Why is it always the race card?

[mondale84]

I assume your talking about Nazism. You misunderstand me. I support helping the deserving poor and disadvantaged through charity. I myself have given money to charity regularly. I don't support on the other hand this idea of the government redistributing the hard earned wealth of the tax payer to the poor, usually the undeserving. The state should get out of this vicious cycle of subsidies to the poor and unemployed, which provide them with no incentive to work, earn and save. Not only that, it would ease the tax burden on the hard working backbone of society, the employed.

Are you suggesting that we'd see 100% employment if welfare was eliminated? We know this isn't the case, because unemployment existed before welfare programs were created(and indeed exists today in third/second world countries without welfare programs.)

As to subsidies and incentives, the various tax credits targeted at the working poor actually increase their incentive to work, increase their earning and enable greater savings.

To assume that all Southerners are a bunch of racist, brown-shirt, cross-burning Klansmen in white sheets and pointy hats is wrong, bigoted, and untrue.  I think most of them had probably moved on from racial issues by the time Reagan made those statements.  The demographics had changed and younger generations of voters who were less racist started voting, and this is precisely one of the factors that helped Reagan in the South in 1980, as well as his strength with religious conservatives.

Objectively wrong:http://www.gallup.com/poll/149390/Record-High-Approve-Black-White-Marriages.aspx

In 1980 ~60% of Americans did not support the legality of interracial marriage. It was no doubt an even higher percentage in the South.

Yes, but racism wasn't widely accepted by society anymore by that time.  Where's your evidence that the percentage was higher in the South?  And besides, just because someone doesn't believe in interracial marriage doesn't mean he/she is racist.

....ummmm...and pray tell what other reasons would there be for people to "not believe" (whatever that means) in interracial marriage?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I assume your talking about Nazism. You misunderstand me. I support helping the deserving poor and disadvantaged through charity. I myself have given money to charity regularly. I don't support on the other hand this idea of the government redistributing the hard earned wealth of the tax payer to the poor, usually the undeserving. The state should get out of this vicious cycle of subsidies to the poor and unemployed, which provide them with no incentive to work, earn and save. Not only that, it would ease the tax burden on the hard working backbone of society, the employed.

Are you suggesting that we'd see 100% employment if welfare was eliminated? We know this isn't the case, because unemployment existed before welfare programs were created(and indeed exists today in third/second world countries without welfare programs.)

As to subsidies and incentives, the various tax credits targeted at the working poor actually increase their incentive to work, increase their earning and enable greater savings.

To assume that all Southerners are a bunch of racist, brown-shirt, cross-burning Klansmen in white sheets and pointy hats is wrong, bigoted, and untrue.  I think most of them had probably moved on from racial issues by the time Reagan made those statements.  The demographics had changed and younger generations of voters who were less racist started voting, and this is precisely one of the factors that helped Reagan in the South in 1980, as well as his strength with religious conservatives.

Objectively wrong:http://www.gallup.com/poll/149390/Record-High-Approve-Black-White-Marriages.aspx

In 1980 ~60% of Americans did not support the legality of interracial marriage. It was no doubt an even higher percentage in the South.

Yes, but racism wasn't widely accepted by society anymore by that time.  Where's your evidence that the percentage was higher in the South?  And besides, just because someone doesn't believe in interracial marriage doesn't mean he/she is racist.

....ummmm...and pray tell what other reasons would there be for people to "not believe" (whatever that means) in interracial marriage?

Yes.  Many good, well-meaning people have been against it because of false perceptions of health risks to the children of interracial marriages.

[Gravis Marketing]

Make it stop make it stop make it stop

[mondale84]

I assume your talking about Nazism. You misunderstand me. I support helping the deserving poor and disadvantaged through charity. I myself have given money to charity regularly. I don't support on the other hand this idea of the government redistributing the hard earned wealth of the tax payer to the poor, usually the undeserving. The state should get out of this vicious cycle of subsidies to the poor and unemployed, which provide them with no incentive to work, earn and save. Not only that, it would ease the tax burden on the hard working backbone of society, the employed.

Are you suggesting that we'd see 100% employment if welfare was eliminated? We know this isn't the case, because unemployment existed before welfare programs were created(and indeed exists today in third/second world countries without welfare programs.)

As to subsidies and incentives, the various tax credits targeted at the working poor actually increase their incentive to work, increase their earning and enable greater savings.

To assume that all Southerners are a bunch of racist, brown-shirt, cross-burning Klansmen in white sheets and pointy hats is wrong, bigoted, and untrue.  I think most of them had probably moved on from racial issues by the time Reagan made those statements.  The demographics had changed and younger generations of voters who were less racist started voting, and this is precisely one of the factors that helped Reagan in the South in 1980, as well as his strength with religious conservatives.

Objectively wrong:http://www.gallup.com/poll/149390/Record-High-Approve-Black-White-Marriages.aspx

In 1980 ~60% of Americans did not support the legality of interracial marriage. It was no doubt an even higher percentage in the South.

Yes, but racism wasn't widely accepted by society anymore by that time.  Where's your evidence that the percentage was higher in the South?  And besides, just because someone doesn't believe in interracial marriage doesn't mean he/she is racist.

....ummmm...and pray tell what other reasons would there be for people to "not believe" (whatever that means) in interracial marriage?

Yes.  Many good, well-meaning people have been against it because of false perceptions of health risks to the children of interracial marriages.

