as for race...so 95% of African Amercians voted for Obama in the last election...so what...?
1) Are we to be so scared of discussing race that we can't acknowledge the simple truth that Obama will get some african american votes only because he is black?
2) I'm pretty sure you;d agree that Mitt will get some white votes because he's white?
And I'd be willing to bet ya that #1 = more votes for Obama than #2 = votes for Mitt.
as for race...so 95% of African Amercians voted for Obama in the last election...so what...?
1) Are we to be so scared of discussing race that we can't acknowledge the simple truth that Obama will get some african american votes only because he is black?
2) I'm pretty sure you;d agree that Mitt will get some white votes because he's white?
And I'd be willing to bet ya that #1 = more votes for Obama than #2 = votes for Mitt.
1) nope...we can assume he will get some votes based on his race...just that we can assume he won't based on his race...
as for race...so 95% of African Amercians voted for Obama in the last election...so what...?
So what?
You don't think it speaks to SOMETHING that Obama was essentially elected through RACISM?
Call it what you want. Say it isn't because it is not PC for a minority to be accused of racism, but it DRIVES ME NUTS when i hear otherwise well spoken black people (i've seen this on the goddamn "News") say "... and well, yeah I'll admit it, I voted for him because he was black. Yeah i did."
FUCK THAT.
I have a problem with that.
Not because i'm some sort of White Supremacist Bigot, but because it is reprehensible to vote for someone based on the color of their skin, regardless of your functional classification as a "minority" or not.
It's
a. stupid \ ignorant \ racist
b. just bad politics
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
as for race...so 95% of African Amercians voted for Obama in the last election...so what...?
So what?
You don't think it speaks to SOMETHING that Obama was essentially elected through RACISM?
Call it what you want. Say it isn't because it is not PC for a minority to be accused of racism, but it DRIVES ME NUTS when i hear otherwise well spoken black people (i've seen this on the goddamn "News") say "... and well, yeah I'll admit it, I voted for him because he was black. Yeah i did."
FUCK THAT.
I have a problem with that.
Not because i'm some sort of White Supremacist Bigot, but because it is reprehensible to vote for someone based on the color of their skin, regardless of your functional classification as a "minority" or not.
It's
a. stupid \ ignorant \ racist
b. just bad politics
yeah, so what...
I get that some don't like the reasoning some may have for voting for someone....that's their choice....as an aside: just because a few "well spoken black people", whatever the fuck that means, does not mean all African Americans voted based on this...
for me, when someone votesagainst a candidate based on race, that's a problem...yeah, yeah...that's mindblowing but that's my stance...
I do find it interesting when folks blow a gasket over the fact that lots of African Americans voted for O-bama....he won their vote...
now of some "well spoken black people" votedagainst McCain based in the sole fact that he was white, that would be an issue...
as for race...so 95% of African Amercians voted for Obama in the last election...so what...?
So what?
You don't think it speaks to SOMETHING that Obama was essentially elected through RACISM?
Call it what you want. Say it isn't because it is not PC for a minority to be accused of racism, but it DRIVES ME NUTS when i hear otherwise well spoken black people (i've seen this on the goddamn "News") say "... and well, yeah I'll admit it, I voted for him because he was black. Yeah i did."
FUCK THAT.
I have a problem with that.
Not because i'm some sort of White Supremacist Bigot, but because it is reprehensible to vote for someone based on the color of their skin, regardless of your functional classification as a "minority" or not.
It's
a. stupid \ ignorant \ racist
b. just bad politics
yeah, so what...
I get that some don't like the reasoning some may have for voting for someone....that's their choice....as an aside: just because a few "well spoken black people", whatever the fuck that means, does not mean all African Americans voted based on this...
for me, when someone votesagainst a candidate based on race, that's a problem...yeah, yeah...that's mindblowing but that's my stance...
I do find it interesting when folks blow a gasket over the fact that lots of African Americans voted for O-bama....he won their vote...
now of some "well spoken black people" votedagainst McCain based in the sole fact that he was white, that would be an issue...
So if a white man were to support a klan member because he is white, he would not be a racist?
but if one were to denounce Jeremiah Wright for being black, they would be?
This is confusing.
