Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I'm familiar with the underclass. A more assertive attitude is needed with the underclass. The underclass severely lacks in self discipline, the ideas of personal responsibility and accountability, interest in education and so on.

I don't disagree that many in the underclass today need those things.

Sorry, but the generous attitude isn't working and will never work for them.

We haven't had a generous policy toward them for decades now. Republican austerity is what's not working now.

What you need is a million hard nosed red blooded male and female march into a city and stay indefinitely and drastically change the culture from within. The increasing social familiarity with them is having the opposite effect as far as generosity towards them.

There have been such movements from within the underclass, like Rev. Jackson's, and there could be more. But to say "increasing social familiarity" has negative effects does not compute. Compassion and generosity is always beneficial, as well as responsibility. The trouble as I see it with Republicans today is extremism. It IS a vice, despite what Goldwater said. Balance and good sense is needed instead. Not disconnection, race baiting and hatred.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

He's to prim and proper and book smart to be a member of the underclass. He's more likely a child of wealthier parents who spent the bulk of their time spoiling, protecting, providing and doing their best to help make life more easy for him.

I think that description better fits playdude.
Spoiled rich kids don't turn out prim and proper. Or book smart.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

I think that description better fits playdude.
Spoiled rich kids don't turn out prim and proper. Or book smart.

I am middle-class.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I know a welfare queen and some petty crooks; I knew some fellow who ate himself into disability and a heart attack at age 47; I knew a few drunks. That's what one can expect in a wreck of a rural community. But nothing that the underclass can do matches the evil that economic elites can do through political corruption, warmongering, and the suppression of the rights of working people.

Your friendly neighborhood meth cook does great harm, but nothing that he does can be as bad as what the Koch brothers have intended for America.

The Koch brothers didn't destroy area's of Baltimore. The friendly neighborhood meth cook just lends to the destruction of people lives, destruction of families, creation of addicts and criminal lifestyles. I know a welfare queen. She's the daughter of a welfare queen. A welfare queen who would disappear for weeks leaving her home alone to fend for herself. Growing up in a situation like that as a norm makes it very hard to enter the world on a equal footing in a position to compete and succeed in life. She's not like her mother. She's a responsible mother who cares about her kids and does not leave her kids alone to fend for themselves for weeks. She's not a slut like her mother was either. She knows her mother and accepts her mother as being what she was and still is. She even forgave her after she took her daughter to a social gathering, got drunk, forgot to buckle up her daughter and got into accident that killed her daughter.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

The Koch brothers didn't destroy area's of Baltimore.

But they can take our freedom away by distorting the democratic process into a sham.

The friendly neighborhood meth cook just lends to the destruction of people lives, destruction of families, creation of addicts and criminal lifestyles.

Don't get me wrong -- meth is horrible. But far worse is a decision to start a war for profits that culminates in millions of deaths. Such a decision is invariably concentrated in a handful of people.

I know a welfare queen. She's the daughter of a welfare queen. A welfare queen who would disappear for weeks leaving her home alone to fend for herself. Growing up in a situation like that as a norm makes it very hard to enter the world on a equal footing in a position to compete and succeed in life. She's not like her mother. She's a responsible mother who cares about her kids and does not leave her kids alone to fend for themselves for weeks. She's not a slut like her mother was either. She knows her mother and accepts her mother as being what she was and still is. She even forgave her after she took her daughter to a social gathering, got drunk, forgot to buckle up her daughter and got into accident that killed her daughter.

Welfare queens lead miserable lives. Welfare does not pay as well as honest full-time work.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't disagree that many in the underclass today need those things.

You need those things in place. Without those things in place, the financial impact and long term benefits to the area will be relatively minor.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

We haven't had a generous policy toward them for decades now. Republican austerity is what's not working now.

Middle America is a lot more familiar with them than it was decades ago.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

There have been such movements from within the underclass, like Rev. Jackson's, and there could be more. But to say "increasing social familiarity" has negative effects does not compute. Compassion and generosity is always beneficial, as well as responsibility. The trouble as I see it with Republicans today is extremism. It IS a vice, despite what Goldwater said. Balance and good sense is needed instead. Not disconnection, race baiting and hatred.

Leading a rally and delivering a few speeches and collecting money and moving on to the next gig doesn't address and change people or environments with major issues. Compassion and generosity is only beneficial when its rightfully earned. Btw, the race baiting and racial hatred it spews is causing the disconnect.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

But they can take our freedom away by distorting the democratic process into a sham.

