On October 29 2012 17:56 feanor1 wrote: Sent in an absentee ballot for the first time yesterday. I still hate the US political system in that my vote for the president essentially doesn't count because I am not in one of the 9 states that have a realistic shot of going either way. I can't think of many logical reasons why we still vote with the electoral college and not just a simple majority. The system was design when it took days for messages to travel between states, now communication is instant. The only reason I voted was because of a state ballot initiative that is very close (Michigan Canada bridge).
The electoral college feels completely out of time indeed. Are there never plans to change this into a simple majority vote? Never hear about that, though would expect the system to change at one point in the future.
Changing to Popular vote is dangerous for both parties as it allows third party candidates to actually gather support
hmm that sounds like a verry good reason. So much for democracy then
Obama wins the electoral vote. Romney wins the popular vote.
The left is still mad about Gore losing in 2000. This would make the right angry about the electoral college. It'd make removing it and simply using the popular vote a more likely change.
The Electoral College will never go away. Changing to Popular vote is dangerous for both parties as it allows third party candidates to actually gather support. Right now its easy to just right them off since they will always get 0. With Popular vote they suddenly shoot up to an actual value and allows them to show they do something.
Democrats and Republics might hate each other but both lose more then they gain with popular vote.
On October 29 2012 18:11 Danglars wrote: 93% of the time, if you were born to a family at the very bottom, you will supercede your parents.
This sounds good until you actually read the words you wrote. If you're born in a family where things literally cannot get any worse then 93% of the time they don't get any worse.
On October 29 2012 20:38 Voltaire wrote: Here's what I want to happen:
Obama wins the electoral vote. Romney wins the popular vote.
The left is still mad about Gore losing in 2000. This would make the right angry about the electoral college. It'd make removing it and simply using the popular vote a more likely change.
Even as a Bay Area liberal who would benefit tremendously from a popular vote system, it simply has too many glaringly obvious flaws to ever become the rule of law. We all like the idea of simple fixes like popular votes and flat taxes but they dont work. Everybody knows the electoral college has issues but we need to move forward, not take a step to the side.
I will be elated when somebody comes up with a more fair system without insanely over complicating everything.
Even as a Bay Area liberal who would benefit tremendously from a popular vote system, it simply has too many glaringly obvious flaws to ever become the rule of law. We all like the idea of simple fixes like popular votes and flat taxes but they dont work
Huh? what are the glaringly obvious flaws of a popular vote system and why does it not work? I cant seem to think of anny good fundamental reason, beside opportunistic ones like that it might help your favorit candidate or not.
I dunno, do the parties really look at it from a cost/benefit analysis like that? A lot of people think the electoral college is stupid because it's stupid. It doesn't seem to favor one party in particular.
The only real problem I have with it is that it generates a lot of voter apathy.
On October 29 2012 22:09 DoubleReed wrote: I dunno, do the parties really look at it from a cost/benefit analysis like that? A lot of people think the electoral college is stupid because it's stupid. It doesn't seem to favor one party in particular.
The only real problem I have with it is that it generates a lot of voter apathy.
Well that and it allows for the possibility of so called "Faithless Electors," or representatives that are sent to vote in the college who vote against the wishes of the district they represent.
On October 29 2012 22:09 DoubleReed wrote: I dunno, do the parties really look at it from a cost/benefit analysis like that? A lot of people think the electoral college is stupid because it's stupid. It doesn't seem to favor one party in particular.
The only real problem I have with it is that it generates a lot of voter apathy.
The problem isn't that it favors one party more than the other, the problem is that the current electoral system structurally empowers both parties at the cost of any others. Which is why it will never change.
I can see it already: "$20,000 or we're not coming to rescue you from this hurricane." Hang up. Thank god for competition, I can just call another company. "$15,000 or GTFO."
Family missing? $10,000 per 24 hours of search. We haven't found your loved one yet, would you like to pay another $10,000 so that we may continue searching for the next 24 hours?
On a side note, what happens if the hurricane prevents voting on election day? Does polling get extended until the storm passes? Or is it just too bad?
