The best summary of the tea party I've read

[RichardMNixon]

Who do you think benefits more from the government, Koch or the schoolteacher?

I think your view is ridiculously oversimplified and blind to consequences.

Answer the question above, please.

What are the consequences of returning income tax to 1950s levels? That all the billionaires will move out to a magical valley in Colorado with free electricity where suddenly they also know how to farm and build houses?

 

[DepricatedZero]

Richard, I find it odd that you keep saying Arthur is promoting "fairness" as if this is a bad thing, when what you're arguing for is what's fair as opposed to what's moral.

Stealing from Koch because it's unfair that he has more money than your schoolteacher is still stealing, whether you call it scaled taxation or highway robbery.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Answer the question above, please.

What are the consequences of returning income tax to 1950s levels? That all the billionaires will move out to a magical valley in Colorado with free electricity where suddenly they also know how to farm and build houses?

Well, more assets would be moved out of the country and less investment would take place in the US. In the long term, whatever aspect of wealth you chose to tax would shrink as people shifted it to areas that were taxed less. This would cause long-term damage to the economy. Also, the punitive taxes would eventually weigh heavily on the the lower economic classes too.

Consider property tax; it was originally intended to stop people from hoarding land as speculation. Property tax helped serve as a major factor in the mortgage collapse, and continues to weigh heavily on poor home-owners.

 

[borrofburi]

Richard, I find it odd that you keep saying Arthur is promoting "fairness" as if this is a bad thing, when what you're arguing for is what's fair as opposed to what's moral.

Stealing from Koch because it's unfair that he has more money than your schoolteacher is still stealing, whether you call it scaled taxation or highway robbery.

So err, are all taxes unfair?

 

[RichardMNixon]

Richard, I find it odd that you keep saying Arthur is promoting "fairness" as if this is a bad thing, when what you're arguing for is what's fair as opposed to what's moral.

Stealing from Koch because it's unfair that he has more money than your schoolteacher is still stealing, whether you call it scaled taxation or highway robbery.

I keep saying that because Arthur keeps saying he is not concerned with what's fair, only what's practical. You just casually threw out that progressive taxation is immoral. Why is this so?

My argument is that taxing Koch higher is not "stealing" any more than any other tax is stealing. The government provides services to us and a framework with which to interact with society. In exchange we pay taxes. I argue that Koch benefits more from the government than Sally Schoolteacher does, and so expecting him to contribute more of himself than she contributes of herself is not at all unreasonable. It's not because he has more, its because he receives more.

Well, more assets would be moved out of the country and less investment would take place in the US. In the long term, whatever aspect of wealth you chose to tax would shrink as people shifted it to areas that were taxed less. This would cause long-term damage to the economy. Also, the punitive taxes would eventually weigh heavily on the the lower economic classes too.

Consider property tax; it was originally intended to stop people from hoarding land as speculation. Property tax helped serve as a major factor in the mortgage collapse, and continues to weigh heavily on poor home-owners.

Don't we have some of the lowest taxes in the world? Is a marginal tax hike such a devastatingly socialist policy that all our wealthy will move to communist China? I ask again, would Koch even notice if he was taxed 5% higher? How would his life change? His top margin would still be 10% lower than it was in 1984.

Have a source on the property tax-mortgage collapse relationship?

Income inequality in the US is getting worse. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Do you think that's sustainable? Do you think the Bush Tax Cuts did anything to help our economy?

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Well, more assets would be moved out of the country and less investment would take place in the US. In the long term, whatever aspect of wealth you chose to tax would shrink as people shifted it to areas that were taxed less. This would cause long-term damage to the economy. Also, the punitive taxes would eventually weigh heavily on the the lower economic classes too.

Consider property tax; it was originally intended to stop people from hoarding land as speculation. Property tax helped serve as a major factor in the mortgage collapse, and continues to weigh heavily on poor home-owners.

Don't we have some of the lowest taxes in the world? Is a marginal tax hike such a devastatingly socialist policy that all our wealthy will move to communist China? I ask again, would Koch even notice if he was taxed 5% higher? How would his life change? His top margin would still be 10% lower than it was in 1984.

