Draconian tax cuts? Isn't that an oxymoron?

(10-15-2014 11:33 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I don't think one party dominance is good for any state. Where are the checks and balances of a system like that?

Within the institutions themselves?

(10-15-2014 01:26 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 11:49 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 11:42 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 11:40 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Yep, things are looking up in red states...


"States run by Republican governors boast highest economic growth rates"

Quote:Nine of the 10 fastest growing U.S. states in the fourth quarter of 2013 were controlled by Republicans governors, according to the most recently available data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The BLS on Wednesday released a state-by-state comparison of GDP growth.

Six of the 10 worst-performing states, on the other hand, were run by Democrats.

url]http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capitolreport/2014/08/20/states-run-by-republican-governors-boast-highest-economic-growth-rates/[/url]

"Democrat States Raise Spending Quadruple the Rate of Republican States"

Quote:It seems the term "tax and spend liberal" isn’t just a cliché. Based on the numbers, if Democrats run your state government, it means, on average, higher taxes and more spending than if Republicans are in charge of state government.

https://news.heartland.org/newspaper-art...can-states

"Where Obama Fails, GOP Governors Find Solutions"

Quote:In fact, while the "blue states" are running up debt and flirting with bankruptcy, the "red states" continue to take the lead in cutting taxes, streamlining government and job creation, according to a report issued Monday by the State Government Leadership Foundation and being distributed by the Republican Legislative Campaign Committee.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/pete...and-growth

The real question is whether or not the Republican and Conservative candidates can successfully campaign on what has been a positive economic plan. Not all of the choices have been popular, but they are showing progress is being made.

But we shouldn't judge states by what they are doing for the richest in their state. If we want to judge the success of a state, it should be by what they are doing for the most vulnerable and poorest within their state.

If a State's Constitution makes helping "poor" and "vulnerable" part of the State's law, then well and good. But if that is not in the State's Constitution then it is not the State's job to "do more" for the "poor" and "vulnerable" than for any of its other citizens, no matter their personal economic standing.

Poor people do tend to have better access to better jobs in States that have growing and robust economies though.

I beg to differ. Many of the states that are dominated by republicans are also states with the worst school systems.

How are good jobs going to be available to people with bad education?

You got one didn't you?

(10-20-2014 09:00 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 01:26 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 11:49 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 11:42 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 11:40 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Yep, things are looking up in red states...


"States run by Republican governors boast highest economic growth rates"

url]http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capitolreport/2014/08/20/states-run-by-republican-governors-boast-highest-economic-growth-rates/[/url]

"Democrat States Raise Spending Quadruple the Rate of Republican States"


https://news.heartland.org/newspaper-art...can-states

"Where Obama Fails, GOP Governors Find Solutions"


http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/pete...and-growth

The real question is whether or not the Republican and Conservative candidates can successfully campaign on what has been a positive economic plan. Not all of the choices have been popular, but they are showing progress is being made.

But we shouldn't judge states by what they are doing for the richest in their state. If we want to judge the success of a state, it should be by what they are doing for the most vulnerable and poorest within their state.

If a State's Constitution makes helping "poor" and "vulnerable" part of the State's law, then well and good. But if that is not in the State's Constitution then it is not the State's job to "do more" for the "poor" and "vulnerable" than for any of its other citizens, no matter their personal economic standing.

Poor people do tend to have better access to better jobs in States that have growing and robust economies though.

I beg to differ. Many of the states that are dominated by republicans are also states with the worst school systems.

How are good jobs going to be available to people with bad education?

You got one didn't you?

I think you are in the wrong room. Personal attacks aren't allowed in this one.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(10-20-2014 08:50 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I heard somewhere that because of gerrymandering, the house of Representatives now represents less people than ever before. Is there any truth to that?

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Huh? How would that be possible. You might argue that certain groups have less representation than usual for their population, but X people= 1 represenative.