The history of this country has been to gradually cast off old fashioned institutions of authority that have held back individual expression. The electoral college is one of them. People ask the question: "why should the election for the President of our 50 states be decided by two counties in Ohio?" You cannot make arguments against individual expression in 21st Century America. We have not developed to the point where we may actually see a reason for such a thing.
On October 29 2012 15:20 blug wrote: I'm not an American, I don't know anything about the American Political System besides the fact that you have 2 main candidates running.
However, I did watch a video of Romney bad mouthing the poorer individuals, how did Romney talk his way out of that? How are people even willing to vote for Romney after saying those comments?
Do people actually agree with what he said? I'm not saying if it's bad if you do, I just thought the general populous wasn't that open minded xD
Well now that you've watched Romney bad mouthing poorer individuals, how about Obama bad mouthing some hard-working individuals. News media is all about sensationalism. Don't think you saw one volley of mud slung and have people seriously question their votes as a result of it. I mean, we on the other side were aghast at how Obama's numbers have held on considering what the last 4 years have shown America about how the man likes to govern. Two sides to this deal.
On October 29 2012 15:00 Souma wrote: ^ Yeah we talked about it, then you went off on a tangent about X-Boxs and air-conditioning.
Because those are some of the evils that one cause of income equality generates. The living conditions of the poor improve even as the income gap between them and the wealthy widens. I hear the moans about this gap, but the deleterious effects of it are not borne out.
I'm sorry, but life is not measured by something so trivial as the affordability of a television to the general populace. This whole black-and-white perspective on income inequality is stupid. There's a certain threshold where income inequality becomes detrimental to society and that line has been all but crossed as demonstrated by paralleluniverse's sources and even Jonny's linked article.
Thanks for the straw man, I'll stick it in the corner. I'm talking about the general trend of the elevation of the person in poverty's lot in life. That they now have money for that extra TV, for the car, for the AC, and everything else. And even when you say that life is not measured by the luxuries you can afford, I'll stack on top of it that well-being is not measured by income.
I read at least The Economist article seeing with what broad strokes they painted societal ills into the income inequality bucket. China came first, the bastion of a politically free and responsive government. Of course, the political favors of a corrupt, unresponsive government creates poor conditions, and not some income gap with free people able to do business apart from state-owned allowances. Throw Russia and India in that pile. Wall Street cronyism not letting up-and-comers in to become wealthy? Let's get government out of the too-big-to-fail business and back to the worst-run banks fail, allowing new ones to spring up to take their place. There is still quite a big of income mobility into the top ranks. Taking 1995 to 2005, you can see only one quarter of those at the very top still being in their coveted position, new ones coming in to take their place (US Treasury Report, 2007). Celebrate it for goodness sakes. Continuing in the trend of misdeeds done by the government on the economy is the subsidies, and the declining state of schools (Not for lack of spending money on them, the growth in that is astronomical.)
I doubt I can convince even one who focuses on income inequality that it is misappropriated. It is a political issue, it is the way of drumming up envy and votes, and it will remain so. The alternative is stark. The improvement of conditions for those who at any point in time are in the bottom 20% is remarkable. Income mobility is still very good in the United States, even with the increase in single-parent families and other pressures. 93% of the time, if you were born to a family at the very bottom, you will supercede your parents. This is 88% if you're in the middle class (Pew Trusts, Economic Mobility Project, 2012). If you don't want to be counted amongst the poor in this country, it isn't that hard, it isn't . Get through high school, marry before getting kids, and wait until after 20 to get married (This from William Galston, Clinton adviser, back in 2002. Only 8% of families that did this are poor, you're up to 79% chance if you fail to do those three. Personal responsibility).
Did you actually read the study or just look at information that suited your needs? It doesn't paint that much of a rosy picture. It's fine to say 93% of the time you will supersede your parents, but taking a closer look, as the study did, you find the ones at the bottom do not supersede their parents by very much, much of the distribution is barely higher than their parents. Also the mobility among blacks is significantly lower than whites. By your implication this is because they are lazy, stupid, and irresponsible, if they would only "just do it", obviously it's not that hard not to be poor. Furthermore, there are differences state by state, to simply state 93% of the time... is overly simplistic and lacks meaning.