Have a source on the property tax-mortgage collapse relationship?

Income inequality in the US is getting worse. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Do you think that's sustainable? Do you think the Bush Tax Cuts did anything to help our economy?

Well, the wealthy wouldn't move, but their investment and industry would.

The connection between property tax and mortgage collapse just stands to reason. Homeowners had the additional expense of property tax for their high-value properties in addition to their mortgage.

I remember reading stories of builders and county home inspectors collaborating to artificially inflate property values (to increase both selling price and tax income), but I can't seem to find them now.

Got a source on income inequality?

Bush tax cuts; well, since congress has created massive spending it's just about impossible to tell what effect they've had.

 

[RichardMNixon]

[A] Well, the wealthy wouldn't move, but their investment and industry would.

The connection between property tax and mortgage collapse just stands to reason. Homeowners had the additional expense of property tax for their high-value properties in addition to their mortgage.

I remember reading stories of builders and county home inspectors collaborating to artificially inflate property values (to increase both selling price and tax income), but I can't seem to find them now.

[C] Got a source on income inequality?

[D] Bush tax cuts; well, since congress has created massive spending it's just about impossible to tell what effect they've had.

A) To somewhere else where it is still taxed. There's actually some tax breaks right now supporting expatriation of business, it's not the conservatives fighting to change that either : http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39697115/ns/politics/
This happens to be one of Chris Coons' issues but it doesn't get much attention because of how outrageous O'Donnell is.

B) How is the property tax the straw that broke their back? They also had the additional expense of social security, high gas prices, inflation, high interest rates, the rising cost of sending kid's to college, etc., how can you single out property tax?

C) http://web.archive.org/web/20070208142023/http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/ie6.html
map

http://www.slate.com/id/2266174/slideshow/2266174/fs/0//entry/2266173/
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html?ex=1332820800&en=fb472e72466c34c8&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

D) I've seen graphs suggesting both massive spending increases and other graphs suggesting it's been steady and linear; in either case the recent problem isn't the spending, it's falling revenue. Revenue decreased far more than spending increased.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

A) To somewhere else where it is still taxed. There's actually some tax breaks right now supporting expatriation of business, it's not the conservatives fighting to change that either : http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39697115/ns/politics/
This happens to be one of Chris Coons' issues but it doesn't get much attention because of how outrageous O'Donnell is.

I'll agree that providing tax breaks for doing so is a little silly, but businesses doing part of their work overseas isn't necessarily a bad thing in itself.

C) http://web.archive.org/web/20070208142023/http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/ie6.html
map

http://www.slate.com/id/2266174/slideshow/2266174/fs/0//entry/2266173/
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html?ex=1332820800&en=fb472e72466c34c8&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

First angle: decline in average household income.

The key word here is "household". In 1970 there were 3.1 people per household; today there's something like 2.6. Just from this demographic shift we'd expect to see household income decline by 16%. Anything less then that would represent an actual increase.

Second angle: The rich getting a larger share.

So? Thinking this is a problem is based on the assumption that there's a fixed amount of wealth; that for one person to gain wealth, someone else necessarily has to lose it. This is not just false, but ridiculous.

Consider the following thought experiment. An alien arrives on a spaceship carrying 99 times the amount of wealth (commodities, technology, whatever) of the entire human race. He agrees to part with a part of his wealth equal to the amount currently on earth. Now, one being in this system controls 98% of the wealth; does it really matter? The wealth of everyone else has doubled.

D) I've seen graphs suggesting both massive spending increases and other graphs suggesting it's been steady and linear; in either case the recent problem isn't the spending, it's falling revenue. Revenue decreased far more than spending increased.

Can't blame that on the tax cuts. Government revenue increased every year from 2003 until the bubble burst in 2008.

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?year=1995_2015&view=1&expand=&units=b&fy=fy11&chart=F0-total&bar=1&stack=1&size=l&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s

 

[RichardMNixon]

Quoting was looking like a mess, so I didn't.