There is no greater distortion and threat to the democratic process than a political party buying elections with massive amounts of public funds like the Democrats are doing now and have been doing for decades. Obama's election was the biggest sham that I've ever experienced.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Welfare queens lead miserable lives. Welfare does not pay as well as honest full-time work.

She lives fairly well. The county pays for her medical bills. She makes cash on the side to have fun with. She lives with her step dad who is a close relation of mine. Her sperm donor's are responsible enough to work and pay their child support.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

I think that description better fits playdude.
Spoiled rich kids don't turn out prim and proper. Or book smart.

I've never understood why liberals tend to associate me with people like playdude. Any ideas?

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

There is no greater distortion and threat to the democratic process than a political party buying elections with massive amounts of public funds like the Democrats are doing now and have been doing for decades. Obama's election was the biggest sham that I've ever experienced.

Sham? He manifestly won fair and square -- twice. Neutral observers were surprised only to see some of the states that went to him go as they did -- Indiana and Virginia having never voted for a Democratic nominee for president since 1964 and North Carolina never having voted for a Democratic nominee for President since 1976. Neutral observers were not surprised.

I concur that any politician who seeks victory with promises of patronage deserves to lose. Such promises indicate at best a liar who fails (which is best for his bailiwick) or at worst someone who drains the treasury without doing real good. I never heard Barack Obama promise to do any mass pardons of blacks incarcerated by 'the Man' or to flood the Civil Service with African-Americans. I never heard him promise welfare as an alternative to work. So you tell me what inequitable promises he made.

You don't like President Obama? I had bad feelings about Dubya from the time that he mocked a woman sentenced to death. But he got elected as flimsily as possible... and I hoped for the best with Spurious George. I had very low expectations for him. Unfortunately he violated even those low expectations. But I digress.

She lives fairly well. The county pays for her medical bills. She makes cash on the side to have fun with. She lives with her step dad who is a close relation of mine. Her sperm donor's are responsible enough to work and pay their child support.

So she is not so much a 'welfare queen' as she is a 'kept woman'.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Sham? He manifestly won fair and square -- twice. Neutral observers were surprised only to see some of the states that went to him go as they did -- Indiana and Virginia having never voted for a Democratic nominee for president since 1964 and North Carolina never having voted for a Democratic nominee for President since 1976. Neutral observers were not surprised.

I concur that any politician who seeks victory with promises of patronage deserves to lose. Such promises indicate at best a liar who fails (which is best for his bailiwick) or at worst someone who drains the treasury without doing real good. I never heard Barack Obama promise to do any mass pardons of blacks incarcerated by 'the Man' or to flood the Civil Service with African-Americans. I never heard him promise welfare as an alternative to work. So you tell me what inequitable promises he made.

You don't like President Obama? I had bad feelings about Dubya from the time that he mocked a woman sentenced to death. But he got elected as flimsily as possible... and I hoped for the best with Spurious George. I had very low expectations for him. Unfortunately he violated even those low expectations. But I digress.

He won fair and square as far as all the numbers are concerned. How he won is another matter and it's clearly stated. Obama is the greatest sham as far as President's during my life time. Jimmy Carter wasn't a sham. He actually had credential's to be a President.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

So she is not so much a 'welfare queen' as she is a 'kept woman'.

Not really. She's a survivor who uses whatever is necessary in order to get what she wants and needs without trapping and degrading herself in the process.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

He won fair and square as far as all the numbers are concerned. How he won is another matter and it's clearly stated. Obama is the greatest sham as far as President's during my life time. Jimmy Carter wasn't a sham. He actually had credential's to be a President.

Buchanan had the strongest credentials to be President. He was a disaster. Lincoln had relatively-weak credentials for the time. He is on the cent and the $5 bill.

Barack Obama showed early that he was an unusually-competent campaigner... and all-in-all he is an above-average President.

For a real bumbler, just look at George Worthless Bush. Reckless, shallow, and self-righteous, he was a disaster waiting to happen.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/ric...t-us-president

http://nationalinterest.org/commenta...-all-time-9671

http://harpers.org/blog/2008/04/worst-president-ever/

http://www.thetoptens.com/worst-us-p...ush-119028.asp

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...george-bush-us

http://www.thenation.com/article/worst-president-ever

OK. Not as disastrous as Buchanan. That's not much of a compliment.