So as long as you blindly allow race to influence your support of someone,
it's okay?
ps - and as aside, like ... whoa, i have no idea whateverthefuck you may be insinuating by whateverthefuck you may mean regarding my "otherwise wellspoken black person" comment. :roll: :roll: :roll:
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
So if a white man were to support a klan member because he is white, he would not be a racist?
but if one were to denounce Jeremiah Wright for being black, they would be?
This is confusing.
So as long as you blindly allow race to influence your support of someone,
it's okay?
ps - and as aside, like ... whoa, i have no idea whateverthefuck you may be insinuating by whateverthefuck you may mean regarding my "otherwise wellspoken black person" comment. :roll: :roll: :roll:
Is the Klan a racist organization...? I say yes, therefore yes, that would be racist...
if you're saying that O-bama is a racist then voting for him based on race would be racism...
and if you don't see that the phrase "well-spoken black person" has a racial tinge to it, I'm not sure what to say....
edit: I'm not calling you a racist in any form or fashion...I'm just addressing your choice of words...that's all...no disrespect intended, my friend...
The U.S. would lose 710,000 jobs and economic output would decline by 1.3 percent, or $200 billion, if tax cuts for high earners are allowed to lapse, said a report prepared for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other supporters of the tax breaks.
The study by Ernst & Young LLP supports Republican efforts to extend all of the George W. Bush-era tax cuts set to expire at the end of the year. President Barack Obama called on Congress last week to pass a one-year extension of tax cuts for married couples making less than $250,000 a year while letting rates rise for higher earners.
“The higher tax rates will have significant adverse economic effects in the long run: lowering output, employment, investment, the capital stock and real after-tax wages when the resulting revenue is used to finance additional government spending,” wrote the report’s authors, Robert Carroll and Gerald Prante.
In addition to the Chamber of Commerce, the largest U.S. business lobby, the report was issued on behalf of the Independent Community Bankers of America, the National Federation of Independent Business and the S Corporation (SCI) (SCI) Association.
‘Long Run’
The report’s authors said they used an Ernst & Young economic model to examine the “long run” effects of an increase in the top tax rates. The report didn’t give details on when the job and economic losses would occur, although an end note said two-thirds to three-fourths of the long-run effect would occur within a decade.
If Congress doesn’t act, all individual income tax rates will increase in 2013, as would rates on capital gains, dividends and estates. Republicans want to extend the current rates for a year and overhaul the U.S. tax code.
A Senate Democratic proposal would extend the tax cuts for income of individuals under $200,000 and married couples under $250,000. The top rates on dividends and capital gains would increase to 23.8 percent from 15 percent and the top rate on estates would go up to 45 percent from 35 percent.
Democrats maintain that high-income taxpayers can afford to pay more to help reduce the budget deficit. The Obama administration disputed the study, saying it gets “the president’s tax cuts wrong” and employs “flawed assumptions.”
‘Ignoring the Benefits’
In a post on the White House website, Amy Brundage, a spokeswoman, said the study “fallaciously assumes that the tax cuts are used to finance additional spending, ignoring the benefits of what the president actually proposed, which was to use the revenue as part of a balanced plan to reduce the deficit and stabilize the debt.”
Republicans say raising anyone’s taxes isn’t worth the economic harm they say would result.
“Our economy is still struggling under President Obama’s policies, and his massive tax hike will only make things tougher,” U.S. House Speaker John Boehner, an Ohio Republican, said in a statement. “It’s one of the worst possible ideas at one of the worst possible times for families and small businesses.”
Representative Dave Camp, a Michigan Republican and chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, called for “comprehensive tax reform that will provide the certainty these entrepreneurs need.”
‘Double Down’
“Rather than double down on tax hikes that will make it harder to get America back to work, it is time to stop the tax hike -- for all taxpayers,” Camp said in a statement.
Representative Sander Levin of Michigan, the top Democrat on the Ways and Means panel, said the report is flawed because it makes alternative assumptions that revenue from higher tax rates could be used to finance a higher level of government.
“The president has made clear this revenue should be used for deficit reduction,” Levin said in a statement.
Asked about the report, House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland said few, if any, Democrats with whom he has spoken have qualms about letting the tax rates for high earners lapse at year’s end.
