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.
Okay, first of all, no one actually considered Cain to be a serious candidate. He was fun and outspoken. But he was not taken seriously. Perry and Bachmann were taken much more seriously.
no they weren't. conservatives considered Cain to be a very powerful candidate, potentially. if the libs hadn't pulled out the "he rapes da white womin!" card than he might have made a very serious push. (he was polling REALLY well up until they came out with that fucking racist as shit story)
Perry was also a legitimate contender, but the fact that you said Bachmann was taken more seriously is.... well, it's definitely indicative of how well you know conservative/Republican thinking.
On October 31 2012 01:44 farvacola wrote: As for pointing at Herman Cain as evidence that the Republicans are certifiably non-racist.....well that's merely another form of the "Well, I have black friends" argument that is actually racist in and of itself.
I never understood this argument.
1) why would a racist have black friends or nominate black candidates? 2) why would it be racist to combat the charge of racism by pointing out that you have black friends and nominate black candidates?
seems like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" tactic to be used by people who have already decided that the other person is racist, and will refuse to accept any other conclusion. otherwise, "well, actually, I have a lot of black friends", if true, would be perfectly acceptable as evidence that you are not racist against blacks.
Cain had all the downsides of being a bumbling idiot with none of the hapless charm. An awful lot of the stuff that he was saying was so idiotic that the average idiot could see the flaws with it. For example a flat tax rate will never work because it doesn't generate any money, call me a pragmatist but you go after the rich because they actually have money. If a poor family earns X and their expenses are Y then the most you can tax them is 1-(Y/X) which, for those near the poverty line, is a low number, you have to set the taxes very low to let them buy bread. If you then apply that number across society you have fuck all tax revenue, a load of people giving the government money they can't afford to spare and riots on your hands as the rich get a huge tax break from where they previously were. Also 7% is way too low to do anything with anyway, let alone repaying the deficit. His knowledge of the world was laughably poor too. I would maybe trust him to manage a farm but definitely not a country. He probably knows who he is, where he lives and I'd guess how to dress himself, beyond that, I have my doubts.
When I think of Herman Cain, I think of the scene in The Wire where Tommy Carcetti and his campaign managers are sitting in a restaurant and one of them says "Speaking of color, I'm noticing a certain monochromatic effect here..".
On October 31 2012 06:06 Steelavocado wrote: Hey guys, sorry if this is not on topic, but here are some pictures of the Romney rally from yesterday. It was soooo cool having him at my high school! + Show Spoiler +
Such diversity!
Must be a cool experience, I've only ever been that close to a Governor X_X
It was really fun! I tried plowing through like 5 rows of people to shake hands with him, but 125 pounds vs 5 people doesn't do much
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.
Okay, first of all, no one actually considered Cain to be a serious candidate. He was fun and outspoken. But he was not taken seriously. Perry and Bachmann were taken much more seriously.
no they weren't. conservatives considered Cain to be a very powerful candidate, potentially. if the libs hadn't pulled out the "he rapes da white womin!" card than he might have made a very serious push. (he was polling REALLY well up until they came out with that fucking racist as shit story)
Perry was also a legitimate contender, but the fact that you said Bachmann was taken more seriously is.... well, it's definitely indicative of how well you know conservative/Republican thinking.
On October 31 2012 01:44 farvacola wrote: As for pointing at Herman Cain as evidence that the Republicans are certifiably non-racist.....well that's merely another form of the "Well, I have black friends" argument that is actually racist in and of itself.
I never understood this argument.
1) why would a racist have black friends or nominate black candidates? 2) why would it be racist to combat the charge of racism by pointing out that you have black friends and nominate black candidates?
seems like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" tactic to be used by people who have already decided that the other person is racist, and will refuse to accept any other conclusion. otherwise, "well, actually, I have a lot of black friends", if true, would be perfectly acceptable as evidence that you are not racist against blacks.
