If 6/10 Americans have thought that wealth distribution is unfair for the last 30 years, why has it had so little political impact on the government? :hmm:
Click to look at all the charts.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/182987/americans-continue-say-wealth-distribution-unfair.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication
QuoteAmericans Continue to Say U.S. Wealth Distribution Is Unfair
by Frank Newport
Story Highlights
•63% of Americans say money and wealth distribution is unfair
•These attitudes are substantially unchanged over past 30 years
•Slight majority of 52% favor heavy taxes on rich as fix
PRINCETON, N.J. -- Despite the growing focus on inequality in recent years, the 63% of Americans who say that money and wealth should be more evenly distributed among a larger percentage of the people is almost the same as the 60% who said this in 1984.
Americans' agreement that money and wealth need to be more evenly distributed reached a high point of 68% in April 2008, in the last year of the George W. Bush administration, and just before the full effects of the Great Recession began to take hold. Americans became slightly less likely to agree with the idea later that year and in surveys conducted in 2009, 2011 and 2013. This year's increase to 63% is close to the average of 62% agreement across the 13 times Gallup has asked the question since 1984. The latest data are from Gallup's April 9-12 Economy and Personal Finance survey.
Americans' views on how money and wealth should be distributed in the country are strongly correlated with their partisanship and ideology. Agreement ranges from 86% among Democrats and 85% among liberals, down to 34% and 42% among Republicans and conservatives, respectively.
Income is also a factor. Those with annual household incomes of at least $75,000 (54%) are considerably less likely than those with incomes below $30,000 (74%) to agree that wealth should be more evenly distributed. Attitudes vary little by age.
The question on the fairness of money and wealth distribution does not include explicit assumptions about the causes of the current unequal distribution of income and wealth, nor does it discuss or imply any particular course of action designed to remedy the situation. Addressing the problem is a moot issue for many Republicans, a majority of whom say the distribution is fair as it is. Most Democrats, on the other hand, presumably endorse some mechanism by which the distribution of wealth and income could be made less unequal.
More than 75 years ago, at the tail end of the Great Depression, the Roper research organization and Fortune magazine asked Americans about "heavy taxes on the rich" as one method of redistributing wealth, and found one-third (35%) agreeing that the government should do this. Gallup began asking this question again in 1998, and found Americans' agreement at 45%. Since then, Americans' support for this idea has fluctuated, but has reached a high point of 52% in Gallup's most recent two surveys, conducted in April 2013 and April of this year.
As was the case with the basic fairness question, agreement that the government should impose heavy taxes on the rich to redistribute wealth is highly related to partisanship and ideology. Additionally, younger Americans and those with lower incomes are above average in their agreement.
About Half of Americans Are Strong Redistributionists
Analyzing how Americans respond to both questions about inequality shows that nearly half of Americans (46%) are strong redistributionists -- in the sense that they believe the distribution of wealth and income is not fair, and endorse heavy taxes on the rich as a way of redistributing wealth. One in four are in essence free-market advocates -- sanguine about the distribution of wealth and income and not supporting heavy taxes on the rich. Another 16% say the income and wealth distribution is not fair, but don't endorse heavy taxes as a remedy. A small percentage have the somewhat contradictory views of believing that the distribution is fair but favoring heavy taxes on the rich.
Implications
Surveys conducted over the past 30 years have consistently shown that about six in 10 Americans fundamentally believe that the way income and wealth are distributed in the U.S. is unfair. Democrats are much more likely to hold this view than Republicans, helping explain why inequality has been a major focus for President Barack Obama, a core part of the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, and a primary talking point when Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont recently announced his candidacy.
Although well less than half of Republicans believe that income and wealth distribution in the U.S. is unfair and that wealth needs to be more evenly distributed, GOP presidential candidates have also begun to address the issue, most likely realizing that the issue has currency with independents, Hispanics and other voter groups that could decide the 2016 election. Additionally, the issue has been more of a talking point in discussions of government policy as many news reports have focused on data showing that income and wealth are becoming less equally distributed across the population than was the case in the past.
