MayfieldFan

This number has been used, going back to Romney’s famous remark, to rationalize that about half the country are slaves to government handouts and, in Romney’s case, to further complain that these people will not vote for a Republican (which makes very little sense and is why, in part, he made these comments in private to a very specific audience). The number is used to impugn these people as good-for-nothing deadbeats when the reality is that almost all of them are working (or are retirees), most probably have kids and own homes, and would otherwise comprise much of the working and lower-middle class (and I wonder how many of these Kentuckians voted for Romney over Obama in 2012?).

 

The question I have for those lamenting this structure is which tax deductions and tax credits do you propose to eliminate? According to Turbo Tax, the biggest tax credits available to most Americans are the EITC (designed to offset payroll taxes, which requires that you be working), continuing education credits, dependent child credits, and retirement savings credits. Possible tax deductions are too numerous to cover, but include those for paying a mortgage, being married, having a kid, paying for education, donating to charity, medical expenses, business expenses, etc.

 

Many (most?) of these deductions and credits have been supported by Republican politicians. No, I’m not pointing fingers here, but lessening Americans’ tax burdens has been part of the Republican economic orthodoxy for decades. The logic from these politicians has been that if people didn’t have to pay so much in taxes they could spend it on productive things that would stimulate the economy. And if we are going to give a big tax cut to the highest earners, we need to give a nice one to the lower classes too, and if you don’t make a lot of money then maybe a slightly lower tax rate won’t register with you as much, so here’re some tax credits to help out instead.

 

Those infuriated by the deadbeat 45-7% are in the tenuous position of arguing for a tax hike on almost half of the citizenry, especially on the working and middle-classes (this did not seem very popular here in the thread on Sander's tax plan), while simultaneously supporting candidates who are proposing dramatic tax cuts across the board (even Cruz’s flat tax plan provides a threshold to keep people from paying taxes through deductions and tax credits up to a certain income level). So, I’m not convinced those incensed are hoping to see taxes raised through the elimination of deductions and credits, but instead use the numbers for some good old fashioned political mudslinging, even if it really isn't connected to reality.

Like post 35 makes sense but it ignores the reality of that 45 percent. But as you point out, perhaps better than I did, that the 45 percent is comprised mostly of working people. So if we are not out to just pick on the working poor, then what is all the hubbub about? Do they want to raise taxes on people who work but yet remain at poverty levels? The whole thing makes no sense unless you just chalk it up to people want to get themselves riled up by complaining about lazy freeloaders.

You remind me of my kids when they had no argument and were caught trying to divert the conversation rather than simply admitting they were wrong. The good old "but he did it too" excuse. Of course they outgrew that at about twelve.

Huh? Whatever. You are right, I am totally wrong. Carry on with your life, it was my mistake to attempt to engage you directly, it won't happen again. Take care!

You really do have trouble staying on topic, but I understand why. It beats dealing with facts, doesn't it? You were wrong, it's ok to admit it, we already know.

Actually, every part of my post was correct, because I paid attention to the words. I said less than 8 percent of the people pay no federal taxes. That's correct.

But if you are so concerned about staying "on topic", why don't you call out all your confederate posters who post about people not working? That there is a group of people who don't pay income tax does not mean they are not working. But for some not-so-strange reason you don't call them out. The whole purpose of this thread is to take a number, post it, and then twist it and launch into a series of diatribes about the working poor.

Likewise, you could have called out all those who post about them "paying no taxes." They do pay taxes. Maybe not Federal Income taxes, but they pay federal taxes, and state taxes.

HRC would be very impressed with how you twist, attack, and bend a "fact" so far that it all becomes a lie.

The topic is federal income taxes, the 45% number is legit.

You say that is the "topic" and certainly made sure to try to get it back on topic. But all these other posts, talking about people not working, and not paying any taxes, they don't get directed back to getting "on topic."

That's because the topic is really just bashing low income people, and telling falsehoods about them, such as they don't work, and don't pay taxes. That's the topic, and it has been a favorite topic of the republican party for a long time.

This is not "true." This is similar to the Romney 47 percent thing and it was not true then either. Most of these people "who are not paying any taxes" are having the taxes deducted from their paychecks. But they count as not "paying tax" and comprise most of that 47, or 45 percent number.

