rigney

I believe he was saying that a general statement of belief is not conductive to a conversation.

We can't really comment with anything other than agreement or disagreement as their is no substance behind it to refute.

What exactly do you think Obama has done poorly and why?

This comes from a Wikipedia explanation of Higher Order Thinking Skills, and is about education for abstract thinking that opens a person mind and prepares a person for independent thinking. This Christian Republican stand against this education for independent thinking is also the strong Christian opposition to John Dewey. I am bringing him into this debate, so there is a better understanding of what the Republican stand is about.

 

Here is an explanation of how John Dewey overcame Christian opposition, but he did not win the hearts of many Christians who absolutely hated him and the result of education for independent thinking. http://quidditycirce.wordpress.com/2007/11/14/how-dewey-has-overcome-american-christianity-and-overthrown-america/

 

Are in favor of the Texas Republican agenda or against it?

 

 

Once again, all fluff and no substance in your criticism, rigney. Various intonations of 'He's doing a bad job' isn't enough for a discussion.

idk I kind of agree it is a big + that Obama has experienced being in the lower income brackets and it is easy to think that will make him more grounded and in touch with the average American. What would you consider a lower income bracket?

Born and raised in Honalulu by doting grandparents, and your mom and dad full time gollege students must have been tough. I do remember them living in an apartment for some months and that must have been terrible. I tried making it clear that I am not a racist and do not hate Obama any more than I disliked Clinton. But Clinton did do a pretty good job running our country. Like me, many Americans have not seen the beauty and wisdom of Obama's term in office and hopefully will rectify the situationt come November. And living on the shallow side of things? Try living in a coal mining town your first twenty and buying your first home at the age of 32, and that at $14,000.00. I believe you get my picture. And quote mining? With politics the way they are today, it's hard enough to speak the absolute truth without having it twisted to offend someone.

I think Norbert was just indulging in some hyperbole.

after all it does seem that rigney wants to find a reason to not like obama not to mention quote mining is a very common pet peeve.

Even during the Bush years when I had my most crippling tax bill (the year I actually made .com money... the same year of the .com bomb) I honestly felt proud to cut my first 5 digit check to the IRS, even though my income dropped by more than a factor of 10 by the time I had to write it. I had been making $12 an hr up to that point and no shift in the tax margin was going to erase how bloody good it felt to be done with that entire exhausting mess of scrapping by every month.

 

Before then I benefited immensely from programs like ARPANET and because of them, I had the opportunity to create new things that were valuable to people and generated wealth. I even got to be my own boss, and have been since. There is something very rewarding about paying back into the very fund that paid for my entire chosen industry's very early existence.

 

 

But if you want to talk to a serious businessman about taxes, try Warren Buffett.

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

Wakapedia.It depends on the country. Most Olympians are paid by their government. US Athlete's are not, in fact, US athletes are volunteers. They make money through sponsorships, endorsements, and in some sports prize money. Unfortunately that can add up to be a boatload of cash or not much at all depending on the sport and the individual athlete.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_money_do_Olympic_athletes_make_in_a_year#ixzz22TR8tE2o

I don't want our tax system to go under and I thought my question was certainly within bounds. I also think Olympian athletes don't mind paying taxes on their endorsements. If that was the case, I would contest it vigorously. In your case, I am very glad you are suscessful. But if you want to pay more taxes than the government requires, please do so. I find so few million or billionaires in my life, it's hard for me to say how they feel. I hope you make millions.

In the spirit of fairness and balance +1

I am not American so take my observation as an outsider with a pinch of salt. (IMO) A weak America would be a disaster for the world; an honest America would be an asset to the world!

 

Later edit: forgot to activate the promised +1 - have now done so!

Why the heck would we want to try banning Olympic participation from this country???

 

Are you truly so upset that American Olympians pay income tax (and always have no less!) that it's not worth participating at all???

 

 

In that case, why don't we all just wallow in muddy rivers all day and ban all music containing vowels?

