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

[Politico]

Biden knows what he's talking about as best exemplified by his argument that voters in Virginia will deliver North Carolina. Thank God Paul Ryan is debating Joe Biden and not Hillary Clinton.

[Politico]

I just heard Biden's "he gunna put ya'll back in chains!" He even puts on the faux southern accent. Unbelievable...

[Politico]

Yeah, but for over 100 years after the Civil War, Democrats oppressed blacks by fighting against bans on lynching, racial segregation, and protecting blacks against the KKK.  Republicans consistently fought for freedom for blacks and continue to do so by encouraging work to make them independent of government assistance.

That's not the same Republican Party as the one now. Stop twisting history.

Romney's Republican Party is not the Republican Party of four years ago, let alone forty years ago. Romney wants a colorless society, not one with racial divisions and promises of Santa Clause benefits for certain races over others.

[Politico]

Sad to say, Biden is losing it.  He's 70 years old and looks it.  His hair plugs are gone.

Looks like he sometimes wears that godawful carrot coloring, too.

Biden is as washed-up as they come. Ryan is going to look infinitely more attractive to the nonpartisan voter. Even Obama looks old and stale compared to Ryan, which has positive spillover effects for Romney.

[Politico]

Right. I studied LBJ in a class I took in school, and he was no civil rights trailblazer. He signed it because the public wanted it, and the bill passed with overwhelming Republican support and declared the Democrats would have the "negro" vote for generations to come.

That said, most of the racist Democrats switched parties, so today's GOP isn't the same as yesterdays, but the Democrats still want to keep the black man down, remind them they are at a disadvantage, etc... and those type of things will never end racism in this country. Of course Biden was playing the race card here, but it's what I have come to expect from Obama. They must divide and conquer. It's like the GOP using gay marriage/abortion in the past. It's politics, but I wish it wasn't that way because we have bigger fish to fry than that.

This is a good post.

Also, some people on here need to realize that most people who were adults in the South during segregation are now dead. Many of them stayed Democrats for life even if many of them voted Republican at the presidential level (e.g., largely for national security reasons after the disastrous selection of George McGovern in 1972). Then again, let's not forget that it was Wallace, a Democrat running as an Independent, who won much of the South in 1968. It was Carter, a Democrat, who won much of the South in 1976. It was the South that was closest in 1980 with even Dukakis doing well there in '88 before his implosion (with Bentsen chosen to help deliver Texas). Clinton did fairly well for himself in the South, and Gore would have done better there if not for Clinton's sexual imbroglios and opposition from the NRA.

In the final analysis, "Nixon's Southern Strategy" is completely blown out of proportion for whatever reason(s).

[Politico]

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?

[Politico]

Obi Wan, I foresee ridiculous, partisan claims that Reagan unleashed crack and AIDS upon black men even though Reagan had absolutely nothing to do with the causes of either epidemic *sigh*

Might as well launch a preemptive strike against the attack: Correlation does not imply causation.

[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!

Yeah, it is hard to argue against the sentiment that Clinton (especially after 1994) 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.

[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!

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.

He will if he can. It's undeniable he's trying to do so with the regulatory authority of the executive branch rather than law. It's also undeniable that government assistance is 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.

[Politico]

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?

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. As history has demonstrated, nothing is easier for them than essentially buying votes with welfare.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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?[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

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.

[Politico]

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.

[Politico]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[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.

[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/)

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.

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?).
[/quote]

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.

[Politico]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This gap was much less in 1950.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[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?

[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.