Politics

[BobD]

^^Awesome! Thanks^^

 

[Ndaccountant]

The article gives all this info then states that when adjusting for inflation average income has remained about the same since 1964. It says that right in the article.

We have much different economy today as well in terms of the prices of gas certain food items. The economic circumstances of today have put a lot more pressure on the middle class.

It does nothing to deny gap between rich and poor. In particular the 1 percent and the rest of the nation.

Maybe we are reading a different article. I read an article stating that using the CPI as the deflator (which produces the whole "flat wages" argument) is not taking into account the full picture. More over, simply taking an average wage does not neutralize the impact of the demogrpahic shift of the workforce.

Also, the article asks a very good question. If real wages are the same and the middle class is no better off today than 30 years ago, one would be impartial to living in 1980 versus 2013. I seriously doubt anyone would rather live in 1980 (with 1980 life spans, 1980 technology, etc).

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

The article gives all this info then states that when adjusting for inflation average income has remained about the same since 1964. It says that right in the article.

We have much different economy today as well in terms of the prices of gas certain food items. The economic circumstances of today have put a lot more pressure on the middle class.

It does nothing to deny gap between rich and poor. In particular the 1 percent and the rest of the nation.

Did you catch the big party in DC on Monday? You would've seen a good number of "the 1%" there.

 

[chicago51]

Maybe we are reading a different article. I read an article stating that using the CPI as the deflator (which produces the whole "flat wages" argument) is not taking into account the full picture. More over, simply taking an average wage does not neutralize the impact of the demogrpahic shift of the workforce.

Also, the article asks a very good question. If real wages are the same and the middle class is no better off today than 30 years ago, one would be impartial to living in 1980 versus 2013. I seriously doubt anyone would rather live in 1980 (with 1980 life spans, 1980 technology, etc).

Depending on what item(s) you use as a deflator you can get a very different picture.

 

[chicago51]

This isn't a policy post it is a voting fairness post. There are some republicans that do want fair elections and are upset with the actions there party has taken in certain states.

There is a plan to change the electoral college in several swing states. There is an actual bill right now in VA and another bill in committee in PA.

What The 2012 Election Would Look Like Under The Republicans' Vote-Rigging Plan

We did the math: how the GOP will gerrymander its way back to the White House — MSNBC

This why a party could loose the house by 1.3 million votes and still have almost a 30 seat majority. Not a 5 or 6 seat majority a near 30 seat majority despite clearly losing.

Joe Scarborough: Republicans Won House Of Representatives Majority Because Of Gerrymandering (VIDEO)

Electoral votes would awarded by congressional instead of by winner take all. Problem is the district lines are unfairly drawn in many states. This done both ways though most by republican states. Many states do it right and have the courts draw the lines. My state (Illinios) happens to be one of 4 democrat gerrymandered states while there is about 15 republican gerymandered states.

I'm all for proportional voting. If your state has 20 electoral votes and candidate X wins 55% and candidate Y wins 45% of the vote and you want to split it 11 votes to 9. Thats okay with me.

The best solution is to just have a popular vote winner be the president. You can keep the electoral college and still have the winner of the election be the poplular vote winner. Enough states have to agree to award their electoral votes to the popular vote winner.

Some states have already agreed to do this once the number of states reaches 270 electoral votes.

National Popular Vote -- Electoral college reform by direct election of the President

 

[Ndaccountant]

I'm wondering what this place thinks about HSBC not being prosecuted for laundering billions of dollars in drug cartel money. Thoughts? It has, more than possibly any other story, made me lose faith in government. Maybe I'm overreacting.

I am not familiar with the regs or the law for this, but did any individual break any laws? If so, what are the prescribed penalties?

I understand the frustration, but I have no idea of the government did everything it could based on the information in news articles.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Depending on what item(s) you use as a deflator you can get a very different picture.

Exactly. So, would you rather have 1980 wages and costs or 2013 wages and costs?

 

[Domina Nostra]

EDIT: I just spent 5 minutes responding to an older post.

Does anyone else have the issue where the last-post button takes you to the middle of the thread sometimes?

 

[Ndaccountant]

This isn't a policy post it is a voting fairness post. There are some republicans that do want fair elections and are upset with the actions there party has taken in certain states.

There is a plan to change the electoral college in several swing states. There is an actual bill right now in VA and another bill in committee in PA.

What The 2012 Election Would Look Like Under The Republicans' Vote-Rigging Plan

We did the math: how the GOP will gerrymander its way back to the White House — MSNBC

This why a party could loose the house by 1.3 million votes and still have almost a 30 seat majority. Not a 5 or 6 seat majority a near 30 seat majority despite clearly losing.

