OK, so at 100%, that might serve to run the government yearly (though I doubt it). What about the debt?If Congress imposed a 100 percent tax, taking all earnings above $250,000 per year, it would yield the princely sum of $1.4 trillion. That would keep the government running for 141 days, but there’s a problem because there are 224 more days left in the year.
You are trying to preach to the deaf and blind. They never took Econ 101 and actually think they can repeal the laws of basic economics.Suggest they see what is happening in Southern Europe where they followed liberal cradle to grave philosophy.
And since ALL current and former living congressmembers are and were responsible for this debt a portion of their respective pay and/or retirement should be garnished and applied toward reducing that debt.And how about a 50% tax rate for all PACs and SuperPACs?
You write articulately so I will approach this discussion as dealing with an intelligent debating opponent. The problem that I have is the definition of “racism” as defined by liberals often just doesn’t seem logical.
If I say the President of the United States is half African-American and half white, that to me is a statement of fact and not racist.
If I make the statement that the NBA is 70% African-American, that to me is a statement of fact and not racist.
If I make the statement that 95% of all violent crime in NYC is committed by African-Americans or Hispanics, that to me is a statement of fact and not racist.
I suspect you would accept the first two but reject the third. I understand it is uncomfortable but unfortunately true and has many policy applications.
The response I get from my liberal friends is it may be true but the very act of mentioning it is by definition racist and depressing. So it is best to avoid. That is unacceptable to me.
To anticipate a possible response, the reason the third statement needs to be made is there currently a lawsuit here in NYC. Why? Because African-Americans make up 25% of the city population and yet are routinely stopped by police 60% of the time. At first that seems unfair until you realize they are actually being stopped less frequently than they should.
My question is how can we solve society’s problems if we can’t mention facts that happen to include race?
Read the article which gives the data I quoted.If that surprises you, believe me you are not alone, that is the typical shocked response.
I deliberately made the three statements because whenever any possible negative connotation can be ascribed to racial data there is an almost knee jerk cry of racism. To your credit you didn’t accuse me of racism but many of my dear liberal friends have done so whenever I find fault with anything Obama says or does.
The first two were bland and non-controversial. the third crucially important but almost impossible to discuss in our society because such discussion is termed racist.
Note my posting name. You certainly don’t have to state the obvious to me that our society should not criminalize activities which harm no one else. To me that includes drugs, prostitution, hand gun possession, pornography etc etc.
Back to the first discussion. All to often I hear the comment that a statement is “code”. So many times the code is so subtle I have absolutely no idea what the complainant is talking about. As an example, the word “macaca” (sp?) is not at all in my vocabulary. I had never heard it before and had no idea if it meant anything. But a senatorial race was decided.
My father, may he rest in peace, loved my 4 children, his grandchildren. He called them his 4 monkeys. to this day I have in my cabinet 4 tiny toy monkeys, representing my very much loved children. What do you think would happen if I were running for office and called any children monkeys? Good-bye campaign.
At last we agree. No more Obama racial quotas. No more affirmative action. No more Rooney rule. Please contact Obama and tell him your enlightened view.The obvious liberal perspective is there is no such thing as race except when it is to our electoral advantage to categorize peoples.
Mrs Eryx. You have just been assaulted and raped. Did you see who did it? Yes? Please describe him.
“he was about 5 foot 10, black and was wearing a baseball cap”
Now we make you the policeman. Just who exactly are you going to stop and ask questions? In 95% of the time the VICTIM said the person who committed the violent crime was either black or hispanic.
So you complain that based on the victims identification the police are stopping blacks? Just what did you expect them to do? Stop little old white ladies?
Let me repeat that -95% of the time when the victim identifies who did it, the perpetrator is black or hispanic.
Seriously I just don’t understand your thinking. Please tell me what the police are supposed to do? Please take me through your logic. Of course they stop 9X more blacks- 9X more blacks committed the crime.
How about drunk driving, a gun in the car, outstanding arrest warrants, excessive speeding, avoiding arrest etc
Remember by law NYC police are diverse and integrated. Are you suggesting black policemen are arresting black drivers solely because of race prejudice? The complaints you write about were discussed years ago and the answer were racial quotas for police. Still the same results occurred.
