I don't even think about President Elect Obama being black, and I'm shocked that people factor it in to his message of hope, as if that's partly what it's about: that a black man can be president. It's nothing of the sort.
What inspires me is that he'll actually change things. Nearly all politicians will give lots of lips service to lots of things and in the end keep everything the same. I (and many others) strongly believe he's different.
That's why people are in the streets. That's why they are excited. That's why this is big.
It's not about the color of his skin but the content of his character.
I'm saying that the nation giving itself a collective pat on the back for being so open minded isn't progress at all. it is an impediment to real progress.
I think I understand what your saying, but we do need to celebrate ours victories along the way. I don't think anyone that is pushing for meaningful change thinks the job is done.
Obama's win was hard fought. Despite how electoral math works, I do not consider his victory a landslide. The popular vote spread is around 6 points. That is not a big margin.
I am from south Georgia. I know black-white racism all too well. Despite the fact that Georgia went to McCain, this was an historic win and I think it should be celebrated and the momentum should continue.
I agree with you completely. The focus on race in this election is preposterous, and it shows that racism isn't dead, it's just more benign than ever.
I thought that the big deal here was that we see Obama as a politician, not a "black politician." But it seems that many people have yet to get beyond this point. That being said, and as another commenter mentioned, there's a difference between voting based on race and appreciating the historical significance of a minority, let alone a black man, holding office in America. And contrasted with this nation's history, that is remarkable.
in an idealistic view of things, i agree with you. but if he never changes a thing (which i hope he does) he will already have changed the history and promise of this country.
Inevitably, Wednesday's headlines were all about Obama's skin colour and the historic milestone of the first black presidency. For the United States and the rest of the world, that is a fact of huge symbolic importance, but it is the least of Obama's true credentials. What America has succeeded in doing, against all the odds, and why we cried when it happened, is to elect the most intelligent, canny and imaginative candidate to the presidential office in modern times - someone who'll bring to the White House an extraordinary clarity of thought and temperate judgment.
I don't even think about President Elect Obama being black, and I'm shocked that people factor it in to his message of hope, as if that's partly what it's about: that a black man can be president. It's nothing of the sort.
Each person sees and hears what he wants, I suppose.
Whether you think about it or not, Obama's skin color is of great importance to many Americans, particularly black Americans. It isn't important to me, but I don't see any reason to deny it or minimize it either.
To me, Obama is a half-black half-white, non-practicing Muslim - not that I think him any lesser for it. When a fully black or fully devout Muslim candidate wins the election, that would be very interesting. It is not fitting to congratulate Obama on the race card just because he's different to his predecessors.
American culture does not accept that, and I side with American culture on this one. A man is what he chooses to be, not what his parents were. That way lies social tyranny.
(Social tyranny isn't talked about much in America since it doesn't come up much, since we don't believe in it. For a real-world example, I point you at the caste system.)
I don't particularly like Obama, but I see no evidence that he has engaged in any particularly Muslim activities as an adult.
Social Tyranny is different to spiritual disposition, which is an issue that is being raised in this thread (even though my original comment was about the appropriateness of paying homage to someone not 100% black as though he were - not that skin color or even religion should be such an issue) but rather one's spiritual disposition, which cannot just be ignored in a person: it shapes their thinking and overall vibe.
even though my original comment was about the appropriateness of paying homage to someone not 100% black as though he were
What does "100% black" mean? I have reason to believe I have some black folks in my family tree three generations back. Does that make me 6.25% black and 93.75% white?
A lot of your comments in this thread are being voted down, a lot, which I don't think is entirely useful. You have opinions and thought processes that I find interesting...I simply don't understand them, and I'm trying to. What is it you're trying to say? Are you saying that Obama thinks like a Muslim because some of his relatives are Muslim? That he's thinks half-black/half-white, whatever that means? Are we talking about racial/ancestral memory here? I'm confused. Folks seem to think you're being racist and intolerant, but I'm not sure that's what you're trying to say. But I can't ferret out exactly what it is you are trying to say.
