Link
The Autumn Wind
Should we wait til 20k this time or do you just want to post it now?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2013 |OT2| Worth 77% of OT1
- Thread starter The Librarian
- Start date
- Status
The Librarian
Banned
What, you really like the title?
They did give liberal groups some scrutiny, but they also did release the fact that they had specific targeting criteria that was geared towards Tea Party groups but not liberal groups. And keep in mind it's not being a 'political' organization that precludes you from getting tax-exempt status, it's giving 50+% of your budget to campaigns. So some of these tea party groups can legally be tax-exempt.
Of course, they stopped this one-sided criteria and fired people for it long before it was a scandal. It makes no sense that it's a scandal-the IRS made a mistake and handled it internally. But we all know how messed up the right has become.
zero shift
Banned
What's wrong with this claim?
That's the thing, they found a problem and fixed it before anyone even found out. That's why no one really gives a fuck, they fixed it so there's nothing to be outraged over anymore.
The Librarian
Banned
Because you love me!
The Librarian
Banned
:lol
What's wrong with this claim?
It ignores the smaller gap between 1980 and 2010 than between 1967 and 1980, and takes much of the total growth from when there actually was real wage growth in the lower brackets. I'd actually find the omission of 1990 suspicious in this case.
In other words, Reagan sucked.
What's wrong with this claim?
Too bad health care and post-secondary education costs haven't followed inflation rates
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
This. The economy has grown far more then that income has grown proportionally. And sure, it doesn't need to be a perfect match. But the cost of everything is going up, especially healthcare and education.
What's wrong with this claim?
Not to mention that the price of goods and services is much higher now than in 1980.
zero shift
Banned
Is there something that compares inflation rates of income and living expenses?
Gotta love Fox propaganda. The best part is them just showing three random data points, and not the overall trend. Gee, I wonder why that is?
Source: Mother Jones - It's the Inequality, Stupid (Eleven charts that explain what's wrong with America)
Source: Mother Jones - It's the Inequality, Stupid (Eleven charts that explain what's wrong with America)
That part is wrong, but in my opinion the solution is to create more targeting criteria geared towards liberal groups as well, rather than just give up on trying to weed out groups attempting to exploit the tax system.
Maybe every one of those Tea Party groups legitimately deserves the tax exempt status, but I do think it's fair to look into a group a little more if their title is overtly political when politics are not supposed to be their primary function, regardless of what their politics are.
Am I the only one who'd be okay if they impeached Obama? Seriously, Uncle Joe in charge for a couple of years? Wouldn't that be great?
And then he could run again
I'm against it for one simple reason. I don't want the racists in this country to ever have a moment of joy in their lives again. I want them to choke down every last second of two-term Black President.
Joe would be a great President for sure. Wish there was some way to get both him and Hillary in there for four terms before they're both too old.
There's this too. It would be nice if the media took the time to talk about that aspect of this "scandal," but I guess it doesn't fit into their "White House under siege" narrative so it's not worth reporting on.
It seems some establishment Republicans are already attempting to neutralize the more fervid elements of the party. So unless some damning evidence is revealed, they'll simply upbraid the Administration through House committee hearings and the media. Of course, these are Republicans. So they'll probably impeach him.
Hm, yes. Occlude. I find it resonates beautifully, whereas block does not. Block is ugly, yet perfectly cromulent. I frequently use it when discussing football or basketball. And filibuster could be potentially inaccurate. I envision Republicans placing individual holds on the nominees to circumvent Reid's threat, as Graham placed on Obama's recently confirmed Secretary of Energy, yet it could still trigger procedural reform from the Democrats. Who am I kidding? Nothing will trigger procedural reform.
I love Fox's blatant manipulation of data. It's laughably transparent, yet terribly effective. Unless you're a bona fide scientician, that is.
That cannot be real, please tell me it isn't
Based on my calculations, there's an 81% probability it's real and a 53% probability it's fake (see for more examples).
