The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
08-19-2012, 04:06 PM
#2742
The 6 Weirdest Things That Statistically Lower Crime | Cracked.com
Normally, I'd not link from this source on this forum, but it sure ought to spawn some interesting conversation. Or give lulz. I'm good with either.
Normally, I'd not link from this source on this forum, but it sure ought to spawn some interesting conversation. Or give lulz. I'm good with either.
Reply
0
0
08-21-2012, 01:49 AM
#2745
While I don't know who made this chart, it doesn't seem unreasonable. However...
Just read this tonight:
Mythbusting 101: Uncomfortable Truths Your College Won't Tell You - Forbes
and:
Mythbusting 101: Uncomfortable Truths Your College Won't Tell You - Part II - Forbes
Just read this tonight:
Mythbusting 101: Uncomfortable Truths Your College Won't Tell You - Forbes
and:
Mythbusting 101: Uncomfortable Truths Your College Won't Tell You - Part II - Forbes
Reply
0
0
08-24-2012, 01:28 AM
#2750
Well, sadly, I've found I don't qualify for various tax deductions for going to university due to income. That's well and fine, that's great. That's not what ticked me off however.
People convicted of drug offenses are ineligible for tax deductions to go to university? As an example from previous threads, if you are caught with...I forgot what it was, but I'm certain someone here will correct me with the exact amount, but IIRC it was less than 1 gram of marijuana, and you aren't eligible for tax deductions? But if you are a paroled murderer, you are apparently completely eligible since none of the documentation of the act specifies anyone who has committed crimes, instead it is very specific to only drug crimes?
Some of the policies in this country just make me so angry. This makes no goddamn sense from any perspective. You can be a goddamn child serial rapist-murderer, and if you've been paroled from prison, oh, they are fine with a goddamn tax writeoff. But if someone who has been convicted for omgwtf drugs, oh no, they are so terrible that they cannot possibly even be considered to get a deduction?
Sure, I think I'm probably wrong about this. Perhaps some politician wrote this in properly, I'm too pissed off right now to actually check the act's full text since this is from the IRS's own documentation* on it. But for ***** sakes, that is wrong if it is true.
* Source: http://www.irs.gov/instructions/i8863/ch01.html
People convicted of drug offenses are ineligible for tax deductions to go to university? As an example from previous threads, if you are caught with...I forgot what it was, but I'm certain someone here will correct me with the exact amount, but IIRC it was less than 1 gram of marijuana, and you aren't eligible for tax deductions? But if you are a paroled murderer, you are apparently completely eligible since none of the documentation of the act specifies anyone who has committed crimes, instead it is very specific to only drug crimes?
Some of the policies in this country just make me so angry. This makes no goddamn sense from any perspective. You can be a goddamn child serial rapist-murderer, and if you've been paroled from prison, oh, they are fine with a goddamn tax writeoff. But if someone who has been convicted for omgwtf drugs, oh no, they are so terrible that they cannot possibly even be considered to get a deduction?
Sure, I think I'm probably wrong about this. Perhaps some politician wrote this in properly, I'm too pissed off right now to actually check the act's full text since this is from the IRS's own documentation* on it. But for ***** sakes, that is wrong if it is true.
* Source: http://www.irs.gov/instructions/i8863/ch01.html
Reply
0
0
08-24-2012, 02:29 AM
#2751
rules are for the proletariat
Sen. Rand Paul Speaks Out Against Senators Voting without Reading the Bills - 6/29/12 - YouTube
Can you imagine voting on a 600 page bill--with attributions in a 100,000+ Federal register document--on the same day it's dropped on your desk?
Can you imagine voting on a 600 page bill--with attributions in a 100,000+ Federal register document--on the same day it's dropped on your desk?
Reply
0
0
08-24-2012, 12:17 PM
#2752
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,507
Total Cats: 4,079
The President only has a few roles/powers according to the Consitution...one of which is:
"he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"
"he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"
Ten federal immigration agents have filed suit against Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano claiming recent directives are forcing them to break the law and ignore their duties when it comes to deporting illegal immigrants.
Read more: Immigration agents file suit against Napolitano over 'amnesty' program | Fox News
Read more: Immigration agents file suit against Napolitano over 'amnesty' program | Fox News
Reply
0
0
08-24-2012, 12:32 PM
#2753
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,507
Total Cats: 4,079
Interesting read on an intersting study:
Jacoby summarizes the entire discussion in these two sentences.
