3 ms·

> So the racial equality movement has been hijacked by politicians that offer a short-term solution: divide people by the most visible factor, such as skin colo

> So the racial equality movement has been hijacked by politicians that offer a short-term solution: divide people by the most visible factor, such as skin color, then take from the overrepresented and give to the underrepresented. I think this is totally backwards. If anything, the U.S. government takes from the underrepresented and gives to the overrepresented. This is achieved through gerrymandering districts to dilute minority votes, limiting voting sites, and asking "concerned citizens" to "monitor" voting locations. Our social welfare programs pale in comparison to the subsidies and tax cuts given to big businesses, and other overrepresented groups.

john_moscow 6y ago
I'm not talking about the federal government. I meant affirmative action programs on institution level. I guess, "activists" would be a better word than "politicians".
- cjohnson318 6y ago
  So are you talking about "activists" in HR, or management? I don't know what you're talking about with respect to taking from the "overrepresented" and giving to the "underrepresented". Under- and overrepresentation is unusual wording for salaried employees in an institution.
marcusverus 6y ago
>Our social welfare programs pale in comparison to the subsidies and tax cuts given to big businesses, and other overrepresented groups. Tax cuts aren't spending and untaxed externalities aren't subsidies. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, the use of intentionally misleading language isn't as taboo as lying, so we'll keep seeing this old canard for the foreseeable future.
- cjohnson318 6y ago
  I am not trying to mislead anyone, this is my reasoning for using the language that I did. A subsidy is a sum of money given by the government to a corporation, so it is analogous to government spending on social welfare programs. A tax cut reduces the government's income, which on a balance sheet, has the same effect as government spending. Sure, a tax cutting policy is not the same as a spending policy, but their net effect on cash flow are both negative.

john_moscow 6y ago

I'm not talking about the federal government. I meant affirmative action programs on institution level. I guess, "activists" would be a better word than "politicians".

cjohnson318 6y ago
So are you talking about "activists" in HR, or management? I don't know what you're talking about with respect to taking from the "overrepresented" and giving to the "underrepresented". Under- and overrepresentation is unusual wording for salaried employees in an institution.

marcusverus 6y ago

>Our social welfare programs pale in comparison to the subsidies and tax cuts given to big businesses, and other overrepresented groups. Tax cuts aren't spending and untaxed externalities aren't subsidies. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, the use of intentionally misleading language isn't as taboo as lying, so we'll keep seeing this old canard for the foreseeable future.

cjohnson318 6y ago
I am not trying to mislead anyone, this is my reasoning for using the language that I did. A subsidy is a sum of money given by the government to a corporation, so it is analogous to government spending on social welfare programs. A tax cut reduces the government's income, which on a balance sheet, has the same effect as government spending. Sure, a tax cutting policy is not the same as a spending policy, but their net effect on cash flow are both negative.