And you claim these perceptions of "health risks" have nothing to do with racism or - at the very least prejudice?

[Rhodie]

This thread is white privilege at its worst. TANF needs reform? How? The program is as toothless as its ever been, having largely failed in its role to protect against economic disasters like the one in 2008. I could see if we were talking about an increase in benefits, but of course we are talking about a scaling back of the program.

This is what frustrates me the most. People who have never even lived at the cusp of poverty (like Romney) are demagoguing this issue, trying to push forward a negative stereotype when the reality of programs like TANF is very different. Romney was given everything by his father, but he's going to judge others who are less fortunate than him?

No actually he 'worked for a living'. A concept many on welfare should try. Are you suggesting that anyone who is not on welfare (and therefore pays the taxes for it) should have no say in how the system is run.

If the jobs are available -- and if the welfare recipients are the sorts of people that one wants on the job. In a really-nasty recession such might be almost as pointless as telling a destitute person to make wise investments in capital markets.

Then what is the point of our subsidising their existence on welfare.

Have you ever heard of the words "useless eaters"?

I assume your talking about Nazism. You misunderstand me. I support helping the deserving poor and disadvantaged through charity. I myself have given money to charity regularly. I don't support on the other hand this idea of the government redistributing the hard earned wealth of the tax payer to the poor, usually the undeserving. The state should get out of this vicious cycle of subsidies to the poor and unemployed, which provide them with no incentive to work, earn and save. Not only that, it would ease the tax burden on the hard working backbone of society, the employed.

Nazism, yes. That was in part a reference to the Nazi practice of murdering the handicapped. But it wasn't only Nazism. Communism did it, too. Solzhenitsyn tells us that the Commies of the early Soviet Union frequently gave orders to 'destroy parasites upon the working class', and local Commies interpreted that to mean not only the elimination of the old ruling elite but where such people could not be found they often killed the crippled and mentally-impaired. At the extreme, even beyond the madness of the Soviet Union and the Third Reich was "Democratic Kampuchea", which executed anyone who failed to fit into its insane demand that people be nothing but obedient robots. 

Murder is murder whether it is through shooting or starvation. Civility depends upon the recognition of the value of humanity even if people frustrate political, personal, or economic objectives. A system  that allows people to die because they lack the means or character to 'contribute' to society violates one of the most basic moral laws that has ever existed.

Charity is not enough. An economic system that ensures that people who do the work are compelled to live at the brink of hunger allows for no charity except for the charitable contributions of people who profiteer off the system. Economic elites in contemporary America are as vile and selfish as those anywhere. 

What does that mean.

[mondale84]

This thread is white privilege at its worst. TANF needs reform? How? The program is as toothless as its ever been, having largely failed in its role to protect against economic disasters like the one in 2008. I could see if we were talking about an increase in benefits, but of course we are talking about a scaling back of the program.

This is what frustrates me the most. People who have never even lived at the cusp of poverty (like Romney) are demagoguing this issue, trying to push forward a negative stereotype when the reality of programs like TANF is very different. Romney was given everything by his father, but he's going to judge others who are less fortunate than him?

No actually he 'worked for a living'. A concept many on welfare should try. Are you suggesting that anyone who is not on welfare (and therefore pays the taxes for it) should have no say in how the system is run.

If the jobs are available -- and if the welfare recipients are the sorts of people that one wants on the job. In a really-nasty recession such might be almost as pointless as telling a destitute person to make wise investments in capital markets.

Then what is the point of our subsidising their existence on welfare.

Have you ever heard of the words "useless eaters"?

I assume your talking about Nazism. You misunderstand me. I support helping the deserving poor and disadvantaged through charity. I myself have given money to charity regularly. I don't support on the other hand this idea of the government redistributing the hard earned wealth of the tax payer to the poor, usually the undeserving. The state should get out of this vicious cycle of subsidies to the poor and unemployed, which provide them with no incentive to work, earn and save. Not only that, it would ease the tax burden on the hard working backbone of society, the employed.

Nazism, yes. That was in part a reference to the Nazi practice of murdering the handicapped. But it wasn't only Nazism. Communism did it, too. Solzhenitsyn tells us that the Commies of the early Soviet Union frequently gave orders to 'destroy parasites upon the working class', and local Commies interpreted that to mean not only the elimination of the old ruling elite but where such people could not be found they often killed the crippled and mentally-impaired. At the extreme, even beyond the madness of the Soviet Union and the Third Reich was "Democratic Kampuchea", which executed anyone who failed to fit into its insane demand that people be nothing but obedient robots. 

Murder is murder whether it is through shooting or starvation. Civility depends upon the recognition of the value of humanity even if people frustrate political, personal, or economic objectives. A system  that allows people to die because they lack the means or character to 'contribute' to society violates one of the most basic moral laws that has ever existed.

Charity is not enough. An economic system that ensures that people who do the work are compelled to live at the brink of hunger allows for no charity except for the charitable contributions of people who profiteer off the system. Economic elites in contemporary America are as vile and selfish as those anywhere. 

What does that mean.

People who take advantage of the no-holes-barred style of capitalism to screw others and get rich, aka most of the corporate class.

[Rhodie]

This thread is white privilege at its worst. TANF needs reform? How? The program is as toothless as its ever been, having largely failed in its role to protect against economic disasters like the one in 2008. I could see if we were talking about an increase in benefits, but of course we are talking about a scaling back of the program.