 

While I don't advocate Olympic athletes as the defacto final authority on economic issues... which athletes are getting screwed by paying taxes on cash prizes? How many of them feel ripped off because of those taxes, versus how many of them feel thankful and happy to pay their taxes?

 

Are you just assuming they feel all sorts of beat up and kicked around by Big Government... or are you in any sense of the word "in touch" with these athletes? Just because you feel like you're acting as a selfless advocate and champion of their sufferings doesn't mean they feel that way. It's "just a theory" but it really sounds like your projecting your own feelings about taxes on them, and that's really not fair to them. It's disrespectful and dehumanizing, and that's another reason Rubio can get bent.

 

 

You could ask me - I'm a business man.

Are you truly so upset that American Olympians pay income tax (and always have no less!) that it's not worth participating at all???

Rigney, are you suggesting the medal themselves are worth a huge some of money?

This guy is an opportunist tilting at windmills while giants ravage the landscape, pure and simple.

 

It is bills exactly like this that result in the horrid mess and travesty of a tax code - how much does it cost to add an exemption to tax law?

 

Olympics are once every two years with a finite number of US participants; how much money is really being discussed here, and how much is it going to cost the government to get even more invasive, playing Caesar and pointing its thumb up or down depending on whether, at the given moment, the fervent mob is cheering athletic exceptionalism over that of our soldiers or the other way around. If the Olympics weren't happening this year, the outrage would be over veterans having to pay full price for pork flavored gum at the convenience store.

 

 

Why does Rubio think more government involvement and oversight is the answer, when he rails against it the rest of the time?

 

You'll notice even in your article the News makes no comment on whether the figures are real:

 

 

 

This is complete theater, and it could just as easily be this:

 

 

 

I'll see your Olympic athletes and raise you two chemo patients with organ failure. The fact of the matter is, when viewed as an isolated case - every American struggle is an example of exceptionalism, every tax dollar is a "punishment" for breathing and the only "moral" thing to do is reduce everyone's taxes to zero.

 

Yet the world doesn't operate like a bunch of separate isolated issues, we have to pay for things, and every exception we make may very well cost more for the government to manage than the exception saves all the individuals affected combined - especially when dealing with a pool as small as the American Olympics team.

On Rubio's filing the bill to abolish it, that was absolutely a political move and I can't blame him. And you can't compare professional athletes with Olympians. Most professionals are scouted for their skills prior to college. A great many are given a free pass to a good university or colege based on those skills. To my knowledge, that isn't the way Olympians are picked. As I said before, if an Olympian is making money through other sources, they should be taxed accordingly. Just leave their medals and that one or two time stipend alone.

One of the nice things about America is that everyone's entitled to voice their own opinions. For example,

, although a bit outdated (has it really been 40 years?!). I think America has some unique qualities, which I think are based on personal freedoms, that others have tried to imitate in their own ways but have hurt themselves in the process ... the Soviet Union, Japan, perhaps the European Union, and also perhaps China. (I might also add to that list, the southern US Confederacy.) It also doesn't hurt to have such vast and diverse natural resources as the US has. As always, time will tell.

Because it's income - the source doesn't matter. Income over a certain amount per year generates a tax liability to the government. Regardless of how hard you worked, you pay taxes on the money you earned. Your argument that if you "bust your balls" making the money you shouldn't pay taxes on it could just as easily be applied to construction workers, or firefighters, or a whole host of other professions. Heck by your argument, professional football players should be exempt since they are, quite literally, busting things to earn that money, and training their asses off every season if they want to be successful.

 

It's a bad argument.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/1/rubio-bill-eliminates-federal-tax-olympic-medals/

The sad thing is the main reason everyone is "emotionally charged" on this topic is because our tax system is a festering mess, which everyone hates across the board. Both liberals and conservatives tend to agree entirely on the need to simplify the tax code, which includes clearing out a lot of complex tax breaks.

 

 

We all feel somewhat cheated by the tax system, because we know the opaque complexity is unnecessary and wasteful.

