If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Continuing from the "US Primary Season 2016" thread ....
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Ironic, since you've been maneuvering trying to avoid the point for some time now. Blacks see Dems as the "Free Shit" party. Why else would they vote for them? They don't see eye-to-eye on gay rights (a disproportionate number of blacks still oppose gay marriage), religion (blacks by-and-large are the 2nd most religiously conservative ethnic group in the USA, right behind Latinos, while the standard bearers for the Left are areligious, if not openly atheist), a substantial majority of blacks support the death penalty (despite being 2x more likely to be executed than whites), and the majority are pro-life (no need to explain the Left's position there).
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
I really don't care who does, kids have to eat (even if their parents won't work), just don't act like it doesn't influence voting, fool. Which is what this was all about. FREE SHIT INFLUENCES VOTERS, a "chicken in every pot", goes the old saying. Denying that is stupid.
Again, I know this is what you insist upon telling yourself and little things like facts don't particularly matter to you. But for the purpose of putting out accurate information I submit this article in its entirety as it is a point-by-point takedown of this foolishness:
Former Florida governor Jeb Bush made a weird comment during a town hall meeting in South Carolina on Thursday night. Responding to a question about how the Republican Party could win black votes, Bush said that "our message is one of hope and aspiration. It isn't one of division and get in line and we'll take care of you with free stuff."
The comment was odd in part because it echoed remarks made by Mitt Romney in 2012 that prompted a strong backlash. It's similar to Romney's famous "47 percent" remarks, but also, as our Sean Sullivan notes, is precisely the language Romney used at a separate fundraising event that year. Even if Bush thinks that the Democrats win votes by giving "free stuff" to black voters, it's not a smart thing to say.
But he also shouldn't think that, because there's no evidence that it's true.
1. More whites than blacks receive food stamps
It's not clear what "free stuff" Bush was referring to, but it's safe to assume that food stamps, properly known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), is one of them. According to 2012 data, the plurality of SNAP households are white.
Black households are disproportionately represented, yes, but if the idea is that "free stuff" leads to votes, one would think that more white people would be spurred to vote Democratic as well. OAW:
But that's not the case. Exit poll data that we've looked at before shows that poor nonwhite voters — as measured by whether or not they've received a college degree — vote more heavily Democratic than nonwhite voters overall. But poor whites vote Republican — and more heavily Republican than all white voters.If anything, it's the Republicans, then, that are benefiting from the "free stuff" giveaways. OAW: Which I established in the other thread when I cited how Romney won't 84% of all US counties that experienced a doubling in food stamp usage since the Great Recession.
2. There's no relationship between SNAP use and votes
Except that there's no relationship between SNAP use and the results of elections. In February, we compared food stamp use in each congressional district in 2010 to the election results that year. It looks like this:
That blob? No correlation. OAW
In South Carolina, where Bush was speaking, five of the seven congressional districts have a greater percentage of white households than black on food stamps, as of March of this year. All of them are represented by Republicans. Of the two where black households are a plurality, only one has a Democratic representative. OAW: Again, are you sure you want to make social safety new programs a racial or partisan issue? Because the narrative you keep on telling yourself simply isn't supported by the facts.
3. These aren't new programs since President Obama took office
The mentions of "free stuff" by Bush and Romney seem to be focused on the current political situation -- one in which Barack Obama has twice been elected president. It doesn't take a whole lot of analysis to figure out a reason that black voters might have turned out more heavily for Obama in 2008 and 2012 that doesn't involve government programs.
But, besides, if the argument is that black voters oppose Republicans because Democrats give them benefits, it neglects a whole lot of elections in which Republicans have won since those programs came into place.
Yes, the Affordable Care Act is new, but much of the new coverage under Obamacare is an expansion of Medicaid, which is 50 years old. There's the (rather grotesque) meme of the "Obamaphones" -- basically reduced-cost or free cell phones for poor Americans. But "Obamaphones" are really "Reaganphones," having been introduced in 1985. And food stamps themselves date back to the '60s.
Aha!, you might think. The '60s are when African Americans started voting Democratic! Well, about that.
4. Black support for Democrats coincided with civil rights actions
We looked at the growth in the Democratic vote among black Americans in July.
Shortly after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, black identification as Democrats soared. But it had already leaped up before, in the late 1940s. That was largely apparently thanks to Harry Truman's push for a package of new civil rights protections in 1948. It was the party's decision to focus on civil rights -- and then its enactment of civil rights legislation -- that earned it the support of black voters.
