On October 30 2012 11:10 sam!zdat wrote: also isn't she's the reason I have to listen to people talk about american exceptionalism so much now?
American Exceptionalism. That's like, every country has national healthcare Except America. Every country spends more on education than war Except America. Every country respects science including recognizing global warming and evolution and the metric system Except America.
In all, 51% of Americans now express explicit anti-black attitudes, compared with 48% in a similar 2008 survey. When measured by an implicit racial attitudes test, the number of Americans with anti-black sentiments jumped to 56%, up from 49% during the last presidential election. In both tests, the share of Americans expressing pro-black attitudes fell.
Really sad if we lose health care and explode the deficit to give rich people more money because Americans forgot to ignore the color of someone's skin.
On October 30 2012 11:24 jdseemoreglass wrote: Global warming, evolution, war, national healthcare and the metric system.
Congratulations, I think you covered damn near every cliche criticism of America. Oh, but you forgot guns!!! Can't forget that we like guns so much!
Cliche? You think it is a good thing a majority of Americans think the world is 6000 years old? You think it is good we have thousands of murder every year when you can find some countries with police forces that never have to fire a single shot at all?
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. + Show Spoiler +
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 think we are way off topic now.
Yes 43% stay in the bottom. 93% exceed their parent's income, and 43% of those don't earn enough to rise out of poverty. That's right, 57% pop out. You're more likely to get out of the poverty line in a generation than to stay there. Maybe only by one quintile, but it happens. I'd like more policy emphasis on intact families instead of government as the second parent in a two parent family (Welfare policies for single parents making 2 parent families less of a need). Studies I referenced as well as others show the black/white difference tied to families. Again, not the income inequality, but the need to have a marriage bedrock for kids. I see Obama putting class warfare as the highlight (Well, shouldn't the rich pay just a LITTLE bit more while we pursue cutting federal programs. Sacrifice!), and Romney wanting to encourage income mobility. It's a core issue for me.
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.
Strangely enough, the exact citation of marrying before kids and finishing high school is demonstrated to be the keys to the escape. Of course I'm for an improvement in education. It is government keeping the poor in under performing schools, essentially dooming the biggest moves out of poverty, because there is no school choice right now. Romney supports school voucher programs, giving the people "purchasing" their education more choice instead of being forced into bad schools with teachers protected by teacher's unions and legislation from being fired for poor performance. Education is a need for the poor, sadly, Obama stands on the side keeping it a need, opposing school choice.
The government is indeed working against them in the respect I just talked about and more. The solution to this is, oddly enough, not more government programs. The ones not working now, as you claim, were designed by the same kind of people likely to do the next one. The truly elite sit back with the numbers of how much they're spending on the poor, scoring political points for their intentions, while the programs go on to skyrocket costs for little actual improvement. As mentioned earlier, a simple elimination of the management bureaucracy and a check would be an improvement. Ludicrous, but true.
So, look at the supposed ills of income inequality, and you find the real causes. Amongst these are the rise in single-parent families, high school dropouts, and failing education system run by the self-interested bureaucracies. Heck, if you want more income parity, let's go for a bigger recession, that can really nail the wealthy, and have that great side-effect of decreased prosperity for everybody. If you're poor growing up in a system you can't change, there are responsible steps you can take towards a better life. Real edgy, counter-culture ones. Like obeying the law, staying away from alcohol and drugs. It gets a bad rap, but religious and community organizations are there and help make it more likely that you will experience success. Rail against it as you may, the inconvenient truth remains, marriage before kids and high school are on the list to (for ex, Butler, Beach, Winfree 'Pathways to Economic Mobility') I want income mobility, and more truth towards the insignificant statistic of income inequality (as it relates negatively, at least. Rich getting richer is a good symptom of a prosperous nation). My vote is going towards the guy that can be more trusted to support income mobility, the "American Dream," and remove governmental barriers to its realization.
I know it was not your intention but when I read this it came off very callous with a distinct lack of understanding of the overall picture. I'll explain why.
According to the research, while 93% of Americans who were born into the bottom fifth of the income ladder do indeed end up acquiring higher wages than their parents, 70% of them still do not make it to the middle-class. That's right, there's less than a 1/3 chance for them to rise up to the middle, with significantly less (4%) being able to rise to the top (incidentally, a good chunk of these consist of those who become athletes, actors, musicians, etc. born with raw natural talent exclusive from education/marriage, but that's a different story). It's not enough to just say, "Look, these kids are making a little bit more than their parents!" As a nation, it is to the benefit of us all if those with the potential to do well are not squandered by their economic and social woes.
