MACS wrote:I agree it is an over simplification.
But #10 - Do they not do this? They do. It's hypocritical.
They do. Both parties do. Hell, the tea partiers do. So does every fund raiser everywhere around the world, including Canada. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's irrelevant.
Quote:
#9 - I'm not going to say racism does not exist, but with affirmative action it is no longer a valid excuse. One doesn't have to look any further than the White House to see that.
BS. Racism goes way beyond affirmative action or a president. Racism in the US is a horrendously complex issue, which you're guaranteed to be wrong on if you simplify it into one sentence. The author was very crafty in phrasing it. They phrase it as "the us gov't discriminates" while then pulling in issues surrounding institutionalized racism. If they're called on it, all they say is "I never said racism is gone, just that the US gov't doesn't discriminate". I'm actually not sure I recall the last time anyone said "the US gov't discriminated"... They're using intentionally misdirecting phrasing.
Quote:
#8 - Is this not true?
Geithner, meh... looks like essentially an accounting error (he's a finance guy, not an accountant). His employer did not perform W2 withholding, and he failed to account for it instead assuming it had been disbursed already. Not really something a rational person would make political hay over.
Rangel, yeah. It looks like he tried to hide some income.
But more importantly... No, the statement isn't true. Do you really think it's "only in america" that a politician will suggest more taxes are necessary while at the same time trying to minimize their own exposure? It's only in these one-sentence simplifications that we don't try to look at whether our politicians are acting better or worse than the rest of the world, or whether one party is acting better or worse.
Quote:
#7 - Meh. I'm not going to say the media has been apologetic for muslims, and I get that one bad apple shouldn't ruin the bunch, but look at the history of terrorism and who is to blame for most of it?
.... middle class white males. They're the ones behind most of it. The muslims got really lucky on one big one. But even if we accept that the muslim groups are your cause of most terrorism... my point still stands, the situation was much more complex than "the media and liberals react by fretting that Muslims might be harmed by the backlash". Do you really think that's all the media and the liberals were concerned with? Yet the simplification is trying to draw a picture that terrorists attacked, and then all the news stations broadcast "what about the poor muslims".
Quote:
#6 - This hits close to home. I did a mountain of paperwork and paid all kinds of fees to have my wife gain her citizenship the RIGHT way. Illegal immigrants deserve nothing, NOTHING but punishment for breaking our laws. Period.
And who's arguing illegal immigrants should automatically become citizens? I'm pretty sure our existing president isn't suggesting it, nor do I think our congress is. So who is? And if they are, what requirements are they attaching to this? And if they aren't, are we really using some fringe group's request to define what "only in america" is? Because I could find some real fun other fringe groups we can now define as "only in america".
Quote:
#5 - Tea Party... extremists? Right wing nut jobs? Isn't their agenda a balanced budget and for the gov't to follow the constitution?
Funny how simplifying something into a single sentence completely loses the character of the argument, isn't it. Tea Partiers and Rightwing nutjobs ARE both extremists AND "have an agenda for a balanced budget". But those two things don't necessarily stem from the same basis. If an idiot is running down the street screaming that he wants a balanced budget and for the gov't to follow the constitution, while at the same time being butt-naked with a rabbit impaled on his d%ck... you might call him a nutjob. That's not because of the message he's pushing, is it? The tea partiers became extremists for reasons other than their budgetary suggestions.
Quote:
#4 - Is this not true? Were people not outraged when someone brought up requiring a valid ID to vote?
Again, see my argument in post 28. The idea of requiring ID to vote is much more complex than simply "you need it for a car, don't you!!?" To simplify it to a single sentence is to turn a complex, INTERESTING argument (one which I'm not really decided on) into a stupid statement with zero meaning.
Quote:
#3 - I don't know the validity of this one. I do know that California's gas tax is among the highest in the country and it would not surprise me if the state made more profit from a gallon of gas than the oil company did.
Profit???? Come on MACS... this is again where the argument becomes stupid when it's turned into a single sentence. The numbers are about correct (combining state and federal). But the word "profit" is insane. The money collected is put into various state and federal projects. The intention is for the taxes to go to roads.. you know, those things you drive the vehicle on. This is a method for ensuring the people who disproportionately use the roads, pay more for their upkeep. Now this doesn't happen all the time, and budgets get shifted around, so some of the money goes to non-highway use. One could argue this is bad. But, do you see how this is not something that a single sentence could do justice to? They are butchering entire economic theories by calling this "profit" for the government (profit is what's left over after you've spent money on your costs and overhead).
Quote:
#2 - Are we not spending more than we "earn" (by earn I mean rape from the people who actually PAY taxes)
... the only reason this could be "only in america" is because we're the only country pulling in that sort of revenue. Our tax rate as a percentage is not really out of whack with the rest of the world. That means our gov'ts income isn't that unusual (it's just a large number, and people have trouble understanding large numbers) when compared to the rest of the world. For this to be any sort of a point, other countries or other political parties would have to be sitting back saying "nah, I've got plenty of money for my particular pet programs"... funny how that's the last thing you'll ever hear a politician say. So this statement was not only an oversimplification, missing the point, but it's also irrelevant.
Quote:
#1 - I don’t honestly know who pays what in taxes. What I do know is the really rich people can afford accountants to find them as many loopholes in the tax bracket as possible… and the ones at the bottom don’t pay squat; which means the middle class bear the burden. Somebody is shouting that the rich ain’t paying their fair share, but whom? Damn sure ain’t the rich.
Which is why the statement is always going to be irrelevant. The rich everywhere will use loopholes, the poor everywhere will say the rich aren't paying enough. If it doesn't apply specifically to any one country, political group or whatever... then it becomes irrelevant.
Bottom line MACS... it's a stupid set of oversimplified statements which I now feel stupider for having gone through point-for-point. Thanks drafter, for making us all worse off.