Lyndon Johnson's "war on poverty," which brought us Medicaid and food stamps, was concurrent with the Civil Rights Act -- in part because Johnson's aim was to improve the conditions of poor blacks as well as poor whites. OAW: And as we've already established poor whites are benefitting from this "free stuff" a whole lot more than poor blacks. So why exactly do you think that blacks in general support Dems because "free shit influences voters" .... but white people don't?
5. "Free stuff" is subjective
It's worth noting, too, that lots of people get "free stuff" from the government. Seniors get a lot of government-program support, but they vote more heavily Republican. (Even older non-white voters tend to vote less Democratic -- though not much less.)
Not to mention corporate tax breaks and so on. Corporations do spend money to ensure tax breaks, but it's safe to assume that in many cases the savings from tax breaks are far larger than the money spent lobbying Congress or contributing to campaigns. Call it "low-cost stuff."
Data aside, it's worth circling back to the original point. Even if Bush believes this, which he shouldn't, it's an incredibly poorly considered thing to say when running for president. There's no reason to think "free stuff" spurs Democratic victories -- but there's even less reason for a candidate to say that it does.
But there is another argument to even further refute such nonsensical thinking. Because the fact of the matter is that the voter participation rate is routinely significantly less among low-income people.
After studying 30 years of data at the state level, William Franko, Nathan Kelly and Christopher Witko could not find any year in which low-income voter turnout was higher than high-income voter turnout. Recent research by Benjamin Page, Larry Bartels, and Martin Gilens suggests that the super-rich members of the top 1 and .1 percent turned out to vote in 2008 at a whopping 99 percent. This compares to only 49 percent turnout for citizens earning less than $10,000. In midterm elections, the voting gap is even more pronounced. In 2010, only 26.7 percent of citizens earning less than $10,000 voted, while 61.6 percent of those making $150,000 voted. Voter turnout is heavily biased towards high-income voters (see Figure 1).
If you're an Obama backer, anecdotes like that are just another indication of the administration's dedication to helping society's most helpless members. But right-wing talk show hosts have another theory. As Dave Weigel reported Friday, the operating theory of much of the conservative media is that increases in food stamps are functioning as bribes to get poor people to vote for Obama. "We have three million more off the unemployment rolls and on the disability rolls, and they all vote," Rush Limbaugh tells his listeners. " The evangelical activist Gary Bauer told Weigel, “There’s a lot of people out now around America who depend on checks from their fellow taxpayers being in the mailbox every day. They will turn out in massive numbers.”
Here's the problem: poor people actually don't vote that often. According to a CNN exit poll in 2008, those making less than $15,000 a year made up 13 percent of the population but just 6 percent of voters, while those making more than $200,000 a year made up just 3.8 percent of the population but fully 6 percent of voters:
What's more, the trends with voting by class don't seem to match up with the generosity of government programs. Here, according to NonprofitVOTE, is how voter turnout between income groups changed from 1998 to 2010:
If the Bauer/Limbaugh theory were true, you'd expect to see an increase in low-income turnout between the 2006 and 2010 midterms due to the increases in food stamps, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and so forth. But turnout among low-income people actually falls. There's just no evidence to support the theory that Obama's antipoverty measures will lead to a mass of government-dependent people backing him in the polling booth.
Therefore they have by far the least impact on the demographic breakdown of which groups support DEMs vs the GOP. Additionally, if Dems are garnering votes by offering "free stuff" to people then we'll need to see some plausible explanation for why you think only black people are susceptible to such things considering the fact that white people who are broker than the 10 Commandments vote GOP in droves.
A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.
Unknown. (Attributed to Tytler, de Tocqueville, and various others)
This sounds like the basis of Cloward-Piven strategy.
As opposed to:
And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.
— John F. Kennedy, inauguration address, January 1961.
(
Last edited by Chongo; Mar 8, 2016 at 04:01 PM.
)
I don't know if this video was posted in the other thread, regarding Thomas Sowell (someone whom i agree with).
The line which stood out, to me, was:
"...centuries of slavery, and generations of Jim Crowe did not destroy the black family, but one generation of the welfare state did".
This is the type of thinking that prompted me to start this thread. Let's look at some actual statistics regarding the 'welfare state" and African-Americans ...
You see all that red there? Clearly the vast majority of African-Americans are NOT on any form of public assistance whatsoever. Any. Way. You. Slice. It. So how exactly did "one generation of the welfare state" manage to "destroy the black family" .... when that has only been the experience of a indisputable minority of African-Americans?
By that logic, one would have to deduce that the US is a more racist place today(government policy of which the police are part of) in 2016, than in the days before the civil rights movement.