That, and the fact that middle-class income growth has suffered as well. Now, let's be honest, the middle-class is what we should be focusing on. We want the poor to be able to move into the middle-class and we want the middle-class to grow, not only in numbers but in income as well. However, let's take a look at this graph that was posted earlier: + Show Spoiler +
From Wikipedia: This graph shows the income of the given percentiles from 1947 to 2010 in 2010 dollars. The 2 columns of numbers in the right margin are the cumulative growth 1970-2010 and the annual growth rate over that period. The vertical scale is logarithmic, which makes constant percentage growth appear as a straight line. From 1947 to 1970, all percentiles grew at essentially the same rate; the light, straight lines for the different percentiles for those years all have the same slope. Since then, there has been substantial divergence, with different percentiles of the income distribution growing at different rates. For the median American family, this gap is $39,000 per year (just over $100 per day): If the economic growth during this period had been broadly shared as it was from 1947 to 1970, the median household income would have been $39,000 per year higher than it was in 2010.
Now you say that the current rate of wealth inequality is good because it makes us all prosperous; however you're missing a very important fact: wealth inequality, while necessary, does not have to be this horrid for the middle-class to be prosperous - in fact, it's stumping growth all together. While wealth inequality will increase overtime in absolute terms if the rate of growth between the different percentiles remains similar anyway, when the top percentile is growing at a tremendously higher rate than the middle and bottom percentiles, it is detrimental to everyone but those at the top. Let's look at this other graph to see what I mean:
We can see that before Reagonomics, annual GDP growth was, on average, higher during the preceding years since 1947. This, while the average income of the middle-class and those at the bottom percentile were growing at a faster rate and the top were growing at a slower rate than now.
Yet, this is just numbers and falls victim to the same callousness that I accused you of. Obviously wealth inequality does not tell the whole story of the woes of social mobility and the problem extends to education and the family; however, socioeconomics plays a huge role in that regard. Merely saying, "These kids need to rise up above their environment," shows a lack of understanding of the human social and psychological condition. We don't want the government to be the second or third parent, but often times it is better than government not being there at all because there are entire communities that fall through the cracks and cannot provide what's necessary to children and families in need.
TL;dr: current wealth inequality is a problem for everyone but those at the top.
Couple points:
Growing inequality is not unique to the US - most countries, including OECD countries have been experiencing growing inequality.
The US economy hasn't slowed down post Reagan on a per capita basis. Most likely any overall slowdown in the growth rate since then is due to the baby boom effects coming to an end.
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. + Show Spoiler +
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 think we are way off topic now.
Yes 43% stay in the bottom. 93% exceed their parent's income, and 43% of those don't earn enough to rise out of poverty. That's right, 57% pop out. You're more likely to get out of the poverty line in a generation than to stay there. Maybe only by one quintile, but it happens. I'd like more policy emphasis on intact families instead of government as the second parent in a two parent family (Welfare policies for single parents making 2 parent families less of a need). Studies I referenced as well as others show the black/white difference tied to families. Again, not the income inequality, but the need to have a marriage bedrock for kids. I see Obama putting class warfare as the highlight (Well, shouldn't the rich pay just a LITTLE bit more while we pursue cutting federal programs. Sacrifice!), and Romney wanting to encourage income mobility. It's a core issue for me.
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.
Strangely enough, the exact citation of marrying before kids and finishing high school is demonstrated to be the keys to the escape. Of course I'm for an improvement in education. It is government keeping the poor in under performing schools, essentially dooming the biggest moves out of poverty, because there is no school choice right now. Romney supports school voucher programs, giving the people "purchasing" their education more choice instead of being forced into bad schools with teachers protected by teacher's unions and legislation from being fired for poor performance. Education is a need for the poor, sadly, Obama stands on the side keeping it a need, opposing school choice.
The government is indeed working against them in the respect I just talked about and more. The solution to this is, oddly enough, not more government programs. The ones not working now, as you claim, were designed by the same kind of people likely to do the next one. The truly elite sit back with the numbers of how much they're spending on the poor, scoring political points for their intentions, while the programs go on to skyrocket costs for little actual improvement. As mentioned earlier, a simple elimination of the management bureaucracy and a check would be an improvement. Ludicrous, but true.
So, look at the supposed ills of income inequality, and you find the real causes. Amongst these are the rise in single-parent families, high school dropouts, and failing education system run by the self-interested bureaucracies. Heck, if you want more income parity, let's go for a bigger recession, that can really nail the wealthy, and have that great side-effect of decreased prosperity for everybody. If you're poor growing up in a system you can't change, there are responsible steps you can take towards a better life. Real edgy, counter-culture ones. Like obeying the law, staying away from alcohol and drugs. It gets a bad rap, but religious and community organizations are there and help make it more likely that you will experience success. Rail against it as you may, the inconvenient truth remains, marriage before kids and high school are on the list to (for ex, Butler, Beach, Winfree 'Pathways to Economic Mobility') I want income mobility, and more truth towards the insignificant statistic of income inequality (as it relates negatively, at least. Rich getting richer is a good symptom of a prosperous nation). My vote is going towards the guy that can be more trusted to support income mobility, the "American Dream," and remove governmental barriers to its realization.