 

 

But instead of discussing the root issues, we are talking about whether Olympic cash prizes should be taxed, and by proxy it seems whether or not this is an indictment against Obama that he did not immediately issue an executive order to remedy this long standing travesty his first day in office.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/1/rubio-bill-eliminates-federal-tax-olympic-medals/

http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/no-man-is-an-island/

The US government doesn't pay the Olympic athletes. It's all private sponsorship, subject to applicable taxes (although there may be some tax breaks on sponsorship for the sponsor). It's also often the springboard for lucrative professional sports careers. And an Olympic medalist would only pay taxes on the medal itself if they sold it.

 

What exactly is your problem with this? It seems completely fair. You seem to have taken offense at the idea of paying taxes on the medals, and when that was proven false, you retain your umbrage and just continue to lash out at everything else that bothers you. That's not healthy.

 

Misinformation from FOX?! Out of context quotes from the right?! Flabbergasted, that's what I am.

Wait, what? If it were proposed as a conservative issue, would that be any different?

Do things always have to be right or left? What happened to the good of the country as a whole, as opposed to what's good for my group.

Rigney, this is a prime example of a manipulative piece of propaganda. While the factual section - the "At <age>" part - seems to be accurate, everything that comes afterwards is written with subtle nuances to shift your views.

 

 

Knew what?

 

And others hadn't? Thomas Jefferson studied the standard for history at the time. His education in history was not very different from the education that many other pupils at William and Mary got.

 

This is a perfect example of propaganda. The word "actual" is designed to make you think that Jefferson is the only person who understood history. First, by saying that "He understood actual history," it implies that even though others studied history, they didn't understand it like he did. Second, it says that there is actual history, which implies that there is some "history" which isn't "actual". This is a subtle denigration of the current study of history. It also says that others have studied fake history - that the lessons they took away from history are wrong because they went for the wrong history. A sentence like this is one of the most deceptive, propagandistic things a person can fall for.

 

 

Considering that Jefferson thought that Jesus was at most a great moral teacher and that he was not at all supernatural, I'm not sure the writer of this post is being entirely truthful with you.

 

Again, the implication so far is that Thomas Jefferson was the only one who understood history and the nature of man, and by now, most readers who like this e-mail pretty much take that implication to heart.

 

Again, the implication being that no one else does, that Jefferson was a sole visionary. That's not how things worked.

 

Now, this is a good note to start off on, because it's an actual quote. (Note that my use of the word actual is exactly the same as the word actual used above - it implies that there are several quotes that are not "actual", which already has you thinking that someone is being dishonest) However, note that none of these quotes are cited. That is a prime warning that there probably are some fake quotes mixed in.

 

True quote.

 

False quote.

 

True.

 

True.

 

False quote.

 

True quote, but deceptive. The full quote is ""No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands]", and it was proposed for the Virginia Constitution. Without that context, it looks like Jefferson is making a much stronger statement.

 

False quote.

 

True.

 

Misquote. The real quote is " "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. "

 

Unfortunately, it ends on a false quote.

 

Sources: http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/j/jefferson-quotes.htm, http://www.snopes.com/quotes/jefferson/banks.asp

 

 

Really?

 

An out-and-out direct abuse of executive power that doubled the size of the nation doesn't come close to 5 seconds in a speech? Not only that, but 5 seconds which (as we have demonstrated) served only to say that no man is an island?

=Uncool-

And this is exactly why I am so disillusioned with American politics. If a good idea comes from the "wrong" side, we have to vilify it, even if we like it, otherwise we're disloyal.

 

Not that the original idea was necessarily good, but the phrasing of the question above to me indicates a perfect example of this kind of divisive us or them thinking that is ruining our country.

And lets not forget the injustice of our service men and women paying income taxes. Surely putting their lives on the line is enough of a tax.

Because they're representing the country? Then you probably won't mind my new proposal, where all government workers are exempt from taxes. Federal workers shouldn't pay federal taxes, state workers shouldn't pay state. They are representing the country, helping us all with their hard work, right?