The House plans to vote on extending the Bush-era tax cuts the week of July 30. Second-ranking Senate Democrat Dick Durbin of Illinois said that chamber is likely to vote on its plan the week of July 23.
Republicans Twist Flawed Study To Claim Higher Taxes On Wealthy Would Harm Economy
BRIAN BEUTLER JULY 19, 2012, 12:47 PM 3118
Republicans are citing a new report (PDF) by economists at the accounting firm Ernst & Young to claim that President Obama’s plan to allow Bush tax cuts benefitting high-income earners to expire could have serious macroeconomic consequences, including 710,000 job losses.
Major business trade associations, including the Republican friendly Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Businesses, commissioned the analysis. And according to independent economists, there’s reason to be skeptical of its assumptions, and of the way the findings are being portrayed in the political realm.
“Seems odd that the researchers didn’t consider the scenario in which the additional tax revenues are used for deficit reduction,” said Moody’s chief economist Mark Zandi. “It seems to me that is the more relevant scenario. And my sense is that if they did, the results would be very different.”
Indeed, the Ernst & Young study forecasts based on two different assumptions: That the higher revenues are either used to finance across the board tax cuts, or to finance new government spending. It’s only in the latter scenario that the analysts forecast significant economic contraction.
“It is telling that when the additional tax revenues are used for across the board tax cuts, then the negative GDP impact is largely washed out and the employment impact is positive,” Zandi says.
The authors of the report did not respond to a request for comment Thursday morning.
Dean Baker, co-founder of the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research offered a similar observation. “It calculated the impact of a tax increase that is used for higher government consumption spending. It does not measure the impact of a tax increase that is used either for deficit reduction or investment in infrastructure and education,” Baker wrote. “The model used in this analysis would likely to show that either of these two uses of higher tax revenue would lead to increases in output, jobs, and wages, not decreases.”
In a followup email, Baker also noted that one of the report’s key assumptions is ahistorical.
“The [projected] reduction in output is due to the fact that with a lower real wage people will opt to work less — thereby less output,” Baker writes. “The empirical support for effects of the size described in the study is pretty weak. If we get this big a loss with tax rates at 39.6 percent, imagine the hit when we had tax rate at 70 percent or even 90 percent. Working backward from the projections in the study, we could say that annual growth would have been 1-2 percentages points higher in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, if we had the current tax rates. I doubt anyone believes that.”
But the reports also being interpreted as if it concludes that the shock to the economy would be immediate. That’s false.
“The projections discussed in the article are long-run projections, not effects that would be felt in the next year or two,” Baker writes.
And then there’s a timing issue. The report was released earlier this week, before Senate Democrats had unveiled the legislative details of their plan to extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone’s first $250,000 of income. The report assumes that Democrats propose to increase the tax on dividends for those with income above $250,000 to 39.6 percent. In reality, the Democrats’ proposal is much more modest.
According to an official summary of the plan, “For income in excess of $200,000 (individual filers), $225,000 (heads of households) and $250,000 (married filing jointly), the rate for both capital gains and dividends will be 20%.”
Comments
1) Are we to be so scared of discussing race that we can't acknowledge the simple truth that Obama will get some african american votes only because he is black?
2) I'm pretty sure you;d agree that Mitt will get some white votes because he's white?
And I'd be willing to bet ya that #1 = more votes for Obama than #2 = votes for Mitt.
Wait, who created the middle class?
1) nope...we can assume he will get some votes based on his race...just that we can assume he won't based on his race...
2) yup
and I'm not taking that bet...
we...
So what?
You don't think it speaks to SOMETHING that Obama was essentially elected through RACISM?
Call it what you want. Say it isn't because it is not PC for a minority to be accused of racism, but it DRIVES ME NUTS when i hear otherwise well spoken black people (i've seen this on the goddamn "News") say "... and well, yeah I'll admit it, I voted for him because he was black. Yeah i did."
FUCK THAT.
I have a problem with that.
Not because i'm some sort of White Supremacist Bigot, but because it is reprehensible to vote for someone based on the color of their skin, regardless of your functional classification as a "minority" or not.
It's
a. stupid \ ignorant \ racist
b. just bad politics
If I opened it now would you not understand?
yeah, so what...
