capital gains+12.3% state+maybe 1% property tax.

The taxed enough already crowd is ridiculous since tax rates are significantly lower then they have been in literally close to a century.

Quote: rxwine

Warren Buffet has claimed he pays less taxes than his secretary.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/04/news/economy/buffett-secretary-taxes/

Warren Buffet is a hypocrite. He cries he should be paying more in taxes yet isn't he making a so-called "inversion" to avoid a higher tax rate?

If all these people from Buffet to Obama who claimed they should be paying more taxes would put forth a "Gift to the Treasury," something anyone could do, then I would listen to them. Otherwise they are oafs who like to brag about how much money they have, one of the lowest-class things you can do IMHO.

Quote: thecesspit

No idea, but the top end of the income spectrum in the US is excessively taxed -compared to- the middle.

The tax laws in the US are broken, but no-one will fix them, as they will loose the key swinging voters.

Well this is false the top 400 earners pay significantly less then most people http://www.foreffectivegov.org/blog/400-richest-americans-paid-same-effective-tax-rate-family-earning-105000 . Heck even if you only look at those earning over 1 million they have a federal tax rate of 24.6% higher then those earning less then them but hardly excessive and once you get a decent bit above that 1 million line people earning more pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes then people earning less then them. Heck the 18% for the top 400 earners is less then is paid by those earning 200-500k http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2012/04/18/the-real-tax-rates-of-the-rich/ . Add this to the fact that state taxes tend to be regressive and by that I mean in every state the amount paid by the bottom 20% is less then the amount paid by the top 1% when you account for state, local, property, and sales tax in some cases being as bad as Washington where for the bottom 20% the combined tax is 16.8 compared to 2.4%. Add in the fact you have payroll taxes being a far more significant portion of the bottom 20% earners paycheck and in some states you arguably have people in the bottom 20% paying less in taxes then those earning a million plus a year.

Missed citation for regressiveness of state taxes http://www.itep.org/pdf/whopaysreport.pdf

I think charitable donations are much more effective than gifts to the treasury.

Quote: AZDuffman

Warren Buffet is a hypocrite. He cries he should be paying more in taxes yet isn't he making a so-called "inversion" to avoid a higher tax rate?

If all these people from Buffet to Obama who claimed they should be paying more taxes would put forth a "Gift to the Treasury," something anyone could do, then I would listen to them. Otherwise they are oafs who like to brag about how much money they have, one of the lowest-class things you can do IMHO.

If something is right, it is either right or it isn't. I'm not sure if it ever matters who says it at least as far as the truth goes. (tried to think of example but couldn't)

A hypocrite says 2+2=4 doesn't make it wrong.

Doesn't matter if someone beats their children and advocates that all people shouldn't beat their children. It doesn't mean you should beat your children until they set an example.

Quote: rxwine

If something is right, it is either right or it isn't. I'm not sure if it ever matters who says it at least as far as the truth goes. (tried to think of example but couldn't)

A hypocrite says 2+2=4 doesn't make it wrong.

Doesn't matter if someone beats their children and advocates that all people shouldn't beat their children. It doesn't mean you should beat your children until they set an example.

First of all, why are high taxes "right?"

Second, the point is all these rich folks who supposedly want to pay higher taxes are free to do so, yet you never hear of any that do.

Never understood why not rich people think raising taxes on the rich is such a bad idea. They must honestly believe, against all odds, that they will all be rich very soon. Yes, of course the solution is that the rich just voluntarily pay more taxes...in fact it'll probably be a competition to see who will voluntarily pay the most. Ridiculous. The rich pay less as a percentage than a $20K earner. GE pays the same as an intermittent nonfiler.

Quote: Sonuvabish

Never understood why not rich people think raising taxes on the rich is such a bad idea. They must honestly believe, against all odds, that they will all be rich very soon. Yes, of course the solution is that the rich just voluntarily pay more taxes...in fact it'll probably be a competition to see who will voluntarily pay the most. Ridiculous. The rich pay less as a percentage than a $20K earner. GE pays the same as an intermittent nonfiler.

A 20K filer pays pretty close to zero if not zero. If they have kids it will be zero and really be negative when you get refundable credits like the EIC which is the biggest.

As to why the "not rich think it is a bad idea" well because in my case when the government steals money from rich people then they have that much less to drill gas wells and have parties with casino nights for their employees or each other.

I will, though, say it again. Instead of Obama and Buffet bragging about how much money they have and "they could pay more if only taxes would be raised!" all they need to do is write a check.

Quote: AZDuffman

A 20K filer pays pretty close to zero if not zero. If they have kids it will be zero and really be negative when you get refundable credits like the EIC which is the biggest.

As to why the "not rich think it is a bad idea" well because in my case when the government steals money from rich people then they have that much less to drill gas wells and have parties with casino nights for their employees or each other.

I will, though, say it again. Instead of Obama and Buffet bragging about how much money they have and "they could pay more if only taxes would be raised!" all they need to do is write a check.

20-25K earners, with no kids, don't pay zero. They pay about 12%. Plus state. Why would they pay zero. That's not a question, there isn't an answer.

