A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Uh, did you miss the part about whites being 72.5% of the workforce?

That's not the point. The point is that you guys are defending the statements on the basis of truth (i.e., a most hotel staff are minorities). Unfortunately for your argument, that is simply not the case.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Everybody should ignore the principle of taxing consumption rather than income. Consumption taxes are not merely regressive, for people living on a subsistence level, they are confiscatory.

Neither ineluctably follows. They need not be regressive, and they certainly need not be confiscatory, any more than current taxes are at least.

Please be sure to recognize the distinction between the concept of a consumption tax and the implementation of one type of consumption tax, known as a sales tax. The latter is the consumption based alternative of a the flat income tax, which should help to highlight that the problem lies not in the basis for the tax but rather its implementation.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I understand what he was trying to say, but in order to make his point I think he used a stereotype based on race which is offensive (at least to me). You all seem to want to let this slide because (1) you think the stereotype (that staff workers ARE predeominately minorities) is true (which it's not), and (2) he was really slamming the GOP not minorities. That just doesn't work for me. What's the difference between what he said and a statement like "All Jews are bankers" or "all Irish are drunks" . . . wait, strike that last one, it may be true.

Not Bob, who wins the bet about the Irish?

I still don't think it holds. I still think it's simply a slam on the GOP. It's not that even a sweeping generalization about the demographics of hotel staff. It's simply a statement that the GOP is so lily white that the only people of color who would happen to be at one of their events is a person who worked at the venue. Fortunately, thanks in part to the Great Society, the GOP can't keep minorities from working their events, so it's possible one or two might get in. He didn't say all. He simply slammed the GOP.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
That's not the point. The point is that you guys are defending the statements on the basis of truth (i.e., a most hotel staff are minorities). Unfortunately for your argument, that is simply not the case.

Not "most" -- a "disproportionate number" -- which is clearly true. You do seem to labor under a delusion here. Do you not agree that one is much more likely to find a large number of blacks on a hotel staff than black Republicans at a GOP rally?

S_A_M

P.S. The minority breakdown depends on geography. In Texas, its likely Mexican/hispanics. In Baltimore -- blacks. In DC -- blacks up to the mid-1990s, now hispanics, etc. It astounds me that Mr. Anti-PC and anti-affirmative action thinks that any reference to minorities as a group is racist.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I understand what he was trying to say, but in order to make his point I think he used a stereotype based on race which is offensive (at least to me). You all seem to want to let this slide because (1) you think the stereotype (that staff workers ARE predeominately minorities) is true (which it's not),

Cite, please. I've just given you info that shows that whites comprise 72.5% of the workforce, and yet only make up 30.9% of hotel maids, 48.1% of hotel busmen, and 40.7% of hotel janitors. This means that hotel staff jobs are held by minorities in far higher percentages than their numbers in the workforce as a whole. If you've got something that says differently, show it. If not, drop it.

and (2) he was really slamming the GOP not minorities. That just doesn't work for me. What's the difference between what he said and a statement like "All Jews are bankers" or "all Irish are drunks" . . . wait, strike that last one, it may be true.

Get off your fucking high horse. Dean's intended audience, the Black Caucus, knew exactly what he was talking about and was not offended. The only people even feigning offense are conservative whites who are so arrogant that they feel the need to point out to blacks when they should be offended. Quit being so goddamned condescending.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by bilmore
Plus, we're speaking of trying to encourage socailly desirable behavior. So, yeah, people probably CAN do it - 401k's just make it more likely that they WILL do it.

In theory that is true but in practice I'm not certain. I believe that a significant number of people do not take full advantage of 401ks even now -- either because they are ignorant, or because they feel they can't afford it.

It is very possible that the most significant effect of expanding 401k options will be that people who already save a lot of money will shift those savings from taxable to tax-advantaged accounts. If someone is not using their 401k now, or not putting away the full amount, how will raising the limit change their behavior?

The net result of savings being shifted would be no increase in the savings rate, but a decrease in tax revenues. The decrease in tax revenues, in turn, results in higher deficits, and that in turn only makes the long-term problems facing SS more serious.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

P.S. The minority breakdown depends on geography. In Texas, its likely Mexican/hispanics. In Baltimore -- blacks. In DC -- blacks up to the mid-1990s, now hispanics, etc. It astounds me that Mr. Anti-PC and anti-affirmative action thinks that any reference to minorities as a group is racist.

FWIW, I used to argue on a regular basis with a libertarian that thought that the "race/ethnicity" question on the census was inherently racist.

Club's saner than that guy was.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Not Bob, who wins the bet about the Irish?

I still don't think it holds. I still think it's simply a slam on the GOP. It's not that even a sweeping generalization about the demographics of hotel staff. It's simply a statement that the GOP is so lily white that the only people of color who would happen to be at one of their events is a person who worked at the venue. Fortunately, thanks in part to the Great Society, the GOP can't keep minorities from working their events, so it's possible one or two might get in. He didn't say all. He simply slammed the GOP.