Cain had all the downsides of being a bumbling idiot with none of the hapless charm. An awful lot of the stuff that he was saying was so idiotic that the average idiot could see the flaws with it. For example a flat tax rate will never work because it doesn't generate any money, call me a pragmatist but you go after the rich because they actually have money. If a poor family earns X and their expenses are Y then the most you can tax them is 1-(Y/X) which, for those near the poverty line, is a low number, you have to set the taxes very low to let them buy bread. If you then apply that number across society you have fuck all tax revenue, a load of people giving the government money they can't afford to spare and riots on your hands as the rich get a huge tax break from where they previously were. Also 7% is way too low to do anything with anyway, let alone repaying the deficit. His knowledge of the world was laughably poor too. I would maybe trust him to manage a farm but definitely not a country. He probably knows who he is, where he lives and I'd guess how to dress himself, beyond that, I have my doubts.
Cain's tax plan was silly but a flat tax by itself isn't a bad concept. Quite a few countries have a flat tax rate and they seem pretty happy with them. A flat tax can also be progressive when you add in deductions and credits.
On October 31 2012 06:31 sam!zdat wrote: can somebody give me argument for flat tax besides something that sounds like a five year old's conception of "fairness."
I've suggested that a flat tax with a Negative Income Tax could be viable.
lol @ Romney's comment about Chrysler and Jeep Production in China. he doesn't know wtf hes talking about. I'm pretty sure the execs at Chrysler are fucking pissed and a statement was released today that basically called Romney a dumbass for not reading the article he referenced. I can't believe more people aren't calling him out for it.
He basically tried to mislead workers in Ohio that their Jobs at TNAP will be shipped to China which couldn't be further from the truth. What a fucking douche.
On October 31 2012 06:31 sam!zdat wrote: can somebody give me argument for flat tax besides something that sounds like a five year old's conception of "fairness."
I've suggested that a flat tax with a Negative Income Tax could be viable.
A what now?
edit: so it's just not a flat tax for people below a threshold, with a kind of minimum guaranteed income. ok.
edit: so would I have to be employed, or could I just take the minimum and do something useful with my life instead?
On October 31 2012 06:31 sam!zdat wrote: can somebody give me argument for flat tax besides something that sounds like a five year old's conception of "fairness."
I've suggested that a flat tax with a Negative Income Tax could be viable.
A what now?
edit: so it's just not a flat tax for people below a threshold, with a kind of minimum guaranteed income. ok.
edit: so would I have to be employed, or could I just take the minimum and do something useful with my life instead?
Just out of curiosity, what do you consider as doing "something useful with my life"?
On October 31 2012 06:31 sam!zdat wrote: can somebody give me argument for flat tax besides something that sounds like a five year old's conception of "fairness."
I've suggested that a flat tax with a Negative Income Tax could be viable.
A what now?
edit: so it's just not a flat tax for people below a threshold, with a kind of minimum guaranteed income. ok.
edit: so would I have to be employed, or could I just take the minimum and do something useful with my life instead?
Well, you make it small enough that it's basically your welfare.
The advantage of this is that you can eliminate welfare/foodstamps.
On October 31 2012 02:36 Defacer wrote: Christie going rogue this morning across all the major news shows.
That is actually somewhat to be expected. Chris Christie sees himself as a favourite in 2016 for presidential election. If Romney wins the upcoming election, he will not have that possibility. For his own political carrier, it would be far better if Obama is elected. 2020 is far too far away for him to keep the momentum up. 8 years of politilcs is a very long time and a lot of newcomers can threaten his favourability ratings in that time. Especially after he has started to move his opinions to better align with the socially conservative.
I know we're all jaded and assume that Gov. Christie has ulterior motives, but isn't the most direct answer to all of this speculation about why he said what he said (on multiple networks) is that he's being honest? He hasn't "gone rogue" and isn't throwing Romney under the bus but he's doing his fucking job. Something that frankly I wish all of our politicians spent more time doing instead of posturing, looking for ways to "get" the other side, and all using the same talking points.
By the way, love the selective edit on the Governor's comment on Romney going to New Jersey to tour the damage. The video has it as:
I have no idea, nor am I the least bit concerned or interested.