One way presidential and other political candidates will attempt to differentiate themselves from their competitors concerning inequality will likely be their proposed remedies for it. Democrats have generally been more likely to endorse government policies designed to reduce the wealth at the top end of the socioeconomic spectrum and help increase it at the bottom. Republicans have been more likely to endorse mechanisms that would make it easier for those at the bottom to move up the economic ladder by their own initiative. Still, given that a not insubstantial 29% of Republicans agree with the idea of heavy taxes on the rich, and that a Republican presidential candidate has to assemble some votes from outside of Republican ranks to win a general election, candidates from both parties will most likely consider a wide spectrum of choices or ways of addressing inequality.
Survey Methods
Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted April 9-12, 2015, with a random sample of 1,015 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. For results based on the total sample of national adults, the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. All reported margins of sampling error include computed design effects for weighting.
Each sample of national adults includes a minimum quota of 50% cellphone respondents and 50% landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas by time zone within region. Landline and cellular telephone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods.
I think there are tons of public policy cases that are popular with the majority but are not implemented due to minority interest. This is merely one of them. Simply because the minority are very directly affected and will be extremely vocal; while the majority only benefit indirectly and the benefits are spread out and not immediately apparent. If you tax the rich, they'll feel the axe very clearly. But the increases in social benefits to the rest of the population may not be felt directly. It may take years for social programmes to be implemented, not everybody is eligible for them, the money could be spent elsewhere on deficit/debt reduction or military hardware, etc. Simply put, the linkage between increased taxes for the rich and increased welfare isn't that straightforward. But the rich will certainly feel the higher taxes immediately and directly, so they'll raise hell.
If only 52% of Americans had but a single neck. :sleep:
If it got the national debt under control I would be for it.
Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2015, 09:16:26 PM
If it got the national debt under control I would be for it.
So, no. ;)
Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2015, 09:16:26 PM
If it got the national debt under control I would be for it.
I don't see the connection. Either you give kulak wealth to the proletariat or use it to pay down debt.
The short answer to Timmy's question is that only a minority of Republican voters think confiscation is a good policy, and because of geographic dispersion Republican lawmakers will either control the legislature or form a blocking minority.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 05, 2015, 07:48:47 PM
If 6/10 Americans have thought that wealth distribution is unfair for the last 30 years, why has it had so little political impact on the government? :hmm:
Because plutocrats have managed to maintain a very effective alliance with the moralists, and have managed to keep the focus off the wealth distribution by constantly stoking culture war fires.
Quote from: DGuller on May 05, 2015, 10:10:08 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 05, 2015, 07:48:47 PM
If 6/10 Americans have thought that wealth distribution is unfair for the last 30 years, why has it had so little political impact on the government? :hmm:
Because plutocrats have managed to maintain a very effective alliance with the moralists, and have managed to keep the focus off the wealth distribution by constantly stoking culture war fires.
So you're saying that we can have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few; but we can't have both?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 05, 2015, 10:02:01 PM
The short answer to Timmy's question is that only a minority of Republican voters think confiscation is a good policy
Well I think virtually all Republicans think confiscation is a good policy. They have yet to eliminate all taxes in any jurisdiction I know of.
QuoteSo, no.
Yep. So unless that is the plan we might as well not soak the rich. They may keep some of their money outside of tax havens then.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 06, 2015, 01:20:54 AM
Quote from: DGuller on May 05, 2015, 10:10:08 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 05, 2015, 07:48:47 PM
If 6/10 Americans have thought that wealth distribution is unfair for the last 30 years, why has it had so little political impact on the government? :hmm:
Because plutocrats have managed to maintain a very effective alliance with the moralists, and have managed to keep the focus off the wealth distribution by constantly stoking culture war fires.
So you're saying that we can have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few; but we can't have both?
Until the moralists (and, DG neglects to add, the racists) finally die off.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 06, 2015, 07:34:06 AM
Until the moralists (and, DG neglects to add, the racists) finally die off.
DG was trying to make a persuasive argument.
Anyway, moralists aren't dying off. They're just becoming more accepting of gays.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 06, 2015, 07:34:06 AM
Until the moralists (and, DG neglects to add, the racists) finally die off.
That's a good point, all social welfare programs are perceived to be transfers from whites to blacks, so even some people nominally supporting the idea will have that image in their minds, and be virulently against it at the end. I'm also not sure that die-offs would would help. We sure are doing a good job raising new generations of moralists and racists.
Quote from: DGuller on May 06, 2015, 07:49:39 AM
I'm also not sure that die-offs would would help. We sure are doing a good job raising new generations of moralists and racists.