This is what frustrates me the most. People who have never even lived at the cusp of poverty (like Romney) are demagoguing this issue, trying to push forward a negative stereotype when the reality of programs like TANF is very different. Romney was given everything by his father, but he's going to judge others who are less fortunate than him?

No actually he 'worked for a living'. A concept many on welfare should try. Are you suggesting that anyone who is not on welfare (and therefore pays the taxes for it) should have no say in how the system is run.

If the jobs are available -- and if the welfare recipients are the sorts of people that one wants on the job. In a really-nasty recession such might be almost as pointless as telling a destitute person to make wise investments in capital markets.

Then what is the point of our subsidising their existence on welfare.

Have you ever heard of the words "useless eaters"?

I assume your talking about Nazism. You misunderstand me. I support helping the deserving poor and disadvantaged through charity. I myself have given money to charity regularly. I don't support on the other hand this idea of the government redistributing the hard earned wealth of the tax payer to the poor, usually the undeserving. The state should get out of this vicious cycle of subsidies to the poor and unemployed, which provide them with no incentive to work, earn and save. Not only that, it would ease the tax burden on the hard working backbone of society, the employed.

Nazism, yes. That was in part a reference to the Nazi practice of murdering the handicapped. But it wasn't only Nazism. Communism did it, too. Solzhenitsyn tells us that the Commies of the early Soviet Union frequently gave orders to 'destroy parasites upon the working class', and local Commies interpreted that to mean not only the elimination of the old ruling elite but where such people could not be found they often killed the crippled and mentally-impaired. At the extreme, even beyond the madness of the Soviet Union and the Third Reich was "Democratic Kampuchea", which executed anyone who failed to fit into its insane demand that people be nothing but obedient robots. 

Murder is murder whether it is through shooting or starvation. Civility depends upon the recognition of the value of humanity even if people frustrate political, personal, or economic objectives. A system  that allows people to die because they lack the means or character to 'contribute' to society violates one of the most basic moral laws that has ever existed.

Charity is not enough. An economic system that ensures that people who do the work are compelled to live at the brink of hunger allows for no charity except for the charitable contributions of people who profiteer off the system. Economic elites in contemporary America are as vile and selfish as those anywhere. 

What does that mean.

People who take advantage of the no-holes-barred style of capitalism to screw others and get rich, aka most of the corporate class.

I see no problem with this

[mondale84]

This thread is white privilege at its worst. TANF needs reform? How? The program is as toothless as its ever been, having largely failed in its role to protect against economic disasters like the one in 2008. I could see if we were talking about an increase in benefits, but of course we are talking about a scaling back of the program.

This is what frustrates me the most. People who have never even lived at the cusp of poverty (like Romney) are demagoguing this issue, trying to push forward a negative stereotype when the reality of programs like TANF is very different. Romney was given everything by his father, but he's going to judge others who are less fortunate than him?

No actually he 'worked for a living'. A concept many on welfare should try. Are you suggesting that anyone who is not on welfare (and therefore pays the taxes for it) should have no say in how the system is run.

If the jobs are available -- and if the welfare recipients are the sorts of people that one wants on the job. In a really-nasty recession such might be almost as pointless as telling a destitute person to make wise investments in capital markets.

Then what is the point of our subsidising their existence on welfare.

Have you ever heard of the words "useless eaters"?

I assume your talking about Nazism. You misunderstand me. I support helping the deserving poor and disadvantaged through charity. I myself have given money to charity regularly. I don't support on the other hand this idea of the government redistributing the hard earned wealth of the tax payer to the poor, usually the undeserving. The state should get out of this vicious cycle of subsidies to the poor and unemployed, which provide them with no incentive to work, earn and save. Not only that, it would ease the tax burden on the hard working backbone of society, the employed.

Nazism, yes. That was in part a reference to the Nazi practice of murdering the handicapped. But it wasn't only Nazism. Communism did it, too. Solzhenitsyn tells us that the Commies of the early Soviet Union frequently gave orders to 'destroy parasites upon the working class', and local Commies interpreted that to mean not only the elimination of the old ruling elite but where such people could not be found they often killed the crippled and mentally-impaired. At the extreme, even beyond the madness of the Soviet Union and the Third Reich was "Democratic Kampuchea", which executed anyone who failed to fit into its insane demand that people be nothing but obedient robots. 

Murder is murder whether it is through shooting or starvation. Civility depends upon the recognition of the value of humanity even if people frustrate political, personal, or economic objectives. A system  that allows people to die because they lack the means or character to 'contribute' to society violates one of the most basic moral laws that has ever existed.

Charity is not enough. An economic system that ensures that people who do the work are compelled to live at the brink of hunger allows for no charity except for the charitable contributions of people who profiteer off the system. Economic elites in contemporary America are as vile and selfish as those anywhere. 

What does that mean.

People who take advantage of the no-holes-barred style of capitalism to screw others and get rich, aka most of the corporate class.

I see no problem with this

Yeah, a corporatist stooge like you wouldn't because you don't care what lives are extinguished or damaged on your path to riches. You aren't right-wing, you're a corporate opportunist, just like Mitt Romney.

[NY Jew]

The race card is pulled by us Republicans too...for example: "You want to end the war? Israel will die. YOU MUST HATE JEWS!", and of course, "Affirmative Action is apartheid against white people!".

go join the libertarian party already.  after your recent conversion is their any Republicans issue/value you have that libertarian don't have.