According to the Chronicle, the most generous city in America is Provo, Utah, where residents typically give away 13.9 percent of their discretionary income. Boston, by contrast, ranks No. 358: In New England’s leading city, the median household donates just 2.9 percent of its income to charity. Provo’s generosity is typical for its region. Of the 10 most generous cities in America, according to the Chronicle’s calculations, six are in Utah and Idaho. Boston’s tight-fistedness is typical too: Of the 10 stingy cities at the bottom of the list, eight are in New England — including Springfield (No. 363) and Worcester (No. 364). What’s the matter with Massachusetts? How can residents of the bluest state , whose political and cultural leaders make much of their compassion and frequently remind the affluent that we’re all in this together , be so lacking in personal generosity? And why would charitable giving be so outstanding in places as conservative as Utah and Idaho? The question is built on a fallacy.Liberals, popular stereotypes notwithstanding, are not more generous and compassionate than conservatives. To an outsider it might seem plausible that Americans whose political rhetoric emphasizes “fairness” and “social justice” would be more charitably inclined than those who stress economic liberty and individual autonomy. But reams of evidence contradict that presumption, as Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks demonstrated in his landmark 2006 book, Who Really Cares.
…this doesn’t mean that there aren’t generous philanthropists in New England. It doesn’t mean selfishness is unknown on the right. What it does mean is that where people are encouraged to think that solving society’s ills is primarily a job for government, charity tends to evaporate.
Reply
0
0
08-24-2012, 12:59 PM
#2755
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
Cults.
I was listening to an interesting interview that showed, on average, there was a higher propensity for charity as a percentage of income among the lower-middle income strata than there was the various upper strata. I am not sure how that study was conducted, though. The idea was that people that live close to poverty are more likely to be compassionate to its nuances, where those that never encounter poverty are more dispassionate or more likely to blame those in poverty for their station in life.
I see a lot of individual tax returns and I would think you could also bifurcate that with the distinction of "active in religion" vs not. Virtually every 1040 I have seen with charitable gifting over 10% of gross income is from a household active in their religion (though not all of the donations go exclusively to groups affiliated with their religion).
Granted, someone with a gross income of $150k donating 5% is still giving more dollars than someone with a gross income of $50k donating 10%.
Jacoby summarizes the entire discussion in these two sentences.
I see a lot of individual tax returns and I would think you could also bifurcate that with the distinction of "active in religion" vs not. Virtually every 1040 I have seen with charitable gifting over 10% of gross income is from a household active in their religion (though not all of the donations go exclusively to groups affiliated with their religion).
Granted, someone with a gross income of $150k donating 5% is still giving more dollars than someone with a gross income of $50k donating 10%.
Last edited by Scrappy Jack; 08-24-2012 at 01:15 PM.
Reply
0
0
08-24-2012, 02:56 PM
#2758
A 50k person giving 5k from their paycheck barely being able to feed their kids and pay their morgage or the 150k person driving a nice benz living in a rather large house and going out to fancy restaurants for dinner daily? I'm pretty sure the 50k person will be very happy having an extra 2.5k at the end of the year.
Reply
0
0
08-25-2012, 12:41 AM
#2760
You know who has been the recent king of charity? Darth Vader, aka Dick Cheney. Between he and the Evil George Bush, they've given more to charity than any dynamic duo is generations. Of course Bush is only now getting kudos for single-handedly changing the statistics of AIDS in Africa. It's so nice to see him out there, still working for the charities but without trying to gain the spotlight. Classy.
As for the poor and "studies", I think that the good-hearted poor don't really give to charity as can be seen on taxes. But those with good hearts (rich and poor, liberal and conservative) live charity by helping their neighbor clean out their garage, take the kids for the weekend when another poor neighbor needs to visit their mother in the hospital, etceteras. From this standpoint, statistics don't mean much.
As for the poor and "studies", I think that the good-hearted poor don't really give to charity as can be seen on taxes. But those with good hearts (rich and poor, liberal and conservative) live charity by helping their neighbor clean out their garage, take the kids for the weekend when another poor neighbor needs to visit their mother in the hospital, etceteras. From this standpoint, statistics don't mean much.
Reply
0
0
