Republicans want to teach blacks how to be productive human beings.

[rightwinger]

There is little the government can do to teach blacks to be productive human beings. They will have to learn that on their own. As a culture, black society is broken. With 70% of black children being born to single mothers, there is a near total breakdown of the black family structure
Without family emotional, financial and ethical support it is near impossible for anyone to escape poverty. There is only so much the government can do. Until black society starts pressuring it's males to take care of their families, blacks will remain in poverty

 

[The T]

When you see third generation welfare recipients, you have to suspect the programs are to blame.
Unless you think it's an accident? A coincidence?

Oh, Bad parenting and greed is off the table?

Are they?

Human behaviour is never off the table...what we have is a gubmint foisting policy that they know will force modification of behaviour all for their power over us.

 

[hortysir]

There are over a hundred nations on earth that do less for their poor than the United States. The poor in these countries worry whether they will eat each day. They do not like being poor, they are motivated but they do not rise out of poverty......they stay poor forever

The United States provides not only a safety net but opportunity to do better. We provide educational opportunities, job training, job placement, incentives for employers to hire. Millions of Americans have taken advantage of these programs to join the middle class

Then please explain why so many people, such as the OP, continue to think that it is never enough.
Why the continued cries to increase spending on these programs?
There are programs for rent, electric, heat, food....all the necessities.
Now we're adding cell-phone service and internet.
What's next? Makeup and haircuts?

I appreciate the fact that you can acknowledge the fact that, as a country, we do a helluva lot for our less-fortunate.

I just want to see the 'Line'.
Where does it stop?

 

[The T]

There are over a hundred nations on earth that do less for their poor than the United States. The poor in these countries worry whether they will eat each day. They do not like being poor, they are motivated but they do not rise out of poverty......they stay poor forever

The United States provides not only a safety net but opportunity to do better. We provide educational opportunities, job training, job placement, incentives for employers to hire. Millions of Americans have taken advantage of these programs to join the middle class

Then please explain why so many people, such as the OP, continue to think that it is never enough.
Why the continued cries to increase spending on these programs?
There are programs for rent, electric, heat, food....all the necessities.
Now we're adding cell-phone service and internet.
What's next? Makeup and haircuts?

I appreciate the fact that you can acknowledge the fact that, as a country, we do a helluva lot for our less-fortunate.

I just want to see the 'Line'.
Where does it stop?

It stops when WE look like the failing EU Socialists.

 

[Liability]

You can survive on that income but you cannot break out of poverty. A worker needs to not only pay for his own survival but be able to support the survival of his families. Middle class families can provide their children a start in life....poor families cannot

Thanks for the newsflash, Captain Obvious.

The poverty lines move along with the number of folks trying to live off the family income.

The issue is not whether being poor sucks. Being poor does suck.

The issue remains WHAT method should a society undertake to address the problems of the less affluent or the poor?

The usual lib panacea ("redistribute 'the' wealth") is simply not a viable answer.

Taking money from the wealthy and giving it to the poor is not the answer

Taking money from the wealthy to pay for jobs training, scholarships, small business loans will expand the middle class and opportunities to escape poverty

One big problem with your lib-diculous "premise" is that you imagine you have ANY right to "take" from anybody.

 

[freedombecki]

Oh, Bad parenting and greed is off the table?

Are they?

Human behaviour is never off the table...what we have is a gubmint foisting policy that they know will force modification of behaviour all for their power over us.

It would follow that some are breeding trainees to accept government handouts in the future so somebody can continue to feel superior based on how many people stay on the dole. Guess who.

 

[Liability]

It's not surprising that more libs don't offer any objection to rdork's liberally-oriented premise that blacks require education about how to be productive human beings.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You mean you don't know that Dems have been claiming the GOP is racist for decades?

Really?

It's really hard for you to admit you have nothing. Got a link showing lying about republican racism has changed blacks voting habits?

Actually, no I don't. But I do have a link showing how the left has been lying about the Southern Strategy for years.