But compared with, say, 2 centuries ago, there are now a lot more welfare programmes and wealth transfer from the rich to the poor.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 06, 2015, 07:47:11 AM
DG was trying to make a persuasive argument.
No, that wasn't it, I just neglected to mention it. I think that racial relations are the reason why social democracy hasn't made inroads in US anywhere near as effectively as it has in Europe. Even conservatives are agreeing with it, by using code phrase like "social democracy can work in Europe because their populations are homogeneous".
Quote from: Monoriu on May 06, 2015, 07:52:00 AM
Quote from: DGuller on May 06, 2015, 07:49:39 AM
I'm also not sure that die-offs would would help. We sure are doing a good job raising new generations of moralists and racists.
But compared with, say, 2 centuries ago, there are now a lot more welfare programmes and wealth transfer from the rich to the poor.
Yes, but the trend has been going in the other direction for several decades now, at least in US, and shows no sign of changing direction again.
I think it shows some signs.
Quote from: DGuller on May 06, 2015, 07:53:10 AM
No, that wasn't it, I just neglected to mention it. I think that racial relations are the reason why social democracy hasn't made inroads in US anywhere near as effectively as it has in Europe. Even conservatives are agreeing with it, by using code phrase like "social democracy can work in Europe because their populations are homogeneous".
This sounds like a jab at me.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 06, 2015, 01:20:54 AM
So you're saying that we can have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few; but we can't have both?
he is saying you can have great wealth concentration + intolerance, or wealth distribution and tolerance, but not both.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 06, 2015, 08:17:53 AM
Quote from: DGuller on May 06, 2015, 07:53:10 AM
No, that wasn't it, I just neglected to mention it. I think that racial relations are the reason why social democracy hasn't made inroads in US anywhere near as effectively as it has in Europe. Even conservatives are agreeing with it, by using code phrase like "social democracy can work in Europe because their populations are homogeneous".
This sounds like a jab at me.
It isn't. I don't recall if you ever said something like that, I've heard that phrase so often in so many different places that I can't keep a mental inventory of who said it.
i don't think many people criticize welfare because it helps blacks. most people i see criticizing welfare do so because it helps poor people.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 06, 2015, 07:56:39 AM
I think it shows some signs.
I agree. The plebs better start getting their piece of the pie or things might get messy.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 05, 2015, 07:48:47 PM
If 6/10 Americans have thought that wealth distribution is unfair for the last 30 years, why has it had so little political impact on the government? :hmm:
I was about the say something, but then I remembered: Grumbler knows everything. So rather than engaging in a pointless debate with him, I'll let him give the explanations needed :)
Quote from: LaCroix on May 06, 2015, 08:39:13 AM
i don't think many people criticize welfare because it helps blacks. most people i see criticizing welfare do so because it helps poor people.
There are things that people say, things that people think, and things that people feel subconsciously. There is a reason why the image of a welfare queen works so well to convince people to roll back social welfare.
Huh. I guess I always pictured the welfare queen as an overweight rural trailer trash person with 8 kids. Anyway I thought we already rolled that back. I don't see much political pressure to roll it back further.
This is slightly relevant to my interests.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 06, 2015, 09:15:10 AM
This is slightly relevant to my interests.
Fortunately you can flee to Capitalist Europe when Red America comes for your loot. Or vice versa.
Quote from: DGuller on May 06, 2015, 09:07:07 AMThere are things that people say, things that people think, and things that people feel subconsciously. There is a reason why the image of a welfare queen works so well to convince people to roll back social welfare.
i don't think many people think of black people in north dakota, consciously or subconsciously. :hmm:
maybe this is another instance where reality is one thing, and peoples' perception is another. i think people generally dislike giving money to those they feel are undeserving, whether race is white or black.
Quote from: Valmy on May 06, 2015, 09:13:02 AM
Huh. I guess I always pictured the welfare queen as an overweight rural trailer trash person with 8 kids. Anyway I thought we already rolled that back. I don't see much political pressure to roll it back further.
Funny you should say that: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/missouri-lawmakers-override-veto-enact-welfare-limits-30819958.
Quote from: Valmy on May 06, 2015, 09:16:10 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 06, 2015, 09:15:10 AM
This is slightly relevant to my interests.
Fortunately you can flee to Capitalist Europe when Red America comes for your loot. Or vice versa.