I know it was not your intention but when I read this it came off very callous with a distinct lack of understanding of the overall picture. I'll explain why.
According to the research, while 93% of Americans who were born into the bottom fifth of the income ladder do indeed end up acquiring higher wages than their parents, 70% of them still do not make it to the middle-class. That's right, there's less than a 1/3 chance for them to rise up to the middle, with significantly less (4%) being able to rise to the top (incidentally, a good chunk of these consist of those who become athletes, actors, musicians, etc. born with raw natural talent exclusive from education/marriage, but that's a different story). It's not enough to just say, "Look, these kids are making a little bit more than their parents!" As a nation, it is to the benefit of us all if those with the potential to do well are not squandered by their economic and social woes.
That, and the fact that middle-class income growth has suffered as well. Now, let's be honest, the middle-class is what we should be focusing on. We want the poor to be able to move into the middle-class and we want the middle-class to grow, not only in numbers but in income as well. However, let's take a look at this graph that was posted earlier: + Show Spoiler +
From Wikipedia: This graph shows the income of the given percentiles from 1947 to 2010 in 2010 dollars. The 2 columns of numbers in the right margin are the cumulative growth 1970-2010 and the annual growth rate over that period. The vertical scale is logarithmic, which makes constant percentage growth appear as a straight line. From 1947 to 1970, all percentiles grew at essentially the same rate; the light, straight lines for the different percentiles for those years all have the same slope. Since then, there has been substantial divergence, with different percentiles of the income distribution growing at different rates. For the median American family, this gap is $39,000 per year (just over $100 per day): If the economic growth during this period had been broadly shared as it was from 1947 to 1970, the median household income would have been $39,000 per year higher than it was in 2010.
Now you say that the current rate of wealth inequality is good because it makes us all prosperous; however you're missing a very important fact: wealth inequality, while necessary, does not have to be this horrid for the middle-class to be prosperous - in fact, it's stumping growth all together. While wealth inequality will increase overtime in absolute terms if the rate of growth between the different percentiles remains similar anyway, when the top percentile is growing at a tremendously higher rate than the middle and bottom percentiles, it is detrimental to everyone but those at the top. Let's look at this other graph to see what I mean:
We can see that before Reagonomics, annual GDP growth was, on average, higher during the preceding years since 1947. This, while the average income of the middle-class and those at the bottom percentile were growing at a faster rate and the top were growing at a slower rate than now.
Yet, this is just numbers and falls victim to the same callousness that I accused you of. Obviously wealth inequality does not tell the whole story of the woes of social mobility and the problem extends to education and the family; however, socioeconomics plays a huge role in that regard. Merely saying, "These kids need to rise up above their environment," shows a lack of understanding of the human social and psychological condition. We don't want the government to be the second or third parent, but often times it is better than government not being there at all because there are entire communities that fall through the cracks and cannot provide what's necessary to children and families in need.
TL;dr: current wealth inequality is a problem for everyone but those at the top.
Couple points:
Growing inequality is not unique to the US - most countries, including OECD countries have been experiencing growing inequality.
The US economy hasn't slowed down post Reagan on a per capita basis. Most likely any overall slowdown in the growth rate since then is due to the baby boom effects coming to an end.
1) Yeah, I know, though we are 4th in income inequality when compared to other OECD countries, but that's really beside the point.
2) Not sure what you're trying to say here, but it would probably be clearer if you could present some data.
In all, 51% of Americans now express explicit anti-black attitudes, compared with 48% in a similar 2008 survey. When measured by an implicit racial attitudes test, the number of Americans with anti-black sentiments jumped to 56%, up from 49% during the last presidential election. In both tests, the share of Americans expressing pro-black attitudes fell.
Really sad if we lose health care and explode the deficit to give rich people more money because Americans forgot to ignore the color of someone's skin.
Honestly, it's very hard to believe an online poll like that. Online self identification and random selection are casualties going from print to online.
Consider also the reverse racism angle, recently broad to the forefront when a black actress had the audacity to not vote her race. Twitter was abuzz with the craziest reactions like it was the betrayal of the century. There isn't a reputable poll out on this yet that I can find. I'm thinking both occur.
In all, 51% of Americans now express explicit anti-black attitudes, compared with 48% in a similar 2008 survey. When measured by an implicit racial attitudes test, the number of Americans with anti-black sentiments jumped to 56%, up from 49% during the last presidential election. In both tests, the share of Americans expressing pro-black attitudes fell.