A. Kind of makes their "Dems kill American jobs" rhetoric a little silly.

C. It isn't showing decline in household income, it's showing increasing disparity in household income. As I said, how long do you think the rich can continue gaining a larger share? Do you think that is sustainable? Even if it isn't a bad thing, it's clear they need less help than the poor do, so why cut their taxes while raging about helping the poor with healthcare? It's backwards.
Your thought experiment is fallacious in two related ways. One, you're neglecting inflation; two, the transfer is in the other direction. In your example, the people on Earth don't notice their gift because of inflation, and the alien doesn't notice because he has more money than god. Win-neutral. In the actual case, the increasing disparity between rich and poor WILL make life more difficult for the poor, while the rich probably won't notice, maybe life will get a little better. Lose-meh, maybe win.

D. I didn't say tax cuts decreased revenue, I said decreased revenue is why we're in a financial crisis. Your graph was exactly my point. The tea party acts like Obama doubles government spending on a monthly basis. In actual truth, he's roughly on the same trend we've been on for decades. Tax cuts didn't cause the crisis by themselves and neither did government spending. So we're back to square one. Do you think the bush tax cuts helped the economy? Compare the growth of the economy from tax cut to bubble to the growth of the economy during the Clinton years. It doesn't look good on Bush.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

A. Kind of makes their "Dems kill American jobs" rhetoric a little silly.

Offshoring doesn't cost American jobs; often, it creates jobs.

How, you ask?

The company reduces its costs, earns greater profit, expands, and employs more people.

C. It isn't showing decline in household income, it's showing increasing disparity in household income. As I said, how long do you think the rich can continue gaining a larger share? Do you think that is sustainable? Even if it isn't a bad thing, it's clear they need less help than the poor do, so why cut their taxes while raging about helping the poor with healthcare? It's backwards.

It's completely sustainable. The rich help the poor by getting richer. Confused? See below.

Your thought experiment is fallacious in two related ways. One, you're neglecting inflation; two, the transfer is in the other direction. In your example, the people on Earth don't notice their gift because of inflation, and the alien doesn't notice because he has more money than god. Win-neutral. In the actual case, the increasing disparity between rich and poor WILL make life more difficult for the poor, while the rich probably won't notice, maybe life will get a little better. Lose-meh, maybe win.

Wealth is different then money. Increasing money would cause inflation, increasing wealth wouldn't.

Wealth is how many resources you have and how efficiently you are able to use them. Rich people typically get rich when they figure out how to get more resources, how to make something that wasn't a resource into a resource, or most typically how to manage existing resources more efficiently. Everyone benefits when this happens; the average person today in the US has a better and healthier life then the average person when the country was founded.

Again, you have this idea that there's a fixed amount of wealth and that one party having more means that others have less. The pie doesn't the same size, however; it's constantly getting bigger. Sure, some people have a smaller share overall in relative terms; but in absolute terms they have more then they did before.

D. I didn't say tax cuts decreased revenue, I said decreased revenue is why we're in a financial crisis. Your graph was exactly my point. The tea party acts like Obama doubles government spending on a monthly basis. In actual truth, he's roughly on the same trend we've been on for decades. Tax cuts didn't cause the crisis by themselves and neither did government spending. So we're back to square one. Do you think the bush tax cuts helped the economy? Compare the growth of the economy from tax cut to bubble to the growth of the economy during the Clinton years. It doesn't look good on Bush.

Firstly, the current financial crisis causes low revenue of the federal government, but it is not caused by it.

Secondly, apparently you missed the massive stimulus bill and the health care bill which even a little common sense will tell you will not be nearly as cheap as the government is making it out to be. The current administration is borrowing like mad from China to pay for all of this. That's just asking for trouble down the road.

 

[DepricatedZero]

So err, are all taxes unfair?

No. I think a high sales tax would be the best way to go and do away with other forms. That way the people spending money are paying taxes, including kids and illegal immigrants. Also, the more they spend, the more they pay. Rich spend a lot more than poor. I could also see justifying a labor tax, as in a sales tax on buying labor. I can go into more detail on that in another thread if you want to discuss it. I think what I have in mind is similar to the Fair Tax I've heard Barr talk about.

I keep saying that because Arthur keeps saying he is not concerned with what's fair, only what's practical. You just casually threw out that progressive taxation is immoral. Why is this so?