From the study.
At all levels, Americans are likely to exceed their parents’ family incomes, but the extent of their income growth varies by quintile. Americans raised in the bottom who surpass their parents’ incomes do so by the smallest absolute amounts, while Americans raised in the top who surpass their parents’ incomes do so by the largest absolute amounts.
Also from the study that stuck out.
Only 4 percent of those raised in the bottom quintile make it all the way to the top as adults, confirming that the “rags-to-riches” story is more often found in Hollywood than in reality. Similarly, just 8 percent of those raised in the top quintile fall all the way to the bottom.
So there's the links and info if anyone wants to look at it and decide for themselves. You shouldn't interpret my response as one of being disdain for rich people or white people. I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I don't think there is a conscious effort to keep minorities down. And obviously not everyone can be rich. The U.S. is still far better off than a lot of the world and there are still opportunities, but at least be genuine and realistic about describing a problem rather than not even scratching the surface.
I can see it already: "$20,000 or we're not coming to rescue you from this hurricane." Hang up. Thank god for competition, I can just call another company. "$15,000 or GTFO."
Family missing? $10,000 per 24 hours of search. We haven't found your loved one yet, would you like to pay another $10,000 so that we may continue searching for the next 24 hours?
On a side note, what happens if the hurricane prevents voting on election day? Does polling get extended until the storm passes? Or is it just too bad?
I expected something a bit more extreme than that. That is a pretty typical, right leaning response to "non-essential" federal spending here in the states.
With regards to your question about the polling, the impasse falls on the states that are affected by the storm to determine that. At least the Governor of Virginia has said he would do all that is necessary to ensure access to polls despite the storm. I would imagine this would be the case for New York and further up the coast.
I can see it already: "$20,000 or we're not coming to rescue you from this hurricane." Hang up. Thank god for competition, I can just call another company. "$15,000 or GTFO."
Family missing? $10,000 per 24 hours of search. We haven't found your loved one yet, would you like to pay another $10,000 so that we may continue searching for the next 24 hours?
On a side note, what happens if the hurricane prevents voting on election day? Does polling get extended until the storm passes? Or is it just too bad?
Except that's not what he is saying. He isn't saying that private companies go to families and ask for money. I would think he means companies bid to the government for contracts to handle these situations. Much like construction work.
Election Day is Election Day. I am pretty positive there is no change to the schedule for these occurrences.
I can see it already: "$20,000 or we're not coming to rescue you from this hurricane." Hang up. Thank god for competition, I can just call another company. "$15,000 or GTFO."
Family missing? $10,000 per 24 hours of search. We haven't found your loved one yet, would you like to pay another $10,000 so that we may continue searching for the next 24 hours?
On a side note, what happens if the hurricane prevents voting on election day? Does polling get extended until the storm passes? Or is it just too bad?
Except that's not what he is saying. He isn't saying that private companies go to families and ask for money. I would think he means companies bid to the government for contracts to handle these situations. Much like construction work.
Election Day is Election Day. I am pretty positive there is no change to the schedule for these occurrences.
And yet to me the result is just as frighting. Private disaster relief works for a profit. Any private business does. Therefor they will cut corners where they can to save money and increase profits. Which can lead to loss of life in situations like this.
As a goverment there are a lot of places you can save money but dont do it on Disaster Relief. It doesnt matter that its "inefficient" so long as its fast and saves lives.
On October 29 2012 15:20 blug wrote: I'm not an American, I don't know anything about the American Political System besides the fact that you have 2 main candidates running.
However, I did watch a video of Romney bad mouthing the poorer individuals, how did Romney talk his way out of that? How are people even willing to vote for Romney after saying those comments?