I suggest you apply Occum’s Razor before proposing convoluted racial theories.
You cleverly only quote the parts of the article that fit your hypothesis. Here are the facts which you unsurprisingly avoid.
Blacks and hispanics are 13X more likely to have committed the crime but only 9X more likely to be stopped and questioned. The police are UNDERSTOPPING those minorities.
Why did you totally avoid discussing this hard fact?
Here are the crime data that the Times doesn’t want its readers to know: blacks committed 66 percent of all violent crimes in the first half of 2009 (though they were only 55 percent of all stops and only 23 percent of the city’s population). Blacks committed 80 percent of all shootings in the first half of 2009. Together, blacks and Hispanics committed 98 percent of all shootings. Blacks committed nearly 70 percent of all robberies. Whites, by contrast, committed 5 percent of all violent crimes in the first half of 2009, though they are 35 percent of the city’s population (and were 10 percent of all stops). They committed 1.8 percent of all shootings and less than 5 percent of all robberies. The face of violent crime in New York, in other words, like in every other large American city, is almost exclusively black and brown. Any given violent crime is 13 times more likely to be committed by a black than by a white perpetrator—a fact that would have been useful to include in the Times’s lead, which stated that “Blacks and Latinos were nine times as likely as whites to be stopped.” These crime data are not some artifact that the police devise out of their skewed racial mindset. They are what the victims of those crimes—the vast majority of whom are minority themselves—report to the police.
hanmari over 12 years ago
Our kids and grandkids will be mopping up all the red ink from our spendthrift congress for years. Cap, Cut, and Balance!
Dtroutma over 12 years ago
Hey, Kid! If you think Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II were bad, which they were, give Newt the toot a shot!!
DesultoryPhillipic over 12 years ago
OK, so at 100%, that might serve to run the government yearly (though I doubt it). What about the debt?If Congress imposed a 100 percent tax, taking all earnings above $250,000 per year, it would yield the princely sum of $1.4 trillion. That would keep the government running for 141 days, but there’s a problem because there are 224 more days left in the year.
Libertarian1 over 12 years ago
Even better. Cut spending.
Desultory
You are trying to preach to the deaf and blind. They never took Econ 101 and actually think they can repeal the laws of basic economics.Suggest they see what is happening in Southern Europe where they followed liberal cradle to grave philosophy.
jamnarama over 12 years ago
And since ALL current and former living congressmembers are and were responsible for this debt a portion of their respective pay and/or retirement should be garnished and applied toward reducing that debt.And how about a 50% tax rate for all PACs and SuperPACs?
Libertarian1 over 12 years ago
You write articulately so I will approach this discussion as dealing with an intelligent debating opponent. The problem that I have is the definition of “racism” as defined by liberals often just doesn’t seem logical.
If I say the President of the United States is half African-American and half white, that to me is a statement of fact and not racist.
If I make the statement that the NBA is 70% African-American, that to me is a statement of fact and not racist.
If I make the statement that 95% of all violent crime in NYC is committed by African-Americans or Hispanics, that to me is a statement of fact and not racist.
I suspect you would accept the first two but reject the third. I understand it is uncomfortable but unfortunately true and has many policy applications.
The response I get from my liberal friends is it may be true but the very act of mentioning it is by definition racist and depressing. So it is best to avoid. That is unacceptable to me.
To anticipate a possible response, the reason the third statement needs to be made is there currently a lawsuit here in NYC. Why? Because African-Americans make up 25% of the city population and yet are routinely stopped by police 60% of the time. At first that seems unfair until you realize they are actually being stopped less frequently than they should.
My question is how can we solve society’s problems if we can’t mention facts that happen to include race?
Dtroutma over 12 years ago
THE most repugnant “N word” = “Newt”.
Libertarian1 over 12 years ago
Eryx
Thank you for your temperate response.
http://bit.ly/ij6y0U
Read the article which gives the data I quoted.If that surprises you, believe me you are not alone, that is the typical shocked response.
I deliberately made the three statements because whenever any possible negative connotation can be ascribed to racial data there is an almost knee jerk cry of racism. To your credit you didn’t accuse me of racism but many of my dear liberal friends have done so whenever I find fault with anything Obama says or does.
