Jump to content

Voting & Taxes Should you be required to do one to do the other?


Marksmu

Recommended Posts

I want to pose a question to some of you here who maintain that Obama won only because he is black.

Had a black man had been chosen for the GOP candidate for President, and a white man been chosen for the Dem candidate for President, do you believe the black GOP Presidential candidate would've have won just because he's black?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 123
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I want to pose a question to some of you here who maintain that Obama won only because he is black.

Had a black man had been chosen for the GOP candidate for President, and a white man been chosen for the Dem candidate for President, do you believe the black GOP Presidential candidate would've have won just because he's black?

Had Colin Powell ran? Yes. Name some other prominant possible GOP qualifiers and we can discuss them on a case by case basis

I'm not anti-Jindal, but yes, he's getting played by the GOP. They could potentially ruin an otherwise good, but, green, gov, if they pick him to groom for the national stage (and talk him into doing dumb things like refusing stimulus money). Jeez even Rick Perry backed off that in about a day! I understand that people don't want more give aways for the permanent underclass in New Orleans, but the folks in the rest of the state who lose their chemical plant, and oil and gas jobs are probably going to want the extra unemployment checks. I agree, Jindal should focus on the state, and not get overly swayed by party.

This is how I interpreted Jindal's decision to turn down part of the funding, and I'm going to use small hypothetical numbers:

$10.00 - Current unemployment benefit at a cost of $1.00 to each resident

$15.00 - Obama stimulus benefit amount, still at a cost of $1.00 to each resident with .50 cents paid from stimulous

$15.00 - After stimulus expires, now no longer funded, the cost to each resident is now $1.50

So to keep the benefits after the federal stimulus funding expires, the state is going to have to pony up the extra cash, which means they'll have to raise tax rates.

Did I misunderstand this?

Edited by Jeebus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right but the difference is a choice between white and white, or white and other. As soon as other landed on the ballot, about 8 million more "other" votes came out of the woodworks than usual. I believe that was Jeebus' original point, which I may have gotten away from between then and now.

Here's what Jeebus said again:

"I guess my beef is with anyone who says Obama was elected on his merit, and not the color of his skin."

As soon as "other" landed on the ballot, over 1 million "non-other" votes stayed home. That shows that skin color was a major factor not just in Obama's election, but in GWB's as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to pose a question to some of you here who maintain that Obama won only because he is black.

Had a black man had been chosen for the GOP candidate for President, and a white man been chosen for the Dem candidate for President, do you believe the black GOP Presidential candidate would've have won just because he's black?

No, but I do think Colin Powell would have won - just not because he's black, but because it would have been a much better plan than trucking McCain out there. I don't think Obama won because of race, I just think a lot more minorities voted this election because of race. I think the route the GOP took guaranteed a dem win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's what Jeebus said again:

"I guess my beef is with anyone who says Obama was elected on his merit, and not the color of his skin."

As soon as "other" landed on the ballot, over 1 million "non-other" votes stayed home. That shows that skin color was a major factor not just in Obama's election, but in GWB's as well.

Well I guess I disagree with Jeebus statement, but only because I think Obama won due in part to the democratic campaign, and in equal part to the way the GOP handled its campaign. I think race was a bonus that widened that gap even more.

As for your second statement, I don't think that's what it shows. I think what it shows is that the GOP ran a horrible campaign and picked a horrible candidate. If race was motivation for all those white people, even more would have come out to vote to ensure that the non-white candidate did not win. Race as a anti-motivation to vote doesn't make as much sense to me. Either that or you're saying that all the non-others who stayed home are racist democrats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for your second statement, I don't think that's what it shows. I think what it shows is that the GOP ran a horrible campaign and picked a horrible candidate. If race was motivation for all those white people, even more would have come out to vote to ensure that the non-white candidate did not win. Race as a anti-motivation to vote doesn't make as much sense to me. Either that or you're saying that all the non-others who stayed home are racist democrats.

So if non-white voters turn out when a non-white candidate is on the ballot, that's because of skin color, but when white voters turn out when only white candidates are on the ballot, that's because of merit and how the campaigns were run? I don't get it. If we're going to say that more non-whites turned out in 2008 than 2004 because of skin color, that means skin color was an "anti-motivation" in 2004.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay.... and what does it mean when black folks, Hispanics, and others have been voting for whites for years (sometimes when whites were not the only 'race' on the ballot)?

I believe that race is sometimes, but not always, a motivating factor for OR against.

Sometimes a candidate is just a candidate and the best one out there.

Personally, I do not goto the voting booth and say "Oh, I am gonna vote for this one because she's Jewish, or that one because she's Asian, or NOT that one because he's Hispanic."