By that logic, one would have to deduce that the US is a more racist place today(government policy of which the police are part of) in 2016, than in the days before the civil rights movement.
Is that your assertion?
Not sure if this was directed at me or Dakar. But if it was me I'm not following your point. Please elaborate.
Before the civil rights movement:
Lower "unmarried birth rates", despite more racist policies. (*roughly 20% around civil rights movement)
After civil rights movement:
Much higher "unmarried birth rates", therefore..... ? (*roughly 70% today)
Well the first thing to realize is that it's not as simple as being solely the result of "racist policies".
Summary
This report highlights recent declines in nonmarital childbearing since 2007 as well as shifts in childbearing within cohabiting unions since 2002. The recent declines in birth rates and numbers of births to unmarried women parallel to some extent the overall decline in birth rates during this period and also reflect the declines in teen birth rates (8,10); the majority of births to teenagers are to unmarried women (8). The recent declines in nonmarital birth rates have been evident across age groups of women under age 35 and for all race and Hispanic groups. Birth rates have fallen more for black and Hispanic women, thus narrowing the differences across groups. Trends in birth rates among married women have not followed the same pattern as those among unmarried women. Birth rates among married women declined from 2007 to 2010, although to a lesser extent compared with unmarried women, but have since increased slightly.
The percentage of births to unmarried women is a third measure of nonmarital childbearing. Of the three measures, the percentage of births to unmarried women has shown the least recent change, declining slightly since its 2009 peak (10). This measure reflects changes in the birth rate for unmarried women but is also influenced by the changes in birth rates for married women.
Nearly three in five recent births to unmarried women in 2006–2010 were to women in cohabiting relationships, significantly higher than the 41% found in 2002. While cohabiting unions tend to be less stable than marriages (4) nonetheless, one-half of births to cohabiting women were intended in 2006–2010 (9,11). This may suggest a higher level of social and financial support within a cohabiting union for the mother and her child (7). A recent NSFG report showed that several measures of father involvement were very similar among married and cohabiting fathers (12). The extent to which cohabitation is a marker for social and financial support and for father involvement deserves further exploration.
The reality is that the non-marital birth rate has been on an long-term upward trend for decades. That's just a fact of American life. We see this across nearly all ethnic groups. There are a number of social factors involved. Increased participation of women in the workforce. The steady decline of religiosity in America. But more importantly the near disappearance of the so-called "shotgun marriage":
In the late 1960s and very early 1970s (well before Roe v. Wade in January 1973) many major states, including New York and California, liberalized their abortion laws. At about the same time it became easier for unmarried people to obtain contraceptives. In July 1970 the Massachusetts law prohibiting the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried people was declared unconstitutional. We have found that this rather sudden increase in the availability of both abortion and contraception we call it a reproductive technology shock is deeply implicated in the increase in out-of-wedlock births. Although many observers expected liberalized abortion and contraception to lead to fewer out-of-wedlock births, in fact the opposite happened because of the erosion in the custom of "shotgun marriages."
Until the early 1970s, shotgun marriage was the norm in premarital sexual relations. The custom was succinctly stated by one San Francisco resident in the late 1960s: "If a girl gets pregnant you married her. There wasn't no choice. So I married her."
Since 1969, however, shotgun marriage has gradually disappeared (see table 1). For whites, in particular, the shotgun marriage rate began its decline at almost the same time as the reproductive technology shock. And the disappearance of shotgun marriages has contributed heavily to the rise in the out-of-wedlock birth rate for both white and black women. In fact, about 75 percent of the increase in the white out-of-wedlock first-birth rate, and about 60 percent of the black increase, between 1965 and 1990 is directly attributable to the decline in shotgun marriages. If the shotgun marriage rate had remained steady from 1965 to 1990, white out-of-wedlock births would have risen only 25 percent as much as they have. Black out-of-wedlock births would have increased only 40 percent as much.
What links liberalized contraception and abortion with the declining shotgun marriage rate? Before 1970, the stigma of unwed motherhood was so great that few women were willing to bear children outside of marriage. The only circumstance that would cause women to engage in sexual activity was a promise of marriage in the event of pregnancy. Men were willing to make (and keep) that promise for they knew that in leaving one woman they would be unlikely to find another who would not make the same demand. Even women who would be willing to bear children out-of-wedlock could demand a promise of marriage in the event of pregnancy.