Joe Scarborough: Republicans Won House Of Representatives Majority Because Of Gerrymandering (VIDEO)

Electoral votes would awarded by congressional instead of by winner take all. Problem is the district lines are unfairly drawn in many states. This done both ways though most by republican states. Many states do it right and have the courts draw the lines. My state (Illinios) happens to be one of 4 democrat gerrymandered states while there is about 15 republican gerymandered states.

I'm all for proportional voting. If your state has 20 electoral votes and candidate X wins 55% and candidate Y wins 45% of the vote and you want to split it 11 votes to 9. Thats okay with me.

The best solution is to just have a popular vote winner be the president. You can keep the electoral college and still have the winner of the election be the poplular vote winner. Enough states have to agree to award their electoral votes to the popular vote winner.

Some states have already agreed to do this once the number of states reaches 270 electoral votes.

National Popular Vote -- Electoral college reform by direct election of the President

I thought the map in the first link was very telling where it listed 2012 elections results by district. This highlighted that metro areas, the NE and the coastal pacific is what won the election. Under current rules, is it fair that major cities decide the election? Is it fair that more gov't money is spent in cities so people have more of an incentive to vote one way in cities?

I think the proposed system would be flawed, but that doesn't mean that today's is the best or that there is one perfect system.

 

[GowerND11]

This isn't a policy post it is a voting fairness post. There are some republicans that do want fair elections and are upset with the actions there party has taken in certain states.

There is a plan to change the electoral college in several swing states. There is an actual bill right now in VA and another bill in committee in PA.

What The 2012 Election Would Look Like Under The Republicans' Vote-Rigging Plan

We did the math: how the GOP will gerrymander its way back to the White House — MSNBC

This why a party could loose the house by 1.3 million votes and still have almost a 30 seat majority. Not a 5 or 6 seat majority a near 30 seat majority despite clearly losing.

Joe Scarborough: Republicans Won House Of Representatives Majority Because Of Gerrymandering (VIDEO)

Electoral votes would awarded by congressional instead of by winner take all. Problem is the district lines are unfairly drawn in many states. This done both ways though most by republican states. Many states do it right and have the courts draw the lines. My state (Illinios) happens to be one of 4 democrat gerrymandered states while there is about 15 republican gerymandered states.

I'm all for proportional voting. If your state has 20 electoral votes and candidate X wins 55% and candidate Y wins 45% of the vote and you want to split it 11 votes to 9. Thats okay with me.

The best solution is to just have a popular vote winner be the president. You can keep the electoral college and still have the winner of the election be the poplular vote winner. Enough states have to agree to award their electoral votes to the popular vote winner.

Some states have already agreed to do this once the number of states reaches 270 electoral votes.

National Popular Vote -- Electoral college reform by direct election of the President

A counter argument is that the election of the POTUS is not an election by the people. it is determined by the states, therefore to use total popular vote we move from a republic to a democracy (which many people mistake the USA for). I do agree with you that more states should use their courts to try and draw unbiased lines for congressional districts.

 

[Bluto]

Maybe we are reading a different article. I read an article stating that using the CPI as the deflator (which produces the whole "flat wages" argument) is not taking into account the full picture. More over, simply taking an average wage does not neutralize the impact of the demogrpahic shift of the workforce.

Also, the article asks a very good question. If real wages are the same and the middle class is no better off today than 30 years ago, one would be impartial to living in 1980 versus 2013. I seriously doubt anyone would rather live in 1980 (with 1980 life spans, 1980 technology, etc).

I think arguing that technology has fundamentally made our lives "better" since the 80's is not a very solid argument. On the whole it seems to me that it has simply shifted what we choose to do with our leisure time.

I would certainly much rather have my mortgage be at a 1980's level. It would probably be a quarter of what it is now and considering my education and training I would probably be making close to the same wages I am now.

I would also much rather send my kid to say Cal at 1980's tuition rates. I believe at that time tuition was something like $150 for a full time student. Anyhow, it was ridiculously cheap.

I can say for certain that wages in the service sector jobs I looked at doing my thesis research have remained flat for the past 20 years. For example, when I first entered the landscape trade in 1993 starting wages were around $8.00. They are essentially the same today.

Finally, the town I grew up in was much nicer in the 80's. It has since declined due to **** poor planning choices.

 

[Ndaccountant]

I think arguing that technology has fundamentally made our lives "better" since the 80's is not a very solid argument. On the whole it seems to me that it has simply shifted what we choose to do with our leisure time.

I would certainly much rather have my mortgage be at a 1980's level. It would probably be a quarter of what it is now and considering my education and training I would probably be making close to the same wages I am now.

