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

[Geoff8201]

Forget it Jeebus. If your not politically correct then your automatically deemed a racist by liberals. And you will NEVER get a liberal to admit that some people voted for Obama just because of his skin color.

Hell, I'll admit it. Some blacks and minorities voted for Obama because he was black, and they wanted someone of the same color, or at least a non-white to win. Common sense there, with no delusions that Obama received some of his votes simply based on his skin color. But same goes for McCain, many whites voted for him because he was white and that he was not black, and on many levels racial and political that he was not Barack Obama.

I personally voted for Obama NOT because he was black, or out of "white guilt" but on the bulk of the issues. Did I agree with Obama 100% of the time and agree with McCain 0% of the time? Absolutely not. I went by whom I believed based on my education, experience, and beliefs whom I thought would be best at making things better overall. It was really one of those lesser of two evil type situations.

Remember though, Barack Obama is half black, and half white. He's not full blooded African-American. This is significant because technically we still have not had a fully black president. As we move on year after year and more and more people are multiple races, I don't think it will matter anymore anyhow eventually.

Expanding on what Memebag was saying, I disagree with his assertion to an extent, or perhaps just the way he worded it. I don't think race was a factor in past elections because it was white candidate vs white candidate. Now the fact they even got in the primaries and were nominated WAS because they were white. No African American would have realistically ran before the 1980s when Jesse Jackson did it, but did not get his party's nomination (that is if you don't count Shirley Chisholm, who made the first ever bid for an African American to run for President back in 1972, however in that time, passing the milestone of announcing a bid was about as far as she'd get).

Therefore prior to Election 08', race was not a factor in the Election itself. It was however a factor that they received their party's nomination, and that they were able to announce their bid for the Presidency to begin with.

[crunchtastic]

Why aren't any minorities flocking to the GOP now that Michael Steele is the chairman of the Republican National Committee? Steele is an African American, and he has even pushed for a "hip hop" makeover to attract young African American and Hispanic voters. By the of the logic of some in this thread, that should do the trick.

And yet, minorities are not flocking to the GOP. Not even trickling. My guess is that it's because Michael Steele comes across as an out-of-touch phony trying to use cheap tactics for a desperate GOP that hasn't changed it's fundamental values or beliefs. And that is why a majority of minorities voted for Obama rather than McCain.

I

The Steele thing rather reminds me of Nancy Reagan trying to appeal to disaffected youth with the 'just say no' campaign.

Heh, they're going to try with Bobby 'I'm Refusing Stimulus Money for My Broke-Ass State' Jindal. I can just hear some republican party consultant at the table: Look, Jindal's not black, but he's not white, so he's as good as black. And besides, look how popular Slumdog Millionaire is! Wait, is Jindal Indian or Pakistani? Nevermind. Anyway, there are a lot of black people in Louisiana!

[barracuda]

The Steele thing rather reminds me of Nancy Reagan trying to appeal to disaffected youth with the 'just say no' campaign.

Heh, they're going to try with Bobby 'I'm Refusing Stimulus Money for My Broke-Ass State' Jindal. I can just hear some republican party consultant at the table: Look, Jindal's not black, but he's not white, so he's as good as black. And besides, look how popular Slumdog Millionaire is! Wait, is Jindal Indian or Pakistani? Nevermind. Anyway, there are a lot of black people in Louisiana!

I can see that .

I think this speaks to the petty shallowness and lack of leadership of the current GOP. To expect that trotting out a few token minorities will swing public opinion in their favor is really pathetic, and kind of insulting at the same time. GOP, try changing your message and positions and show some actual leadership.

[Fringe]

Hell, I'll admit it. Some blacks and minorities voted for Obama because he was black, and they wanted someone of the same color, or at least a non-white to win. Common sense there, with no delusions that Obama received some of his votes simply based on his skin color. But same goes for McCain, many whites voted for him because he was white and that he was not black, and on many levels racial and political that he was not Barack Obama.

I won't deny that there were a lot of redneck whites that voted against Obama because of his color and I have nothing but contempt for those people. I just believe racism works both ways and those that voted for him because he's black are no different from those same white rednecks and I have nothing but contempt for those people.

[RedScare]

Expanding on what Memebag was saying, I disagree with his assertion to an extent, or perhaps just the way he worded it. I don't think race was a factor in past elections because it was white candidate vs white candidate. Now the fact they even got in the primaries and were nominated WAS because they were white. No African American would have realistically ran before the 1980s when Jesse Jackson did it, but did not get his party's nomination (that is if you don't count Shirley Chisholm, who made the first ever bid for an African American to run for President back in 1972, however in that time, passing the milestone of announcing a bid was about as far as she'd get).

Therefore prior to Election 08', race was not a factor in the Election itself. It was however a factor that they received their party's nomination, and that they were able to announce their bid for the Presidency to begin with.