A myth about conservatism is circulating in academia and journalism and has spread to the 2004 presidential campaign. It goes something like this: the Republican Party assembled a national majority by winning over Southern white voters; Southern white voters are racist; therefore, the GOP is racist. Sometimes the conclusion is softened, and Republicans are convicted merely of base opportunism: the GOP is the party that became willing to pander to racists. Either way, today's Republican Party—and by extension the conservative movement at its heart—supposedly has revealed something terrible about itself.

--

The new myth is much bolder than this. It insists that these events should decisively shape our understanding of conservatism and the modern Republican Party. Dan Carter writes that today's conservatism must be traced directly back to the "politics of rage" that George Wallace blended from "racial fear, anticommunism, cultural nostalgia, and traditional right-wing economics." Another scholar, Joseph Aistrup, claims that Reagan's 1980 Southern coalition was "the reincarnation of the Wallace movement of 1968." For the Black brothers, the GOP had once been the "party of Abraham Lincoln," but it became the "party of Barry Goldwater," opposed to civil rights and black interests. It is only a short step to the Democrats' insinuation that the GOP is the latest exploiter of the tragic, race-based thread of U.S. history. In short, the GOP did not merely seek votes expediently; it made a pact with America's devil.

--

In sum, the GOP's Southern electorate was not rural, nativist, less educated, afraid of change, or concentrated in the most stagnant parts of the Deep South. It was disproportionately suburban, middle-class, educated, younger, non-native-Southern, and concentrated in the growth-points that were, so to speak, the least "Southern" parts of the South. This is a very strange way to reincarnate George Wallace's movement.

--

The point of all this is not to deny that Richard Nixon may have invited some nasty fellows into his political bed. The point is that the GOP finally became the region's dominant party in the least racist phase of the South's entire history, and it got that way by attracting most of its votes from the region's growing and confident communities—not its declining and fearful ones. The myth's shrillest proponents are as reluctant to admit this as they are to concede that most Republicans genuinely believe that a color-blind society lies down the road of individual choice and dynamic change, not down the road of state regulation and unequal treatment before the law. The truly tenacious prejudices here are the mythmakers'.​

I don't know where this is coming from. While southern states do tend to vote GOP for president, many have been democrat controlled at the state level for decades.
In fact North Carolina has a majority GOP legislature for the first time in over 100 years.

 

[rightwinger]

Thanks for the newsflash, Captain Obvious.

The poverty lines move along with the number of folks trying to live off the family income.

The issue is not whether being poor sucks. Being poor does suck.

The issue remains WHAT method should a society undertake to address the problems of the less affluent or the poor?

The usual lib panacea ("redistribute 'the' wealth") is simply not a viable answer.

Taking money from the wealthy and giving it to the poor is not the answer

Taking money from the wealthy to pay for jobs training, scholarships, small business loans will expand the middle class and opportunities to escape poverty

One big problem with your lib-diculous "premise" is that you imagine you have ANY right to "take" from anybody.

The Constitution gives Congress the right to collect taxes. What we do with those taxes is also up to Congress

Right now, our tax code is written with an overwhelming number of exemptions to the wealthy. It is long overdue to start shifting those exemptions to the middle class.

We can start by making all medical expenses and educational expenses tax exempt

 

[ClosedCaption]

@spoon

It's Comming from a blog with a Ghost Rider pic on it and no comments. I think Dave wrote it himself. It's just emotional, no facts needed when you can just cry instead.

 

[daveman]

Once someone on welfare learns how to game the system, it's all over. No one is ever going to get them off welfare. Why would they want to do that? They will NEVER have a take home pay equal to the thousands that they get by playing the system.

i had a woman on my route who was on welfare for at least 15 years...she lived before this on another guys route in the office,welfare then too......had 5 kids with 5 different guys......when the welfare bill in the nineties went into effect,guess who suddenly had to think about getting a job?.....and boy was she pissed.....her neighbor was telling me that she felt it wasnt right because,she had ZERO job skills....what am i to do?......well she had to wait tables at the Dennys down the street......ok back to our story......

