Do we really need instant election returns? (About voting, not politics.)

[NotUrsula]

Oh, and about the assertion that like votes for like. Sometimes. Most commonly, as Gumbo pointed out, for most people, that connection is the first thing that draws your attention, but once your attention is drawn, then it is time to open your ears and listen to what the person is actually saying, and MUCH more importantly, open your eyes and exercise your fingers on a keyboard to find out what that person's track record of voting and accepting funding is. Yes, there are plenty of people who vote for surface attributes, but that is absolutely NOT restricted to race or gender. Starting in 1960, television has massively influenced the "superficial" voter to go for the tallest candidate -- happens nearly every time.

Don't get me started on the demise of high school civics classes. You want to see government improve? Insist to your state board of education that EVERYONE needs at least 2 years of government classes, covering not just national government but also the way that state and local governments operate. That "3 branches" flow chart is lovely but not near enough to create informed voters. They can take these classes in middle school; in fact, that's probably a better time for it.

Beside the civics education, what is my number 1 change that I think will improve the electoral process in America? GET RID OF WINNER TAKE ALL ELECTORAL VOTING!!! It is not necessary to change the Constitution and eliminate the Electoral College; just make this one change to a practice that is NOT mentioned in the Constitution. Let the majority in each state have two votes for their Senate seats, but all of the other votes should be cast as the vote went in each respective Congressional district.

 

[LSUmiss]

But.... if a white candidate wins... and I quote... "The election was stolen by racists".

Again.... I have NO double standard here.
Racism is racism, no matter where it comes from.

I am calling racism out for what it is.
And, whether or not many people want to see it or acknowledge it... It exists in a big, big, way.
It can be convenient and easy to be blind. or to have selective hearing.
This racism has been promoted and encouraged at the very highest levels. In a huge and negative way.

Can you not understand the history of oppression & institutionalized racism in the history of this country? Voting for a candidate b/c of their race could be considered prejudice but not racist.

 

[LSUmiss]

If you vote for someone based on their race instead of their political goals you are a racist. If you vote for someone based on their gender instead of their political goals you are sexist.

Which race or gender it is doesn't make it any better or worse.

If you vote based on any demographic instead of their political goals you are basically a bigot.



I'm not sure why this is a bad thing. The biggest tax breaks should go to the people that pay the most in taxes. Someone paying $500,000 a year in taxes should get a break before the person paying $30,000.

Most likely ppl are not voting against their interests just b/c of the race of a person. It’s more like the race thing motivates them to vote at all.

If only it were that simple. Waaay more loopholes & tax breaks for the very rich. It’s not just proportional to income.

 

[mnrose]

Oh, and about the assertion that like votes for like. Sometimes. Most commonly, as Gumbo pointed out, for most people, that connection is the first thing that draws your attention, but once your attention is drawn, then it is time to open your ears and listen to what the person is actually saying, and MUCH more importantly, open your eyes and exercise your fingers on a keyboard to find out what that person's track record of voting and accepting funding is. Yes, there are plenty of people who vote for surface attributes, but that is absolutely NOT restricted to race or gender. Starting in 1960, television has massively influenced the "superficial" voter to go for the tallest candidate -- happens nearly every time.

Don't get me started on the demise of high school civics classes. You want to see government improve? Insist to your state board of education that EVERYONE needs at least 2 years of government classes, covering not just national government but also the way that state and local governments operate. That "3 branches" flow chart is lovely but not near enough to create informed voters. They can take these classes in middle school; in fact, that's probably a better time for it.

Beside the civics education, what is my number 1 change that I think will improve the electoral process in America? GET RID OF WINNER TAKE ALL ELECTORAL VOTING!!! It is not necessary to change the Constitution and eliminate the Electoral College; just make this one change to a practice that is NOT mentioned in the Constitution. Let the majority in each state have two votes for their Senate seats, but all of the other votes should be cast as the vote went in each respective Congressional district.

I agree with this....so long as we fix the gerrymandering problem. If districts are gerrymandered, this isn't a fix at all, but rather would be designed to keep the "party in power", the "party in power" forever. You can see that in states like Wisconsin, where the state votes more for one party than the other in state wide elections, but somehow, nearly all their congressional representatives are from the non-dominant party.

 

[Colleen27]

If you vote for someone based on their race instead of their political goals you are a racist. If you vote for someone based on their gender instead of their political goals you are sexist.

Which race or gender it is doesn't make it any better or worse.

If you vote based on any demographic instead of their political goals you are basically a bigot.

This perspective assumes that race and gender don't influence worldview and thus political goals, though. In reality, the two are often inseparable and voting for "like" is a perfectly rational choice because the experiences of being part of the same group influence political leanings in a shared way.

