Biden: Romney will "put ya'll back in chains"

[Politico]

Clinton probably did the most for the black man of any Democrat merely because the economy was excellent during his presidency and he signed welfare reform to encourage people to go to work. Obama has done the complete opposite. Something like 130 million Americans are getting money from the government now. That is insane!

Add the total working in the government offices and you get close to 48, 49 percent of the workforce.

If more people are riding the cart than pulling it, how long are the saps pulling the cart going to bother?

Economic facts aren't partisan. They are just as much facts as gravity or electricity. An administration defies them at their peril.

A complementary quote to reinforce your well-written post:

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
- Margaret Thatcher

[Invisible Obama]

Lee Atwater claimed a lot of things. Dude even claimed he found Jesus in a particular version of a Bible he claimed to read all of the time. When folks when to retrieve his goods after his death, they found that Bible still in the plastic-wrap. Spin doctor is going to spin.

Explain Carter's massive success in 1976 and relative success in 1980 with regards to the South. Furthermore, explain Clinton's success in the South in 1992 and 1996.

Atwater carried out some of the Southern Strategy and he didn't give an explanation of it.


 

  Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "N*****, n*****, n*****." By 1968 you can't say "n*****" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N*****., n*****.."[6][7]

Carter and Clinton were from the South and at the time the south was partial to candidates from there.

[Ebowed]

The July 12 directive inviting states to apply for waivers from welfare reform rules that require welfare-to-work via requirements to seek a job and engage in job training. We all know what the Big City Democratic politicians are going to do with this if we let them.

Sorry, when I was asking for a citation, I wasn't asking for a recitation of the factually inaccurate Romney advertisement coupled with partisan speculation; I was looking for something more concrete?

I am suggesting that Obama's massive expansion of 184 federal, means-tested welfare programs is not helping people find jobs (http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/04/22/americas-ever-expanding-welfare-empire/)

It is valid to worry that Obama's Way is going to reinvent the culture of dependence and all that entails.

Explain what this entails.

Poverty of aspiration among the poor (no hope, no dreams, just fear and hate...kind of like Obama 2012, I suppose), increasing taxes for workers and retired people, and resentment across the divide. In other words, the way it used to be before Clinton's Welfare Reform.

I am delighted to hear that resentment failed to exist between Clinton's welfare reform and Obama's presidency; although I will have to find a new explanation for the impeachment attempt of 1998.  It is nice to hear, for the first time, that fear and hate were lacking from the Republican governance of the previous decade.  I also didn't realise that these 184 programs were all designed to help people find jobs (but I suppose that should be the number one priority of any program directed towards aiding needing mothers and newborns, you social darwinist?).

[Politico]

Clinton probably did the most for the black man of any Democrat merely because the economy was excellent during his presidency and he signed welfare reform to encourage people to go to work. Obama has done the complete opposite. Something like 130 million Americans are getting money from the government now. That is insane!

You have got to be joking - you are normally a pretty reasonable fellow, what is going on here?  You do realise that if the government were failing to offer this sort of assistance, the circumstances would be far more grim?

I am not opposed to unemployment for a certain amount of time, but at this stage it is getting out of control. We cannot afford it financially in the long term or short term, and it is hurting the job market. For example, several family friends are in the HR business, one for a large resort and the other owns the largest firm in a city in NC. Throughout conversations, they have expressed that many of the people they interview and offer jobs turn them down because they can make a comparable sum through simply taking government checks. The resort is having to bring in people from Jamaica in order to run because locals do not want to work or cannot pass a drug screen.

Now we can get into an argument amount the minimum wage laws, which I agree should be raised, but my point is unlimited unemployment or the perpetual extensions of it does not help get people back to work. Humans are pleasure seekers by nature. If we have the option of working or making a bit less and simply sitting around collecting checks, most people will unfortunately choose collecting government checks. Obama will have to tackle entitlements at some point to ease the bleeding.

Well said. To paraphrase Friedman, when you give people an incentive to be unemployed, don't be surprised when you get a lot of unemployment.

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

Less likely to have a job than in the 1950s?  Compare rates of wealth.

By 2007, the average middle income white household accumulated $74,000," the report's authors note, "whereas average high income African Americans owned only $18,000."

This gap was much less in 1950.

Compare number of potential crimes, and enforcement of related laws along racial lines.  In a society where conviction of a felony is a serious impediment to reasonable employment, you may as well be throwing these people into the ocean and killing the lifeguards while you're at it.