I am trying to ferret out the truth: just as you are with my comments. Basically, I think my main concern is with people who were born and raised as children in the USA (not raised in Indonesia and Hawaii [well Hawaii is USA]) to two black parents and very poor in a poor neighbourhood. Barack shouldn't represent that stereotype, but people credit him for it and energize his persona on those sympathies - to the detriment of those who really come from such a background.
edit: I might add that really going beyond race is saying:
"We can look at the candidate's policies regardless of the candidate's color or religion."
...instead of being tainted by the color or religion of a candidate as an automatic promoter or detractor of proposed policies.
The downmodding of my comments borders on extreme political correctness and censorship. It's not a good way to head. I've said nothing unreasonable, racist or irrelevant.
Barack shouldn't represent that stereotype, but people credit him for it and energize his persona on those sympathies
So, Cuban's actual words, in the blog post we are all discussing, that I guess you're referring to were:
"In a single day of voting, our amazing country once again reinvigorated the dream that any child in this country, no matter what circumstances they are born into, can grow up to be anything they want, including President of the United States."
I'm not seeing anything about two black parents and being very poor in a poor neighborhood anywhere in the blog post. I didn't take the post to mean, "He was an inner city gangster and he became president, so put down your guns and drugs and go run for state senate!!!111!!"
I took it to mean exactly what he said, that Obama being elected president is a great way to show a kid that they can grow up to be anything they want, and that America won't limit them based on the color of their skin or whether they grew up without the benefits of two wealthy, married, parents and a private school education (because Obama clearly does have much darker skin than any of our prior presidents, though we have had a few presidents with black folks in their family tree, even if it doesn't get talked about much). He is "black" by the definition that matters in this context: The definition that racists follow, since racism is the barrier we're talking about. He looks black, so he is black to the Klan and anybody else that holds that sort of philosophy.
to the detriment of those who really come from such a background
Mark Cuban: "Having an elected black President will do more to energize this country than any economic or social policy ever could."
... yeah if he were black. But why omit being half white? That's the gist of my comment. Or why not just say a half-cast? I personally am not phased by any which way.
But, it's important that US citizens (I'm not one so I am not pursing this thread further) create their own narrative, and I say aim to include as much information as possible, especially to children, instead of downmodding anything that comes in the way of the dream.
... yeah if he were black. But why omit being half white? That's the gist of my comment.
I've already answered that in a manner that I'm confident makes sense in America: Because he is black. By the definition of the people for whom it matters, the color of his skin tells them all they need to know. Whether he has "white" relatives (whatever "white" means, since a large percentage of white folks have non-white ancestry, of some sort), or not, is irrelevant to a racist. It doesn't matter to folks who don't care about race; it matters no more whether he is black, half-black, one-quarter black, mocha-latte-frappucino brown, or plain old white of the purist driven snow. To the people for whom it matters, though, "half-black" is like saying "half-virgin" or "half-pregnant". To them, a black man has been elected president. And this is what many black folks have grown up believing was impossible...because there is a real history of racism in this country. As a nation, it has dramatically improved over the past four generations.
I still don't understand why you think it is some great truth that should be trumpeted from the rooftops that Obama is merely half black. It's not a secret that he has mixed race parents, and never has been. Nonetheless, his skin is brown. If racism was going to hold a black man back, it would have held him back just as well as it would hold any other brown-skinned man or woman back. And...it didn't hold him back.
Not really. More specifically, I'd say a "non-practicing Muslim, practicing as a Christian." Or rather, now he is apparently practicing as a Christian, and was thus previously for 20 years via Pastor Wright whilst also being a Muslim Apostate.
I take my viewpoint whereby just as Jews are said to receive there religious status through the mother (whether they like it or not) Muslims are said to receive it through the father. As an analogy: Michael Jackson may look white .... but he started off black. He may or may not be in denial about this fact, just as his fans may or may not acknowledge it too.
Some here on this forum may have been misled or duped (either willingly or via manipulation) on the notions now discussed.
"In sum, Muslims puzzle over Obama's present religious status. They resist his self-identification as a Christian while they assume a baby born to a Muslim father and named "Hussein" began life a Muslim. Should Obama become president, differences in Muslim and American views of religious affiliation will create problems."