So basically, not taxing the rich is good because of trickle down economics. I've heard this a lot from Republicans over the years, but every economist knows it's BS. The rich keep the extra savings for themselves. They don't hand it out to the poor. But they do outsource to cheap markets when creating jobs. When the rich were taxed at 90%, the economy did well. They never paid 90%, they paid far less, just like they do now. But back then, they never paid 0%. I'm not gonna argue with you, I remember you got like every Fox tagline in your arsenal, hopelessly conflated with fact. Bye

Quote: Twirdman

Then the fact of the matter is you are no where near rich. FICA/Medicare have a cap well below what one would consider rich so in all honesty really don't put a dent as a percentage of tax bill for the ultra wealthy payroll taxes are 7.5% of the first 117 thousand move up to even 1 million dollars again hardly ultra wealthy but good enough, it is less then 1% even assuming you are self employed and have to pay the entire amount you are talking about only 1.7%. Again sales tax can largely be ignored since its almost always less then 10% and ultra wealthy spend very little percentage of their income per year. The Federal rate is just under 40% and California state tax is one of the highest at 12.3% so you are sitting at maybe 54% as someone of decent levels of wealth might move up slightly depending on the property of his home but to get anywhere near 60% a rich person would have to have an outrageously expensive home. This complete ignores the fact a significant portion of the ultrawealthy peoples income is in the form of capital gains which are taxed at 20% so someone who is actually rich and not merely decently well off has a tax liability probably significantly under 40% when all taxers are combined and is probably under 35%. This comes from the 20% capital gains+12.3% state+maybe 1% property tax.

The taxed enough already crowd is ridiculous since tax rates are significantly lower then they have been in literally close to a century.

I can assure you that well over 90% of Americans would classify me as rich. I think surveys of anesthesiologist give us an average income of around $350k per year. So I'll use that as a hypothetical without specifically mentioning my income. As a private corporation I was responsible for both halves of FICA, so that comes out to around $20k per year. There is NO CAP on Medicare tax, which I also have to pay both halves, so thats another $10k per year. Federal tax is around 35%, so thats around $120 per year. State tax is around 8%, another $28k per year. Real estate taxes around $14k per year. If I spend $80k per year on stuff, thats around $7k per year in sales taxes. There are a few thousand dollars in license fees that the government siphons from me as well. So out of 350 taxes will eat up around $209.

I understand no one will be shedding tears for me. I guess I will agree with you on this point.... Tax the 'super rich' more.... If you make over 10 million a year snag an extra 10%. Over $20 million an extra 20%. There.... I've fixed the tax code.... But don't ever tell me that I am undertaxed.

Quote: AZDuffman

First of all, why are high taxes "right?" Second, the point is all these rich folks who supposedly want to pay higher taxes are free to do so, yet you never hear of any that do.

That is not what I was arguing, I'm just trying to show why someone who does or doesn't do something doesn't necessarily invalidate their claim.

Anyway, they aren't proposing more rich people "volunteer" to pay taxes. That's what you said. That's not what they said, so they aren't being hypocrites. They want the rich (or ultra rich) to have to pay more, in a mandatory way in the tax structure. Now if they said they want other rich people to pay more except them, then they would be hypocrites.

Quote: rxwine

Anyway, they aren't proposing more rich people "volunteer" to pay taxes. That's what you said. That's not what they said, so they aren't being hypocrites. They want the rich (or ultra rich) to have to pay more, in a mandatory way in the tax structure. Now if they said they want other rich people to pay more except them, then they would be hypocrites.

Sorry, but as I see it they claim to want to pay more but choose not to do so.

Quote: Sonuvabish

20-25K earners, with no kids, don't pay zero. They pay about 12%. Plus state. Why would they pay zero. That's not a question, there isn't an answer.

The top 50% pay 97% of all Federal taxes with the top 1% paying 39%. So we already have a very "progressive" system. A $20K earner will have the Standard Deduction of $6,200 plus $3,950 in personal exemptions for an AGI of lets just round it to $11,000 though it is a little lower. Rounding down, $9,000 taxed at 10% is $900 plus $2,000 at 15% for $300 and a total Federal liability of $1,200. $1,200/20,000 = 6%!

Of course that all assumes the filer qualifies for no other credits, which will probably not be the case. EIC and other credits will easily get that to zero of a negative tax rate via refundable credit.

Quote:

The rich keep the extra savings for themselves. They don't hand it out to the poor.

Some will give more charity to the poor, in fact many more will. The ones that "keep it" will invest it one way or the other. Some will drill a gas well and hire me! Some will open a new dry-cleaner location. Some will buy another vehicle for themselves. Some will have a pool put in. All of that generates jobs. Now, if by "not working" you mean they do not stand on a corner handing out money, well then yes, that does not happen.

Quote:

When the rich were taxed at 90%, the economy did well.

Not from where I see. Much of that "doing well" was two wars. In 1958 the economy crashed terribly, when the war was over but the high tax rates were still there.

Quote:

But back then, they never paid 0%.

They don't pay 0% now, they carry country.

Quote: SOOPOO

I can assure you that well over 90% of Americans would classify me as rich. I think surveys of anesthesiologist give us an average income of around $350k per year.

Wow, you make more than my family
doc who is 60, and a nephrologist to
boot. He makes around $300K a year
and complains about being broke. Of
course, there is the nasty divorce 3
years ago..