The increased availability of contraception and abortion made shotgun weddings a thing of the past. Women who were willing to get an abortion or who reliably used contraception no longer found it necessary to condition sexual relations on a promise of marriage in the event of pregnancy. But women who wanted children, who did not want an abortion for moral or religious reasons, or who were unreliable in their use of contraception found themselves pressured to participate in premarital sexual relations without being able to exact a promise of marriage in case of pregnancy. These women feared, correctly, that if they refused sexual relations, they would risk losing their partners. Sexual activity without commitment was increasingly expected in premarital relationships.
Advances in reproductive technology eroded the custom of shotgun marriage in another way. Before the sexual revolution, women had less freedom, but men were expected to assume responsibility for their welfare. Today women are more free to choose, but men have afforded themselves the comparable option. "If she is not willing to have an abortion or use contraception," the man can reason, "why should I sacrifice myself to get married?" By making the birth of the child the physical choice of the mother, the sexual revolution has made marriage and child support a social choice of the father.
Many men have changed their attitudes regarding the responsibility for unplanned pregnancies. As one contributor to the Internet wrote recently to the Dads' Rights Newsgroup, "Since the decision to have the child is solely up to the mother, I don't see how both parents have responsibility to that child." That attitude, of course, makes it far less likely that the man will offer marriage as a solution to a couple's pregnancy quandary, leaving the mother either to raise the child or to give it up for adoption.
Before the 1970s, unmarried mothers kept few of their babies. Today they put only a few up for adoption because the stigma of unwed motherhood has declined. The transformation in attitudes was captured by the New York Times in 1993: "In the old days' of the 1960s, '50s, and '40s, pregnant teenagers were pariahs, banished from schools, ostracized by their peers or scurried out of town to give birth in secret." Today they are "supported and embraced in their decision to give birth, keep their babies, continue their education, and participate in school activities." Since out-of-wedlock childbearing no longer results in social ostracism, literally and figuratively, shotgun marriage no longer occurs at the point of the shotgun.
So again my point is that this is a trend within American society in general. That being said, we do see a non-marital birth rate among African-Americans that is nearly double that of non-Hispanic whites.
But we also see a poverty rate among African-Americans that is double that of non-Hispanic whites as well. A lot of that is due to the fact that deindustrialization simply decimated employment rates in many major American cities. Which in and of itself wasn't a "racist policy". But it did have a disparate impact on the African-American community because manufacturing jobs were the toe hold into the middle class for a much higher percentage of black families as compared to white families. And then when those manufacturing jobs dried up and service jobs migrated to the suburbs and drugs started to flood the streets in black neighborhoods (don't even get me started on Iran-Contra and the crack epidemic in the 1980s) you saw jobless men turn to the underground economy. Which resulted in that mass incarceration situation that I mentioned above. It's hard to argue that the 100-1 sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine was NOT a "racist policy". When chemically they are an identical substance with the same addiction rate. The main difference was white people tended to get caught with the more expensive "powder" variety of cocaine whereas black people tended to get caught with the cheaper "crack" variety. One notable accomplishment of the Obama Administration is that this sentencing disparity has now been significantly reduced to 10-1. But still. It's also hard to argue that it's NOT a "racist policy" when blacks and whites use marijuana at roughly equal rates but blacks are 4 times more likely to be arrested for it. Things which results in a higher criminal record rate that for black men is essentially an economic death sentence when it comes to legitimate employment. And let's not forget the daily difficulties African-American men face with employment in America as this so aptly illuminates:
The sociologist Devah Pager, a Harvard professor who has meticulously researched the effect of race on hiring policies, has also shown that stereotypes have a powerful effect on job possibilities. In one widely cited study, she sent carefully selected test applicants with equivalent résumés to apply for low-level jobs with hundreds of employers. Ms. Pager found that criminal convictions for black men seeking employment were virtually impossible to overcome in many contexts, partly because convictions reinforced powerful, longstanding stereotypes.
The stigma of a criminal record was less damaging for white testers. In fact, those who said that they were just out of prison were as likely to be called back for a second interview as black men who had no criminal history at all. “Being black in America today is just about the same as having a felony conviction in terms of one’s chances of finding a job,” she wrote in her book, “Marked: Race, Crime and Finding Work in an Era of Mass Incarceration.”
Let me reiterate that point. A white guy who says he is fresh out of the joint is just as likely to get a call back for a second interview as a black guy with no criminal record at all ... even when they have equivalent resumes. But some still want to try to claim that "white privilege" isn't really a thing.