Maybe some folks do, but I hope I don't know any of them as friends or family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I guess I disagree with Jeebus statement, but only because I think Obama won due in part to the democratic campaign, and in equal part to the way the GOP handled its campaign. I think race was a bonus that widened that gap even more.

As for your second statement, I don't think that's what it shows. I think what it shows is that the GOP ran a horrible campaign and picked a horrible candidate. If race was motivation for all those white people, even more would have come out to vote to ensure that the non-white candidate did not win. Race as a anti-motivation to vote doesn't make as much sense to me. Either that or you're saying that all the non-others who stayed home are racist democrats.

I agree to an extent - Obama won for a plurality of reasons...First and foremost the Republicans put forward the worst candidate in the history of the republican party. Mccain was Terrible, absolutely terrible. He was an old geezer who changed his message and what he stood for over and over again - almost with the wind - trying to counter Obama's promsies.

McCain was strongly for amnesty - then against it. This was a dropping off point for him. After this and his wacko behaviour where he "suspended" his campaign for a day or two sealed his fate. He had absolutely no presence on stage, or on camera - its as if the republicans simply conceded the election. The fact that the republicans got as many votes as they did with that bad of a candidate speaks volumes to how many people really think Obama is the worst candidate in the history of this country. I would have voted for my dog over Obama - he was a terrible candidate and is proving to be a terrible president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if non-white voters turn out when a non-white candidate is on the ballot, that's because of skin color,

I'm saying that is a big reason you saw that big of an increase in minority voters, yes. Does the data not support it?

but when white voters turn out when only white candidates are on the ballot, that's because of merit and how the campaigns were run?

No. I only said that your claim that less whites voted didn't support your claim of race motivating them as well. If it motivated them, they would have voted, not abstained. By not voting, it shows they weren't motivated by anything.

I don't get it. If we're going to say that more non-whites turned out in 2008 than 2004 because of skin color, that means skin color was an "anti-motivation" in 2004.

Yes. Clearly 8 million minorities were not motivated to vote until they saw one on the ballot. Nothing wrong with that, whatever gets people to participate. If that's their sole motivation, then they aren't too bright, but if it's just what wakes them up and gets them to the polls, great.

Okay.... and what does it mean when black folks, Hispanics, and others have been voting for whites for years (sometimes when whites were not the only 'race' on the ballot)?

I believe that race is sometimes, but not always, a motivating factor for OR against.

Sometimes a candidate is just a candidate and the best one out there.

Personally, I do not goto the voting booth and say "Oh, I am gonna vote for this one because she's Jewish, or that one because she's Asian, or NOT that one because he's Hispanic."

Maybe some folks do, but I hope I don't know any of them as friends or family.

I believe most intelligent people think this way as well. Unfortunately I believe that "average intelligence" is very much overestimated, and then factor in that half of all people are less intelligent than average, and it's not so hard to believe.

Edited by 20thStDad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is an interesting fact about the 2008 election.

18-29 Year Olds

Bush deficit 1.5%

McCain deficit 6.1%

While we are focusing on the African-American vote, we are missing the fact that Obama TROUNCED McCain with young voters. We're also missing the fact that young voters turned out at the highest % since 1972 (the first year 18 year olds could vote). The youth turnout in 2008 represented around 24 million voters and a 37% increase over 1996. More people aged 18 to 29 voted than those 65 and older. That is a HUGE change from past elections. This is especially important because THE ONLY age group McCain carried, was 65 and older.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. Clearly 8 million minorities were not motivated to vote until they saw one on the ballot. Nothing wrong with that, whatever gets people to participate. If that's their sole motivation, then they aren't too bright, but if it's just what wakes them up and gets them to the polls, great.

That's a big assumption. Maybe the 8 million minorities were motivated to vote after 8 years of Bush/Cheney and the contrast presented by Obama's message of change and hope. Maybe the deteriorating economy and the fear of more-of-the-same under McCain/Palin also motivated them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is how I interpreted Jindal's decision to turn down part of the funding, and I'm going to use small hypothetical numbers:

$10.00 - Current unemployment benefit at a cost of $1.00 to each resident

$15.00 - Obama stimulus benefit amount, still at a cost of $1.00 to each resident with .50 cents paid from stimulous

$15.00 - After stimulus expires, now no longer funded, the cost to each resident is now $1.50

So to keep the benefits after the federal stimulus funding expires, the state is going to have to pony up the extra cash, which means they'll have to raise tax rates.

They can use legislative means to get around a future unfunded benefit by adding a sunset provision to state law, and he knows it.

Aside from all that, when you have a budget shortfall, there is no rule that you have to raise taxes. You cut something else to free up the money.