[mondale84]

The race card is pulled by us Republicans too...for example: "You want to end the war? Israel will die. YOU MUST HATE JEWS!", and of course, "Affirmative Action is apartheid against white people!".

go join the libertarian party already.  after your recent conversion is their any Republicans issue/value you have that libertarian don't have.

And why don't you go move to Israel already? It's the same type of argument...

[Rhodie]

This thread is white privilege at its worst. TANF needs reform? How? The program is as toothless as its ever been, having largely failed in its role to protect against economic disasters like the one in 2008. I could see if we were talking about an increase in benefits, but of course we are talking about a scaling back of the program.

This is what frustrates me the most. People who have never even lived at the cusp of poverty (like Romney) are demagoguing this issue, trying to push forward a negative stereotype when the reality of programs like TANF is very different. Romney was given everything by his father, but he's going to judge others who are less fortunate than him?

No actually he 'worked for a living'. A concept many on welfare should try. Are you suggesting that anyone who is not on welfare (and therefore pays the taxes for it) should have no say in how the system is run.

If the jobs are available -- and if the welfare recipients are the sorts of people that one wants on the job. In a really-nasty recession such might be almost as pointless as telling a destitute person to make wise investments in capital markets.

Then what is the point of our subsidising their existence on welfare.

Have you ever heard of the words "useless eaters"?

I assume your talking about Nazism. You misunderstand me. I support helping the deserving poor and disadvantaged through charity. I myself have given money to charity regularly. I don't support on the other hand this idea of the government redistributing the hard earned wealth of the tax payer to the poor, usually the undeserving. The state should get out of this vicious cycle of subsidies to the poor and unemployed, which provide them with no incentive to work, earn and save. Not only that, it would ease the tax burden on the hard working backbone of society, the employed.

Nazism, yes. That was in part a reference to the Nazi practice of murdering the handicapped. But it wasn't only Nazism. Communism did it, too. Solzhenitsyn tells us that the Commies of the early Soviet Union frequently gave orders to 'destroy parasites upon the working class', and local Commies interpreted that to mean not only the elimination of the old ruling elite but where such people could not be found they often killed the crippled and mentally-impaired. At the extreme, even beyond the madness of the Soviet Union and the Third Reich was "Democratic Kampuchea", which executed anyone who failed to fit into its insane demand that people be nothing but obedient robots.  

Murder is murder whether it is through shooting or starvation. Civility depends upon the recognition of the value of humanity even if people frustrate political, personal, or economic objectives. A system  that allows people to die because they lack the means or character to 'contribute' to society violates one of the most basic moral laws that has ever existed.

Charity is not enough. An economic system that ensures that people who do the work are compelled to live at the brink of hunger allows for no charity except for the charitable contributions of people who profiteer off the system. Economic elites in contemporary America are as vile and selfish as those anywhere.  

What does that mean.

People who take advantage of the no-holes-barred style of capitalism to screw others and get rich, aka most of the corporate class.

I see no problem with this

Yeah, a corporatist stooge realist like you wouldn't because you don't care what lives are extinguished or damaged inconvenienced on your path to riches. You aren't right-wing a dreamer who puts 'social responsibility' before anything elese, you're a corporate opportunist practical businessman, just like Mitt Romney.

This is fixed.

But honestly, alluding to the remarks flung around, lets just have some standards and civility in posting.

[mondale84]

This thread is white privilege at its worst. TANF needs reform? How? The program is as toothless as its ever been, having largely failed in its role to protect against economic disasters like the one in 2008. I could see if we were talking about an increase in benefits, but of course we are talking about a scaling back of the program.

This is what frustrates me the most. People who have never even lived at the cusp of poverty (like Romney) are demagoguing this issue, trying to push forward a negative stereotype when the reality of programs like TANF is very different. Romney was given everything by his father, but he's going to judge others who are less fortunate than him?

No actually he 'worked for a living'. A concept many on welfare should try. Are you suggesting that anyone who is not on welfare (and therefore pays the taxes for it) should have no say in how the system is run.

If the jobs are available -- and if the welfare recipients are the sorts of people that one wants on the job. In a really-nasty recession such might be almost as pointless as telling a destitute person to make wise investments in capital markets.

Then what is the point of our subsidising their existence on welfare.

Have you ever heard of the words "useless eaters"?

I assume your talking about Nazism. You misunderstand me. I support helping the deserving poor and disadvantaged through charity. I myself have given money to charity regularly. I don't support on the other hand this idea of the government redistributing the hard earned wealth of the tax payer to the poor, usually the undeserving. The state should get out of this vicious cycle of subsidies to the poor and unemployed, which provide them with no incentive to work, earn and save. Not only that, it would ease the tax burden on the hard working backbone of society, the employed.

Nazism, yes. That was in part a reference to the Nazi practice of murdering the handicapped. But it wasn't only Nazism. Communism did it, too. Solzhenitsyn tells us that the Commies of the early Soviet Union frequently gave orders to 'destroy parasites upon the working class', and local Commies interpreted that to mean not only the elimination of the old ruling elite but where such people could not be found they often killed the crippled and mentally-impaired. At the extreme, even beyond the madness of the Soviet Union and the Third Reich was "Democratic Kampuchea", which executed anyone who failed to fit into its insane demand that people be nothing but obedient robots.  

Murder is murder whether it is through shooting or starvation. Civility depends upon the recognition of the value of humanity even if people frustrate political, personal, or economic objectives. A system  that allows people to die because they lack the means or character to 'contribute' to society violates one of the most basic moral laws that has ever existed.

