In case anyone thought racism in America was dead . . .

I had avoided this thread for a while but I have to make some comments.

Alisa: You are incorrect, period, in regard to whether someone can make a race-related command and not be racist about it. It is possible to not be racist and still be critical of an individual member of a given race. Racism only enters into the picture when you make a negative claim about someone BECAUSE of his/her race and DESPITE his/her merits as an individual. Or when you make sweeping racial generalizations. George's comments are neither.

Your accusations of racism must be strongly suspect because the claim of racism against Obama requires you to prove that the negatives are due solely or primarily to race. If someone doesn't like Mr. Obama for his politics, to play the race card is a blatant and disingenuous attempt to attain higher moral ground because you can't attain higher factual grounds on the same subject. (Sort of like gay-bashing by Christians.)

Rich, I'll try to answer you directly regarding why we have a president at all:

The USA has a president because in our country we have a model in which the courts (law-examiners), the law-makers, and the law-upholders must be distinct from each other. (Distinct in function, not necessarily distinct in political viewpoint.) Each of those requires a leader. So we have a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, we have the Speakers of the House and Senate, and we have the President. It is a side-effect of the model we chose. And it is THREE-sided because it is one of those checks & balances we sometimes talk about. The folks who make the law, enforce the law, and examine legal cases for law orthodoxy are separate so they can't step on each other so easily. And any two of them can override the third if that third part goes rogue.

Back to general comments: I'm not sure I like either presidential candidate and I'm not sure I like either vice-presidential candidate. Which means that yet again I will have to approach this election based not on which team I want in the White House but which one I don't want in the White House. Sad, really, but it happens a lot these days.

I'd like to touch on one other topic. Alisa, don't knee-jerk your reaction to this, either. I assure you this is NOT a racist diatribe.

The question is this: The ideal is that everyone should be able to get a good job, a good education, and a good place to live. But how do we get there from where we are?

The reality is that a large percentage of poor people have trouble getting there for various reasons. A large percentage of those poor people are black or Hispanic. So factually speaking, it would seem that race is a factor. Yet the laws in the USA say it should not be, and have said that for years. What, then, is the cause? Is race a real factor or do we have what the statisticians call a parallel correlation? (In which one cause seems to be the problem but another cause is the real problem and the first one happens to be an effect of the same cause.)

The republicans want very much to be race-neutral, gender-neutral, and in fact fairly neutral about most things. They want to treat folks according to the end goal of equality for all and qualifying tags like race, religion, gender be damned. They are not particularly racist. If anything, they are anti-racist. (I specifically withhold comment on the Religious Right wing of the republican party, though.)

The democrats want very much to assist the impoverished groups to get up off the floor with their assistance. They want to treat folks as not yet ready for the end goal. They recognize race as a current issue and want to throw money at the problem.

But here's the next level. As Banana and others have so correctly explained, when you give someone a handout once, that might work. When you make it a permanent handout, you have done TWO things. First, you just bought that person's vote. Second, you just took away that person's incentives to work as hard as everyone else. Because you made that person have something extra, something not shared with others. And you have given that person something on which to be dependent.

My dad was a firefighter, surely not one of the higher-paid professions, but no welfare at all. My mom was a low-level accounting clerk and never set the world on fire with her salary, either. Nor did she get welfare, though she came from a poor farming background. So my roots were, I think the word is "humble."

I went through public schools, worked as a musician at night to pay my way through college, and did without a lot of things to become a PhD. I skipped a lot of partying, a lot of dating, a lot of just going out with friends because I had to pay for everything I got. I couldn't afford to screw up what I worked so hard to pay for. And eventually, because I was sure I wasn't going to waste my money by not studying what I had paid for, I got my degrees.

While I was in school, I met a lot of folks (all races, all religions, all genders) who were on some variant of the public teat. They didn't care if they passed every course, they would just take it over, ho-hum, and write out another check from their public funding source. It led me to consider this: There may be no way to fix what Franklin Roosevelt started because once you're on the dole, you have not a single motive to get off again unless you learned one simple thing: Self-pride.

Which is why I didn't flinch when Jesse Jackson had that mantra a while back: "I am ... somebody. I am ... somebody." If you take pride in what you are, you then have a motive to make yourself better. If you take no pride in what you are, why bother to try to get better?

All that the welfare programs seem to have done lately is entice folks to vote for the folks who fork over the bucks so that they will keep on getting the same dole. Sort of like a reverse bribe.

But when you get past the poor to folks who see where their taxes go, the frustration level starts to mount. Is it selfish to want to pay lower taxes? Particularly when you see yourself supporting folks who don't act like they want to improve themselves enough to go back to school, get a good job, get a good place to live. That is about poor people of ANY race. Alisa, don't jump on me for racism. It isn't about race. It is about self-motivation.