Do people actually agree with what he said? I'm not saying if it's bad if you do, I just thought the general populous wasn't that open minded xD
Well now that you've watched Romney bad mouthing poorer individuals, how about Obama bad mouthing some hard-working individuals. News media is all about sensationalism. Don't think you saw one volley of mud slung and have people seriously question their votes as a result of it. I mean, we on the other side were aghast at how Obama's numbers have held on considering what the last 4 years have shown America about how the man likes to govern. Two sides to this deal.
On October 29 2012 15:00 Souma wrote: ^ Yeah we talked about it, then you went off on a tangent about X-Boxs and air-conditioning.
Because those are some of the evils that one cause of income equality generates. The living conditions of the poor improve even as the income gap between them and the wealthy widens. I hear the moans about this gap, but the deleterious effects of it are not borne out.
I'm sorry, but life is not measured by something so trivial as the affordability of a television to the general populace. This whole black-and-white perspective on income inequality is stupid. There's a certain threshold where income inequality becomes detrimental to society and that line has been all but crossed as demonstrated by paralleluniverse's sources and even Jonny's linked article.
Thanks for the straw man, I'll stick it in the corner. I'm talking about the general trend of the elevation of the person in poverty's lot in life. That they now have money for that extra TV, for the car, for the AC, and everything else. And even when you say that life is not measured by the luxuries you can afford, I'll stack on top of it that well-being is not measured by income.
I read at least The Economist article seeing with what broad strokes they painted societal ills into the income inequality bucket. China came first, the bastion of a politically free and responsive government. Of course, the political favors of a corrupt, unresponsive government creates poor conditions, and not some income gap with free people able to do business apart from state-owned allowances. Throw Russia and India in that pile. Wall Street cronyism not letting up-and-comers in to become wealthy? Let's get government out of the too-big-to-fail business and back to the worst-run banks fail, allowing new ones to spring up to take their place. There is still quite a big of income mobility into the top ranks. Taking 1995 to 2005, you can see only one quarter of those at the very top still being in their coveted position, new ones coming in to take their place (US Treasury Report, 2007). Celebrate it for goodness sakes. Continuing in the trend of misdeeds done by the government on the economy is the subsidies, and the declining state of schools (Not for lack of spending money on them, the growth in that is astronomical.)
I doubt I can convince even one who focuses on income inequality that it is misappropriated. It is a political issue, it is the way of drumming up envy and votes, and it will remain so. The alternative is stark. The improvement of conditions for those who at any point in time are in the bottom 20% is remarkable. Income mobility is still very good in the United States, even with the increase in single-parent families and other pressures. 93% of the time, if you were born to a family at the very bottom, you will supercede your parents. This is 88% if you're in the middle class (Pew Trusts, Economic Mobility Project, 2012). If you don't want to be counted amongst the poor in this country, it isn't that hard, it isn't . Get through high school, marry before getting kids, and wait until after 20 to get married (This from William Galston, Clinton adviser, back in 2002. Only 8% of families that did this are poor, you're up to 79% chance if you fail to do those three. Personal responsibility).
Do you not realize how elitist and privileged you sound? It must be nice talking down on others from your pedestal. Getting out of poverty isn't black and white as you make it out to be. It's not as simple as finishing high school and marrying before kids to escape poverty. There are issues involving race and ethnicity that must be taken into consideration. Most of those living in poverty happen to be minorities living in urban slums where education, social services, and the government are seen as working against them or just non-existent. You're implication that the poor are just lazy and are only poor because they don't put the work in is disgusting and outdated.
Here is a great quote from the Pew article you cited. "While a majority of Americans exceed their parents’ family incomes, the extent of that increase is not always enough to move them to a different rung of the family income ladder." Taking together with the finding that the poor's gainest is lowest in absolute terms, you're making a very, very small increase. And most likely you'll still be living in poverty even though your income has improved. Nice picking and choosing of quotes out of context to fit your argument.
On October 29 2012 17:56 feanor1 wrote: Sent in an absentee ballot for the first time yesterday. I still hate the US political system in that my vote for the president essentially doesn't count because I am not in one of the 9 states that have a realistic shot of going either way. I can't think of many logical reasons why we still vote with the electoral college and not just a simple majority. The system was design when it took days for messages to travel between states, now communication is instant. The only reason I voted was because of a state ballot initiative that is very close (Michigan Canada bridge).