Given that the most likely victim of a black man is another black man, are you arguing that such crimes should be left unprosecuted?

No, the Democrats are not thriving off of the black community's continued plight: they are the only major party to make any attempt, serious or otherwise, to address it, and the need for you to pretend that the parties are the same as they were in the 1860s demonstrates as such.

I said 1950s, not 1860s. If you're going to lie, at least try to make it not so transparent.

The democrats benefit from black people being poorer and more dependent on the government, because that's exactly what their platform is. It's right there in the platform. The republicans benefit when black people get jobs, own houses, raise their families.

[Ebowed]

Clinton probably did the most for the black man of any Democrat merely because the economy was excellent during his presidency and he signed welfare reform to encourage people to go to work. Obama has done the complete opposite. Something like 130 million Americans are getting money from the government now. That is insane!

You have got to be joking - you are normally a pretty reasonable fellow, what is going on here?  You do realise that if the government were failing to offer this sort of assistance, the circumstances would be far more grim?

I am not opposed to unemployment for a certain amount of time, but at this stage it is getting out of control. We cannot afford it financially in the long term or short term, and it is hurting the job market. For example, several family friends are in the HR business, one for a large resort and the other owns the largest firm in a city in NC. Throughout conversations, they have expressed that many of the people they interview and offer jobs turn them down because they can make a comparable sum through simply taking government checks. The resort is having to bring in people from Jamaica in order to run because locals do not want to work or cannot pass a drug screen.

Now we can get into an argument amount the minimum wage laws, which I agree should be raised, but my point is unlimited unemployment or the perpetual extensions of it does not help get people back to work. Humans are pleasure seekers by nature. If we have the option of working or making a bit less and simply sitting around collecting checks, most people will unfortunately choose collecting government checks. Obama will have to tackle entitlements at some point to ease the bleeding.

I am  not aware of any efforts successfully passing to remove the limit of '99 weeks' when it comes to unemployment benefits, and as far as drug screening goes, that is obviously a waste of everyone's time.  If these fellows of yours that you mention are having trouble filling the positions, they are either unable to lower their standards in an entirely meaningful way or they are distributing such anecdotes with an undisclosed motive (lying).

[Politico]

The July 12 directive inviting states to apply for waivers from welfare reform rules that require welfare-to-work via requirements to seek a job and engage in job training. We all know what the Big City Democratic politicians are going to do with this if we let them.

Sorry, when I was asking for a citation, I wasn't asking for a recitation of the factually inaccurate Romney advertisement coupled with partisan speculation; I was looking for something more concrete?

I am suggesting that Obama's massive expansion of 184 federal, means-tested welfare programs is not helping people find jobs (http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/04/22/americas-ever-expanding-welfare-empire/)

It is valid to worry that Obama's Way is going to reinvent the culture of dependence and all that entails.

Explain what this entails.

Poverty of aspiration among the poor (no hope, no dreams, just fear and hate...kind of like Obama 2012, I suppose), increasing taxes for workers and retired people, and resentment across the divide. In other words, the way it used to be before Clinton's Welfare Reform.

I am delighted to hear that resentment failed to exist between Clinton's welfare reform and Obama's presidency; although I will have to find a new explanation for the impeachment attempt of 1998.  It is nice to hear, for the first time, that fear and hate were lacking from the Republican governance of the previous decade.  I also didn't realise that these 184 programs were all designed to help people find jobs (but I suppose that should be the number one priority of any program directed towards aiding needing mothers and newborns, you social darwinist?).

I am all for helping those who are truly in need. I just have no faith in government, certainly not centralized Big Government in Washington, to do the helping due to the inherent nature of government (i.e., inefficiency, bureaucracy, the tendency to be wasteful when one is vested with such seemingly limitless taxing/borrowing authority while spending other people's money, etc.). Familial support and private charities are much more effective ways of helping the needy.

[Invisible Obama]

The democrats benefit from black people being poorer and more dependent on the government, because that's exactly what their platform is. It's right there in the platform. The republicans benefit when black people get jobs, own houses, raise their families.

This is not true. If you look at suburbs in places like Georgia, Maryland and to a lesser extent, Texas, blacks moving into higher income brackets still vote heavily Democratic. Where have Republicans benefited?

[Ebowed]

I said 1950s, not 1860s. If you're going to lie, at least try to make it not so transparent.