Charity is not enough. An economic system that ensures that people who do the work are compelled to live at the brink of hunger allows for no charity except for the charitable contributions of people who profiteer off the system. Economic elites in contemporary America are as vile and selfish as those anywhere.  

What does that mean.

People who take advantage of the no-holes-barred style of capitalism to screw others and get rich, aka most of the corporate class.

I see no problem with this

Yeah, a corporatist stooge realist like you wouldn't because you don't care what lives are extinguished or damaged inconvenienced on your path to riches. You aren't right-wing a dreamer who puts 'social responsibility' before anything elese, you're a corporate opportunist practical businessman, just like Mitt Romney.

This is fixed.

But honestly, alluding to the remarks flung around, lets just have some standards and civility in posting.

Listen, you can spin your position as much as you want, but you're still a vulture capitalist who cares only about himself and about no one else. It is because of people like you and Mitt Romney that this country has been going downhill since the 60s.

[Rhodie]

This thread is white privilege at its worst. TANF needs reform? How? The program is as toothless as its ever been, having largely failed in its role to protect against economic disasters like the one in 2008. I could see if we were talking about an increase in benefits, but of course we are talking about a scaling back of the program.

This is what frustrates me the most. People who have never even lived at the cusp of poverty (like Romney) are demagoguing this issue, trying to push forward a negative stereotype when the reality of programs like TANF is very different. Romney was given everything by his father, but he's going to judge others who are less fortunate than him?

No actually he 'worked for a living'. A concept many on welfare should try. Are you suggesting that anyone who is not on welfare (and therefore pays the taxes for it) should have no say in how the system is run.

If the jobs are available -- and if the welfare recipients are the sorts of people that one wants on the job. In a really-nasty recession such might be almost as pointless as telling a destitute person to make wise investments in capital markets.

Then what is the point of our subsidising their existence on welfare.

Have you ever heard of the words "useless eaters"?

I assume your talking about Nazism. You misunderstand me. I support helping the deserving poor and disadvantaged through charity. I myself have given money to charity regularly. I don't support on the other hand this idea of the government redistributing the hard earned wealth of the tax payer to the poor, usually the undeserving. The state should get out of this vicious cycle of subsidies to the poor and unemployed, which provide them with no incentive to work, earn and save. Not only that, it would ease the tax burden on the hard working backbone of society, the employed.

Nazism, yes. That was in part a reference to the Nazi practice of murdering the handicapped. But it wasn't only Nazism. Communism did it, too. Solzhenitsyn tells us that the Commies of the early Soviet Union frequently gave orders to 'destroy parasites upon the working class', and local Commies interpreted that to mean not only the elimination of the old ruling elite but where such people could not be found they often killed the crippled and mentally-impaired. At the extreme, even beyond the madness of the Soviet Union and the Third Reich was "Democratic Kampuchea", which executed anyone who failed to fit into its insane demand that people be nothing but obedient robots.  

Murder is murder whether it is through shooting or starvation. Civility depends upon the recognition of the value of humanity even if people frustrate political, personal, or economic objectives. A system  that allows people to die because they lack the means or character to 'contribute' to society violates one of the most basic moral laws that has ever existed.

Charity is not enough. An economic system that ensures that people who do the work are compelled to live at the brink of hunger allows for no charity except for the charitable contributions of people who profiteer off the system. Economic elites in contemporary America are as vile and selfish as those anywhere.  

What does that mean.

People who take advantage of the no-holes-barred style of capitalism to screw others and get rich, aka most of the corporate class.

I see no problem with this

Yeah, a corporatist stooge realist like you wouldn't because you don't care what lives are extinguished or damaged inconvenienced on your path to riches. You aren't right-wing a dreamer who puts 'social responsibility' before anything elese, you're a corporate opportunist practical businessman, just like Mitt Romney.

This is fixed.

But honestly, alluding to the remarks flung around, lets just have some standards and civility in posting.

Listen, you can spin your position as much as you want, but you're still a vulture capitalist who cares only about himself and about no one else. It is because of people like you and Mitt Romney that this country has been going downhill since the 60s.

Nah

Your country is going down the toilet because its unable to get its fiscal house in order. People on the left such as yourself simply cannot see that there must be massive reductions in public spending in order to achieve this, in combination with far less drastic tax rises. The politics of the United States is broken, and in serious need of repair.

Anyway, be glad your country hasn't gone downhill to the extent the country I was born in has (not New Zealand).

[mondale84]

This thread is white privilege at its worst. TANF needs reform? How? The program is as toothless as its ever been, having largely failed in its role to protect against economic disasters like the one in 2008. I could see if we were talking about an increase in benefits, but of course we are talking about a scaling back of the program.

This is what frustrates me the most. People who have never even lived at the cusp of poverty (like Romney) are demagoguing this issue, trying to push forward a negative stereotype when the reality of programs like TANF is very different. Romney was given everything by his father, but he's going to judge others who are less fortunate than him?

No actually he 'worked for a living'. A concept many on welfare should try. Are you suggesting that anyone who is not on welfare (and therefore pays the taxes for it) should have no say in how the system is run.

If the jobs are available -- and if the welfare recipients are the sorts of people that one wants on the job. In a really-nasty recession such might be almost as pointless as telling a destitute person to make wise investments in capital markets.

Then what is the point of our subsidising their existence on welfare.

Have you ever heard of the words "useless eaters"?