Really sad if we lose health care and explode the deficit to give rich people more money because Americans forgot to ignore the color of someone's skin.
Honestly, it's very hard to believe an online poll like that. Online self identification and random selection are casualties going from print to online.
Consider also the reverse racism angle, recently broad to the forefront when a black actress had the audacity to not vote her race. Twitter was abuzz with the craziest reactions like it was the betrayal of the century. There isn't a reputable poll out on this yet that I can find. I'm thinking both occur.
The mistake that you're making is even responding to that tripe.
Lest anyone think that Mr. Christie had been subsumed by politics amid a disaster, the governor, who spoke at the Republican National Convention in support of Mitt Romney, heaped praise on President Obama.
Mr. Christie said Mr. Obama had called to make sure he had everything needed from the federal government and left a number to call him directly at the White House should any unmet needs arise.
“I appreciate that call from the president,” Mr. Christie said. “It was very proactive. I appreciate that kind of leadership.”
Christie secretly wants 2016 to himself ;p.
Of course he does. There is no Democrat with a shot of winning it against the winner of a Rubio/Christie/Ryan/Condi primary.
Hillary could. That's about the only Dem I can think of with a shot.
Who are the most likely potential candidates for the Dems? My guesses would be Cuomo, Clinton, Warner, and perhaps Patrick as a longshot. Warner being somewhere on the ticket could be big as he is popular in a key swing state.
On the GOP side, Rubio and Christie seem like big favorites. I wonder if Walker could be a dark horse candidate given that he has had success in a midwestern blue state, or if he is a potential VP pick? That is assuming Romney/Ryan aren't running for re-election...
On October 29 2012 22:42 paralleluniverse wrote: Romney wants to privatize disaster relief:
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?
I love how you pick an extreme view always. Of course contracts don't work like that. When are contracts ever given out after the fact? Generally contracts are given with 2-3 year time frames. The company would be preparing for a response just like FEMA. I likened it to construction before. My father in law runs a construction supplement business that supplies the state with safety barrels and the like that are used during construction. He bids to the state every other year to win the contract. The state then tells him where construction is happening and for how long. He supplies the material and man power.
There is nothing to suggest in that video that Romney wants companies to bid to families for search and rescues.
Again, where did he say government contracts for disaster relief? He didn't.
In fact, in his statement about handing disaster relief over to the private sector, a couple of sentences on, he says: "We cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids. It is simply immoral in my view."
So he was clearly talking about not spending government money on disaster relief, he's not talking about contracts which government will still need to pay for.
And predictably, today he flip-flopped, saying that he was only talking about handing over disaster relief to states (who's going to coordinate and allocate resources efficiently across states for a disaster like this?). His flip-flop ignores the fact that he said that handing it over to the private sector would be "even better" than the states.
I don't think Obama will play this attack because it would make it look like he is politicizing hurricane Sandy, but the record has to be set straight.
Proudly fucking over innocent children's birth certificates because of some messed-up ideology. Romney 2012
I'm looking forward to people watching this video, and others like it, in 50 years and wondering what the hell was wrong with people back then. It will be the same as looking at videos from the 50's and 60's now, and wondering how the hell people in positions of power could get away with being overtly racist.
In all, 51% of Americans now express explicit anti-black attitudes, compared with 48% in a similar 2008 survey. When measured by an implicit racial attitudes test, the number of Americans with anti-black sentiments jumped to 56%, up from 49% during the last presidential election. In both tests, the share of Americans expressing pro-black attitudes fell.
Really sad if we lose health care and explode the deficit to give rich people more money because Americans forgot to ignore the color of someone's skin.
Remember that Republicans were all set to go with Herman Cain--a black man--as their candidate before the scandal broke out. Racism is overstated. What people don't like about black American culture is the fact that it is largely antagonistic to mainstream culture. They don't have problems with blacks, per se.
On October 30 2012 11:16 nevermindthebollocks wrote: I think many on the Right (not you) like her because they can say Hey look at the black woman on our side. We aren't racist. We aren't sexist.
Exactly. When else are we going to be able to get a PhD who's a moderate and doesn't play partisan games into the Oval Office? Gotta take the shot when you got it.
She plays as much partisan politics as Rachel Maddow, who also has a PhD by the way. I watched her not too long ago on the daily show going on and on about how history will vindicate George Bush and the Iraq war. She is not only beholden to the party line, she believes it.
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)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/IncomeInequality7.svg)
![[image loading]](http://www.tradingeconomics.com/charts/united-states-gdp-growth.png?s=gdp+cqoq&d1=19470101&d2=20071031)