Sorry, when you made a reference to the party that ended slavery, I thought you were referring to a century prior to the last one.  Perhaps you were discussing another country?  If you were referring to the United States, the party that ended slavery was also the one that did not end racial discrimination in the military or public accommodations - you have to pardon my confusion.

The democrats benefit from black people being poorer and more dependent on the government, because that's exactly what their platform is. It's right there in the platform. The republicans benefit when black people get jobs, own houses, raise their families.

You'll need to cite this part of the Democratic platform.

As for the beginning of your post, arguing that blacks were better off economically in the 1950s than currently is .. laughable at best.

[Politico]

Less likely to have a job than in the 1950s?  Compare rates of wealth.

By 2007, the average middle income white household accumulated $74,000," the report's authors note, "whereas average high income African Americans owned only $18,000."

This gap was much less in 1950.

Compare number of potential crimes, and enforcement of related laws along racial lines.  In a society where conviction of a felony is a serious impediment to reasonable employment, you may as well be throwing these people into the ocean and killing the lifeguards while you're at it.

Given that the most likely victim of a black man is another black man, are you arguing that such crimes should be left unprosecuted?

No, the Democrats are not thriving off of the black community's continued plight: they are the only major party to make any attempt, serious or otherwise, to address it, and the need for you to pretend that the parties are the same as they were in the 1860s demonstrates as such.

I said 1950s, not 1860s. If you're going to lie, at least try to make it not so transparent.

The democrats benefit from black people being poorer and more dependent on the government, because that's exactly what their platform is. It's right there in the platform. The republicans benefit when black people get jobs, own houses, raise their families.

Bill Cosby has your back on this, brah. The only question is whether he will see the substance, rather than continuing to be blinded by Obama's style, and publicly endorse Romney. Tough call for him to make, if you ask me.

[Prez Duke]

Clinton probably did the most for the black man of any Democrat merely because the economy was excellent during his presidency and he signed welfare reform to encourage people to go to work. Obama has done the complete opposite. Something like 130 million Americans are getting money from the government now. That is insane!

You have got to be joking - you are normally a pretty reasonable fellow, what is going on here?  You do realise that if the government were failing to offer this sort of assistance, the circumstances would be far more grim?

I am not opposed to unemployment for a certain amount of time, but at this stage it is getting out of control. We cannot afford it financially in the long term or short term, and it is hurting the job market. For example, several family friends are in the HR business, one for a large resort and the other owns the largest firm in a city in NC. Throughout conversations, they have expressed that many of the people they interview and offer jobs turn them down because they can make a comparable sum through simply taking government checks. The resort is having to bring in people from Jamaica in order to run because locals do not want to work or cannot pass a drug screen.

Now we can get into an argument amount the minimum wage laws, which I agree should be raised, but my point is unlimited unemployment or the perpetual extensions of it does not help get people back to work. Humans are pleasure seekers by nature. If we have the option of working or making a bit less and simply sitting around collecting checks, most people will unfortunately choose collecting government checks. Obama will have to tackle entitlements at some point to ease the bleeding.

I am  not aware of any efforts successfully passing to remove the limit of '99 weeks' when it comes to unemployment benefits, and as far as drug screening goes, that is obviously a waste of everyone's time.  If these fellows of yours that you mention are having trouble filling the positions, they are either unable to lower their standards in an entirely meaningful way or they are distributing such anecdotes with an undisclosed motive (lying).

I have no idea. I don't see why they would lie to me, but this has come from two people who hardly know each other, so it's a well orchestrated lie if it is.

And you're right, we haven't extended them again, but at this point I doubt we can afford to. Like I said earlier, we are in a situation now where we really need to raise taxes on the wealthy to the 1990s levels, but no one, including Obama, will have the balls to do it.

[Ebowed]

Bill Cosby has your back on this, brah.

That's great, bud, and I suppose your inability to trust the government to provide services to facilitate the poor somehow substantiates your claim that families and charities are more reliable in alleviating poverty and racial discrimination than government intervention, without any citation of facts.

For someone who claims to invest so much trust in the free market, I suppose it is hardly surprising that you are such a man of faith...

[Politico]

As for the beginning of your post, arguing that blacks were better off economically in the 1950s than currently is .. laughable at best.

For the average non-southern black, it is undeniably true. Haven't you ever listened to Marvin Gaye (e.g., "What's Going On") and Bill Cosby?