The first two were bland and non-controversial. the third crucially important but almost impossible to discuss in our society because such discussion is termed racist.
Note my posting name. You certainly don’t have to state the obvious to me that our society should not criminalize activities which harm no one else. To me that includes drugs, prostitution, hand gun possession, pornography etc etc.
Back to the first discussion. All to often I hear the comment that a statement is “code”. So many times the code is so subtle I have absolutely no idea what the complainant is talking about. As an example, the word “macaca” (sp?) is not at all in my vocabulary. I had never heard it before and had no idea if it meant anything. But a senatorial race was decided.
My father, may he rest in peace, loved my 4 children, his grandchildren. He called them his 4 monkeys. to this day I have in my cabinet 4 tiny toy monkeys, representing my very much loved children. What do you think would happen if I were running for office and called any children monkeys? Good-bye campaign.
Totally absurd.
Libertarian1 over 12 years ago
At last we agree. No more Obama racial quotas. No more affirmative action. No more Rooney rule. Please contact Obama and tell him your enlightened view.The obvious liberal perspective is there is no such thing as race except when it is to our electoral advantage to categorize peoples.
Libertarian1 over 12 years ago
Literally from the NYT today. No such thing as race? All from a “liberal perspective”. Talk to Holder and the entire “Voting Rights Bill”.
http://nyti.ms/wUlIAb
http://nyti.ms/yutCSQ
Libertarian1 over 12 years ago
Are you deliberately missing the point?
Mrs Eryx. You have just been assaulted and raped. Did you see who did it? Yes? Please describe him.
“he was about 5 foot 10, black and was wearing a baseball cap”
Now we make you the policeman. Just who exactly are you going to stop and ask questions? In 95% of the time the VICTIM said the person who committed the violent crime was either black or hispanic.
So you complain that based on the victims identification the police are stopping blacks? Just what did you expect them to do? Stop little old white ladies?
Let me repeat that -95% of the time when the victim identifies who did it, the perpetrator is black or hispanic.
Seriously I just don’t understand your thinking. Please tell me what the police are supposed to do? Please take me through your logic. Of course they stop 9X more blacks- 9X more blacks committed the crime.
Libertarian1 over 12 years ago
Walk me.
Libertarian1 over 12 years ago
How about drunk driving, a gun in the car, outstanding arrest warrants, excessive speeding, avoiding arrest etc
Remember by law NYC police are diverse and integrated. Are you suggesting black policemen are arresting black drivers solely because of race prejudice? The complaints you write about were discussed years ago and the answer were racial quotas for police. Still the same results occurred.
I suggest you apply Occum’s Razor before proposing convoluted racial theories.
Libertarian1 over 12 years ago
@Eryx
You cleverly only quote the parts of the article that fit your hypothesis. Here are the facts which you unsurprisingly avoid.
Blacks and hispanics are 13X more likely to have committed the crime but only 9X more likely to be stopped and questioned. The police are UNDERSTOPPING those minorities.
Why did you totally avoid discussing this hard fact?
Here are the crime data that the Times doesn’t want its readers to know: blacks committed 66 percent of all violent crimes in the first half of 2009 (though they were only 55 percent of all stops and only 23 percent of the city’s population). Blacks committed 80 percent of all shootings in the first half of 2009. Together, blacks and Hispanics committed 98 percent of all shootings. Blacks committed nearly 70 percent of all robberies. Whites, by contrast, committed 5 percent of all violent crimes in the first half of 2009, though they are 35 percent of the city’s population (and were 10 percent of all stops). They committed 1.8 percent of all shootings and less than 5 percent of all robberies. The face of violent crime in New York, in other words, like in every other large American city, is almost exclusively black and brown. Any given violent crime is 13 times more likely to be committed by a black than by a white perpetrator—a fact that would have been useful to include in the Times’s lead, which stated that “Blacks and Latinos were nine times as likely as whites to be stopped.” These crime data are not some artifact that the police devise out of their skewed racial mindset. They are what the victims of those crimes—the vast majority of whom are minority themselves—report to the police.