I'm not disputing that it's a slam on the GOP. That part is clear. I think what he meant to say is that the only people would attend are those that HAVE to be there for their job, because no minority would attend voluntarily. However, the way in which he conveyed this thought, which is more true than most of us in the GOP would like, was via a stereotype based on race, and I think you people are giving him a pass that you would not give a Republican.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch

The net result of savings being shifted would be no increase in the savings rate, but a decrease in tax revenues. The decrease in tax revenues, in turn, results in higher deficits, and that in turn only makes the long-term problems facing SS more serious.

It increases future tax revenues, however, fortuitously at the time that SS will be in most dire straits.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Not "most" -- a "disproportionate number" -- which is clearly true. You do seem to labor under a delusion here. Do you not agree that one is much more likely to find a large number of blacks on a hotel staff than black Republicans at a GOP rally?

S_A_M

P.S. The minority breakdown depends on geography. In Texas, its likely Mexican/hispanics. In Baltimore -- blacks. In DC -- blacks up to the mid-1990s, now hispanics, etc. It astounds me that Mr. Anti-PC and anti-affirmative action thinks that any reference to minorities as a group is racist.

I agree with his sentiment, I don't agree with his method of conveyance.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
FWIW, I used to argue on a regular basis with a libertarian that thought that the "race/ethnicity" question on the census was inherently racist.

.

what if it's on a college application?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Now, Hume may have been spinning a bit, but that last paragraph (in bold) sure looks as though it says that the old-age pension plan (and by extension government funding for it) ought to be replaced by self-supporting annuity plans -- exactly as Hume said.

You're simply not reading the original carefully. The "self-supporting annuity plans" referred to there are what we now call Social Security. If you go back FDR's statement, you will see that his (2) and (3) both involve "annuities." On this point, take a look at the SSA's site, cited by Drum:

• When President Roosevelt submitted his legislative package to Congress on January 17, 1935, the Administration's proposals contained three provisions designed to provide retirement security for older Americans:
  
  1. A System of Old Age Pensions- These were state-run welfare programs for the elderly. The Administration's proposal was for block grants to the states to help them fund their existing or any new old-age pension programs. Many states already had such programs in existence and there was considerable interest in securing federal assistance with these programs. In the terminology of the period, old-age "pensions" meant welfare benefits.
  
  2. A System of Mandatory Old Age Annuities- This was the old-age insurance system that we now call Social Security (the term "Social Security" was not applied to the Administration's program until mid-way through the Congressional hearings). In the terminology of the time, this was referred to as "mandatory old-age annuities."
  
  3. A System of Voluntary Old Age Annuities- The Administration also proposed a program of voluntary old-age annuities. These were to be insurance-type annuities, issued by the government, to supplement the benefits contemplated under the mandatory part of the program, or to provide a basic annuity to workers not covered under the mandatory program.

The point FDR was making had to do with an aspect of Social Security that's no longer with us today -- oldsters retiring back then were going to get benefits even though they hadn't paid into the system. This is FDR's (1) -- the pension plan. Over time, as retirees increasingly came from the ranks of the people who got the government-funded benefit, (2) would supplant (1).

In the parlance of the day, both (2) and (3) were "annuities". By inserting the words "government funded," Hume changed the meaning of the original, to imply that (3) was replacing (2) and (1). Those words do not make sense coming from FDR's statement, and the act of inserting them changed the meaning of the original.

Also, Bilmore is correct that Drum did say, with no visible support or relevance except to grind his own political axe, that FDR didn't really care about his third point anyway -- voluntary contribution annuities.

Drum said, "#3, which FDR didn't care much about in the first place, never even got enacted in the final bill that created Social Security." Bilmore is incorrect, and you haven't bothered to check Drum's sources. If you go back the SSA site, cited by Drum and linked above, you will see that the last several paragraphs describe how the voluntary annuities were omitted from the legislation. It concludes, "There is little indication that the Administration considered this provision a priority and no record of any extensive efforts on the part of the Administration to save it." Drum's statement is a fair characterization of this.

Don't drink the Kool-Aid every time they bring the pitcher around.

Who's drinking the Kool-Aid? I actually bothered to read about what FDR said, unlike you and bilmore. What's your excuse?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
FWIW, I used to argue on a regular basis with a libertarian that thought that the "race/ethnicity" question on the census was inherently racist.

Club's saner than that guy was.

Think again. Although not inherently racist, it offends me that it's actually a question that someone thinks has merit. I always check "other," regardless of whether my race is listed.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sgtclub
you people are giving him a pass that you would not give a Republican.

Duh. The Democrats have Senators that were in the fucking Klan for goodness sakes. As long as you pretend to support people while taking actions destined to keep them locked to you, you are a good Dem and immune to charges of racism.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Get off your fucking high horse. Dean's intended audience, the Black Caucus, knew exactly what he was talking about and was not offended. The only people even feigning offense are conservative whites who are so arrogant that they feel the need to point out to blacks when they should be offended. Quit being so goddamned condescending.

I'm not a conservative, and my race is irrelevant. And I'm not telling anyone they should be offended.