Redistricting doesn't change the number of people representative, only which regions they're represented in.

(10-20-2014 08:50 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I heard somewhere that because of gerrymandering, the house of Representatives now represents less people than ever before. Is there any truth to that?

No. This is a laughably unserious claim.

First, they represent more people than ever before because the nation has grown and (virtually) everyone in the nation is represented by a member of the House, whether they voted for them or not.

Even if you modify the claim to limit it to the number of people who voted for the candidate that won it is still obviously false. Around 117 million Americans voted in the 2012 Congressional elections. Suppose that gerrymandering meant that only 40% of those people voted for a winning candidate (probably a low estimate because one of the ways to gerrymander is to pack the opposition in safe districts), that means that around 47 million voters are represented by a candidate they voted for. That's more than the entire population of the US until the 1870s. When you remember that, in many places, the voting age was 21 instead of 18, women couldn't vote, and minorities couldn't vote, 47 million voters probably exceeds the number of eligible voters up until the 1920s. And this doesn't even take into account that some of those people didn't vote and some of them obviously voted for candidates that didn't win.

(10-20-2014 08:50 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I heard somewhere that because of gerrymandering, the house of Representatives now represents less people than ever before. Is there any truth to that?

(10-20-2014 10:53 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 08:50 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I heard somewhere that because of gerrymandering, the house of Representatives now represents less people than ever before. Is there any truth to that?

http://www.datamasher.org/mash-ups/peopl...esentative

(10-20-2014 11:30 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 10:53 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 08:50 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I heard somewhere that because of gerrymandering, the house of Representatives now represents less people than ever before. Is there any truth to that?

http://www.datamasher.org/mash-ups/peopl...esentative

What does that have to do with the claim you are making?

And any map based on comparing population towards the end of the census cycle with the distribution of representatives, which is established at the beginning of the census cycle, is worthless. There is a reason the apportionment of representatives is adjusted every 10 years.

(10-20-2014 11:30 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 10:53 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 08:50 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I heard somewhere that because of gerrymandering, the house of Representatives now represents less people than ever before. Is there any truth to that?

http://www.datamasher.org/mash-ups/peopl...esentative

Okay, now I get what you'r saying. Or at least, I think I do.

But no, the House of Representatives does not "represent less people than ever before."

What's true is that each Representative represents More people than ever before, thus making it that much more difficult for any individual citizen to have any meaningful contact with their Representative. But that's got nothing to do with gerrymandering.

I would be willing to consider a proposal to expand the House of Representatives, in order to reduce the # of people included in any one district from ~735k to 400-500k. I doubt that will happen, but just personally I'd be interested in finding a solution to that.

(10-20-2014 11:43 AM)jh Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 11:30 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 10:53 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 08:50 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I heard somewhere that because of gerrymandering, the house of Representatives now represents less people than ever before. Is there any truth to that?

http://www.datamasher.org/mash-ups/peopl...esentative

What does that have to do with the claim you are making?

And any map based on comparing population towards the end of the census cycle with the distribution of representatives, which is established at the beginning of the census cycle, is worthless. There is a reason the apportionment of representatives is adjusted every 10 years.

Was I making a claim?

(10-20-2014 12:00 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 11:43 AM)jh Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 11:30 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 10:53 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 08:50 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I heard somewhere that because of gerrymandering, the house of Representatives now represents less people than ever before. Is there any truth to that?

http://www.datamasher.org/mash-ups/peopl...esentative

What does that have to do with the claim you are making?
And any map based on comparing population towards the end of the census cycle with the distribution of representatives, which is established at the beginning of the census cycle, is worthless. There is a reason the apportionment of representatives is adjusted every 10 years.

Was I making a claim?

No. So I will rephrase. What does that have to do with the claim, apparently made by others, that you presented for evaluation?

