Also, some of his numbers are way off. According to the US Census (see #29), 79% of the population was urban in 2000, not ~20% as he claims.

For a breakdown of metro areas by population, look at #21 at the US Census link, "Metropolitan Statistical Areas--Population by Age". There were 131 million votes cast for president in 2008. If you want to arbitrarily define urban as 1 million people or more, there are 126.4 million voting-age people living in metropolitan areas.

Sliced a different way, according to the US Census, a presidential candidate can get to 50% of that if they take the voting age populations of just the top 12 metropolitan areas:

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA
Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA
Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA
Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI

I don't know where he gets his numbers--maybe by using strict city limits?--but they're not even close to reality. According to the facts, in a pure popularity vote, a presidential candidate can safely ignore the rural areas and still win an election.

The electoral college is imperfect, but whatever you want to replace it with should do a better job of representing a diversity of interests--geographic, demographic, and politic--than a direct popular vote.

I think this video needs coupled with his The Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained.

I don't know if we can ever get a constitutional amendment passed to get rid of the electoral college, which is why I've long advocated just getting rid of the winner take all in every state. Whoever wins the congressional district, gets that district's electoral vote, with the two extras going to the winner of the popular vote of the state as a whole.

If we combined that with the Singe Transferable Vote type system explained in the Problems with First Past the Post video, we would have a system that better represents the people.

We still have an issue then with the large states being under represented and small states and DC being over represented, and he doesn't go into detail on why that is in these videos. We have had 435 Representatives since 1911 (save for a couple years where we had 437). The 1910 US Census said we had 76,212,168 people, so with 435 Representatives that gives us 175,200 people for each Representative, so we'll round that up to 200,000. The 2010 Census pegged us at 308,745,538, so each Representative now represents a bit over 709,750 people. If we kept with the 200,000 figure we would have 1543 Representatives now, and with modern technology there is no reason they would all need to be in the Congressional building for votes, just in their office in their home district. Heck even if we raised it to 250,000 people, a full quarter of a million, we 1234 or 1235 Representatives, which still insures people are better represented in Congress and at the electoral college if that is still in place once we fix First Past the Post and up the number or Representatives. Congress itself set the limit to 435, so it wouldn't take an amendment to fix it, unless we wanted to insure that it was fixed forever. I don't think we would need an amendment to move to the Single Transferable Vote either, just a law stating all Federal offices must use that method.

Of course to afford that many Representative they, and the Senate, probably need a pay and budget cut. So good luck on that, which may be reason enough it would never pass... that and the lobbyist trying to stop it since such a move would make their job harder and far more expensive.

We do need an amendment limiting the term of the Supreme Court, especially since they are appointed and not elected, and a term limit would be needed even if they were elected. An amendment that specifically exempts anyone who is in now and perhaps appointed within a few years of passing should be passable I would think (if they could agree on what the limit should be), then again, they haven't made a real effort to limit the Supreme Court term yet.

The primary system needs fixed as well, but I think that would be harder to fix. Even with a Single Transferable Vote in place, if it isn't party locked, you have people from the other party purposely voting for the person who would most likely lose against their candidate. Even party locked, you still have people saying they are one, voting for the person you best guess will lose, and then voting for your real candidate during the actual election (which should never be party locked). However, a single Transferable Vote does make "fringe" candidates that don't get the mainstream press coverage, like Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich and the like, to raise higher, which is probably why the parties themselves would fight any real primary system reform.

@NetRunner @dystopianfuturetoday

I'm looking for debate too, but I'm not going to find it if I argue the progressive angle. I'll be Lucifer's lawyer on this one.


A few things. First, I'm with those of you who doubt the truth of Schiff's statement that he's paying 50% of his income in taxes. I demand to see his tax return!

