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

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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

I don't see how someone associated with the American Enterprise Institute can possibly be assumed to be liberal as you have done, and judging by his other articles on that site, it is clear he is conservative.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

Which no doubt is why so many Republican governors aren't applying for these waivers.  Oops, they are.  And they still have to meet the same requirements as before, just not bother with as much mindless Federal paperwork if they can innovate and find better metrics towards achieving the same goals.

Aren't you one of those who laud Ryan's proposal to shift all decision making on Medicaid to the States?  What makes shifting decision making on welfare bad, but decision making on Medicaid good?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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?

Race was not the only factor, and I don't think anyone ever suggested it was. A lot of Carter's appeal in the South was based on the "he's one of us" factor.  He also represented the moderate wing of the Democratic party.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

Not only have they not been extended, they've been cut back.  The absolute maximum right now is 79 weeks of benefits, and that is only in the 7 states (plus DC) with an average unemployment rate over the last 3 months of 9.0% or higher.  As of September it's going to be cut back to a maximum of 73 weeks, and if we don't deal with the fiscal cliff, on January 1 all the overages will be gone and we be back to 26 weeks in most states.  (Our own Palmetto State will provide only 20 weeks.)

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3164