So why accuse him of caring about what's fair? And I threw it out because you seemed to be saying that his position(not being concerned with fairness) was being too concerned with fairness.

My argument is that taxing Koch higher is not "stealing" any more than any other tax is stealing. The government provides services to us and a framework with which to interact with society. In exchange we pay taxes. I argue that Koch benefits more from the government than Sally Schoolteacher does, and so expecting him to contribute more of himself than she contributes of herself is not at all unreasonable. It's not because he has more, its because he receives more.

How do you figure Koch is benefiting more from the government than Sally Schoolteacher? Koch reportedly hates big government, who is out to steal from him because he makes more than them, while Sally Schoolteacher is part of a Black Hand organization that is using its government muscle to prevent her from losing her job, no matter how horrible she is at it. I would say Sally Schoolteacher benefits much more from government intervention in her job than Charles Koch does. So, she should be taxed 5% more and Koch should be taxed less, since he utilizes fewer government services for his benefit.

I don't think taxes are wrong, by far they're necessary, I simply think taxing someone more because they're successful is punishing success and encouraging a welfare state.

 

[borrofburi]

So err, are all taxes unfair?

No. I think a high sales tax would be the best way to go and do away with other forms. That way the people spending money are paying taxes, including kids and illegal immigrants. Also, the more they spend, the more they pay. Rich spend a lot more than poor. I could also see justifying a labor tax, as in a sales tax on buying labor. I can go into more detail on that in another thread if you want to discuss it. I think what I have in mind is similar to the Fair Tax I've heard Barr talk about.

That sounds like it hits the poor harder than the rich though, because the poor can't always just choose to "buy less" if the sales tax puts the cost of living too high for them.

Regardless, I was asking AWilborn.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

So err, are all taxes unfair?

(Sales tax) sounds like it hits the poor harder than the rich though, because the poor can't always just choose to "buy less" if the sales tax puts the cost of living too high for them.

Regardless, I was asking AWilborn.

Yep, that's one of the problems with a universal sales tax. Another is that it would horrendously raise the price of goods if it were the only source of government revenue.

Again, I'm not concerned if taxes are fair or not. They're necessary. My only concern is that they have a minimal impact on economic growth.

 

[RichardMNixon]

@ AWilborn

The company reduces its costs, earns greater profit, expands, and employs more people.

More people... in another country... If outsourcing is profitable enough to expand, why would they suddenly cease outsourcing?

Wealth is different then money.

Point taken. The lives of the poor are improving, yes. I'm still unconvinced that's irreversible however, and the TEA party seems determined to stop it. Republicans are already remarkable at screwing over the growth of the poor.

And I reiterate that if the rich have been increasing their share of wealth since the 70's why do they need tax cuts more than the poor need healthcare?

D. Sorry, I was unclear. As far as I'm concerned, the shortfall of revenue IS the current financial crisis. How do you describe it?

Healthcare? What does that cost? In addition to "end of America" prophecies I've seen arguments that it will reduce costs, though most seem to insist it will stay about the same. Europe has a far more nationalized system than "Obamacare" and they spend significantly less than we do, so spending isn't inherent to the system. http://www.visualeconomics.com/healthcare-costs-around-the-world_2010-03-01/
The tea party can't even make up it's mind if it's outraged that the gov't is spending too much on healthcare or if the gov't is so tight-pursed that they're going to kill Grandma. You can't have both ways. Not to mention the dicks in the OP abusing Medicare scooter coverage while bitching about healthcare for the poor.

I should disclaim that my stipend and research funding comes from the stimulus bill via the DoE. Beyond that I don't know too much about it. The Council of Economic Advisors Report describes it's progress pretty favorably: http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/cea_4th_arra_report.pdf
I also feel inclined to point out that half of it's "cost" was in tax cuts and that it's cost is comparable to the Iraq War.


@ DZ
Lol, Fair Tax. Nothing stimulates the economy quite like discouraging consumers, huh? The Rich can also spend a lot more in different countries. amazon.ca would also love Fair Tax. And you're really justifying this with the added benefit of taxing children? Are kids defrauding the government somehow nowadays?