I'm potentially sympathetic to Schiff here. As we all know income taxes, and even capital gains taxes aren't the only taxes that exist. Schiff is a business owner. I suspect his issue is with the "double taxing" of profits. His business makes a profit which is then taxed. That taxation thus reduces the value of his business. Further, the remaining profits are taxed again (in the form of capital gains) when he decides to liquidate his stake in the company. So if you basically make your money by creating value in businesses in exchange for an ownership stake, that value is taxed twice before you even see it. Now of course this comes from someone that frequently makes disingenuous claims like the majority of Americans "don't pay taxes," considering the substantial share of their income they pay in consumption taxes; but his point stands on its own. I wish we had a more streamlined tax system that did away with loopholes as well as double taxation of value creation (like a VAT).


Secondly, even if it were 50%, and it went up to 65%, in what universe is it ever in Schiff's interest to stop making money? In fact, wouldn't it be an incentive for him to work harder? If he's used to a lifestyle of consumption of $1 million a year, and suddenly he's only able to consume $800k/yr, wouldn't that mean he'd redouble his efforts and try to make more money if he couldn't accept such austerity? He certainly wouldn't dismantle his businesses and cut off the source of his income.

You clearly don't value your time. Schiff's input/brand is probably the core asset of his ventures (in fact that's something you always have to remember about the guy, he's selling himself). That means he probably leads a fairly stressful life, and might choose to exchange some of his labor for the leisure time he could clearly afford in either case. That means generating less business, and thus requiring fewer "cost centers" (like staff). One argument might be that if he does dismantle his business, someone else will just fill the void in the marketplace, and hire (possibly that same) staff. However, if it was the case that there was someone willing to do what Schiff does for substantially less than Schiff, it's likely they'd already be competing with him under the favorable tax rates.


Thirdly, on jobs, like dft said, employers hire exactly as many people as they need to produce the amount of goods (or services) they're able to sell, and not a single person more. They're not going to hire more people to produce more goods if they can't sell all of what they're currently producing, that would just be pure loss to them.

This isn't always true. Businesses often use recessions to "buy labor low" to prepare a competitive advantage for the next cycle. Propping up the labor market arguably never lets the labor market reach a valuation in which this market based counter-cyclic mechanism can take place. It's further arguable that if you allowed that mechanism to take place, the resulting employment allocation may be more efficient/sustainable than, e.g. taking a census. I'm a bleeding heart, so you don't have to tell me about breadlines and old people in the streets, but part of me feels as though the youth has become soft. They don't want to learn. They don't create with what they have. They play video games and argue on Videosift.


Putting more money into the hands of the suppliers isn't going to boost employment for exactly that reason. Employers will only hire new people if they need to produce more goods, and they're only going to produce more goods if their sales increase. You really need to put more money into the hands of people who want to consume, not those who want to produce. You need to find a large group of people who want to buy more things, but can't because they don't have the money. In other words, you need to put money into the hands of poor people, not rich factory owners.

See Schiff would say DON'T give money to the employers. Stop giving money to ANYBODY. Leave the money right where the market put it. Doing anything else just allows some asshole to hoodwink the whole damn country rather than just their clients. Personally I feel there needs to be some initial breaking up of the oligarchy if you really want to pursue that line of reasoning (i.e. sorry Schiff, we're taking your gold with our pitchforks), but that's just me.


Schiff doesn't seem to know all this stuff, which is why everyone should laugh in his face when he says he knows anything about economics.

Come on, we're classier than that.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
For example on point 1. He says median hourly wages stagnated and dropped from 1980 to 1992. To prove his point he ... (wait for it) ... draws a picture that sort of resembles a coffee cup. As is expected, what he does (like most Prog-Libs) is cherry-pick a very specific, isolated, limited factoid and apply it in entirely the wrong way. Median hourly wages? Really RR? That's how you are measuring whether 'trickle down economics' works or not? Please 'prove' to me how that makes sense and I'll go further. I'll rely on a more holistic picture than that - thanks - such as the census...
http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/p23-196.pdf
Notice that 1983 to 1989 (3 years after the election) was up across the board - went DOWN after Bush got in office (and his tax hikes I may add).
I could go on, but there's no point to it.