I remember that welfare bill....under Clinton.

Yes, it was a Republican initiative. Bill singed it for political reasons, not because it was a good biil.

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The bill was a cornerstone of the Republican Contract with America and was introduced by Rep. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL-22) who believed welfare was partly responsible for bringing immigrants to the United States.

--

President Clinton found the legislation more conservative than he would have preferred; however, having vetoed two earlier welfare proposals from the Republican-majority Congress, it was considered a political risk to veto a third bill during a campaign season with welfare reform as a central theme.​

 

[daveman]

Yep. I can see where "Job training, college scholarships, job placement opportunities, low cost childcare, small business loans" would create dependency.

And where the hell did this OWS coment come from?

For the past thirty plus years I have worked with many black engineers, scientists, military officers, soldiers and managers who were succeeding in life. Almost all came from lower middle class or poor backgrounds. Very, very few came from what could remotely be considered a wealthy background. They could all point to some point where either their parents or grandparents had relied on government assistance or relied on government programs that provided job training or assistance in employment opportunities.

Government programs do help millions of Americans of all backgrounds escape poverty. Just because some are unable to break the cycle of poverty is no reason to assume that none are

Hmmm.....I wonder why the GOP opposes programs designed to do that?

And why Daveman says that it's not good enough?

OR....Why the wingnuts say that these "Liberal Programs" are designed to keep poor people on welfare?

You bozos talk about these programs...but never a link to any actual legislation. You know, a link like I provided.

Why is that?

 

[daveman]

It's really hard for you to admit you have nothing. Got a link showing lying about republican racism has changed blacks voting habits?

Actually, no I don't. But I do have a link showing how the left has been lying about the Southern Strategy for years.

A myth about conservatism is circulating in academia and journalism and has spread to the 2004 presidential campaign. It goes something like this: the Republican Party assembled a national majority by winning over Southern white voters; Southern white voters are racist; therefore, the GOP is racist. Sometimes the conclusion is softened, and Republicans are convicted merely of base opportunism: the GOP is the party that became willing to pander to racists. Either way, today's Republican Party—and by extension the conservative movement at its heart—supposedly has revealed something terrible about itself.

--​

Your link is from a blog that has a big picture of Ghost Rider on the front. I know you FEEL that lies are responsible and this blog writer FEELS the same way but where is your proof?

Second. The bolded part is not what the southern strategy was about at all. So again, you come to the wrong conclusions because you have the wrong info to start off with.

Though the "Solid South" had been a longtime Democratic Party stronghold due to the Democratic Party's defense of slavery prior to the American Civil War and segregation for a century thereafter, many white Southern Democrats stopped supporting the party following the civil rights plank of the Democratic campaign in 1948 (triggering the Dixicrats), the African-American Civil Rights Movement, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, and desegregation.

The strategy was first adopted under future Republican President Richard Nixon in the late 1960s.[1] The strategy was successful in some regards. It contributed to the electoral realignment of Southern states to the Republican Party, but at the expense of losing more than 90 percent of black voters to the Democratic Party. As the 20th century came to a close, the Republican Party began trying to appeal again to black voters, though with little success.[

Thats the Southern Strategy. It happened and is the reason why Republicans cant gain much popularity with Blacks. You arguement is emotional therefore unprovable.​

You didn't even read it. Moron.

I know you think because it aggravates your leftist butthurt that makes it wrong.

Actually, you don't think at all.

Dismissed, Emotion Boi.

Oh, and at least I provided a link. You didn't. Fail. ​

 

[The T]

It's not surprising that more libs don't offer any objection to rdork's liberally-oriented premise that blacks require education about how to be productive human beings.

But for rdork? Blame lies with everyone else but the individual.

 

[thereisnospoon]

And where does it state anywhere in the Constitution that Government was to be in the business of charity?

