• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Hannity Special w/ College Students, so much fail

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
eskimospy said:
It's a dumb question. There is no specific percentage that is 'too much tax' there are economic/governmental effects that signal 'too much tax'.

To see how silly the question was, turn it around. What is 'too little tax'? Presumably you think that police, roads, fire departments should be funded by tax dollars (and if you don't, forget the rest of this conversation). What percentage of taxes should that be? A reasonable response would be 'too little tax is when those departments can no longer function effectively'.

It's a stupid gotcha question asked by probably the most repulsive partisan hack on television.
Click to expand...

My issue is not the amount of tax, but who is doing said taxing. The federal government has no reason to pay for firefighting or roads, but these are the first things that lefties defend whenever someone starts talking about national tax policy.
 
BUnit1701 said:
My issue is not the amount of tax, but who is doing said taxing. The federal government has no reason to pay for firefighting or roads, but these are the first things that lefties defend whenever someone starts talking about national tax policy.
Click to expand...

Of course the federal government should help pay for roads. What do you think the interstate highway system is? As for the proper role of government, that's an entirely different discussion, although I think we should have a much more involved federal government than we do.

I was simply stating things that everyone but the most crazed libertarian generally accepts as legitimate exercises of government. That should help illustrate the stupidity of Hannity's question.
 
BUnit1701 said:
My issue is not the amount of tax, but who is doing said taxing. The federal government has no reason to pay for firefighting or roads, but these are the first things that lefties defend whenever someone starts talking about national tax policy.
Click to expand...
Who do you think pays for Interstate maintenance?
 
eskimospy said:
Of course the federal government should help pay for roads. What do you think the interstate highway system is? As for the proper role of government, that's an entirely different discussion, although I think we should have a much more involved federal government than we do.

I was simply stating things that everyone but the most crazed libertarian generally accepts as legitimate exercises of government. That should help illustrate the stupidity of Hannity's question.
Click to expand...

Hey like I said previously in this thread. Infrastructure accounts for about 3% of the federal budget. So I loath to hear people use this as a basis for federal taxation. I think you hit the nail on the head that the debate is what is the proper role of the federal govt? You and I are never going to agree on that one 🙂

I am no fan of Hannity. But the question is imo designed to illustrate people who are big govt advocates can rarely give even a ball park % or figure on what the size of govt should be. That is imo scary. I can definately give a bottom range of size and scope of the federal govt. Why is it so hard to go the other way?
 
Genx87 said:
Hey like I said previously in this thread. Infrastructure accounts for about 3% of the federal budget. So I loath to hear people use this as a basis for federal taxation. I think you hit the nail on the head that the debate is what is the proper role of the federal govt? You and I are never going to agree on that one 🙂

I am no fan of Hannity. But the question is imo designed to illustrate people who are big govt advocates can rarely give even a ball park % or figure on what the size of govt should be. That is imo scary. I can definately give a bottom range of size and scope of the federal govt. Why is it so hard to go the other way?
Click to expand...

So then what is the lowest proportion of federal taxation as a percentage of GDP that you think is appropriate?
 
Genx87 said:
Hey like I said previously in this thread. Infrastructure accounts for about 3% of the federal budget. So I loath to hear people use this as a basis for federal taxation. I think you hit the nail on the head that the debate is what is the proper role of the federal govt? You and I are never going to agree on that one 🙂

I am no fan of Hannity. But the question is imo designed to illustrate people who are big govt advocates can rarely give even a ball park % or figure on what the size of govt should be. That is imo scary. I can definately give a bottom range of size and scope of the federal govt. Why is it so hard to go the other way?
Click to expand...

That's because you see things in black and white, right or wrong and you aren't able to see shades of gray. It's a defect in your thinking not a defect in their thinking.

And they did answer, they gave a range and said it was dependent on what the government provided in return for their taxes.
 
Genx87 said:
I am no fan of Hannity. But the question is imo designed to illustrate people who are big govt advocates can rarely give even a ball park % or figure on what the size of govt should be. That is imo scary. I can definately give a bottom range of size and scope of the federal govt. Why is it so hard to go the other way?
Click to expand...

the question wasn't designed to illustrate anything but hannity's circle jerk. he wasn't looking for an intelligent, thoughtful response (and he certainly wouldn't air it if he got one).
 