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

This is not true. If you look at suburbs in places like Georgia, Maryland and to a lesser extent, Texas, blacks moving into higher income brackets still vote heavily Democratic. Where have Republicans benefited?

If black people vote 95:5 Democrat on average, and wealthier black people vote 80:20 Democrat on average - how have they benefited?

[Ebowed]

As for the beginning of your post, arguing that blacks were better off economically in the 1950s than currently is .. laughable at best.

For non-southern blacks, it is undeniably true. Haven't you ever listened to Marvin Gaye (e.g., "Mercy Mercy Me") and Bill Cosby?

The majority of blacks live in the South, and also nobody cares about 'Kids Say the Darndest Things'.  Marvin Gaye had a song in Scrubs once that was pretty catchy.

(Sorry, I am trying to be as ridiculous as you in writing that; I don't mean to offend anyone with actual understanding of this topic)

[Politico]

Bill Cosby has your back on this, brah.

That's great, bud, and I suppose your inability to trust the government to provide services to facilitate the poor somehow substantiates your claim that families and charities are more reliable in alleviating poverty and racial discrimination than government intervention, without any citation of facts.

The only facts you need are contained in the works of Adam Smith and Milton Friedman. A Costco-style sample:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RDMdc5r5z8

[Politico]

As for the beginning of your post, arguing that blacks were better off economically in the 1950s than currently is .. laughable at best.

For non-southern blacks, it is undeniably true. Haven't you ever listened to Marvin Gaye (e.g., "Mercy Mercy Me") and Bill Cosby?

The majority of blacks live in the South,

There are a hell of a lot of blacks in Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore and Philadelphia who will tell you that things are worse in their communities today than they were fifty years ago.

If you've ever watched The Wire, notice the stark contrast between Stringer Bell and Marlo Stanfield. One is simply striving to escape the madness as best he can, with a strong sense of honor and preference for nonviolence, whereas the other wouldn't even accept being handed a lofty out clause that was all Bell ever dreamed of. The biggest difference between Bell and Stanfield is that Bell grew up with parents who grew up before 1960 whereas Stanfield's parents were from a generation after, the first generation to feel the full effects of the culture of dependency and all it entails. On, and in case you didn't notice, Clay Davis, Clarence Royce and Tommy Carcetti didn't really help a damn soul other than themselves and their special interest groups. The charitable contributions to Cutty Wise by Avon Barksdale did more good for people than any acts by those politicians (Avon was not a model citizen, but again: Contrast him and his generation with Stanfield and his generation...do you think Stanfield ever would have made those contributions to Cutty? If so, you need a refresher on how Stanfield's crew treated Cutty). It is art imitating life, implicitly showing us how Big Government and the culture of welfare dependency has utterly decimated the black neighborhoods of Baltimore.

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

Sorry, when you made a reference to the party that ended slavery, I thought you were referring to a century prior to the last one.

I stated that the Democrats are the party of slavery. Last I checked the Democrats voted to oppose passage of the Civil Rights bill, and that was the 1960s.

Are you saying that the Democrat party of the 1950s was in favor of racial equality and integration?

If you were referring to the United States, the party that ended slavery was also the one that did not end racial discrimination in the military or public accommodations - you have to pardon my confusion.

The same party that gave black people the vote, also gave the native americans the vote, gave the asians and all the other minorities the vote. Oddly enough history textbooks never teach this fact.

You'll need to cite this part of the Democratic platform.

Give me a link to their 2012 platform that you regard as authoritative and I'll be happy to cite it.

[TJ in Wisco]

OMG MITT ROMNEY WANTS TO REINSTATE SLAVERY!!!!!

Seriously people, are elections these days going to be decided by who can start the most absurd rumor?

[Senator Snowstalker]

It just seems like another one of those myths about race that the Democrats have pushed so much that we've all started to believe it. Everybody believing it is a real phenomenon certainly serves the agenda of the Democratic Party, especially when it comes to motivating African-Americans (especially in Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore and the northeast) to vote reliably Democrat with no consideration of an alternative.

If "Nixon's Southern Strategy" was so effective, how come Carter won all but one state in the South back in '76, a few short years after Nixon's "master plan"? And how come the South was the most competitive region in 1980?