Looking at your census data, median household income in 1979 was $34,666 and in 1993 it was $33,660 (in the face of more women joining the workforce), which exactly matches what Reich said about wages dropping between 1980 and 1992. So thanks for providing proof that RR is correct with your holistic picture. BTW, your sentence "Notice that 1983 to 1989 (3 years after the election) was up across the board - went DOWN after Bush got in office" doesn't even make sense.

Like I said, PROVE it

Sure.

Step 1: Take RR's "crap I pulled out my hinder" arguments
Step 2: Say the exact opposite.

Boom. There. I've given you as much "proof" as RR did in his stupid 164 second waste of time.

For example on point 1. He says median hourly wages stagnated and dropped from 1980 to 1992. To prove his point he ... (wait for it) ... draws a picture that sort of resembles a coffee cup. As is expected, what he does (like most Prog-Libs) is cherry-pick a very specific, isolated, limited factoid and apply it in entirely the wrong way. Median hourly wages? Really RR? That's how you are measuring whether 'trickle down economics' works or not? Please 'prove' to me how that makes sense and I'll go further. I'll rely on a more holistic picture than that - thanks - such as the census...

http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/p23-196.pdf

Notice that 1983 to 1989 (3 years after the election) was up across the board - went DOWN after Bush got in office (and his tax hikes I may add).

I could go on, but there's no point to it. Prog-Libs have a mantra they stick to in the face of all facts and evidence, and all it takes is a bearded moron reinforcing the dumb ideas they believe to convince them they have 'proof'. All RR ever does is barf up typical left wing talking points. Nothing new here. He pukes up the same bologna, opinion based interpretation of the world every time he opens his piehole.

>> ^chilaxe:

@Jinx
I hate to interrupt your anti-intellectual parade and your lack of real facts or non-ignorant assertions, but have you heard of this great new site called Google.com?
Google search: muslim welfare rate europe OR britain OR sweden

Haha, anti-intellectual.

I was taking issue with your "once Europe is majority Muslim". I've read tripe like that before in a paper...what was it called again. Oh yah. The Daily Mail. Or was it The Sun. I forget.

Heres something for you to mull over: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1542427/One-third-of-homes-dependent-on-benefits.html
Oh, and before you say the majority of that 1/3 are Muslim consider that the 2001 census shows that only 2.7% of the UK is Muslim. Somewhat less than the 15.5% who identify as "no religion", but I don't see anybody expecting them to "take over Europe". So ok, 40%>33%, but its hardly the case that Islam is climbin in our windows and snatchin our welfares up. Its much the same story in the rest of Europe. Edumacate yourself thx.

Ps. I hate Islam, I just hate this distortion of reality more.

The part about the census data powering the internment camps is actually true.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=confirmed-the-us-census-b&sc=I100322

>> ^Skeeve:

I spent 2 years making less than $20,000 CDN annually and I did fine.

Did you have a wife and two kids? I believe Jon Stewart pointed out that "poor", according to the census definition, was a family of 4 living on less than $22k. That's very different from a single adult living on $20k.

[edit: I see now this has already been addressed. I should have read further down the page before commenting.]

I concur, however, that I don't know what to make of "richness of spirit". I'm guessing he's saying poor people are poor because they just don't try hard enough.

>> ^gorillaman:

>> ^Yogi:
You're not dealing with reality...you're thinking idyllically. You can't tell people "Don't have kids unless you have enough money" it won't work. So instead the society has to do something to make the situation better for all involved if it considers having children a positive thing for the society.You can tell people exactly that, in the same way you can tell them, "Don't buy a sports car unless you have enough money." Some idiots will do it anyway, and provoke the consequences. What you won't have is society paying billions to redeem their irresponsibility.