I assume your talking about Nazism. You misunderstand me. I support helping the deserving poor and disadvantaged through charity. I myself have given money to charity regularly. I don't support on the other hand this idea of the government redistributing the hard earned wealth of the tax payer to the poor, usually the undeserving. The state should get out of this vicious cycle of subsidies to the poor and unemployed, which provide them with no incentive to work, earn and save. Not only that, it would ease the tax burden on the hard working backbone of society, the employed.

Nazism, yes. That was in part a reference to the Nazi practice of murdering the handicapped. But it wasn't only Nazism. Communism did it, too. Solzhenitsyn tells us that the Commies of the early Soviet Union frequently gave orders to 'destroy parasites upon the working class', and local Commies interpreted that to mean not only the elimination of the old ruling elite but where such people could not be found they often killed the crippled and mentally-impaired. At the extreme, even beyond the madness of the Soviet Union and the Third Reich was "Democratic Kampuchea", which executed anyone who failed to fit into its insane demand that people be nothing but obedient robots.  

Murder is murder whether it is through shooting or starvation. Civility depends upon the recognition of the value of humanity even if people frustrate political, personal, or economic objectives. A system  that allows people to die because they lack the means or character to 'contribute' to society violates one of the most basic moral laws that has ever existed.

Charity is not enough. An economic system that ensures that people who do the work are compelled to live at the brink of hunger allows for no charity except for the charitable contributions of people who profiteer off the system. Economic elites in contemporary America are as vile and selfish as those anywhere.  

What does that mean.

People who take advantage of the no-holes-barred style of capitalism to screw others and get rich, aka most of the corporate class.

I see no problem with this

Yeah, a corporatist stooge realist like you wouldn't because you don't care what lives are extinguished or damaged inconvenienced on your path to riches. You aren't right-wing a dreamer who puts 'social responsibility' before anything elese, you're a corporate opportunist practical businessman, just like Mitt Romney.

This is fixed.

But honestly, alluding to the remarks flung around, lets just have some standards and civility in posting.

Listen, you can spin your position as much as you want, but you're still a vulture capitalist who cares only about himself and about no one else. It is because of people like you and Mitt Romney that this country has been going downhill since the 60s.

Nah

Your country is going down the toilet because its unable to get its fiscal house in order. People on the left such as yourself simply cannot see that there must be massive reductions in public spending in order to achieve this, in combination with far less drastic tax rises. The politics of the United States is broken, and in serious need of repair.

Anyway, be glad your country hasn't gone downhill to the extent the country I was born in has (not New Zealand).

Yeah, maybe if we cut military spending to 1960s levels that would work (I'm for this BTW), though to say we would be reducing public services in this country is laughable. There are no public services in this country.

[Senator Sbane]

I assume your talking about Nazism. You misunderstand me. I support helping the deserving poor and disadvantaged through charity. I myself have given money to charity regularly. I don't support on the other hand this idea of the government redistributing the hard earned wealth of the tax payer to the poor, usually the undeserving. The state should get out of this vicious cycle of subsidies to the poor and unemployed, which provide them with no incentive to work, earn and save. Not only that, it would ease the tax burden on the hard working backbone of society, the employed.

Are you suggesting that we'd see 100% employment if welfare was eliminated? We know this isn't the case, because unemployment existed before welfare programs were created(and indeed exists today in third/second world countries without welfare programs.)

As to subsidies and incentives, the various tax credits targeted at the working poor actually increase their incentive to work, increase their earning and enable greater savings.

To assume that all Southerners are a bunch of racist, brown-shirt, cross-burning Klansmen in white sheets and pointy hats is wrong, bigoted, and untrue.  I think most of them had probably moved on from racial issues by the time Reagan made those statements.  The demographics had changed and younger generations of voters who were less racist started voting, and this is precisely one of the factors that helped Reagan in the South in 1980, as well as his strength with religious conservatives.

Objectively wrong:http://www.gallup.com/poll/149390/Record-High-Approve-Black-White-Marriages.aspx

In 1980 ~60% of Americans did not support the legality of interracial marriage. It was no doubt an even higher percentage in the South.

Yes, but racism wasn't widely accepted by society anymore by that time.  Where's your evidence that the percentage was higher in the South?  And besides, just because someone doesn't believe in interracial marriage doesn't mean he/she is racist.

....ummmm...and pray tell what other reasons would there be for people to "not believe" (whatever that means) in interracial marriage?

Yes.  Many good, well-meaning people have been against it because of false perceptions of health risks to the children of interracial marriages.

What the hell are you talking about? There is no evidence of any health risks to mixed race children, indeed it would imply a healthier population if there is mixing of genes from parts of the world far away from each other. Anyone who thinks it has health risks is a racist. But maybe they are nice about it, who knows.

[Torie]

Aren't we all of mixed race?  The health risks from interracial coupling. Oh dear. Where do folks pick that sort of crap up?  I mean, it's ludicrous on its face. Heck, about 80% of the Mexican population is a mix of White and Asian, and they seem to be in excellent health. And even if you thought that, just why would one actually want to put it in writing?  That would be like putting in writing some of my more unfortunate trysts. No, just no.

[Rhodie]

This thread is white privilege at its worst. TANF needs reform? How? The program is as toothless as its ever been, having largely failed in its role to protect against economic disasters like the one in 2008. I could see if we were talking about an increase in benefits, but of course we are talking about a scaling back of the program.