Ford and Reagan both won white Southerners; Carter won by winning blacks overwhelmingly and doing reasonably well with whites.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Here it is.  The author is by all appearances a liberal professor and obviously subscribes to the liberal narrative on the Southern strategy, but he nonetheless debunks the myth that the shift toward Republicans in the South was based on race:
 http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.928/article_detail.asp

Ever hear of Lee Atwater? He admitted the southern strategy. What other explanation is there for a mainly Northern, moderate party making gains in the South? It's very clear what it was about and no one can deny it.

Lee Atwater claimed a lot of things. Dude even claimed he found Jesus in a particular version of a Bible he claimed to read all of the time. When folks went to retrieve his possessions after his death, they found that Bible still in the plastic-wrap. Bottomline: A spin doctor is going to spin and exaggerate. The Willie Horton ad was undeniably effective (And Atwater stole the idea from Al Gore's 1988 primary campaign), but it was because it showed how weak Dukakis was on crime. The ad would have been almost exactly as effective had Horton happened to be a white male. The rational response from people who saw the ad was, "what the hell kind of governor lets monsters like that go out on weekend furloughs?" not "BRING BACK DUH SEGREGATION! LONG LIVE DIXIE!" as evidenced by Dukakis' poor performance across the entire country, not just the South.
Explain Carter's massive success in 1976 and relative success in 1980 with regards to the South. Furthermore, explain Clinton's success in the South in 1992 and 1996.

Exactly.  How many times do I have to repeat that the Southern strategy had nothing to do with catering to racists?  I posted Pat Buchanan's article and the YouTube video as evidence.  As for Lee Atwater using the N-word to describe the Southern strategy, there is no solid evidence of that.  A liberal professor made that claim years after Atwater had died and claimed that he said it in 1981.  When Atwater died, the New York Times ran an obituary trashing him, and that quote was not in there.  Furthermore, if he had really said that, then why hadn't that professor addressed it in 1981 when it was new and could have destroyed his political career?
If the Southern strategy worked, it was because Republicans were successful at convincing pro-civil rights moderates who had moved into the South from other parts of the country to vote for them as a protest against the segregationists in the Democratic Party.

This is not true. If you look at suburbs in places like Georgia, Maryland and to a lesser extent, Texas, blacks moving into higher income brackets still vote heavily Democratic. Where have Republicans benefited?

If black people vote 95:5 Democrat on average, and wealthier black people vote 80:20 Democrat on average - how have they benefited?

It may not be of much benefit to Republicans, but there's still  a big difference between 5% of blacks voting Republican and 20% voting Republican.

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

It may not be of much benefit to Republicans, but there's still  a big difference between 5% of blacks voting Republican and 20% voting Republican.

It's 25 million voters.

[Invisible Obama]

This is not true. If you look at suburbs in places like Georgia, Maryland and to a lesser extent, Texas, blacks moving into higher income brackets still vote heavily Democratic. Where have Republicans benefited?

If black people vote 95:5 Democrat on average, and wealthier black people vote 80:20 Democrat on average - how have they benefited?

Where are you stats to substantiate your numbers? You can't just make up numbers like that. If you go on the redistricting app, you'll see that there is very little difference between how income groups vote among blacks. Some wealthier neighborhoods are less black than poorer urban areas, but you still get very heavily Democratic skewed numbers which suggest that blacks aren't voting disproportionately Republican. Try again.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

It just seems like another one of those myths about race that the Democrats have pushed so much that we've all started to believe it. Everybody believing it is a real phenomenon certainly serves the agenda of the Democratic Party, especially when it comes to motivating African-Americans (especially in Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore and the northeast) to vote reliably Democrat with no consideration of an alternative.

If "Nixon's Southern Strategy" was so effective, how come Carter won all but one state in the South back in '76, a few short years after Nixon's "master plan"? And how come the South was the most competitive region in 1980?

Ford and Reagan both won white Southerners; Carter won by winning blacks overwhelmingly and doing reasonably well with whites.

Yeah, but Ford was a moderate Republican who voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. (http://www.humanevents.com/2007/01/07/the-legacy-of-gerald-ford/)  It's undeniable that Carter's strength in the South lay in part with blacks and with white religious conservatives.  The religious conservative vote was where much of Reagan's strength lay in 1980, too, though the South was the closest region in that election.

[Ebowed]

If the Southern strategy worked, it was because Republicans were successful at convincing pro-civil rights moderates who had moved into the South from other parts of the country to vote for them as a protest against the segregationists in the Democratic Party.

A simple look at county maps of presidential elections post 1972 along with an understanding of ethnic make-ups of these counties would heartily dispel that comical notion you've put forward.