Less than 8 percent of Americans pay no federal taxes at all, and almost all of those are the elderly.

Happy Birthday

That is not true at all. Any firearms instructor will teach that the vast majority of cases, simply drawing the weapon will cause the threat to flee, no need to fire, studies show this to be approx 39 out of 40 cases.

 

Now in this case should grandpa should have pulled? Not being there, hard to say, possibly not but since he didn't fire, nothing awful happened. If I were in his place, I would have uttered a warning to Plantman first, while moving my right hand in a position to pull my cover garment aside if something were to occur to make drawing called for.

Bert, you are just flat-out wrong. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, you are not intentionally getting it wrong, but are massively confused. But never fear, I am here to help you out.

No firearm instructor will tell you to draw a weapon unless there is cause to use it. You are confusing "ultimately using a weapon" with "the cause to use a weapon." It is true that drawing the weapon may solve the problem most of the time without using it, but that does not mean that you can draw a weapon unless there is cause to use it.

You don't have to believe me. Take Jeff Cooper, he is a demi-god among you guys, there is a zillion page thread on BGP dedicated to a word he coined, the hoplophobia thread. He has four rules, but it is rule 2 for you.

RULE 2

NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT PREPARED TO DESTROY

You may not wish to destroy it, but you must be clear in your mind that you are quite ready to if you let that muzzle cover the target. To allow a firearm to point at another human being is a deadly threat, and should always be treated as such.

Cooper's Four Rules

So the point is, you CANT take your weapon out and point it at someone UNLESS there is a good reason that would JUSTIFY KILLING THEM.

By not being there you are just assuming a lot. You are correct in that one does not pull out a gun unless they are willing to use it. But one pulls the gun in hopes in avoiding a situation, thereby avoiding not using the gun. It may be too late to help someone if you wait until an attacks actually takes place.

I am assuming less than you. The way it is described, I don't think pulling a gun and pointing at that guy (and everyone behind him, b/c are you not supposed to be also concerned with line of fire?) was justified. Not in any sense. So you can't pull a gun when it is not justified on the assumption that it might become justified. Did you fall for the ole' snipe hunt trick ever?

And you are also assuming, just for the purpose of arguing I guess, that I am thinking "you wait until an attack actually takes place." Not at all what I would do. I would start by looking at the guy and asking him something, like "how you doing" or "can I help you?" Checking body posture, movements, possible weapons, etc. And it goes on from there, a series of assessments about the situation.

Just imagine if you were in plantman's situation. And the cops drive by at that exact time. They would probably arrest the old man with the gun actually, or at least question him pretty good.

You gotta have a reason to pull a gun on someone. And thinking that you might stop a reason from occurring is not good enough. Cause then you are just pulling a gun on people. In most situations. If Hannibal Lectre invites you over for supper, fine, then you can pull a gun on him.

Pretty sure if you take a bingo spinner and put pieces of paper in there with the words "Mexico" "Isis" "border" "Obama" "Clinton" "Rapist" and "Liberal", @mountain ref will post it as a headline every time.

Me and JA appear to be agreeing. Folks might want to get ready for some sort of apocalypse or something.

those baby foxes are cute! (realizes I am a man)...cough cough. Uhhh yeah....foxes.

What did you take from the scenario that indicates grandpa wasn't willing to shoot but determined from the reaction from the other guy not to? It is estimated in cases where a gun is drawn in self defense (or defense of others), less than 1 in 40 cases does the person drawing the weapon fire the gun.

You missed the point. I have no idea if gramps was willing to shoot. The point was that this other guy did absolutely nothing where a reasonable person could say..."he deserved to get shot." I am not saying he did or did not creep up on plantman, wasn't there, but even in the most extreme interpretation of events as they were described...shooting that guy would not have been a reasonable reaction. And so...if shooting him would not have been a reasonable action...then drawing on him and pointing the weapon at him was not reasonable.

The point is not that one has to fire if they pull the gun, but the point is that if the circumstances don't warrant firing the gun, then they don't warrant pulling it out.

Even JA says he would not have pulled his gun in this situation, so I can't be too far off in my criticism.

Situational awareness is being stressed by those who like guns. I kinda agree, but would say the situation is that, just reading the op, some old man got two feet away from him and drew a gun without him knowing.