It should be noted that while other Blacks have run for president, their downfall can be traced as much to political strategy as to skin color. Previous Black candidates ran on a platform of inequality to Blacks, making them largely attractive candidates only to Blacks. They may have expanded the message to the extremely poor, but that still left them out of touch with large majorities of voters. Obama, in stark contrast, rarely talked of the "plight" of Blacks or the poor, instead talking of the plight of the working middle class, a shrinking but still large voting block. When the market suddenly tanked, his approach fit the crisis well, while McCain was seemingly caught flat-footed. In the end, race was as far from most voters minds as it could be, as it should have been.

[Geoff8201]

It should be noted that while other Blacks have run for president, their downfall can be traced as much to political strategy as to skin color. Previous Black candidates ran on a platform of inequality to Blacks, making them largely attractive candidates only to Blacks. They may have expanded the message to the extremely poor, but that still left them out of touch with large majorities of voters. Obama, in stark contrast, rarely talked of the "plight" of Blacks or the poor, instead talking of the plight of the working middle class, a shrinking but still large voting block. When the market suddenly tanked, his approach fit the crisis well, while McCain was seemingly caught flat-footed. In the end, race was as far from most voters minds as it could be, as it should have been.

I can agree with that statement.

Obama has differed from a lot of black candidates. You don't think of a black leader running with a message of black pride and everything else you can think of along those lines. For some reason it reminds me of when Jesse Jackson was caught by the camera saying how Barack Obama was talking down to black people and how he wanted to cut his nuts off .

Actually if people would stop mentioning it so much, I would probably completely forget he's black, cause during his campaign all I heard was the issues, the chant of change, and finally after months of waiting to finally hear what exactly that change was besides a campaign slogan.

Voting for him because he was black is in fact racist... voting against him simply because he was black is also of course, very racist in a very negative way. I remember hearing an interview with a white southern man who said: (paraphrased) "The only black men I know of talking about change were holding a cup". Contempt for those kind of people who would make a statement like that, indeed!

[20thStDad]

The Steele thing rather reminds me of Nancy Reagan trying to appeal to disaffected youth with the 'just say no' campaign.

Heh, they're going to try with Bobby 'I'm Refusing Stimulus Money for My Broke-Ass State' Jindal. I can just hear some republican party consultant at the table: Look, Jindal's not black, but he's not white, so he's as good as black. And besides, look how popular Slumdog Millionaire is! Wait, is Jindal Indian or Pakistani? Nevermind. Anyway, there are a lot of black people in Louisiana!

Are you anti-Jindal or just lumping him in with the rest of the GOP? Jindal lost the first time he ran for governor, and you can probably chalk that up to race. Instead they went for a woman, possibly the dumbest person ever to hold public office. On the second time around they didn't make the same mistake, Jindal won easily. He's a very smart guy, but he's shown to still be very green in a lot of political plays. I think he really does try to do what's best for the state, or did at the beginning. I'm afraid he may be falling in to the GOP good ol' boy crowd more and more though, which can only hurt in the end.

And what Geoff8201 was saying is along the lines of what I was trying to convey before, apparently poorly. I think race was more of a factor in this election than any to date simply because it was actually on the ballot instead of just on candidates' platforms or policies. Regardless, anyone who voted based on race is an idiot.

[memebag]

I think race was more of a factor in this election than any to date simply because it was actually on the ballot instead of just on candidates' platforms or policies.

But skin color (race) has always been on the ballot. White is not the default color for a person, candidate or president.

[20thStDad]

But skin color (race) has always been on the ballot. White is not the default color for a person, candidate or president.

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.

[crunchtastic]

Are you anti-Jindal or just lumping him in with the rest of the GOP? Jindal lost the first time he ran for governor, and you can probably chalk that up to race. Instead they went for a woman, possibly the dumbest person ever to hold public office. On the second time around they didn't make the same mistake, Jindal won easily. He's a very smart guy, but he's shown to still be very green in a lot of political plays. I think he really does try to do what's best for the state, or did at the beginning. I'm afraid he may be falling in to the GOP good ol' boy crowd more and more though, which can only hurt in the end.

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.

[JLWM8609]

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?

[Jeebus]

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?

[memebag]

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.

[20thStDad]

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.

[memebag]

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

Why does the candidate's name matter if all you needed to win in 2008 was black skin?

[20thStDad]

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.

[memebag]

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.

[houstonmacbro]

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.

[Marksmu]

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.

[20thStDad]

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.

[KinkaidAlum]

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.

[barracuda]

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.

[crunchtastic]

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.

[Fringe]

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.

[20thStDad]

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.

[Jeebus]

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?

[Jeebus]

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?

[RedScare]

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.

[Jeebus]

Thank you Red.

[RedScare]

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.