America - The Official Thread

[the_boy]

I disagree, I can afford to pay for my fair share, but I do not have the means to lobby for anything. Nevermind I think lobbies are the bane of the political system.

I agree with that, but it seems I forgot to add in the word more, sorry.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Sure. And I'll share, but I also dont doubt that there are contradictory evidence out there in this "post modern" world. So bare in mind, this is my opinion on the matter based off the evidence I have collected.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2017/12/08/what-we-learned-from-reagans-tax-cuts/

https://www.bustle.com/p/how-the-house-republican-tax-plan-would-hurt-teachers-6335656

https://www.northjersey.com/story/n...christmas-just-watch-out-pot-holes/972885001/

(This downloads a pdf) https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw0ibGKyzekFS4qg7hlf6LrH&cshid=1539696546854

https://equitablegrowth.org/the-imp...age-to-boost-broad-based-u-s-economic-growth/

https://www.thebalance.com/trump-s-tax-plan-how-it-affects-you-4113968

https://www.americanprogress.org/is...e-inequality-and-the-strength-of-our-economy/

I mean. There is way more to my opinion than just some articles but I cant really cite life experience. I suppose I could take pictures of our roads and over passes. Share discussions with my wife(entrepreneur business degree, decades of experience handling multi billion dollar budgets for state governments, and other such stuff I have no head for) or cousin and his wife (teachers).Definitely can cite tons and tons more articles on the whole infrastructure thing.
But, at the end of the day, I can also do a quick google search switching up a few keywords such as "help" to "harm" or some such nonsense and come up with a counter point. But these are my opinions on the matter based off nearly 40 years of living, watching, learning and discussing.

Can you at least take one or two of those links and in your own words, tell me/us which of your contentions they are supposed to be supporting? Just reading the first couple of paragraphs of the first link and it is already contradicting your statement that, "since the Reagan era and the idea of trickle down economics, tax cuts for large corps and the "1%" have been steadily growing." Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and then increased them in 4 of the next six years, followed by subsequent increases by both Bush and Clinton. Doesn't sound much like steadily growing tax cuts to me.

 

[Rallywagon]

Can you at least take one or two of those links and in your own words, tell me/us which of your contentions they are supposed to be supporting? Just reading the first couple of paragraphs of the first link and it is already contradicting your statement that, "since the Reagan era and the idea of trickle down economics, tax cuts for large corps and the "1%" have been steadily growing." Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and then increased them in 4 of the next six years, followed by subsequent increases by both Bush and Clinton. Doesn't sound much like steadily growing tax cuts to me.

A bump here and there in the trend does not negate the fact that taxes at the top have been steady declining.

As we can see, taxes for top margin have been steadily declining. There was a big drop with Kennedy and crew, but the biggest drop was with the Reagan admin. It may have bounced up 10%. But that is a small bump compared to the 40%+ drop leading up to that. Meanwhile, taxes have maintained a pretty solid 10-20% for the lower margin earners in that same time span. So while we are sitting here looking at historic highs in governement spending (nearly all of it on "defense") we are looking at record low tax collections as well. And so our deficit and the slow crumble and decay of the US.
I'd break down the rest. And I may do later, but at the moment work actually has me fairly busy for a change.

 

[Danoff]

A bump here and there in the trend does not negate the fact that taxes at the top have been steady declining.

As we can see, taxes for top margin have been steadily declining. There was a big drop with Kennedy and crew, but the biggest drop was with the Reagan admin. It may have bounced up 10%. But that is a small bump compared to the 40%+ drop leading up to that. Meanwhile, taxes have maintained a pretty solid 10-20% for the lower margin earners in that same time span. So while we are sitting here looking at historic highs in governement spending (nearly all of it on "defense") we are looking at record low tax collections as well. And so our deficit and the slow crumble and decay of the US.
I'd break down the rest. And I may do later, but at the moment work actually has me fairly busy for a change.

The bottom half (thereabouts) of the US pays zero income tax. So I'm not sure what you're getting at. Remember, revenue went up in response to the most recent cuts. So don't assume that higher tax brackets means lower deficits. Also this:

horde all of the money

Money and wealth are created and destroyed. There is no conservation of money or wealth. There's no such thing as "hording all of the money". If you want money and wealth, you can literally go out and create it.