France beckons this June. :frog:
QuoteFunny you should say that: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/missouri-lawmakers-override-veto-enact-welfare-limits-30819958.
Well I'll be.
Quote"They want their independence; they don't want to be in this poverty trap all their lives and they don't want their kids to be in this poverty trap. They want and they say that we can be successful if we have the tools," said Rep. Diane Franklin, R-Camdenton, who handled the bill in the House.
Poverty is created by welfare. Once we get rid of it the fundamental economic issues will change. The world economy hangs on the policies of the state of Missouri.
I think Kansas put limits on Snap benefit use. Or was talking about it.
No sodas or steak. Or some stupid shit like that.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 06, 2015, 09:17:51 AM
France beckons this June. :frog:
I wish I could say the same :weep:
Quote from: Valmy on May 06, 2015, 09:23:00 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 06, 2015, 09:17:51 AM
France beckons this June. :frog:
I wish I could say the same :weep:
:hug:
My kids will consume crepes in your memory.
Quote from: Valmy on May 06, 2015, 09:19:22 AM
Poverty is created by welfare. Once we get rid of it the fundamental economic issues will change. The world economy hangs on the policies of the state of Missouri.
It's not as if welfare dependency is some looney right wing fairy tale.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 06, 2015, 09:44:39 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 06, 2015, 09:19:22 AM
Poverty is created by welfare. Once we get rid of it the fundamental economic issues will change. The world economy hangs on the policies of the state of Missouri.
It's not as if welfare dependency is some looney right wing fairy tale.
Not saying that exactly. I am talking about the economic reality that today we don't have jobs we need these people to be doing. In fact the problem of creating work in the future economy is a matter of concern. So it seems kind of fantastical to suggest that this is the source of a poverty trap.
However it is not like the requirements to keep on the welfare rolls are that onerous. One just needs to visit a social worker a few times.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 06, 2015, 09:21:47 AM
I think Kansas put limits on Snap benefit use. Or was talking about it.
No sodas or steak. Or some stupid shit like that.
Makes sense.
Quote from: derspiess on May 06, 2015, 09:52:50 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 06, 2015, 09:21:47 AM
I think Kansas put limits on Snap benefit use. Or was talking about it.
No sodas or steak. Or some stupid shit like that.
Makes sense.
WHAT ABOUT DOLLAR STORE STEAK SIR?
A rising tide floats all boats.
My boat was full of gold doubloons, but it sunk.
Quote from: viper37 on May 06, 2015, 08:51:33 AM
I was about the say something, but then I remembered: Grumbler knows everything. So rather than engaging in a pointless debate with him, I'll let him give the explanations needed :)
Nice drive-by ad hom! You should be proud of the way you dodge any intellectual interactions. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 06, 2015, 10:10:37 AM
My boat was full of gold doubloons, but it sunk.
Where, precisely? I'm asking for a friend. #odysseymarineexploration
Quote from: grumbler on May 06, 2015, 10:12:54 AM
Quote from: viper37 on May 06, 2015, 08:51:33 AM
I was about the say something, but then I remembered: Grumbler knows everything. So rather than engaging in a pointless debate with him, I'll let him give the explanations needed :)
Nice drive-by ad hom! You should be proud of the way you dodge any intellectual interactions. :thumbsup:
I'm dodging what exactly? :)
It's your country, yet you haven't commented on the issue. So tell me, what do you think is the reason why 60% of the electorate seems to care about wealth redistribution while it is mostly absent from political discourse? :)
I think Yi already answered it. Republicans don't care about inequality and they have the power to stop redistribution.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 06, 2015, 10:52:01 AM
I think Yi already answered it. Republicans don't care about inequality and they have the power to stop redistribution.
I think there would also be some resistance to a straight out transfer from the centrist wing of the Democratic party.