In any event, my point is that there number of forces ... some rooted in race and some not ... that lessen the number of "marriageable" African-American men. Which goes a long way toward explaining why the non-marital birth rate in the African-American community is higher than in the white community. But despite all of this the fact remains that the vast majority of African-Americans are NOT on any form of public assistance. So I'm going to have to call BS on Mr. Sowell and his thesis. It's something that seems to be more supported by his ideology than the actual data.
I realize this is impolite to say, but sometimes your data-rich posts can be off-putting, OAW. I'm also of the opinion that only those who participate in equally substantive posts are deserving of such effort.
Regarding the discussion above, the posters seems to measure racism as to how it correlates to a single issue – the status of familial integrity within the past 100 years, while also being either ignorant or dismissive of the sexual revolution that coincided with the civil rights movement.
I also hope my use of fancy words was accurate there.
The reality is that the non-marital birth rate has been on an long-term upward trend for decades. That's just a fact of American life. We see this across nearly all ethnic groups. There are a number of social factors involved. Increased participation of women in the workforce. The steady decline of religiosity in America. But more importantly the near disappearance of the so-called "shotgun marriage":
So again my point is that this is a trend within American society in general. That being said, we do see a non-marital birth rate among African-Americans that is nearly double that of non-Hispanic whites.
But we also see a poverty rate among African-Americans that is double that of non-Hispanic whites as well. A lot of that is due to the fact that deindustrialization simply decimated employment rates in many major American cities. Which in and of itself wasn't a "racist policy". But it did have a disparate impact on the African-American community because manufacturing jobs were the toe hold into the middle class for a much higher percentage of black families as compared to white families. And then when those manufacturing jobs dried up and service jobs migrated to the suburbs and drugs started to flood the streets in black neighborhoods (don't even get me started on Iran-Contra and the crack epidemic in the 1980s) you saw jobless men turn to the underground economy. Which resulted in that mass incarceration situation that I mentioned above. It's hard to argue that the 100-1 sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine was NOT a "racist policy". When chemically they are an identical substance with the same addiction rate. The main difference was white people tended to get caught with the more expensive "powder" variety of cocaine whereas black people tended to get caught with the cheaper "crack" variety. One notable accomplishment of the Obama Administration is that this sentencing disparity has now been significantly reduced to 10-1. But still. It's also hard to argue that it's NOT a "racist policy" when blacks and whites use marijuana at roughly equal rates but blacks are 4 times more likely to be arrested for it. Things which results in a higher criminal record rate that for black men is essentially an economic death sentence when it comes to legitimate employment. And let's not forget the daily difficulties African-American men face with employment in America as this so aptly illuminates:
Let me reiterate that point. A white guy who says he is fresh out of the joint is just as likely to get a call back for a second interview as a black guy with no criminal record at all ... even when they have equivalent resumes. But some still want to try to claim that "white privilege" isn't really a thing.
In any event, my point is that there number of forces ... some rooted in race and some not ... that lessen the number of "marriageable" African-American men. Which goes a long way toward explaining why the non-marital birth rate in the African-American community is higher than in the white community. But despite all of this the fact remains that the vast majority of African-Americans are NOT on any form of public assistance. So I'm going to have to call BS on Mr. Sowell and his thesis. It's something that seems to be more supported by his ideology than the actual data.
OAW
It must pain you to show how prophetic Pope Paul VI was when he wrote Humanae Vitae.
"17. Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.
Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.
I realize this is impolite to say, but sometimes your data-rich posts can be off-putting, OAW. I'm also of the opinion that only those who participate in equally substantive posts are deserving of such effort.
Regarding the discussion above, the posters seems to measure racism as to how it correlates to a single issue – the status of familial integrity within the past 100 years, while also being either ignorant or dismissive of the sexual revolution that coincided with the civil rights movement.
I also hope my use of fancy words was accurate there.
Indeed. And my "data-rich posts" are meant to counter that very narrative with actual substantiation and not simply opinions stated as fact.
It must pain you to show how prophetic Pope Paul VI was when he wrote Humanae Vitae.
It doesn't pain me at all. Like all societal changes the advent of artificial contraception has its pros and cons. I think on balance the former outweighs the latter. But that's a conversation for another thread.
@OAW
I must admit, that I haven't bothered reading your entire posts. I usually read the first couple of lines and then just skim. Data-rich, is not necessarily data-accurate, and personally, i'd rather leave it up to sociologists and economists to present and analyze the data for me. While we might analyze the data differently and reach different conclusions, the data (ie facts, which don't care about feelings) remain unchanged. So i hope your "data rich" posts are not intended for me, cause they don't have the intended effect.
The fact that the civil rights movement coincided with the sexual revolution does not explain away the large discrepancy in the rates of delinquent fathers in the two groups being discussed. I suppose some people dont have the capacity to analyze data in that detail.