Full quote:
I have no idea, nor am I the least bit concerned or interested. I’ve got a job to do here in New Jersey that’s much bigger than presidential politics and I could care less about any of that stuff. I have a job to do. I’ve got 2.4 million people out of power. I’ve got devastation on the shore. I’ve got floods in the northern part of my state. If you think right now I give a damn about presidential politics then you don’t know me.
On October 31 2012 06:31 sam!zdat wrote: can somebody give me argument for flat tax besides something that sounds like a five year old's conception of "fairness."
I've suggested that a flat tax with a Negative Income Tax could be viable.
A what now?
edit: so it's just not a flat tax for people below a threshold, with a kind of minimum guaranteed income. ok.
edit: so would I have to be employed, or could I just take the minimum and do something useful with my life instead?
The negative income tax, as proposed by Friedman, did not require a person to be employed as it replaced a lot of (if not all) welfare / anti-poverty programs.
On October 31 2012 06:31 sam!zdat wrote: can somebody give me argument for flat tax besides something that sounds like a five year old's conception of "fairness."
I've suggested that a flat tax with a Negative Income Tax could be viable.
A what now?
edit: so it's just not a flat tax for people below a threshold, with a kind of minimum guaranteed income. ok.
edit: so would I have to be employed, or could I just take the minimum and do something useful with my life instead?
Just out of curiosity, what do you consider as doing "something useful with my life"?
well, you can bet that it's not standing around all day trying to sell people things they don't need, like the rest of our stupid country.
I got a pretty big stack of books I'd like to read
On October 31 2012 06:31 sam!zdat wrote: can somebody give me argument for flat tax besides something that sounds like a five year old's conception of "fairness."
I've suggested that a flat tax with a Negative Income Tax could be viable.
Sorry, I don't get it. Could you explain?
Right now we need to ramp up the progressiveness of our tax code. The middle class is painfully stagnant and has been for the last 30 years. Not to mention the massive deficit we have and the wealth disparity that's increasing. We need to ramp up the highest tax rate to like 50%+ and try to lower it on the middle class imo.
High income tax would also help job growth because it incentivizes the rich to invest more rather than take home income.
On October 31 2012 03:48 jdsowa wrote: It's not only Romney and Obama that have their jobs on the line here. One of these two will fall after Nov. 6:
1.) Gallup/Rasmussen 2.) Nate Silver/PPP
Each has gone so far out on a limb for their respective side that it seems the loser will take a crippling credibility hit.
Gallup has been around for 50 years now. If one were to place trust somewhere, it might be there. But you never know. Nate Silver is barely older than the average TL poster. PPP and Rasmussen have only been around for a decade. PPP and Silver were successful in 2008. Dems fared well and their Dem-leaning results matched that. In the present election, I think Repubs are slightly more energized than the Dems. Dem early voting is falling short of where it was in 08. This may ultimately explain the gap between the actual 2012 results and Silver/PPP's projection models that are based on a 2008 election with strong Dem enthusiasm.
Votes come from three groups: 1) your base 2) crossover 3) independents. Romney seems to have a huge independent lead (double digits in some cases). I believe he has more of an energized base since Repubs are angry and Dems are complacent. It's hard to see enough Repubs crossing over to Obama at this point. I will also add that I think early voting does not work in favor of the incumbent. Voting on election day is a process that appeals to people who want the status quo. People who vote early are angry or enthused and can't wait.
I do want to mention that Obama losing on the 6th does not mean Nate Silver will "fall" unless some really bizarre stuff happens. If an outcome occurs that has between a 1/3 and 1/4 chance of happening, it doesn't really discredit your statistical model.
I mean, the Red Sox threw what models had shown to be a statistically unlosable lead last season, so those models were wrong. That's not going to be the case in politics (well, unless you count post-Convention when Obama was given a >90% chance by Silver's model, then it would have made him "fall").
Edit: I do hope he writes up a post about the absentee ballots, because he's the only person I can think of that might be able to actually get information about the timeline previous absentee ballots arrived in previous elections. Sandy disrupted the last two days of submission (and the deadline has extended) and I'm curious if the Republican tilt is partially due to them simply submitting ballots earlier while Democrats wait till the last minute.