http://www.ehow.com/facts_5391105_average-cost-child-birth.html

sorta ranges from 7-10 thousand for just child birth

http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/2010/06/16/cost-to-raise-a-child-in-us-tops-220000.htm

so lets say 225k to raise a child as a ward of the state (this is probably a HIGHER cost that the state would actually pay as the above estimate is for a middle class upbringing but whatever)

i mean in poorer parts of the world, it only takes 400/yr to raise a child in an orphanage with the BAREST of necessities... and then see where the cost to raise 40 million orphans compares to other expenditures http://www.stand4kids.org/the-cost-of-providing-for-40-million-orphans-vs-the-cost-of-sin/

i mean seriously, they are only part of your society, why treat them any different than someone from a 3rd world nation?

now I'm sure there aren't 40 million orphans currently in the US

In the US there are approximately 500,000 children in foster care (Based on data submitted by states as of January 16, 2008) * http://abbafund.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/orphan-statistics/

according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphanage thats alittle over 1/2 the number of orphans (according to state of New York statistics), another 1/4 is with family, and about 1/6 is in state ward care... my math may be off, but lets say, 100,000 children on tax dollars

~ 225,000,000,000 cost per year for orphans
311,954,380 current USA population http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

or $721.26 in taxes per person per year, roughly $60/month in taxes

obviously this isn't taking into account money foster parents receive to aid with their fostering... but again, the 225,000$ estimate for the cost a state facility in regards of cost to raise a child for life is HIGH... both in regards to the fact that not all children will be in the orphanage from day 1 to adult hood, some don't become orphans until later... and how the facility itself will not be spending the same amount and a middle class family to raise the child... on the other hand, not every citizen pays their taxes or is taxable

but it is very safe to assume <$60/month as the cost to each tax paying citizen in regards to this
not $60/kid... $60/month for ALL of them

its about GREED

oh man, what a burden!

>> ^quantumushroom:

Now that your tepid squirt gun of insults is sucking air, maybe you'd like some FACTS.
Medicare Fraud: A $60 Billion Crime

Poverty in America - based on US Census
Speaking of deluded "logic", is yours really 'If it doesn't happen to me, it doesn't happen anywhere.' ?????????????????????????????

>> ^VoodooV:
>> ^quantumushroom:
You gotta bunch of fatalist losers in the audience who believe life is a zero-sum game, that is, in order for one person to win, another must lose. Not one of them has the understanding that wealth is not finite slices of pie, the pie itself is getting larger all the time.
America's "poor" are the wealthiest poor in the world. Most own their own homes, have two cars, air-conditioning, 2 computers, 3 TVs, etc. And that's on top of "free" food and health care.
I'm not so cavalier as to believe losing 60 billion dollars EVERY YEAR to fraud, waste and abuse means nothing, but it really highlights the liberal mindset. When you're taking someone else's money at gunpoint, you really don't care how hard they had to work to earn it.

Like Spitzer said to Kibbe, "You're so wrong on so much of that I don't know where to begin"
You're either incompetent, deliberately lying, or both.
Speaking for myself, by QM's deluded logic, I obviously don't live in America, because I don't even have HALF of what QM claims the poor have.
But that can't be....I'm a public employee, I should have 10 cars and 5 homes if that were true.



What's your point QM? As others have already said. Proving that there is fraud does nothing other than show that things need to be improved. But that's not what you want to do, you want to slash the budget. Slashing budgets doesn't fix fraud...fixing fraud fixes fraud. Pretty basic concept there. It's really quite disappointing. Conservatives cry all the time about how they want efficient government...but they have some pretty inefficient ways to do it.

As to your second link, nice try, but The Heritage Foundation is an obviously conservative movement and thus, obviously biased. But let's go simpler than that. You...and THF made the claim that the "poor" have their own home, have two cars, air conditioning, two computers and 3 TVs. Fortunately, I qualified MY remarks with "Anecdotally" You do know what that word means right, QM? I know it's a big word and conservatives don't like big words, you like manipulating issues with sound bites, I know, but you guys hate big words. So I never claimed that my experiences speak for everyone. So nice try at a strawman, but QM fails again.