Quote from: viper37 on May 06, 2015, 10:45:22 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 06, 2015, 10:12:54 AM
Quote from: viper37 on May 06, 2015, 08:51:33 AM
I was about the say something, but then I remembered: Grumbler knows everything. So rather than engaging in a pointless debate with him, I'll let him give the explanations needed :)
Nice drive-by ad hom! You should be proud of the way you dodge any intellectual interactions. :thumbsup:
I'm dodging what exactly? :)
It's your country, yet you haven't commented on the issue. So tell me, what do you think is the reason why 60% of the electorate seems to care about wealth redistribution while it is mostly absent from political discourse? :)
Sorry, but I am not going to engage in a pointless debate with you. :)
If I address the issue, i'll do so on my own volition and not as in response to an invitation from you to participate in a "debate" that consists of me making arguments supported by facts and you engaging in ad homs and rhetorical exaggerations. I've had my fill of that.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 06, 2015, 10:59:30 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 06, 2015, 10:52:01 AM
I think Yi already answered it. Republicans don't care about inequality and they have the power to stop redistribution.
I think there would also be some resistance to a straight out transfer from the centrist wing of the Democratic party.
Agreed. I think the Dem center would accept Clinton-era tax levels to fund infrastructure and maybe environment/ green energy, but not wealth transfer.
It is so much fun trying to have a conversation about this stuff when the "sides" insist on using incompatible language.
Quote from: Berkut on May 06, 2015, 11:43:36 AM
It is so much fun trying to have a conversation about this stuff when the "sides" insist on using incompatible language.
What are you talking about?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 06, 2015, 11:53:57 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 06, 2015, 11:43:36 AM
It is so much fun trying to have a conversation about this stuff when the "sides" insist on using incompatible language.
What are you talking about?
What you are talking about.
To combat incompatible language, Berkut adopts incomprehensible language.
In America punishments can't be cruel and unusual, right? What about rewards?
Quote from: The Brain on May 06, 2015, 12:48:23 PM
In America punishments can't be cruel and unusual, right? What about rewards?
:lol:
BUNCH OF COMMUNISTS!!!!!!11111
Quote from: Siege on May 06, 2015, 12:50:11 PM
BUNCH OF COMMUNISTS!!!!!!11111
Just have to find a way to get more good jobs out there. That cures 'em.
Quote from: Siege on May 06, 2015, 12:50:11 PM
BUNCH OF COMMUNISTS!!!!!!11111
You do realize that if your beloved singularity came to pass and humanity became a post-scarcity society there would be a revolution that would massively alter the way that wealth is distributed and the economy managed.
Quote from: grumbler on May 06, 2015, 11:18:55 AM
Sorry, but I am not going to engage in a pointless debate with you. :)
If I address the issue, i'll do so on my own volition and not as in response to an invitation from you to participate in a "debate" that consists of me making arguments supported by facts and you engaging in ad homs and rhetorical exaggerations. I've had my fill of that.
You should be proud of the way you dodge any intellectual interactions. :)
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 06, 2015, 05:55:01 PM
Quote from: Siege on May 06, 2015, 12:50:11 PM
BUNCH OF COMMUNISTS!!!!!!11111
You do realize that if your beloved singularity came to pass and humanity became a post-scarcity society there would be a revolution that would massively alter the way that wealth is distributed and the economy managed.
There maybe a revolution alright - but it may not go the way you want it to go. Technology, drones, AI, automation, remote control, etc mean that the few may stand a better chance against the masses in the future :menace:
Quote from: Monoriu on May 06, 2015, 08:51:11 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 06, 2015, 05:55:01 PM
Quote from: Siege on May 06, 2015, 12:50:11 PM
BUNCH OF COMMUNISTS!!!!!!11111
You do realize that if your beloved singularity came to pass and humanity became a post-scarcity society there would be a revolution that would massively alter the way that wealth is distributed and the economy managed.
There maybe a revolution alright - but it may not go the way you want it to go. Technology, drones, AI, automation, remote control, etc mean that the few may stand a better chance against the masses in the future :menace:
Seriously, stop talking shit.
From a world of abundance we will all benefit.
A post singularity, post scarcity society, is a free society. We will be free to persue our dreams.
Quote from: Siege on May 07, 2015, 12:41:57 AM
Seriously, stop talking shit.
From a world of abundance we will all benefit.
A post singularity, post scarcity society, is a free society. We will be free to persue our dreams.
I'm not worried. Humans aren't about getting tons of stuff. The point is to get more stuff than the next person. In this sense, by definition, we'll never get to a post-scarcity society :contract:
Quote from: viper37 on May 06, 2015, 08:33:53 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 06, 2015, 11:18:55 AM
Sorry, but I am not going to engage in a pointless debate with you. :)
If I address the issue, i'll do so on my own volition and not as in response to an invitation from you to participate in a "debate" that consists of me making arguments supported by facts and you engaging in ad homs and rhetorical exaggerations. I've had my fill of that.