 

[rickybobby]

Well it doesn't really help anyone besides corporations and the ultra wealthy. And before you say all the extra cash corporations now have can be used to grow their companies, it's only going to stock buybacks. Wages have remained stagnant and inequality has grown so the only benefit to the majority of the people in this country is a handful of dollars per month.

The insanely rich got even more insanely rich and many are quick to celebrate it because they believe they will be one of them someday? I don't know, I'm not sure what it is that has caused so many in the middle and lower classes to cheer-lead for the rich even at their own detriment. I'm not saying they need to be taxed at 99%, but at a time of unprecedented income inequality, they certainly don't need any more breaks.

You are not watching the right news. Companies increased hiring this year (mostly small companies) due to the tax breaks, major corporations gave bonuses to their employees (I know. Crumbs, right? I think those people appreciated those $1000 crumbs though). Unemployment lowest rate in forever, and wages have increased across the board approximately 3% since the tax law took effect.

 

[rickybobby]

Can you not understand the history of oppression & institutionalized racism in the history of this country? Voting for a candidate b/c of their race could be considered prejudice but not racist.

News Flash! Racism can go more than one way.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Well it doesn't really help anyone besides corporations and the ultra wealthy. And before you say all the extra cash corporations now have can be used to grow their companies, it's only going to stock buybacks. Wages have remained stagnant and inequality has grown so the only benefit to the majority of the people in this country is a handful of dollars per month.

The insanely rich got even more insanely rich and many are quick to celebrate it because they believe they will be one of them someday? I don't know, I'm not sure what it is that has caused so many in the middle and lower classes to cheer-lead for the rich even at their own detriment. I'm not saying they need to be taxed at 99%, but at a time of unprecedented income inequality, they certainly don't need any more breaks.

Just to clarify, the vast majority of corporations in this country are not publicly traded. You’re certainly welcome to your opinion on whether the Corp tax breaks are good, bad, or otherwise. But, it’s misleading to claim the breaks are “only” being used for stock buybacks.

 

[PollyannaMom]

News Flash! Racism can go more than one way.

I believe it's a semantics argument that was hashed over in an old thread. The way it was explained to me is that "favoring your race or being against another race" is actually called "prejudice" and "racism" is only the word for a certain, specific subset of prejudice, occuring against an already oppressed group - kind of like the diagrams in math where one circle is inside the other.

(But I get that if we're going to use the words that way, it's all prejudice we should be trying to get past, no matter the direction!)

 

[dish rag]

I believe it's a semantics argument that was hashed over in an old thread. The way it was explained to me is that "favoring your race or being against another race" is actually called "prejudice" and "racism" is only the word for a certain, specific subset of prejudice, occuring against an already oppressed group - kind of like the diagrams in math where one circle is inside the other.

(But I get that if we're going to use the words that way, it's all prejudice we should be trying to get past, no matter the direction!)

You wonder who thinks this stuff up.

 

[Colleen27]

You are not watching the right news. Companies increased hiring this year (mostly small companies) due to the tax breaks, major corporations gave bonuses to their employees (I know. Crumbs, right? I think those people appreciated those $1000 crumbs though). Unemployment lowest rate in forever, and wages have increased across the board approximately 3% since the tax law took effect.

True, but that's misleading. Wage growth is at a 10-year high... and so is inflation, which is consuming most of that growth. Estimates of real (inflation-adjusted) wage growth are mostly in the .5 to 1 percent range, and many analysts are quick to point out how much of that growth is owing not to any change in tax policy but rather to phased-in increases in the minimum wage in many high-population cities and states.

Pretty much everyone I know is in the same boat they've been in for years - no or minimal pay increases that are more than offset by annual increases in health insurance costs. Wage growth is happening naturally at the top and through policy at the bottom, but many of those of us in median-income land are still watching our paychecks shrink.

 

[Wishing on a star]

I believe it's a semantics argument that was hashed over in an old thread. The way it was explained to me is that "favoring your race or being against another race" is actually called "prejudice" and "racism" is only the word for a certain, specific subset of prejudice, occuring against an already oppressed group - kind of like the diagrams in math where one circle is inside the other.

Ummm..... okay...... allllll righty then....
Whatever you say!!!!!

PS: I just love when people try to resort to obscure semantics.
Kind of shows to me that they really have no other real, valid, argument.

Racism and hatred are what they are, no matter where they come from.

 

[Wishing on a star]

We are looking at our income, and at filing our taxes for the year.....
And, no we are NOT wealthy or even well-off.
Estimating that there will be a significant change, for the better, come Jan.