I would also much rather send my kid to say Cal at 1980's tuition rates. I believe at that time tuition was something like $150 for a full time student. Anyhow, it was ridiculously cheap.

I can say for certain that wages in the service sector jobs I looked at doing my thesis research have remained flat for the past 20 years. For example, when I first entered the landscape trade in 1993 starting wages were around $8.00. They are essentially the same today.

Finally, the town I grew up in was much nicer in the 80's. It has since declined due to **** poor planning choices.

Average mortgage interest rate in 1980 was about 12.3% and 2012 was about 3.9% for a 30 year fixed. The average size home built in 2010 was 35-40% larger than in 1980 and according to the Schiller home index, prices are up in real terms by only 10%. So you are getting much bigger homes for the cost in 2013 than what you were in 1980 and the financing is a fraction of what it was.

Technology sure does play a role in the longevity and quality of life. Why has the life expectancy of the average american increased by about 4 years since 1980? Meanwhile, since 1980, real disposible income per capita has increased quite a bit.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Interesting -- the current "recovery" is now worse than any other recession/depression "recovery" the US has ever had.

It's Official: Worst. Recovery. EVER | Zero Hedge

 

[Buster Bluth]

I think arguing that technology has fundamentally made our lives "better" since the 80's is not a very solid argument. On the whole it seems to me that it has simply shifted what we choose to do with our leisure time.

I would certainly much rather have my mortgage be at a 1980's level. It would probably be a quarter of what it is now and considering my education and training I would probably be making close to the same wages I am now.

I would also much rather send my kid to say Cal at 1980's tuition rates. I believe at that time tuition was something like $150 for a full time student. Anyhow, it was ridiculously cheap.

I can say for certain that wages in the service sector jobs I looked at doing my thesis research have remained flat for the past 20 years. For example, when I first entered the landscape trade in 1993 starting wages were around $8.00. They are essentially the same today.

Finally, the town I grew up in was much nicer in the 80's. It has since declined due to **** poor planning choices.

Average mortgage interest rate in 1980 was about 12.3% and 2012 was about 3.9% for a 30 year fixed. The average size home built in 2010 was 35-40% larger than in 1980 and according to the Schiller home index, prices are up in real terms by only 10%. So you are getting much bigger homes for the cost in 2013 than what you were in 1980 and the financing is a fraction of what it was.

Technology sure does play a role in the longevity and quality of life. Why has the life expectancy of the average american increased by about 4 years since 1980? Meanwhile, since 1980, real disposible income per capita has increased quite a bit.

 

[Downinthebend]

This isn't a policy post it is a voting fairness post. There are some republicans that do want fair elections and are upset with the actions there party has taken in certain states.

There is a plan to change the electoral college in several swing states. There is an actual bill right now in VA and another bill in committee in PA.

What The 2012 Election Would Look Like Under The Republicans' Vote-Rigging Plan

We did the math: how the GOP will gerrymander its way back to the White House — MSNBC

This why a party could loose the house by 1.3 million votes and still have almost a 30 seat majority. Not a 5 or 6 seat majority a near 30 seat majority despite clearly losing.

Joe Scarborough: Republicans Won House Of Representatives Majority Because Of Gerrymandering (VIDEO)

Electoral votes would awarded by congressional instead of by winner take all. Problem is the district lines are unfairly drawn in many states. This done both ways though most by republican states. Many states do it right and have the courts draw the lines. My state (Illinios) happens to be one of 4 democrat gerrymandered states while there is about 15 republican gerymandered states.

I'm all for proportional voting. If your state has 20 electoral votes and candidate X wins 55% and candidate Y wins 45% of the vote and you want to split it 11 votes to 9. Thats okay with me.

The best solution is to just have a popular vote winner be the president. You can keep the electoral college and still have the winner of the election be the poplular vote winner. Enough states have to agree to award their electoral votes to the popular vote winner.

Some states have already agreed to do this once the number of states reaches 270 electoral votes.

National Popular Vote -- Electoral college reform by direct election of the President

It is my understanding that gerrymandering or w.e it is called, is a tactic used by both the republican and democratic parties at around the same level. Is that true?

 

[Irish Houstonian]

The Supreme Court tried for 50 years to develop a test for determining whether a district was "gerrymandered", and ended up just giving up. You just can't develop a test for it beyond "I know it when I see it" or "that doesn't look right". Objectivity and coherence is basically impossible.

 

[chicago51]

It is my understanding that gerrymandering or w.e it is called, is a tactic used by both the republican and democratic parties at around the same level. Is that true?