You should be proud of the way you dodge any intellectual interactions with trolls. :)
FTFY You can't start out trolling and then moan about lack in intellectual engagement. The internet doesn't work that way.
Quote from: LaCroix on May 06, 2015, 08:39:13 AM
i don't think many people criticize welfare because it helps blacks. most people i see criticizing welfare do so because it helps poor people.
QuoteYou start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger.
Lee Atwater, Republican strategist.
Quote from: Siege on May 07, 2015, 12:41:57 AM
Seriously, stop talking shit.
From a world of abundance we will all benefit.
A post singularity, post scarcity society, is a free society. We will be free to persue our dreams.
You really have a weird idea of this singularity thing.
Quote from: grumbler on May 07, 2015, 06:22:32 AM
The internet doesn't work that way.
really? how does it work then?
I tell you how it works with you, at least :)
- Non American makes comments on American politics
- Grumbler: I don't know America like you do (hint: you're full of shit, I know better)
- Non American makes on local politics
- Grumbler: I obviously know better than you about your local politics (hint: you're full of shit, I know better).
See, I just saved us 3-4 pages of argument :) You should thank me for saving you some time :)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 06, 2015, 10:52:01 AM
I think Yi already answered it. Republicans don't care about inequality and they have the power to stop redistribution.
yes, but it's a democracy and the issue isn't new, so it goes deeper than that, imho.
I think it's being said later in the thread (I only glanced at the other posts), but it's simply that while it's an issue, it's not the core issue of your politics.
The average elector cares more about other issues than economic redistribution and the Republicans can sneek in power from time to time and do their best to insure they keep some level of power through electoral district "rebalancing". I'm pretty sure the Democrats try it too, but they're more divided on this issue than the Republicans are united against, so it doesn't really show.
A while back we had a good discussion about why Americans tend to vote against their own self interest. As I recall Otto provided a very good explanation for the phenomenon but I cant remember the thread or the context anymore.
There was a facebook image I saw once that summed up nicely the situation:
Three people (rich guy, poor guy, middle class guy) are sitting around a plate of ten cookies. The rich guy takes 9 of the cookies, then convinces the middle class guy that the poor guy is trying to take HIS cookie!
Quote from: Berkut on May 07, 2015, 11:04:03 AM
There was a facebook image I saw once that summed up nicely the situation:
Three people (rich guy, poor guy, middle class guy) are sitting around a plate of ten cookies. The rich guy takes 9 of the cookies, then convinces the middle class guy that the poor guy is trying to take HIS cookie!
The last time I took exception to this narrative you accused me of playing mindless semantics.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 07, 2015, 11:05:46 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 07, 2015, 11:04:03 AM
There was a facebook image I saw once that summed up nicely the situation:
Three people (rich guy, poor guy, middle class guy) are sitting around a plate of ten cookies. The rich guy takes 9 of the cookies, then convinces the middle class guy that the poor guy is trying to take HIS cookie!
The last time I took exception to this narrative you accused me of playing mindless semantics.
That's nice.
I thought it wasn't.
Quote from: viper37 on May 07, 2015, 10:51:36 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 07, 2015, 06:22:32 AM
The internet doesn't work that way.
really? how does it work then?
I tell you how it works with you, at least :)
- Non American makes comments on American politics
- Grumbler: I don't know America like you do (hint: you're full of shit, I know better)
- Non American makes on local politics
- Grumbler: I obviously know better than you about your local politics (hint: you're full of shit, I know better).
See, I just saved us 3-4 pages of argument :) You should thank me for saving you some time :)
Actually, this is precisely the kind of strawman bullshit I was trying to avoid. But you won't troll me into any response other than noting that everything in your post (including what you attribute to me) is from you and you alone.
Have fun playing with yourself. :)
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2015, 06:28:52 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on May 06, 2015, 08:39:13 AM
i don't think many people criticize welfare because it helps blacks. most people i see criticizing welfare do so because it helps poor people.
QuoteYou start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger.
Lee Atwater, Republican strategist.
You sure get a lot of mileage from a 34 year old quote. Do you still think that applies in 2015?