My poor young adult son... Just trying to do the right things, work full time, etc... He got eaten alive last Jan... Actually had to pay Uncle Sam. I found that almost disturbing.

 

[Boardwalk Jedi]

If you can't debate your point, fall back on calling names.

Where in that quote were you called a name?

 

[Colleen27]

We are looking at our income, and at filing our taxes for the year.....
And, no we are NOT wealthy or even well-off.
Estimating that there will be a significant change, for the better, come Jan.

First, I want to make it very clear that I'm not picking on you specifically, just using your post as a jumping off point about something that is inescapable in any board conversation about the tax changes...

No one (short of Jeff Bezos or Rupert Murdoch, I suppose) really calls themselves "wealthy or well-off". Pretty much everyone believes they're middle class in America. It is as much as cultural touch-point as a meaningful economic categorization. But we have had a LOT of anonymous income polls on the DIS, and every one has shown the same thing: the income distribution here is overwhelmingly "well off" by any objective standard, while the bottom half of the income distribution is barely represented. (Here's a recent one to check out: https://www.disboards.com/threads/annual-household-income.3587934/ - note that 3/4 of respondents make more than 100K, a category that represents less than 25 percent of the population as a whole, while only 7 percent were in the entire bottom half of the national income distribution) I know there are always a lot of arguments about that in terms of what it means to be well-off and the tension between income and cost of living in more expensive parts of the country, but none of that is really relevant to the fact that most posters here are in higher tax brackets and as such more likely to see significant benefit from the tax law.

 

[NotUrsula]

First, I want to make it very clear that I'm not picking on you specifically, just using your post as a jumping off point about something that is inescapable in any board conversation about the tax changes...

No one (short of Jeff Bezos or Rupert Murdoch, I suppose) really calls themselves "wealthy or well-off". Pretty much everyone believes they're middle class in America. It is as much as cultural touch-point as a meaningful economic categorization. But we have had a LOT of anonymous income polls on the DIS, and every one has shown the same thing: the income distribution here is overwhelmingly "well off" by any objective standard, while the bottom half of the income distribution is barely represented. (Here's a recent one to check out: https://www.disboards.com/threads/annual-household-income.3587934/ - note that 3/4 of respondents make more than 100K, a category that represents less than 25 percent of the population as a whole, while only 7 percent were in the entire bottom half of the national income distribution) I know there are always a lot of arguments about that in terms of what it means to be well-off and the tension between income and cost of living in more expensive parts of the country, but none of that is really relevant to the fact that most posters here are in higher tax brackets and as such more likely to see significant benefit from the tax law.

Any benefit we might have seen is going to be more than offset by increased costs for our employer-sponsored health insurance, and the rising cost of food caused by the trade war. We also need to replace our vehicles, and that is likely to cost more than we had anticipated, again because of the tariffs. We won't go hungry, but there will be no windfall.

As to the difference between prejudice and racism, it's simple: prejudice is a preference for people who are like you in some way, and a simple discomfort with those that are "other", while racism is a belief that the "other" is also "less than". It's one thing to say that I like candidate Y because she is like me, and another to say that I don't like candidate Z because all people with his skin color are lazy and dishonest. All things considered, racism is worse, but both are morally and intellectually wrong.

 

[sam_gordon]

My poor young adult son... Just trying to do the right things, work full time, etc... He got eaten alive last Jan... Actually had to pay Uncle Sam. I found that almost disturbing.

The only reason he would have had to pay would be because he didn't have enough held out of his paycheck. I hope you had him correct that.

FWIW, I checked our last 5 tax returns & compared adjusted gross income and taxes due:
Year Tax% paid
2013: 5%
2014: 7%
2015: 7%
2016: 8%
2017: 9%

 

[LSUmiss]

I think you are part of the group that has been convinced that you’re not getting screwed by the extremely rich b/c they told you you weren’t. I don’t want the rich destroyed. I just want them to pay their fair share. Currently most do not.

 

[LSUmiss]

If we could ever get to that point, the republic would be much stronger.

Yeah that’s the problem.

 

[LSUmiss]

Just issued two huge 'likes' to your last posts, RickyBobby!
I would also add just one other little point, but that would def. be political, and be in violation of board rules.

And, while I do understand that people might want to gravitate and be more inclined to consider candidates with whom they share some similarities...
The 'black' comments most go way farther than that.
I know racism when I see it.

There have been two threads shut down, recently, because racist (or what could be called reverse-racist) name-calling comments.
Don't try to tell me that this mentality/viewpoint isn't our there in a big way.

The double standard is both huge, and undeniable.

It’s actually quite a brilliant strategy to play the victim when historically you (collective you) have been the perpetrator.