 

[Rallywagon]

What does gold have to do with a fiat money system and taxes? Further anyone who makes money pays income tax. Hell, you pay taxes on money you get from welfare.
Further, money is not infinite either. The fed loans out money to the gov and banks. It sets how much is in circulation. But, that's not really what I mean by horde. In that regard, what I mean is that the idea of trickle down, where you give tax breaks to large corporations and top earners, the proverbial 1%, and the extra money they earn trickles down, is garbage. They horde money, not spend it. They certai rely dont give away more than they have to as can often be seen by us, the tax payers, making up the difference in what a large corporation is willing to pay for an hourly wage.

 

[Johnnypenso]

A bump here and there in the trend does not negate the fact that taxes at the top have been steady declining.

As we can see, taxes for top margin have been steadily declining. There was a big drop with Kennedy and crew, but the biggest drop was with the Reagan admin. It may have bounced up 10%. But that is a small bump compared to the 40%+ drop leading up to that. Meanwhile, taxes have maintained a pretty solid 10-20% for the lower margin earners in that same time span. So while we are sitting here looking at historic highs in governement spending (nearly all of it on "defense") we are looking at record low tax collections as well. And so our deficit and the slow crumble and decay of the US.
I'd break down the rest. And I may do later, but at the moment work actually has me fairly busy for a change.

Your graph does not support your position. You said that since the Reagan era there has been a steady decline in tax rates on rich people. Your graph shows a large drop in the Reagan era and since then taxes have increased on the uber wealthy. Pretty much the opposite of what you said.

 

[Rallywagon]

I mean, I guess if you want to judge an entire ocean (4 decades of decreases) by the beach your on (the 90s) than sure. But, I do have to digress on the income tax thing. I wrongly conflated that with payroll tax.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I mean, I guess if you want to judge an entire ocean (4 decades of decreases) by the beach your on (the 90s) than sure. But, I do have to digress on the income tax thing. I wrongly conflated that with payroll tax.

I'm evaluating your evidence based on your own position about taxes since the Reagan era, nothing more. Is there some separate payroll tax in the U.S.? Is that a tax on top of employee remittances?

 

[Danoff]

What does gold have to do with a fiat money system and taxes?

Just pointing out the ebb and flow of GDP compared to your tax chart.

Further anyone who makes money pays income tax. Hell, you pay taxes on money you get from welfare.

As you pointed out, that's not true.

Further, money is not infinite either. The fed loans out money to the gov and banks. It sets how much is in circulation.

It can be created and destroyed was what I said. What is money? It's a placeholder for value. Lots of things can act like money. Tulip bulbs, beanie babies, artwork, houses, cars, gold, stocks, mutual funds, oil, frozen concentrated orange juice (a little trading places reference for you there), all act like money.

But, that's not really what I mean by horde. In that regard, what I mean is that the idea of trickle down, where you give tax breaks to large corporations and top earners, the proverbial 1%, and the extra money they earn trickles down, is garbage. They horde money, not spend it.

What do you mean they horde it? First of all, if they created it, who does it hurt if they horde it? Second, how does one go about hording money? Billionaires do not keep billions of dollars in cash under their mattresses. They don't keep a giant vault of gold coins that they swim in. They don't leave it in cash in their bank account either, but even if they did, that's not hording. That money gets used by the bank. That money is "deployed". Rich people own things. They buy real property, cars, boats, expensive educations for their children, expensive clothes, stocks, and mutual funds. They loan out money to businesses. But more than that, the invest in their own and other companies and employ people.

Buying a mutual fund may look like hoarding to you, but it is actually deploying money. It is almost literally impossible to prevent "trickle down".

They certai rely dont give away more than they have to as can often be seen by us, the tax payers, making up the difference in what a large corporation is willing to pay for an hourly wage.

Uh... they do actually give away billions and billions of dollars. Go check out the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation and get back to me. But another point is... who do you think the tax payers are again? Rich people. The top 1% pays 50% of all taxes in the country. The top 0.1% pays 20%. So when you say "us, the tax payers" did you mean rich people? 71% of all income tax in the US is covered by the top 20%. Doesn't leave much for the "non-rich".

Corporations don't page wages out of charity (charity is something else entirely). My employer doesn't pay me more than minimum wage because they feel generous. They pay it because I earn it. Corporations don't pay what they do because they're mean or nice. It's because that's what that job earns. What a concept.