Obama is not responsible for the change in mainstream american views on race, but he is commendable for how he has (mostly not) approached race as a political topic in his campaign.
"I'm also troubled by not what senator McCain says, but what members of the party say - and it is permitted to be said - such things as "you know that Obama is a muslim". The correct answer is that he's not a muslim, he's a christian, he's always been a christian. But the reallyright answer is: what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a muslim in this country? The answer is no. That is not America. Is there something wrong with some 7 year old muslim american kid believing he or she can be president?"
Explicitly a Reverend Wright 'God Damn America' type Christianity, who Obama has since distanced himself, and if so, does that mean Obama is still a Christian, or did that go when he distanced himself from Wright?
As an atheist, I find Jeremiah Wright no fundamentally different than John Hagee, for one example. Pastors say controversial things to rile up a crowd - it's part of their job. Further, his comments are biblically defensible in the context of Jeremiah, Joel and other prophets who decried the treatment of the "widow and the orphan."
Others have already said it, but to quote Mr. Obama directly: "As a starting point, it means I believe in [sic] that Jesus Christ died for my sins and that I am redeemed through him."
"While I prefer lower taxes, I can tell you that no entrepreneur or CEO worth a damn in this country gives up or works less because of a change in tax policy."
And the next sentence: "In this country you work harder to achieve your dreams and goals."
1: The higher the tax, the harder you have to work to achieve your dreams and goals => the decision to leave certainty for a venture is harder => less people will do it.
2: A tax increase counts twice when you're hiring e.g. cleaning help for your home, since both you and the cleaner is paying the higher tax. Thus, it get harder to pay for cleaning (gardening, construction, mechanics etc), and you're more likely to do it yourself, devoting less time to your family, start-up or work.
3: Finally, higher taxes will make it harder to promote/be promoted. In a promotion, you get more money and more responsibilities. The higher the tax, the less money will be in your pocket after the promotion, and the incentive to accept is lower. Coupled with no. 2, if you're busy building a new bathroom and a garage at home, you don't have the time to accept more responsibilities at work.
By the way - watch out for "95% won't be affected" rhetoric. A functioning democracy can't just be 95% fleecing the 5% - or the 55% fleecing the 45%.
1. That tax money doesn't vanish down a hole. It gets spent, largely on American businesses.
2. By collecting more we reduce the deficit, so it also saves on inevitable future taxes plus interest..
3. The cleaner isn't paying a higher tax, unless the cleaner makes $250k a year. In fact since the cleaner is probably making 1/8th of that, he is paying a lower tax and could therefore charge me less while still making the same amount himself, and the free market will make that happen.
4. A rising tide lifts all boats. If there's one thing we can be sure of, it's that the middle class isn't going to save that extra money, that's just not the American way. They're going to spend it. A retailer's after tax margins might drop a bit, but their volume will increase. (I think that's what Obama was trying to say in response to the infamous Joe the Plumber question, but he didn't explain it well.)
I don't see the logic behind your number 3. Salaries are, of course, a deduction, so higher taxes should have little effect on them. Any employees making less than $250k (and that's the overwhelming majority of non self-employed people) will require less salary due to paying less taxes to maintain the same quality of life. And increased volume will make up for decreased margins at least to some extent (probably varying by industry).
Also, one of my blog readers sent me a neat economics paper he had written in college (I think at Harvard) that showed that sensible tax increases (like the Clinton years) have no impact on business creation. He used EINs issued, among other metrics.
It does not get spent on American businesses. I wish it did, but a large share (~40%) goes to entitlement programs (Medicare, SS). Then you've also got defense spending, which benefits some companies, and also you've got other things like debt interest, homeland security, etc.
That's not accurate either. Those entitlement checks get sent out regardless of whether we raise or lower taxes, and come from FICA taxes. They have nothing to do with higher income taxes. They're a sunk cost. Raising income tax (and spending the newly raised money) would just lower the % spent on entitlements, since it wouldn't raise the dollar amount 1 cent.
If there is any FICA surplus, it's saved to help pay for the huge amount of retirees we'll have in 10 years.