The problem with the USA right now, IMHO, is that it was founded on principles not fully espoused today. Principles of self-support, self-determinism, self-actualization. The rugged individuals - the pioneers, gunslingers, frontiersmen, and land owners were the ones who formulated those principles. Now, the welfare state undermines those principles. Is it any wonder that we are seeing class conflicts over it?

I'll get off the soap box for a while because I know there are those who will disgree with me. It is inevitable.
 
The_Doc_Man said:
...I know there are those who will disgree with me. It is inevitable.
Click to expand...

Excellent comments. I left only the tag line of your post since I do agree with you and will comment no further than that at this time. Others may disagree with you, but I doubt anyone else could have painted the picture in a clearer and less biased manner.
 
Great post, Doc! Hopefully we both make it to Seattle next year for the Summit and I can shake your hand.
 
Thanks for the kind comments, folks. And for those who wish to make unkind comments, I've got a thick skin and a thicker skull. (At least, the latter is true according to my dear departed dad.)

Seriously, this is a case where I don't know the solution.

Republicans and conservatives in general want the down-trodden to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

Democrats and liberals want to throw money at any problem rather than serious thought in underlying causes.

Neither is completely right. The catch (and we know there is always a catch) is that to get from where we are to the ideal, the currently downtrodden must be, well, not abandoned, but given up as a lost cause. Only the young can attain the right viewpoint to become self-motivated. The key is better education and motivation of young people.

Alisa says the old gang is the reason she and her younger crowd can't make headway in changing the world. But Alisa, we KNOW that the old paradigms of retirement are not what they once were. We are fighting for what we were told would be waiting for us, just as the welfare queens want their share. But we have to also be realistic. I doubt seriously that I'll get to retire at age 66 unless and until something changes in Medicare and unless some other good things happen with what's left of my investments. I won't be able to afford it. Take a good look at the older people who took on jobs as greeters for any of Sam Walton's companies. Ask yourself if they deserve any less than you do before you condemn that half of the country you were bemoaning. They are people too.

Just remember that life is a zero sum game. You come into it with nothing, you leave with nothing. The only way to win is to enjoy the journey in between. Or, if you are deeply religious, to journey in a way that is consistent with your belief in salvation. But either way, not a penny enters Heaven or whatever else follows.

The "socialistic" state, on the other hand, is NOT a zero-sum game. As long as it has income to match outgo, you are OK. But the more people you disenfranchise and demoralize into inaction, the lower the sum gets. Which is why, long-term, continuing hand-outs cannot continue forever. Of course, if people can't make enough to have a little extra cash to improve their education or skills, that's not good. If they don't have enough to live, that's not good either. So the question is not whether we should abandon welfare. It is not whether we should embrace socialism. It is the balance point between the two extremes that we seek. Nor would I expect it to be a static point.

I'm going to switch from the forum to one of my games. This is gettin' too deep.

Paul, I wish I could get to any of the summits, but as long as my job is like it is, I can barely put three days together for a long weekend.

On the other hand, if any you ever come to New Orleans and have some time - and are interested in finding some really authentic local seafood joints - drop me a line. We'll meet and find a couple of my favorite diet busters. Wifey would love to meet any of you.
 
And thus The_Doc_Man has quite astutely analzyed the Senator Fishpalm.
 
TheDoc said:
Republicans and conservatives in general want the down-trodden to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

Democrats and liberals want to throw money at any problem rather than serious thought in underlying causes.
Click to expand...

Really, is that why unemployment falls under the Democrats and rises under the Republicans?:confused:
 
The Doc said:
Rich, I'll try to answer you directly regarding why we have a president at all:

The USA has a president because in our country we have a model in which the courts (law-examiners), the law-makers, and the law-upholders must be distinct from each other. (Distinct in function, not necessarily distinct in political viewpoint.) Each of those requires a leader. So we have a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, we have the Speakers of the House and Senate, and we have the President. It is a side-effect of the model we chose. And it is THREE-sided because it is one of those checks & balances we sometimes talk about. The folks who make the law, enforce the law, and examine legal cases for law orthodoxy are separate so they can't step on each other so easily. And any two of them can override the third if that third part goes rogue.
Click to expand...

Is that why Bush had a bunch of judges removed?
 
So giving poor people a handout, like decent public schools and affordable health care, makes them dependent, but giving wealthy people and corporations a handout, like billions of dollars in tax cuts, or just 700 billion dollars period, is just good economic policy?

The hypocrisy is absolutely stunning.

When will republicans stop pretending that their economic policy is even distantly related to fiscal conservatism?
 
I am sure everyone has seen this, but I think it is worth repeating ....

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day when the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.' Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.
But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $20,' declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, 'but he got $10!'
'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I got.'
'That's true!!' Shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'
'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important... they didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.

In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
Click to expand...

-dK
 
Alisa said:
The hypocrisy is absolutely stunning.
Click to expand...