@Chongo
It has been theorized that the breakdown of the family, delinquent fathers, etc.... all part of the lifestyles and values promoted by one side of the social divide (ironically the same side which advocates for more forced redistribution) is the cause for much of the "problems" we have today in the west. I personally have no issue with anyone's individual choice of bearing children out of wedlock, promiscuity, choice to go to school or not to, to work or not to, etc..... what i have issue with is, is that people who made the 'right' choices are forced to pay for it. And the result is you end up encouraging "bad" choices because the people making them dont bear the consequences, and discouraging "good" choices because you penalize those who make them. IMHO
@OAW.....
So given your point of view then, you wouldn't have any problem with reducing redistribution and welfare in general?
@OAW
I must admit, that I haven't bothered reading your entire posts. I usually read the first couple of lines and then just skim.
Then it's going to be very difficult to have a substantive discussion. I do highlight key points in bold for the benefit of the skimmers. But if one simply isn't interested in looking at the facts then we are just swapping opinions. The PWL is a debate forum after all. Which is why I approach it as such.
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a
@OAW
@OAW.....
So given your point of view then, you wouldn't have any problem with reducing redistribution and welfare in general?
As I mentioned in the other thread, a DIME out of every federal tax DOLLAR is spent on social safety net spending. This would include TANF (welfare), SNAP (food stamps), Section 8 Housing, etc. It's simply not a driver of the federal deficit and the amount is not significant enough as a slice of the federal tax dollar pie to get bent out of shape over. Fiscally speaking there are plenty of bigger fish to fry.
@OAW
I must admit, that I haven't bothered reading your entire posts. I usually read the first couple of lines and then just skim. Data-rich, is not necessarily data-accurate
That's his shtick, he tries to drown you in "data rich", heavily distorted, laughably biased, pre-packaged talking points (there arenumeroussitesthatprovidethem). Debating such an ideologue is pointless, unless you're doing it strictly for entertainment, your time is better spent doing origami or organizing your spice racks.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
That's his shtick, he tries to drown you in "data rich", heavily distorted, laughably biased, pre-packaged talking points (there arenumeroussitesthatprovidethem). Debating such an ideologue is pointless, unless you're doing it strictly for entertainment, your time is better spent doing origami or organizing your spice racks.
Let's see ...
- The Department of Agriculture
- The Washington Post
- Politico
- The Centers for Disease Control
- The Brookings Institution
Those are my primary sources thus far in this thread. But in your estimation they are "heavily distorted, laughably biased"?
Why? Simply because you say so? You certainly haven't made an argument as to why you think this is the case let alone produced any credible sources to support it. Apparently a post that would take all of 2-3 minutes to read and few basic graphs is too much for you to handle. So as usual you are just .... talking. Carry on.
You really think we don't understand how those talking point aggregates work? The Washington Post and Politico (just as examples) manipulate and misrepresent the findings of the DoA, CDC, etc. (cherry-picking specific data points, willfully ignoring entire sections, and taking statements out of context), and then the ideologues point to those distortions as if they were the official findings themselves. It's all an elaborate game of whack-a-mole and a complete waste of time.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
One of these days it might actually occur to you that a dismissal is not a rebuttal. You had a whole lot to say when you were just spewing your opinions in the other thread. But when faced with factual information everything is "distorted" (based on your word alone) and now you don't want to address the fundamental issue. And did I mention that both my CDC and Brookings Institutions sources were direct quotes so they are in fact the "official findings"? Yeah. It would appear all you are capable of is "argument by anecdote". So. Whatever.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Since you really don't have a comeback ... in particular to that part about the CDC and Brookings Institution sources being direct quotes which completely destroys your BS argument about "talking point aggregates" ... well there really isn't much else you can say now is there?
Since you really don't have a comeback ... in particular to that part about the CDC and Brookings Institution sources being direct quotes which completely destroys your BS argument about "talking point aggregates" ... well there really isn't much else you can say now is there?
*yawn* Only to morons who only read the cherry-picked data points. No argument there. (Because you never had one.)
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
*yawn* Only to morons who only read the cherry-picked data points. No argument there. (Because you never had one.)
When you can actually backup your claim of "cherry-picked data points" then you might somewhat be taken seriously. "Because CTP said so." simply doesn't constitute a legitimate argument. Let alone evidence. But we both know you won't because you can't. So I'll tell you what. How about I continue to base my arguments on actual data. And you continue to base your arguments on anecdotes and insults? Sound like a plan? Ok great. Good night.