Not to belabor the point unnecessarily, but Social Security checks are generally injected immediately back into the economy as well, and Medicare-while it does help prop up the least fiscally efficient medical system in the world--does, at least, get spent in the US. Defense and Homeland Security spending benefit some companies at the expense of others; that's an effect with debatable benefit. The debt interest supports the GP's other point, that the money would be taxed or inflated away eventually, anyway.
well, it can be for awhile. then the successful people start leaving and all the morons wonder why.
look at the skilled labor problems they are having in socialist european countries.
When we had a 94% top marginal tax rate in 1944-45, or >=91% for 12 years starting in 1951, was there a big "brain drain" emigration problem, and jobs going overseas? Perhaps international outsourcing has grown not only because of the internet, but in part because Reagan cut the top bracket from 70% to 28%.
Cuba makes European countries look like the Mises institute, just as Norway or France would deem Obama's policies to be tilted right wing/laissez-faire. But Cuba has one doctor--the gold standard of skilled labor--for every 175 citizens, compared to the US's one for every 300.
"When we had a 94% top marginal tax rate in 1944-45, or >=91% for 12 years starting in 1951, was there a big "brain drain" emigration problem, and jobs going overseas?"
--> Mobility is much, much, much increased since 1951. I did a quick google to look for how much it cost to make long distance phone calls in '51 and this came up: "The first customer-connected long-distance telephone call was made on November 11, 1951... was the first call dialed with an area code, using what would now be called 10-digit dialing, and was connected automatically within 18 seconds."
Getting up and going wasn't as viable back then for most people. Likely almost all of the people in the top tax bracket have friends, connections, and associates in at least a couple countries these days.
As it is, I can only conclude that you are really bad at reading, since my post contains general observations about taxation, and only a brief remark about Obama.
In the interest of making everyone smarter, rather than throwing mud, might you care to share where my math is wrong?
Well okay so think about it this way. If the only change in the system, is that your tax rate gets increased, and the extra money that gets collected is thrown away, and the economy continues on its current trajectory, then what you said makes perfect sense.
If the desired goal is "more money in your pocket" then the equation should be
money I make - taxes = money in my pocket
and assuming we are talking about a guy with a business and not someone taking a salary, the money you make is probably affected by the overall state of the economy.
If the action that causes of increasing your taxes also substantially improves the economy, don't you think maybe .. just maybe .. you might make more money overall?
What is better? To have a bigger slice of a shrinking pie or to have a smaller slice of a pie thats getting bigger and bigger?
you are counting your chickens before they hatch. In this country we tax profit. Which means until your startup starts making you that 250K/yr in profit, you won't be affected one bit by any increases Obama makes. Actually you'll probably benefit during the early stage under Obama.
And its not like Australia has a super low tax rate, you'll still pay 30% in taxes. So ask yourself this, is the extra 5-10% in profit worth it to you to lose x% of your customers who don't want to do any business with a company outside United States?
I see the additional tax rate under Obama as an investment. I lose a little bit off the top, but I'll get more than compensated by my users actually having money to spend.
"customers who don't want to do any business with a company outside United States"
Wait. When have you ever not done business with a web services company on the grounds that it was located outside the US? Do you think that kind of thing actually goes on? And that the problem is so endemic it should be cause to stick around, lest you lose all your US-based customers?
It may be so with a brick-and-mortar, or with a business that involves high-cost shipping. But for a traditional web services company -- Freshbooks (Cananda), Netvibes (France), Problogger (Australia) -- I don't think that argument holds any water.
Sure if you have some freebie app its not a big deal. But the second you ask your users to pull out a credit card your location becomes a big deal to most people.
I get where you're coming from, but in terms of trust I think people check a few things:
1) Is my connection secure and encrypted, 2) Is either of Authorize.net, PayPal, or Google acting as a payment gateway 3) Is the site established, and does it have verifiable feedback from people I trust, 4) Does a Google search show other people talking about the site, What are they saying, 5)Does the site's content converge to norms I've come to know and expect from credible companies I've patronised
And 6) Is it located in the continental United States (if Yes that's icing on the cake... nothing more). I won't speak for most (I don't think you should either) because I have no grounds for basing an assumption of the "most people" magnitude.
