Well said.....now let's stop the BS

ranbrow123 wrote:

tristen303 wrote:They just know the spin and and are the 42% always on the dole they are irrelevnet to the GOP.

I assume with your "42% always on the dole" comment, you're making reference to the whole "a bunch of people don't pay taxes" conservative talking point.

In that case, this might interest you.

http://www.politicususa.com/en/half-americans-taxes

About half of taxpayers paid no federal income tax last year. It does not mean they paid no tax at all. Many shelled out Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. In fact, only 14 percent of Americans didn’t pay either income or payroll taxes. Some paid property taxes and, it is fair to say, just about all of them paid sales taxes of one kind or another. So to say they pay no taxes is flat wrong.

However, this class warfare-like rhetoric plays to a perception that the income tax is a chump tax: Only hard-working folks like us pay it. The welfare queens don’t. The super-rich don’t. It is a powerful emotional argument. It is also flat wrong.

The actual number of Americans who don’t pay any taxes isn’t half, but 14%. This group of non-taxpayers of any kind is largely composed of the elderly and disabled. The people who don’t pay taxes do so because they can’t work.

Maybe you should use facts then Joan since you seem to have missed the above and now both of you have changed the argument from whether or not that bill is flawed to the breakdown of non-tax paying individuals, completely glossing over the real argument and the truth.

Quoting a liberal think tank (arguing only the side of argument that you can frame) is almost as laughable as if I used Fox news to counter.

How about this, why do they not pay taxes and then what percentage actually gets money back too. I’ll show the part of your data you left out and bites both ways using your source.

Here is your source with the story complete
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/08/john-cornyn/john-cornyn-says-51-percent-american-households-pa/

Here’s why
http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2011/07/27/why-do-some-people-pay-no-federal-income-tax/

Now you should hop back on the moral side of the argument (since the facts breakdown how and why), this is the Dem pool.

SO is the bill flawed based off the previous presented data and do those numbers (in the poll) not reflect the Dem pool (which would never vote Repub because it is not in their best interests to do so). So those agreeing with the President are then what? His base lol.

This is why nothing gets done both sides frame polls to promote that the majority of us are on their side. We’re not, we didn’t get polled, and they used their base to look like the MAJROTY of us was with them or moving in that direction.

Skewed data to justify actions…silly

tristen303 wrote:both of you have changed the argument from whether or not that bill is flawed to the breakdown of non-tax paying individuals, completely glossing over the real argument and the truth.

I'm not having any argument about the bill with you. I honestly don't know enough about the pipeline to know whether it would be a good thing or not. I'm just pointing out the irony of you accusing someone of spin while quoting some spin of your own. In the exact same sentence, for that matter!

tristen303 wrote:Quoting a liberal think tank (arguing only the side of argument that you can frame) is almost as laughable as if I used Fox news to counter.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a liberal think tank to point out sales tax, which turns out to be a clear and undeniable example of how everyone pays taxes. Well, okay, technically almost everyone. I suppose some people might not buy anything that isn't food in a given year.

tristen303 wrote:How about this, why do they not pay taxes and then what percentage actually gets money back too. I’ll show the part of your data you left out and bites both ways using your source.

Here is your source with the story complete
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/08/john-cornyn/john-cornyn-says-51-percent-american-households-pa/

Here’s why
http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2011/07/27/why-do-some-people-pay-no-federal-income-tax

Are you aware that my argument is "paying no income tax is not the same as paying no taxes period." Because all your links back me up. Awkward.

Your argument is following the same logic as Clintons was that "He did not have sex with that woman" based off the definition of sex.

The links demonstrated the demographics of the group that doesn't pay taxes. Take those percentages and relate them to the Dem base and the argument about who supports the bill (as well as demonstrating what said gropu doesn't). Your defense "Sales tax"?

SO to your point everyone pays some type of sales tax, but as your source stated claiming that everyone pays or doesn’t pay taxes depends on the facts or verbiage you choose to use.

On a side note It's funny when the argument about how much the rich pay in taxes is brought up and your logic is used to show their true tax rate is higher, that argument is discounted as irrelevant (due to the fact that sales tax etc. are not part of any tax discussion).

The discussion about tax rate has never been about sales tax etc. (but please as a conservative thank you for bringing that up, it’s a big issue of ours). It’s about the tax structure that the Federal Government controls (see I can choose to buy things, Fed interference by voting money through redistribution eliminates that freedom).
Your attempts at using verbiage to discredit fact (just as your source tried) are amusing (while still ignoring the overall discussion).

Here’s some stuff to add to your “verbiage” should we turn the discussion to net tax or gross tax? (And FYI sales tax in some intsances can be deductible) or maybe since you like verbiage so much how about we define “tax”.

Don't attribute arguments to me that I never made. All I said is that the radical Republicans in the House want to cut UC. Which is true. No dodge, no spin. They would want to cut it whether or not it was paid for because they don't believe in it.

And tristen, all you're doing is whistling in the dark because your side* is reeling from a self-inflicted wound that just may put them out of our misery. That is, if the Democrats don't yet again figure out some way to capitulate to these evil @$$ clowns.

*I never did buy that brief conversion.

Ok, and I may be conservative but I've been a regs. Dem now for months (I’m in recovery so to speak). As for the Repubs, their lack of principles got them in that mess, and then they used principles to get them out.
One can only hope that thye continue down that path; America needs something substantial instead of crumbs and speeches.

I was going to respond to tristen's post with counter-arguments, but then I thought back to something I read about a couple days ago called the Backfire Effect.

The Backfire Effect basically says that when presented with evidence that conflicts with someone's beliefs, instead of them taking it into account and using the information to adjust their own opinion (as we'd all like to believe they will), they actually just become more attached to their beliefs. I probably butchered that explanation a little bit, but I'll include the link if anyone wants to read about it.

http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/

Very interesting read, and you can derive from it a simple theory that arguing on the internet is pointless, because nobody is going to change their mind. In fact, it might be worse than pointless if your goal is to try and change people's minds, because it only causes them to cling to their beliefs even more strongly. Basically, the more you think about it, the more strongly you believe.

I'm not saying this about tristen only, by the way. I'm sure I and many others also fall victim to this effect at some time or another.

Another thing a lot of us (all of us?) have probably been guilty of at one time or another is confirmation bias. That one you can google, it seems to be more common knowledge than the Backfire Effect, so I won't bother explaining it here.

I would encourage anyone who is interested to look up various cognitive biases. I've been doing it in an effort to help myself become more objective, and I've fallen prey to more of them than I am comfortable admitting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

Dude you either give me way to much credit or think to much, good read though

tristen303 wrote:Dude you either give me way to much credit or think to much, good read though

Yeah I definitely think a lot. I'm an over-analyzer to the core, always looking for a greater understanding.

How's this for sick? Have you ever read about something, then noticed it everywhere. That's what I've been doing with these cognitive biases, but guess what? That itself is a probability bias called the Frequency Illusion.

Basically, something heightens your attention to a particular thing, so you start to "see" it everywhere, when in fact all that is happening is you're noticing it more then you would have had you not been aware of it to begin with.

So it's not that I read about it and now it's popping up everywhere, it's that it's been happening around me the whole time and I just haven't noticed it.

Yeah, like if you read about how noses work, and then it seems like just about everyone you meet has a nose.