 

[Rallywagon]

So, a job that earned 7 an hour in 1990 should still earn 7 an hour, despite cost of living and inflation?

 

[Danoff]

So, a job that earned 7 an hour in 1990 should still earn 7 an hour, despite cost of living and inflation?

No, it should pay what it earns. Maybe that's $7/hr, maybe it's less, maybe it's more.

 

[Northstar]

In that regard, what I mean is that the idea of trickle down, where you give tax breaks to large corporations and top earners, the proverbial 1%, and the extra money they earn trickles down, is garbage.

This couldn't be more wrong and I'm an example of someone that has benefited greatly from trickle down economics. It's actually a fairly easy thing to explain as well.

1) Rich person decides their big house just isn't big and fancy enough so they decide to build a new one.
2) People like me enter the picture and make whatever stupid idea they have work. Some of these houses can take over a year to build and I've worked on some where the HVAC system alone costs more than I make in a year. Now consider all the other people needed to build a house (carpenters, plumbers, electricians, sheetrockers etc...) and you can see a pretty good example of how trickle down economics works.

They horde money, not spend it.

Do you have a savings account?

 

[Sanji Himura]

I would like to weigh in on the whole taxes debacle and say that taxes has increased on every Democratic president's watch on a fairly consistent basis, according to that chart. I would like some evidence that can prove conclusively the impact on higher taxes has on the GDP. I'm willing to bet that higher taxes does have a NEGATIVE impact on the GDP.

Also, @Johnnypenso, we can have three withholdings in regards to taxes:

Federal Income Tax
Social Security tax
State Income taxes.

 

[Joey D]

Unless you are a large corporation, or making large amounts of money off the interest your even larger amount of money makes you, then you are not the one I mean when I say tax breaks. Since the Reagan era and the idea of trickle down economics, tax cuts for large corps and the "1%" have been steadily growing and the burden ever growing on the bottom 50% either in the form of more taxes or diminished social programs (ie: reduction in public schools and programs, reduction or diminished public parks, reduction in pay for all levels of civic/local gov employment (non-political), etc) have been steadily growing.
Now. I certainly am no economist (my wife on the other hand is. I often discuss finance and economics with her and still end up bewildered by it all, insanely complex just to be complex) it just seems to me that letting rich people and their corporate entities horde all of the money is not going to be as good on the economy as said corporation paying their base employees a wage above the poverty line. Anyone who is willing to work 40 hours a week, no matter the job, should not have to also rely on welfare. Call me a communist for it if you want. But that is my belief. It's the same idea behind a foundation for a house. Make it cheap and of low quality and everything else above will be shakey and ready to crumble. But start with a well build, sturdy foundation and you can build a skyscraper. The foundation of this country seemed to be pretty solid until Reaganomics...

I can agree with some of this.

Overall I think corporations paying its employees a livable wage is better for the economy. While I don't think anyone should force someone else to pay X amount, you'd think those who control the purse strings would realize the benefit of having a population that's making a decent living. I know if I made more money, I'd buy more things, which in turn would mean companies would need to produce more, which grows the economy. Or I'd invest it, which would also be a win for the company too.

I'm not sure if I heard the statistic correct or not, but since like the 1970's wages have not kept up with inflation. I'm not sure how true that is, but I'm inclined to believe it based on my experiences. In my line of work, average salaries have been about the same for 10 years across the US. However, the average price of a car, house, food, etc. has only gone up and up. When I've asked for raises in previous jobs, I've been told no and I typically just pack up and take a job elsewhere (it's how I ended up in Utah).

I really feel like I shouldn't need to move across the country to make a better wage doing exactly the same job. Also, I feel like a company who invested a ton of money in getting me certification wouldn't want to lose me either. But apparently, it doesn't matter to them. But looking back on it, if they just would've given me a cost of living adjustment, I would probably still be with that health system in West Michigan. All I wanted was a salary that met the demands of the market so I could afford things like housing.

I get the economy is complex, but I do agree setting a good foundation is key to building a strong market.

 

[ryzno]

So, a job that earned 7 an hour in 1990 should still earn 7 an hour, despite cost of living and inflation?

When I was working as a kid minimum wage was $5.25. That was in the early 2000's. So no, whatever $7 per hour job was back then, is paying more now.

 

[Biggles]

I can agree with some of this.