But I think there are a lot of measures people check before swiping the credit card on a virtual transaction. The US/non-US piece is one consideration, but that's my point: It's just one item on a list of important credibility checks.
Wrong again. Hasn't affected Freshview (Australia). CampaignMonitor and MailBuild are the best email campaign tools out there and they've got a US customer list to die for.
Sounds to me like you're optimizing the wrong thing here.
I moved from the UK to the Silicon Valley, because being here gives me a better chance of success as a tech entrepreneur.
Worrying about being taxed a few extra percentage points seems similar to founders fighting over equity: It just distracts you from doing what's necessary to succeed.
You can't tell founders to save every penny they can and scrimp as much as possible and then say a few points of lost income isn't important. Or rather, you can, but to me it seems an inconsistency.
The emphasis on saving and scrimping is to reduce burn rate prior to profitability. At the point where Obama's proposed tax increases would affect you, you aren't burning any more.
Further, from what I understand, Obama's plan would benefit you on the way up to that $250K/year in profit. I don't know the statistics, but my gut tells me that most small businesses in America are turning less than $250K/year in profit.
By this logic, no entrepreneur should apply to YC, since they take 6% of your company. I'm a little surprised to read on HN that entrepreneurs would consider tax rates as a deciding factor on where to locate an early stage venture.
Either I didn't explain myself well or you're not listening.
Equity is not income. Early stage, I'll trade equity for all kinds of things. Income is a completely different affair. Income is cash-in-hand, cash for advertising, mortgages, food, operating expenses. Income is precious -- equity not so much.
Later on, the balance shifts and equity is much more important. Income not so much. But there's a long run through a minefield to get to that point.
Cash is power. Power to make choices and provide value. Equity is another matter entirely.
Early stage I'd locate wherever the people and facilities were that could help me grow. But the internet's a great thing -- after early-stage I can choose to operate just about anywhere.
>Income is cash-in-hand, cash for advertising, mortgages, food, operating expenses. Income is precious -- equity not so much.
Advertising and operating expenses offset revenues. A higher tax on profit doesn't reduce your ability to navigate any minefield on the way up unless your tax attorney is incompetent.
I hear what you say and agree, yet from this end it feels like we're playing pointless semantic games.
If I have 100K in income as a business, and I have to pay my employees an extra 20K in salary just to make up for extra taxes, that comes out of my bottom line -- money that could go elsewhere. The categorization of the expense doesn't make it magically go away. People still have to eat. 200K a year, if I remember correctly, is about the average wage for working founders in a startup businesses that are funded and on the way to profitability.
If I have 100K in income as a business, and I have to pay my employees an extra 20K in salary just to make up for extra taxes, that comes out of my bottom line
According to nonpartisan TPC estimates, a single earner, no kids, making $200K would receive a $2900 tax break under Obama's plan.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't pay yourself and try to live off Ramen the entire time, just that 200k is pushing it (although it depends on what people did before they started their startup and what kind of lifestyle they need to support).
Edit: now that I re-read that article I think we might be talking about different things. I don't think it's common for the founders to pay themselves that much, although I can imagine having to pay that much for executives that you hire early on.
I can tell you that the currency difference is pretty sweet at the moment. However the timezone difference does make it more difficult to communicate with US/EU customers and business partners. The expense of enforcing contracts overseas could also be an issue. I wouldn't come back just because of tax rates.
I agree with Mark. The promise of hope in America trumps virtually all policy decisions. I didn't even vote for the guy and I'm actually happy he won. I really hope the next four years will be an amazing time to be an American and that President Elect Obama can deliver on his message of change.
"our amazing country once again reinvigorated the dream that any child in this country, no matter what circumstances they are born into, can grow up to be anything they want, including President of the United States."
Yeah, tell that to Arnold and all the other first-gen immigrants. :\
Voting for Obama because he is black essentially defeats the purpose of the civil rights movement. The whole point of the movement was the color of your skin doesn't matter. I voted based on my principles and issues.
It's sad to see so many dissenting opinions downmodded just because the majority disagree. Yes some of them were deserving of it, but others made legitimate points.
