Politics: J'accuse!

[SlaveNoMore]

Sidd Finch
Mine pays better.

Paunchy Lefto has you beat on this one.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I don't understand why -- and that article doesn't explain why -- more people are paying the AMT this year than last year. Any idea?

Because the AMT's not indexed for inflation. That is, the income thresholds remain the same, as does the AMT standard deduction. In comparison, on regular income tax both are indexed to inflation. And you pay the higher of the two. So, a greater number of people are dragged in each year. As with anything, it's a normalized distribution and we had been on the skinny tail for a while. Now we've hit the meat of the middle.

More on the issue:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...0001_mz001.htm

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
(eta: Thanks for 'splaining that it's not that I'm not citing facts, it's that it's too much work for you to find them.)

I don't know if you are citing to facts or not. I have tried to read through some of the articles you link to and post and figure out why you believe that they somehow prove something or somehow bolster your argument. It gets tiresome and many times I cannot find the facts in the article. Perhaps they are there, but I am not spending 2 hours trying to piece it all together. It just isn't that important to me.

Post however you feel like it. None of us are getting paid to do this. But if you are trying to communicate an idea to someone, unless you make the idea intelligible to the intended audience, then I wonder why you bother. Just saying here is a blog that proves what I am saying is correct and then posting a link to the blog falls far short.

I can spend the time to sort it all out if I cared enough to do it. But I don't have endless hours to spend doing something like that. I will do it to the point I find it interesting, but when it is more bother than it is worth to me, I pass.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Because the AMT's not indexed for inflation. That is, the income thresholds remain the same, as does the AMT standard deduction. In comparison, on regular income tax both are indexed to inflation. And you pay the higher of the two. So, a greater number of people are dragged in each year. As with anything, it's a normalized distribution and we had been on the skinny tail for a while. Now we've hit the meat of the middle.

I believe a further reason is that certain tax cuts have been made by increasing available deductions and credits. The higher your deductions and credits, the greater likelihood you will be subject to AMT.

Increases in state taxes similarly add to the problem.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by dtb
... I am sure the percentage of blacks/hispanics committing violent crime doesn't come close to 99.9%, which is approximately the percentage of terrorist acts committed by Islamics. (Again, I'm guessing on the 99.9% figure, but the only reason I didn't make it 100% was because of the T.McVeigh dude.)

What about the IRA/UVA? ETA? Tamil Tigers? Chechens? The Shining Path? FARC? Or are you limiting the percentage to those who would try to attack the US? (And if so remember that the IRA used to work and train with the PLO and the Lybians -- maybe Seamus McIrish would do the job on a contract basis in return for some cash or weapons for his comrades in Belfast.)

Race or ethnicity can properly be a factor in investigations, but not the sole factor. Otherwise, you end up strip searching saintly old Dr. Mazzari the brain surgeon, while some natural born (WASP or black or Asian) citizen who happens to be a National Guard sergeant who converted to radical Islam passes by in a car full of C-4.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I believe a further reason is that certain tax cuts have been made by increasing available deductions and credits. The higher your deductions and credits, the greater likelihood you will be subject to AMT.

Increases in state taxes similarly add to the problem.

Yes, that's true as well. The AMT essentially limits your overall deductions for a given level of income. Whatever the source of those deductions--state taxes, federal intiatives--you can only get so much of them before you hit the effective cap of the AMT.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me I have tried to read through some of the articles you link to and post and figure out why you believe that they somehow prove something or somehow bolster your argument. It gets tiresome and many times I cannot find the facts in the article.

Cite, please.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Race or ethnicity can properly be a factor in investigations, but not the sole factor. Otherwise, you end up strip searching saintly old Dr. Mazzari the brain surgeon, while some natural born (WASP or black or Asian) citizen who happens to be a National Guard sergeant who converted to radical Islam passes by in a car full of C-4.

Two words: Richard Reid.


(Two more: Shoe bomber.)