Yes there are 4 democrat states that Gerrymander including my state Illinois. There are alot more republican states that do it. It has been that way for the House, state senate, and state house since the begining of the US party system.

The issue is now you are taking those unfair districts and applying the electoral votes to president of the United States. Each district of the House would be worth 1 vote in teh electoral college. I assume the 2 extra votes for the senaters would go to overall popular vote winner of the state. Although bill that is currently in Virginia awards the extra votes to the winner of the most districts along with one electoral vote to each districts. The GOP wants to do this in swing states that they control at the state level but went for Obama in 2012 (WI, MI, PA, FL, OH, and FA). Currently bills are in debate in VA and PA to change the awarding of electoral votes.

There are a few states that don't have enough representives to really gerymander. There is also some states that do it right and have courts draw their districts. I California is one. If California wanted to they could send about 45 Democrats to House they send 38 because they do it fair.

Bottom this could lead to some crazy outcomes. Not Bush v Gore were one candidate as a narrow popular vote win but has a narrow electoral college loss. A candidate could win by over 4 million votes and lose. Love Obama or hate him when you get the most votes by millions of votes you deserve to be President of the United States.

I think it is a simple concept that the guy that gets the most votes should win. Thats why I prefer every state awarding all the electoral votes to the popular vote winner of the US.

 

[drayer54]

The Supreme Court tried for 50 years to develop a test for determining whether a district was "gerrymandered", and ended up just giving up. You just can't develop a test for it beyond "I know it when I see it" or "that doesn't look right". Objectivity and coherence is basically impossible.

If the district doesn't resemble a shape that my kid knows, it's probably gerrymandered.

 

[Downinthebend]

Yes there are 4 democrat states that Gerrymander including my state Illinois. There are alot more republican states that do it. It has been that way for the House, state senate, and state house since the begining of the US party system.

The issue is now you are taking those unfair districts and applying the electoral votes to president of the United States. Each district of the House would be worth 1 vote in teh electoral college. I assume the 2 extra votes for the senaters would go to overall popular vote winner of the state. Although bill that is currently in Virginia awards the extra votes to the winner of the most districts along with one electoral vote to each districts. The GOP wants to do this in swing states that they control at the state level but went for Obama in 2012 (WI, MI, PA, FL, OH, and FA). Currently bills are in debate in VA and PA to change the awarding of electoral votes.

There are a few states that don't have enough representives to really gerymander. There is also some states that do it right and have courts draw their districts. I California is one. If California wanted to they could send about 45 Democrats to House they send 38 because they do it fair.

Bottom this could lead to some crazy outcomes. Not Bush v Gore were one candidate as a narrow popular vote win but has a narrow electoral college loss. A candidate could win by over 4 million votes and lose. Love Obama or hate him when you get the most votes by millions of votes you deserve to be President of the United States.

I think it is a simple concept that the guy that gets the most votes should win. Thats why I prefer every state awarding all the electoral votes to the popular vote winner of the US.

I get what you are saying about the plan advocated by some republicans (and I agree completely that it is a horrible idea). But to me the issue is gerrymandering. Politicians shouldn't be able to choose who their voters are, and they sure as hell shouldn't be able to choose that their voters are more important than other voters that are opposed to them.

 

[Buster Bluth]

If the district doesn't resemble a shape that my kid knows, it's probably gerrymandered.

I like that line.

The fact that downtown Toledo and downtown Cleveland are in the same district is mind-boggling.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

The original Gerrymander:

 

[Irish Houstonian]

If the district doesn't resemble a shape that my kid knows, it's probably gerrymandered.

They tried that -- doesn't account for natural population divisions, rivers, population densities, unusual urban development, mountains, etc.

 

[Downinthebend]

They tried that -- doesn't account for natural population divisions, rivers, population densities, unusual urban development, mountains, etc.

Maybe the politicians should have no control over redistricting.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Maybe the politicians should have no control over redistricting.

Some states have done this already, with great success. Leaving it in the hands of partisan legislators results in an absurd conflict of interest.

 

[Booslum31]

If the district doesn't resemble a shape that my kid knows, it's probably gerrymandered.

That's a good way to look at it. My home state of Ohio is a mess.

 

[Corry]

That's a good way to look at it. My home state of Ohio is a mess.

Florida has the worst map in the world. We have a district that runs from Jacksonville to Orlando.

 

[DSully1995]

You definately need an idependent body to regulate elections, even then however problems can still come up

 

[Downinthebend]

You definately need an idependent body to regulate elections, even then however problems can still come up

Then let them flip a coin. Or a 6 sided die. I'd be hard pressed to believe that anything could be worse than our current system.

 

[Corry]

 

[Downinthebend]