The electoral college feels completely out of time indeed. Are there never plans to change this into a simple majority vote? Never hear about that, though would expect the system to change at one point in the future.
Changing to Popular vote is dangerous for both parties as it allows third party candidates to actually gather support
hmm that sounds like a verry good reason. So much for democracy then
Neither of you know why the Electoral Collage was designed. It was put in place originally to give states more power. The founding fathers thought this would lead to lots of regional candidates, leading to Presidential races usually being decided in the HoR. That actually didn't happen (Besides the Dixiecrats in 1948), which led to the situation of today.
As of now, while there are lots of glaring problems to the Electoral College, it has some benifits, namely that smaller states actually have much lower voter to electoral votes ratios due to the fact that each state is guaranteed at least three (one for each senator and HoR)
I can see it already: "$20,000 or we're not coming to rescue you from this hurricane." Hang up. Thank god for competition, I can just call another company. "$15,000 or GTFO."
Family missing? $10,000 per 24 hours of search. We haven't found your loved one yet, would you like to pay another $10,000 so that we may continue searching for the next 24 hours?
On a side note, what happens if the hurricane prevents voting on election day? Does polling get extended until the storm passes? Or is it just too bad?
Except that's not what he is saying. He isn't saying that private companies go to families and ask for money. I would think he means companies bid to the government for contracts to handle these situations. Much like construction work.
Election Day is Election Day. I am pretty positive there is no change to the schedule for these occurrences.
And yet to me the result is just as frighting. Private disaster relief works for a profit. Any private business does. Therefor they will cut corners where they can to save money and increase profits. Which can lead to loss of life in situations like this.
As a goverment there are a lot of places you can save money but dont do it on Disaster Relief. It doesnt matter that its "inefficient" so long as its fast and saves lives.
I don't think it's a great idea. I just wanted to correct parelleluniverse's post.
I do believe that disaster relief should be moved to state control, but going private is a bit much.
I can see it already: "$20,000 or we're not coming to rescue you from this hurricane." Hang up. Thank god for competition, I can just call another company. "$15,000 or GTFO."
Family missing? $10,000 per 24 hours of search. We haven't found your loved one yet, would you like to pay another $10,000 so that we may continue searching for the next 24 hours?
On a side note, what happens if the hurricane prevents voting on election day? Does polling get extended until the storm passes? Or is it just too bad?
Except that's not what he is saying. He isn't saying that private companies go to families and ask for money. I would think he means companies bid to the government for contracts to handle these situations. Much like construction work.
Election Day is Election Day. I am pretty positive there is no change to the schedule for these occurrences.
And yet to me the result is just as frighting. Private disaster relief works for a profit. Any private business does. Therefor they will cut corners where they can to save money and increase profits. Which can lead to loss of life in situations like this.
As a goverment there are a lot of places you can save money but dont do it on Disaster Relief. It doesnt matter that its "inefficient" so long as its fast and saves lives.
I don't think it's a great idea. I just wanted to correct parelleluniverse's post.
I do believe that disaster relief should be moved to state control, but going private is a bit much.
Correct me? Where did Romney say bidding for government contracts? He merely said: "send it back to the private sector".
It was likely just an off the cuff remark, so I don't think he said it with some deep specific meaning backed up by a policy proposal (of course, he doesn't have specifics for any policy). You can interpret those 7 words in a number of ways, there's nothing to suggest that your interpretation is any more correct than having private companies that specifically do disaster relief. How would contract bids even work? Hurricane Sandy has hit, give us your offer and we'll pay you to go help rescue people?
On October 29 2012 15:20 blug wrote: I'm not an American, I don't know anything about the American Political System besides the fact that you have 2 main candidates running.
However, I did watch a video of Romney bad mouthing the poorer individuals, how did Romney talk his way out of that? How are people even willing to vote for Romney after saying those comments?