The trick is the "up to" phrase — it assumes that the athletes already have an income that puts them into the top tax bracket, i.e. a single filer is already making $200k (or whatever the cutoff is)

 

Perhaps less believing and more demand for the facts is in order.

http://www.biblemoneymatters.com/the-cost-of-raising-an-olympian/

When all is said and done, yes; when an athlete is well paid or overpaid, they should be taxed accordingly. But for the government to ask recompense from a medal winner, I don't buy it, even if they have won a dozen gold and sold them all. Tax their wealth from that point on, not for winning a medal.

The US government doesn't pay the Olympic athletes. It's all private sponsorship, subject to applicable taxes (although their may be some tax breaks on sponsorship for the sponsor). It's also often the springboard for lucrative professional sports careers. And an Olympic medalist would only pay taxes on the medal itself if they sold it.

So what if they inadvertently lose it? If not, why not wait until they start making those big bucks?

Wait, so you think that an athlete's earnings - such as say, a professional tennis player who earns their living through tournament winnings, or an olympic wrestler who has a shot at $250,000 for winning gold should be tax exempt because training to become an athlete is expensive and hard?

 

Can I argue that my PhD was expensive and hard so I shouldn't have to pay tax on my postdoc salary?

You need to see how these guys work - I'll break it down for you:

 

First, a Fox News link to the story:

 

The title of this story is "ATR Calculates Huge Tax Burden For American Olympic Gold Medalists"

 

 

 

First, it's nice they got the "You didn't build that!" text right at the start (Search engine optimization for an already discredited sound bite) but nicely sidesteps the actual meat of the story:

 

1) The "ATR Calculates" - that means Grover Norquist... (the guy George Bush Sr. was quoted talking about in the other thread as a complete ninny*) has released this "news" and

2) It's just a calculation that they came up with - no evidence the IRS has ever harassed anyone over medals.

3) The real question is whether they pay taxes on the cash prizes from the U.S. Olympic Organizing Committee: $25,000 for gold, $15,000 for silver and $10,000 for bronze.

4) How did they get those numbers? $5,300 on $10,000 is 53%, and $9,000 out of $25,000 is 36%. Where did they get that from?? They don't cite that in their post.

In fact, a better article can be found here, which is linked from the ATR page:

 

 

The short answer is: they may have some liability from income on cash prizes, it's not new, isn't not news.

 

I have never heard of medals themselves being taxed and I have never heard of US Olympic Athletes taking issue with the cash prizes. These cash prizes are very small compared to the endorsement deals gold medalists usually get.

 

If you are especially moved by this however, I recommend you ask some actual American Gold Medalists what they think, because I doubt many of them really want yet another thousand pages added to the IRS tax code simply to reduce the few percent potentially shaved from a cash prize.

 

If you find this especially troubling though - why didn't it bother anyone during the Salt Lake Olympic games? I don't recall Romney saying anything...

 

*to paraphrase GHB

Due diligence is required:

 

http://www.outsideth...ills-back-home/

 

 

 

rig, you gotta stop listening to whoever you're listening to.

Ermmm... You gotta link or somethin'? Not sure WTH you're on about this time... or last time, really, but this time is present, so...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/jul/31/picket-olympics-math-medal-winners-pay-9000-irs/

Due diligence is required:

 

http://www.outsideth...ills-back-home/

 

 

 

rig, you gotta stop listening to whoever you're listening to.

I believe we have pretty much figured it out about Entrepreneurs, "Don't be one"! Now this virus of taxation has invaded the Olympics. So be cautious and don't win a medal what ever you do. That is, unless, you want to pay taxes on it. Is this for real? Isn't this the damndest thing you've ever heard of? A youth who has become very proficient over the years honing their skills and who is now qualifiesd for the Olympics, is required to pay taxes on the worth of the medals. Oh Yea! Government wants their cut regardless of who the hell paid those thosands of dollars going into that training. Your're right dude, 'they didn't do that on their own". Pony up!

I'm surprised you're such a fan... considering the Louisiana Purchase was made by executive order: surely a breach of the president's constitutional power.