So why accuse him of caring about what's fair?

:facepalm: I'm not accusing him of being too concerned with fairness. I don't like that he's framing his position as unconcerned with fairness if he is concerned with fairness. It's fine if he really isn't, but words like "punitive" suggest otherwise.

Koch vs Sally

Koch hates "big government" by which he means, the part of the government that doesn't put money in his pocket. If the government is just holding him back, why doesn't he move to Somalia? He'd be way more successful there, right? The American system of government is immensely favorable to big business. Rand's capitalist utopia is as impossible a fantasy as Marx's worker's state. Koch NEEDS the government. They provide roads for the cars for which he sells oil. They make sure his business is treated fairly and punish people who steal from him. They pay for the education of the many who work under him. Koch is a great businessman, but he is not an island, entire of itself. Rand's superheroes don't exist.

Who is the "Black Hand," the teacher's union? Jesus H. Christ.
You think they have more government muscle than Koch? They must not be using it well since they still get paid shit. Meanwhile Koch is funding a bunch of grassroots idjits into pushing forward candidates that will work against their own best interest, see the chart above. Now he doesn't even have to use his own money, he can use his stockholders! Oh boy!

 

[ArthurWilborn]

@ AWilborn

Wealth is different then money.

Point taken. The lives of the poor are improving, yes. I'm still unconvinced that's irreversible however, and the TEA party seems determined to stop it. Republicans are already remarkable at screwing over the growth of the poor.

I'm going to repeat myself: money isn't wealth. This chart doesn't factor in six decades of technological growth.

And I reiterate that if the rich have been increasing their share of wealth since the 70's why do they need tax cuts more than the poor need healthcare?

The poor have been paying for their own health care for two centuries, why do they have the right to demand someone else pay for it?

D. Sorry, I was unclear. As far as I'm concerned, the shortfall of revenue IS the current financial crisis. How do you describe it?

The "current financial crisis" tends to put people more in the mind of foreclosures and failing banks, not the looming federal debt.

Healthcare? What does that cost? In addition to "end of America" prophecies

Eh, more probable then you might think. History is rife with the fall of countries, and massive public overspending is one possible cause. Just look at the Ottoman Empire.

I've seen arguments that it will reduce costs, though most seem to insist it will stay about the same. Europe has a far more nationalized system than "Obamacare" and they spend significantly less than we do, so spending isn't inherent to the system.

"Europe"? You're talking about dozens of countries with different systems. Want to narrow it down a bit?

The tea party can't even make up it's mind if it's outraged that the gov't is spending too much on healthcare or if the gov't is so tight-pursed that they're going to kill Grandma. You can't have both ways.

Sure we can! Overspending in the program causes cost reduction measures, which are either price controls (which create shortages) or rationing (which causes Grandma to be low priority).

Not to mention the dicks in the OP abusing Medicare scooter coverage while bitching about healthcare for the poor.

Genetic fallacy.

I should disclaim that my stipend and research funding comes from the stimulus bill via the DoE. Beyond that I don't know too much about it. The Council of Economic Advisors Report describes it's progress pretty favorably: http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/cea_4th_arra_report.pdf
I also feel inclined to point out that half of it's "cost" was in tax cuts and that it's cost is comparable to the Iraq War.

Sorry, but no.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS_zpoZp491DmxoRelWvigFa_53dxJUudGATcrhMN5eb4CAQGI&t=1&usg=__p8AvV1OMSUD7aggFw-5PWhgE1LQ=

Care to try again?

Who is the "Black Hand," the teacher's union? Jesus H. Christ.
You think they have more government muscle than Koch? They must not be using it well since they still get paid shit. Meanwhile Koch is funding a bunch of grassroots idjits into pushing forward candidates that will work against their own best interest, see the chart above. Now he doesn't even have to use his own money, he can use his stockholders! Oh boy!

Teacher pay in most states is actually reasonably competitive for equivalent levels of schooling.

Also, you're forgetting the nasty little problem of absolute vs relative gain again. In relative terms, the teachers have Koch beat stone cold for benefiting from government intervention.

 

[Yfelsung]

The existence of the Tea Party in the US is a direct cause of my recent relapse into total and complete misanthropy.