I see you're not getting the "whack-a-mole" statement. Arguing with "Progressive" ideologues is a waste of time, it's like wanking for hours on end without the payoff. You and your ilk are going to see systemic racism against blacks, regardless of what anyone says, despite the obvious fact that very same "racist" system elected a black man to the most powerful office in the world, not just once, but twice... in succession. Ridiculous.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Loosepants: how are we supposed to debate your anecdotes and feelings though? At least with data there is something there that can be discussed. It is much more of a time commitment, and sometimes it is easy to bury bias in this data, but without this we'd all just be BadOshKosh using the forum to emote feelings.
I see you're not getting the "whack-a-mole" statement. Arguing with "Progressive" ideologues is a waste of time, it's like wanking for hours on end without the payoff. You and your ilk are going to see systemic racism against blacks, regardless of what anyone says, despite the obvious fact that very same "racist" system elected a black man to the most powerful office in the world, not just once, but twice... in succession. Ridiculous.
Me and my "ilk" see systemic racism whenever and wherever the data supports it. Above I just cited a study that showed that a white man fresh out of prison is just as likely to get a callback for a second job interview as a black man with no criminal record. Even with identical resumes. Study after study demonstrates this. Just like study after study shows that "John" is significantly more likely to get a call for the first interview than "Jamal" or "Jesus" ... even with identical resumes. But you and your "ilk" simply want to pretend that such evidence doesn't exist. And quite abundantly at that. Even in a society that elected Obama twice. Not because it's not true. Simply because you just don't want to hear it. But denial is in your DNA when it come to such issues. At this stage in the game that's precisely what I expect from you.
I still think the right overstates this idea of masses of people wanting free stuff. There are people happy to be on welfare, welfare abuses of various kinds, but I don't see this in your employed working/middle class left wing types, nor in a particular racial segment such as African Americans.
Me and my "ilk" see systemic racism whenever and wherever the data supports it. *blurp*
and where it doesn't, as well (which is far more common). "Our war against racism will not be put to rest until we see a black man in the highest office in the Land!" - Jesse Jackson, 1984
Yeah... riiiight... At some point you have to step back and look at the cultural weaknesses within the AA community itself and identify what's going on, within it, that's holding it back. Ex. "Baltimore is racist!" - Black mayor and >50% the city officials are minorities.
Many African Americans already see this; Tommy Sotomayor, Tim Scott, That Guy T, Mia Love, Will Hurd, etc. it's a growing list, but the vast majority still refuse to admit they exist. Many (the cultural Marxist set) are still holding out for slavery reparations, for Christ's sake. As if that will ever happen.
There are 2 choices: hold on to your cherry-picked data sets and wait for the great cultural bailout from everyone else (keep your eyes glued to the thermometer in hell) or wake-up and realize that you're holding on to excuses.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I still think the right overstates this idea of masses of people wanting free stuff. There are people happy to be on welfare, welfare abuses of various kinds, but I don't see this in your employed working/middle class left wing types, nor in a particular racial segment such as African Americans.
It's a matter of your perspective:
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
and where it doesn't, as well (which is far more common). "Our war against racism will not be put to rest until we see a black man in the highest office in the Land!" - Jesse Jackson, 1984
Yeah... riiiight... At some point you have to step back and look at the cultural weaknesses within the AA community itself and identify what's going on, within it, that's holding it back. Ex. "Baltimore is racist!" - Black mayor and >50% the city officials are minorities.
Many African Americans already see this; Tommy Sotomayor, Tim Scott, That Guy T, Mia Love, Will Hurd, etc. it's a growing list, but the vast majority still refuse to admit they exist. Many (the cultural Marxist set) are still holding out for slavery reparations, for Christ's sake. As if that will ever happen.
There are 2 choices: hold on to your cherry-picked data sets and wait for the great cultural bailout from everyone else (keep your eyes glued to the thermometer in hell) or wake-up and realize that you're holding on to excuses.
I don't understand what your assertions here are.
Are you saying that we are post-racist? I would say this is ridiculous.
Are you saying that we have over-compensated and/or over-react? I would say that we probably have, but this is par for the course in getting a grasp on these sorts of issues, which we have not yet done.
I suspect you are saying the latter, but it is unclear.
Buzzkill's articles are usually pretty misleading and worthless, but there's some value in that one. Black man dresses up, he's treated like a gentleman. He dresses down, he gets ignored. Welcome to the real world, young man, that's reality for everyone. (He has an impressive mane, the nice clothes suit him.)