It's so stupid everyone's concentrating on race... seriously. You're just making the situation worse rather then better. Racism will only be gone once a minority is elected president and no one cares to mention the fact they are a minority.
Also, he's as much white as he is black. Everyone is pretending like the one drop rule from the slavery-era south is still in effect.
I don't think race is the only thing people concentrate on. And I do not think that is at all what enabled Obama to become the Democratic front-runner earlier this year.
It is clear that race is still a factor. Obama has no problem discussing race issues openly. I don't either. I think it is healthy and about time we start talking more openly about race issues, it may enable us to make further progress. I feel race issues have stagnated the last 30 years. Its gotten a little better, but crawlingly so relative to what it could be.
Even if it seems sort of trite and artificial to many people (including myself) having a black President with a name that sounds like "Osama" is a big achievement.
I was living in Chicago when Obama first ran for Senator. The first time I saw "OBAMA" on a billboard, I thought there was no way in the world he would get elected in our post-9/11 world.
I had a long discussion a few days ago with a close friend about racism in America. It's real and does exist, but it really warms my heart to see the nation come together in spite of that to elect their new President.
What about the point of view that Obama won partially because of pro-black racism?
Both among blacks and whites, there were people who admitted voting for him because of his "race".
Now, I myself don't believe in this "race" concept that other people seem so obsessed with, but I still find that a disturbing thought -- just as disturbing as the thought that some people were voting against him for his "race".
You have a good question, and I don't have an answer to it that fully satisfies me. I also find the idea of making race a deciding factor in one's voting choices disturbing. I won't deny that some individuals will have voted along those lines, either for or against a candidate. Despite that, I still find it heartening that a solid candidate from a long-marginalized group can have such success in today's political climate.
I feel like I can finally start believing that we as a nation are overcoming the old and poisonous biases that were alive and well in my grandparents' time.
People make voting decisions based on all sorts of irrelevant irrational prejudices and on rational, well thought out, heavily researched grounds as well.
The guy who bases his vote on a coin flip has as much right to vote as the person who runs detailed financial simulations of the candidates declared policy initiatives.
People of today shouldn't pay for the crimes of people of yesterday (even if it does end up happening a lot). That's why AA/Title9/etc are great in theory, but pretty awful in execution. If only we were all color blind...
I'm wondering if this willful distortion of logic is ever going to end. Look, here's what Cuban said:
...our amazing country once again reinvigorated the dream that any child in this country, no matter what circumstances they are born into, can grow up to be anything they want...
It seems that "no matter what circumstances" is intended to mean, among other things, "black", since that is what Cuban is talking about in the rest of the piece. Presumably, since Obama is not a scion of oil money or an Admiral's son, he also implies that "poor blacks" will start thinking that they can become anything they want.
I'm pretty sure that's what Cuban means. Now, if you state it as bluntly as possible, here's what you get:
"I believe that Obama will inspire poor, criminally-inclined inner city black people to straighten up, study, work hard, etc."
or
"Apparently Cuban's reasoning is that with a black President, suddenly inner-city wannabe gangsters will start writing Rails apps."
Now, that is NOT THE SAME AS SAYING "All black people are inner-city gangsters". That's a logical error, and your peers are upmodding you in celebration of your logical error, which pisses me off because that's how politics always works: Opinion trumps reason.
The OP is basically right. But we'll just have to see whether Cuban is.
Aren't you stating that poor and black also imply criminally-inclined? That is where the logical error is, as far as I can tell. I'm not trying to be snide. I honestly don't see how criminally-inclined or 'wannabe-gangsters' follows from "no matter what circumstances they are born into".
I don't really like commenting on politics here; because it's the wrong place for it. But I can tell you for certain that electing a black President has certainly made it far easier to separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to basic intelligence.
I'm just saying that it's surprising how many people still appear to be patently racist, even here.
I think it says a lot about a person's intelligence if they still carry around these weird racial biases in this day and age; especially as hackers - you would think people would know better.
What inspires me is that he'll actually change things. Nearly all politicians will give lots of lips service to lots of things and in the end keep everything the same. I (and many others) strongly believe he's different.
That's why people are in the streets. That's why they are excited. That's why this is big.
It's not about the color of his skin but the content of his character.