Jump to content
And I still stand behind my statement. Read the book "How To Lie with Statistics" and it will help you to better understand the meaning behind statistics. For instance, the statistics table I cited is for arrests and Caucasians are less likely to be arrested under similar situations. The wealthy, who are disproportionately Caucasian, are frequently allowed some token restitution to avoid arrests. The racist is like an addict, most are in self denial and will not change until they recognize their own racist attitudes.
I am looking forward to the new GDP policy so we can see who makes such blatantly racist comments. FYI, Whites commit more crimes it is just that our incarceration policies are biased against poor blacks. Liberals believe in equality, it is the wealthy that use the false claim that seeking such equality is some how class warfare, thus ignoring the real problem of inequality defended by the wealthy.
Hopefully this new policy will stop comments from those more interested in insulting and demonizing than having a reasonable discussion. I do agree that facebook is not the ideal solution but the alternative of requiring real names and verifying that they are legitimate would be costly. Of course, those wishing to remain anonymous without additional facebook accounts can always use snail mail with fictitious information - I have seen letters published that obviously were false names and I am sure others were that I did not know were false.
Very..." That way we even get money from folks who live outside Gwinnett and spend money here." That won't even pay the cost of collecting the tax and also is evened out by those from Gwinnett that spend money other places. Your only rationalizations for the vote boils done to a false belief the "The end justifies the means".
It is simple math. Let's just consider 2% sales tax, since food products are at this lower rate and groceries is what you mentioned. If you earn $1000.00 per month and spend $900 on food, then 1.8% of your income is going for tax on your groceries. If you earn $2000 per month and spend $1200 on food, then your tax rate for this is only 1.2% of your income. This makes sales tax a regressive tax, taxing those least able to afford this burden with a higher burden as a percentage of their income. Though I could not find exact numbers, I did find enough information to show that the amount of tax increase for a $200,000 home would be less than $40 per year for the county to raise the same amount. This home would require monthly payments of about $1000 and an income of about $3,000 per month. Calculate your normal expenditures on this income and you will see that sales tax, even being frugal, would be well over $100 per year. If you own business property or $1,000,000 home, you might well pay more in property taxes than with a 1% increase in sales tax but you always have the option of buying less expensive property. The poor do not have an option to atop buying food.
Does anyone really care? Two problems with sales tax: 1. It is the most expensive method of taxation. In Georgia, retailers get a kickback for collecting the tax; even with this kickback, many retailers complain that it costs them more to collect than they are paid for processing the tax. If the tax is raised by increasing millage rate on property, then their is no increase in collection costs. 2. It puts excessive burden on the less fortunate. The higher ones income, the lower the percentage of income spent on taxable items. Sales tax is only effective in shifting the tax burden onto those less able to pay. These with the higher percentage of income required from them also use the roads less, generally traveling less than their wealthy counterparts.
The argument of the pro SPLOST is "the end justifies the means" while the discussion should be "what means should be used to reach desired end" SPLOST should stand for "Some People Lose Out with Sales Tax"
Yep. African Americans "chose" to be captured and brought to America as slaves. After winning their freedom, they were major supports of segregation - they were even had the right to separate water fountains and restrooms until the 60's, not to mention schools that received less funding than the white schools. They chose to be discriminated against in education opportunities. They think it is so much fun to be "stopped while black" by police. To say "they brought this on themselves" is only an example of the ability of someone with strong ingrown racism that they can't even recognize it. I grew up in the 40's and 50's in the south. White people did not believe they were racist then with their own rationalizations for the practices I mentioned above. Now, because of the strides, people like you still want to rationalize their racist attitudes. As for your blind acceptance of NRA propaganda, you are more likely to be killed by a gun if you carry one regularly than you are likely to get the chance to be judged by 12. By carrying a gun, you are also increasing the danger to those around you. Gun owners have a much greater risk of relatives being accidentally killed by their gun than of stopping a crime with it.
Why the obsession with the race? But if you insist, let me point out the ease in which both the left and the right misrepresent the obvious. While it is true that in the inner city we do have an over abundance of black on black crime, this fact is emphasized by both the left and right. But it is a misrepresentation. In truth, it is the inner city slums and an attitude of distrust that breeds crime. The apparent racial bias is a result of African Americans being more likely to find themselves trapped in this existence. While sometimes some people are overly diligent in protecting the rights of minorities, it is a result of centuries of overt, legalized discrimination. Now many are trying once again to justify discriminatory practices based on misleading statistics. Might I suggest a book on statistics to further understand the misinterpretation of statistics. The book is "How to Lie with Statistics" By Darrell Huff. It is the best selling book on statistics.
Ah, yes. As usual, those without fact prefer assaulting with insults instead of being involved in a reasonable discussion of the issues.
First, your statistic makes no difference when one considers the problems with the law.
Second, your stats are flawed. If you exam the stats based on the one killed, we find a disproportionate amount getting off that killed an African-American person while the law is less likely to aid one that killed a Caucasian, regardless of the race of the survivor of the confrontation.
My point still stands. The law is flawed and needs to be overturned or replaced with something more reasonable. Award88 may have some legitimate points on the strictness of the previous self defense laws so we should exam reasonable compromises that do not encourage deadly confrontations. We should not degenerate into a society that accepts duels which are legitimized under the Stand Your Ground laws where there exists the mutual fear between the opponents that they will be killed if they don't react faster and with greater accuracy.
Last login: Sunday, August 18, 2013