Not really. She's a survivor who uses whatever is necessary in order to get what she wants and needs without trapping and degrading herself in the process.[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Welfare queens lead miserable lives. Welfare does not pay as well as honest full-time work.

While the first statement may be true in individual circumstances, the second is provably not true. No one should ever be surprised that when you subsidize a thing, that thing tends to stick around. That's how incentive works.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

While the first statement may be true in individual circumstances, the second is provably not true. No one should ever be surprised that when you subsidize a thing, that thing tends to stick around. That's how incentive works.

The potentially-big one is childcare. That is expensive enough to be an incentive for being a stay-at-home housewife or welfare recipient should it not be available. It's bigger than housing and food combined at any level. Medical coverage for children? That used to be a predictable compensation on the job. Now that many employers have gone to 'no benefits' we need Obamacare lest there be pointless tragedies involving children with treatable ailments for which they are priced out.

Now as for subsidies -- how about cheap water to big landowners during the California drought?

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Leading a rally and delivering a few speeches and collecting money and moving on to the next gig doesn't address and change people or environments with major issues.

Many black leaders know and help their fellows to develop character and entrepreneurship. I don't disagree that more is needed.

Character, religion/spirituality and family are important. Locking huge numbers of black people in prison destroys families. Drug wars instead of drug treatment destroys communities. Conservatives as well as liberals need to see the bigger picture.

Compassion and generosity is only beneficial when its rightfully earned.

There needs to be people who can use the generosity, but there needs to be the generosity too, and the systemic approach to healing poverty that government can help provide. The safety net and help-up programs are for ourselves too. We can all fall on hard times. The economy works better when we help each other, and when everyone has money to spend. Some seed money to help black businesses to grow would help.

Character is not individual alone; good character means compassion and generosity too. It means realization that good works is a collective activity too, and being willing to contribute.

The war on poverty was working. It's benefits stopped only because IT stopped; first by diverting resources to Vietnam, and then with the Reagan counter-revolution.

Btw, the race baiting and racial hatred it spews is causing the disconnect.

Yes, mostly from the right wing-- linking welfare to race.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

There is no greater distortion and threat to the democratic process than a political party buying elections with massive amounts of public funds like the Democrats are doing now and have been doing for decades. Obama's election was the biggest sham that I've ever experienced.

The Koch Brothers and their ilk have bought the Republican Party and the Tea Party. The Republicans buy elections; the Democrats must play too or unilaterally disarm. It's the Democrats who support reform, and support removing this demonstrable "threat to the democratic process." The Republicans oppose it. The legislative record is clear. The Democrats would prosper under a reformed system; the Republicans would perish. That fact is clear to Republicans, which is why they oppose reform, and why their presidents appoint justices that oppose reform. The Citizens United case is an irrefutable proof of all I have said. All 5 justices who supported this decision were Republican presidential appointees; all 4 who opposed it were Democratic presidential appointees, and Obama denounced the decision publically, while Alito scowled at him for doing so.

She lives fairly well. The county pays for her medical bills. She makes cash on the side to have fun with. She lives with her step dad who is a close relation of mine. Her sperm donor's are responsible enough to work and pay their child support.

People know some cheaters. That means very little. The overall stats and larger conditions are what counts. Welfare pays poorly, and welfare is not a drain on the budget.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Many black leaders know and help their fellows to develop character and entrepreneurship. I don't disagree that more is needed.

Character, religion/spirituality and family are important. Locking huge numbers of black people in prison destroys families. Drug wars instead of drug treatment destroys communities. Conservatives as well as liberals need to see the bigger picture.

Entrepreneurialism works only if there is a strong economy. Small businesses can fill niches that cartels and trusts serve badly. But that implies that the trusts and cartels are paying people well enough to pay a little more for better merchandise or service than can a company that commoditizes everything that it touches.

There need to be people who can use the generosity, but there needs to be the generosity too, and the systemic approach to healing poverty that government can help provide. The safety net and help-up programs are for ourselves too. We can all fall on hard times. The economy works better when we help each other, and when everyone has money to spend. Some seed money to help black businesses to grow would help.

Contrary to right-wing myth, welfare stimulates economic activity. Child care allowances go to businesses that provide childcare. Food aid typically ends up going to grocery stores. In a city like Detroit that corporate chains have largely abandoned, a vacuum opens to small business. The Right simply wants cheap labor, the cheaper the better.

