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

[Ebowed]

That said, everyone knows Strom was no racist with that black child he fathered..

I don't suppose sexists can father women, either.

[Ebowed]

So yes, Obama has reversed all the gains since the civil rights act.

In the 1950s, it was easier to find accommodation for a dog than a black person in Mississippi hotels.

My argument is that democrat policies are designed to hurt, not help black people. They are working as intended.

Are you attempting to suggest that unemployment insurance, food stamps, reversal of the disparity between sentencing related to cocaine and crack possession, etc., are designed to hurt black people?

The democrats see it as racial progress when more black americans are on government assistance. How is this any different from slavery?

And somehow Biden was making a 'gaffe' when he made this comment

[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?

[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!

Yeah, it is hard to argue against the sentiment that Clinton was good for most everybody, black people included. The current president? Not so much, despite what may seem obvious at first glance. As cliched as it may sound, the road to hell is paved with good intentions...

Reagan also has to get some credit for getting the ball rolling on the demand for welfare reform.

You are acting like Obama has repealed the stipulations of the 90s welfare reform.  Do you believe everything the Romney campaign tells you?

[Ebowed]

He will if he can.

Cite?

It's undeniable he's trying to do so with the regulatory authority of the executive branch rather than law.

Cite?

It's also undeniable that government assistance is not helping many people find jobs.

Are you suggesting that the welfare regulations already in place, as signed into law by President Clinton, which you tout as pure brilliance, are not helping many people find jobs?

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.

[Ebowed]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In the 1950's 90 percent of black children had a father in the home. Now it's about 25 percent.

I see, and I assume the rate of whites with single mothers (a group of people, regardless of race, doomed to turn to heroin and fireworks) has simultaneously decreased since the 1950s.

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

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.

[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/)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.
[/quote]

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?).

[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).

[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.

[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...

[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)

[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.