Overall I think corporations paying its employees a livable wage is better for the economy. While I don't think anyone should force someone else to pay X amount, you'd think those who control the purse strings would realize the benefit of having a population that's making a decent living. I know if I made more money, I'd buy more things, which in turn would mean companies would need to produce more, which grows the economy.

I think the evidence is pretty strong that this is the case.

The inequities in the system are more pronounced when it comes to "wealth" (or assets) rather than income. One of the goals of post WWII economies has been to offer better opportunities to everyone, due to better infrastructure, better public education, better general healthcare etc. This results in a more productive workforce, which results in higher GDP. Large concentrations of wealth, especially with low upper tax marginal rates tend to act against this. It's all very well for Northstar to have a job building stuff for the very wealthy - this is pretty much the way it's worked for centuries with the wealthy aristocracy providing "patronage" for the masses - but it's better for Northstar to have an improved opportunity to BE wealthy himself.

Wealth inequalities - often inherited wealth - create a very uneven playing field. And that playing field has been growing increasingly uneven over the last few decades. The way in which invested income is often taxed at lower rates than earned income further advantages the very wealthy.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I think the evidence is pretty strong that this is the case.

The inequities in the system are more pronounced when it comes to "wealth" (or assets) rather than income. One of the goals of post WWII economies has been to offer better opportunities to everyone, due to better infrastructure, better public education, better general healthcare etc. This results in a more productive workforce, which results in higher GDP. Large concentrations of wealth, especially with low upper tax marginal rates tend to act against this. It's all very well for Northstar to have a job building stuff for the very wealthy - this is pretty much the way it's worked for centuries with the wealthy aristocracy providing "patronage" for the masses - but it's better for Northstar to have an improved opportunity to BE wealthy himself.

Wealth inequalities - often inherited wealth - create a very uneven playing field. And that playing field has been growing increasingly uneven over the last few decades. The way in which invested income is often taxed at lower rates than earned income further advantages the very wealthy.

How is @Northstar's job building stuff for the wealthy, not also an opportunity to be wealthy himself?

 

[Rallywagon]

Well, I mean. As long as our GDP is high, who needs good schools and nice roads and an updated power grid and water pipes not made of lead. Gotta keep that GDP up there! Although, since costs are generally transferred down to the consumer, I imagine the only reason GDP would drop is cause some ceo or exec got a stick up their ass not being able to afford their 8th Ferrari. But that's just me being cynical.
Edit:
Btw. That GDP graph in "gold"... I got a similar graph to my own. It shows a far different GDP story. I wondered why you used one based on gold. I still do, but I ingaine it's because there is something there that makes it a better story for point. But, when you look at GDP, just as GDP and not GDP is gold value (does anyone still back their dollar in gold?) The story doesnt fit the narrative that lower taxes help GDP.

As we see, as taxes dropped, so did GDP. Of course lots of other factors no doubt had a hand in it all, wars and what not. But, one thing is pretty clear, lowering taxes sure doesn't look to raise GDP.

Edit: bah. It may have been to early for this post. I see that the graph is percentage of change, not where the GDP was at.
But, that said, there is still a disconnect here as the percentage of chance doesnt seem top line up with... you know what, hold. Im going to get an actual GDP chevy and not this in gold crap...

What I find interesting here is how GDP had not returned yp the trend line since the 2008 recession. Something not seen since the great depression.

Even more interesting is the US deficit compared to GDP.

Most others show our debt climbing faster than the percentage of GDP. Now, I mean, I could be wrong, but that seems pretty unsustainable to me and it's quite clear to me as well who's policies had the greats effects one way or the other.

 

[mustafur]

Anyway, he's got other issues today - he's going to pay Elizabeth Warren a million dollars.

For that 1/1024th Native American, it's a total joke lol.

 

[Rallywagon]

For that 1/1024th Native American, it's a total joke lol.

That number depends on what generation of grandparents where native americans. The genealogist stated it could also be 1/520ths or something along that line.
Regardless, Trump said if she could prove she is Indian, and she proved she has Indian blood, he never prefaced with a percentage caveat. But, honestly, I dont think anyone is surprised he isnt going to pay.. even if she proved she was 100% native he wouldnt have paid.

 

[Johnnypenso]

That number depends on what generation of grandparents where native americans. The genealogist stated it could also be 1/520ths or something along that line.
Regardless, Trump said if she could prove she is Indian, and she proved she has Indian blood, he never prefaced with a percentage caveat. But, honestly, I dont think anyone is surprised he isnt going to pay.. even if she proved she was 100% native he wouldnt have paid.