My point is that he is another politican taking an ideological position to please his masters, and telling half-truths in the process. Why didn't the other GOP govs do the same? Because they're not on the short list for 2012.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm saying that is a big reason you saw that big of an increase in minority voters, yes. Does the data not support it?

How true. I'm not sure that he won just because of his race but it sure didn’t hurt. I believe more blacks came out and voted because of his race more so than his issues. Did that make a difference? I believe it did. (Didn’t hurt that the GOP campaign gave us McCain/Palin.)

If Hillary had been the democrat presidential nominee, I’m sure more women would have come out to vote. I wonder though if the minority turnout would have been as high?

Edit: As for the young voters, Obama is a very charismatic guy. No doubt about it. And that got a lot of new voters interested in this election. That and traditionally young voters DO tend to be more liberal and vote democratic. I know I did.

Edited by LunaticFringe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a big assumption. Maybe the 8 million minorities were motivated to vote after 8 years of Bush/Cheney and the contrast presented by Obama's message of change and hope. Maybe the deteriorating economy and the fear of more-of-the-same under McCain/Palin also motivated them.

Yes I bet that played a part in it as well. We can't know for sure anyway, and I'm sure it's slightly different from person to person in any case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They can use legislative means to get around a future unfunded benefit by adding a sunset provision to state law, and he knows it.

Can he? What if he knows that the legislature wouldn't pass such a provision, so he's trying to stay ahead of it by just not taking it?

Aside from all that, when you have a budget shortfall, there is no rule that you have to raise taxes. You cut something else to free up the money.

My point is that he is another politican taking an ideological position to please his masters, and telling half-truths in the process. Why didn't the other GOP govs do the same? Because they're not on the short list for 2012.

So then to continue to fund the unemployment benefit increase from the federal stimulus package after it expires, you are suggesting that Jindal just cut other areas of the budget - and punish those areas to keep the unemployed paid extra?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not anti-Jindal, but yes, he's getting played by the GOP. They could potentially ruin an otherwise good, but, green, gov, if they pick him to groom for the national stage (and talk him into doing dumb things like refusing stimulus money). Jeez even Rick Perry backed off that in about a day! I understand that people don't want more give aways for the permanent underclass in New Orleans, but the folks in the rest of the state who lose their chemical plant, and oil and gas jobs are probably going to want the extra unemployment checks. I agree, Jindal should focus on the state, and not get overly swayed by party.

Looks like Perry is going to turn down part of the money as well, for what has been reported as the same reasons that Jindal is turning it down - because once the stimulus expires, the cost inscrease for unemployment insurance will be passed on to businesses via increased taxes.

So, without drawing any sarcastic answers, why is what these two are doing a bad idea, and how is causing small businesses to pay more tax going to help continue to stimulate the economy three years now - or are we just in denial that the stimulus has an expiration date and that states will have to foot the bill eventually?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If as expected, the rolls of the unemployed are far lower in 3 years than they are today, then the extra cost to businesses would be far lower as well. Additionally, tax rates and benefits are adjusted all the time. As crunch stated, there is no reason why the states could not readjust benefits downward in 3 years on the basis that the extra tax burden would put additional stress on businesses.

Here is an article that addresses some the issues. The biggest change is that some part-time workers would qualify for unemployment benefits. It also encourages states to update their formulas to the 21st Century. Having paid unemployment taxes in the past, I know that Texas based unemployment benefits on what the worker was doing a year ago, rather than recent work history. Apparently, the lag time was due to how long it took to compile paperwork by hand. Now, it is computerized and is compiled much more quickly, so the benefits could be calculated quicker.

http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourmoney/work/ar...ulus_plan_.html

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6307951.html

Given that the quickest way to stimulate the economy is through direct payments to consumers, Perry's act has the effect of denying Texas businesses $555 million in direct revenue. The unemployed immediately spend those checks in grocery stores, on rent and mortgages, at gas stations and other Texas businesses. I do not find Perry's rationale persuasive. He is counting on most voters not researching what it is that he is rejecting. Considering how much effort I had to go through just to find out exactly what the extra money was for, I think that he guessed right. However, he is not doing his state any favors in rejecting the money. Neither is Jindal. The better practice is to take the funds now, and adjust the rules later when the funds dry up.

Edited by RedScare
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Red.

My pleasure.

Apparently, Perry's refusal to accept the money is not a done deal. The Legislature can override his refusal, and a House committee has recommended that Texas accept the money, especially in light of the fact that the unemployment fund will be short $812 million by this fall.

More debate to come.

http://blogs.chron.com/texaspolitics/archi...akers_keep.html

More stuff...

http://blogs.chron.com/texaspolitics/archi...e_commitee.html

Apparently, there are several Republicans in favor of accepting the money. This is sounding more like a Perry grandstanding stunt than not.