There really is nothing to indicate that the guy did anything worth having a gun drawn on him. Aren't you only supposed to draw a gun on someone if you are willing to shoot them? Did this guy do something worth getting shot over? He might have been coming over to say "don't do anything sudden, but there is a crazy old man right by you waving a gun around."

Who checked the background for bystanders?

Best defense in this case would have to say "can I help you?" to see what this guy was up to.

If what he did was so bad, did anyone call the police so that the man could be stopped and questioned, or do we just brandish our weapons and send the guy down the road so he can "threaten" someone else. Maybe this wasn't the first time this guy stood upright in a parking lot, and was already wanted for crimes. Seems to be a missed opportunity here.

Though it might not sound like it, I respect the rights of others, the problem is that they don't respect mine. I don't want to get exploded at a gas station because some old dude with palsy pulls his gun in the fumes at the first opportunity. I have a right to NOT carry, but don't have a right to expect those who do carry to make good judgments. People who want to carry get to do so, no matter how bad their judgments are, and no matter who else gets put at risk.

Sometimes I get annoying phone calls and it's very frustrating because there really is no way to use a gun over the phone.

My first thought was to be completely surprised he was still alive.

Supreme Court Allows Extended Obama Presidency Under Martial Law

Any guesses on who saves everyone

Jesus.

@MayfieldFan @mcpapa

 

You guys can't possibly think a state will make laws to discriminate against black people, jews, or muslims. You've got to be using a hyperbole. You both seem like intelligent people, you know that the 1st, 13,14, and 15th amendments already exist. A state cannot make a law that contradicts the constitution, it is called the law of supremacy. I'm not a lawyer, but before being a SPED Teacher, I was a government teacher (maybe not a very good one) for 7 years.

 

You may e surprised, but I actually have a sajjāda in my living room right now, as well as a hijab in my closet. My parents bought me two hookah's from Kosovo when they lived there and they sit on my mantle, it is a fun conversation piece when people from my church come over for dinner.

If it were not possible for a state law to violate the Constitution, then there would never be cases where the Supreme Court struck down state laws. Your logic that the state law must be okay because it can't violate the Constitution is ...not logical. This statute clearly violates the Constitution, as well as common decency.

Bruce Springsteen and Charles Barkley were both experts in their field. I would not necessarily use them as a barometer of morality though.

 

But hey, I would caution others if they tried to look at me as a barometer of perfection too.

They are a better barometer of morality than that law. There is nothing moral in allowing discrimination against gay people with respect to marriage, housing, education, health care services, and foster care. As well as allowing for discrimination against couples who have sex outside a marriage, and people who have had a sex-change. And those are just the specific things it allows to be discriminated against. The law doesn't just limit itself to those specifics, it applies to any religious or moral conviction. How long til someone in MS develops a moral conviction that requires them to discriminate against black people? About two seconds is my guess. That is not a religious liberty law, it is a religious hate law.

Whether we and our politicians know it or not, Nature is party to all our deals and decisions, and she has more votes, a longer memory, and a sterner sense of justice than we do.

Wendell Berry (1934 -)

I lied. I kept reading the law just now. This is incredible. Can refuse housing to gay couples. Housing. Can refuse housing to heterosexual couples who are not married. Sex is only to be between husband and wife. Can deny children for adoption or foster care on religious grounds. Ugggg.

Does the MS law extend to employees of businesses or just the business owner? Meaning if I own a bakery and a gay couple wants a cake, I agree but my employee refuses to make the cake does the law protect the employee from me firing them?

That's a good question, I don't know. I searched out the actual law, as opposed to news stories about the law, to see if I could make a guess. I got to section 2(b) and quit. I absolutely can not believe the wording of this law. Will post a link here and then going to take a break, cause I don't want @Guru putting me in time out.

http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2016/pdf/HB/1500-1599/HB1523SG.pdf

Well, he could argue that these are his "sincerely held religious beliefs" that require him to proselytize to every person he meets. And if Indiana has, or passes, a law similar to that discussed in the other thread about Mississippi, then it would be unlawful to punish him for acting on those beliefs. He should move to Mississippi.

I wonder how long this thread would be if the cop were a Muslim, asking motorists about Allah?

I hold you in high regard. I appreciate that you not only are open to what others have to say, you try to draw out other's opinions.

Ditto. And has resulted in some good threads here.