Do people actually agree with what he said? I'm not saying if it's bad if you do, I just thought the general populous wasn't that open minded xD
Well now that you've watched Romney bad mouthing poorer individuals, how about Obama bad mouthing some hard-working individuals. News media is all about sensationalism. Don't think you saw one volley of mud slung and have people seriously question their votes as a result of it. I mean, we on the other side were aghast at how Obama's numbers have held on considering what the last 4 years have shown America about how the man likes to govern. Two sides to this deal.
On October 29 2012 15:00 Souma wrote: ^ Yeah we talked about it, then you went off on a tangent about X-Boxs and air-conditioning.
Because those are some of the evils that one cause of income equality generates. The living conditions of the poor improve even as the income gap between them and the wealthy widens. I hear the moans about this gap, but the deleterious effects of it are not borne out.
I'm sorry, but life is not measured by something so trivial as the affordability of a television to the general populace. This whole black-and-white perspective on income inequality is stupid. There's a certain threshold where income inequality becomes detrimental to society and that line has been all but crossed as demonstrated by paralleluniverse's sources and even Jonny's linked article.
Thanks for the straw man, I'll stick it in the corner. I'm talking about the general trend of the elevation of the person in poverty's lot in life. That they now have money for that extra TV, for the car, for the AC, and everything else. And even when you say that life is not measured by the luxuries you can afford, I'll stack on top of it that well-being is not measured by income.
I read at least The Economist article seeing with what broad strokes they painted societal ills into the income inequality bucket. China came first, the bastion of a politically free and responsive government. Of course, the political favors of a corrupt, unresponsive government creates poor conditions, and not some income gap with free people able to do business apart from state-owned allowances. Throw Russia and India in that pile. Wall Street cronyism not letting up-and-comers in to become wealthy? Let's get government out of the too-big-to-fail business and back to the worst-run banks fail, allowing new ones to spring up to take their place. There is still quite a big of income mobility into the top ranks. Taking 1995 to 2005, you can see only one quarter of those at the very top still being in their coveted position, new ones coming in to take their place (US Treasury Report, 2007). Celebrate it for goodness sakes. Continuing in the trend of misdeeds done by the government on the economy is the subsidies, and the declining state of schools (Not for lack of spending money on them, the growth in that is astronomical.)
I doubt I can convince even one who focuses on income inequality that it is misappropriated. It is a political issue, it is the way of drumming up envy and votes, and it will remain so. The alternative is stark. The improvement of conditions for those who at any point in time are in the bottom 20% is remarkable. Income mobility is still very good in the United States, even with the increase in single-parent families and other pressures. 93% of the time, if you were born to a family at the very bottom, you will supercede your parents. This is 88% if you're in the middle class (Pew Trusts, Economic Mobility Project, 2012). If you don't want to be counted amongst the poor in this country, it isn't that hard, it isn't . Get through high school, marry before getting kids, and wait until after 20 to get married (This from William Galston, Clinton adviser, back in 2002. Only 8% of families that did this are poor, you're up to 79% chance if you fail to do those three. Personal responsibility).
Do you not realize how elitist and privileged you sound? It must be nice talking down on others from your pedestal. Getting out of poverty isn't black and white as you make it out to be. It's not as simple as finishing high school and marrying before kids to escape poverty. There are issues involving race and ethnicity that must be taken into consideration. Most of those living in poverty happen to be minorities living in urban slums where education, social services, and the government are seen as working against them or just non-existent. You're implication that the poor are just lazy and are only poor because they don't put the work in is disgusting and outdated.
Here is a great quote from the Pew article you cited. "While a majority of Americans exceed their parents’ family incomes, the extent of that increase is not always enough to move them to a different rung of the family income ladder." Taking together with the finding that the poor's gainest is lowest in absolute terms, you're making a very, very small increase. And most likely you'll still be living in poverty even though your income has improved. Nice picking and choosing of quotes out of context to fit your argument.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://s33.photobucket.com/albums/d56/Gugen/?action=view¤t=page1.png)
![[image loading]](http://s33.photobucket.com/albums/d56/Gugen/?action=view¤t=page2.png)