Edited by RedScare
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are exactly right on that, Perry is grandstanding as usual. Don't know enough about Jindal, I really just think he's just inexperienced and is getting some bad advice. Perhaps he's slicker than I think and is doing some political posturing, and I'm to naive to see it. But Perry is a real piece of work. He's definately looking out for Rick Perry, per the norm. If the GOP has any thoughts of running either of these two in 2012, they might as well just forfeit the win to Obama and be done with it. I may not agree with all of Obama's stuff, but I darn sure don't want to see either one of these two clowns in the White House. Perry has screwed Texas so hard to date, we ought to all be on birth control. I wish Steve (Ogden), would get off his lazy butt and run for Gov.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If as expected, the rolls of the unemployed are far lower in 3 years than they are today, then the extra cost to businesses would be far lower as well. Additionally, tax rates and benefits are adjusted all the time. As crunch stated, there is no reason why the states could not readjust benefits downward in 3 years on the basis that the extra tax burden would put additional stress on businesses.

Here is an article that addresses some the issues. The biggest change is that some part-time workers would qualify for unemployment benefits. It also encourages states to update their formulas to the 21st Century. Having paid unemployment taxes in the past, I know that Texas based unemployment benefits on what the worker was doing a year ago, rather than recent work history. Apparently, the lag time was due to how long it took to compile paperwork by hand. Now, it is computerized and is compiled much more quickly, so the benefits could be calculated quicker.

http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourmoney/work/ar...ulus_plan_.html

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6307951.html

Given that the quickest way to stimulate the economy is through direct payments to consumers, Perry's act has the effect of denying Texas businesses $555 million in direct revenue. The unemployed immediately spend those checks in grocery stores, on rent and mortgages, at gas stations and other Texas businesses. I do not find Perry's rationale persuasive. He is counting on most voters not researching what it is that he is rejecting. Considering how much effort I had to go through just to find out exactly what the extra money was for, I think that he guessed right. However, he is not doing his state any favors in rejecting the money. Neither is Jindal. The better practice is to take the funds now, and adjust the rules later when the funds dry up.

The reason for rejecting is simple - the government is incapable of contracting and Perry may actually recognize that and for a change be doing something right. Dont get me wrong here Perry is a grandstanding idiot - I cant stand him - BUT - to say that once were out of this mess the legislature is going to retract this tax is ludicrous. The government, whether its city, state, or federal is incapable of contracting - all they do is grow grow grow - regardless of the economy. When the private sector is shrinking and fewer tax dollars are created, the government should be contracting, cutting costs, reducing hours, etc - but its not - it never does - it just keeps plugging and chugging operating on a defecit, and trying to find new things to tax to cover it.

We must stop government expansion in a time of economic contraction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourmoney/work/ar...ulus_plan_.html

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6307951.html

He is counting on most voters not researching what it is that he is rejecting. Considering how much effort I had to go through just to find out exactly what the extra money was for, I think that he guessed right. However, he is not doing his state any favors in rejecting the money. Neither is Jindal. The better practice is to take the funds now, and adjust the rules later when the funds dry up.

My bad. I looked it up but failed to post links.

As the recession continues, more and more people will be forced into part-time work to make ends meet. They won't show up in the broad unemployment statistics, but consumer spending will stay depressed and perpetuate the cycle. This is the point of of stimulus spending, as Red pointed out. The benefits extension keeps money flowing directly in the ecomony until more full-time jobs are created again, essentially hedging that full employment rises back to the level that the tax issue solves itself. One of the worst things that could happen is to have large numbers of people permanently leave full-time employment for part-time, low wage work. They have little or no discretionary income to spend or save, few have health or retirement benefits, and risk becoming a permanent drag on the system. You could work 2 mcjobs and keep the bills paid, but you can't pay for a hospital visit or save for retirement that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I shall wait for an enumerated threat caused by the poor before I respond.

You've attempted to make the issue more convoluted. You had specifically stated:

As mentioned before, all of the threats to the US requiring military force are derived from actions of the wealthy or actions of the government on behalf of the wealthy.

One such threat requiring US military force that neither derived from the actions of the wealthy or of government actions on behalf of the wealthy would be the Japanese attack on the military base at Pearl Harbor in December of 1941. Had the United States just rolled over and given up their Pacific territories to the Japanese, the (disproportionately poor) populations of those territories would've been ruled by Japanese conquerors, probably not all that differently to the situation in Japanese-held China...which is to say, very unpleasant. And that sort of strategic blunder would no doubt have had other far-reaching consequences adversely affecting both the poor and wealthy at home and abroad.

Btw, sorry for the slow response. My internet connectivity has been unreliable this week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...