I wash my hands of the human race, especially in North America.

 

[RichardMNixon]

I'm going to repeat myself: money isn't wealth. This chart doesn't factor in six decades of technological growth.

Your point? It's not about wealth, it contadicts the TEA party rhetoric that democrats destroy the middle class. Hell, while we're at it, the rich don't lose out under Democrats anyway.

The poor have been paying for their own health care for two centuries, why do they have the right to demand someone else pay for it?

They've also been unnecessarily dying for two centuries and fostering public health crises. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Eh, more probable then you might think. History is rife with the fall of countries, and massive public overspending is one possible cause. Just look at the Ottoman Empire.

For real? :facepalm: People said the same thing about Medicare, we're still here, eh? I haven't heard about the collapse of Sweden yet.

"Europe"? You're talking about dozens of countries with different systems. Want to narrow it down a bit?

Take your pick: http://www.visualeconomics.com/healthcare-costs-around-the-world_2010-03-01/

Sure we can! Overspending in the program causes cost reduction measures, which are either price controls (which create shortages) or rationing (which causes Grandma to be low priority).

The fears of rationing were the result of Palin not knowing what hospice care is and her blind followers not bothering to find out, it's completely unfounded and actually an improvement over the current system by putting restrictions on the ability of insurance carriers to screw-over their customers.

Not to mention the dicks in the OP abusing Medicare scooter coverage while bitching about healthcare for the poor.

Genetic fallacy.

Err... what? This thread is about the TEA party. I'm not sure what you think I'm trying to prove with that other than that TEA partiers are selfish, greedy, hypocrites.

Sorry, but no.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS_zpoZp491DmxoRelWvigFa_53dxJUudGATcrhMN5eb4CAQGI&t=1&usg=__p8AvV1OMSUD7aggFw-5PWhgE1LQ=

Care to try again?

I'm going to repeat myself, spending =/= deficit. A decrease in revenue is a factor in that bar along with TARP. According to Fox News (the article has your graph coincidentally), the Iraq war costs over 80% of ARRA. Not to mention that one put money into our citizens (so that wealth you're on about is still there) while one put money into killing people on a different continent for no particularly good reason.
Then there's the less conservative estimate of $3 trillion for the Iraq War: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/03/AR2010090302200.html
And again, don't forget that ~half the cost of ARRA is in those tax cuts the right are so fond of. Funny they don't get much publicity on Fox.
Care to try again?

Also, you're forgetting the nasty little problem of absolute vs relative gain again. In relative terms, the teachers have Koch beat stone cold for benefiting from government intervention.

Again, I strongly disagree. Koch is not a superhero. He would not be a successful businessman in Somalia. Just because the government isn't giving things directly to Koch personally doesn't mean he doesn't benefit immensely from their presence.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

The existence of the Tea Party in the US is a direct cause of my recent relapse into total and complete misanthropy.

I wash my hands of the human race, especially in North America.

My sentiments exactly.

I love my country - but I hate to see people burning down the very house which I fight to protect. A wise man by the name of Mark Twain once wrote:
"Support your country all the time - support your government when it deserves it."


I love my country. I love democracy. I love socialist capitalism.
I love America.
But I cannot support her fully with a bunch of right-winged religious fruit baskets kicking me in the shins every time I watch the news. It's good news to know that I'm going to hell because I work for Obama and his evil socialist system - and other things along those lines that I've heard since I've joined. Makes me feel all warm inside too, to have some (FAR) left wing crazies blaming me for everything that's wrong in this country.
>.<

I find it better to vote independent, and vote for the lesser of two evils.

 

[Gnomesmusher]

The existence of the Tea Party in the US is a direct cause of my recent relapse into total and complete misanthropy.

I wash my hands of the human race, especially in North America.

I completely understand this feeling. I've encountered so many Tea Party sociopaths lately that it just leaves me disgusted at how stupid and vile people can be. Luckily, there are places like LOR where I can go to remind me that there ARE sane and reasonable people out there.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Here's your Tea Party "patriots" in action:


Scumbags to assault a woman, and anyone who tries to excuse it is almost as bad.