How did you reach that conclusion?

I'm against bailout just as much as I'm against welfare.


DKinley-

Interesting story! However my view is that men should be paying $0.50 all each to the bartender in tips, since they all equally benefit from bartender's good beer, whatever their position in life is. The another problem with taxation, whether progressive or not, is that it creates perverse incentives for people, poor will want to stay poor because they get subsidized, rich will want more tax cuts because they benefit more, so politicians will jockey for either bloc of voters. But all politicians really had to do was maintain civility, and no more beyond that. Thus, $.50 for everyone. If you can't pay, no votes.
 
Last edited:
Alisa said:
So giving poor people a handout, like decent public schools and affordable health care, makes them dependent, but giving wealthy people and corporations a handout, like billions of dollars in tax cuts, or just 700 billion dollars period, is just good economic policy?

The hypocrisy is absolutely stunning.

When will republicans stop pretending that their economic policy is even distantly related to fiscal conservatism?
Click to expand...

I will share a personal story that is my own personal case study. I can share this because one side of my does better than the other, the majority of the side that doesn't do as well make a living off the gubbermint. Let me state I am from the South, so stereotypes being what they are - I have a very large extended family and my findings are pretty consistent.

Both sides of my family were given equal opportunity. Our economy was pretty much the same (parental units worked factories). Our education was pretty much the same because we all went to the same public schools. Our health was pretty much equivalent (same gene lines) and healthcare the same (same factory supplied health coverage).

I think it came down to making choices. We all realized there was no money for college so many on both sides joined the military, the peace corps, some even received scholarships, others went to the local vo-tech to help pay for college or a solid vocation. Our color wasn't right or our families just weren't poor enough to get grants so we were on our own to figure it out.

Now, some of these through the process of attrition from poor decisions left (or kicked out) of what they were doing and took the first available job. Fast-forward 10 years.

I will highlight one cousin who has not worked consistently for her entire adult life. She has 4 kids by 3 different fathers. Through contacts, my sister got her a job as a 911 dispatcher that paid a decent wage for the area and supplied benefits.

After two months, she quit working. Why? She made more money off the gubbermint welfare programs than working. I can go down the list on each side and point out with clear and consistent examples where either this is case or they are doing well. Guess which party lines the ones that live off the gubbermint vote along?

If you really want to get a good flavor of this, take a job as a tax preparer in a low income area. I did this in the busy season while I was putting myself through school. I could regal you with tons of stories along the same lines that extend outside my family boundaries. I prepared taxes for siblings/cousins that all came from same family lines - there is no racism when it comes to attitude.

Here is another bit. And yes, I am going to sound sexist but here is something you can rail against me on ... The liberal college I went to decided that it would be a great idea to sell million dollar bonds to build apartment style dorms on the campus so that single mothers could live their with their children. Not only that, they pumped up tuition to pay for the bonds and provide childcare so these mothers could go to school. Their tuition was free and they were given food and living allowances.

As a member of the Student Council, I did my research. At the first public meeting held (the university kept all of this secret for a year while it was all done), I asked the question, 'So in addition to me working through school, my taxes helps pay the welfare of some students in this school. Now you are telling me that you are raising my tuition to further give these same students more of my money?'

I was stared at by the Chancellor and because my research showed they wouldn't leave one form of assistance to another, they were in effect double-dipping. Not only that, these students had no buy in, no stake; thus were allowed to stay in the university as long as they maintained a 1.5 average. A 1.5 average! To keep the GI Bill I had to almost double that and I worked for it!

After the first two semesters of the implementation, the failure rate was somewhere in the 80% but yet the school was allowing the students to retake classes (for free). Needless to say I and many others transferred universities. As a follow up, the school changed their policy two years later.

So, for me, No! Giving handouts doesn't work. I am tired of Dem's using the phrase 'we are working hard' and 'you have to work hard' when their constituents that benefit from their programs don't have to work period and can just take and take from me.

-dK
 
Last edited:
Rich said:
Except that the actual figures don't support the hypothesis
Click to expand...

Do you have any valid reference to support this statement?

Which hypothesis in general do you disagree with? What facts do you have to counter them?
 
georgedwilkinson said:
You need to check your facts.
Click to expand...
Here they are

Unemployment.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Steve R.
The Law Perverted
2
Replies
24
Views
1,264
Pat Hartman
P
J
The long list
2 3 4
Replies
73
Views
1,080
AccessBlaster
A
Jon
My Plan for America
Replies
4
Views
647
Jon
Jon
Babycat
Problem when running Access with Admin privilege by ShellExecute
Replies
10
Views
172
The_Doc_Man
The_Doc_Man
Uncle Gizmo
Christopher Hitchens sentenced to 2 years in prison
Replies
6
Views
264
Pat Hartman
P

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top Bottom