Also from the same interview:
QuoteBut Reagan did not have to do a southern strategy for two reasons. Number one, race was not a dominant issue. And number two, the mainstream issues in this campaign had been, quote, southern issues since way back in the sixties. So Reagan goes out and campaigns on the issues of economics and of national defense. The whole campaign was devoid of any kind of racism, any kind of reference. And I'll tell you another thing you all need to think about, that even surprised me, is the lack of interest, really, the lack of knowledge right now in the South among white voters about the Voting Rights Act.
Quote from: Barrister on May 07, 2015, 11:16:50 AM
You sure get a lot of mileage from a 34 year old quote. Do you still think that applies in 2015?
raz is like Timmay and cC: he loves to toss out some detail or quote as though it was significant, but either lacks the intellect to say how the evidence supports and argument, or recognizes that the evidence doesn't actually support any sensible argument but thinks no one else will catch on that it's bogus if he just tosses it out there without any attempt at analysis.
I suppose it is possible that some people are fooled. :hmm:
Quote from: grumbler on May 07, 2015, 11:26:16 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 07, 2015, 11:16:50 AM
You sure get a lot of mileage from a 34 year old quote. Do you still think that applies in 2015?
raz is like Timmay and cC: he loves to toss out some detail or quote as though it was significant, but either lacks the intellect to say how the evidence supports and argument, or recognizes that the evidence doesn't actually support any sensible argument but thinks no one else will catch on that it's bogus if he just tosses it out there without any attempt at analysis.
I suppose it is possible that some people are fooled. :hmm:
I have other quotes as well. This one was from earlier this week.
QuoteThis is a joke, right? The Radio Free Asia web page has no such story, and it sounds very made-up to me (the Chinese government might encourage weakening of Islam, but it are not going to announce such a policy).
A bit less credulity, please.
http://www.rfa.org/english/news/uyghur/order-05042015133944.html
Quote from: Barrister on May 07, 2015, 11:16:50 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2015, 06:28:52 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on May 06, 2015, 08:39:13 AM
i don't think many people criticize welfare because it helps blacks. most people i see criticizing welfare do so because it helps poor people.
QuoteYou start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger.
Lee Atwater, Republican strategist.
You sure get a lot of mileage from a 34 year old quote. Do you still think that applies in 2015?
Also from the same interview:
QuoteBut Reagan did not have to do a southern strategy for two reasons. Number one, race was not a dominant issue. And number two, the mainstream issues in this campaign had been, quote, southern issues since way back in the sixties. So Reagan goes out and campaigns on the issues of economics and of national defense. The whole campaign was devoid of any kind of racism, any kind of reference. And I'll tell you another thing you all need to think about, that even surprised me, is the lack of interest, really, the lack of knowledge right now in the South among white voters about the Voting Rights Act.
Yes, I think it still applies. When you have a Republican senator running for President and saying he doesn't want to make black people's lives better by giving them someone Else's money, I think the old narratives apply.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2015, 03:29:51 PM
Yes, I think it still applies. When you have a Republican senator running for President and saying he doesn't want to make black people's lives better by giving them someone Else's money, I think the old narratives apply.
To be clear: do you think Republicans are continuing to pursue a "southern strategy" in 2015 whereby they use coded policies and terminology to appeal for people's votes based on racism?
If so, how do you reconcile that belief with what Atwater himself had to say about Reagan's 1980 campaign?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2015, 06:28:52 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on May 06, 2015, 08:39:13 AM
i don't think many people criticize welfare because it helps blacks. most people i see criticizing welfare do so because it helps poor people.
QuoteYou start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger.
Lee Atwater, Republican strategist.
Atwater said & did some strange things. Like converting to Catholicism.
Quote from: Barrister on May 07, 2015, 03:35:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2015, 03:29:51 PM
Yes, I think it still applies. When you have a Republican senator running for President and saying he doesn't want to make black people's lives better by giving them someone Else's money, I think the old narratives apply.
To be clear: do you think Republicans are continuing to pursue a "southern strategy" in 2015 whereby they use coded policies and terminology to appeal for people's votes based on racism?
If so, how do you reconcile that belief with what Atwater himself had to say about Reagan's 1980 campaign?
I am. I also reconcile it with him saying Reagain didn't
need to do that, not that he was innocent of it. He certainly did, particularly in his 1976 run where one of his campaign managers was Eugenicist.