I know it's real...but part of me wants to think they feel shame for doing things like this. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night, shit when I spell check a quote I've been given I feel bad for days. I can't imagine these people sleeping comfortably at night.
empty vessel
Member
Gotta love Fox propaganda. The best part is them just showing three random data points, and not the overall trend. Gee, I wonder why that is?
Source: Mother Jones - It's the Inequality, Stupid (Eleven charts that explain what's wrong with America)
Right. The problem is how income gains were distributed over the time period. Total income grew a hell of a lot more than 17% between 1967 and 2010.
Fox is intentionally deceptive.
Black Mamba
Member
Oh how I hope he and other republicans foolishly vote against aid and pay the price for it.
Probably because 1980 allowed them to show a progression across the full range rather than part of it.
empty vessel
Member
We should levy a special tax on Oklahoma to pay for it. Makes sense!
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
I think getting into the AP/Fox News thing would probably raise the question of "why is this stuff even legal?" with the answer of that question being Bush and the republicans.
It really is annoying that they let so much truly outrageous stuff by while intensely focusing on random other stuff that barely even matters.
That's unfair. Any aid should just be offset by an equal reduction in federal spending!
Black Mamba
Member
Let's compromise and do both.
How about Coburn's salary?
empty vessel
Member
To Oklahoma! It makes perfect sense. We can either:
Levy a tax on Oklahoma in the amount of $X millions and then transfer $X millions to Oklahoma. Or, we can transfer $X millions to Oklahoma and then cut spending to Oklahoma by $X millions.
They will be so appreciative of this federal aid in their time of need.
Why are you asking for the Government to get involved? This should be left up to the private sector.
Mess with your friend and ask him why he doesn't believe in religious freedom.
zero shift
Banned
Gotta love Fox propaganda. The best part is them just showing three random data points, and not the overall trend. Gee, I wonder why that is?
Source: Mother Jones - It's the Inequality, Stupid (Eleven charts that explain what's wrong with America)
To be fair couldn't this be due to more people getting divorced thus more single headed households? In other words what is median personal income over that time period?
empty vessel
Member
No. It's about the distribution of income gains. Consider that GDP is basically the sum of income for a nation. At year 1, GDP is X. At year 2, GDP is X + Y. Y is the gain in total income for the year. Now what we're looking at is the distribution of Y accumulated over the course of several years. You get this:
So the bottom quintile does go up. But unless you're in the most oppressive totalitarian regime imaginable, it can only go up over 40+ years. The question isn't whether it goes up, it's whether it goes up equitably. And clearly it doesn't. If you can imagine, that bottom quintile actually was higher than the top 1% quintile during the 1940's to 1960's.
zero shift
Banned
No. It's about the distribution of income gains. Consider that GDP is basically the sum of income for a nation. At year 1, GDP is X. At year 2, GDP is X + Y. Y is the gain in total income for the year. Now what we're looking at is the distribution of Y accumulated over the course of several years. You get this:
So the bottom quarter does go up. But unless you're in the most oppressive totalitarian regime imaginable, it can only go up over 40+ years. The question isn't whether it goes up, it's whether it goes up equitably. And clearly it doesn't. If you can imagine, that bottom quintile actually was higher than the top 1% quintile during the 1940's to 1960's.
But why exactly should the poorest go up? I agree with what was said a lot in this thread.
If someone can live comfortably if they just cut their beer money or DirecTV then why should income go to them? Why should we give the bottom more money if they have clothes on their backs and food on their stomachs? They have to work to rise up.
empty vessel
Member
They do work, dummy. Much more than the top 1%, too. By definition we're talking about income earners.
zero shift
Banned
How does a CEO work less than a janitor?
Yup, its a whole hell of a lot easier to make money with money than to make money with labor, especially little to no skill labor
Are you kidding? Have you ever been a janitor? What, exactly, do you think a CEO does that's harder than scrubbing floors?
How does the CEO work more? And here is the kicker, exponentially more?
The working poor work HARD in many cases, Literally back breaking labor
- Status