But more to the point. THF is full of shit, or their definition of poor is way the heck off or poor compared to Beverly Hills or something . While I do have air conditioning, I rent, I certainly don't have two cars, I certainly don't have two computers or three TVs and I know I'm doing FAR better than most of the people I work with. And again, I work in State Gov't and contrary to your marching orders from Fox News, we don't make a whole hell of a lot. So if, according to THF, I'm apparently lower than poor, but wait, I'm doing better than most of my peers, so they have to be even lower than the lowest of the poor...so again, either THF is incompetent, or much more likely, since THF is clearly a conservative, thus biased, organization, they are either exaggerating, or outright lying.

You clearly don't know what poor is, QM. You lose...again.

Troll elsewhere

Now that your tepid squirt gun of insults is sucking air, maybe you'd like some FACTS.

Medicare Fraud: A $60 Billion Crime

Poverty in America - based on US Census

Speaking of deluded "logic", is yours really 'If it doesn't happen to me, it doesn't happen anywhere.' ?????????????????????????????



>> ^VoodooV:

>> ^quantumushroom:
You gotta bunch of fatalist losers in the audience who believe life is a zero-sum game, that is, in order for one person to win, another must lose. Not one of them has the understanding that wealth is not finite slices of pie, the pie itself is getting larger all the time.
America's "poor" are the wealthiest poor in the world. Most own their own homes, have two cars, air-conditioning, 2 computers, 3 TVs, etc. And that's on top of "free" food and health care.
I'm not so cavalier as to believe losing 60 billion dollars EVERY YEAR to fraud, waste and abuse means nothing, but it really highlights the liberal mindset. When you're taking someone else's money at gunpoint, you really don't care how hard they had to work to earn it.

Like Spitzer said to Kibbe, "You're so wrong on so much of that I don't know where to begin"
You're either incompetent, deliberately lying, or both.
Speaking for myself, by QM's deluded logic, I obviously don't live in America, because I don't even have HALF of what QM claims the poor have.
But that can't be....I'm a public employee, I should have 10 cars and 5 homes if that were true.

her quote was "round up the Japanese" not Japanese-Americans.

>> ^shuac:

That first thing she said (about the US using census data to round up Japanese Americans to send them to interment camps) is actually true.
Don't get me wrong, she's a fuckwit but that particular soundbite doesn't belong in this video.

That first thing she said (about the US using census data to round up Japanese Americans to send them to interment camps) is actually true.

Don't get me wrong, she's a fuckwit but that particular soundbite doesn't belong in this video.

>> ^quantumushroom:

How long has this skank been bigoted towards Christians?
Percentage of Christians in American population: 85%
Gays: 4% tops


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Religion

You may wish to catch up with the times... Secularism is rising, Christianity is dying. In the US. This is from our (horribly flawed as Backman puts it) census in 2010 referring backwards to other censuses...

I don't understand your deal with numbers, QM. If only 4% of folks are gay does that mean they get reduced rights and privileges?

It depends on what homosexuality is. If being gay is a "choice" then it's behavioral, and behavior of all kinds is regulated. If homosexuality is purely genetic, the question remains whether or not it's a defect. As a clue, if a "homosexual gene" is discovered, how many prospective parents would switch it "off" in their unborn baby? My guess would be 99.99%.

Only 15% of the country is black but it was eventually decided blacks could participate in society any way. 1% Jews, 1% Muslim, etc. doesn't mean 1% citizenship. It's bizarre. What shall we do with the 8% who are left handed? Tie their left arms down when they learn writing in the first grade like we used to? Sheesh...

Or perhaps we should make all right-handed people conform to a left-handed world? Isn't that what politigays are demanding now? Don't the blind have a right to drive cars? They're equal citizens, aren't they?

Also, I think your data on xian population is a little out of date. According to the last census it's more like 76% not that it matters.


If it doesn't matter, then it should make no difference to you whether it's 85% or 76%.

BTW, is there any video evidence of the actual Griffin/Bachmann encounter? I'm calling BS until it materializes.