This is what frustrates me the most. People who have never even lived at the cusp of poverty (like Romney) are demagoguing this issue, trying to push forward a negative stereotype when the reality of programs like TANF is very different. Romney was given everything by his father, but he's going to judge others who are less fortunate than him?

No actually he 'worked for a living'. A concept many on welfare should try. Are you suggesting that anyone who is not on welfare (and therefore pays the taxes for it) should have no say in how the system is run.

If the jobs are available -- and if the welfare recipients are the sorts of people that one wants on the job. In a really-nasty recession such might be almost as pointless as telling a destitute person to make wise investments in capital markets.

Then what is the point of our subsidising their existence on welfare.

Have you ever heard of the words "useless eaters"?

I assume your talking about Nazism. You misunderstand me. I support helping the deserving poor and disadvantaged through charity. I myself have given money to charity regularly. I don't support on the other hand this idea of the government redistributing the hard earned wealth of the tax payer to the poor, usually the undeserving. The state should get out of this vicious cycle of subsidies to the poor and unemployed, which provide them with no incentive to work, earn and save. Not only that, it would ease the tax burden on the hard working backbone of society, the employed.

Nazism, yes. That was in part a reference to the Nazi practice of murdering the handicapped. But it wasn't only Nazism. Communism did it, too. Solzhenitsyn tells us that the Commies of the early Soviet Union frequently gave orders to 'destroy parasites upon the working class', and local Commies interpreted that to mean not only the elimination of the old ruling elite but where such people could not be found they often killed the crippled and mentally-impaired. At the extreme, even beyond the madness of the Soviet Union and the Third Reich was "Democratic Kampuchea", which executed anyone who failed to fit into its insane demand that people be nothing but obedient robots.  

Murder is murder whether it is through shooting or starvation. Civility depends upon the recognition of the value of humanity even if people frustrate political, personal, or economic objectives. A system  that allows people to die because they lack the means or character to 'contribute' to society violates one of the most basic moral laws that has ever existed.

Charity is not enough. An economic system that ensures that people who do the work are compelled to live at the brink of hunger allows for no charity except for the charitable contributions of people who profiteer off the system. Economic elites in contemporary America are as vile and selfish as those anywhere.  

What does that mean.

People who take advantage of the no-holes-barred style of capitalism to screw others and get rich, aka most of the corporate class.

I see no problem with this

Yeah, a corporatist stooge realist like you wouldn't because you don't care what lives are extinguished or damaged inconvenienced on your path to riches. You aren't right-wing a dreamer who puts 'social responsibility' before anything elese, you're a corporate opportunist practical businessman, just like Mitt Romney.

This is fixed.

But honestly, alluding to the remarks flung around, lets just have some standards and civility in posting.

Listen, you can spin your position as much as you want, but you're still a vulture capitalist who cares only about himself and about no one else. It is because of people like you and Mitt Romney that this country has been going downhill since the 60s.

Nah

Your country is going down the toilet because its unable to get its fiscal house in order. People on the left such as yourself simply cannot see that there must be massive reductions in public spending in order to achieve this, in combination with far less drastic tax rises. The politics of the United States is broken, and in serious need of repair.

Anyway, be glad your country hasn't gone downhill to the extent the country I was born in has (not New Zealand).

Yeah, maybe if we cut military spending to 1960s levels that would work (I'm for this BTW), though to say we would be reducing public services in this country is laughable. There are no public services in this country.

Apart from Medicare, medicaid, pensions, welfare etc. Its these commitments that have ballooned to ridiculous proportions. Military spending could be cut, but not by much.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I assume your talking about Nazism. You misunderstand me. I support helping the deserving poor and disadvantaged through charity. I myself have given money to charity regularly. I don't support on the other hand this idea of the government redistributing the hard earned wealth of the tax payer to the poor, usually the undeserving. The state should get out of this vicious cycle of subsidies to the poor and unemployed, which provide them with no incentive to work, earn and save. Not only that, it would ease the tax burden on the hard working backbone of society, the employed.

Are you suggesting that we'd see 100% employment if welfare was eliminated? We know this isn't the case, because unemployment existed before welfare programs were created(and indeed exists today in third/second world countries without welfare programs.)

As to subsidies and incentives, the various tax credits targeted at the working poor actually increase their incentive to work, increase their earning and enable greater savings.

To assume that all Southerners are a bunch of racist, brown-shirt, cross-burning Klansmen in white sheets and pointy hats is wrong, bigoted, and untrue.  I think most of them had probably moved on from racial issues by the time Reagan made those statements.  The demographics had changed and younger generations of voters who were less racist started voting, and this is precisely one of the factors that helped Reagan in the South in 1980, as well as his strength with religious conservatives.

Objectively wrong:http://www.gallup.com/poll/149390/Record-High-Approve-Black-White-Marriages.aspx

In 1980 ~60% of Americans did not support the legality of interracial marriage. It was no doubt an even higher percentage in the South.

Yes, but racism wasn't widely accepted by society anymore by that time.  Where's your evidence that the percentage was higher in the South?  And besides, just because someone doesn't believe in interracial marriage doesn't mean he/she is racist.

....ummmm...and pray tell what other reasons would there be for people to "not believe" (whatever that means) in interracial marriage?

Yes.  Many good, well-meaning people have been against it because of false perceptions of health risks to the children of interracial marriages.

And you claim these perceptions of "health risks" have nothing to do with racism or - at the very least prejudice?