You should read the details of the test it's available online. She's within the margin of error and Native American DNA wasn't used for comparison.

 

[mustafur]

That number depends on what generation of grandparents where native americans. The genealogist stated it could also be 1/520ths or something along that line.
Regardless, Trump said if she could prove she is Indian, and she proved she has Indian blood, he never prefaced with a percentage caveat. But, honestly, I dont think anyone is surprised he isnt going to pay.. even if she proved she was 100% native he wouldnt have paid.

That's not proved, it's within the margin of error and It should be stated that was possible native american not actual.

 

[Rallywagon]

You should read the details of the test it's available online. She's within the margin of error and Native American DNA wasn't used for comparison.

Yes, Stanford geneticist Carlos Bustamante tells Warren in the video that "the facts suggest that you absolutely have a Native American ancestor in your pedigree."
I mean, he did do the research and he is the expert. Warren isnt looking for any status changes and never used her "native blood" to get a job or scholarship or any other such benefits so honestly, who gives a flying frig. Well, I mean, other than Trump and his bandwagon and anyone who just needs any excuse to discredit a person.
I mean honestly, what a dichotomy when someone is blasted and possibly loses an opportunity at running for president because they were told they had native blood and repeated it, and then had research done that at least validifies to some extent that it's true. But hey, that guy that has had over 3000 lawsuits, filed bankruptcy 6 times and has admitted to literally sexually assaulting women, among a laundry list of crappy behaviour is looking at reelection. MERIKA!

 

[Johnnypenso]

Yes, Stanford geneticist Carlos Bustamante tells Warren in the video that "the facts suggest that you absolutely have a Native American ancestor in your pedigree."
I mean, he did do the research and he is the expert. Warren isnt looking for any status changes and never used her "native blood" to get a job or scholarship or any other such benefits so honestly, who gives a flying frig. Well, I mean, other than Trump and his bandwagon and anyone who just needs any excuse to discredit a person.
I mean honestly, what a dichotomy when someone is blasted and possibly loses an opportunity at running for president because they were told they had native blood and repeated it, and then had research done that at least validifies to some extent that it's true. But hey, that guy that has had over 3000 lawsuits, filed bankruptcy 6 times and has admitted to literally sexually assaulting women, among a laundry list of crappy behaviour is looking at reelection. MERIKA!

Again, you should read the test results yourself. She is as little as 1/024th Native American and Native American DNA was not used for comparison.

 

[TexRex]

I mean, he did do the research and he is the expert.

Well sure, but one "expert" doesn't represent all people who live, work and analyze DNA.

 

[mustafur]

and she has outraged the people she claims to be.

It was a total failure on her part to release the DNA test, she could of been the bigger person and ignore it, like she had done for the past 20 or so years this topic has came up.

 

[Danoff]

@Joey D , @Biggles

Well, I mean. As long as our GDP is high, who needs good schools and nice roads and an updated power grid and water pipes not made of lead. Gotta keep that GDP up there! Although, since costs are generally transferred down to the consumer, I imagine the only reason GDP would drop is cause some ceo or exec got a stick up their ass not being able to afford their 8th Ferrari. But that's just me being cynical.
Edit:
Btw. That GDP graph in "gold"... I got a similar graph to my own. It shows a far different GDP story. I wondered why you used one based on gold. I still do, but I ingaine it's because there is something there that makes it a better story for point. But, when you look at GDP, just as GDP and not GDP is gold value (does anyone still back their dollar in gold?) The story doesnt fit the narrative that lower taxes help GDP.
View attachment 774381
As we see, as taxes dropped, so did GDP. Of course lots of other factors no doubt had a hand in it all, wars and what not. But, one thing is pretty clear, lowering taxes sure doesn't look to raise GDP.

Edit: bah. It may have been to early for this post. I see that the graph is percentage of change, not where the GDP was at.
But, that said, there is still a disconnect here as the percentage of chance doesnt seem top line up with... you know what, hold. Im going to get an actual GDP chevy and not this in gold crap...
View attachment 774406
What I find interesting here is how GDP had not returned yp the trend line since the 2008 recession. Something not seen since the great depression.