This, no doubt, is the part where he cites the Generel Welfare clause as the authority for everything from welfare to Obamacare.

Congress is tasked to do what is best for the nation as a whole, to provide for the General Welfare of the people. This can include providing subsidies to big business or providing a safety net for the poor

"Can"...It should NOT...Not without strings attached. No one should be permitted ,unless physically or mentally unable to sustain themselves, to be provided with a lifetime of public assistance.

 

[daveman]

There is little the government can do to teach blacks to be productive human beings. They will have to learn that on their own. As a culture, black society is broken. With 70% of black children being born to single mothers, there is a near total breakdown of the black family structure
Without family emotional, financial and ethical support it is near impossible for anyone to escape poverty. There is only so much the government can do. Until black society starts pressuring it's males to take care of their families, blacks will remain in poverty

Liberal welfare programs make it harder on families with the father in residence.

This is by design.

 

[daveman]

It's really hard for you to admit you have nothing. Got a link showing lying about republican racism has changed blacks voting habits?

Actually, no I don't. But I do have a link showing how the left has been lying about the Southern Strategy for years.

A myth about conservatism is circulating in academia and journalism and has spread to the 2004 presidential campaign. It goes something like this: the Republican Party assembled a national majority by winning over Southern white voters; Southern white voters are racist; therefore, the GOP is racist. Sometimes the conclusion is softened, and Republicans are convicted merely of base opportunism: the GOP is the party that became willing to pander to racists. Either way, today's Republican Party—and by extension the conservative movement at its heart—supposedly has revealed something terrible about itself.

--

The new myth is much bolder than this. It insists that these events should decisively shape our understanding of conservatism and the modern Republican Party. Dan Carter writes that today's conservatism must be traced directly back to the "politics of rage" that George Wallace blended from "racial fear, anticommunism, cultural nostalgia, and traditional right-wing economics." Another scholar, Joseph Aistrup, claims that Reagan's 1980 Southern coalition was "the reincarnation of the Wallace movement of 1968." For the Black brothers, the GOP had once been the "party of Abraham Lincoln," but it became the "party of Barry Goldwater," opposed to civil rights and black interests. It is only a short step to the Democrats' insinuation that the GOP is the latest exploiter of the tragic, race-based thread of U.S. history. In short, the GOP did not merely seek votes expediently; it made a pact with America's devil.

--

In sum, the GOP's Southern electorate was not rural, nativist, less educated, afraid of change, or concentrated in the most stagnant parts of the Deep South. It was disproportionately suburban, middle-class, educated, younger, non-native-Southern, and concentrated in the growth-points that were, so to speak, the least "Southern" parts of the South. This is a very strange way to reincarnate George Wallace's movement.

--

The point of all this is not to deny that Richard Nixon may have invited some nasty fellows into his political bed. The point is that the GOP finally became the region's dominant party in the least racist phase of the South's entire history, and it got that way by attracting most of its votes from the region's growing and confident communities—not its declining and fearful ones. The myth's shrillest proponents are as reluctant to admit this as they are to concede that most Republicans genuinely believe that a color-blind society lies down the road of individual choice and dynamic change, not down the road of state regulation and unequal treatment before the law. The truly tenacious prejudices here are the mythmakers'.​

I don't know where this is coming from. While southern states do tend to vote GOP for president, many have been democrat controlled at the state level for decades.
In fact North Carolina has a majority GOP legislature for the first time in over 100 years.

A Southern Democrat is usually far more conservative than a Northern Democrat.

 

[daveman]

@spoon

It's Comming from a blog with a Ghost Rider pic on it and no comments. I think Dave wrote it himself. It's just emotional, no facts needed when you can just cry instead.

1. You didn't read it.

2. Your butthurt is not a valid refutation.

3. Stop being so emotional.

 

[ClosedCaption]

A link to a blog with a Marvel superhero as the pic speaking on feelings that match your own isn't proof. It's a link! Win! A link to a Unknown blog. Fail!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Democrats teach blacks how to be unproductive human beings.