I get that some don't like the reasoning some may have for voting for someone....that's their choice....as an aside: just because a few "well spoken black people", whatever the fuck that means, does not mean all African Americans voted based on this...
for me, when someone votes against a candidate based on race, that's a problem...yeah, yeah...that's mindblowing but that's my stance...
I do find it interesting when folks blow a gasket over the fact that lots of African Americans voted for O-bama....he won their vote...
now of some "well spoken black people" voted against McCain based in the sole fact that he was white, that would be an issue...
So if a white man were to support a klan member because he is white, he would not be a racist?
but if one were to denounce Jeremiah Wright for being black, they would be?
This is confusing.
So as long as you blindly allow race to influence your support of someone,
it's okay?
ps - and as aside, like ... whoa, i have no idea whateverthefuck you may be insinuating by whateverthefuck you may mean regarding my "otherwise wellspoken black person" comment. :roll: :roll: :roll:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
It's the same thing champ, hard to see that any other way.
Is the Klan a racist organization...? I say yes, therefore yes, that would be racist...
if you're saying that O-bama is a racist then voting for him based on race would be racism...
and if you don't see that the phrase "well-spoken black person" has a racial tinge to it, I'm not sure what to say....
edit: I'm not calling you a racist in any form or fashion...I'm just addressing your choice of words...that's all...no disrespect intended, my friend...
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012 ... fpnewsfeed
Republicans Twist Flawed Study To Claim Higher Taxes On Wealthy Would Harm Economy
BRIAN BEUTLER JULY 19, 2012, 12:47 PM 3118
Republicans are citing a new report (PDF) by economists at the accounting firm Ernst & Young to claim that President Obama’s plan to allow Bush tax cuts benefitting high-income earners to expire could have serious macroeconomic consequences, including 710,000 job losses.
Major business trade associations, including the Republican friendly Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Businesses, commissioned the analysis. And according to independent economists, there’s reason to be skeptical of its assumptions, and of the way the findings are being portrayed in the political realm.
“Seems odd that the researchers didn’t consider the scenario in which the additional tax revenues are used for deficit reduction,” said Moody’s chief economist Mark Zandi. “It seems to me that is the more relevant scenario. And my sense is that if they did, the results would be very different.”
Indeed, the Ernst & Young study forecasts based on two different assumptions: That the higher revenues are either used to finance across the board tax cuts, or to finance new government spending. It’s only in the latter scenario that the analysts forecast significant economic contraction.
“It is telling that when the additional tax revenues are used for across the board tax cuts, then the negative GDP impact is largely washed out and the employment impact is positive,” Zandi says.
The authors of the report did not respond to a request for comment Thursday morning.
Dean Baker, co-founder of the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research offered a similar observation. “It calculated the impact of a tax increase that is used for higher government consumption spending. It does not measure the impact of a tax increase that is used either for deficit reduction or investment in infrastructure and education,” Baker wrote. “The model used in this analysis would likely to show that either of these two uses of higher tax revenue would lead to increases in output, jobs, and wages, not decreases.”
In a followup email, Baker also noted that one of the report’s key assumptions is ahistorical.
“The [projected] reduction in output is due to the fact that with a lower real wage people will opt to work less — thereby less output,” Baker writes. “The empirical support for effects of the size described in the study is pretty weak. If we get this big a loss with tax rates at 39.6 percent, imagine the hit when we had tax rate at 70 percent or even 90 percent. Working backward from the projections in the study, we could say that annual growth would have been 1-2 percentages points higher in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, if we had the current tax rates. I doubt anyone believes that.”
But the reports also being interpreted as if it concludes that the shock to the economy would be immediate. That’s false.
“The projections discussed in the article are long-run projections, not effects that would be felt in the next year or two,” Baker writes.
And then there’s a timing issue. The report was released earlier this week, before Senate Democrats had unveiled the legislative details of their plan to extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone’s first $250,000 of income. The report assumes that Democrats propose to increase the tax on dividends for those with income above $250,000 to 39.6 percent. In reality, the Democrats’ proposal is much more modest.
According to an official summary of the plan, “For income in excess of $200,000 (individual filers), $225,000 (heads of households) and $250,000 (married filing jointly), the rate for both capital gains and dividends will be 20%.”