Are you saying that we are post-racist? I would say this is ridiculous.
Equality under the law is universal in the US now, are you holding your breath waiting for equality of outcome? This is as level as the playing field gets; if you act with self-respect, you're treated with respect. It's really that basic.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I don't get it. You acknowledge that there isn't always equality of outcome, but because there is equality of law there should be nothing to complain about?
How do you feel about bills that state there should be equal pay for women who are doing the same work as men?
I don't get it. You acknowledge that there isn't always equality of outcome, but because there is equality of law there should be nothing to complain about?
How do you feel about bills that state there should be equal pay for women who are doing the same work as men?
You think bitching and complaining helps?
Start a thread about the "wage gap", that should be interesting.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Start a thread about the "wage gap", that should be interesting.
Yes, I do.
African Americans didn't obtain civil rights just by pushing for the right laws, they fought for an entire shift in culture. This is an ongoing battle that will probably never be completely won, but is still worth waging. If for some reason the thought of this being African Americans on one side bothers you, substitute women, hispanics, gays, or any number of other groups - it's the same fundamental problem to varying and arguable degrees of severity.
Like I've told you before, if you want to point out that there is overcompensation at times I don't think many people would disagree with you. This issue is a constant struggle of calibration and debate, this is bound to happen.
However, you don't seem to stop there. You get people ganging up on you because you attempt to be too provocative for your amusement by overstating things, and in doing so quite frankly you often come across as a dick. A little empathy goes a long way, and this is coming from somebody with aspergers.
I guess that's why we Americans of Mexican descent still get shat on. We for the most part don't burn our neighborhoods down every time something bad happens. We can never get together to protest much of anything. Then last time we did was was over SB1070. There were thousands of people in the streets of Phoenix and they didn't burn anything down.
I guess that's why we Americans of Mexican descent still get shat on. We for the most part don't burn our neighborhoods down every time something bad happens. We can never get together to protest much of anything. Then last time we did was was over SB1070. There were thousands of people in the streets of Phoenix and they didn't burn anything down.
Mexicans didn't burn their neighbourhood because they were Mexican rather than African American and therefore experience human emotions differently, they didn't do so because the situation was different enough for them to not feel the same way.
This is exactly the sort of thought process that Trump is benefiting from - labeling and scapegoating certain populations, as if their humanity is somehow different. When human beings feel a certain way, they are prone to do certain things, that is it. There is no racial gene that makes Mexicans experience emotions differently.
The civil rights movement was useful, many years ago, now it's an excuse for crybullies to push their agendas down everyone else's throats. It isn't just groups like Black Lives Matter, it's that entire side of the spectrum (aka. the Regressive Left) who believes that, just because they aren't being catered to in every matter, they're somehow being held back or oppressed. We've now reached the point where "Everything is racist, everything is sexist, and everything is problematic", so-called microaggressions are everywhere, and expecting people to work hard to achieve their goals is tantamount to slavery. White guilt is being wielded as a weapon and equality under the law is simply not good enough. Well, sorry about that, but society has already overcompensated enough, and it's time for these groups who still feel marginalized to do a little introspection and realize that maybe the bulk of their problems aren't due to external factors anymore. Maybe, just maybe, it's time to stop playing the blame game, clean their own house, and put all that activism effort into working to succeed.
Also, FWIW, I don't mind the "ganging up", it doesn't bother me.
I'll let Shoe0nHead (aka. June Nicoletti) explain the problem with the alleged gender "wage gap":
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Mexicans didn't burn their neighbourhood because they were Mexican rather than African American and therefore experience human emotions differently, they didn't do so because the situation was different enough for them to not feel the same way.
This is exactly the sort of thought process that Trump is benefiting from - labeling and scapegoating certain populations, as if their humanity is somehow different. When human beings feel a certain way, they are prone to do certain things, that is it. There is no racial gene that makes Mexicans experience emotions differently.
So you're saying we need to start burning down the barrio?
The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Americans of Mexican/Latino ancestry don't get we want because we aren't as vocal.
It's like with children. If you give in when they're screaming, they'll learn that screaming gets them what they want.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Which is what this was all about. FREE SHIT INFLUENCES VOTERS, a "chicken in every pot", goes the old saying. Denying that is stupid.
The Washington Post and Politico (just as examples) manipulate and misrepresent the findings of the DoA, CDC, etc. (cherry-picking specific data points, willfully ignoring entire sections, and taking statements out of context), and then the ideologues point to those distortions as if they were the official findings themselves. It's all an elaborate game of whack-a-mole and a complete waste of time.
Top