I assume your talking about Nazism. You misunderstand me. I support helping the deserving poor and disadvantaged through charity. I myself have given money to charity regularly. I don't support on the other hand this idea of the government redistributing the hard earned wealth of the tax payer to the poor, usually the undeserving. The state should get out of this vicious cycle of subsidies to the poor and unemployed, which provide them with no incentive to work, earn and save. Not only that, it would ease the tax burden on the hard working backbone of society, the employed.

Are you suggesting that we'd see 100% employment if welfare was eliminated? We know this isn't the case, because unemployment existed before welfare programs were created(and indeed exists today in third/second world countries without welfare programs.)

As to subsidies and incentives, the various tax credits targeted at the working poor actually increase their incentive to work, increase their earning and enable greater savings.

To assume that all Southerners are a bunch of racist, brown-shirt, cross-burning Klansmen in white sheets and pointy hats is wrong, bigoted, and untrue.  I think most of them had probably moved on from racial issues by the time Reagan made those statements.  The demographics had changed and younger generations of voters who were less racist started voting, and this is precisely one of the factors that helped Reagan in the South in 1980, as well as his strength with religious conservatives.

Objectively wrong:http://www.gallup.com/poll/149390/Record-High-Approve-Black-White-Marriages.aspx

In 1980 ~60% of Americans did not support the legality of interracial marriage. It was no doubt an even higher percentage in the South.

Yes, but racism wasn't widely accepted by society anymore by that time.  Where's your evidence that the percentage was higher in the South?  And besides, just because someone doesn't believe in interracial marriage doesn't mean he/she is racist.

....ummmm...and pray tell what other reasons would there be for people to "not believe" (whatever that means) in interracial marriage?

Yes.  Many good, well-meaning people have been against it because of false perceptions of health risks to the children of interracial marriages.

What the hell are you talking about? There is no evidence of any health risks to mixed race children, indeed it would imply a healthier population if there is mixing of genes from parts of the world far away from each other. Anyone who thinks it has health risks is a racist. But maybe they are nice about it, who knows.

Aren't we all of mixed race?  The health risks from interracial coupling. Oh dear. Where do folks pick that sort of crap up?  I mean, it's ludicrous on its face. Heck, about 80% of the Mexican population is a mix of White and Asian, and they seem to be in excellent health. And even if you thought that, just why would one actually want to put it in writing?  That would be like putting in writing some of my more unfortunate trysts. No, just no.

Most of those people weren't necessarily racist, but there used to be concerns that interracial marriage presented health risks to the children of those marriages.  That evidence has since been proven false.

[Gravis Marketing]

I'm sorry to be a pedantic jerk, but the level of quoting past discussions here is making people's comments unreadable.

[Torie]

I'm sorry to be a pedantic jerk, but the level of quoting past discussions here is making people's comments unreadable.

You ever notice that I almost never do that?  What I say can stand alone anyway. I don't need props.

Anyway, what you said. Beet, are you listening? 

[shua]

Oldiesfreak, if a person views different races as so distinct that interbreeding is dangerous, that's racist by definition.  It was only a pervasive racism in society that allowed people to believe in distinct races to the extent of considering them almost different species in spite of the clear as day evidence that characteristics considered racial fall along a continuum.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Oldiesfreak, if a person views different races as so distinct that interbreeding is dangerous, that's racist by definition.  It was only a pervasive racism in society that allowed people to believe in distinct races to the extent of considering them almost different species in spite of the clear as day evidence that characteristics considered racial fall along a continuum.

I know there are many black kids even today that worry that they will get some sorts of diseases if they receive blood transfusions from whites.

[Rhodie]

Oldiesfreak, if a person views different races as so distinct that interbreeding is dangerous, that's racist by definition.  It was only a pervasive racism in society that allowed people to believe in distinct races to the extent of considering them almost different species in spite of the clear as day evidence that characteristics considered racial fall along a continuum.

I know there are many black kids even today that worry that they will get some sorts of diseases if they receive blood transfusions from whites.

Yeah, but Oldiesfreak, they're black, so no matter how ignorant they are they just can't be racist

[mondale84]

Oldiesfreak, if a person views different races as so distinct that interbreeding is dangerous, that's racist by definition.  It was only a pervasive racism in society that allowed people to believe in distinct races to the extent of considering them almost different species in spite of the clear as day evidence that characteristics considered racial fall along a continuum.

I know there are many black kids even today that worry that they will get some sorts of diseases if they receive blood transfusions from whites.

How do you "know"?

I know there are many black kids even today that worry that they will get some sorts of diseases if they receive blood transfusions from whites.

Yeah, but Oldiesfreak, they're black, so no matter how ignorant they are they just can't be racist

No one is saying black people can't be racist...

[Rhodie]

Oldiesfreak, if a person views different races as so distinct that interbreeding is dangerous, that's racist by definition.  It was only a pervasive racism in society that allowed people to believe in distinct races to the extent of considering them almost different species in spite of the clear as day evidence that characteristics considered racial fall along a continuum.

I know there are many black kids even today that worry that they will get some sorts of diseases if they receive blood transfusions from whites.

How do you "know"?

I know there are many black kids even today that worry that they will get some sorts of diseases if they receive blood transfusions from whites.

Yeah, but Oldiesfreak, they're black, so no matter how ignorant they are they just can't be racist

No one is saying black people can't be racist...

Yes but the flood of racism expounded by numerous black politicians is barely ever picked up on.