Edit2: The other interesting possibility is that the storm affected some postal routes disproportionately, so some urban areas have yet to get their ballots in. This would account for the low numbers of ballots in general and the GOP lean.
That is actually somewhat to be expected. Chris Christie sees himself as a favourite in 2016 for presidential election. If Romney wins the upcoming election, he will not have that possibility. For his own political carrier, it would be far better if Obama is elected. 2020 is far too far away for him to keep the momentum up. 8 years of politilcs is a very long time and a lot of newcomers can threaten his favourability ratings in that time. Especially after he has started to move his opinions to better align with the socially conservative.
I know we're all jaded and assume that Gov. Christie has ulterior motives, but isn't the most direct answer to all of this speculation about why he said what he said (on multiple networks) is that he's being honest? He hasn't "gone rogue" and isn't throwing Romney under the bus but he's doing his fucking job. Something that frankly I wish all of our politicians spent more time doing instead of posturing, looking for ways to "get" the other side, and all using the same talking points.
By the way, love the selective edit on the Governor's comment on Romney going to New Jersey to tour the damage. The video has it as:
I have no idea, nor am I the least bit concerned or interested. I’ve got a job to do here in New Jersey that’s much bigger than presidential politics and I could care less about any of that stuff. I have a job to do. I’ve got 2.4 million people out of power. I’ve got devastation on the shore. I’ve got floods in the northern part of my state. If you think right now I give a damn about presidential politics then you don’t know me.
I like how your full quote is missing the statements prior to the sentence. Nice try.
On October 31 2012 06:31 sam!zdat wrote: can somebody give me argument for flat tax besides something that sounds like a five year old's conception of "fairness."
The flat tax is good because it is very simple, which has several benefits. It makes the system very easy to understand so tax adjustments have a more complete and immediate effect. The simplicity also makes it harder to play games or hide tax-motivated actions. And it reduces tax-related costs such as lawyers, accountants, bureaucrats, etc.
But it's not going to happen. The United States tax code has way too much history and way too much utility to make it worth scrapping it in favor of a super simple flat tax. It has some plausible theoretical benefits but there's no reason to do it in the absence of a crisis.
On October 31 2012 06:31 sam!zdat wrote: can somebody give me argument for flat tax besides something that sounds like a five year old's conception of "fairness."
I've suggested that a flat tax with a Negative Income Tax could be viable.
Sorry, I don't get it. Could you explain?
Right now we need to ramp up the progressiveness of our tax code. The middle class is painfully stagnant and has been for the last 30 years. Not to mention the massive deficit we have and the wealth disparity that's increasing. We need to ramp up the highest tax rate to like 50%+ and try to lower it on the middle class imo.
High income tax would also help job growth because it incentivizes the rich to invest more rather than take home income.
Why would a higher top tax rate create an incentive to invest more? Seems to me the opposite would be true. A higher tax rate would make fewer investments worth it and so the money would be spent on consumption instead.
50% seems pretty extreme too. We already have a very progressive tax system.
Mitt Romney and his ilk would still be cheating on their taxes even if it were a flat tax... I don't see how that helps. It just gives up trying to get money from them (like xdaunt's territorial whatever)
On October 31 2012 06:31 sam!zdat wrote: can somebody give me argument for flat tax besides something that sounds like a five year old's conception of "fairness."
I've suggested that a flat tax with a Negative Income Tax could be viable.
Sorry, I don't get it. Could you explain?
Right now we need to ramp up the progressiveness of our tax code. The middle class is painfully stagnant and has been for the last 30 years. Not to mention the massive deficit we have and the wealth disparity that's increasing. We need to ramp up the highest tax rate to like 50%+ and try to lower it on the middle class imo.
High income tax would also help job growth because it incentivizes the rich to invest more rather than take home income.
A higher tax rate would make fewer investments worth it and so the money would be spent on consumption instead.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Sekar.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oygBM.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vippt.jpg)