(10-20-2014 12:04 PM)jh Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 12:00 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 11:43 AM)jh Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 11:30 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 10:53 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

http://www.datamasher.org/mash-ups/peopl...esentative

What does that have to do with the claim you are making?
And any map based on comparing population towards the end of the census cycle with the distribution of representatives, which is established at the beginning of the census cycle, is worthless. There is a reason the apportionment of representatives is adjusted every 10 years.

Was I making a claim?

No. So I will rephrase. What does that have to do with the claim, apparently made by others, that you presented for evaluation?

Perhaps not but maybe this one does. Let me know what you think.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinio...d=all&_r=0

(10-20-2014 12:09 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinio...d=all&_r=0

The dark arts of gerrymandering are one of the least-understood and least-appreciated aspects of modern politics. Both of the two main parties do everything within their legal and physical power to "tilt" the maps in their favor as much as possible. Some of the most notorious examples -- Texas in the 1990s, California in the 1980s -- produced huge gains for the Democrats (or stifled huge gains for the Republicans). Two of the most egregiously gerrymandered Congressional maps in use right now (Illinois and Maryland) were put in place to benefit the Democrats. Of course, there are other states (Ohio, Pennsylvania) where the GOP has done the same thing.

As with the proposal to increase the size of the House of Representatives, I'd be willing to discuss ways to diminish the influence of gerrymandering for Congress and state/local legislative bodies. But just as a practical matter, getting anything done in that area would require mutual respect and good-faith from participants on both sides of the aisle. Does anyone think that people like Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell -- or Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner -- are going to sit down and reach agreements on something this sensitive and important?

It's concerning to think that one party has to have over a million more voters than the other party to get the same representation.

(10-20-2014 12:09 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 12:04 PM)jh Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 12:00 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 11:43 AM)jh Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 11:30 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  http://www.datamasher.org/mash-ups/peopl...esentative

What does that have to do with the claim you are making?
And any map based on comparing population towards the end of the census cycle with the distribution of representatives, which is established at the beginning of the census cycle, is worthless. There is a reason the apportionment of representatives is adjusted every 10 years.

Was I making a claim?

No. So I will rephrase. What does that have to do with the claim, apparently made by others, that you presented for evaluation?

Perhaps not but maybe this one does. Let me know what you think.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinio...d=all&_r=0

Still nothing to do with the claim you asked about. And written by someone who hasn't really thought hard about how to deal with gerrymandering. Simply saying that someone should do something isn't enough.

I'm not a fan of gerrymandering, but it is an enormously complex problem not susceptible to easy solutions. There are a number of factors that need to be considered when crafting a "fair" system and a number of them don't have any obvious answers. There is no judicially enforceable standard not because nobody cares but because it is almost impossible to do. If you can come up with a good one, Common Cause might pay you $5,000.

At heart, the problem is that the notion that districts should be split roughly 50/50 is merely a policy preference, not a constitutional mandate.

(10-20-2014 12:35 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  It's concerning to think that one party has to have over a million more voters than the other party to get the same representation.

The politicians are not supposed to represent the parties but the individual voters.

(10-20-2014 12:42 PM)jh Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 12:35 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  It's concerning to think that one party has to have over a million more voters than the other party to get the same representation.

The politicians are not supposed to represent the parties but the individual voters.

Exactly. That's why it's upsetting when more people vote for one side more than the other and still get less representatives.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(10-20-2014 01:53 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 12:42 PM)jh Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 12:35 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  It's concerning to think that one party has to have over a million more voters than the other party to get the same representation.

The politicians are not supposed to represent the parties but the individual voters.

Exactly. That's why it's upsetting when more people vote for one side more than the other and still get less representatives.

You simply substituted side for party and made the same claim. Each person votes for a single candidate, not a side.

(10-20-2014 01:53 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Exactly. That's why it's upsetting when more people vote for one side more than the other and still get less representatives.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

I know what you mean. I can't believe we allow minorities the opportunity to have representatives in Congress. Oh, the humanity.