Even more interesting is the US deficit compared to GDP.
View attachment 774407
Most others show our debt climbing faster than the percentage of GDP. Now, I mean, I could be wrong, but that seems pretty unsustainable to me and it's quite clear to me as well who's policies had the greats effects one way or the other.

It may have been too early for you to post. I'm not going to pretend to have followed that, but I will address part of it. GDP in dollars is pretty dubious because inflation. Inflation-adjusted GDP is also quite tricky. Gold isn't a prefect normalization by any stretch, but it's at least something objective.

I don't think you have a firm grasp of the subject here, which is fine, but you seem to think you do. Maybe ask some questions and learn about how it works rather than assuming that you know and being upset about the conclusions you draw from incorrect assumptions.

The first assumption I want you to stop making is that higher taxes mean higher revenue. The opposite just happened. Lower taxes can mean lower deficits. Let that sink in for a moment. Partly it is because the economy grows under reduced taxes, which means people have more income, and pay more tax.

The next assumption you should stop making is that companies pay you for any reason other than what your job is worth to them and what it costs to get someone to fill that job. Wages are not charity.

 

[Rallywagon]

@Joey D , @Biggles



It may have been too early for you to post. I'm not going to pretend to have followed that, but I will address part of it. GDP in dollars is pretty dubious because inflation. Inflation-adjusted GDP is also quite tricky. Gold isn't a prefect normalization by any stretch, but it's at least something objective.

I don't think you have a firm grasp of the subject here, which is fine, but you seem to think you do. Maybe ask some questions and learn about how it works rather than assuming that you know and being upset about the conclusions you draw from incorrect assumptions.

The first assumption I want you to stop making is that higher taxes mean higher revenue. The opposite just happened. Lower taxes can mean lower deficits. Let that sink in for a moment. Partly it is because the economy grows under reduced taxes, which means people have more income, and pay more tax.

The next assumption you should stop making is that companies pay you for any reason other than what your job is worth to them and what it costs to get someone to fill that job. Wages are not charity.

As we continually set a new record for our national debt and its growth surpasses that of our GDP, I will not change that assumption. Nor will it change until a president that lowers taxes also manages to lower our deficit. Dont worry, I wont be holding my breath on that one.
Your assumption of my second "assumption" is also wrong. I just dont have faith that a company cares if it pays a person what they are worth. How many people have had to take a job saying "well, it's not the job I want or the pay level I agree with but at least its work"? I got a feeling, with the economy we just got out of, that number isnt insignificant. Just my opinion there, maybe I'll see if there is a number for that, but I doubt it.
Regardless, I did state that I was no economist and don't have a mind for it. I can however read facts and charts and data and formulate an opinion. I've already stated all of is just that. My opinion. You don't have to like it, but i obviously dont see the data the same way you do. And I will certainly never agree that trickle down and cutting taxes at the top is working for the US.

 

[Danoff]

As we continually set a new record for our national debt and its growth surpasses that of our GDP, I will not change that assumption. Nor will it change until a president that lowers taxes also manages to lower our deficit. Dont worry, I wont be holding my breath on that one.

Uh... ok those are two separate things. Why would you link them? Spending vs. Income are not really the same thing. So why would you refuse to change your incorrect assumptions about income because of spending?

Your assumption of my second "assumption" is also wrong. I just dont have faith that a company cares if it pays a person what they are worth.

They don't. I didn't ask you to.

How many people have had to take a job saying "well, it's not the job I want or the pay level I agree with but at least its work"?

Not seeing where you're going with this.

Regardless, I did state that I was no economist and don't have a mind for it.

You seem to be keen on drawing economic conclusions anyway.

I can however read facts and charts and data and formulate an opinion. I've already stated all of is just that. My opinion. You don't have to like it, but i obviously dont see the data the same way you do. And I will certainly never agree that trickle down and cutting taxes at the top is working for the US.

Economics is not really a matter of opinion. You're just drawing incorrect conclusions from incorrect assumptions. This is not a case of "I don't like the color blue", this is a case of "1+1=3".

 

[TexRex]

and she has outraged the people she claims to be.

It was a total failure on her part to release the DNA test, she could of been the bigger person and ignore it, like she had done for the past 20 or so years this topic has came up.

The contents of the article to which you linked contradict the assertion you made in linking to it.

The article states that her actions provoked a response from a single person representing a people in an official capacity only. In addition, that response isn't indicative of outrage, rather it reads like an official statement.