We must look at poverty and say "there but for the grace of God go I". Any of us can outlive our usefulness to Corporate America.

Character is not individual alone; good character means compassion and generosity too. It means realization that good works is a collective activity too, and being willing to contribute.

Precisely -- as the Right would deny in favor of having an atomized population unable to contest the decisions of economic elites.

The war on poverty was working. It's benefits stopped only because IT stopped; first by diverting resources to Vietnam, and then with the Reagan counter-revolution.

...and it would work if we tried it again. Also -- we need strong, militant unions willing to confront and capable of challenging Big Business.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I am middle-class.

No you're not. You either own means of production or you work those means for someone who does own them. There is no "middle class".

Originally Posted by Kinser79

No you're not. You either own means of production or you work those means for someone who does own them. There is no "middle class".

If you redefine terms and use them in a different context than everyone else uses, this makes communications difficult to impossible. It may be that the above is a central principle of your economic world view, an important idea that must be understood if you want to express your way of seeing things, but if one's world view requires its own language to express, apparently English but with common words and phrases having non-standard to exotic meanings, you have a problem.

Communicating political ideas is difficult enough without people insisting that everyone else use non-standard language and definition.

Originally Posted by B Butler

If you redefine terms and use them in a different context than everyone else uses, this makes communications difficult to impossible. It may be that the above is a central principle of your economic world view, an important idea that must be understood if you want to express your way of seeing things, but if one's world view requires its own language to express, apparently English but with common words and phrases having non-standard to exotic meanings, you have a problem.

Communicating political ideas is difficult enough without people insisting that everyone else use non-standard language and definition.

The idea that class is determined by one's relations to the means of production rather than one's income is neither new, nor exotic. In fact it is quite common outside of the US.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

The idea that class is determined by one's relations to the means of production rather than one's income is neither new, nor exotic. In fact it is quite common outside of the US.

Within the US, the idea that there is no such thing as a middle class is exotic. (Understatement.)

Originally Posted by B Butler

Within the US, the idea that there is no such thing as a middle class is exotic. (Understatement.)

Indeed. Americans are tied to various myths. The fact remains that there are owners and there are workers and never the twain shall meet, except under incredibly special circumstances. But this is an accepted view among most who have bothered to read Karl Marx.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Many black leaders know and help their fellows to develop character and entrepreneurship. I don't disagree that more is needed.

Character, religion/spirituality and family are important. Locking huge numbers of black people in prison destroys families. Drug wars instead of drug treatment destroys communities. Conservatives as well as liberals need to see the bigger picture.



There needs to be people who can use the generosity, but there needs to be the generosity too, and the systemic approach to healing poverty that government can help provide. The safety net and help-up programs are for ourselves too. We can all fall on hard times. The economy works better when we help each other, and when everyone has money to spend. Some seed money to help black businesses to grow would help.

Character is not individual alone; good character means compassion and generosity too. It means realization that good works is a collective activity too, and being willing to contribute.

The war on poverty was working. It's benefits stopped only because IT stopped; first by diverting resources to Vietnam, and then with the Reagan counter-revolution.



Yes, mostly from the right wing-- linking welfare to race.

Who automatically links race to welfare and often uses the term racism and applies the term racist every time welfare is mentioned or the issue is brought up? You are the race baiters who are using race, racism and racist rhetoric that is turning off white voters.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Indeed. Americans are tied to various myths. The fact remains that there are owners and there are workers and never the twain shall meet, except under incredibly special circumstances. But this is an accepted view among most who have bothered to read Karl Marx.

Middle class is a social income bracket.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Middle class is a social income bracket.

http://theredphoenixapl.org/2010/04/...-middle-class/

I automatically assumed he was attempting to say he was "middle income". The fact remains that class is totally unrelated to one's income. Ultimately those dollars in your bank account are little more than monopoly money made for show, they really represent nothing, and have value only because others are willing to accept them for goods/services.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

http://theredphoenixapl.org/2010/04/...-middle-class/

I automatically assumed he was attempting to say he was "middle income". The fact remains that class is totally unrelated to one's income. Ultimately those dollars in your bank account are little more than monopoly money made for show, they really represent nothing, and have value only because others are willing to accept them for goods/services.

Class is generally associated with the value/quality of ones home and the value/quality of ones personal property and the value/quality of lifestyle and the amount of capital that one earns to acquire and sustain them.