Juddog said:
They're in college, partying it up - one step away from high school. If the GOP voters can't even tell the difference between Obamacare and the ACA, as full grown adults, did you honestly expect some cherry-picked dumb college kids to fare better?
Click to expand...

same question was asked to Dems. they failed just as bad.

then again they do the same thing. they cherry pick the idiots
 
dank69 said:
All you are doing here is making it painfully obvious that you aren't smart enough to figure out when comparisons to GDP are applicable.
Click to expand...

We can't actually say for certain that's not intelligent despite the obvious signs because intelligence is used in rationalizations and that's all this guy does. Conservatives employ their capacity to use their brains hiding painful truths from themselves. Some like Matt do it tremendously well. His tremendous fortress of impregnable stupidity may in fact be a gift. He can function as he does without any organic shame.
 
OutHouse said:
umm no.

im not a fan of Hanity but he did ask questions of a college panel and i thought the responses were interesting.
Click to expand...

I guess this is your mileage varying. We've already seen grown adults express the same confusion regarding the ACA, hell, there are politicians who vote for and against it that don't seem to know what they are talking about. Given the scorn the right likes to sling towards college kids constantly, call me confused that they're suddenly more interesting than older, supposedly more-worldly voters who work for their livings. Isn't that the crowd the GOP prefers to discuss? Instead of all the children and 'people who haven't seen the real world' something something?

OutHouse said:
funny how youd ont even address the questions you just go on the attack of a talking head that no matter what he says you got to flame him.
Click to expand...

Here, let me help you with that.

I don't have any desire to waste my time with the likes of Sean Hannity, I thought that would have been clear. The questions I had were directed at you, and I wasn't flaming him at all. I referred to past, factual incidents where he has proven himself to be incapable of honest debate - not afraid at all to falsify information to his viewers if it means furthering his agenda. I honestly want to know why it is you guys have anything to do with him given his partisan pariah status and contempt for his audience's intellect.

I hope that clarification helps, feel free to take a stab at it and explain why a person like Hannity fishing with dynamite is interesting. I guess I'm having a hard time convincing myself the apathy some college sophomores show towards healthcare (and life in general maybe) is somehow more of a story than politically outspoken adults believing Congress is exempt, or going to form death panels, etc etc.

I can't speak for any Dems. If they want to indulge Hannity's inane question and your repetition of it *shrug*
 
Last edited:
Genx87 said:
You will know when we tax your paycheck at 95% and I am living in a nice house living the good life.
Click to expand...

I already live in a nice house. Are YOU living on the street now or just some hovel?

Since you apparently can't afford to live in a nice house, I don't see why you don't support Obama. His policies will help people in your demographic.
 
Genx87 said:
Hey like I said previously in this thread. Infrastructure accounts for about 3% of the federal budget. So I loath to hear people use this as a basis for federal taxation. I think you hit the nail on the head that the debate is what is the proper role of the federal govt? You and I are never going to agree on that one 🙂

I am no fan of Hannity. But the question is imo designed to illustrate people who are big govt advocates can rarely give even a ball park % or figure on what the size of govt should be. That is imo scary. I can definately give a bottom range of size and scope of the federal govt. Why is it so hard to go the other way?
Click to expand...

Not sure that number is accurate as I doubt it includes transfers to the states or other types of regressive taxes.
 
kage69 said:
I honestly want to know why it is you guys have anything to do with him
Click to expand...

Like i told you, i am not a fan of Hanity, all i did was post a video of a panel of college students and recent grads. he asked a question that the democrats students could not answer. I watch Hanity just about as much as i watch Maddow which is about once a week if they have something interesting on.
 
ivwshane said:
That's because you see things in black and white, right or wrong and you aren't able to see shades of gray. It's a defect in your thinking not a defect in their thinking.

And they did answer, they gave a range and said it was dependent on what the government provided in return for their taxes.
Click to expand...

A range is too hard for him to understand, since he can only comprehend 1 or -1.
 
kage69 said:
I guess this is your mileage varying. We've already seen grown adults express the same confusion regarding the ACA, hell, there are politicians who vote for and against it that don't seem to know what they are talking about. Given the scorn the right likes to sling towards college kids constantly, call me confused that they're suddenly more interesting than older, supposedly more-worldly voters who work for their livings. Isn't that the crowd the GOP prefers to discuss? Instead of all the children and 'people who haven't seen the real world' something something?
Click to expand...

it's because the media people on the right have decided that the reason the GOP lost the last election isn't because the message is bad but because there are "low information voters" out there that don't know what the GOP and/or the dems stand for (along with how the world works, etc.) and that these "low information voters" voters came out hugely on the side of obama and are the cause of the GOP's seeming electoral demise.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top