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
What does "racial profiling" mean, anyway? Everyone agrees that it's a bad idea for the FBI to omit someone's race from the description of a suspect in the interest of some kind of misguided political correctness. I think we also all agree that the FBI shouldn't be searching people just because they're Arab. As a practical matter, however, it appears that law enforcement has often done this sort of thing. (E.g., pulling people over for DWB -- driving while black.) (Somebody will say this has never been a problem -- if so, whatever, I'm not interested in having that empirical argument right now.) In the middle, there's a big gray area, no?

I think the type of profiling being discussed is profiling that could result in a greater chance of Muslims being searched, questioned, tracked, whatever than non-Muslims. And, yes, in some cases, someone might in fact be questioned, tracked, etc., merely because they are Arab or Muslim, or even from a particular country. Example: the ACLU took issue with the FBI's decision to simply question Iraqi men who came to the US after the Gulf War. According to the ACLU, "Targeting people for investigation, interrogation or detention based on immutable characteristics like national origin, ethnicity or religion alone is, we believe, unconstitutional and inappropriate in all circumstances. (emphasis added)

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
What does "racial profiling" mean, anyway?

It means using race (or ethnicity, religion, etc) as a factor in your investigations. For instance, investigating Arabs in flight school but not investigating non-Arabs.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I think we also all agree that the FBI shouldn't be searching people just because they're Arab.

No I don't agree. If there are quite a few Arabs in flight schools, I think the FBI should investigate just because they are Arabs since Arabs are more likely to be terrorists threats to the US than non-Arabs.

Now if a bunch of Swedes are in flight school, that isn't as concerning given the fact that Swedes have never attacked the US and there are no known Swedish terrorist groups targeting the US.

If there weren't known Arab terrorist groups (and AQ, Hamas, Hezbollah are primarily Arab groups) targeting the US, then it wouldn't make sense to target Arabs in investigations.

Now by targeting the Arabs that doesn't mean that you don't investigate the Swedes if evidence turns up that the Swedes are terrorists.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Two words: Richard Reid.


(Two more: Shoe bomber.)

Just because you investigate Arabs doesn't mean you don't investigate non-Arabs when cause arises. But Reid was a muslim so if the FBI focused on muslims, then Reid would have fallen into that group.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Two words: Richard Reid.


(Two more: Shoe bomber.)

Sure, he'd evade an ethnicity filter, but I've been advocating for a while an ugliness filter that would've done the trick.

I'm hoping that the photos taken soon after the flight landed were influenced by the sound beating he took from other passengers, but I doubt it.

No one that raggedy-looking should be permitted to fly.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Not Bob Race or ethnicity can properly be a factor in investigations, but not the sole factor.

Are you saying ethnicity "should" not be the sole factor in an investigation, or are you saying that legally it "cannot" be the sole factor? If the latter, our government can absolutely single in on a particular ethnic group, or persons of a particular national origin, if they have reason to. See my prior post on dudes from Iraq.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Not Me
It means using race (or ethnicity, religion, etc) as a factor in your investigations. For instance, investigating Arabs in flight school but not investigating non-Arabs.

....

Now by targeting the Arabs that doesn't mean that you don't investigate the Swedes if evidence turns up that the Swedes are terrorists.

Seems to be exactly what that means. Until your ethnic group blows up a few buildings, you don't get investigated.

Profiling is a matter of degree. The ACLU has rejected any degree, I believe, and that's a pretty stupid position when you apply it to investigations of terror supported by radical Islam. On the other hand, looking exclusively at Arabs in flights schools would be a mistake -- if only because, eventually, al Qaeda would figure out to use a few non-Arab Muslim extremists.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Not Me
Just because you investigate Arabs doesn't mean you don't investigate non-Arabs when cause arises. But Reid was a muslim so if the FBI focused on muslims, then Reid would have fallen into that group.

That's contrary to what you said:

"It means using race (or ethnicity, religion, etc) as a factor in your investigations. For instance, investigating Arabs in flight school but not investigating non-Arabs."